Joe1Orbit - The Whole Forbidden Truth - An Introduction
Scorpi...@attnospam.net
wrote:
>Because of his quirky nature ( he, after all, will tell you that he
is
>a rage filled, soul dead person who hates and wants to kill every
human being
>on earth) and the ideas he espoused, he attracted a lot of people who
>tried to befriend him, help him, berate him, censor him and goad
him.
>Sometimes a particularly inverse reflection of him would stumble into
>at-c and over time do all of those things and more. He was a
lightning
>rod, tolerated, admired and reviled. Most of all he was always true
to
>himself, to his nature, to his lot in life, to his vision, to what
he
>called his "True Reality". Eventually, after a couple of years of
>endless harassment by a few truly psychotic posters at at-c he
>apparently got tired of all of the daily negative attention and
>stopped posting.
>
I see. So you admire a phantom who is
>a rage filled, soul dead person who hates and wants to kill every
human being
>on earth
And you are upset that a "few psychotic posters at at-c" ran him off?
I will agree that there are a few psychotic posters in here, but you
and I would disagree on who they are.
You must be a big fan of Osama and the Virginia Sniper.
--
The most momentous thing in human life is
the art of winning the soul to
good or evil. Pythagoras
pakers
redeeming value. I disagree; at the end of his rant he would have a
news story from AP or somewhere that was about true crime. I received
more true crime information from his posts than anyone else who posted
here; he knew the purpose of this ng and he always posted ATC stories
but he did do a 1000 or 2000 word editorial which I generally ignored.
There were a lot of people who could not get past his personal comments
on topics to get to the news articles. I would consider him a asset to
this ng, but I do not see any reason why anyone here would enjoy
learning about his personal views of life or any details about his
personal life.
Pat
Lord Sir wrote:
>
> As some of you know, I've been reading alt.true-crime off and on over
> the past six or seven years. Until August of 2000 there was a regular
> poster there who made quite an impression on people. He posted over
> 10000 posts under the nyms of jen1...@aol.com (briefly) and
> joe1...@aol.com.
>
> Though many of his ideas are completely opposed to all I hold dear, I
> always found his point of views quite interesting. Not that I agreed
> with most of what he said, (though I do agree with a lot of what he
> said). He is interesting to me in a perverse kind of way, much like
> the Marquis de Sade is. Corresponding with him was probably much like I
> imagine it would have been like to exchange and debate ideas with the Marquis.
>
> I had numerous occasions to post back and forth with him at at-c. We
> even had a philosophical discussion about death and what I perceived to
> be a misstatement he made concerning his idea that after death he would
> experience nothingness and I gently tried to get him to understand that
> after death there wouldn't be a "him" to experience nothingness. His
> side of these posts is probably archived in google newsgroups. (I
> always post x-no archive).
>
> Because of his quirky nature ( he, after all, will tell you that he is
> a rage filled, soul dead person who hates and wants to kill every human being
> on earth) and the ideas he espoused, he attracted a lot of people who
> tried to befriend him, help him, berate him, censor him and goad him.
> Sometimes a particularly inverse reflection of him would stumble into
> at-c and over time do all of those things and more. He was a lightning
> rod, tolerated, admired and reviled. Most of all he was always true to
> himself, to his nature, to his lot in life, to his vision, to what he
> called his "True Reality". Eventually, after a couple of years of
> endless harassment by a few truly psychotic posters at at-c he
> apparently got tired of all of the daily negative attention and
> stopped posting.
>
> I am going to attach 2 webpages which should be informative (one is an
> FAQ) and serve as an introduction , and one which is the entry to a
> site he has been developing over the past couple of years under the new
> nym of ForbiddenTruth.
>
> In an earlier incarnation he was also known as Full Force Frank, a
> creator and publisher of 2 underground zines ( Singin Dose Psychopathic
> Blues and Livin' in a Powder Keg and Givin' off Sparks). He even
> appeared in a video (called Afflictions, I believe). There are links to
> and about some of these earlier writings at the bottom of this page :
>
> http://www.claque.net/Claquenet/page.html
>
> Also, as of today I learned he is in jail since September 12, on
> charges of multiple fake ID's, waiting for an arraignment. I also found
> out his real name (something he made great efforts to hide all these
> years).
>
> At the bottom of the above cited URL there is his real name along with
> a way to send him mail in jail.
>
> There is even a link to his arrest with an enlargeable photo (something
> else which he was totally against sharing prior to this arrest).
>
> A[pparently, according to the person who posted this information to
> at-c, he is now at a point of "no more secrets", so I think it is OK to
> share this information.
>
> You can see the arrest page at :
>
> http://www.sheriff.org/apps/arrest/details.cfm?ID=500214160
>
> The first page I'm attaching is the Joe1Orbit FAQ :
>
> http://www.petitmorte.net/joe1orbit/index.php
>
> Where you can get a comprehensive overview of our Joe. For further
> clarification I include an exemplary excerpt from the FAQ below.
>
> The next one is the entry to his Forbidden Truth web pages :
>
> http://forbiddentruth.8k.com/index.html
>
> I pass these things along because maybe some of you will find something
> of value or interest (in an anthropological, psychological or some other
> sort of way) in some of his "insights" or in something else about him. If
> nothing else, your reaction to Joe will be a useful device for
> self-relection should you possess the qualities necessary for such an
> undertaking.
>
> Now that I know Joe is in jail I will say to him what he would say to
> any other "tortured creations of society" in the same predicament :
>
> Stay Strong, Joe ...
>
> And to you dear reader, as Joe would say : Take care,
>
> LS
>
> Excerpt from the FAQ :
>
> The following is a response Joe posted to an e-mail he received from someone
> he considered a God-freak:
>
> Subject: OT: Reply to private e-mail from chr...@thelord.com (Christian
> Soldier), all others, no need to read unless you want to laugh at a god freak
> Author: Joe1orbit (joe1...@aol.com)
> Date: 1999/04/24
> Forum: alt.true-crime
>
> Hello,
>
> I received a private e-mail from one of the MOST pathetic pieces of Garbage
> imaginable. And since he/she has invited me to reply publicly, I figure i'll
> do just that, since I WANT this insane god freak to read my words of
> brilliance.
>
> So, here is my reply to chr...@thelord.com (Christian Soldier)
>
> chr...@thelord.com (Christian Soldier) Wrote:
>
> You are a servant of the Devil.
>
> Hello,
>
> Thank you.
>
> You see glory in the what is demonic.
>
> I celebrate demonic rage and hate, yes.
>
> Murder, and those who commit murder, are evil. There is absolutely no value
> in what you are doing. You are encouraging more of this kind of evil.
> Have you
> no shame?
>
> Great pride. In myself, my life accomplishments, my courage and my chosen
> life path.
>
> Society did not "create" people who take the lives of others. Satan does.
>
> I SPIT in the FACE of your insanity, and I spit in the face of your diseased
> belief in a toxic and non-existent entity.
>
> You state on your website that you do not want to hear from "bigots who hate
> killers".
>
> Correct.
>
> Why is that? Are YOU afraid of the truth? Are you so weak in character that
> you cannot tolerate people that are good?
>
> It's because my Mailing List is a sanctuary of Truth, and no insane god freak,
> or hypocritical murder-hater, is allowed to soil that sanctuary of Truth.
>
> Are you a killer?
>
> None of your damn business. I proclaim myself to be a law-abiding citizen,
> which I am.
>
> Do you do the work of the Devil on purpose?
>
> I support anything and everything that helps to destroy the insane god myth.
>
> You do not believe in God, and therefore do not believe in Satan either. This
> what the Satan wants. He does not care if you believe in him, it only makes
> him stronger. He feeds off of the hate that you, and people like you
> live off
> of. You are an evil person.
>
> Thank you for the compliment.
>
> I love you, and so does Jesus. He will always love you. That is the Christian
> belief. It is not hate that us "bigots" put forth, it is love.
>
> I hope you die. A person like you is so mentally ill as to be unworthy
> of the
> gift of life.
>
> Those worthless little punks in Colorado killed out of hate. If they had sought
> out the love of God, and his son, the Lord Jesus Christ, nobody would have
> died that day. But then, what would YOU have to write about. You cannot
> seriously believe that what you are doing is seeking the truth. It is not
> possible to seek truth, while glorifying killers. You hate those that hate
> killers. That can only mean that you love killers.
>
> I admire and appreciate the True Reality of all victimized societal Creations
> turned enraged murderers.
>
> Why do you do this?
>
> Because they deserve my love and admiration.
>
> Really. I am serious. I want to know why some worthless little piece of
> refuse such as yourself would erect a site devoted to hate and evil. You will
> see hell soon. You will meet your heroes in the flames of hell. Your
> soul will
> rot for eternity in the presence of Satan.
>
> I SPIT upon your god. I hope your church is burned to the ground. I hope
> you die
> in agony, and in your final moments of life, realize what a pathetic charade
> of lies and myths you have based your entire life around.
>
> I have sent this anonymously as I do not want the devil to write to me. You
> can post your response, and I am sure to see it as I am going to watch you.
>
> I spit upon you, your church, you god. I call upon SATAN to DESTROY your
> church, to burn it to the ground with all of you worshippers inside. If satan
> exists, which of course he doesn't, unfortunately, I invoke HIS name and call
> upon him to show you the Truth.
>
> I have a list of newsgroups to which you have posted your messages of hate,
> (available from Dejanews), and I am going to contact AOL about your
> activities. You will either be saved, or you will be stopped.
>
> I'll pay you $25,000 in cash, if you can get AOL to in any way interfere
> in my
> cyberspace activities.
>
> You are one sick man, and I will pray for your salvation.
>
> Drop dead, Garbage Human.
>
> Take care, JOE
>
> *******************************
Scorpi...@attnospam.net
wrote:
>In article <3dbeda8b...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>Scorpi...@attNOSPAM.net says...
>I admire Joe's true crime postings here, his ability to describe
inelaborate
>detail the things he has discovered about the human condition, his
consitency in
>portraying his "true reality", the effor he has put into trying to
clearly
>present his philosophies and, among other things, his ability to
drive lesser
>people absolutely bonkers.
>
>That he is a "phantom" is unproven, that he is soul-dead by his own
admission
>is not a thing to be admired. That he wants to kill every human
being on earth
>is perfectly understandable to me.
>
>>And you are upset that a "few psychotic posters at at-c" ran him
off?
>
>No. I'm not even saying that is the reason he left. It may be, it
may have
>contributed, but no.
>
>I am upset that the people who bullied him are so stupid that they
can't
>understand their own rage, the rage they directed and/or still direct
at Joe as
>being the very thing they couldn't stand in Joe. Joe wrote about it,
they
>acted it out. I'm upset too that they didn't have the intelligence
to enter
>into discourse; that all they could do was to display a weak,
childish acting
>out and bullying. They actually provide hard evidence of Joe's
insights and yet
>in their stupidity, remain blind to this fact.
>
>>
>>I will agree that there are a few psychotic posters in here, but you
>>and I would disagree on who they are.
>
>Probably.
>
>>
>>You must be a big fan of Osama and the Virginia Sniper.
>
>You must think you know everything.
I KNOW i know everything. Of course I don't, but that you for your
well thought out reply. I will just agree to disagree.
Lady Taker
"Lord Sir" <Lord_...@newsguy.com> wrote <snipped for space only, go read
it>
Wonderful post.
Thanks,
Volfie
Every9man
>Cheney,
>and all of the other criminals and petty and dickless dictators who try
>to run
>this joint.
