2012: A time to accept our mortality

[~BD~]

Graham has asked, nicely, for the truth. I *always* tell the truth, as
I've said many times before. This time is no different!

On the third of January 2012, I was notified by email of a new 'Blog'
article written by the psychotherapist I'd met on her narrowboat some
while back, Sue Brayne. This is what she had to say:-

Well, here we are at the start of 2012. Normally I wouldn’t hesitate in
wishing everyone a Happy New Year. But somehow I can’t bring myself to
use the word ‘happy’. Not when we are confronted by such global
uncertainty.

Yet on a twelve miles walk yesterday across magnificent Cotswold
countryside it was easy to forget the seriousness of what humanity is
facing. Thank goodness for that. I think the human spirit can take so
much gloom and despondency before it innately begins to seek out
something to soothe and calm the soul.

The walk certainly did that for me. It always makes me marvel to know –
and trust – that the untidy mess of mouldy undergrowth and all those
tight brown buds on skeletal branches will turn within not-so-many weeks
into verdant hedgerows and flourishing trees.

For me, this cycle of life and death is truly miraculous and
hope-filled. So hope-filled that when I returned home, I updated my
living will (also known as Advanced Decision). This clearly states that
I do not wish to receive life prolonging treatments or to be
resuscitated if and when my quality of life deteriorates beyond what is
acceptable to me. This includes dementia related illnesses. It was
witnessed by a close friend, with a willing and enthusiastic flourish of
her pen. That is what I call a New Year present.

Setting aside the current cross-party political debate about who is
going to pay for end-of-life care for increasing numbers of elderly
people, I believe that taking personal responsibility for how I want to
end my life is the most significant decision I can make for my family,
and, indeed, for society as a whole.

Dying back in the natural world is about clearing away the ‘old’ to make
room for the new. It is also about dead vegetation creating rich
compost for fresh life to thrive.

Unfortunately it appears that humanity is hell-bent on trying to cheat
this fundamental law of nature. But it won’t work. Nature is already
fighting back, in ways that we can’t – or don’t want to – imagine.

So my 2012 New Year wish is for us all to stop chasing the illusive
state of happiness. Rather, I wish for us to learn to embrace and
accept our mortality. By doing so, maybe we can experience what it feels
like to truly give back to each other.

* In response, @12:38 I commented on her Blog page: I said "I’d be
interested to hear your views on this article, Sue":-

http://www.aish.com/sp/pg/Top_Five_Regrets_of_the_Dying.html

(I'd read same just a day or so beforehand)

*

She answered:-

sbrayne
Jan 03, 2012 @ 14:24:38

I agree with everything apart from choose happiness. In my own
experience, I’m not sure we can choose to be happy as a permanent state
of being. I think we can choose to improve our lives, so we can feel
more peaceful with who we are, and what we do. That leads to contentment.

By knowing life in the way I do, it seems we are constantly facing a
state of emotional and spiritual flux. As Buddha said, no matter how
good or bad things may seem, ‘this too will pass.’ I like that. It makes
me appreciated the moment for what it is. For me, life is about making
peace with myself so, as Bronnie Ware points out, when I am on my
deathbed, I can accept my death without regrets.
S x

**

In the meantime, I'd made my post about 'The Top Five Regrets of The
Dying" on Scorched-Earth. This is a subject which will touch us all,
sooner or later - we *are* all going to die!

Perhaps older readers here will appreciate that every year passes
quicker than the one before - in the whole scheme of things we'll be
long gone in the mere blink of an eye. We *will* all die - and soon.

As the Aish article endeavoured to explain, it's best that we make the
most of the short time which we *do* have. It's very simple really.

How SeaNymph chose to *interpret* my words was her affair.

As FTR will vouch, I'm sure, I always chose my words with care.

HTH

Dave

[~BD~]

ASCII wrote:

> ~BD~ wrote:
>> Perhaps older readers here will appreciate that every year passes
>> quicker than the one before -
>

> I'm still waiting on the Y2K meltdown<g>
> wondering if 600 pounds of rice
> and 10,000 rounds will be enough

That probably seems just like yesterday to a fellow like you! ;-)

[Aardvark]

On Sun, 08 Jan 2012 23:21:15 +0000, ~BD~ wrote:

> Graham has asked, nicely, for the truth. I *always* tell the truth, as
> I've said many times before.

Yes, cunt- you say it a lot but never prove it.

> This time is no different!
>

><SNIP IRRELEVANT BOLLOCKS>

No, cunt. No different at all.


