the Morton Downey show
rho...@chinet.uucp
"talk" show hosted by one of those flaming jerk hosts who is rude
and obnoxious to his guests, cutting them off at every opportunity,
calling them childish names, and other clever things. The premiere
topic was women in pornography, and he had as guests people like Gloria
Leonard and other women in the pornography industry who don't buy into
the "women are exploited by porn" line. He didn't let them get a word in
edgewise. He practically refered to them as prostitutes, refused to let
them speak their piece. When one of the women (I think it was Gloria
Leonard) mentioned that HE was the one exploiting women by having them
on his show only for the purpose of baiting and belittling them (not to
mention his remarks about how he wouldn't "let" his wife appear in porn!)
he responded that he didn't need them to get ratings (despite the full
page ad in TV Guide about women in porn on his show). After a few more
extremely obnoxious abusive remarks by him, the woman walked off, giving
the finger to him as he continued his baiting remarks. His closing
comment as she left with that gesture? "She's letting us know her IQ
and the number of friends she has." Obviously a real champ and a great wit.
I'm mentioning this first because it seems readers of alt.flame in
general might get a kick out of seeing this jerk. (He appears on WWOR
which is a superstation available on many cable systems all over the
country and broadcast locally in the New York metropolitan area.) But
the second reason I'm mentioning this is because I thought a specific
group of alt.flame readers, namely those people who think of the "writing"
of Matthew Wiener and Gene Ward Smith as an artistic apogee of cleverness
and creativity in the way they use four letter words and taunt people ad
nauseum, would think of this jerk as a hero while their One True God hides
out in exile, as his only begotten son (of a something or other) defends His
Holy Name along with other Brahms Gang groupies. Perhaps this TV show can
serve as a substitute for the faithful as they wait for the Second Coming of
their Lord. To be honest, I think this guy Downey is much better than
Matthew could ever dream of being, partially because I think he knows that
most people consider him self-parody. Matthew was apparently never smart
enough to understand that part of his "appeal." Then again, I just never
appreciated Matthew as a paragon of wit and wisdom. I always thought
foulmouthed bullies who harrassed people with insult and innuendo were
just that, foulmouthed bullies, and nothing more. I guess some people see
it very differently.
I'm sorry, it just seems very funny to me that there are actually people who
see obnoxious behavior as "art" or "craft." People who are members of a
nationwide Brahms Gang fan club. (Do they sell buttons you can wear on your
jacket that squirt sulfuric acid into the face of anyone looking at them? :-) )
I mean, after all, we're talking about a guy who uses the net as a vehicle
to insult people he's never met just because he disagrees with them or
doesn't like them. Not someone whose eloquent writing is being suppressed
by nasty people because his opinions are politically controversial or
anythying like that. And we're talking about a guy who once threatened
someone else with exactly the same thing Maroney threatened him with,
a libel lawsuit, over what was apparently exactly the same sort of thing!
This makes him a bigger hypocrite than Maroney! (I suppose that's saying
something, given some of the things Maroney has said lately about a lack of
"permission" to re-post already posted articles.) While Maroney was a
hypocrite for trying to have someone's account trashed after his own was
trashed (despite the just cause in the case of Matthew), Wiener and Smith
denounce Maroney for daring to even think about a libel suit after Matthew
himself had done the same thing! I'm sorry, people, these two guys are two of
a kind, and deserve the same treatment. Matthew is no more of a "hero" than
Maroney is. Unless you see being crass and obnoxious as a valiant cause
worth striving for.
--Rhonda
ande...@vms.macc.wisc.edu.uucp
an appalling pile of abuse on the (you can tell) nearly defenseless
Brahms Gang.
As for Downy, you got what you deserved for watching that crap.
I just bet Rhonda feels *so* much better now!
