What if....we all agreed with Ray for a week?
Takahesi Ogamori
independently and the 37-year old living-with-Mommy no-responsibilities
baggage-holder and he has, individually, pissed us all off with his
irrelevant spewings, abusive nature, comical legal threat and barratry.
But would Ray be any nicer if we agreed with him?
Anyone fancy trying this experiment for a week?
--------------------------------
Your official DYD shill, as exposed by
the detective work of 'Perry' Gordon.
Ray Gordon
mentally disabled, or that you retaliated against people who filed
discrimination lawsuits?
I *DO* have standing to out you in that regard, since fighting
discrimination is in the public interest. People like you shouldn't be
allowed to hire others.
aardvark9084
"Ray Gordon" <r...@cybersheet.com> wrote in message
news:OOLWc.3854$oA.1892@trndny04...
that's what would happen if you agreed with ray on anything for any length
of time. you just end up feeding his rants.
aardvark
Takahesi Ogamori
> mentally disabled, or that you retaliated against people who filed
> discrimination lawsuits?
For your information, I have posted in another thread why I would not employ
you. I will repeat that for your benefit....
"I'll tell you why I wouldn't employ you, Ray. For the record, there
arequite a few on the group I wouldn't employ also for other reasons, but
assomeone who knows how to manage and motivate others towards a shared goal,
I would not employ you because -
a) You hate women and would pose a threat to them because of your verbally
abusive nature.
b) You create all these arguments because you don't feel important
otherwise. You are an attention whore. I need a team player.
c) You are unable to see fault in yourself - that makes you completely
untrainable.
d) Your logic is often completed flawed to an intelligent mind.
e) If you were in sales, you would be pathetic. A SALE IS NOT A SALE UNTIL
THE MONEY IS BANKED. A sale is a victory. Yet, you treat getting your cases
dismissed without prejudice as some some of moral victory. If you were in
sales, you would treat every single telesales call as a victory.
f) To my mind, you have never accomplished anything of significance.
g) You look for the negative before you look for the positive.
h) The fact you live with Mommy at the age of 37 suggests strongly to me
that you can not function, survive and prosper independently. Yes, you may
give me a load of EXCUSES for that, but in my mind, your inability to do
this makes you PATHETIC and NEEDING HELP to get on track. I would hope you
would find it, but I need different types of people.
This is purely based on what passes for your personality, and not your
stupidly litigous nature.
Getting anything achieved requires teamwork and trust between the people
pursuing the goal. You are untrustworthy given the fact that your story
rarely stays the same.
In my company, you would be unemployable. You have problems - if you were a
woman, I wouldn't want to find out about you because you would have
BAGGAGE!"
Does that make it clearer? The fact Judge Kelly ordered you to have a psych
exam but you would rather pay $1,000 not to (and you can't raise $50 to
subpeona RICO II's defendents) makes a damning statement in itself. You have
NO responsibilities, and can not TAKE RESPONSIBILITY for yourself.
And, as I stated in a previous post, my company were awarded the right to
use a pro-disabilities disability symbol because of our attitudes.
> I *DO* have standing to out you in that regard, since fighting
> discrimination is in the public interest. People like you shouldn't be
> allowed to hire others.
You only have standing in your own head, child-Ray, Ray Ray with no
responsibilities who can't stand on his own two feet.
People like me are allowed to hire other because we have earned the right to
do so by our own hard work, and OUR ABILITY TO CHOOSE PEOPLE RIGHT FOR THE
JOB!
Ray Gordon
as
> > mentally disabled, or that you retaliated against people who filed
> > discrimination lawsuits?
>
> For your information, I have posted in another thread why I would not
employ
> you.
Retaliation doesn't require one be a direct employer. Saying someone can't
hold down a job is not the same as saying one specifically wouldn't hire
them.
>I will repeat that for your benefit....
>
> "I'll tell you why I wouldn't employ you, Ray. For the record, there
> arequite a few on the group I wouldn't employ also for other reasons, but
> assomeone who knows how to manage and motivate others towards a shared
goal,
> I would not employ you because -
>
> a) You hate women and would pose a threat to them because of your verbally
> abusive nature.
Keep the causes of action piling up.....
> b) You create all these arguments because you don't feel important
> otherwise. You are an attention whore. I need a team player.
A good lawyer would explain to you why these are not things to be saying in
public.
> c) You are unable to see fault in yourself - that makes you completely
> untrainable.
A good lawyer would explain to you why these are not things to be saying in
public.
> d) Your logic is often completed flawed to an intelligent mind.
A good lawyer would explain to you why these are not things to be saying in
public.
> e) If you were in sales, you would be pathetic. A SALE IS NOT A SALE UNTIL
> THE MONEY IS BANKED. A sale is a victory. Yet, you treat getting your
cases
> dismissed without prejudice as some some of moral victory.
The other side treats filing a motion to dismiss as a victory.
>If you were in
> sales, you would treat every single telesales call as a victory.
> f) To my mind, you have never accomplished anything of significance.
A good lawyer would explain to you why these are not things to be saying in
public.
> g) You look for the negative before you look for the positive.
A good lawyer would explain to you why these are not things to be saying in
public.
> h) The fact you live with Mommy at the age of 37 suggests strongly to me
> that you can not function, survive and prosper independently. Yes, you may
> give me a load of EXCUSES for that, but in my mind, your inability to do
> this makes you PATHETIC and NEEDING HELP to get on track. I would hope you
> would find it, but I need different types of people.
Let's see how brave you are when you can't hide behind a monitor making
those statements.
Any man who believes that about a man has bought into the female notion that
a man has to give her money to be "loved." How vacuous. Of course, a man
with *only* money to offer a woman couldn't see out of that box.
> This is purely based on what passes for your personality, and not your
> stupidly litigous nature.
Defaming a discrimination litigant is a form of retaliation in and of
itself.
> Getting anything achieved requires teamwork and trust between the people
> pursuing the goal. You are untrustworthy given the fact that your story
> rarely stays the same.
>
> In my company, you would be unemployable.
Which company was that? Thought so.
>You have problems - if you were a
> woman, I wouldn't want to find out about you because you would have
> BAGGAGE!"
Now, does he judge all other employees by what they do on their personal
time? He wouldn't be singling anyone out here now would he?
Britain has a pretty strong disability lobby, and they exist to combat
losers like you in fact.
> Does that make it clearer? The fact Judge Kelly ordered you to have a
psych
> exam
Judge Kelly never ordered anything of the sort.
>but you would rather pay $1,000 not to (and you can't raise $50 to
> subpeona RICO II's defendents)
Wow, more lies.
>makes a damning statement in itself. You have
> NO responsibilities, and can not TAKE RESPONSIBILITY for yourself.
Cites a discrimnination lawsuit as reason he can't hire someone.
I'm DEFINITELY pursuing this one.
> And, as I stated in a previous post, my company were awarded the right to
> use a pro-disabilities disability symbol because of our attitudes.
I suspect whoever awarded that never saw these postings from you. That can
be arranged, however.
Of course, notice how much more successful his business became when he
stopped trying to claim he wasn't rich for women?
He wants it both ways.
> > I *DO* have standing to out you in that regard, since fighting
> > discrimination is in the public interest. People like you shouldn't be
> > allowed to hire others.
>
> You only have standing in your own head, child-Ray, Ray Ray with no
> responsibilities who can't stand on his own two feet.
Actually I have standing under UK libel law and under British employment
law.
> People like me are allowed to hire other because we have earned the right
to
> do so by our own hard work, and OUR ABILITY TO CHOOSE PEOPLE RIGHT FOR THE
> JOB!
That you wouldn't dare go public under your own name (at least not
willingly) with these statements says all one needs to know.
Takahesi Ogamori
> <snips Ray's spewings'
So, you are going to sue me for expressing my opinions on how you have
spoken to me in the past?
You are going to sue me because you do not have a compatible personality for
the team I have set up, which has been purely and solely revelead through
your interactions on USENET with me?
There are no causes of action for giving my opinion, Ray, you're fucking
dreaming - you can't sue someone for expressing their own opinion. 'A good
lawyer would explain to you why these legal opinions are completely wrong'.
> Any man who believes that about a man has bought into the female notion
that
> a man has to give her money to be "loved." How vacuous. Of course, a man
> with *only* money to offer a woman couldn't see out of that box.
These are MY standards, Ray. I respect people with enough ability to stand
on their own two feet. For the reasonable man's opinion, it would probably
be the case that he too would think someone who lives at home with Mommy at
the age of 37 would not have anywhere near the levels of responsibility that
the reasonable man has.
If you are sincere in your anti-employment discrimination stances, I applaud
you. I have yet to see any real evidence of it, but society needs more
campaigners. But campaigners are meant to be able to drum up support for a
just cause using a mixture of argument and personality - you have patently
failed in this.
I have stated that my opinions on your employability within my company are
regardless of the fact you have a litigous nature, but you have completed
brushed over that in your previous response. You KNOW it is there, so you
won't do a thing against me with this post.
Quit bluffing, Ray - you lose credibility every time you do it, and by all
appearances, you have precious little in this newsgroup already.
> Now, does he judge all other employees by what they do on their personal
> time? He wouldn't be singling anyone out here now would he?
>
> Britain has a pretty strong disability lobby, and they exist to combat
> losers like you in fact.
This judgement is not based on what you do in your personal time, peabrain,
it is based upon your interactions with primarily me in this newsgroup.
And your repeated attack on me as being discrimating against disabled
people, without evidence, is libellous. To quote you, peabrain, 'A good
lawyer would explain to you why these are not things to be saying in
public.'
> Cites a discrimnination lawsuit as reason he can't hire someone.
>
> I'm DEFINITELY pursuing this one
Pursue it then, child-Ray. Despite the fact that I have stated that you
would not be employed by me because of your interpersonal skills as shown on
this newsgroup towards primarily me, you go for it. You chase another lost
cause!
> I suspect whoever awarded that never saw these postings from you. That
can
> be arranged, however.
>
> Of course, notice how much more successful his business became when he
> stopped trying to claim he wasn't rich for women?
Yawn!
>> You only have standing in your own head, child-Ray, Ray Ray with no
>> responsibilities who can't stand on his own two feet.
>
> Actually I have standing under UK libel law and under British employment
> law.
