Questions for Lucianarchy

OK. You've been nailed.

You are dishonest, Claus.

Dishonest, and completely devoid of integrity and humility
 
Lucianarchy said:
OK. You've been nailed.

You are dishonest, Claus.

Dishonest, and completely devoid of integrity and humility
Click to expand...

Handwaving - or, in your case, wildly waving your arms, while jumping up and down - will get you nowhere.

It would be nice, though, if you could stop being such a lying hypocrite.
 
CFLarsen said:


Handwaving - or, in your case, wildly waving your arms, while jumping up and down - will get you nowhere.

It would be nice, though, if you could stop being such a lying hypocrite.
Click to expand...

Projection and further evasion noted.
 
CFLarsen said:


Handwaving - or, in your case, wildly waving your arms, while jumping up and down - will get you nowhere.
Click to expand...

Browbeating won't get you anywhere either, Claus...but you continue to do it. Don't you ever get tired of it?

Ol' man Flodin,
just keeps on ploddin' along.:rolleyes:
 
Cynical said:
Browbeating won't get you anywhere either, Claus...but you continue to do it. Don't you ever get tired of it?
Click to expand...

We could ask you the same question.

Cynical said:
Ol' man Flodin,
just keeps on ploddin' along.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Please get back to us when you:

  • Get a life
  • Grow the hell up
  • Write a second joke
 
I'm no fan of Lucianarchy, but it does seem a bit rich for Claus to chase after him/her/it with a long list of questions he/she/it refuses to answer, but when Luci asks Claus to answer a question - more specifically, to justify an assertion he's made - the only answer is silence.

Come on Claus, you're better than that! At least point us in the direction of the original thread.
 
richardm said:
I'm no fan of Lucianarchy, but it does seem a bit rich for Claus to chase after him/her/it with a long list of questions he/she/it refuses to answer, but when Luci asks Claus to answer a question - more specifically, to justify an assertion he's made - the only answer is silence.

Come on Claus, you're better than that! At least point us in the direction of the original thread.
Click to expand...

It's an old story, and Lucianarchy is perfectly aware that it was discussed before. He is just trying to avoid the hard issues.
 
CFLarsen said:


It's an old story, and Lucianarchy is perfectly aware that it was discussed before. He is just trying to avoid the hard issues.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but many of the questions you're re-(re)-raising are old ones too...
 
richardm said:
Fair enough, but many of the questions you're re-(re)-raising are old ones too...
Click to expand...

But the reason I re-raise them is because they are not answered.
 
I don't understand how Claus Flodin can have the balls to face Lucianarchy, after that brilliant poem Luci wrote.

Oh, and TLN?.....I don't act any worse than several others around here, so up YOURS, jerk.:mad:
 
While we're on the topic of evidence,

Yeah, it is kind of like Hoyt asking for evidence of claims, yet he flat out refuses (by ignoring) to provide evidence of his claim (see my link below).

Now, why is that?

(before you chime in, Claud, yes, I have asked Jr., but he is still ignoring, so no response).

And Claus, have you found any actual numbers to provide evidence for your claim of Clancie being "obsessed"? I'm not interested in your belief here, just numbers providing evidence.

Claus, do you still claim that you did not take a convenience sample? What is your evidence for this?
 
T'ai Chi said:
And Claus, have you found any actual numbers to provide evidence for your claim of Clancie being "obsessed"? I'm not interested in your belief here, just numbers providing evidence.

Claus, do you still claim that you did not take a convenience sample? What is your evidence for this?
Click to expand...

Please stop hijacking threads.
 
[modu]This thread has been reported for harassment. Nothing in this thread, however, breaks forum rules. If anyone does not care for another poster's writing style, I highly recommend making use of the "Ignore" function. [/modu]
 
Upchurch, you sure are an old busybody, aren't you? Why do you feel the need to be a tattle tale? It's very unattractive, Upchurch.
 
Cynical said:
Upchurch, you sure are an old busybody, aren't you? Why do you feel the need to be a tattle tale? It's very unattractive, Upchurch.
Click to expand...

Thanks for bumping the thread.
 
You're welcome, CF. You should thank Upchurch too, because if it hadn't been for his being a stoolpigeon, I would have been through with it.

So now, Claus Flodin',
you can keep on ploddin' along.
 
In this thread, in 'The List', Larsen has made a distinct claim about my IP address.

He made the claim that they are "similar".

Saying it is "not resolved" is just about the most stupid thing I have seen from him to date. He either has the evidence, or he hasn't.

A claim which he uses to suggest I am responsible for writing something particulalrly unpleasant about Randi.

Such a claim without evidence is completely dispicable.

Until Larsen removes the dispicable claim and apologises, he remains in contempt and dishonest.
 
