Ed RIPS OFF another female
Suzyqyou
> Not again...
>
> Hey Lili - hate to say I told ya so...but I TOLD YA SO!
>
> As I stated quite a while ago for other women on this forum: DON'T LEND THIS
> MAN ANY MONEY.
>
> Susan
>
> Am sorry to see this happened to you Lili, despite your nasty comments about
me
> in the past
Nice try, creep! Shall I post your emails INSISTING that this $$ was a LOAN
and that you would "pay be back if it took forever"??
Face it, ED-mo. There's just another woman that you have conned telling the
TRUTH about what a lieing fraud you are on this forum!!!
Susan
Sorry about what happened to Lili but digging every minute of Wollmann's
embarassment!!
Lili4luv3
>Path: lobby!newstf02.news.aol.com!audrey03.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
>From: suzy...@aol.com (Suzyqyou)
>Newsgroups: alt.astrology
>Lines: 24
>NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder06.news.aol.com
>X-Admin: ne...@aol.com
>Date: 17 Aug 1999 03:51:56 GMT
>Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
>Message-ID: <19990816235156...@ng-fg1.aol.com>
>
>
>
>Wollmann, the MISOGYNIST SCUMBAG wrote:
>
>> Not again...
>>
>> Hey Lili - hate to say I told ya so...but I TOLD YA SO!
Did you? I wish I'd remembered that one. Hate to admit it Suzy but you were
right!
>>
>> As I stated quite a while ago for other women on this forum: DON'T LEND
>THIS
>> MAN ANY MONEY.
>>
>> Susan
>>
>> Am sorry to see this happened to you Lili, despite your nasty comments
>about
>me
>> in the past
Forgive me, Suzy. I should not have made an assessment on a situation when I
only knew one side of it.
>Nice try, creep! Shall I post your emails INSISTING that this $$ was a LOAN
>and that you would "pay be back if it took forever"??
It's worth a shot Suzy. If he borrowed the money, he should pay it back. If
you gave him the money, he's not obligated to repay it, but it would display
responsible and mature behavior.
>
>Face it, ED-mo. There's just another woman that you have conned telling the
>TRUTH about what a lieing fraud you are on this forum!!!
It's true.
>Susan
>Sorry about what happened to Lili but digging every minute of Wollmann's
>embarassment!!
Thanks Susan. I do wish I'd given more thought to what you went through.
Again, I am sorry for judging you without proper evidence. I hope you will
accept my apologies and bear me no ill-will.
Best,
Lili
EHWollmann
agreement is not complete until the 31st of this month (August 1999) when it
will be completely and properly completed.
As you can see however, Lili has a problem with drugs and drinking and I should
have not made a clear business deal with a self-deluded person who cannot
remember the details of an agreement from one day to the next because of that.
I should have put in in writing, never-the-less their will be no further
contact with this obviously troubled person once I have completed the
transaction.
The transaction will be completed with the assistance of the authorities
because of her spurious complaints in an attempt to make me look irresponsible,
which I am not.
Susan shall never be given gifts back. This would be silly.
End of subject
"You keep looking for someone, to tell your troubles to. I'll sit down and lend
an ear, yet I hear nothing new. Then the tide rushes in and washes my Castles
away-then I'm really not so sure which side of the bed I should lay, I should
lay." The Moody Blues "The Tide Rushes In"
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
(c)1999 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
Artworks http://www.astroconsulting.com/personal/
http://www.astroconsulting.com/FAQs/tableof.htm
Lili4luv3
wrote:>I have ripped off no one, Lili Divita and I had a business agreement,
that
>agreement is not complete until the 31st of this month (August 1999) when it
>will be completely and properly completed.
We had no "business deal". You asked to borrow a grand and said you'd pay me
back in Aug.
Two weeks later you wanted to borrow another grand, but I did not send this
*second* thousand because I doubted your ability to pay me back 2 grand in
August.
>As you can see however, Lili has a problem with drugs and drinking and
Perhaps, but I do, perhaps I do not, either way, I support myself. Can't be
that much of a junkie, loser, can I be?
>should
>have not made a clear business deal with a self-deluded person who cannot
>remember the details of an agreement from one day to the next because of
>that.
Oh you can believe I remember that loan, buddy!
>I should have put in in writing, never-the-less their will be no further
>contact with this obviously troubled person once I have completed the
>transaction.
You should have? You act as you were borrowing from me? You insane kook.
And, oh believe me, deluded, doped up and shackled to a sex master I still was
coherent enough to write "loan" on the check, buster!
>The transaction will be completed with the assistance of the authorities
>because of her spurious complaints in an attempt to make me look
>irresponsible,
>which I am not.
You need authorities to mail me a valid check to my P.O. box? Or is this just
another ruse to avoid paying up, buster?
>Susan shall never be given gifts back. This would be silly.
No, it would show you to be a man with a conscience.
>End of subject
Give her back her money and belongings and that would end the subject. Geez
that scanner was the worst thing that could've happened to you.. and to us!
(snip of outdated lyrics)
Can't you listen to music from THIS decade? Life goes on, kook!
EHWollmann
Usually, most people don't call things late or unpaid until after the date, but
most people are naturally in integrity, not under the influence and not seeking
vengence or resitution for their worthless existence by blaming others for it.
Did you have any astrology to discuss yet?
Kat
> ehwol...@aol.com (EHWollmann)
>
>wrote:>I have ripped off no one, Lili Divita and I had a business agreement,
>that
>>agreement is not complete until the 31st of this month (August 1999) when it
>>will be completely and properly completed.
>
>We had no "business deal". You asked to borrow a grand and said you'd pay me
>back in Aug.
>
>Two weeks later you wanted to borrow another grand, but I did not send this
>*second* thousand because I doubted your ability to pay me back 2 grand in
>August.
>
>>As you can see however, Lili has a problem with drugs and drinking and
No, Ed. We cannot *see* that Lili has a problem with such. Only your
despicable habit of publicizing private details of someone's personal life has
brought the information to the newsgroup.
Quite a pathetic attempt at controlling her, you misogynist pig.
>Perhaps, but I do, perhaps I do not, either way, I support myself. Can't be
>that much of a junkie, loser, can I be?
If he thought you were so bad off with addictions, alcohol, whatever - wouldn't
it be extremely cruel to take advantage of someone in that state?
>>should
>>have not made a clear business deal with a self-deluded person who cannot
>>remember the details of an agreement from one day to the next because of
>>that.
>
>Oh you can believe I remember that loan, buddy!
He had no trouble taking the money from someone he claims was self-deluded.
>>I should have put in in writing, never-the-less their will be no further
>>contact with this obviously troubled person once I have completed the
>>transaction.
My goodness! If she was so self-deluded, obviously troubled, addicted to
whatever substances, yadda yadda yadda; how in the world could you ask for the
money with a straight face?
>You should have? You act as you were borrowing from me? You insane kook.
heh.
>And, oh believe me, deluded, doped up and shackled to a sex master I still
>was
>coherent enough to write "loan" on the check, buster!
>>The transaction will be completed with the assistance of the authorities
>>because of her spurious complaints in an attempt to make me look
>>irresponsible,
>>which I am not.
You're not?
>You need authorities to mail me a valid check to my P.O. box? Or is this
>just
>another ruse to avoid paying up, buster?
It is to laugh. Make sure he pays you with a certified check or in money
orders.
>>Susan shall never be given gifts back. This would be silly.
>
>No, it would show you to be a man with a conscience.
Which he has not.
>>End of subject
There goes Eddie thinking he controls everything again.
>Give her back her money and belongings and that would end the subject. Geez
>that scanner was the worst thing that could've happened to you.. and to us!
>
>(snip of outdated lyrics)
>
>Can't you listen to music from THIS decade? Life goes on, kook!
Well, he *does* listen to Madonna! ;o)
Kat
Edmond H. Wollmann
groov...@aol.compurrrrrr (Kat) wrote:
> lili...@aol.com (Lili4luv3) wrote:
> > ehwol...@aol.com (EHWollmann)
> >
> >wrote:>I have ripped off no one, Lili Divita and I had a business
agreement,
> >that
> >>agreement is not complete until the 31st of this month (August 1999)
when it
> >>will be completely and properly completed.
> >
> >We had no "business deal". You asked to borrow a grand and said
you'd pay me
> >back in Aug.
Yes, August 31st, which by the normal calendar, isn't here yet.
Did you have any astrology to discuss Ms drug addicted abuser?
Are you done editing your 90 page book you have been editing for year
now?
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 1999 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
Artworks http://www.astroconsulting.com/personal/
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Bob Officer
(Lili4luv3) wrote:
>> ehwol...@aol.com (EHWollmann)
>
>wrote:>I have ripped off no one, Lili Divita and I had a business agreement,
>that
>>agreement is not complete until the 31st of this month (August 1999) when it
>>will be completely and properly completed.
>
>We had no "business deal". You asked to borrow a grand and said you'd pay me
>back in Aug.
a simple loan...
>Two weeks later you wanted to borrow another grand, but I did not send this
>*second* thousand because I doubted your ability to pay me back 2 grand in
>August.
Good sense...!
>>As you can see however, Lili has a problem with drugs and drinking and
>Perhaps, but I do, perhaps I do not, either way, I support myself. Can't be
>that much of a junkie, loser, can I be?
Edmo, that is none of any ones business. you are not a licensed
counselor. Your diagnoses of any imparements is not valid.
>>should
>>have not made a clear business deal with a self-deluded person who cannot
>>remember the details of an agreement from one day to the next because of
>>that.
>
>Oh you can believe I remember that loan, buddy!
Like SuzyQ's loan?
>>I should have put in in writing, never-the-less their will be no further
>>contact with this obviously troubled person once I have completed the
>>transaction.
>
>You should have? You act as you were borrowing from me? You insane kook.
It was in writing, the money was due Aug 1st, not the 31st.
>And, oh believe me, deluded, doped up and shackled to a sex master I still was
>coherent enough to write "loan" on the check, buster!
:) good move lili...
>>The transaction will be completed with the assistance of the authorities
>>because of her spurious complaints in an attempt to make me look
>>irresponsible,
you are irresponsible as evidence of you posting here on usenet and
your rant page.
>>which I am not.
Kook.. you never look in a mirror do you.
>You need authorities to mail me a valid check to my P.O. box? Or is this just
>another ruse to avoid paying up, buster?
Ruse... he is scrambling to find someone to "borrow the money from".
Where is Marsha? I wonder how much she has borrowed from the con-man?
or who else he has on the string.
>>Susan shall never be given gifts back. This would be silly.
Edmo even stated they were loans and would pay them back...
>No, it would show you to be a man with a conscience.
and should show you what edmo really is...
>>End of subject
>
>Give her back her money and belongings and that would end the subject. Geez
>that scanner was the worst thing that could've happened to you.. and to us!
But it is evidence of a person with NO Honor or Ethics.
>(snip of outdated lyrics)
>
>Can't you listen to music from THIS decade? Life goes on, kook!
Ed never thinks... and here hears only want he wishes to hear.
Most of the songs he quotes are just cries for help.
--
1 Bob Officer|Skepticult® #105-757897-285 | High Priest of the Church of Conic Section®
2 Tyler of the Order of the ILK | Official Cahooter(TM)#23| Warning! Reproduction without
3 the writen permission in or on any other media than USENET NEWS GROUPS is prohibited.All
4 claims of copyright according to the BERN & UCC Agreements are held by the writers.
Edmond H. Wollmann
>
> On 17 Aug 1999 16:48:31 GMT, in alt.astrology lili...@aol.com
> (Lili4luv3) wrote:
>
> >> ehwol...@aol.com (EHWollmann)
> >
> >wrote:>I have ripped off no one, Lili Divita and I had a business agreement,
> >that
> >>agreement is not complete until the 31st of this month (August 1999) when it
> >>will be completely and properly completed.
> >
> >We had no "business deal". You asked to borrow a grand and said you'd pay me
> >back in Aug.
The 31st, you will be paid in full. Now what astrology did you have to
discuss Ms Drug abuser?
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 1999 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
Artworks http://www.astroconsulting.com/personal/
el...@no.spam
Edmond H. Wollmann <arctu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>The 31st, you will be paid in full.
You said you'd pay Susan too. Later you made up some excuse not to. I
wonder what excuse you'll use this time.
Edmond H. Wollmann
Franklin Telecom Corp (FTEL2-DOM)
733 Lakefield Road
3/24/99 Westlake Village, CA 91361
US
Domain Name: FTEL.NET
Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
Franklin interNet, Hostmaster (HF182)
hostm...@FTEL.NET
1-805-373-8688
Billing Contact:
Oliver, Dianne (DO344) dia...@FTEL.NET
805/373-8688
Complaint info for Richard Ellis;
ISP
FNet Corp.
733 Lakefield Road
Westlake Village, CA 91361
805-373-8688
sa...@fnet.net ab...@fnet.net, ab...@ftl.net
Internic ID
Ellis, Richard E (RE103) el...@FTEL.NET n/a
(FAX) n/a
Huntington, Beach, Ca. 92646-3309
Path:
wnb2!wnmaster2!wn3feed!worldnet.att.net!128.230.129.106!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.direct.ca!remarQ73!rQdQ!supernews.com!remarQ.com!news.supernews.com!not-for-mail
From:
el...@no.spam ()
Newsgroups:
alt.astrology, alt.astrology.metapsych
Subject:
Edie says he'll pay on time
Date:
Tue, 17 Aug 1999 22:44:02 GMT
Organization:
S.P.C.A.A.
Lines:
8
Message-ID:
<rrjpdi...@news.supernews.com>
References:
<19990817120646...@ng-fc1.aol.com>
<19990817124831...@ng-fm1.aol.com>
<37c1bd34....@news.supernews.com>
<37B9D8...@yahoo.com>
X-Complaints-To:
news...@supernews.com
X-Newsreader:
trn 4.0-test72 (19 April 1999)
Xref:
wnb2 alt.astrology:224458 alt.astrology.metapsych:42932
el...@no.spam wrote:
>
> In article <37B9D8...@yahoo.com>,
> Edmond H. Wollmann <arctu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >The 31st, you will be paid in full.
--
Kat
and pummeled Lili with:
>In article <19990817140445...@ng-fm1.aol.com>,
> groov...@aol.compurrrrrr (Kat) wrote:
>> lili...@aol.com (Lili4luv3) wrote:
>> > ehwol...@aol.com (EHWollmann)
>> >
>> >wrote:>I have ripped off no one, Lili Divita and I had a business
>agreement,
>> >that
>> >>agreement is not complete until the 31st of this month (August 1999)
>when it
>> >>will be completely and properly completed.
>> >
>> >We had no "business deal". You asked to borrow a grand and said
>you'd pay me
>> >back in Aug.
>
>
>Yes, August 31st, which by the normal calendar, isn't here yet.
>
>Did you have any astrology to discuss Ms drug addicted abuser?
>Are you done editing your 90 page book you have been editing for year
>now?
Boy, I bet it makes you feel like A MAN to be so verbally haranguing and
abusive to women, eh?
Kat
--
Lili4luv3
>Newsgroups: alt.astrology
>Lines: 33
>NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder07.news.aol.com
>X-Admin: ne...@aol.com
>Date: 17 Aug 1999 23:26:20 GMT
>References: <7pcha3$iol$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
>Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
>Message-ID: <19990817192620...@ng-cs1.aol.com>
>
>
>
>Edmond H. Wollmann <E...@astroconsulting.com> pumped up his skinny little arms
>and pummeled Lili with:
>
>
>>In article <19990817140445...@ng-fm1.aol.com>,
>> groov...@aol.compurrrrrr (Kat) wrote:
>>> lili...@aol.com (Lili4luv3) wrote:
>>> > ehwol...@aol.com (EHWollmann)
>>> >
>>> >wrote:>I have ripped off no one, Lili Divita and I had a business
>>agreement,
>>> >that
>>> >>agreement is not complete until the 31st of this month (August 1999)
>>when it
>>> >>will be completely and properly completed.
>>> >
>>> >We had no "business deal". You asked to borrow a grand and said
>>you'd pay me
>>> >back in Aug.
>>
>>
>>Yes, August 31st, which by the normal calendar, isn't here yet.
No, you said August. You did not have a precise date, liar!
>>
>>Did you have any astrology to discuss Ms drug addicted abuser?
Yes, Grand Crossed in fixed charts in thick as brick astrologers has been my
topic all day. Why will you never address it?
>>Are you done editing your 90 page book you have been editing for year
>>now?
That I take care in my work is not a crime. That my book is 90 pages is also
no crime. You think books are judged by quantity. If that were true your's
would be a classic. But sadly, Mr. Kooko, it is QUALITY, not quantity that
books are judged by. I could have easily cut out half of your book and your
ideas would have remained the same just not the insane STYLE of repetitive
nonsensical ranting, not to mention your use of the royal "we" throughout, your
making up words that don't exist, your saying something in ten pages that would
easily be understood in ten lines. But you didn't like that, did you? You
couldn't believe that even though I have published things and you had not, I
might know a thing or two about writing, huh buddy?
It's not just here that people are laughing. I had a date with a guy a few
nights ago and I showed him your book and he was laughing. And he's into
astrology. So he wasn't laughing at the topic! And he's not part of the
"usenet conspiracy" nor is he connected to the "government and out to get" you
"because of what " you "know about Roswell". When he read the list of folks
you acknowleged he was incredulous. We had a great laugh about it. And guess
what? We didn't do any heroin, nor pop any pills. I think we did have a few
margaritas at dinner, tho ;)
>
>Boy, I bet it makes you feel like A MAN to be so verbally haranguing and
>abusive to women, eh?
Anyone he can abuse seems to work for him.
>
>Kat
Lili
Edmond H. Wollmann
>
> Edmond H. Wollmann <E...@astroconsulting.com> pumped up his skinny little arms
> and pummeled Lili with:
>
> >In article <19990817140445...@ng-fm1.aol.com>,
> > groov...@aol.compurrrrrr (Kat) wrote:
> >> lili...@aol.com (Lili4luv3) wrote:
> >> > ehwol...@aol.com (EHWollmann)
> >> >
> >> >wrote:>I have ripped off no one, Lili Divita and I had a business
> >agreement,
> >> >that
> >> >>agreement is not complete until the 31st of this month (August 1999)
> >when it
> >> >>will be completely and properly completed.
> >> >
> >> >We had no "business deal". You asked to borrow a grand and said
> >you'd pay me
> >> >back in Aug.
> >
> >
> >Yes, August 31st, which by the normal calendar, isn't here yet.
> >
> >now?
>
> abusive to women, eh?
I am and will be a MAN because I do my best to be forthright and fair-or
did you idiots NOT READ THE LEWI POST???
SUN IN TAURUS-MOON IN CAPRICORN
(You belong to the positive or executive group)
SECURITY IS of the utmost importance to you-not wealth, perhaps,
but security of home, of position, and of prestige. You are proud, and
a sweet and gracious exterior conceals an inner sense of your own worth
which you like to see made manifest in the material things of the world
-your accomplishments or your surroundings. You are idealistic, but
more than this, you are a realist; you would rather have dignity and
comfort in this life than all the fame in the world after death. You
will "take the cash, and let the credit go." This leads to an appearance
of materialism which is not entirely justified, for you're the most
honorable of human beings and your idealism is of a practical work-a-day
variety that counts for most in the world of things as they are. You
believe in fair dealing and practise it;
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
James Stewart was KNOWN for his integrity.
Women who chose to start lying publicly because they could not control
me privately, or can see their deceptive spin going out of control
perhaps DESERVE IT???
Edmond H. Wollmann
>
> Edmond H. Wollmann wrote:
>
> >> Boy, I bet it makes you feel like A MAN to be so verbally haranguing and
> >> abusive to women, eh?
> >
> >I am and will be a MAN because I do my best to be forthright and fair-or
> >did you idiots NOT READ THE LEWI POST???
> > SUN IN TAURUS-MOON IN CAPRICORN
>
> the Sun.
Oh I see, and what do we see in your chart?
Edmond H. Wollmann
> No, you said August. You did not have a precise date, liar!
I can't help the fact that you alter your consciousnes so much Lili,
that does not make ME a liar.
> >>Did you have any astrology to discuss Ms drug addicted abuser?
> Yes, Grand Crossed in fixed charts in thick as brick astrologers has been my
> topic all day. Why will you never address it?
No astrologer I am aware of has this natally.
EB Sibley
Edmond H. Wollmann <arctu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:37B9F8...@yahoo.com...
>
> I am and will be a MAN because I do my best to be forthright and fair-or
> did you idiots NOT READ THE LEWI POST???