Yawn! So you will have your case dismissed without prejudice by a magistrate
and claim that as a victory.
> And I never claimed what you uttered in the second part of that quote -
please cite it.
>
> That you wouldn't dare go public under your own name (at least not
> willingly) with these statements says all one needs to know.
I originally chose this name and my email address because I wanted to avoid
spam.
That decision was correct, as takahes...@hotmail.com is now flooded
with the stuff.
Ray Gordon
> spoken to me in the past?
Claiming one cannot hold down a job (when they are doing just that, no less,
and running a business) is defamatory. Referring to them as "mental" shows
bigotry and hostility on the part of the employer that his other employees
should know about in case the conduct has occurred previously or occurs
again in the future.
Doing it in a way that a person's future employers will see it (such as
through search engines) is even further retaliation (comes under the
employment-agency laws in referrals for employment or something like that).
Of course, it's also just pure defamation (and again the birth name was used
so that potential employers could see it). Not only the individual, but the
business, can be sued for this type of conduct.
As far as seduction is concerned, however, any man who thinks that women
other than whores or golddiggers give a fuck about how a man lives, or with
whom, must be a man who has pretty shitty "game" and who relies on money to
get laid, even if he claims he doesn't.
People have the right to post anonymously, but as our Supreme Court noted,
the right to swing your arm stops at my nose.
Takahesi Ogamori
> Claiming one cannot hold down a job (when they are doing just that, no
less,
> and running a business) is defamatory. Referring to them as "mental"
shows
> bigotry and hostility on the part of the employer that his other employees
> should know about in case the conduct has occurred previously or occurs
> again in the future.
Read for content, Ray.
I never said you could not hold down a job, so no defamation occured. Read
for content. I refer to you in a hostile way because you refer to me in a
hostile way. No other reason.
> Doing it in a way that a person's future employers will see it (such as
> through search engines) is even further retaliation (comes under the
> employment-agency laws in referrals for employment or something like
that).
>
> Of course, it's also just pure defamation (and again the birth name was
used
> so that potential employers could see it). Not only the individual, but
the
> business, can be sued for this type of conduct.
There's one thing I don't understand about you. Why not post under a
slightly different username, just to avoid the search engine results in the
future?
I know you will say that the internet is wrong, and I respect your opinion
on it (and even to an extent agree with it, but only to an extent). It's
like claiming that a particular road should be pedestrianised, but still
crossing the busy road before the decision has been made to take the cars
away from it.
Personally, if I were you, if this Google case does not work out as you
want, I would change my name. I've never understood either why, either on
newsgroups or web forums, people stick around when their theories are
ridiculed by people with experience - it's like a form of masochism.
> As far as seduction is concerned, however, any man who thinks that women
> other than whores or golddiggers give a fuck about how a man lives, or
with
> whom, must be a man who has pretty shitty "game" and who relies on money
to
> get laid, even if he claims he doesn't.
ALL women are basically the same, Ray. Would you respect a woman who lived
at home with her Mommy at 37 years old? Or would you think she is a
gold-digger waiting for a man to pay for her way through life?
You seem to want it every single way, as long as you are the good, moral guy
(and part of being moral is not threatening to taunt the parents of children
who committed suicide as you did last week as an argument tactic) and
everyone else as being in some way defective.
Your PayDar theory is widely ridiculed, Ray. Funnily enough, it is laughed
at more because it contradicts your own CUPID theory, rather than the fact
it is logically absurd.
> People have the right to post anonymously, but as our Supreme Court noted,
> the right to swing your arm stops at my nose.
I am not subject to your Supreme Court laws, and so far, your legal history
suggests you have a certain amount of trouble understanding how to use it.
Ray Gordon
>
> I never said you could not hold down a job, so no defamation occured
Someone has a short memory.
He did this just yesterday. Don't worry, GOOGLE has an archive of it.
Takahesi Ogamori
Someone can't read for content.
I never said you could hold down a job, I said that your beliefs towards
money and female employees strongly suggested that - it was never stated as
if it was a categorical fact.
This is stating something like a categorical fact - "You seem to think I
fear death. I fear death no more than Jesus did. I was Jesus in a past life,
you see. That's how I know he wasn't Christ."
Krus T. Olfard
Your entire posted responses show... well, how can I put this...
Hell, you know what your responses are. I doubt that you will admit it but
deep down inside you know.
Krus T. Olfard
> As far as seduction is concerned, however, any man who thinks that
> women other than whores or golddiggers give a fuck about how a man
> lives, or with whom, must be a man who has pretty shitty "game" and
> who relies on money to get laid, even if he claims he doesn't.
>
>
It is because of posts like this that I place absolutely no faith in
anything that you write or have written. It is because of the total lack of
understanding of women displayed in this post that I place absolutely no
faith in anything that you write or have written about seduction.
It's really sad... pathetic, too.
Ray Gordon
> >
> > He did this just yesterday. Don't worry, GOOGLE has an archive of it.
>
> Someone can't read for content.
>
> I never said you could hold down a job, I said that your beliefs towards
> money and female employees strongly suggested that - it was never stated
as
> if it was a categorical fact.
Statements which impute underlying factual allegations are treated as if
they were statements of fact.
It was defamation.
Takahesi Ogamori
> > Someone can't read for content.
> >
> > I never said you could hold down a job, I said that your beliefs towards
> > money and female employees strongly suggested that - it was never stated
> as
> > if it was a categorical fact.
>
> Statements which impute underlying factual allegations are treated as if
> they were statements of fact.
>
> It was defamation.
It was not defamation.
Where did I impute they were underlying factual allegations? When did I say
that 'x' or 'y' was a fact?
I was stating a personal opinion based on how you speak to me and the views
you have expressed.
I am allowed to express an opinion, Raymond, as are you. Some of the awful
things you have said about me and others are your opinions, Raymond - you
are allowed to have them. That would strongly suggest that it is we who are
mature enough to handle criticism, no matter how irrational.
And do remember that, unlike US law, in UK libel cases, the plaintiff has to
establish that he has a reputation worth defending. Certain Jesus,
anti-female and 9/11 comments would put paid to that, my friend.
Sally
"Women are just duplicitous. They LIE. One cannot reason with nor converse
with a LIAR. The information they get will be BAD."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a051or%24k5d%240%40dosa.alt.net&output=gplain
Women Are Unethical Thieves And To Blame For Sexual Harassment
"This also means they WILLINGLY put themselves in positions to be sexually
harassed. Now maybe they'll stop whining about being sexually harassed, or about why
decent men don't love them except for the one thing they are good for. Pathetic."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20010111154643.07967.00000001%40ng-fm1.aol.com&output=gplain
Why Divorced Women Are To Be Avoided
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a5akfv%24jrb%240%40pita.alt.net&output=gplain
AMAZING PROOF WOMEN ARE WHORES
I do have pity for the people who know these truths and ignore them, and what
God will do to them for trying to blame me and for ignoring what happens to
"women" while pretending to be their defenders.
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=20010219190452.02121.00000937%40ng-bd1.aol.com
Nice Guys Are DOOMED Because Women Are IDIOTS
"women are nice, but they sure aren't that SMART."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20001212083615.20845.00004338%40ng-cp1.aol.com&output=gplain
Women are unethical, hypocritical WHORES
"For as long as they allow others to give them preferential treatment on the
basis of their sexuality, this is a truth."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9ub17e%24cn3%240%40pita.alt.net&output=gplain
Why Ray KNOWS Women Are Stupid
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9ti99h%24dmk%240%40dosa.alt.net&output=gplain
Women Are Compulsive LIARS In Love
"They are. It's sad, but true. Unless the truth is a fairy tale, they
hide it and justify that under the guise of sparing a man's feelings."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=19980826.164113.3238.48.r_a_y__gordon%40juno.com&output=gplain
Takahesi Ogamori
news:tIadnWjunq5...@is.co.za...
This type of (typical) posting would certainly not help establish a
reputation worth defending in a UK court, Sally. The weird thing is that
this probably constitutes less than 1% of the total amount of postings which
has harmed his reputation.
Funnily enough, I agree with Ray's position on quite a bit of his Google
case. That's why I don't understand how he came to let his name and address
to be known. If, as Ray states, that "USENET" is the bathroom wall of the
internet, how many graffiti artists do you know who leave their signature
every time they vandalize? :-/
Mr Nifty
Ray Gordon = unemployable 'bum'.
(and that's an insult to your average bum)
Mr Nifty (Agent of S.C.A.M.).
Ray Gordon
> > they were statements of fact.
> >
> > It was defamation.
>
> It was not defamation.
>
> Where did I impute they were underlying factual allegations? When did I
say
> that 'x' or 'y' was a fact?
The statement need only contain a provable issue of fact.
This is long-decided law.
Ray Gordon
> case. That's why I don't understand how he came to let his name and
address
> to be known.
Someone betrayed a trust and published it.
Ray Gordon
> > women other than whores or golddiggers give a fuck about how a man
> > lives, or with whom, must be a man who has pretty shitty "game" and
> > who relies on money to get laid, even if he claims he doesn't.
> >
> >
>
> It is because of posts like this that I place absolutely no faith in
> anything that you write or have written.
Actually it's because you're a shill.
Takahesi Ogamori
> The statement need only contain a provable issue of fact.
>
> This is long-decided law.
To the reasonable man, what I wrote reads like an opinion, not a statement
of fact. Just like your opinion of me as a 'John', which you described as
someone who sleeps with whores (which, according to the standard dictionary
definition is a prostitute). Your definition of 'whore' strongly suggests
that you hate women.
You are entitled to your opinion - I am entitled to mine, Rayboy. I have
been around too long and in too many scrapes to be scared by your threats.
Of course, you are not scared either because I have no intention of bringing
action against you because you are just not worth the trouble.
And your grasp of the law is somewhat weak, given the fact that you are
neither a US lawyer or a UK solicitor.
And, Ray, please put me out of my misery. Why don't you slightly change your
username to avoid people searching for your newer posts until such time as
Google are told to desist, if they ever are? If I were in your position, I
would.
Takahesi Ogamori
Aaah, that answers it.
I may think your views are a bit nutty, but I was always surprised your name
actually got out. Ever considered rebranding? If it's good enough for Philip
Morris......
