Several unanswered questions repeated for one Mr Parker
See...@example.com
I know this would be due to some technical difficulty, such as a problem
with a news-server, rather than any attempt to evade the questions...
Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot" wrote:
>> so...
>> where are the enforced "barriers to entry",
>> apart from those common to every venture:
>> time, talent, inclination, persistence
>
> Selective acceptance of advertising by those who control a large
share of the traffic, for the purpose of artificially reducing supply
and artificially inflating prices.
The use of the word "advertising" implies a concerted attempt to -
dare I say - "advertise".
In normal usage, "advertising" is a subset of the more generic term
"marketing", taken to mean a form of *active* marketing achieved by
paying the owner of a media outlet for the opportunity to place one's
material in *their* medium.
To further the general understanding of your allegations:
please point to your *advertising*, stating:
date, duration, format,
not forgetting to list the media outlets
that have refused to accept these *paid* adverts.
Your use of the phrase:
"Selective acceptance of advertising
by those who control a large share of the traffic"
is curious, as it raises the question:
"control of the traffic" is exercised by *whom* ?
In current internet practise, if asked who "controls" internet traffic,
many people would suggest a major influence is exerted by search engine
algorithms, as a site placed high in search results attracts more
traffic than one placed lower.
Are you claiming that your marketing efforts are being deliberately
downgraded below their legitimate levels in search results by specific
actions taken by the management and/or staff of said search engines ?
Equally - are you claiming that you have attempted
to pay for advertising via relevant search engines programs -
such as "Google Ad-Words" - but were refused for no valid reason ?
Furthermore, are you claiming you have been refused the placing of other
form of *paid* promotional device - such as the traditional "banner
ad" - on a website frequented by a large proportion of the surfing public ?
Or are you simply confusing "advertising" with "wishful thinking" ?
Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"
Who without a business motivation would even care so much as to treat it as
part of an unfinished agenda?
> I know this would be due to some technical difficulty, such as a problem
> with a news-server, rather than any attempt to evade the questions...
See above.
> > Selective acceptance of advertising by those who control a large
> share of the traffic, for the purpose of artificially reducing supply and
> artificially inflating prices.
>
>
> The use of the word "advertising" implies a concerted attempt to -
> dare I say - "advertise".
>
> In normal usage, "advertising" is a subset of the more generic term
> "marketing", taken to mean a form of *active* marketing achieved by paying
> the owner of a media outlet for the opportunity to place one's material in
> *their* medium.
>
>
> To further the general understanding of your allegations:
> please point to your *advertising*, stating:
> date, duration, format,
> not forgetting to list the media outlets
> that have refused to accept these *paid* adverts.
I already did this in court.
--
Money is not "game."
Looks are not "game."
Social status or value is not "game."
Those are the things that game makes unnecessary.
A seduction guru who teaches you that looks, money or status is game is not
teaching you "game," but how to be an AFC. He uses his students' money to
get women and laughs that "loser AFCs pay my rent."
--
Money is not "game."
Looks are not "game."
Social status or value is not "game."
Those are the things that game makes unnecessary.
A seduction guru who teaches you that looks, money or status is game is not
teaching you "game," but how to be an AFC. He uses his students' money to
get women and laughs that "loser AFCs pay my rent."
Krus T. Olfard
news:Cfadnd4E6b5z86nY...@pghconnect.com:
>
> Who without a business motivation would even care so much as to treat
> it as part of an unfinished agenda?
>
>
well, I suspect, gordy baybee, that anyone who gets frustrated with your
continued refusal to back up with verifiable evidence anything that you
post would possibly call your attention to this continued refusal that
you demonstrate...
but then, I at least, and I suppose most everyone else who reads this
newsgroup, get tired of your unsupported lies and deflections and general
untrue bullshit...
btw, gordy baybee, would you care to translate the quoted sentence from
parkerese into english? you know, that language that most people in this
newsgroup can at least understand, whereas parkerese is totally
incomprehensible to any rational human being...
--
Krustavus Teofilus Olfard
------------------
Everything I post is my opinion. If you don't like my opinions then
killfile me, if you have the balls.
ZFORCE
"Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"" <R...@cybersheet.com> wrote in message
news:Cfadnd4E6b5z86nY...@pghconnect.com...
>> This is a repost of a posting that, curiously enough, was not answered.
>
> Who without a business motivation would even care so much as to treat it
> as part of an unfinished agenda?
>
>
People that you've threatend to sue, pissed off and harassed. Familys of
those lost in WTC 1 and 2. I could go on Mr Parker.
>> I know this would be due to some technical difficulty, such as a problem
>> with a news-server, rather than any attempt to evade the questions...
>
> See above.
>
>
Yes see above deflecto gordito.
>
>> > Selective acceptance of advertising by those who control a large
>> share of the traffic, for the purpose of artificially reducing supply and
>> artificially inflating prices.
>>
>>
>> The use of the word "advertising" implies a concerted attempt to -
>> dare I say - "advertise".
>>
>> In normal usage, "advertising" is a subset of the more generic term
>> "marketing", taken to mean a form of *active* marketing achieved by
>> paying the owner of a media outlet for the opportunity to place one's
>> material in *their* medium.
>>
>>
>> To further the general understanding of your allegations:
>> please point to your *advertising*, stating:
>> date, duration, format,
>> not forgetting to list the media outlets
>> that have refused to accept these *paid* adverts.
>
> I already did this in court.
>
And lost.
See...@example.com
>
> Who without a business motivation would even care so much as to treat it as
> part of an unfinished agenda?
well, to answer your question...
