>
That's another fabrication. What ticks me off is not that there aren't enough people slapping you around (there clearly is, or haven't you noticed?) it's that you're a chronic fabricator, and I feel compelled to challenge the odious crap that you seemingly constantly come up with.
>

I feel the need to occasionally get my fly swatter out. Slapping around??? That might be a little strong.


>
Again, that's a fabrication. The bad era started long before that. Moreover I don't believe either Jim Duffy or Rod Paddock when they say you've got no pecuniary interest in DataClas. Bullsh*t. That there is no Quid Pro Quo going on, no Habesne Plus Vini going on, is a con job, and I don't buy it. You've admitted to your contributions to DataClas -- the COM version maybe? Whatever. You're inside the circle, you've stood inside the trade show booth, you're all close personal friends, and you've otherwise all collaborated together in many respects, including long projects and long books, for some time now. Had you any ethics, one of the things you would do is disclose *something* about your superordinary relationships with these guys whenever you say to unsuspecting people that they should consider buying DataClas.
>

So now the defense on your part is that you don't believe Duffy or Paddock. You think there is a con job going on? Please.. Nothing more needs to be said about this...


>
John, please. That's a lie. I never *ever* thought you were anything but a jerk. What you say above is an *unbelievable* fabrication.
>

Really??? Now you are in serious denial and at best, creating revisionist history here. I guess when I offered (and you were happy) to step in on your behalf to plead your case to the MVP folks about 3 years ago when you were ticked that you were not getting the award. Of course, once you started your raving lunatic antics against the MVP program manager (Connie I think), there was nothing I could do... I guess you don't remember that...


>
Actually, it's viceral. It feels instinctually correct for me, in the occasional abscence of others not immediately doing so, to forcefully correct just the most glaring of the seemingly endless fabrications you project.
>

You keep saying I fabricate things but you never go about proving it..


>
In a community where I submit to you that speakers should peer review speakers, authors should peer review authors, vendors should peer review vendors, MVPs should peer review MVPs, and the vets vet the vets,
<

You mean the same as medical professional peer reviewing paper submissions?

Well, I often did and do a peer review of other MVP's, speakers, and authors. What are you complaining about? Using FPA as an example, I have said for some time that a lot slipped though the technical review process.


<<
given all the greatness you self-project, the shadow you cast, the list of people who can reasonably be expected to stand up for what's right and say publicly that "John Petersen is a pathological liar", as I have done, is short.
<<

There you go again, just calling me a liar with "hard evidence". Where is your proof?

<<
There aren't 50 people in the world who can stack their credentials against those you say you possess.
<<

What the heck are you taking about here???

<<
But what's very telling is I personally know all those people, and in all this time, not one has ever called me to say, Steve, you're being a bit hard on John. Zero.
>>

Because for the most part, nobody really cares Steve... For most, this is dish.

I wish I could tell you that people have not said that Steve is off his rocker, but I can't. And I do know that to many, this is me getting "paid back". That is fine.

>Please, stop bearing false witness. It's repugnant.

Well, you would have to show where I have beared false witness. i.e., you are going to have to produce the very thing you are requiring of me...