OT: What ever happened to Fontana...
Robert Lieblich
>
> ...?
He's pretending to be some guy named R.F., also spelled Areff. Run
those through the last few days of Google Groups; he'll be there.
Christopher Johnson
But only if you're prepared to be accused of 'stalking' him;
don't say you weren't warned!
--
Christopher
R F
On Wed, 17 Sep 2003, DE781 wrote:
> ...?
You rang? What's OT about me?
Tony Cooper
>...?
Theories abound. Dropped on his head as an infant has credence with
some.
R H Draney
>
>...?
He went out for sandwiches...it may be a while before he gets back....r
R F
It's only 'stalking' if you *talk* about it, CJ. I have no (strong)
objection to your doing that sort of thing and keeping the knowledge to
yourself. Simon Hughes did, I thought, make a legitimate point when he
suggested that *hinting* at the fact of digging up information about a
person can be regarded as an act of terrorism or intimidation. (Not Simon
Hughes's words, but that's how I myself would express the idea that I got
from reading the relevant posting.) (I realize that you have contended
that Simon Hughes was mistaken in thinking that you were 'stalking' him by
posting your question about 'Skrik' or whatever it was. I have no views
on the truth of this matter.)
"To keep the knowledge to yourself": that is something that a few posters
in this Newsgroup (CJ, Coop, Doc Bignall come to mind) ought to think on.
There are some things the world is better off not knowing.
R F
Actually, I should say that I've moderated my views on the sandwichness of
so-called 'subs', what I'd generally call 'heroes' and imitations thereof.
I'm not sure that all such things are sandwiches, but I think some are.
But a hamburger is still not a sandwich.
Dena Jo
> But a hamburger is still not a sandwich.
Who thinks a hamburger is a sandwich?
--
Dena Jo
(Email: Replace TPUBGTH with denajo2)
Padraig Breathnach
>But a hamburger is still not a sandwich.
>
Agreed. It's sandwich filling.
PB
david56
> On 18 Sep 2003, R F posted thus:
>
> > But a hamburger is still not a sandwich.
>
> Who thinks a hamburger is a sandwich?
Oh dear, now you've gone and done it. There'll be days and days of
Americans arguing about whether a sandwich is a hamburger, or
something. <sigh>
--
David
I say what it occurs to me to say.
=====
The address is valid today, but I change it periodically.
Arcadian Rises
<rfon...@mail.wesleyan.edu> writes:
>
>"To keep the knowledge to yourself": that is something that a few posters
>in this Newsgroup (CJ, Coop, Doc Bignall come to mind) ought to think on.
>There are some things the world is better off not knowing.
>
>
Why not?
Now, I'm really curious, what's your dark secret, Areff?
Inquiring munds want to know!
Dena Jo
> Now, I'm really curious, what's your dark secret, Areff?
He's CJ...
Simon R. Hughes
Perhaps he *is* CJ. Perhaps the arguments are just a device to throw
us all off the trail.
Developing...
--
Simon R. Hughes <!-- Kill "Kenny" for email. -->
<!-- http://www.mirrorproject.com/mirror?id=17972 -->
Dena Jo
> Perhaps he *is* CJ.
Great minds!
I beat you by three minutes.
R F
In that statement of mine, I primarily was referring to the tendency of
these posters (and actually I think we should exclude Coop now that we can
presume his wife's consent) to talk about *themselves* in a way that, I
think, crosses the Line of Decency.
Laura F Spira
> R F <rfon...@mail.wesleyan.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.GSO.4.53.03...@alumni.wesleyan.edu>...
>
>>On Wed, 17 Sep 2003, DE781 wrote:
>>
>>
>>>...?
>>
>>You rang? What's OT about me?
>
>
> much more militant about off topic posts (and everything else).
> Though, things seem to be a little different since I was last here.
> It's a good thing.
You're just not looking in the right threads, methinks.
(It occurs to me that Matt and Leah were probably our youngest recent
posters until Master Johnson turned up. As I recall, they jumped in feet
first and made some waves but no-one ever expressed doubts about their
identities. But perhaps this was because they never posted links to
pictures.)
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)
Laura F Spira
Matt? Who he? I think I meant Joe.
R H Draney
>
>On 18 Sep 2003, R F posted thus:
>
>> But a hamburger is still not a sandwich.
>
>Who thinks a hamburger is a sandwich?
That'd be the person or persons unknown who composed the menu at Serrano's, a
chain of Mexican restaurants hereabouts...both "hamburger" and "cheeseburger"
are listed under the heading of "Tortas", which bears the translation
"Sandwiches"....r
Arcadian Rises
Obviously, I misunderstood that statement of yours. I thought the screennames
you listed are privy to one of your darkest secrets and you asked them to keep
their respective mouths shut. Do I have a reading comprehension problem, or was
your language ambiguous?
As for revealing too muchabout oneself, I'm surprized you didn't use the
acronym MITIN or something like that
R F
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, Arcadian Rises wrote:
> In article <Pine.GSO.4.53.03...@alumni.wesleyan.edu>, R F
> <rfon...@mail.wesleyan.edu> writes:
>
> >
> >On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, Arcadian Rises wrote:
> >
> >> In article <Pine.GSO.4.53.03...@alumni.wesleyan.edu>, R F
> >> <rfon...@mail.wesleyan.edu> writes:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"To keep the knowledge to yourself": that is something that a few posters
> >> >in this Newsgroup (CJ, Coop, Doc Bignall come to mind) ought to think on.
