Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
When the tough got here and started kicking ass...
124 views
Skip to first unread message
TJ
May 21, 2013, 2:37:57 AM5/21/13
to
...Kat ran away like a whipped dog with her tail between her
legs.
legs.
Steve Layton
May 21, 2013, 3:54:11 PM5/21/13
to
On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 2:37:57 AM UTC-4, TJ wrote:
> ...Kat ran away like a whipped dog with her tail between her
>
> legs.
She sure did.
> ...Kat ran away like a whipped dog with her tail between her
>
> legs.
Kat
May 21, 2013, 6:54:00 PM5/21/13
to
Sorry to disappoint you boys, but this PC's video card died. Feel free to keep sharing your fantasies of efficacy with us. It's hilarious!
Steve Layton
May 21, 2013, 9:28:07 PM5/21/13
to
On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:54:00 PM UTC-4, Kat wrote:
>
>
> Sorry to disappoint you boys, but this PC's video card died. Feel free to keep >sharing your fantasies of efficacy with us. It's hilarious!
Oh no, Kat the flying monkey is back!
>
>
> Sorry to disappoint you boys, but this PC's video card died. Feel free to keep >sharing your fantasies of efficacy with us. It's hilarious!
Kat
May 21, 2013, 9:48:28 PM5/21/13
to
On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 9:28:07 PM UTC-4, Steve Layton wrote:
> Oh no, Kat the flying monkey is back!
lol You can insult me all you want, but at the end of the day you are just a bullying cultist who doesn't like to pay his rent.
> Oh no, Kat the flying monkey is back!
The CoS is dying, Tim. It's no wonder, given how many people just like you are in it!
TJ
May 22, 2013, 12:46:59 AM5/22/13
to
In article <327e6ad3-d14b-4df6-8480-
d52815...@googlegroups.com>
Yeah, sure. The old video card excuse. The crutch of the OCD.
d52815...@googlegroups.com>
Steve Layton
May 22, 2013, 2:55:20 AM5/22/13
to
>On Wednesday, May 22, 2013 12:46:59 AM UTC-4, TJ wrote:
>
>
>
> Yeah, sure. The old video card excuse. The crutch of the OCD.
Strange that her video card would chose that very time, a time when I proved her wrong to go up.
>
>
>
> Yeah, sure. The old video card excuse. The crutch of the OCD.
Sounds a little fishy.
:-)
Kat
May 22, 2013, 11:01:14 PM5/22/13
to
On Wednesday, May 22, 2013 2:55:20 AM UTC-4, Steve Layton wrote:
> > Yeah, sure. The old video card excuse. The crutch of the OCD.
>
>
>
> Strange that her video card would chose that very time
Hardly, Tim. Remember I mentioned the LAN party? Do you know what "overclocking" is? Do you know what overclocking will do to a video card with a malfunctioning fan?
> > Yeah, sure. The old video card excuse. The crutch of the OCD.
>
>
>
> Strange that her video card would chose that very time
A word to everyone out there using an nVidea HD series video card- the oil in some of the fans likes to turn into grit after 8-12 months of wear.
> a time when I proved her wrong to go up.
It's a word that has been used correctly for over 500 years in that way. It is in fact the past tense passive participle form of "hang". You can't make me wrong Tim, no matter how many threads you start or how many sock puppets you throw at me.
> Sounds a little fishy.
That's because you are a retarded little monkey flinging poo to see if you can get anything to stick. You need to discredit me so you use anything I say or do (or don't do) as the foundation of an attack. It is painfully obvious that you are trying to discredit the people who speak out against your behavior or your cult. You aren't fooling anyone and you aren't going to save your cult by being a bullying twit.
Steve Layton
May 23, 2013, 1:30:42 AM5/23/13
to
On Wednesday, May 22, 2013 11:01:14 PM UTC-4, Kat wrote:
>
> Do you know what "overclocking" is? Do you know what overclocking will do to >a video card with a malfunctioning fan?
>
Yes, I do I've been using computers, selling computers, programming computers since 1990.
>
> Do you know what "overclocking" is? Do you know what overclocking will do to >a video card with a malfunctioning fan?
>
As a matter of fact, I'm overclocking my CPU right now.
Most CPUs will allow this if you have a good cooling system and a BIOS that will allow you to overclock.
You also must monitor the CPU temperature ( of all cores ).
>
> A word to everyone out there using an nVidea HD series video card-
>the oil in some of the fans likes to turn into grit after 8-12 months of wear.
>
>
>
> You didn't prove me wrong, Tim.
>You can't make me wrong Tim, no matter how many threads you start or how many >sock puppets you throw at me.
>
At this time, I only post under "Steve Layton" and challenge you to provide PROOF otherwise.
I suggest you look to Greg for that.
>
> That's because you are a retarded little monkey flinging poo to see if you >can get anything to stick.
You're all class "Kat".