> SUN IN TAURUS-MOON IN CAPRICORN
> SECURITY IS of the utmost importance to you-not wealth, perhaps,
> but security of home, of position, and of prestige. You are proud, and
> a sweet and gracious exterior conceals an inner sense of your own worth
> which you like to see made manifest in the material things of the world
> -your accomplishments or your surroundings. You are idealistic, but
> more than this, you are a realist; you would rather have dignity and
> comfort in this life than all the fame in the world after death. You
> will "take the cash, and let the credit go." This leads to an appearance
> of materialism which is not entirely justified, for you're the most
> honorable of human beings and your idealism is of a practical work-a-day
> variety that counts for most in the world of things as they are. You
> believe in fair dealing and practise it;
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That's supposed to show you're a MAN?
Too bad your free will fucked you up and showed you're a MOUSE.
>
> James Stewart was KNOWN for his integrity.
What does that have to do with you? You're known for entirely different
reasons.
>
> Women who chose to start lying publicly because they could not control
> me privately, or can see their deceptive spin going out of control
> perhaps DESERVE IT???
Lili and Susan are on their way to healing and you're still
stuck in the slime ditch. That's what you can't stand.
Sibley
Widdershins
>I have ripped off no one, Lili Divita and I had a business agreement, that
>agreement is not complete until the 31st of this month (August 1999) when it
>will be completely and properly completed.
We'll all be waiting to hear about your repayment of the $1000.
>As you can see however, Lili has a problem with drugs and drinking
Arguing from assertion, Eddieeeeeee. You have presented nothing
that supports the above statement except your version of the story.
>and I should
>have not made a clear business deal with a self-deluded person who cannot
>remember the details of an agreement from one day to the next because of that.
>I should have put in in writing, never-the-less their will be no further
>contact with this obviously troubled person once I have completed the
>transaction.
We'll all breathe easier.
>The transaction will be completed with the assistance of the authorities
>because of her spurious complaints in an attempt to make me look irresponsible,
>which I am not.
Oh, I see. You're going to use a branch of the U. S. Government to
handle the delivery. Hey, everybody, Eddieeeeeee's gonna
send a money order!
>Susan shall never be given gifts back. This would be silly.
>End of subject
But you will pay back the money you acknowledged borrowing
from her?
snip of copyright infringement
Widdershins
"HOW DOES IT SERVE YOU TO TELL YOU OF YOUR OUT OF INTEGRITY YOU????" --Just one more Eddieeeeeee Kookfart (tm)
anonym™
Suzyqyou wrote:
>
> >
> >>Subject: Ed RIPS OFF another female
> >>Path: lobby!newstf02.news.aol.com!audrey03.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
> >>From: suzy...@aol.com (Suzyqyou)
> >>Newsgroups: alt.astrology
> >>Lines: 24
> >>NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder06.news.aol.com
> >>X-Admin: ne...@aol.com
> >>Date: 17 Aug 1999 03:51:56 GMT
> >>Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
> Apology accepted! It takes a wise person to admit they were wrong, Lili.
> Thank you for your kind words.
God I love these particular two of my Wives.
But Delores was still the best.
anonym™
Edmond H. Wollmann, convicted in San Diego on 6/28/98 of a misdemeanor
(PC 555- Unlawful Entry), fined, and placed on probation, July 1999
Winner of the Victor von Frankenstein Wierd Science, Bobo, Looney
Maroon, (SIX time Looney Maroon Winner!), Tar & Feathers, and Bolo
Bullis Foam Duck Awards, and 1998 Usenet Kook of the Year wrote:
>
> Lili4luv3 wrote:
>
> > No, you said August. You did not have a precise date, liar!
>
> I can't help the fact that you alter your consciousnes so much Lili,
> that does not make ME a liar.
It still makes you a deadbeat motherfucker who relies on loans from
women because his book sales suck shit.
It still makes you the ludicrous dingo-ball who tips valets with FOOD STAMPS.
I am here in a five-star hotel, Edmo.
Lap of luxury.
Earned the wherewithal all on my own.
I never borrowed a dime from a woman.
You insignificant piece of rat shit.
>
> > >>Did you have any astrology to discuss Ms drug addicted abuser?
>
> > Yes, Grand Crossed in fixed charts in thick as brick astrologers has been my
> > topic all day. Why will you never address it?
>
> No astrologer I am aware of has this natally.
You are unaware of many things, including social conventions, ethics and
intelligent business decision-making processes.
anonym™
(PC 555- Unlawful Entry), fined, and placed on probation, July 1999
Winner of the Victor von Frankenstein Wierd Science, Bobo, Looney
Maroon, (SIX time Looney Maroon Winner!), Tar & Feathers, and Bolo
Bullis Foam Duck Awards, and 1998 Usenet Kook of the Year wrote:
>
> CFA wrote:
> >
> > Edmond H. Wollmann wrote:
> >
> > >> Boy, I bet it makes you feel like A MAN to be so verbally haranguing and
> > >> abusive to women, eh?
> > >
> > >I am and will be a MAN because I do my best to be forthright and fair-or
> > >did you idiots NOT READ THE LEWI POST???
> > > SUN IN TAURUS-MOON IN CAPRICORN
> >
> > I think she was referring to your Asc/Pluto conjunction in Leo, square
> > the Sun.
>
> Oh I see, and what do we see in your chart?
A bunch of meaningless lines and symbols, you fraud.
el...@no.spam
Edmond H. Wollmann <arctu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I am and will be a MAN
Then why don't you try *acting* like one for a change? Hint: a man
doesn't act like a whining crybaby.
--
"NONE OF YOUR F___G BUSINESS-GOT THAT BOY????"
-Edmond Wollmann, a$trologer, liar, spammer, hypocrite, censor, Jan. '98 KoTM,
convicted criminal, asshole, bully, kook or the year '99
el...@no.spam
Edmond H. Wollmann <arctu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>More off topic spamming and harassment.
You're "out of integrity" edit of the subject has been repaired. Obviously
you fear what I said. You are showing it with your stupid complaint. How
does it feel to be such a juvenile moron, Edie?
Tom Kerr
>>Edmond H. Wollmann <E...@astroconsulting.com> pumped up his skinny little arms
>>and pummeled Lili with:
<snip>
>>>Are you done editing your 90 page book you have been editing for year
>>>now?
>
>That I take care in my work is not a crime. That my book is 90 pages is also
>no crime. You think books are judged by quantity. If that were true your's
>would be a classic. But sadly, Mr. Kooko, it is QUALITY, not quantity that
>books are judged by. I could have easily cut out half of your book and your
>ideas would have remained the same just not the insane STYLE of repetitive
>nonsensical ranting, not to mention your use of the royal "we" throughout, your
>making up words that don't exist, your saying something in ten pages that would
>easily be understood in ten lines. But you didn't like that, did you? You
>couldn't believe that even though I have published things and you had not, I
>might know a thing or two about writing, huh buddy?
Tell you what, Lili. Just to please Ed and his rather odd notion of what a
book is, I suggest you do the following:
1) Put 14 indexes in your book.
2) Make sure the last index is simply a collection of all the other indexes.
3) Include mistakes in the indexes, so you can never find the relavant page.
4) Write a huge acknowledgement section that includes Jesus Christ, Buddha,
the Moody Blues, vincent van Gogh, Albert Einstein, Gandhi, Carl Sagan,
Kepler, Plato etc.
5) Write a long and incoherent introduction that includes contradictions. I
suggest including "Much of what is written in these texts is fact", and then
only a few lines further on, write "I in no way ask that it [Ed's book] be
regarded as any sort of truth or fact".
6) Hyphenate words frequently.
7) Include some pictures that are both plagiarized and have little bearing to
the text.
8) Write the book using a large font.
9) Repeat yourself several times.
and
10) Make sure it has plenty of "Truly Beautiful Paintings", just like DAN
thinks it does.
I'm sure you'll get up to 500 pages very quickly.
<snip>
Suzyqyou
Susan
>
>
>
>
>
Suzyqyou
>It still makes you the ludicrous dingo-ball who tips valets with FOOD STAMPS.
>
That, I swear, is one of the most pathetically FUNNY things I've ever heard!!!
Richest and most successful man in the world, eh, Wollmann???
Susan
Beep
wrote:
>
>Edmond H. Wollmann, convicted in San Diego on 6/28/98 of a misdemeanor
>(PC 555- Unlawful Entry), fined, and placed on probation, July 1999
>Winner of the Victor von Frankenstein Wierd Science, Bobo, Looney
>Maroon, (SIX time Looney Maroon Winner!), Tar & Feathers, and Bolo
>Bullis Foam Duck Awards, and 1998 Usenet Kook of the Year wrote:
>>
>> Lili4luv3 wrote:
>>
>> > No, you said August. You did not have a precise date, liar!
>>
>> I can't help the fact that you alter your consciousnes so much Lili,
>> that does not make ME a liar.
>
>It still makes you a deadbeat motherfucker who relies on loans from
>women because his book sales suck shit.
>
>It still makes you the ludicrous dingo-ball who tips valets with FOOD STAMPS.
>
>I am here in a five-star hotel, Edmo.
Sounds lovely!
Have a good time :)
Pam
vacationing vicariously
new email address:
beep at west dot net
Rheumatic Disease Web Site
http://www.silcom.com/~sblc
Marsha
>
> Edmond H. Wollmann wrote:
>
> >> Boy, I bet it makes you feel like A MAN to be so verbally haranguing and
> >> abusive to women, eh?
> >
> >I am and will be a MAN because I do my best to be forthright and fair-or
> >did you idiots NOT READ THE LEWI POST???
> > SUN IN TAURUS-MOON IN CAPRICORN
>
> I think she was referring to your Asc/Pluto conjunction in Leo, square
> the Sun.
>
> >me privately, or can see their deceptive spin going out of control
> >perhaps DESERVE IT???
>
>
> Didn't Marsha go nuts on me because she thought I was saying THE SAME
> FUCKING THING?
Did I?
OK, Mr. Space Cadet, let's see if I can find the parallels here. I
haven't had that kind of intimate relationship with you or anyone else
here. I haven't gotten angry and posted personal information because I
gave or loaned someone money and then regretted it.
I have not joined in and supported statements by an ANONYMOUS person who
was attacking another woman with obscenities and lies because they liked
someone I didn't, as anonym has attacked me (and Lili in the past),
which Kat did supporting anonym's attacks of me--this I think is what
you are referring to?
There are no parallels.
You are trying to hurt me by twisting things again so others will join
in and attack me, and I think it's because you have some problem and
enjoy watching others be abused. Can't you see how ridiculous and
disgusting your friends, these "gargoyles" are? Does it make you feel
better about yourself because you have these kinds of people as friends?
Or is it just the numbers that count with you?
This is a personal relationship between two people.
But, are you referring to my discussions with you where you always try
to lead the conversation down the same negative path--towards abuse? You
seem to believe that certain aspects mean a person has been abused, or
something to that effect. From what you've said, you seem to have a lot
of contact with mentally/emotionally disturbed people and you treat
everyone as if they are. I don't. I treat people as if they are
well-adjusted and "normal" people who sometimes have problems, which has
been my experience throughout my life and avoid anyone that doesn't seem
that way to me. I'm not a counselor. You are. Go counsel someone who
wants your help. Maybe you are good at it in that type of situation.
> HEY MARSHA. TALK TO ME ABOUT ED'S INTEGRITY AND COMPASSION.
I've done that, haven't I? You want me to repost something?
I have no right to judge either of them on their relationship with each
other, and decide who is right and who is wrong!
You want my opinion on the apparent relationship between Ed and Lili?
OK, I'll give it to you.
1. It looked to me like Lili felt hurt, because she was angry and posted
things to get back at Ed.
2. Ed got angry because of this, and posted things to get back at her.
etc. etc.
3. Others got involved in taking sides, meddling in their relationship.
4. My opinion is that I would have rather not seen any of it in public.
It could have all been taken care of privately.
5. I do NOT know the complete story. Only they do.
6. I'm sure they are both compassionate and have integrity when at
their best.
7. I do know that Ed is still being a friend to Lili.
8. For all I know, they could be doing this for excitement and they
kiss and make up at the end of the day!
9. If someone doesn't pay back a loan, take them to court--and make
sure it's in writing. Public display is not an efficient way to use
energy to get back money owed. Leads me to believe it's not the money
that's the problem. It's the excuse--for what I don't know.
> Oh, I know. As long as he's not doing it to YOU, everything's okay,
> right?
As long as it's a personal relationship between two other people, it's
not my right to get involved with any judgments publically. If people
in a relationship ask me my opinion privately, I try to be objective and
see both sides.
If I were to feel hurt and be angry in *my* personal relationship, and
do or say something to "get back" at my husband, and whether or not I
felt I deserved it, he may feel hurt by my words and say something to
"get back" at me, which *he* thinks I deserve. It happens in most
relationships at times. But I have *never* wanted anyone else to become
involved in it, unless I needed an objective observer to help me see
things more clearly, *hoping* that they would help me to see *his* point
of view so things could be worked out. We don't get into that kind of
disagreement anymore. I am more rational about things than I used to be
and can't even imagine anything he could do that would "cause" me to
lash out with irrational words.
When I have had other relationships before I was married, and decided I
thought the guy was a jerk or whatever, I just cut my losses and left.
With two words. And I didn't care what anyone else thought (others were
around, they all stayed out of it like normal people do), or try to get
sympathy from others, because he wasn't who I wanted him to be to me.
He later took some and damaged some of my personal belongings, and this
made me feel sad because I didn't understand why he would want to hurt
me, if he had really cared for me at one time. Oh well.
Here is what I don't understand--hating someone so much that you
previously cared for, that you want to "punish" them publically!
Marsha
PS: Yes, there are two emails. Probably just empty, used by some
mentally ill person to scare me, but they need to be taken seriously
anyway. That's why I'm not posting them.
Marsha
>
> >There are no parallels.
>
> You're right.
So then it is not "THE SAME FUCKING THING" as you said above.
> >You are trying to hurt me by twisting things again so others will join
> >in and attack me,
>
> And you either didn't understand or didn't believe me when I said I
> was warning you to stay out FOR YOUR PROTECTION.
Right. I didn't understand it that way. And I don't believe you now.
> But then, you've made it clear you WILL express your support of Ed,
> regardless. Your choice. I'll shut up about it.
>
> >and I think it's because you have some problem and
> >enjoy watching others be abused.
>
> And you don't understand and/or trust my motives.
Definitely the latter, possibly the former.
> >Can't you see how ridiculous and
> >disgusting your friends, these "gargoyles" are?
>
> I could say the same about you/Ed.
But not for the same reasons I say it.
> Is this any different than your "friendship" with him?
Yes, I think so. Their intentions here totally appear to be to hurt
people. Me for one.
> You maintain
> support for someone whose actions (I hope) you don't always agree
> with.
>
> >Does it make you feel
> >better about yourself because you have these kinds of people as friends?
>
> "Sometimes they're funny, and sometimes they hurt".
You forgot to add intentionally.
> If I eliminated all the friendships I had with people who weren't
> always clear, I wouldn't have any friends. How about you?
I'm selective about who is my friend. Someone can "act" nice and be an
enemy, and vice versa. Honesty is most important to me between
friends.
> >Or is it just the numbers that count with you?
>
> This isn't the point. The point was how upset you got, thinking I was
> saying you deserved the "abuse" you got here.
Where is the parallel? Do you want me to repeat myself?
I have done nothing but post my beliefs, and ask anonym's ISP to ask him
to stop harassing me--AND I made only ONE phone call to do that. No,
there is no parallel between that and one person in a relationship
thinking/saying another one deserves what is said about them. The main
reason I have been attacked here is because I have a different opinion
of Ed, from what now looks like the majority of posters. What this
tells me is that these are not the kind of people I want to hang out
with and I'm tired of fighting. The only reason I'm replying to you
now, is because at one time I thought you were reasonable.
> Then Ed flat out says it- in effect, blaming the victim for their
> treatment.
Gee, I seem to remember you saying there is no such thing as a victim.
> You don't see any irony/conflict here?
Sure do, with your statements.
> >This is a personal relationship between two people.
> >
> >But, are you referring to my discussions with you where you always try
> >to lead the conversation down the same negative path--towards abuse?
>
> AWAY from abuse, Marsha. AWAY. I was trying to warn you that you were
> getting ready to get slammed. But you either didn't want to hear it or
> didn't believe it. Sounds like the latter to me.
Sounded like a threat to me. Which panned out.
> >You
> >seem to believe that certain aspects mean a person has been abused, or
> >something to that effect.
>
> It does. Most people have been at least emotionally abused, in my
> experience. How about you? Got any hard aspects from the outer four
> planets? Been in any abusive situations?
Nothing that I want to wallow in and cry about and get sympathy for.
> >From what you've said, you seem to have a lot
> >of contact with mentally/emotionally disturbed people and you treat
> >everyone as if they are.
>
> In minor- and sometimes major- ways, we all are.
Well, here seems to be the problem. We haven't defined at what level
each one of us draws the line for abuse--or even in what direction. If
a person feels abused, does that necessarily mean that another person is
abusing them? I think the laws are a good measuring stick. Which is
something that USENET seems to be immune from, but I think it will be
brought to more like real life.
> It can help relieve
> the psychic pressure to also look at it in those terms.
In one conversation with you, you tried to tell me that my daughter was
abused because of something in her chart. She wasn't and isn't, but she
has developed and implemented and works in a program that empowers (her
word) homeless, drug-addicted women that HAVE been abused and used by
men for their own purposes--prostitution, etc. and women that stay in
abusive relationships because they are not financially able to support
themselves. These are the closest thing I can see to victims who have
been abused. And, while discussing this, another of your friends
defended you, saying that she was getting some sick vicarious pleasure
from talking to these people.
As I told you before, she at one time thought she was abused because she
was not allowed to watch all the TV she wanted to. So, no everyone is
not abused.
> Otherwise, I assume people are doing and getting what they want.
If they say so.
> >I don't. I treat people as if they are
> >well-adjusted and "normal" people who sometimes have problems, which has
> >been my experience throughout my life and avoid anyone that doesn't seem
> >that way to me.
>
> I think we basically agree on this, though you might be overlooking
> important signals from those around you.
Who? My family and friends? Hardly. Everything is pretty obvious. I
make a point of bringing things up if I notice any signals, because
ignoring it can only lead to bigger problems.
> >I'm not a counselor. You are. Go counsel someone who
> >wants your help. Maybe you are good at it in that type of situation.
> >
> >> HEY MARSHA. TALK TO ME ABOUT ED'S INTEGRITY AND COMPASSION.
> >
> >I've done that, haven't I? You want me to repost something?
>
> Yes, I know Ed has been helpful to you. I'm glad for you.
> Unfortunately, most people here haven't had your experience.
And whose responsibility is that? Mine?
> >I have no right to judge either of them on their relationship with each
> >other, and decide who is right and who is wrong!
>
> You don't see any irony here? Ed blaming the victim?
Sorry, I don't consider Lili a victim.
> I don't care if
> you make Ed wrong or not, but at least acknowledge that he's typically
> abusive to most people.
You first. What about anonym to me (and Lili previously).
> >You want my opinion on the apparent relationship between Ed and Lili?
>
> No.
Oooops. Too late.
> >OK, I'll give it to you.
> >
> >1. It looked to me like Lili felt hurt, because she was angry and posted
> >things to get back at Ed.
>
> I wonder what would provoke that?
Who cares? It's none of my business.
> >2. Ed got angry because of this, and posted things to get back at her.
> >
> >etc. etc.
>
> Yep. It also looks like he's been basically unwilling to own his
> "co-creation" in that experience.
If he has asked you to counsel him on this, you should be discussing it
with him, not me.
> >3. Others got involved in taking sides, meddling in their relationship.
>
> It's a public forum, dear.
I choose not to get involved in others' personal relationships unless
they ask me personally and privately, and then I try to be objective and
fair, no matter what I think of either of them personally.
> >4. My opinion is that I would have rather not seen any of it in public.
> >It could have all been taken care of privately.
>
> That's our Edmo. Just can't keep a secret, can he?
You obviously are not even trying to be reasonable.
> >5. I do NOT know the complete story. Only they do.
> >
> >6. I'm sure they are both compassionate and have integrity when at
> >their best.
> >
> >7. I do know that Ed is still being a friend to Lili.
>
> Oh? Based on what?
Not for me to say.
> >8. For all I know, they could be doing this for excitement and they
> >kiss and make up at the end of the day!
>
> I see no evidence of that at all.
