Same ol' ASG
RitaHansard
>Now to the folks that matter. Peep, Rita, and the rest of the core.
>You're still fighting the good fight. Doing hand to hand with the
>Ultra-Libs in the group
To be honest, the Libs don't bother me, Ultra- or otherwise. It's their
freakin' hypocrisy that gets me to posting back at them.
Oh, and Midge is long gone. He finally decided we all weren't the effort I
suppose. Either that, or he's locked up tight in Longview. My guess is the
later.
Rita
--
Do Something.
Donate money.
Donate blood.
Volunteer.
www.redcross.com
P.J. Gladnick
>
> And James. Poor, sweet James. I remember you! Weren't you the one who
> criticized me so badly for calling Anne Heche a nut case long ago?
> Didn't you accuse me of being a homo-phobe when I said her crying fit
> of a diatribe at the Matthew Shepard funeral was "merely acting"? That
> she wasn't really who she pretended to be? Or was that some other
> ASG'er? Maybe Reid, maybe the Midget. Who was it now?
La Cieca is the Mugatu of this NG.
>
> Now to the folks that matter. Peep, Rita, and the rest of the core.
> You're still fighting the good fight. Doing hand to hand with the
> Ultra-Libs in the group. You're slapping 'em around like a Tom and
> Jerry cartoon. Very, very admirable! I even see a few new soldiers
> that are doing very well on their own. Some of them are even battle
> vets...hard core. They can sling a few Ultra-Lib body bags with the
> best of them!
Thanx for forgetting MOI! I really appreciate the oversight.
Hot Rod
"The Original Sgt Rock" <Sgt...@johnstonisland.mil> wrote in message
news:qe5psto8jn8ubbksc...@4ax.com...
> Same old ASG. After an absence of almost three years I have returned
> to kick some butt and take some names. And I see some of the same old
> worn out Ultra-Lib names around. And a few patriots still entrenched
> and fighting. Let's take a walk down memory lane, shall we?
>
> MaaaagaRegret (MLYoung)! You remember...way back when.... I walked
> this NG through an on-line roasting of with you as the main guest
> wherein I first had the bravest, best ASG volunteers I could find cut
> you free of your trailer using the jaws of life. I then had a crane
> lift your bloated, festering hulk out of your trailer and onto a
> flatbed railcar. We rolled you into the sunny main square and sat the
> children and old folks in lawn chairs. We played the national anthem
> and ate fried chicken. Then as night fell, we all sang God Bless
> America as I lit a flaming arrow and shot it in a magnificent,
> beautiful arc over the methane gas created by your rotting
> personality. It was a beautiful explosion that everyone in ASG thought
> was simply....deserved. Glad to see you again, ol' gal. And the scars
> don't look half bad. One question, though, *who* picked your flaming
> ass up off main street and stitched you back together? Which ASG'er
> lovingly sewed you back up? I say let bygones be bygones. The old
> MaaaagaRegret is gone. Long live MaaaagaRegret! Only now I shall call
> you Fester. Long live Fester!
>
> And James. Poor, sweet James. I remember you! Weren't you the one who
> criticized me so badly for calling Anne Heche a nut case long ago?
> Didn't you accuse me of being a homo-phobe when I said her crying fit
> of a diatribe at the Matthew Shepard funeral was "merely acting"? That
> she wasn't really who she pretended to be? Or was that some other
> ASG'er? Maybe Reid, maybe the Midget. Who was it now?
>
> You're still fighting the good fight. Doing hand to hand with the
> Ultra-Libs in the group. You're slapping 'em around like a Tom and
> Jerry cartoon. Very, very admirable! I even see a few new soldiers
> that are doing very well on their own. Some of them are even battle
> vets...hard core. They can sling a few Ultra-Lib body bags with the
> best of them!
>
> Ultra-Libs will *still* be here when you decide you want to mess with
> 'em. So don't feel bad about taking a breather and letting some others
> do the trenchwork for a while. These folks ain't going nowhere. They
> are always going to be here to work over anytime you want. I'm back
> just to get in some re-training work. Work on my rope-a-dope, my speed
> back, get my legs back in shape. Now I'm ready to poke a few sticks
> their way. Not as much time as I used to have but like I
> said.....these clowns will *always* be around this NG. Got to run
> now...got to recruit a few soldiers from other NG's. And to think,
> even after several years away, this group is still trying to paint
> itself as a non-political group. But like I taught you all once.
> Politics *is* showbiz! Now lights out! We've got some work to do soon!
So what business did you get into? Underground child pornography a-la the
movie 8mm?
MLYoung
Is the poor slob desperate for attention
or what?
--margaret
P.J. Gladnick
"MLYoung" <mly...@aol.comZAPTHIS> wrote in message
news:20011016182156...@mb-fv.aol.com...
You mean the sort of attention of a certain someone on this NG tried to get
by proclaiming the CyberBirth of her VirtualBaby?
Biminy . . . Quinn Biminy
>
>Is the poor slob desperate for attention
>or what?
Sounds like PJ to me.
Bim
"The puritan hated bear-baiting, not because it gave pain to the bear, but
because it gave pleasure to the spectators."-Thomas B Macaulay
Maria: Marry sir, sometimes he is a kind of puritan
Sir Andrew: O! If I thought that, I'd beat him like a dog
RitaHansard
>
>Is the poor slob desperate for attention
>or what?
Perhaps he wants you to stalk him, dear.
MLYoung
>>
>>Is the poor slob desperate for attention
>>or what?
>
>Sounds like PJ to me.
Kindred souls, but one draws a cartoon
and the other is a cartoon.
Or maybe it's the other way around.
--margaret
>
>
>Bim
MLYoung
>>
>>Is the poor slob desperate for attention
>>or what?
>
>Perhaps he wants you to stalk him, dear.
And Ritatroll's *still* sulking that no one
gives a damn how she feels about
Betty Bowers.
--margaret
>
>
>
>Rita
RitaHansard
Oh, not true my child. I'm trying to see if you will remain a hypocrite forever
or finally take responsibility for your actions. I see I've got you back to
grade school level. That's good enough. Forget Betty Bowers, at least for now.
RitaHansard
>>Sounds like PJ to me.
>
>Kindred souls, but one draws a cartoon
No, Margaret, you're misinformed. PJ doesn't draw. You really shouldn't be
spouting off untrue information, you know. It kind of makes you look like a
liar.
LStrom
them behind the pink Mary Kay Lady dumpster behind the yurt and they will
apologize. Sorry.
In article <qe5psto8jn8ubbksc...@4ax.com>, The Original Sgt
Rock <Sgt...@johnstonisland.mil> wrote:
--
Leslie Strom - Get Lost Magazine
http://www.getlostmagazine.com
A Journal of Natural and Unnatural Events
7/1/00 226/202/Halloween196/136
P.J. Gladnick
"MLYoung" <mly...@aol.comZAPTHIS> wrote in message
In a rare moment of honesty on my part I have to inform you that I don't
DRAW the cartoons, I write them.
P.J. Gladnick
<Jac...@faux.aol> wrote in message
news:8ckpst4qh7ausc0bu...@4ax.com...
> On 17 Oct 2001 00:09:20 GMT, ritah...@aol.com (RitaHansard)
> wrote:
>
> >MLYoung wrote:
> >
> >>>Sounds like PJ to me.
