Below-40-IQ Simulation of the Month (Jan. 2009)
nyi...@bellsouth.net
spectacular, so much more transparent than the one for December, that
I've lowered the IQ points by 10 and added alt.usenet.kooks,
wondering whether ANY low-IQ simulation on Usenet for January can top
the extended simulation that will appear here.
I'm not sure alt.usenet.kooks is the best place to find such things
out: the behavior of the main simulators is not so much kooky as it is
just plain DUMB (but in a way that tickles my funny bone). If anyone
knows of a better newsgroup to crosspost such specimens to, I'd like
to know about it.
The simulation stems from a rather unusual sarcastic remark:
"I'm always learning new things on the internetz. I had no idea
that
asking for a source for a remarkable claim was a symptom of
insanity."
The person who said this knows that such behavior is not a symptom of
insanity. So, readers, see whether you can imagine what sort of
statement elicited the above comment, and then as I show you how the
long simulation (to which at least four people contributed) unfolds,
you can see how close your answer matches the one given.
Peter Nyikos
nyi...@bellsouth.net
a picture of what this is about, and a little IQ test for alert
readers: what is missing from this post to make the closing comment
airtight?
---------- begin included post ------------------ ----------
From: Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com>
Date: Jan 18, 9:49 am
Subject: Request to Nyikos 2.0 for a source
To: alt.abortion, talk.abortion
Ospre...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > elizabeth <efran...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Ospre...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > You are truly insane, no wonder you've chosen your insane allies
> > > > in here.
> > > > Birds of a feather flock together.
> > > Ya know, for someone with at most a degree in "criminal justice"
> > > and no actual credentials in psych, you sure do a lot of diagnoses
> > > in here.
> > > And your attempts to use mental illness as an insult violated the
> > > premise of the ADA.
> > I'm always learning new things on the internetz. I had no idea that
> > asking for a source for a remarkable claim was a symptom of insanity.
> Who said that?
Why, you did. And it would be pretty hard for you to deny it, since
your words appear in this very post.
----------------------- end of included
post-------------------------------
nyi...@bellsouth.net
simulation comes from the target of the sarcasm, Osprey:
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ospre...@hotmail.com
Date: Jan 18, 3:19 pm
Subject: Request to Nyikos 2.0 for a source
To: alt.abortion, talk.abortion
On Jan 18, 9:49 am, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Ospre...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > elizabeth <efran...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Ospre...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > > You are truly insane, no wonder you've chosen your insane allies
> > > > > in here.
> > > > > Birds of a feather flock together.
> > > > Ya know, for someone with at most a degree in "criminal justice"
> > > > and no actual credentials in psych, you sure do a lot of diagnoses
> > > > in here.
> > > > And your attempts to use mental illness as an insult violated the
> > > > premise of the ADA.
> > > I'm always learning new things on the internetz. I had no idea that
> > > asking for a source for a remarkable claim was a symptom of insanity.
> > Who said that?
> Why, you did.
Really? Where did I say that?
It's a lie Sparrow, that's your new nick since Sparrows are so
skiddish and scared of anything that moves.
> And it would be pretty hard for you to deny it, since
> your words appear in this very post.
It's very easy to deny it, since I didn't say that.
Sure, put up the words sparrow and I'd bet you that you once again
misread it.
The insanity comment was made about you and your actions, not for
asking for a source.
Thanks for the lie though,I'm adding it to the list of other lies
you've told.
Now, for the 10th time...
I asked you first:
Do you support your claims, 100% of the time?
-- ---------- end of included post ------------------
nyi...@bellsouth.net
while one of his allies, Ray Fischer, took up the cudgels for him.
I've skipped four posts down the Main Sequence, but the essence of
what went on in between is still preserved below:
---------- begin included post ----------
From: Ospre...@hotmail.com
Date: Jan 18, 8:39 pm
Subject: Request to Nyikos 2.0 for a source
To: alt.abortion, talk.abortion
On Jan 18, 6:17 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> <Ospre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 18, 5:43 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >> <Ospre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Jan 18, 9:49 am, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >> >> Ospre...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> >> > Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >> >> > > elizabeth <efran...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> > > > Ospre...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> >> > > > > You are truly insane, no wonder you've chosen your insane allies
> >> >> > > > > in here.
> >> >> > > > > Birds of a feather flock together.
> >> >> > > > Ya know, for someone with at most a degree in "criminal justice"
> >> >> > > > and no actual credentials in psych, you sure do a lot of diagnoses
> >> >> > > > in here.
> >> >> > > > And your attempts to use mental illness as an insult violated the
> >> >> > > > premise of the ADA.
> >> >> > > I'm always learning new things on the internetz. I had no idea that
> >> >> > > asking for a source for a remarkable claim was a symptom of
insanity.
> >> >> > Who said that?
> >> >> Why, you did.
> >> >Really? Where did I say that?
> >> Not only are you a liar, you're a childish dumbshit as well.
> >> > And it would be pretty hard for you to deny it, since
> >> >> your words appear in this very post.
> >> >It's very easy to deny it, since I didn't say that.
> >> Yes you did, Asshole. Stop lying.
> >You're the third person to say it and the third person who can't
> >provide a quote.
> It's still above, Asshole. Are you too stupid to find your own words?
No it's not, quote it and it better match what Sparrow said.
Sparrow said..
" had no idea that asking for a source for a remarkable claim was a
symptom of insanity."
Now, you show me where I ever said that.
Go on, if you can't just admit you're a liar and run away.
Fact: I never said it. You should just run now.
This is a diversion attempt for Sparrow to run away from the question
I had asked him three days ago and he has now dodged at least 12
times.
-------------------------end of included post -----------------
nyi...@bellsouth.net
had said, but he obligingly left in what went before. People reading
this in Google and seeing "Show quoted text" in blue will see an
already spectacular back-and-forth when they click on it. Now just
watch it grow in later posts!
---------- begin included post ----------
From: rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer)
Date: Jan 20, 2:47 am
Subject: Request to Nyikos 2.0 for a source
To: alt.abortion, talk.abortion
>> >> >> Why, you did.
I guess you really are that stupid.
--
Ray Fischer
rfisc...@sonic.net
-----------------------end of included post --------------------------
nyi...@bellsouth.net
getting better and better:
---------- begin included post ----------
From: rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer)
Date: Jan 20, 11:09 pm
<Ospre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 20, 1:14 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> <Ospre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> Why, you did.
>> >I guess you prefer to be a liar.
>> Check your reputation, Asshole. See who's known as a liar.
>Repeating yourself is a sign of mental illness.
Which is why everybody considers you to be neurotic at least.
>Now, do you care to support the claim made by sparrow and show where I
>ever said what he claimed?
It's still above, dumbshit.
--
Ray Fischer
rfisc...@sonic.net
------------------------ end of included post--------
nyi...@bellsouth.net
of the Main Sequence, as Keegan, an ally of Spartakus and Fischer,
gives a forceful summary (from a low-IQ-simulating POV) of what has
transpired. This wasn't Keegan's only contribution to the whole
simulation; in fact, he followed right up to the first Spartakus post
that I've displayed (the second post to this thread) which I will
document too.
---------- begin included post ----------
From: "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com>
Date: Jan 22, 7:57 am
Ospre...@hotmail.com wrote innews:e23cb8f8-6127-4856-885f-
d7422b...@33g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
> On Jan 21, 10:36 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> <Ospre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> Why, you did.
>> >Cut and paste it then,
>> I don't accomodate cowardly assholes, Asshole.
> Because you can't, cowardly liar
because you already proved you made the claim several times. most of
those times were in posts where you denied them. it was wonderful to
watch you so forcefully demonstrate your cowardice and dishonesty
again.
---------- end of included post, except for the .sig-----------
nyi...@bellsouth.net
to the Main Sequence, Keegan also buttressed Spartakus's original low-
IQ-simulation in an immediate follow-up to it:
------------- begin included post ----------
From: "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com>
Date: Jan 19, 10:10 pm
Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote in news:
25c272e4-3696-4842-8efc-
09d6b38d6...@z27g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
> Ospre...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> > elizabeth <efran...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > > Ospre...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> > > > You are truly insane, no wonder you've chosen your insane
allies
>> > > > in here.
