From: keegan@sunatra.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: alt.flame,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: kebbie squeals like a stuck pig when he is exposed in another lie (was Re: Keegan Stoops to Attempted Fraud)
Summary: kevin cowardly refused to support his accusations or withdraw them.
Keywords: kevin, coward, darcy, liar
Date: 17 Apr 92 20:48:48 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself unless noted otherwise

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
-> >kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> >-> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
-> >-> >kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> >-> >-> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
-> >-> >-> >shall we move on to your next lie now?
-> >-> >-> 
-> >-> >-> "Next" lie, Jimmy? How can there be a "next" [sic] lie,
-> >-> >-> when there was no lie to begin with???
-> >-> >
-> >-> >lie #1.......
-> >-> >
-> >-> >        'Is this the same James Keegan who donned his net.cop
-> >-> >        badge and uniform, and told me to get "my" [sic]
-> >-> >        child-support threads out of t.a this past
-> >-> >        December??'
-> >-> >		kevin@cfctech (Kevin Darcy)
-> >-> >		<1992Feb26.002308.5595@cfctech.cfc.com>
-> >-> 
-> >-> Do you really think people have forgotten this so soon? 
-> >
-> >i should hope not. 
-> 
-> Good. We're getting somewhere now. If everyone remembers the incident,
-> then that's all the "evidence" that's necessary, right?

wrong. it's a very old lie of yours; one you've always resisted
supporting despite countless requests from me and others.
clearly, no one expects you to support it. you can't. it's a lie.
i suspect you'll always be confronted by this lie (or other
similar lies) until you resolve them.

-> >i remind them of it often enough and it seems to have gone a
-> >long way in establishing a viewpoint of your credibility in
-> >the eyes of relatively new posters. i would imagine that not
-> >many readers, if any at all, believe that you wouldn't prove
-> >me wrong if you could. that you have never done so in this
-> >particular matter, or in any other matter that i can recall,
-> >says volumes about your character.

-> Yeah, ad nauseam.

then do something about it.

-> >-> >lie #2.....(this about susan garvin):
-> >-> >
-> >-> >        'The "original author" is a lying bitch who would say
-> >-> >        anything to try and salve her gargantuan bruised ego.'
-> >-> >		 <1992Mar14.103300.12979@rotag.mi.org>
-> >-> 
-> >-> I documented her lie.
-> >
-> >again, i doubt that many net readers, if any at all, believe
-> >that you wouldn't support your claim if you could do so.

-> >i'm very content with the net.readership forming an opinion
-> >of your credibility based on what you've said in just these
-> >two cases.

-> And many readers, if not all, no doubt saw the documentation
-> of my claim.  So why do you insist, non-truthfully, that the
-> documentation was never presented?

why do you lie again about having presented evidence? and why do
you just claim to have presented it? let's face it, if you had
evidence, you'd have absolutely no problem presenting it again.
in fact you'd no doubt present it over and over in the
furtherance of your net.vendettas.

simply stated, kevin, you lied in both instances. you got caught
in both instances.

        "Kevin, your own credibility may continue to decrease
        with longevity, but that's not the case for everyone."
		Jeff d'Arcy <jdarcy@encore.com> 
		<15249@encore.Encore.COM>


-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Xref: sparky alt.flame:7148 alt.politics.homosexuality:2400