==ARPA:===============ande...@vms.macc.wisc.edu===Jess Anderson======
| UUCP: {harvard,seismo,rutgers, (avoid ihnp4!) 1210 W. Dayton |
| akgua,allegra,usbvax}!spool!uwwircs!anderson Madison, WI 53706 |
==BITNET:======================anderson@wiscmacc===608/263-6988=======
gl...@decwrl.uucp
I just finished reading the premire article posting of the Rhonda
(Straw Man Tactics, Ignore the facts as presented) Schribner, the host
of _How Much of an Ass Can I Make of Myself Defending Tim Maroney_ series
of posts. It's hosted by an overbearing woman, (or is it an overbearing
man, no it's an overbearing Schribner!), who is totaly convinced that
it's working toward a better USENET for all by calling on the carpet the
Brahams Gang for their obnoxious behavior. The premire article spends
hundreds of bandwiths whining and carrying one, usually with no redeeming
quality, either in content or in substance, or in any other area you'd
care to mention. She sets up straw men, knocks them down, (reminds me of
Don Quioxte and windmills), takes her own cheap shots and in general
shows everyone what whining and whimpering do to a person, (which, for her
benifit I'll help point out since by the article posted I sensed a deep
need to explain my position fully, that being regression to childhood
and childish behavior should be directed to talk.kids.tempertantrums).
I'm mentioning this because Rhonda is relatively a new poster to the
USENET world and one wouldn't want to miss the obvious gaps in her logical
and well thought out postings, to do so would deprive one of a great source
of amusement, (almost as much as the repeated attempts of Captain Carnage
to get airborn, ayuck, ayuck ayuck!), as well as a lesson in how terminally
braindamaged some people remain on certain topics, (in this case the Brahams
Gang and their Supporters). {Matthew, I'm ashamed! I want *all* the cheer-
leaders with legs in short skirts the next time at practice.}
Rhonda doesn't limit her mental displays to alt.flame though, she
manages to regurgate her formula postings with percision all over the
net. Perhaps the R.R. Computer Center finally got that A.I. programing
working, or perhaps Rhonda is really Timmy in disguise. Even more frightening
is the fact that Rhonda, (a.k.a. Kid Karnage), is an entity unto herself.
The second reason, (Like I had a first? But this is alt.flame after
all), I'm mentioning this is that I thought a specific group of alt.flame
readers, namely all those who emulate Kid Karnage's style of whining about
how maligned they are because they post nonsensical drivel as an artistic
apogee of intelligence and mental adroitness and expect others to accept their
limited perceptions of issues *they wern't even a part of, either passively
or actively*, whould embrace the Kid as their ONE TRUE HERO of net.land while
their realy hero, Captain Carnage wallows in self pity and threatens even
harsher penalties for those who dare disagree with him!
To be honest, I think the Kid is at least as good if not better at
finding all the ways to malign and twist what's written in other people's
articles far better than o'l Cap. She(He)'s got the grim minority fighting
the good fight, defending the net.land from the horrors of Dr. Weemba and
the Brahams Seven, especially the crazed zealot Genie, Wardsmith and the
hidious Erick von Faire. I think the Kid is almost the best I've seen because
when it comes to making a net.ass out of oneself, o'l Rhonda takes the cake.
(Apparently she hasn't caught on yet that while Weemba may have been a crusty,
obnoxious, tempermental S.O.B. he was OUR S.O.B and we loved him!) I always
thought that whining lying nonparticipators when placing themselves into s
omething they weren't even a part of and didn't understand fully should SHUT
THE FUCK UP!, but then again I suppose I should remember that while you can
lead a horse to water, you can't make him, (sorry, her, no him, no it), drink.
But I guess some people see it differently.
(Do they sell Kid Karnage crying towels with Rhonda's face on them
saying, "Leave the Captain alone!" ;-(
I mean, after all, we're, talking about a woman who uses the net as a
vehicle to insult and ridicule people she's never met just because she's got
some grandious standards of behavior that she feels everyone should adhere
to, even when the issues and topics of discussion were originaly begun
and conducted without her reading them. We're not talking about someone
who actually followed the discussions when they were first posted, oh no,
we're talking about someone who believes in fighting the good fight for
someone else, even if that person deserved what he was getting in the
first place by being a Captain.Carnage.Weenie! Not bad enough, let's consider
Cap's track record as documented here on the net! Pretty pathetic Kid!
(Doesn't that make you guilty of net.abuse too? What you're screaming about
is just as offensive as what the brahams gang does, perhaps even more
so since you're participation totally ignores the fact that Maroney
*could* be the instigator in all this! You wouldn't know since you weren't
there for the originals!)
While Matthew *might* be guilty of net.abuses, Gene was dragged in
because *outside weenies* have managed through incredible brain damaged
thought patterns to assume that MW + Brahams = Brahams Gang in toto!
