Aldoraz is dorayme's patsy.
Zinnic
in this NG of the ridiculous double act masquerading as Patricia
Aldoraz and dorayme? The same correlation of comings and goings has
been noted in other NGs.
The similarity of the writing style and views expressed under the
two sigs convinces me that they are written by the same person
(dorapatsy?), The smug self-approval he exhibits under his patsy's
sig verges on the pathological.
When his (dorapatsy's) views are questioned, he cops out by
dismissing legitimate questions as imbecilic or answering with a
spate of pseudo 'philoso-jargon' which, when interpreted, is
revealed as either irrelevant vacuity, or petty trivial truisms with
which no sane person would argue..
When anyone more knowledgeable than he 'backs him into a corner', he
shelters in a cloud of spittle created by the sputtering insults and
obscenities he puts in his patsy's mouth.
IMO it is a waste of time to respond to Patricia Alveraz's posts.
Because that poor dummy of a girl cannot speak for herself, she will
have to leave it to dorayme to prove me wrong.
My wish for the New Year is that this post will re-establish me in
my righrful place at the very bottom of dorayme's class.
I know that will sorely disappoint you Mr Stafford! Console yoursel
You will just have to accept that life is not fair! :-)
Zinnic
John Stafford
<1d22070c-deb8-455b...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
Zinnic <zeen...@gate.net> wrote:
> Any one else noticed the correlation of appearance and disappearance
> in this NG of the ridiculous double act masquerading as Patricia
> Aldoraz and dorayme? The same correlation of comings and goings has
> been noted in other NGs.
Frankly, I do not know if they are the same person. They use different
news services and news agents. Both appear to be using OS X, but that's
not significant.
Aldoraz is the one most likely to go into an obscene rant; her writing
is more likely to be confused, and egomaniacal. Now, if they are the
same person, then one explanation is that Aldoraz is dorapatsy's drunk
side working at home, and dorapatsy's Dorayme postings are made at work
where she/he has to be more temporate.
Errol
I suggested they are one and the same before.
DORAme
alDORAz
also, as you say, they dissappear and reappear at the same times and
support each others viewpoints.
The thing is not to take them seriously, but to play along with their
"in" joke.
I was convinced that they are the same person by the way they played
the alt.atheist group for suckers by alternately supporting pseudo-
scientific (actually too lame to even call pseudo-scientific, just
ridiculous as in Monty Python ridiculous) evidence for things such as
the soul. It was actually quite amusing.
Zinnic
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yep. I should have given you credit but I had forgotten that it was
you who mentioned it earlier. I quite enjoy ridiculing the posts
but I do resent how their intrinsic dishonesty discourages
interest in more serious interchanges on this NG.
Z
cmp6_gamehall_ Averdein decaplex
>I quite enjoy ridiculing the posts but I do resent
> how their intrinsic dishonesty discourages
> interest in more serious interchanges on this NG.
Online entertainment / performance artists and wildly intoxicated
individuals have their place in certain kinds of chatter forums, but an
overabundance of them certainly ruins what should be a sober discussion
group (in a better usenet world).
_
dorayme
Sober discussion is not something this Zinnic idiot (who is no kind of
performance artist), and many others like him on this usenet group,
engages in. As usual you have everything backwards.
When I made my first post here I attacked no one here and made no jokes
but what did I get in response? A complete moron and a dozen piling in
on top to make personal insults and to exhibit every kind of
misunderstanding.
I have made challenge after challenge to people to just stick to the
philosophy and very few can actually do this. Why? Because they do not
have any real idea of what doing philosophy means. Some think it means
helplessly quoting others. Some think it means waffling in the most
unclear way. Some think it means giving others reading lists.
Your analysis is superficial, as ever. You superficial usenet
charlatan-guys who are here to have some fun are the ones that create
these entertainment monsters, figures like me. Larger than life
characters, tall handsome individuals with stacks of really good jokes.
If you simply stuck to the topics I write so penetratingly on, I could
be relieved from having to dress up in all this gear and put on a smile
and leap onto the stage tap dancing and doing somersaults...
I keep you, you sniffy little prick, n...@webtv.net, as a pet in my
change room in this theatre. After the show today, if you are good
little parrot, I will give you a special treat, a cake mad in the image
of Zinnic's ear.
--
dorayme
Patricia Aldoraz
Intrinsic dishonesty, what would you know about the virtues and vices?
You utter fool of a boy. Go out and pick up 200 lollypo sticks in the
palyground and bring them back to me and tell me again how keen you
("I wanna have some fun here") are about "serious interchanges" . You
little pretentious hypocrite.