Takahesi Ogamori
news:W2PWc.2619$a66...@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> And, Ray, please put me out of my misery. Why don't you slightly change
your
> username to avoid people searching for your newer posts until such time as
> Google are told to desist, if they ever are? If I were in your position, I
> would.
Please ignore - you answered that question elsewhere.
Ray Gordon
>
> Aaah, that answers it.
>
> I may think your views are a bit nutty, but I was always surprised your
name
> actually got out. Ever considered rebranding? If it's good enough for
Philip
> Morris......
Rebranding? I think suing those who cross legal lines is more effective.
JJT
>What if your employees knew you were bigoted against those you perceive as
>mentally disabled, or that you retaliated against people who filed
>discrimination lawsuits?
What if an employee knew they were bigoted against child molesters,
hate mongers, and people who wish children harm, death and injury..?
>I *DO* have standing to out you in that regard, since fighting
>discrimination is in the public interest. People like you shouldn't be
>allowed to hire others.
Please feel free to repeat my above statement to anyone. Who says I
can't hire anyone..Y-O-U..? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Sucks to be you, child molesting coward.. Get a judge to prove otherwise..
JJT
Gordon's failing by the seat of his pants
Google is laughing, grp-ie ain't got a chance
Gordon's failing to the seduction world
He just can't get laid, by boys or by girls
Gordon's failing, all his dolls cringe in fear
But the 'gym mafia' minors, just disapeared
Gordon's failing, see he ain't got no balls
Denise won't return them, he can't grow no 'mo
[Chorus]
RICO III is coming, the joke's getting thin
Pych exam is expected, he can't duck it again
Sanity stops running, um, 'hellen' lives in fear
Gordon is failing, and the world can't stop laughing
Gordon's failing to the Internet World
"..if it were legal..", for young gymnast girls
Gordon's failing upon all lawyers of sorts
cheap "fucking' judges" in lame "fucking courts"
Gordon's failing-and I don't wanna pout
but the fleet just came in, so his mommie's gone out
[Chorus]
RICO III is coming, the joke's getting thin
Pych exam is expected, he can't duck it again
Sanity stops running, um, 'hellen' lives in fear
Gordon is failing, and his dolls can't stop laughing
Gordon's failing, his 9/11 speech spewed hate..
The traitor is proven...his 'honor' at stake..
Now get this
Gordon's failing, yeah, well, I was sued, too
An' you know what he spewed? Well, some of it was true!
Gordon's failing at the top of the pile
Drop ya draws now, won't you give him a smile?
I just can't stop laughing [fading] HA HA HA HA HA
Takahesi Ogamori
> Rebranding? I think suing those who cross legal lines is more effective.
With respect, Ray, you are possibly the most incompetent marketer I have
ever come across.
Antagonise a whole bunch of potential customers by calling them 'Johns' and
'shills', ban them from your forum, refuse to offer a money-back guarantee
and call women (whom the readers of your books are trying to get with)
'sluts' and 'whores'.
I remember you posted something a little while ago about how you don't
believe the customer is always right. On that point, we agree, however the
key to success in business is George Orwell's doublethink - the ability to
hold two contradictory opinions and accept them as both true. Everyone seems
to know the value of money and how hard it is to earn, so the last thing any
thinking customer would do is give money across to a company which slagged
them off in the first place and continue to do so after they had purchased.
That truly is stupid, and does not lead to long-term wealth (which you want,
and is quite hypocritical given your statements on people who can afford
their own living accomodation). Weren't you the one who once said you'd make
a billion off the internet? Quote from
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=19981117.182056.9078.0.r__a____y_gord__on%40juno.com&output=gplain -
"And your attitude is typical of why most people in this country are not
going to make billions on the internet and why I am." You'll always get
gold-diggers then, according to your own opinions!
If you really want to become successful at something, you have to play by
the available rules (not whinge about them) and simply be better. <cue
employment discrimination speech>. I come from a VERY poor background - no
family money, no connections nothing, and it took years to get into a
position where I could be self-employed and even more years where the bank
would trust me with their money. <cue 'who have I harrassed to get here'
speech - no-fucking-one!>
Play the game, dude! Playing the legal lottery, especially pro se, shows no
sign of bearing fruit just yet, or for a long time to come. You know deep
down this is the case <cue rant at me>
Ray Gordon
effective.
>
> With respect, Ray, you are possibly the most incompetent marketer I have
> ever come across.
Your rants about me suggest you are obssessed with me. Don't blame me if
whores are all you can get.
> Antagonise a whole bunch of potential customers by calling them 'Johns'
and
> 'shills', ban them from your forum, refuse to offer a money-back guarantee
Other products don't refund initial shipping charges. I give away four free
books to people who want to decide if they like my work.
I write to teach men how to get laid, not to kiss ass for money. Those who
use SHILLS and other deceptive marketing tacitcs, however, will make sure to
kiss up to the customer, who suffers in the long run from inferior
information and dishonest marketing.
> and call women (whom the readers of your books are trying to get with)
> 'sluts' and 'whores'.
I teach my readers not to settle for that type of trash you have to buy.
> I remember you posted something a little while ago about how you don't
> believe the customer is always right. On that point, we agree, however the
> key to success in business is George Orwell's doublethink - the ability to
> hold two contradictory opinions and accept them as both true. Everyone
seems
> to know the value of money and how hard it is to earn, so the last thing
any
> thinking customer would do is give money across to a company which slagged
> them off in the first place and continue to do so after they had
purchased.
There are those who sell emotions for those who feel the need to buy them.
I sell truth and insight.
> That truly is stupid, and does not lead to long-term wealth (which you
want,
> and is quite hypocritical given your statements on people who can afford
> their own living accomodation).
Those people shouldn't call their seductions "game" when they are mere
"purchases." If I had money, I wouldn't be attributing my ability to get
super-elite women to "game," that's for sure.
>Weren't you the one who once said you'd make
> a billion off the internet?
I must have been on course to since people felt it was worth risking
lawsuits, criminal prosecution, and civil suits to try to stop me.
People don't try to stop that which is truly on course for failure, and they
certainly don't take risks.
HeeroYuy
"Ray Gordon" <r...@cybersheet.com> wrote in message
news:4%OWc.5961$rT1.4015@trndny02...
And yet more unsubstantiated claims of shilling from the king of "I said it,
so it's true. No further proof is required."
Takahesi Ogamori
> Your rants about me suggest you are obssessed with me. Don't blame me if
> whores are all you can get.
Not obsessed, Ray, just interested. In my entire time on the internet, I
have never come across a character like you before.
> I write to teach men how to get laid, not to kiss ass for money. Those
who
> use SHILLS and other deceptive marketing tacitcs, however, will make sure
to
> kiss up to the customer, who suffers in the long run from inferior
> information and dishonest marketing.
Yes, but how do you square that with the fact that everyone else says that
your products are not the best on the market. There must be 30 other
seduction products out there, and they all seem to happily co-exist with
each other.
You have never yet proven that anyone who does not like your work and
expresses it is a SHILL. All businesses kiss up to their customers, Ray -
there is a competitive marketplace out there and you have to make sure your
product is the one which is chosen.
If you have, on the one hand, a product whose main marketeer is offering
nothing but taunts and abuse, and the other who is being friendly towards
you, in the mind of the reasonable man, which product do you think the
punter will choose? Which author do you think the reasonable man will assume
has more people skills?
Join the REAL world, Ray. I can't understand why you refuse to see the
truth.
> > and call women (whom the readers of your books are trying to get with)
> > 'sluts' and 'whores'.
>
> I teach my readers not to settle for that type of trash you have to buy.
I don't buy anyone. You simply have a case of penis envy when it comes to
money. It has been stated many times before that your PayDar crap
contradicts starkly your CUPID theory.
> There are those who sell emotions for those who feel the need to buy them.
> I sell truth and insight.
That's a big claim, Ray, because everyone's truth is different. You sell
your own view on the world. You do not however address the emotional needs
of your customers - if you want to be a guru to them, part of that involves
becoming a father figure to them - they look to you for help, not for abuse.
> Those people shouldn't call their seductions "game" when they are mere
> "purchases." If I had money, I wouldn't be attributing my ability to get
> super-elite women to "game," that's for sure.
>
> >Weren't you the one who once said you'd make
> > a billion off the internet?
>
> I must have been on course to since people felt it was worth risking
> lawsuits, criminal prosecution, and civil suits to try to stop me.
>
> People don't try to stop that which is truly on course for failure, and
they
> certainly don't take risks.
That doesn't really answer the question though. You would never have made a
billion from the internet by now, Ray, given your current business model and
especially after the crash in 2000. If it has taken 5 or 6 years to get your
income up to $150 per month from the website, let's do the maths. Let's be
really generous and say that your business was sold for 15 times earnings,
which is what some of the dot-com businesses were. $150 per month x 12 x 15
= $27,000. At the very top of the market, your current business model would
have attracted less than $30,000.
Ray, you care more about the competition than they care about you. Do you
really think that Ross Jeffries, or Real Social Dynamics, or any of the
30-odd competing companies ever think about you? You know they don't.
JJT
>> Someone betrayed a trust and published it.
>
>Aaah, that answers it.
>
>I may think your views are a bit nutty, but I was always surprised your name
>actually got out. Ever considered rebranding? If it's good enough for Philip
>Morris......
In my case, he sued my friend, Fuz, and posted a link
to the docket info, that published his name/address/ph#.
Just 'who' betrayed your trust, grp-e..? the court..?
Them "..fucking lawyers.." in the "..fucking courts.." ?
JJT
(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)
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 we get enought people, worldwide, maybe the voices will reach grp-ie..
Takahesi Ogamori
news:39ini0977j0d3v1ji...@4ax.com...
>
> >> Someone betrayed a trust and published it.
> >
> >Aaah, that answers it.
> >
> >I may think your views are a bit nutty, but I was always surprised your
name
> >actually got out. Ever considered rebranding? If it's good enough for
Philip
> >Morris......
>
>
> In my case, he sued my friend, Fuz, and posted a link
> to the docket info, that published his name/address/ph#.
>
> Just 'who' betrayed your trust, grp-e..? the court..?
>
> Them "..fucking lawyers.." in the "..fucking courts.." ?