>
>LS
>
A wonderful and insightful post LS.
Joe I am sure would be quite pleased.
Gulffritallary
he would go on a mysterious "trip" and wouldn't post during that time. He
claimed to make a good living. I wonder what happened to the job and what kind
of job it was.
mothra...@hotmail.com
You *could* ask him.
Martha
Every9man
>From: mothra...@hotmail.com
AHA! GOTCHA!
but certainly Martha you could do better than that --
try begging.
try imporing.
try ordering
try anything for godssake.
Ill be ashamed to show my face when we show up in Joes cell empty handed.
Michael Lonergan
<Scorpi...@attNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:3dbf11f5...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
>
> I KNOW i know everything. Of course I don't, but that you for your
> well thought out reply. I will just agree to disagree.
A *very* wise decision on your part.
Michael
Oh Yeah
through it all. I gather that someone that might be j1o is in jail for fake
IDs/licenses. I gather some of the charges have no bail. Could it be that
he's suspected of supplying some of the fake IDs for the September 11
attacks?
"Every9man" <ever...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021030002736...@mb-md.aol.com...
Every9man
>through it all. I gather that someone that might be j1o is in jail for
>fake
>IDs/licenses. I gather some of the charges have no bail. Could it be
>that
>he's suspected of supplying some of the fake IDs for the September 11
>attacks?
>
knoll.
Marie
wrote:
>I am upset that the people who bullied him are so stupid that they
can't
>understand their own rage, the rage they directed and/or still direct
at Joe as
>being the very thing they couldn't stand in Joe. Joe wrote about it,
they
>acted it out. I'm upset too that they didn't have the intelligence
to enter
>into discourse; that all they could do was to display a weak,
childish acting
>out and bullying. They actually provide hard evidence of Joe's
insights and yet
>in their stupidity, remain blind to this fact.
Joe was outrageous. It was his intent to outrage and enrage. If he
wanted simple discourse he wouldn't have filled his posts with
inciteful descriptions such as "sheeple", "unwashed masses", and
constantly thrown his "superior intellect" in the reader's faces. He
posted opinion as fact. Is that how one enters into *intelligent
discourse*?
Joe got what he asked for: confrontation.
It was his big mouth, offering up a reward for anyone who could ID
him, that was, ultimately, his undoing.
He didn't get tired of listening to the crap, he thrived on it.
Joe needed the attention. Like he does now. Jail must be hell for a
guy like him. Almost everyone is as wacked as he is, so he doesn't
stand out in a crowd anymore.
Now he wants the very people he supposedly hates, and would rather see
dead than alive, to write him? I'd call him an oxymoron, without the
oxy.
Scorpi...@attnospam.net
Marie, The girl gang and their followers must really hate you. :)
Good work.
Sarah Monroe
>>Joe I am sure would be quite pleased.
>
>
>LS
I printed it out and mailed it to Joe today. He will enjoy it I know.
Gms
Those who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve
neither liberty or security --Benjamin Franklin
Sarah Monroe
Maybe you could ask the thousands of people that are out of work since BushBaby
took over. Start with Enron.
Sarah Monroe
Do you work for Globe AKA Misinformation Plus?
Bo Raxo
posted) I am moved by this thread to point out how very, very far so
many of you have jammed your heads up your asses. Perhaps I can shed
some daylight on matters both practical and metaphysical.
Practical : Not posting bail and not being able to post bail are two
different things. If the "Facts" as presented are to be taken at face
value, Joe is a guy with no job or family responsibilities; he
certainly had plenty of time on his hands during his posting heydey.
So its perfectly possible that he sits in jail because he doesn't want
to post bond. Wouldn't be the first guy.
And the idea that this is a scam? For what? Scams have a purpose, a
point, a goal. Posting info about a fellow in jail and letting people
write him letters isn't much of a scam.
But this goes to a curious point - some people feel a rage towards
whomever the J1O poster was, and that's understandable, he said a lot
of things that a lot of people could find very offensive. So you
don't like the person, even hate him. M'kay. Attack his ideas, sure,
I can understand that. Object to his very existance, sure, that's an
opinion held by quite a few.
But to rabidly go ballistic (whoa, gotta slow down, I'm mixing my
metaphors) over any information relating to him related by anyone,
that's just childish. Making jokes about jailhouse rapes, well, that
certainly sets you apart from the kind of mean rhetoric "Joe" always
spewed, doesn't it? If you want to sound high minded and mature
compared to Joe (not hard to do), then silly name-calling and
high-fiving doesn't really accomplish your goal.
Metaphysical: It astounds me that a bunch of people supposedly
interested in crime and criminals can show so little insight, or even
real interest, when they have such a juicy subject plopped in their
laps. The J10 "persona" (I always felt it was more of a character
than a whole view of the real person, but now I can write the guy and
find out for myself) gave a lot of material about himself, his
background, his psychology. His identity was debated ad nauseam on
this list.
Now some real information comes out. And the J1O critics mostly whine
that it can't be true. Sheesh! As many have pointed out, if you want
to verify, write the guy. I will, I'm curious, and I think it would
be hard for someone to imitate the rhetorical style we all remember
from his many, many (seemingly endless) postings.
I haven't read every one of the circle-jerk posts on this subject, so
maybe I'm missing something, but I have seen no speculation on the
areas that might interest a real crime buff. Things like :
He was a very secretive fellow, and yet his posts seemed in some ways
an attempt to open a therapeutic dialog, sort of a semi-anonymous
group therapy (as are many regular posters' work). He (supposedly)
spends a month or so in jail, forced to share the company of the hoi
polloi, and now he wants wider communication and to engage with the
people he remembers from this dysfunctional little community. Why?
What does that say about him? About the perhaps beneficial effects of
a little forced socialization? Perhaps something positive, something
that comments on the increasing isolation that modern America life
enables and even encourages? Nah, better to argue about whether
somebody's karma ran over somebody else's dogma, or some bullshit like
that.
I can think of several interesting things raised by the unmasking of
the Joe persona. I cna think of many ways it could be used as a
jumping-off point to discuss alienated loners, ways that people manage
their own rage arising from childhood abuse, how and why anonymity can
be simultaneously protective and limiting. The way that the internet
gives people like Joe an outlet more productive than sitting in their
room and muttering about going on a killing spree.
But you folks haven't used this opportunity for any of that. You're
too busy trying to attach a motive to Sarah other than, duh, the
obvious, that she struck up a friendship with this fellow, who was
obviously lonely, and something has caused him to open up more and
feel a greater need for human contact. And Joe's supporters seem too
intent on being defensive and on not stepping on the man's toes by
speculating, but heck, a news group about crime and criminals is all
about speculation.
I haven't even seen a comment on how a felony conviction could impact
"Joe"'s gun collecting hobby.
Like most situations that make me snort in disgust, this reminds me of
something I once saw as a lad. On my very first trip to New York
City, I was taken to what was described in hushed terms as the most
fabulous, incredible, amazing gourmet delicatessen on the face of the
earth. I watched one of the individuals at my table proceed to order
roast beef on white bread with mayo; the fellow ordering it was brash,
loud, and outspoken. Yet, when it came to trying anything new or
different, it turned out he was timid and afraid to plunge in to
unknown territory, even in the realm of a goddamn sandwich.
The thread on Joe, a character with a rich history and plenty of
psychological issues that reflect on criminology, is the intellectual
equivalent of wonder bread and mayonnaise in the midst of gourmet
plenty.
Shame on all of you.
And now, back to my regularly scheduled lurking.
Unknown
Bo Raxo wrote in message
<81bfcfe1.02103...@posting.google.com>...
Good post! It has been said that Joe was an FBI agent
and he may be in jail and not posting bail/bond for that very reason. I
agree Sarah merely posted an address
at Joe's request, the never-ending speculation on who Joe is , is now
revealed, and the gripers keep complaining .
True Reality
Hownow
>
> Good post! It has been said that Joe was an FBI agent
> and he may be in jail and not posting bail/bond for that very reason. I
> agree Sarah merely posted an address
> at Joe's request, the never-ending speculation on who Joe is , is now
> revealed, and the gripers keep complaining .
>
> True Reality
>
You think Joe might have been an FBI agent?
Assigned to alt.true-crime for five years?
Now that would be a weird assigning of resources and a wasteful
expenditure of funds from the public purse.
Can't think of anyone in at-c who ever got busted for anything.
Besides, anybody reading Joe at all would have gained at least one
thing: The Joe who posted here would never ever have even been a
willing FBI informer.
- hm
Lady Taker
<True Rea...@claque.net> wrote:
> Good post! It has been said that Joe was an FBI agent
> and he may be in jail and not posting bail/bond for that very reason. I
> agree Sarah merely posted an address
> at Joe's request, the never-ending speculation on who Joe is , is now
> revealed, and the gripers keep complaining .
>
> True Reality
Best of all, the Head Gripers don't even believe it.
Volfie (it doesn't get better than this)
mothra...@hotmail.com
Whoa! TR didn't say *sie* thought Joe was an FBI agent. People *did*
speculate that, among other equally likely things, over the years. As
our articulate lurker has pointed out, you'd think Sarah's posting of a
name and address would be heaven on earth for the people who've obsessed
on Joe and his meatworld identity over the years, and yet, handed
information on a silver platter, they prefer to continue to yell and
scratch their asses. Tells me what they were interested in all along.
Martha
LITTLEPJoo
me.
PJ
Hownow
wrote:
People certainly have not speculated for years that Joe might be
remaining jail 'cause he was an FBI agent.
And I don't know why you'd expect that reaction to the revelation about
Joe should please your particular expectations.
You suggest people write to Joe.
I would not write to Joe ... but then I would not write to any stranger
who's in jail and quite possibly under active criminal investigation by
Gov. George Bush's Florida task force (in a campaign year) that already
has evidence of a crime with national implications through the sale of
goods on e-Bay. And I certainly would not supply a name and a return
address to an alleged felon who might be looking for a way out of the
pickle he is in.
If I should ever want to write to Joe, I'd do it after he's freed or
sentenced. The latter is the more likely to receive straight answers.
- hm
Hownow
<how...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
whoops,
That, of course, should be Jeb Bush.
- hn
Matt Miller
> Bo wrote:
>>The thread on Joe, a character with a rich history and plenty of
>>psychological issues that reflect on criminology, is the intellectual
>>equivalent of wonder bread and mayonnaise in the midst of gourmet
>>plenty.
>>
>>Shame on all of you.
>>
>>And now, back to my regularly scheduled lurking.
OK here we go.
I have to admit though to certain feeling of vindication. Joe turns
out to be a petty criminal. Nothing special here. His "philosophy" was lame
and common amongst the sort of people who find themselves in the pokey. And
in the end the big bad soul-dead Ubermench wants everybody to send him
letters to cheer him up a bit.
Not that I think this makes Joe a big sissy. This is the effect I
hope jail has on people. I hope Joe has learned something. I hope he's
realized that sitting in his apartment by himself fantasizing about killing
strangers won't get him revenge against his parents.
--
Matt Miller
"I wanna bite the hand that feeds me.
I wanna bite that hand so badly.
I want to make them wish they'd never seen me."
- Elvis Costello
spo...@petitmorte.net
news:81bfcfe1.02103...@posting.google.com:
-snip for length *NOT* content -
**APPLAUSE!!**
> And now, back to my regularly scheduled lurking.
No, please stay around, you could contribute so much around here. A voice
of reason is often lacking in the exchanges in at-c (and yes, I include my
own sometimes "colorful" offerings in that observation.)