--
"And thus I clothe my naked villany
With odd old ends stol'n out of holy writ,
And seem a saint, when most I play the devil."
King Richard III (I, iii, 336-338)

[OldGringo38]

On 01/08/2012 05:38 PM, Aardvark wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Jan 2012 23:21:15 +0000, ~BD~ wrote:
>
>> Graham has asked, nicely, for the truth. I *always* tell the truth, as
>> I've said many times before.
>
> Yes, cunt- you say it a lot but never prove it.
>
>> This time is no different!
>>
>> <SNIP IRRELEVANT BOLLOCKS>
>
> No, cunt. No different at all.
>
>

Talk to me a minuet. What about these blogs, they can be written by
anyone is that correct? Most bloggers are just voicing their personal
opinion, right or wrong? Do professionals get involved with writing
these blogs?

--
Just West Of Nowhere
Enjoy Life And Live It To Its Fullest As
It Has An Expiration Date
Support Bacteria: They Are The Only Culture Some People Have

[83LowRider]

OldGringo38 wrote:

> Talk to me a minuet. What about these blogs, they can be written by
> anyone is that correct? Most bloggers are just voicing their personal
> opinion, right or wrong? Do professionals get involved with writing
> these blogs?

Blogs can be written by anyone. While 'professionals' usually
tend to do their writing where they actually get a paycheck,
many do blog, as do some celebrities. Think of it as a very
wordy Tweet. Most blogs are usually just the musings of an
individual and the subject can be whatever the writer chooses.

[OldGringo38]

Thanks for that info, much appreciated.

[Jenn]

On 1/8/2012 8:44 PM, Gramsterdam wrote:

> ~BD~ wrote:
>
>> Perhaps older readers here will appreciate that every year passes
>> quicker than the one before - in the whole scheme of things we'll be
>> long gone in the mere blink of an eye. We *will* all die - and soon.
>

> There is that word. I'm not going to die in the near future of old age,
> so that is not *soon*. The average life span for an American male is
> 75.6 years, so if you subtract 10 for smoking I get 24 years and 4
> months to go. That isn't soon to me.

>
>
>> As the Aish article endeavoured to explain, it's best that we make the
>> most of the short time which we *do* have. It's very simple really.
>

> Then you should have just said that.

>
>> How SeaNymph chose to *interpret* my words was her affair.
>

> I interpreted them the same way.

>
>> As FTR will vouch, I'm sure, I always chose my words with care.
>

> I'm afraid you're right. That means you did meant it like myself and SN
> knew you did. You failed to refute what defense Jenn has offered, in
> YOUR words.
>
> BD is not telling GM the truth. You meant it in the spiteful way, didn't
> you? Last chance...
>


Meant it?? meant what exactly?

--
Jenn
(posting from Thunderbird)
On 11/12/2011 8:40 AM, Aardvark wrote:
"More proof that he doesn't have the intellect to take me on verbally"
PKB - Aardvark is a coward. He's just an intellectual weakling.

[OldGringo38]

On 01/08/2012 08:50 PM, Gramsterdam wrote:

> OldGringo38 wrote:
>
>> On 01/08/2012 08:26 PM, 83LowRider wrote:
>>> OldGringo38 wrote:
>>>
>>>> Talk to me a minuet. What about these blogs, they can be written by
>>>> anyone is that correct? Most bloggers are just voicing their personal
>>>> opinion, right or wrong? Do professionals get involved with writing
>>>> these blogs?
>>>
>>> Blogs can be written by anyone. While 'professionals' usually
>>> tend to do their writing where they actually get a paycheck,
>>> many do blog, as do some celebrities. Think of it as a very
>>> wordy Tweet. Most blogs are usually just the musings of an
>>> individual and the subject can be whatever the writer chooses.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for that info, much appreciated.
>

> People also use Blogging software for other purposes. Word Press for
> example is used on technical sites, file sharing sites, just about
> anything. Its the platform that makes it easy for non-tekkie to get
> content up quickly and still look good.
>

Good info thanks

[~BD~]

Gramsterdam wrote:
> ASCII wrote:

>
>> ~BD~ wrote:
>>> Perhaps older readers here will appreciate that every year passes
>>> quicker than the one before -
>>

>> I'm still waiting on the Y2K meltdown<g>
>> wondering if 600 pounds of rice
>> and 10,000 rounds will be enough
>

> You're way more ahead than I. I almost ordered 1000 rounds yesterday on
> sale, but didn't (because I don't own that caliber -yet-).
>

What other parts of the advice given in this document have you so far
failed to comply? http://www.ki4u.com/guide.htm

Quite frightening when one thinks about such things (and I know you do!).

[~BD~]

Gramsterdam wrote:

> ~BD~ wrote:
>
>> Perhaps older readers here will appreciate that every year passes
>> quicker than the one before - in the whole scheme of things we'll be
>> long gone in the mere blink of an eye. We *will* all die - and soon.
>

> There is that word. I'm not going to die in the near future of old age,
> so that is not *soon*. The average life span for an American male is
> 75.6 years, so if you subtract 10 for smoking I get 24 years and 4
> months to go. That isn't soon to me.

What was the life expectancy of Ferd's son, Graham? He was only 24 and
had already cheated death through three separate active duty tours.