> >>
> >>Kindred souls, but one draws a cartoon
> >
> >No, Margaret, you're misinformed. PJ doesn't draw. You really shouldn't
be
> >spouting off untrue information, you know. It kind of makes you look like
a
> >liar.
> >
> Even I knew PJ doesn't draw, drawing takes actual talent.
>
> JP
Actually I can draw but I'm not the BEST in that department so I write the
comix, a skill in which I am definitely the BEST.
MLYoung
Oops, so I did. It comes back to me
now. I just haven't paid attention to
the guy in several years and I've never
looked at his Web site.
>Even I knew PJ doesn't draw, drawing takes actual talent.
True.
--margaret
>
>JP
>
P.J. Gladnick
"MLYoung" <mly...@aol.comZAPTHIS> wrote in message
I just do the writing for the comix, one of which ("The Hillary Witch
Project") won FIRST PRIZE as the BEST Blair Witch Parody on the Web.
Ryan
>>Even I knew PJ doesn't draw, drawing takes actual talent.
>
>True.
>
>--margaret
What is YOUR talent, other than eating and bitching?
,
MLYoung
I have several, including drawing as it
happens.
What about you?
--margaret
P.J. Gladnick
"MLYoung" <mly...@aol.comZAPTHIS> wrote in message
Maybe but it sounds like Bitching is definitely in the forefront of your
talents.
Callen Molenda
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Callen, who appreciates a good bitch (also harpies, and, uh, whatever else
was on the list)
RitaHansard
>Callen, who appreciates a good bitch (also harpies, and, uh, whatever else
>was on the list)
Boy, are you ever in the right newsgroup.
RitaHansard
>>Perhaps he wants you to stalk him, dear.
>
>Now you've done it, Rita! I'm getting sick! I have forgotten my new
>pet name for MLY so here's another: IPECAC. Fits her well. don't you
>think?
No, you should have been here. She really went a stalkin' one time, and
actually went through the yellow pages hunting for a lawyer named William
Hogarth in Colorado. Then she plugged what info she could obtain from Deja into
a Lexis search which is only available by paid subscription, and then she
started talking about a "source" helping her expose him. It was all for naught
as William Hogarth turned out to be a three hundred y/o painter from the Jolly
Olde.
Now true to form, she'll try to troll Hogarth again.
(Hint, Margaret, next time use me as your "source." I know his real name.)
RitaHansard
>Apparently you've missed her old trick -- exploding from spontaneous
>combustion due to a buildup of gas.
Nah, that's more like D____ M_______. We don't use the entire name very often
for obvious reasons. If I remember correctly, he explodes every year around
Christmas, but he has at times had the help of (?) pouring gasoline on him.
MLYoung
>actually went through the yellow pages hunting for a lawyer named William
Hardly, Ritatroll.
Real Christians don't lie.
--margaret
Reets
>>No, you should have been here. She really went a stalkin' one time, and
>>actually went through the yellow pages hunting for a lawyer named William
and Margaret replied:
>Hardly, Ritatroll.
>
>Real Christians don't lie.
True. What Margaret really did was ask an "associate" to search through Lexis.
Once again, she entangles her online life with whatever pathetic offline life
exists.
As follows:
From: MLYoung (mly...@aol.comZAPTHIS)
Subject: Re: Don Henley to Join Joan Lunden on A&E's Talent Roster
Newsgroups: alt.showbiz.gossip
View: Complete Thread (446 articles) | Original Format
Date: 2000/05/04
>Well, Peg, to what "facts" are you referring?
>I have said I attended the University of Michigan in the 1980s.
>I also said I have three degrees, all from different institutions of the
>higher
>learning.
>You assumed, on the basis of this, that my law degree was from the
>University
>of Michigan. Perhaps, Peg, it's not, which might explain why you can't find
>a
>lawyer of my age practicing in
No, Hoggy. It's clear you're unfamiliar
with the workings of the Lexis database.
My associate checked the variations--
there's no lawyer of your age practicing
in Boulder who went to Michigan Law,
Michigan undergrad or has a masters
from Michigan.
Your ignorance here simply reveals
your unfamiliarity with something
a real lawyer would know backwards
and forwards.
Plus, it's all ex post facto.
>either Boulder or Aspen who went to UM Law.
>It's also not mandatory to list degrees other than the undergraduate degree
>and
>the juris doctor in MH, or most other lawyer directories. Some lawyers do,
>but
>others don't. If my masters is from Michigan, and I didn't list it in MH,
Poor Hoggy. As I've pointed out,
you fit none of the criteria on several
different types of searches. Once again,
you're unfamiliar with the Lexis database.
>then
>you have *nothing* to go on except my age.
>
No, Hoggy. You've also said a fair
amount about your practice. You
don't, for example, work for a large
firm. Indeed, you seem to be a solo
practitioner.
Basically, you screwed up because
you didn't know what could and could
not be searched.
>hooker (my client) keeps Hogarth in Pitkin
>> Co. well into Dec., and in peril from the Kennedy clan."
>
>Oh, for Christ's sake. Can someone buy this woman a sense of humor? Or a
>grain of common sense?
In other words, you're lying? Well,
Hoggy, that's been my point. You're
now admitting that you lie about your
cases--why is that so different from
lying about your practice?
As I've said, this is a weak defense
on your part. You're an admitted liar who's asking people to believe that
*sometimes*
you tell the truth. Your main mode
of defense has been to personally
attack me rather than show my case
is weak. Very unlawyerly, but, then,
so are most things about you.
Also, more ex post facto rationalization.
Not convincing.
>Obviously I was satirizing the type of people who live in Aspen, CO. Much of
>what I've written about Aspen has been presented as a kind of social
>commentary. I would never disclose the identity of a client, even remotely,
In other words, you make things
up. Yes, we know.
>and I certainly would never refer to one as "the drug-sodden offspring of a
>well-known society hooker." I'd be more likely to go around calling myself
>"Will Hogarth." I assumed, when I wrote this, that anyone with an ounce of
>sense would understand I was speaking in jest. But I was new to the group,
>and I didn't know much about you.
Once again, a poor excuse. Lawyers
are very aware of language in that way.
Besides, Hoggy, I've never believed
you. You're asking that people believe
and disbelieve you. Inconsistent, dear.
>This was once fun, but is becoming tedious, Peg.
>I didn't have to live through the Kennedy administration to know something
>about it.
Another error on your part. If you're
38, you would, indeed, have lived through
part of the Kennedy Administration. Once
again, a real 38-year-old would know
that. And my point was not knowledge,
but concern.
>My reference to being a toddler in 1969 was, if I remember, in the context of
>my statement that the tear gas in the air "stung my toddler eyes," or some
>such. I was emphasizing the effect
>the riots had on an innocent young lad, you
>ninny.
"Ninny"--sorry, troll, not the language
of a 38-year-old male, though very
Peepsian. Your excuse here is even weaker--it somehow assumes
that child eyes would be less innocent
than toddler eyes, so much so that you'd
go out of your way to lie about it. It's basically a complete fabrication.
Like everything else about you.
--margaret
RitaHansard
Indeed they don't, Maggs. Here it is:
MLYoung wrote:
"Well, in Hoggy's case, he doesn't
even show up in the Yellow Pages.