>
>
> JJT
So he is the one who is responsible for his name, address and phone number
coming onto the net?
LOL! That's priceless!
What happened to Fuz, btw?
Krus T. Olfard
Um... hasn't been so far.
You might want to rethink that strategy.
Krus T. Olfard
> I don't buy anyone. You simply have a case of penis envy when it comes to
> money. It has been stated many times before that your PayDar crap
> contradicts starkly your CUPID theory.
>
I have yet to see him address that contradiction.
Ray Gordon
if
> > whores are all you can get.
>
> Not obsessed, Ray, just interested. In my entire time on the internet, I
> have never come across a character like you before.
I've come across 10,000 like you. Women like guys who stand out, too.
You're just a drone, good for providing (which to you is "love").
> > I write to teach men how to get laid, not to kiss ass for money. Those
> who
> > use SHILLS and other deceptive marketing tacitcs, however, will make
sure
> to
> > kiss up to the customer, who suffers in the long run from inferior
> > information and dishonest marketing.
>
> Yes, but how do you square that with the fact that everyone else says that
> your products are not the best on the market.
Not everyone else says that. Those who say it invariably have commercial
interests with business rivals.
>There must be 30 other
> seduction products out there, and they all seem to happily co-exist with
> each other.
Anyone can get mine for free by purchasing one of many other products, so
even there there is no conflict.
> You have never yet proven that anyone who does not like your work and
> expresses it is a SHILL.
Any proof I have in that regard wouldn't be shown here. It doesn't matter
anyway, as the shills change costumes regularly.
>All businesses kiss up to their customers, Ray -
> there is a competitive marketplace out there and you have to make sure
your
> product is the one which is chosen.
Those who buy truth buy me; those who buy emotions buy those who kiss up to
them.
Trends can also change. People who get burned by those who sold them
emotions can often do a "180" with regard to the business.
> If you have, on the one hand, a product whose main marketeer is offering
> nothing but taunts and abuse, and the other who is being friendly towards
> you, in the mind of the reasonable man, which product do you think the
> punter will choose?
In this case, the other gurus have hardly been nice to me or their other
competitors.
People just pretend that side doesn't exist. If they were neutral and not
SHILLS, they wouldn't do this. When confronted with the truth, they often
either give a token disapproval to the other side's conduct, or "Directive
4" kicks in and they give nonsequiters.
One guru repeatedly called my mother a prostitute and threatened me several
times (along with other customers of his), yet those here act as if it never
happened.
Fortunately, they can't do that in a court of law.
>Which author do you think the reasonable man will assume
> has more people skills?
Since they are buying a METHOD and not "people skills" it's not really
relevant to getting laid. When marketing trumps content, the customer has
gotten pretty damn stupid.
What I often get is a "boomerang" where someone bought into the defamation,
felt like they belonged, but after they parted with their money they were
attacked if they criticized the guru, then they came to my site, etc.
It's like when a guy lies to keep his girlfriend; once the lie is exposed,
he loses her.
> Join the REAL world, Ray.
Said the cockroach too scared to give his REAL name.
What a laugh.
>I can't understand why you refuse to see the
> truth.
The truth is that people get sued pretty harshly for what you've been
pulling on me. You also have called yourself a shill, and like it or not, I
can quote that with impunity.
> > > and call women (whom the readers of your books are trying to get with)
> > > 'sluts' and 'whores'.
> >
> > I teach my readers not to settle for that type of trash you have to buy.
>
> I don't buy anyone.
Easy to say when you don't have to prove it.
What you have revealed, however, says otherwise. Like "providing" being
part of "love" (though somehow women never have to "provide").
I'd call your woman a whore right in front of you just to show her what a
man you aren't. The way you attack whistleblowers and discriminate, and
practically STALK me out here (as part of said harassment), says even more
than money would be all you have to offer a woman. That's not my fault you
chose the value system you chose or chose to live the way you chose.
Any man stupid enough to listen to you or to men who use student money to
buy whores and pass them off as social proof deserves what he gets.
>You simply have a case of penis envy when it comes to
> money.
More like I don't think cheaters are winners. You might, as would any WHORE
you buy.
Like you'd marry a chick without her knowing your finances?? Wouldn't
matter if she didn't, becuase the government would entitle her anyway.
>It has been stated many times before that your PayDar crap
> contradicts starkly your CUPID theory.
Not at all. I said money isn't game. A purchase is not a sexual conquest.
Don't take it out on me that you're such a loser you have to buy your women.
> > There are those who sell emotions for those who feel the need to buy
them.
> > I sell truth and insight.
>
> That's a big claim, Ray, because everyone's truth is different.
Everyone's PERCEPTION is different. Truth is absolute.
>You sell
> your own view on the world.
I sell what WORKS. Buying women works for you, but most men want to do
better than some cheap slut of a golddigging whore.
>You do not however address the emotional needs
> of your customers - if you want to be a guru to them, part of that
involves
> becoming a father figure to them - they look to you for help, not for
abuse.
Those who wish to buy emotional support and asskissing are free to do so,
but shouldn't whine if all they get are a few club skanks while the gurus
use their money to get the high-quality golddiggers.
> > Those people shouldn't call their seductions "game" when they are mere
> > "purchases." If I had money, I wouldn't be attributing my ability to
get
> > super-elite women to "game," that's for sure.
> >
> > >Weren't you the one who once said you'd make
> > > a billion off the internet?
> >
> > I must have been on course to since people felt it was worth risking
> > lawsuits, criminal prosecution, and civil suits to try to stop me.
> >
> > People don't try to stop that which is truly on course for failure, and
> they
> > certainly don't take risks.
>
> That doesn't really answer the question though. You would never have made
a
> billion from the internet by now, Ray, given your current business model
and
> especially after the crash in 2000. If it has taken 5 or 6 years to get
your
> income up to $150 per month from the website, let's do the maths.
Most of the income was harmed by those who broke the law. That's why I sue.
> Ray, you care more about the competition than they care about you. <snip>
Some of my comeptitors care enough about me to break laws.
As for you, just remember that I'd call your woman a whore right in front of
your face just to destroy any notion she has of you as a real man, and all
you'd be able to do is nod.
Ray Gordon
> >
> > Them "..fucking lawyers.." in the "..fucking courts.." ?
> >
> >
> > JJT
>
> So he is the one who is responsible for his name, address and phone number
> coming onto the net?
Wrong.
Ray Gordon
to
> > money. It has been stated many times before that your PayDar crap
> > contradicts starkly your CUPID theory.
> >
>
> I have yet to see him address that contradiction.
Building one's CUPID rating has always been my recommended seduction method.
I tell men to use money strategically but not to spend it on women.
That money is effective doesn't mean the women who value it aren't whores.
That cockroach is just mad because he knows in the real world he couldn't
have this discussion without making it obvious his woman is a whore, and
then she wouldn't fuck him just to prove she isn't.
Ray Gordon
> > Rebranding? I think suing those who cross legal lines is more
effective.
> >
> >
> >
> Um... hasn't been so far.
> You might want to rethink that strategy.
He forgets that those who are smart often settle lawsuits long before they
get filed or go to trial.
Mr Nifty
'outed' Mr Rordon.
See here:
Krus T. Olfard
Ah Ray, you are SO full of it.
Who exactly am I shilling for?
Come on, Ray, you said it so you must know...
who exactly am I shilling for?
That was just another statement that you can't back up with any verifiable
proof because there is no verifiable proof. You make them all the time and
I've yet to see you back up any of them.
I think that it must really burn your ass that you can make statements like
that and NO ONE BELIEVES THEM EXCEPT YOU!
It must be really sad to know deep down in whatever you have for a heart
that no one believes your outrageous statements but yourself.
Really, it's pathetic.
Ray Gordon
> >> anything that you write or have written.
> >
> > Actually it's because you're a shill.
> >
>
> Ah Ray, you are SO full of it.
>
> Who exactly am I shilling for?
> Come on, Ray, you said it so you must know...
> who exactly am I shilling for?
You speak exactly like a shill, with the carefully constructed statement
designed to remind the consumer that you, anonymous internet friend
dedicated to helping people make purchasing choices (kinda like the
Swiftboat people for Bush), formed your opinion only on the basis of what I
write.
Only a SHILL would need to point that out, because it would only matter to a
SHILL in the first place, just as only a SHILL would bother posting
off-topic to a group where they add no content for the purpose of attacking
someone with a commercial product.
That, plus you slipped up with a typo or three that traced back to someone
who does have something to sell.
Ray Gordon
The other?
Do a search.
JJT
>> So he is the one who is responsible for his name, address and phone number
>> coming onto the net?
>Wrong.
You fucking liar.. You impotent child molesting coward..
I never knew or cared what your address was and only
saw it when you failed to sue Fuz.. instead, suing
that Rockwell guy. Maybe someone, somewhere before that
leaked it out, but Y-O-U made it known to me and others..
Caught you in another lie, grp-ie.
That brings my score to 110..
JJT
Who's peeking out from under mommie's skirt
Running from every challenge he makes
Who's knelling down to service his, um 'hellen'..
Everyone knows it's grp-ie
Who threatens children, molesting their moment..
Hiding from every adult he sees
Who's spewing hate, gloating on 9/11 horrors
Everyone knows it's grp-ie
And grp-ie has creepy eyes
That cry as his life is all lies
And grp-ie has dolls in whom he confides
They run his life..all day and night
Who's trolls the net to flee his lame life
Suing everybody that doesn't agree
Who wants children to die, if it were legal..
Everyone knows it's grp-ie
JJT
>The other?
>Do a search.
I think there are far too many people using that term
concerning you, grp-ie, for your concept to mean anything.
JJT
"gol-e, Fuz,..U gonna go there! ?"
"Fuz: I'm gonna spill me some beans ! : "
Well we're ASF shilling..
Big Bad RICO villains
And we scam everyone we know
(that sounds like us)
We sing about seduction
And we sing about sex
as we put on a little show
(yeah, ca-ching! )
We get all kind-a girls
To give us all kind-a thrills
But the thrill we've never known
Is the thrill of true fame
When you get your real name
On the docket with Gordon Roy
Gordon Roy
"..fucking court.." gonna call out my name..
OH BOY !
"..fucking judge.." gonna make him explain..
ROY !
Nothing ever gonna be the same..
