Droopy is indeed, a 5'8" wimp that needs his guns to feel like a man
Steven Canyon
Droopus wrote:
>
>Steven Canyon wrote:
>> >A) I'm 140 pounds? Cite. I'm 5' 7"? Cite. Otherwise it's just another
>> >in a long list of your lies.
>
>> Go ahead and deny it, Droopy. You and I both know it's true and
>> you'll have to see for yourself if I have proof.
>
>What the fuck does my size have to do with anything? Oook.You fucking
>Neanderthal.
Your size seems to be a very big deal Droops. That's why you need a
bunch of guns to prop up your masculine self image.
>As for denying anything, <cough> I don't give interviews, you liar.
>
It's good that you don't deny it, Droops.. A wise move on your
part....
Because I have a cite, you see.
http://www.darknet.com/2005/05/
Where there is a paragraph about you that says:
I guess you can call me a true double agent, says Forest, outfitted in
jeans, casual nylon shirt, and tan socks. He stretches out his
5-foot-8 frame and perches his shoeless feet atop a desk. I lead a
very comfortable double life.
--
First I nailed Droopus to the floor with his claim that he
could see my MAC address when I was posting through a dialup.
Then I smacked him with his claim that a computer had a
MAC address besides the ones on my NIC.
And now I kicked his butt about his claim that the Ruger
P-series .40 cals only take 10 round mags."
I'd say that Droopus has had three strikes dealing with me
and now he's out...
You Know Who
>Your size seems to be a very big deal Droops.
But mostly to you. Did he scorn your advances, is that why you're
upset?
Eagle Eye
Canyon <steven...@yaa.hoo> wrote:
>Droopus wrote:
>>Steven Canyon wrote:
>>> >A) I'm 140 pounds? Cite. I'm 5' 7"? Cite. Otherwise it's just
>>> >another in a long list of your lies.
>>> Go ahead and deny it, Droopy. You and I both know it's true
>>> and you'll have to see for yourself if I have proof.
>>What the fuck does my size have to do with anything? Oook.You
>>fucking Neanderthal.
>Your size seems to be a very big deal Droops.
Not to me. Nor have I seen anything from Droopus to indicate he
thinks it's a big deal.
>That's why you need a bunch of guns to prop up your masculine self
>image.
Don't you have a bunch of guns, Steve?
None of that says anything about your or Droopus' masculinity,
in my opinion.
[snip]
=====
EE
steven...@yahoo.com
>Not to me. Nor have I seen anything from Droopus to indicate he
>thinks it's a big deal.
He denied it, didn't he? Even after I provided a cite he claimed they
were "masking" his height for security reaons even though they used his
name.<LOL>
>>That's why you need a bunch of guns to prop up your masculine self
>>image.
>
>Don't you have a bunch of guns, Steve?
Yeah, the difference is that mine spend their lives in boxes whereas he
claims to shooot thousands of rounds regularly.
>None of that says anything about your or Droopus' masculinity,
>in my opinion.
Of course not, but my relating his guns to his insecurities about his
masculinity is getting under his skin, which suggests that there are
some of those insecurities lurking there and the guns are probably an
attempt to bolster it. It's a case of proteting a bit too much
Eagle Eye
steven...@yahoo.com <steven...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Eagle Eye wrote:
>>Steve Canyon wrote:
>>>That's why you need a bunch of guns to prop up your masculine
>>>self image.
>>Don't you have a bunch of guns, Steve?
>Yeah, the difference is that mine spend their lives in boxes
>whereas he claims to shooot thousands of rounds regularly.
He does CLAIM to be an avid shooter. But I'm not so sure that
is the case.
After he made a cryptic suggestion about his current occupation,
the thought occurred to me that he might be pretending to be a gung
ho gun enthusiast. Some of his remarks about the NRA and the
"Brady bunch" sounded like he was trying too hard, kind of like a
narc who uses slang in a clumsy way.
I figured if he is for real, one would expect to find old posts of
his in which he discussed his guns, competitive shooting, and the
like, expressing similar sentiments as he does now. But when I
searched in Google for old articles in which he mentioned "NRA" or
"Brady" (two words he sprinkles in his contemporary posts in that
clumsy, narcish way), I did not find any. Instead, I found this:
... anyone who opposes abortion and owns a gun, or does not
actively fight for total criminalization of firearms ownership by
civilians is a murdering pig, plain and simple.
-- Bruce Forest 3/26/1998 http://tinyurl.com/7h2py
and, this:
But guns are only designed for one thing: to kill. Nothing else.
Sure they're used for target and skeet shooting, but they are
designed to kill, and that is their main use. They are not
necessary for private citizens to own, imo.
-- Bruce Forest 3/28/1998 http://tinyurl.com/d2brv
Curiouser and curiouser!
I think I'll simply wait to see his explanation of his radical
shift in viewpoint before saying anything more.
[snip]
=====
EE
steven...@yahoo.com
a...@no-spam-panix.com Jun 28, 4:26 pm show options
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns, talk.politics.misc,
alt.politics.usa.republican, alt.society.liberalism
From: <a...@no-spam-panix.com> - Find messages by this author
Date: 28 Jun 2005 16:26:52 -0400
Local: Tues,Jun 28 2005 4:26 pm
Subject: Re: Droopy is indeed, a 5'8" wimp that needs his guns to feel
like a man
>I think it suggests you are trolling.
It looks like I hooked a really big phony too.
steven...@yahoo.com
Wow, I had a hunch that Forest was big phony but I had no idea that he
was as bog a phiny as this....
Steve
NoC...@gmail.com
Nothing very mysterious. I had an epiphany in around 1999 that got me
into shooting. I know it's way beneath you and your sterling integrity
<cough>, but some people do have changes in opinion, you know?
You sure are interested in me, though...going back over all my past
posts. Sorry, I'm not gay though. ;)
Ask Steve, he might be interested. You two seem rather close anyway.
You Know Who
>>Eagle Eye wrote:
>> I think I'll simply wait to see his explanation of his radical
>> shift in viewpoint before saying anything more.
>
>
>
>Nothing very mysterious. I had an epiphany in around 1999 that got me
>into shooting. I know it's way beneath you and your sterling integrity
><cough>, but some people do have changes in opinion, you know?
Kind of funny really. I mean, what are these assholes HERE for? You'd
think they'd want to argue to convince gun-grabbers to see the error
of their ways, and then if a person changes their mind about guns,
they're STILL villains.
Fuck 'em.
steven...@yahoo.com
Bruce Forest wrote:
Nothing very mysterious. I had an epiphany in around 1999 that got me
into shooting. I know it's way beneath you and your sterling integrity
<cough>, but some people do have changes in opinion, you know?
<LOL> It just confirms what I always figured... That Forest is a
bag of warm air.
--
First I nailed Droopus to the floor with his claim that he
could see my MAC address when I was posting through a dialup.
Then I smacked him with his claim that a computer had a
MAC address besides the ones on my NIC.
Then I kicked his butt about his claim that the Ruger
P-series .40 cals only take 10 round mags."
So now I posted a cite that confirms that he's a 5'8" wimpish
weakling in spite of his claims to the contrary.
I'd say that Droopus has had four strikes dealing with me
and now he's out... No wonder he's changing his name.
You Know Who
<steven...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Bruce Forest wrote:
>
>Nothing very mysterious. I had an epiphany in around 1999 that got me
>into shooting. I know it's way beneath you and your sterling integrity
><cough>, but some people do have changes in opinion, you know?
>
><LOL> It just confirms what I always figured... That Forest is a
>bag of warm air.
It confirms what I figured. He's capable of learning. You aren't.
Steven Canyon
<LOL> Too bad he never learned that you can't track a MAC address
through a dialup....
Too bad that he never learned that NICs have MAC addresses, not
computers..
Too bad that he didn't learn that Ruger .40 cal P-series took 11rd
clips until it was too late.
Too bad that he didn't learn not to attacking people like me who are
vastly more intelligent than him and believe in slapping attackers
really hard.
You Know Who
>On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 14:21:57 -0700, You Know Who
><vous_sa...@i-hate-france.com> wrote:
>
>>In talk.politics.GUNS, "steven...@yahoo.com"
>><steven...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Bruce Forest wrote:
>>>
>>>Nothing very mysterious. I had an epiphany in around 1999 that got me
>>>into shooting. I know it's way beneath you and your sterling integrity
>>><cough>, but some people do have changes in opinion, you know?
>>>
>>><LOL> It just confirms what I always figured... That Forest is a
>>>bag of warm air.
>>
>>It confirms what I figured. He's capable of learning. You aren't.
>
>
><LOL> Too bad
You can't accept that people can learn and change their minds. Why is
that? Is that why you follow him around like a lost kitten? You're
jealous?
Steven Canyon
<vous_sa...@i-hate-france.com> wrote:
>In talk.politics.GUNS, Steven Canyon <steven...@yaa.hoo> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 14:21:57 -0700, You Know Who
>><vous_sa...@i-hate-france.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In talk.politics.GUNS, "steven...@yahoo.com"
>>><steven...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Bruce Forest wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Nothing very mysterious. I had an epiphany in around 1999 that got me
>>>>into shooting. I know it's way beneath you and your sterling integrity
>>>><cough>, but some people do have changes in opinion, you know?
>>>>
>>>><LOL> It just confirms what I always figured... That Forest is a
>>>>bag of warm air.
>>>
>>>It confirms what I figured. He's capable of learning. You aren't.
>>
>>
>><LOL> Too bad
>
>You can't accept that people can learn and change their minds. Why is
>that? Is that why you follow him around like a lost kitten? You're
>jealous?
I'm beginning to think you and he have something going.... Maybe you
like to play with his err, (ahem) guns..
--
Steve
zo...@yahoo.com
This newsgroup is great will all the spam. Add in obsessive stalkers
like you trying to prove that they're more manly than their targets, we
have a wonderful non-forum for non-discussion. Hey, I'm not
complaining, really. Carry on with your good works.
<LOL>
Bla bla bla
>
> --
>
> Steve
You Know Who
>On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 15:19:35 -0700, You Know Who
><vous_sa...@i-hate-france.com> wrote:
>
>>In talk.politics.GUNS, Steven Canyon <steven...@yaa.hoo> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 14:21:57 -0700, You Know Who
>>><vous_sa...@i-hate-france.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In talk.politics.GUNS, "steven...@yahoo.com"
>>>><steven...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Bruce Forest wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>Nothing very mysterious. I had an epiphany in around 1999 that got me
>>>>>into shooting. I know it's way beneath you and your sterling integrity
>>>>><cough>, but some people do have changes in opinion, you know?
>>>>>
>>>>><LOL> It just confirms what I always figured... That Forest is a
>>>>>bag of warm air.
>>>>
>>>>It confirms what I figured. He's capable of learning. You aren't.
>>>
>>>
>>><LOL> Too bad
>>
>>You can't accept that people can learn and change their minds. Why is
>>that? Is that why you follow him around like a lost kitten? You're
>>jealous?
>
>I'm beginning to think you and he have something going
I figured your thoughts might be of a homosexual bent. Thanks for the
confirmation.
steven...@yahoo.com
tell your little friend Forest to come out from under his rock where
he's hiding so I can slap him some more.....