>> > > > Birds of a feather flock together.
>> > > Ya know, for someone with at most a degree in "criminal justice"
>> > > and no actual credentials in psych, you sure do a lot of
>> > > diagnoses in here.
>> > > And your attempts to use mental illness as an insult violated the
>> > > premise of the ADA.
>> > I'm always learning new things on the internetz. I had no idea
>> > that asking for a source for a remarkable claim was a symptom of
>> > insanity.
>> Who said that?
> Why, you did. And it would be pretty hard for you to deny it, since
> your words appear in this very post.
on the contrary, it would be a simple matter for a scumball of liar
heishman's 'stature' to simply respond and lie about his lie, which is
exactly what he did.
tiy gave him far too much credit.
------------------------------- end of included post ------
nyi...@bellsouth.net
to the Main Sequence, Keegan also buttressed Spartakus's original low-
IQ-simulation in an immediate follow-up to it:
------------- begin included post ----------
From: "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com>
Date: Jan 19, 10:10 pm
Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote in news:
25c272e4-3696-4842-8efc-
09d6b38d6...@z27g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
> Ospre...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> > elizabeth <efran...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > > Ospre...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> > > > You are truly insane, no wonder you've chosen your insane
allies
>> > > > in here.
>> > > > Birds of a feather flock together.
>> > > Ya know, for someone with at most a degree in "criminal justice"
>> > > and no actual credentials in psych, you sure do a lot of
>> > > diagnoses in here.
>> > > And your attempts to use mental illness as an insult violated the
>> > > premise of the ADA.
>> > I'm always learning new things on the internetz. I had no idea
>> > that asking for a source for a remarkable claim was a symptom of
>> > insanity.
>> Who said that?
> Why, you did. And it would be pretty hard for you to deny it, since
> your words appear in this very post.
on the contrary, it would be a simple matter for a scumball of liar
Kali
bobof...@127.0.0.7 says...
> On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 11:12:59 -0800 (PST), in alt.abortion,
> nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> Forwarded To AUK:
>
> >The top entry for the low-IQ simulation for January is so much more
> >spectacular, so much more transparent than the one for December, that
> >I've lowered the IQ points by 10 and added alt.usenet.kooks,
> >wondering whether ANY low-IQ simulation on Usenet for January can top
> >the extended simulation that will appear here.
> >
> >I'm not sure alt.usenet.kooks is the best place to find such things
> >out: the behavior of the main simulators is not so much kooky as it is
> >just plain DUMB (but in a way that tickles my funny bone). If anyone
> >knows of a better newsgroup to crosspost such specimens to, I'd like
> >to know about it.
> >
> >The simulation stems from a rather unusual sarcastic remark:
> >
> > "I'm always learning new things on the internetz. I had no idea
> >that
> > asking for a source for a remarkable claim was a symptom of
> >insanity."
> >
> >The person who said this knows that such behavior is not a symptom of
> >insanity. So, readers, see whether you can imagine what sort of
> >statement elicited the above comment,
Someone made a claim and someone wanted to know the source of the
claim so that they could follow up.
What do I win?
> and then as I show you how the
> >long simulation (to which at least four people contributed) unfolds,
> >you can see how close your answer matches the one given.
> >
> >Peter Nyikos
>
>
> Does everyone get a Sombrero point from this?
>
Is this a motorboat approaching Kook Island?
--
Kali
james g. keegan jr.
<c8d0dc31-0278-4344...@q30g2000prq.googlegroups.com>,
nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> The top entry for the low-IQ simulation for January is so much more
> spectacular, so much more transparent than the one for December, that
> I've lowered the IQ points by 10 and added alt.usenet.kooks,
> wondering whether ANY low-IQ simulation on Usenet for January can top
> the extended simulation that will appear here.
>
> I'm not sure alt.usenet.kooks is the best place to find such things
> out: the behavior of the main simulators is not so much kooky as it is
> just plain DUMB (but in a way that tickles my funny bone). If anyone
> knows of a better newsgroup to crosspost such specimens to, I'd like
> to know about it.
>
> The simulation stems from a rather unusual sarcastic remark:
>
> "I'm always learning new things on the internetz. I had no idea
> that asking for a source for a remarkable claim was a symptom of
> insanity."
>
> The person who said this
had been called insane because he asked for a source for a seemingly
false claim.
of course you knew that before you tried again to misrepresent events.
he must make you feel very insecure. then again, you should feel
insecure.
james g. keegan jr.
Kali <ka...@happy.joy> wrote:
> In article <oqveo4taljeob8136...@4ax.com>,
> bobof...@127.0.0.7 says...
> > >Peter Nyikos
> >
> >
> Is this a motorboat approaching Kook Island?
nyikis is a true kook, originally posting in the 90s when many others
rose above him in kookiness. he has returned now and is making every
effort to rise to the top
Ray Fischer
>The top entry for the low-IQ simulation for January is so much more
>spectacular, so much more transparent than the one for December,
Sorry, although you were in the running, Ike probably won with duke a
serious contender.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
nyi...@bellsouth.net
> In article <oqveo4taljeob8136gdupfb11ve2h19...@4ax.com>,
> boboffic...@127.0.0.7 says...
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 11:12:59 -0800 (PST), in alt.abortion,
>
> > Forwarded To AUK:
What does AUK stand for?
> > >The simulation stems from a rather unusual sarcastic remark:
>
> > > "I'm always learning new things on the internetz. I had no idea
> > >that
> > > asking for a source for a remarkable claim was a symptom of
> > >insanity."
>
> > >The person who said this knows that such behavior is not a symptom of
> > >insanity. So, readers, see whether you can imagine what sort of
> > >statement elicited the above comment,
>
> Someone made a claim and someone wanted to know the source of the
> claim so that they could follow up.
That's only accounts for the initial conditions. Then came some
comment which elicited the sarcastic remark.
> What do I win?
Nothing, since I'm not in the mood for giving out booby prizes. Read
the rest of the posts to this thread for a better idea of what this is
all about.
> > and then as I show you how the
> > >long simulation (to which at least four people contributed) unfolds,
> > >you can see how close your answer matches the one given.
>
> > >Peter Nyikos
>
> > Does everyone get a Sombrero point from this?
That depends on what AUK is, perhaps.
> Is this a motorboat approaching Kook Island?
> --
> Kali
If you can name a better island to approach, please do so.
nyi...@bellsouth.net
> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >The top entry for the low-IQ simulation for January is so much more
> >spectacular, so much more transparent than the one for December,
Ray is seeking to divert attention from his starring role, which was
partly documented in the 4th thru 7th posts to this thread, and he
doesn't want to attract attention to his net.bootlickers Spartakus
and Keegan either, so he played it safe and followed up only to the
first post on this thread, which doesn't even name the culprits.
> Sorry, although you were in the running, Ike probably won with duke a
> serious contender.
Typical. You don't give any documentation, nor even a description of
Ike's behavior.
But thanks for doing a reasonably good Chris Lyman imitation for
Spartakus's benefit. In the thread for the December award, he accused
me of "revisionism" for saying certain things about Chris Lyman's
behavior in reaction to one award (given to someone else). You were
around back then, so it makes your imitation all the more realistic.
Iminauk
You're saying Peter Nyikos is a kook? So far, he just looks like a
whiner.
What behavior do you find kooky, other than getting your chain yanked?
Iminauk
See, _now_ this Peter Nyikos guy is starting to look like a kook --
but kind of a feeble one. See if you can make him do some tricks.
Ray Fischer
>On Feb 2, 7:43 pm, Kali <k...@happy.joy> wrote:
>> In article <oqveo4taljeob8136gdupfb11ve2h19...@4ax.com>,
>> boboffic...@127.0.0.7 says...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 11:12:59 -0800 (PST), in alt.abortion,
>> > nyik...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>>
>> > Forwarded To AUK:
>
>What does AUK stand for?
You're really not that smart, are you?
Lessee, "forwarded" implies something to do with email or newsgroups.
Looking at the list of newsgroups we see "alt.usenet.kooks", which is
obviously AUK.
No wonder you just declare yourself correct in all things without
bothering to actually show it.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
james g. keegan jr.