John Stafford
heish exists only to attract attention, perhaps a Sadist/Machoist
relationship.
I suggest that all wise and reasonable people kill-file them both, and
we all get back to alt.philosophy.
Patricia Aldoraz
I suggested the very same ages ago and you absolutely promised not to
have anything more to do with me and what did you turn around to do
immediately? For your information, it would be a mistake to confuse me
with dorayme, it is a less than 6" borg from another planet with a
really big mouth on it. I am all human and elegance itself.
Let me tell you again, bugger off and leave me alone. If you and that
other idiot Zinnic want to make threads about me or about poor dorayme
and call to ostracise us, that really does show how little you care
about philosophy. You are a lover of hating sentient others, a serial
abuser. You bastard! Now, fuck off! Practice what you preach, you
hypocritical little squirt.
Zinnic
wrote:
Wow! I am so eager to learn that I searched and searched for the
philosophical content in the above. Guess it is just too deep for
me!
However, in mulling over your earlier claim that 'correct' premises
are not knowledge, I realized that your error 'lies' in your hard-
wired imperative to contradict everyone and everything in sight,
including your rival in obscenity, gordgeous Mikey.
Mikey uses obscene adjectives to force his argument that 'absolute'
certainty exists by virtue of the certainty of the claim that there
can be no certainty. You similarly obscenely force your argument that
knowledge is not knowledge if the knowlege that it is knowledge is not
in fact knowledge. That is, knowledge cannot justify itself and so
does not exist. Because absolute certainty cannot exist In the absence
of knowledge, you effectively contradict his claim for the existence
of certainty and in so doing contradict his furthur claim that it is
impossible for contradictions to exist.
I ascribe any and all philosophical value in the above to the
effectiveness of your teaching. I could not have done it without your
example.
Zinnic
Albert Tatlock
"Zinnic" <zeen...@gate.net> wrote in message
news:827e491e-ea22-401d...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> Mikey uses obscene adjectives to force his argument that 'absolute'
> certainty exists by virtue of the certainty of the claim that there can
> be no certainty. You similarly obscenely force your argument that
> knowledge is not knowledge if the knowlege that it is knowledge is not in
> fact knowledge. That is, knowledge cannot justify itself and so does not
> exist. Because absolute certainty cannot exist In the absence of
> knowledge, you effectively contradict his claim for the existence of
> certainty and in so doing contradict his furthur claim that it is
> impossible for contradictions to exist.
Zinnic
> "Zinnic" <zeenr...@gate.net> wrote in message
Thanx for the link. I got more than I bargained for when I printed it
out. Will need time to read it but the following caught my eye as
being amusingly appropriate to Dora's posts in this NG :-)
Quote
"5. Whether a proposition can turn out false after all depends on what
I make count as determinants for that proposition.
6. Now, can one enumerate what one knows (like Moore)? Straight off
like that, I believe not. - For otherwise the expression "I know" gets
misused. And through this misuse a queer and extremely important
mental state seems to be revealed.
.....................
8. The difference between the concept of 'knowing' and the concept of
'being certain' isn't of any great importance at all, except where "I
know" is meant to mean: I can't be wrong. ....."
unquote
Regards
Zinnic
John Stafford
heshe was up to. Nobody can be as stupid as heshe posts to be.
Sociopathic, yes. A real time-sucker. They are dead to me now, thanks
for your insight.
Derek
Check the headers of Patricia Aldoraz's posts to find the
NNTP-Posting-Host: 110.33.203.98
Now put that into http://www.ip2location.com/free.asp and find
110.33.203.98 AU AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES SYDNEY
Now check dorayme's other posts to see that he or she lives in Sydney;
"If anyone wants a 7300 MB and case, contact me. You need to live in
Sydney to pick it up"
dorayme 16 June 2009 http://tinyurl.com/ybxwvjs
cmp6_gamehall_ Averdein decaplex
>Now check dorayme's other posts to see
> that he or she lives in Sydney;
No need. He/she made that clear over a year ago, when remarking about a
window's view of Sydney one morning, or something to that effect. The
issue of Dorayme's gender even popped-up briefly in the past on a
(non-usenet) technical forum, without any aid from the sock-puppet show
going on here. Knew a "Scout"-ish tomboy in the past who used an
ambiguous name and had other posters assuming she was male because of
her gruff mannerisms. Because of that, I had to receive quite a few
nasty insults before I finally felt as comfortable as everybody else in
here that ol' Dora really was a man (or a brash lad?).
_
Derek
Well whatever gender it has, are you aware that it has conversations with
itself, and jokingly threatens to killfile itself? Read on.