--
The power alone stored in my little hand
Could melt the Eiffel Tower
Turn the Sphinx into sand
Michael Lonergan
"Marie" <Mari...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:59d29bcb.02103...@posting.google.com...
>
> Joe was outrageous. It was his intent to outrage and enrage.
Ahhh... no you presume to know what his intent was.
>If he
> wanted simple discourse he wouldn't have filled his posts with
> inciteful descriptions such as "sheeple", "unwashed masses", and
> constantly thrown his "superior intellect" in the reader's faces.
He stated countless times his purpose was not simple discourse. He stated
he didn't care if anyone responded to him. The readers were forced, with
guns to their heads, to read his posts, weren't they..... Marie?
He
> posted opinion as fact. Is that how one enters into *intelligent
> discourse*?
> Joe got what he asked for: confrontation.
Joe excommunicated rather than participate in endless confrontation. Of
course, this infuriated the excommunicated posters, forcing them to compete
with one another on the number of their socks got excommed as well.
>
> It was his big mouth, offering up a reward for anyone who could ID
> him, that was, ultimately, his undoing.
> He didn't get tired of listening to the crap, he thrived on it.
Really?! how was the reward his undoing? You are stating as fact Joe
didn't get tired of listening to the crap and thrived on it. I certain you
have documentation to back up your "facts".
>
> Joe needed the attention. Like he does now. Jail must be hell for a
> guy like him. Almost everyone is as wacked as he is, so he doesn't
> stand out in a crowd anymore.
He stood out before?
>
> Now he wants the very people he supposedly hates, and would rather see
> dead than alive, to write him? I'd call him an oxymoron, without the
> oxy.
He "wants" people that hate him to correspond with him? Yet another fact
you know that no one else knows? I'm interested in your cites for your
"facts".
Michael
Michael Lonergan
<Scorpi...@attNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:3dc00d39...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
>
> Marie, The girl gang and their followers must really hate you. :)
> Good work.
Like yourself, she is to be pitied, not hated.
Michael
Michael Lonergan
"LITTLEPJoo" <littl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021030175928...@mb-fd.aol.com...
I dunno, between this guy/girl and LS's posts, it doesn't get much better.
Michael
=^.^=
cite cite cite..are you channeling maggie these days?
Michael Lonergan
"=^.^=" <nick...@nospamyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hqc1sucf31s55b0ps...@4ax.com...
>
> cite cite cite..are you channeling maggie these days?
Yes.
Michael
WebSp...@webtv.net
as to whether Weintrub in Broward County, Fl is actually him, quotations
from old Joe posts, explanations of who Joe was and what he espoused,
etc., etc...SEEM TO BE SETTING THE STAGE for a "return" f Joe1Orbit upon
his release from jail (or his coming out of hiding perhaps)?
Jason Pope
mothra...@hotmail.com wrote:
Tell's you nothing!
We just know an attempted scam when we see it!
Explain Jen1Orbit's post of 29th October Martha!
Jason
--
Hi. I am probably home. I'm just avoiding someone I don't like. Leave me a
message, and if I don't call back, it's you.
http://sniper1man.topcities.com
Jason Pope
Sarah Monroe
>We just know an attempted scam when we see it!
>
>Explain Jen1Orbit's post of 29th October Martha!
>
>Jason
>
>--
>Hi. I am probably home. I'm just avoiding someone I don't like. Leave me a
>message, and if I don't call back, it's you.
>
>http://sniper1man.topcities.com
>
>
>
>
The Jen1Orbit screen name hasn't been Joe since 1998 or thereabouts, before you
even got here, Jason. Who is it? Ask him.
This revelation goes along with your accusing 10 different people of being
Joe1Orbit, all with irrefutable proof and one because the FBI told you so.
Be sure to yes, man a webTV poster. They are super intelligent.
Michael Lonergan
news:3DC0DD82...@virgin.net...
You're absolutely right Jason. Inspector Pope has again, cracked the case
using his exceptional technical skills using Google.
Michael
Laser
serial1...@virgin.net opined to this august newsgroup
> WebSp...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> > The absolute FLOODING of this ng with reactions against Joe, questions
> > as to whether Weintrub in Broward County, Fl is actually him, quotations
> > from old Joe posts, explanations of who Joe was and what he espoused,
> > etc., etc...SEEM TO BE SETTING THE STAGE for a "return" f Joe1Orbit upon
> > his release from jail (or his coming out of hiding perhaps)?
>
> He's not even in jail, he posted to usenet on 29th October 2002.
>
> Jason
>
I thought you claimed that he had been run off of Usenet, dead,
gone, caput...now you claim that he posted on October 29th????
Indeed prove that statement!
Ron
--
We have nothing to fear, but fear itself...FDR
Marie
>Marie, The girl gang and their followers must really hate you. :)
>Good work.
Hate me? I'm sure you're wrong Scorpion. I think they're quietly in
awe of me. <snicker>
They need reality checks periodically. I try not to disappoint.
Marie
>"Marie" <Mari...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:59d29bcb.02103...@posting.google.com...
>>
>> Joe was outrageous. It was his intent to outrage and enrage.
Dog30 gnawed:
>Ahhh... no you presume to know what his intent was.
It's obvious to anyone with eyes, dogboy.
>>If he
>> wanted simple discourse he wouldn't have filled his posts with
>> inciteful descriptions such as "sheeple", "unwashed masses", and
>> constantly thrown his "superior intellect" in the reader's faces.
>
>He stated countless times his purpose was not simple discourse. He
stated
>he didn't care if anyone responded to him. The readers were forced,
with
>guns to their heads, to read his posts, weren't they..... Marie?
Lord Sir seems to think that's what Joe was looking for.
What Joe stated is no longer relevant to me. Joe, as Sarah Monroe so
obligingly pointed out, is a liar. FYI - That means not to be
believed. Restate his position until you drop, I don't care. He's a
liar. You're defending his lies.
How's that saying go? Lie with dogs....
> He
>> posted opinion as fact. Is that how one enters into *intelligent
>> discourse*?
>> Joe got what he asked for: confrontation.
>
>Joe excommunicated rather than participate in endless confrontation.
Of
>course, this infuriated the excommunicated posters, forcing them to
compete
>with one another on the number of their socks got excommed as well.
Jesus. Don't give me that crap. I've spent enough time in google to
know when Joe brought up that ridiculous nonresponse form letter. He
had a heyday with them until they got too close to the truth about
him. It was all bullshit. The excoms were right about him and he hated
that they saw through him. His non-response <what a fool> letter was
his biggest act of cowardice. He can't handle the truth that he
adamantly insists he's the Seer of...
>> It was his big mouth, offering up a reward for anyone who could ID
>> him, that was, ultimately, his undoing.
>> He didn't get tired of listening to the crap, he thrived on it.
>
>Really?! how was the reward his undoing? You are stating as fact
Joe
>didn't get tired of listening to the crap and thrived on it. I
certain you
>have documentation to back up your "facts".
His posts, stupid. Did you ever bother to read them?
>> Joe needed the attention. Like he does now. Jail must be hell for a
>> guy like him. Almost everyone is as wacked as he is, so he doesn't
>> stand out in a crowd anymore.
>
>He stood out before?
LOL! you're hopelessly stupid and I think I'm wasting my time
explaining the obvious to you.
No, Joe *never* stood out in this group, did he? He's still just an
ancient memory, isn't he? Jesus. You're an idiot.
I think you should stick with playing with the gg. You're not
qualified in the acumen department to take "non-believers" on.
>> Now he wants the very people he supposedly hates, and would rather
see
>> dead than alive, to write him? I'd call him an oxymoron, without
the
>> oxy.
>
>He "wants" people that hate him to correspond with him? Yet another
fact
>you know that no one else knows? I'm interested in your cites for
your
>"facts".
Jesus. Can't you read? Now, shoo, you yappy little hound. Come back
when you learn how to absorb what's being said.
Marie
>Good post! It has been said that Joe was an FBI agent
>and he may be in jail and not posting bail/bond for that very reason.
I
>agree Sarah merely posted an address
>at Joe's request, the never-ending speculation on who Joe is , is now
>revealed, and the gripers keep complaining .
And we're supposed to believe Joe's identity has been revealed ---why?
Because Sarah Monroe says it's Joe1Orbit aka FFF? Because this
Weintraub guy says he's ready for "no more secrets"?
Jesus. We're <non-believers> not the sheep in this group, TrueReality.
But, the lines of distinction are definitely clear.
I read in google a post by Cypher, iirc, written years ago identifying
Joe as FFF. It was denied categorically. He was ridiculed for
suggesting it.
Now, years later, Sarah Monroe posts that Joe is really Joe Weintraub
and FFF, and the group is supposed to bow down to her superior
knowledge? Knowledege that was denied when someone else figured it
out?
How stupid do you think some people are?
Had the truth come out when it was announced by Cipher, maybe
skepticism wouldn't abound. It was denied, outright. Followed by many
more years of lies. Now, no one is supposed to question those lies?
Jesus. What planet are you from?
=^.^=
I think your posts are awesome and you don't disappoint.
You've been very astute in your assessment of this j1o and his persona
on this newsgroup.......and you are making j1o's fan club look
foolish.
I'm glad I am home with the remodelers this week or I would have
missed it all. There is that karma again :)
Marie
>Best of all, the Head Gripers don't even believe it.
No, the best part is you and the gang don't even question it. You
blindly follow Sarah Monroe's lead. Not even bothering to consider how
many lies have already been told. But, we're not supposed to question
why someone, who protected his identity like a mad dog, suddenly wants
to be shown for being the non-seer of truth he really is.
It works for you and that's ok.
People with brains not made of haggis can think for themselves,
though.
Carry on.
Lady Taker
"=^.^=" <nick...@nospamyahoo.com> wrotek:
> cite cite cite..are you channeling maggie these days?
Speaking of which... you still owe me one, don't you. Liar Icky Nicki?
Volfie (whatcha doing here? shouldn't you be goggling what-you-pass-off-for
brains out?
Lady Taker
>
> >Best of all, the Head Gripers don't even believe it.
>
> No, the best part is you and the gang don't even question it. You
> blindly follow Sarah Monroe's lead.
Prove that I have blindly followed anything. Go ahead. Ickynicki will help
you google. Or lie. Whatever you two do best. (Hint: that would be LIE)
>Not even bothering to consider how
> many lies have already been told.
How would YOU know what I've considered or not?
>But, we're not supposed to question
> why someone, who protected his identity like a mad dog, suddenly wants
> to be shown for being the non-seer of truth he really is.
I don't fucking care if you question why the sky is blue or why you can't
get laid. I could care less. I didn't tell anyone to write to Joe. I
didn't post his address. I've never said much about him at all. Not that
that ever stopped the name calling and harassment of me by you and your ilk.
You've been up to your hammer-marked ass in google for weeks now -- show me
some posts that back up ANYTHING of what you are saying about me.
> It works for you and that's ok.
If what works for me? What ARE you babbling about? You are truly insane.
> People with brains not made of haggis can think for themselves,
> though.
That must leave you out.
> Carry on.
Did I ask for your permission? Cite that along with all the other imaginary
ones you and ickynicki are making up, will you?
Volfie (jesus, you are a bigger loon that the UT -- how's THAT possible?)
penguin
news:pp1w9.4646$Ik6.4...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Go ahead, play dumb. You are playing aren't you?
d~
True,
I enjoy reading your posts, but your newsreader isn't quoting properly
and it is getting increasingly difficult to figure out what you quoted
and what you wrote.