Steve
Eagle Eye
If so, that's an amazingly radical shift in viewpoint.
As you'd expect, I'm highly skeptical.
From your recent posts in the serialized ammunition threads
and in your flamewars with Steve, I had the impression that
you had been collecting firearms for many years (since before
the AWB) and were involved in competitive shooting for quite
a while. I would never have guessed less than six years!
What with all the guns you own, your gun safes, the
dedicated gun room in your basement, your gun box under the
bed, and all that, I didn't figure you for a neophyte.
Hmmm.
[snipadhominem]
>some people do have changes in opinion, you know?
Sure. My own political viewpoints have changed quite a bit over
the years, but not nearly so radically and generally over the
course of years or even decades after carefully and critically
analyzing those beliefs.
Do you hold radical viewpoints in general? When you change your
mind on a particular matter, does that usually involve an
extreme shift? Do you judge the morality or competence of other
individuals in stark black and white contrasts? I'm seriously
trying to figure you out, not trying to imply anything horrible
here. I'm fascinated by what motivates people to hold their
political beliefs.
>You sure are interested in me, though...going back over all my
>past posts.
I am skeptical of your claims, considering how many of your stories
have holes in them. To find the above cited articles, I looked at
a small sampling containing those keywords ("Brady OR NRA")
ocurring more than a couple years in the past. It really didn't
take that long.
That being said, I have other things to attend to now and our
adversarial exchanges are becoming increasingly meaningless.
I'm going to throttle back my involvement for the near future.
I'm disappointed that I couldn't convince you to apologize for
lying about Steve being legally prohibited from keeping firearms.
But that's your loss, not mine.
[snipnonsense]
=====
EE
Eagle Eye
>>>Eagle Eye wrote:
>>> I think I'll simply wait to see his explanation of his radical
>>> shift in viewpoint before saying anything more.
>>Nothing very mysterious. I had an epiphany in around 1999 that
>>got me into shooting. I know it's way beneath you and your
>>sterling integrity <cough>, but some people do have changes in
>>opinion, you know?
>Kind of funny really.
You're not at all skeptical that he went from declaring in 1998
that civilians should not have guns at all to claiming to have
several guns, gun safes, gun boxes, a gun ROOM in his basement,
multi-state CCWs (for years), etc. and denouncing "gun grabbers"
and the "Brady bunch" as total idiots?
If so, I'd like to speak with you about a great investment
opportunity.
>I mean, what are these assholes HERE for? You'd think they'd want
>to argue to convince gun-grabbers to see the error of their ways,
>and then if a person changes their mind about guns, they're STILL
>villains.
Strawman.
Who is calling Droopus/NoCeeM of being a villain for his current
enthusiasm for private ownership of firearms and competitive
shooting? Nobody that I can see.
If the guy sincerely made such a radical change in his view of
private ownership of guns, I for one applaud his newfound
sensibility. But I'm not ignoring the other possibilities. At
this point, I don't know what to make of it all.
=====
EE
You Know Who
wrote:
>In article <1119992898.50fe9f5282466fb74be27c30a8dbe3db@teranews>
>You Know Who <vous_sa...@i-hate-france.com> wrote:
>>In talk.politics.GUNS, NoC...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>Eagle Eye wrote:
>>>> I think I'll simply wait to see his explanation of his radical
>>>> shift in viewpoint before saying anything more.
>>>Nothing very mysterious. I had an epiphany in around 1999 that
>>>got me into shooting. I know it's way beneath you and your
>>>sterling integrity <cough>, but some people do have changes in
>>>opinion, you know?
>>Kind of funny really.
>
>You're not at all skeptical that he went from declaring in 1998
>that civilians should not have guns at all to claiming to have
>several guns, gun safes, gun boxes, a gun ROOM in his basement,
>multi-state CCWs (for years), etc. and denouncing "gun grabbers"
>and the "Brady bunch" as total idiots?
No, why should I be? I've done a 180 on several things over the past
years. It's called growth. Try it.
>If so, I'd like to speak with you about a great investment
>opportunity.
Go ahead.
>
>>I mean, what are these assholes HERE for? You'd think they'd want
>>to argue to convince gun-grabbers to see the error of their ways,
>>and then if a person changes their mind about guns, they're STILL
>>villains.
>
>Strawman.
Truth. Suck it up birdman.
You Know Who
>>>I'm beginning to think you and he have something going
>>
>>I figured your thoughts might be of a homosexual bent. Thanks for the
>>confirmation.
>Hey vous_savez ..whatever..
>
>tell your little friend Forest to come out from under his rock where
>he's hiding so I can slap him some more.....
Oh, was that a little too close to the bone for ya, Steve? Are you
harboring some homosexual tendencies you'd like to share?
Well don't, OK? Try keeping that shit to yourself. Give us more pirate
stories.
Steven Canyon
Say, I wonder how you get paid for being the official protector of the
wimpy little twit, Bruce Forest? Does he get down on his knees for
you?
--
Steve
You Know Who
Your jealousy is transparent. More pirate stories.
Oh, and, try putting some WOMEN in them this time, OK?
r_c_...@hushmail.com
It happens. Years ago, I was in favor of "gun control", up to and
including bans. It wasn't a fanatically held belief, to be sure; it
just seemed like the right way to go. Then I put some serious effort
into learning about the subject (and some of the underlying principles
involved), and discovered that my previous position was wrong.
droopus
Eagle Eye wrote:
> In article <1119992898.50fe9f5282466fb74be27c30a8dbe3db@teranews>
> You Know Who <vous_sa...@i-hate-france.com> wrote:
> >In talk.politics.GUNS, NoC...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>Eagle Eye wrote:
> >>> I think I'll simply wait to see his explanation of his radical
> >>> shift in viewpoint before saying anything more.
> >>Nothing very mysterious. I had an epiphany in around 1999 that
> >>got me into shooting. I know it's way beneath you and your
> >>sterling integrity <cough>, but some people do have changes in
> >>opinion, you know?
> >Kind of funny really.
>
> You're not at all skeptical that he went from declaring in 1998
> that civilians should not have guns at all to claiming to have
> several guns, gun safes, gun boxes, a gun ROOM in his basement,
Used to be my tool room. Many people have them. I just changed the door
frame and door, and installed the safes. Financial constraints are not
an issue for me.
> multi-state CCWs (for years), etc. and denouncing "gun grabbers"
> and the "Brady bunch" as total idiots?
They are, imho. I was just such an idiot at one point too. I
reconsidered my position over a period of a year or so.
> If so, I'd like to speak with you about a great investment
> opportunity.
No thanks. I'm fine.
> >I mean, what are these assholes HERE for? You'd think they'd want
> >to argue to convince gun-grabbers to see the error of their ways,
> >and then if a person changes their mind about guns, they're STILL
> >villains.
>
> Strawman.
>
> Who is calling Droopus/NoCeeM of being a villain for his current
> enthusiasm for private ownership of firearms and competitive
> shooting? Nobody that I can see.
Thank you. I work very hard at competitive shooting especially.
> If the guy sincerely made such a radical change in his view of
> private ownership of guns, I for one applaud his newfound
> sensibility.
Thank you again. Many people, my wife and parents included, were as
suprised as you. But I did indeed do a 180 about firearms, train
heavily (and have for years) and try to learn as much as I can every
time I go to the range or a match. Each round teaches me something.
> But I'm not ignoring the other possibilities. At
> this point, I don't know what to make of it all.
I may be able to help you make some sense of it. You have only
experienced my usenet postings for a week or two and take Steve's
opinion that I am a none-too-bright drooling moron as truth.
Though Steve will come up with some puerile nonsense, I am none of the
above. I graduated college at 18, high school at 15, and am on my third
career. You seem to be a competent searcher. Try searching the web for
my name in quotes and you will see literally millions of references to
my varied careers, and you will find, they are not made up. Much as
Steve tries to prove oherwise, everything I say I do, I have done. Even
the book he used to supposedly "cite" my height has an entire chapter
written about me and my current work. If you have Lexis-Nexis access,
search for my real name. I have over 15,000 press mentions.
I am a voracious serial learner, and try to absorb as much knowledge as
I can in the short time I've been given on this earth. I raced Formula
Dodge until the cost and two severe accidents made me give it up in
1999, so shooting became my next "hobby," then I got very serious about
it (as shooters SHOULD be.) I will probably shoot the rest of my life,
but will certainly take on other activities as i grow older.
I would happily discuss this with you further, but I don't want Mr
Canyonero to start making smarmy remarks about other things I'd tell
you. In fact, the very first usenet conversation Canyon and I had was
about our mutual love of sailing. He chose not to continue the
discussion (rather rudely), but the simple truth is, I am very
passionate about life, tend to dive in headfirst into any pursuit I
find interesting, and there are SO many interesting things in life that
I have yet to do.
I hope this has given you a slight bit of insight.
steven...@yahoo.com
This is bullshit. Bruce Forest was a Disk Jockey back when he was
first pirating music. That's how he got involved in the pirating
business. Now the fact that he actually thought he could bullshit me
with his moronic claims about my firewall and his ignorance on the
subject of MAC addresses (see below) tells you all you want to know
about Mr Forest. He's nothing more than an internet poser.
"As I said, I portscanned you while you were throwing rocks at
others. Dynamic IP's don't help, cause as soon as you post to
Agent, I confirm your MAC addy and off I go....
Even wrote a little PERL script to tell me when you're scannable."
--Droopus Poopus
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=54136b51.0407191118.5057fc4d%40posting.google.com
"EVERY node on the internet has a MAC address. I don't give a
shit about your modem, your computer has a hardware MAC
address that is your "identity" on the net."
--Droopus
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=54136b51.0407191755.220bcb52%40posting.google.com
"Steve, I said you were dialup, hence your massively dynamic IPs. I
know POTS modems don't have MAC addresses but your COMPUTER
does."
--Droopus
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=54136b51.0407192257.74d264a0%40posting.google.com
Droopus: "You think your computer doesn't have a MAC address?
Open a DOS window. Type ipconfig /all."
Canyon: "<LOL> that's the addresses of the NICs, you hapless
moron."
Droopus: "No it isn't, unless you are using 95 or something.
Your computer's MAC address will show up as well."
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=54136b51.0407192257.74d264a0%40posting.google.com
steven...@yahoo.com
>Eagle eye wrote:
...I was curious when Forest said that we'd spoken before about sailing
and I went back to check. and found the following....
"Nah, too busy cleaning my weapons dude. I'm not afraid of
anything that comes near my property, I've had my Expert
Marksman qualification(rifle, pistol) for twenty years."
--droopus...@netscape.net (Droopus)
Date: 1 Apr 2003 10:20:11 -0800
So here's more proof that Forest is a poser. He claimed in 2003 that
he'd been a shooter fore twenty years and just now claimed that he'd
only been involved with guns since 1999.