> >> >There are some things the world is better off not knowing.
> >>
> >> Why not?
> >>
> >> Now, I'm really curious, what's your dark secret, Areff?
> >
> >In that statement of mine, I primarily was referring to the tendency of
> >these posters (and actually I think we should exclude Coop now that we can
> >presume his wife's consent) to talk about *themselves* in a way that, I
> >think, crosses the Line of Decency.
>
> Obviously, I misunderstood that statement of yours. I thought the screennames
> you listed are privy to one of your darkest secrets and you asked them to keep
> their respective mouths shut. Do I have a reading comprehension problem, or was
> your language ambiguous?
Well, the context here is a bit complicated. Simon Hughes posted some
evidence suggesting that CJ may have (a) been searching somewhere on the
Web for information (of whatever sort) about Simon Hughes, and (b) been
posting a seemingly-innocent query about 'Skrik' in order to signal to
Simon Hughes, specifically, that he was digging up information on him. I
think you have to assume that none of this sort of information can be
called 'secret' -- this is all very public. But it's sort of like how
it's not legally an 'invasion of privacy' to look through someone's
windows with binoculars. It's still unseemly, at least much of the time.
You saw _Rear Window_, right? L.B. Jeffries was rather Hitchcockian in
that he had a bad habit of looking into other people's apartments with his
zoom lens. Sort of like how the same actor undressed Kim Novak while she
was unconscious (or seemingly unconscious, I should say) in _Vertigo_
(though that was done off-screen). Well, Jimmy Stewart can get away with
things like that and still have Grace Kelly stay over at his apartment.
He's Macaulay "Mike" Connor, for cryin' out loud. But Christopher
Johnson? He's no Jimmy Stewart.
Even if CJ is 14, as you seem to believe he is (or are you still convinced
he's an undercover cop?), it's not like 14 year olds can do whatever they
want. Let me tell you a story, Diana. Back in the early 'Eighties, when
I was in eighth or ninth grade, which may well be about the grade CJ is
in if he's really 14, one winter day a bunch of us were walking from the
51st Street IRT station to the 53rd Street IND station[1] (back then, you
see, there was no structural connection between the two stations, and no
free transfer either, though kids used to routinely go through the door
in the station flashing their train passes and hope that they didn't get
caught by a cop, though some of them did, resulting in their getting a
so-called "JD card", which was not a law degree but evidence of juvenile
delinquency). (I was never caught.)
Anyway, one fellow named Max decided to throw a snowball into the open
window of a nearby automobile. The driver of the car was so enraged that
he got out of his car (presumably parking it first [which goes to show
you that you *can* park in Manhattan]) and chased Max several
blocks (IIRC Max escaped harm by running into some hotel or office
building and taking the elevator to the top floor). Now, the point is,
had Max not been so fleet-footed he might have suffered severe and
grievous bodily harm. But while that would have been an unfortunate
thing, to some degree he assumed the risk of such a consequence by
throwing the snowball into the guy's car. That's just one of those
things that you're not supposed to do, and any 14-year-old or
even 13-year-old ought to know that.
> As for revealing too muchabout oneself, I'm surprized you didn't use the
> acronym MITIN or something like that
MITIN?
[1]I was still living in Brooklyn then, but the other people I was
travelling with were Queens residents, who had a real incentive to do the
illegal transfer from 51st Street to 53rd Street. I like to think of
those illegal transfers as acts of civil disobedience which brought about
real social change.
Christopher Johnson
> It's only 'stalking' if you *talk* about it, CJ. I have no (strong)
> objection to your doing that sort of thing and keeping the knowledge to
> yourself. Simon Hughes did, I thought, make a legitimate point when he
> suggested that *hinting* at the fact of digging up information about a
> person can be regarded as an act of terrorism or intimidation.
[..]
So, RF, would you agree that doing the following could also
be regarded as acts of "terrorism or intimidation"?
1. Demanding to know where I was and what I was
doing at a given time of the day.
2. Doing a 'neo-trace-type' investigation into
the details of my IP address, and publishing
the results on AUE.
3. Claiming that I could be one (or more) of any
number of other posters on AUE.
4. Running phrases and expressions I have used
in my posts through various Google searches
in order to substantiate your various
hypotheses that I am, in fact, someone other
than who I claim to be.
5. Claiming that you have "evidence" about me
which "suggests that, whether it's either
Hines or someone else, this person [ie: CJ]
is of the sociopathic stalker variety".
[http://tinyurl.com/nv0f]
"Ye will surely say unto me this proverb, Physician,
heal thyself." [Luke 4:23]
--
Christopher
R F
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, Laura F Spira wrote:
> (It occurs to me that [Joey] and Leah were probably our youngest recent
> posters until Master Johnson turned up. As I recall, they jumped in feet
> first and made some waves but no-one ever expressed doubts about their
> identities. But perhaps this was because they never posted links to
> pictures.)