Well now! Look what Claus has said over on the 'o' moderation forum:

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I would also like to add this rule:

If Poster A does not provide evidence of claims, or answer questions regarding those, it should be required of Poster A to either admit that no such evidence exists, and/or Poster A has to state that he refuses to answer the questions.
Click to expand...
:jaw:

Now, this should be easy:

Claus, where is your evidence about "very similar ISP's" ?
 
In "The moderation of O development thread", you had this to say:

Lucianarchy said:
In respect of 'Question Lists', I'd say it's fair to ask questions on something someone has claimed. As an example, the 'List' directed at me doesn't actually carry any claims of mine at all.
Click to expand...

You really believe that?
 
originally posted by Claus Larsen

Is this your statement, Lucianarchy?

'I take great exception to James "The Amusing" Randi dismissing my faith. He is a right bastard and I urge you to help me shut his hate site down.'
Click to expand...


Answer:"Of course not. But perhaps that illustrates the desperation and tactics psuedo-skeptics will stoop to in order to smear, denigrate and censor."
Click to expand...


Claus, do you claim that the poster that posts here, in this forum, under the nick-name Lucianarchy posted the quote above somewhere?
 
Cleopatra said:
Claus, do you claim that the poster that posts here, in this forum, under the nick-name Lucianarchy posted the quote above somewhere?
Click to expand...

I asked the question, I got an answer, I am still looking into it.
 
CFLarsen said:
I asked the question, I got an answer, I am still looking into it.
Click to expand...

Do you mind if I ask you the question? Why should you so I repeat it because you did not answer me.

Do you claim that the poster that posts here, in this forum, under the nick-name Lucianarchy posted the quote above somewhere?
 
Cleopatra said:
Do you mind if I ask you the question? Why should you so I repeat it because you did not answer me.

Do you claim that the poster that posts here, in this forum, under the nick-name Lucianarchy posted the quote above somewhere?
Click to expand...

I have nothing further to add.
 
In your list(great job BTW) I see a claim. I want a clarification. I want to know if what you really claim is that the poster who posts here, in this forum, under the nick-name Lucianarchy has posted the quote above somewhere else.

It is a simple, legitimate question. Please answer it.
 
Cleopatra said:
In your list(great job BTW) I see a claim. I want a clarification. I want to know if what you really claim is that the poster who posts here, in this forum, under the nick-name Lucianarchy has posted the quote above somewhere else.

It is a simple, legitimate question. Please answer it.
Click to expand...

I repost the question so as everybody sees the thread.
 
I'm confused as to what the term sceptic means, Luci. You say in various posts that you are a sceptic so I'm curious how you define it.

Edit to add:

I thought you were reading Bioelectromagnetics one, I left that question there for you to scratch and sniff at but no response.
 
By request - and for the last time:

I did not obtain Lucianarchy's IP address from the JREF board.

I did not obtain Lucianarchy's IP address from the admins/mods of the JREF board.
 
We already know that you did not obtain the IP from the admin or the mods because Hal told us so.

We don't know yet that you didn't get it from this board by using a trick.

How do you know that THAT Lucianarchy has a similar IP with the poster under the nick Lucianarchy that posts here? In order to know that you have to know the IP of Lucianarchy that posts here.

How you claim that the IP addresses are similar without knowing which IP address Lucianarchy uses to post in this forum?
 
Cleopatra,

(cough)...where do I say that I know Lucianarchy's IP from here?

I really don't understand why this sentence:

"I did not obtain Lucianarchy's IP address from the JREF board."

is so hard to understand. Apparently it is, so if someone with a better grasp of English could please rewrite it, so Cleopatra, tamiO et al can understand it?

Because I, for one, am done with this nonsense.
 
Claus I forgot that you are slow in getting some facts so I will repeat my question until you get it.

One more time.

How do you know that the IP address that the poster under the nick Lucianarchy uses to post here is similar to the the IP address of the poster under the nick Robin/Lucianarchy?

Did you get it now Claus? Do not answer to irrelevant questions please.

Let me help you. In order to know that you have to know the IP address that Lucianarchy uses in order to post in this forum and you have to take it from here to be certain.

Sheeeeesh.
 
CFLarsen said:

Because I, for one, am done with this nonsense.
Click to expand...

So you demand others to provide evidence for their claims, but you are telling us you are refusing to provide evidence for your claim of:

"Very similar ISPs."

???

That's kind of confusing, Claus. Maybe you could clear it up for us.
 
Claus, your unwillingness to remove the claim put us all in a very awkward position when we discuss with non-skeptics. You give them a reason to dodge the questions and you help them ruin the skeptical community. You give them the hammer that brings the house down.

Think about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom