@@@ mASF (Moderated ASF) Forum Info & Access @@@ 2005-01-12 15:00
Formhandle
Welcome to unmoderated alt.seduction.fast (uASF).
uASF is a public USENet newsgroup and, as such, is essentially an
unmoderated discussion forum within a communication anarchy. In many
ways, this is good. However, this leads to a problem with what the
USENet community refers to as "trolls", "flame wars", "newsloons",
"off-topic" posts, "cross" posts, "spam", and a mess of other annoying
disturbances which disrupt the topic of discussion.
There is an evolution to this group, mASF, which is available
through:
http://www.fastseduction.com/discussion/
mASF is a moderated discussion forum.
PLEASE read the Posting Guidlines for mASF before posting on it.
No membership is required to browse/lurk the discussions through that
web site. Membership is free. Once signed up, you will be able to post
using the web interface as well as read/post to the groups using your
newsreader or through the mailing list features.
If you want to post, a legitimate e-mail address is required to sign up
and you will receive a password to the address you provide. You can
edit your account profile to keep your address private. Posts made
through all interfaces do not expose any identifying information such as
IP address or host name.
Access to the newsgroup interface of the discussion system is available
to registered members at:
discussion.fastseduction.com
news://discussion.fastseduction.com (link for your web browser)
You can subscribe to that news server just like any other news server.
Your username/password is required to access the newsgroup interface.
You obtain your username/password by registering for membership.
The groups available on that server are:
alt.seduction.fast.general (replacement for ASF)
alt.seduction.fast.tactics-techniques
alt.seduction.fast.fieldreports
alt.seduction.fast.advanced
alt.seduction.fast.sex
alt.seduction.fast.relationships
alt.seduction.fast.playettes
alt.seduction.fast.missions
alt.seduction.fast.off-topic
fastseduction.com.suggestions
Additionally, the discussions can be read and posted to via the mailing
list support feature of the system. You can choose to receive each post
individually through e-mail or in a daily digest format. More
information about the features and how to use them are available within
the help system of the web interface.
IT'S ALL FREE! ENJOY!
--
Form [formh...@fastseduction.com]
Fast Seduction 101 - http://www.fastseduction.com/
Class is now in session...
Nomen Nescio
>
> uASF is a public USENet newsgroup and, as such, is essentially
> an unmoderated discussion forum within a communication anarchy.
> In many ways, this is good. However, this leads to a problem
> with what the USENet community refers to as "trolls", "flame
> wars", "newsloons", "off-topic" posts, "cross" posts, "spam",
> and a mess of other annoying disturbances which disrupt the topic
> of discussion.
In other words, Gordon Roy Parker is able to post here.
> There is an evolution to this group, mASF, which is available
> through:
>
> http://www.fastseduction.com/discussion/
>
> mASF is a moderated discussion forum.
There is no "moderated ASF" on USENET. If there were, it would
be called alt.seduction.fast.moderated. And Gordon Roy Parker
would STILL not be allowed to post there.
> PLEASE read the Posting Guidlines for mASF before posting on it.
>
> No membership is required to browse/lurk the discussions through
> that web site. Membership is free.
See that? FREE...
> Once signed up, you will be able to post using the web interface
> as well as read/post to the groups using your newsreader or through
> the mailing list features.
The previous poster owns a commercial website from which he has made
absolutely sure that anything Gordon Roy Parker might post, is fully
BANNED.
USENET shows an e-mail address to anyone who knows how to read
headers, and also shows your IP address when you visit.
If one can read headers, one can see these things.
While a commercial website may be useful, it is definitely not
at all like USENET, and it is also commercial in nature, while
USENET is not. Private news servers also allow people like Gordon
Roy Parker to be banned from making off-topic and disruptive posts,
which include threats of frivolous SLAPP-style litigation, and
threats to minors.
Have a nice day!
-
Ray Gordon
others to "enforce" it by posting crap like the second posting, and an
acceptance of such tactics.
While it's true that the anonymous poster may be acting independently
(though a jury could take the evidence and make a finding of fact either
way), that won't be relevant because the "FAQ" sets the table for it. Were
the "FAQ" not posted, that would not be my position.
It seems someone wants a return trip to court. So be it.
User3247
I think it's funny that Gordon doesn't even see the irony of his own
postings. He is sooooooo upset because all of the real discussion on
seduction is now taking place where he can't cause disruption, yet he
FAILS (there's that theme again) to see that it's his postings like the
above that drive people to that place where he can't cause disruption.
One of these days he might figure that out.
Naaaahh. He's not bright enough.
Ray Gordon
>> (though a jury could take the evidence and make a finding of fact
>> either way), that won't be relevant because the "FAQ" sets the table
>> for it. Were the "FAQ" not posted, that would not be my position.
>>
>> It seems someone wants a return trip to court. So be it.
>
> I think it's funny that Gordon doesn't even see the irony of his own
> postings.
User3247 thinks he's being cool by responding "indirectly." As I advise
women who want to avoid abusive men, when they see a small characteristic
like this, it's a red flag and that they shouldn't wait until they become
the target of it.
>He is sooooooo upset because all of the real discussion on
> seduction is now taking place where he can't cause disruption, yet he
> FAILS (there's that theme again) to see that it's his postings like the
> above that drive people to that place where he can't cause disruption.
>
> One of these days he might figure that out.
>
> Naaaahh. He's not bright enough.
What User3247 doesn't grasp is that I couldn't give a flying fuck about what
any website does, or why, but what I sued over (and apparently will have to
sue AGAIN over), is the marketing based on that type of disparagement. Ever
notice that most companies never do this? There's a reason: the Lanham Act
is a pretty strong deterrent, usually.
Never mind that more than one audience member in this group have given other
explanations for why someone might move a site from a decentralized USENET
board to a commercial website, and my name wasn't listed as a reason.
I suspect that rudimentary discovery, once we get past the technical phases
of the next case (or if this one is overturned on appeal), will show that
perhaps things aren't as simple as User3247 portrays them.
Of course, User3247 likes to play both sides against the middle; on the one
hand, he trashes me to gain favor with the "seduction community," and on the
other, he pumps that community for information -- very specific
information -- that he can feed to the various online groups that are his
real internet interest, namely the ones who go trolling on the net as
underage girls trying to catch the very same guys in the act. Not that it's
a bad thing to catch these people (I certainly am not one of them), but to
use me as a pawn to infiltrate his personal enemies is something I find
distasteful.
ghoul
more crap lawsuits, Ray?
Ray Gordon
You'd have to be a lawyer to even have an opinion that mattered, now would
you?
If the first lawsuit were crap, it'd have been dismissed with prejudice, not
without.
Nomen Nescio
Street in Philadelphia, PA wrote:
>
> The continued posting of that "FAQ" is being construed as an
> invitation to others to "enforce" it by posting crap like the
> second posting, and an acceptance of such tactics.
#1: There was nothing, repeat NOTHING in the original post in
this thread that contained the term "FAQ". Therefore, anyone
who sees such is willfully ignoring the fact that they are the
only one banned from said forum... Pure jealousy.
#2: Nobody is responsible for anything on Usenet, except the
person who sends an individual message. Anyone else who wishes
to make anyone responsible for anything other than their own
posting history is mentally ill.
> While it's true that the anonymous poster may be acting
> independently (though a jury could take the evidence and
> make a finding of fact either way), that won't be relevant
> because the "FAQ" sets the table for it. Were the "FAQ"
> not posted, that would not be my position.
#3: The original respondent to the automatically posted message
that began this thread, is not in any way responsible to, or
for the content of the previous message. And there is absolutely
no way to prove otherwise.
#4: There is no "FAQ" in the original post.
#5: Anyone has the right to respond in any manner to any post
he or she wishes to respond to. Even if, and especially when
Gordon Roy Parker doesn't like it. That's the beauty of Free
Speech.
> It seems someone wants a return trip to court.
#6: In order for anyone to want a "return" trip, they would
have to have been gotten into a court in the first place.
> So be it.
This is being construed as your statement that you are once
again threatening litigation to silence the free speech of
others and to harass, intimidate, and cause financial drain
on those who choose to have a differing viewpoint from you.
No court has ever agreed with your delusuional premise that
your rights have been violated in any way. Anyone who says
otherwise is a liar.
Alex
wrote on 1/12/05 7:30 PM:
It's always funny to see Gordon mistake his personal preferences for the
law.
He continues to labor under the delusion that the law prohibits things he
doesn't like.
Ray Gordon
>> to
>> others to "enforce" it by posting crap like the second posting, and an
>> acceptance of such tactics.
>>
>> While it's true that the anonymous poster may be acting independently
>> (though a jury could take the evidence and make a finding of fact either
>> way), that won't be relevant because the "FAQ" sets the table for it.
>> Were
>> the "FAQ" not posted, that would not be my position.
>>
>> It seems someone wants a return trip to court. So be it.
>>
>>
>>
> It's always funny to see Gordon mistake his personal preferences for the
> law.
>
> He continues to labor under the delusion that the law prohibits things he
> doesn't like.
Alex is not a lawyer, and his opinions should be viewed in that light.
The last judge did not dismiss the merits of the case, which is why the
dismissal was without prejudice. He could have chosen to do that if he
wanted.
HeeroYuy
"Ray Gordon" <r...@cybersheet.com> wrote in message
news:KOkFd.11049$eb.6061@trndny01...
>>> The continued posting of that "FAQ" is being construed as an invitation
>>> to
>>> others to "enforce" it by posting crap like the second posting, and an
>>> acceptance of such tactics.
>>>
>>> While it's true that the anonymous poster may be acting independently
>>> (though a jury could take the evidence and make a finding of fact either
>>> way), that won't be relevant because the "FAQ" sets the table for it.
>>> Were the "FAQ" not posted, that would not be my position.
>>>
>>> It seems someone wants a return trip to court. So be it.
>>
>>
>> more crap lawsuits, Ray?
>
> You'd have to be a lawyer to even have an opinion that mattered, now would
> you?
No, just an opinion that's shared.
>
> If the first lawsuit were crap, it'd have been dismissed with prejudice,
> not without.
Again, no it wouldn't have to be. Too bad it'll take nothing less than a
dismissal with prejudice to drive the whole "crap lawsuit" thing through
Gordon's nothing-but-bone head.
HeeroYuy
>>> The continued posting of that "FAQ" is being construed as an invitation
>>> to
>>> others to "enforce" it by posting crap like the second posting, and an
>>> acceptance of such tactics.
>>>
>>> While it's true that the anonymous poster may be acting independently
>>> (though a jury could take the evidence and make a finding of fact either
>>> way), that won't be relevant because the "FAQ" sets the table for it.
>>> Were
>>> the "FAQ" not posted, that would not be my position.
>>>
>>> It seems someone wants a return trip to court. So be it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> It's always funny to see Gordon mistake his personal preferences for the
>> law.
>>
>> He continues to labor under the delusion that the law prohibits things he
>> doesn't like.
>
> Alex is not a lawyer, and his opinions should be viewed in that light.
Only Gordon seems to think they are. While I do not take Alex's opinion as
legal, I do share them.
>
> The last judge did not dismiss the merits of the case, which is why the
> dismissal was without prejudice. He could have chosen to do that if he
> wanted.
Gordon's trying anything he can to convince himself that his lawsuits aren't
a waste of time. Too bad it'll take nothing less than a dismissal with
prejudice to drive that point home and shatter his reality.
ghoul
again you miss the point and will fail to pull me into your little seduction
oriented world. the point is, REAL people have REAL need of the legal
system and folks like you clog it up with pointless lawsuits that will
accomplish nothing.
ghoul
sayeth he who cloggem legal system with crap lawsuits
User3247
>>> While it's true that the anonymous poster may be acting
>>> independently (though a jury could take the evidence and make a
>>> finding of fact either way), that won't be relevant because the
>>> "FAQ" sets the table for it. Were the "FAQ" not posted, that would
>>> not be my position.
>>>
>>> It seems someone wants a return trip to court. So be it.
>>
>> I think it's funny that Gordon doesn't even see the irony of his own
>> postings.
>
> User3247 thinks he's being cool by responding "indirectly." As I
> advise women who want to avoid abusive men, when they see a small
> characteristic like this, it's a red flag and that they shouldn't wait
> until they become the target of it.
Again, Gordon here is too stupid to understand the irony. He makes a
post by reponding to an anonymous poster "indirectly", then when someone
responds to him in the same manner, all of a sudden it's a "red flag" of
an abusive man.
Gordon is too stupid to understand that. I wonder if Gordon "advises"
women to stay away from himself.
>>He is sooooooo upset because all of the real discussion on
>> seduction is now taking place where he can't cause disruption, yet he
>> FAILS (there's that theme again) to see that it's his postings like
>> the above that drive people to that place where he can't cause
>> disruption.
>>
>> One of these days he might figure that out.
>>
>> Naaaahh. He's not bright enough.
>
> What User3247 doesn't grasp is that I couldn't give a flying fuck
> about what any website does, or why,...
Another outright lie by Gordon Roy Parker. Gordon cares so much what one
particular website does that he automatically responds to EVERY SINGLE
POST mentioning that website. He cares so much that he tried (and
failed) to sue that website to get it shut down. It burns him up that
he's banned from that website, because he can't get the people there to
pay any attention to him.
> ... but what I sued over ...
And FAILED to do what was necessary to get the case heard before a
judge.
> ... (and apparently will have to sue AGAIN over),...
And will most likely FAIL again.
> ...is the marketing based on
> that type of disparagement. Ever notice that most companies never do
> this? There's a reason: the Lanham Act is a pretty strong deterrent,
> usually.
He failed to convince anyone of that before, and he will fail again.
It's amazing to me that with all of his disappointments from his many,
MANY failures in the court system that Gordon would be so afraid of
women. One would think that he wouldn't fear a woman rejecting him.
> Never mind that more than one audience member in this group have given
> other explanations for why someone might move a site from a
> decentralized USENET board to a commercial website, and my name wasn't
> listed as a reason.
>
> I suspect that rudimentary discovery, once we get past the technical
> phases of the next case (or if this one is overturned on appeal), will
> show that perhaps things aren't as simple as User3247 portrays them.
I suspect that Gordon will not even making it to the rudimentary
discovery phase, based on his total incompetance in getting his cases to
that point in the past. I also suspect that Gordon's last case will
never be overturned on appeal, as none of his other cases have been.
> Of course, User3247 likes to play both sides against the middle; on
> the one hand, he trashes me to gain favor with the "seduction
> community," ...