Kat
May 23, 2013, 10:54:48 AM5/23/13
to
On Thursday, May 23, 2013 1:30:42 AM UTC-4, Steve Layton wrote:
> <snip of irrelevant tech chatter>
> Yes I did, Kat.
No, you did not. One unsourced youtube video does not counter multiple dictionary entries, grammar educational sites or sourced, 500 year old word etymology. It is an irregular verb with specific rules of grammar. As you were not executed by a court of law, "hung" was perfectly appropriate in that context.
http://www.grammar.cl/Past/Irregular_Verbs_List.htm
> Again, "Kat", I don't use any "sock puppets" on ARS.
History says otherwise, Tim. One of your first posts as "Steve Layton" was to agree with your "Tim Higgs" account's post.. which would be trolling and sock puppetry.
In fact, you pretended to be someone else in the early days of that particular posting name. Remember Tim? You even claimed later that you hadn't and I was able to link to an occasion where you pretended to not be Truthseeker.
Remember your big argument with me over your IP
> At this time, I only post under "Steve Layton" and challenge you to provide PROOF otherwise.
How funny that you demand proof from me when I accuse you of sock puppetry.... when you frequently make accusations that other posters here are me without any proof whatsoever.
> I suggest you look to Greg for that.
Why should I believe you? You also claimed you weren't sending me any emails when you were... from the very same email that you use to post to ars.
> Jeeze Kat, it good to see that you haven't dropped down to the level of name-calling.
>
>
>
> You're all class "Kat".
Poor Tim- you are so desperate to turn this around on me and deflect attention from your behavior.
I'm under no obligation to be polite to someone who makes dozens of insulting threads about me any time he's butthurt over being called out on his own behavior. I've told you before... if you don't like being called out on being an asshole, try not being one.
> <snip of irrelevant tech chatter>
> Yes I did, Kat.
No, you did not. One unsourced youtube video does not counter multiple dictionary entries, grammar educational sites or sourced, 500 year old word etymology. It is an irregular verb with specific rules of grammar. As you were not executed by a court of law, "hung" was perfectly appropriate in that context.
http://www.grammar.cl/Past/Irregular_Verbs_List.htm
> Again, "Kat", I don't use any "sock puppets" on ARS.
In fact, you pretended to be someone else in the early days of that particular posting name. Remember Tim? You even claimed later that you hadn't and I was able to link to an occasion where you pretended to not be Truthseeker.
Remember your big argument with me over your IP
> At this time, I only post under "Steve Layton" and challenge you to provide PROOF otherwise.
> I suggest you look to Greg for that.
> Jeeze Kat, it good to see that you haven't dropped down to the level of name-calling.
>
>
>
> You're all class "Kat".
I'm under no obligation to be polite to someone who makes dozens of insulting threads about me any time he's butthurt over being called out on his own behavior. I've told you before... if you don't like being called out on being an asshole, try not being one.
Steve Layton
May 23, 2013, 3:13:45 PM5/23/13
to
On Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:54:48 AM UTC-4, Kat wrote:
>
> History says otherwise, Tim. One of your first posts as "Steve Layton"
Doesn't this troll know that using "sock puppets" means to post under more than one name AT THE SAME TIME?
>
> History says otherwise, Tim. One of your first posts as "Steve Layton"
You can find plenty of people who post under one name today that use to use a different posting name 5 or 10 years ago.
Again, I'm only posting under "Steve Layton" this time time. I have posted under "Truth Seeker" in the long ago past.
Kat
May 23, 2013, 11:01:49 PM5/23/13
to
On Thursday, May 23, 2013 3:13:45 PM UTC-4, Steve Layton wrote:
> > History says otherwise, Tim. One of your first posts as "Steve Layton"
>
>
>
> Doesn't this troll know that using "sock puppets" means to post under more than one name AT THE SAME TIME?
Which you did. I even mention that and you snipped it out of your response. You pretended to be someone other than Tim Higgs initially, which would in fact be sock puppetry.
> > History says otherwise, Tim. One of your first posts as "Steve Layton"
>
>
>
> Doesn't this troll know that using "sock puppets" means to post under more than one name AT THE SAME TIME?
> You can find plenty of people who post under one name today that use to use a different posting name 5 or 10 years ago.
>
>
>
> Again, I'm only posting under "Steve Layton" this time time. I have posted under "Truth Seeker" in the long ago past.
Steve Layton
May 24, 2013, 2:25:48 AM5/24/13
to
On Thursday, May 23, 2013 11:01:49 PM UTC-4, Kat wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Which you did. I even mention that and you snipped it out of your response. >You pretended to be someone other than Tim Higgs initially, which would in >fact be sock puppetry.
>
No it would not.
>
>
>
>
> Which you did. I even mention that and you snipped it out of your response. >You pretended to be someone other than Tim Higgs initially, which would in >fact be sock puppetry.
>
That would mean to post "anonymously" to post under a "sock puppet".