(Reminds me of all the HASAites having the same position even when they
argued amongst themselves). While Matthew was obnoxious and caustic, his
perceptions were accurate and to the point. He wasn't as much a hypocrite
as o'l Cap, and Cap was o.k. because the *real* hypocrite here is the
paragon of I'll.protect.them.from.themselves, (otherwise known as the
self-appointed.net.police), Kid Karnage! HOW? Well, while Matthew was
obnoxious and caustic, it stated so in his address, (Obnoxious Math
Grad Student writes:). The Kid however tries to masqurade as a *real* poster
with *real* information content. Deceptive advertising? Hypocracy? Both!
I'm sorry people but over the last few months of reading newsgroups
where the Kid tries hard to participate as a real poster but gets bogged down
with ad hominem attacks after setting up straw men which are knocked down
then "whining" about her treatment here, well, she and the Captain are just
two of a kind. Rhonda is no more a paragon of virtue than either of the
two major Brahams Gang members, even less so because of her short time here.
Unless whining is a sign of intelligent, whitty conversation, the Kid will
find a narrow group of supporters.
R.S. Just place in your Kill File!
Happy Trails,
Glenn
Proud Member - HASA "S" Division Commander
gl...@ocean.dec.com
"Ayuck, ayuck auyck!"
rta...@hpcupt1.uucp
Oh no! Not Doctor Mort again! I thought once I left Chicago, I'd never
here of the guy again; but I know better now.
Doctor Mort is another Wally (last name?) with a few differences:
1- He has a PhD in political science that he will hold up against you
every chance he gets. After all who do you believe more, Doctor
Morton Downy, Jr., or some hooker?
2- He sings, too, and will play his songs sometimes.
3- Almost everyday he will have a psychic, fortune teller, etc. on
his show. He takes them quite seriously.
4- That other guy (Wally something) doesn't take himself seriously;
Morton does.
Reza Taheri
hplabs!hpperf1!rtaheri
gsm...@garnet.berkeley.edu.uucp
>But
>the second reason I'm mentioning this is because I thought a specific
>group of alt.flame readers, namely those people who think of the "writing"
>of Matthew Wiener and Gene Ward Smith as an artistic apogee of cleverness
>and creativity in the way they use four letter words and taunt people ad
>nauseum, would think of this jerk as a hero while their One True God hides
>out in exile, as his only begotten son (of a something or other) defends His
>Holy Name along with other Brahms Gang groupies.
Are you suggesting our "writing" isn't really writing? What is
it, then? Whatever it is, do you dislike what I "write" because
it somehow conveys the impression of naughty words, as for
example I might be accused of were I to implicitly suggest that
someone is an SOB, as you appear to do above? Have you taken the
trouble to notice that my vocabulary has only occasional recourse
to those terrible "bad" words which so distress you? Have you
taken any notice of the fact that you yourself are rude, nasty,
abusive, obnoxious, mendacious, hebetudinous and very nearly
hebephrenic? It might lighten the gloom of your no doubt
miserable existence to realize that you don't need to watch
television merely to have the *dolce far niente* of relaxing
before a "jerk" (did I count four letters?) in full majestic
supererogatory superciliousness of "jerkiness" made manifest.
Reflect a moment, Madame. Take a moment to reflect and use a
mirror if you need one.
>I always thought
>foulmouthed bullies who harrassed people with insult and innuendo were
>just that, foulmouthed bullies, and nothing more. I guess some people see
>it very differently.
I guess some people see *you*, Ms Very Nasty Insulting Person,
differently than you seem to see yourself. What a repulsive pile
of week-old cabbage you seem to me, with your whining and insults
and putrid reek of hypocrisy.
>I'm sorry, it just seems very funny to me that there are actually people who
>see obnoxious behavior as "art" or "craft."
What is even funnier are the people like you and Tim Maroney,
who think it is OK for them to flame, but not OK for other people
to flame back. You claim that I boast of my rudeness, but you
fail to see that you lack the honesty to admit even to yourself
that you are a veritable tornado of vicious and sometimes
baseless personal attack.
>I mean, after all, we're talking about a guy who uses the net as a vehicle
>to insult people he's never met just because he disagrees with them or
>doesn't like them.