Where life and death is concerned you should ignore 'averages' - the
only folk who need to be concerned about same are actuaries.

"Actuaries mathematically evaluate the likelihood of events and quantify
the contingent outcomes in order to minimize losses, both emotional and
financial, associated with uncertain undesirable events. Since many
events, such as death, cannot be avoided, it is helpful to take measures
to minimize their financial impact when they occur. These risks can
affect both sides of the balance sheet, and require asset management,
liability management, and valuation skills. Analytical skills, business
knowledge and understanding of human behavior and the vagaries of
information systems are required to design and manage programs that
control risk." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actuary

Whilst you may hope and pray that you do live a long and healthy life,
your life *could* have ended yesterday. That's *exactly* why most
parents effect life insurance to protect their spouse/children - just in
case!

You know there are many more elderly folk now than in years gone by. For
your stated average of 75.6 years to be valid, that requires many
*young* people to die - and die they most certainly do!

>> As the Aish article endeavoured to explain, it's best that we make the
>> most of the short time which we *do* have. It's very simple really.
>

> Then you should have just said that.

I respect your opinion. (I hope you took on board that message!)

>> How SeaNymph chose to *interpret* my words was her affair.
>

> I interpreted them the same way.

You did.

>> As FTR will vouch, I'm sure, I always chose my words with care.
>

> I'm afraid you're right. That means you did meant it like myself and SN
> knew you did. You failed to refute what defense Jenn has offered, in
> YOUR words.

Everything Jenn said was true. I do feel *exactly* that way!

Notwithstanding that, as I have already advised Jenn in a recent video
chat, I was well aware that I *was* leaving the door wide open for
SeaNymph to hang herself - by making the wrong assumption.

> BD is not telling GM the truth. You meant it in the spiteful way, didn't
> you? Last chance...

Did I deliberately set her up to be *uncertain* of my meaning? Yes, I
did! I don't wish her dead but she should, IMO, like all of us, prepare
for death. It's not just a possibility .... it *will* happen.

I am truly amazed by her 'head-in-the-sand' attitude after her scare
with cancer - in my book that was a warning shot across the bow. She
doesn't appear to have learned her lesson though.

A good read btw: http://thedevineevidence.com/index_jesus.html

*I* believe! :-)

I believe in God the Father Almighty,
Maker of heaven and earth:
And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord,
Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,
Born of the Virgin Mary,
Suffered under Pontius Pilate,
Was crucified, dead, and buried:
He descended into hell;
The third day he rose again from the dead;
He ascended into heaven,
And sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty;
From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Ghost;
The holy Catholic Church;
The Communion of Saints;
The Forgiveness of sins;
The Resurrection of the body,
And the Life everlasting.
Amen.

[Aardvark]

On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 09:39:27 +0000, ~BD~ wrote:

> Did I deliberately set her up to be *uncertain* of my meaning? Yes, I
> did!

Looks like I had you sussed a long time ago, cunt:

"...doing a 'BD'- deliberately using a potentially ambiguous word or
phrase in order to later claim that your intent was that the less
malicious interpretation of said word or phrase, given the context,
should be taken as read".

<je4ud1$5nj$5...@dont-email.me>

Proof positive, cunt, that you're fucking incapable of telling the truth
or being straightforward.

[OldGringo38]

On 01/09/2012 08:50 AM, Aardvark wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 09:39:27 +0000, ~BD~ wrote:
>
>> Did I deliberately set her up to be *uncertain* of my meaning? Yes, I
>> did!
>
> Looks like I had you sussed a long time ago, cunt:
>
> "...doing a 'BD'- deliberately using a potentially ambiguous word or
> phrase in order to later claim that your intent was that the less
> malicious interpretation of said word or phrase, given the context,
> should be taken as read".
>
> <je4ud1$5nj$5...@dont-email.me>
>
> Proof positive, cunt, that you're fucking incapable of telling the truth
> or being straightforward.
>
>
>

Are there any Muslims in Ireland, or do the Leprechauns, Protestants,
and Catholics have the ability to take care of it all?

[Aardvark]

On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 09:01:08 -0600, OldGringo38 wrote:

> On 01/09/2012 08:50 AM, Aardvark wrote:
>> On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 09:39:27 +0000, ~BD~ wrote:
>>
>>> Did I deliberately set her up to be *uncertain* of my meaning? Yes, I
>>> did!
>>
>> Looks like I had you sussed a long time ago, cunt:
>>
>> "...doing a 'BD'- deliberately using a potentially ambiguous word or
>> phrase in order to later claim that your intent was that the less
>> malicious interpretation of said word or phrase, given the context,
>> should be taken as read".
>>
>> <je4ud1$5nj$5...@dont-email.me>
>>
>> Proof positive, cunt, that you're fucking incapable of telling the
>> truth or being straightforward.
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Are there any Muslims in Ireland, or do the Leprechauns, Protestants,
> and Catholics have the ability to take care of it all?