"initially" = 10 years ago
I use to post under "Truth Seeker" 10 years ago.
"Kat" shows that she has a misunderstanding of what "sock puppet" means.
Again, having sock puppets is posting under different names AT THE SAME TIME, not posting under a different name today from the name you posted under under 5 or 10 years ago. That's just changing one's posting name over the years, not creating sock puppets.
For one to have sock puppets, who has to be posting under different names AT THE SAME TIME.
This is what she's accusing me of and and accusation she can't back up with proof.
Why? Because it's just more of "Kat"'s baseless trolling accusations.
Tell us Kat, what other names am I supposed to be posting under at-the-same -time that I've been posting under "Steve Layton"?
Davis
May 24, 2013, 8:20:35 AM5/24/13
to
On 5/23/2013 11:25:43 PM, Steve Layton wrote:
>
> That would mean to post "anonymously" to post under a "sock puppet".
>
> That would mean to post "anonymously" to post under a "sock puppet".
> "Kat" shows that she has a misunderstanding of what "sock puppet" means.
>
> Again, having sock puppets is posting under different names AT THE SAME
> TIM E, not posting under a different name today from the name you posted
>
> Again, having sock puppets is posting under different names AT THE SAME
> under under 5 or 10 years ago. That's just changing one's posting name
> over the y ears, not creating sock puppets.
>
> For one to have sock puppets, who has to be posting under different names
> A T THE SAME TIME.
> For one to have sock puppets, who has to be posting under different names
>
> This is what she's accusing me of and and accusation she can't back up
> with proof.
>
> Why? Because it's just more of "Kat"'s baseless trolling accusations.
>
> Tell us Kat, what other names am I supposed to be posting under
> at-the-same -time that I've been posting under "Steve Layton"?
>
Android Cat sometimes keeps a running list of sock puppet names on his site's
> This is what she's accusing me of and and accusation she can't back up
> with proof.
>
> Why? Because it's just more of "Kat"'s baseless trolling accusations.
>
> Tell us Kat, what other names am I supposed to be posting under
> at-the-same -time that I've been posting under "Steve Layton"?
>
'Circle Jerk' page. (and would you like to take a guess who Gregory Hall's
sock puppets are listed as belonging to?)
As to technical questions on the black art of sockpupperty, you can ask an
'expert' like Hall or Derbyshire -- who many suspect is the same person.
roger....@live.com
May 24, 2013, 12:00:25 PM5/24/13
to
Kat
May 24, 2013, 9:03:47 PM5/24/13
to
On Friday, May 24, 2013 2:25:48 AM UTC-4, Steve Layton wrote:
> No it would not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_%28Internet%29
"A sockpuppet is a fake online identity used for purposes of deception. The term—a reference to the manipulation of a simple hand puppet made from a sock—originally referred to a false identity assumed by a member of an internet community who spoke to, or about, himself while pretending to be another person.[1] The term now includes other uses of invented online identities, such as those created to praise, defend or support a third party or organization,[2] or to circumvent a suspension or ban from a website. A significant difference between the use of a pseudonym[3] and the creation of a sockpuppet is that the sockpuppet poses as an independent third-party unaffiliated with the puppeteer."
1) You used "Steve Layton" to pretend to be someone other than Tim Higgs. I have already provided links in the past to where you pretended not to be who you are.
2) "Steve Layton" originally appeared (and was caught by Andrew, I believe) to add agreement to a post made by your "Tim Higgs" account on the same day. Remember? That's how the whole IP argument began.
> I use to post under "Truth Seeker" 10 years ago.
1) You have posted under Truth Seeker more recently than 10 years ago, Tim. We have argued about your fallacy laden diatribe almost from the day I stated posting to usenet. Remember? You branded me OSA for pointing out a hole in your "logic" lol
2) Another thing you conveniently neglect to mention from your Truthseeker years is how you impersonated Magoo on a bondage group to get her harassed in her home.
Those are classic examples of sock puppetry, Tim. I don't know who you think you are fooling, but let me assure you that you are not pulling the wool over anyone's eyes. Your cult is dying and attacking me won't save it. Attacking Aida won't save it either.
> No it would not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_%28Internet%29
"A sockpuppet is a fake online identity used for purposes of deception. The term—a reference to the manipulation of a simple hand puppet made from a sock—originally referred to a false identity assumed by a member of an internet community who spoke to, or about, himself while pretending to be another person.[1] The term now includes other uses of invented online identities, such as those created to praise, defend or support a third party or organization,[2] or to circumvent a suspension or ban from a website. A significant difference between the use of a pseudonym[3] and the creation of a sockpuppet is that the sockpuppet poses as an independent third-party unaffiliated with the puppeteer."
1) You used "Steve Layton" to pretend to be someone other than Tim Higgs. I have already provided links in the past to where you pretended not to be who you are.