"The fault must be mine then, not yours, Patricia. You have seemed to
explain my idea very well ..."
dorayme 29 July 2009 http://tinyurl.com/ya3scr9
"I know that you, Patricia, solved it ages ago in another connection. This
guy sounds very confused to me!"
dorayme 27 July 2009 http://tinyurl.com/yc6qrd5
[start - Patricia to dorayme]
>Are you there dorayme, can you see this bullshit? Woohooo dorayme!
[dorayme]
Actually, Patricia, I might have to kf *you* if you keep bringing all these
horrible things to my attention!
dorayme 4 Aug 2009 http://tinyurl.com/ycg9uz4
"Patricia, don't get tangled up in the choices for the terms of the debate
foisted on you by others."
dorayme 21 April 2008 http://tinyurl.com/yetzfmn
"Honestly Dorayme, I can see why you send some people crazy here! But I
confess, I do enjoy your posts, always something to amuse! Brightens
the day."
Patricia Aldoraz 3 Oct 2007 http://tinyurl.com/ycvbl2c
As we can see by the last post, this charade has been going on for years.
It seems obvious that he can't participate in discussions without the help
of a sock puppet. He's been caught cheating, using a sock puppet to lend
him support after failing to support himself as his alter ego. I've seen
this kind of thing before, but not to this extent.
cmp6_gamehall_ Averdein decaplex
>As we can see by the last post, this charade has
> been going on for years. It seems obvious that he
> can't participate in discussions without the help
> of a sock puppet. He's been caught cheating, using
> a sock puppet to lend him support after failing to
> support himself as his alter ego. I've seen this
> kind of thing before, but not to this extent.
The price of authors, CEOs, politicians, etc., having given it lofty
notoriety I suppose (John Lott, John Mackey, Charlie Bass, etc). If
PatDora had been based in North America back during the mid '90s, I'd
even go so far as to speculate that he/she might have been one of the
original founders of sock-puppetry in groups. Could then at least have a
proprietary excuse for hanging onto to it for so many years. ;-)
_
Patricia Aldoraz
> As we can see by the last post, this charade has been going on for years.
> ... sock puppet. .... caught cheating, ...
You have a particularly limited view of things Derek. I have not
cheated anyone and neither has dorayme as far as I know. Only people
even stupider than you and the others that belong in the basketweaving
class would be impressed by that two of the most unpopular and stupid
characters on usenet today (poor little dorayme and me) now and then
support each other. That is such a powerful cheating! It is such a
terrible crime eh!
How you underestimate us both. We are just plain stupid, not
incredible deluded idiots like you who never shows the slightest
interest in philosophy itself. You poor poor schmucks.
Patricia Aldoraz
wrote:
I have to say, I am so honoured to have a whole thread devoted to me.
Pity it is only complete schmucks contributing. Wooo hoo dorayme, are
you getting this? Do you not feel a sense of pride too?
Derek
<patricia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 7, 7:57�am, Derek <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> As we can see by the last post, this charade has been going on for years.
>> ... sock puppet. .... caught cheating, ...
>
>You have a particularly limited view of things Derek. I have not
>cheated anyone and neither has dorayme as far as I know.
Oh stop lying. All we need to do is reveal the NNTP Host in two of the
posts you made in 2007 when you were congratulating yourself in a thread
you started with the subject title, "I know you are all against me."
From: Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.apps
Subject: Re: I know you are all against me.
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 21:31:06 -0000
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <1191447066.4...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 58.106.57.196
and the next day
From: dorayme <doraymeRidT...@optusnet.com.au>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.apps
Subject: Re: I know you are all against me.
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.1 (Intel Mac OS X)
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 06:33:13 +1000
Message-ID: <doraymeRidThis-237...@news-vip.optusnet.com.au>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 58.106.57.196
The NNTP-Posting-Hosts are exactly the same, meaning they were sent from
the same source: you. You tried to cover your tracks by posting one message
through Google and the other, in reply to yourself, using MT News Watcher,
but unfortunately for you both showed your NNTP Host. You've been using at
least one sock puppet for years, so stop lying.
Derek
If any more proof were needed, all we need to do is reveal the NNTP Host in
two of the posts he made in 2007 when he was congratulating himself in a
thread he started with the subject title, "I know you are all against me."
From: Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.apps
Subject: Re: I know you are all against me.
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 21:31:06 -0000
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <1191447066.4...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 58.106.57.196
and the next day
From: dorayme <doraymeRidT...@optusnet.com.au>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.apps
Subject: Re: I know you are all against me.
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.1 (Intel Mac OS X)
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 06:33:13 +1000
Message-ID: <doraymeRidThis-237...@news-vip.optusnet.com.au>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 58.106.57.196
The NNTP-Posting-Hosts are exactly the same, meaning they were sent from
the same source. He tried to cover his tracks by posting one message
through Google and the other, in reply to himself, using MT News Watcher,
but unfortunately for him both showed his NNTP Host. He's been using at
least one sock puppet for years.
dorayme
Derek <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote:
> He's been using at
> least one sock puppet for years.
If "he" has, what is your evidence that it is for the purpose of
deceiving anyone? I keep asking you this and I have suggested many
theories, but you are a particularly simple one note guy. Loosen up
Sherlock. No one in this whole world would be thinking that the good
Patricia and I lend any credibility to each other. You really are an
imbecile, Derek and you simply cannot be shaken into any discussion on
philosophy itself. Detective work on non-philosphical topics and
personal abuse is your sole interest it seems.
I will say it again, I have not had sexual relations with that woman.
--
dorayme
Zinnic
> In article <855ek59upm35k90ut1l31add6l5fmf8...@4ax.com>,
Not true. With every post you f--- yourself!
Derek
<dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>In article <855ek59upm35k90ut...@4ax.com>,
> Derek <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> He's been using at least one sock puppet for years.
>
>If "he" has, what is your evidence
I've given you sufficient evidence, but you snipped it all away.
<restore>
If any more proof were needed, all we need to do is reveal the NNTP Host in
two of the posts he made in 2007 when he was congratulating himself in a
thread he started with the subject title, "I know you are all against me."
From: Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.apps
Subject: Re: I know you are all against me.
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 21:31:06 -0000
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <1191447066.4...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 58.106.57.196
and the next day
From: dorayme <doraymeRidT...@optusnet.com.au>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.apps
Subject: Re: I know you are all against me.
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.1 (Intel Mac OS X)
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 06:33:13 +1000
Message-ID: <doraymeRidThis-237...@news-vip.optusnet.com.au>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 58.106.57.196
The NNTP-Posting-Hosts are exactly the same, meaning they were sent from
the same source. He tried to cover his tracks by posting one message
through Google and the other, in reply to himself, using MT News Watcher,
but unfortunately for him both showed his NNTP Host. He's been using at
least one sock puppet for years.
<end restore>
In another thread to this concerning this particular issue of deception
you've tried to get yourself off the hook by claiming, "Here is a proof
that Patricia could not be me: I am not even human" But Google archives
gives us evidence showing you DO believe you're human;
"I am not boring. I am an interesting human being and I have a lot
to offer the world."
dorayme 11 Aug 2005 http://tinyurl.com/ybr9e26
You're not even being true to your own charade. Did you honestly think you
could get yourself out of trouble here on this issue by claiming you're not
even human? You're obviously a liar who requires the use of a sock puppet
or two to support yourself on Usenet because you can't support yourself on
your own. And when found out your last resort is to claim you're not even
human. Thanks for all those laughs, whoever you are.
dorayme
Derek <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 09:32:52 +1100, dorayme
> <dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> >In article <855ek59upm35k90ut...@4ax.com>,
> > Derek <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> He's been using at least one sock puppet for years.
> >
> >If "he" has, what is your evidence
>
> I've given you sufficient evidence, but you snipped it all away.
>
People can still read it, your 'evidence' is a legend, don't worry. But
it does not show deceit. Why should I quote it? It does not show that if
there is just one person (a laughable suggestion!) the main aim is to
seriously fool anyone. I actually gave you other theories. But you are
proving to be a coward in two ways:
1. You do not respond to the details of what I have put to you
2. You do not discuss philosophical issues. At least dorayme (oh....
that's me isn't it!) and Patricia do! You are not fit to clean our
shoes. You can maybe go clean up the mess the dog made in the garden,
you miserable twerp.
> In another thread to this concerning this particular issue of deception
> you've tried to get yourself off the hook by claiming, "Here is a proof
> that Patricia could not be me: I am not even human" But Google archives
> gives us evidence showing you DO believe you're human;
>
You have a serious problem Derek! You seem to have had a humour by-pass
operation. Did it hurt?
> "I am not boring. I am an interesting human being and I have a lot
> to offer the world."
> dorayme 11 Aug 2005 http://tinyurl.com/ybr9e26
>
> You're not even being true to your own charade. Did you honestly think you
> could get yourself out of trouble here on this issue by claiming you're not
> even human?
Well, actually, yes, Derek! I mean, no Derek. I mean,... oh hell Derek
or Sherlock... Hang on there! Just a minute, smartypants! What about you
being silly humorless philosphically free Derek one minute and Sherlock
Holmes the other? What about that for being a no good low down deceiver
and liar and charading bullshit artist?
