On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 22:10:47 +0000, Nena wrote: >> if it helps, i really don't care who you are.
> No, it does not help.
i was trying to point out that you and your nonsense are inconsequential... i can't speak for everyone but i feel that the majority of people in this n.g. have no interest in you.
> There are more disturbing evidence I have to the > contrary.
i think it is you who is disturbed, nena. you received some good advice in a prior post. why don't you heed it?
In article <pan.2004.08.24.00.20.11.836...@lister.red-dwarf.lan>, br...@lister.red-dwarf.lan says...
> On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 22:10:47 +0000, Nena wrote:
> >> if it helps, i really don't care who you are.
> > No, it does not help.
> i was trying to point out that you and your nonsense are > inconsequential... i can't speak for everyone but i feel that the majority > of people in this n.g. have no interest in you.
I reached that determination some time ago. Nena is a pathetic troll, who can't even play the game well enough to be an entertaining sock puppet. Her (his) whole schtick comes off like some loser-geek teenager playing "Dungeon Master", only she's too deluded to realize everyone's just shaking their head in pity.
Life is good, with her in the bozo bin. Come, join us...
>>And by the way, I didn't accuse you of lying, I asked you if you were >>going to keep your word - not to post here any more. Lying is >>deliberately making false statements. I believe you wanted to stop >>posting here. I even believe you STILL want to stop - but you can't >>help yourself.
> Let me familiarise you with the Law and in > particular the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, lest you forget > or foul of it:
> Article 19 (Universal Declaration of Human Rights)
> Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this > right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to > seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and > regardless of frontiers.
> And also Article 30:
> Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any > State, _group_ or person any right to engage in any activity or to > perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and > freedoms set forth herein.
Meaning that she has a right to break her word, not that she didn't break it. She clearly did.
She made an *unsolicited* promise to stop posting here - a promise that was very much appreciated. She had every right to make the promise or not, and every right to keep it or not. She chose not to keep it.
You don't have to be a lawyer to understand that.
-- |O| Be well. Travel with a light heart. - Goldman 3:16
In article <LIxWc.10630$NE.4...@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com>, Gene Goldman wrote:
<snip>
> She made an *unsolicited* promise to stop posting here - a promise that > was very much appreciated. She had every right to make the promise or > not, and every right to keep it or not. She chose not to keep it.
And it should also be noted that this was ONLY after she had been identified as having used several different 'nicks', playing little games with us!
Hammond of Texas wrote: > In article <pan.2004.08.24.00.20.11.836...@lister.red-dwarf.lan>, > br...@lister.red-dwarf.lan says...
>>On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 22:10:47 +0000, Nena wrote:
>>>>if it helps, i really don't care who you are.
>>>No, it does not help.
>>i was trying to point out that you and your nonsense are >>inconsequential... i can't speak for everyone but i feel that the majority >>of people in this n.g. have no interest in you.
> I reached that determination some time ago. Nena is a pathetic troll, > who can't even play the game well enough to be an entertaining sock > puppet. Her (his) whole schtick comes off like some loser-geek teenager > playing "Dungeon Master", only she's too deluded to realize everyone's > just shaking their head in pity.
I know, I know, you think you were entertaining and sounding very mature when you poke fun at others. It was real sign of your maturity.
>> you know how to use google, nena. use it and find one post from any >> freemason that accuses someone of lying because they "do not know the >> facts".
> Again, I do not use 'Google'. Google is not the ultimate expert. > What I do use is the life itself.
Which doesn't allow you to "find one post", as Bryan has suggested. They're archived on Google.
Then again, Ed King suggested you look at some links, and you refused to open your eyes to that proof, too.
> No, by background check I do mean checking the address the person lives, > the date of birth etc....all things that lead to identifications of a > poster. There are ways of doing it which Masons employ.
>> without the consideration that a person has the right to change his/her > you know how to use google, nena. use it and find one post from any > freemason that accuses someone of lying because they "do not know the > facts".
If one is going to check out the archives of the newsgroup and read posts, that would be a place to go.