Gordon's feeble brain is jumping to conclusions that are way off base.
He's also projecting. I aim to gain favor with no one. You don't see me
responding to anyone that is considered to be in the "seduction
community", begging for attention. I seldom even read or post to that
"seduction community" to which Gordon claims he doesn't "give a flying
fuck" about.
> ... and on the other, he pumps that community for information
> -- very specific information -- ...
Gordon is assuming. Or he's just being an ASS. I pump that community for
nothing. I seldom even gain access to it. I occasionally read it to see
if I can lend some advice to anyone, but other than that, I don't even
have that site bookmarked on my browser.
I think it's very funny that Gordon assumes that everyone who thinks
he's an idiot is in on come sort of grand conspiracy. He can't
comprehend that maybe he's just an irritating asshole, and various
unconnected people think so.
> ...that he can feed to the various online
> groups that are his real internet interest, namely the ones who go
> trolling on the net as underage girls trying to catch the very same
> guys in the act.
Again Gordon assumes. I posted one time regarding that site, only
mentioning that it was funny that Gordon made such a hit with the people
running that particular site that he was banned from it in less than 24
hours of his first post. That goes to prove my point above. No one at
that site knew anything of Gordon Roy Parker (who posted using the
fictitious name Ray Gordon), or his posts on usenet, but independently
found him to be an annoying asshole and banned him ("Welcome to banned
camp" hehe funniest line I read on that site).
That being said, Gordon is once again making an ASS out of himself. I
posted to that board a few times when I first found it. I have not
posted to it in over a year. I have not even accessed it in almost a
year. For Gordon to post here that he knows me to be one of those people
affilated with that site that trolls the net to catch potential
pedophiles is defamatory, and I would advise him that unless he has
proof that I am in any way affiliated with that site other than making a
few posts on their public message boards, he should cease and desist,
lest he find himself standing before a federal judge to explain why he
is making libelous and defamtory posts on usenet.
> Not that it's a bad thing to catch these people (I
> certainly am not one of them),...
Gordon thinks that people don't realize his postings are archived.
> ... but to use me as a pawn to infiltrate
> his personal enemies is something I find distasteful.
I use Gordon for nothing. I post here to point out his stupidity, and to
make sure that new readers of this group don't get tangled up in
believing his drivel, only to find themselves being harassed by him when
he enters a manic phase (he's admitted to being bi-polar).
User3247
> Alex is not a lawyer, and his opinions should be viewed in that light.
Neither is Gordon. His opinions should be viewed in the same light as
Gordon's.
>
> The last judge did not dismiss the merits of the case, which is why
> the dismissal was without prejudice. He could have chosen to do that
> if he wanted.
No, the judge dismissed the case because of the total ineptitude of the
plaintiff. He couldn't judge the case because you FAILED to prove to him
that you even had a case.
In a civil suit, that's even worse than dismissal with prejudice.
El Kabong
anything. The man is just giving people an alternative where actual
discussions of the subject matter can take place without all the ranting,
threats, and assiciated off topic posts. YOU created that website with your
mouth, and people like you are creating moderated forums all over the
internet.
It's a sad fact, that as you look around USENET, you find that almost all
the groups have at least one newsloon that spoils things for everyone else.
Perhaps you think that people have to listen to you, but the fact is that
they are voting with their feet.
Take your threats, bullying and lawsuit crap, and shove it up your ass.
Ranting about a bot is about like fighting the windmill isn't it?
KaBoong
"Ray Gordon" <r...@cybersheet.com> wrote in message
news:gijFd.13504$4b.6732@trndny09...
Alex
wrote on 1/12/05 11:12 PM:
>>> The continued posting of that "FAQ" is being construed as an invitation
>>> to
>>> others to "enforce" it by posting crap like the second posting, and an
>>> acceptance of such tactics.
>>>
>>> While it's true that the anonymous poster may be acting independently
>>> (though a jury could take the evidence and make a finding of fact either
>>> way), that won't be relevant because the "FAQ" sets the table for it.
>>> Were
>>> the "FAQ" not posted, that would not be my position.
>>>
>>> It seems someone wants a return trip to court. So be it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> It's always funny to see Gordon mistake his personal preferences for the
>> law.
>>
>> He continues to labor under the delusion that the law prohibits things he
>> doesn't like.
>
> Alex is not a lawyer, and his opinions should be viewed in that light.
Neither is Gordon and his opinions should be viewed in that light as well.
>
> The last judge did not dismiss the merits of the case, which is why the
> dismissal was without prejudice. He could have chosen to do that if he
> wanted.
>
That Gordon can't follow procedure well enough to get his case tossed on its
merits is hardly evidence of his claim to possess superb legal abilities.
Mr Nifty
news:YIjFd.13695$4b.7064@trndny09...
<snip>
> What User3247 doesn't grasp is that I couldn't give a flying fuck about
> what any website does,
This is sooooo funny.
Why are you continually trying to spark discussion by
mentioning posts made on that forum here?