On the docket with Gordon Roy
He got a freaky widdle mommie named Baseball Bat Penny..
who pays all his ways and means..hahahaha
He got his own collection of dollies
Re-Writing his "ray-world" dreams...
Now it's all designed to be devine,
But we all know it's pretty lame..
Unlike the thrill of the true fame
When you get your real name
On the docket with Gordon Roy
Gordon Roy
He's gonna throw all his Meds away....
OH BOY !
Gonna stay online night and day..
ROY !
And he'll have to fully explain ..
On the docket with Gordon Roy
mASF: hey, i know all about it..!!!
<Solo>
Spoken: Counter sue his ass, dude..
He dreams of underaged teen-aged "..sexual performers.."
and that gets him thru da day..da sick-o
He's got a made up a hooker named, um, 'hellen'..
Earning money to get him laid... ha ha ha ha ha
He gets all the jobs $10k a year provides.,
Still he cries cause he's all alone..
And we keep gettin' richer,
But he can't get our signature
On the docket with Gordon Roy
Gordon Roy
He'll make all the cunts and whores pay...
OH BOY !
"..if it were legal.." he'd make the children pay..
ROY !
I just wonder what the Judge will say....
On the docket with Gordon Roy
Talking:
I don't know why we ain't in no courtroom, baby!
He's an "..inexcusable failure.." at it, ya know..!
I ain't kiddin' you man, we'd make a great defendant.
I mean, I can see it right now--we be up front,
Oh, we be laughing so hard......beautiful!
Takahesi Ogamori
> I've come across 10,000 like you. Women like guys who stand out, too.
> You're just a drone, good for providing (which to you is "love").
Maturity Ray kicks in again. Let's see what his latest mental-sounding rant
brings us today....
> > Yes, but how do you square that with the fact that everyone else says
that
> > your products are not the best on the market.
>
> Not everyone else says that. Those who say it invariably have commercial
> interests with business rivals.
Yes, not everyone says that, but nearly everyone does. As you seem to be
such a frequent visitor to mASF, you will find loads of guys there who
prefer one product over another. You'll find some guys who find some methods
suit their personalities better.
I have no commercial interests (and if you really thought my signature was
serious, you really need examining). I personally dislike a lot of the new
school stuff, like one or two methods and bits of the others. I am not loyal
to one method, and neither is anyone else, hardly.
> >There must be 30 other
> > seduction products out there, and they all seem to happily co-exist with
> > each other.
>
> Anyone can get mine for free by purchasing one of many other products, so
> even there there is no conflict.
Good for you.
> > You have never yet proven that anyone who does not like your work and
> > expresses it is a SHILL.
>
> Any proof I have in that regard wouldn't be shown here. It doesn't matter
> anyway, as the shills change costumes regularly.
You have no proof, Ray. You are a serious bluffer.
> Those who buy truth buy me; those who buy emotions buy those who kiss up
to
> them.
>
> Trends can also change. People who get burned by those who sold them
> emotions can often do a "180" with regard to the business.
Trends do change, but one trend which shows no sign of changing is customers
expecting not to be flamed by the companies they buy from. Get with the real
world, Ray.
> In this case, the other gurus have hardly been nice to me or their other
> competitors.
There is definitely some in-fighting in mASF (I presume that's what you are
referring to), but the guys on there can sort out their issues without
resorting to bogus and empty law threats. Why can't you?
> People just pretend that side doesn't exist. If they were neutral and not
> SHILLS, they wouldn't do this. When confronted with the truth, they often
> either give a token disapproval to the other side's conduct, or "Directive
> 4" kicks in and they give nonsequiters.
>
> One guru repeatedly called my mother a prostitute and threatened me
several
> times (along with other customers of his), yet those here act as if it
never
> happened.
>
> Fortunately, they can't do that in a court of law.
Ray, you called my mother a slut. How on earth can you expect people to
treat you reasonably if you act like such an arsehole to them? Does this
compute?
> Since they are buying a METHOD and not "people skills" it's not really
> relevant to getting laid. When marketing trumps content, the customer has
> gotten pretty damn stupid.
Yes, Ray, but marketing is the only thing a customer has to go by before the
purchase of a product. You KNOW that - don't ignore reality!
> What I often get is a "boomerang" where someone bought into the
defamation,
> felt like they belonged, but after they parted with their money they were
> attacked if they criticized the guru, then they came to my site, etc.
>
> It's like when a guy lies to keep his girlfriend; once the lie is exposed,
> he loses her.
Huh?
> Said the cockroach too scared to give his REAL name.
>
> What a laugh.
Weak, Ray, you can do better than that.
> The truth is that people get sued pretty harshly for what you've been
> pulling on me. You also have called yourself a shill, and like it or not,
I
> can quote that with impunity.
Ray, people DON'T get SUED by you. They NEVER see the inside of a court,
even in your own state, for fuck's sake. You couldn't even get Vince Runza
into court, you clown!
So, you can now quote me with impunity. Do you think Google can use that
argument about your own words on USENET? Haha!
> Easy to say when you don't have to prove it.
>
> What you have revealed, however, says otherwise. Like "providing" being
> part of "love" (though somehow women never have to "provide").
I believe a man should provide for his children and his family. Speak with
any PUA who settles down with someone and he will say the same - he's not
going to spend his time on USENET, making a post on average every 1hr and 27
minutes because he has to go out there and earn a living.
> I'd call your woman a whore right in front of you just to show her what a
> man you aren't. The way you attack whistleblowers and discriminate, and
> practically STALK me out here (as part of said harassment), says even more
> than money would be all you have to offer a woman. That's not my fault
you
> chose the value system you chose or chose to live the way you chose.
>
> Any man stupid enough to listen to you or to men who use student money to
> buy whores and pass them off as social proof deserves what he gets.
You ask 1000 men whose position they'd prefer to be in and they would
certainly all choose mine, Ray. I have not attacked whistleblowers for
whistleblowing, and I do not discriminate against anyone. You can say it all
you want, mental, and it won't become true.
How can I stalk you on the internet, you fool? You post comments here and
expect replies to them. That's what a newsgroup is for!
> More like I don't think cheaters are winners. You might, as would any
WHORE
> you buy.
>
> Like you'd marry a chick without her knowing your finances?? Wouldn't
> matter if she didn't, becuase the government would entitle her anyway.
Same old insults, same old intellectual vacuousness, same old penis envy,
from the man who wants to become a billionaire!
> >It has been stated many times before that your PayDar crap
> > contradicts starkly your CUPID theory.
>
> Not at all. I said money isn't game. A purchase is not a sexual
conquest.
>
> Don't take it out on me that you're such a loser you have to buy your
women.
Well, at least by not denying it, you have acknowledged that your theory is
not cogent. And I don't have to buy women. Same old insults. You're getting
tired, Ray.
> > That's a big claim, Ray, because everyone's truth is different.
>
> Everyone's PERCEPTION is different. Truth is absolute.
The only truth in the universe is PI, Ray. You are not Jesus Christ, now or
in a past life.
> >You sell
> > your own view on the world.
>
> I sell what WORKS. Buying women works for you, but most men want to do
> better than some cheap slut of a golddigging whore.
You sell what works for you. I don't buy women, Ray - you have steadfastly
refused to tell me exactly what way I buy them. Same old insults.
> Those who wish to buy emotional support and asskissing are free to do so,
> but shouldn't whine if all they get are a few club skanks while the gurus
> use their money to get the high-quality golddiggers.
Ray, anyone with an ounce of common sense will tell you that anyone who buys
a self-help product is looking for some emotional succour.
> > That doesn't really answer the question though. You would never have
made
> a
> > billion from the internet by now, Ray, given your current business model
> and
> > especially after the crash in 2000. If it has taken 5 or 6 years to get
> your
> > income up to $150 per month from the website, let's do the maths.
>
> Most of the income was harmed by those who broke the law. That's why I
sue.
You may argue that some of your income was harmed, but in order for your
business to have become a billion-dollar business at 15 times earnings, you
would have had to make $55,555,555 profit per month to achieve that. There
is a big difference between $150 and $55,555,555 a month, Ray, and I doubt
your flamewar on USENET harmed your business that much!
> As for you, just remember that I'd call your woman a whore right in front
of
> your face just to destroy any notion she has of you as a real man, and all
> you'd be able to do is nod.
Well, she might initially be impressed by that display of bravado, but that
would quickly fade when she finds out that you are an abusive arsehole who
posts to Usenet every 1hr27mins and cheers when thousands of people die when
planes crash into towers.
Or is that what your new book trains men to become?
Bryen193
>As for you, just remember that I'd call your woman a whore right in front of
>your face just to destroy any notion she has of you as a real man, and all
>you'd be able to do is nod.
You use this claim an awful lot from the safe confines of the internet. Have
you ever called a woman a whore right in front of her man, and if so - what was
the result?
"There is only one real antidote to the anguish engendered in humanity by its
awareness of inevitable death: erotic joy." Gilles Neret
++++ http://www.angelfire.com/80s/ashenthorn/index.html ++++
Prymeltuch
>
> But would Ray be any nicer if we agreed with him?
>
> Anyone fancy trying this experiment for a week?
>
Good questions, TO. The answer to both is probably a resounding "NO",
but your post reminds me of something. That the validity of someone's
opinion and their behavior are independent. Thus, it is possible for
Ray to have plenty of interesting things to say about seduction, and
at the same time, be a complete prick to everyone on Usenet. I'd
advise newbies around here to read anything they can get their hands
on, on Formhandle's site, in the Google archives, and yes, even on
Ray's site. Separate the information from the person.
-PT
Vince Runza
This, from the most ineffectual barratrist to receive the Balsa Gavel
award!
Vince
--
8===Ğ
Formhandle
> ...
> He forgets that those who are smart often settle lawsuits long before they
> get filed or go to trial.
It's too bad you weren't smart enough to drop your suit against LTSC.
Everyone will soon find out how a litigant can go from "plaintiff" to "defendant" within
his own bullshit case. Where "settlement" will not be an option put on the table.
--
Form <formh...@fastseduction.com>
Fast Seduction 101 - http://www.fastseduction.com/
Class is now in session...
Say goodbye to trolls, newsloons, and spam.