I like to hear both sides of an argument before I make up my mind.
( I know that may be a strange and unusual concept, especially here... )
You have made a number of quite serious allegations.
Allegations that - if true - would have significant consequences across
a number of industries.
Retaining an open mind, I have asked for further details, attempting to
clarify my understanding of your position on these matters.
Your response is:
a: to ignore the question
b: to accuse me of ulterior motive
Have I missed something ?
Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"
>>
>> Who without a business motivation would even care so much as to treat it
>> as part of an unfinished agenda?
>
>
> well, to answer your question...
>
> I like to hear both sides of an argument before I make up my mind.
> ( I know that may be a strange and unusual concept, especially here... )
Many times I've said things that only someone with a business interest would
pay attention to, and they often pay attention to it in a way you would
expect a marketing or PR person to do so, as if someone's business depended
on a claim being refuted or made.
That behavior is not typical of those who just post here without business
motivations.
> You have made a number of quite serious allegations.
> Allegations that - if true - would have significant consequences across a
> number of industries.
>
> Retaining an open mind, I have asked for further details, attempting to
> clarify my understanding of your position on these matters.
>
> Your response is:
> a: to ignore the question
> b: to accuse me of ulterior motive
>
> Have I missed something ?
He's missing that I outlined, very specifically in my lawsuit, what I
considered anticompetitive.
He's also anonymous, so he could be anyone posting for any reason.
See...@example.com
>>> Who without a business motivation would even care so much as to treat it
>>> as part of an unfinished agenda?
>>
>> well, to answer your question...
>>
>> I like to hear both sides of an argument before I make up my mind.
>> ( I know that may be a strange and unusual concept, especially here... )
>
> Many times I've said things that only someone with a business interest would
> pay attention to, and they often pay attention to it in a way you would
> expect a marketing or PR person to do so, as if someone's business depended
> on a claim being refuted or made.
I sense an attempt at deflection from the original questions.
It's a curious assumption - "only someone with a business interest".
You have claimed illegal activities are being repeatedly implemented on
a large scale. I would suggest *that* is of interest to *anyone* who
supports the concept of society based on the rule of law.
Furthermore, you allege "a conspiracy" being conducted in a manner that
- if it were true - would significantly impinge on other industries.
Are you now saying that large-scale subversion of the rule of law is not
a matter for public interest ?
Or are you saying that ongoing restrictive practices are only of
interest to those who aspire to sell "seduction material" ?
>> Have I missed something ?
>
> He's missing that I outlined, very specifically in my lawsuit, what I
> considered anticompetitive.
Well, for those of us who haven't followed every twist and turn of this
saga, which lawsuit would that be, precisely ?
There would seem to be more than one...
Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"
>>>>> answered.
>>>> Who without a business motivation would even care so much as to treat
>>>> it as part of an unfinished agenda?
>>>
>>> well, to answer your question...
>>>
>>> I like to hear both sides of an argument before I make up my mind.
>>> ( I know that may be a strange and unusual concept, especially here... )
>>
>> Many times I've said things that only someone with a business interest
>> would pay attention to, and they often pay attention to it in a way you
>> would expect a marketing or PR person to do so, as if someone's business
>> depended on a claim being refuted or made.
>
> I sense an attempt at deflection from the original questions.
> It's a curious assumption - "only someone with a business interest".
>
> You have claimed illegal activities are being repeatedly implemented on a
> large scale. I would suggest *that* is of interest to *anyone* who
> supports the concept of society based on the rule of law.
I've already made these claims in court. Can someone with an interest not
find those documetns?
> Furthermore, you allege "a conspiracy" being conducted in a manner that -
> if it were true - would significantly impinge on other industries.
In what way?
> Are you now saying that large-scale subversion of the rule of law is not a
> matter for public interest ?
One would think that an interested public would know how to find PACER.
> Or are you saying that ongoing restrictive practices are only of interest
> to those who aspire to sell "seduction material" ?
See above.
>>> Have I missed something ?
>>
>> He's missing that I outlined, very specifically in my lawsuit, what I
>> considered anticompetitive.
>
>
> Well, for those of us who haven't followed every twist and turn of this
> saga, which lawsuit would that be, precisely ?
> There would seem to be more than one...
Someone with such attention to detail for my past postings would have no
difficulty finding the documents.
See...@example.com
>> large scale. I would suggest *that* is of interest to *anyone* who
>> supports the concept of society based on the rule of law.
>
> I've already made these claims in court. Can someone with an interest not
> find those documetns?
When faced with a contentious issue, I have a habit of prodding the
individuals involved, in addition to reading the relevant documents.
For, often the words chosen in real-time interaction
( or the near real-time of email and/or usenet )
provide interesting extra information...
As an example, some might point to your own phrasing, above.
Your use of the phrase: "made these claims"
may be contrasted to the use of a phrase such as: "stated these facts".
but let's overlook that for the moment...
>> Furthermore, you allege "a conspiracy" being conducted in a manner that -
>> if it were true - would significantly impinge on other industries.
>
> In what way?
Is that a serious question ?
If so, I'm speechless at the insularity thus displayed.
> One would think that an interested public would know how to find PACER.
So, in summary, you believe that all you want/need to say is already
recorded in the existing court documents ?
even when presented with a willing reader ?
Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"
>
>
> So, in summary, you believe that all you want/need to say is already
> recorded in the existing court documents ?
>
> even when presented with a willing reader ?
More like an anonymous cockroach.
I already stated my case in court.