Closest I got was an insurance agent
the next state over." (May 1, 2000)
"It's clear you're unfamiliar
with the workings of the Lexis database.
My associate checked the variations--
there's no lawyer of your age practicing
in Boulder who went to Michigan Law,
Michigan undergrad or has a masters
from Michigan."
"County of employment, profession,
age, indication of schools attended.
Lexis makes it easy with lawyers, Judy."
(May 4, 2000)
Hogarth wrote:
"Actually, Peg, P.J. Gladnick and I exchanged posts back in *October,* about a
month after my appearance here, in which I stated that my screen name was a
tribute to William Hogarth."
Maggs wrote:
"Sure, honey, and that's why you
claimed your namesake was "Uncle
Jack Hogarth"." (May 1, 2000)
Imogen explains:
"William Hogarth was born in London, England in the year 1697. He began
painting at the age of thirty one. When he was forty-six he fought a
battle to secure the copyright act, this was known as Hogarth's act." (1st of
May, 2000)
Margaret tries to cover her stupidity:
"This is interesting (okay, well, to me)--
I knew about A Rake's Progress and
Marriage a la Mode, but nothing about
his involvement in the copyright act or
how extensive his career was."
Hogarth begins to really laugh at Margaret:
"ML Young, after her lesson in art history, continued raving:
> Ah, you're out-out-date, Brian. Hogarth
> looks to be the imaginary creation of
> Shrieks, who is a great acquirer of
> data, but not one for strong analysis.
"Well, I'll say this for La Peep: she *NEVER* assumed my real name was "Jack
Hogarth."
"LOLROFLOLROFLOL"
> Both Peeps and Hogarth don't seem close
> to their purported ages--the cultural
> references are completely off.
"Well! You're right there, Peg.
I'm 303 years old.
WILL HOGARTH
*LOL* " (May 4, 2000)
************************************************
Now here's one of My favorite MLYoung moments.
Margaret's thoughts on one of America's finest military divisions:
"What kind of rangers are you talking about? Surely not the ones who patrol
parks?"
***********************************************
Oh, by the way, Maggs, Hogarth left out a key ingrediant. He knew you were
going to stalk him, and he left it out on purpose.
RitaHansard
>>Hardly, Ritatroll.
Oh, and Maggs, a real hypocrite can't take responsibility for her actions.
Nice to see you're denying what's archived in black and white.
RitaHansard
>>Oh, and Midge is long gone. He finally decided we all weren't the effort I
>>suppose. Either that, or he's locked up tight in Longview. My guess is the
>>later.
>Really! Geez, he finally went. Oddly enough I respect him for that.
Well, if you thought he was bonkers before you left...He made an extremely foul
statement to sombody concerning their newborn...I threatened to smack him in
the head with a baseball bat...and, well, you know that "flamewar free"
newsgroup he created? It got et by the aforementioned "somebody." He had to
take his newsgroup to a private mail list. Then he went on to threaten to call
the police and media to someone's house, and then he threatened to call the FBI
on me. It all got *real* fun, but yes, I think he's much better off away from
Usenet. He had really ended up doing so much that there was no way people were
ever going to stop hounding him. It's too bad you weren't around for the famous
picture he posted of his armpit, though.
>This NG can be a waste of time if it gets to be too much.
True, but I've met an extremely nice lawyer out in Colorado who managed to run
Maggs completely off the deep end. And there's others, too, who have made the
trip worthwhile. I've got a wonderful Ultra-lib stalker, but he's on break at
the moment.
>You can drop these ASG threads and come back
>years later. Ain't no one going anywhere anytime soon.
It does seem that way. I've grown tired of it too, but there's a certain
comical diversion to it that keeps me here, especially "Brandon" of bestiality
fame. Like I said, comical diversion. You just can't get this kind of stuff in
real life.
Silent Brandon
ritah...@aol.com (RitaHansard) wrote:
> especially "Brandon" of bestiality
> fame. Like I said, comical diversion. You just can't get this kind of stuff in
> real life.
I gave you my address!
RitaHansard
>You just can't get this kind of stuff in
>> real life.
>
>I gave you my address!
You just wanted me to put on my frock and come down to S_______ for a snipe
hunt. I've got you all figured out, grandma.
High & Low Life
> MLYoung wrote:
>
> >>No, you should have been here. She really went a stalkin' one time, and
> >>actually went through the yellow pages hunting for a lawyer named
William
> >
> >Hardly, Ritatroll.
> >
> >Real Christians don't lie.
> >
>
> Indeed they don't, Maggs. Here it is:
>
> MLYoung wrote:
<excised>
Thank you, Rita, for the comic redux, much welcomed by many of us, I'm sure,
in these trying and earnest times.
> Oh, by the way, Maggs, Hogarth left out a key ingrediant. He knew you were
> going to stalk him, and he left it out on purpose.
<<<Shhhhhh.>>>>
To be honest, Ritakins, I never actually anticipated any stalker quite like
Goneril-Mags; but, yes, I had taken "precautions."
Hogarth
High & Low Life
Let's get to the nougat here: if Mags had your raven-haired good looks, wit
& charm she wouldn't have to resort to "sources" or "my associate" (who, by
the way, I always suspected was really just Brandi Meretrix doing a Google
from the local branch library) to strip away some of the mystery from
ol'Hogarth (which reminds me, didn't I go so far as to send you a picture of
me in my underwear?).
Hogarth
Silent Brandon
ritah...@aol.com (RitaHansard) wrote:
> Silent Brandon wrote:
>
> >You just can't get this kind of stuff in
> >> real life.
> >
> >I gave you my address!
>
> You just wanted me to put on my frock and come down to S_______ for a snipe
> hunt. I've got you all figured out, grandma.
no, that was damon.
I want YOU for medical experiments.
RitaHansard
>> >You just can't get this kind of stuff in
>> >> real life.
>> >
>> >I gave you my address!
>>
>> You just wanted me to put on my frock and come down to S_______ for a snipe
>> hunt. I've got you all figured out, grandma.
>
>no, that was damon.
No, dear, Damon wants me to take my frock off.
>
>I want YOU for medical experiments.
But why in a frock, dear?
RitaHansard
>Thank you, Rita, for the comic redux, much welcomed by many of us, I'm sure,
>in these trying and earnest times.
Really, since I couldn't manage to find the humor in Bloody Bowers, I can
always find it in Maggs.
>> Oh, by the way, Maggs, Hogarth left out a key ingrediant. He knew you were
>> going to stalk him, and he left it out on purpose.
>
><<<Shhhhhh.>>>>
>To be honest, Ritakins, I never actually anticipated any stalker quite like
>Goneril-Mags; but, yes, I had taken "precautions."
Honey, nobody expected that one-person comedy act. You have to give her credit,
though, without her hot-on-the-trail earnestness about "exposing" you, it
wouldn't have been funny in the least.
RitaHansard
Er, um, uh...yes, I do indeed know whether it's briefs or boxers. Careful
though luv, Brandon likes to perform medical experiments on people who are at
least somewhat dressed. He wants me in a frock. Go figure.
Oh, and thanks for the compliments on my nougat.
RitaHansard
>>I've got a wonderful Ultra-lib stalker, but he's on break at
>>the moment.
>
>Gotta meet this person!!