Gotcha one more time, Droopy
Steve
droopus
Ohoh boy you sure nailed me. That was a SUMMER CAMP qualification,
numbnuts. I was like 14. I thought you knew something about guns?
droopus
steven...@yahoo.com wrote:
> This is bullshit. Bruce Forest was a Disk Jockey back when he was
> first pirating music. That's how he got involved in the pirating
> business. Now the fact that he actually thought he could bullshit me
> with his moronic claims about my firewall and his ignorance on the
> subject of MAC addresses (see below) tells you all you want to know
> about Mr Forest. He's nothing more than an internet poser.
Can you read? I was a club DJ (as it says all over the web) from
1980-1988. NO ONE was pirating music back then. I then became a
producer, sold 40 million records (again as it says all over the web)
then quit and went into web development around 1993. I only started
anti work in the late 90's. (AGAIN< as it says all over the web.) I
assume you think I made up all 1.5 million references.
Put on your glasses before reading next time, idiot.
droopus
not the most honest thing I could have said at the time and for that I
was wrong and I apologize. I had only been shooting seriously for four
years and at that time it really was my only earned qualification, even
though I had begun training in earnest (I did the classifiers for IDPA
and IPSC in early 2004.)
So while I did earn the certificate when I was young (and was very
proud of it at the time), there was a long period where I was very
antigun. I since have changed that opinion as I said, and probably was
reacting to one of Steve's insults so used the one qual I had earned.
It was the wrong thing to do, and if I had the chance to respond to
that post again, I would not have done the same thing.
For THAT I apologize, Steve. It is true, but it was used dishonestly.
Eagle Eye
You Know Who <vous_sa...@i-hate-france.com> wrote:
>In talk.politics.GUNS, Eagle Eye <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
>wrote:
>>In article <1119992898.50fe9f5282466fb74be27c30a8dbe3db@teranews>
>>You Know Who <vous_sa...@i-hate-france.com> wrote:
>>>In talk.politics.GUNS, NoC...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>Eagle Eye wrote:
>>>>> I think I'll simply wait to see his explanation of his radical
>>>>> shift in viewpoint before saying anything more.
>>>>Nothing very mysterious. I had an epiphany in around 1999 that
>>>>got me into shooting. I know it's way beneath you and your
>>>>sterling integrity <cough>, but some people do have changes in
>>>>opinion, you know?
>>>Kind of funny really.
>>You're not at all skeptical that he went from declaring in 1998
>>that civilians should not have guns at all to claiming to have
>>several guns, gun safes, gun boxes, a gun ROOM in his basement,
>>multi-state CCWs (for years), etc. and denouncing "gun grabbers"
>>and the "Brady bunch" as total idiots?
>No, why should I be? I've done a 180 on several things over the past
>years.
To this extreme?
I'm not saying it couldn't happen. Larry Flynt got religion once,
after all.
>It's called growth. Try it.
There's a difference between growth and an extremely radical
transformation. I prefer sensible growth. It also helps not
to be an idiot in the first place.
Still, the fact that Bruce lied about scanning Steve's computer
and falsely accused him of being prohibited by law from keeping
firearms should in the very least give you pause. I realize
you probably do not like Steve, but you should make your
judgements based upon rationality not personality.
>>If so, I'd like to speak with you about a great investment
>>opportunity.
>Go ahead.
<laugh>
>>>I mean, what are these assholes HERE for? You'd think they'd want
>>>to argue to convince gun-grabbers to see the error of their ways,
>>>and then if a person changes their mind about guns, they're STILL
>>>villains.
>>Strawman.
>Truth.
Here is where you get to provide a cite of someone actually treating
Bruce as a villian because he is now advocating private ownership of
firearms and criticizing gun control proponents:
Well?
I guess you weren't posting "truth" afterall, huh?
=====
EE
Eagle Eye
droopus <NoC...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Eagle Eye wrote:
>> In article
>> <1119992898.50fe9f5282466fb74be27c30a8dbe3db@teranews> You Know
>> Who <vous_sa...@i-hate-france.com> wrote:
>> >In talk.politics.GUNS, NoC...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >>>Eagle Eye wrote:
>> >>> I think I'll simply wait to see his explanation of his
>> >>> radical shift in viewpoint before saying anything more.
>> >>Nothing very mysterious. I had an epiphany in around 1999 that
>> >>got me into shooting. I know it's way beneath you and your
>> >>sterling integrity <cough>, but some people do have changes in
>> >>opinion, you know?
>> >Kind of funny really.
>> You're not at all skeptical that he went from declaring in 1998
>> that civilians should not have guns at all to claiming to have
>> several guns, gun safes, gun boxes, a gun ROOM in his basement,
>> multi-state CCWs (for years), etc. and denouncing "gun grabbers"
>> and the "Brady bunch" as total idiots?
>They are, imho. I was just such an idiot at one point too. I
>reconsidered my position over a period of a year or so.
Please explain something. You claimed to have had an epiphany in
1999, at which point you changed from being a "gun grabber" to a
sport shooter. But in 2003, you posted this:
Nah, too busy cleaning my weapons dude. I'm not afraid of
anything that comes near my property, I've had my Expert
Marksman qualification (rifle, pistol) for twenty years. Wanna
try another angle to call me a coward?
-- Droopus 4/1/2003 http://tinyurl.com/dsjdb
Was that an April Fool's Day prank?
[snip]
>> But I'm not ignoring the other possibilities. At this point, I
>> don't know what to make of it all.
>I may be able to help you make some sense of it. You have only
>experienced my usenet postings for a week or two and take Steve's
>opinion that I am a none-too-bright drooling moron as truth.
You're not a moron. It takes at least a decent level of
intelligence to be able to bullshit like you have.
>Though Steve will come up with some puerile nonsense, I am none of
>the above. I graduated college at 18, high school at 15, and am on
>my third career. You seem to be a competent searcher. Try
>searching the web for my name in quotes and you will see literally
>millions of references to my varied careers, and you will find,
>they are not made up. Much as Steve tries to prove oherwise,
>everything I say I do, I have done. Even the book he used to
>supposedly "cite" my height has an entire chapter written about me
>and my current work. If you have Lexis-Nexis access, search for
>my real name. I have over 15,000 press mentions.
If that's true, then you deserve a hearty slap on the back and an
"atta boy!" Congratulations on whatever part of that is real.
And yet, and yet, the more your claims about yourself are true, the
more perplexing your lies and silly games become. Why the hell
would you feel the need to try to impress people on newsgroups with
that sort of crap if you're such a great guy?
>I am a voracious serial learner, and try to absorb as much
>knowledge as I can in the short time I've been given on this
>earth. I raced Formula Dodge until the cost and two severe
>accidents made me give it up in 1999, so shooting became my next
>"hobby," then I got very serious about it (as shooters SHOULD be.)
>I will probably shoot the rest of my life, but will certainly take
>on other activities as i grow older.
>
>I would happily discuss this with you further,
I'd rather know what drove you to change from calling gun owners
murderers to being a competitive shooter? I'd also like to know
what motivates you to spend your time amongst the bourgeois,
telling stories with major technical flaws and slinging false
accusations at opponents, or why so many sockpuppets seem to show
up in your threads.
>but I don't want Mr Canyonero to start making smarmy remarks about
>other things I'd tell you.
Why would you care? You've got more degrees than him, a higher IQ,
more guns, better shooting abilities, and you're as tall as George
W. Bush (5'11"--I looked it up). Why, a man with all that doesn't
even need to read what "Mr. Canyonero" writes. He certainly
doesn't need to pretend to be scanning his computer or falsely
claiming in public that the guy is a (convicted) felon.
>In fact, the very first usenet conversation Canyon and I had was
>about our mutual love of sailing. He chose not to continue the
>discussion (rather rudely), but the simple truth is, I am very
>passionate about life, tend to dive in headfirst into any pursuit
>I find interesting, and there are SO many interesting things in
>life that I have yet to do.
So what interests you about fantastic tales of port scanning or
using sockpuppets? Gosh, I would have figured those would be far
too prosaic for your vigorous lifestyle.
>I hope this has given you a slight bit of insight.
Yes, but now I have bunches of new questions.
<sigh>
=====
EE
Eagle Eye
droopus <NoC...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Having thought about this for an hour or two, I have to admit, it
>was not the most honest thing I could have said at the time and
>for that I was wrong and I apologize. I had only been shooting
>seriously for four years and at that time it really was my only
>earned qualification, even though I had begun training in earnest
>(I did the classifiers for IDPA and IPSC in early 2004.)
While I'm on the subject, you probably have never been to a gun
club or IDPA/IPSC match. ... ALL of them are serious people
with safety so preeminent in their minds, that the slightest
HINT of lax safety would result instant ostracization and
ejection of the competitor. Yet in all the years I've shot these
events I've never seen such a thing happen.
-- Droopus 6/7/2005 http://tinyurl.com/bkqut
"... all the years ..." "... early 2004."
Curiouser and curiouser!
>So while I did earn the certificate when I was young (and was very
>proud of it at the time), there was a long period where I was very
>antigun. I since have changed that opinion as I said, and probably
>was reacting to one of Steve's insults so used the one qual I had
>earned. It was the wrong thing to do, and if I had the chance to
>respond to that post again, I would not have done the same thing.
>
>For THAT I apologize, Steve. It is true, but it was used
>dishonestly.
I'm telling you, if you just write what you know is true you don't
have to spend your time trying to reconcile all these inconsistencies.
=====
EE
Eagle Eye
droopus <NoC...@gmail.com> wrote:
>steven...@yahoo.com wrote:
[snip]
>> "Nah, too busy cleaning my weapons dude. I'm not afraid of
>> anything that comes near my property, I've had my Expert
>> Marksman qualification(rifle, pistol) for twenty years."
>> --droopus...@netscape.net (Droopus)
>> Date: 1 Apr 2003 10:20:11 -0800
>>
>> So here's more proof that Forest is a poser. He claimed in 2003 that
>> he'd been a shooter fore twenty years and just now claimed that he'd
>> only been involved with guns since 1999.
>>
>> Gotcha one more time, Droopy
>Ohoh boy you sure nailed me. That was a SUMMER CAMP qualification,
>numbnuts. I was like 14. I thought you knew something about guns?
So in 2003 you were about 34?
=====
EE
steven...@yahoo.com
Steve Canyon wrote:
>> "Nah, too busy cleaning my weapons dude. I'm not afraid of
>> anything that comes near my property, I've had my Expert
>> Marksman qualification(rifle, pistol) for twenty years."
>> --droopus...@netscape.net (Droopus)
>> Date: 1 Apr 2003 10:20:11 -0800
>Ohoh boy you sure nailed me. That was a SUMMER CAMP >qualification,
>numbnuts. I was like 14. I thought you knew something about >guns?
OMG, the Droops is actually going to try to carry that Bullshit around
even though it's very wet and runny and is dripping all over him.
steven...@yahoo.com
It wasn't true at all... You're age doesn't match and to document your
claim you tossed up a website that had to do with playing computer
games..
---------------------------------------------------------------
So you are a pussy armchair warrior. You know nothing about the EM
qualification do you?
http://guides.ign.com/guides/482289/page_4.html
It's the last step before sniper training, you wimp.
---------------------------------------------------------------
--Bruce Forest
<LOL> computer games are about your speed....