See...@example.com
>>
>> So, in summary, you believe that all you want/need to say is already
>> recorded in the existing court documents ?
>>
>> even when presented with a willing reader ?
>
> More like an anonymous cockroach.
>
> I already stated my case in court.
So when offered a willing listener, you resort to insults.
Thank you for your time - this has been most instructive.
Alex
creator of the "pivot" at R...@cybersheet.com wrote on 10/17/06 1:49 AM:
>> This is a repost of a posting that, curiously enough, was not answered.
>
> Who without a business motivation would even care so much as to treat it as
> part of an unfinished agenda?
>
>
>> I know this would be due to some technical difficulty, such as a problem
>> with a news-server, rather than any attempt to evade the questions...
>
> See above.
>
>
>
>>> Selective acceptance of advertising by those who control a large
>> share of the traffic, for the purpose of artificially reducing supply and
>> artificially inflating prices.
>>
>>
>> The use of the word "advertising" implies a concerted attempt to -
>> dare I say - "advertise".
>>
>> In normal usage, "advertising" is a subset of the more generic term
>> "marketing", taken to mean a form of *active* marketing achieved by paying
>> the owner of a media outlet for the opportunity to place one's material in
>> *their* medium.
>>
>>
>> To further the general understanding of your allegations:
>> please point to your *advertising*, stating:
>> date, duration, format,
>> not forgetting to list the media outlets
>> that have refused to accept these *paid* adverts.
>
> I already did this in court.
>
And court has already called you an idiot.
Alex
creator of the "pivot" at R...@cybersheet.com wrote on 10/17/06 6:10 AM:
>>> One would think that an interested public would know how to find PACER.
>>
>>
>> So, in summary, you believe that all you want/need to say is already
>> recorded in the existing court documents ?
>>
>> even when presented with a willing reader ?
>
> More like an anonymous cockroach.
>
> I already stated my case in court.
>
And the court found it lacking.
HC
Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot" wrote:
> >>
> >> Who without a business motivation would even care so much as to treat it
> >> as part of an unfinished agenda?
> >
> >
> > well, to answer your question...
> >
> > I like to hear both sides of an argument before I make up my mind.
> > ( I know that may be a strange and unusual concept, especially here... )
>
> Many times I've said things that only someone with a business interest would
> pay attention to,
BRAPPPP! Wrong, ugly.
Many times you've said things that you THINK only someone with a
business interest would pay attention to.
HC
Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot" wrote:
BRAPPPP! Wrong, ugly.
Only seriel pro-se litigants and their victims know how to use PACER.
Most NORMAL people never even heard of it.moron.
Teddybear Loveable and Cuddly
here or anywhere else for that matter, listen to a word you have to say??
All you do is whine or threaten, you make less than $8,000 a year according
to your sworn statements in court, and you put on airs about having
expertise in areas that you actually have NO experience at. World Class
Gymnasitcs Coach???? Invenstment expert??? You think because you are able
to attack Google, UPenn, and now apparently the USCF in Court at the
taxpayers expense, that gives you some kind of respect? Your total lack of
human achievement, as evidenced by your bankruptcy, living at home with mom,
and failure to hold a job certainly gives you no such measure of respect.
Throwing around big legal terms is a joke. Your legal follies are
legendary. Why should anyone give you one measure of respect or heed your
misinformed and bragadocious words?
Let's see, US minimum wage is $5.15 per hour or $206 a week. If you work
all year you would make $10,718. Hell's bells, it will take you a year and
a half at eight grand a year, just to pay the lawyers for Google, not to
mention what's to come. No wonder you are an attention whore, if you didn't
brag all the time, nobody would even see you.
I look at this crap you post all the time, and it just makes me laugh.
"Creator of ........." what a load of horse dung. You seem to be more
afraid of someone spending money with others, than you do about your own
sales, or lack thereof. The only "advertising" you seem to do is whine
about how everyone but you is an AFC for spending money. Don't understand
dumbass, if you continually preach that people should not spend money, there
is a chance they will listen to you. How does that increase your sales? Do
you not understand that if you are an asshole in every group that allows you
access, you are chasing off your potential customers? You better figure out
an answer to these questions, because you are sure to hear them if you ever
do get anyone into court. They are going to want to know how they damaged
you, and I don't think you have a clue how to legally answer that question.
If you can't answer it, and can't pay restitution to those you have wronged
by dragging their good name through the court, I expect you will find out
that there are legal ways to keep you from a repeat performance.
Go bark at the moon, maybe it will take you seriously.... pity you can't
hear the laughter here.
"Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"" <R...@cybersheet.com> wrote in message
news:Cfadnd4E6b5z86nY...@pghconnect.com...
Krus T. Olfard
news:fe6dnYNZ9I3eE6nY...@pghconnect.com:
>> Are you now saying that large-scale subversion of the rule of law is
>> not a matter for public interest ?
>
> One would think that an interested public would know how to find
> PACER.
>
well, actually, one (and by 'one' I mean a rational human being) would
think that if a person had a valid and verifiable argument showing
'large-scale subversion of the rule of law' in a manner that strongly and
negatively impacted him that one would be anxious to present such
evidence that he has of said 'subversion of the rule of law' in order
that such 'subversion of the rule of law' could be redressed but no, you
never do substantiate your stupid claims, do you, gordy baybee.
all it would take to get a large number of people to support you, gordy
baybee, would be for you to provide verifiable evidence of your claims of
'subversion of the rule of law' but you NEVER do provide such verifiable
evidence so of course any reasoning human being can only conclude that
you are lying... again... as you do so often...
wotta fuckin' loser...