Oh, you probably will. He will fight about politics until the end of time,
because, well, Usenet is here.
JRogow
"RitaHansard" <ritah...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011019113736...@mb-cu.aol.com...
> Hogarth wrote:
> >Let's get to the nougat here: if Mags had your raven-haired good looks,
wit
> >& charm she wouldn't have to resort to "sources" or "my associate" (who,
by
> >the way, I always suspected was really just Brandi Meretrix doing a
Google
> >from the local branch library) to strip away some of the mystery from
> >ol'Hogarth (which reminds me, didn't I go so far as to send you a picture
of
> >me in my underwear?).
>
> Er, um, uh...yes, I do indeed know whether it's briefs or boxers.
Oh - I wanna see . . .
RitaHansard
>Mags had your raven-haired good looks,
>wit
>> >& charm she wouldn't have to resort to "sources" or "my associate" (who,
>by
>> >the way, I always suspected was really just Brandi Meretrix doing a
>Google
>> >from the local branch library) to strip away some of the mystery from
>> >ol'Hogarth (which reminds me, didn't I go so far as to send you a picture
>of
>> >me in my underwear?).
>>
>> Er, um, uh...yes, I do indeed know whether it's briefs or boxers.
>
>Oh - I wanna see . . .
Yes, yes you do. He is gorgeous.
JRogow
> JRogow wrote:
> >> Er, um, uh...yes, I do indeed know whether it's briefs or boxers.
> >
> >Oh - I wanna see . . .
>
> Yes, yes you do. He is gorgeous.
I knew *that* - but to see him in his skivvies . . .
RitaHansard
>> >> Er, um, uh...yes, I do indeed know whether it's briefs or boxers.
>> >
>> >Oh - I wanna see . . .
>>
>> Yes, yes you do. He is gorgeous.
>
>I knew *that* - but to see him in his skivvies . . .
Just think about a body much like JFK, Jr.'s. Tall, toned, hot and awesome.
Silent Brandon
ritah...@aol.com (RitaHansard) wrote:
> Silent Brandon wrote:
>
> >> >You just can't get this kind of stuff in
> >> >> real life.
> >> >
> >> >I gave you my address!
> >>
> >> You just wanted me to put on my frock and come down to S_______ for a snipe
> >> hunt. I've got you all figured out, grandma.
> >
> >no, that was damon.
>
> No, dear, Damon wants me to take my frock off.
for medical experiments.
> >I want YOU for medical experiments.
>
> But why in a frock, dear?
I may be made, but I'm tasteful.
High & Low Life
Lovely Rita:
> Hogarth wrote:
> >Let's get to the nougat here: if Mags had your raven-haired good looks,
wit
> >& charm she wouldn't have to resort to "sources" or "my associate" (who,
by
> >the way, I always suspected was really just Brandi Meretrix doing a
Google
> >from the local branch library) to strip away some of the mystery from
> >ol'Hogarth (which reminds me, didn't I go so far as to send you a picture
of
> >me in my underwear?).
>
> Er, um, uh...yes, I do indeed know whether it's briefs or boxers. Careful
> though luv, Brandon likes to perform medical experiments on people who are
at
> least somewhat dressed. He wants me in a frock. Go figure.
Such a boy, wanting to play doctor.
>
> Oh, and thanks for the compliments on my nougat.
Rosebud!
Hogarth
MLYoung
>Lovely Rita:
>
>> Hogarth wrote:
>> >Let's get to the nougat here: if Mags had your raven-haired good looks,
>wit
>> >& charm
Why borrow Rita's when I have my
own?
--margaret
High & Low Life
Raven-haired Rita raved:
> Judith Rogow wrote:
>
> >> >> Er, um, uh...yes, I do indeed know whether it's briefs or boxers.
> >> >
> >> >Oh - I wanna see . . .
> >>
> >> Yes, yes you do. He is gorgeous.
> >
> >I knew *that* - but to see him in his skivvies . . .
>
> Just think about a body much like JFK, Jr.'s. Tall, toned, hot and
awesome.
Well! That picture is over a year old now. I'm looking a little more like
Uncle Teddy these days.
Hogarth
Approaching Mid-Life.
MLYoung
>Lexis.
> Once again, she entangles her online life with whatever pathetic offline
>life
>exists.
Nope. You're rather thick-headed
Reetsy.
As for Hoggie's "private life" --my
point was that he doesn't have one.
He's a sockpuppet--ergo, real-life
"stalking" is hardly a possibility..
But thanks for reminding everyone of
that.
Poor dumb Reets.
--margaret
RitaHansard
>> Oh, and thanks for the compliments on my nougat.
>
>Rosebud!
(BEEEEEEELUSH.)
It's too early in the morning for this, Hogarth.
RitaHansard
>As for Hoggie's "private life" --my
>point was that he doesn't have one.
>He's a sockpuppet--ergo, real-life
>"stalking" is hardly a possibility..
>
We know you tried to prove that, Maggs. You tried very hard...and failed.
Silent Brandon
ritah...@aol.com (RitaHansard) wrote:
> Hogarth wrote:
>
> >> Oh, and thanks for the compliments on my nougat.
> >
> >Rosebud!
>
> (BEEEEEEELUSH.)
>
> It's too early in the morning for this, Hogarth.
then come back into the dungeon, you luscious sex goddess
JRogow
> Judith Rogow wrote:
>
> >> >> Er, um, uh...yes, I do indeed know whether it's briefs or boxers.
> >> >
> >> >Oh - I wanna see . . .
> >>
> >> Yes, yes you do. He is gorgeous.
> >
> >I knew *that* - but to see him in his skivvies . . .
>
> Just think about a body much like JFK, Jr.'s. Tall, toned, hot and
awesome.
Cold shower time!
JRogow
"High & Low Life" <lordh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9qr66t$pkt6c$1...@ID-54485.news.dfncis.de...
Ewwwww - long *hot* shower
RitaHansard
>then come back into the dungeon, you luscious sex goddess
>
>
I just left the dungeon, dear. Anthrax and Hazmat are still there. (Not
kidding.)
RitaHansard
>> Well! That picture is over a year old now. I'm looking a little more
>like
>> Uncle Teddy these days.
>
>Ewwwww - long *hot* shower
Don't even believe it. He'd have to inhale a truckload of scotch a day for a
year to get in that condition, and I *know* how much he goes to the gym. He's
just being modest. And his eyes...heart-skipping blue.
JRogow
> Judith Rogow wrote:
>
> >> Well! That picture is over a year old now. I'm looking a little more
> >like
> >> Uncle Teddy these days.
> >
> >Ewwwww - long *hot* shower
>
> Don't even believe it. He'd have to inhale a truckload of scotch a day for
a
> year to get in that condition, and I *know* how much he goes to the gym.
He's
> just being modest. And his eyes...heart-skipping blue.
Blue - not brown? Ah well, the rest is soooooo nicely packaged!
RitaHansard
>Blue - not brown? Ah well, the rest is soooooo nicely packaged!
>
My eyes are brown. Does that help?
JRogow
> Judith Rogow wrote:
>
> >Blue - not brown? Ah well, the rest is soooooo nicely packaged!
> >
>
> My eyes are brown. Does that help?
Not really
Reets
>What Margaret really did was ask an "associate" to search through
>>Lexis.