Actually, I've nailed you in several dishonest acts Bruce, the one
about you portscanning me, the one about you tracking me through my MAC
address with a perl script, the one where you claimed my name wasn't
Steve, and the one where you claimed I couldn't have a Ruger P-series
40 cal with 11rd clips, the one where you claim to be the same height
as George Bush even though the guy in the book said you were 5'8". The
one where you said your description in the book was cloaked for your
safety even thoiugh he used your name. There's probably more...
I can't imagine why anyone on here would believe a word you say. Bruce,
I sure wouldn't. Another old saying that my Grandmother used to tell
us was "you can't be both honest and dishonest." When I got into
computers in college, I translated that into "Honesty is binary, you're
either one or the other." You're a poser.
After looking back at our conversation in 2003 I see that I had you
pegged for a poser way back then and you've certainly proven it in our
recent encounters.
steven...@yahoo.com
about him being a doctor.....
"I think med school, and over a decade of clinical practice
makes me a bit more educated as to the movements of a fetus
than you are"
--Bruce Forest Jul 24 1996
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.abortion.inequity/msg/0175434991d487de?hl=en
<ROTFLMAO> You have to ask yourself what is the limit of Forest's
fantasy life?
steven...@yahoo.com
It's sort of funny that Forest would spout all these fantastic
achievements and leave out the claim he made back in the 90's that he
has a medical degree...
"I think med school, and over a decade of clinical practice
makes me a bit more educated as to the movements of a fetus
than you are"
--Bruce Forest Jul 24 1996
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.abortion.inequity/msg/0175434991d487de?hl=en
I went to med school, got my degree, and decided not
to continue.
--Bruce Forest Dec 3 1998
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.abortion/msg/cfffe8148be16131?hl=en
"I have a BS in Chemistry (cum laude) and a BS in Physics, both
from S.U.N.Y. I have an MD from NYU."
--Bruce Forest 1996/01/05
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.abortion.inequity/msg/712d94e302261b27?hl=en
It's clear that Forest's only superior quality is that of being a
poseur.
steven...@yahoo.com
>I'd rather know what drove you to change from calling gun owners
>murderers to being a competitive shooter? I'd also like to know
>what motivates you to spend your time amongst the bourgeois,
>telling stories with major technical flaws and slinging false
>accusations at opponents, or why so many sockpuppets seem to >show up in your threads.
It seems that Forest has played this swicheroo game before:
Droopus wrote:
"M is for Malapert" wrote:
> Oh, and there was the time Bruce Forest posed as a
> pro-life doctor who was "gradually" converted to pro-choice - he let several
> posters in on this (unfunny and clumsily executed) jeu d'esprit in advance.
Aw gee it wasn't that bad for the time minxs. If it was now with all
the proxies floating around, no one would ever catch on. And you never
got to see the frothing emails PJ sent me, thinking I was Sneazer. I
thought he was genuinely gonna bust a blood vessel.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.abortion/msg/940088d411cd4a3c?hl=en
You Know Who
wrote:
>In article <1120001665.52e75da1d1547351fc3f4570a8494020@teranews>
>You Know Who <vous_sa...@i-hate-france.com> wrote:
>>In talk.politics.GUNS, Eagle Eye <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
>>wrote:
>>>In article <1119992898.50fe9f5282466fb74be27c30a8dbe3db@teranews>
>>>You Know Who <vous_sa...@i-hate-france.com> wrote:
>>>>In talk.politics.GUNS, NoC...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>Eagle Eye wrote:
>>>>>> I think I'll simply wait to see his explanation of his radical
>>>>>> shift in viewpoint before saying anything more.
>>>>>Nothing very mysterious. I had an epiphany in around 1999 that
>>>>>got me into shooting. I know it's way beneath you and your
>>>>>sterling integrity <cough>, but some people do have changes in
>>>>>opinion, you know?
>>>>Kind of funny really.
>>>You're not at all skeptical that he went from declaring in 1998
>>>that civilians should not have guns at all to claiming to have
>>>several guns, gun safes, gun boxes, a gun ROOM in his basement,
>>>multi-state CCWs (for years), etc. and denouncing "gun grabbers"
>>>and the "Brady bunch" as total idiots?
>>No, why should I be? I've done a 180 on several things over the past
>>years.
>
>To this extreme?
Absolutely.
>I'm not saying it couldn't happen. Larry Flynt got religion once,
>after all.
>
>>It's called growth. Try it.
>
>There's a difference between growth and an extremely radical
>transformation. I prefer sensible growth. It also helps not
>to be an idiot in the first place.
Sure it does. But so what? Are you saying people shouldn't change
their minds if it's too radical a change? They should take it easy
first?
What the hell IS your problem with it, besides suspicion?
droopus
first. It was not for me. In retrospect, it was a very wise decision as
health care has spiraled into the toilet.
Robert Fernandez
Personally I don't think washing out of residency constitutes a
career.
steven...@yahoo.com
time you got your degree in medicine just for kicks, which you then
discarded so you could go out and pursue your disk jockey career....
You're so full of shit that it must run out your ears, Forest.
<LOL> to document your claim of expert marksman you tossed up a
website that had to do with playing computer games.. (as shown below)
---------------------------------------------------------------
So you are a pussy armchair warrior. You know nothing about the EM
qualification do you?
http://guides.ign.com/guides/482289/page_4.html
It's the last step before sniper training, you wimp.
---------------------------------------------------------------
--Bruce Forest
<LOL> computer games are about your speed....
Actually, I've nailed you in several dishonest acts Bruce:
the one about you portscanning me
the one about you tracking me through my MAC address with a perl script
even though I used a dialup with no MAC address.
the one where you claimed that my computer had a MAC address other than
the one that my NICs had.
the one where you claimed that you'd discovered that my name wasn't
Steve,
the one where you claimed I couldn't possibly have a Ruger P-series 40
cal with 11rd clips
the one where you claim to be the same height as George Bush, who is
5'11", even though the guy in the book said you were 5'8" and you
yourself have posted that you were 5'9"
The one where you said your description in the book was cloaked for
your safety even though he used your name.
How about where you claim to have such a superior intellect and yet
I've slapped you silly on each one the above issues
...and now I found were you cheerfully admited to having dishonestly
posed as a pro-life doctor who was "gradually" converted to
pro-choice..
There's probably more...
I can't imagine why anyone on here would believe a word you say. Bruce,
I sure wouldn't. Another old saying that my Grandmother used to tell
us was "you can't be both honest and dishonest." When I got into
computers in college, I translated that into "Honesty is binary, you're
either one or the other."
You're a poser whom lives in a fantasy world.
Robert Fernandez
<steven...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>So you are a pussy armchair warrior. You know nothing about the EM
>qualification do you?
>
>http://guides.ign.com/guides/482289/page_4.html
>
>It's the last step before sniper training, you wimp.
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>--Bruce Forest
>
><LOL> computer games are about your speed....
That's funny in and of itself, but looking at that thread I found this
quote regarding service in the military:
>You have no idea whether I hunt,
>where or when I served, and who was in the scope
At least with that statement he was smart enough not to actually lie,
but he definately wants to give the impression that he was in the
military. Pathetic.
You Know Who
<steven...@yahoo.com> wrote:
><LOL> Oh yeah, Forest, you have all those degrees and in your spare
>time you got your degree in medicine just for kicks, which you then
>discarded so you could go out and pursue your disk jockey career....
>
>You're so full of shit that it must run out your ears, Forest.
Pretty funny, coming from Steve "Pirate Fighter" Canyon. LOL
droopus
No, it's actually true, but I gained that qual many years ago at summer
camp and used it in a less than honest way. As you saw, I admitted this
and apologized for it. You also saw it had no effect on Mr Canyonero.
>
> [snip]
> >> But I'm not ignoring the other possibilities. At this point, I
> >> don't know what to make of it all.
> >I may be able to help you make some sense of it. You have only
> >experienced my usenet postings for a week or two and take Steve's
> >opinion that I am a none-too-bright drooling moron as truth.
>
> You're not a moron. It takes at least a decent level of
> intelligence to be able to bullshit like you have.
Well, I'll sort of take that as a complment.
>
> >Though Steve will come up with some puerile nonsense, I am none of
> >the above. I graduated college at 18, high school at 15, and am on
> >my third career. You seem to be a competent searcher. Try
> >searching the web for my name in quotes and you will see literally
> >millions of references to my varied careers, and you will find,
> >they are not made up. Much as Steve tries to prove oherwise,
> >everything I say I do, I have done. Even the book he used to
> >supposedly "cite" my height has an entire chapter written about me
> >and my current work. If you have Lexis-Nexis access, search for
> >my real name. I have over 15,000 press mentions.
>
> If that's true, then you deserve a hearty slap on the back and an
> "atta boy!" Congratulations on whatever part of that is real.
All of it. Seach to your hearts content. Use my name in quotes and the
word "piracy". Then do it again with the words "remix" and "produce."
>
> And yet, and yet, the more your claims about yourself are true, the
> more perplexing your lies and silly games become. Why the hell
> would you feel the need to try to impress people on newsgroups with
> that sort of crap if you're such a great guy?
Honestly, I don't know. My friends and wife ask me the same thing. I
guess it comes from a basic insecurity since I am always learning.I
should have left usenet discussion groups long ago. It's a terrible
time sink.
>
> >I am a voracious serial learner, and try to absorb as much
> >knowledge as I can in the short time I've been given on this
> >earth. I raced Formula Dodge until the cost and two severe
> >accidents made me give it up in 1999, so shooting became my next
> >"hobby," then I got very serious about it (as shooters SHOULD be.)
> >I will probably shoot the rest of my life, but will certainly take
> >on other activities as i grow older.
> >
> >I would happily discuss this with you further,
>
> I'd rather know what drove you to change from calling gun owners
> murderers to being a competitive shooter?
I guess curiosity. I was very antigun, but had only fired long guns
years ago. I decided to go down to th local pistol range and rent a
handgun and see what firing one was like. At first I fund it very
powerful and a bit scary, then after a few ags, I found I wa naturally
pretty good at it, and I hated to admit, I liked it. I spent a few more
days there, and then ordered my first handgun, my HK P7 which I still
own and carry. I chalk it down to having an open mind. I was open to
the idea that maybe there was something to all this competitive
shooting, and indeed I was right.
> I'd also like to know
> what motivates you to spend your time amongst the bourgeois,
> telling stories with major technical flaws and slinging false
> accusations at opponents,
They are only major technical flaws if you don't know the whole story.
I already posted that Mr Canyonero admitted he had many ways of
accessing the net. But he ONLY talks about his dialup use. Do you not
think it possible that there was an incident which CAUSED him to revert
to dialup posting when he obviusly has broadband? I only post what I
know, and when professional stalkers like Steve get hold of info, they
mold it to their needs. This obviously makes me look far more dishnest
than I am.
I admitted a dishonesty last night and you saw how far it got me. I
will not go back into Canyons thousands of posts and search for
minutiae like he loves to do to prove myself correct, so he is at an
advantage. I have a business, a family and a life. He seems to have
countless hours to spend on the net seraching. I assume he is retired
nd this is his "work replacement." I have no such luxury.
> or why so many sockpuppets seem to show
> up in your threads.