My point exactly. None of us really know the situtation.
> >9. If someone doesn't pay back a loan, take them to court--and make
> >sure it's in writing. Public display is not an efficient way to use
> >energy to get back money owed. Leads me to believe it's not the money
> >that's the problem. It's the excuse--for what I don't know.
>
> Maybe for how each felt they were treated by the other?
Ask them, if you'd like an answer.
> GOOD QUESTION. And, exactly the one I raised about Ed's treatment of
> Lili and Susan. Does that make sense?
And how about vice versa?
> >Marsha
> >
> >PS: Yes, there are two emails. Probably just empty, used by some
> >mentally ill person to scare me, but they need to be taken seriously
> >anyway. That's why I'm not posting them.
>
> Your choice. I haven't expressed an opinion one way or another about
> that.
You asked "Two?" in another post. I elaborated, because that's what I
do.
So, go ahead tear this apart if you like. I have customers I have been
neglecting and I don't want to look back, since again I have not
defended the "Victim Du Jour" by gargoylar opinion.
Marsha
Edmond H. Wollmann
SNIP!
Was your chart available for review anywhere so I can look at it? I
would find it interesting.
Come, let us engage.
Edmond H. Wollmann
>
> anonym wrote:
>
> >It still makes you the ludicrous dingo-ball who tips valets with FOOD STAMPS.
> >
LILI is the one who had food stamps, not me.
> Richest and most successful man in the world, eh, Wollmann???
> Susan
Yes, meaning richest in spirit and soul. I have less doubt about it
everyday.
Did you have any astrology to discuss yet after 3 years of stalking me?
wildearth
Despite the fact that Ed's usenet behavior is despicable, and that I fail to
understand her unconditional support of it, Marsha is fundamentally correct.
She should be permitted to support him without fear of having her personal
information posted. It doesn't appear that Marsha is a danger to anyone, as
is Ed, so why retaliate in such an excessive way.
Whoever posted her personal information to usenet without her consent, has
done so in an attempt to [emotionally] victimize her. Perhaps it was
information that could be found on her website, but clearly it was posted in
an attempt to intimidate her. Certainly, if this was not the case, it would
never have been posted. In this way, it is analogous to Ed's *intent* when
he posts private information.
Furthermore, even if the info was on her site, the context in which one's
address appears can be relevant to the harassment it invites, particularly
during a flame war where the invite for harassment is implicit.
It appears that even the most well intentioned people have lapses in
judgment.
As far as the hurtful statements, Marsha, it is difficult for me to even
entertain the possibility that the flames of strangers on usenet would be
*that* upsetting to you. Whether you are accustomed to these types of
responses or not, you need to consider the forum and it's intrinsic lack of
value in RL. (except for posting addresses, that is) If you are that
sensitive to criticism and flaming, then perhaps a ng is not the type of
forum for you.
WildE
Edmond H. Wollmann
> Despite the fact that Ed's usenet behavior is despicable, and that I fail to
> understand her unconditional support of it, Marsha is fundamentally correct.
> She should be permitted to support him without fear of having her personal
> information posted. It doesn't appear that Marsha is a danger to anyone, as
> is Ed, so why retaliate in such an excessive way.
How am I a danger if you stop abusing me? I am NOT a danger to anyone
who has the good sense to not abuse me as YOU have.
> Whoever posted her personal information to usenet without her consent, has
> done so in an attempt to [emotionally] victimize her. Perhaps it was
> information that could be found on her website, but clearly it was posted in
> an attempt to intimidate her.
What about me? And my son? My Father, my deceased mother? etc. etc. YOU
ARE DISPICABLE and I shall make it my personal goal to remove you if any
abuse issues forth from you to me or any one else again, got that?
>Certainly, if this was not the case, it would
> never have been posted. In this way, it is analogous to Ed's *intent* when
> he posts private information.
I HAVE POSTED NO ONES personal information who did not START the
personal information scenario first-YOUR SPINNING WILL STOP!
> Furthermore, even if the info was on her site, the context in which one's
> address appears can be relevant to the harassment it invites, particularly
> during a flame war where the invite for harassment is implicit.
There is never good reason to harass any one you idiot.
> It appears that even the most well intentioned people have lapses in
> judgment.
Obviously you have ill intent.
> As far as the hurtful statements, Marsha, it is difficult for me to even
> entertain the possibility that the flames of strangers on usenet would be
> *that* upsetting to you.
SNIP!
You have proven your intent and you shall not continue your abuse
unhampered, got that? Or do you think posting that my "dick is as small
as a tick's" has some relavance to astrology, good sense and netiquette?
Besides the fact that it is incorrect:-))
Did you have any astrology to discuss? I never see you post any, only
statements about me like that above. Are you male or female? And how
would you know the size of my penis to begin with?
thw...@thwipt-thwopt.com
>Bob Officer wrote:
>>
>> On 17 Aug 1999 16:48:31 GMT, in alt.astrology lili...@aol.com
>> (Lili4luv3) wrote:
>>
>> >> ehwol...@aol.com (EHWollmann)
>> >
>> >wrote:>I have ripped off no one, Lili Divita and I had a business agreement,
>> >that
>> >>agreement is not complete until the 31st of this month (August 1999) when it
>> >>will be completely and properly completed.
>> >
>> >We had no "business deal". You asked to borrow a grand and said you'd pay me
>> >back in Aug.
>
>The 31st, you will be paid in full. Now what astrology did you have to
>discuss Ms Drug abuser?
Heh - here come the chickens to roost...
aaaayyyyyiiiiiiiiiiieeeeeeeeeeeee!
plop
THWIPT: Cahooter#38...W.W.A.S. #6 http://www.smbtech.com/ed/
"I accidentally spammed." "I answered in non-pretyped form. TWICE."
- Edmond Wollman, netkook
anonym™
>
> On Wed, 18 Aug 1999 18:57:56 -0400, "wildearth" <wild...@erols.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Despite the fact that Ed's usenet behavior is despicable, and that I fail to
> >understand her unconditional support of it, Marsha is fundamentally correct.
> >She should be permitted to support him without fear of having her personal
> >information posted.
>
>
Me, too.
I've lately only posted it when Ed posts something that he shouldn't post.
Marsha is of course perfectly entitled to post in support of Ed.
Posting the information that was and is public information is not
harassing her, it's simply something she doesn't like, and Ed doesn't like.
Well, I don't like it when Ed does certain things either, so I pick
something that he doesn't like when he does that.
She manages to post in spite of that information being posted, just as
Rick Ellis does in spite of his information being posted.
Maybe if Marsha really doesn't like it she can talk Ed into not posting
the stuff I don't like.
I really don't see why I am the only one who should have to settle for
seeing things posted I don't like.
Brrr. The entire situation is positively KALFSBEEKIAN!
wildearth
el...@no.spam wrote in message ...
>In article <37cf53d0...@news.west.net>,
>Beep <be...@dontsendhere.com> wrote:
>
>>Why do you care what sex s-he is?
>
>He needs a new scanner?
ROTFLMFAO!
WildE
anonym™
>
SNIP!
A shitload of Kalfsbeekian whining
wildearth
Edmond H. Wollmann wrote in message <37BB3F...@bigfoot.com>...
>wildearth wrote:
>
>> Despite the fact that Ed's usenet behavior is despicable, and that I fail
to
>> understand her unconditional support of it, Marsha is fundamentally
correct.
>> She should be permitted to support him without fear of having her
personal
as
>> is Ed, so why retaliate in such an excessive way.
>
>How am I a danger if you stop abusing me?
You send spurious complaints to ISP's regardless of whether someone says
something about you or not. So, you make it worth everyone's while. It's
like this Ed: if someone is going to be punished regardless of their
behavior, people will tend to display unsavory behavior to at least make the
punishment worthwhile.
I am NOT a danger to anyone
>who has the good sense to not abuse me as YOU have.
I have not abused you. But think what you like.
>> Whoever posted her personal information to usenet without her consent,
has
>> done so in an attempt to [emotionally] victimize her. Perhaps it was
>> information that could be found on her website, but clearly it was posted
in
>> an attempt to intimidate her.
>
>What about me? And my son? My Father, my deceased mother? etc. etc. <
I agree that this isn't nice, but how can you take the insults of strangers
so seriously? They are only as meaningful as YOU allow them to be.
<YOU
>ARE DISPICABLE
Thank you. And you are an abusive nutcase.
and I shall make it my personal goal to remove you if any
>abuse issues forth from you to me or any one else again, got that?
Try me, bud. Just try me.
>>Certainly, if this was not the case, it would
>> never have been posted. In this way, it is analogous to Ed's *intent*
when
>> he posts private information.
>
>I HAVE POSTED NO ONES personal information who did not START the
>personal information scenario first-YOUR SPINNING WILL STOP!
ROFLMFAO. Is this the first grader's "but, but, he started it first, mom"
argument? Can I find this tactic in a book on logic? IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO
STARTED FIRST, SON. Wipe your snotty nose, stop whining and BE THE BIGGER
PERSON AND WALK AWAY.
>> Furthermore, even if the info was on her site, the context in which one's
>> address appears can be relevant to the harassment it invites,
particularly
>> during a flame war where the invite for harassment is implicit.
>
>There is never good reason to harass any one you idiot.
Your reading comprehension and misguided conclusion leaves a lot to be
desired.
>> It appears that even the most well intentioned people have lapses in
>> judgment.
>
>Obviously you have ill intent.
Obvious to who? You?
>
>> As far as the hurtful statements, Marsha, it is difficult for me to even
>> entertain the possibility that the flames of strangers on usenet would be
>> *that* upsetting to you.
>
>SNIP!
>You have proven your intent and you shall not continue your abuse
>unhampered, got that?
GET THIS: FUCK OFF.
Or do you think posting that my "dick is as small
>as a tick's"
That was not my exact assessment. But close enough.
has some relavance to astrology,
I suppose it could. Are there any planets that rule dick size?
good sense and netiquette?
PUH-LEEZE
>Besides the fact that it is incorrect:-))
Are you truly this obtuse? For all I know, your dick could be the length of
a god damn football field. ;-p There, is your masculinity now fully
restored? Sheesh.
>Did you have any astrology to discuss?
Yes. Do you suspect that your taurean influence impedes your ability to be
flexible and accepting of others?
I never see you post any,
That's right. And guess what? I DON'T HAVE TO. This is an unmoderated
newsgroup.
only
>statements about me like that above. Are you male or female?
What difference does it make to you? I swear it, I don't have a scanner.
And how
>would you know the size of my penis to begin with?
Heh.
WildE
anonym™
(PC 555- Unlawful Entry), fined, and placed on probation, July 1999
Winner of the Victor von Frankenstein Wierd Science, Bobo, Looney
Maroon, (SIX time Looney Maroon Winner!), Tar & Feathers, and Bolo
Bullis Foam Duck Awards, and 1998 Usenet Kook of the Year wrote:
>
> SNIP!
>
> Was your chart available for review anywhere so I can look at it? I
> would find it interesting.
> Come, let us engage.
Is that what you said to Susan as you donned her panties?
anonym™
>
> <auk added>
>
> In article <37BB27...@bigfoot.com>, Edmond_...@bigfoot.com wrote:
> >Suzyqyou wrote:
> >>
> >> anonym wrote:
> >>
> >> >It still makes you the ludicrous dingo-ball who tips valets with FOOD
> > STAMPS.
> >> >
> >> That, I swear, is one of the most pathetically FUNNY things I've ever
> > heard!!!
> >
> >LILI is the one who had food stamps, not me.
> >
>
To complete his humiliation of her?
anonym™
>
> wildearth wrote:
>
> > Despite the fact that Ed's usenet behavior is
>
> that he has put up with,
It's unbelievable to others the crap he (and you) put out.
> AND the times he has repeatedly given people
> the benefit of the doubt, forgotten their attacks on him,
Oh, bullshit.
Edmo is the KING of grudges, you moron!
>and has
> discussed their charts or astrology with them as if nothing previously
> had happened!
Yeah, he totaly forgets he attacked and insulted them and acts like he
doesn't owe them an apology!
>I don't think I have ever known anyone else who is so
> willing to forgive.
BWAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Really, bitch?
Let's see him forgive Lili!
Let's see him forgive Suzy!
Let's see him forgive me!
Let's see him forgive ALL of the poeple he lists on his paranoia page!
BWAHAHAH!
What a stupid, fucked-up moron you are.
>
> He has a LOT to offer people
Yes, spam, lies, cancelled accounts, censored posts, paranoia, bad
grammar, unpaid debts, threats, harassment...a real generous guy.
>and he is kind.
Kind of evil:
"EAT SHIT YOU UGLY BITCH!!!!!!"
"what do you think I am an idiot?"
"I accidentally spammed"
"Follow ups set where I want them and you'll take them."
"now get out and shut up."
"I cannot enjoy usenet isn't there SOMEONE who can control this crap!?"
"I was a hoodlum biker for years"
"You spin doctoring piece of crap"
"You are off topic, complaints sent. No one needs you trying to control
usenet."
"SNIP! Of garbage from young punk wet behind the ears."
"And you are full of crap."
"I honor my anger because it is correct."
"Snipped your 196th spam of you fucking URL I will never go to and no one
gives a shit about."
"you are ugly as fuck inside and out."
"Wait till we meet in person ass hole I'll rip you a new one then too."
"I did not you lying B$#%#@#%#!"
"You are a pile of garbage."
"Its irrelevant, I am a professional astrologer."
"I have been the man in many women's lives."
"I have no problems, only solutions."
"when do scum deserve any truth"
"THE NUMBER-IIIIIIIIISSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
IIIIIIIIIIRRRRRREEEEEELLLLLLLEEEEEEVVVVVVVAAAAAANNNNNNTTTTT."
"Then come back and I will still laugh at you."
"Really Rick, you are the lowest waste of carbon molecules I think
I have ever run across."
"And I said rip you a new one in person as I have on usenet-I didn't say
what."
"And I have already debunked the idea that I wear underware on any part of
my body."
"I don't sell out my awareness and knowlege FOR money."
"You have made a life enemy, aren't you proud of yourself?"
"I can give nothing"
"8000 complaints lined up."
"WRONG YOU LYING SON OF A BITCH!!!"
"GGGGTGEEEETTTT IIIIITTTTT OOOOUUUUTTT!!!!!"
"Complaintsd sent for your threats, and your death threats to me on
usenet."
"[sic]Its not me with OCD Ricky-its you spinics."
"And 21 dollars for a book with this much info and 500 pages is a steal."
"You are a brown nosing and gutless person who seems to have no
principles or guide by which they live-other than agreeing with
everyone."
"Why must I endure this on usenet while anyone else cries in a second
for not nearly the abuse I get?"
"I am a coward and scared to death of spinics."
"First day on campus! AAAAAiiiiiiieeeeee! 30,000 femininas! So little
time!!!!"
"I will straighten out your delusions."
"Pam is a slime for supporting anonym"
"I WILL NWEVER APOLOGIZE AS AN ASTROLOGER- FOR DEFENDING AN ASTROLOGY
GROUP AGAINST SPAMMING SPIN DOCTORING BIGOTS."
"Comprende Mr Out of integrity?"
"Why do you leave out the correct attributions?"
"Duh gee bosth, uhhh no!"
"Wrong, it is the theory that determines what we observe."
"You can walk into any store and buy aliens"
"Duh!"
"I don't need a transvestite telling me how to run astrology groups."
"I am warning you spinic-you are fast becoming enemy #1-get out or post
rationally bigot."
"Actually, I am quite respected and well liked."
"Oh, I see, because I post on usenet I have lost all constitutional and
legal, and natural human rights?"
"I only respond disruptively to disruptive posts off topic by spinics"
"I have more humor in my little Mercury in Gemini finger than you and
these abusers have ever seen."
"Because the universe is so balanced it is inherently positive."
"I am unlike anyone you have ever met and ever will-don't pigeon hole me
you son of a bitch!" EHW
"Complaints will continue into infinity-and increase."
"Wow another immature ignoamous, why couldn't you explain your point first
before I refute it?"
"Truth, truth!! Warning spinics run for your lives!"
"I will only respond to you and your lack of integrity by sending
complaints for your abuse from every mailbox I can get."
"You have demonstrated yourself to be vile and negative."
"LYING DISINGENOUS ABUSER"
"Yes I do, hundreds of them! Bwahahahahahahah!!!"
"you are just a spin doctor who makes no noise"
"I have been where you are long ago."
"Have you ever had sex or even a woman Ricky?"
"Are you really so stupid and insulting?"
"Orion is a star."
"Because ISPs rake in money like crazy and then UNFAIRLY kill someone's
account just because a bunch of bigots demand it to be so."
"The liars and abusers seek to defame with more lies."
"The planets are circular"
"Science doesn't do anything."
"Who cares? I go to a University, I have access to MORE "proported
evidence" than you it is IRRELEVENT-it is not done correctly and it will
be very difficult to prove a subject that reflects what intelligent
people know-that the whole organizes the parts-not vice versa."
"DISCOVERY is for a criminal case idiot"
"Your client continues to stalk, harass, belittle, abuse and denigrate.
Please take action."
"Why don't you find another group for your mindless one liners?"
"She is the shitball."
"Whoopdiedoodledaday! Cynics can post all fucking year-but let me post
a couple of remarks and whooooooaaaa!"
"the difference between me nd you idiots is that I can get in a bar brawl
(I was a hoodlum biker for>years) down a 5th of Tequlia, kick the fuck
out of you, talk like this-AND STILL post something of value, counsel
persons and meitate on nature, and do a piece of art to find center."
"We will go on forever, you and I, and you sir, will lose."
"Astrology is not based on Constellations."
"I see Rick Ellis illegally canceled it."
"I saw it as straining at gnats and not worthy of punishment."
"Forwarded to the state attorney general and my congressman. You screwed
up this time buddy, this is against the law."
"I will never stop"
"I don't have to be on topic here"
"Don't confuse me with the facts. I have groupies."
"Abuser kicked off Pacbell.net, now spamming from Southwest Bell.net."
"I know you are but what am I?"
"Perhaps if you could stop judging me for a while and listen to what I
say, you might find I AM walking the talk."
"You need to see a chirpractic perspective adjuster bud."
When you stop pimping whores, beating your wife, abusing drugs, and
are not forging headers."
"She is the shitball"--
All previous posts courtesy of the "kind" Ed Wollmann.
?While reading his replies
> I've noticed posts where he could have really been nasty to "get back"
> at the person,
He was.
See above, you stupid bitch.
> things I may not have resisted had I been replying
> because they were obvious, but he doesn't do that,
Because he;s not quick enough and has far too many complaints to send.
> he lets it go and
> continues with positive explanations.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
>(I have tried to learn this from
> him)
You got his system DOWN, baby!
>And, he defends himself when he's attacked.
Not very well.
> What do people expect?
Him and you to continue to be bumbling goons.
> Can you even imagine what it would be like to be treated like he has
> been?
I imagine he would feel deserving if he wasn't such a sociopath.
>
> ...
>
> > Whoever posted her personal information to usenet without her consent, ...
> > Perhaps it was
> > information that could be found on her website,
>
> It was not found there.
No, it was found on ANOTHER public website.
> ...
> > Furthermore, even if the info was on her site
>
> It wasn't
What part of "even if" do you not comprehend, you stupid bitch?
> ...
>
> > As far as the hurtful statements, Marsha, it is difficult for me to even
> > entertain the possibility that the flames of strangers on usenet would be
> > *that* upsetting to you.
>
> You could always try it and see what it feels like, and then maybe you
> could entertain the possibility. And it can be very upsetting to some
> people.
So why do you do it?
You told a seriously physically ill person to stick something up her ass.
Why?
>
> But what is really sad, is the fact that people continue to not just
> tolerate it, but to escalate it and encourage it. The intentions are
> there to hurt, obviously, whether the person is actually hurt or not is
> immaterial. And it hurts to see people offensively trying to hurt
> others. I have felt hurt and have lashed back in defense because of
> that.
So, it's okay for you to lash out defensively, but nobody else, and you
and Ed are always on the defensive, while everyone else is on the offensive?
What a disingenuous cunt you are.
>
> > Whether you are accustomed to these types of
> > responses or not, you need to consider the forum and it's intrinsic lack of
> > value in RL. (except for posting addresses, that is) If you are that
> > sensitive to criticism and flaming, then perhaps a ng is not the type of
> > forum for you.
>
> A newsgroup doesn't have to be like that.
Doesn't have to be otherwise, either.
>
> And you have no idea what I need to consider. You have a lot of
> considering to do yourself before you are able to accurately tell me
> what I need to consider.