>> Once again, she entangles her online life with whatever pathetic offline
>>life
>>exists.
and Mags the relevant part of the post (where she's caught in a lie about
whether she tracked William Hogarth whereabouts offline) came back with:
>Nope. You're rather thick-headed
>Reetsy.
>
>As for Hoggie's "private life" --my
>point was that he doesn't have one.
>He's a sockpuppet--ergo, real-life
>"stalking" is hardly a possibility..
>
>But thanks for reminding everyone of
>that.
>
>Poor dumb Reets.
Suuuuure. Here's that post again, Mags. So what are *we* all lying about,
dear? Oh, and send my regards to you Devony ham and your husband Mr.
*Mainbocher*. Or was that, Mr. H______?
LOL
From: MLYoung (mly...@aol.comZAPTHIS)
Subject: Re: Don Henley to Join Joan Lunden on A&E's Talent Roster
Newsgroups: alt.showbiz.gossip
View: Complete Thread (446 articles) | Original Format
Date: 2000/05/04
>Well, Peg, to what "facts" are you referring?
>I have said I attended the University of Michigan in the 1980s.
>I also said I have three degrees, all from different institutions of the
>higher
>learning.
>You assumed, on the basis of this, that my law degree was from the
>University
>of Michigan. Perhaps, Peg, it's not, which might explain why you can't find
>a
>lawyer of my age practicing in
No, Hoggy. It's clear you're unfamiliar
with the workings of the Lexis database.
My associate checked the variations--
there's no lawyer of your age practicing
in Boulder who went to Michigan Law,
Michigan undergrad or has a masters
from Michigan.
Your ignorance here simply reveals
your unfamiliarity with something
a real lawyer would know backwards
and forwards.
Plus, it's all ex post facto.
>either Boulder or Aspen who went to UM Law.
>It's also not mandatory to list degrees other than the undergraduate degree
>and
>the juris doctor in MH, or most other lawyer directories. Some lawyers do,
>but
>others don't. If my masters is from Michigan, and I didn't list it in MH,
Poor Hoggy. As I've pointed out,
you fit none of the criteria on several
different types of searches. Once again,
you're unfamiliar with the Lexis database.
>then
>you have *nothing* to go on except my age.
>
No, Hoggy. You've also said a fair
amount about your practice. You
don't, for example, work for a large
firm. Indeed, you seem to be a solo
practitioner.
Basically, you screwed up because
you didn't know what could and could
not be searched.
>hooker (my client) keeps Hogarth in Pitkin
>> Co. well into Dec., and in peril from the Kennedy clan."
>
>Oh, for Christ's sake. Can someone buy this woman a sense of humor? Or a
>grain of common sense?
In other words, you're lying? Well,
Hoggy, that's been my point. You're
now admitting that you lie about your
cases--why is that so different from
lying about your practice?
As I've said, this is a weak defense
on your part. You're an admitted liar who's asking people to believe that
*sometimes*
you tell the truth. Your main mode
of defense has been to personally
attack me rather than show my case
is weak. Very unlawyerly, but, then,
so are most things about you.
Also, more ex post facto rationalization.
Not convincing.
>Obviously I was satirizing the type of people who live in Aspen, CO. Much of
>what I've written about Aspen has been presented as a kind of social
>commentary. I would never disclose the identity of a client, even remotely,
In other words, you make things
up. Yes, we know.
>and I certainly would never refer to one as "the drug-sodden offspring of a
>well-known society hooker." I'd be more likely to go around calling myself
>"Will Hogarth." I assumed, when I wrote this, that anyone with an ounce of
>sense would understand I was speaking in jest. But I was new to the group,
>and I didn't know much about you.
Once again, a poor excuse. Lawyers
are very aware of language in that way.
Besides, Hoggy, I've never believed
you. You're asking that people believe
and disbelieve you. Inconsistent, dear.
>This was once fun, but is becoming tedious, Peg.
>I didn't have to live through the Kennedy administration to know something
>about it.
Another error on your part. If you're
38, you would, indeed, have lived through
part of the Kennedy Administration. Once
again, a real 38-year-old would know
that. And my point was not knowledge,
but concern.
>My reference to being a toddler in 1969 was, if I remember, in the context of
>my statement that the tear gas in the air "stung my toddler eyes," or some
>such. I was emphasizing the effect
>the riots had on an innocent young lad, you
>ninny.
"Ninny"--sorry, troll, not the language
of a 38-year-old male, though very
Peepsian. Your excuse here is even weaker--it somehow assumes
that child eyes would be less innocent
than toddler eyes, so much so that you'd
go out of your way to lie about it. It's basically a complete fabrication.
Like everything else about you.
--margaret
High & Low Life
"Reets" wrote:
> Reets wrote:
>
> >What Margaret really did was ask an "associate" to search through
> >>Lexis.
> >> Once again, she entangles her online life with whatever pathetic
offline
> >>life
> >>exists.
>
> and Mags the relevant part of the post (where she's caught in a lie about
> whether she tracked William Hogarth whereabouts offline) came back with:
>
> >Nope. You're rather thick-headed
> >Reetsy.
> >
> >As for Hoggie's "private life" --my
> >point was that he doesn't have one.
> >He's a sockpuppet--ergo, real-life
> >"stalking" is hardly a possibility..
> >
> >But thanks for reminding everyone of
> >that.
> >
> >Poor dumb Reets.
>
> Suuuuure. Here's that post again, Mags. So what are *we* all lying
about,
> dear? Oh, and send my regards to you Devony ham and your husband Mr.
> *Mainbocher*. Or was that, Mr. H______?
>
> LOL
<excised>
The whole matter was such a discreditable episode (even) for Goneril-Mags
that she's probably spent the last year trying to convince herself--through
frequent incoherent muttering and hitting the comfort foods with gusto (what
successive Devony Ham is she consuming now, I wonder?)--that she did indeed
expose me as a fraud and a "sockpuppet" solely through the application of
her keen analytical abilities.
Hogarth
Reets
>The whole matter was such a discreditable episode (even) for Goneril-Mags
>that she's probably spent the last year trying to convince herself--through
>frequent incoherent muttering and hitting the comfort foods with gusto (what
>successive Devony Ham is she consuming now, I wonder?)--that she did indeed
>expose me as a fraud and a "sockpuppet" solely through the application of
>her keen analytical abilities.
>
>Hogarth
As usual, turning logic on its head, Mags determined that the absence of
evidence was evidence in and of itself; when her hapless "investigative work"
failed to uncover William Hogarth's legal practice, she concluded that he was a
"sockpuppet". Somehow I doubt she'd have been more successful stalking your
*real* name.
Sheesh. Always good for the laffs, our Mags is.
Reets
Peep...@webtv.net
Well, *I'm* just flattered the old gal continues to devote a big chunk
of her "life" stamping her feet, protesting that the delightful &
brilliant Hogarth is but a casual sock of moi.
YAY!!
Hugs,
Janice, *touched* when Mags wrenches herself from the swaddled ham to
propagate The Peeps=Hogarth UL.
THAT's my troll!!.........:-)
--
GO Green!! GO, Ralph!!
http://www.votenader.com/
(-)> *peep* (-)> *peep* (-)> *muckmouth*
RitaHansard
>Hugs,
>Janice, *touched* when Mags wrenches herself from the swaddled ham to
>propagate The Peeps=Hogarth UL.