2) "Steve Layton" originally appeared (and was caught by Andrew, I believe) to add agreement to a post made by your "Tim Higgs" account on the same day. Remember? That's how the whole IP argument began.
> I use to post under "Truth Seeker" 10 years ago.
2) Another thing you conveniently neglect to mention from your Truthseeker years is how you impersonated Magoo on a bondage group to get her harassed in her home.
Those are classic examples of sock puppetry, Tim. I don't know who you think you are fooling, but let me assure you that you are not pulling the wool over anyone's eyes. Your cult is dying and attacking me won't save it. Attacking Aida won't save it either.
Sockpuppet
May 25, 2013, 2:43:54 AM5/25/13
to
On 24 May 2013, Kat <lady...@comcast.net> posted some
news:d7ed5433-a80e-4b98...@googlegroups.com:
> On Friday, May 24, 2013 2:25:48 AM UTC-4, Steve Layton wrote:
>
>> No it would not.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_%28Internet%29
>
> "A sockpuppet is a fake online identity used for purposes of
> deception.
You're admitting that you got your ass handed to you by a "sockpuppet"?
Should we report this transgression to AUK and let the kookologists probe
you?
news:d7ed5433-a80e-4b98...@googlegroups.com:
> On Friday, May 24, 2013 2:25:48 AM UTC-4, Steve Layton wrote:
>
>> No it would not.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_%28Internet%29
>
> "A sockpuppet is a fake online identity used for purposes of
> deception.
Should we report this transgression to AUK and let the kookologists probe
you?
Steve Layton
May 25, 2013, 4:25:18 AM5/25/13
to
On Friday, May 24, 2013 9:03:47 PM UTC-4, Kat wrote:
>
> 1) You used "Steve Layton" to pretend to be someone other than Tim Higgs.
That's called "shielding your identity", not having sock puppets.
>
> 1) You used "Steve Layton" to pretend to be someone other than Tim Higgs.
Is "Kat" this troll's real name? I doubt it.
If not, by her logic, it's a sock puppet.
Steve Layton
May 25, 2013, 4:47:52 AM5/25/13
to
On Friday, May 24, 2013 9:03:47 PM UTC-4, Kat wrote:
>
>
> Those are classic examples of sock puppetry, Tim.
When you brought up the sock puppet accusation, you were implying that I was using sock puppets to attack you and agree with me on the subject matter of "hung" versus "hanged". Don't you remember that?
( And I might add, an accusation you have yet to provide any proof of. )
Then, when I asked you for *proof* of that accusation, you go off into other subject matters, like the about Magoo from 10 years ago subject matter that has nothing to do with your accusation.
Your original accusation had to do with accusing me of creating sock puppets for the purpose of attacking you on subject matter of "hung" versus "hanged".
When you saw posters on ARS were AGREEING with me about on the "hung" versus "hanged" argument I had with you, you got tissy and accused me of using sock puppets.
Then, when I asked you for p-r-o-o-f of my using sock puppets for the purpose of attacking you on subject matter of "hung" versus "hanged" and agree with me, you go off and start talking about other things like Magoo and something from 10 years ago.
How does going off onto the subject matter of Magoo 10 years go prove that I was using sock puppets recently for the purpose of attacking you on subject matter of "hung" versus "hanged" in the last 2 weeks?
Kat
May 25, 2013, 7:58:25 AM5/25/13
to
On Saturday, May 25, 2013 4:25:18 AM UTC-4, Steve Layton wrote:
Another two posts to answer one of mine. What's the matter, Tim... did you make the first post and then obsess for 20 minutes over what else you could have said? lol
> That's called "shielding your identity", not having sock puppets.
Funny- when I stated that I was "shielding my identity" (to protect people I knew in the cult and to avoid your obsessive self showing up on my doorstep), you claimed that it was proof that I was hiding something or that I was a coward. How very interesting that you find shielding one's identity a reasonable behavior for yourself, but if others claim it, you consider it "proof" of something far more malicious. :P
Your argument might have some validity had you not been posting with an account named "Tim Higgs" at the same time that "Steve Layton" was first in use. Then there was the "Mister Fabian" account that is more than likely you- as that is the exact same name you were using on exscn.net at the same time Fabian surfaced.
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/21cf7863c5cc14db?dmode=source&output=gplain&noredirect
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?26826-Setting-the-Record-Straight
Oh look, "Mister Fabian" was also obsessed with dead-agenting Aida... quelle surprise!
> Is "Kat" this troll's real name? I doubt it.
>
>
>
> If not, by her logic, it's a sock puppet.
^ That was not my logic, Tim. Did you not understand or is this just another feeble attempt on your part to manipulate the conversation?
A handle that is not a real name is not by default a sock puppet. What the person does with that fake name is far more important. This point was made in the definition I provided- a point you have "missed".
If a person makes a fake name for the purposes of supporting another handle they are using (such as how you originally used "Steve Layton" to add a positive chorus for posts made by your Tim "Higgs" account), that account is a sock.