What newsreader are you using? Is there, maybe, something I (or
someone else) can do to help you "fix" it?
gratefully,
d~
Lucy A. Afar
> <True Rea...@claque.net> wrote
>
> >Good post! It has been said that Joe was an FBI agent
> >and he may be in jail and not posting bail/bond for that very reason.
> I
> >agree Sarah merely posted an address
> >at Joe's request, the never-ending speculation on who Joe is , is now
> >revealed, and the gripers keep complaining .
>
> And we're supposed to believe Joe's identity has been revealed ---why?
> Because Sarah Monroe says it's Joe1Orbit aka FFF? Because this
> Weintraub guy says he's ready for "no more secrets"?
You're not supposed to believe anything. But the truth is that you DO
believe something, you could check to see if what you believe is true
or not, and you choose not to do so.
> Jesus. We're <non-believers> not the sheep in this group, TrueReality.
> But, the lines of distinction are definitely clear.
Yes, no doubt about that. "Non-believer" Marie, who is not a sheep,
who believes that GMSpider lies, but wouldn't check to see if her
belief is true or not. A paragon of rationality and healthy
skepticism.
> I read in google a post by Cypher, iirc, written years ago identifying
> Joe as FFF. It was denied categorically. He was ridiculed for
> suggesting it.
I don't remember that *Joe* denied he was FFF. I remember he said he
wouldn't confirm OR deny.
> Now, years later, Sarah Monroe posts that Joe is really Joe Weintraub
> and FFF, and the group is supposed to bow down to her superior
> knowledge?
Yes, since it's the truth, easily verifiable and accessible to all.
> Knowledege that was denied when someone else figured it
> out?
Yes. People aren't obliged to tell all they know.
> How stupid do you think some people are?
Well, you keep proving that there's really no limit.
Lucy
Jason Pope
Laser wrote:
I've posted the link Ron!
The nym Joe1...@aol.com has indeed disappeared from usenet, but as "Joe" said
many times he uses many email addresses and many ISP's
Unknown
d~ wrote in message <3dc270b6...@netnews.attbi.com>...
Thanks I did check my settings in OE and saw that the indent with> was
unchecked and fixed that. Does it look better? My OE shows everyones
posts fine, except
web tv. Every once in awhile my settings change themselves.
TR
Jason Pope
Sarah Monroe wrote:
> >Tell's you nothing!
> >We just know an attempted scam when we see it!
> >
> >Explain Jen1Orbit's post of 29th October Martha!
> >
> >Jason
> >
> >--
> >Hi. I am probably home. I'm just avoiding someone I don't like. Leave me a
> >message, and if I don't call back, it's you.
> >
> >http://sniper1man.topcities.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> The Jen1Orbit screen name hasn't been Joe since 1998 or thereabouts, before you
> even got here, Jason. Who is it? Ask him.
>
> This revelation goes along with your accusing 10 different people of being
> Joe1Orbit, all with irrefutable proof and one because the FBI told you so.
>
> Be sure to yes, man a webTV poster. They are super intelligent.
>
> Gms
Sarah, you trying to say someone takes on the "Jen1Orbit" moniker and continues to
post "Joe-style" with it for the hell of it?
Yeah right!
RUBBISH!
That post was made to usenet on the 29th to poo-poo your idea that he was in jail.
Lady Taker
"penguin" <pen...@anarchica.com> wrote in message
news:uRhw9.5969$V15.6...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Michael, you are receiving valuable instruction on how to play dumb from a
Master. Pay attention.
Volfie (:::looking sternly at Michael:::)
formica63
catty:
> > How stupid do you think some people are?
lucy:
> Well, you keep proving that there's really no limit.
Hole in one, Lucy.
Form.
Sarah Monroe
>> gone, caput...now you claim that he posted on October 29th????
>> Indeed prove that statement!
>>
>> Ron
>> --
>
>I've posted the link Ron!
>The nym Joe1...@aol.com has indeed disappeared from usenet, but as "Joe"
>said
>many times he uses many email addresses and many ISP's
>
>Jason
>
>--
>Hi. I am probably home. I'm just avoiding someone I don't like. Leave me a
>message, and if I don't call back, it's you.
>
>http://sniper1man.topcities.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Guess you missed the post that said he saw Joe1Orbit online and he thought it
was after Sept. 12.
Sarah Monroe
Jen1Orbit has never left aol. Matter of fact, I sent you one post where he said
he would be in England last spring. You might solve the mystery of who was
Jen1Orbit originally and why did someone else take over that account and why
did Joe suddenly give it up back in 1998. Be assured neither one of them are
Sondra London, David Lohr, Lisa Falour, Chris Falour, Jack Olsen, Michael
Newton or anyone else that you had positive proof that they were.
Michael Lonergan
>
>
>
> I've posted the link Ron!
> The nym Joe1...@aol.com has indeed disappeared from usenet, but as "Joe"
said
> many times he uses many email addresses and many ISP's
>
> Jason
I am in complete amazement over your reaction on Joe. You spent over 2
years of your life trying to ID him. You went to great lengths, including
libel, filing a false report to the FBI, goading your foolish friend into
having complete lies published in a UK newsrag, not to mention
mis-identifying at least 10 people as Joe. Of course let's not forget your
most coveted 'achievement' of having the FBI visit Sarah's home. You made a
complete Usenet pariah out of yourself and your friends in the process.
NOW, you know who Joe is and you're trying to prove he's not who he is.
This could very well turn out to be the longest running show in ATC history.
I imagine we'll get at least another 2 1/2 years of your "yes he is, no he's
not, maybe he's, I said, she said, I've run the headers, he's real, he's a
cartoon, he's not here but he is... well, you get the idea.
The most fascinating thing about all of it, is your mind. It must really
suck to be that fucked up Jason.
Michael <- rubbing hands together with glee. another 2 1/2 years of
entertainment
Michael Lonergan
news:59d29bcb.02103...@posting.google.com...
> "Michael Lonergan" <do...@earthlinknospam.net> wrote
>
>
> >"Marie" <Mari...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:59d29bcb.02103...@posting.google.com...
> >>
> >> Joe was outrageous. It was his intent to outrage and enrage.
>
> Dog30 gnawed:
> >Ahhh... no you presume to know what his intent was.
>
> It's obvious to anyone with eyes, dogboy.
>
> >>If he
> >> wanted simple discourse he wouldn't have filled his posts with
> >> inciteful descriptions such as "sheeple", "unwashed masses", and
> >> constantly thrown his "superior intellect" in the reader's faces.
> >
> >He stated countless times his purpose was not simple discourse. He
> stated
> >he didn't care if anyone responded to him. The readers were forced,
> with
> >guns to their heads, to read his posts, weren't they..... Marie?
>
> Lord Sir seems to think that's what Joe was looking for.
Lord Sir seems to *think*. You *think* you know.
> What Joe stated is no longer relevant to me.
Was it ever relevant to you?
>Joe, as Sarah Monroe so
> obligingly pointed out, is a liar.
And your name is Marie, right? And you are somewhat new in ATC, right
Marie?
> FYI - That means not to be
> believed. Restate his position until you drop, I don't care. He's a
> liar. You're defending his lies.
I'm defending nothing. I'm exposing your lies.
> How's that saying go? Lie with dogs....
I believe that is an old adage.
>
> > He
> >> posted opinion as fact. Is that how one enters into *intelligent
> >> discourse*?
> >> Joe got what he asked for: confrontation.
> >
> >Joe excommunicated rather than participate in endless confrontation.
> Of
> >course, this infuriated the excommunicated posters, forcing them to
> compete
> >with one another on the number of their socks got excommed as well.
>
> Jesus. Don't give me that crap. I've spent enough time in google to
> know when Joe brought up that ridiculous nonresponse form letter. He
> had a heyday with them until they got too close to the truth about
> him. It was all bullshit. The excoms were right about him and he hated
> that they saw through him. His non-response <what a fool> letter was
> his biggest act of cowardice. He can't handle the truth that he
> adamantly insists he's the Seer of...
So, yet again you state as fact. I will now call you a liar. Marie, it
*is* your name, isn't it?
>
> >> It was his big mouth, offering up a reward for anyone who could ID
> >> him, that was, ultimately, his undoing.
> >> He didn't get tired of listening to the crap, he thrived on it.
> >
> >Really?! how was the reward his undoing? You are stating as fact
> Joe
> >didn't get tired of listening to the crap and thrived on it. I
> certain you
> >have documentation to back up your "facts".
>
> His posts, stupid. Did you ever bother to read them?
Read Joe's posts? Well you should know if you've spent so much time in
Google, as you claim you have.
>
> >> Joe needed the attention. Like he does now. Jail must be hell for a
> >> guy like him. Almost everyone is as wacked as he is, so he doesn't
> >> stand out in a crowd anymore.
> >
> >He stood out before?
>
> LOL! you're hopelessly stupid and I think I'm wasting my time
> explaining the obvious to you.
You can't explain anything to anyone. Yes, you are wasting your time with
mindless information stated as fact.
> No, Joe *never* stood out in this group, did he? He's still just an
> ancient memory, isn't he? Jesus. You're an idiot.
I just love it when the name calling starts.
> I think you should stick with playing with the gg. You're not
> qualified in the acumen department to take "non-believers" on.
So you are saying there is a group called "non-believers"? Do they apply
GroupThink in their teachings? Is Nan the CEO or has Jason taken on that
responsibility again?
>
> >> Now he wants the very people he supposedly hates, and would rather
> see
> >> dead than alive, to write him? I'd call him an oxymoron, without
> the
> >> oxy.
> >
> >He "wants" people that hate him to correspond with him? Yet another
> fact
> >you know that no one else knows? I'm interested in your cites for
> your
> >"facts".
>
> Jesus. Can't you read? Now, shoo, you yappy little hound. Come back
> when you learn how to absorb what's being said.
Punkin, I've been around just as long as you have. The only thing that
changes about you is your location. Now you're playing at Net Nanny because
you post nothing logical and you're getting a hernia trying to make your
opinions known as fact. It'll never happen, Marie. It is Marie isn't it?
Michael
>
Michael Lonergan
news:1fk2su0ldsbdemp7j...@4ax.com...
>
> I think your posts are awesome and you don't disappoint.
You hold anyone that can put together a complete sentence in awe.
> You've been very astute in your assessment of this j1o and his persona
> on this newsgroup.......and you are making j1o's fan club look
> foolish.
>
> I'm glad I am home with the remodelers this week or I would have
> missed it all. There is that karma again :)
Oh, so am I. I've missed you.
Michael
Michael Lonergan
ROFLMAO... OMG... This just gets better and better. Jason, the *same*
person yanks your chain and you fall for it every time. Every fucking time.
Michael <- kicking back and enjoying the show
penguin
news:20021031202753...@mb-fo.aol.com...
You might just explain that bullshit to the rest of us rather than asking
him to "solve it"
penguin
news:46686564.02103...@posting.google.com...
> > I read in google a post by Cypher, iirc, written years ago identifying
> > Joe as FFF. It was denied categorically. He was ridiculed for
> > suggesting it.
>
> I don't remember that *Joe* denied he was FFF. I remember he said he
> wouldn't confirm OR deny.
This should jog your memory:
From: joe1...@aol.com (Joe1orbit)
Subject: Re: OT: For Cipher: Full Force Frank
Date: 1999/09/07
Message-ID: <19990906231320...@ng-bk1.aol.com>
References: <7r0n85$qkj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Newsgroups: alt.true-crime
X-Admin: ne...@aol.com
fro...@my-deja.com Wrote:
>Joe, are you and Full Force Frank one >and the same?