So, do you look as good in your underwear as he?
Peep...@webtv.net
Here's 3 that rolled off my fingertips------>
Lovely Rita:
>>Hugs,
>>Janice, *touched* when Mags wrenches herself from the swaddled ham to
>>propagate The Peeps=Hogarth UL.
>
>So, do you look as good in your
>underwear as he?
Only when I stick a sock in it.
;-)
Hugs,
Janice
Take 2:
Lovely Rita:
>>Hugs,
>>Janice, *touched* when Mags wrenches herself from the swaddled ham to
>>propagate The Peeps=Hogarth UL.
>
>So, do you look as good in your
>underwear as he?
I'm not sure anymore. Buster Brown's swiped all my panties (not just
the red ones) from my clothesline.
Hugs of concern,
Janice, who's grown to enjoy the natural air-conditioning,
tho'......;-)........;-)
Take 3:
Lovely Rita:
>>Hugs,
>>Janice, *touched* when Mags wrenches herself from the swaddled ham to
>>propagate The Peeps=Hogarth UL.
>
>So, do you look as good in your
>underwear as he?
Well, actually, His Lordship would look better in my new flag-blue
bra/panties. They kind of wash-out my pale blue eyes, while they set
off *his* deeper blue eyes to full advantage.
Hugs,
Janice, who'll be putting on the deeper-blue contacts and posting as
Hogarth after dinner.
-----
Etc. Etc.
MLYoung
>whether she tracked William Hogarth whereabouts offline) came back with:
Nope. Poor Reetsy. You can't even
figure out the error you're making.
It's kind of funny that you think any
form of verification is "stalking."
Pathetic, really. You really don't have
a brain in your head, poor girl.
--margaret
MLYoung
>evidence was evidence in and of itself;
when her hapless "investigative work"
>failed to uncover William Hogarth's legal practice, she concluded that he was
>a
>"sockpuppet".
>Somehow I doubt she'd have been more successful stalking your
>*real* name.
Poor dim Reetsy, the point was that
no lawyer existed who fit Hoggy's
parameters.
Literacy isn't your strong point, is it?
--margaret
Reets
>form of verification
as follows:
_______
Verification or stalking. You decide.
LOL
Reets
Reets
>Literacy isn't your strong point, is it?
That's particularly hilarious coming from someone who failed to recognize
"William Hogarth". I guess you do better with fashion names, Miss Mainbocher.
ROTFLOL
Reets
Peep...@webtv.net
>Suuuuure. Here's that post again, Mags.
>So what are *we* all lying about, dear?
>Oh, and send my regards to you Devony
>ham and your husband Mr. *Mainbocher*.
>Or was that, Mr. H______?
Halston......?!
Curious hugs,
Janice
RitaHansard
>>>Janice, *touched* when Mags wrenches herself from the swaddled ham to
>>>propagate The Peeps=Hogarth UL.
>>
>>So, do you look as good in your
>>underwear as he?
>
>Only when I stick a sock in it.
Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh!
>Hugs,
>Janice, who'll be putting on the deeper-blue contacts and posting as
>Hogarth after dinner.
Please don't.
Peep...@webtv.net
>PeepPeep wrote:
>
>>>>Janice, *touched* when Mags wrenches herself from the swaddled ham
to
>>>>propagate The Peeps=Hogarth UL.
>>>
>>>So, do you look as good in your
>>>underwear as he?
>>
>>Only when I stick a sock in it.
>
>Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh!
Okay, *2* socks.......:o)
>
>>Hugs,
>>Janice, who'll be putting on the deeper-blue contacts and posting as
>>Hogarth after dinner.
>
>Please don't.
I can't help myself, sugar-pie, honeybunch.
Hugs,
HOGARTH, 6-foot-2, eyes of blue, oh, the things that I can
do...........;~)
RitaHansard
>>>Janice, who'll be putting on the deeper-blue contacts and posting as
>>>Hogarth after dinner.
>>
>>Please don't.
>
>I can't help myself, sugar-pie, honeybunch.
>
>
>Hugs,
>HOGARTH, 6-foot-2, eyes of blue, oh, the things that I can
>do...........;~)
You are evil.
Peep...@webtv.net
>
>PeepPeep wrote:
>
>>>>Janice, who'll be putting on the deeper-blue contacts and posting as
>>>>Hogarth after dinner.
>>>
>>>Please don't.
>>
>>I can't help myself, sugar-pie,
>>honeybunch.
>>
>>
>>Hugs,
>>HOGARTH, 6-foot-2, eyes of blue, oh,
>>the things that I can
>>do...........;~)
>
>You are evil.
Only when Davy's around.
xoxo
your evil @ 00evil_peep00
~~~~~~
What did you miss in ACF today? You missed Davy being Davy! A recorded
legacy of Usenet's zaniest, kookiest, wackiest resident. Read at:
http://x66.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=552347630.1
RitaHansard
>>You are evil.
>
>Only when Davy's around.
>
>
>xoxo
>
>your evil @ 00evil_peep00
>~~~~~~
>
>What did you miss in ACF today? You missed Davy being Davy! A recorded
>legacy of Usenet's zaniest, kookiest, wackiest resident. Read at:
>http://x66.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=552347630.1
Oh gads, is that thing still around? Don't even try and tell me that Evil Eye
is a girl. I will hunt you down and shoot you personally.
Peep...@webtv.net
>ritah...@aol.com (RitaHansard) >wrote
>in article
><20011022230431.12959.00000825@mb
da.aol.com> :
>>Don't even try and tell me that Evil Eye
>>is a girl. I will hunt you down and shoot
>>you personally.
>You *are* vicious and ugly, Rita. Why?
>Oh - I'm sure David's quaking in his
>boots too.
Nobody -- not you Josh, not *anybody* -- respond to this insane troll's
latest death threat against me.
She's the FBI's problem now, not ASG's.
=======>David
--
What did you miss in ACF today? You didn't miss Peep, Reets, Judes &
Rita. Or any other gay-bashing trolls. Just more fun than three years of
ASG Subscribe at http://www.egroups.com/group/a_c_f
RitaHansard
>Nobody -- not you Josh, not *anybody* -- respond to this insane troll's
>latest death threat against me.
>
>She's the FBI's problem now, not ASG's.
Hadn't you rather netcop me, Peeps? I haven't seen the posting from Just Josh.
It's not someone shaking a wooden spoon at me, is it?
Remember, I found Bloody Bowers, I can find you, too.
Boo.
Peep...@webtv.net
>
>Remember, I found Bloody Bowers, I can
>find you, too.
>
>Boo.
>
>Ri
Uh, cupcake, I just forwarded your threatening post and the obscene
e-mail you sent me to the abuse folks at WebTV.
You're really dumb, aren't you?
Poor RitaShriek.