I never had any doubt that Joey and Leah were the age they claimed to be.
I have had doubts about CJ being 14, and I still do (though I also
recognize, as I always have, that he *might* really be 14).
Actually, I thought about Joey and Leah a while back in this regard,
because it occurred to me that, as persons not long removed from teenaged
life themselves, they might be well-situated to give a good guess as to
whether CJ is the genuine article or not. But I suppose to someone who's,
say, 19, 14 sounds like a very long time ago.
R F
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, Christopher Johnson wrote:
> R F wrote:
>
> > It's only 'stalking' if you *talk* about it, CJ. I have no (strong)
> > objection to your doing that sort of thing and keeping the knowledge to
> > yourself. Simon Hughes did, I thought, make a legitimate point when he
> > suggested that *hinting* at the fact of digging up information about a
> > person can be regarded as an act of terrorism or intimidation.
>
> [..]
>
> So, RF, would you agree that doing the following could also
> be regarded as acts of "terrorism or intimidation"?
>
> 1. Demanding to know where I was and what I was
> doing at a given time of the day.
No.
> 2. Doing a 'neo-trace-type' investigation into
> the details of my IP address, and publishing
> the results on AUE.
Not in this case, because you seem to have initiated the bad
'stalking'-type behavior.
> 3. Claiming that I could be one (or more) of any
> number of other posters on AUE.
Certainly not. What if it's true? Have you considered that you might
really be, say, Tony Cooper? Or Daniel James (Daniel James is always a
good person to suspect)?
> 4. Running phrases and expressions I have used
> in my posts through various Google searches
> in order to substantiate your various
> hypotheses that I am, in fact, someone other
> than who I claim to be.
No. If you use a disguise, you have to accept the risk of someone trying
to unmask you.
> 5. Claiming that you have "evidence" about me
> which "suggests that, whether it's either
> Hines or someone else, this person [ie: CJ]
> is of the sociopathic stalker variety".
> [http://tinyurl.com/nv0f]
This referred to the same conduct of yours that made me suspect that
Simon's theory about why you posted the 'Skrik' query was correct.
Arcadian Rises
>
>Even if CJ is 14, as you seem to believe he is (or are you still convinced
>he's an undercover cop?), it's not like 14 year olds can do whatever they
>want. Let me tell you a story, Diana. Back in the early 'Eighties, when
>I was in eighth or ninth grade, which may well be about the grade CJ is
>in if he's really 14, one winter day a bunch of us were walking from the
>51st Street IRT station to the 53rd Street IND station[1] (back then, you
>see, there was no structural connection between the two stations, and no
>free transfer either, though kids used to routinely go through the door
>in the station flashing their train passes and hope that they didn't get
>caught by a cop, though some of them did, resulting in their getting a
>so-called "JD card", which was not a law degree but evidence of juvenile
>delinquency). (I was never caught.)
You fooled me. I was almost certain you had a JD.
>
>Anyway, one fellow named Max decided to throw a snowball into the open
>window of a nearby automobile. The driver of the car was so enraged that
>he got out of his car (presumably parking it first [which goes to show
>you that you *can* park in Manhattan])
That was in early eighty.
Ob AUE: I understand that we can use the present tense when refering to past
events, but can we use the present tense when refering to things past that no
longer exist/happen?
>and chased Max several
>blocks (IIRC Max escaped harm by running into some hotel or office
>building and taking the elevator to the top floor). Now, the point is,
>had Max not been so fleet-footed he might have suffered severe and
>grievous bodily harm. But while that would have been an unfortunate
>thing, to some degree he assumed the risk of such a consequence by
>throwing the snowball into the guy's car. That's just one of those
>things that you're not supposed to do, and any 14-year-old or
>even 13-year-old ought to know that.
>
>> As for revealing too muchabout oneself, I'm surprized you didn't use the
>> acronym MITIN or something like that
>
>MITIN?
"More info than I need"
>
>[1]I was still living in Brooklyn then, but the other people I was
>travelling with were Queens residents, who had a real incentive to do the
>illegal transfer from 51st Street to 53rd Street. I like to think of
>those illegal transfers as acts of civil disobedience which brought about
>real social change.
>
They did, indeed. Thanks to those brave acts, now it's legal to transfer from
51st to 53rd Street in the NY subway, even though it's still unsafe.
Christopher Johnson
[..]
> Have you considered that you might really be, say, Tony Cooper?
Only in 'The Twilight Zone'.
[..]
--
Christopher
Michael West
"Dena Jo" <TPUBGTH.don't.use.this...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93FA6B62...@130.133.1.4...
> On 18 Sep 2003, R F posted thus:
>
> > But a hamburger is still not a sandwich.
>
> Who thinks a hamburger is a sandwich?
I do, in certain frames of reference.
If someone said "I'll make a sandwich",
by no means would I expect them to make
a hamburger.
But if I said "How many kinds of
sandwiches can you think of"?, and
someone said, "A hamburger is kind
of sandwich because it has two pieces
of bread and stuff in the middle, and
you eat it with your hands" -- I'd agree,
because I know of no definition of "sandwich"
that would exclude hamburgers.