That I cannot answer, but as God as my witness, I did NOT make up a
single sock on any of those threads. There is no way I can prove that,
of course, and no way you will disbelieve it so I guess I have to live
with that false accusation under my belt.
>
> >but I don't want Mr Canyonero to start making smarmy remarks about
> >other things I'd tell you.
>
> Why would you care? You've got more degrees than him,
I have four. I don't know how many he has.
> a higher IQ,
We don't know that, but I think it's true. If you are serious, thank
you.
> more guns,
Well, if Steve is telling the truth, no I don't. I have 15 handguns and
one tactical shotgun. He claims to have "27 fire-arms." Why that makes
anyone "better" is beyond me, but if we both are being accurate, I have
fewer firearms than he.
>better shooting abilities,
I don't know that, but I practice a lot more, so it's likely that I am
a better shot, and definitely better trained. But he may have
incredible natural shooting abilities so again, we don;'t know.
>and you're as tall as George
> W. Bush (5'11"--I looked it up).
Bingo. ; )
> Why, a man with all that doesn't
> even need to read what "Mr. Canyonero" writes. He certainly
> doesn't need to pretend to be scanning his computer or falsely
> claiming in public that the guy is a (convicted) felon.
Ok, he is not a convicted felon. I'm sorry I said that. But he did
COMMIT a felony, for which he has neither been charged or convicted.
Better?
And I didn't preted to scan his computer. Perhaps Mr Canyonero could
explain why he no longer uses his broadband connection.
>
> >In fact, the very first usenet conversation Canyon and I had was
> >about our mutual love of sailing. He chose not to continue the
> >discussion (rather rudely), but the simple truth is, I am very
> >passionate about life, tend to dive in headfirst into any pursuit
> >I find interesting, and there are SO many interesting things in
> >life that I have yet to do.
>
> So what interests you about fantastic tales of port scanning or
> using sockpuppets? Gosh, I would have figured those would be far
> too prosaic for your vigorous lifestyle.
I DON'T use socks. But usenet is a tremendous waste of time these days
and I must break out of it. I will attempt to do so today.
>
> >I hope this has given you a slight bit of insight.
>
> Yes, but now I have bunches of new questions.
>
> <sigh>
You know my email. If you keep it private, I will answer any question
you wish, that I am permitted to answer.
droopus
No, it's actually true, but I gained that qual many years ago at summer
camp and used it in a less than honest way. As you saw, I admitted this
and apologized for it. You also saw it had no effect on Mr Canyonero.
>
> [snip]
> >> But I'm not ignoring the other possibilities. At this point, I
> >> don't know what to make of it all.
> >I may be able to help you make some sense of it. You have only
> >experienced my usenet postings for a week or two and take Steve's
> >opinion that I am a none-too-bright drooling moron as truth.
>
> You're not a moron. It takes at least a decent level of
> intelligence to be able to bullshit like you have.
Well, I'll sort of take that as a compliment.
>
> >Though Steve will come up with some puerile nonsense, I am none of
> >the above. I graduated college at 18, high school at 15, and am on
> >my third career. You seem to be a competent searcher. Try
> >searching the web for my name in quotes and you will see literally
> >millions of references to my varied careers, and you will find,
> >they are not made up. Much as Steve tries to prove oherwise,
> >everything I say I do, I have done. Even the book he used to
> >supposedly "cite" my height has an entire chapter written about me
> >and my current work. If you have Lexis-Nexis access, search for
> >my real name. I have over 15,000 press mentions.
>
> If that's true, then you deserve a hearty slap on the back and an
> "atta boy!" Congratulations on whatever part of that is real.
Thank you. All of it is true. . Seach to your hearts content. Use my
name in quotes and the word "piracy". Then do it again with the words
"remix" and "produce."
> And yet, and yet, the more your claims about yourself are true, the
> more perplexing your lies and silly games become. Why the hell
> would you feel the need to try to impress people on newsgroups with
> that sort of crap if you're such a great guy?
Honestly, I don't know. My friends and wife ask me the same thing. I
guess it comes from a basic insecurity since I am always learning.I
should have left usenet discussion groups long ago. It's a terrible
time sink.
>
> >I am a voracious serial learner, and try to absorb as much
> >knowledge as I can in the short time I've been given on this
> >earth. I raced Formula Dodge until the cost and two severe
> >accidents made me give it up in 1999, so shooting became my next
> >"hobby," then I got very serious about it (as shooters SHOULD be.)
> >I will probably shoot the rest of my life, but will certainly take
> >on other activities as i grow older.
> >
> >I would happily discuss this with you further,
>
> I'd rather know what drove you to change from calling gun owners
> murderers to being a competitive shooter?
I guess curiosity. I was very antigun, but had only fired long guns
years ago. I decided to go down to th local pistol range, rent a
handgun and see what firing one was like. At first I found it very
powerful and a bit scary, then after a few mags, I found I was
naturally pretty good at it, and I hated to admit, I liked it. I spent
a few more days there, and then ordered my first handgun, my HK P7,
which I still own and carry. I chalk it down to having an open mind. I
was open to the idea that maybe there was something to all this
competitive shooting, and indeed I was right. It's great, and very
challenging.
> I'd also like to know
> what motivates you to spend your time amongst the bourgeois,
> telling stories with major technical flaws and slinging false
> accusations at opponents,
They are only major technical flaws if you don't know the whole story.
I already posted that Mr Canyonero admitted he had many ways of
accessing the net. But he ONLY talks about his dialup use. Do you not
think it possible that there was an incident which CAUSED him to revert
to dialup posting when he obviusly has broadband? I only post what I
know, and when professional stalkers like Steve get hold of info, they
mold it to their needs. This obviously makes me look far more dishonest
than I am.
I admitted a dishonesty last night and you saw how far it got me. I
will not go back into Canyons thousands of posts and search for
minutiae like he loves to do to prove myself correct, so he is at an
advantage. I have a business, a family and a life. He seems to have
countless hours to spend on the net seraching. I assume he is retired
and this is his "work replacement." I have no such luxury.
> or why so many sockpuppets seem to show
> up in your threads.
That I cannot answer, but as God as my witness, I did NOT make up a
single sock on any of those threads. There is no way I can prove that,
of course, and no way you will disbelieve it so I guess I have to live
with that false accusation under my belt.
>
> >but I don't want Mr Canyonero to start making smarmy remarks about
> >other things I'd tell you.
>
> Why would you care? You've got more degrees than him,
I have four. I don't know how many he has.
> a higher IQ,
We don't know that, but I think it's true. If you are serious, thank
you.
> more guns,
Well, if Steve is telling the truth, no I don't. I have 15 handguns and
one tactical shotgun. He claims to have "27 fire-arms." Why that makes
anyone "better" is beyond me, but if we both are being accurate, I have
fewer firearms than he.
>better shooting abilities,
I don't know that, but I practice a lot more, so it's likely that I am
a better shot, and definitely better trained. But he may have
incredible natural shooting abilities so again, we don't know.
>and you're as tall as George
> W. Bush (5'11"--I looked it up).
Bingo. ; )
> Why, a man with all that doesn't
> even need to read what "Mr. Canyonero" writes. He certainly
> doesn't need to pretend to be scanning his computer or falsely
> claiming in public that the guy is a (convicted) felon.
Ok, he is not a convicted felon. I'm sorry I said that. But he did
COMMIT an on-the-books firearms felony, for which he has neither been
charged or convicted. Better?
And I didn't preted to scan his computer. Perhaps Mr Canyonero could
explain why he no longer uses his broadband connection.
>
> >In fact, the very first usenet conversation Canyon and I had was
> >about our mutual love of sailing. He chose not to continue the
> >discussion (rather rudely), but the simple truth is, I am very
> >passionate about life, tend to dive in headfirst into any pursuit
> >I find interesting, and there are SO many interesting things in
> >life that I have yet to do.
>
> So what interests you about fantastic tales of port scanning or
> using sockpuppets? Gosh, I would have figured those would be far
> too prosaic for your vigorous lifestyle.
I DON'T use socks. But usenet is a tremendous waste of time these days
and I must break out of it. I will attempt to do so today.
> >I hope this has given you a slight bit of insight.
>
> Yes, but now I have bunches of new questions.
>
> <sigh>
You know my email. If you keep it private, I will answer any question
you wish, that I am permitted to answer.
Thank you for a civil post.
droopus
No, it's actually true, but I gained that qual many years ago at summer
camp and used it in a less than honest way. As you saw, I admitted this
and apologized for it. You also saw it had no effect on Mr Canyonero.
>
> [snip]
> >> But I'm not ignoring the other possibilities. At this point, I
> >> don't know what to make of it all.
> >I may be able to help you make some sense of it. You have only
> >experienced my usenet postings for a week or two and take Steve's
> >opinion that I am a none-too-bright drooling moron as truth.
>
> You're not a moron. It takes at least a decent level of
> intelligence to be able to bullshit like you have.
Well, I'll sort of take that as a compliment.
>
> >Though Steve will come up with some puerile nonsense, I am none of
> >the above. I graduated college at 18, high school at 15, and am on
> >my third career. You seem to be a competent searcher. Try
> >searching the web for my name in quotes and you will see literally
> >millions of references to my varied careers, and you will find,
> >they are not made up. Much as Steve tries to prove oherwise,
> >everything I say I do, I have done. Even the book he used to
> >supposedly "cite" my height has an entire chapter written about me
> >and my current work. If you have Lexis-Nexis access, search for
> >my real name. I have over 15,000 press mentions.
>
> If that's true, then you deserve a hearty slap on the back and an
> "atta boy!" Congratulations on whatever part of that is real.
Thank you. All of it is true. . Seach to your hearts content. Use my
name in quotes and the word "piracy". Then do it again with the words
"remix" and "produce."
> And yet, and yet, the more your claims about yourself are true, the
> more perplexing your lies and silly games become. Why the hell
> would you feel the need to try to impress people on newsgroups with
> that sort of crap if you're such a great guy?
Honestly, I don't know. My friends and wife ask me the same thing. I
guess it comes from a basic insecurity since I am always learning.I
should have left usenet discussion groups long ago. It's a terrible
time sink.
>
> >I am a voracious serial learner, and try to absorb as much
> >knowledge as I can in the short time I've been given on this
> >earth. I raced Formula Dodge until the cost and two severe
> >accidents made me give it up in 1999, so shooting became my next
> >"hobby," then I got very serious about it (as shooters SHOULD be.)
> >I will probably shoot the rest of my life, but will certainly take
> >on other activities as i grow older.
> >
> >I would happily discuss this with you further,
>
> I'd rather know what drove you to change from calling gun owners
> murderers to being a competitive shooter?
I guess curiosity. I was very antigun, but had only fired long guns
years ago. I decided to go down to th local pistol range, rent a
handgun and see what firing one was like. At first I found it very
powerful and a bit scary, then after a few mags, I found I was
naturally pretty good at it, and I hated to admit, I liked it. I spent
a few more days there, and then ordered my first handgun, my HK P7,
which I still own and carry. I chalk it down to having an open mind. I
was open to the idea that maybe there was something to all this
competitive shooting, and indeed I was right. It's great, and very
challenging.