<2e0b5efa-4ada-4118...@v4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On Feb 2, 10:42 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> > <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > >The top entry for the low-IQ simulation for January is so much more
> > >spectacular, so much more transparent than the one for December,
>
> Ray is seeking to divert attention
it's a little late for you to try and project this one away, PHOney2.
--
"Note: NOWHERE...and I'll repeat..NOWHERE do you see me mentioning
the New York Times. "
--scumbag heishman posting as Ospre...@hotmail.com in news:9a845215-
1896-47e0-acb9-fca427f2c...@x38g2000yqj.googlegroups.com
apprently forgetting he had previously written:
"New York Times has all ready sent me a response stating you have
been warned."
-- prison clerk heishman lying as "Osprey" <noneedtok...@mail.com> in
news:2rCdnZNy7LA...@comcast.com
james g. keegan jr.
<74622238-9d11-4e15...@a39g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
Iminauk <Imi...@aol.com> wrote:
[...]
> See, _now_ this Peter Nyikos guy is starting to look like a kook --
> but kind of a feeble one. See if you can make him do some tricks.
he has been known to sit up and beg. would fetching help?
james g. keegan jr.
Bob Officer <bobof...@127.0.0.7> wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 14:44:36 -0500, in alt.usenet.kooks, "james g.
> keegan jr." <jgke...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
> >> See, _now_ this Peter Nyikos guy is starting to look like a kook --
> >> but kind of a feeble one. See if you can make him do some tricks.
> >
> >he has been known to sit up and beg. would fetching help?
>
> Meltdowns, and rollovers?
he has also posted some interesting sexual fantasies.
Galen Hekhuis
<jgke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>In article <cmeho4dil6hma7lvn...@4ax.com>,
> Bob Officer <bobof...@127.0.0.7> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 14:44:36 -0500, in alt.usenet.kooks, "james g.
>> keegan jr." <jgke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>[...]
>> >> See, _now_ this Peter Nyikos guy is starting to look like a kook --
>> >> but kind of a feeble one. See if you can make him do some tricks.
>> >
>> >he has been known to sit up and beg. would fetching help?
>>
>> Meltdowns, and rollovers?
>
>he has also posted some interesting sexual fantasies.
Peter Nyikos might not be "kooky" enough, even though he did say some
pretty weird things though. This Nyikos2 character (pretending to be
Peter) seems to hold much more promise, however.
james g. keegan jr.
Galen Hekhuis <ghek...@earthlink.net> wrote:
wouldn't anyone who pretended to be peter nyikos qualify on that alone?
--
"osprey knows that the people who see him as such a characterless,
scumbag liar are seeing an accurate reflection of that he really is.
osprey hates himself, as he should. so he strikes out at everyone who
he feels is better than he is, which is everyone."
--"james g. keegan jr." <jgke...@gmail.com>
<jgkeegan-C249BB...@individual.net>
Kali
jgke...@gmail.com says...
the thread for context, I just found the crosspost even more kooky.
--
Kali
james g. keegan jr.
Kali <ka...@happy.joy> wrote:
> In article <jgkeegan-BEE53D...@news.individual.net>,
> jgke...@gmail.com says...
[...]
> > nyikis is a true kook, originally posting in the 90s when many others
> > rose above him in kookiness. he has returned now and is making every
> > effort to rise to the top
> >
> The kook sign was right there in the crosspost. When I read through
> the thread for context, I just found the crosspost even more kooky.
it is rumored his private parts contain the tattoo "kotm."
Kali
@r15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Imi...@aol.com says...
I didn't say that.
> So far, he just looks like a
> whiner.
Maybe. Maybe not. To early to tell.
> What behavior do you find kooky, other than getting your chain yanked?
I read the thread for context, and then revisited the forwarded
post. Did you?
--
Kali
Iminauk
> In article <92591748-4e16-424d-95dd-c772b7945001
> @r15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Imin...@aol.com says...
No, no. I was responding the nyik guy who's signing his posts Peter
Nyikos. Check the attributions.
> > So far, he just looks like a
> > whiner.
>
> Maybe. Maybe not. To early to tell.
I was poking him.
> > What behavior do you find kooky, other than getting your chain yanked?
>
> I read the thread for context, and then revisited the forwarded
> post. Did you?
Yes. I was poking him.
> --
> Kali
Kali
@r10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Imi...@aol.com says...
Anytime I see something screech across a room and latch onto
someone's neck, and the guy screams and tries to get it off, I have
laugh, because what IS that thing?! -Jack Handey
> > --
> > Kali
>
>
--
Kali
John "C"
"Kali" <ka...@happy.joy> wrote in message
news:gmb0om$gba$3...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
But can you find yo ass, Kali-Kow ??
http://americangirlsareeasy.com/photos/doodah/03aAy.jpg
--
Your pal,
HJ
nyi...@bellsouth.net
Is Keegan trying to create the impression that he is a kook and that
talk.abortion and alt.abortion are newsgroups devoted to kookiness?
How else to explain his persistence in the low-IQ-simulation which
I've documented?
Well, actually, there is one other explanation: he is counting on lots
of people having killfiled me and thus only able to see what I say in
posts to which he is following up. That would certainly explain why
he has so far only followed up to the FIRST post in this thread, which
contains no incriminating evidence against him and his allies.
On Feb 2, 8:00 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article
> <c8d0dc31-0278-4344-9d35-4b01d7824...@q30g2000prq.googlegroups.com>,
> nyik...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> > I'm not sure alt.usenet.kooks is the best place to find such things
> > out: the behavior of the main simulators is not so much kooky as it is
> > just plain DUMB (but in a way that tickles my funny bone). If anyone
> > knows of a better newsgroup to crosspost such specimens to, I'd like
> > to know about it.
I was kind of hoping that, in their diligent search for kookiness, the
regulars of a.u.k. might have also come across more such specimens;
but so far, none has come forward with one.
> > The simulation stems from a rather unusual sarcastic remark:
>
> > "I'm always learning new things on the internetz. I had no idea
> > that asking for a source for a remarkable claim was a symptom of
> > insanity."
>
> > The person who said this
>
> had been called insane because he asked for a source for a seemingly
> false claim.
Here is what Keegan is indulging in denial about: the following post,
which documents the original accusation of insanity:
Newsgroups: alt.abortion, talk.abortion
From: Ospre...@hotmail.com
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 16:01:14 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Request to Nyikos 2.0 for a source
On Jan 16, 4:32 pm, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Ospre...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > Ospre...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > Tell you what, when hell freezes over and you show you have some
> > > > intelligence, maybe your words might mean something.
> > > It's awfully cold in Hell today...
> > >http://www.accuweather.com/world-forecast.asp?partner=touchthesky&zip...
> > > > Regardless, my question still remains unanswered and this is now the
> > > > fifth dodge.
> > > Answer MY question, and show the world your hypocrisy, coward.
> > Answer MY question which was asked first, coward. Why are you
> > running?
> Calling you out on your hypocrisy is not "running", assclown.
You are truly insane, no wonder you've chosen your insane allies in
here.
Birds of a feather flock together.
Regardless of your insanity. I asked you a question, and you
responded with a question.
I've called you on "your" hypocrisy and you're choosing to run like a
coward.
You have dodged this question 8 times now.
Do you back up all of your claims, 100% of the time?
> > > > > You're using Karl Rove's tactics - accusing your opponents
> > > > > of the very things where you are weakest. Nice role model
> > > > > you've picked.
> Btw, how are you coming along in supporting your claim that Al Franken
> is a radical leftist?
I don't have to support my opinion of him to you. By the way, how are
you doing running away from my question?
> Run, Bobby, run!
-------------------- end of included post---------------------
Back to Keegan:
> of course you knew that before you tried again to misrepresent events.
> he must make you feel very insecure. then again, you should feel
> insecure.
Quite a specimen, this Keegan, eh? Who does he think he is fooling,
besides the people who have killfiled me?
Peter Nyikos
james g. keegan jr.
<44c4f26b-3a8b-472c...@t39g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
[...]
> Well, actually, there is one other explanation: he is counting on lots
> of people having killfiled me and thus only able to see what I say in
> posts to which he is following up. That would certainly explain why
> he has so far only followed up to the FIRST post in this thread, which
> contains no incriminating evidence against him and his allies.
peter, peter, you don't need to promote yourself any more. everyone
knows.
nyi...@bellsouth.net
>
> he has also posted some interesting sexual fantasies.