Gain (FREE) access to the moderated ASF newsgroups at:
http://www.fastseduction.com/discussion/
Krus T. Olfard
>> >> It is because of posts like this that I place absolutely no faith
>> >> in anything that you write or have written.
>> >
>> > Actually it's because you're a shill.
>> >
>>
>> Ah Ray, you are SO full of it.
>>
>> Who exactly am I shilling for?
>> Come on, Ray, you said it so you must know...
>> who exactly am I shilling for?
>
> You speak exactly like a shill, with the carefully constructed
> statement designed to remind the consumer that you, anonymous internet
> friend dedicated to helping people make purchasing choices (kinda like
> the Swiftboat people for Bush), formed your opinion only on the basis
> of what I write.
Hmmm...
So I'm a "anonymous internet friend dedicated to helping people make
purchasing choices"?
Who have I recommended anyone purchase anything from?
Come on, baby, you know the answer to that: NOBODY!
And yes, I have formed my opinion based solely on your posts like the one
above where you are blowing out your ass with absolutely nothing to back it
up.
BTW, I do notice that you AGAIN did not bother to tell me who you KNOW I'm
shilling for. Why is this?
> Only a SHILL would need to point that out, because it would only
> matter to a SHILL in the first place, just as only a SHILL would
> bother posting off-topic to a group where they add no content for the
> purpose of attacking someone with a commercial product.
While I will admit that I do not add much on-topic content to this
newsgroup I will claim that in the time I've been coming to this newsgroup
I have added more USEABLE on-topic content than I've seen you post. The
majority of the threads that you initiate are so effing far off-topic or
contain vague derogatory references to unnamed gurus that it's pathetic.
> That, plus you slipped up with a typo or three that traced back to
> someone who does have something to sell.
>
Ray - you are so FULL of it.
Do you know why there are a common group of typos? That's because the keys
on computer keyboards are, for most people, in the same places.
This always seems to be your last fall-back defense when NOTHING else will
work - accuse someone of being someone else based on similarity in typos
that only you seem to see.
It's getting old, Ray - just like you.
It's getting lame, Ray - just like you.
It's getting pathetic, Ray - just like you.
It's full of shit, Ray...
Krus T. Olfard
I notice that you ONCE AGAIN did not address the contradiction between your
stupid CUPID and your pathetic idea of PAY-DAR.
Why is that?
Krus T. Olfard
> Not everyone else says that. Those who say it invariably have commercial
> interests with business rivals.
>
>
Oh ghods!
What a pathetic way to avoid accepting that I do not think his very odd
seduction theories are worth the electrons they are written with.
I guess that's why he calls me a shill - that way he does not have to admit
to himself that someone thinks he has absolutely no understanding of women.
How bloody pathetic!
Krus T. Olfard
Um... hasn't provided proof of that.
Krus T. Olfard
Then who was it?
Or are you just making ANOTHER claim that you won't bother to back up with
verifiable facts?
Krus T. Olfard
news:aa3a56b6.04082...@posting.google.com:
As much as I may dislike saying it, I do agree with you.
They should check out what everyone has to offer and find the method that
most agrees with their personality. That way, if the advice has any value
at all, they have a chance of acquiring some useful skills.
John C. Randolph From:
>> > Someone betrayed a trust and published it.
>>
>> Aaah, that answers it.
>>
>> I may think your views are a bit nutty, but I was always surprised your
>name
>> actually got out. Ever considered rebranding? If it's good enough for
>Philip
>> Morris......
>Rebranding? I think suing those who cross legal lines is more effective.
Not if you're the one arguing the case, as you've demonstrated what, four times
now?
For that matter, you've also shown us time and again that your idea of what the
legal lines are doesn't seem to gybe with the judge's opinion...
RICO? Who ARE you trying to kid?
-jcr
John C. Randolph From:
>See here:
Man, that still makes my skin crawl. She really should have pressed charges.
-jcr
John C. Randolph From:
>Ray Gordon (Gordon Roy Parker) wrote:
>> ...
>> He forgets that those who are smart often settle lawsuits long before they
>> get filed or go to trial.
>It's too bad you weren't smart enough to drop your suit against LTSC.
>Everyone will soon find out how a litigant can go from "plaintiff" to "defendant" within
>his own bullshit case. Where "settlement" will not be an option put on the table.
Man, I wish I could watch that on Court TV. The only thing that would make it funnier
would be if Denise was your attorney. "How about that legal debate now, grp?"
-jcr
John C. Randolph From:
>A good lawyer would explain to you why these are not things to be saying in
>public.
Didn't a bunch of good lawyers decline to take your case against Formhandle?
Come to think of it, has *any* lawyer ever taken one of your cases?
Funny how you claim to know what a "good lawyer" would say...
-jcr
aardvark9084
"Ray Gordon" <r...@cybersheet.com> wrote in message
news:BmNWc.7934$Ff2.3838@trndny06...
> > Read for content, Ray.
> >
> > I never said you could not hold down a job, so no defamation occured
>
> Someone has a short memory.
>
> He did this just yesterday. Don't worry, GOOGLE has an archive of it.
really? then why don't you use google and look it up.
then you can kill your $10 bil case right in it's muddy tracks, stupid.
aardvark
aardvark9084
"Ray Gordon" <r...@cybersheet.com> wrote in message
news:ubQWc.3117$1M3.3085@trndny01...
> > >> It is because of posts like this that I place absolutely no faith in
> > >> anything that you write or have written.
> > >
> > > Actually it's because you're a shill.
> > >
> >
> > Ah Ray, you are SO full of it.
> >
> > Who exactly am I shilling for?
> > Come on, Ray, you said it so you must know...
> > who exactly am I shilling for?
>
> You speak exactly like a shill, with the carefully constructed statement
> designed to remind the consumer that you, anonymous internet friend
> dedicated to helping people make purchasing choices (kinda like the
> Swiftboat people for Bush), formed your opinion only on the basis of what
I
> write.
didn't you just post not more than 2 weeks ago that *you* were for bush?
rampaging hypocrite.
i guess your political fovorites also change with your agenda. hardly a
surprise though.
you'll likely also been even less surprised at the following:
shut up, stupid.
aardvark
Ray Gordon
they
> > get filed or go to trial.
>
> It's too bad you weren't smart enough to drop your suit against LTSC.
How confident he is when the case is active.
> Everyone will soon find out how a litigant can go from "plaintiff" to
"defendant" within
> his own bullshit case. Where "settlement" will not be an option put on
the table.
How confident he is when the case is active. Not a single ruling in his
favor yet....
Formhandle
> ...
> How confident he is when the case is active. Not a single ruling in his
> favor yet....
Just a dismissal so far. Does that count Mr. "Legal Genius"?
HC
>That the validity of someone's
>> opinion and their behavior are independent.
>As much as I may dislike saying it, I do agree with you.
>They should check out what everyone has to offer and find the method that
>most agrees with their personality.
Behavior MAKES the man. Anybody that behaves like Ray has absolutely NOTHING
to offer except as a shining example of what a fucking inexcusable loser looks
and acts like.
Agree with their personality?
Yeah, Raytard has what to offer, to all the other asswipes that share his
personality.
The mental institutions are full of them.
HC
>It's too bad you weren't smart enough to drop your suit against LTSC.
>
>Everyone will soon find out how a litigant can go from "plaintiff" to
>"defendant" within
>his own bullshit case. Where "settlement" will not be an option put on the
>table.
>
Looks like you got BIG problems coming your way, Mr. Sue For A Living.
I can't WAIT to show up IN YOUR FACE in court on MY terms, cockroach.
That's how you and I do things Raytard, and have done 'em together for seven
years . . . MY way.
Paul Robinson
> What if your employees knew you were bigoted against those you perceive as
> mentally disabled, or that you retaliated against people who filed
> discrimination lawsuits?
You have not proved that he has employees, that he is bigoted, or that
he has done any of these and thus your comments may be considered
defamatory.
> I *DO* have standing to out you in that regard, since fighting
> discrimination is in the public interest. People like you shouldn't be
> allowed to hire others.
And people like you shouldn't be allowed to talk to others. You deserve
a padded cell.
Paul Robinson
>>So, you are going to sue me for expressing my opinions on how you have
>>spoken to me in the past?
>
>
> Claiming one cannot hold down a job (when they are doing just that, no less,
> and running a business) is defamatory.
Your reputation here stands at zero; you *cannot* be defamed.
> Referring to them as "mental" shows bigotry and hostility on the
> part of the employer that his other employees should know about
> in case the conduct has occurred previously or occurs again in the
future.
If you were ever stupid enough to sue and the case got before a jury, it
wouldn't take them more than 30 seconds to see your posting history -
which would be valid to show your state of mind - and agree that you are
a flaming nut case.
> Doing it in a way that a person's future employers will see it (such as
> through search engines) is even further retaliation (comes under the
> employment-agency laws in referrals for employment or something like that).
Do you really think some future employer of yours - if there even is
such a case - is going to troll usenet to find references to you? And
do you really think your own words haven't already poisoned the well?
> Of course, it's also just pure defamation (and again the birth name was used
> so that potential employers could see it). Not only the individual, but the
> business, can be sued for this type of conduct.
My guess is that you'd get nonsuited or your case would be thrown out.
You don't know what you're doing and you're too arrogant to know you're
in over your head and would need an attorney to handle something as
complicated as this type of lawsuit. You wouldn't get one, of course,
so you'd lose when the other side got the case kicked, or maybe even get
a countersuit against you that you _can't_ get dismissed, then you're in
real trouble.
> As far as seduction is concerned, however, any man who thinks that women
> other than whores or golddiggers give a fuck about how a man lives, or with
> whom, must be a man who has pretty shitty "game" and who relies on money to
> get laid, even if he claims he doesn't.
Man are you stupid. You're saying a woman isn't going to care about how
the guy she is seeing lives his life? A woman wants to be able to look
up to and respect the man she is dating or might conceivably mate with.
If he lives at home with his parents at a late age it has to say
something about why that is the case. If he can't even afford to pay
rent (if he could he'd probably be living on his own), can he afford to
support a family should they get married and she take time off from work
to raise them? Can he even afford to share household expenses if they
move in together? Or might he be the type that runs off and she has to
hunt down to get child support?