If a person is using multiple fake names to create a large amount of posts about a person or subject (as you were- "Steve", "Tim", "Fabian"), that is also sock puppetry.
Another two posts to answer one of mine. What's the matter, Tim... did you make the first post and then obsess for 20 minutes over what else you could have said? lol
> That's called "shielding your identity", not having sock puppets.
Your argument might have some validity had you not been posting with an account named "Tim Higgs" at the same time that "Steve Layton" was first in use. Then there was the "Mister Fabian" account that is more than likely you- as that is the exact same name you were using on exscn.net at the same time Fabian surfaced.
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/21cf7863c5cc14db?dmode=source&output=gplain&noredirect
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?26826-Setting-the-Record-Straight
Oh look, "Mister Fabian" was also obsessed with dead-agenting Aida... quelle surprise!
> Is "Kat" this troll's real name? I doubt it.
>
>
>
> If not, by her logic, it's a sock puppet.
A handle that is not a real name is not by default a sock puppet. What the person does with that fake name is far more important. This point was made in the definition I provided- a point you have "missed".
If a person makes a fake name for the purposes of supporting another handle they are using (such as how you originally used "Steve Layton" to add a positive chorus for posts made by your Tim "Higgs" account), that account is a sock.
If a person is using multiple fake names to create a large amount of posts about a person or subject (as you were- "Steve", "Tim", "Fabian"), that is also sock puppetry.
Kat
May 25, 2013, 8:31:16 AM5/25/13
to
On Saturday, May 25, 2013 4:47:52 AM UTC-4, Steve Layton wrote:
> When you brought up the sock puppet accusation, you were implying that I was using sock puppets to attack you and agree with me on the subject matter of "hung" versus "hanged". Don't you remember that?
>
>
>
> ( And I might add, an accusation you have yet to provide any proof of. )
*yawn* Where was YOUR proof when you accused Sicily, Davis, John and just about every poster here of being my sock, hmm? Once again, you don't hold yourself to the standards that you hold others.
> When you brought up the sock puppet accusation, you were implying that I was using sock puppets to attack you and agree with me on the subject matter of "hung" versus "hanged". Don't you remember that?
>
>
>
> ( And I might add, an accusation you have yet to provide any proof of. )
My whole point was that it is possible for it to be you- based on your obsessive behavior, documented sock puppet use (Layton, Drooks, Fabian etc) and flat out lies regarding the things you have done.
Remember how you tried to deny sending me emails Tim? Remember how you sent them from the same email that you use to post to usenet? Remember your strange accusation that I edited them when I posted them to usenet? How would you have known if I edited them unless you sent them, Tim?
> Then, when I asked you for *proof* of that accusation, you go off into other subject matters, like the about Magoo from 10 years ago subject matter that has nothing to do with your accusation.
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?26826-Setting-the-Record-Straight&p=677268&viewfull=1#post677268
> Your original accusation had to do with accusing me of creating sock puppets for the purpose of attacking you on subject matter of "hung" versus "hanged".
>
>
>
> When you saw posters on ARS were AGREEING with me
The multiple sourced & referenced dictionary entries/grammar sites I linked did show that I was right, however. :P
> about on the "hung" versus "hanged" argument I had with you, you got tissy and accused me of using sock puppets.
I pointed out that it was rather interesting that whenever you or I get into a disagreement about something, all these new, anonymous posters come crawling out of the woodwork to either agree with you or be insulting towards me. I also pointed out the fact that you have been caught in the act of using sock puppets.
I'm under no obligation to take your word on the matter. Quite frankly, you get caught in lies too frequently for me to trust your "word". Do I have concrete proof that the desperate-for-attention, window-licking moron that keeps creating new socks to evade my killfile is you? Nope. Do I have enough evidence (based on your past actions) to consider you a likely source of those posts? Yes. Yes I do.
Now why don't you be a good little cultist and go buy yourself a dictionary.
Steve Layton
May 25, 2013, 8:55:21 PM5/25/13
to
On Saturday, May 25, 2013 7:58:25 AM UTC-4, Kat wrote:
>
> Funny- when I stated that I was "shielding my identity" (to protect people I knew in the cult and to avoid your obsessive self showing up on my doorstep), you claimed that it was proof that I was hiding something or that I was a coward.
Look at this.
>
> Funny- when I stated that I was "shielding my identity" (to protect people I knew in the cult and to avoid your obsessive self showing up on my doorstep), you claimed that it was proof that I was hiding something or that I was a coward.
Now Kat is AGAIN, trying to go off onto a different subject matter.
Now she's trying to change the subject from "sock puppets" and onto whether it's ok to or not to hide one's identity while posting on a Scientology based forum and whether doing so makes you a "coward".
That's a totally different subject matter.
This is a another example of how when "Kat" is losing an argument on one subject matter she tries to change the subject matter to one she feels she can win an argument on.