> I'd also like to know
> what motivates you to spend your time amongst the bourgeois,
> telling stories with major technical flaws and slinging false
> accusations at opponents,
They are only major technical flaws if you don't know the whole story.
I already posted that Mr Canyonero admitted he had many ways of
accessing the net. But he ONLY talks about his dialup use. Do you not
think it possible that there was an incident which CAUSED him to revert
to dialup posting when he obviusly has broadband? I only post what I
know, and when professional stalkers like Steve get hold of info, they
mold it to their needs. This obviously makes me look far more dishonest
than I am.
I admitted a dishonesty last night and you saw how far it got me. I
will not go back into Canyons thousands of posts and search for
minutiae like he loves to do to prove myself correct, so he is at an
advantage. I have a business, a family and a life. He seems to have
countless hours to spend on the net seraching. I assume he is retired
and this is his "work replacement." I have no such luxury.
> or why so many sockpuppets seem to show
> up in your threads.
That I cannot answer, but as God as my witness, I did NOT make up a
single sock on any of those threads. There is no way I can prove that,
of course, and no way you will disbelieve it so I guess I have to live
with that false accusation under my belt.
>
> >but I don't want Mr Canyonero to start making smarmy remarks about
> >other things I'd tell you.
>
> Why would you care? You've got more degrees than him,
I have four. I don't know how many he has.
> a higher IQ,
We don't know that, but I think it's true. If you are serious, thank
you.
> more guns,
Well, if Steve is telling the truth, no I don't. I have 15 handguns and
one tactical shotgun. He claims to have "27 fire-arms." Why that makes
anyone "better" is beyond me, but if we both are being accurate, I have
fewer firearms than he.
>better shooting abilities,
I don't know that, but I practice a lot more, so it's likely that I am
a better shot, and definitely better trained. But he may have
incredible natural shooting abilities so again, we don't know.
>and you're as tall as George
> W. Bush (5'11"--I looked it up).
Bingo. ; )
> Why, a man with all that doesn't
> even need to read what "Mr. Canyonero" writes. He certainly
> doesn't need to pretend to be scanning his computer or falsely
> claiming in public that the guy is a (convicted) felon.
Ok, he is not a convicted felon. I'm sorry I said that. But he did
COMMIT an on-the-books firearms felony, for which he has neither been
charged or convicted. Better?
And I didn't preted to scan his computer. Perhaps Mr Canyonero could
explain why he no longer uses his broadband connection.
>
> >In fact, the very first usenet conversation Canyon and I had was
> >about our mutual love of sailing. He chose not to continue the
> >discussion (rather rudely), but the simple truth is, I am very
> >passionate about life, tend to dive in headfirst into any pursuit
> >I find interesting, and there are SO many interesting things in
> >life that I have yet to do.
>
> So what interests you about fantastic tales of port scanning or
> using sockpuppets? Gosh, I would have figured those would be far
> too prosaic for your vigorous lifestyle.
I DON'T use socks. But usenet is a tremendous waste of time these days
and I must break out of it. I will attempt to do so today.
> >I hope this has given you a slight bit of insight.
>
> Yes, but now I have bunches of new questions.
>
> <sigh>
droopus
Oh pahlease that was a joke the entire group was in on. Why did you
leave that part out?
Eagle Eye
Is there any good reason why you're skeptical of Steve's claims
but not those of Bruce/Droopus? Bruce has already admitted to
being dishonest about his certification and about Steve being
a convicted felon. His stories about port scanning have big
holes in them, namely making claims which are clearly wrong.
Is this just an "us vs. them" personality thing?
=====
EE
Eagle Eye
steven...@yahoo.com <steven...@yahoo.com> wrote:
><LOL> Oh yeah, Forest, you have all those degrees and in your spare
>time you got your degree in medicine just for kicks, which you then
>discarded so you could go out and pursue your disk jockey career....
Maybe he was following in the footsteps of Dr. Dre.
=====
EE
You Know Who
wrote:
>In article <5cl5c1h3l94h0c3lt...@4ax.com>
>You Know Who <vous_sa...@i-hate-france.com > wrote:
>>In talk.politics.guns "steven...@yahoo.com"
>><steven...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>><LOL> Oh yeah, Forest, you have all those degrees and in your spare
>>>time you got your degree in medicine just for kicks, which you then
>>>discarded so you could go out and pursue your disk jockey career....
>>>
>>>You're so full of shit that it must run out your ears, Forest.
>>Pretty funny, coming from Steve "Pirate Fighter" Canyon. LOL
>
>Is there any good reason why you're skeptical of Steve's claims
>but not those of Bruce/Droopus?
Yeah. Steve is an asshole. Do you have a problem with that assessment?
Suck it up.
Eagle Eye
>> >Having thought about this for an hour or two, I have to admit,
>> >it was not the most honest thing I could have said at the time
>> >and for that I was wrong and I apologize. I had only been
>> >shooting seriously for four years and at that time it really
>> >was my only earned qualification, even though I had begun
>> >training in earnest (I did the classifiers for IDPA and IPSC in
>> >early 2004.)
>> >
>> >So while I did earn the certificate when I was young (and was
>> >very proud of it at the time), there was a long period where I
>> >was very antigun. I since have changed that opinion as I said,
>> >and probably was reacting to one of Steve's insults so used the
>> >one qual I had earned. It was the wrong thing to do, and if I
>> >had the chance to respond to that post again, I would not have
>> >done the same thing.
>> >
>> >For THAT I apologize, Steve. It is true, but it was used
>> >dishonestly.
>> It wasn't true at all... You're age doesn't match and to
>> document your claim you tossed up a website that had to do with
>> playing computer games..
That's not how I interpreted his remark. I took it to mean that
you posted a URL to a game website, not that you had made the
webpage itself.
[snip]
>Eagle Eye...you see where apologies get you.
Actually, I see where dishonesty has gotten you. When you cry
Claire Wolfe ....
=====
EE
You Know Who
wrote:
>In article <dtf5c1t2koc40tqo2...@4ax.com> You Know
>Who <vous_sa...@i-hate-france.com > wrote:
>>In talk.politics.guns Eagle Eye
>><Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>>>In article <1120001665.52e75da1d1547351fc3f4570a8494020@teranews>
>>>You Know Who <vous_sa...@i-hate-france.com> wrote:
>>>>In talk.politics.GUNS, Eagle Eye
>>>><Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>>>>>You're not at all skeptical that he went from declaring in 1998
>>>>>that civilians should not have guns at all to claiming to have
>>>>>several guns, gun safes, gun boxes, a gun ROOM in his basement,
>>>>>multi-state CCWs (for years), etc. and denouncing "gun
>>>>>grabbers" and the "Brady bunch" as total idiots?
>>>>No, why should I be? I've done a 180 on several things over the
>>>>past years.
>>>To this extreme?
>>Absolutely.
>
>Is it in your nature to hold radical beliefs, such as in politics?
Define "radical"
>Do you view the morality or competence of others in stark contrast,
>all good or all bad?
>
>I've seen others who make similar conversions and I really wonder
>if there is something inherent to approach life in general with
>intensity.
>
>Don't get me wrong. I'm not at all critical of someone for not
>compromising one's principles, for being "hard core" or what others
>often nebulously call "extreme". In many aspects of life, such as
>with politics, that's the approach I take. When done rationally,
>it's quite different than being a mere fanatic.
>
>I started from a more "moderate" position, gradually evolving
>my beliefs. Compared to those I know who started off at full
>throttle, I have more empathy and patience for people who hold
>different beliefs than I do. That has made me curious about what
>motivates people to form their beliefs and why they react to
>others the way they do.
That's all swell. Of course, it doesn't even begin to explain why you
seem to have a problem accepting this particular person's switch of
position.
But you know what? I really don't give a shit what your reasoning is
any more.
steven...@yahoo.com
Perhaps I over-react a bit, but when someone accuses me of things and
then and then goes so far as to manufacture evidence to support their
claim, all I can think odfis to nail their lying ass. It's happend
with Milt Shook and Greywolf Jaimieson and I reacted the same way. At
least Shook and Forest have enough self-respect to get out of Dodge
when it'sobvious that their reputation has been comprimised.
Steve
Eagle Eye
Effective, though repulsive, imagery.
=====
EE
You Know Who
<steven...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>Perhaps I over-react a bit,
ROFLMAO
steven...@yahoo.com
Robert Fernandez wrote:
>That's funny in and of itself, but looking at that thread I found this
>quote regarding service in the military:
>
>>You have no idea whether I hunt,
>>where or when I served, and who was in the scope
>
>At least with that statement he was smart enough not to actually lie,
>but he definately wants to give the impression that he was in the
>military. Pathetic.
Indeed, he tried to leave the impression that he had military weapons
training but wasn't smart enough to notice that his cite was a computer
gaming website. I hadn't bothered to check it out back then because it
was obvious that he was poser trying to make something of himself on
the internet where he thought he wouldn't be found out for the poser
that he is. I'd dismissed him until he claimed he's invaded my
computer, and since then his internet life has not been much fun.
steven...@yahoo.com
>They are only major technical flaws if you don't know the whole story.
>They are only major technical flaws if you don't know the whole story.
>I already posted that Mr Canyonero admitted he had many ways of
>accessing the net. But he ONLY talks about his dialup use. Do you not
>think it possible that there was an incident which CAUSED him to revert
>to dialup posting when he obviusly has broadband? I only post what I
>know, and when professional stalkers like Steve get hold of info, they
>mold it to their needs. This obviously makes me look far more dishnest
>than I am. I already posted that Mr Canyonero admitted he had many ways of
>accessing the net. But he ONLY talks about his dialup use. Do you not
>think it possible that there was an incident which CAUSED him to revert
>to dialup posting when he obviusly has broadband? I only post what I
>know, and when professional stalkers like Steve get hold of info, they
>mold it to their needs. This obviously makes me look far more dishnest
>than I am.
...and Forest is still trying to bullshit his way out of his lies...
At the time, he claimed that he knew I was using a dialup and that he
was tracking my MAC address.
"EVERY node on the internet has a MAC address. I don't give a
shit about your modem, your computer has a hardware MAC
address that is your "identity" on the net."
--Droopus
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=54136b51.0407191755.220bcb52%40posting.google.com
There's too major technical flaws there. First he can't now claim that
I had been using broadband if at the time he said he knew I was using a
dialup, and second, there's no MAC address to track on a dialup. It's
obvious that the wholethinbg was a lie.
Steve
steven...@yahoo.com
>Ok, he is not a convicted felon. I'm sorry I said that. But he did
>COMMIT a felony, for which he has neither been charged or convicted.
>Better?
That's total bullshit. It's not a felony to say that someone
challenged someone to a duel. I didn't even mention a gun, and the
truth is I was referring to Droopy's challenging me on my computer's
firewall.
>And I didn't preted to scan his computer. Perhaps Mr Canyonero could
>explain why he no longer uses his broadband connection.
First, of course, Forest would have to show that I was using a
broadband, and more importantly, he'd have to explain why he claimed
that he knew I was using a dialup if he believed that I was using
broadband.
Forest is entirely full of crap.