You should consider what she should consider before you consider telling
her to consider what you are considering.
You Kalfsbeekian twit.
Edmond H. Wollmann
that he trim the headers or cease.
Thanks.
http://public.pacbell.net/dialup/usepolicy.html#news
1) Messages posted to newsgroups must comply with the written charters
or FAQs for those newsgroups. You are responsible for determining the
policies of a given newsgroup before posting to it.
2) You may not post messages for the purpose of threatening, harassing
or intimidating others. You may not post messages which infringe on
personal or property rights of others (privacy rights or copyrights, for
example).
harass=annoy by repeated attacks; disturb or torment persistently. Fr
harier-to harry, vex; harer, to set a dog on. To annoy by repeated
attacks or raids. To disturb or bother continually with worries, cares,
or the like; to harry, to pester.
Webster's dictionary
Which part of that does Keith Epstein, Nick Nicolas, Robin Dowd and
Jason Barr not understand? The people responsible for the policy itself!
Your client continues to post in violation of the
alt.astrology.metapsych charter for years now. Please take action.
Thanks
http://www.astroconsulting.com/FAQs/charter.htm
http://www.astroconsulting.com/FAQs/propagan.htm
Your ISP is listed at m y site and all legal action available will be
taken untiol you remove this unbelievable spammer from usenet.
Get it??
Public service and news;
http://www.astroconsulting.com/FAQs/letters.htm
http://www.astroconsulting.com/FAQs/abusive_isps_list.htm
Path:
newshub.sdsu.edu!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!cyclone.swbell.net!typhoon01.swbell.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
Message-ID:
<37BB995A...@pacbell.net>
From:
anonym™ <ano...@pacbell.net>
Organization:
.
X-Mailer:
Mozilla 4.61 (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-Accept-Language:
en
MIME-Version:
1.0
Newsgroups:
alt.astrology, alt.astrology.metapsych,
alt.usenet.kooks
Subject:
Re: Attention Marsha Kalfsbeek: This time you're
more stupid than you've ever been before.
References:
<7pcha3$iol$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
<19990817192620...@ng-cs1.aol.com>
<37B9F8...@yahoo.com>
<37cbf9f1...@news.mindspring.com>
<37BAE3EF...@mindspring.com>
<37bfe445...@news.mindspring.com>
<37BB0B6E...@mindspring.com>
<7pfdhp$kov$1...@autumn.news.rcn.net>
<37BB9260...@mindspring.com>
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
7bit
Lines:
283
Date:
Wed, 18 Aug 1999 22:43:03 -0700
NNTP-Posting-Host:
32.100.133.34
X-Complaints-To:
ab...@swbell.net
X-Trace:
typhoon01.swbell.net 935041456 32.100.133.34
(Wed, 18 Aug 1999 22:44:16 PDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date:
Wed, 18 Aug 1999 22:44:16 PDT
Xref:
newshub.sdsu.edu alt.astrology:298761
alt.astrology.metapsych:44724 alt.usenet.kooks:171637
Marsha Kalfsbeek wrote:
>
> wildearth wrote:
>
> > Despite the fact that Ed's usenet behavior is
>
> I have seen Ed post for 2-1/2 years. It's unbelievable to me the crap
> that he has put up with,
It's unbelievable to others the crap he (and you) put out.
--
Edmond H. Wollmann
>
> <auk added>
>
> In article <37BB27...@bigfoot.com>, Edmond_...@bigfoot.com wrote:
> >Suzyqyou wrote:
> >>
> >> anonym wrote:
> >>
> >> >It still makes you the ludicrous dingo-ball who tips valets with FOOD
> > STAMPS.
> >> >
> >> That, I swear, is one of the most pathetically FUNNY things I've ever
> > heard!!!
> >
> >LILI is the one who had food stamps, not me.
> >
>
> So why get a $1000 loan from someone who needs food stamps?
Because she inherited a trust and doesn't need them? Or do you see alot
of people in Beverly Hills on food stamps?
Did you have any astrology to discuss Mr 3 years of abuse and no
intelluigent ideas to share.
Beep
>
>Despite the fact that Ed's usenet behavior is despicable, and that I fail to
>understand her unconditional support of it, Marsha is fundamentally correct.
>She should be permitted to support him without fear of having her personal
>information posted.
I, of course, agree.
Pam
Beep
<Edmond_...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>wildearth wrote:
>
>> Despite the fact that Ed's usenet behavior is despicable, and that I fail to
>> understand her unconditional support of it, Marsha is fundamentally correct.
>> She should be permitted to support him without fear of having her personal
>> information posted. It doesn't appear that Marsha is a danger to anyone, as
>> is Ed, so why retaliate in such an excessive way.
>
>How am I a danger if you stop abusing me? I am NOT a danger to anyone
>who has the good sense to not abuse me as YOU have.
>
>> Whoever posted her personal information to usenet without her consent, has
>> done so in an attempt to [emotionally] victimize her. Perhaps it was
>> information that could be found on her website, but clearly it was posted in
>> an attempt to intimidate her.
>
>What about me? And my son? My Father, my deceased mother? etc. etc.
I don't like that, either...and I didn't see WildE say that she did...
Beep
<Edmond_...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>Did you have any astrology to discuss? I never see you post any, only
>statements about me like that above. Are you male or female?
Why do you care what sex s-he is?
Pam
el...@no.spam
Edmond H. Wollmann <Edmond_...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>LILI is the one who had food stamps
Why would someone on food stamps loan you $1000?
>not me.
No, you've got those student loans to get you by. Are you planning
to pay them back?
el...@no.spam
>Why do you care what sex s-he is?
He needs a new scanner?
Avital Pilpel
> previously cared for, that you want to "punish" them publically!
Actually, that is perfectly understandable.
It is indeed mean and petty to bear a grudge against an ex-lover just
because things didn't work out. But...
...when you find out that someone you loved had, in fact, cheated you, lived
in your place, lborrowed money from you, and essentially was a perfect
leech;
...when you find out that on top of that he made himself out to be some sort
of succesful professional, and it turned out he was lying;
...when it turns out that on top of all that the man has an ego the size of
a small country and will tolerate no disagreement, argument, or even hints
of doubt about his greatness;
...when all that sinks in, loves turns to hate very quickly, and
*justifiably* so.
It is not at all the same thing as just finding out that you have different
life goals, or different interests, or different personalities, so it won't
work out. It's finding out you were unknowligly living with a deceiving
parasite.
I am not telling you how to run your life or who to associate with, Marsha
(nor am I claiming that you are Ed's girlfriend, by the way.) All I am
saying is that I sincerely hope you didn't loan Ed any money, whatever your
relation is.
We already have the testimony of *two* ex-girlfriends Ed borrowed money from
and were not paid back. One of them obvously never will be; the other was
promised the money by Ed on 8/31/99.
Tell you what, Marsha. Let's make a deal. If Ed does in fact pay Lili back
by 8/31, I'll publically post thanks to him for being a man on this NG and
apologize for thinking he was a complete jerk. I will still think he has a
long way to go, but that he at least has *some* redeeming qualities.
But if he doesn't... will you admit, at least, that lending Ed money is not
a good idea and that Lili and Suzy are justified in their anger?
Tom Kerr
Marsha
> Despite the fact that Ed's usenet behavior is
I have seen Ed post for 2-1/2 years. It's unbelievable to me the crap
that he has put up with, AND the times he has repeatedly given people
the benefit of the doubt, forgotten their attacks on him, and has
discussed their charts or astrology with them as if nothing previously
had happened! I don't think I have ever known anyone else who is so
willing to forgive.
He has a LOT to offer people and he is kind. While reading his replies
I've noticed posts where he could have really been nasty to "get back"
at the person, things I may not have resisted had I been replying
because they were obvious, but he doesn't do that, he lets it go and
continues with positive explanations. (I have tried to learn this from
him) And, he defends himself when he's attacked. What do people expect?
Can you even imagine what it would be like to be treated like he has
been?
...
> Whoever posted her personal information to usenet without her consent, ...
> Perhaps it was
> information that could be found on her website,
It was not found there.
...
> Furthermore, even if the info was on her site
It wasn't
...
> As far as the hurtful statements, Marsha, it is difficult for me to even
> entertain the possibility that the flames of strangers on usenet would be
> *that* upsetting to you.
You could always try it and see what it feels like, and then maybe you
could entertain the possibility. And it can be very upsetting to some
people.
But what is really sad, is the fact that people continue to not just
tolerate it, but to escalate it and encourage it. The intentions are
there to hurt, obviously, whether the person is actually hurt or not is
immaterial. And it hurts to see people offensively trying to hurt
others. I have felt hurt and have lashed back in defense because of
that.
> Whether you are accustomed to these types of
> responses or not, you need to consider the forum and it's intrinsic lack of
> value in RL. (except for posting addresses, that is) If you are that
> sensitive to criticism and flaming, then perhaps a ng is not the type of
> forum for you.
A newsgroup doesn't have to be like that.
And you have no idea what I need to consider. You have a lot of
considering to do yourself before you are able to accurately tell me
what I need to consider.
> WildE
Marsha
Edmond H. Wollmann
That was very nice of you Marsha, thank you:-)
Tom Kerr
>of people in Beverly Hills on food stamps?
I don't know. I haven't been there before. Maybe I should fly over there this
weekend and ask the valet parkers?
>Did you have any astrology to discuss Mr 3 years of abuse and no
>intelluigent ideas to share.
You really are clueless, aren't you?
Since you chickened out of my challenge to you to post the Deja URLs of
Rhianna deliberately adding metapsych to the headers, perhaps you could try
this much simpler challenge?
Post a Deja URL that points to a post of mine from 3 years ago.
No, tell you what, let's make it even easier. Post one from *two* years ago.
Go on, I dare you, you lying deadbeat.
As for "intelluigent" ideas, perhaps you ought to go back and answer the
questions I asked you about your totally out-of-date Moon formation theory.
You ran away last time.
Tom Kerr
<snip>
>James Stewart was KNOWN for his integrity.
>
I thought you considered him to be a dictator?
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=352558317&fmt=text
....
From: Edmond Wollmann <arctu...@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: dictatorship indications?
Date: 12 May 1998 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <355860...@earthlink.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
References: <355632...@ix.netcom.com>
<355a5d81...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Organization: Astrological Consulting/Altair Publications SAN 299-5603
Mime-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: arctu...@earthlink.net
Newsgroups: alt.astrology,alt.astrology.metapsych,alt.astrology.mundane
Roger L. Satterlee wrote:
> Being that I have natal Moon in Capricorn my favorite
> dictators are Adolph Hitler, Napoleon Bonaparte, and Abraham
> Lincoln...:)
Mine are James Stewart and George Washington.
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 1998 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
...
Ken Anglesea
<Edmond_...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>Tom Kerr wrote:
>>
>> <auk added>
>>
>> In article <37BB27...@bigfoot.com>, Edmond_...@bigfoot.com wrote:
>> >Suzyqyou wrote:
>> >>
>> >> anonym wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >It still makes you the ludicrous dingo-ball who tips valets with FOOD
>> > STAMPS.
>> >> >
>> >> That, I swear, is one of the most pathetically FUNNY things I've ever
>> > heard!!!
>> >
>> >LILI is the one who had food stamps, not me.
>> >
>>
>> So why get a $1000 loan from someone who needs food stamps?
>
>Because she inherited a trust and doesn't need them? Or do you see alot
>of people in Beverly Hills on food stamps?
>Did you have any astrology to discuss Mr 3 years of abuse and no
>intelluigent ideas to share.
"intelluigent" ?.
Now remind everyone,you ARE going to school,yes?.
more attempts at censorship replaced.
>Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
>© 1999 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
>Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
Tom Kerr
>Marsha wrote:
<snip>
>> And you have no idea what I need to consider. You have a lot of
>> considering to do yourself before you are able to accurately tell me
>> what I need to consider.
>>
>> > WildE
>>
>> Marsha
>
>That was very nice of you Marsha, thank you:-)
From Ed's paranoia page (http://www.astroconsulting.com/FAQs/propagan.htm):
"She posts repeatedly with nothing more than simple conversation and
superficiality that could be carried on via mail."
Ed, if you're so concerned about simple conversation and superficiality, why
do you do the same thing yourself?
Thomas Hunter
anonym™ wrote in message <37BB7642...@pacbell.net>...
>>
>> >
>> >Despite the fact that Ed's usenet behavior is despicable, and that I fail to
>> >understand her unconditional support of it, Marsha is fundamentally correct.
>> >She should be permitted to support him without fear of having her personal
>> >information posted.
>>
>>
>Me, too.
>
>I've lately only posted it when Ed posts something that he shouldn't post.
Liar.
>
>Marsha is of course perfectly entitled to post in support of Ed.
>
>Posting the information that was and is public information is not
>harassing her,
Yes, it is. All Marsha needs to do is correlate any threatening phone calls or emails
coinciding with your repeated reposting of her personal details. Any court dealing with a
claim of damage against her would find the circumstantial evidence overwhelming.
>it's simply something she doesn't like, and Ed doesn't like.
>
>Well, I don't like it when Ed does certain things either, so I pick
>something that he doesn't like when he does that.
How immature of you.
>
>She manages to post in spite of that information being posted, just as
>Rick Ellis does in spite of his information being posted.
Posting a woman's personal details on usenet can be easily construed as intentional
harassment.
>
>Brrr. The entire situation is positively KALFSBEEKIAN!
Positively FREAKIAN, with regard to you.
Wally Anglesea™
<Edmond_...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
attempt at censorship thwarted.
>Suzyqyou wrote:
>>
>> anonym wrote:
>>
>> >It still makes you the ludicrous dingo-ball who tips valets with FOOD STAMPS.
>> >
>> That, I swear, is one of the most pathetically FUNNY things I've ever heard!!!
>
>LILI is the one who had food stamps, not me.
>
>> Richest and most successful man in the world, eh, Wollmann???
>
>> Susan
>
>Yes, meaning richest in spirit and soul. I have less doubt about it
>everyday.
Pretty narcissistic there ed
Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~wanglese/pebble.htm
Fight spam:
http://www.caube.org.au/
Help find ET:
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu
"needs sugar...." -Socrates
Avital Pilpel
> >
> >Because she inherited a trust and doesn't need them? Or do you see alot
> >of people in Beverly Hills on food stamps?
So taking her money and her food stamps was an act of *universal justice* of
some sort, punishing her for cheating the government?
You know, Ed, you can be very useful to the IRS and to social security. When
they want to punish a particually bad offenders who get free food stamps or
didn't pay their taxes, , they don't need to audit them. They can send you
to live with them instead.
wildearth
Marsha wrote in message <37BB9260...@mindspring.com>...
>wildearth wrote:
>
>> Despite the fact that Ed's usenet behavior is
>
Yes, and so have I.
>It's unbelievable to me the crap
>that he has put up with, AND the times he has repeatedly given people
>the benefit of the doubt, forgotten their attacks on him, and has
>discussed their charts or astrology with them as if nothing previously
>had happened! I don't think I have ever known anyone else who is so
>willing to forgive.
It's painfully obvious that you suffer from the same condition as Ed.
>
>He has a LOT to offer people and he is kind. While reading his replies
>I've noticed posts where he could have really been nasty to "get back"
>at the person, things I may not have resisted had I been replying
>because they were obvious, but he doesn't do that, he lets it go and
>continues with positive explanations. (I have tried to learn this from
>him) And, he defends himself when he's attacked. What do people expect?
>Can you even imagine what it would be like to be treated like he has
>been?
>
He provokes the behavior. The fact that you are blind to this leads me to
believe that something is very definitely wrong with you or that business
and money, once again, have something to do with your bond to Ed.
>> Whoever posted her personal information to usenet without her consent,
...
>> Perhaps it was
>> information that could be found on her website,
>
>It was not found there.
>...
>> Furthermore, even if the info was on her site
>
>It wasn't
>...
>
>> As far as the hurtful statements, Marsha, it is difficult for me to even
>> entertain the possibility that the flames of strangers on usenet would be
>> *that* upsetting to you.
>
>You could always try it and see what it feels like, and then maybe you
>could entertain the possibility. And it can be very upsetting to some
>people.
Your logic is flawed; you make very little sense. Everybody has been flamed
at one time or another. Those people who find it upsetting should either
remove themselves from the upsetting conditions or ignore it. Those who
continue to willingly participate in painful circumstances only serve to
inflict the pain upon themselves. You cannot change or control another's
behavior, you can only change yourself. Would you stay in a marriage where
your spouse constantly insulted you, or would you leave? The only way to
stop an unhealthy [for you] relationship is to remove yourself from the
cycle. It is sad that you don't recognize this and it is probably the crux
of your problems.
>But what is really sad, is the fact that people continue to not just
>tolerate it, but to escalate it and encourage it.<
Ed continues it and no one tolerates it.
>The intentions are
>there to hurt, obviously, whether the person is actually hurt or not is
>immaterial.
Tell it to Ed.
And it hurts to see people offensively trying to hurt
>others. I have felt hurt and have lashed back in defense because of
>that.
Others, or you? Curiously, you have no qualms about watching Ed hurt
others. Why is that?
>> Whether you are accustomed to these types of
>> responses or not, you need to consider the forum and it's intrinsic lack
of
>> value in RL. (except for posting addresses, that is) If you are that
>> sensitive to criticism and flaming, then perhaps a ng is not the type of
>> forum for you.
>
>A newsgroup doesn't have to be like that.
>
>And you have no idea what I need to consider. <
Yes, Marsha I certainly do have an idea as to what you need to consider.
You have a lot of
>considering to do yourself before you are able to accurately tell me
>what I need to consider.
>
If you say so, dear.
WildE
>> WildE
>
>Marsha
Kat
>CFA wrote:
>>
>> Edmond H. Wollmann wrote:
>>
>> >> Boy, I bet it makes you feel like A MAN to be so verbally haranguing and
>> >> abusive to women, eh?
>> >
>> >I am and will be a MAN because I do my best to be forthright and fair-or
>> >did you idiots NOT READ THE LEWI POST???
>> > SUN IN TAURUS-MOON IN CAPRICORN
>>
>> I think she was referring to your Asc/Pluto conjunction in Leo, square
>> the Sun.
>>
>> >Women who chose to start lying publicly because they could not control
>> >me privately, or can see their deceptive spin going out of control
>> >perhaps DESERVE IT???
>>
>> Well, there it is again.
>>
>> Didn't Marsha go nuts on me because she thought I was saying THE SAME
>> FUCKING THING?
>
>Did I?
>
>OK, Mr. Space Cadet, let's see if I can find the parallels here. I
>haven't had that kind of intimate relationship with you or anyone else
>here. I haven't gotten angry and posted personal information because I
>gave or loaned someone money and then regretted it.
>
>I have not joined in and supported statements by an ANONYMOUS person who
>was attacking another woman with obscenities and lies because they liked
>someone I didn't, as anonym has attacked me (and Lili in the past),
>which Kat did supporting anonym's attacks of me--this I think is what
>you are referring to?
You invoked my name. What do you want Marsha?
<snip>
Kat
Cathy Credulous
Marsha <sharma!@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:37BAE3EF...@mindspring.com...
>
> There are no parallels.
Oh, grow up, you lying cunt.
Cathy
wildearth
anonym™ wrote in message <37BB995A...@pacbell.net>...
>Marsha Kalfsbeek wrote:
>>
>> wildearth wrote:
>>
>> > Despite the fact that Ed's usenet behavior is
>>
>> I have seen Ed post for 2-1/2 years. It's unbelievable to me the crap
>> that he has put up with,
>
>It's unbelievable to others the crap he (and you) put out.
Quite.
>
>> AND the times he has repeatedly given people
>> the benefit of the doubt, forgotten their attacks on him,
>
>Oh, bullshit.
>
>Edmo is the KING of grudges, you moron!
You forgot King of Thieves, Thief of Hearts and King of Tragic Comedy.
>
>>and has
>> discussed their charts or astrology with them as if nothing previously
>> had happened!
>
>Yeah, he totaly forgets he attacked and insulted them and acts like he
>doesn't owe them an apology!
>
>
>>I don't think I have ever known anyone else who is so
>> willing to forgive.
>
>BWAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Willing to forgive those that support him with money, perhaps.
>
>Really, bitch?
>
>Let's see him forgive Lili!
>
>Let's see him forgive Suzy!
>
>Let's see him forgive me!
>
>Let's see him forgive ALL of the poeple he lists on his paranoia page!
>
>BWAHAHAH!
>What a stupid, fucked-up moron you are.
