Originally posted by lamphun
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
DirtyDog and who he didn't have time for.
Collapse
X
-
KW has proved himself to be such on many occasions, including via his long-term oddball obsession with "calling" forum members on things they post, to try to role-play being a judge tasked with proof-burdening and belittling them, scoring petty oneupmanship, and consequently feeling better about his sad sack self.
Comment
-
The prat contradicts himself with his haughty "I'm not dishing out commands. But when I "call" your comments, I expect you to prove them, or withdraw them" foot-stamping.
Originally posted by TheRealKW View Post
Obey my command? You really are completely nuts.
If you make a claim the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. or withdraw the claim.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Arthur Daley View PostIt said he'd met KW and he was a nasty cnut. Pretty much those exact words.
Originally posted by ShaunSheep View PostAs I mentioned, I can't remember the exact words, but I can definitely confirm that they were depreciative of KW....
Originally posted by Arthur Daley View PostLD, would you mind doing the honours and screenshotting the deceased saying he had met KW and he was a nasty cnut? Presumably the thread is in the members room.
Then let's laugh at KW trying to disprove it.Originally posted by ShaunSheep View PostOkey dokey....here we go.
On page 9 of Wally's thread, here https://teakdoor.com/members-only/19...ver-had-9.html
KW said in response to Looper's post " Hey don't ruin this love story"
Wally replied :
^ nasty fvcker KW. seriously. i met you many years ago. kick me when i am down. well done. go fvck yourself.
Which is obviously very different from “he'd met KW and he was a nasty cnut.”
Which also explains your reluctance and the faux outrage at being asked to prove it. Unfortunately for you, LD is a little bit challenged, and a bit simple in the head and thinks that these quotes mean the thing.
Last edited by TheRealKW; 10-12-2020, 02:01 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by TheRealKW View Postfaux outrage at being asked to prove it
Gets laughed at for making outraged foot-stamping demands for people to prove their comments or retract them, then projects his outrage onto them when he fails to get his way.
Pure narcissism.
You can ask your mate ImTiny for his lawyer contact details to get a cease or desist letter fired off next time you're outraged by my comments about you
Comment
-
Originally posted by TheRealKW View Post
Unfortunately for you, LD is a little bit challenged, and a bit simple in the head and thinks that these quotes mean the thing.
Originally posted by ShaunSheep View PostAs I recall, Wally Dorian Raffles said something along the lines of "I met Willy and he did seem rather odd". Is that thread still around ? We could look...
Originally posted by ShaunSheep View Post
As I mentioned, I can't remember the exact words, but I can definitely confirm that they were depreciative of KW....
:Last edited by ShaunSheep; 10-12-2020, 04:01 PM.
Comment
-
Only a prat who is
Originally posted by TheRealKW View Posta little bit challenged
Originally posted by TheRealKW View PostHe didn't say he'd met me and I'm a nasty cnut, you liar! He said that I'm a nasty fcuker, seriously, and that he met me many years ago.
Comment
-
Originally posted by TheRealKW View Post*snigger*
why%20dogs%20lick%20their%20wounds.jpg
Comment
-
Originally posted by Arthur Daley View Post"burden of proof"
So, in every debate, every time a participant makes a comment, they have a "burden of proof" to produce evidence and back it up, or retract it?
Ok, stop the thread. I'm going to go back over all of your posts, repost everything, and you either have to produce evidence to back it up or retract it and apologise. And then I'm going to do it on every other thread. And you have to comply, or you're "very transparently coping out" and are a proven liar. ok?
Firstly.
Prove that I have dozens of TD nics. Put up or shut up. And don't take long about it, because I have a lot more things for you to prove or retract next. No yawning. I don't care if it's boring. These are your rules, not mine.
I haven't set out your imaginary rules. Obviously there is a difference between being wrong and being a liar, there's also a difference between claims, which may or may not require proof when questioned. Yes, denigrating someone's character by referring to the written word of a third person is an occasion where proof should and can easily be provided.
Also, first you state -like a petulant teen- that you don't need to back anything up that you claim, now you're demanding the exact opposite from me, even for an obviously overstated snide remark.
Are you denying that you have had a succession of nics on TD, have you lost count? Most banned, jailed or miserabled?
Originally posted by Ergenburgensmurgen;n186588
What are you talking about, I don't post on Teakdoor.
https://thailandchatter.com/core/ima...ies/giggle.gif
Comment
-
Originally posted by socal
Dirtydog had to usher KW out of the newbies section on a leash, for doing just that.
Originally posted by Ergenburgensmurgen;n186588
What are you talking about, I don't post on Teakdoor.
https://thailandchatter.com/core/ima...ies/giggle.gif
Comment
-
Originally posted by serrollt View PostObviously not, why don't you simply admit that your recollection of the comment was erronous, disingenuous prat.
Originally posted by serrollt View PostGetting all hot under the collar, are we now?
first you state -like a petulant teen- that you don't need to back anything up that you claim, now you're demanding the exact opposite from me, even for an obviously overstated snide remark.
Just like my necrophiliac joke, my parodying of your determination to force me into a burden of proof about my words on a daft forum is clearly over your head.
Originally posted by serrollt View PostI haven't set out your imaginary rules. Obviously there is a difference between being wrong and being a liar, there's also a difference between claims, which may or may not require proof when questioned. Yes, denigrating someone's character by referring to the written word of a third person is an occasion where proof should and can easily be provided.
Originally posted by serrollt View PostAre you denying that you have had a succession of nics on TD, have you lost count? Most banned, jailed or miserabled?Last edited by Arthur Daley; 10-13-2020, 07:42 AM.
Comment
Comment