A guy with an AK-47 walking down Royal Avenue in the centre of Belfast,
grabbing passers-by, sticking the barrel under their chins, asking them
what religion they are.

The first guy he grabs says uncertainly 'I'm a Protestant'. Mister AK-47
shakes his head and moves on.

Stops another guy, barrel under chin, asks 'What religion are you?'

The guy, with a little hesitation, replies 'errrr... I'm a Catholic'.
Once again, Mister AK-47 shakes his head and moves on.

He grabs another guy, shoves the barrel under his chin and asks him what
religion he is. The guy, with a slight smile on his lips, replies 'I'm
Jewish'. Mister AK-47 blows his head off.

The luckiest Palestinian in Belfast!

[Aardvark]

On Sun, 08 Jan 2012 20:05:47 -0600, OldGringo38 wrote:

> On 01/08/2012 05:38 PM, Aardvark wrote:
>> On Sun, 08 Jan 2012 23:21:15 +0000, ~BD~ wrote:
>>
>>> Graham has asked, nicely, for the truth. I *always* tell the truth, as
>>> I've said many times before.
>>
>> Yes, cunt- you say it a lot but never prove it.
>>
>>> This time is no different!
>>>
>>> <SNIP IRRELEVANT BOLLOCKS>
>>
>> No, cunt. No different at all.
>>
>>
>>
> Talk to me a minuet. What about these blogs, they can be written by
> anyone is that correct? Most bloggers are just voicing their personal
> opinion, right or wrong? Do professionals get involved with writing
> these blogs?

Sorry, George. I know next to nothing about blogs or blogging. Never had
the interest to learn. I hope your question has been answered adequately
by others.

I might set up some blogging software on my server, just out of curiosity.

[Aardvark]

On Sun, 08 Jan 2012 20:44:51 -0600, Gramsterdam wrote:

> ~BD~ wrote:
>
>>Perhaps older readers here will appreciate that every year passes
>>quicker than the one before - in the whole scheme of things we'll be
>>long gone in the mere blink of an eye. We *will* all die - and soon.
>

> There is that word. I'm not going to die in the near future of old age,
> so that is not *soon*. The average life span for an American male is
> 75.6 years, so if you subtract 10 for smoking I get 24 years and 4
> months to go. That isn't soon to me.

In order to convince you that he wasn't addressing SeaNymph specifically
and with malice, he now has to imbue you with the notion that, on a
balance of probabilities, the less malicious of the two possible
interpretations ie he was using his words in a general way with biblical
connotations rather than lashing out at SeaNymph.

What he fails to take into consideration is that there is history on his
part (and admitted in the past by him) of a vendetta against SeaNymph,
and therefore, at least as far as I'm concerned, he was attempting to
stick a knife into SN and twist it.

He's just a slimy cunt, unwilling to admit his malice. See the sig again,
mate.

[OldGringo38]

On 01/09/2012 09:26 AM, Aardvark wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Jan 2012 20:05:47 -0600, OldGringo38 wrote:
>
>> On 01/08/2012 05:38 PM, Aardvark wrote:
>>> On Sun, 08 Jan 2012 23:21:15 +0000, ~BD~ wrote:
>>>
>>>> Graham has asked, nicely, for the truth. I *always* tell the truth, as
>>>> I've said many times before.
>>>
>>> Yes, cunt- you say it a lot but never prove it.
>>>
>>>> This time is no different!
>>>>
>>>> <SNIP IRRELEVANT BOLLOCKS>
>>>
>>> No, cunt. No different at all.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Talk to me a minuet. What about these blogs, they can be written by
>> anyone is that correct? Most bloggers are just voicing their personal
>> opinion, right or wrong? Do professionals get involved with writing
>> these blogs?
>
> Sorry, George. I know next to nothing about blogs or blogging. Never had
> the interest to learn. I hope your question has been answered adequately
> by others.
>
> I might set up some blogging software on my server, just out of curiosity.
>

Not a problem, thanks.

[OldGringo38]

LOL Good way to keep it. :)

[Aardvark]

Credit where credit's due, though: I first encountered that joke in
either 1969 or 1970 Possibly as late as 1971) in the Queen's University
Belfast 'rag-mag', whose title is 'PTQ'.

The title refers to the acronymic version of the first three words of the
Belfast civic motto, 'Pro Tanto Quid Retribuamus' ("For (Pro) so much
(tanto) what (quid) we shall repay (retribuamus)"):

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belfast#Coat_of_arms_and_motto>

<http://www.geograph.ie/photo/520773>

Everything you ever wanted to know about Rags and rag-mags you wanted to
know, but were afraid to ask:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rag_%28student_society%29>


BTW In answer to your question:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Northern_Ireland>

[OldGringo38]

Very informative links, thanks for sharing.

[Jenn]

Blowing a man's head off is considered to be a joke?


