Haunted River Right - Independent Validation On ISP Issue
Haunted River
straight after this one post. But I wanted to direct you all to a post
which proves conclusively that John Pelan and Kevon O'Brien did in fact
lie.
An independent third party has been in communication with the
appropriate Legal Counsel and received this response:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.collecting.books/msg/03694dc12890c95a?hl=en
Draw your own conclusions about why Pelan and O'Brien opted to spin a
web of lies stretching back a year and a half.
I'm just glad that it's all over and that the truth has finally been
established.
Chris Barker
http://hauntedriver.co.uk
kevi...@clare.ltd.new.net
>
> Yes, I know that I said I would now drop this issue, and I will,
> straight after this one post. But I wanted to direct you all to a
post
> which proves conclusively that John Pelan and Kevon O'Brien did in
fact
> lie.
>
In fact it proves nothing of the kind. Mike Tice asked 10+ questions,
but all Mr. Maulding would say was that John Pelan had never been an
"owner" of Isomedia. As he told me back in January, he would make no
other comment on this issue to third parties who were not directly
involved.
In his email to Mr. Tice, Mr. Maulding said nothing about anyone lying
or having lied. He simply denied that John Pelan had ever been an
owner of Isomedia. But here's the problem: John Pelan never claimed
to be an owner. All he ever said was that Isomedia would respond to
Barker's complaints about him by offering to sell him stock rather than
suspend his account. At no time did John ever say, "I am an owner of
Isomedia," and Barker can provide no proof he ever did. What Barker is
hanging his hat on is a second statement John made about Isomedia
selling him "more" stock, but in and of itself this is not a claim of
ownership. In a strict legalistic sense, anyone who owns even one
share of stock is an owner of a company, but in any practical sense a
person has to own a significant amount of stock that also confers
voting privilages onto the stockholder to be considered an owner. John
never claimed he was such a person.
This email does, however, prove a suspicion that I've had ever since I
first became involved, namely that Barker lied to Isomedia. The only
reason Mr. Maulding would have characterized John as an "owner" is if
Barker deliberately lied to him and said John claimed to be an owner.
In our email exchanges back in January, Mr. Maulding informed me that
Barker had indeed claimed that John was an owner and that he (Maulding)
had acted under that impression. So this response to Mike Tice is
welcome because it shows that Barker has in fact been lying about this
issue all along.
Just to set the record straight, again, Mr. Maulding told me he never
reprimanded John Pelan for lying, something that Barker knows is true
because Mr. Maulding sent him copies of the emails he sent to John. He
simply asked John to drop the issue, to stop making statements about
Isomedia, and to ignore Barker's taunts. He was quite candid with me,
and I wish he had been so with Mike Tice, but considering that even
back in January he was rapidly getting sick of the whole affair and
Barker's constant haranguing of him, not to mention Barker altering the
message of an email Mr. Maulding sent him, it is perhaps no wonder that
he has decided to simply retreat to a formal declaration based on
Barker's original charge.
Yes, John Pelan was not then, is not now, and never has been an owner
in Isomedia; we both freely admit that, but then John never claimed he
was. This whole fiasco occurred because Barker could not recognize
hyperbole when he saw it and went off half-cocked, then was unable to
back down when he learned the truth from Isomedia. This is all a
direct result of his self-admitted obsessive quest for revenge against
his enemies.
Barker will of course continue to claim that his lies about Pelan have
been "proven", but he has to to save face. Hopefully, however, he will
now be sufficiently satisfied that he will at last finally drop the
issue forever.
But I'm not holding my breath.
Kevin L. O'Brien
Haunted River
Pelan claimed on two seperate occasions that his ISP had offered to
sell him MORE stock. Yet Barry Maulding has now confirmed to at least
three individual people that Pelan never owned any stock. Ergo,
everything you have ever said on this matter is a lie.
At least a half dozen poeple in alt.horror.cthulhu regularly refer to
you as a serial liar. Aaron Vanek obtained communications from
independent third parties proving you a liar after you told lie after
lie about the poor man. Barry Maulding, another victim of your lies,
has denied ever having communicated with you. Pennyroyal told you were
being less than honest. Kate aka Wagga Wagga told you to drop the
matter because she too had heard from Barry Maulding, confirming my
claim about Pelan having lied. In addition, two emails from Isomedia
have been published on the internet, complete with full headers,
clearing stating that John Pelan lied about being a stockowner with his
ISP.
The dispute has more than run it's natural course. It's over. It's time
to drop it and move on. No one wants to listen to your mad bullshit and
no one will give you any credibility until you actually bother to
publish concrete, factual evidence (like we have) instead of spewing
lies.
alamocitycomics
Maulding to post the truth here. You both make good arguments and are
believable in your own right.
What do you say we all go to the local pub and drink a few classes of
Guiness and call it a day?
Haunted River
few facts. Now we finally have some facts, and they are these:
* Pelan claimed to own stock with ISOMEDIA. His claims are archived and
can be verified.
* Barry Maulding has on numerous occasions stated that Pelan never
owned ISOMEDIA stock and that he had to tell Pelan to stop making
"false claims". Emails verifying this have been published. Other
independent people have also alluded to the fact that they know this to
be true.
That's it. No further argument is necessary. Pelan and O'Brien have
been unable to produce a single shred of evidence in their defence.
Worse, Barry Maulding has denied ever having heard from O'Brien. So
let's please stop throwing these two liars charitable lifelines, shall
we? Neither of them has shown mercy to any victim of their deception,
they neither of them deserve it.
They lied; they've been caught out; end of story.
CB
kevi...@clare.ltd.new.net
he can't let anyone else have the last word.
Kevin L. O'Brien
jpe...@qwest.net
Cheers,
John
Haunted River
the many you have lied to:
1. Why did you falsely claim to own ISP stock?
2. Why have you encouraged Kevin O'Brien to prostitute himself in your
cause by telling successive lies?
3. Why have you subjected Barry Maulding and many readers of abgf to
much avoidable stress by refusing to acknowledge that you did in fact
lie?
4. Having been exposed as a liar, what evidence do you have to support
any of your other equally dubious claims and allegations?
5. Having been exposed as untrustworthy, will you now be resigning as
Trustee of Trustees at the Horror Writers Association?
CB
waggaw...@yahoo.com.au
>
> Mr. Maulding would say was that John Pelan had never been an
> "owner" of Isomedia. As he told me back in January, he would make no
> other comment on this issue to third parties who were not directly
> involved.
Oh, dear, Mr O'Brien - once again Cyberspace is redolent with the scent
of unfettered male hormone and little sense. Sadly I did ask you to
leave this subject be - and while part of me has great sympathy for
your anger, I am also tired of this rubbish.
I really don't want to have to push this "to the limit" but let me tell
you, Isomedia have not, would not, could not communicate with you about
a third party problem.
The information you claim to have, to have been given, or obtained is
actually confidential and not available in the normal run of things to
third parties.
> Just to set the record straight, again, Mr. Maulding told me he never
> reprimanded John Pelan for lying,<snipped> He was quite candid with
me,
> and I wish he had been so with Mike Tice < snipped>
Would you like to just think about what you're saying here - especially
the "he was quite candid with me" bit?
Really?
I honestly have been in communication with him, I can assure you - and
don't really wish to cause huge amounts of embarrassment. End of story.
> Barker will of course continue to claim that his lies about Pelan
have
> been "proven", but he has to to save face. Hopefully, however, he
will
> now be sufficiently satisfied that he will at last finally drop the
> issue forever.
By the way, just for the record, Isomedia have stated that any
communication to a third party would be publishable - because it would
be non-existant? Publication of anything by the people or persons
directly involved would be fine also, because it would be their choice.
Without their consent, then obviously not.
So Mr O'Brien, from the Horse's mouth publish and be damned.
Or let the whole sad business die away.
> Kevin L. O'Brien
Please.
Kate
alamocitycomics
alamocitycomics
John Pelan
For a proven liar, plagarist, thief, and spammer to question anyone
else is beyond ironic.
Good day to you.
John
Haunted River
Personally, I'm well past wanting to "win" anything. I just want the
bullshit to end so that people can go back to their normal lives.
Having said that, it should end on the right note, with the truth being
accepted and acknowledged. I only strove to bring Pelan to account
because *he* had branded *me* a liar but I'm willing to 'forgive and
forget' because it is not fair to pollute a public newsgroup with such
persistent, malicious acrimony.
I admit that I've been tenacious in trying to get at the truth, both
here and via my website, but I'm very keen to move on to more positive
things. Most reasonable people are prepared to forgive a lie (depending
of course upon the implications of any given lie), but this transparent
tactic of inventing successive lies just to prop up an earlier one has
led to escalating tension and has been extremely tiresome for
everybody. It is also deeply insulting to everyone's intelligence.
CB
Mike Tice
posting your private emails!
I assume alamocitycomics is the person who was CC'ed on the message
from Maulding to me. I wasn't going to publish the message myself for
two reasons. First, Maulding didn't give explicit permission. Second,
the message didn't seem to say anything that wasn't already pretty
obvious to any disinterested observers who were irritated into looking
into this trivial matter kept alive by paragons of obnoxious
squabbling. For my part, I have no problem with the message being
posted.
Given the contents of the message, none but a fool or madman could deny
that Mr. Pelan made statements contrary to fact in 2004 about his
relationship with Isomedia. Now that this shocking truth has at last
been revealed to the world, I fully expect the Earth to shift its
course in its orbit around the sun. One must ask oneself, "Can life
ever be the same after this?"
Unfortunately, the elaboration of the original matter into claim and
counterclaim means that this insignificant matter is unlikely to die
the swift and merciful death it deserves.
--Mike
alamocitycomics
Haunted River
proved is that I breached Ramsey Campbell's copyright when I splashed
his review of a Haunted River booklet on my website. Where is the proof
for *any* of your other allegations?
To return to your first comment i.e. do I really think I merit any kind
of answer besides "fuck off?" Well, yes, actually I do, because you did
in fact lie, and you then set about attacking me in an extremely
disturbing and malicious manner because you perceived me as a threat.
But that isn't really the question you should be asking, is it? A great
many people have suffered because of your unwillingess to own up to the
lie, including me, Barry Maulding, Kevin O'Brien, not to mention
hundreds of other annoyed bystanders. So your question really should
read:
"Do the dozens of people who have been negatively affected by my lie
merit any kind on answer beyond 'fuck off?' "
Alas it would seem not.
CB
kevi...@clare.ltd.new.net
>
> I really don't want to have to push this "to the limit" but let me
tell
> you, Isomedia have not, would not, could not communicate with you
about
> a third party problem.
>
And yet Mr. Maulding did. If he told you different, most likely it was
as he told me, he is himself so sick of this issue that he would simply
fall back on issuing formal statements to uninvolved third parties,
like yourself.
>
> The information you claim to have, to have been given, or obtained
is
> actually confidential and not available in the normal run of things
to
> third parties.
>
Mr. Maulding made an exception in my case, provided I did not publish
the emails copied to me, after I informed him of what Barker was saying
about how he handled the issue. He hoped that if I told you guys about
it, Barker would stop. Instead, as we have all seen, Barker went into
vitriolic overdrive; he also started harrassing Mr. Maulding. That
email Barker keeps posting, the one where "Mr. Maulding" states that he
never denied anything; he actually told Barker to leave him alone.
>
> Really?
>
Yes, really.
>
> I honestly have been in communication with him, I can assure you -
and
> don't really wish to cause huge amounts of embarrassment. End of
story.
>
I believe you.
>
> By the way, just for the record, Isomedia have stated that any
> communication to a third party would be publishable - because it
would
> be non-existant? Publication of anything by the people or persons
> directly involved would be fine also, because it would be their
choice.
> Without their consent, then obviously not.
>
That's just the point; those emails were sent to John Pelan. Without
his permission I cannot publish them. And I'm sorry but Mr. Maulding
asked me not to publish them, regardless of what Isomedia's stated
policy might be.
>
> Or let the whole sad business die away.
>
Once Barker drops it as he promised I will be happy to drop it.
Kevin L. O'Brien
kevi...@clare.ltd.new.net
didn't think he would, his obsession with revenge won't let him.
Kevin L. O'Brien
kevi...@clare.ltd.new.net
>
> Given the contents of the message, none but a fool or madman could
deny
> that Mr. Pelan made statements contrary to fact in 2004 about his
> relationship with Isomedia.
>
The issue never was whether John said those things; the issue always
was, what did he mean by them?
Barker believes John tried to claim that is was a fact that he owned
stock in Isomedia and that he meant he was a part owner.
John meant neither of these things; he was making a hyperbolic joke to
characterize how he believed Isomedia would respond to Barker's
complaints about him, which was designed to get Barker's goat. Barker
instead took him at his literal word and then blew everything out of
proportion.
John Pelan never claimed that he was an owner of Isomedia; he never
stated as a fact that he own stock; he was not reprimanded for lying.
These are the essential facts of the issue. All the rest is rhetoric.
Kevin L. O'Brien
Haunted River
the room, like Gollum on a bad acid trip.
"What shall I says now? Loki doesn't like to be proved wrong...nasty
Barkerisses, why must they torment us so? First we said that Maulding
had emailed us once, yes, then we had to say he did it twices, so I
didses. Then the Devilish One produced that hateful, hateful email
which caused us so much troubleses. So we said we had received new
emails from that truth-spewing Maulding creature - damn his eyes! - but
then, no! Yes! Then others - others who had no business poking wet
prying Shire noses into our affairsis! - they started saying that
Barker was telling the truthses, that poor old Loki had lied. No!
Hateful people! Kill....kill them all! Kill them all and eat their
books! But no, surely there is a way, a way to please Master and also a
way out of this swampy lie for poor old Loki....yes! Yes! Loki shall
say that Pelan received e-messages from Evil Maulding, that way Others
can't make Loki hand over his Precious email.... Aaargh! Where is my
precious? They've taken it! They've taken it from Loki because it was
never there!!!"
I see no hope for the patient that is abgf and ahc until the cancer of
these lies are cut out.
kevi...@clare.ltd.new.net
Kevin L. O'Brien
Haunted River
history. You've already been told off for being disingenuous: you're at
it again now.
John Pelan very clearly stated that his ISP would laugh off any
complaint made to them about his abusive internet behaviour because (he
claimed) he was a stock holder in their company. He said that as well
as laughing off any complaint, they would probably also offer him a
good deal on some more stock.
Barry Maulding agreed that John Pelan had said and meant this after
reading Pelan's original posts for himself. This is why he immediately
told Pelan to stop making "false claims" about stock ownership. So far
from 'laughing off' my complaint about Pelan, he supported it, with the
added bonus of revealing that Pelan had lied.
Really O'Brien, you are making a complete and utter arse of yourself,
and you are polluting this newsgroup like it has never been polluted
before.
CB
Haunted River
no support, no case.
kevi...@clare.ltd.new.net
Besides, I prefer to be called "Amadan", which is the Celtic equivalent
of Loki. I am after all Celtic, not Teutonic.
Say, we must be getting along better; we now have pet names for each
other!
Kevin L. O'Brien
Haunted River
Oh dear, I had hoped to avoid doing this, but the pathetic reluctance
of Pelan and O'Brien to accept defeat gracefully on the Isomedia issue
has left me no alternative.
In the next few days I will be designing and launching a new website by
way of posting a public warning about these two liars. My web-host is
happy to host it and I now have a very large amount of evidence and
proof to cite (in contrast, for example, to O'Brien or Adam Walter, who
rely on naught but unevidenced aspersions).
When people search for Pelan / Midnight House / Horror Writers
Associtaion and O'Brien / Lindisfarne Press via search engines, the
website will show up in the returns (my existing Haunted River hosted
pages doesn't currently show in return because I haven't linked them to
the main website).
I had hoped to avoid this but it seems transparently clear that Pelan
and O'Brien would rather continue to pollute various newsgroups with
acrimony than have the decency to admit the truth and allow everyone to
move on.
In the meantime, I would remind John Pelan's acquaintances to exercise
caution in their professional business dealings with him, because he
has been independently exposed as a liar who fell out very
acrimoniously with his own ISP, also as someone who has been quite
prepared to ruthlessly manipulate newsgroups for his own ego; and I
would urge *everyone* to give Kevin O'Brien the widest possible berth.
What with the persistent lying, the humiliating attempts to save face
by trying to distort the meaning of even the clearest facts, the
excited adoption of nicknames as though they fan his fragile ego, the
bizarre hellfire references to 'Know the Devil by his works etc', it
seems more than likely that he is the first bona fide example that many
of us have come across of the oft-referenced internet casualty i.e. the
genuinely mentally ill fruitcake.
If O'Brien and Pelan are reading this, then I really, truly don't care
what you have to say in response. You could grovel to the hundreds of
abgfers and ahcers in sincere humble apology, and it wouldn't effect my
decision to create the new 'name-and-shame' website. You've both had
ample chances to resolve this issue and only have yourselves to blame
for the outcome. If you are both prepared to screw up two or three
newsgroups rather than quietly admit wrongdoing, then I am more than
happy to assist in screwing-up your respective professional
credibilities.
Chris Barker
http://hauntedriver.co.uk
Aaron Vanek
Aaron Vanek obtained communications from independent third parties proving you a liar after you told lie after lie about the poor man.
No. I did not forge any emails. I never have. I posted the emails I received from Chaosium directly; I am flattered that you think me ingenious enough to write something so formal and businesslike and not use the opportunity to really slam your head against the wall like the rotten pulp-fruit it is.Aaron has gone on record as saying he believes I lied; that's fine, because I know he forged the emails he claimed to have received from various parties, so we are even. However, Aaron also asked Barker to leave him out of his dispute with me and Barker has consistently and flagrantly ignored his request.
Again, you accused me of lying to Chaosium, which I never did. In fact, YOU, Kevin L. O'Brien, are the one who lied, and, for some strange reason, cannot own up to it. I don't know why, so I am going to assume that you suffer from a mental or emotional disorder. Would your life truly collapse if you admitted neither you nor your supposed "lawyer" talked to Chaosium's lawyers regarding my email? Why was I able to produce a third-party email, while you cannot produce any from either Chaosium or your lawyer?
In fact, can you please tell the group who Chaosium's lawyers are, and what their contact info is? I'm sure you have that information readily available, because it only took you a few days to get in touch with them about my emails to Chaosium.
Now, can both KLOB AND Barker PLEASE leave me out of your petty bickering and just suck each other's cocks in the back of the nite owl bus?
(severe apologies for dragging this over to a.b.g-f...hey...you folks have these psychos over there, too? Wouldn't it be cool if we could all meet at a bar and drink and watch KLOB and Barker slap each other silly like Curly and Moe?)
-- Aaron Vanek Reviews of my latest movie: http://www.flipsidemovies.com/yellowsign.html http://www.filmthreat.com/Reviews.asp?Id=4472 Also see: http://www.webnoir.com/yellowsign Buy my movies at: http://www.lurkerfilms.com "If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking." --Gen. George S. Patton, Jr.
sum1
A sudden dread has gripped me of late, filling me, as they say in all the
best ghost stories, with a nameless fear and sending an icy chill
down me spine.
It is this: that the boy Christopher has discovered how to replicate
himself, perhaps as cells do by doubling their size and then
dividing into two.
But something has gone wrong. Instead of siding with him against
the Big Bad John monster (he tells lies you know - isn't that just
awful!), the new CB has allied itself with the Seattle Strangler and
spends most of its waking hours savaging its unfortunate twin while
Laughing OUt Loud in an odd manner.
Never mind the Blob, beware of the KLOB .....
No doubt many will ask for evidence; everyone in here seems to be
demanding evidence these days.
Well, both the creatures share some difficulty in quoting the text
from a post they are responding to; both seem to have endless empty
hours to spend, or waste, and both can recall hugely unimportant
details from the distant past with uncanny accuracy, and -
Oh dear Gawd! Another horrid suspicion has just occurred to me:
what if each grows and splits again, making four of 'em ... then
eight, then sixteen ...
--
Ian (how do you spell exponential?)
sum1
> Yes, I know that I said I would now drop this issue, and I will,
> straight after this one post. But I
just can't seem to stop.
Know the feeling, Chris! I just keep lighting the damn things ....
--
Ian (I'll just 'ave one more and then quit ...)
sum1
snip>-
> Given the contents of the message, none but a fool or madman could deny
> that Mr. Pelan made statements contrary to fact in 2004 about his
> relationship with Isomedia. Now that this shocking truth has at last
> been revealed to the world, I fully expect the Earth to shift its
> course in its orbit around the sun. One must ask oneself, "Can life
> ever be the same after this?"
They say the new Holy Father has made it his first priority to
investigate the matter, and at
least one excommunication is likely.
--
Ian
kevi...@clare.ltd.new.net
>
> Again, you accused me of lying to Chaosium, which I never did. In
fact,
> YOU, Kevin L. O'Brien, are the one who lied, and, for some strange
> reason, cannot own up to it. I don't know why, so I am going to
assume
> that you suffer from a mental or emotional disorder.
>
LOL! Which of course is Net.code for "This guy has exposed me for the
pretentious, vindictive, pompous ass that I am so I will accuse him of
being insane so I can save face." No one takes that kind of charge
serious, except Net.kooks like Barker.
By the way, Barker will never leave you out of this, as long as you
post messages like this. He sees you as an ally and since he
desperately needs any kind of validation of his vitriol, he will
continue to splash your name and messages across usenet. I tried to
warn you about this and you would not listen. Perhaps now you will. I
am happy to leave you out, but as long as Barker keeps bringing you up
I will respond.
Kevin L. O'Brien
Haunted River
and grew to despise myself and loathe even smoking. The best way to
quit (well, it was for me) was to acquire a very nasty and prolonged
bout of bronchitis. After the virus passed, it felt like my lungs had
doubled in size. Fantasically liberating healthwise and economically.
I don't propose acquiring ill health on this occasion. The lancing of
the John Pelan & Kevin O'Brien boil is sufficient. Now whenever Pelan
or one of his henchmen tries to disrespect me (or others like me) by
spewing baseless personal allegations to the effect that I am / we are
serial-killing mass murderers, I can quite simply direct everybody to
this stunning example of bare-faced lying and, perhaps more
reprehensible, newsgroup pollution.
CB
Haunted River
Kevin O'Brien, and besides, his real existence can be pretty easily
established by checking out his Lindisfarne website and, if need be,
liaising with his stable of print-on-demand writers.
Amusing idea, but instantly impractical.
CB
Haunted River
victims so that they don't pool their information. Because once pooled,
all these separate emails and independent witness statements prove
beyond all reasonable doubt that you are a despicable liar with a
mental illness. Little wonder that you have the hypocritical gall to
try and tell people off for daring to post links to other people's
disputes with you, it's one of the last few pathetic straws you have
left to clutch at.