>>>But we do know the facts. You promised not to post here anymore, we >>>took you at your word, now you're posting here again. Why is that? >>>It is not dishonourable to show the world a liar although I concede >>>the liar might take offence at the disclosure.
>> You are not a lawyer I see. Let me familiarise you with the Law and in >> particular the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, lest you forget >> or foul of it:
>> Article 19 (Universal Declaration of Human Rights)
>> Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this >> right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to >> seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and >> regardless of frontiers.
>> And also Article 30:
>> Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any >> State, _group_ or person any right to engage in any activity or to >> perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and >> freedoms set forth herein.
>I am not a lawyer, either.
>But, what seems very obvious to me is that the Masons in this ng use >the 'liar' libel freely without any bases, without the consideration that >a person has the right to change his/her so called 'promise' if the >circumstance changes.
The truth is not libel.
>But, what I REALLY have a problem with them (Masons) is when they call >someone a liar just because they do not know the facts. >My understanding is this way they provoke the person to reveal his/her >identity to make their job easier.
>It seems they are checking a background of every person who is posting >here anyway and seems to be anti masons.
>The 'pattern' emerges for all to see. What 'they' do with that 'pattern' >is another story but not difficult do see if ones stay here long enough.
>I do not have more time to go into details but I do have a proof 'they' >know who I am.
Who is 'they'?
-- Regards David Simpson (Remove "farook" to reply) (Unattached MM) Bad manners should not be a capital crime ... for a first offence. Paraphrasing Robert Heinlein,
> >>But we do know the facts. You promised not to post here anymore, we > >>took you at your word, now you're posting here again. Why is that? > >>It is not dishonourable to show the world a liar although I concede > >>the liar might take offence at the disclosure.
> > You are not a lawyer I see. Let me familiarise you with the Law and in > > particular the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, lest you forget > > or foul of it:
> > Article 19 (Universal Declaration of Human Rights)
> > Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this > > right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to > > seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and > > regardless of frontiers.
> > And also Article 30:
> > Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any > > State, _group_ or person any right to engage in any activity or to > > perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and > > freedoms set forth herein.
> I am not a lawyer, either.
> But, what seems very obvious to me is that the Masons in this ng use > the 'liar' libel freely without any bases, without the consideration that > a person has the right to change his/her so called 'promise' if the > circumstance changes.
> But, what I REALLY have a problem with them (Masons) is when they call > someone a liar just because they do not know the facts. > My understanding is this way they provoke the person to reveal his/her > identity to make their job easier.
> It seems they are checking a background of every person who is posting > here anyway and seems to be anti masons.
> The 'pattern' emerges for all to see. What 'they' do with that 'pattern' > is another story but not difficult do see if ones stay here long enough.
> I do not have more time to go into details but I do have a proof 'they' > know who I am.
David Simpson <farook...@picknowl.com.au> wrote: > On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 19:41:26 GMT, Nena <N...@home.net> typed > furiously: >>It seems they are checking a background of every person who is posting >>here anyway and seems to be anti masons.
David, this from someone who proclaimed in one incarnation to be on this newsgroup to do some investigating?
>>I do not have more time to go into details but I do have a proof 'they' >>know who I am.
> Who is 'they'?
The idea that the Masons are out there checking up on anyone (other than a petitioner to a lodge) is ludicrous and delusional. But we both know that.
> David Simpson <farook...@picknowl.com.au> wrote: > > On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 19:41:26 GMT, Nena <N...@home.net> typed > > furiously: > >>It seems they are checking a background of every person who is posting > >>here anyway and seems to be anti masons.
> David, this from someone who proclaimed in one incarnation to be > on this newsgroup to do some investigating?
> >>I do not have more time to go into details but I do have a proof 'they' > >>know who I am.
> > Who is 'they'?
> The idea that the Masons are out there checking up on anyone (other > than a petitioner to a lodge) is ludicrous and delusional. But we > both know that.
Well, apparently checking headers is evil if _YOU_ do it. That leaves me wondering, if it's evil if _I_ do it...