I made a typo, you moron, I meant to say "I am an interesting non-human"
Sometimes you will find that when I am describing my emotions or
feelings of empathy or even apologising for being unkind, I say cute
things like:
"Sorry but after all, I am only non-human". You see, Derek, this is a
play on the normal expression.
I am so funny!
> You're obviously a liar who requires the use of a sock puppet
> or two to support yourself on Usenet because you can't support yourself on
> your own.
What makes you think I can't support myself on my own, Derek? Got any
independent evidence of this? Independent of your cherished hypothesis?
You would not know what this means,I guess. Never mind.
> And when found out your last resort is to claim you're not even
> human. Thanks for all those laughs, whoever you are.
Did you find them funny? Have I misjudged you? Are you not a complete
and utter twerp?
Anyway, Derek, I am going to have to killfile you from my newsreader and
let Patricia take you up (dishonestly, of course). You are too stupid
and too uninterested in philosophy for my newsreader. Goodbye from me.
--
dorayme
Derek
<dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>In article <1tngk5duje1b0qrl9...@4ax.com>,
> Derek <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 09:32:52 +1100, dorayme
>> <dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <855ek59upm35k90ut...@4ax.com>,
>> > Derek <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> He's been using at least one sock puppet for years.
>> >
>> >If "he" has, what is your evidence
>>
>> I've given you sufficient evidence, but you snipped it all away.
>
>People can still read it
Yes, here it is again. I thought I'd better bring it back because you start
asking for it again a little later on.
<restore>
If any more proof were needed, all we need to do is reveal the NNTP Host in
two of the posts he made in 2007 when he was congratulating himself in a
thread he started with the subject title, "I know you are all against me."
From: Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.apps
Subject: Re: I know you are all against me.
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 21:31:06 -0000
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <1191447066.4...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 58.106.57.196
and the next day
From: dorayme <doraymeRidT...@optusnet.com.au>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.apps
Subject: Re: I know you are all against me.
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.1 (Intel Mac OS X)
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 06:33:13 +1000
Message-ID: <doraymeRidThis-237...@news-vip.optusnet.com.au>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 58.106.57.196
The NNTP-Posting-Hosts are exactly the same, meaning they were sent from
the same source. He tried to cover his tracks by posting one message
through Google and the other, in reply to himself, using MT News Watcher,
but unfortunately for him both showed his NNTP Host. He's been using at
least one sock puppet for years.
<end restore>
You keep asking for evidence but you then snip it all away again as if it
doesn't exist, and then ask, "Hey, where's the evidence?"
>> In another thread to this concerning this particular issue of deception
>> you've tried to get yourself off the hook by claiming, "Here is a proof
>> that Patricia could not be me: I am not even human" But Google archives
>> gives us evidence showing you DO believe you're human;
>
>You have a serious problem Derek!
The thread where you made that claim is here in alt.phil, so don't pretend
you didn't make it.
>> "I am not boring. I am an interesting human being and I have a lot
>> to offer the world."
>> dorayme 11 Aug 2005 http://tinyurl.com/ybr9e26
>>
>> You're not even being true to your own charade. Did you honestly think you
>> could get yourself out of trouble here on this issue by claiming you're not
>> even human?
>
>Well, actually, yes, Derek! I mean, no Derek. I mean,... oh hell Derek
>or Sherlock... Hang on there! Just a minute, smartypants! What about you
>being silly humorless philosphically free Derek one minute and Sherlock
>Holmes the other? What about that for being a no good low down deceiver
>and liar and charading bullshit artist?
>
>I made a typo, you moron, I meant to say "I am an interesting non-human"
And I suppose you also made another typo when writing,
"I am not only not a troll, I am a normal human being, I
love my family, I am not such a bad person."
dorayme 12 July 2005 http://tinyurl.com/yc5659x
Face it, liar, you're busted.
>> You're obviously a liar who requires the use of a sock puppet
>> or two to support yourself on Usenet because you can't support yourself on
>> your own.
>
>What makes you think I can't support myself on my own, Derek?
The fact that use a sock puppet is evidence enough.
>Got any independent evidence of this?
Yep, but you've snipped it away twice now. I put it back again because I
knew you were going to ask for it.
>> And when found out your last resort is to claim you're not even
>> human. Thanks for all those laughs, whoever you are.
>
>Did you find them funny? Have I misjudged you?
Yes, I certainly think you've misjudged me, by a long way.
>Anyway, Derek, I am going to have to killfile you from my newsreader
That's a cop out, and you know it, nebbish.