And in fact, "hamburger sandwich" is by
no means unusual or obscure.
--
Michael West
Melbourne, Australia
(Expat Yank)
Tony Cooper
wrote:
You may think so. Personally, I find it far more of a social blunder
to be critical of other people's conversational topics when it's not
required that you either participate or even observe.
R F
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, Michael West wrote:
> And in fact, "hamburger sandwich" is by
> no means unusual or obscure.
Maybe in Melbourne, but in the U.S. of A.? Remember, we're talking about
*modern* English.
Michael West
I don't think it's used much in Oz, if at all --
I was drawing on my first fifty years as a
US resident.
Aref, c'mon -- you know darn well there's
"hamburger" (meat) and there's "a hamburger" --
the fully-assembled object.
If you think of "hamburger" in the first sense,
it makes perfect sense to think of it as a sandwich
filling -- like steak sandwich, ham sandwich, or
pig-ear sandwich (to which jazz certain musicians of
my acquaintance introduced me on the far west side
of Chicago back around 1978). (1) That's what a
"hamburger sandwich" is all about.
Then there's "a hamburger", which, as I said, is not
usually thought of as a sandwich, but which in fact
qualifies under the usual definition of "sandwich."
Here's one for you: Is Jello with carrots a "salad" ?
(1) Don't ask. You can't go there unless you know
the right people and they're willing to take care of
you.
Charles Riggs
<TPUBGTH.don't.use.this...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 18 Sep 2003, R F posted thus:
>
>> But a hamburger is still not a sandwich.
>
>Who thinks a hamburger is a sandwich?
All of us who recognize how to classify them. Richard is the one
historic holdout in AUE's past who I remember disagreeing on that
classification. It all happened in one of the longest threads I
remember, well before your time, my little sex goddess.
--
Charles Riggs
Email address: chriggs|at|eircom|dot|com
Charles Riggs
<padr...@iol.ie> wrote:
>R F <rfon...@mail.wesleyan.edu> wrote:
>
>>But a hamburger is still not a sandwich.
Is so.
>Agreed. It's sandwich filling.
Rarely, in English anyway. If in a bun, it is a *patty*, or a
hamburger patty, Paddy. In addition, it is never referred to as a
"filling". That is ludicrous.
If on its own without a bun, that too is often called a hamburger, to
further clarify.
Irish people are not qualified to comment on hamburgers, terms for
them, definitions of them, how to cook them or where to buy them, what
they taste like, what to put on them or in them, or what sort of beef
is best used for them. That is American territory.
Padraig Breathnach
>Irish people are not qualified to comment on hamburgers, terms for
>them, definitions of them, how to cook them or where to buy them, what
>they taste like, what to put on them or in them, or what sort of beef
>is best used for them. That is American territory.
Is there any chance, then, that MacDonald's will up and leave us?
PB
Matti Lamprhey
In his case we may be confident that the farm is already bought.
Matti
iwasaki
"Michael West" <mbw...@removebigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:3f6a65a3$0$89427$45be...@newscene.com...
>
> But if I said "How many kinds of
> sandwiches can you think of"?, and
> someone said, "A hamburger is kind
> of sandwich because it has two pieces
> of bread and stuff in the middle, and
> you eat it with your hands" -- I'd agree,
> because I know of no definition of "sandwich"
> that would exclude hamburgers.
Here we have "riceburgers". Riceburger is a kind of
hamburger, which has two pieces of bun-shaped rice and
stuff in the middle, and you eat it with your hands.
I think it's hamburger, but not sandwich.
--
Nobuko Iwasaki
R F
On Fri, 18 Sep 2003, Michael West wrote:
> Aref, c'mon -- you know darn well there's
> "hamburger" (meat) and there's "a hamburger" --
> the fully-assembled object.
True. We're talking about 'a hamburger' here, of course.
BTW, in New York English hamburger meat is called "chopmeat" /'tSAp,mit/.
> If you think of "hamburger" in the first sense,
> it makes perfect sense to think of it as a sandwich
> filling -- like steak sandwich, ham sandwich, or
> pig-ear sandwich (to which jazz certain musicians of
> my acquaintance introduced me on the far west side
> of Chicago back around 1978). (1) That's what a
> "hamburger sandwich" is all about.
It doesn't make perfect sense if the category 'hamburger' (meaning the
thing conventionally involving a bun, m'oui?) already exists. I mean,
you're a young enough feller that that's true for you.
> Then there's "a hamburger", which, as I said, is not
> usually thought of as a sandwich, but which in fact
> qualifies under the usual definition of "sandwich."
Part of the "usual definition of sandwich" for me is "excludes a
hamburger".
> Here's one for you: Is Jello with carrots a "salad" ?
No, it's an 'abomination'. Is egg salad a salad? No, it's what Padraig
as well as I might call a 'sandwich filling'.
> (1) Don't ask. You can't go there unless you know
> the right people and they're willing to take care of
> you.
The Far West Side? No, I don't know what that means. I have some sense
of what the 'Near West Side' refers to. It seems to me that if you go far
enough west in Chicago you end up in those Queens-like postwar ticky-tacky
neighborhoods like Park Ridge and so forth, and these stretch on and on
until they gradually become suburbs proper, rather like Long Island.