Women do think about these things even if they are not a "whore" or a
"golddigger," unless you think the idea that perhaps a man and a woman
who get married might decide it was to their advantage to have her stop
working for a time to raise their child(ren) makes her one. On the
other hand, maybe you do.
In case you are unaware, for most families it takes two incomes to be
able to manage.
> People have the right to post anonymously, but as our Supreme Court noted,
> the right to swing your arm stops at my nose.
Justice Potter Stewart once said, "I can't define pornography but I
know it when I see it." _Jacobellis v. Ohio_, 378 U.S. 184 at 197
(1964). I can't define an obnoxious asshole, but I know it when I see
it in your own words, Ray. And your obnoxious assholery makes you
essentially undefamable.
Paul Robinson
>>Read for content, Ray.
>>
>>I never said you could not hold down a job, so no defamation occured
>
>
> Someone has a short memory.
>
> He did this just yesterday. Don't worry, GOOGLE has an archive of it.
This coming from a man who is suing them because it archived his
material, now is intending to use Google's archival function to
strengthen his argument.
This goes way beyond pot, kettle, black hypocrisy. This is more on the
order of
pvc, cellophane, plastic.
Paul Robinson
> "Ray Gordon" <r...@cybersheet.com> wrote in message
> news:wYOWc.39888$3O2.25204@trndny07...
>
>>>Funnily enough, I agree with Ray's position on quite a bit of his Google
>>>case. That's why I don't understand how he came to let his name and
>>
>>address
>>
>>>to be known.
>>
>>Someone betrayed a trust and published it.
>
>
> Aaah, that answers it.
>
> I may think your views are a bit nutty, but I was always surprised your name
> actually got out. Ever considered rebranding? If it's good enough for Philip
> Morris......
Actually, people are more aware of Phillip Morris changing its name
because it has to continue to sell cigarettes.
If you were to give an example of a really good change of name that most
people are unaware of, it's what happened to Valuejet.
After they had that disastrous crash because of violating safety rules,
someone there got smart enough to realize their name was worth zero, the
way the diet candy AYDS (pronounced exactly the same as AIDS) has zero
value because nobody would want to touch a product with the same name as
a loathsome or fatal disease.
Examples of ads that would not work:
For great taste, try Syphilis milk.
You won't find a better buy than Gonnorea chocolate.
For the best beer, get a case of Herpes.
The finest lotion there is, let Leprosy coat your skin.
So what the people ran Valuejet did was, they found another small
airline and bought it, just to be able to code share with it.
There are two divisions to Air Tran. One of them is Air Tran Airlines
and the other is Air Tran Airways. One of those is the original
company. The other is the renamed Valuejet.
Most people are unaware that Valujet simply changed its name to Air Tran.
Paul Robinson
> Rebranding? I think suing those who cross legal lines is more effective.
If you consider getting your ass handed to you on a platter and your
cases getting tossed to be effective, well, either you need to learn the
meaning of words or you need your head examined.
Actually you do need your head examined but that's beside the point.
Paul Robinson
>>With respect, Ray, you are possibly the most incompetent marketer I have
>>ever come across.
> Your rants about me suggest you are obssessed with me.
Just because people stop to look at bloody automobile smash-ups doesn't
make them obsessed.
> Don't blame me if whores are all you can get.
Nobody is going to blame you. Especially since if they did get them it
would be in spite of you, not because of you. Getting whores in your
case is a high standard to which you are incapable of attaining "You
couldn't get laid if you went into a whorehouse with a fist full of
hundred dollar bills. Oh wait a minute, that IS the only way you could
get laid. Oh shit, I told this joke before."
>>Antagonise a whole bunch of potential customers by calling them 'Johns' and
>>'shills', ban them from your forum, refuse to offer a money-back guarantee
>
> Other products don't refund initial shipping charges. I give away four free
> books to people who want to decide if they like my work.
Because your books are so valueless YOU CAN'T SELL THEM. Other people
can and do make money off their works, but you can't. And it is clearly
obvious it eats you up inside that you're woefully incompetent by
comparison.
> I write to teach men how to get laid, not to kiss ass for money.
Neither of which you have the capacity to do. Only change 'sell things
of value' for 'kiss ass' in the above sentence too.
> Those who use SHILLS and other deceptive marketing tacitcs, however,
> will make sure to kiss up to the customer, who suffers in the long
> run from inferior information and dishonest marketing.
Anyone who relies on what you have to say gets plenty of that.
>>and call women (whom the readers of your books are trying to get with)
>>'sluts' and 'whores'.
>
> I teach my readers not to settle for that type of trash you have to buy.
You basically have defined every woman that way, Ray.
> There are those who sell emotions for those who feel the need to buy them.
> I sell truth and insight.
Oh really. I'm still waiting for you to inform me of the truth as to
your claim that there are seduction portals or seduction websites making
6 figures a year. I've asked more than 00099 times and you still ignore
me because you cannot answer that question without admitting you lied.
> Those people shouldn't call their seductions "game" when they are mere
> "purchases." If I had money, I wouldn't be attributing my ability to get
> super-elite women to "game," that's for sure.
If you had money, you still wouldn't be getting laid or women.
>>Weren't you the one who once said you'd make
>>a billion off the internet?
>
>
> I must have been on course to since people felt it was worth risking
> lawsuits, criminal prosecution, and civil suits to try to stop me.
To which I have seen (1) a loss every time you have filed; (2) no
evidence you have had anyone prosecuted and (3) a loss every time you
have filed.
You exclusively are to blame for all your failures, but because of your
diseased mentality you presume it's all someone else's fault, and you
try to offload the blame for your incompetence onto others so you won't
have to admit to yourself that you failed.
Please give actual examples of persons who have committed a crime that
you have reported that resulted in prosecution. Most likely you're
going to raise this bullshit screed that indicates nothing happened.
> People don't try to stop that which is truly on course for failure, and they
> certainly don't take risks.
Did you ever think that some of your detractors might be as mentally ill
as you are, and thus fail to realize they should not keep fighting you
because you'd self-destruct without their attention?
You have good points sometimes, but you bury those few points with so
much vindictive virulence that few will stick around to listen to you,
thus you sabotage yourself without any need for help from others.
Paul Robinson
>>Yes, but how do you square that with the fact that everyone else says that
>>your products are not the best on the market.
>
> Not everyone else says that. Those who say it invariably have commercial
> interests with business rivals.
Your products are not the best on the market.
I have no commercial interest with any rival of yours or anyone at all.
If you claim otherwise of me I will consider it intentional defamation
as a form of known, wilful libel of malicious intent on your part and
reserve the right to respond appropriately as I choose.
Paul Robinson
>>>Rebranding? I think suing those who cross legal lines is more
>
> effective.
>
>>>
>>>
>>Um... hasn't been so far.
>>You might want to rethink that strategy.
>
> He forgets that those who are smart often settle lawsuits long before they
> get filed or go to trial.
When they see it's more cost effective to get rid of the problem.
There are some, however, who won't acceed to legal blackmail or bogus
cases, and will fight. And some who can find how much of an "continued
and inexcusable failure" the other party is and figure they can fight
and win.
Paul Robinson
> Ray Gordon (Gordon Roy Parker) wrote:
>
>
>>...
>>He forgets that those who are smart often settle lawsuits long before they
>>get filed or go to trial.
>
>
> It's too bad you weren't smart enough to drop your suit against LTSC.
>
> Everyone will soon find out how a litigant can go from "plaintiff" to "defendant" within
> his own bullshit case. Where "settlement" will not be an option put on the table.
Formhandle, don't be that way; if you can get him to agree to stay off
Usenet, it might be worth it to settle. He violates the court order, he
goes to a mental institution for contempt. Not jail; he might not be
afraid of that. But the possibility a shrink might get to look at him
scares the living shit out of him!
Ray Gordon
> > favor yet....
>
> Just a dismissal so far.
Without prejudice, and not against LTSC.
Formhandle
> ...
> Formhandle, don't be that way; if you can get him to agree to stay off
> Usenet, it might be worth it to settle. He violates the court order, he
> goes to a mental institution for contempt. Not jail; he might not be
> afraid of that. But the possibility a shrink might get to look at him
> scares the living shit out of him!
Paul, the word settle doesn't exist in my personal dictionary. Not with scum like him.
LTSC is not in a position of defense for idealistic reasons. It's in there to win
without compromise.
Formhandle
Yeah, LTSC will get dismissed WITH prejudice.
Does NostraDUMBASS see a different future?
Paul Robinson
> "Takahesi Ogamori" <takahes...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<fxLWc.916$a66...@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>...
>
>
>>But would Ray be any nicer if we agreed with him?
>>
>>Anyone fancy trying this experiment for a week?
>>
When I first came here, I thought Ray was being unfairly picked on.
People thought I was him, or some sock puppet of his. Over time I
started to see how he treated others, and eventually he came to libel
me, and threaten to sue me. So it doesn't matter, he will eventually
nauseate, disgust and or alienate anyone who comes in contact with him.
Wirh the possible exception of myself. I bear him no ill will, I just
find his incompetent arrogance and stupid mistakes to be very
entertaining. As I once told Mr. King, I have no altruistic bent on
saving the "innocent victims" of Mr. Parker, most of whom are old enough
to know better and should be able to protect themselves.
No, I just come here to fuck with Ray and have fun at his expense, by
picking on him and showing how stupidly he acts, how inaccurate his
statements are, and how obviously he needs psychiatric care and treatment.
No, without our resident fruit and nut bar, this place would be oh so
very boooorrrrinnnnnggg. At least Ray has one use: he's so abnormal he
scares the spammers away; we get almost no spam (other than the message
he genrates and responses to him) on this newsgroup, I guess the
spammers are afraid of being contaminated by him.
Vince Runza
there to win
> without compromise.
Which is precisely the course of action to be taken by one who has actually
shelled out hard cash for legal representation. It's easy to sit back and
"armchair quarterback" this whole thing with GORK. However, the reality is,
"Never underestimate your opponent".
GORK vs. GOOGLE is a prime example of such an underestimation.
Vince
--
8===Ğ
Buck Fush
who calls himself Paul Robinson sitting in front of his computer
stuffing his face with junk food. So when do they call the crane to
lift your fat ass out of your chair?
Buck Fush
People get FAT because they lack self control and are otherwise
FAILURES in the game of life.