Hello fro,
I do not confirm or deny any guess that is ever made, regarding my
identity.
Ever. For tactical reasons.
>If not, have you ever conversed with him?
I had never heard of the individual known as Full Force Frank until after
he
was mentioned at this NG. Then, I eagerly and gratefully explored his True
Reality, as best I could, finding it very admirable and superior.
I do not discuss whether or not i "converse" with any specific human in
real
life.
Take care, JOE
penguin
news:w8jw9.66912$g9.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
Oh I agree. Masterful retort, lucifer. And then your remark, formicacid,
that was the coup de grace. You two just mopped up the floor with your
opponents.
spo...@petitmorte.net
news:59d29bcb.02103...@posting.google.com:
And they work great. Your vapid lunacy neatly offsets my witty, informed
and intelligent discourse.
Thanks ever so much.
--
The power alone stored in my little hand
Could melt the Eiffel Tower
Turn the Sphinx into sand
spo...@petitmorte.net
news:1fk2su0ldsbdemp7j...@4ax.com:
> On 31 Oct 2002 07:43:38 -0800, Mari...@hotmail.com (Marie) wrote:
>
>>Scorpi...@attNOSPAM.net wrote
>>
>>>Marie, The girl gang and their followers must really hate you. :)
>>>Good work.
>>
>>Hate me? I'm sure you're wrong Scorpion. I think they're quietly in
>>awe of me. <snicker>
>>They need reality checks periodically. I try not to disappoint.
>
> I think your posts are awesome and you don't disappoint.
> You've been very astute in your assessment of this j1o and his persona
> on this newsgroup.......and you are making j1o's fan club look
> foolish.
I didn't know you were into lesbian sex, Nicki. Does your husband know
that you enjoy slurping other women?
> I'm glad I am home with the remodelers this week or I would have
> missed it all. There is that karma again :)
You're about due for another whine about hating flames, you lying piece of
fluff.
Jason Pope
Michael Lonergan wrote:
................maybe cos it's because you lot are totally fucked up and love to
spread disinformation if you can get a laugh out of it.
This latest scam will probably yield the mailing addresses of many of those that
pissed you off,.......but certainly not mine!
Jason Pope
You're talking bollocks Sarah!
HTH
Michael Lonergan
Bwwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!! You think this is a scam to get
your mailing address?! ROFLMAO... Jason, 1/2 of Usenet has your mailing
address and it had nothing to do with the present situation.
Lessee... let's hire a prison inmate to pose as Joe1 so we can cull mailing
addresses from the unsuspecting on a Usenet newsgroup.
Michael <- ribs sore from laughing
Every9man
>In article <59d29bcb.02103...@posting.google.com>,
>Mari...@hotmail.com says...
>>
>
>SNIP -
>
>>Lord Sir seems to think that's what Joe was looking for.
>
>No, I don't. For the record, I believe I stated that a discourse with Joe
>was
>possible for those interested in one.
>
>I think Joe didn't care if anyone was interested in discourse or not. During
>his time of posting here there was very little discourse. Rather, what
>I saw
>were mainly people who reviled him and his opinions and those that supported
>his
>right to express his opinions as they engaged in a non-stop battle to make
>their
>points.
>
>I would rather have seen more people take the time to attempt discourse
>with him
>because Ido think he offered a rare opportunity to explore subjects and
>points
>of view which deserve dispassionate scrutiny. Instead, because so many
> people
>are incapable of such an undertaking, all we got for the most part was
>a lot of
>noise. I think that's too bad, a real loss actually. Even now the same
>noise
>continues in threads like these and tha'ts just sad.
>
>I think Joe posted because he saw evidence which supported his world view
>in the
>stories he posted and he was interested in expressing his particular point
>of
>view and his particular insights into the human condition by way of the
>stories
>he chose to post. He wanted to clearly demonstrate the cruelty and sickness
>in
>our social structure and he wanted to point out the lies and hypocrisy which
>permits such cruelty and sickness to continue unabated.
>
>Nothing wrong with that as far as I can tell.
>
>I think Joe wasmuch less interested in discourse than he was interested
>in
>expressing his opinions, and why shouldn't he be permitted to do that ?
>
>LS
>
>
>
>
>
>
Every9man
I recall Joe saying quite clearly that he wasnt interested in discourse other
than that it gave him the opportunity to refine his views.
He did however have some relatively long discussions with some posters who
questioned his views. And as long as they remained civil he stayed.
The problem occurred when the opposing poster couldnt convince Joe that he was
right and Joe was wrong and what a conflagration that turned out to be.
barbara
misn...@webtv.net
-Mom-
avoid posting..
}alt.true-crime
}
}
Are you posting in invisible type?
--
-Mom- ~^..^~
Kat
wrote:
>There were people who frequent this ng ATC that said Joe had no
>redeeming value. I disagree; at the end of his rant he would have a
>news story from AP or somewhere that was about true crime. I received
>more true crime information from his posts than anyone else who posted
>here; he knew the purpose of this ng and he always posted ATC stories
>but he did do a 1000 or 2000 word editorial which I generally ignored.
>There were a lot of people who could not get past his personal comments
>on topics to get to the news articles. I would consider him a asset to
>this ng, but I do not see any reason why anyone here would enjoy
>learning about his personal views of life or any details about his
>personal life.
>Pat
>
Pat I was here when Joe first arrived, actually I was here when we
were lucky to receive 50 postings a day on this group. Back when Anne
Rule, Jack and TC writers enjoyed this group and were more than
willing to post here. We all had a lot of good discussions :)
Flaming was rare if ever, we all had civil discussions. If we
disagreed we disagreed as adults, we didn't do flame wars or have to
chose sides, or the silly thing of reposting every post someone does
and snipping it to make it look like they said things they never said,
or calling people drunks, attacking those with disabled children,
basically we didn't have to crawl into the gutter to have a
discussion.
We could discuss each view point as adults. And we really didn't need
or want our "friends" to jump in and attack because someone disagreed
with us, the disagreement was kept between the two parties and they
would talk it out, like most adults do. Those were the good old days
of this newsgroup.
Concerning Joe, as I stated on a mailing list today, I didn't hate
him, I didn't consider myself a Joe fan. I did appreciate all the TC
postings he did, I just skipped past a lot of what he personally
wrote. I should state when he first arrived I did read all of his
preamble to the TC postings, but after awhile I stopped reading a lot
of what he personally said, most of it was repetitive and I just
wasn't into it. But I did appreciate him posting all the TC stories.
When this group turned into a flaming NG instead of a TC NG, a LOT of
people left including the TC writers, and a lot of the regular posters
turned to lurkers. I left for a couple of years, and came back about a
year ago, though I mostly lurk now. I think I've done 3 or 4 postings
in the past year.
I know some on here who post all the time don't think there are
lurkers, I know I'm one and I know a lot of people who have decided
not to bother posting here anymore. There's no use doing it, since all
that will happen is people will attack you & make up lies about you.
Of course their not true, but that doesn't matter to some on here,
their point is to humiliate and hurt people, seems they have fun doing
that. God knows why. Or they'll accuse you of being someone you
aren't. Of course you can't prove who you are, and they can't prove
your the other person, but they will insist you are that person until
people believe it, since they say it so many times. They do that also
when calling people drunks, welfare mothers and such also. I even saw
one poster making fun of another poster because they worked at a fast
food restaurant. I don't think that person realizes how foolish that
made them look, making fun of someone who is earning a honest dollar
doing a honest days work. That was completely shameful.
It's rather sad to see what this group has become, from what it was.
Yes I know some will reply and say, your not forced to read the
flaming, unfortunately almost all the threads turn into that now days.
It's hard to find TC on here anymore, but very easy to find flaming,
hatred, anger, he said/she said/did this so I can say this threads.
I haven't lost hope yet though on finding TC, maybe some day people
will get back to that. And stop acting like school yard children.
Was Joe all bad? No, not to me. Was he someone to be adored? I don't
think so. He was just a poster like any other poster, who happened to
have some rather unique ideas about society and people in general. Did
I consider him a friend or enemy? No, most of his ideas I found
unrealistic, though I will admit I did warm up to the idea of having
people taking a test before being able to have children, though
realistically that will never happen. Yet I did and still do like
that idea.
I am surprised at the amount of anger he caused among those who hated
him and even among those who liked him. It seems he brought out a lot
of bad in both sides. Sadly that anger is still around, even though
Joe hasn't been around for a long time.
It makes me wonder if that is they type of legacy anyone would want to
leave? Anger, flaming and hatred? I would hope not.
Yet it seems that is what happened with Joe. You know thinking of
this, actually that is not what Joe left, that is what his friends and
enemies have become. They all show anger and hatred towards each other
constantly. So perhaps it's not his legacy but it's their own that is
coming out. He wanted to make people think and reconsider their pat
ideas they lived with for so long. Yet a lot of them, have ignored
that, instead they found it easier to show a side of themselves that
most people would never dare show in public.
So all in all I think what Joe wanted to accomplish failed. He wanted
people to look at life through a different perspective, and reconsider
what they considered the norm. Instead all that was accomplished, at
least from what I see, is a bunch of people who hate each other, who
look for any excuse to antagonize and call each other names, and show
who can flame better than the other. Yet not once do they stop and
look in the mirror and ask themselves would they really walk up to a
stranger on the street and say those type of things?
There used to be a unwritten rule people followed on the net, if you
wouldn't say what your posting to a person face to face, you shouldn't
post it. Somehow most forgot or never learned that rule, or perhaps
they purposely don't want to follow it. It's so much easier to get out
all their frustrations on this NG. The worst part is they are proud of
themselves when they do it, I can't help but feel pity for them. To
think one's "fun" is hurting other people? How sad of a life can that
be?
--
Kat
Sarah Monroe
>in jail.
>>
>> Jason
>
>ROFLMAO... OMG... This just gets better and better. Jason, the *same*
>person yanks your chain and you fall for it every time. Every fucking time.
>
>Michael <- kicking back and enjoying the show
>
>
>
>
>
done over and over and over and you fall for it every time.
Kat
wrote:
>There were people who frequent this ng ATC that said Joe had no
>redeeming value. I disagree; at the end of his rant he would have a
>news story from AP or somewhere that was about true crime. I received
>more true crime information from his posts than anyone else who posted
>here; he knew the purpose of this ng and he always posted ATC stories
>but he did do a 1000 or 2000 word editorial which I generally ignored.
>There were a lot of people who could not get past his personal comments
>on topics to get to the news articles. I would consider him a asset to
>this ng, but I do not see any reason why anyone here would enjoy
>learning about his personal views of life or any details about his
>personal life.
>Pat
>
Pat I was here when Joe first arrived, actually I was here when we
were lucky to receive 30 postings a day on this group. Back when Anne
Rule, Jack and TC writers enjoyed this group and were more than
willing to post here. We all had a lot of good discussions on ATC :-)
And we had some wonderful postings by a very nice gentleman who used
to post all these old TC stories from days gone by. I used to look
forward to those, actually he gave me permission to post them to a Law
list I ran. He would even email them to me, I deeply appreciated him
allowing me to do that.
Flaming was rare if ever, we had civil discussions. If we disagreed we
disagreed as adults, we didn't do flame wars or feel we had to chose
sides, or the silly thing of reposting every post someone does and
snipping it to make it look like they said things they never said, or
calling people drunks, attacking those with disabled children, we
never made up a fake email addresses using a posters name we didn't
like in order to confuse people who don't pay attention to headers,
basically we didn't have to crawl into the gutter to have a discussion
and a good NG. Thank God for that.