Vanek and I clearly have little in common - except for the fact that we
have both found ourselves maliciously harrassed by you for highlighting
your lying ways. I challenge anyone to read his post below - in fact,
to read the entire thread in which it occurs - and not form the opinion
that in Vanek we have a basically decent and sympathetic person who is
telling the truth about you.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.horror.cthulhu/msg/f8ad11eed04746e8
Go crawl into a cave and nurse your wounds, O'Brien. You've been
repeatedly humiliated. You're not wanted here; I doubt that you're
wanted *anywhere*; and I suspect that even your welcome earthly demise
would cause naught but ripples of amusement and relief.
kevi...@clare.ltd.new.net
>
> In the next few days I will be designing and launching a new website
by
> way of posting a public warning about these two liars. My web-host is
> happy to host it and I now have a very large amount of evidence and
> proof to cite (in contrast, for example, to O'Brien or Adam Walter,
who
> rely on naught but unevidenced aspersions).
>
Promises, promises. But if you finally manage to do it, at least it
can help generate some extra business.
>
> When people search for Pelan / Midnight House / Horror Writers
> Associtaion and O'Brien / Lindisfarne Press via search engines, the
> website will show up in the returns (my existing Haunted River hosted
> pages doesn't currently show in return because I haven't linked them
to
> the main website).
>
Just remember to post a link to our professional websites.
>
> I had hoped to avoid this but it seems transparently clear that Pelan
> and O'Brien would rather continue to pollute various newsgroups with
> acrimony than have the decency to admit the truth and allow everyone
to
> move on.
>
LOL!
Kevin L. O'Brien
kevi...@clare.ltd.new.net
>
> All you are trying to do is to drive wedges between your enemies and
> victims so that they don't pool their information. Because once
pooled,
> all these separate emails and independent witness statements prove
> beyond all reasonable doubt that you are a despicable liar with a
> mental illness. Little wonder that you have the hypocritical gall to
> try and tell people off for daring to post links to other people's
> disputes with you, it's one of the last few pathetic straws you have
> left to clutch at.
>
Aaron Vanek wrote: "Now, can both KLOB AND Barker PLEASE leave me out
of your petty bickering and just suck each other's cocks in the back of
the nite owl bus?"
Doesn't sound like he wants to pool anything with you, much less
information. Why can't you just do as he asks and leave the poor man
out of this?
>
> Vanek and I clearly have little in common - except for the fact that
we
> have both found ourselves maliciously harrassed by you for
highlighting
> your lying ways. I challenge anyone to read his post below - in fact,
> to read the entire thread in which it occurs - and not form the
opinion
> that in Vanek we have a basically decent and sympathetic person who
is
> telling the truth about you.
>
Better yet, they can do a Google search for me and Aaron and read all
the threads; then they can see how he vindictively attacked me for
daring to disagree with him on a public forum. I doubt many people
would consider it decent of him to lie to Chaosium to get them to sue
me.
>
> Go crawl into a cave and nurse your wounds, O'Brien. You've been
> repeatedly humiliated. You're not wanted here; I doubt that you're
> wanted *anywhere*; and I suspect that even your welcome earthly
demise
> would cause naught but ripples of amusement and relief.
>
LOL!
Kevin L. O'Brien
huw....@gmail.com
Haunted River wrote:
> I smoked 20 Camels a day for about ten years (plus a few other
things)
> and grew to despise myself and loathe even smoking. The best way to
> quit (well, it was for me) was to acquire a very nasty and prolonged
> bout of bronchitis. After the virus passed, it felt like my lungs had
> doubled in size. Fantasically liberating healthwise and economically.
>
> CB
I smoked 30-40 cigarettes daily for around ten years, mostly the local
(Taiwanese) brand, ironically named "Long-Life" (a picture of a
bewhiskered, smiling, sagacious, and thoroughly healthy Chinese
immortal adorns the package). I quit fourteen years ago, thank heavens;
one of the best decisions I ever made.
Anyone know any ghost stories involving cigarettes, cigars, pipes, and
the like? The only one I can think of offhand is Oliver Onions's The
Cigarette Case.
Huw
enqu...@hauntedriver.co.uk
(Basil Brush says 'Boom boom!')
I must confess to passive smoking in a literal sense. I like those
cosy, clubby 1930s ghost stories where tales are told in the smoking
room of a private gentleman's club or country house. That's where I get
my fix.
CB
PS. 30-40 day is a SERIOUS habit. That's a tenner a day by today's
prices - terrifying!
Mike Tice
>pretentious, vindictive, pompous ass that I am so I will accuse him of
>being insane so I can save face." No one takes that kind of charge
>serious, except Net.kooks like Barker.
LOL! Which of course is Net.code for "This guy has exposed me for the
pretentious, vindictive, pompous ass that I am so I will accuse him of
being the same because it's the only personality I understand well."
No one takes any of your unsubstantiated charges, imaginary
correspondence, mendacious anecdotes or haughty fulminations seriously,
except you and those fortunate individuals who have only a casual
acquaintance with your name.
Whatever your other virtues, O'Brien, you are an unrepentant and
unapologetic liar, as has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt on
several occasions.
Since you are beyond the bounds of polite discourse, I am perfectly
willing to completely ignore you in most circumstances, but if you
persist in spreading lies about my close personal friends in a public
forum, I feel duty bound to contradict you, galling though it is to
address a cad like you directly.
I adjure you to apologize to Aaron. Furthermore, I still await an
apology for your spurious accusations against me.
--Mike
"An honest whore is less of an insult to humanity than a sanctimonious
prig who ignores the truth and fosters error and illusion."
--HP Lovecraft, letter to Maurice Moe 1/4/30
kevi...@clare.ltd.new.net
your vindictive assaults. But you might want to think twice about
allying yourself with Barker simply for the cynical reason to spread
more lies about me.
Kevin L. O'Brien
GeoffreyW
I think the KLOB is a new strain that has migrated here from another
world. KLOB is Cthuluian, while CB is Aickmanite and somewhat
surrealistic which is in opposition to Cthulu's rather vivid
literalism. Aickmanites never get on well with Cthuluians, (though I
believe the Aickman prime found the Colour out of Space to be
palatable).