>and
>let Patricia take you up (dishonestly, of course). You are too stupid
>and too uninterested in philosophy for my newsreader. Goodbye from me.
Cheerio.
Patricia Aldoraz
> On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 08:38:40 +1100, dorayme
>
> >What makes you think I can't support myself on my own, Derek?
>
> The fact that use a sock puppet is evidence enough.
>
Afternoon all! <g>
Now Derek, you poor schmuck, that is a curious bit of evidence. Is it
a deduction or bullshit induction?
Just by the way, why is that you suppose that dorayme is not *my* sock
puppet? More work is called for Sherlock! You must think this work is
so important. You are one of the saddest guys on usenet. Your hollow
triumphalism is pathetic.
Philosophical discussion anyone? No, not you, Derek, you don't do this
sort of thing and don't even notice when it is being done. Your mates
- are they paying you for your detective work? - are the types, it is
perfectly clear from the record, who descend into abuse and rarely
have the stamina to discuss any philosphical topic at length and in
depth. Did you ever look at the full record on that Derek? My my, how
you have your work cut out for you. May I pay you to collate this?
You sure know how to pick clients Derek, nice little business, and of
course, they have just the right man in you, they needed a twerp and
they have one.
> >Got any independent evidence of this?
>
> Yep, but you've snipped it away twice now.
The snipped was not evidence that poor old dorayme could not roll on
his own wheels.
> >Anyway, Derek, I am going to have to killfile you from my newsreader
>
> That's a cop out, and you know it, nebbish.
>
You just don't get it do you Derek? You are a sort of humourless
simpleton, a sort of George Bush without the power. A nong with
limited interests.
Don't go away now, I need you like one needs a punching bag. I am a
sort of Million Dollar Baby. Hope I don't go the way she goes!
Derek
<patricia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 10, 9:34�am, Derek <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 08:38:40 +1100, dorayme
>>
>> <doraymeRidT...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>> >What makes you think I can't support myself on my own, Derek?
>>
>> The fact that you use a sock puppet is evidence enough.
>
>Now Derek, that is a curious bit of evidence. Is it
>a deduction or bullshit induction?
Call it what you like. I've produced it three times now, only for you to
then snip it away and pretend it doesn't exist. That's what liars and
cowards do when the evidence against them becomes insurmountable.
>Just by the way, why is that you suppose that dorayme is not *my* sock
>puppet?
Either way it shows that both your identities can't cut it without the use
of a sock puppet. This post is evidence of it. Your sock puppet, dorayme,
lost badly against me in his attempt to defend himself and then killfiled
me. And then out pops you, his sock puppet, to defend him. I expected it.
>> >Got any independent evidence of this?
>>
>> Yep, but you've snipped it away twice now.
>
>The snipped was not evidence that poor old dorayme could not roll on
>his own wheels.
It's irrefutable evidence which shows you've been using a sock puppet for
years, and if either of your identities could cut it without the other, the
other wouldn't be needed.
>> >Anyway, Derek, I am going to have to killfile you from my newsreader
>>
>> That's a cop out, and you know it, nebbish.
>
>You just don't get it do you Derek?
I always get it.
Zinnic
> In article <1tngk5duje1b0qrl93vs8bjp51260m6...@4ax.com>,
>
> > >In article <855ek59upm35k90ut1l31add6l5fmf8...@4ax.com>,
>
> > >> He's been using at least one sock puppet for years.
>
> > >If "he" has, what is your evidence
>
> > I've given you sufficient evidence, but you snipped it all away.
>
> People can still read it, your 'evidence' is a legend, don't worry. But
> it does not show deceit. Why should I quote it? It does not show that if
> there is just one person (a laughable suggestion!) the main aim is to
> seriously fool anyone. I actually gave you other theories. But you are
> proving to be a coward in two ways:
>
> 1. You do not respond to the details of what I have put to you
>
> 2. You do not discuss philosophical issues. At least dorayme (oh....
> that's me isn't it!) and Patricia do! You are not fit to clean our
> shoes. You can maybe go clean up the mess the dog made in the garden,
> you miserable twerp.
Hah! The above represents the two Doras discussing philosophical
issues! Like the two ends of a turning (turn by turn) worm
wriggling and squirming after being surgically bisected. The head half
still frantically contradicting, the anal half still disgustingly
defecating.
> > In another thread to this concerning this particular issue of deception
> > you've tried to get yourself off the hook by claiming, "Here is a proof
> > that Patricia could not be me: I am not even human" But Google archives
> > gives us evidence showing you DO believe you're human;
>
> You have a serious problem Derek! You seem to have had a humour by-pass
> operation. Did it hurt?
>
> > "I am not boring. I am an interesting human being and I have a lot
> > to offer the world."