Mr Nifty (Agent of S.C.A.M.)
l ll l
(in message <WyuFd.10595$Tf5.9758@lakeread03>):
> Ranting about a bot is about like fighting the windmill isn't it?
Erm...tell me, genius- do you think "bots" are actually like "robots" from
Star Wars or 'HAL" from 2001? You idiot. "Bots" are programs,as such they are
under the control of the person who wites the scripts as are content of the
message, frequency it's delivered, etc. It's not some mindless automaton that
runs amok, you jackass. It's a safe bet that the SPAM footer at the end of
each "bot" message is the prerson who paid for the software and can- belive
it or not- control the "bot."
I can't belive how dense some of you fucking nitwits are.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
User3247
call someone else a "nitwit".
"I belieeeeeeeve....if life gives you lemons, you should make lemonade...
and try to find someone who's life has given them vodka... and have a
party."
Extra bonus points if anyone can tell me who said it, and what movie it's
from (no points awarded if you have to use Google to get it).
El Kabong
arguing with one is not productive, and will not achieve anything. Software
does not talk back...
KaBoong
"l ll l" <co...@storage.crypt> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BE0C4373...@NEWS.Usenet-Access.com...
l ll l
(in message <FtFFd.74535$Jk5.73371@lakeread01>):
> I know very well what a bot is shit for brains. I was simply saying that
> arguing with one is not productive, and will not achieve anything. Software
> does not talk back...
> KaBoong
I think someone dropped you on yer head as a baby and the sound was "KABONG."
You most certainly were not saying that, you said arguing with a bot was
futile, like windmills or some other trite, innapropriate analogy.
I'd look for your quote, but you obviously know you're beaten already and are
trying some chick- like, immature attempt at damage control.
You lost. nitwit, now be a good pea- brain and eat your bowl of feces.
Have a nice day.
Oh, this will written by a "bot" and I'll post it ad- nauseum day and night
so don't bother replying or defending yourself. After all, it will be a bot
at the controls, and, as you know, bot's will be bots!
l ll l
(in message <Xns95DDCDAF9C635...@news.teranews.net>):
> I can't believe that someone who TWICE misspelled the word "believe" would
> call someone else a "nitwit".
Uh, thanks for the unsolicited spelling corrections. Who needs spell checker
in SW when there's bitches who do it for free?
you'd make a wonderful spinster school marm. Yer mom should be proud.
User3247
> Uh, thanks for the unsolicited spelling corrections.
I wasn't making spelling corrections. I was simply pointing out that
your accusations of others being "nitwits" is ironic since it is clear
you are below that level of mental functioning yourself, not being smart
enough to spell a word as simple as "believe". Don't point out the flaws
of others if you're not mature enough to have your own pointed out as
well.
> Who needs spell
> checker in SW when there's bitches who do it for free?
I'm a bitch? Wow. Did you come up with that insult all by yourself? Or
did you get a few of your pimply faced, adolescent buddies to work it
out over a circle jerk?
> you'd make a wonderful spinster school marm. Yer mom should be proud.
She is. She raised a man intelligent enough to write clear English.
"Yer" mom, on the other hand, must be very ashamed of you, considering
on your postings.
El Kabong
"l ll l" <co...@storage.crypt> wrote in message
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 17:43:55 -0800, El Kabong wrote
> (in message <FtFFd.74535$Jk5.73371@lakeread01>):
>
>> I know very well what a bot is shit for brains. I was simply saying that
>> arguing with one is not productive, and will not achieve anything.
>> Software
>> does not talk back...
>> KaBoong
>
> I think someone dropped you on yer head as a baby and the sound was
> "KABONG."
I doubt very much that you think, or at least on a rational level.
>
> You most certainly were not saying that, you said arguing with a bot was
> futile, like windmills or some other trite, innapropriate analogy.
>
Obviously you need to brush up on your classical reading, that is if you can
get your mommy to sound out the words for you.
> I'd look for your quote, but you obviously know you're beaten already and
> are
> trying some chick- like, immature attempt at damage control.
>
You have to have a brain, and a clue to be able to look up a quote.
Apparently that is beyond your comprehension level.
> You lost. nitwit, now be a good pea- brain and eat your bowl of feces.
>
And pray tell what is it that I have lost? At least I can spell. Where did
you get the word feces? Did you go ask someone at the grade school you
obviously didn't graduate from?
> Have a nice day.
Thank you, I believe I will.
>
> Oh, this will written by a "bot" and I'll post it ad- nauseum day and
> night
> so don't bother replying or defending yourself. After all, it will be a
> bot
> at the controls, and, as you know, bot's will be bots!
>
Believe me, it wouldn't be any more nauseating than some of the trype I see
posted here. Now go back to class like a good little boy, before the hall
monitors catch you.