It is Keegan who is fanasizing here. I have no idea what his warped
mind is fantasizing about, unless it is a mordant satire I did back in
1993 and 1994, satirizing various bits of propaganda that were popular
at the time. I've replaced with underlines the names of posters who
are no longer posting [at least, not under those names] but otherwise
I've left everything intact:
===================== begin excerpt from post
d. "necrophilia" needs to be understood in the narrow sense. _____
would
undoubtedly denounce someone who killed a human already born in order
to
indulge his necrophilia. On the other hand, to refrain from taking
pleasure
in someone who is already a corpse may well make no more sense to
_____
than refraining from using fetal tissue from an already-aborted child
does
to J. Strom Thurmond, who is otherwise strongly pro-life. Similar
rationale for the enjoying of snuff porn: once it's there, offered to
you
free of charge, why not enjoy it?
e. Expanding on the fetal tissue analogy, it seems only a matter of
time
before people are urged to turn over the corpses of their loved ones
to necrophiliacs. After all, (1) the corpses are doing a lot more
good
in giving "love" to people who know how to appreciate them, than being
shot full of embalming fluid and buried, or burned and (2) without a
safe, legal supply of corpses, necrophiliacs might turn to breaking
the
law in order to gain access to their loved ones. (Some may object to
this use of the word "love" and "loved," but it is only a logical
extension of the uses to which ________________ and ________________
put them.)
f. Along the same lines, laws tending to discriminate against
necrophiliacs
must be vigorously opposed, and laws extending equal rights to them
must
be put high on the agenda, if the spirit of this commandment is to be
kept. One must be on guard against laws chipping away the rights of
necrophiliacs to safe, legal access to their loved ones, lest their
right
to equality die by a thousand little cuts. [An allusion to the
language
surrounding the *Casey* decision.] An example of such a law already
in existence in many (most?) (all?) communities is a law barring
people
from cemeteries at night, the very time when most necrophiliacs are
at their horniest.
============================end of repost of satire
By the way, in d. the "his" refers to "someone" rather than the
posters whose names I've deleted, whom I have no reason to suspect of
necrophiliac tendencies.
Peter Nyikos
Ray Fischer
>
>Is Keegan trying to create the impression that he is a kook and that
>talk.abortion and alt.abortion are newsgroups devoted to kookiness?
Are you?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Spartakus
[--pretty good simulation of Jonathan Swift--]
> By the way, in d. the "his" refers to "someone" rather than the
> posters whose names I've deleted, whom I have no reason to
> suspect of necrophiliac tendencies.
That's just five kinds of awesome. With effective promotion, the
phrase "whom I have no reason to suspect of necrophiliac tendencies"
could become the next Internet tradition. Much like this:
"Senator Lindsey Graham, whom I have no reason to suspect of
necrophiliac tendencies, said today that the stimulus package should
have more tax cuts."
Of course, it's a steep climb in order for the new phrase to achieve
this kind of notoriety:
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=10643
"I am aware of all Internet traditions."
That's what we are shooting for here. But shouldn't it read ""whom we
have no reason to suspect of necrophiliac tendencies"? Using the
first-person singular is something that, well, a *kook* would do.
nyi...@bellsouth.net
like the one you saw in the final post of the 7-post cascade, a
natural tendency is to assume that there is something extra that all
the participants know about, and that this something extra makes the
decision of who is telling the truth and who is lying a lot less
clear-cut, or else confirms what the three people arguing with the one
are saying.
In this case, however, that natural idea is wrong. If one looks at
the whole context in which Osprey's words, the ones that supposedly
confirm what Spartakus is saying, one see that the context does not
exonerate Spartakus, Fischer and Keegan; in fact it does not even
ameliorate the dishonesty of what they are saying.
Here is that post:
james g. keegan jr.
<5f53092c-44e8-4bb5...@f3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> In our everyday lives, when we come across an amazing back-and-forth
> like the one you saw in the final post of the 7-post cascade, a
> natural tendency is to assume that there is something extra that all
> the participants know about, and that this something extra makes the
> decision of who is telling the truth and who is lying a lot less
> clear-cut, or else confirms what the three people arguing with the one
> are saying.
>
> In this case, however, that natural idea is wrong. If one looks at
> the whole context in which Osprey's words, the ones that supposedly
> confirm what Spartakus is saying, one see that the context does not
> exonerate Spartakus, Fischer and Keegan; in fact it does not even
> ameliorate the dishonesty of what they are saying.
whatever gave you the idea that the lies you have posted and been
chastised for become any more believable when you reassert those same
lies?
[...]
nyi...@bellsouth.net
thread I said that "Spartakus" was apparently scared of his own shadow
on this "Below-40-IQ Simulator" thread, because he still hadn't showed
up on this one.
Now he has finally showed up on it, but deep (7 posts deep, in fact)
in the hole provided by my first post, which contained no
incriminating evidence against him, or Fischer, or Keegan.
So it is possible that he still hasn't seen his shadow. :-)
On Feb 8, 6:24 pm, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> nyik...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> [--pretty good simulation of Jonathan Swift--]
Why, thank you! In stunning contrast to you, the first poster whose
name I deleted said some very, very unkind things about this satire
when I first posted it.
> > By the way, in d. the "his" refers to "someone" rather than the
> > posters whose names I've deleted, whom I have no reason to
> > suspect of necrophiliac tendencies.
>
> That's just five kinds of awesome. With effective promotion, the
> phrase "whom I have no reason to suspect of necrophiliac tendencies"
> could become the next Internet tradition. Much like this:
>
> "Senator Lindsey Graham, whom I have no reason to suspect of
> necrophiliac tendencies, said today that the stimulus package should
> have more tax cuts."
There are a few differences. The three people named above were
impeccably Politically Correct, and I'm not sure Lindsey Graham is.
Also, they were rather dirty-minded, especially the first one, whose
very unkind comments included a loaded question revealing his prurient
interests.
As most people probably noticed, a secondary target of the satire is
the fact that various sexual behaviors which traditional Christianity
frowns upon are considered by Politically Correct people to be just
"different strokes for different folks." I'm pretty sure necrophilia
is not one of these --- yet.
[Who knows, a century from now, perhaps no one will recognize any
writing along these lines as a satire.] :-)
> Of course, it's a steep climb in order for the new phrase to achieve
> this kind of notoriety:
>
> http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=10643
>
> "I am aware of all Internet traditions."
>
> That's what we are shooting for here. But shouldn't it read ""whom we
> have no reason to suspect of necrophiliac tendencies"? Using the
> first-person singular is something that, well, a *kook* would do.
Well, I was the author of the satire, and I had no idea what other
posters knew about those three.
Peter Nyikos
nyi...@bellsouth.net
> In article
> <5f53092c-44e8-4bb5-a630-9c96f44e9...@f3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> nyik...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> > In our everyday lives, when we come across an amazing back-and-forth
> > like the one you saw in the final post of the 7-post cascade, a
> > natural tendency is to assume that there is something extra that all
> > the participants know about, and that this something extra makes the
> > decision of who is telling the truth and who is lying a lot less
> > clear-cut, or else confirms what the three people arguing with the one
> > are saying.
>
> > In this case, however, that natural idea is wrong. If one looks at
> > the whole context in which Osprey's words, the ones that supposedly
> > confirm what Spartakus is saying, one see that the context does not
> > exonerate Spartakus, Fischer and Keegan; in fact it does not even
> > ameliorate the dishonesty of what they are saying.
>
> whatever gave you the idea that the lies you have posted and been
> chastised for become any more believable when you reassert those same
> lies?
I suspect Keegan plagiarized these lines from an opponent who got fed
up with his covering lies with other lies, *ad infinitum*, and is now
utilizing his opponent's words to continue the same cycle wrt the lies
by Spartakus and Fischer documented in posts 2-6 of this thread, along
with the lies by Keegan himself that I documented in post 7.