Padraig Breathnach
>"Matti Lamprhey" <matti-...@totally-official.com> wrote in message news:<bkegdb$pvlb$1...@ID-103223.news.uni-berlin.de>...
>That was his way of telling you that you spelled McDONALD'S wrong.
>One's a fast food chain and the other's a farm. No biggie.
Somehow I don't feel embarrassed to have misspelt McDonald's (and I
may have misspelt it again here -- what's the deal with the
apostrophe? Who cares?).
The last time I paid any attention to the golden arches, it was
because they were a useful landmark in trying to locate a hotel in
which I was staying. I ate in the hotel.
PB
Skitt
> Laura F Spira wrote:
>> Laura F Spira wrote:
>>> (It occurs to me that Matt and Leah were probably our youngest
>>> recent posters until Master Johnson turned up. As I recall,
>>> they jumped in feet first and made some waves but no-one ever
>>> expressed doubts about their identities. But perhaps this was
>>> because they never posted links to pictures.)
>>
>> Matt? Who he? I think I meant Joe.
>
> What's all this mean? Why would anyone have doubts about our
> indentities? And what about posting links to pictures? Is something
> mysterious happening here at the ol' AUE? This place is never boring.
Link to pictures of many AUE denizens:
http://alt-usage-english.org/AUE_gallery/gallery.shtml
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
Christopher Johnson
> I'm 21, actually. Leah's 19 or, possibly, 20 now. 14 doesn't seem
> like that, that long ago. I can remember middle school pretty clearly
> still. What's up with this "CJ" person? And what's the deal with
> people lying about their ages? Do you think this guy is older than 14
> or younger? And, why?
Joey,
My name is Christopher and I'm 14 (15 next January).
Most, but not all, people here believe that I'm not who
I claim to be. Most think I'm older than I claim to be,
and RF thinks I'm possibly: female, Tony Cooper, Hines,
etc.. The whole thing is one big major drag. Psychotic
sociopaths such as RF and Simon Hughes have made a real
meal of the whole thing. Tober did too, but he's 'AWOL'
right now, it seems. I didn't help matters by responding
to most of their crazy posts on the subject and, thereby,
fueling their speculative obsessiveness.
Joey, I don't know you, and I can't advise you, except to
say: Google like crazy and read about the whole thing if
you feel so inclined, but only get involved in this
discussion if you *really* feel compelled to. Almost
everyone on AUE is bored to death by the whole thing,
including me.
My mistake here was being totally honest about myself, so
much so that most people here consider me to be, at best,
'dubious' and, at worst, an outright trolling fraud.
Real sucky, huh?
--
Christopher
Michael West
"david56" <bass.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.19d3fdb49...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> TPUBGTH.don't.use.this...@yahoo.com spake thus:
>
> > On 18 Sep 2003, R F posted thus:
> >
> >
>
> Americans arguing about whether a sandwich is a hamburger, or
> something. <sigh>
Beats hell outta days and days of Brits and colonials
arguing about bloody cricket.
R J Valentine
...
} Most, but not all, people here believe that I'm not who
} I claim to be. Most think I'm older than I claim to be,
"Most"? There are thousands of people here (maybe millions). I'd be
surprised if twenty paid you any mind at all.
...
} My mistake here was being totally honest about myself, so
} much so that most people here consider me to be, at best,
} 'dubious' and, at worst, an outright trolling fraud.
...
Before I was even aware of your existence, you had apparently contributed
what appeared to some to be a high-school yearbook portrait to the
alt.usage.english rogues' gallery along with detail about yourself that
few if any previous posting teenagers (and you're by no means the
youngest) hadn't seen fit to reveal. I've been reading alt.usage.english
for nigh onto ten years, and I doubt that more than two other readers have
the least idea what I look like. Young Joey, for instance, came in acting
every bit of an American teenager. Youthful Leah didn't seem to some
entirely American, yet still seemed authentically young. Aaron seemed
wise beyond his years, yet carefully didn't claim to be anything he
couldn't back up (except for that "Dr." thing, which was presumably funny
to someone once). All of them seemed close enough to totally honest for
government work. You're the only one that came in shouting (as it were),
"Hey, look at me!" If there was a mistake here, it was that combined with
taking umbrage when people did look. All that is from an English-usage
point of view. When you started revealing (or making up) that there was
good reason for the oddness (not the least of which being being the
offspring of a pair of University of Oxford D.Phil.'s), it might have
seemed a little more consistent to some. If you seem a little slow in
coming to grips with your responsibility for things, you might look to
yourself for a reason.
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:honest...@wicked.smart.net>
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
[...]
> Psychotic sociopaths such as RF and Simon Hughes
> have made a real meal of the whole thing.
[...]
Now, now, young man. RF and Simon don't deserve to be called such
inappropriate names. Please use terms such as "psychotic sociopath"
for *genuine* psychotic sociopaths such as T*ny "The Toilet" C**per.
Thank you.