Krus T. Olfard
news:4534e084$0$27480$8826...@unlimited.teranews.com:
and that's his good points - are you sure you're not a shill?
Odious
"Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"" <R...@cybersheet.com> wrote in message
news:Cfadnd4E6b5z86nY...@pghconnect.com...
>
> Who without a business motivation would even care so much as to treat it
> as part of an unfinished agenda?
>
>
>> I know this would be due to some technical difficulty, such as a problem
>> with a news-server, rather than any attempt to evade the questions...
>
> See above.
>
>
>
>> > Selective acceptance of advertising by those who control a large
>> share of the traffic, for the purpose of artificially reducing supply and
>> artificially inflating prices.
>>
>>
>> The use of the word "advertising" implies a concerted attempt to -
>> dare I say - "advertise".
>>
>> In normal usage, "advertising" is a subset of the more generic term
>> "marketing", taken to mean a form of *active* marketing achieved by
>> paying the owner of a media outlet for the opportunity to place one's
>> material in *their* medium.
>>
>>
>> To further the general understanding of your allegations:
>> please point to your *advertising*, stating:
>> date, duration, format,
>> not forgetting to list the media outlets
>> that have refused to accept these *paid* adverts.
>
> I already did this in court.
>
Notice that gordo can't answer.... because he knows that the failure of his
so called business is due entirely to his own piss poor management of said
business.
Imagine if Ross or Mystery only advertised their products on Usenet, and
did so between posts claiming to be Jesus and posts mocking the victims of
9-11.
Ray is a failure because you can not build a business.on delusions of
grandeur and narcissism. You have to have good products and you have to
work hard to get those products into the public eye.
But all lazy ray can do is sit back and whine while blaming others for the
result of his own incompetence.
Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"
Hopefully you'll learn that being anonymous doesn't lend itself to what
you're seeking.
Teddybear Loveable and Cuddly
>> You have made a number of quite serious allegations.
>> Allegations that - if true - would have significant consequences across a
>> number of industries.
>>
>> Retaining an open mind, I have asked for further details, attempting to
>> clarify my understanding of your position on these matters.
>>
>> Your response is:
>> a: to ignore the question
>> b: to accuse me of ulterior motive
>>
>> Have I missed something ?
>
changes the subject. Old tactic from him. Basically since he's so helpless
that he needs to whine to the Courts for help instead of standing up on his
hind legs like a man.
> He's missing that I outlined, very specifically in my lawsuit, what I
> considered anticompetitive.
>
Nobody can understand your lawsuit. That's one of the many reasons why it
will fail. When your pleadings are so convoluted and stupid that the Court
can't understand what the hell you are trying to say, they just throw it
back in your face and tell you to go home and write it over so someone can
understand it. So far, you have failed to do that. If you ever made it
clear, they could just throw it out and you would then have nothing to whine
about.
Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"
>>
>> I already stated my case in court.
>>
>
> And the court found it lacking.
The PA court found lack of jurisdiction, and the Delaware court has not
checked in yet.
Alex
creator of the "pivot" at R...@cybersheet.com wrote on 10/17/06 1:39 PM:
> More like an anonymous cockroach.
>>>
>>> I already stated my case in court.
>>>
>>
>> And the court found it lacking.
>
> The PA court found lack of jurisdiction, and the Delaware court has not
> checked in yet.
>
That they haven't tossed it yet is the best you can say about it for now.
What will you say when they do?
Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"
>>>>
>>>> I already stated my case in court.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And the court found it lacking.
>>
>> The PA court found lack of jurisdiction, and the Delaware court has not
>> checked in yet.
>>
>
> That they haven't tossed it yet is the best you can say about it for now.
>
> What will you say when they do?
Alex is operating either on wishful thinking or inside information.
He neglects that it is the defendants who have done everything they could to
have the cases decided on technicalities, but sooner or later that will no
longer work, such as when I filed in Delaware because defendants are located
there, after they made a big deal about moving the case a whole 30 miles
(which bought them over a year).
Can anyone picture Alex or anyone else here being gracious if I wind up
prevailing? They can't even do that when things go their way.
--
Money is not "game."
Looks are not "game."
Social status or value is not "game."
Those are the things that game makes unnecessary.
A seduction guru who teaches you that looks, money or status is game is not
teaching you "game," but how to be an AFC. He uses his students' money to
get women and laughs that "AFCs pay my rent."
Alex
creator of the "pivot" at R...@cybersheet.com wrote on 10/17/06 5:08 PM:
>>> More like an anonymous cockroach.
>>>>>
>>>>> I already stated my case in court.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And the court found it lacking.
>>>
>>> The PA court found lack of jurisdiction, and the Delaware court has not
>>> checked in yet.
>>>
>>
>> That they haven't tossed it yet is the best you can say about it for now.
>>
>> What will you say when they do?
>
> Alex is operating either on wishful thinking or inside information.
I'm operating on YOUR track record of incomprehensible filings and proof by
assertion.
>
> He neglects that it is the defendants who have done everything they could to
> have the cases decided on technicalities, but sooner or later that will no
> longer work, such as when I filed in Delaware because defendants are located
> there, after they made a big deal about moving the case a whole 30 miles
> (which bought them over a year).
It's not a technicality. It's the law.
If you can't keep up with it, then shut the fuck up.
No one's afraid of your bluster. You're an idiot in all fields, including
the law.