In Scientology, this would be called "Q & A".
John Dorsay
May 25, 2013, 11:05:58 PM5/25/13
to
On 5/25/2013 8:55 PM, Steve Layton wrote:
> Look at this.
>
> Now Kat is AGAIN, trying to go off onto a different subject matter.
>
> Now she's trying to change the subject from "sock puppets" and onto whether it's ok to or not to hide one's identity while posting on a Scientology based forum and whether doing so makes you a "coward".
>
> That's a totally different subject matter.
>
> This is a another example of how when "Kat" is losing an argument on one subject matter she tries to change the subject matter to one she feels she can win an argument on.
>
> In Scientology, this would be called "Q & A".
In the real world, nobody gives a fuck.
> Look at this.
>
> Now Kat is AGAIN, trying to go off onto a different subject matter.
>
> Now she's trying to change the subject from "sock puppets" and onto whether it's ok to or not to hide one's identity while posting on a Scientology based forum and whether doing so makes you a "coward".
>
> That's a totally different subject matter.
>
> This is a another example of how when "Kat" is losing an argument on one subject matter she tries to change the subject matter to one she feels she can win an argument on.
>
> In Scientology, this would be called "Q & A".
John
Scott Webster
May 26, 2013, 12:29:18 AM5/26/13
to
In article <519f5b10$0$5167$a826...@newsreader.readnews.com>
Suspecting and proving are two different things.
Kat
May 26, 2013, 12:35:35 AM5/26/13
to
On Saturday, May 25, 2013 8:55:21 PM UTC-4, Steve Layton wrote:
> Now Kat is AGAIN, trying to go off onto a different subject matter.
No Tim. Your use of a defense that you previously attacked me over is quite relevant to the conversation.... as this all started with me pointing out your bad behavior on usenet. I suspect your argument over hung/hanged was a feeble attempt at distraction from what I was saying regarding that behavior.
> Now Kat is AGAIN, trying to go off onto a different subject matter.
You snipped/ignored the part where I pointed out that you were posting from your real name... something that doesn't quite make sense if "Steve Layton" was being used for self-protection. You also ignored the parts where I pointed out that you were using sock puppets. I suspect you ignored everything but my pointing out your hypocritical behavior because you have no real defense for it.
> Now she's trying to change the subject from "sock puppets" and onto whether it's ok to or not to hide one's identity while posting on a Scientology based forum and whether doing so makes you a "coward".
> This is a another example of how when "Kat" is losing an argument on one subject matter she tries to change the subject matter to one she feels she can win an argument on.
Now you on the other hand have completely ignored my responses regarding your sock puppetry (including the proof that I provided of said behavior) in favor of attacking me. By your "logic", YOU are changing the subject to one you feel you can "win" an argument on.
Psst.. just a heads up Timmy.. I'm not trying to "win". I'm trying to make you waste your time going after an unknown, relatively unimportant critic of your cult.. and it's working quite effectively. I have no problem telling you any of this because you are too stupid and too dedicated a bully to not lash out at me when I comment on your past and your behavior.
> In Scientology, this would be called "Q & A".
Brian Birdseye
May 26, 2013, 9:16:10 AM5/26/13
to
In article <f2942aa8-96cc-4856-a011-
e67915...@googlegroups.com>
e67915...@googlegroups.com>
Kat <lady...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> On Saturday, May 25, 2013 8:55:21 PM UTC-4, Steve Layton wrote:
>
> > Now Kat is AGAIN, trying to go off onto a different subject matter.
>
> No Tim. Your use of a defense that you previously attacked me over is quite relevant to the conversation....
Do you like to be spanked during rough sex?
>
> On Saturday, May 25, 2013 8:55:21 PM UTC-4, Steve Layton wrote:
>
> > Now Kat is AGAIN, trying to go off onto a different subject matter.
>
> No Tim. Your use of a defense that you previously attacked me over is quite relevant to the conversation....
Wrong Dong Wu
May 27, 2013, 11:29:15 PM5/27/13
to
On 25 May 2013, Kat <lady...@comcast.net> posted some
news:f2942aa8-96cc-4856...@googlegroups.com:
> On Saturday, May 25, 2013 8:55:21 PM UTC-4, Steve Layton wrote:
>
>> Now Kat is AGAIN, trying to go off onto a different subject matter.
>
> No Tim. Your use of a defense that you previously attacked me over is
> quite relevant to the conversation.... as this all started with me
> pointing out your bad behavior on usenet.
His bad behavior? He's not netkopping other posters like you are.
news:f2942aa8-96cc-4856...@googlegroups.com:
> On Saturday, May 25, 2013 8:55:21 PM UTC-4, Steve Layton wrote:
>
>> Now Kat is AGAIN, trying to go off onto a different subject matter.