Buck Fush
Buck Fush
>
> No, I just come here to fuck with Ray and have fun at his expense
Because you're a fat miserable failure with no life outside of flaming
some random snivveling git on usenet.
You "fuck with" people on the internet because you're too much of a
FUCKING PUSSY to fuck with people to their faces. If you could even
fit your 400 pound carcass through your front door.
Having fun at others' expense works both ways you fat tub of shit.
Nomen Nescio
buckfush666 (The altered-ego of Gordon Roy Parker) wrote:
> Paul Robinson wrote:
>>
>> No, I just come here to fuck with Ray and have fun at his
>> expense
>
> Because you're a fat miserable failure with no life outside
> of flaming some random snivveling git on usenet.
As many times as you have been called a "snivelling git" GRPie,
I think you'd know how to SPELL it. Or is that your Secretarial
Genius showing? Or maybe it's a transparent attempt to post as
if you were someone else...
> You "fuck with" people on the internet because you're too much
> of a FUCKING PUSSY to fuck with people to their faces. If you
> could even fit your 400 pound carcass through your front door.
Yep, this is Gordon Roy Parker all right...
His greasy fingerprints are ALL OVER it.
How does it feel to be outed yet again, you transparent internet
cockroach? You wouldn't have a diseased ball big enough to say
this to someone's face. I know. I've seen you.
---
HC
>Paul, the word settle doesn't exist in my personal dictionary. Not with scum
>like him.
> LTSC is not in a position of defense for idealistic reasons. It's in there
>to win
>without compromise.
I love you. Seriously.
The Voice of Reason
>
> > b) You create all these arguments because you don't feel important
> > otherwise. You are an attention whore. I need a team player.
>
> A good lawyer would explain to you why these are not things to be saying in
> public.
<snip>
> A good lawyer would explain to you why these are not things to be saying in
> public.
<snip>
> A good lawyer would explain to you why these are not things to be saying in
> public.
You seem to pretend to know a lot about law, and about lawyers, yet
then why have you never won a lawsuit, despite constantly threatening
them for years and years?
> > e) If you were in sales, you would be pathetic. A SALE IS NOT A SALE UNTIL
> > THE MONEY IS BANKED. A sale is a victory. Yet, you treat getting your
> cases
> > dismissed without prejudice as some some of moral victory.
>
> The other side treats filing a motion to dismiss as a victory.
Maybe because it is?
> > h) The fact you live with Mommy at the age of 37 suggests strongly to me
> > that you can not function, survive and prosper independently. Yes, you may
> > give me a load of EXCUSES for that, but in my mind, your inability to do
> > this makes you PATHETIC and NEEDING HELP to get on track. I would hope you
> > would find it, but I need different types of people.
>
> Let's see how brave you are when you can't hide behind a monitor making
> those statements.
>
> Any man who believes that about a man has bought into the female notion that
> a man has to give her money to be "loved." How vacuous. Of course, a man
> with *only* money to offer a woman couldn't see out of that box.
That's a strawman.
> > Getting anything achieved requires teamwork and trust between the people
> > pursuing the goal. You are untrustworthy given the fact that your story
> > rarely stays the same.
> >
> > In my company, you would be unemployable.
>
> Which company was that? Thought so.
If you already know why do you ask?
> Britain has a pretty strong disability lobby, and they exist to combat
> losers like you in fact.
So you're admitting you're disabled?
> > And, as I stated in a previous post, my company were awarded the right to
> > use a pro-disabilities disability symbol because of our attitudes.
>
> I suspect whoever awarded that never saw these postings from you. That can
> be arranged, however.
I don't think it would really count if it's a disability that would
make you unable to do the job properly, i.e. someone with no legs
can't be a fireman, and someone who's as ill as Ray can't be a
salesman.
> > You only have standing in your own head, child-Ray, Ray Ray with no
> > responsibilities who can't stand on his own two feet.
>
> Actually I have standing under UK libel law and under British employment
> law.
Please don't say you're coming over here.
Paul Robinson
Hey! I resemble that remark!
Oh you can do better than that if you're going to bait me. You sir,
were not part of the conversation; to what reason and purpose do you
have to throw (weak and ineffectual) semi-insults at me? Do you feel
you need to come to the aid of Ray Gordon?
Is it that your own existence is so degraded and vile that in order to
provide yourself with relief from your miasma of misery that you must
choose to extract some of your hopeless pain in a vain and self-serving
(failed) attempt to inflict it upon others?
Is it that you have come to the realization that you yourself are so
worthless that the only manner in which you are capable of granting
yourself redemption from your pitiful wreck of an existence is to try
and (weakly) throw mud in an attempt to degrade others?
I think the answer is clearly obvious. You, sir, are nothing more than
a boil on the ass of the universe, awaiting the lancet which will
terminate your less-than-worthless existence. Your own weak and pitiful
attempts to throw insults make obvious your less-than-moronic
intelligence quotient, sub-human lack of ability to think, and a
deficient vocabulary lacking the skills of writing and comprehension
present in even a mongoloid idiot.
In short, sir, your stupidity bores me. Go away and pick on someone as
immature and incompetent as yourself - if you can even find someone that
low in the known universe, you'll still have to come up several points
to reach even that level - you aren't even worth the effort to bother to
consider insulting.
Paul Robinson
> He would only weigh 390 pounds.
I resent you underestimating the amount I weigh; I have worked hard for
many years to get to the size I am at. Understating my enormous bulk
might be defamatory to me and I may consider litigation to protect my
reputation from scurrilous cads such as yourself. You should consider
that before you make unfounded claims about my weight.
Paul Robinson
> Don't like it? SUE ME you fat worthless tub of shit.
I'm not Ray Gordon. I do not need to sue a pitiful creature who
basically has such huge amounts of self-loathing and despair that the
only means he has to make himself choose not to commit suicide is to
make personal attacks upon someone else. Have you considered therapy or
counseling? I've heard there are some really great drugs that can give
relief from some of the mental anguish you must be feeling.
> People get FAT because they lack self control and are otherwise
> FAILURES in the game of life.
People also get fat because they have medical problems that cause weight
gain. It is exactly this sort of situation in which you say things that
you know nothing about and lack adequate information which go a long way
to proving your lack of ability to think and your incapacity to engage
in serious conversation.
Sally
ROFL... Brilliant, Paul :)
Paul Robinson
> Paul Robinson <postm...@paul.washington.dc.us> wrote in message news:<lmhXc.5701$2B4.5217@trnddc06>...
>
>>No, I just come here to fuck with Ray and have fun at his expense
>
> Because you're a fat miserable failure with no life outside of flaming
> some random snivveling git on usenet.
What does that say about you in that you're flaming me? That must make
your miserable existence even lower than mine, wouldn't you say?
> You "fuck with" people on the internet because you're too much of a
> FUCKING PUSSY to fuck with people to their faces. If you could even
> fit your 400 pound carcass through your front door.
Lame, lame, lame. Is that the best insult you can come up with, Buck?
You bore me. You are nothing but a rash on the skin of the universe,
awaiting the calamine lotion to terminate your less-than-worthless
existence.
> Having fun at others' expense works both ways you fat tub of shit.
Again you seem to have this extreme fixation with tubs of shit. Is this
some sort of problem of yours with wanting to have sex with feces?
That's probably not healthy for you and you may wish to consult with a
mental health professional to see what options you have to try to turn
your life around and have better relationships with people.
Krus T. Olfard
news:87bbd508.04082...@posting.google.com:
>> Britain has a pretty strong disability lobby, and they exist to combat
>> losers like you in fact.
>
> So you're admitting you're disabled?
>
>
It certainly looks that way.
Buck Fush
> Yep, this is Gordon Roy Parker all right...
Are you willing to bet 10 thousand dollars on that?
Put your money where your mouth is or STFU.
Ray Gordon
>
> Yeah, LTSC will get dismissed WITH prejudice.
And when asked what you'd do if that doesn't materialize, your answer has so
far appeared to be "that won't happen" which translates to having no plan
for if/when it does.
Ray Gordon
> >Mr Nifty (Agent of S.C.A.M.).
>
> Man, that still makes my skin crawl. She really should have pressed
charges.
If she had a case, perhaps she should have.
She took her case to the internet because that's the only place that would
have listened.
Ray Gordon
> > Usenet, it might be worth it to settle. He violates the court order, he
> > goes to a mental institution for contempt. Not jail; he might not be
> > afraid of that. But the possibility a shrink might get to look at him
> > scares the living shit out of him!
>
> Paul, the word settle doesn't exist in my personal dictionary. Not with
scum like him.
> LTSC is not in a position of defense for idealistic reasons. It's in
there to win
> without compromise.
Sounds like the same attitude he has:
"What will you do if you don't win?"
"That won't happen."
Paul Robinson
That's kind of like asking what we'll do if the sun doesn't rise in the
morning. The probability of it not happening is so low as to be almost nil.
If you're lucky enough to get a really stupid judge who is willing to
put up with your garbage, I'm sure they'll defend the case. And maybe
hit you with a few motions that will scare you.
Paul Robinson
> Sounds like the same attitude he has:
>
> "What will you do if you don't win?"
>
> "That won't happen."
Gordo, every one of your cases gets kicked in the ass out the courtroom
door in one fashion or another. I see no reason to expect anything to
change. You don't know what you're doing, the other side has counsel
and does. Ergo, judgement for defendant.
Paul Robinson
Or maybe because she's not the type that wants to bother suing a
mentally incompetent loser with no assets.
The Voice of Reason
Ray if you had 10,000 dollars then you wouldn't have to live with your mother no?
Sylvian Stone
> > > I don't buy anyone. You simply have a case of penis envy when it comes
> to
> > > money. It has been stated many times before that your PayDar crap
> > > contradicts starkly your CUPID theory.
> > >
> >
> > I have yet to see him address that contradiction.
>
> Building one's CUPID rating has always been my recommended seduction method.
> I tell men to use money strategically but not to spend it on women.
>
> That money is effective doesn't mean the women who value it aren't whores.
>
> That cockroach is just mad because he knows in the real world he couldn't
> have this discussion without making it obvious his woman is a whore, and
> then she wouldn't fuck him just to prove she isn't.
Don't you mean STUPID rating ?
or am I missing the point...................