KaBoong
aardvark9084
"El Kabong" <stor...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:whRFd.75142$Jk5.59547@lakeread01...
you lost the arguement simply because the fathead troll said so (or at least
that's what he's going to burden his empty head by believing).
he's starting to sound like a familiar miscreant on this newsgroup. perhaps
he attended gordon elementary school?
another putz with nothing to add to the discussion of seduction. it's your
garden variety trolls that are just as common as any slugs in a garden, who
always think themselves such of incredible genius when they are actually
quite ignorant about anything.
you ever notice how the truly smart guys don't ever need to tell anyone just
how intelligent they are? he'll next week think himself the personification
of brainpower itself and prove it by spamming the group with 8 paragraphs of
word salad he spent all night writing, just to also show us all just how
"original" <snort> he is.
then again, maybe his mommy will shut off his computer, hand him a glass of
warm milk, tuck him in bed, and tell him to get some sleep so he'll "be able
to get up in time for school" and save us the trouble of reading said word
salad.
aardvark
l ll l
(in message <A4TFd.6374$OF5.664@attbi_s52>):
> you lost the arguement simply because the fathead troll said so (or at least
> that's what he's going to burden his empty head by believing).
>
> he's starting to sound like a familiar miscreant on this newsgroup. perhaps
> he attended gordon elementary school?
>
> another putz with nothing to add to the discussion of seduction. it's your
> garden variety trolls that are just as common as any slugs in a garden, who
> always think themselves such of incredible genius when they are actually
> quite ignorant about anything.
>
> you ever notice how the truly smart guys don't ever need to tell anyone just
> how intelligent they are? he'll next week think himself the personification
> of brainpower itself and prove it by spamming the group with 8 paragraphs of
> word salad he spent all night writing, just to also show us all just how
> "original" <snort> he is.
Woot- woot! You got me there! You *only* wrote 6 paragraphs. Nya- nya!
>
> then again, maybe his mommy will shut off his computer, hand him a glass of
> warm milk, tuck him in bed, and tell him to get some sleep so he'll "be able
> to get up in time for school" and save us the trouble of reading said word
> salad.
HeeroYuy
"l ll l" <co...@storage.crypt> wrote in message
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 9:13:05 -0800, aardvark9084 wrote
> (in message <A4TFd.6374$OF5.664@attbi_s52>):
>
>> you lost the arguement simply because the fathead troll said so (or at
>> least
>> that's what he's going to burden his empty head by believing).
>>
>> he's starting to sound like a familiar miscreant on this newsgroup.
>> perhaps
>> he attended gordon elementary school?
>>
>> another putz with nothing to add to the discussion of seduction. it's
>> your
>> garden variety trolls that are just as common as any slugs in a garden,
>> who
>> always think themselves such of incredible genius when they are actually
>> quite ignorant about anything.
>>
>> you ever notice how the truly smart guys don't ever need to tell anyone
>> just
>> how intelligent they are? he'll next week think himself the
>> personification
>> of brainpower itself and prove it by spamming the group with 8 paragraphs
>> of
>> word salad he spent all night writing, just to also show us all just how
>> "original" <snort> he is.
>
> Woot- woot! You got me there! You *only* wrote 6 paragraphs. Nya- nya!
"Nya-nya?" Seriously, was that the best you could come up with? Do us all a
favor and stop acting like a 5-year-old. Maybe then you will be taken more
seriously.
Ray Gordon
> each "bot" message is the prerson who paid for the software and can-
> belive
> it or not- control the "bot."
A jury would have the final say.
>
> I can't belive how dense some of you fucking nitwits are.
Neither can I.
Ray Gordon
> anything.
He said before clicking "send..."...as if he speaks for anyone but himself.
>The man is just giving people an alternative where actual discussions of
>the subject matter can take place without all the ranting, threats, and
>assiciated off topic posts. YOU created that website with your mouth, and
>people like you are creating moderated forums all over the internet.
The site has nothing to do with the lawsuit; the lawsuit is over how the
site is marketed, and a few other things. Since it was dismissed without
prejudice, the issue is still quite ripe for refiling (or appeal).
Feel free to go back to "not caring" anytime you wish. <snicker>
--
Ray Gordon, Author
http://www.cybersheet.com/easy.html
Seduction Made Easy. Get this book FREE when you buy participating
affiliated books!
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
The Seduction Library. Four free books to get you started on your quest to
get laid.
Don't buy anything from experts who won't debate on a free speech forum.
Ray Gordon
>arguing with one is not productive, and will not achieve anything.
>Software does not talk back...
Part of mitigating damages in a Lanham Act case is doing whatever one can,
within reason, to counter what they believe to be the actionable message.
Have a nice day.
El Kabong
This is not court TV, what does the Lanham Act have to do with seduction?
KaBoong
"Ray Gordon" <r...@cybersheet.com> wrote in message
news:9a2Gd.2616$Vx2.698@trndny01...
El Kabong
a USENET group that was started by
Ross Jefferies, a man you can't stand because he is so successful and you
are not. Assuming that is if you view success by the amount of money he
makes, and the respect that is given to him by his peers.