>
> No Tim. Your use of a defense that you previously attacked me over is
> quite relevant to the conversation.... as this all started with me
> pointing out your bad behavior on usenet.
Word Warden
May 28, 2013, 1:57:43 AM5/28/13
to
> On Saturday, May 25, 2013 8:55:21 PM UTC-4, Steve Layton wrote:
>
> > Now Kat is AGAIN, trying to go off onto a different subject matter.
>
> No Tim. Your use of a defense that you previously attacked me over is quite relevant to the conversation
You're talking to Steve, not "Tim". Please make a note of it.
>
> > Now Kat is AGAIN, trying to go off onto a different subject matter.
>
> No Tim. Your use of a defense that you previously attacked me over is quite relevant to the conversation
SpamБuster
May 28, 2013, 9:23:53 PM5/28/13
to
========================================================
SPAMMED INTO NON-RELEVANT GROUPS &/OR COUNTRY
========================================================
On 5/27/2013 8:29 PM, Wrong Dong Wu wrote:
SpamБuster
May 28, 2013, 9:29:44 PM5/28/13
to
70.66...@sjrb.ca
May 29, 2013, 1:03:15 AM5/29/13
to
On 28 May 2013, =?UTF-8?B?U3BhbdCRdXN0ZXI=?= <SpamB...@nyet.ca> posted
some news:9Scpt.7855$OS5....@newsfe24.iad:
> From: =?UTF-8?B?U3BhbdCRdXN0ZXI=?= <SpamB...@nyet.ca>
> Reply-To: Spamβus...@nyet.ca
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0)
> Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0
> Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.troll
> Subject: TROLL ------------------------------- Re: When the
> tough got here and started kicking ass... References:
> <7a89dabb3060ab26...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net>
> <b764667d-662e-4781...@googlegroups.com>
> <327e6ad3-d14b-4df6...@googlegroups.com>
> <a5defa61b61e4136...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net>
> <3afa6021-a1df-439f...@googlegroups.com>
> <2810d66a-273c-4f32...@googlegroups.com>
> <0ea7f8d6-dc41-4a78...@googlegroups.com>
> <c4b9a5d3-2927-4dd6...@googlegroups.com>
> <c22e6141-c57b-454d...@googlegroups.com>
> <4a297884-3e43-4a82...@googlegroups.com>
> <66789ae7-7d6a-4513...@googlegroups.com>
> <d7ed5433-a80e-4b98...@googlegroups.com>
> <e66d44c7-cf26-4605...@googlegroups.com>
> <af17493a-d672-4561...@googlegroups.com>
> <4e1763e7-55eb-4892...@googlegroups.com>
> <f2942aa8-96cc-4856...@googlegroups.com>
> <XnsA1CDD069A...@94.75.214.90> In-Reply-To:
> <XnsA1CDD069A...@94.75.214.90> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Lines: 7
> Message-ID: <9Scpt.7855$OS5....@newsfe24.iad>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 70.66.70.65
> X-Complaints-To: interne...@sjrb.ca
> X-Trace: 1369790981 70.66.70.65 (Wed, 29 May 2013 01:29:41 UTC)
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 01:29:41 UTC
> Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 18:29:44 -0700
> X-Received-Bytes: 2109
--
some news:9Scpt.7855$OS5....@newsfe24.iad:
> From: =?UTF-8?B?U3BhbdCRdXN0ZXI=?= <SpamB...@nyet.ca>
> Reply-To: Spamβus...@nyet.ca
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0)
> Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0
> Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.troll
> Subject: TROLL ------------------------------- Re: When the
> tough got here and started kicking ass... References:
> <7a89dabb3060ab26...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net>
> <b764667d-662e-4781...@googlegroups.com>
> <327e6ad3-d14b-4df6...@googlegroups.com>
> <a5defa61b61e4136...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net>
> <3afa6021-a1df-439f...@googlegroups.com>
> <2810d66a-273c-4f32...@googlegroups.com>
> <0ea7f8d6-dc41-4a78...@googlegroups.com>
> <c4b9a5d3-2927-4dd6...@googlegroups.com>
> <c22e6141-c57b-454d...@googlegroups.com>
> <4a297884-3e43-4a82...@googlegroups.com>
> <66789ae7-7d6a-4513...@googlegroups.com>
> <d7ed5433-a80e-4b98...@googlegroups.com>
> <e66d44c7-cf26-4605...@googlegroups.com>
> <af17493a-d672-4561...@googlegroups.com>
> <4e1763e7-55eb-4892...@googlegroups.com>
> <f2942aa8-96cc-4856...@googlegroups.com>
> <XnsA1CDD069A...@94.75.214.90> In-Reply-To:
> <XnsA1CDD069A...@94.75.214.90> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Lines: 7
> Message-ID: <9Scpt.7855$OS5....@newsfe24.iad>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 70.66.70.65
> X-Complaints-To: interne...@sjrb.ca
> X-Trace: 1369790981 70.66.70.65 (Wed, 29 May 2013 01:29:41 UTC)
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 01:29:41 UTC
> Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 18:29:44 -0700
> X-Received-Bytes: 2109
--
70.66...@sjrb.ca
May 29, 2013, 3:31:08 AM5/29/13
to
On 28 May 2013, =?UTF-8?B?U3BhbdCRdXN0ZXI=?= <SpamB...@nyet.ca> posted
some news:GMcpt.32580$CG1....@newsfe21.iad:
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 70.66.70.65
> X-Complaints-To: interne...@sjrb.ca
> X-Trace: 1369790630 70.66.70.65 (Wed, 29 May 2013 01:23:50 UTC)
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 01:23:50 UTC
> Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 18:23:53 -0700
> X-Received-Bytes: 2042
--
70.66...@sjrb.ca
Jun 1, 2013, 11:18:17 PM6/1/13
to
On 28 May 2013, =?UTF-8?B?U3BhbdCRdXN0ZXI=?= <SpamB...@nyet.ca> posted
some news:9Scpt.7855$OS5....@newsfe24.iad:
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 70.66.70.65
> X-Complaints-To: interne...@sjrb.ca
Steve Layton
Jun 4, 2013, 2:05:01 PM6/4/13
to
On Sunday, May 26, 2013 12:35:35 AM UTC-4, Kat wrote:
>
> No Tim. Your use of a defense that you previously attacked me over is quite relevant to the conversation.