> > dorayme 11 Aug 2005http://tinyurl.com/ybr9e26
>
> > You're not even being true to your own charade. Did you honestly think you
> > could get yourself out of trouble here on this issue by claiming you're not
> > even human?
>
> Well, actually, yes, Derek! I mean, no Derek. I mean,... oh hell Derek
> or Sherlock... Hang on there! Just a minute, smartypants! What about you
> being silly humorless philosphically free Derek one minute and Sherlock
> Holmes the other? What about that for being a no good low down deceiver
> and liar and charading bullshit artist?
>
> I made a typo, you moron, I meant to say "I am an interesting non-human"
Some typo! You actually type " I am not even human" when you meant to
type "I am an interestiog non-human"? Were you in a coma or
something? (Series of snickers develop into LOL).
> Sometimes you will find that when I am describing my emotions or
> feelings of empathy or even apologising for being unkind, I say cute
> things like:
>
> "Sorry but after all, I am only non-human". You see, Derek, this is a
> play on the normal expression.
>
> I am so funny!
Funny peculiar that is! Your grovelling excuses fool noone. But keep
squirming on the floor. It is your natural habitat.
> > You're obviously a liar who requires the use of a sock puppet
> > or two to support yourself on Usenet because you can't support yourself on
> > your own.
>
> What makes you think I can't support myself on my own, Derek? Got any
> independent evidence of this? Independent of your cherished hypothesis?
> You would not know what this means,I guess. Never mind.
>
> > And when found out your last resort is to claim you're not even
> > human. Thanks for all those laughs, whoever you are.
>
> Did you find them funny? Have I misjudged you? Are you not a complete
> and utter twerp?
>
> Anyway, Derek, I am going to have to killfile you from my newsreader and
> let Patricia take you up (dishonestly, of course). You are too stupid
> and too uninterested in philosophy for my newsreader. Goodbye from me.
>
> --
> dorayme
Text analysis reveals such identity of pattern in this and your
other Dora/Dora posts that I suspect you are using the same algorithm
for their production.
A prime example is the usual killfile cop-out of the brat who, when
unable to rationally justify himself (DORAyme), gives license to his
true nature (alDORAz) to mouth (oops! wrong end of the worm) obscene
insults.
Congratulations Derek/Sherlock on a job well done. You guys have
shown real professionalism in exposing this jerk and, as soon as I
make a collection from the basketweaver's class, I intend to 'post'
you a check/cheque. :-)
Zinnic
Zinnic
wrote:
>
> Don't go away now, I need you like one needs a punching bag. I am a
> sort of Million Dollar Baby. Hope I don't go the way she goes!
As ignorant as ever! Your hope is mis-placed. Apparently you believe
the myth that the head and anal ends of a bisected worm both grow into
complete worms.
You will suffer the same fate as the "million dollar baby" because the
anal end of the worm always dies. In the absence of your dorayme
head, you may wriggle and squirm for a while but inevitably you'll be
as useless as a shitless anus. O blessed state!
Zinnic
Derek
[.]
>Congratulations Derek/Sherlock on a job well done. You guys have
>shown real professionalism in exposing this jerk and, as soon as I
>make a collection from the basketweaver's class, I intend to 'post'
>you a check/cheque. :-)
>Zinnic
Thank you, Zinnic. But couple-o-quid top up card for my phone would be
better for me right now than a cheque. ;-)
Monsieur Turtoni
> On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 09:32:52 +1100,dorayme
>
> >In article <855ek59upm35k90ut1l31add6l5fmf8...@4ax.com>,
>
> You're not even being true to your own charade. Did you honestly think you
> could get yourself out of trouble here on this issue by claiming you're not
> even human? You're obviously a liar who requires the use of a sock puppet
> or two to support yourself on Usenet because you can't support yourself on
> your own. And when found out your last resort is to claim you're not even
> human. Thanks for all those laughs, whoever you are.
Sure looks like dorayme is Pat's sock puppet or is it the other way
around?
Monsieur Turtoni
LOL.
Monsieur Turtoni
> Message-ID: <1191447066.4...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 58.106.57.196
>
> and the next day
>
> From:dorayme<doraymeRidT...@optusnet.com.au>
> <doraymeRidThis-237...@news-vip.optusnet.com.au>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 58.106.57.196
How do you explain that Pat?
Patricia Aldoraz
> On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 17:09:40 -0800 (PST), Patricia Aldoraz
> >Now Derek, that is a curious bit of evidence. Is it
> >a deduction or bullshit induction?