Beware, gentle reader, there is danger of assimilation by osmosis if
you spend too long in this strange Hegelian dialectic which can never
be resolved. You will become as they are. I dont know if it is
already too late for the JP.
Geoff
geoffreyw21 at msn dot com
John Pelan
Indeed, it far too late; why only this morning I glimpsed, (or thought
I did,) an immense three-lobed burning eye. However, on closer
examination, it was revealed that this vast anomaly was nothing more
or less than a large brass button. What does it all mean? There is no
ready answer to this enigma, but I fear that the implications are of
unspeakable horror, or perhaps not...
Cheers,
John
sum1
....
> CB
>
> PS. 30-40 day is a SERIOUS habit. That's a tenner a day by today's
> prices - terrifying!
>
WHAAT??? A fiver for a pack of twenty? Lord .. if I was still
over there, I'd be forking out around 70 quid a week. OK,I could afford
it, but still...
--
Ian
sum1
> No, I think you are hallucinating in the realms of fantasy.
Funny, those are almost exactly the words my psychiatrist used only
last week.
He tells me it's the inevitable result of pouring Scotch down my
gullet every evening for 35 years, but what does he know.
> Kevin O'Brien, and besides, his real existence can be pretty easily
> established by checking out his Lindisfarne website and, if need be,
> liaising with his stable of print-on-demand writers.
>
Oh, I woldn't dare approach people like that, you know,
intellectuals an' that. I'm only a common ol' working man, see.
> Amusing idea, but instantly impractical.
>
> CB
>
--
Ian
sum1
> Haunted River wrote:
> > I smoked 20 Camels a day for about ten years (plus a few other
> things)
> > and grew to despise myself and loathe even smoking. The best way to
> > quit (well, it was for me) was to acquire a very nasty and prolonged
> > bout of bronchitis. After the virus passed, it felt like my lungs had
> > doubled in size. Fantastically liberating healthwise and economically.
> >
>
> > CB
>
Ha! 20 a day for ten years - try giving up after 40 - 60 a day
for 45 years. Surgical removal of my hands might do it, I suppose.
>
> I smoked 30-40 cigarettes daily for around ten years, mostly the local
> (Taiwanese) brand, ironically named "Long-Life" (a picture of a
> bewhiskered, smiling, sagacious, and thoroughly healthy Chinese
I can justifiably put a lol here. LOng Life indeed...
> immortal adorns the package). I quit fourteen years ago, thank heavens;
> one of the best decisions I ever made.
>
Can't honestly disagree on that: I wouldn't recommend anyone to
start, certainly.
> Anyone know any ghost stories involving cigarettes, cigars, pipes, and
> the like? The only one I can think of offhand is Oliver Onions's The
> Cigarette Case.
>
> Huw
>
Stephen King did a short story - not one of his best, and it was
horror not ghost of course, about a man who gets involved with an
outfit that stops you smoking.
The spectre in A Warning to the Curious suffered from a nasty
chronic cough, but this was caused by lying out all night in damp
fields - nothing was mentioned about him having a cigarette dangling
from his gob, I think.
--
Ian
C.S.Strowbridge
> Given the contents of the message, none but a fool or madman could deny
> that Mr. Pelan made statements contrary to fact in 2004 about his
> relationship with Isomedia. Now that this shocking truth has at last
> been revealed to the world, I fully expect the Earth to shift its
> course in its orbit around the sun. One must ask oneself, "Can life
> ever be the same after this?"
I have no idea what this current flamewar is about as I've only read
four or so messages in the thread. But I must say that at least your
post was entertaining, which is more than I can say for the main
combatants.
Come on guys, this is a literary NG. Be creative in your flames. If you
are going to lie, don't lie about ISPs or IPs or IPOs, or whatever the
hell this is about. Accuse each other of selling out mankind to the dark
forces from beyond the shiny veil for your own nefarious purposes.
Keep me entertained, dammit!
C.S.Strowbridge
Aaron Vanek
LOL! Which of course is Net.code for "This guy has exposed me for the pretentious, vindictive, pompous ass that I am so I will accuse him of being insane so I can save face." No one takes that kind of charge serious, except Net.kooks like Barker.
By the way, Barker will never leave you out of this, as long as you post messages like this. He sees you as an ally and since he desperately needs any kind of validation of his vitriol, he will continue to splash your name and messages across usenet. I tried to warn you about this and you would not listen. Perhaps now you will. I am happy to leave you out, but as long as Barker keeps bringing you up I will respond.
You, however, have accused me of deceiving Chaosium, and, being that I am going to publishing some material with them, think that is a battle worth fighting.
Ergo, I offer up the following challenge:
I ask if anyone on this list, someone whom KLOB and I both can trust (so Barker is obviously out of it), can contact Chaosium and ask them about this incident, and report back to AHC their findings.
Will an independent third party clear this up for you, dear Kevin? I nominate James Ambuehl or Ron Shiflet, both of whom are eager and, even though they side with you more often than they should, I believe to be impartial.
To actively encourage this wasteful behavior and settle the bet, I think we should offer them some incentive: so, I will give whomever will take up this action a DVD of my movies, either the latest volume of the HP Lovecraft Collection, with "Out of Mind" on it, or, a burned DVD copy of "The Yellow Sign". And KLOB can give them a Lindisfarne book of their choosing. Use the one that I won by naming the real authors/characters from "Prof. Peabody's Last Lecture". Send that to them.
What do you think? Are you willing to throw down and settle this, or are you going to make some flippant comment about you being right and not having to prove it because you've given your soul to Jesus?
Are you, Kevin L. O'Brien, really the yellow COWARD that I think you are?
C.S.Strowbridge
> kevi...@clare.ltd.new.net wrote:
> Ergo, I offer up the following challenge:
>
> *I ask if anyone on this list, someone whom KLOB and I both can trust
> (so Barker is obviously out of it), can contact Chaosium and ask them
> about this incident, and report back to AHC their findings.