We could discuss our view points as adults. And we really didn't need
or want our "friends" to jump in and attack someone because they
disagreed with us. We didn't expect or want them to hate that person
because we had a disagreement and start flaming them. The disagreement
was kept between the two parties and they would talk it out, like most
adults do. Most of the disagreements were ended amicably or they just
agreed to disagree. Those were the good old days of this newsgroup.
Concerning Joe, as I stated on a mailing list recently, I didn't hate
him, I also didn't consider myself a Joe fan. I did appreciate all the
TC postings he did, I just skipped past a lot of what he personally
wrote. Wait let me restate that, when he first arrived I did read all
of his preamble to the TC postings, but after awhile I stopped reading
a lot of what he personally said, a lot of it was repetitive and I
just wasn't into it. But I did appreciate him posting all the TC
stories. That's what we were here for, to discuss TC, and Joe DID do
that. I know it took a lot of work and time for him to find all the TC
stories he posted every day.
When this group turned into a flaming NG instead of a TC NG, a LOT of
people left including the TC writers, and a lot of the regular posters
turned to lurkers. I left for a couple of years, and came back about a
year ago, though I mostly lurk now. I think I might have done 3 or 4
postings in the past year here, I'm not quite sure. But I know it
hasn't been many. And I don't care to check out google to make sure
I'm right on my numbers, something so mundane as that, well it's
really not that important to me.
I know some on here who post all the time don't think there are many
lurkers. Well I know there are, I know I'm one and I know a lot of
people who have decided not to bother posting here anymore, though we
do read the postings. I can't blame them for making that decision not
to post. Heck I made that decision myself, though every once in a
while something someone says will drag me out of lurkdom since I feel
I should reply, mainly because I have experience in the area their
discussing. I am not one that posts private emails to members here,
well I did once to Maggie, but it was concerning something she said
her group needed for some of the Special needs kids that I had access
to and I offered it to her.
I sometimes think it's futile to post here, since all that will happen
is people will attack you & make up lies about you. Of course they are
not true, but that doesn't seem to matter to some on here, their main
objective is to humiliate and hurt people they don't like, seems they
have fun doing that. Only they know why they do that. Perhaps to drive
away the people they don't like? That's kind of scary if you think
about it. If you don't like someone make up a bunch of lies to
humiliate and hurt them, so they disappear/leave? Why would someone
think they have the right to do that? What's even more puzzling is why
would anyone on here condone that type of behavior and not object to
it?
Another strategy is they'll accuse you of being someone you aren't. Of
course you can't prove who you are, and they can't prove you are the
other person, but they will insist you are that person until people
believe it, since they say it so many times. Thus their accusation
somehow becomes truth to most on the NG, though they know different,
but will not admit it. They do that also when calling people drunks,
welfare mothers and so on. I even saw one poster recently making fun
of another poster because they worked at a fast food restaurant. I
don't think that person realizes how foolish that made THEM look,
making fun of someone who is earning a honest dollar doing a honest
days work? How low are some people willing to go? Do they have no
shame or morals? It was disgraceful.
It's rather sad to see what this group has become, from what it was.
Yes I know some will reply and say, your not forced to read the
flaming, unfortunately almost all the threads turn into that now days.
It's hard to find TC on here anymore, but very easy to find flaming,
hatred, anger, he said/she said/they did this so I can say this
threads. The other fond chant is "kill file me!" Well what some of
these people don't consider is those who are screaming use the kill
file, they sometimes DO good TC postings, and most don't want to miss
those rare postings. So they have to trudge through the flames for the
good stuff.
I haven't lost hope yet though on ATC, maybe some day people will get
back to TC and stop the flaming. When will they stop acting like
undisciplined 2 year old children? Actually to be honest most children
I know aren't even this mean and cruel to each other. ATC has brought
cruelty to a all time low. The sad part is it used to never be like
this, a couple of people came in and changed the whole NG,
unfortunately it wasn't for the better.
Was Joe all bad? No, not to me. Was he someone to be admired? To me he
wasn't. He was just a poster like any other poster, who happened to
have some rather unique ideas about society and people in general. Did
I consider him a friend or enemy? Neither, most of his ideas I found
unrealistic, though I will admit I did warm up to the idea of having
people taking a test before being able to have children, though
realistically that will never happen. Yet I did and still do like
that idea. I wish it could be implemented, but I know it's impossible
and it will never happen.
I am surprised at the amount of anger he caused among those who hated
him and shocked by the amount of anger among those who liked him have.
It seems he brought out a lot of bad in both sides. Sadly that anger
is still around, even though Joe hasn't been around for a long time.
That says a lot about his enemies and his friends, unfortunately what
it says about both sides is not good.
It makes me wonder if that is they type of legacy anyone would want to
leave? Anger, flaming, hatred and discontent? I would hope not.
Yet it seems that is what happened with Joe. You know thinking of
this, actually that is not what Joe left, that is what his friends and
enemies have become, unfortunately they do it in the name of Joe, or
so they say.
They use Joe as their excuse/reasoning for their behavior. Those who
like Joe claim they are only flaming to defend him, those who hated
Joe say they are doing it to attack those who liked Joe, because that
person attacked them first. In the end though all that happens is they
all show anger and hatred towards each other almost daily.
So perhaps it's not Joe's legacy but it's their own that is being
developed right before our eyes? He wanted to make people think and
reconsider their pat ideas they lived with for so long, he wanted to
shake up their comfort zones. To show them a different side of life,
and to show that perhaps our comfort zones aren't as secure as we all
thought. Yet a lot of people have ignored that message, instead they
found it easier to show a side of themselves that most people would
never dare show in public and hopefully not even in private. They
found a dark side of themselves, that was perhaps better left
undiscovered and worse yet they then revealed that part of themselves
in a public forum here on ATC. Some things are best left alone.
All in all I think what Joe wanted to accomplish, he failed to do and
that IS unfortunate. He wanted people to look at life through a
different perspective, and reconsider what they considered the norm.
Instead all that was accomplished, at least from what I have seen, is
a group of people who hate each other, who look for any excuse to
antagonize and call each other names, and show who can flame better
than the other. Who is better at hating than the other? Why would
anyone want to win that battle let alone want to participate in it?
Yet not once do any of these people stop and ask themselves do I
really want to say this in a public forum? Do I really want people to
attribute this comment to me, and remember *I* am the one that said
something so horribly cruel and hateful to another person?
It's a vicious circle here on ATC that neither party wants to stop for
some reason. Kind of like an abusive relationship, you have to decide
to stop the abuse or let it continue. In a NG it's quite easy to stop
the abuse, all you have to do is refuse to reply to it. The ones
flaming will end up looking like a fool. One of the most embarrassing
things on the net is to put in a lot of time and effort to flame
people, and everyone just ignores it. The flamer then looks foolish
and usually stops pretty quick, since no one rises to their umm well
planned bait. It puts egg on their face, instead of where they planned
on it to go. No one likes to embarrass themselves :-)
There used to be a unwritten rule people followed on the net, "if you
wouldn't say what your posting to a person face to face, you shouldn't
post it in a email or on a NG".
Somehow most forgot or never learned that rule, or perhaps they
purposely don't want to follow it? It's so much easier to get out all
their anger and frustrations on this NG. The worst part is they are
proud of themselves when they do it, some of their so called friends
even congratulate them for doing such a "good flame". I can't help but
feel pity for the one who did the flame and those who support that
person. Imagine what type of person it must be who thinks it's "fun"
to hurt other people? How sad and lonely of a life must that person
have that they must bring that type of attention to themselves to get
people to notice them? It says so much more about the person flaming,
then the person it's directed at. Yet some people just don't realize
that, or maybe they do but refuse to acknowledge it, at least in
public. I hope I never have friends that prompt me to humiliate myself
by lowering myself to speak trash, half-truths, and plain out lies
about someone I don't like. I just don't think that type of a person
is a friend at all, but a instigator who is enjoying all the flaming
and resentment being put forth in this forum.
I wonder what will happen when some of these people will finally
realize what they have done to their own reputations, what type of
personality they have created for themselves here on ATC? I know I
would have a heck of a time holding my head up high in society if I
ever said 1/8 of the things people freely post here, all in the name
of fun, and using the feeble excuse of well it's Usenet. That's a
excuse nothing more, nothing less. Being on usenet is not a free card
to act like gutter trash. Though some of the posters think it is. Some
get a real thrill out of it, they love to see the hate and discontent,
they start the flames, and sit back and laugh as they watch the show
before them. It feeds a cruel and evil side of them that they don't
show in RL, but they can roll in and enjoy on here.
Guess I'll be flamed all over for this post. That's okay :-) I don't
reply to flames, never have and never will.
This post isn't meant as a flame, though some may think it is. It's
just a way of saying, "Hey, look at what you are doing to yourself and
this NG? Do you really want to do/say that to a newsgroup that has so
much good to offer, and so many who want to discuss the true content
of the NG, which in case some may have forgotten is TC."
Joe is gone, some are sad about that. That's understandable, they
considered him a friend. Some were hurt in RL due to the fiasco that
others did concerning the FBI and such. That was wrong, no question
there. Yet it can't be changed can it? I've never seen anyone who's
been able to go back in time and change things. Yet how many years
must it be rehashed, before those who were hurt feel that they have
gotten retribution and that those responsible have been punished? At
what point and time do people decide to move on? I guess that's just
something each person has to decide on their own.
Back to lurking.
--
Kat
mothra...@hotmail.com
Ooooh. "Formicacid." Lethal. I like it a lot.
Of course, nothing's as good as "Icky."
Martha
Marie
>Prove that I have blindly followed anything. Go ahead. Ickynicki
will help
>you google. Or lie. Whatever you two do best. (Hint: that would
be LIE)
LOL! You follow Martha around, slurping up her vomitus for the entire
group to see.
You mimic her every move. Do you think the readers don't notice?
Martha poots Nan - Lazy Faker poots Nan. Martha calls Nicki Icki, you
start calling Nicki Icki. You're such a gross wannabe it's
embarrassing to watch.
Where did you question Sarah Monroe's info? You didn't. Why? Because
Martha didn't.
>>Not even bothering to consider how
>> many lies have already been told.
>
>How would YOU know what I've considered or not?
You're a Martha wannabe. It's obvious.
>>But, we're not supposed to question
>> why someone, who protected his identity like a mad dog, suddenly
wants
>> to be shown for being the non-seer of truth he really is.
>
>I don't fucking care if you question why the sky is blue or why you
can't
>get laid. I could care less. I didn't tell anyone to write to Joe.
I
>didn't post his address. I've never said much about him at all. Not
that
>that ever stopped the name calling and harassment of me by you and
your ilk.
>You've been up to your hammer-marked ass in google for weeks now --
show me
>some posts that back up ANYTHING of what you are saying about me.
I don't have to show you a damn thing.
You were cackling with glee re: "Best of all, the Head Gripers don't
even believe it." It implies you do. Now you're back pedalling.
>> It works for you and that's ok.
>
>If what works for me? What ARE you babbling about? You are truly
insane.
Best of all, the Head Gripers don't even believe it.
>> People with brains not made of haggis can think for themselves,
>> though.
>
>That must leave you out.
Oooh, such biting wit.
>> Carry on.
>
>Did I ask for your permission? Cite that along with all the other
imaginary
>ones you and ickynicki are making up, will you?
Screech! <yawn> Screech some more.