--margaret
Subject: Re: Same ol' ASG
Date: 23 Oct 2001 22:57:36 GMT
From: ritah...@aol.com (RitaHansard)
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
MsgId: <20011023185736...@mb-mj.aol.com>
Newsgroups: alt.showbiz.gossip
References:
<8591-3BD...@storefull-115.iap.bryant.webtv.net>Subject: Re: Same
ol' ASG
Date: 23 Oct 2001 22:57:36 GMT
From: ritah...@aol.com (RitaHansard)
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
MsgId: <20011023185736...@mb-mj.aol.com>
Newsgroups: alt.showbiz.gossip
References:
<8591-3BD...@storefull-115.iap.bryant.webtv.net>Subject: Re: Same
ol' ASG
Date: 23 Oct 2001 22:57:36 GMT
From: ritah...@aol.com (RitaHansard)
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
MsgId: <20011023185736...@mb-mj.aol.com>
Newsgroups: alt.showbiz.gossip
References:
<8591-3BD...@storefull-115.iap.bryant.webtv.net>Subject: Re: Same
ol' ASG
Date: 23 Oct 2001 22:57:36 GMT
From: ritah...@aol.com (RitaHansard)
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
MsgId: <20011023185736...@mb-mj.aol.com>
Newsgroups: alt.showbiz.gossip
References: <8591-3BD...@storefull-115.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
MLYoung
>
>>Literacy isn't your strong point, is it?
>
In other words, you screwed up. Yes,
we know.
--margaret
>Reets
RitaHansard
>>Boo.
>>
>>Ri
>
>Uh, cupcake, I just forwarded your threatening post and the obscene
>e-mail you sent me to the abuse folks at WebTV.
Trust me, that's the best place to send abuse complaints. I'm sure they'll take
care of me.
>You're really dumb, aren't you?
>
>Poor RitaShriek.
Oh, stick a sock in it.
Peep...@webtv.net
>abuse complaints. I'm sure they'll take
>care of me.
Yep.
>
>>You're really dumb, aren't you?
>>
>>Poor RitaShriek.
>
>Oh, stick a sock in
Or what, l'il trash troll? You'll huff and puff and blow my house down?
--margaret
--margaret
Subject: Re: Same ol' ASG
Date: 24 Oct 2001 00:28:26 GMT
From: ritah...@aol.com (RitaHansard)
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
MsgId: <20011023202826...@mb-cc.aol.com>
Newsgroups: alt.showbiz.gossip
References:
<8397-3BD...@storefull-113.iap.bryant.webtv.net>Subject: Re: Same
ol' ASG
Date: 24 Oct 2001 00:28:26 GMT
From: ritah...@aol.com (RitaHansard)
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
MsgId: <20011023202826...@mb-cc.aol.com>
Newsgroups: alt.showbiz.gossip
References:
<8397-3BD...@storefull-113.iap.bryant.webtv.net>Subject: Re: Same
ol' ASG
Date: 24 Oct 2001 00:28:26 GMT
From: ritah...@aol.com (RitaHansard)
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
MsgId: <20011023202826...@mb-cc.aol.com>
Newsgroups: alt.showbiz.gossip
References:
<8397-3BD...@storefull-113.iap.bryant.webtv.net>Subject: Re: Same
ol' ASG
Date: 24 Oct 2001 00:28:26 GMT
From: ritah...@aol.com (RitaHansard)
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
MsgId: <20011023202826...@mb-cc.aol.com>
Newsgroups: alt.showbiz.gossip
References:
<8397-3BD...@storefull-113.iap.bryant.webtv.net>Subject: Re: Same
ol' ASG
Date: 24 Oct 2001 00:28:26 GMT
From: ritah...@aol.com (RitaHansard)
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
MsgId: <20011023202826...@mb-cc.aol.com>
Newsgroups: alt.showbiz.gossip
References:
<8397-3BD...@storefull-113.iap.bryant.webtv.net>Subject: Re: Same
ol' ASG
Date: 24 Oct 2001 00:28:26 GMT
From: ritah...@aol.com (RitaHansard)
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
MsgId: <20011023202826...@mb-cc.aol.com>
Newsgroups: alt.showbiz.gossip
References:
<8397-3BD...@storefull-113.iap.bryant.webtv.net>Subject: Re: Same
ol' ASG
Date: 24 Oct 2001 00:28:26 GMT
From: ritah...@aol.com (RitaHansard)
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
MsgId: <20011023202826...@mb-cc.aol.com>
Newsgroups: alt.showbiz.gossip
References:
<8397-3BD...@storefull-113.iap.bryant.webtv.net>Subject: Re: Same
ol' ASG
Date: 24 Oct 2001 00:28:26 GMT
From: ritah...@aol.com (RitaHansard)
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
MsgId: <20011023202826...@mb-cc.aol.com>
Newsgroups: alt.showbiz.gossip
References:
<8397-3BD...@storefull-113.iap.bryant.webtv.net>Subject: Re: Same
ol' ASG
Date: 24 Oct 2001 00:28:26 GMT
From: ritah...@aol.com (RitaHansard)
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
MsgId: <20011023202826...@mb-cc.aol.com>
Newsgroups: alt.showbiz.gossip
References:
<8397-3BD...@storefull-113.iap.bryant.webtv.net>Subject: Re: Same
ol' ASG
Date: 24 Oct 2001 00:28:26 GMT
From: ritah...@aol.com (RitaHansard)
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
MsgId: <20011023202826...@mb-cc.aol.com>
Newsgroups: alt.showbiz.gossip
References:
<8397-3BD...@storefull-113.iap.bryant.webtv.net>Subject: Re: Same
ol' ASG
Date: 24 Oct 2001 00:28:26 GMT
From: ritah...@aol.com (RitaHansard)
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
MsgId: <20011023202826...@mb-cc.aol.com>
Newsgroups: alt.showbiz.gossip
References:
<8397-3BD...@storefull-113.iap.bryant.webtv.net>Subject: Re: Same
ol' ASG
Date: 24 Oct 2001 00:28:26 GMT
From: ritah...@aol.com (RitaHansard)
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
MsgId: <20011023202826...@mb-cc.aol.com>
Newsgroups: alt.showbiz.gossip
References:
<8397-3BD...@storefull-113.iap.bryant.webtv.net>Subject: Re: Same
ol' ASG
Date: 24 Oct 2001 00:28:26 GMT
From: ritah...@aol.com (RitaHansard)
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
MsgId: <20011023202826...@mb-cc.aol.com>
Newsgroups: alt.showbiz.gossip
References:
<8397-3BD...@storefull-113.iap.bryant.webtv.net>Subject: Re: Same
ol' ASG
Date: 24 Oct 2001 00:28:26 GMT
From: ritah...@aol.com (RitaHansard)
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
MsgId: <20011023202826...@mb-cc.aol.com>
Newsgroups: alt.showbiz.gossip
References: <8397-3BD...@storefull-113.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
Peep...@webtv.net
>poon at me, is it?
Hmm, looks like the old gal is transferring her lesbian fixation from
Leslie to Lovely Rita.
Quelle surprise.
>>Remember, I found Bloody Bowers, I can
>>find you, too.
>>Boo.
>Uh, cupcake, I just forwarded your
>threatening post and the obscene e-mail
>you sent me to the abuse folks at
>WebTV.
*ROFLOLPMP*
>You're really dumb, aren't you?
ATTA girl, Proxie. Rita hasn't posted from WTV in ages.
D-u-h.
Zip hugs, ditzoid,
Janice
Reets
> Neener neener.
Reets
RitaHansard
>Leslie to Lovely Rita.
Let my Hogarth go.
MLYoung
>
>> Neener neener.
>
>Reets
>
And another one-note performance from
the li'l Eureka lemon.