Unlike Rhonda, who merely uses the net as a vehicle to insult
people she's never met just because she disagrees with them or
doesn't like them, *and* threatens lawsuits as well.
>And we're talking about a guy who once threatened
>someone else with exactly the same thing Maroney threatened him with,
>a libel lawsuit, over what was apparently exactly the same sort of thing!
And were talking about a gal who not only threatens people with
lawsuits, she tells lies about how other people do this when they
did not, and then accuses them of hypocrisy for doing something
they didn't do, but she did.
>This makes him a bigger hypocrite than Maroney!
I don't know if this is even possible. But you're working on
it.
>While Maroney was a
>hypocrite for trying to have someone's account trashed after his own was
>trashed (despite the just cause in the case of Matthew), Wiener and Smith
>denounce Maroney for daring to even think about a libel suit after Matthew
>himself had done the same thing!
If you would bother to *read* what we said, you would find that
this is not true. Or else you did read it, and are a foul-minded
liar.
>I'm sorry, people, these two guys are two of
>a kind, and deserve the same treatment. Matthew is no more of a "hero" than
>Maroney is. Unless you see being crass and obnoxious as a valiant cause
>worth striving for.
If you don't think this yourself why do you insist on being so
crass, obnoxious and downright vicious? You write like a rabid
mink and seem to think you are Miss Manners. 'Taint so,
bitch-on-wheels.
"This paragraph is why I have felt free to insult you." -- Tim Maroney
ucbvax!garnet!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
rho...@chinet.uucp
rattle on about my "premire" article in this affair (actually anyone who's
been reading these articles knows that my last article was post-mire :-) )
In his tantrum, he accuses me of hypocrasy (his spelling) in (get this!)
defending Tim Maroney (obviously he posts in an alternate universe). Not
only does he fail to spell my name right (I thought correctly spelling the
name of the person you're flaming was rule #1 of net etiquette), he fails
to spell a number of words even close to right, including the
aforementioned "premire," "Brahams," "whitty," and last but not least,
"Aycuk!" I mean, the battle cry of the "Brahams" gang, and this guy
can't even get that right! Then, after repeatedly saying how this
last article of mine was my first article ever (while at the same time
saying that I've been posting "all over the net") and how I wasn't there
for the originals, he continues to make mistakes so fast I lost count.
Unbeknownst to me, I flamed at Eric Fair, according to Elder Weem. Sorry
to disappoint, but I've never had any words with Eric Fair (though he did
respond to an article of mine once). No, when you talk about attacking
Eric Fair and posting and flaiming all over th net, I think you're refering
to Mark Ethan Smith. But then, to you I'm sure all us "overbearing women"
(Weem's words) look alike, right? Sheesh!
The only reason I'm bothering to respond to such an obvious plethora
of misinformation is to make sure Gene welcomes him properly into the
"Brahams" Gang Fan Club. Here is a paragon of BG style and substance for
you to marvel at, Gene. I'll bet you and Matthew don't even get this
good! :-) Though I'll bet you wish you could. Remember, this is a guy
who looks up to and idolizes you and Matthew, saying "yes, Matthew was
an S.O.B. but he was OUR S.O.B." Perhaps you'll reflect on this a bit.
Instead of cooking up another "Rhonda is mean and nasty to us" article.
Actually in recent days I've found nothing more amusing than the flurry
of articles berating me for talking negatively about the poor "defenseless"
Brahms Gang as the authors scold OTHER people for their crybaby "whining."
Ayuck ayuck ayuck, anyone?
--Rhonda
gl...@decwrl.uucp
The Kid is back. I suppose that somehow I should be impressed that she
designed to answer such a stupid and inconsistant flame as the one that
was posted but I'm not surprised. It's often typical of the knee jerk reaction
found so commonly amongst those who can't ignore anything that has their name
attached to it, even when the drivel is so inconsistent and unusual as to be
unreadable.
She even managed to find a friend here. Steve, this one's for you!
(I feel like I'm back now, I even got criticizims on *spelling*! This is
great! Makes me feel like net.religion is back!)