Her response makes no sense.
>
> No Tim. Your use of a defense that you previously attacked me over is quite relevant to the conversation.
It's totally non sequitur.
She gives responses that are:
1. That have nothing to do with the subject matter but a frantic attempt to shift over to some other subject where she feels she can be right.
2. Loaded with baseless accusations on other subject matters than the subject matter of the discussion.
3. Are loaded with insults and Ad Hom attacks.
70.66...@sjrb.ca
Jul 12, 2014, 10:43:41 PM7/12/14
to
John Kennerson
Jul 12, 2014, 11:28:58 PM7/12/14
to
SpamTheSpammers
Jul 13, 2014, 9:53:13 PM7/13/14
to
=============================================================
TOPIC HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CANADIAN NEWSGROUPS - DROP DEAD
=============================================================
On 7/12/2014 7:43 PM, 70.66...@sjrb.ca wrote:
THESE ARE JUST SOME OF MY OTHER SPAMMING NYMS:
Nobody <n...@home.anymore>
"70.67.8...@sjrb.ca" <70.67.8...@sjrb.ca>
William Grosvenor <intergr...@grosvenor.net>
Grosvomit <intergr...@grosvenor.net>
MamserKenMcVay <kmc...@nazikor.org>
Eric Holder Black Cunt <nig...@doj.gov>
SunDancer <ppu...@primus.ca>
Gunner Asch <ppu...@primus.ca>
"Dief's Ghost" <d...@null.ca>
"I'm back" <b...@home.au>
"Ray Piszt" <ray.pi...@rapistsrus.rape>
"Government.terrorism.is.alive.and.well"
<Government.terroris...@New.World Order.Wolrd.gov>
Limbaugh Whisperer <LimbaughWhispe...@jam.rr.com>
Liberals are VERMIN <rander3...@gmail.com>
The Chief Instigator <pat...@io.com>
"C. A. Rotwang" <ja...@nobody.com>
Mike Flannigan <mflan...@jam.rr.com>
"Rhino" <no_offline_c...@example.com>
Clyde Armstrong <ross.john.lambo...@cowardice.org>
roger....@live.com
Jul 14, 2014, 12:06:34 PM7/14/14
to
When the tough started to populate ars losers protected what was left of Centology.
A.R.S is a milestone.
A.R.S is a milestone.
rogergonnet
Jul 15, 2014, 4:08:57 AM7/15/14
to
<roger....@live.com> a �crit dans le message de news:
0acb9917-2ccb-4b62...@googlegroups.com...
> When the tough started to populate ars losers protected what was left of
> Centology.
>
> A.R.S is a milestone.
Indeeed, but the crime cult and its criminal leader are not yet down; I've
> Centology.
>
> A.R.S is a milestone.
loved a lot to learn that the insane leader was forcing again everyone int
the murder routine, I mean, not the orginal one, but the purif killing
routine. Probably some people could die during the summer, since ech of the
na�ve believers has been sent again there, after the insanne guru thought
that each scientologist is toxified every day he lives.
True, the now old guru toto riinascavige is full of toxins: he went for
decades under high dosagess of anti-histaminics, plus many others things,
and now, to imitate the old fool hubbard, he smokes, drinks, and more.
roger....@live.com
Jul 16, 2014, 11:33:00 AM7/16/14
to
The producer of $cientology is the man. His products shut up.
"If it's not written it's not true" L Ron Hubbard.
"If it's not written it's not true" L Ron Hubbard.
0 new messages