You say that nobody owns USENET, but the person that created this group can
kill it any time he wishes. I don't see people running to your USENET group.
Perhaps the fact that you are here and not there, is the best indicator of
the worth of your group. There are I believe 12 threads on it going back to
July. <snicker> And the only thread that has any traffic at all was cross
posted. Sad but true.
KaBoong
"Ray Gordon" <r...@cybersheet.com> wrote in message
news:s92Gd.2613$Vx2.851@trndny01...
ghoul
> It's a safe bet that the SPAM footer at the end of
>> each "bot" message is the prerson who paid for the software and can-
>> belive
>> it or not- control the "bot."
>
> A jury would have the final say.
and they will turn you down and maybe just maybe you wont appeal,
again..........
ghoul
>>I know very well what a bot is shit for brains. I was simply saying that
>>arguing with one is not productive, and will not achieve anything.
>>Software does not talk back...
>
> Part of mitigating damages in a Lanham Act case is doing whatever one can,
> within reason, to counter what they believe to be the actionable message.
>
> Have a nice day.
>
>
theres that silly act, and then there's your unwarranted abuse of said act.
ghoul
>
> The site has nothing to do with the lawsuit; the lawsuit is over how the
> site is marketed, and a few other things.
they have a right to market anyway they wish.
> Since it was dismissed without
> prejudice, the issue is still quite ripe for refiling (or appeal).
And make yet another crap lawsuit. You know it is without warrant.
Paul Robinson
>>It's always funny to see Gordon mistake his personal preferences for the
>>law.
>>
>>He continues to labor under the delusion that the law prohibits things he
>>doesn't like.
>
>
> Alex is not a lawyer, and his opinions should be viewed in that light.
Neither are you, and the same applies. And unlike you, I've actually
gone to trial in court and won some cases, more than I've lost. Can you
say the same thing? Can you even say you've ever won any court case of
any kind at trial?
> The last judge did not dismiss the merits of the case, which is why the
> dismissal was without prejudice. He could have chosen to do that if he
> wanted.
As I've said, you're not even worth wasting the 7c that a 9mm bullet
would cost to grant you your most fervent hope: the termination of your
less-than-worthless existence. So, ergo, you're not worth the hot air
it would take for a judge to explain their reasoning in ruling against you.
Ray Gordon
> over a USENET group that was started by
> Ross Jefferies, a man you can't stand because he is so successful and you
> are not.
Wow, a Ross supporter!! How cute!! Sounds like you are projecting your own
materialism onto others, btw.
As for your legal commentary, well, you're not a lawyer and not a judge.
>Assuming that is if you view success by the amount of money he makes,
Materialistic people might judge others on money, but by that standard,
Benny Hinn is more successful than almost anyone.
Are you a customer of Ross's? A fan of SS or NLP seduction? You sure threw
his name in out of nowhere.
>and the respect that is given to him by his peers.
You mean like at http://www.thundercatseductionlair.com ?
> You say that nobody owns USENET,
No one does.
>but the person that created this group can kill it any time he wishes.
I doubt that's the case, but if you have evidence to the contrary, feel free
to present it.
.>I don't see people running to your USENET group.
Actually they did when it was first created, and a number of people from
here followed me over there and started defaming me, thus ending any
"truce." You can thank Odiot and others for that.
Nevertheless, a USENET group still has no owner.
> Perhaps the fact that you are here and not there, is the best indicator of
> the worth of your group. There are I believe 12 threads on it going back
> to July. <snicker> And the only thread that has any traffic at all was
> cross posted. Sad but true.
That has little or nothing to do with the Lanham Act as it applies to the
marketing some use in this group.
Not that your ranting will do anything to stop my refiling. <snicker>
Ray Gordon
>> site is marketed, and a few other things.
>
> they have a right to market anyway they wish.
Not according to the Lanham Act. There are boundaries.
>> Since it was dismissed without
>> prejudice, the issue is still quite ripe for refiling (or appeal).
>
> And make yet another crap lawsuit. You know it is without warrant.
That's for a court, not you, to decide. The court declined to rule on the
merits last time; it could have just as easily. In fact, if the court
wanted the case gone, it would have been easier to rule it properly pled yet
invalid; they didn't do that, did they?
JJT
>That's for a court, not you, to decide. The court declined to rule on the
>merits last time; it could have just as easily. In fact, if the court
>wanted the case gone, it would have been easier to rule it properly pled yet
>invalid; they didn't do that, did they?
* "... upon consideration of Plaintiff Gordon Roy Parker's... continued and
inexcusable failure..." {Gordon Roy Parker v. "Wintermute" et. al.}
02-CV-7215 (Feb. 25, 2003, Federal District Court, Eastern District,
Pennsylvania)
JJT
>Not that your ranting will do anything to stop my refiling. <snicker>
(sung to the Faces Song "..Stay with me..") :
In the mornin' don't say you'll sue me,
'Cause I call U a liar to your Gumby cake facisa....