> *
> Will an independent third party clear this up for you, dear Kevin? I
> nominate James Ambuehl or Ron Shiflet, both of whom are eager and, even
> though they side with you more often than they should, I believe to be
> impartial.
I'd do it even without the offer of the DVD, but I doubt KLOB would
believe me. But I agree with your choice of Shiflet because, if I recall
correctly, he was one of the people who posted links to settle the ISP
claim that was the heart of one of the recent flamewars.
C.S.Strowbridge
Rick Kennett
>horror not ghost of course, about a man who gets involved with an
>outfit that stops you smoking.
That would be "Quitters Inc" which in my opinion is one of King's
sillier stories. I'd expect the mafia would have better (or worser)
things to do. The ending is pinched from Dahl's "Man from the South".
As for other smokers in ghost stories, where would Carnacki be without
lighting up his pipe and puffing a while before regaling Arkright,
Taylor, Jessop and Dodgson of his latest ghost hunt?
Rick
Haunted River
off with the insults if I were you. If you seek to judge someone from
the basis of what their enemies have said about them in usenet groups,
then you are a fool. I have a great many interests and responsibilities
beyond this single dimensionned virtual world that you cannot possibly
know about; I am therefore rather surprised to see an alleged
film-maker, of all people, leap to such a clumsy and erroneous
conclusion about another person. I've had friends for twenty years that
I'm still getting to know, yet you deign to pass judgment on others
after brief one-dimensional glimpses into what you think are their
lives?
I really don't care whether you manage to resolve your own very long
running dispute with O'Brien, because you have shown so little sympathy
to me, despite the fact that I have suffered quite as much as you at
the hands of this serial liar. In fact, I hope you experience more
frustration, annoyance and stress as I have, because it might humble
you a little.
CB
waggaw...@yahoo.com.au
huw....@gmail.com wrote:
> I smoked 30-40 cigarettes daily for around ten years, mostly the
local
> (Taiwanese) brand, ironically named "Long-Life" (a picture of a
> bewhiskered, smiling, sagacious, and thoroughly healthy Chinese
> immortal adorns the package). I quit fourteen years ago, thank
heavens;
> one of the best decisions I ever made.
>
> Anyone know any ghost stories involving cigarettes, cigars, pipes,
and
> the like? The only one I can think of offhand is Oliver Onions's The
> Cigarette Case.
>
> Huw
I thought right away of "The Anatomy of Tobacco" By Machen - an
eccentric work to say the least. Nothing to do with ghosts or ghost
stories, of course. Pipe smoking brings to mind Sherlock Holmes - he
wrote a monograph on the subject of tobacco ashes...and a few years
back a manufacturer in the UK had a brand of cigarettes called "DEATH"
sold in a black packet. And, I guess, if there were such things as
ghosts, many of the would have achieved the ghostly state via tobacco
smoke.
John Pelan
>
>huw....@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> I smoked 30-40 cigarettes daily for around ten years, mostly the
>local
>> (Taiwanese) brand, ironically named "Long-Life" (a picture of a
>> bewhiskered, smiling, sagacious, and thoroughly healthy Chinese
>> immortal adorns the package). I quit fourteen years ago, thank
>heavens;
>> one of the best decisions I ever made.
>>
>> Anyone know any ghost stories involving cigarettes, cigars, pipes,
>and
>> the like? The only one I can think of offhand is Oliver Onions's The
>> Cigarette Case.
>>
>> Huw
>
>I thought right away of "The Anatomy of Tobacco" By Machen - an
>eccentric work to say the least. Nothing to do with ghosts or ghost
>stories, of course. Pipe smoking brings to mind Sherlock Holmes - he
>wrote a monograph on the subject of tobacco ashes...and a few years
>back a manufacturer in the UK had a brand of cigarettes called "DEATH"
>sold in a black packet.
They really weren't very good, sort of like stale Marlboros. A shame,
I enjoyed the concept.
Cheers,
John
Barbara Roden
<waggaw...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1114364169.8...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> I thought right away of "The Anatomy of Tobacco" By Machen - an
> eccentric work to say the least. Nothing to do with ghosts or ghost
> stories, of course. Pipe smoking brings to mind Sherlock Holmes - he
> wrote a monograph on the subject of tobacco ashes.
And how long can it be before the Holmes stories, which have already had
bowdlerised versions taking out the drug use references published, are
edited to remove any references to Holmes's (or anyone else's) smoking?
Wonder how Holmes will identify Watson when he's outside the hut on the moor
in HOUND, as Watson's discarded cigarette butt won't be there as a major
clue. . . .
Barbara
John Pelan
wrote:
Oh, don't get me started... The recent Baen editions of James Schmitz
featured editorial tampering by an editor (whom I generally have a
great deal of respect for), that I found highly objectionable. As most
readers od Schmitz know, the magazine tales would feature a couple of
paragraphs of expository narrative to set the stage. The editor's
opinion was that in a collection this material was redundant and most
of this material was eliminated. Worse, he did rewites to eliminate
the smoking references on the grounds that "in the future people won't
smoke". While this may or may not be true, I find such tampering to
be pretty objectionable.
We had a long, friendly debate over this and while I see his points
(given below) I certainly disagree..
1. The books are meant for new readers that may not be familiar with
Schmitz. Anachronisms have been removed as were redundant passages.
I seriously doubt that any attempt to pass off 1950s or 1960s material
as new will be successful. I'm editing the first book of our Daniel F.
Galouye series now and there are far too many nuances of attitude and
social mores to effectively disguise the work as "new" even if I
wanted to (which I don't).
It is what it is. I don't think that any reader encountering the
Telzey stories for the first time is going to think that James Schmitz
is a new author. This tendency of some publishers to assume great
ignorance on the part of their readership is quite annoying. The
editor at Baen claims that the advantages of readers picking up a book
that they think is new rather than a period piece outweigh the
disadvantages. Me, I'd be quite irritated at such presumption, just as
I was by the marketing some years back of an author that would swap
out one or two stories from a collection and have his publisher
advertise the book as a "new" collection.