--
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
Michael West
"R F" <rfon...@mail.wesleyan.edu> wrote:
> The Far West Side? No, I don't know what that means. I have some sense
> of what the 'Near West Side' refers to. It seems to me that if you go far
> enough west in Chicago you end up in those Queens-like postwar ticky-tacky
> neighborhoods like Park Ridge and so forth, and these stretch on and on
> until they gradually become suburbs proper, rather like Long Island.
Park Ridge is a northwest suburb proper -- and not as you describe it.
Well, okay, not all, anyway.
But I was introduced to the pig-ear sandwich in the far
west side of the city -- not a suburb.
I was playing with a jazz group in a lounge there, and
in the back was a kitchen where the grill man was
"famous" for his pig-ear sandwiches. On my first night
I said to the lady bartender during a break, "I'm
going down to the corner, to McDonald's, to get a
coffee. Do you want anything?"
She shot me a look and said: "You ain't goin' NOWHERE.
Sit your white down ass in that chair and I'll send someone
to get you a coffee. Okay, sugar? I ain't about to loose
a piano player."
Tony Cooper
I find it inconsistent that a person that finds any reference to a
shower stall being an insensitive commentary about prison rape can be
consistently insensitive about mental illness. Some might find that
hypocritical.
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
> Reinhold (Rey) Aman wrote:
> >Christopher Johnson wrote:
> >
> >[...]
> >
> >> Psychotic sociopaths such as RF and Simon Hughes
> >> have made a real meal of the whole thing.
> >[...]
> >Now, now, young man. RF and Simon don't deserve to be called such
> >inappropriate names. Please use terms such as "psychotic sociopath"
> >for *genuine* psychotic sociopaths such as T*ny "The Toilet" C**per.
> >
> >Thank you.
> I find it inconsistent that a person that finds any reference to a
> shower stall being an insensitive commentary about prison rape can
> be consistently insensitive about mental illness. Some might find
> that hypocritical.
Oy!
--
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
An "anarchism"
R F
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, R{ainier} J{uthority} Valentine wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 04:21:25 GMT Christopher Johnson <chris_jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ...
> } My mistake here was being totally honest about myself, so
> } much so that most people here consider me to be, at best,
> } 'dubious' and, at worst, an outright trolling fraud.
>
> Before I was even aware of your existence, you had apparently contributed
> what appeared to some to be a high-school yearbook portrait to the
> alt.usage.english rogues' gallery
I don't think anyone regarded it as a high-school yearbook portrait, since
it was a photo of an approximately 19-year-old fellow
wearing a *tux*. I haven't investigated the matter, but I think that,
where the custom of non-street-clothes yearbook photos survives, the male
student typically would wear a jacket and tie of a non-tuxedo sort. (In
my high school yearbook photo I'm wearing a black sweater and grey
corduroys.)
I, anyway, suggested that it looked like a high school
prom photo. CJ attempted to explain away the tux thing by saying that it
was some sort of family tradition to wear tuxedos on one's birthday.
Well, anything's possible. The fellow claims to be British, and the 'Tish
are reputedly an eccentric people. But that eccentricity, I thought,
didn't extend to matters of dress, the 'Tish being practical sorts in that
regard. Then again, there is that Sir Richard Branston fellow, who has a
very British-looking beard but wears bright red socks and daft things like
that.
david56
I do hope that is an intentional misspelling, and not a simple typo.
> fellow, who has a
> very British-looking beard but wears bright red socks and daft things like
> that.
--
David
=====
Does exactly what it says on the tin.
Michael West
"Michael West" <mbw...@removebigpond.net.au> wrote:
> She shot me a look and said: "You ain't goin' NOWHERE.
> Sit your white down ass in that chair and I'll send someone
> to get you a coffee. Okay, sugar? I ain't about to loose
> a piano player."
God, I hate it when I blow the punch line.
Version 2:
She shot me a look and said: "You ain't goin' NOWHERE.
Sit your white ass down in that chair and I'll send someone
to get you a coffee. Okay, sugar? I ain't about to lose
a piano player."
Charles Riggs
Thus depriving the Irish of the most popular restaurant chain,
MacDonald's [sic], in the country?
No. Americans are too kind for that sort of behavior. We recognise the
sort of food one has to put up with in restaurants here, and realise
McDonald's products are a treat for many.
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>
>On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, Michael West wrote:
>
>> And in fact, "hamburger sandwich" is by
>> no means unusual or obscure.
>
>Maybe in Melbourne, but in the U.S. of A.?
In some restaurants there, in every McDonald's outlet there.
> Remember, we're talking about
>*modern* English.
I suspect neither Chaucer nor WS ever saw a hamburger, so that's a
moot point.
Charles Riggs
<padr...@iol.ie> wrote:
>Somehow I don't feel embarrassed to have misspelt McDonald's
Then you advocate free spelling, is it?
>(and I
>may have misspelt it again here -- what's the deal with the
>apostrophe? Who cares?).
Lovers of the language, of course. The apostrophe is needed because
their full name is McDonald's Restaurant.
Padraig Breathnach
But you have said that hamburgers are American territory. I want my
homeland to have territorial integrity.
PB
Simon R. Hughes
Troll:
> Joey,
>
> My name is Christopher and I'm 14 (15 next January).
Your name may or may not be Christopher. You have been posting to
AUE, on and off, since October last year. Originally, you came here,
signing yourself as Christopher, offering a proofreading service.