When I did my first follow-up to Keegan, I omitted the simplest
explanation of all as to why he continued his low-IQ simulation. The
simplest explanation is that Keegan is trapped in a hell of his own
making, having lied so much that:
(1) he cannot apologize for a single lie, because that would set a
precedent for having to make thousands of apologies and
(2) the only way he can keep from looking like a totally irresponsible
person in the wake of documented lies is to cover them up with new
ones.
It's too deep a hole for anyone but the Savior in whom Christians
believe to pull him out of.
> [...]
I'll say one thing for him, though. He actually had the guts to MARK
his deletion.
Peter Nyikos
james g. keegan jr.
<7e71ad0c-05d3-4e71...@m42g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On Feb 10, 2:19 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <5f53092c-44e8-4bb5-a630-9c96f44e9...@f3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > nyik...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> > > In our everyday lives, when we come across an amazing back-and-forth
> > > like the one you saw in the final post of the 7-post cascade, a
> > > natural tendency is to assume that there is something extra that all
> > > the participants know about, and that this something extra makes the
> > > decision of who is telling the truth and who is lying a lot less
> > > clear-cut, or else confirms what the three people arguing with the one
> > > are saying.
> >
> > > In this case, however, that natural idea is wrong. If one looks at
> > > the whole context in which Osprey's words, the ones that supposedly
> > > confirm what Spartakus is saying, one see that the context does not
> > > exonerate Spartakus, Fischer and Keegan; in fact it does not even
> > > ameliorate the dishonesty of what they are saying.
> >
> > whatever gave you the idea that the lies you have posted and been
> > chastised for become any more believable when you reassert those same
> > lies?
>
> I suspect Keegan plagiarized these lines
i see you are so stung by the accuracy of my comments that you felt it
necessary to post another vicious misrepresentation in the form of a
suspicion.
you have sunk to te point where you are no longer relevant.
Spartakus
> I suspect Keegan plagiarized these lines ...
You should ask your friend Robert Heishman about the time that he got
plagiarizing. It was so egregious that the author actually posted on
the abortion newsgroups to assert his copyright. Ask Bobby about how
he first responded.
*snicker*
Spartakus
> I posted my cascade of posts 1-7 on Groundhog Day, and on another
> thread I said that "Spartakus" was apparently scared of his own shadow
> on this "Below-40-IQ Simulator" thread, because he still hadn't showed
> up on this one.
Don't be so disingenuous, PiNhead, I explained in another thread why I
was holding my silence here.
> Now he has finally showed up on it, but deep (7 posts deep, in
> fact) in the hole provided by my first post, which contained no
> incriminating evidence against him, or Fischer, or Keegan.
Huh? Did I sleep through the Tour of California coverage again? Who
won?
> So it is possible that he still hasn't seen his shadow. :-)
There's some controversy as to whether or not you can see your
reflection in a mirror. :-)
> Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > nyik...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> > [--pretty good simulation of Jonathan Swift--]
> Why, thank you! In stunning contrast to you, the first poster whose
> name I deleted said some very, very unkind things about this satire
> when I first posted it.
I think it was perceived very differently back then. It seems to me
there was a lot more din and tumult back then. It was possibly more
difficult to recognize any attempts at satire. For example, a lot of
people took rocker's "Value of a Man" post very, very seriously.
> > > By the way, in d. the "his" refers to "someone" rather than the
> > > posters whose names I've deleted, whom I have no reason to
> > > suspect of necrophiliac tendencies.
> > That's just five kinds of awesome. With effective promotion, the
> > phrase "whom I have no reason to suspect of necrophiliac tendencies"
> > could become the next Internet tradition. Much like this:
> >
> > "Senator Lindsey Graham, whom I have no reason to suspect of
> > necrophiliac tendencies, said today that the stimulus package should
> > have more tax cuts."
> There are a few differences. The three people named above were
> impeccably Politically Correct, and I'm not sure Lindsey Graham is.
> Also, they were rather dirty-minded, especially the first one, whose
> very unkind comments included a loaded question revealing his prurient
> interests.
Given your dismal track record for accurately summarizing the
discussions of those days, let's just say I'm off to the store to buy
a container of salt to accompany this offering of yours. However,
your parameters present no difficulties for finding suitable targets
for traditional Internet mirth. I'm sure you won't mind if I focus on
dirty-minded, rather than politically correct, targets:
"Senator David Vitter, whom we have no reason to suspect of
necrophiliac tendencies, ..."
Senator Vitter's name, you will recall, turned up in a list of clients
owned by a high-priced escort services. Vitter was (is???) into sex
play while wearing a diaper.
"Senator Larry Craig, whom we have no reason to suspect of
necrophiliac tendencies, ..."
Um, restroom at Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport, toilet stall, "wide
stance", need we say more?
Oh heck, I'm guilty of violating my own rule about explaining jokes.
See below.
> As most people probably noticed, a secondary target of the satire is
> the fact that various sexual behaviors which traditional Christianity
> frowns upon are considered by Politically Correct people to be just
> "different strokes for different folks." I'm pretty sure necrophilia
> is not one of these --- yet.
Explaining the joke *ruins* the joke, perfesser.
> [Who knows, a century from now, perhaps no one will recognize any
> writing along these lines as a satire.] :-)
> > Of course, it's a steep climb in order for the new phrase to achieve
> > this kind of notoriety:
>
> >http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=10643
> >
> > "I am aware of all Internet traditions."
> >
> > That's what we are shooting for here. But shouldn't it read ""whom we
> > have no reason to suspect of necrophiliac tendencies"? Using the
> > first-person singular is something that, well, a *kook* would do.
> Well, I was the author of the satire, and I had no idea what other
> posters knew about those three.
Hmmm, you may have stumbled upon the reason why it was so poorly
received.
Ospr...@hotmail.com
Uh sparrow, you don't speak for me and I don't need you to ask other
people to ask me something.
If you got something to say, say it. I'm sure that it will be
interesting to hear your story.
The Chief Instigator
What's so interesting about it? You're an automatic liar, L. Ron Heishman,
as you demonstrate so often. I'm satisfied that you will never show up
anywhere near where I'm sitting.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2008-09 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Houston 4, Chicago 2 (February 15)
NEXT GAME: Thursday, February 19 vs. Iowa, 7:05
Ospr...@hotmail.com
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 05:45:14 -0800 (PST), Ospre...@hotmail.com <Ospre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 13, 6:04 pm, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >> nyik...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> >> > I suspect Keegan plagiarized these lines ...
>
> >> You should ask your friend Robert Heishman about the time that he got
> >> plagiarizing. It was so egregious that the author actually posted on
> >> the abortion newsgroups to assert his copyright. Ask Bobby about how
> >> he first responded.
>
> >> *snicker*
>
> > Uh sparrow, you don't speak for me and I don't need you to ask other
> > people to ask me something.
> > If you got something to say, say it. I'm sure that it will be
> > interesting to hear your story.
>
> What's so interesting about it? You're an automatic liar, L. Ron Heishman,
> as you demonstrate so often. I'm satisfied that you will never show up
> anywhere near where I'm sitting.
I can't tell you just how much satisfaction I get out of watching you
lose it online like that. It's been my pleasure helping to drive you
closer to insanity..:o)
Hey, I know, why don't you brag about my postage stamp sized state and
how you traveled through it. Come on Patty, tell that story next!!!
The Chief Instigator
> On Feb 17, 12:26 pm, The Chief Instigator <patr...@io.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 05:45:14 -0800 (PST), Ospre...@hotmail.com <Ospre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Feb 13, 6:04 pm, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> >> nyik...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>> >> > I suspect Keegan plagiarized these lines ...
>>
>> >> You should ask your friend Robert Heishman about the time that he got
>> >> plagiarizing. It was so egregious that the author actually posted on
>> >> the abortion newsgroups to assert his copyright. Ask Bobby about how
>> >> he first responded.
>>
>> >> *snicker*
>>
>> > Uh sparrow, you don't speak for me and I don't need you to ask other
>> > people to ask me something.
>> > If you got something to say, say it. I'm sure that it will be
>> > interesting to hear your story.
>>
>> What's so interesting about it? You're an automatic liar, L. Ron Heishman,
>> as you demonstrate so often. I'm satisfied that you will never show up
>> anywhere near where I'm sitting.
>
> I can't tell you just how much satisfaction I get out of watching you
> lose it online like that. It's been my pleasure helping to drive you
> closer to insanity..:o)
Why are you trying to guarantee that as many people as possible celebrate
the end of your wasted life?