--
Jenn

[Jenn]

Aardvark wrote:

> What he fails to take into consideration is that there is history on
> his part (and admitted in the past by him) of a vendetta against
> SeaNymph, and therefore, at least as far as I'm concerned, he was
> attempting to stick a knife into SN and twist it.

What you fail to take into consideration is that SN is out to convince
everyone just how much of a victim she really is so she can further her own
agenda. Her first response will always be to assume the worst. She wants
to be seen as a victim so she can complain bitterly and get everyone to see
things her way. She's got you hooked and landed.

[~BD~]

> Blowing a man's head off is considered to be a joke?

It's what the IRA did - Aardvark was a 'sympathiser' - then decided to bring
up his kids in England.

Turncoat.

He cannot be trusted.

[~BD~]

"Jenn" <m...@noe.mail.com> wrote in message news:jef751$pgh$1...@dont-email.me...

> Aardvark wrote:
>
>> What he fails to take into consideration is that there is history on
>> his part (and admitted in the past by him) of a vendetta against
>> SeaNymph, and therefore, at least as far as I'm concerned, he was
>> attempting to stick a knife into SN and twist it.
>
> What you fail to take into consideration is that SN is out to convince
> everyone just how much of a victim she really is so she can further her
> own agenda. Her first response will always be to assume the worst. She
> wants to be seen as a victim so she can complain bitterly and get everyone
> to see things her way. She's got you hooked and landed.
>

Methinks they are both spawn of the Devil himself!

[Aardvark]

You just can't deal with the fact that you're so fucking transparent to
me, cunt.

[Aardvark]

NOTE TO THE TERMINALLY AND IRREVOCABLY STUPID:

No real heads were blown off in the creation of this post.

[Aardvark]

On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 17:25:14 +0000, ~BD~ wrote:

[~BD~]

"> No real heads were blown off in the creation of this post.

Maybe not, but they WERE blown off by the IRA bastards you support(ed).

You are a turncoat. Living here - amongst the 'enemy'.

How can you live with yourself? Beats me. <shakes head in disbelief>

[Aardvark]

On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 17:39:15 +0000, ~BD~ wrote:

> Aardvark wrote:


>> NOTE TO THE TERMINALLY AND IRREVOCABLY STUPID:

That includes *you* cunt.

>> " No real heads were blown off in the creation of this post.
>
> Maybe not, but they WERE blown off by the IRA bastards you support(ed).
>

That's no fucking joke, cunt.

> You are a turncoat. Living here - amongst the 'enemy'.
>

I have *no* enemy, cunt. You, on the other hand, make a copy of
collecting them.

> How can you live with yourself?

Easily, cunt. All it takes is a moral compass.

> Beats me.

I'm fucking surprised nobody has yet, cunt.

> <shakes head in disbelief>

You must spend a great deal of time doing that, cunt.

[Aardvark]

On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 17:54:08 +0000, Aardvark wrote:

> You, on the other hand, make a copy of collecting them.

You, on the other hand, make a *hobby* of collecting them.

[Bullwinkle.]

How can someone who helped build bombs be only a sympathiser?


"~BD~" <~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in message
news:jef7r1$tj5$1...@dont-email.me...

[~BD~]

"Aardvark" <aard...@youllnever.know> wrote in message
news:jef9k0$96t$1...@dont-email.me...

> On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 17:39:15 +0000, ~BD~ wrote:
>
>> Aardvark wrote:
>
>
>>> NOTE TO THE TERMINALLY AND IRREVOCABLY STUPID:
>

> That includes *you* !

>>> " No real heads were blown off in the creation of this post.
>>
>> Maybe not, but they WERE blown off by the IRA bastards you support(ed).
>>
>

> That's no joke.

Are you intimating that you did *not* / *do* not support the IRA?

>> You are a turncoat. Living here - amongst the 'enemy'.
>

> I have *no* enemy.

So you now acknowledge that the British had every right to enforce the law
in Ulster?

Is that right?

>> How can you live with yourself?
>

> Easily. All it takes is a moral compass.

I reckon there's a great big magnet nearby, distorting the truth!

>> Beats me.
>
> I'm fucking surprised nobody has yet, cunt.

Come on down!

>> <shakes head in disbelief>
>
> You must spend a great deal of time doing that.

Listening to the crap you spew ......... yeah!

Dope!

[~BD~]

"Bullwinkle." <.BDTJ@loa..mo> wrote in message
news:4f0b...@news.x-privat.org...

> How can someone who helped build bombs be only a sympathiser?

How would you describe him?