>
> Can anyone picture Alex or anyone else here being gracious if I wind up
> prevailing? They can't even do that when things go their way.
You're not going to prevail.
You'll be lucky if you don't wind up in a mental hospital.
Krus T. Olfard
news:PeedndM5q-7H26jY...@pghconnect.com:
> Alex is operating either on wishful thinking or inside information.
>
> He neglects that it is the defendants who have done everything they
> could to have the cases decided on technicalities
are you trying to say that it is the fault of the defendents that you
don't understand the law well enough to write a pleading that is worth
anything?
wotta fuckin' loon...
take responsibility for your own shortcomings, dismissed baybee
Johannes Seppi
\"pivot\"" <R...@cybersheet.com> wrote:
>>> One would think that an interested public would know how to find PACER.
>>
>>
>> So, in summary, you believe that all you want/need to say is already
>> recorded in the existing court documents ?
>>
>> even when presented with a willing reader ?
>
>More like an anonymous cockroach.
>
>I already stated my case in court.
Yes, and the results were, what should I call it, abysmal?
Wow, Ray, you have a way with words!
Johannes
Teddybear Loveable and Cuddly
>>> More like an anonymous cockroach.
>>>>>
>>>>> I already stated my case in court.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And the court found it lacking.
>>>
>>> The PA court found lack of jurisdiction, and the Delaware court has not
>>> checked in yet.
>>>
>>
>> That they haven't tossed it yet is the best you can say about it for now.
>>
>> What will you say when they do?
>
> Alex is operating either on wishful thinking or inside information.
>
> He neglects that it is the defendants who have done everything they could
> to have the cases decided on technicalities, but sooner or later that will
> no longer work, such as when I filed in Delaware because defendants are
> located there, after they made a big deal about moving the case a whole 30
> miles (which bought them over a year).
>
> Can anyone picture Alex or anyone else here being gracious if I wind up
> prevailing? They can't even do that when things go their way.
>
speak of are nearly endless. Next year this time, you will be no closer to
getting anyone into actual court than you are right now. Even if you manage
to chase LTSC down, what about all those other people you keep lumping in
with them? Think Mr. Geiger and RJ are going to run to Deleware? How
about Mystery, Gunwitch, and all the rest of them? They have jurisdiction
in Deleware? This looks like a morass filed by an idiot to me. A legal tar
baby, which the more you struggle, the more tar sticks to you.
As near as I can tell, there are about 20 or so groups that you infest on a
more or less regular basis. Each of them has a few people that tell you to
go and play with yourself whenever you appear, and the rest who slowly leave
the more you post. This is not conspiracy, this is simply an asshole
driving people away. It is funny going back and looking at your past
braying, and then reality sets in when the Court slaps you down. Somehow I
missed the August Gem, when you tried your bullshit new evidence claim on
LTSC. You were just braying about that one the other day, guess the fact
that your "Motion to Reconsider" was thrown out hasn't sunk in yet. In case
anyone wondered, it was dated August 2, 2006 and can be found here
http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/06D0963P.pdf
"In addition, we found that plaintiff's jurisdictional claims were "clearly
frivolous" and denied his motion to conduct jurisdictional discovery." So
much for the "fishing expedition". Then we have this gem "Plaintiff
contends that LTSC produces and sells a DVD on the Internet through a
website it owns and operates at http://www.artofthepickup.com. Plaintiff
alleges this evidence could not have been discovered through due diligence
prior to July 2, 2006 apparently because LTSC had not "publicized" its
ownership of the DVD selling website. There is no dispute between the
parties that the website in question was registered by LTSC in May 2005 and
went "live" and was available to the public for the first time in July 2006,
months after we dismissed plaintiff's amended complaint. Moreover, as our
Court of Appeals has held, "the mere operation of a commercially interactive
website should not subject the operator to jurisdiction anywhere in the
world." Toys 'R' Us, 318 F.3d at 454. On the pleadings before us, plaintiff
has alleged nothing more than LTSC's operation of a website that can be
viewed in Pennsylvania. He has not alleged any sales to have taken place in
Pennsylvania. To that end, LTSC responds, and plaintiff does not dispute,
that the website expressly does not permit the sale of products to customers
residing in Pennsylvania. Whether or not this restriction is designed solely
to frustrate plaintiff's efforts at establishing jurisdiction, the fact
remains that LTSC has purposefully elected not to conduct business in
Pennsylvania. We agree with defendant LTSC that plaintiff's purported newly
discovered evidence is insufficient to confer jurisdiction over LTSC in this
court. Accordingly, the motion to vacate the entry of judgment for LTSC
will also be denied."
Thus ends your attempt to keep this kooksoot in Pa. I know you have an
appeal filed, but I really don't see any room for the Appeals Court to do
anything except bitch slap you like the District Court did.
Strangely I also found a copy of the RAY FAQ still live and operating.
Dated material now, you have so much more to chuckle about now. But still
amusing...http://members.fortunecity.com/powerlessliarguido/dockrico.htm
ZFORCE
>>>>> One would think that an interested public would know how to find
>>>>> PACER.
>>>>
>>>> So, in summary, you believe that all you want/need to say is already
>>>> recorded in the existing court documents ?
>>>>
>>>> even when presented with a willing reader ?
>>>
>>> More like an anonymous cockroach.
>>>
>>> I already stated my case in court.
>>
>>
>> So when offered a willing listener, you resort to insults.
>>
>> Thank you for your time - this has been most instructive.
>
> Hopefully you'll learn that being anonymous doesn't lend itself to what
> you're seeking.