> Hey, I know, why don't you brag about my postage stamp sized state and
> how you traveled through it. Come on Patty, tell that story next!!!
Is that an admission that you have no idea whether I was there or not? Tell
me what state the license plate on our rental car was from...and then tell
me from where we started, the day we passsed through your mini-state. (Plus
when we entered and exited. That should be no problem for a professional
stalker like you.)
Ospr...@hotmail.com
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 09:41:25 -0800 (PST), Ospre...@hotmail.com <Ospre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 17, 12:26 pm, The Chief Instigator <patr...@io.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 05:45:14 -0800 (PST), Ospre...@hotmail.com <Ospre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Feb 13, 6:04 pm, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >> >> nyik...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> >> >> > I suspect Keegan plagiarized these lines ...
>
> >> >> You should ask your friend Robert Heishman about the time that he got
> >> >> plagiarizing. It was so egregious that the author actually posted on
> >> >> the abortion newsgroups to assert his copyright. Ask Bobby about how
> >> >> he first responded.
>
> >> >> *snicker*
>
> >> > Uh sparrow, you don't speak for me and I don't need you to ask other
> >> > people to ask me something.
> >> > If you got something to say, say it. I'm sure that it will be
> >> > interesting to hear your story.
>
> >> What's so interesting about it? You're an automatic liar, L. Ron Heishman,
> >> as you demonstrate so often. I'm satisfied that you will never show up
> >> anywhere near where I'm sitting.
>
> > I can't tell you just how much satisfaction I get out of watching you
> > lose it online like that. It's been my pleasure helping to drive you
> > closer to insanity..:o)
>
> Why are you trying to guarantee that as many people as possible celebrate
> the end of your wasted life?
Damn, you're doing mushrooms now aren't ya? You're doing something
strange that's for sure.
What the hell though, it's your wasted brain so keep doing what ever
you're doing. I'm just enjoying watching you destroy yourself..:o)
>
> > Hey, I know, why don't you brag about my postage stamp sized state and
> > how you traveled through it. Come on Patty, tell that story next!!!
>
> Is that an admission that you have no idea whether I was there or not?
Is that what you want to hear Patty? Is that going to make you feel
better?
O.k. Patty, I didn't know you were here, frankly I wasn't looking for
you.
There is that better?
Tell
> me what state the license plate on our rental car was from...and then tell
> me from where we started, the day we passsed through your mini-state. (Plus
> when we entered and exited. That should be no problem for a professional
> stalker like you.)
Well Patty, enjoy your free fall, I'm enjoying it. But that's enough
for now, since I responded to you, you should be jumping for joy..:o)
elizabeth
fauxNy needs some Immodium to stop that posting diarrhea he has!
> > I posted my cascade of posts 1-7
With no real content, just a lot of overwritten, overwraught bullshit
on Groundhog Day, and on another
> > thread I said that "Spartakus" was apparently scared of his own shadow
> > on this "Below-40-IQ Simulator" thread, because he still hadn't showed
> > up on this one.
>
> Don't be so disingenuous, PiNhead, I explained in another thread why I
> was holding my silence here.
It would take a normal person most of an entire day to keep up with
his postings; doesn't he have anything else to do?
> > Now he has finally showed up on it, but deep (7 posts deep, in
> > fact) in the hole provided by my first post, which contained no
> > incriminating evidence against him, or Fischer, or Keegan.
>
> Huh? Did I sleep through the Tour of California coverage again? Who
> won?
It's been raining very hard, with hail today. Miserable conditions
but they are still out there.
> > So it is possible that he still hasn't seen his shadow. :-)
>
> There's some controversy as to whether or not you can see your
> reflection in a mirror. :-)
fauxNy can't see his shadow unless he pulls his head out of his butt.
elizabeth
Oopsey, oopsey, oopsey, you've been busted numerous times in your
short years in usenet, forging posts, forging webpages, and that's
just the less obnoxious of your traits.
elizabeth
>
> - Show quoted text -
You are a corrupt liar, Oopsey, and you know it.
That's why you had to shut up about your threat to make anyone calling
you a corrupt liar prove it or be sued . .. you found out that you'd
basically be suing yourself.
If you make your suicide look like an accident, it would make up a
little bit of your essential nastiness, by providing for your family,
and they would be spared having to deal with you.
It's a win-win situation.
elizabeth
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oh, please, Oopsey, you corrupt liar, you get no attention in real
life, and you sitting waiting for anyone to respond to your
bullshit . ... kill yourself, but make it look like an accident. That
would be doing one good thing with your miserable life.
And you know it.
Ospr...@hotmail.com
The sounds of the loon!!!
elizabeth
>
> - Show quoted text -
STop posting to yourself, loonboy.
Kill yourself, do one good thing.
But maybe you could stop hovering over your computer, desperately
waiting for any sort of response to your posting diarrhea . .. go out
for a walk. Volunteer at a pet shelter, walk some dogs. Or do they
hate you? Dogs do have a natural antipathy to sociopaths . ..
james g. keegan jr.
<f7b9477a-b671-475a...@e18g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
Ospr...@hotmail.com wrote:
ha ha ha. poor liar heishman seems to be loosing it because spartacus
made fun of yet another of heishman's dishonest episodes.
The Chief Instigator
You're very likely lying, as per your SOP.
>> Tell me what state the license plate on our rental car was from...and
>> then tell me from where we started, the day we passsed through your
>> mini-state. (Plus when we entered and exited. That should be no problem
>> for a professional stalker like you.)
>
> Well Patty, enjoy your free fall, I'm enjoying it. But that's enough
> for now, since I responded to you, you should be jumping for joy..:o)
You're enjoying your fantasy, reality be damned. I'll jump for joy when
your own innate stupidity does you in permanently.
nyi...@bellsouth.net
> In article <abf90b22-9b79-4200-beca-74908210e295
> @r10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Imin...@aol.com says...
>
>
>
> > On Feb 3, 10:46 pm, Kali <k...@happy.joy> wrote:
> > > In article <92591748-4e16-424d-95dd-c772b7945001
> > > @r15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Imin...@aol.com says...
>
> > > > On Feb 3, 2:03 pm, nyik...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> > > > > On Feb 2, 7:43 pm, Kali <k...@happy.joy> wrote:
>
> > > > > > In article <oqveo4taljeob8136gdupfb11ve2h19...@4ax.com>,
> > > > > > boboffic...@127.0.0.7 says...
>
> > > > > > > On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 11:12:59 -0800 (PST), in alt.abortion,
> > > > > > > nyik...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Forwarded To AUK:
I was puzzled by this, because the post to which "Bob Officer" was
following up was already crossposted to a.u.k., and in my experience
newsgroups had always been shortened with lower case and periods
(a.u.k, a.a., t.a. etc.) so it didn't occur to me, in the few seconds'
thought that I devoted to it, that AUK stands for...you know the rest.
> > > > > What does AUK stand for?
> > > > > > Is this a motorboat approaching Kook Island?
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Kali
>
> > > > > If you can name a better island to approach, please do so.
I was referring to my words in the original post, where I said that I
didn't know whether a.u.k. is the best place to try to find people who
have come across such low-IQ simulations in the preceding month. If
anyone reading this knows of a better newsgroup to find such people,
I'd appreciate being informed about it.
> > > > You're saying Peter Nyikos is a kook?
>
> > > I didn't say that.
I hate to disappoint the a.u.k. regulars, but my main purpose for
crossposting to a.u.k. was exactly what I said just now.
A secondary reason is that I sort of hoped there are people in a.u.k.
like some of the ones who inhabited it in the mid-90's and who made a
close investigation of talk.abortion and discovered just how screwed-
up a newsgroup it was then--and it has gotten even more screwed-up
with the passage of time.
They embarrassed the pro-choice regulars there so much that one of
their leaders, Susan Garvin, decided that it might be a good idea to
nominate the whole of talk.abortion, ("myself included" she explicitly
added about herself) as Kook of the Month.
Fortunately, the a.u.k. regulars had amassed enough information about
talk.abortion, and had enough good sense, that nothing came of her
remark.