Very sad but very true. I predict that next year Marsha will be back to
whine about how Ed took advantage of her.
Marsha
with some, some I don't. But wildearth is more likely to understand,
since they are wildearth's own words.
If any of what wildearth has said is in reference to anyone's personal
(private-type) relationships, it was not replied to as that. I believe
I have made myself clear on what I think about that, and will not
discuss it publically, as I have pointed out previously.
wildearth wrote:
>
> Marsha wrote in message <37BB9260...@mindspring.com>...
> >wildearth wrote:
> >
> >> Despite the fact that Ed's usenet behavior is
"You cannot change or control another's behavior, you can only change
yourself."
> >I have seen Ed post for 2-1/2 years.<
>
> Yes, and so have I.
Just as an example of the "fairness" encountered here, try to imagine
what the replies would have been if I had made a statement like this
without any evidence to back it up.
> >It's unbelievable to me the crap
> >that he has put up with, AND the times he has repeatedly given people
> >the benefit of the doubt, forgotten their attacks on him, and has
> >discussed their charts or astrology with them as if nothing previously
> >had happened! I don't think I have ever known anyone else who is so
> >willing to forgive.
>
> It's painfully obvious
"Those who continue to willingly participate in painful circumstances
only serve to inflict the pain upon themselves"
> that you suffer
No, you are assuming that. Personally I don't know anyone that suffers,
and I have never felt that I was suffering in my life. Where did that
come from? I never use the word--I'm usually quite optimistic and not
much gets me "down", and most people around me are the same in this
respect.
> from the same condition as Ed.
Positive outlook?
> >He has a LOT to offer people and he is kind. While reading his replies
> >I've noticed posts where he could have really been nasty to "get back"
> >at the person, things I may not have resisted had I been replying
> >because they were obvious, but he doesn't do that, he lets it go and
> >continues with positive explanations. (I have tried to learn this from
> >him) And, he defends himself when he's attacked. What do people expect?
> >Can you even imagine what it would be like to be treated like he has
> >been?
> >
> He provokes the behavior.
OK, sort of like Pavlov's dog? Ed posts, the dogs attack. They have no
responsibility for their own actions, they are not reasoning human
beings, they have been trained to just respond with venom at the sight
of a post from him?:)
"You cannot change or control another's behavior, you can only change
yourself."
> The fact that you are blind to this leads me to
> believe that something is very definitely wrong with you
That's an interesting statement. Have you ever thought there could be
anything wrong with you?
> or that business
> and money, once again, have something to do with your bond to Ed.
"Your logic is flawed; you make very little sense."
He doesn't owe me any money, I don't owe him any money. There are no
obligations between us. He has never asked to borrow money, I have
never asked to borrow money.
> >> Whoever posted her personal information to usenet without her consent,
> ...
> >> Perhaps it was
> >> information that could be found on her website,
> >
> >It was not found there.
> >...
> >> Furthermore, even if the info was on her site
> >
> >It wasn't
> >...
> >
> >> As far as the hurtful statements, Marsha, it is difficult for me to even
> >> entertain the possibility that the flames of strangers on usenet would be
> >> *that* upsetting to you.
> >
> >You could always try it and see what it feels like, and then maybe you
> >could entertain the possibility. And it can be very upsetting to some
> >people.
>
> Your logic is flawed; you make very little sense.
Are feelings/emotions logical? But is it not logical to ask you to put
yourself in another's position and imagine what something might feel
like?
> Everybody has been flamed
> at one time or another. Those people who find it upsetting should either
> remove themselves from the upsetting conditions or ignore it. Those who
> continue to willingly participate in painful circumstances only serve to
> inflict the pain upon themselves. You cannot change or control another's
> behavior, you can only change yourself. Would you stay in a marriage where
> your spouse constantly insulted you, or would you leave?
Is this what happened to you?
> The only way to
> stop an unhealthy [for you] relationship is to remove yourself from the
> cycle. It is sad that you don't recognize this and it is probably the crux
> of your problems.
Whose problems? :)
Off on a tangent here, I see. Are you/have you ever been married?
> >But what is really sad, is the fact that people continue to not just
> >tolerate it, but to escalate it and encourage it.<
>
> Ed continues it and no one tolerates it.
"it is difficult for me to even entertain the possibility that the
flames of strangers on usenet would be *that* upsetting..."
I am talking about encouragement of anonym's etc. harassment.
And you are saying those actions are someone else's responsibility?
"You cannot change or control another's behavior, you can only change
yourself."
Have you said this to anonym? He and others including you, have
actually posted that you want to change others' behavior.
> >The intentions are
> >there to hurt, obviously, whether the person is actually hurt or not is
> >immaterial.
>
> Tell it to Ed.
"it is difficult for me to even entertain the possibility that the
flames of strangers on usenet would be *that* upsetting"
He defends himself from others who have attempted to hurt him.
You don't seem to be understanding. I'll try to say it another way. I
am talking about those who will *intentionally* attempt to hurt someone
(anonym, for example)--whether the "target" is hurt or not, does not
change anything about the intentions of the person doing the attacking.
anonym's intentions remain the same whether he has hurt me or not.
Also, people sometimes feel hurt, when there was no intention to do
that.
> And it hurts to see people offensively trying to hurt
> >others. I have felt hurt and have lashed back in defense because of
> >that.
>
> Others,
Intentional hurting of others, yes.
> or you?
> Curiously, you have no qualms about watching Ed hurt others.
I don't see him attempting to hurt others. I see him defending himself.
Do you believe that he should just "sit there" and not respond to
anonym, Ellis, and everyone else's *attempts* to hurt him?
Have you given those people this advice:
"Those people who find it upsetting should either
remove themselves from the upsetting conditions or ignore it"
"If you are that sensitive to....then perhaps a ng is not the type of
forum for you."
"...you need to consider the forum and it's intrinsic lack of value in
RL..."
"it is difficult for me to even entertain the possibility that the
flames of strangers on usenet would be *that* upsetting"
> Why is that?
I don't see him attempting to hurt others. I see him defending himself
and posting astrology. Some people don't like him to defend himself, or
how he does it apparently, and some disagree with his astrology and
interpretations. Do you believe that he should just "sit there" and not
respond to anonym's, and everyone else's *attempts* to hurt him because
they disagree with him?
> >> Whether you are accustomed to these types of
> >> responses or not, you need to consider the forum and it's intrinsic lack
> of
> >> value in RL. (except for posting addresses, that is) If you are that
> >> sensitive to criticism and flaming, then perhaps a ng is not the type of
> >> forum for you.
"You cannot change or control another's behavior, you can only change
yourself."
> >
> >A newsgroup doesn't have to be like that.
> >
> >And you have no idea what I need to consider. <
>
> Yes, Marsha I certainly do have an idea as to what you need to consider.
Then you are incorrect.
Try changing the "you" in your above sentence to *I* and then read it.
> You have a lot of
> >considering to do yourself before you are able to accurately tell me
> >what I need to consider.
> >
> If you say so, dear.
No. It's just the truth.
You have taken it upon yourself to tell me what I should and should not
do, and made some unfounded assumptions about me. What I have done is
to point out that you (and others) are attempting to dictate or control
how or if I (a person apart from you) post. I did not ask for this
advice, and don't need to be "permitted" to do anything (as you said in
your previous post). What you have said to me above, glaringly applies
to you.
"You cannot change or control another's behavior, you can only change
yourself."
> WildE
Marsha
Cathy Credulous
>
> > or that business
> > and money, once again, have something to do with your bond to Ed.
>
> "Your logic is flawed; you make very little sense."
>
> He doesn't owe me any money, I don't owe him any money. There are no
> obligations between us. He has never asked to borrow money, I have
> never asked to borrow money.
That's good to hear. So, when you're finished editing his book, your
feelings aren't going to be hurt when the book is picked apart on the
newsgroup?
Cathy
Rhianna
wrote:
>He [Edmond Wollmann] defends himself from others who have attempted to hurt him.
Marsha, I am just curious: were you actively reading the
posts in this newsgroup when I "first arrived" on the scene looking to
become part of the "group" at alt.astrology?
My quest was twofold:
[1] I wanted to exchange stimulating information/conversation
about astrology. I wanted to enhance my own knowledge
about astrology and perhaps contribute something.
[2] I was looking for camaraderie.
Do you recall how Edmond Wollmann treated me?
Do you think I am a mean person or one who is out to
randomly hurt others in a newsgroup?
Do you think Ed treated me fairly?
Why do you think Ed treated me the way he did?
<snip>
>
>> And it hurts to see people offensively trying to hurt
>> >others.
Did you care when Ed replied to *my obvious joke* a physical
threat?
"What? You mean you looking to get the sh*t kicked out of you
by me
because you think you are going to continue the "teach Ed a lesson
scenario?"
Was Ed being patient and understanding or was he trying to
intimidate me with fear? You know him better than I do, heck! Perhaps
I caught him in one of his better moods *laugh*
Does Ed have a sense of humor?
>I don't see him attempting to hurt others.
Nahhh, definitely he meant no hard feelings when he told me
he'd "kick the sh*t out of me".....does he live in San Diego? I don't
think I'll be visiting there anytime soon.
> I see him defending himself.
Yeah, he needs to defend himself from my jokes with threats
of violence. Did you ever look at his behavior and wonder what might
happen in the future *if* he turns against you for some bizarre
reason? I certainly hope he doesn't, I'd like to see him treat you
well, but just be cautious around a man with abusive behavior traits.
<snip>
>I don't see him attempting to hurt others. I see him defending himself
>and posting astrology.
Yeah, well I saw that instead of writing to other people on an
"equal level" in a conversational tone he likes to just plop really
*long* articles...it's like " the answer is hidden plus here's a lot
more junk in yer face" *laugh*
Defending himself? Against me? Have you seen my pics?
Heck, I wouldn't want to be in a fair fight with anyone...I
definitely wouldn't be a match for a man [no matter how puny the man
was]
Or are you just referring to verbal diatribes?
I am always civil in my writings, I don't curse and I don't
seek to abuse or mock others. Wollmann was wrong when he threatened
"to kick the sh*t out of me"
Do you like to associate with men who abuse other women? It
looks like he has a track record.
~Cheers~
Rhianna
http://www.pipeline.com/~rhianna/index.htm
Zodiac, groovy fortunetelling, mystical fun stuff
alt.astrology Cahooter #29
Marsha
>
> Marsha <sharma!@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:37BC6CE5...@mindspring.com...
> >
> > > and money, once again, have something to do with your bond to Ed.
> >
> > "Your logic is flawed; you make very little sense."
> >
> > He doesn't owe me any money, I don't owe him any money. There are no
> > obligations between us. He has never asked to borrow money, I have
> > never asked to borrow money.
>
I finished last November.
> Cathy
Marsha
Widdershins
wrote:
>wildearth wrote:
>
>> Despite the fact that Ed's usenet behavior is
>
>I have seen Ed post for 2-1/2 years. It's unbelievable to me the crap
>that he has put up with, AND the times he has repeatedly given people
>the benefit of the doubt, forgotten their attacks on him, and has
>discussed their charts or astrology with them as if nothing previously
>had happened! I don't think I have ever known anyone else who is so
>willing to forgive.
>
>He has a LOT to offer people and he is kind. While reading his replies
>I've noticed posts where he could have really been nasty to "get back"
>at the person, things I may not have resisted had I been replying
>because they were obvious, but he doesn't do that, he lets it go and
>continues with positive explanations.
Are you referring to such positive explanations as:
"When you stop pimping whores, beating your wife, abusing drugs, and
are
not forging headers." -Ed Wollmann
"She is the shitball"--Ed Wollmann.
"Now why are you continuing to crosspost to metapsych you fucking
troublemaker!!!" Edmond Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
"Losing what you fucking idiot? You've lost it."
Edmond Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
"Inconsiderate fucking cynic." Edmond Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
"Whoopdiedoodledaday! Cynics can post all fucking year
-but let me post a couple of remarks and whooooooaaaa!"
Edmond Wollmann P.M.A.F.A
"YOU are a sock puppet you lying piece of shit!"
Edmond Wollmann P.M.A.F.A
"And ugly as fuck to boot!!!"Edmond Wollmann P.M.A.F.A
"I am unlike anyone you have ever met and ever will-
don't pigeon hole me you son of a bitch!"
Edmond Wollmann P.M.A.F.A
"I am Just analytically correct-
you are ugly as fuck inside and out."
Edmond Wollmann P.M.A.F.A
"Now whos the fucking bully asshole?" Edmond
Wollmann P.M.A.F.A
"Wait till we meet in person ass hole I'll rip you
a new one then too." Edmond Wollmann P.M.A.F.A
"Got a problem with it TV? Killfile me bitch."
Edmond Wollmann P.M.A.F.A
"Snipped your 196th spam of you fucking URL I will
never go to and no one gives a shit about."
Edmond Wollmann P.M.A.F.A
" Get out-if you think I'll ever let go of your ass you've got
another thing coming." Edmond Wollmann P.M.A.F.A
"...if the son of a bitch was in front of
me he'd have some bones crushed in his skull as well" --Ed "Sensitive
hony
Counselor and Violently-Tempered Kook" Wollmann, PMAFA
"You haven't posted anything but bullshit-the difference between me nd
you idiots is that I can get in a bar brawl (I was a hoodlum biker
for>years) down a 5th of Tequlia, kick the fuck out of you, talk like
this-AND STILL post something of value, counsel persons and meitate on
nature, and do a piece of art to find center. You see I've been thee
done that-I CHOOSE to do this now." Edmond Wollmann P.M.A.FA
"EAT SHIT YOU UGLY BITCH!!!!!!" Edmond Wollmann P.M.A.F.A
Someone questioning Ed's repetitive plagiarism:
"Hrmm. Wonder who he stole it from?"
Ed, confessing: "Another spamming abuser of the SAME denigrating
content."
"When an abuser like you can't find a group he IS interested in to go
to and spams one he isn't." -Ed's definition of irony
"I have contacted all of my state representatives, state attorney,
district attorney for stalking and other government agencies. I am
tired of the harassment that ISPs say they don't allow and then
condone." Edmond Heinz Wollmann, paranoid idiot.
Why don't you write a book Pam? Lord knows we would all learn so much
from your brown nosing empty one-liners.
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
"Don't confuse me with the facts. I have groupies."--Ed Wollmann.
"I guess when you stop pimping whores, molesting children, forging
headers, raping and killing people" Edmond Wollmann, unbalanced
unlicensed fraudulent non-counselor, 6/14/99
" All mail is public folks, it gets posted from server to server." -Ed
Wollmann, stupidly stumbling while trying to justify posting private
emails.
"WHat a buch of out of integrity losesers." -Ed Wollmann
"I won long ago. They just don't realize its over." -Ed the deluded
shithead
'Irrelevant, there are so many propagandic spons about me" -Ed the
numbnut
"Mine [mission] is to warn people who doesn't understand English."
-Ed "slackjaw" Wollmann
"Please act before you lose all credibility. And money damages." -Ed
Wollmann, threatening himself\\And Mike Solomon reinforces that last
point:
"You couldn't possibly be planning on
making psychology a career at some point in the future could you? I
am afraid that you lack the compassion, sensitivity, wisdom and
stability that it requires. Your fallacious and distorted thinking
processes and biases would certainly interfere with your ability to
heal anyone. You can't even understand yourself enough to heal
yourself." -Michael Solomon to Ed.
"I am an upstanding citizen you fucking moron with clients in the
clinical psychology
field, 20 years of positive results, an honor student at SDSU an
accomplished artist-among other achievments and NOTHING ELSE. Why
can't
you argue facts you senile piece of shit? " Ed, upstanding. Or is that
hatstanding? Susan said you weren't upstanding!
"...you have SHIT for brains-and I don't care if all of you admins
think what ever is funny, at the end of the day you will RUE the day
you
tried to belittle and denigrate me and my companies, canceled my
accounts thinking you would intimidate me into being an idiot like
yourself, and ignored plain good sense that anyone who does NOT have
shit for brains can see without strain or difficulty. Get it?" Ed
Wollmann, freakazoid.
"That is IT! I am going to enjoy seeing you ALL in a court of
law-where
I will tear off your heads and shit down your necks. This
time it's personal abusers. If you think you saw me angry
before THINK AGAIN! If a professional astrologer cannot be
unharrassed -in his own newsgroups while spinics abuse it
day in and day out then GODDAMN IT I am going to do
something about it. Your days are NUMBERED." -Edmond Heinz Wollmann,
kook.
"Forwarded to the state attorney general and my congressman. You
screwed
up this time buddy, this is against the law."
-Edmond Wollmann, a$trologer, liar, spammer, hypocrite, censor, Jan.
'98 KoTM,
convicted criminal, asshole
"Wrong. I am going to SUE THE FUCK OUT OF YOU." -Eddieeeeeee Wollmann
convicted criminal.
>(I have tried to learn this from
>him) And, he defends himself when he's attacked. What do people expect?
>Can you even imagine what it would be like to be treated like he has
>been?
I know you will probably ignore this as you have in the past, but I
keep expecting a miracle, so here goes: In my reading of *all* of
the greoups postins as archived at Deja.com, I am struck by the
arrogance Eddieeeeeee displays while "discussing some fine
point or another of astrology. It is as though he fishes for abuse,
and when it isn't forth-coming, he purposely goads someone into
a flaming response.
>
>...
Stuff about personal data
Did you notice that Eddieeeeeee posted the Character Shop's
street address? This was not available on the Shop's website.
He also posted what he purported to be Rick Ellis's home and
employer's addresses. Are you alright with that? FWIW these
were done long before anyone posted either yours or Eddieeeeeee's
addresses.
>
snip
>
>But what is really sad, is the fact that people continue to not just
>tolerate it, but to escalate it and encourage it.
Will you answer this? To the best of your knowlege, who first
started sending complaints to ISPs? Who mentioned lawsuits first
in an attempt to intimidate others from disagreeing with Eddieeeeeee?
>The intentions are
>there to hurt, obviously, whether the person is actually hurt or not is
>immaterial. And it hurts to see people offensively trying to hurt
>others.
Did you feel that way when Eddieeeeeee called Pam "slime?" Were
you aware that her only sin was to thank anonym for securing a copy
of Eddieeeeeee's book for her? Do you think that Pam deserved it?
Do you support Eddieeeeeee in his refusal to apologize to her?
>I have felt hurt and have lashed back in defense because of
>that.
>
Natural enough reaction.
>> Whether you are accustomed to these types of
>> responses or not, you need to consider the forum and it's intrinsic lack of
>> value in RL. (except for posting addresses, that is) If you are that
>> sensitive to criticism and flaming, then perhaps a ng is not the type of
>> forum for you.
>
>A newsgroup doesn't have to be like that.
I would agree with that statement.
If you would, I'd like to direct you to go back to the Deja.com
archives to about fall of 1996, through spring 1997.
Read the questions carefully, and the responses to and from
Eddieeeeeee. When you have done that, ask yourself if the
newsgroup got this way because of Eddieeeeeee, or in spite
of him.
snip of pique
>Marsha
Widdershins
PMAFA
If at first you do succed, try not to look too astonished.
Marsha
...
> Marsha, I am just curious: were you actively reading the
> posts in this newsgroup when I "first arrived" on the scene looking to
> become part of the "group" at alt.astrology?
Sure was, spotted you right away. Especially, noticable was how you
ignored my post to you. If you had not previously had an agenda, you
would have at least questioned what I was referring to. Your ignoring
of that post, was one clue that showed to me you were not sincere about
"camaraderie".
>
...
>
> [2] I was looking for camaraderie.
...
>
> Why do you think Ed treated me the way he did?
Because he saw right away that you were trying to bait.
...
> Did you care when Ed replied to *my obvious joke* a physical
> threat?
> "What? You mean you looking to get the sh*t kicked out of you
> by me
> because you think you are going to continue the "teach Ed a lesson
> scenario?"
You actually altered the sentence! You left out "in argument".
He caught on to you pretty quickly didn't he? Wasn't it within 3
posts, that he realized what you were here for?
Message-ID: <37BB3B...@bigfoot.com>
"What? You mean you looking to get the shit kicked out of you
in argument by me because you think you are going to continue the "teach
^^^^^^^^^^^
Ed a lesson scenario?" Yes, I guess it keeps coming to that."
I think you were mocking him for not posting in his own words, when he
had actually posted an excerpt from an article he, himself had written
for Dell Horoscope magazine--his own words.
Remaining ineffectual, incompetent attempts at "spinning" snipped.
...