You claimed an academic background. Your writing style then was the
same as it is now. You posted through a remailer, though, which
aroused suspicion. You couldn't take the suspicion, called me ugly
(even linked to my picture), and left. Good riddance, we all (except
Porridge) said.
Six months later, you came back into the group under the moniker of
"Usenet Troll". You continued to post through your anonymous
remailers, and your writing style remained the same. Your postings
were, then as now, a mixture of trolls and what look like genuine
enquiries. But you claimed prior knowledge of me, calling me a
troll. And you linked to my picture and said that I looked as if I
had "Down Syndrome" (sic). Déją vu.
Also, the "troll time" attack started at the same time you blew in
the second time. The anonymous remailers and your half-hearted
denials that implicitly took credit linked you and "troll time". The
targets of your attack--Martin Ambuhl, Mark Wallace, and me--linked
you and "The English Proofreader" (we were those who flamed the
"English Proofreader"). You didn't like my flames this time, either;
you said that you had reported me to my ISP for threatening your
life.
Now you have come back with a new identity. Gone are the remailers--
you realised they were a liability, no doubt. But also gone is the
professorial background. You now claim that it belongs to your
parents. The writing style has remained the same, as has the mixture
of trolling and enquiring posts. The language skills, native and
foreign, are those of a reasonably-educated adult. The trolling,
however, is the mark of a stupid person. (Education is no guard
against stupidity.)
Why have you decided to come back disguised as a fourteen year old?
Who can tell? I doubt you even know. What I do know is that you are
one sick puppy who gets his kicks out of manipulating, deceiving and
embarrassing others. You are a parasite who deserves being kicked
out of this newsgroup. (I think Porridge would like to establish
contact by email, though, so perhaps you might like to take him up
on his kind offer.)
The above is the result of a couple of days' discussion with
another, respected, poster to the newsgroup; it's not all my own
work. The similarities of Christopher's, Usenet Troll's, and the
English Proofreader's writing styles--the clinching evidence--can be
documented. It is not hard evidence, but this is not a courtroom.
I will let the other poster out himself, if he so chooses, but I
will reveal that it is not Richard Fontana.
--
Simon R. Hughes <!-- Kill "Kenny" for email. -->
<!-- http://www.mirrorproject.com/mirror?id=17972 -->
Donna Richoux
> rfon...@mail.wesleyan.edu spake thus:
> > regard. Then again, there is that Sir Richard Branston
>
> I do hope that is an intentional misspelling, and not a simple typo.
He's not all *that* famous in the US. Branston is a darned close
spelling. I looked at it myself and knew it wasn't quite right, but I
couldn't think why. Just now I searched on "richard virgin airlines
records" to see what it should be (Branson).
But -- you imply there is some additional joke involved in "branston".
That one's too obscure for me. Is it a real place?
--
Best - Donna Richoux
An American living in the Netherlands
Simon R. Hughes
It's a brand of brown, sugary-spicy pickle. Eaten with cheese and
ploughmen.
david56
Branston Pickle, as Simon says, is quite like a relish, full of
unidentified crunchy bits, presumablyy of vegetable origin. You are
encouraged to insert it into cheese sandwiches. I don't like it.
<http://www.hwatson.force9.co.uk/cookbook/recipes/preserve/branston.h
tm>
Christopher Johnson
[..]
> The above is the result of a couple of days' discussion with
> another, respected, poster to the newsgroup; it's not all my own
> work. The similarities of Christopher's, Usenet Troll's, and the
> English Proofreader's writing styles--the clinching evidence--can be
> documented. It is not hard evidence, but this is not a courtroom.
Right, it's not "hard evidence" and this is indeed "not a
courtroom". Nevertheless, I would be genuinely interested to see
these alleged "similarities" properly documented and posted here.
> I will let the other poster out himself, if he so chooses, but I
> will reveal that it is not Richard Fontana.
That doesn't particularly surprise me. RF has a rather bland
imagination in comparison with yours. I'd also like to know if
you still think I'm possibly Tony Cooper and whether you think
I might be Mimi Kahn.
If you like, think of the whole thing as the "alternative SDC"
for 2003.
--
Christopher
Tony Cooper
<a5799...@yahoo.no> wrote:
>The above is the result of a couple of days' discussion with
>another, respected, poster to the newsgroup; it's not all my own
>work. The similarities of Christopher's, Usenet Troll's, and the
>English Proofreader's writing styles--the clinching evidence--can be
>documented. It is not hard evidence, but this is not a courtroom.
>
>I will let the other poster out himself, if he so chooses, but I
>will reveal that it is not Richard Fontana.
This all sounded very convincing....until I recalled that you earlier
proposed that I was the creator of Christopher. That rather destroyed
your credibility.
I accept Christopher at face value. I don't even look for signs that
there may be a game afoot. You and Areff have added a bit of
McCarthyism to the group, and I find that uncomfortable.
If it is a giant fraud, then what of it? If it is, it seems like a
rather good joke to have played; an intellectual exercise. Where's
the damage?