>
Funny that you're talking about anonymous people Mr Parker.
Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"
>> prevailing? They can't even do that when things go their way.
>
> You're not going to prevail.
>
> You'll be lucky if you don't wind up in a mental hospital.
Definitely wishful thinking on Alex's part.
(Gotta wonder if he ever talked to his ex-wife like this, that's for sure;
it would explain a lot if he did).
An Old Friend
"Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\"" <R...@cybersheet.com> wrote:
> >> Can anyone picture Alex or anyone else here being gracious if I wind up
> >> prevailing? They can't even do that when things go their way.
> >
> > You're not going to prevail.
> >
> > You'll be lucky if you don't wind up in a mental hospital.
>
> Definitely wishful thinking on Alex's part.
>
> (Gotta wonder if he ever talked to his ex-wife like this, that's for sure;
> it would explain a lot if he did).
You seem very obsessed with Alex's ex-wife. Obsessed enough that one
might consider the obsession a component of a larger major mental
disorder. You *did* admit to having been diagnosed with a major mental
disorder that progressively gets worse with time unless adequate
treatment is received, correct?
Are you as romantically interested in Alex's ex-wife as you were in
underage Olympic gymnasts? I've noticed many times that you called Alex
"Alexa" or "Alexia" or some other feminization. The obsession *might* be
with Alex himself.
You do seem to have an unhealthy fascination with feminization.
Alex
creator of the "pivot" at R...@cybersheet.com wrote on 10/17/06 7:47 PM:
>>> Can anyone picture Alex or anyone else here being gracious if I wind up
>>> prevailing? They can't even do that when things go their way.
>>
>> You're not going to prevail.
>>
>> You'll be lucky if you don't wind up in a mental hospital.
>
> Definitely wishful thinking on Alex's part.
Hardly.
Anyone not suffering from delusions of adequacy can see this clearly.
>
> (Gotta wonder if he ever talked to his ex-wife like this, that's for sure;
> it would explain a lot if he did).
>
>
>
Again with my ex... Does it strike a bit close to home?
Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"
>>>> prevailing? They can't even do that when things go their way.
>>>
>>> You're not going to prevail.
>>>
>>> You'll be lucky if you don't wind up in a mental hospital.
>>
>> Definitely wishful thinking on Alex's part.
>
> Hardly.
>
> Anyone not suffering from delusions of adequacy can see this clearly.
All Alex proves is why licenses are required for the practice of medicine.
Alex
creator of the "pivot" at R...@cybersheet.com wrote on 10/17/06 10:13 PM:
And Gordon shows once again that reading for comprehension is not a
strength.
Odious
"Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"" <R...@cybersheet.com> wrote in message
news:87mdnTWO3uM2Y6nY...@pghconnect.com...
>>>>> PACER.
>>>>
>>>> So, in summary, you believe that all you want/need to say is already
>>>> recorded in the existing court documents ?
>>>>
>>>> even when presented with a willing reader ?
>>>
>>> More like an anonymous cockroach.
>>>
>>> I already stated my case in court.
>>
>>
>> So when offered a willing listener, you resort to insults.
>>
>> Thank you for your time - this has been most instructive.
>
> Hopefully you'll learn that being anonymous doesn't lend itself to what
> you're seeking.
>
How does his identity have anything to do with your inability to answer the
simple questions he asked?
Odious
> More like an anonymous cockroach.
>>>
>>> I already stated my case in court.
>>>
>>
>> And the court found it lacking.
>
> The PA court found lack of jurisdiction, and the Delaware court has not
> checked in yet.
>
And your other 9 losses?
Odious
>>> More like an anonymous cockroach.
>>>>>
>>>>> I already stated my case in court.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And the court found it lacking.
>>>
>>> The PA court found lack of jurisdiction, and the Delaware court has not
>>> checked in yet.
>>>
>>
>> That they haven't tossed it yet is the best you can say about it for now.
>>
>> What will you say when they do?
>
> Alex is operating either on wishful thinking or inside information.
>
Gordita, your unrelenting litany of failure in life and in court due to your
mental illness is hardly inside information.
If you jump off a 20 story building, would someone need special insight to
know that when you hit the ground you'd probably die?
> He neglects that it is the defendants who have done everything they could
> to have the cases decided on technicalities,
Rather it is your total incompetence that has prevented you from producing a
filing that meets even the most lenient guidelines established by the court
for pro se litigants..
> but sooner or later that will no longer work, such as when I filed in
> Delaware because defendants are located there, after they made a big deal
> about moving the case a whole 30 miles (which bought them over a year).
Gordita, as I recall, each time you've filed anything, you've claimed it
would be a slam dunk... that your victory was so certian, that wining was
simply a matter of filing the papers.
And each time you've had your idiocy tossed out of court, only to declaire
that the next mornic screed you filed would be a winner... only to fail
again.
Now your whining that your many losses are because of technicalities... you
know like proof and evidence and a coherant argument.
> Can anyone picture Alex or anyone else here being gracious if I wind up
> prevailing? They can't even do that when things go their way.
You might as well ask if Alex is going to go buy a car cover to protect his
ride from the shit that will surly rain down when pigs fly.
Odious
>>> Can anyone picture Alex or anyone else here being gracious if I wind up
>>> prevailing? They can't even do that when things go their way.
>>
>> You're not going to prevail.
>>
>> You'll be lucky if you don't wind up in a mental hospital.
>
> Definitely wishful thinking on Alex's part.
Yeah... gordita committing suicide is probably much more likely.