Marsha
jfred
> Marsha wrote:
>
> >CFA wrote: > > Marsha wrote:
>
> >> >You are trying to hurt me by twisting things again so others will join
> >> >in and attack me,
> >>
> >> And you either didn't understand or didn't believe me when I said I was
> >> warning you to stay out FOR YOUR PROTECTION.
> >
> >Right. I didn't understand it that way. And I don't believe you now.
>
> Fine.
>
> >> >Can't you see how ridiculous and disgusting your friends, these
> >> >"gargoyles" are?
> >>
> >> I could say the same about you/Ed.
> >
> >But not for the same reasons I say it.
>
> We're only discussing the consequences of actions.
>
> Ed took actions; we're seeing the results. He's not willing to take
> responsibility for them. He keeps being the victim of their actions.
>
> I don't see anonym, for instance, trying to deny his actions, or
> responsibility for them.
>
> This doesn't mean I would do the same things, though you think I do.
>
> >> Is this any different than your "friendship" with him?
> >
> >Yes, I think so. Their intentions here totally appear to be to hurt
> >people. Me for one.
>
> But you see you seed action, no reason for their words?
>
> >> "Sometimes they're funny, and sometimes they hurt".
> >
> >You forgot to add intentionally.
>
> And you're playing the victim.
>
> >> If I eliminated all the friendships I had with people who weren't
> >> always clear, I wouldn't have any friends. How about you?
> >
> >I'm selective about who is my friend. Someone can "act" nice and be an
> >enemy, and vice versa. Honesty is most important to me between friends.
>
> So, you agree.
>
> >> >Or is it just the numbers that count with you?
> >>
> >> This isn't the point. The point was how upset you got, thinking I was
> >> saying you deserved the "abuse" you got here.
> >
> >Where is the parallel? Do you want me to repeat myself?
> >
> >I have done nothing but post my beliefs, and ask anonym's ISP to ask him
> >to stop harassing me--AND I made only ONE phone call to do that. No,
> >there is no parallel between that and one person in a relationship
> >thinking/saying another one deserves what is said about them. The main
> >reason I have been attacked here is because I have a different opinion of
> >Ed, from what now looks like the majority of posters. What this tells me
> >is that these are not the kind of people I want to hang out with and I'm
> >tired of fighting. The only reason I'm replying to you now, is because
> >at one time I thought you were reasonable.
>
> It hasn't changed. What has changed is my willingness to abide Ed's
> behavior.
>
> >> Then Ed flat out says it- in effect, blaming the victim for their
> >> treatment.
> >
> >Gee, I seem to remember you saying there is no such thing as a victim.
>
> Only if someone believes in being one.
>
> >> You don't see any irony/conflict here?
> >
> >Sure do, with your statements.
>
> Apparently.
>
> >> >This is a personal relationship between two people.
> >> >
> >> >But, are you referring to my discussions with you where you always try
> >> >to lead the conversation down the same negative path--towards abuse?
> >>
> >> AWAY from abuse, Marsha. AWAY. I was trying to warn you that you were
> >> getting ready to get slammed. But you either didn't want to hear it or
> >> didn't believe it. Sounds like the latter to me.
> >
> >Sounded like a threat to me. Which panned out.
>
> So, connect the dots here for me. Does that mean I'm responsible for how
> you were treated just because I could see it coming? And tried to warn you
> to avoid it?
>
> >> >You seem to believe that certain aspects mean a person has been
> >> >abused, or something to that effect.
> >>
> >> It does. Most people have been at least emotionally abused, in my
> >> experience. How about you? Got any hard aspects from the outer four
> >> planets? Been in any abusive situations?
> >
> >Nothing that I want to wallow in and cry about and get sympathy for.
>
> So you agree.
>
> >> >From what you've said, you seem to have a lot of contact with
> >> >mentally/emotionally disturbed people and you treat everyone as if
> >> >they are.
> >>
> >> In minor- and sometimes major- ways, we all are.
> >
> >Well, here seems to be the problem. We haven't defined at what level
> >each one of us draws the line for abuse--or even in what direction. If a
> >person feels abused, does that necessarily mean that another person is
> >abusing them?
>
> Subjectively, yes. Objectively, not necessarily.
>
> > I think the laws are a good measuring stick. Which is something that
> >USENET seems to be immune from, but I think it will be brought to more
> >like real life.
>
> Usenet laws are no more or less defined than other public forums.
>
> Name-calling is not actionable, though it may be rude.
>
> >> It can help relieve the psychic pressure to also look at it in those
> >> terms.
> >
> >In one conversation with you, you tried to tell me that my daughter was
> >abused because of something in her chart. She wasn't and isn't, but she
> >has developed and implemented and works in a program that empowers (her
> >word) homeless, drug-addicted women that HAVE been abused and used by men
> >for their own purposes--prostitution, etc. and women that stay in abusive
> >relationships because they are not financially able to support
> >themselves.
>
> Sounds like she has found a way to work out her own feelings.
>
> >These are the closest thing I can see to victims who have been abused.
> >And, while discussing this, another of your friends defended you, saying
> >that she was getting some sick vicarious pleasure from talking to these
> >people.
>
> I wouldn't say that. I'd say the above.
>
> >As I told you before, she at one time thought she was abused because she
> >was not allowed to watch all the TV she wanted to. So, no everyone is
> >not abused.
>
> In your experience.
>
> >> >I don't. I treat people as if they are well-adjusted and "normal"
> >> >people who sometimes have problems, which has been my experience
> >> >throughout my life and avoid anyone that doesn't seem that way to me.
> >>
> >> I think we basically agree on this, though you might be overlooking
> >> important signals from those around you.
> >
> >Who?
>
> Quite a few people on this group. It would seem self-abusive at this point
> to keep showing up. But, of course, that's your choice.
>
> >My family and friends? Hardly. Everything is pretty obvious. I make a
> >point of bringing things up if I notice any signals, because ignoring it
> >can only lead to bigger problems.
>
>
> >> Yes, I know Ed has been helpful to you. I'm glad for you.
> >> Unfortunately, most people here haven't had your experience.
> >
> >And whose responsibility is that? Mine?
>
> It is with some risk you keep defending Ed in this particular forum. You
> can assert your right to express what you want, where, and when, but you
> have a pattern here of catching a lot of flak when you show up.
>
> Why would you keep seeking that out?
>
> That was part of my initial commentary, which you have turned into my hate
> campaign against you. I've never done anything to you except try to
> support you and/or warn you.
>
> >> >I have no right to judge either of them on their relationship with
> >> >each other, and decide who is right and who is wrong!
> >>
> >> You don't see any irony here? Ed blaming the victim?
> >
> >Sorry, I don't consider Lili a victim.
>
> Ah. But you are? This does seem to be the essence of our disagreement.
>
> >> I don't care if you make Ed wrong or not, but at least acknowledge that
> >> he's typically abusive to most people.
> >
> >You first. What about anonym to me (and Lili previously).
>
> Sorry. Anonym has more heart than Ed. He's shown more compassion, for all
> his craziness, than I've ever seen Ed express.
>
> He's also apparently made friends with Lili.
>
> >> >1. It looked to me like Lili felt hurt, because she was angry and
> >> >posted things to get back at Ed.
> >>
> >> I wonder what would provoke that?
> >
> >Who cares? It's none of my business.
>
> Now you're playing dumb.
>
> >> >2. Ed got angry because of this, and posted things to get back at
> >> >her.
> >> >
> >> >etc. etc.
> >>
> >> Yep. It also looks like he's been basically unwilling to own his
> >> "co-creation" in that experience.
> >
> >If he has asked you to counsel him on this, you should be discussing it
> >with him, not me.
>
> You brought this up. Now you're trying to dodge it.
>
> >> >3. Others got involved in taking sides, meddling in their
> >> relationship.
> >>
> >> It's a public forum, dear.
> >
> >I choose not to get involved in others' personal relationships unless
> >they ask me personally and privately, and then I try to be objective and
> >fair, no matter what I think of either of them personally.
>
> Though you do have your own opinions and have expressed some of them.
>
> >> >4. My opinion is that I would have rather not seen any of it in
> >> >public. It could have all been taken care of privately.
> >>
> >> That's our Edmo. Just can't keep a secret, can he?
> >
> >You obviously are not even trying to be reasonable.
>
> And you're ignoring the fact that Ed posted private emails repeatedly in
> his efforts to slam Lili and Susan. I agree it should have been taken
> private, but Ed doesn't have the class to recognize that.
>
> >> >5. I do NOT know the complete story. Only they do.
> >> >
> >> >6. I'm sure they are both compassionate and have integrity when at
> >> >their best.
> >> >
> >> >7. I do know that Ed is still being a friend to Lili.
> >>
> >> Oh? Based on what?
> >
> >Not for me to say.
>
> Then why even mention it? You make an assertion you can't/won't back up.
>
> >> >9. If someone doesn't pay back a loan, take them to court--and make
> >> >sure it's in writing. Public display is not an efficient way to use
> >> >energy to get back money owed. Leads me to believe it's not the money
> >> >that's the problem. It's the excuse--for what I don't know.
> >>
> >> Maybe for how each felt they were treated by the other?
> >
> >Ask them, if you'd like an answer.
>
> Oh, come on. Express an opinion. Surely you have one.
>
> >> >Here is what I don't understand--hating someone so much that you
> >> >previously cared for, that you want to "punish" them publically!
> >>
> >> GOOD QUESTION. And, exactly the one I raised about Ed's treatment of
> >> Lili and Susan. Does that make sense?
> >
> >And how about vice versa?
>
> Their treatment of him? We don't know, remember?
>
> >So, go ahead tear this apart if you like. I have customers I have been
> >neglecting and I don't want to look back
>
> But you probably will
>
> >since again I have not defended the "Victim Du Jour" by gargoylar
> >opinion.
>
> We all have our particular burdens.
Looks like Marsha has had enough of your logic and reason, Ken. This
post has been here since yesterday and she has posted today, but didn't
respond to this particular discussion.
hmmm.....
--
jfred... Cahooter #14, WWAS member #4, http://www.smbtech.com/ed/
/server irc.powerchat.net......channel #irrelevant......to #irr is human
"And I didn't come to win. I just came to play." -- Omnivore
Everybody's got something to hide except for me and my monkey
jfred
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> >>>>> "Cathy" == Cathy Credulous <cathycr...@my-deja.com> writes:
>
> > Marsha <sharma!@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > news:37BAE3EF...@mindspring.com...
> >>
> >> There are no parallels.
>
> > Oh, grow up, you lying cunt.
>
> So mature...
Did you curl your lip when you said that, Tony?
wildearth
Marsha wrote in message <37BC6CE5...@mindspring.com>...
Marsha, you stated that the insults you receive on this ng are hurtful to
you. If one is continually being hurt, then it is safe to assume that that
person is suffering from that hurt. If you are now claiming that you are
not hurt or suffering any kind of pain from the remarks made about you or
your address being posted, then I take your previous comments to be
completely disingenuous.
Where did that
>come from?
See above; *that* is were it came from.
I never use the word--I'm usually quite optimistic and not
>much gets me "down", and most people around me are the same in this
>respect.
>> from the same condition as Ed.
>
>Positive outlook?
Ed has not displayed any type of positive outlook on this ng.
>> >He has a LOT to offer people and he is kind. While reading his replies
>> >I've noticed posts where he could have really been nasty to "get back"
>> >at the person, things I may not have resisted had I been replying
>> >because they were obvious, but he doesn't do that, he lets it go and
>> >continues with positive explanations. (I have tried to learn this from
>> >him) And, he defends himself when he's attacked. What do people expect?
>> >Can you even imagine what it would be like to be treated like he has
>> >been?
>> >
>> He provokes the behavior.
>
>OK, sort of like Pavlov's dog?
No, sort of like you "create your own reality". Ed attacks and provokes
attacks in response.
Ed posts, the dogs attack. They have no
>responsibility for their own actions,
The responsible actions taken here are those that prevent Ed from spurious
complaining to ISP's, harassing a person as nice as Pam, who has never
offended *anyone* on this ng, and his immature whining. Hardly the
"positive outlook" of which you speak.
they are not reasoning human
>beings, they have been trained to just respond with venom at the sight
>of a post from him?:)
>"You cannot change or control another's behavior, you can only change
>yourself."
>
>> The fact that you are blind to this leads me to
>> believe that something is very definitely wrong with you
>
>That's an interesting statement. Have you ever thought there could be
>anything wrong with you?
I would like to think that everyone examines themselves through
introspection in an attempt to recognize their flaws. No one is perfect,
nor do I expect them to be.
>> or that business
>> and money, once again, have something to do with your bond to Ed.
>
>"Your logic is flawed; you make very little sense."
>
>He doesn't owe me any money, I don't owe him any money. There are no
>obligations between us.
Didn't I just glimpse a post from Rhi stating that you are editing his book?
That, Marsha, is a working relationship. Obligation, of some type, is
implicit.
He has never asked to borrow money, I have
>never asked to borrow money.
>
>> >> Whoever posted her personal information to usenet without her consent,
>> ...
>> >> Perhaps it was
>> >> information that could be found on her website,
>> >
>> >It was not found there.
>> >...
>> >> Furthermore, even if the info was on her site
>> >
>> >It wasn't
>> >...
>> >
>> >> As far as the hurtful statements, Marsha, it is difficult for me to
even
>> >> entertain the possibility that the flames of strangers on usenet would
be
>> >> *that* upsetting to you.
>> >
>> >You could always try it and see what it feels like, and then maybe you
>> >could entertain the possibility. And it can be very upsetting to some
>> >people.
>>
>> Your logic is flawed; you make very little sense.
>
>Are feelings/emotions logical?
Evidently not. This is why Ed never makes a sound argument. He argues from
emotion with no logical basis whatsoever.
But is it not logical to ask you to put
>yourself in another's position and imagine what something might feel
>like?
Why not try that exercise yourself?
>> Everybody has been flamed
>> at one time or another. Those people who find it upsetting should either
>> remove themselves from the upsetting conditions or ignore it. Those who
>> continue to willingly participate in painful circumstances only serve to
>> inflict the pain upon themselves. You cannot change or control another's
>> behavior, you can only change yourself. Would you stay in a marriage
where
>> your spouse constantly insulted you, or would you leave?
>
>Is this what happened to you?
No. I am happily married to a intelligent, sensitive man. All you have to
do Marsha is take Abnormal Psych to learn about dysfunctional cycles of
behavior and know people who have this problem, which appears to be quite
common. You and Ed are classic textbook.
>> The only way to
>> stop an unhealthy [for you] relationship is to remove yourself from the
>> cycle. It is sad that you don't recognize this and it is probably the
crux
>> of your problems.
>
>Whose problems? :)
The problems you have and continually complain about on this ng. If you
don't have a problem here, I suspect this will be the end of your whining
and complaining.
>
>Off on a tangent here, I see. Are you/have you ever been married?
>
A tangent, no. Trying to have an intelligent conversation with a
duplicitous person, yes.
>> >But what is really sad, is the fact that people continue to not just
>> >tolerate it, but to escalate it and encourage it.<
>>
>> Ed continues it and no one tolerates it.
>
>"it is difficult for me to even entertain the possibility that the
>flames of strangers on usenet would be *that* upsetting..."
>
>I am talking about encouragement of anonym's etc. harassment.
anonym is not encouraged by anyone but Ed. Evidently, the majority of
posters share anonym's opinion of Ed. That is quite different than saying
they encourage him.
>
>And you are saying those actions are someone else's responsibility?
I am saying that if Ed wants a positive response from people, then it is his
responsibility to nurture this by being a positively influencing his
interactions with people.
>"You cannot change or control another's behavior, you can only change
>yourself."
>
>Have you said this to anonym?
What I do or don't say to anonym is none of your business.
He and others including you, have
>actually posted that you want to change others' behavior.
Huh? I don't want to change others' behavior. But it would be nice, if *Ed
wanted* to change his behavior. It is you who complains about virtually
everyones behavior here. The shoe is yours, babe; it's a precise fit for
your mouth.
>
>> >The intentions are
>> >there to hurt, obviously, whether the person is actually hurt or not is
>> >immaterial.
>>
>> Tell it to Ed.
>
>"it is difficult for me to even entertain the possibility that the
>flames of strangers on usenet would be *that* upsetting"
>
>He defends himself from others who have attempted to hurt him.
Once again Marsha, Ed began this cycle by trying to censor people. Ed,
unfortunately is caught up in a vicious cycle of his own making.
>You don't seem to be understanding.
I'm sorry you feel that way.
I'll try to say it another way. I
>am talking about those who will *intentionally* attempt to hurt someone
>(anonym, for example)--whether the "target" is hurt or not, does not
>change anything about the intentions of the person doing the attacking.
>anonym's intentions remain the same whether he has hurt me or not.
I think that anonym has good intentions. If he is hurtful to anyone, it is
to those who thrive on hurting others through their manipulative, censorious
actions and hypocritical, fallacious arguments.
>Also, people sometimes feel hurt, when there was no intention to do
>that.
>
>> And it hurts to see people offensively trying to hurt
>> >others. I have felt hurt and have lashed back in defense because of
>> >that.
If you felt hurt, then you suffered pain, Marsha. Get your argument
straight. (God, they really do post the truth about you.)
>> Others,
>
>Intentional hurting of others, yes.
>
>> or you?
>
>> Curiously, you have no qualms about watching Ed hurt others.
>
>I don't see him attempting to hurt others.
Then, you believe that this is Ed's ng and he has the right to have accounts
pulled when someone expresses a dissenting viewpoint. Ok. Thanks for
making that clear.
>I see him defending himself.
>Do you believe that he should just "sit there" and not respond to
>anonym, Ellis, and everyone else's *attempts* to hurt him?
Once AGAIN, Ed attempts to hurt other people. I find Ed to be on the
offense and the rest to be defending their rights to post as they wish on an
unmoderated ng.
>Have you given those people this advice:
>
>"Those people who find it upsetting should either
>remove themselves from the upsetting conditions or ignore it"
It is impossible to ignore Ed, when he has or tries to pull an account.
>"If you are that sensitive to....then perhaps a ng is not the type of
>forum for you."
>
>"...you need to consider the forum and it's intrinsic lack of value in
>RL..."
>
>"it is difficult for me to even entertain the possibility that the
>flames of strangers on usenet would be *that* upsetting"
>
>> Why is that?
Why, because if you have one iota of self-esteem, the words of strangers
should not have such a devastating affect. Are you saying that both you and
Ed lack it?
>I don't see him attempting to hurt others. I see him defending himself
>and posting astrology. Some people don't like him to defend himself, or
>how he does it apparently, and some disagree with his astrology and
>interpretations. Do you believe that he should just "sit there" and not
>respond to anonym's, and everyone else's *attempts* to hurt him because
>they disagree with him?
>
>> >> Whether you are accustomed to these types of
>> >> responses or not, you need to consider the forum and it's intrinsic
lack
>> of
>> >> value in RL. (except for posting addresses, that is) If you are that
>> >> sensitive to criticism and flaming, then perhaps a ng is not the type
of
>> >> forum for you.
>
>"You cannot change or control another's behavior, you can only change
>yourself."
>
>> >
>> >A newsgroup doesn't have to be like that.
>> >
>> >And you have no idea what I need to consider. <
>>
>> Yes, Marsha I certainly do have an idea as to what you need to consider.
>
>Then you are incorrect.
Have it your way. Makes absolutely no difference to me.
>Try changing the "you" in your above sentence to *I* and then read it.
I'll tell you what I certainly need to consider. I need to consider not
coming to your defense, both privately and publicly, when you disingenuously
appear frightened of harassment. Thank you for encouraging me to see this
flaw; I truly appreciate it and will self correct.
>> You have a lot of
>> >considering to do yourself before you are able to accurately tell me
>> >what I need to consider.
> If you say so, dear.
>
>No. It's just the truth.
Your truth, perhaps.
>
>You have taken it upon yourself to tell me what I should and should not
>do, and made some unfounded assumptions about me.
The assumptions may or may not be correct, however unfounded they are not.
What I have done is
>to point out that you (and others) are attempting to dictate or control
>how or if I (a person apart from you) post.
You're impossibly hypocritical and obtuse. I began my posts to this thread
by supporting your right to post whatever you like.
I did not ask for this
>advice,
You got it anyway.
and don't need to be "permitted" to do anything
That's right. Just as no one here needs Ed's permission to post what they
like.
(as you said in
>your previous post). What you have said to me above, glaringly applies
>to you.
>"You cannot change or control another's behavior, you can only change
>yourself."
Thank you for making my argument for me by reusing my former statements. My
original assessment stands strong.