You say your name is Gordon, but we know you as grp-ie
The G-U-R-You? who is full of, oh, so much shit..
Don't need to yell "coercion"
I don't care about your perversions',
'cause with a 'life' like that you got nothin' to laugh about.
Gumby head, hair-lip and G/Herpes
You say you're a nasty 'tough' S.O.B.
Anytime you want to prove it, just feel free..
PLEASE grp-ie, PLEASE sue me
Shut yer mouth or fuckin' sue me
PLEASE grp-ie, PLEASE sue me
Shut yer trap or fuckin' sue me
So, in the real world, please don't say you'll sue me,
Unless you CAN back up your herpes infested cakehole
Yeah, you know where is my home, your 'dollies' even know my phone,
Just don't tell the world I hide from your whinning, coward's moan..
PLEASE grp-ie, PLEASE sue me
Shut yer mouth or fuckin' sue me
PLEASE grp-ie, PLEASE sue me
Shut yer trap or fuckin' sue me
Want sum mo' apples now..?
(this song really works if ya include the
guitar lines, and walking bass. Try it :)
(For what it iz worth, I've 'sung' this now 4 4+ yrs)
Ray Gordon
>> A jury would have the final say.
>
> and they will turn you down and maybe just maybe you wont appeal,
> again..........
Then again, maybe not.
Alex
wrote on 1/17/05 9:32 PM:
Why would the court rule it properly pled when it wasn't?
ghoul
way to clog the syetem, genius, do you chase ambulances to?
Alex
1/18/05 11:01 PM:
No, he'd have to leave his mother's apartment to do that.
El Kabong
>> The "Kooksuit" is simply your way of being a bully, and trying to take
>> over a USENET group that was started by
>> Ross Jefferies, a man you can't stand because he is so successful and you
>> are not.
>
> Wow, a Ross supporter!! How cute!! Sounds like you are projecting your
> own materialism onto others, btw.
>
success and abject failure. You do too, which is why you are always
attacking him without using his name.
> As for your legal commentary, well, you're not a lawyer and not a judge.
As for your legal commentary, well, you're not a lawyer and not a judge.
As for your legal commentary, well, you're not a lawyer and not a judge.
As for your legal commentary, well, you're not a lawyer and not a judge.
As for your legal commentary, well, you're not a lawyer and not a judge.
As for your legal commentary, well, you're not a lawyer and not a judge.
As for your legal commentary, well, you're not a lawyer and not a judge.
As for your legal commentary, well, you're not a lawyer and not a judge.
>
>
>>Assuming that is if you view success by the amount of money he makes,
>
> Materialistic people might judge others on money, but by that standard,
> Benny Hinn is more successful than almost anyone.
>
> Are you a customer of Ross's? A fan of SS or NLP seduction? You sure
> threw his name in out of nowhere.
>
Well, according to some of the older FAQs I have seen on this group, he
started it. As for being a customer of Ross or anyone else, no. I don't
have problems attracting women.
>
>>and the respect that is given to him by his peers.
>
> You mean like at http://www.thundercatseductionlair.com ?
>
>
>> You say that nobody owns USENET,
>
> No one does.
>
>>but the person that created this group can kill it any time he wishes.
>
> I doubt that's the case, but if you have evidence to the contrary, feel
> free to present it.
>
Why bother? So far I have never seen anyone influence you with reality.
It's useless to debate the mentally ill.
>
> .>I don't see people running to your USENET group.
>
> Actually they did when it was first created, and a number of people from
> here followed me over there and started defaming me, thus ending any
> "truce." You can thank Odiot and others for that.
>
> Nevertheless, a USENET group still has no owner.
>
Perhaps not, but they certainly do have a creator. You are the creator of
the "outfoxing" group, and according to what I have read, Ross is the
creator of this group.
>
>> Perhaps the fact that you are here and not there, is the best indicator
>> of the worth of your group. There are I believe 12 threads on it going
>> back to July. <snicker> And the only thread that has any traffic at all
>> was cross posted. Sad but true.
>
> That has little or nothing to do with the Lanham Act as it applies to the
> marketing some use in this group.
>
The Lanham Act was not the subject of the discussion, and if it were, it
would be off topic. Why don't you go over to one of the legal groups and
post your legal rants?
> Not that your ranting will do anything to stop my refiling. <snicker>
>
Why should I want to do that? It's really none of my business what you file
or do not file. But it's still off the topic of this group. I would guess
that the reason you don't post this drivel in legal groups, is that you
would quickly be shown to be the legal bufoon that the rest of us can so
clearly see.
Perhaps one day you will grow up, but I doubt it.
KaBoong
El Kabong
The Lanham Act (trademark) does not say what you allege that it says. I
think you just like to blow off on what a great GENIUS you are, but you are
like a "Paper Tiger". All mouth, with no substance. Grow up.
KaBoong
"Ray Gordon" <r...@cybersheet.com> wrote in message
news:Fy_Gd.4064$av2.3449@trndny02...