[Aardvark]

On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 18:06:24 +0000, ~BD~ wrote:

> "Aardvark" <aard...@youllnever.know> wrote in message
> news:jef9k0$96t$1...@dont-email.me...
>> On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 17:39:15 +0000, ~BD~ wrote:
>>
>>> Aardvark wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> NOTE TO THE TERMINALLY AND IRREVOCABLY STUPID:
>>
>> That includes *you* !
>
>>>> " No real heads were blown off in the creation of this post.
>>>
>>> Maybe not, but they WERE blown off by the IRA bastards you
>>> support(ed).
>>>
>>>
>> That's no joke.
>
> Are you intimating that you did *not* / *do* not support the IRA?
>

Unlike you, cunt, I say what I mean and mean what I say.There is no sub-
text whatsoever.

>>> You are a turncoat. Living here - amongst the 'enemy'.
>>
>> I have *no* enemy.
>
> So you now acknowledge that the British had every right to enforce the
> law in Ulster?
>
> Is that right?
>

I have *no* enemy.

The British were at the time supporting an illegitemate, unrepresentative
and oppressive regime in the province, cunt.

>>> How can you live with yourself?
>>
>> Easily. All it takes is a moral compass.
>
> I reckon there's a great big magnet nearby, distorting the truth!
>

Well, that's your problem, cunt, not mine. Have you tried looking in the
attic?

>>> Beats me.
>>
>> I'm fucking surprised nobody has yet, cunt.
>
> Come on down!
>

If I *never* meet you again, cunt, it'll be too soon. Why should I waste
my time and risk my liberty for a slimy sack of shit like you, cunt.
Karma, or someone else, will get you.

>>> <shakes head in disbelief>
>>
>> You must spend a great deal of time doing that.
>
> Listening to the crap you spew ......... yeah!
>

Cite, cunt.


> --
> Dope!

Back to that old sig again, cunt. Have some fucking originality for a
change.

[SeaNymph]

On 1/9/2012 11:12 AM, Jenn wrote:
> Aardvark wrote:
>
>> What he fails to take into consideration is that there is history on
>> his part (and admitted in the past by him) of a vendetta against
>> SeaNymph, and therefore, at least as far as I'm concerned, he was
>> attempting to stick a knife into SN and twist it.
>
> What you fail to take into consideration is that SN is out to convince
> everyone just how much of a victim she really is so she can further her own
> agenda. Her first response will always be to assume the worst. She wants
> to be seen as a victim so she can complain bitterly and get everyone to see
> things her way. She's got you hooked and landed.
>
>

I have no need to convince anyone of anything concerning BD. People see
it for themselves, and comment on it frequently. They sometimes go so
far as to berate you for your ridiculous support of one who has clearly
admitted to his wrongdoing. BD endangers what "friendships" he can
claim with his ongoing vendetta.

I am most assuredly not a victim, nor have I ever claimed to be one. I
don't whine and cry because I'm a woman, I don't go into other
newsgroups and demean and insult people and I don't need anyone to put
together some religious fairy tale to explain my posts. That's your game
Jenn, one that you play poorly at best. I have no agenda. I say what I
believe to be correct and accurate. You are free to believe whatever
fantasy floats your boat.

BD had admitted to his agenda more than once, just yesterday or today
most recently. And he freely admits that he does it in your name. I'm
not the only person he targets, he just targets me more frequently.
That's okay, it doesn't bother me and it certainly shows him up for the
hateful individual he is. Sucks to be him.

LOL

[Jenn]

SeaNymph wrote:
> On 1/9/2012 11:12 AM, Jenn wrote:
>> Aardvark wrote:
>>
>>> What he fails to take into consideration is that there is history on
>>> his part (and admitted in the past by him) of a vendetta against
>>> SeaNymph, and therefore, at least as far as I'm concerned, he was
>>> attempting to stick a knife into SN and twist it.
>>
>> What you fail to take into consideration is that SN is out to
>> convince everyone just how much of a victim she really is so she can
>> further her own agenda. Her first response will always be to assume
>> the worst. She wants to be seen as a victim so she can complain
>> bitterly and get everyone to see things her way. She's got you
>> hooked and landed.


> I have no need to convince anyone of anything concerning BD. People
> see it for themselves, and comment on it frequently.

They see what you set them up to see.

> They sometimes
> go so far as to berate you for your ridiculous support of one who has
> clearly admitted to his wrongdoing.

No he did not admit to *wrongdoing*. You, OTOH, are good at training
people on what you want them to see. You cry "wolf" and complain vehemently
that you're a victim. You can fool some people but you are pretty much
outed from several people's POV including mine.

> <snip>
> I have no agenda.

Liar.

[Aardvark]

Yup. The guy is his own worst enemy and he's totally (wilfully?) blind to
the fact.

[John Karras]

On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 12:53:23 -0600, Jenn wrote:

> SeaNymph wrote:
>> <snip>
>> I have no agenda.
>
> Liar.

Didn't you mean "implies that you don't tell the truth"?

(Oh wait, that's the same thing!!)

[Aardvark]

LOL. Indeed.