WildE
>> WildE
>
>Marsha
jfred
> Suzyqyou wrote:
> >
> > anonym wrote:
> >
> > >It still makes you the ludicrous dingo-ball who tips valets with FOOD
> > >STAMPS.
> > >
> > That, I swear, is one of the most pathetically FUNNY things I've ever
> > heard!!!
>
> LILI is the one who had food stamps, not me.
So you tipped the valet with FOOD STAMPS that you TOOK from your
girlfriend? That's even MORE pathetic.
> > Richest and most successful man in the world, eh, Wollmann???
>
> > Susan
>
> Yes, meaning richest in spirit and soul. I have less doubt about it
> everyday. Did you have any astrology to discuss yet after 3 years of
> stalking me?
You wouldn't know astrology if it walked up and kicked you where your
balls should be.
anonym™
>
> Marsha wrote:
...
>
> >Try changing the "you" in your above sentence to *I* and then read it.
>
> I'll tell you what I certainly need to consider. I need to consider not
> coming to your defense, both privately and publicly, when you disingenuously
> appear frightened of harassment. Thank you for encouraging me to see this
> flaw; I truly appreciate it and will self correct.
>
Marsha's thin veneer gives way...
> What I have done is
> >to point out that you (and others) are attempting to dictate or control
> >how or if I (a person apart from you) post.
>
> You're impossibly hypocritical and obtuse. I began my posts to this thread
> by supporting your right to post whatever you like.
>
Now, see?
That's what I'm tawkin' bout!
anonym™
>
> Marsha <sharma!@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >Rhianna wrote:
> >...
> >> Marsha, I am just curious: were you actively reading the
> >> posts in this newsgroup when I "first arrived" on the scene looking to
> >> become part of the "group" at alt.astrology?
> >
> >Sure was, spotted you right away. Especially, noticable was how you
> >ignored my post to you. If you had not previously had an agenda, you
> >would have at least questioned what I was referring to. Your ignoring
> >of that post, was one clue that showed to me you were not sincere about
> >"camaraderie".
>
>
> >>
> >...
> >>
> >> [2] I was looking for camaraderie.
> >
> >...
> >>
> >> Why do you think Ed treated me the way he did?
> >
> >Because he saw right away that you were trying to bait.
>
>
> >...
> >
> >> Did you care when Ed replied to *my obvious joke* a physical
> >> threat?
> >> "What? You mean you looking to get the sh*t kicked out of you
> >> by me
> >> because you think you are going to continue the "teach Ed a lesson
> >> scenario?"
> >
> >You actually altered the sentence! You left out "in argument".
>
A lying fucking cunt.
It could be that Eddie cancelled the original and issued another with
altered language and Marsha saw *that*, but then that would be *Marsha*
ignoring a post; Ed's original one where the words "in argument" *DID
NOT EXIST*.
And now this fucking Kalfsbeek is defending Ed by falsely claiming
someone else altered his post?
>
> >He caught on to you pretty quickly didn't he? Wasn't it within 3
> >posts, that he realized what you were here for?
Jesus, Marsha, you are so blindly rabid and stupid in your zeal to
defend Wollmann. He WILL fuck you over and you WILL be just as bitter
and resentful of him as Lili and Susan.
> >
> >Message-ID: <37BB3B...@bigfoot.com>
> >
> >"What? You mean you looking to get the shit kicked out of you
> >in argument by me because you think you are going to continue the "teach
> >^^^^^^^^^^^
> >Ed a lesson scenario?" Yes, I guess it keeps coming to that."
>
Wrong message ID, Marsha. Rhianna didn't respond to that one.
She responded to the one below.
Are you denying the existence of Message-ID: <37BB3A...@bigfoot.com>?
> *****************
> What? You mean you looking to get the shit kicked out of you by me
> because you think you are going to continue the "teach Ed a lesson
> scenario?"
> Yes, I guess it keeps coming to that.
>
> From: "Edmond H. Wollmann" <Edmond_...@bigfoot.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.paranormal,alt.astrology
> Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 16:00:04 -0700
> Organization: Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
> Lines: 70
> Message-ID: <37BB3A...@bigfoot.com>
> References: <37BAD849...@ns.vvm.com> <37BB35...@bigfoot.com>
> <37bb379c...@news.pipeline.com>
> *********************
>
> Now you may apologize to Rhianna for accusing her of altering that quote.
Marsha had BETTER apologgize to Rhianna for falsesly accusing her of
altering that quote.
>
> >I think you were mocking him for not posting in his own words, when he
> >had actually posted an excerpt from an article he, himself had written
> >for Dell Horoscope magazine--his own words.
>
> So what?
>
> It was a bullshit canned response from Ed.
>
> >Remaining ineffectual, incompetent attempts at "spinning" snipped.
> >...
>
> Whatever.
>
> >Marsha
>
> Weasel.
And a lying Kalsbeekian Kunt.
wildearth
anonym™ wrote in message <37BCC34A...@pacbell.net>...
>wildearth wrote:
>>
>> Marsha wrote:
>
>...
>>
>>
>> I'll tell you what I certainly need to consider. I need to consider not
>> coming to your defense, both privately and publicly, when you
disingenuously
>> appear frightened of harassment. Thank you for encouraging me to see
this
>> flaw; I truly appreciate it and will self correct.
>>
>
>
>> >to point out that you (and others) are attempting to dictate or control
>> >how or if I (a person apart from you) post.
>>
>> You're impossibly hypocritical and obtuse. I began my posts to this
thread
>> by supporting your right to post whatever you like.
>>
>
>
>That's what I'm tawkin' bout!
And I sincerely apologize to you.
WildE
anonym™
>
> Rhianna wrote:
> ...
> > Marsha, I am just curious: were you actively reading the
> > posts in this newsgroup when I "first arrived" on the scene looking to
> > become part of the "group" at alt.astrology?
>
> Sure was, spotted you right away. Especially, noticable was how you
> ignored my post to you. If you had not previously had an agenda, you
> would have at least questioned what I was referring to. Your ignoring
> of that post, was one clue that showed to me you were not sincere about
> "camaraderie".
>
> >
> >
> > [2] I was looking for camaraderie.
>
> ...
> >
> > Why do you think Ed treated me the way he did?
>
> Because he saw right away that you were trying to bait.
>
>
> > Did you care when Ed replied to *my obvious joke* a physical
> > threat?
> > "What? You mean you looking to get the sh*t kicked out of you
> > by me
> > because you think you are going to continue the "teach Ed a lesson
> > scenario?"
>
> You actually altered the sentence! You left out "in argument".
You lying cunt. Rhianna responded to Ed's ORIGINAL post, not the
subsequent one HE altered.
Now apologize to her, you lying bitch.
>
> He caught on to you pretty quickly didn't he? Wasn't it within 3
> posts, that he realized what you were here for?
BWAHAHAH!
You paranoid moron. What do you think Rhianna's "here for", Marsha?
>
> Message-ID: <37BB3B...@bigfoot.com>
>
> "What? You mean you looking to get the shit kicked out of you
> in argument by me because you think you are going to continue the "teach
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
> Ed a lesson scenario?" Yes, I guess it keeps coming to that."
Sorry, that's a post he issued subsequently, in an attempt to disguise
the fact that he issued the original post WITHOUT the words "in
argument" .
>
> I think you were mocking him for not posting in his own words, when he
> had actually posted an excerpt from an article he, himself had written
> for Dell Horoscope magazine--his own words.
Which in itself is a ripoff of other astrologer's work.
>
> Remaining ineffectual, incompetent attempts at "spinning" snipped.
You really are a stupid beast, Kalfsbeek.
anonym™
posting under that name but who now inexplicably wishes to be referred
to as "Sherilyn" wrote:
>
>
> >>>>> "Cathy" == Cathy Credulous <cathycr...@my-deja.com> writes:
>
> > Marsha <sharma!@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > news:37BAE3EF...@mindspring.com...
> >>
> >> There are no parallels.
>
> > Oh, grow up, you lying cunt.
>
> So mature...
You mean like insisting on being called a woman's name after having been
fine with your male name for years?
We don't need a freak like you who manipulates someone and puts on the
hideously transparent sham of being her friend commenting on someone
else's maturity.
anonym™
> > >
> > > > or that business
> > > > and money, once again, have something to do with your bond to Ed.
> > >
> > > "Your logic is flawed; you make very little sense."
> > >
> > > He doesn't owe me any money, I don't owe him any money. There are no
> > > obligations between us. He has never asked to borrow money, I have
> > > never asked to borrow money.
> >
>
> I finished last November.
Didn't you say you were "editing" his book, idiot?
"Editing" exists in the present tense.
wildearth
Rhianna wrote in message <37bc7a0f...@news.pipeline.com>...>>He [Edmond Wollmann] defends himself from others who have attempted to
hurt him.
>
> Marsha, I am just curious: were you actively reading the
>posts in this newsgroup when I "first arrived" on the scene looking to
>become part of the "group" at alt.astrology?
>
>
> [1] I wanted to exchange stimulating information/conversation
> about astrology. I wanted to enhance my own knowledge
> about astrology and perhaps contribute something.
>
>
> Do you think I am a mean person or one who is out to
> randomly hurt others in a newsgroup?
>
> Why do you think Ed treated me the way he did?
The answer is obvious, Rhianna. You appear to be an intelligent, creative
person with the ability to theorize and think on your own. Ed views this
type of mental autonomy as a threat to his tender ego. Period.
>
><snip>
>
>>
>>> And it hurts to see people offensively trying to hurt
>>> >others.
>
> Did you care when Ed replied to *my obvious joke* a physical
>threat?
> "What? You mean you looking to get the sh*t kicked out of you
>by me
>because you think you are going to continue the "teach Ed a lesson
>scenario?"
>
> Was Ed being patient and understanding or was he trying to
>intimidate me with fear? You know him better than I do, heck! Perhaps
>I caught him in one of his better moods *laugh*
>
> Does Ed have a sense of humor?
>
>>I don't see him attempting to hurt others.
>
> Nahhh, definitely he meant no hard feelings when he told me
>he'd "kick the sh*t out of me".....does he live in San Diego? I don't
>think I'll be visiting there anytime soon.
>
> > I see him defending himself.
>
> Yeah, he needs to defend himself from my jokes with threats
>of violence. Did you ever look at his behavior and wonder what might
>happen in the future *if* he turns against you for some bizarre
>reason? I certainly hope he doesn't, I'd like to see him treat you
>well, but just be cautious around a man with abusive behavior traits.
>
><snip>
>
>>I don't see him attempting to hurt others. I see him defending himself
>>and posting astrology.
>
wildearth
anonym™ wrote in message <37BCC9CA...@pacbell.net>...
>Marsha Kalfsbeek wrote:
>>
>> Cathy Credulous wrote:
>> >
>> > Marsha <sharma!@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> > news:37BC6CE5...@mindspring.com...
>> > >
>> > > > and money, once again, have something to do with your bond to Ed.
>> > >
>> > > "Your logic is flawed; you make very little sense."
>> > >
>> > > He doesn't owe me any money, I don't owe him any money. There are no
>> > > obligations between us. He has never asked to borrow money, I have
>> > > never asked to borrow money.
>> >
>>
>> I finished last November.
>
>Didn't you say you were "editing" his book, idiot?
>
>"Editing" exists in the present tense.
You would think she'd be smart enough not to brag about the fact that she
edited his extremely incoherent and unpopular book. I guess she's not
planning on a career in editing.
Marsha
---------
Subject:
Re: Checking on my kingdom
Date:
Wed, 18 Aug 1999 16:03:48 -0700
From:
"Edmond H. Wollmann" <Edmond_...@bigfoot.com>
Organization:
Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Newsgroups:
alt.paranormal, alt.astrology
References:
1 , 2 , 3 , 4
hianna wrote:
>
> On Wed, 18 Aug 1999 15:37:10 -0700, "Edmond H. Wollmann"
> <Edmond_...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
> >Dan Pressnell wrote:
> >>
> >> How are my loyal subjects doing today? Are you proud of me for keeping
> >> taxes low?
> >>
> >> Dan,
> >> Certified Skep-Ti-Cult King
> >
> >Did you have any astrology/psychology/metaphysics/or paranormal to
> >discuss yet? Or must we continue to overthrow your kingdom until we have
> >a United States?
> >
> >Uranus!
> >
> > THE DECLARATION
> > OF
> > INDEPENDENCE
> >
> > IN CONGRESS, JULY 4,1776
> >
> >"WHEN in the Course of human events
>
> <snip>
>
> Gee, Ed!?! Has it come to this already??
What? You mean you looking to get the shit kicked out of you in argument
by me because you think you are going to continue the "teach Ed a lesson
scenario?"
Yes, I guess it keeps coming to that.
> The Horoscope articles are gone and you have to resort to quoting the
> Declaration of Independence?
You don't like the Declaration of Independence? I think it demonstrates
not only the integrity of our forefathers here in the sates, but is a
perfect example of the integrity that follows when one wakes up to
Uranian ideas and gets off the "shoulds" rules and complacent acceptance
of tyranny by those like you who think they know what's "best" for
others. There are no "bosses" in the United States-get it? And I am very
Uranian, as I have demonstrated, the more you try to Saturnize
(restrict) me, the more I rebel and the more foolish you will look by
the moment. See?
> Ed, I bet a bunch of us already learned about the Constitution by
> watching Saturday morning cartoons on ABC and watching their little
> "School House Rock" shows. Ed, I'm sorry but you'll have to come up
> with something better than pre-packaged text, ok I know you can do
> it---is it a deal?
Come up with something "better" than the awkening of integrity by a
whole nation!
Can't top that abuser.
"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall
pay ANY price, bear ANY burden, meet ANY hardship, support ANY friend,
oppose ANY foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of
liberty!"
John F. Kennedy (Uranus in Aquarius)
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 1999 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
Artworks http://www.astroconsulting.com/personal/
http://www.astroconsulting.com/FAQs/tableof.htm
--------
Kat wrote:
>
> Marsha <sharma!@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >Rhianna wrote:
> >...
> >> Marsha, I am just curious: were you actively reading the
> >> posts in this newsgroup when I "first arrived" on the scene looking to
> >> become part of the "group" at alt.astrology?
> >
> >Sure was, spotted you right away. Especially, noticable was how you
> >ignored my post to you. If you had not previously had an agenda, you
> >would have at least questioned what I was referring to. Your ignoring
> >of that post, was one clue that showed to me you were not sincere about
> >"camaraderie".
>
> Perhaps Rhianna did not see your post.
>
> >>
> >...
> >>
> >> [2] I was looking for camaraderie.
> >
> >...
> >>
> >> Why do you think Ed treated me the way he did?
> >
> >Because he saw right away that you were trying to bait.
>
> Wow. Paranoia strikes deep.
>
> >...
> >
> >> Did you care when Ed replied to *my obvious joke* a physical
> >> threat?
> >> "What? You mean you looking to get the sh*t kicked out of you
> >> by me
> >> because you think you are going to continue the "teach Ed a lesson
> >> scenario?"
> >
> >You actually altered the sentence! You left out "in argument".
>
> Liar. You are a liar, Marsha.
>
> >He caught on to you pretty quickly didn't he? Wasn't it within 3
> >posts, that he realized what you were here for?
> >
> >Message-ID: <37BB3B...@bigfoot.com>
> >
> >"What? You mean you looking to get the shit kicked out of you
> >in argument by me because you think you are going to continue the "teach
> >^^^^^^^^^^^
> >Ed a lesson scenario?" Yes, I guess it keeps coming to that."
>
> *****************
> What? You mean you looking to get the shit kicked out of you by me
> because you think you are going to continue the "teach Ed a lesson
> scenario?"
> Yes, I guess it keeps coming to that.
>
> From: "Edmond H. Wollmann" <Edmond_...@bigfoot.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.paranormal,alt.astrology
> Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 16:00:04 -0700
> Organization: Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
> Lines: 70
> Message-ID: <37BB3A...@bigfoot.com>
> References: <37BAD849...@ns.vvm.com> <37BB35...@bigfoot.com>
> <37bb379c...@news.pipeline.com>
> *********************
>
> Now you may apologize to Rhianna for accusing her of altering that quote.
>
> >I think you were mocking him for not posting in his own words, when he
> >had actually posted an excerpt from an article he, himself had written
> >for Dell Horoscope magazine--his own words.
>
> So what?
>
> It was a bullshit canned response from Ed.
>
> >Remaining ineffectual, incompetent attempts at "spinning" snipped.
> >...
>
> Whatever.
>
> >Marsha
>
> Weasel.
anonym™
>
> anonym™ wrote in message <37BB7642...@pacbell.net>...
> >Beep wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 18 Aug 1999 18:57:56 -0400, "wildearth" <wild...@erols.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Despite the fact that Ed's usenet behavior is despicable, and that I fail to
> >> >understand her unconditional support of it, Marsha is fundamentally correct.
> >> >She should be permitted to support him without fear of having her personal
> >> >information posted.
> >>
> >> I, of course, agree.
> >>
> >Me, too.
> >
> >I've lately only posted it when Ed posts something that he shouldn't post.
>
> Liar.
It depends upon your definition of "lately".
> >
> >Marsha is of course perfectly entitled to post in support of Ed.
> >
> >Posting the information that was and is public information is not
> >harassing her,
>
> Yes, it is.
No, it isn't, you dolt.
>All Marsha needs to do is correlate any threatening phone calls or emails
> coinciding with your repeated reposting of her personal details.
Wrong, moron. She may as well correlate the postitions of the planets
and stars and blame her "the sky is falling!" disingenuousness on them.
> Any court dealing with a
> claim of damage against her would find the circumstantial evidence overwhelming.
Oh, really? Is that your prefessional troll opinon?
>
> >it's simply something she doesn't like, and Ed doesn't like.
> >
> >Well, I don't like it when Ed does certain things either, so I pick
> >something that he doesn't like when he does that.
>
> How immature of you.
It's one of my charms.
> >
> >She manages to post in spite of that information being posted, just as
> >Rick Ellis does in spite of his information being posted.
>
> Posting a woman's personal details on usenet can be easily construed as intentional
> harassment.
What a sexist statement. Of course it can be easily contrured that way
by moronic dimwits and trolls like you.
> >
> >Brrr. The entire situation is positively KALFSBEEKIAN!
>
> Positively FREA
Oh shut up, Luci.
anonym™
(PC 555- Unlawful Entry), fined, and placed on probation, July 1999
Winner of the Victor von Frankenstein Wierd Science, Bobo, Looney
Maroon, (SIX time Looney Maroon Winner!), Tar & Feathers, and Bolo
Bullis Foam Duck Awards, and 1998 Usenet Kook of the Year wrote:
>
> Tom Kerr wrote:
> >
> > <auk added>
> >
> > In article <37BB27...@bigfoot.com>, Edmond_...@bigfoot.com wrote:
> > >Suzyqyou wrote:
> > >>
> > >> anonym wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >It still makes you the ludicrous dingo-ball who tips valets with FOOD
> > > STAMPS.
> > >> >
> > >> That, I swear, is one of the most pathetically FUNNY things I've ever
> > > heard!!!
> > >
> > >LILI is the one who had food stamps, not me.
> > >
> >
>
> Because she inherited a trust and doesn't need them?
So this means *you* do?
>Or do you see alot
> of people in Beverly Hills on food stamps?
Well, there was one that night: Edmond Wollmann.
anonym™
>
> anonym™ wrote in message <37BCC34A...@pacbell.net>...
> >wildearth wrote:
> >>
> >> Marsha wrote:
> >
> >...
> >>
> >>
> >> I'll tell you what I certainly need to consider. I need to consider not
> >> coming to your defense, both privately and publicly, when you
> disingenuously
> >> appear frightened of harassment. Thank you for encouraging me to see
> this
> >> flaw; I truly appreciate it and will self correct.
> >>
> >
> >
> >> >to point out that you (and others) are attempting to dictate or control
> >> >how or if I (a person apart from you) post.
> >>
> >> You're impossibly hypocritical and obtuse. I began my posts to this
> thread
> >> by supporting your right to post whatever you like.
> >>
> >
> >
> >That's what I'm tawkin' bout!
>
> And I sincerely apologize to you.
>
No need. I saw where you were coming from.
Disagreed with it, but I wonder if Marsha noticed I didn't tear you
apart because of that disagreement.
You were sincere in your criticisms, but civil, and I didn't take offense.
I've dealt with Marsha many times, and it always ends up with her doing
a hideous twisting to try and tie up all her contradictions into one
cohesive knot.
Problem is, she ends up hanging herself.