Thankfully, we have presses today presenting work as the author
intended it to be read... (We all know about AT-P and MH;) let me
slip in a plug for Wildside's Robert E. Howard in WEIRD TALES, which
is delightfully free of Sprague de Camp's hamhanded meddling. I wonder
when the NY houses will realize that the reason these books sell is
that the readership wants to read the REAL THING, not an ersatz and
watered down version. I shall climb down off the soapbox now and get
back to Mr. Galouye...
Cheers,
John
Barbara Roden
"John Pelan" <jpe...@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:3kvn61habi2mcbce8...@4ax.com...
> Oh, don't get me started... The recent Baen editions of James Schmitz
> featured editorial tampering by an editor (whom I generally have a
> great deal of respect for), that I found highly objectionable. As most
> readers od Schmitz know, the magazine tales would feature a couple of
> paragraphs of expository narrative to set the stage. The editor's
> opinion was that in a collection this material was redundant and most
> of this material was eliminated. Worse, he did rewites to eliminate
> the smoking references on the grounds that "in the future people won't
> smoke". While this may or may not be true, I find such tampering to
> be pretty objectionable.
I've seen published versions of Wellman's Silver John tales which eliminate
the little one/two page vignettes that preface each tale, which is a real
shame, as they're wonderful little tales in their own right, even when they
don't have any relation to the story which folows (and publishing 'The
Desrick on Yandro' without the preliminary 'Find the Place Yourself' is
nothing short of criminal).
> 1. The books are meant for new readers that may not be familiar with
> Schmitz. Anachronisms have been removed as were redundant passages.
I'm surrently reading Tim the series of Three Investigators books written by
Robert Arthur (and others), first published in the mid-1960s, and I'd hate
to think they'd been re-written to take out anachronisms; that's part of the
charm of them (mind you, they read pretty well to modern eyes as it is). I
know that the books were later changed to take out the references to
Hitchcock, which is a shame. The Trixie Belden books are being reprinted,
with a note on the copyright page to indicate that the books have not been
edited in any way to reflect changes in attitude, which is refreshing.
> Thankfully, we have presses today presenting work as the author
> intended it to be read.
If you're not prepared to publish what the writer originally wrote, then you
probably shouldn't be publishing it. Hands up everyone who would rather read
the bowdlerised version of Pepys's diary over what the man actually wrote.
Some of it may strike today's readers as not Politically Correct, but he
called it as he saw it at the time, and trying to impose modern
sensibilities on works of art is ridiculous at best and criminal at worst.
Barbara (likewise getting off her soapbox)
James Doig
> called it as he saw it at the time, and trying to impose modern
> sensibilities on works of art is ridiculous at best and criminal at worst.
Quite right! And it makes any sort of textual study impossible - an
imperfect reproduction of something, whether poem, piece of music,
work of art, renders evaluation or interpretation worthless. I guess
it shows the contempt with which mainstream publishers treat *popular"
literature and its public.
kevi...@clare.ltd.new.net
>
> If you're not prepared to publish what the writer originally wrote,
then you
> probably shouldn't be publishing it. Hands up everyone who would
rather read
> the bowdlerised version of Pepys's diary over what the man actually
wrote.
> Some of it may strike today's readers as not Politically Correct, but
he
> called it as he saw it at the time, and trying to impose modern
> sensibilities on works of art is ridiculous at best and criminal at
worst.
>
I couldn't agree more, but bowdlerization has been around for a long
time, and I don't expect it to disappear soon. One of the most
ludicrous examples I ran across was reading how the wife of a
nineteenth century poet (I forget who) altered his letters and diary to
reflect her more prime Victorian morality after he had died, such as
changing "got ready for bed" to "composed myself for sleep".
Kevin L. O'Brien
sum1
> >Stephen King did a short story - not one of his best, and it was
> >horror not ghost of course, about a man who gets involved with an
> >outfit that stops you smoking.
>
> That would be "Quitters Inc" which in my opinion is one of King's
> sillier stories. I'd expect the mafia would have better (or worser)
> things to do. The ending is pinched from Dahl's "Man from the South".
>
I don't think I spotted that connection, although of course I'd read
Dahl's tory.
> As for other smokers in ghost stories, where would Carnacki be without
> lighting up his pipe and puffing a while before regaling Arkright,
> Taylor, Jessop and Dodgson of his latest ghost hunt?
>
I hesitate to confess it in here, but I've never read anyof that
series.
> Rick
>
--
Ian
waggaw...@yahoo.com.au
Barbara Roden wrote:
> <waggaw...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:1114364169.8...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
had
> bowdlerised versions taking out the drug use references published,
are
> edited to remove any references to Holmes's (or anyone else's)
smoking?
> Wonder how Holmes will identify Watson when he's outside the hut on
the moor
> in HOUND, as Watson's discarded cigarette butt won't be there as a
major
> clue. . . .
>
> Barbara
Well, in time I guess - and then any readers of the stories will be
denied the knowledge that Watson's cigarettes were imprinted with the
name of his tobacconist - Bradley.
Its a strange world.....
waggaw...@yahoo.com.au
kevi...@clare.ltd.new.net wrote:
> I couldn't agree more, but bowdlerization has been around for a long
> time, and I don't expect it to disappear soon. One of the most
> ludicrous examples I ran across was reading how the wife of a
> nineteenth century poet (I forget who) altered his letters and diary
to
> reflect her more prime Victorian morality after he had died, such as
> changing "got ready for bed" to "composed myself for sleep".
>
> Kevin L. O'Brien
Or the misrepresentation of Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche's philosophical
works and beliefs by his sister - in order that she could ingratiate
herself with the National Socialists in Germany.
alamocitycomics
While you're at it...take a walk off the pier into that river. Do us
all a favor.