Eagle Eye
>That's all swell. Of course, it doesn't even begin to explain why
>you seem to have a problem accepting this particular person's
>switch of position.
I DO NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH BRUCE BEING HIGHLY CRITICAL OF GUN
CONTROL ADVOCATES OR FOR BEING AN AVID SHOOTER.
I corrected you the first three times you made that false
statement. There are dumb animals that learn faster than you.
>But you know what? I really don't give a shit what your reasoning
>is any more.
Nor do you apparently care what the facts are.
=====
EE
Eagle Eye
You Know Who <vous_sa...@i-hate-france.com> wrote:
>In talk.politics.GUNS, Eagle Eye
><Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>>In article <5cl5c1h3l94h0c3lt...@4ax.com> You Know
>>Who <vous_sa...@i-hate-france.com > wrote:
>>>In talk.politics.guns "steven...@yahoo.com"
>>><steven...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>><LOL> Oh yeah, Forest, you have all those degrees and in your
>>>>spare time you got your degree in medicine just for kicks,
>>>>which you then discarded so you could go out and pursue your
>>>>disk jockey career....
>>>>
>>>>You're so full of shit that it must run out your ears, Forest.
>>>Pretty funny, coming from Steve "Pirate Fighter" Canyon. LOL
>>Is there any good reason why you're skeptical of Steve's claims
>>but not those of Bruce/Droopus?
>Yeah. Steve is an asshole.
That's exactly what I expected your reason to be.
>Do you have a problem with that assessment?
Well, it is your opinion and you're entitled to it. My problem is
that judging honesty based upon likeability and ignoring facts is
irrational.
=====
EE
You Know Who
wrote:
>In article <1120074963.d494945139b3bb6ada5b6b0e74b3f20a@teranews>
>You Know Who <vous_sa...@i-hate-france.com> wrote:
>[snip]
>>That's all swell. Of course, it doesn't even begin to explain why
>>you seem to have a problem accepting this particular person's
>>switch of position.
>
>I DO NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH BRUCE BEING HIGHLY CRITICAL OF GUN
>CONTROL ADVOCATES OR FOR BEING AN AVID SHOOTER.
I NEVER SAID YOU DID, DUMB SHIT.
>I corrected you the first three times you made that false
>statement.
You couldn't have corrected me, since I never made such a statement.
> There are dumb animals that learn faster than you.
You need a reading comprehension course. You were critical of him
switching positions.
You Know Who
wrote:
>In article <1120075016.6e20e3240e962b4ba1675098ae11b78b@teranews>
>You Know Who <vous_sa...@i-hate-france.com> wrote:
>>In talk.politics.GUNS, Eagle Eye
>><Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>>>In article <5cl5c1h3l94h0c3lt...@4ax.com> You Know
>>>Who <vous_sa...@i-hate-france.com > wrote:
>>>>In talk.politics.guns "steven...@yahoo.com"
>>>><steven...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>><LOL> Oh yeah, Forest, you have all those degrees and in your
>>>>>spare time you got your degree in medicine just for kicks,
>>>>>which you then discarded so you could go out and pursue your
>>>>>disk jockey career....
>>>>>
>>>>>You're so full of shit that it must run out your ears, Forest.
>>>>Pretty funny, coming from Steve "Pirate Fighter" Canyon. LOL
>>>Is there any good reason why you're skeptical of Steve's claims
>>>but not those of Bruce/Droopus?
>>Yeah. Steve is an asshole.
>
>That's exactly what I expected your reason to be.
>
>>Do you have a problem with that assessment?
>
>Well, it is your opinion and you're entitled to it.
I'm *SO* glad you've come to that conclusion. Now I can sleep at
night.
Steven Canyon
<vous_sa...@i-hate-france.com> wrote:
>In talk.politics.GUNS, Eagle Eye <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <5cl5c1h3l94h0c3lt...@4ax.com>
>>You Know Who <vous_sa...@i-hate-france.com > wrote:
>>>In talk.politics.guns "steven...@yahoo.com"
>>><steven...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>><LOL> Oh yeah, Forest, you have all those degrees and in your spare
>>>>time you got your degree in medicine just for kicks, which you then
>>>>discarded so you could go out and pursue your disk jockey career....
>>>>
>>>>You're so full of shit that it must run out your ears, Forest.
>>>Pretty funny, coming from Steve "Pirate Fighter" Canyon. LOL
>>
>>Is there any good reason why you're skeptical of Steve's claims
>>but not those of Bruce/Droopus?
>
>Yeah. Steve is an asshole. Do you have a problem with that assessment?
>
I'm delighted to have made an impression you, Frenchu, particularly
*that* impression. Speaking of impressions, your buddy, Forest, has my
footprint on his ass.
--
Steve
You Know Who
Of course you are Steve. It's the culmination of your life's work.
Eagle Eye
You Know Who <vous_sa...@i-hate-france.com> wrote:
>In talk.politics.GUNS, Eagle Eye
><Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>>In article <1120074963.d494945139b3bb6ada5b6b0e74b3f20a@teranews>
>>You Know Who <vous_sa...@i-hate-france.com> wrote: [snip]
>>>That's all swell. Of course, it doesn't even begin to explain
>>>why you seem to have a problem accepting this particular
>>>person's switch of position.
>>I DO NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH BRUCE BEING HIGHLY CRITICAL OF GUN
>>CONTROL ADVOCATES OR FOR BEING AN AVID SHOOTER.
>I NEVER SAID YOU DID, DUMB SHIT.
Kind of funny really. I mean, what are these assholes HERE for?
You'd think they'd want to argue to convince gun-grabbers to see
the error of their ways, and then if a person changes their mind
about guns, they're STILL villains.
-- You Know Who 6/28/2005 http://tinyurl.com/88q64
>>I mean, what are these assholes HERE for? You'd think they'd
>>want to argue to convince gun-grabbers to see the error of
>>their ways, and then if a person changes their mind about
>>guns, they're STILL villains.
>Strawman.
Truth.
-- You Know Who 6/28/2005 http://tinyurl.com/8jo8p
What the hell IS your problem with it, besides suspicion?
-- You Know Who 6/29/2005 http://tinyurl.com/8sd3w
... it doesn't even begin to explain why you seem to have a
problem accepting this particular person's switch of position.
-- You Know Woh 6/29/2005 http://tinyurl.com/b5wme
>>I corrected you the first three times you made that false
>>statement.
>You couldn't have corrected me, since I never made such a
>statement.
See above.
>> There are dumb animals that learn faster than you.
>You need a reading comprehension course.
If you didn't intend to convey what was clearly indicated by your
words above, you need a writing course.
>You were critical of him switching positions.
I was never critical of his purported current position or the
propitiousness of evolving from being a "gun grabber" to respecting
the rights of others.
=====
EE
You Know Who
wrote:
>In article <1120081141.6cfaa7ddb401b6deef15b4e8f57ac589@teranews>
>You Know Who <vous_sa...@i-hate-france.com> wrote:
>>In talk.politics.GUNS, Eagle Eye
>><Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>>>In article <1120074963.d494945139b3bb6ada5b6b0e74b3f20a@teranews>
>>>You Know Who <vous_sa...@i-hate-france.com> wrote: [snip]
>>>>That's all swell. Of course, it doesn't even begin to explain
>>>>why you seem to have a problem accepting this particular
>>>>person's switch of position.
>>>I DO NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH BRUCE BEING HIGHLY CRITICAL OF GUN
>>>CONTROL ADVOCATES OR FOR BEING AN AVID SHOOTER.
>>I NEVER SAID YOU DID, DUMB SHIT.
>
> Kind of funny really. I mean, what are these assholes HERE for?
> You'd think they'd want to argue to convince gun-grabbers to see
> the error of their ways, and then if a person changes their mind
> about guns, they're STILL villains.
> -- You Know Who 6/28/2005 http://tinyurl.com/88q64
See the part about changing minds, dumb shit?
> >>I mean, what are these assholes HERE for? You'd think they'd
> >>want to argue to convince gun-grabbers to see the error of
> >>their ways, and then if a person changes their mind about
> >>guns, they're STILL villains.
> >Strawman.
> Truth.
> -- You Know Who 6/28/2005 http://tinyurl.com/8jo8p
See the part about changing minds, dumb shit?
>>>I corrected you the first three times you made that false
>>>statement.
>>You couldn't have corrected me, since I never made such a
>>statement.
>
>See above.
Try reading for a change.
>>> There are dumb animals that learn faster than you.
>>You need a reading comprehension course.
>
>If you didn't intend to convey what was clearly indicated by your
>words above, you need a writing course.
Looks like you need a reading course. LOL Fuckin'A you're dense.
Eagle Eye
You Know Who <vous_sa...@i-hate-france.com> wrote:
>In talk.politics.GUNS, Eagle Eye <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
>wrote:
>>In article <1120081141.6cfaa7ddb401b6deef15b4e8f57ac589@teranews>
>>You Know Who <vous_sa...@i-hate-france.com> wrote:
>>>In talk.politics.GUNS, Eagle Eye
>>><Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>>>>In article <1120074963.d494945139b3bb6ada5b6b0e74b3f20a@teranews>
>>>>You Know Who <vous_sa...@i-hate-france.com> wrote: [snip]
>>>>>That's all swell. Of course, it doesn't even begin to explain
>>>>>why you seem to have a problem accepting this particular
>>>>>person's switch of position.
>>>>I DO NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH BRUCE BEING HIGHLY CRITICAL OF GUN
>>>>CONTROL ADVOCATES OR FOR BEING AN AVID SHOOTER.
>>>I NEVER SAID YOU DID, DUMB SHIT.
>>
>> Kind of funny really. I mean, what are these assholes HERE for?
>> You'd think they'd want to argue to convince gun-grabbers to see
>> the error of their ways, and then if a person changes their mind
>> about guns, they're STILL villains.
>> -- You Know Who 6/28/2005 http://tinyurl.com/88q64
>
>See the part about changing minds, dumb shit?
You're claiming that we were making Bruce out to be a villian
because he supposedly changed his mind. That's exactly what I
said and what you denied.
[snip]
=====
EE
You Know Who
You must be fucking drunk. You can't be this stupid. Go sober up, then
come back.
Eagle Eye
Nah. It works better when one is sober.
Why would Bruce be a villian for changing his mind? Why would you
make such a ridiculous claim?
=====
EE
You Know Who
Now, how the hell would YOU know that?
steven...@yahoo.com
"Of course you are Steve. It's the culmination of your life's work. "
No, actually, it';s just a hobby.
Steve
You Know Who
No actually, I think it's your life's work. I doubt you've
accomplished much else LOL
Eagle Eye
Wow, this conversation has turned into something remarkably
stupid!
=====
EE
Cole Firearms Inc.
You Know Who wrote:
frenchu is the expert on the subject.
You can't be this stupid.
as compared to william henry frenchu.
Cole Firearms Inc.
Eagle Eye wrote:
Any conversation with frenchu is automatically tainted by his stupidity.