In article <17...@chinet.UUCP> rho...@chinet.UUCP (Rhonda Scribner) writes:
>Wow, in one article this guy calling himself Elder Weem has come out to
>rattle on about my "premire" article in this affair (actually anyone who's
>been reading these articles knows that my last article was post-mire :-) )
Your last article should have been post mortum on the matter. You even
managed to miss the *point* of the article, which was that I can rant and
rave about *anything* I want, the condition of the world, the weather, the
strangeness of the ionosphere, and it *doesn't make a difference*! Who's
it going to effect? Me? AHAHAHAHA! You? (Well, you answered the previous
post so anything's possible I guess?)
Thank you, I've been vindicated. The fact of the matter Rhonda old
bean is that you can't ignore someone who posts about you, *even* when the
post is so stupid and nonsensical as the one I made previously. You *have*
to have the last word and your position is *always* correct. But you know
what? It doesn't make a difference.
That's what your arguments do here. They *don't* make a difference.
>In his tantrum, he accuses me of hypocrasy (his spelling) in (get this!)
>defending Tim Maroney (obviously he posts in an alternate universe). Not
>only does he fail to spell my name right (I thought correctly spelling the
>name of the person you're flaming was rule #1 of net etiquette), he fails
>to spell a number of words even close to right, including the
>aforementioned "premire," "Brahams," "whitty," and last but not least,
>"Aycuk!" I mean, the battle cry of the "Brahams" gang, and this guy
>can't even get that right!
Spelling flames on the net are *old*. Tell me Rhonda, since this posting
is so laughable and so full of errors, (by my own admission it was chock full
'o 'em!), why did you feel the need to respond? Certainly not to clarify the
post, it was an impossible thing to clarify. (Not that you tried very hard).
Nor was the letter in e-mail an attempt to clarify. (Laughable it was, an
attempt to clarify? Well, I suppose it must have had to do with nurturing
a penis envy, all this talk about castration, something you'd like to discuss
sometime?)
So why post a rebuttal? A needed urge to jump out and jab at someone?
Perhaps you just couldn't let the moment pass? A momentary lapse of reasoning?
Or was it your *evil* twin that felt the urge to respond?
As I surmised it's even better than the above speculations. It appears
you can't let something go by, (even something or someone as brain dead as the
Elder Weem, ;-), without showing your superior position. You can't just let it
slide. Attack with full steam! Blow 'em away! Even when the post doesn't have
anything to do with you, like the flames that erupted between Matt and Tim!
Get 'm Rhonda! Make the net a safe, (if slightly sanitized) place to post!
>The only reason I'm bothering to respond to such an obvious plethora
>of misinformation is to make sure Gene welcomes him properly into the
>"Brahams" Gang Fan Club. Here is a paragon of BG style and substance for
>you to marvel at, Gene. I'll bet you and Matthew don't even get this
>good! :-) Though I'll bet you wish you could. Remember, this is a guy
>who looks up to and idolizes you and Matthew, saying "yes, Matthew was
>an S.O.B. but he was OUR S.O.B." Perhaps you'll reflect on this a bit.
>Instead of cooking up another "Rhonda is mean and nasty to us" article.
>Actually in recent days I've found nothing more amusing than the flurry
>of articles berating me for talking negatively about the poor "defenseless"
>Brahms Gang as the authors scold OTHER people for their crybaby "whining."
>Ayuck ayuck ayuck, anyone?
> --Rhonda
The only reason you responded to this was because you couldn't just let
pass obscurely into the night. Two people already got in on the joke you
missed. But then, it *was* designed with you in mind!
P{erhaps the most pathetic thing about this is that I managed to not only
get you to post, but to send private mail as well. Must have really jerked
the o'l chain, eh?
Thanks for confirming what your postings have already shown.
(BTW - Your halo's slipped!)
Ayuck,ayuck,ayuck!
Happy Trails,
Glenn
"Actually in recent days I've found nothing more amusing than the flurry
of articles berating me for talking negatively about the poor "defenseless"
Brahms Gang ....." R. Scribner
lu...@encore.uucp
He complimented LaRouche on his intelligence gathering staff, and
later in the show completely lambated him as a liar and a neo-Nazi.
The thing that cracked me up was the Wally George-ian audience and
their jeers and cheers (not unlike pro wrestling) One gentleman was
blowing one of those funny noisemakers and saying "Larouche is a
douche"
A powerful hour of TV entertainment.
Joe Lundy
(Framingham, MA)