>
> Call it what you like. I've produced it three times now, only for you to
> then snip it away and pretend it doesn't exist. That's what liars and
> cowards do when the evidence against them becomes insurmountable.
>
Snipping is not evidence that I am pretending anything. I think you
better go back to elementary detective school Derek. Why on earth
would I continue to quote something you seem so fond of repeating so
much. Do you think I have magic powers? That your *great evidence*
will suddenly disappear because I don't quote it? Are you worried no
one reads your posts Derek?
> >Just by the way, why is that you suppose that dorayme is not *my* sock
> >puppet?
>
> Either way it shows that both your identities can't cut it without the use
> of a sock puppet. This post is evidence of it. Your sock puppet, dorayme,
> lost badly against me in his attempt to defend himself and then killfiled
> me. And then out pops you, his sock puppet, to defend him. I expected it.
>
I agree that I do help dorayme out now and then, but then, you know,
it has helped me out on various occasions. If you only knew! It is the
sweetest and kindest and most knowledgeable ET that ever came to this
earth. And, I in my turn, try to be kind and sweet back. Do not judge
me on the basis of my extremely violent tongue on usenet against the
slipperyZinnics, the idiotTurtonis or the foolishStaffords or
childishDereks.
> >The snipped was not evidence that poor old dorayme could not roll on
> >his own wheels.
>
> It's irrefutable evidence which shows you've been using a sock puppet for
> years, and if either of your identities could cut it without the other, the
> other wouldn't be needed.
>
It *does* look like we need each other to some extent when it comes to
morons like you! You are right! But that is not a bad thing is it? You
need to loosen up a bit and become less narrow minded and moralistic
Mr Simpleton. Partnerships in life are nice things in my opinion. I am
sorry you have missed out and try to compensate by posting negative
merely personal diatribes on usenet.
You are simply jealous of the close cooperation between poor old
dorayme and my good self. I mean Jesus Christ Almighty, who have you
got? That fucking bastard foolishStafford, idiotTurtoni and
slimyStinkpotZinnic. You poor poor sad fuck!
> >> >Anyway, Derek, I am going to have to killfile you from my newsreader
>
> >> That's a cop out, and you know it, nebbish.
>
It is not a cop out to be cutting out people uninterested in
philosophy! Still, don't worry Derek, I am here to chop your narrow
minded pretentious "ethical" little head off when you pop it up here
in basketweaver's paradise. Please don't stop.
Patricia Aldoraz
Sure at the beginning of he sentence and unsure by the end! This is a
perfect example of what happens when you are not quoting you poor
brain damaged fool. Derek will be along soon to congratulate and thank
you. You poor poor sad schmucks.
John Stafford
<50948256-0f6c-4ba0...@a17g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
Patricia Aldoraz <patricia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 10, 7:04�pm, Derek <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 17:09:40 -0800 (PST), Patricia Aldoraz
>
> > >Now Derek, that is a curious bit of evidence. Is it
> > >a deduction or bullshit induction?
> >
> > Call it what you like. I've produced it three times now, only for you to
> > then snip it away and pretend it doesn't exist. That's what liars and
> > cowards do when the evidence against them becomes insurmountable.
> >
>
> Snipping is not evidence that I am pretending anything. I think you
> better go back to elementary detective school Derek. Why on earth
> would I continue to quote something you seem so fond of repeating so
> much. Do you think I have magic powers? That your *great evidence*
> will suddenly disappear because I don't quote it? Are you worried no
> one reads your posts Derek?
Test analysis shows that the likelihood of dorame and aldoraz as being
the same person is now 84 percent.
Monsieur Turtoni
> You poor poor sad fuck!
Spot the irony.
Patricia Aldoraz
> In article
> <50948256-0f6c-4ba0-9740-dfbfc79f9...@a17g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
Test analysis eh? Is this using a particular example of The Scientific
Method that someone else on this usenet group is trying to convince
poor old dorayme about? You are an idiot Stafford and a hypocrite.
You called for my killfiling and what do you do? You read me and you
read poor old dorayme! Yes, I know, you do it to feed it into your
silly old text machine. It is so much more interesting than doing any
actual philosophy. You trivial minded schmuck Stafford!
John Stafford
<1c8775b3-b758-4f22...@k6g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Patricia Aldoraz <patricia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 1, 12:31�pm, John Stafford <n...@droffats.ten> wrote:
> > In article
> [,,,]
> > Test analysis shows that the likelihood of �dorame and aldoraz as being
> > the same person is now 84 percent.
>
> Test analysis eh?
Typo. It should have been text analysis.
> Is this using a particular example of The Scientific
> Method that someone else on this usenet group is trying to convince
> poor old dorayme about?
It employs statistics.