[SeaNymph]

On 1/9/2012 12:53 PM, Jenn wrote:
> SeaNymph wrote:
>> On 1/9/2012 11:12 AM, Jenn wrote:
>>> Aardvark wrote:
>>>
>>>> What he fails to take into consideration is that there is history on
>>>> his part (and admitted in the past by him) of a vendetta against
>>>> SeaNymph, and therefore, at least as far as I'm concerned, he was
>>>> attempting to stick a knife into SN and twist it.
>>>
>>> What you fail to take into consideration is that SN is out to
>>> convince everyone just how much of a victim she really is so she can
>>> further her own agenda. Her first response will always be to assume
>>> the worst. She wants to be seen as a victim so she can complain
>>> bitterly and get everyone to see things her way. She's got you
>>> hooked and landed.
>
>
>> I have no need to convince anyone of anything concerning BD. People
>> see it for themselves, and comment on it frequently.
>
> They see what you set them up to see.

Are you saying that posters in here are just a bunch of sheeple, too
apathetic or intelligent to come to their own conclusions about what
they read? That's sure what it sounds like.

>
>> They sometimes
>> go so far as to berate you for your ridiculous support of one who has
>> clearly admitted to his wrongdoing.
>
> No he did not admit to *wrongdoing*. You, OTOH, are good at training
> people on what you want them to see. You cry "wolf" and complain vehemently
> that you're a victim. You can fool some people but you are pretty much
> outed from several people's POV including mine.

That's your opinion Jenn. BD's words tend to blow your statement right
out of the water. People berated BD and they berated your support of
him. Those are just facts. Do you believe that Graham and Eagle can't
make up their own minds about what they read? I didn't say anything to
them, they chose to respond. I never said I was a victim, so I'm not
sure why you continue to repeat that lie. What other people think isn't
my issue, nor is it my concern. The fact that BD targets me, as he has
clearly stated, on your behalf says nothing about me but loads about
him. Your POV means little to me regarding this. You support him
regardless of the heinous things he says. You've done it before and my
guess is that you will continue to do that. Now that speaks volumes
about you. <g>

>
>> <snip>
>> I have no agenda.
>
> Liar.
>

How childish and vaguely amusing.
Do you have an agenda Jenn? It certainly seems you do.

[SeaNymph]

Well, it appears that BD is the only one who believes his own attempt at
propaganda.

[SeaNymph]

Monitor Alert!!!!!!!

[~BD~]

"SeaNymph" <SeaN...@deepbluesea.com> wrote in message
news:jefgec$k0q$2...@dont-email.me...

> Well, it appears that BD is the only one who believes his own attempt at
> propaganda.

BD? He *knows* you are evil - no propaganda involved.

[SeaNymph]

On 1/9/2012 1:49 PM, SeaNymph wrote:
> On 1/9/2012 12:53 PM, Jenn wrote:
>> SeaNymph wrote:
>>> On 1/9/2012 11:12 AM, Jenn wrote:
>>>> Aardvark wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What he fails to take into consideration is that there is history on
>>>>> his part (and admitted in the past by him) of a vendetta against
>>>>> SeaNymph, and therefore, at least as far as I'm concerned, he was
>>>>> attempting to stick a knife into SN and twist it.
>>>>
>>>> What you fail to take into consideration is that SN is out to
>>>> convince everyone just how much of a victim she really is so she can
>>>> further her own agenda. Her first response will always be to assume
>>>> the worst. She wants to be seen as a victim so she can complain
>>>> bitterly and get everyone to see things her way. She's got you
>>>> hooked and landed.
>>
>>
>>> I have no need to convince anyone of anything concerning BD. People
>>> see it for themselves, and comment on it frequently.
>>
>> They see what you set them up to see.
>
> Are you saying that posters in here are just a bunch of sheeple, too
> apathetic or intelligent to come to their own conclusions about what
> they read? That's sure what it sounds like.

Well obviously that should too "too apathetic and unintelligent"

[SeaNymph]

Since when did one of your ridiculous assumptions and/or opinions ever
become a fact? Wait, I know.....Never!!!!!!! Once again, you lie.

[Jenn]

John Karras wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 12:53:23 -0600, Jenn wrote:
>
>> SeaNymph wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>> I have no agenda.
>>
>> Liar.

> Didn't you mean "implies that you don't tell the truth"?

nope

[SeaNymph]

On 1/9/2012 2:22 PM, Jenn wrote:
> John Karras wrote:
>> On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 12:53:23 -0600, Jenn wrote:
>>
>>> SeaNymph wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>> I have no agenda.
>>>
>>> Liar.
>
>> Didn't you mean "implies that you don't tell the truth"?
>
> nope
>

WWWHHHOOOOOSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

[Aardvark]

You're forgetting Jenn.