> > No, no. I was responding the nyik guy who's signing his posts Peter
> > Nyikos. Check the attributions.
>
> > > > So far, he just looks like a
> > > > whiner.
Is soliciting help, like I did just now, being interpreted as whining
here?
> > > Maybe. Maybe not. To early to tell.
>
> > I was poking him.
>
> > > > What behavior do you find kooky, other than getting your chain yanked?
>
> > > I read the thread for context, and then revisited the forwarded
> > > post. Did you?
>
> > Yes. I was poking him.
See above. Did your poking have the desired effect?
> Anytime I see something screech across a room and latch onto
> someone's neck, and the guy screams and tries to get it off, I have
> laugh, because what IS that thing?! -Jack Handey
A fairly appropriate quote. My 7-post cascade did sort of "screech
across" the three newsgroups, what with all the incriminating
information in it about Keegan, Fischer, and Spartakus, and these
guys, though trying hard not to look like they are screaming, are
using various dishonest ways of trying to get the evidence off their
necks.
Peter Nyikos
nyi...@bellsouth.net
> nyik...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> > I posted my cascade of posts 1-7 on Groundhog Day, and on another
> > thread I said that "Spartakus" was apparently scared of his own shadow
> > on this "Below-40-IQ Simulator" thread, because he still hadn't showed
> > up on this one.
>
> Don't be so disingenuous, PiNhead, I explained in another thread why I
> was holding my silence here.
FWIW. As the cascade already strongly suggests, your unsupported word
is totally worthless. And the post I added in followup to post 7 (and
which appears right after it in a "Sort by reply" tree in Google
establishes that beyond a reasonable doubt.
> > Now he has finally showed up on it, but deep (7 posts deep, in
> > fact) in the hole provided by my first post, which contained no
> > incriminating evidence against him, or Fischer, or Keegan.
[diversionary attempt at humor by Spartakus, deleted]
> > So it is possible that he still hasn't seen his shadow. :-)
[ditto]
> > Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > nyik...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> > > [--pretty good simulation of Jonathan Swift--]
> > Why, thank you! In stunning contrast to you, the first poster whose
> > name I deleted said some very, very unkind things about this satire
> > when I first posted it.
>
> I think it was perceived very differently back then. It seems to me
> there was a lot more din and tumult back then.
Those were diversionary attempts, IMO. Galen was especially active,
and for years afterwards said that I was the person whose name should
never be associated with necrophilia.
>It was possibly more
> difficult to recognize any attempts at satire. For example, a lot of
> people took rocker's "Value of a Man" post very, very seriously.
The satire was originally a part of an exegesis of what I called
"Chris Lyman's 7th Commandment," a flip side of "Thou shalt not commit
adultery." It went like this:
7. Thou shalt not say anything negative about adultery, fornication,
sodomy, fisting, forking, rimming, bestiality, pedophilia,
coprophilia,
or necrophilia. These are all just different strokes for different
for
different folks.
I preceded it with a long preamble saying that, unlike the previous 6
commandments, was guesswork on my part--I had no idea which of the
things on the list Chris actually endorsed, and I asked him to help
me edit it.
He went ballistic over it anyway, but refused to say which parts he
endorsed, and he totally absented himself from the thread after that,
leaving it for others to divert attention from the fact that he had
not committed himself one way or the other about ANY of the items.
I was pretty sure, for example, that the "fornication" part was right
on target, and "fisting" part even more so, because Keith Cochran's
fisting offers to pro-lifers were an enormously popular feature with
his allies, among whom Lyman certainly belonged.
> > > That's just five kinds of awesome. With effective promotion, the
> > > phrase "whom I have no reason to suspect of necrophiliac tendencies"
> > > could become the next Internet tradition. Much like this:
>
> > > "Senator Lindsey Graham, whom I have no reason to suspect of
> > > necrophiliac tendencies, said today that the stimulus package should
> > > have more tax cuts."
> > There are a few differences. The three people named above were
> > impeccably Politically Correct, and I'm not sure Lindsey Graham is.
> > Also, they were rather dirty-minded, especially the first one, whose
> > very unkind comments included a loaded question revealing his prurient
> > interests.
>
> Given your dismal track record for accurately summarizing the
> discussions of those days, [GO half of GIGO deleted]
Only two errors in my reminisces were caught so far, and the first
wasn't even a summary of a discussion, but a denial that a something
falsely referred to as a "discussion" by Fischer had taken place.
>However,
> your parameters present no difficulties for finding suitable targets
> for traditional Internet mirth. I'm sure you won't mind if I focus on
> dirty-minded, rather than politically correct, targets:
Not at all. I liked your examples [deleted here to save space].
> > As most people probably noticed, a secondary target of the satire is
> > the fact that various sexual behaviors which traditional Christianity
> > frowns upon are considered by Politically Correct people to be just
> > "different strokes for different folks." I'm pretty sure necrophilia
> > is not one of these --- yet.
>
> Explaining the joke *ruins* the joke, perfesser.
That's a silly formulaic response.
By the way, did you notice how I was careful to avoid saying "Cut it
out, Lyman" after your innumerable uses of "perfesser", which Lyman
used about me more often than everyone else combined in the years
1992-2001? Nor did I do it after your uses of "red herring" [ditto].
I carefully picked imitations of Lyman's style that are much harder to
duplicate.
nyi...@bellsouth.net
On Feb 17, 2:21 pm, elizabeth <efran...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 17, 10:22 am, Ospre...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Feb 17, 1:10 pm, The Chief Instigator <patr...@io.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 09:41:25 -0800 (PST), Ospre...@hotmail.com <Ospre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Feb 17, 12:26 pm, The Chief Instigator <patr...@io.com> wrote:
> > > >> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 05:45:14 -0800 (PST), Ospre...@hotmail.com <Ospre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > On Feb 13, 6:04 pm, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > >> >> You should ask your friend Robert Heishman about the time that he got
> > > >> >> plagiarizing. It was so egregious that the author actually posted on
> > > >> >> the abortion newsgroups to assert his copyright. Ask Bobby about how
> > > >> >> he first responded.
> > > >> > Uh sparrow, you don't speak for me and I don't need you to ask other
> > > >> > people to ask me something.
> > > >> > If you got something to say, say it. I'm sure that it will be
> > > >> > interesting to hear your story.
>
> > > >> What's so interesting about it? You're an automatic liar, L. Ron Heishman,
> > > >> as you demonstrate so often.
I don't know what "automatic liar" is but it looks like a good
description of Fischer and Keegan; Spartakus is a bit more
circumspect, but then his posts are typically a lot longer.
On the other hand, the evidence available to me that Osprey lied at
all, except for that one bit about Desert Storm, is mighty slim.
Patrick may have a different perspective on this than me, but so far I
haven't seen him make good use of it.
[...]
> > Well Patty, enjoy your free fall, I'm enjoying it. But that's enough
> > for now, since I responded to you, you should be jumping for joy..:o)
> Oh, please, Oopsey, you corrupt liar, you get no attention in real
> life,
I'd like to see what evidence you have for this wildly ambitious
claim--if any. It sounds like another one of your interrogator-
imitating tricks. ["Nobody cares about you. Nobody knows you are
alive. If you don't cooperate with us, you'll never be freed."]
And that's giving you the benefit of the doubt. Despite what you and
your allies say, Usenet is a part of real life just like e-mail,
facebook, blackberrys, IPods, etc. In fact one of the things Usenet
has going for it is CONTINUITY. Some blogs are like the average comic
strip--no continuity from one topic to the next. But Usenet is more
like For Better or Worse--things that happened years ago are still
grist for the mill.
>and you sitting waiting for anyone to respond to your
> bullshit .
He's being very, very successful at doing that. Pavlov could hardly
have improved on him, the way y'all fill one thread after another
with back-and-forth with him.
> ... kill yourself, but make it look like an accident. That
> would be doing one good thing with your miserable life.
>
> And you know it.
Do you really hate Osprey as much as you seem to be saying here?
Peter Nyikos
nyi...@bellsouth.net
About looking for you? What makes you think he'd be on the lookout
for one car? Do you even think he knows the license plate numbers of
all the cars you and your close relatives have?
> >> Tell me what state the license plate on our rental car was from...