You Know Who
wrote:
>In article <1120087424.676aa6aec236b6d1ab0ac88f3fcfc6c6@teranews>
>You Know Who <vous_sa...@i-hate-france.com> wrote:
>>In talk.politics.GUNS, Eagle Eye <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
>>wrote:
>>>In article <1120086082.6bb4f8dbbfd79b55c2982a5d548f4e86@teranews>
>>>You Know Who <vous_sa...@i-hate-france.com> wrote:
>>>>You must be fucking drunk.
>>>Nah. It works better when one is sober.
>>Now, how the hell would YOU know that?
>
>Wow, this conversation has turned into something remarkably
>stupid!
I imagine you experience that a lot.
Cole Firearms Inc.
You Know Who wrote:
Everyone experiences that when speaking to frenchu.
Eagle Eye
droopus <NoC...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Eagle Eye wrote:
[snip]
>> or why so many sockpuppets seem to show up in your threads.
>That I cannot answer, but as God as my witness, I did NOT make up
>a single sock on any of those threads. There is no way I can prove
>that, of course, and no way you will disbelieve it so I guess I
>have to live with that false accusation under my belt.
Like I said in another post (http://tinyurl.com/basfk), I was most
likely wrong to conclude that you were the same person behind those
socks. At the time, I thought I had good reason to suspect you,
but in light of new information, I retracted it and apologized.
[snip]
>> Why, a man with all that doesn't even need to read what "Mr.
>> Canyonero" writes. He certainly doesn't need to pretend to be
>> scanning his computer or falsely claiming in public that the guy
>> is a (convicted) felon.
>Ok, he is not a convicted felon. I'm sorry I said that.
Thank you for that admission and apology.
>But he did COMMIT an on-the-books firearms felony, for which he
>has neither been charged or convicted. Better?
No, he didn't. He used "duel" as a metaphor. I don't see why you
need to continue to insist that he be taken literally, even though
that is refuted by the context and his own explanation after the
fact.
[snip]
I don't have time for the other parts right now. Perhaps I'll
address them later.
=====
EE
steven...@yahoo.com
>They are only major technical flaws if you don't know the whole story.
>I already posted that Mr Canyonero admitted he had many ways of
>accessing the net. But he ONLY talks about his dialup use. Do you not
>think it possible that there was an incident which CAUSED him to revert
>to dialup posting when he obviusly has broadband? I only post what I
>know, and when professional stalkers like Steve get hold of info, they
>mold it to their needs. This obviously makes me look far more dishnest
>than I am.
You're not going to be able to bullshit your way out of your lies,
Forest. You not only claimed that you'd tracked my MAC address, you
stupidly claimed that it was my computer's MAC address you were
tracking and that *YOU KNEW* I was posting through a dialup. That is
absolute proof that you were lying because what you claimed to be doing
is totally impossible.
...and you then claimed that you were able portscan my "recent dynamic
IP's, which, again, is also quite impossible, since, as anybody but a
complete moron knows, they no longer point to me as soon as I log off
them.
...and when you stupidly claimed that it was my computer's MAC address
and not the NIC's, your stupidity on the subject highlighted your lies
once again.
Those are *MAJOR* technical errors and the proof of your lies is in
your very own words below....
"As I said, I portscanned you while you were throwing rocks at
others. Dynamic IP's don't help, cause as soon as you post to
Agent, I confirm your MAC addy and off I go....
Even wrote a little PERL script to tell me when you're scannable."
--Droopus Poopus
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=54136b51.0407191118.5057fc4d%40posting.google.com
"EVERY node on the internet has a MAC address. I don't give a
shit about your modem, your computer has a hardware MAC
address that is your "identity" on the net."
--Droopus
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=54136b51.0407191755.220bcb52%40posting.google.com
"Steve, I said you were dialup, hence your massively dynamic IPs. I
know POTS modems don't have MAC addresses but your COMPUTER
does."
--Droopus
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=54136b51.0407192257.74d264a0%40posting.google.com
Droopus: "You think your computer doesn't have a MAC address?
Open a DOS window. Type ipconfig /all."
Canyon: "<LOL> that's the addresses of the NICs, you hapless
moron."
Droopus: "No it isn't, unless you are using 95 or something.
Your computer's MAC address will show up as well."
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=54136b51.0407192257.74d264a0%40posting.google.com
droopus
steven...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Bruce Forest wrote:
>
>
> >Having thought about this for an hour or two, I have to admit, it >was
> >not the most honest thing I could have said at the time and for >that I
> >was wrong and I apologize. I had only been shooting seriously for >four
> >years and at that time it really was my only earned qualification, >even
> >though I had begun training in earnest (I did the classifiers for >IDPA
> >and IPSC in early 2004.)
> >
> >So while I did earn the certificate when I was young (and was >very
> >proud of it at the time), there was a long period where I was very
> >antigun. I since have changed that opinion as I said, and >probably was
> >reacting to one of Steve's insults so used the one qual I had >earned.
> >It was the wrong thing to do, and if I had the chance to respond to
> >that post again, I would not have done the same thing.
> >
> >For THAT I apologize, Steve. It is true, but it was used >dishonestly.
>
> It wasn't true at all... You're age doesn't match and to document your
> claim you tossed up a website that had to do with playing computer
> games..
You claim I own and operate the IGN site? Do you know how to do domain
whois?
Eagle Eye...you see where apologies get you.
[...]
steven...@yahoo.com
>Ok, he is not a convicted felon. I'm >sorry I said that. But he did
>COMMIT a felony, for which he has >neither been charged or convicted.
>Better?
Totally ridiculous... Accusing someone of challenging them to a duel
is not a federal fire-arm expense.
>And I didn't preted to scan his >computer. Perhaps Mr Canyonero >could
>explain why he no longer uses his >broadband connection.
Well, first you'd have to prove that I had been using a broadband
connection, and since I hadn't been, that would be impossible. Of
course, you'll also have to explain why you thought I had been using a
broadband connection when you claimed that you knew I'd been using a
dialup.
"Steve, I said you were dialup, hence your massively dynamic IPs. I
know POTS modems don't have MAC addresses but your COMPUTER
does."
--Droopus
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=54136b51.0407192257.74d264a0%40posting.google.com
What it all comes down to is that Forest was obviously lying all the
time and he cannot bullshit his way around it.
Eagle Eye
Who <vous_sa...@i-hate-france.com > wrote:
>In talk.politics.guns Eagle Eye
><Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>>You Know Who <vous_sa...@i-hate-france.com> wrote:
>>>In talk.politics.GUNS, Eagle Eye
>>><Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>>>>that civilians should not have guns at all to claiming to have
>>>>several guns, gun safes, gun boxes, a gun ROOM in his basement,
>>>>multi-state CCWs (for years), etc. and denouncing "gun
>>>>grabbers" and the "Brady bunch" as total idiots?
>>>No, why should I be? I've done a 180 on several things over the
>>>past years.
>>To this extreme?
>Absolutely.
Is it in your nature to hold radical beliefs, such as in politics?
Do you view the morality or competence of others in stark contrast,
all good or all bad?
I've seen others who make similar conversions and I really wonder
if there is something inherent to approach life in general with
intensity.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not at all critical of someone for not
compromising one's principles, for being "hard core" or what others
often nebulously call "extreme". In many aspects of life, such as
with politics, that's the approach I take. When done rationally,
it's quite different than being a mere fanatic.
I started from a more "moderate" position, gradually evolving
my beliefs. Compared to those I know who started off at full
throttle, I have more empathy and patience for people who hold
different beliefs than I do. That has made me curious about what
motivates people to form their beliefs and why they react to
others the way they do.
[snip]
>>>It's called growth. Try it.
>>There's a difference between growth and an extremely radical
>>transformation. I prefer sensible growth. It also helps not to
>>be an idiot in the first place.
>Sure it does. But so what? Are you saying people shouldn't change
>their minds if it's too radical a change?
No. I merely stated my preference.
There are certainly times when radical change is appropriate.
However, in my experience, radical transformations are often done
in reckless haste and are sometimes merely a symptom of some
underlying, unfulfilled need. It all depends on the context,
of course.
>They should take it easy first?
If you know the depth of the water, dive in headfirst if that's
what you want.
If not, don't. You could break your fool neck.
>What the hell IS your problem with it, besides suspicion?
Nothing. Why do you keep claiming or implying otherwise?
=====
EE
Cole Firearms Inc.
You Know Who wrote:
> In talk.politics.guns "Cole Firearms Inc."
> <colefir...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> Speaking of stupidity, Cole- did you ever get an answer from that San
> Jose ISP? ROFLMAO
So you can't even think of something original to say, how typical of the
idiot, william henry frenchu.
You Know Who
<colefir...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Nah, it just *seems* like you're drunk, because I'm about five hundred
times smarter than you, on a bad day. And I'm only... what... 22 years
old? Is that how old I'm supposed to be? Yet I manage to kick your ass
every day!
That makes it even WORSE, doesn't it, old man? LOL
Speaking of acting drunk, Shawn- did you ever find a copy of the
Constitution to actually READ? [chuckle]
____
> There isn't a Constitutional Amendment against murder, either. Is murder
> legal?
"You seem to have not read the main document where it says, among
other things, that we have a Right to life liberty and the pursuit of
happiness."
-Shawn Cole, demonstrating his familiarity with the Constitution
Cole Firearms Inc.
You Know Who wrote:
> In talk.politics.guns "Cole Firearms Inc."
> <colefir...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>You Know Who wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In talk.politics.guns Eagle Eye <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article <1120087424.676aa6aec236b6d1ab0ac88f3fcfc6c6@teranews>
>>>>You Know Who <vous_sa...@i-hate-france.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In talk.politics.GUNS, Eagle Eye <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <1120086082.6bb4f8dbbfd79b55c2982a5d548f4e86@teranews>
>>>>>>You Know Who <vous_sa...@i-hate-france.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You must be fucking drunk.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Nah. It works better when one is sober.
>>>>>
>>>>>Now, how the hell would YOU know that?
>>>>
>>>>Wow, this conversation has turned into something remarkably
>>>>stupid!
>>>
>>>
>>>I imagine you experience that a lot.
>>
>>Everyone experiences that when speaking to frenchu.
>
>
> Nah, it just *seems* like you're drunk, because I'm about five hundred
> times smarter than you, on a bad day. And I'm only... what... 22 years
> old? Is that how old I'm supposed to be? Yet I manage to kick your ass
> every day!
There you go, thinking about a man's ass. You are very sick william
henry frenchu.
You Know Who
<colefir...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Speaking of stupidity, Cole- did you ever get an answer from that San
Jose ISP? ROFLMAO
_________
Cole alleges a "computer attack"
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 00:48:22 GMT
Local: Fri, Oct 29 2004 5:48 pm
Subject: william attemps computer attack.
william, using 247.8.222.82 just attempted to gain access to my
computer, and failed. Anyone who knows anything about computers can
easily trace that isp to
San Jose, CA, USA
http://users.ameritech.net/colefirearms4/Religion_of_Moving_Metal.html
You Know Who
<colefir...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> You must be fucking drunk.
>
>frenchu is the expert on the subject.
Anyone who deals with you becomes an expert in drunken behavior,
Shawn! LOL
Speaking of posting while drunk, where in the Constitution does it
mention the pursuit of happiness? Did you ever find that?