Marsha
>
> Marsha Kalfsbeek wrote:
...
> > > That's good to hear. So, when you're finished editing his book,
> >
> > I finished last November.
>
> Didn't you say you were "editing" his book,
No...just look one line up and you will see what I said: "I finished
last November." Does that help?
That was the first post I've ever made in reference to my editing of
Ed's book :)
> idiot?
> "Editing" exists in the present tense.
Yes, and finished is in the past tense--that's the "ed" on the end of
finish. That means that I am no longer in the process of editing.
Therefore, I have edited.
And it's actually, co-edit. I'm not the only person that has edited,
and/or is editing.
Marsha
anonym™
>
> anonym™ wrote in message <37BCC9CA...@pacbell.net>...
> >Marsha Kalfsbeek wrote:
> >>
> >> Cathy Credulous wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Marsha <sharma!@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:37BC6CE5...@mindspring.com...
> >> > >
> >> > > > and money, once again, have something to do with your bond to Ed.
> >> > >
> >> > > "Your logic is flawed; you make very little sense."
> >> > >
> >> > > He doesn't owe me any money, I don't owe him any money. There are no
> >> > > obligations between us. He has never asked to borrow money, I have
> >> > > never asked to borrow money.
> >> >
> >>
> >> I finished last November.
> >
> >
> >"Editing" exists in the present tense.
>
> edited his extremely incoherent and unpopular book. I guess she's not
> planning on a career in editing.
Wait a minute.
She's saying she edited Ed's *currently on the market* book?
BWAAHAHAHAHAHAH!
What did her editing consist of ,then?
Barely glancing at the pages while riffling through them and saying
"looks real NICE, Ed!"?
One thing I can say about Marsha is that her spellling is usually pretty good.
Maybe she's so paranoid about appearances she runs every post through a
spell checker, maybe she's a good speller.
But her logical skills are scarily distorted.
And if she edited "the Chalice of Arcturus" she should be VERY embarrassed!
anonym™
>
> jf...@think.different (jfred) wrote:
>
> > [Tony Sidaway] <sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
...
> > >
> > > >>>>> "Cathy" == Cathy [Cretinous] <cathycr...@my-deja.com> writes:
> > >
> > > > Marsha <sharma!@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > > >>
> > > >> There are no parallels.
> > >
> > > > Oh, grow up, you lying cunt.
> > >
> > > So mature...
> >
>
>
But it made his boyfriend spasm with delight.
Marsha
>
> anonym™ wrote in message <37BCC9CA...@pacbell.net>...
> >Marsha Kalfsbeek wrote:
> >>
> >> Cathy Credulous wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > > > or that business
> >> > > > and money, once again, have something to do with your bond to Ed.
> >> > >
> >> > > "Your logic is flawed; you make very little sense."
> >> > >
> >> > > He doesn't owe me any money, I don't owe him any money. There are no
> >> > > obligations between us. He has never asked to borrow money, I have
> >> > > never asked to borrow money.
> >> >
> >>
> >> I finished last November.
> >
> >Didn't you say you were "editing" his book, idiot?
> >
> >"Editing" exists in the present tense.
>
> You would think she'd be smart enough not to brag about
I just corrected Nidiffer's statement from the present tense to the past
tense. As I understand it, I'm not the only person involved in the
editing for the next edition.
Marsha
anonym™
>
> You did it too :)
Did what, you lying cunt?
Now you're reposting Ed's SUBSEQUENT post that he issued to replace his
ORIGINAL one.
I notice now that you've stripped out the message ID which clearly shows
that the message you're reposting here is not the one Rhianna OR Kat is
referring to.
In fact, the subsequent post by Ed (which *HE* altered and NOBODY else)
was posted 3 minutes and 44 seconds after he made his ORIGINAL threat of
physical violence.
You dishonest, disingenuous, lying CUNT.
>
> ---------
> Subject:
> Re: Checking on my kingdom
> Date:
> Wed, 18 Aug 1999 16:03:48 -0700
> From:
> "Edmond H. Wollmann" <Edmond_...@bigfoot.com>
> Organization:
> Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
> Newsgroups:
> alt.paranormal, alt.astrology
> References:
> 1 , 2 , 3 , 4
>
> hianna wrote:
> >
SNIPPED Ed's subsequent post clumsily designed to cover up his violent
physical threat upon a woman
Sorry, Marsha.
You keep referring to the wrong post.
HERE is the post that everyone is referring to.
It's no longer on some news spools.
But not all news spools ACCEPT cancels, you stupid cunt and friend to a
criminal asshole.
Read it and WEEP, KALFSBEEK:
---------------------------------------
Path:
news.alt.net!wn4feed!worldnet.att.net!wnmaster2!not-for-mail
From:
"Edmond H. Wollmann" <Edmond_...@bigfoot.com>
Newsgroups:
alt.paranormal, alt.astrology
Subject:
Re: Checking on my kingdom
Date:
Wed, 18 Aug 1999 16:00:04 -0700
Organization:
Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Lines:
70
Message-ID:
<37BB3A...@bigfoot.com>
References:
<37BAD849...@ns.vvm.com>
<37BB35...@bigfoot.com>
<37bb379c...@news.pipeline.com>
Reply-To:
Edmond_...@bigfoot.com
NNTP-Posting-Host:
12.72.11.12
Mime-Version:
1.0
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
8bit
X-Trace:
bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net 935017220 19043
12.72.11.12 (18
Aug 1999 23:00:20 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:
ab...@worldnet.att.net
NNTP-Posting-Date:
18 Aug 1999 23:00:20 GMT
X-Mailer:
Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP (Win95; U)
Xref:
news alt.paranormal:152727 alt.astrology:262118
Rhianna wrote:
>
> On Wed, 18 Aug 1999 15:37:10 -0700, "Edmond H. Wollmann"
> <Edmond_...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
> >Dan Pressnell wrote:
> >>
> >> How are my loyal subjects doing today? Are you proud of me for keeping
> >> taxes low?
> >>
> >> Dan,
> >> Certified Skep-Ti-Cult King
> >
> >Did you have any astrology/psychology/metaphysics/or paranormal to
> >discuss yet? Or must we continue to overthrow your kingdom until we have
> >a United States?
> >
> >Uranus!
> >
> > THE DECLARATION
> > OF
> > INDEPENDENCE
> >
> > IN CONGRESS, JULY 4,1776
> >
> >"WHEN in the Course of human events
>
> <snip>
>
> Gee, Ed!?! Has it come to this already??
What? You mean you looking to get the shit kicked out of you by me
---
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 1999 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
Artworks http://www.astroconsulting.com/personal/
http://www.astroconsulting.com/FAQs/tableof.htm
-----------------------------------------------------
> > >>
> > >> Why do you think Ed treated me the way he did?
> > >
> > >Because he saw right away that you were trying to bait.
> >
> > Wow. Paranoia strikes deep.
> >
> > >...
> > >
> > >> Did you care when Ed replied to *my obvious joke* a physical
> > >> threat?
> > >> "What? You mean you looking to get the sh*t kicked out of you
> > >> by me
> > >> because you think you are going to continue the "teach Ed a lesson
> > >> scenario?"
> > >
> > >You actually altered the sentence! You left out "in argument".
> >
> > Liar. You are a liar, Marsha.
Marsha is a lying cunt, or the stupidwest dupe in history.
If you didn't see the original, Marsha, and Ed is telling you he didn't
make that first post, he is LYING to you and USING you.
> >
> > >He caught on to you pretty quickly didn't he? Wasn't it within 3
> > >posts, that he realized what you were here for?
> > >
> > >Message-ID: <37BB3B...@bigfoot.com>
> > >
> > >"What? You mean you looking to get the shit kicked out of you
> > >in argument by me because you think you are going to continue the "teach
> > >^^^^^^^^^^^
> > >Ed a lesson scenario?" Yes, I guess it keeps coming to that."
Sorry you stupid bitch. you're referring to the wrong post, either out
of stupidity or dishonesty.
Do you deny Ed made the post identified by Message ID: <37BB3A...@bigfoot.com>?
Ken, can you find Message ID: <37BB3A...@bigfoot.com> on
Mindspring's news server?
anonym™
>
> anonym™ wrote:
> >
> > Marsha Kalfsbeek wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > >
> > > I finished last November.
> >
> > Didn't you say you were "editing" his book,
>
> last November." Does that help?
Yes.
>
> That was the first post I've ever made in reference to my editing of
> Ed's book :)
So, you edited Ed's book?
The one currently being sold by Amazon.com?
If so, you did a horribly SHITTY job!
It's full of grammatical, spelling, logic, and other errors!
>
> > idiot?
>
> > "Editing" exists in the present tense.
>
> Yes, and finished is in the past tense--that's the "ed" on the end of
> finish. That means that I am no longer in the process of editing.
> Therefore, I have edited.
Not very well, if we are talking about Ed's currently available book.
>
> And it's actually, co-edit. I'm not the only person that has edited,
> and/or is editing.
If we are talkng about the same book, then you share the blame.
anonym™
>
> wildearth wrote:
> >
> > anonym™ wrote in message <37BCC9CA...@pacbell.net>...
> > >Marsha Kalfsbeek wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Cathy Credulous wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > Marsha <sharma!@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > >> > news:37BC6CE5...@mindspring.com...
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > or that business
> > >> > > > and money, once again, have something to do with your bond to Ed.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > "Your logic is flawed; you make very little sense."
> > >> > >
> > >> > > He doesn't owe me any money, I don't owe him any money. There are no
> > >> > > obligations between us. He has never asked to borrow money, I have
> > >> > > never asked to borrow money.
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> I finished last November.
> > >
> > >
> > >"Editing" exists in the present tense.
> >
>
> I just corrected Nidiffer's statement
Nidiffer?
Nidiffer's dead, Marsha.
Nidiffer hasn't posted in a long time.
> from the present tense to the past
> tense. As I understand it, I'm not the only person involved in the
> editing for the next edition.
Obviously you weren't up to the task to do it all by yourself.
How about responding to the other posts where I point out that you keep
referring to a different post Ed made where he added "in argument" to
cover up the fact that a post he made contained a threat of physical violence?
It also looks like your claims of feeling afraid to post here were utter bullshit.
anonym™
>
> Marsha wrote in message <37BCD70E...@mindspring.com>...
> >wildearth wrote:
> >>
> >> anonym™ wrote in message <37BCC9CA...@pacbell.net>...
> >> >Marsha Kalfsbeek wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Cathy Credulous wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Marsha <sharma!@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> >> >> > news:37BC6CE5...@mindspring.com...
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > > or that business
> >> >> > > > and money, once again, have something to do with your bond to
> Ed.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > "Your logic is flawed; you make very little sense."
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > He doesn't owe me any money, I don't owe him any money. There are
> no
> >> >> > > obligations between us. He has never asked to borrow money, I
> have
> >> >> > > never asked to borrow money.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > That's good to hear. So, when you're finished editing his book,
> >> >>
> >> >> I finished last November.
> >> >
> >> >Didn't you say you were "editing" his book, idiot?
> >> >
> >> >"Editing" exists in the present tense.
> >>
> >> You would think she'd be smart enough not to brag about
> >
> >tense. As I understand it, I'm not the only person involved in the
> >editing for the next edition.
>
> have or had a working obligation to Ed. You see no problem in his
> exploiting of others as you are supporting him in return for the opportunity
> to edit his book.
>
> Will you receive royalties, Marsha? Do you think you will garner fame or a
> career off of Ed? Was this the deal he offered Lili? Does this explain her
> sudden change of heart?
>
> Gosh, I love the rude awakenings that only karma can bring.
>
> WildE
> .............as intuitive as ever.
>
And Ed is as unethical as ever.
What counselor has a client do WORK for him?
Editing a book is a job that requires a lot of responsibility.
I don't care if Mardsha *agreed* to it; a patient can also agree to have
sex with her shrink.
It doesn't make the situation ethical.
anonym™
>
> anonym™ wrote:
>
> >Do you deny Ed made the post identified by Message ID: <37BB3A...@bigfoot.com>?
>
> cancels, so both this and the one Marsha's referring to are in the
> thread.> No, because they accept cancels.
Ah, but it *is* still on Altopia's newsfeed, as someone so nicely
informed me.
Anyone else on a newsfeed that doesn't accept cancels?
Please email me the entire post with headers including path
I can't find the cancel message, either for Message ID:
<37BB3A...@bigfoot.com> on DejaNews.
Can anyone find it in .control or has it been flushed already?
One of the more interesting bits of evidence of Ed's tampering with his
oown post is that the original threat post contained the full "Rhianna
wrote:" whereas on his altered post he fucked up and "hianna wrote" was posted.
This means that the subsequent post was not in direct response,
otherwise his newsreader software would have corectly placed the entire
name "Rhianna" there.
It means Ed copied, then altered the post, and fucked up in his attempt
to hide the evidence.
You're such a schmuck, Ed, and you're such a cunt, Marsha.
Did anyone send a complaint to ab...@worldnet.att.net for that violent
physical threat he made?
It's how his accounts were suspended and then cancelled at Pacbell.net.
Funny how history repeats itself!
J. White
> > Oh, grow up, you lying cunt.
>
> So mature...
So what...
J. White
...mean people suck, nice people swallow
anonym™
>
> In article <37BCE1C7...@pacbell.net>, anonym™ wrote:
> >
> > Ah, but it *is* still on Altopia's newsfeed, as someone so nicely
> > informed me.
> >
> > Anyone else on a newsfeed that doesn't accept cancels?
> > Please email me the entire post with headers including path
>
> via email.
Thanks.
That'll be two sources of the original post that Marsha Kalfsbeek is
deliberately avoiding to recognize the existence of.
She'd either have to be extremely stupid, extremely paranoid, bizarrely
devoted to defending Wollmann no matter what the cost, or extremely
under Ed Wollmann's thumb to not recognize the existence of Ed's post in
which he threatened Rhiana with physical violence.
Which is not to say she couldn't easily satisfy all of the above conditions.
>
> > I can't find the cancel message, either for Message ID:
> > <37BB3A...@bigfoot.com> on DejaNews.
> >
> > Can anyone find it in .control or has it been flushed already?
>
> Most places expire control messages in less than 24 hours.
>
Thought so. Thanks for your help!
anonym™
>
> anonym™ wrote in message <37BCE27E...@pacbell.net>...
Well, both Marsha and Ed have claimed that she was his client.
> Marsha is
> simply hawking her stake in Ed's career.
She's also trashing even further her already pathetic reputation as a
lying weasel.
> Editing a book is not a crime,
But if she was a client and Ed was a counselor ot would be very unethical.
>
> however, she may be aiding and abetting a criminal by coming to usenet and
> supporting him as a counselor of psychological services that she knows he is
> not license to render.
That would be criminal on her part as a co-conspiritor to fraud.
>
> Marsha may very well be a washed up flamenco dancer turned con-artist
> scammer.
And the smelly frou-frou stuff she sells just a front?
anonym™
>
> anonym™ wrote:
> >
> > Marsha wrote:
> > >
> > > You did it too :)
> >
> >
> > ORIGINAL one.
>
I don't GIVE a shit.
So the only one you saw was a revision of the original that ED altered,
and nobody else.
Now you've seen the original, bitch.
>
> >
> > I notice now that you've stripped out the message ID
>
> No, I didn't take anything out.
Yes, you did.
You posted previously the new message i.d.
So yes, you took it out, you fucking LIAR>
> Sorry, I meant to post with full
> headers.
Yeah right. However, you didn;t.
You previousl posted the message id and then AFTER I pointed out it was
the worng one you stopped posting the meage id.
It sure looks like you're trying to hide something.
>
> If any man actually threatened to physically (not in argument) do that
> to a woman, I would definitely change my opinion of them.
Well Ed actually did that. The post still exists on some newsservers.
Are ou going to now defitinitely change your opinion of him, or aree you
going to create some lame justification such as "well, he meant to write
that but forgot to".
No, Marsha kalfsbeek, Ed wrote that in a rage and then realizzed his
stupid fucking mistake and tried to cover it up, same way he did when he
threatened to crush Gary Burnore's skull bones.
>
> I also think that a false accusation of that is equally serious.
THink what you want, you stupid cunt. I sure didn;t make any false
accusation. Ed made the post and it still exists on some newsserves that
DON'T accept cancels.
>
> Marsha
>
> ------------
> Path:
>
> mindspring!news.mindspring.net!firehose.mindspring.net!howland.erols.net!news-out.worldnet.att.net.MISMATCH!wn3feed!worldnet.att.net!wnmaster2!not-for-mail
> From:
> "Edmond H. Wollmann"
> <Edmond_...@bigfoot.com>
> Newsgroups:
> alt.paranormal, alt.astrology
> Subject:
> Re: Checking on my kingdom
> Date:
> Wed, 18 Aug 1999 16:03:48 -0700
> Organization:
> Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
> Lines:
> 70
> Message-ID:
> <37BB3B...@bigfoot.com>
> References:
> <37BAD849...@ns.vvm.com>
> <37BB35...@bigfoot.com> <37bb379c...@news.pipeline.com>
> <37BB3A...@bigfoot.com>
Yeah, GEE!
How about that, Marsha!
You posted the same incorrect, subsequent, altered-by-Ed post AGAIN!
> http://www.astroconsulting.com/FAQs/tableof.htm
No answer to that, huh Marsha KALFSBEEK?
Are you going to say Message ID: <37BB3A...@bigfoot.com> was forged?
No answer to that, huh Marsha KALFSBEEK?
Are you going to say Message ID: <37BB3A...@bigfoot.com> was forged?
> >
> > Ken, can you find Message ID: <37BB3A...@bigfoot.com> on
> > Mindspring's news server?
> >
Marsha, you are looking like a stupid fucking groupie!
Ed is hiding while you defend him, even when it's been proven that he
did EXACTLY what you said would change your opinion of him.
You are simply going to come up with a lame explanation and keep
supporting him
How about you insist Ed apologize to Rhianna for making that threat in
the original post?
I guess I'll copy both posts to ab...@worldnet.att.net to show how
devious Ed is being.
Maybe they've already suspended his account while investigating.
anonym™
>
> anonym™ wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > Wrong message ID, Marsha. Rhianna didn't respond to that one.
> >
> > She responded to the one below.
> >
> > Are you denying the existence of Message-ID: <37BB3A...@bigfoot.com>?
>
No, you DIDN'T you LYING WHORE!
<37BB3A...@bigfoot.com> isn't IN the DejaNews archive because Ed
CANCELLED it!
You didn't answer the QUESTION, you evading WEASEL!
Are you denying the existence of Message-ID: <37BB3A...@bigfoot.com>?
> It has the words "in argument".
No it DOESN'T, you moronic slut!
The SUBSEQUENT post that Ed amateurishly ALTERED does, you disingenuous whore!
The one he CANCELLED is the one that DOESN'T have the words "in
argument" in the sentence.
The one he CANCELLED is not *IN* DejaNews, you lying cunt!
The one he CANCELLED is the one others are REFERRING and RESPONDING to!
Here's Ed's ORIGINAL post again, GASH!
WQUit referring to Ed's subsequent altered post, Marsha KALFSBEEK!
anonym™
>
> CFA wrote:
> >
> > anonym™ wrote:
> >
> > >Do you deny Ed made the post identified by Message ID: <37BB3A...@bigfoot.com>?
> >
> > cancels, so both this and the one Marsha's referring to are in the
> > thread.
>
Why the FUCK would you post anythingAnglesas' ID?
This is more of Marsha's throwing bullshit into the discussion to
confuse it.
The only posters that matter here are Ed and Rhianna.
Ed responded to Rhianna with a VIOLENT PHYSICAL THREAT.l
>
> I posted the wrong ID I think.
Yeah, no SHIT, you stupid fucking LUMMOX!
> In deja, it comes up as Anglesea's reply
> to Ed's post where The R was missing from Rhianna's name.
Well then FORGET ANglesa's reply, you moron!
You can always go to Ed's SUBSEQUENT, ALTERED, LAME COVER-UP reply at:
>
> > >Ken, can you find Message ID: <37BB3A...@bigfoot.com> on
> > >Mindspring's news server?
> >
> > No, because they accept cancels.
>
> That message ID comes up in dejanews with the words "in argument".
>
No it DOESN'T you lying WHORE!
HEWRE is what DejaNews says when you search for
Document Not Found
Could not find article with Message-ID:
<37BB3A...@bigfoot.com>"
AND do you know WHY?
Because your guru Ed CANCELLED it, you dumbfuck!
How long are you going to play the stupid SHITHEAD just to defend your
indefensible guru, KALFSBEEK?