>Volfie (jesus, you are a bigger loon that the UT -- how's THAT
possible?)
Martha's biggest slurper calling me the loon? Too funny.
Now go stick that haggis head of your's back up Martha's ass, where it
belongs.
mothra...@hotmail.com
>
>Martha calls Nicki Icki
Liar. Why don't you learn to read?
Martha
Lady Taker
"Michael Lonergan" <do...@earthlinknospam.net> wrote in message
news:Euow9.519$7n.5...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> "=^.^=" <nick...@nospamyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1fk2su0ldsbdemp7j...@4ax.com...
> >
> > I think your posts are awesome and you don't disappoint.
>
> You hold anyone that can put together a complete sentence in awe.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, are awed.
Volfie (bet she's easy to please at Xmas. A rubber band and a stick
probably entertains her 'til July)
Marie
Marie said:
>>Lord Sir seems to think that's what Joe was looking for.
>
>No, I don't. For the record, I believe I stated that a discourse
with Joe was
>possible for those interested in one.
If I misstated, I apologize.
>I think Joe didn't care if anyone was interested in discourse or not.
During
>his time of posting here there was very little discourse. Rather,
what I saw
>were mainly people who reviled him and his opinions and those that
supported his
>right to express his opinions as they engaged in a non-stop battle to
make their
>points.
>
>I would rather have seen more people take the time to attempt
discourse with him
>because Ido think he offered a rare opportunity to explore subjects
and points
>of view which deserve dispassionate scrutiny. Instead, because so
many people
>are incapable of such an undertaking, all we got for the most part
was a lot of
>noise. I think that's too bad, a real loss actually. Even now the
same noise
>continues in threads like these and tha'ts just sad.
Well, according to my reading on the subject Joe would make it almost
impossible to attempt discourse with him because of his rules.
His posts are filled with insults and directives. He would insult and
berate humanity in general, and some posters specifically if they
asked what he deemed a stupid question.
The battle lines are drawn, no one can argue that.
>I think Joe posted because he saw evidence which supported his world
view in the
>stories he posted and he was interested in expressing his particular
point of
>view and his particular insights into the human condition by way of
the stories
>he chose to post. He wanted to clearly demonstrate the cruelty and
sickness in
>our social structure and he wanted to point out the lies and
hypocrisy which
>permits such cruelty and sickness to continue unabated.
>Nothing wrong with that as far as I can tell.
This group is a breeding ground of hypocrisy. He came to the right
place if that was his intent.
The cruelty and sickness you believe he wanted to demonstrate were the
hallmarks of his posts, imo. He raged against society, wanting to kill
everyone. Even children weren't excused from his twisted fantasies.
I contend his posts were designed to enrage and inflame. He wanted his
views to come under attack, otherwise he wouldn't have been so
offensive in his writings.
If it wasn't Joe talking about following young girls around, the cry
in this group would have resounded across usenet. But, it was Joe, so
his stalking of young girls was ok because he was dealing with past
childhood issues and not hurting anyone with his sick fantasies.
Strange allowances, imo.
>I think Joe wasmuch less interested in discourse than he was
interested in
>expressing his opinions, and why shouldn't he be permitted to do
that ?
He should be able to express his opinions. He should also be able to
back up those opinions when questioned about them.
Joe was close minded. Why would anyone put much stock into his
opinions if he refused to discuss them with anyone except those who
followed his dictates?
"Garbage humans" does not inspire constructive communication. It's
inflamatory. The way Joe liked it. Provided he was the one being
inflamatory, and no one else was allowed to be if they wanted to be
heard by the great dictator. But, that's my opinion.
Marie
>Mari...@hotmail.com (Marie)
>> And we're supposed to believe Joe's identity has been revealed
---why?
>> Because Sarah Monroe says it's Joe1Orbit aka FFF? Because this
>> Weintraub guy says he's ready for "no more secrets"?
>
>You're not supposed to believe anything. But the truth is that you DO
>believe something, you could check to see if what you believe is true
>or not, and you choose not to do so.
You're right. I believe Joe was a lying troll.
>> Jesus. We're <non-believers> not the sheep in this group,
TrueReality.
>> But, the lines of distinction are definitely clear.
>
>Yes, no doubt about that. "Non-believer" Marie, who is not a sheep,
>who believes that GMSpider lies, but wouldn't check to see if her
>belief is true or not. A paragon of rationality and healthy
>skepticism.
Lucy, you write the boy. I'm not interested in jail house
relationships with a petty, and even a not so petty, criminal. Why
bother to write? I'm not deluded enough to believe I'd get an honest
reply. The history is self-evident.
>> I read in google a post by Cypher, iirc, written years ago
identifying
>> Joe as FFF. It was denied categorically. He was ridiculed for
>> suggesting it.
>
>I don't remember that *Joe* denied he was FFF. I remember he said he
>wouldn't confirm OR deny.
Did I say Joe denied anything? I said *It* was categorically denied -
and it was.
>> Now, years later, Sarah Monroe posts that Joe is really Joe
Weintraub
>> and FFF, and the group is supposed to bow down to her superior
>> knowledge?
>
>Yes, since it's the truth, easily verifiable and accessible to all.
Sure. If you write the Seer of Forbidden Truths. Hey, that's your
belief, don't try to foist it on me.
Joe is a liar. That is what has been verified to me.
>> Knowledege that was denied when someone else figured it
>> out?
>
>Yes. People aren't obliged to tell all they know.
It was denied, Lucy. Making it a lie. But, now, it's not a lie. How
convenient.
>> How stupid do you think some people are?
>
>Well, you keep proving that there's really no limit.
HA! Your insipid insults don't impact me. I consider the source. The
source stinks of lanolin and wet wool.
Lady Taker
put the moves on Joe and he turned you down? I hear you often try to shop
from both sides of the street with little success but, gee, really, you're
too looney to live. I guess you are living proof of that old adage, "A
woman scorned is a raving 'net loon named 'Marie'."
Volfie (oh oh, the cookies are burning)
"Marie" <Mari...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:59d29bcb.02110...@posting.google.com...
Marie
Darn you, Penguin. I was going to wait until they really started
screeching before dropping little bombs on their bullshit.
Oh well.
Good one.
Lady Taker
<mothra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3DC28D...@hotmail.com...
Reading will only confuse and derail her campaign.
Volfie (readin'? readin'? she don' need no stinkin' readin'!
Lady Taker
Jesus Christ. Who said this wasn't mind boggling?
There's no use in anyone on the ex-comm list writing to Joe anyway, is there
Sarah? If he didn't answer them in here why would he answer them in snail
mail? He thought they were idiots and not worth his time, right?
Volfie (another poopy idea floating down the sewer)
Michael Lonergan
news:MPG.182bed309...@news.supernews.com...
Volfie pointed out he was in violation of the 30 keystroke a day TOS WebTV
limits it's posters to.
Michael
--
http://www.claque.net
Lady Taker
Finally blew his finger off, did he? Good.
Volfie (those WebTV Enforcers don't fool around, baby)
Michael Lonergan
> screeching before dropping little bombs on their bullshit.
>
> Oh well.
> Good one.
Psssstttt.... Marie, it is Marie, right? It's not a bomb hon. It's
archived. I know you've "invested" much of your life culling Google.
Unfortunately an archived post isn't a bomb. You'll need to diversify your
portfolio a bit.
Michael <- being helpful
Lady Taker
"Lord Sir" <Lord_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:apud3...@drn.newsguy.com...
> In article <59d29bcb.02110...@posting.google.com>,
> Mari...@hotmail.com says...
> >"Garbage humans" does not inspire constructive communication. It's
> >inflamatory. The way Joe liked it. Provided he was the one being
> >inflamatory, and no one else was allowed to be if they wanted to be
> >heard by the great dictator. But, that's my opinion.
>
> Well, I understand what you are saying. I saw his inlammatory language as
a
> means of drawing people's attention to his ideas, as a device to force
deeper
> inspection of his ideas. I wasn't personally affected by his insults
because to
> me they served a purpose. The insults were not the main thing. They were
like
> signs saying "Loook Here" and "Think About It". Joe wanted people to have
> people reconsider their own ideas and to examine his. Just my opinion.
>
> LS
I find it curious that the terms Joe used for all humanity, ie: "garbage
human, womb excretion, sheeple" can inspire such frothing rage on the part
of the shriekers in here and yet the (almost daily) posts to ATC spouting
well-known racial epitaphs, slurs and degradations are virtually ignored. I
guess it's a lot easier to ignore hate rhetoric when it's not directed at
you, eh? Thank god for lily white skin and Anglo roots.
Volfie (it's sort of the ostrich approach to insult application)
Every9man
Almost everybody knows your address you silly twit, you really think that any
secret is safe with some of your friends who run their mouths just to get
attention?
Barbara
Lucy A. Afar
<apud3...@drn.newsguy.com> :
him a
>question should be polite. Of course that was pretty much impossible
for some
>people. His rules grew more over the course of time. The
Aotomatated Flame
>Reply and the Excommunication List developed so that he didn't have
to waste
>time dealing with posters who were unwilling and/or unable to be
polite in
>discourse.
>
>>His posts are filled with insults and directives. He would insult
and
>>berate humanity in general, and some posters specifically if they
>>asked what he deemed a stupid question.
>
manner of
>expression and the types of opinions he had formed and was
expressing. Yes, he
>berated humanity - it ws his opinion that humanity in general was in
a terrible
>state ( and I agree with his assessment). Yes, he berated some
posters,
>specifically if they asked what he deemed to be a stupid question. I
think this
>displays a certain kind of impatience with what he percieved to be a
lack of
>effort and insight on behalf of that poster. It's not like he wanted
to be
>dragged into endless debate with people who in his opinion lacked the
critical
>skills to debate with him.
>
>>
>>The battle lines are drawn, no one can argue that.
>>
>>>I think Joe posted because he saw evidence which supported his
world
>>view in the
>>>stories he posted and he was interested in expressing his
particular
>>point of
>>>view and his particular insights into the human condition by way of
>>the stories
>>>he chose to post. He wanted to clearly demonstrate the cruelty and
>>sickness in
>>>our social structure and he wanted to point out the lies and
>>hypocrisy which
>>>permits such cruelty and sickness to continue unabated.
>>
>>>Nothing wrong with that as far as I can tell.
>>
>>This group is a breeding ground of hypocrisy. He came to the right
>>place if that was his intent.
>>The cruelty and sickness you believe he wanted to demonstrate were
the
>>hallmarks of his posts, imo. He raged against society, wanting to
kill
>>everyone. Even children weren't excused from his twisted fantasies.
>
was a
>brilliant (sacrastic and ironic) device he utilized to get people to
think. It
>worked on those people who actually could think. Think about this :
on the one
>hand he raged even against children. On the other he spent a great
deal of
>thought and energy to come up with a way that society could protect
children.
>What's up with that ?
>
>>
>>I contend his posts were designed to enrage and inflame.
>
>
>>He wanted his
>>views to come under attack, otherwise he wouldn't have been so
>>offensive in his writings.
>
complacency.
>
>>If it wasn't Joe talking about following young girls around, the cry
>>in this group would have resounded across usenet. But, it was Joe,
so
>>his stalking of young girls was ok because he was dealing with past
>>childhood issues and not hurting anyone with his sick fantasies.
>>Strange allowances, imo.
>
occur in ?
>Did he harm anyone ?
>
>I just don't know enough about this to form an opinion at this time.
It seems
>like it must not be an important or large enough part of his
expression for me
>to have picked up on it.