--
They had cloaks, with hoods lowered before their eyes, made of
the same cut as those of the monks in Cluny. Outwardly they are
gilded, so that it dazzles, but within all lead, and so heavy
that Frederick put them on of straw. -Dante Alighieri

[Aardvark]

On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 19:57:46 +0000, ~BD~ wrote:

> "SeaNymph" <SeaN...@deepbluesea.com> wrote in message
> news:jefgec$k0q$2...@dont-email.me...
>> Well, it appears that BD is the only one who believes his own attempt
>> at propaganda.
>
> BD? He *knows* you are evil

Upon what evidence do you base this 'knowledge, cunt?

This should be a laugh to watch you flop around like a freshly landed
fish.

> - no propaganda involved.

So, only facts, then cunt?

What are these facts of which you speak?

[SeaNymph]

Well, that's true.

[~BD~]

"Aardvark" <aard...@youllnever.know> wrote in message

news:jefjie$6g4$2...@dont-email.me...

> On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 19:57:46 +0000, ~BD~ wrote:
>
>> "SeaNymph" <SeaN...@deepbluesea.com> wrote in message
>> news:jefgec$k0q$2...@dont-email.me...
>>> Well, it appears that BD is the only one who believes his own attempt
>>> at propaganda.
>>
>> BD? He *knows* you are evil
>

> Upon what evidence do you base this 'knowledge?

>
> This should be a laugh to watch you flop around like a freshly landed
> fish.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SIX-Qp6v4k

Both Jenn and I took you to be a friend. How wrong we were to trust you.

[John Karras]

[LOL]

[Aardvark]

On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 22:24:52 +0000, ~BD~ wrote:

> "Aardvark" <aard...@youllnever.know> wrote in message
> news:jefjie$6g4$2...@dont-email.me...
>> On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 19:57:46 +0000, ~BD~ wrote:
>>
>>> "SeaNymph" <SeaN...@deepbluesea.com> wrote in message
>>> news:jefgec$k0q$2...@dont-email.me...
>>>> Well, it appears that BD is the only one who believes his own attempt
>>>> at propaganda.
>>>
>>> BD? He *knows* you are evil
>>
>> Upon what evidence do you base this 'knowledge?
>>
>> This should be a laugh to watch you flop around like a freshly landed
>> fish.
>
>
>

> <SNIP IRRELEVANCE>

Upon what evidence do you base this 'knowledge?

This should be a laugh to watch you flop around like a freshly landed
fish.

[Aardvark]

On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 22:38:15 +0000, Aardvark wrote:

> On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 22:24:52 +0000, ~BD~ wrote:
>
>> "Aardvark" <aard...@youllnever.know> wrote in message
>> news:jefjie$6g4$2...@dont-email.me...
>>> On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 19:57:46 +0000, ~BD~ wrote:
>>>
>>>> "SeaNymph" <SeaN...@deepbluesea.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:jefgec$k0q$2...@dont-email.me...
>>>>> Well, it appears that BD is the only one who believes his own
>>>>> attempt at propaganda.
>>>>
>>>> BD? He *knows* you are evil
>>>
>>> Upon what evidence do you base this 'knowledge?
>>>
>>> This should be a laugh to watch you flop around like a freshly landed
>>> fish.
>>
>>
>>
>> <SNIP IRRELEVANCE>
>
> Upon what evidence do you base this 'knowledge?
>
> This should be a laugh to watch you flop around like a freshly landed
> fish.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQFEY9RIRJA>

[Bullwinkle.]

That is what I thought.

Duck and weave..well done..

"~BD~" <~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in message

news:jefalu$fv1$1...@dont-email.me...

[Bullwinkle.]

The back pedal has begun...

Too bad Google kept all the earlier posts..

"Aardvark" <aard...@youllnever.know> wrote in message

news:jefb08$96t$3...@dont-email.me...

[Bullwinkle.]

Tried to tell you, but you would not listen.

"~BD~" <~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in message

news:jefpei$ein$1...@dont-email.me...

[Aardvark]

On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 01:02:48 +0000, Aardvark wrote:

> On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 22:38:15 +0000, Aardvark wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 22:24:52 +0000, ~BD~ wrote:
>>
>>> "Aardvark" <aard...@youllnever.know> wrote in message
>>> news:jefjie$6g4$2...@dont-email.me...
>>>> On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 19:57:46 +0000, ~BD~ wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "SeaNymph" <SeaN...@deepbluesea.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:jefgec$k0q$2...@dont-email.me...
>>>>>> Well, it appears that BD is the only one who believes his own
>>>>>> attempt at propaganda.
>>>>>
>>>>> BD? He *knows* you are evil
>>>>
>>>> Upon what evidence do you base this 'knowledge?
>>>>
>>>> This should be a laugh to watch you flop around like a freshly landed
>>>> fish.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <SNIP IRRELEVANCE>
>>
>> Upon what evidence do you base this 'knowledge?
>>
>> This should be a laugh to watch you flop around like a freshly landed
>> fish.
>
> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQFEY9RIRJA>

<Aardvark steps in, looks around>

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQFEY9RIRJA>

<Aardvark leaves, shaking his head>