Odious
"Alex" <akau...@nyc.NOSPAM.rr.com> wrote in message
news:C15AFDBB.DD209%akau...@nyc.NOSPAM.rr.com...
It seems that gordo can't cope with anybody else having a woman in their
life... even an ex.
But hey, what else would you expect from a guy who has been caught lying
about having a girlfriend, when she posted that she'd never even met him in
person and wasn't his girlfriend..
If U don't know me by now...
>.....................if I wind up
I love it when grp-ie proves he doesn't even
believe in his own 'rayworld. It's ALWAYS
"..if...when..should..could..maybe..but.."
Watch out, grp-ie (tm)..you stop believing
in 'ray-ality' and the rainbow drops ya..
JJTj
------------------------------------
(for those of you off drugs, 11:11 (AM or PM, in any time zone) is the OFFICAL
"ray-ality" time zone. U see 11:11 (digital or analog..it takes time, but
you look forward to it)....and all us big bad RICO villians can stop, laugh,
& KNOW that elsewhere on this planet, others RIGHT NOW are also laughing..)
ANYONE who has ever laughed at Gordon Roy Parker (AKA Ray Gordon) can join in !
Set ya cell phone for it..call yer friends.. Do it via an Atomic Clock
setting for EST, and it's like lining up all da planets.. I am Jupiter..
--------------------------------------
If U don't know me by now...
>You do seem to have an unhealthy fascination with feminization.
Google the past, where grp-ie pretended to be a woman to
trick some jerk lawyer, over hiring or something.
Later, he posted, it made him so upset, he thought
to kill himself over it. Then the, um, 'hellen'
quote over "..getting off as a woman.." ????????
S-U-R-E Parker..you can duck ANOTHER exam 4 Lonnie-Toonie.
JJTj
------------Sung to the N.Y. Dolls song "Personality Crisis" ----
YEEEAAHHHHH!!! YEAH YEAH YEAH YEAH..
<WAIT> NO NO NO NO ..NO NO NO.. N0! N0!
Well we can't take him this week
And his dolls can't write another S-P-E-A-CCCCC-HHH !!!
..they hope for a better day when this newsloon just fades away..
all' about that "..inexcusable failure.."
...if he likes it &/or no-t..
But now his um, 'hellen' & herpes, 'dats all he got..
(Judge hadd'a rule about that "..inexcusable..")
yeah...yeah yeah yeah...
But now he needs to be a man, now he got to be 'da man'..
AND he KNOWS he gots to do it all, NOW NOW WOWS !!!
Yet he thinks about the times he failed, on every account..
..& it sure got to be a 'drag' when he wants2 kill his'self..
he has to deal with "..AOL.." chat rooms where he molest' about
(He denied' 'bout..)
..'bout his "..inexcusable failure.."
..a Judge told him that.....that's what he got..
But now his mommie, and dollies, 'dats all he got..
Just GOTTA SHOUT ABOUT HIS "..inexcusable.."
YEAH YEAH YEAH...YEAH...
<break for crowd to think the song is over..>
And he's a... coward hate monger on that 9/11 afternoon..
<livin proof of a real loonie-toon ! ! >
change on into da sock-puppet, fooling no 1 2 soon..
he WETS his UNDER-ROOOOOSSSSSS!!!!!!
......"..inexcusable failure.."
if he likes it &/or no-t....It's always "..NOT.."
But now his, 'hellen' and herpes ' dats whot he got..
That loser is a "..INEXCUSABLE FAILURE !!!!.."
YEAH YEAH..YEAH YEAH..
Now, with all da perks n free rides Penni Parker pays 4
His dollies become his 'private friends' nite n day 4..
That "..inexcusable.." 's (failing to do it all againnnnn)
(ah ah..no longer fun..)
"..inexcusable.." will his pain ever end..?
<not 2 B so much like a..>
"..inexcusable.." impressions of a joke,
..n 2 pretend 2 pretend 2 pretend too pretend,
"..inexcusable ..".." dreams of celebrities he'll never meet
(he lives their life off television)
Talkin' about that "..inexcusable failure.."
if he likes it &/or no-t....It's always "..NOT.."
But now um, 'hellen' and herpes ' dats whot he got..
hey grp-ie don't you worry
"..inexcusable failure.." please don't cry
he's just a "..inexcusable failure.." and cannot stop
Because he walks a "..inexcusable.."
Talks a "..inexcusable failure.."
Teddybear Loveable and Cuddly
dracozna
And driving a car
Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"
That should answer most of his questions.
This is the same link that goes to media outlets that cover the "commuinty"
as well.
Teddybear Loveable and Cuddly
Do you think media people can't read this and see how silly it is?
After all, news people know how to read pleadings. If the Court can't
figure out your gobletegook, what makes you think they can?
"Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"" <R...@cybersheet.com> wrote in message
news:vtadnUzdJcKhb6vY...@pghconnect.com...
HeeroYuy
"Teddybear Loveable and Cuddly" <tedd...@splat.net> wrote in message
news:45374cab$0$27494$8826...@unlimited.teranews.com...
> This does not serve to make you less of a laughingstock. Only more of
> one. Do you think media people can't read this and see how silly it is?
>
> After all, news people know how to read pleadings. If the Court can't
> figure out your gobletegook, what makes you think they can?
I read that earlier today. Did anyone count how many instances of tangents
and nonsensical mumbo jumbo was packed in that 75 page goodness? I quit
reading it after I got half way through. Definitely not what the judges mean
when they say "short and plain statement."