>
>>
>>>I think Joe wasmuch less interested in discourse than he was
>>interested in
>>>expressing his opinions, and why shouldn't he be permitted to do
>>that ?
>>
>>He should be able to express his opinions. He should also be able to
>>back up those opinions when questioned about them.
>
>
>>Joe was close minded. Why would anyone put much stock into his
>>opinions if he refused to discuss them with anyone except those who
>>followed his dictates?
>
society. Still he
>was open to change and as I ppointed out, he could be persuaded even
if he
>wouldn't come right out and say so. His dictates wern't all that
onerous. He
>mainly wanted and respected polite disagreement and debate. Why
should he be
>expected to dicuss anything and especially discuss anything with rude
people ?
>
>>"Garbage humans" does not inspire constructive communication. It's
>>inflamatory. The way Joe liked it. Provided he was the one being
>>inflamatory, and no one else was allowed to be if they wanted to be
>>heard by the great dictator. But, that's my opinion.
>
>Well, I understand what you are saying. I saw his inlammatory
language as a
>means of drawing people's attention to his ideas, as a device to
force deeper
>inspection of his ideas. I wasn't personally affected by his insults
because to
>me they served a purpose. The insults were not the main thing. They
were like
>signs saying "Loook Here" and "Think About It". Joe wanted people to
have
>people reconsider their own ideas and to examine his. Just my
opinion.
And mine, too. Joe had many interesting discussions with many posters
here, posters who didn't share his views. Or who started by not
sharing his views and ended up by changing their own, to a significant
degree - I was myself one of these.
Joe was perhaps the most brilliant user of the Socratic method whom I
had the privilege to meet, his ability to stimulate creative thinking
was amazing. Joe didn't provide answers, but he raised the relevant
questions in a manner so powerful, that it was impossible to ignore
them anymore. Joe's shocking style was, perhaps, the ONLY way to force
us into thinking of that which we'd rather forget, or even worse,
ignore. Joe was a mirror held into the face of our civilization, at a
moment in time when the extinction of our species is, perhaps, right
behind the corner - unless we wake up and DO something about it. Joe
had the courage to speak about all of those forbidden subjects that
the establishment everywhere would rather have us not even see, not to
mention talk about.
I think that Joe was the most interesting, most stimulating poster in
this group, one of the great midwives of the Truth (if I were to use
the metaphor dear to Socrates) and I personally owe him a lot and am
forever grateful to him, for all I've discovered and learned, thanks
to him.
Lucy
Lucy A. Afar
> lucy...@my-deja.com (Lucy A. Afar) wrote
>
> >Mari...@hotmail.com (Marie)
> >> And we're supposed to believe Joe's identity has been revealed
> ---why?
> >> Because Sarah Monroe says it's Joe1Orbit aka FFF? Because this
> >> Weintraub guy says he's ready for "no more secrets"?
> >
> >You're not supposed to believe anything. But the truth is that you DO
> >believe something, you could check to see if what you believe is true
> >or not, and you choose not to do so.
>
> You're right. I believe Joe was a lying troll.
Your beliefs, important as they may be to you, are not necessarily the
truth. And even if you were right (which you're not) that Joe was a
troll, it doesn't in any way invalidate the fact that GMS revealed
indeed Joe's real identity.
> >> Jesus. We're <non-believers> not the sheep in this group,
> TrueReality.
> >> But, the lines of distinction are definitely clear.
> >
> >Yes, no doubt about that. "Non-believer" Marie, who is not a sheep,
> >who believes that GMSpider lies, but wouldn't check to see if her
> >belief is true or not. A paragon of rationality and healthy
> >skepticism.
>
> Lucy, you write the boy. I'm not interested in jail house
> relationships with a petty, and even a not so petty, criminal.
That's your privilege and nobody asks you to do otherwise.
> Why
> bother to write? I'm not deluded enough to believe I'd get an honest
> reply. The history is self-evident.
I don't know what history are you talking about, but Joe's style is
pretty easily recognizable. If you are interested in the truth, the
ONLY possible way to verify if Joe is really who GMSpider says he is,
is to write the guy and see what he replies. If you choose not to do
so, you've got to rely on your strong beliefs, but you'll never get a
real proof.
> >> I read in google a post by Cypher, iirc, written years ago
> identifying
> >> Joe as FFF. It was denied categorically. He was ridiculed for
> >> suggesting it.
> >
> >I don't remember that *Joe* denied he was FFF. I remember he said he
> >wouldn't confirm OR deny.
>
> Did I say Joe denied anything? I said *It* was categorically denied -
> and it was.
So? What does the fact that *it* was denied by others prove about Joe?
Should I remind you some of the things that were said about you? Do
they prove anything about you, just because "somebody said them"?
> >> Now, years later, Sarah Monroe posts that Joe is really Joe
> Weintraub
> >> and FFF, and the group is supposed to bow down to her superior
> >> knowledge?
> >
> >Yes, since it's the truth, easily verifiable and accessible to all.
>
> Sure. If you write the Seer of Forbidden Truths.
It's the only way to get a PROOF, either way. The only way to learn
who a person you meet online is in Real Life, is to contact that
person in Real Life. True, sometimes this might not be such a good
idea, but I, for one, would be more scared to meet other atc posters
in Real Life, than Joe. But well, that's just me.
> Hey, that's your
> belief, don't try to foist it on me.
No, Marie, you're wrong - I don't have to believe anything about Joe,
because I *know*.
> Joe is a liar. That is what has been verified to me.
Yeah, just as once witches were "verified" by throwing them into fire;
if they burned, they were indeed witches.
> >> Knowledege that was denied when someone else figured it
> >> out?
> >
> >Yes. People aren't obliged to tell all they know.
>
> It was denied, Lucy. Making it a lie. But, now, it's not a lie. How
> convenient.
Oh well. Let me tell you something. At the time of the
Full-Force-Frank-is-Joe thing, I was sure that Joe was someone else.
Just as sure as you are now that he isn't who GMS says he is. If at
that time, based on my logic, I posted that Joe and FFF seemed to be
two different people, I wasn't lying; I was saying what I thought to
be true _at_that_time_. I don't remember anyone saying categorically
"Joe isn't FFF" - perhaps Penguin or some other bird can provide a
cite to refresh my memory.
> >> How stupid do you think some people are?
> >
> >Well, you keep proving that there's really no limit.
>
> HA! Your insipid insults don't impact me.
I'm glad, and I apologize. At times, I tend to react less patiently to
absurdities, but that's not an excuse.
> I consider the source. The
> source stinks of lanolin and wet wool.
Whatever. You can't insult me, Marie. You have to matter a lot more to
me, to be able to do so.
Lucy
Lady Taker
"Lucy A. Afar" <lucy...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:46686564.02110...@posting.google.com...
> Mari...@hotmail.com (Marie) wrote in message
news:<59d29bcb.02110...@posting.google.com>...
> > lucy...@my-deja.com (Lucy A. Afar) wrote
> >
> > >Mari...@hotmail.com (Marie)
> > >> And we're supposed to believe Joe's identity has been revealed
> > ---why?
> > >> Because Sarah Monroe says it's Joe1Orbit aka FFF? Because this
> > >> Weintraub guy says he's ready for "no more secrets"?
> > >
> > >You're not supposed to believe anything. But the truth is that you DO
> > >believe something, you could check to see if what you believe is true
> > >or not, and you choose not to do so.
> >
> > You're right. I believe Joe was a lying troll.
>
> Your beliefs, important as they may be to you, are not necessarily the
> truth.
Nor do they have any value to anyone else, living or dead, either.
Volfie (I thought that needed clarification)
d~
>
>d~ wrote in message <3dc270b6...@netnews.attbi.com>...
>>On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 13:29:22 -0800, <True Rea...@claque.net> wrote:
>>
>>True,
>>
>>I enjoy reading your posts, but your newsreader isn't quoting properly
>>and it is getting increasingly difficult to figure out what you quoted
>>and what you wrote.
>>
>>What newsreader are you using? Is there, maybe, something I (or
>>someone else) can do to help you "fix" it?
>>
>>gratefully,
>>
>>d~
>
>
>Thanks I did check my settings in OE and saw that the indent with> was
>unchecked and fixed that. Does it look better?
MUCH! Thank you!
> My OE shows everyones
>posts fine, except
>web tv. Every once in awhile my settings change themselves.
Microsoft sux - there's nothing anyone can do about that...
d~
shar...@mindspring.com
> this group, one of the great midwives of the Truth (if I were to use
> the metaphor dear to Socrates) and I personally owe him a lot and am
> forever grateful to him, for all I've discovered and learned, thanks
> to him.
>
> Lucy
That is a very sad reflection of your intellect, particularly given your
age and locale.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.404 / Virus Database: 228 - Release Date: 10/16/02
My funny face
The things ya forget!
It does not matter if you fall, but rather, if you get back up again.
BethF
"Lord Sir" <Lord_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:apv4c...@drn.newsguy.com...
> In article <3dc4cf90...@netnews.attbi.com>,
> djominsa...@sayno2spam.hotmail.com says...
> >
> >
> >Microsoft sux - there's nothing anyone can do about that...
> >
> >d~
>
or run linux. cheaper.
Every9man
>In article <3dc4cf90...@netnews.attbi.com>,
>djominsa...@sayno2spam.hotmail.com says...
>>
>>
>>Microsoft sux - there's nothing anyone can do about that...
>>
>>d~
>
>Sure there is, switch to a superior machine - get a Mac.
>
>LS
>
YAYYYYYYYYYY!
Now it's you, me and Nancy who have been shown the MAC light.
Maggie was one too but she went away.
Barbara<------------------catcalls rejected.
Every9man
occur in ?
>Did he harm anyone ?
>
>I just don't know enough about this to form an opinion at this time.
It seems
>like it must not be an important or large enough part of his
expression for me
>to have picked up on it.
>
anyone. He certainly put himself into places where he would see that which was
a turn on for him but stalking? no.
Barbara
Hownow
<ever...@aol.com> wrote:
ummm ... since 1989
- hm
Every9man
>
>"Lucy A. Afar" <lucy...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>news:46686564.02103...@posting.google.com...
>> > I read in google a post by Cypher, iirc, written years ago identifying
>> > Joe as FFF. It was denied categorically. He was ridiculed for
>> > suggesting it.
>>
>> I don't remember that *Joe* denied he was FFF. I remember he said he
>> wouldn't confirm OR deny.
>
>This should jog your memory:
>
>From: joe1...@aol.com (Joe1orbit)
>Subject: Re: OT: For Cipher: Full Force Frank
>Date: 1999/09/07
>Message-ID: <19990906231320...@ng-bk1.aol.com>
>References: <7r0n85$qkj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
>Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
>Newsgroups: alt.true-crime
>X-Admin: ne...@aol.com
>
>fro...@my-deja.com Wrote:
>
>>Joe, are you and Full Force Frank one >and the same?
>
> Hello fro,
>
> I do not confirm or deny any guess that is ever made, regarding my
>identity.
>Ever. For tactical reasons.
>
>>If not, have you ever conversed with him?
>
> I had never heard of the individual known as Full Force Frank until after
>he
>was mentioned at this NG. Then, I eagerly and gratefully explored his True
>Reality, as best I could, finding it very admirable and superior.
>
> I do not discuss whether or not i "converse" with any specific human in
>real
>life.
>
> Take care, JOE
>
>
I see no denial.
Some pretty clever use of the language though.
barbara
penguin
"Every9man" <ever...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021101215045...@mb-fi.aol.com...
I see lots of denial in Babs.