--margaret
Reets
Still trying to have the last word? Now go look up William Hogarth.
Reets
Peep...@webtv.net
>ill trying to have the last word? Now go
>look up William Hog
Why so bitter, sour one?
--margaret
Peep...@webtv.net
>Let my Hogarth go.
Poor l'il trash troll. Poor little lying Christian. You're really not
very bright, are you?
Where's your evidence I stalked Hoggy and made those harassing phone
calls?
In other words, you don't have any.
So stop libeling me, l'il lying trash troll.
Christians don't lie and make up false accusations. A real Christian
would know that.
And, Hoggy, real lawyers don't answer their own phones. A real lawyer
would know that. And sorry Shrieksy, lawyers don't work on Wednesdays. A
person who really knew lawyers would know that.
Now Ritatroll since your pal Judy seems to like blackmail, my husband's
name is Ronald Dior. He's a programmer.
--margaret (And, Judy, real journalists don't blackmail people. A real
journalist would know that.)
MLYoung
>>>
>>>Reets
>>>
>>
>>And another one-note performance from
>>the li'l Eureka lemon.
>>
>>--margaret
>
>Still trying to have the last word?
Your obsession, Reetsy. Not mine.
> Now go look up William Hogarth.
Ah, yes, let's discuss English painting.
I confess that the only English painter
who really knocks my socks off is
Turner. I once saw a series of his
watercolors at the old Tate and it
just blew me away. It's really amazing
to me how much he was on the same
wavelength as the Impressionists 50
years ahead of schedule.
Hogarth, on the other hand . . . well,
an art historian I once knew said that
the English produced great writers
instead of great painters because the
culture tended to focus on narrative
art. Hogarth, of course, is an example
of this. His paintings are effective
satires, but as paintings, well, I just
don't find them that interesting. They
don't solve any particular *art* problem.
That said, I never did ferret out *The
Rake's Progress* while I was in London.
Perhaps his work is more effective
when an entire series is viewed.
What do you think, Reetsy? Why is
it do you suppose that there's a lack
of great English painters? In contrast,
Holland has provided several, but no
Dutch novelists or poets of comparable
stature.
Why does one nation give us Vermeer
and the other Shakespeare?
--margaret
>
>Reets
WTF
It does seem that PeepPeep has turned into Margaret.
Peep...@webtv.net
>>--margaret
>
>
>hat PeepPeep has turned
>into Margaret.
Snort.
You don't know how to read headers, do you, little cowardly anonymous
one?
--margaret
MLYoung
Shrieks would rather be anyone than
who she is.
--margaret
>
Peep...@webtv.net
<facile Art 101 spew snipped>
*ROFLOL*
Cupcake, you didn't even know who Wm. Hogarth was a couple yrs. ago.
Time to bluff re: another subject, n'est-ce pas......?!
Helping hugs,
MLYoung
>>Uh, cupcake, I just forwarded your
>>threatening post and the obscene e-mail
>>you sent me to the abuse folks at
>>WebTV.
I've made no such post since Rita's
posted on AOL.
>
>*ROFLOLPMP*
>
>>You're really dumb, aren't you?
>
>ATTA girl, Proxie. Rita hasn't posted from WTV in ages.
That's right, so why are you forging
posts?
--margaret
>
>D-u-h.
>
>
>Zip hugs, ditzoid,
>Janice
>
>--
>
>GO Green!! GO, Ralph!!
> http://www.votenader.com/
>(-)> *peep* (-)> *peep* (-)> *muckmouth*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Subject: Re: Sam
MLYoung
>
><facile Art 101 spew snipped>
Hardly, dear. Art 101 tends to be
drawing. You're confusing Art with
Art History.
Art History 101, of course, doesn't
generally touch on English painters--
except, perhaps, for some of the
innovations in portraiture.
>
>*ROFLOL*
>
>Cupcake, you didn't even know who Wm. Hogarth was a couple yrs. ago.
Ah, but I did, silly troll. I just didn't
make the association. After all, it's
not as if "Hogarth" shared any of
the painter's characteristics.
>Time to bluff re: another subject, n'est-ce pas......?!
Oh, I think not. Reets wants to discuss
English painting, I'm more than willing.
I'm particularly partial to the
Pre-Raphaelites. They weren't really
good painters, but I like their passion.
I've always liked Rossetti's Beata Beatrix--
even though it's really depressing if you
think about what it represents.
So wasn't there some Ken Russell
movie or TV thing about
the Pre-Raphaelites which showed
Rossetti exhuming his wife to get
his poems?
Shrieks, you might remember, it was
back in your heyday, I believe.
--margaret
>
>
>Helping hugs,
>Janice
Peep...@webtv.net
>
>That's right, so why are you forging
>p
Uh, no, dizzy one. You don't know what forging posts means.
--margaret
MLYoung
Poor Shrieks. It's so easy to see when
I've touched a nerve.
Seriously, my dear, did you really think
*anyone* bought your 20-something
act? I'm amazed you're so attached to it.
Well, maybe not amazed.
--margaret
>
>
Peep...@webtv.net
>>It does seem that PeepPeep has turned
>>into Margaret.
Well, I'm getting ready for Halloween. I can't decide if I should go as
REAR WINDOW's "Miss Lonelyhearts" or as a strait-jacketed pt. @ Longview
pram-pushing a baked ham.....
(?!)
>Shrieks would rather be anyone than
>who she is.
Those *are* the rules, pumkin.
Given *your* size (&, thus, your limitations) , I suggest you
spraypraint yourself gray & go as (the USS) "Sara".
YAY!!
Hugs,
Janice, who'll be happy to christen you.
;-)
Peep...@webtv.net
>Oh, I think not. Reets wants to discuss
>English painting, I'm more than willing to
>be her marionette.
>I'm particularly partial to the
>Pre-Reetsites. They weren't really
>good chain-yankers, but I like their passion.
>I've always liked Reets' Longview
>Tableau
>even though it's really depressing if you
>think about what it represents.
>
>So wasn't there some Ken Russell
>movie or TV thing about
>the Pre-Raphaelites which showed
>Rossetti exhuming his wife to get
>his poems?
>
>Shrieking Me might remember, it was
>back in my heyday, I believe.
They didn't have TV back in your heyday, Maggie. HTH
Meph
Formally Peep
-----------
ninety7gt
Peep...@webtv.net
>>Cupcake, you didn't even know who
>>William Hogarth was a couple yrs. ago. >
>Ah, but I did, silly troll. I just didn't
>make the association.
You're very stupid, we know.
Hugs of appreciation,
William Shakespeare, Esq.
MLYoung
>LDin...@aol.comZAPTHIS wrote:
>
>>Oh, I think not. Reets wants to discuss
>>English painting, I'm more than willing to
>>be her marionette.
>>I'm particularl
I didn't think you knew art, Shrieks.
I was right.
--margaret
MLYoung
>Poor Marge:
>
>>>Cupcake, you didn't even know who
>>>William Hogarth was a couple yrs. ago. >
>>Ah, but I did, silly troll. I just didn't
>>make the association.
>
>You're very stupid, we
In other words, you don't know much
about art. If you did, you'd try to show
off the way you usually do.
--margaret
Peep...@webtv.net
>I've touched a ne
Not now, Youngsy. I've got a diaper to change.
--margaret