Why rental? Are you that afraid of what Osprey might do to you if he
catches you?
By the way, don't you get about on your motorcycle any more?
Peter Nyikos
Ray Fischer
>I don't know what "automatic liar" is but it looks like a good
>description of Fischer and Keegan; Spartakus is a bit more
>circumspect, but then his posts are typically a lot longer.
Gratuitous insult.
>On the other hand, the evidence available to me that Osprey lied at
>all, except for that one bit about Desert Storm, is mighty slim.
Irrational denial.
>> Oh, please, Oopsey, you corrupt liar, you get no attention in real
>> life,
>
>I'd like to see what evidence you have for this wildly ambitious
>claim--if any.
Hypocritical whining.
> It sounds like another one of your interrogator-
>imitating tricks.
Gratuitous insult.
And more of the same self-serving substance-free bullshit deleted.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
elizabeth
So since Oopsey never supports any of his "words" then you are right
about the fact that he posts bullshit.
Spartakus
> Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > nyik...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> > > thread I said that "Spartakus" was apparently scared of his own shadow
> > > on this "Below-40-IQ Simulator" thread, because he still hadn't showed
> > > up on this one.
> > Don't be so disingenuous, PiNhead, I explained in another thread why I
> > was holding my silence here.
> It would take a normal person most of an entire day to keep up with
> his postings; doesn't he have anything else to do?
Posting through Google is a pain, but it has its advantages. If you
click on the "profile" link next to FauxNy's name, you get a list of
his most recent posts, sorted (more or less) in descending date/time
order. Keeping up with his logorrhea is not easy, but it would have
been impossible with nn, tin or rtin.
> > > Now he has finally showed up on it, but deep (7 posts deep, in
> > > fact) in the hole provided by my first post, which contained no
> > > incriminating evidence against him, or Fischer, or Keegan.
> > Huh? Did I sleep through the Tour of California coverage again? Who
> > won?
> It's been raining very hard, with hail today. Miserable conditions
> but they are still out there.
I toyed with the idea of driving out to the course to watch the riders
go by Sunday and Monday, and I'm really glad I didn't. Yeesh, that
was awful weather. But things sure looked good in the Sierras today.
> > > So it is possible that he still hasn't seen his shadow. :-)
> > There's some controversy as to whether or not you can see your
> > reflection in a mirror. :-)
> fauxNy can't see his shadow unless he pulls his head out of his butt.
Tru dat.
Spartakus
> Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > nyik...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> > > I posted my cascade of posts 1-7 on Groundhog Day, and on another
> > > thread I said that "Spartakus" was apparently scared of his own shadow
> > > on this "Below-40-IQ Simulator" thread, because he still hadn't showed
> > > up on this one.
> > Don't be so disingenuous, PiNhead, I explained in another thread why
> > I was holding my silence here.
> FWIW. As the cascade already strongly suggests, your unsupported
> word is totally worthless. And the post I added in followup to post 7
> (and which appears right after it in a "Sort by reply" tree in Google
> establishes that beyond a reasonable doubt.
That's kOoKy. Anyway, it's your funeral. The post where I explained
my absence is sandwiched between two other of my posts - posts that
you responded to. If you want to see it now, there's a reference to
Brahms in the text. Happy hunting!
elizabeth
Notice how fauxNy is doing an Oopsey, insisting that all of us are in
this together?
Oopsey just can't pull off the "style" of fauxNy, he's just too daft,
and keeps saying the same things over and over, like when he outed
himself as OB by posting the same old shit with a different handle.
Most folks have very identifiable writing styles. And the worse you
are at writing, the harder it is to "disguise" yourself, because you
can't even understand the underlying concept of style! I've had
teachers than can sniff out a plagiarized statement immediately. I
never tried, because I've always felt that my own words are better
than anyone else's!
nyi...@bellsouth.net
> On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 08:50:45 -0800 (PST), in alt.usenet.kooks,
>
>
>
> nyik...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> >On Feb 4, 5:30 pm, Kali <k...@happy.joy> wrote:
> >> In article <abf90b22-9b79-4200-beca-74908210e295
> >> @r10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Imin...@aol.com says...
>
> >> > On Feb 3, 10:46 pm, Kali <k...@happy.joy> wrote:
> >> > > In article <92591748-4e16-424d-95dd-c772b7945001
> >> > > @r15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Imin...@aol.com says...
>
> >> > > > On Feb 3, 2:03 pm, nyik...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> >> > > > > On Feb 2, 7:43 pm, Kali <k...@happy.joy> wrote:
>
> >> > > > > > In article <oqveo4taljeob8136gdupfb11ve2h19...@4ax.com>,
> >> > > > > > boboffic...@127.0.0.7 says...
> >I didn't know whether a.u.k. is the best place to try to find people who
> >have come across such low-IQ simulations in the preceding month. If
> >anyone reading this knows of a better newsgroup to find such people,
> >I'd appreciate being informed about it.
>
> You fit right in with the rest of the kooks I presented to AUK,
> Nyikos2.0. You lower IQ and all.
As posts 1-7 in this thread show, you are allying yourself with the
real low-IQ simulators: Keegan, Fischer, and Spartakus--with this very
comment, no less.
> >I hate to disappoint the a.u.k. regulars, but my main purpose for
> >crossposting to a.u.k. was exactly what I said just now.
>
> I cross posted you so others could see your kookiness.
Doesn't your newsreader, or whatever, keep all the newsgroups in when
you follow up to a post? The post to which you followed up was
already crossposted to AUK.
Or is your last comment just meant to establlish your own credentials
as a kook?
> >A secondary reason is that I sort of hoped there are people in a.u.k.
> >like some of the ones who inhabited it in the mid-90's and who made a
> >close investigation of talk.abortion and discovered just how screwed-
> >up a newsgroup it was then--and it has gotten even more screwed-up
> >with the passage of time.
[comment allying BO further with Keegan, Spartakus and Fischer deleted
here]
> >They embarrassed the pro-choice regulars there so much that one of
> >their leaders, Susan Garvin, decided that it might be a good idea to
> >nominate the whole of talk.abortion, ("myself included" she explicitly
> >added about herself) as Kook of the Month.
>
> >Fortunately, the a.u.k. regulars had amassed enough information about
> >talk.abortion, and had enough good sense, that nothing came of her
> >remark.
>
> That isn't exactly true.
Would you care to tell us where the truth lies? Or are you depending
on the troika I named just now to do it for you?
Did you just say the above because you saw Spartakus ask a question on
another thread which suggests that what I am saying is not exactly
true? If so, you are a gullible fool. Posts 1-7 of this thread
should have shown you how hazardous it is to believe anything that
habitual liar says without documentation.
Peter Nyikos
Spartakus
> By the way, did you notice how I was careful to avoid saying "Cut it
> out, Lyman" after your innumerable uses of "perfesser", which Lyman
> used about me more often than everyone else combined in the years
> 1992-2001? Nor did I do it after your uses of "red herring" [ditto].
> I carefully picked imitations of Lyman's style that are much harder
> to duplicate.
Don't give Lyman so much credit. He doesn't own a patent for
"perfesser". For example, look at this:
http://alicublog.blogspot.com/2009_02_15_archive.html#7770990605303248143
Roy Edroso has been calling Glenn Reynolds "perfesser" for years. But
then he and Lyman are both aliens and "that's how [they] roll".
Spartakus
> Kali <k...@happy.joy> wrote:
> > Anytime I see something screech across a room and latch onto
> > someone's neck, and the guy screams and tries to get it off, I have
> > laugh, because what IS that thing?! -Jack Handey
> A fairly appropriate quote. My 7-post cascade did sort of "screech
> across" the three newsgroups, what with all the incriminating
> information in it about Keegan, Fischer, and Spartakus, and these
> guys, though trying hard not to look like they are screaming, are
> using various dishonest ways of trying to get the evidence off their
> necks.
PiNhead's sojourn in alt.usenet.kooks reminds me of Roadrunner
cartoons with that plummeting-to-earth-with-a-little-puff-of-dust-at-
the-bottom-of-the-canyon thing. Cracks me up every time.
james g. keegan jr.
<60adceb3-f7ae-4d22...@v13g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> I don't know what "automatic liar"
at least you admit to not knowing yourself.
[...]