Government/Media Sponsored/Supported Disinformation/Mind Control Agent Chief of Weather Control, Super Secret 34°, Order of the Illuminati Presidential Puppeteer of the New World Order Skepticult® ID: 581-00504-208 Sockmaster General
> Meaning that she has a right to break her word, not that she didn't > break it. She clearly did.
I am trying to piece together this contract that Nena has with the Freemasons where her part is to voluntarily sacrifice her rights under Article 19 of the UDHR and stay away from alt.freemasonry. Could it be that the contract goes "she stays away and we don't give her a hard time"? This arrangement seems to lack any kind of ethical basis?
In news:9e48f660.0408240807.7accd713@posting.google.com, Norwood Holden <norwood_hol...@hotmail.com> informed us: | Gene Goldman <br_g...@pacbell.dot.net> wrote in message | <news:LIxWc.10630$NE.4268@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com>... | || || Meaning that she has a right to break her word, not that she didn't || break it. She clearly did. || | | | I am trying to piece together this contract that Nena has with the | Freemasons where her part is to voluntarily sacrifice her rights under | Article 19 of the UDHR and stay away from alt.freemasonry. Could it be | that the contract goes "she stays away and we don't give her a hard | time"? This arrangement seems to lack any kind of ethical basis?
You're missing the point, Nordy. "Nena" - like so many other people - posts nonsense and off-topic threads, argues for a while, and then promised to stop posting. The "agreement" was completely on her part and totally voluntary. What we're questioning is why she - or anyone - would continue to post after saaying "goodbye".
Also, since this problem obviously concerns Nena, any input that you might have seems superfluous.
-- Tom Accuosti Grand Sovereign Pontiff and Secret Exposuer Jack-Booted Civil Rights Porn Thug and Enforcer Goon Crop Circle Planning and Zoning Commissioner Team Osiris - Obelisk Siting and Surveying Friendship #33.3 AM&FM Area 51, Atlantis
There once was a Mason from [Backspace] With a [Backspace] so long he could [Backspace]. While wiping his [Backspace] He said with a [Backspace] "If my [Backspace] were a [Backspace] I could [Backspace] !"
Can you imagine a world without hypothetical questions?
KIV11 <ki...@aol.com> wrote: > "Nena" wrote: >>Do not worry, you have my pity as well. > Is that you, as in Nena or you as in Marta, your persona from last year?
George, I don't think she's denied she's Marta. And, to give her credit, she even posted her email address, which she really didn't need to do here.
While I don't buy for a minute the silly idea of Freemasons lurking around spying on private citizen she keeps implying (it's frankly insulting), I certainly do wish her well in her move and hopes she has a good holiday.
> > Meaning that she has a right to break her word, not that she > > didn't break it. She clearly did.
> I am trying to piece together this contract that Nena has with the > Freemasons where her part is to voluntarily sacrifice her rights > under Article 19 of the UDHR and stay away from alt.freemasonry. > Could it be that the contract goes "she stays away and we don't > give her a hard time"? This arrangement seems to lack any kind of > ethical basis?
In order to stop her violation of Article 30 perhaps?
By the way, do you continue to insist that the Convention is legally binding or not?
>>>Meaning that she has a right to break her word, not that she >>>didn't break it. She clearly did.
>>I am trying to piece together this contract that Nena has with the >>Freemasons where her part is to voluntarily sacrifice her rights >>under Article 19 of the UDHR and stay away from alt.freemasonry. >>Could it be that the contract goes "she stays away and we don't >>give her a hard time"? This arrangement seems to lack any kind of >>ethical basis?
> In order to stop her violation of Article 30 perhaps?
Norwood, please explain if I am violating the Article 30?
> I reached that determination some time ago. Nena is a pathetic troll, > who can't even play the game well enough to be an entertaining sock > puppet. Her (his) whole schtick comes off like some loser-geek teenager > playing "Dungeon Master", only she's too deluded to realize everyone's > just shaking their head in pity.
> Life is good, with her in the bozo bin. Come, join us...
Nena is a retired lady doctor and citizen of Canada who has suspicions about Freemasonry.
Article 5 Universal Declaration of Human Rights
No one shall be subjected to torture or to __cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment__ or punishment.