Krus T. Olfard
news:vXTZg.16114$OE1....@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com:
>
> "Teddybear Loveable and Cuddly" <tedd...@splat.net> wrote in message
> news:45374cab$0$27494$8826...@unlimited.teranews.com...
>> This does not serve to make you less of a laughingstock. Only more
>> of one. Do you think media people can't read this and see how silly
>> it is?
>>
>> After all, news people know how to read pleadings. If the Court
>> can't figure out your gobletegook, what makes you think they can?
>
> I read that earlier today. Did anyone count how many instances of
> tangents and nonsensical mumbo jumbo was packed in that 75 page
> goodness? I quit reading it after I got half way through. Definitely
> not what the judges mean when they say "short and plain statement."
>
but if he put it as a short and plain statement it would be obvious even
to gordon that it has absolutely no merit so he has to make it a
spaghetti pleading in hopes that the court is totally stupid...
it isn't, of course, and this is what always trips up the legal loser...
Bornnatural
"HeeroYuy" <h@h.h> wrote in message
news:vXTZg.16114$OE1....@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
>
> "Teddybear Loveable and Cuddly" <tedd...@splat.net> wrote in message
> news:45374cab$0$27494$8826...@unlimited.teranews.com...
>> This does not serve to make you less of a laughingstock. Only more of
>> one. Do you think media people can't read this and see how silly it is?
>>
>> After all, news people know how to read pleadings. If the Court can't
>> figure out your gobletegook, what makes you think they can?
>
> I read that earlier today. Did anyone count how many instances of tangents
> and nonsensical mumbo jumbo was packed in that 75 page goodness? I quit
> reading it after I got half way through. Definitely not what the judges
> mean when they say "short and plain statement."
>
It reads like a soap opera.
BN
Teddybear Loveable and Cuddly
"HeeroYuy" <h@h.h> wrote in message
news:vXTZg.16114$OE1....@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
>
> news:45374cab$0$27494$8826...@unlimited.teranews.com...
>> This does not serve to make you less of a laughingstock. Only more of
>> one. Do you think media people can't read this and see how silly it is?
>>
>> After all, news people know how to read pleadings. If the Court can't
>> figure out your gobletegook, what makes you think they can?
>
> I read that earlier today. Did anyone count how many instances of tangents
> and nonsensical mumbo jumbo was packed in that 75 page goodness? I quit
> reading it after I got half way through. Definitely not what the judges
> mean when they say "short and plain statement."
>
over 98 pages if I recall plus exhibit, and was thrown out on a MTD for a
number of reasons, many of them having to do with the failure of a whole
team of Lawyers, to be able to state a case in a way that meets the Court's
requirements. It's not the length of the pleading, it's what the pleading
says. I have given Gordon information that he ignores at his peril.
Just to show you how serious Rule 11 is, an attorney hauled up on a Rule 11
is automatically disbarred. Being told that the pleading is deficient under
the Safe Harbor Rule is intended to give the attorney the opportunity to
remove untrue and erronious information from his pleading and let him keep
his license. If he does not do so after 21 days, the Motion for Sanctions
under Rule 11 is filed. At that point, he damn well better have a case
because if he loses, he gets to go to oral arguments before the Court, to
show cause why he should not be sanctioned. If he continues to include
Defendants that are say, past the date at which a suit can be brought, or
presses a copyright action when he has not registered the copyright prior to
filing suit, or needlessly prolongs the proceedings by frivolous pleadings
and appeals, he can be sanctioned and disbarred.
In Gordon's case, they can't disbar him, so they would likely not allow him
to file any further actions, without leave of the Court in ANY forum. That
would put an end to the litigation follies, but there is usually a
substantial fine also, and you can't bankrupt out of paying sanctions from a
Federal Court. On the one hand, watching him be ground into powder would be
interesting to watch. On the other hand, all this baloney of his costs all
of us money, and creates a nusance for a lot of good people. Better to
educate him and let the damn thing come to a head.
If he continues to plead the way he's doing it now, every case will founder
about two months after the first Amended Complaint, when everyone gets their
MTD in, and the Court has time to docket it for one of their Motion days,
and then of course because he has filed such garbage that he can't get past
the MTD stage, it will be without prejudice and he can file the same crap
again, and again, until the Court tires of it. The one thing about Rule 11
is that the Motion for Sanctions can also come from the Court. Judges tend
to get cranky when they see serial pro se litigants popping up.
Disclaimer, the above is a statement of my personal opinion under the first
amendment. I have no connection to any case, person or individual that may
be involved in the ongoing litigation follies. Those who do not like my
opinion may call George W Bush, or the ACLU and complain.
Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"
This is interesting: a non-attorney claiming I should ignore his legal
advice "at my peril."
I doubt the Bar Assocation would agree with that one.
Teddybear Loveable and Cuddly
>> says. I have given Gordon information that he ignores at his peril.
>
> This is interesting: a non-attorney claiming I should ignore his legal
> advice "at my peril."
>
> I doubt the Bar Assocation would agree with that one.
>
laughingstock of every Courthouse in town. And according to my research in
the archives, you have been laughted at by almost everyone for the last ten
years. It must really sting to have a bunch of barely teen girls so
throughly whip your ass and show everyone on USENET what a liar and a fraud
you are. What's this obsession with children anyway? You tried to tell
them that you were a "World Class Gymnastics Coach", they called you on it,
and even though you changed your handle umpteen times, you just had to stay
in there and fight didn't you? Stupid is as stupid does......
And yes, I do think you are an asshole. Just in case you have forgotten.