If it is a giant fraud, I hope that a "regular" pulled it off. It
would be much more difficult for a poster with an established style to
effectively invent a new persona and not be immediately caught out
with inconsistencies.
If it is a giant fraud, the perpetuator might be an interesting
regular under his own colors. I'm disposed to favor him, anyway. I
like the observation that you look a bit thuggish in your picture.
.
Pat Durkin
"Charles Riggs" <NotM...@aircom.net> wrote in message
news:dh8lmvcraloeoe5hv...@4ax.com...
> On 18 Sep 2003 17:31:26 GMT, Dena Jo
> <TPUBGTH.don't.use.this...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On 18 Sep 2003, R F posted thus:
> >
> >> But a hamburger is still not a sandwich.
> >
> >Who thinks a hamburger is a sandwich?
>
> historic holdout in AUE's past who I remember disagreeing on that
> classification. It all happened in one of the longest threads I
> remember, well before your time, my little sex goddess.
Are you referring to the thread in which RF appointed himself arbiter of all
things sausage and not? I don't think any later sandwich threads quite
reached that level, although the pizza place discussion came close.
As far as hamburgers and sandwiches go, I am descriptivist. However, I can
recall being very upset when people kept trying to serve me something they
called "hamburger steak", which to me was a hamburger without the buns, and
at twice the price. I really hated the thought of having to eat it with a
knife and fork.
That was in my younger, prescriptivist days.
Sara Moffat Lorimer
> If it is a giant fraud, then what of it? If it is, it seems like a
> rather good joke to have played; an intellectual exercise. Where's
> the damage?
I find it disturbing that someone is pretending to be a 14 year-old and
wants to discuss masturbation and wet dreams. (Hell, I find it
disturbing if he really is a 14 year-old -- what teenager wants to talk
about these things with old people like AUErs?) It's that creepiness
that stops it from just being a playful bit of Usage of English.
> If it is a giant fraud, I hope that a "regular" pulled it off.
If it is a giant fraud, I hope I learn who did it.
--
SML
please remove your hat when sending me e-mail
http://pirate-women.com
Dena Jo
> Now you have come back with a new identity. Gone are the remailers--
Except the one he used to called me a card-carrying witch and Queen of
the Cunts...
--
Dena Jo
(Email: Replace TPUBGTH with denajo2)
Aaron J. Dinkin
> On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 22:06:54 +0100, Padraig Breathnach
><padr...@iol.ie> wrote:
[regarding "McDonald's":]
>>what's the deal with the apostrophe? Who cares?).
>
> Lovers of the language, of course. The apostrophe is needed because
> their full name is McDonald's Restaurant.
That's a good argument, but what does one do about restaurants whose full
names don't contain apostrophes but whose shortened forms do? I refer to
things like Friendly Restaurants and Pizzeria Uno, which I've always
referred to as "Friendly's" and "Uno's". Where do those "-'s"es come from?
-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom
Christopher Johnson
> On 20 Sep 2003, Simon R. Hughes posted thus:
>
> > Now you have come back with a new identity. Gone are the remailers--
>
> Except the one he used to called me a card-carrying witch and Queen of
> the Cunts...
"To called"?
--
Christopher
Laura F Spira
> Tony Cooper wrote:
>
>
>>If it is a giant fraud, then what of it? If it is, it seems like a
>>rather good joke to have played; an intellectual exercise. Where's
>>the damage?
>
>
> I find it disturbing that someone is pretending to be a 14 year-old and
> wants to discuss masturbation and wet dreams. (Hell, I find it
> disturbing if he really is a 14 year-old -- what teenager wants to talk
> about these things with old people like AUErs?) It's that creepiness
> that stops it from just being a playful bit of Usage of English.
Yes, there could be concerns either way, especially given the hints at
suicide. If the posts are genuine, the kid clearly has problems. If
they're not, the person responsible also has problems.
>
>>If it is a giant fraud, I hope that a "regular" pulled it off.
>
>
> If it is a giant fraud, I hope I learn who did it.
I think I would find it *really* disturbing if it turned out to be
someone I knew.
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)
Dena Jo
> "To called"?
The Come-back Kid.
R F
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 12:54:49 +0200, Simon R. Hughes
> <a5799...@yahoo.no> wrote:
>
> >The above is the result of a couple of days' discussion with
> >another, respected, poster to the newsgroup; it's not all my own
> >work. The similarities of Christopher's, Usenet Troll's, and the
> >English Proofreader's writing styles--the clinching evidence--can be
> >documented. It is not hard evidence, but this is not a courtroom.
> >
> >I will let the other poster out himself, if he so chooses, but I
> >will reveal that it is not Richard Fontana.
>
> This all sounded very convincing....until I recalled that you earlier
> proposed that I was the creator of Christopher. That rather destroyed
> your credibility.
I don't agree, Coop. I too have suggested that Christopher Johnson might
be you. I think that, on balance, it's too unlikely, but there is *some*
evidence pointing in that direction. A reasonable man might not conclude,
now, that you and CJ are one and the same, but a reasonable man would
suspect you before many other regular or non-unknown posters.
> I accept Christopher at face value. I don't even look for signs that
> there may be a game afoot. You and Areff have added a bit of
> McCarthyism to the group, and I find that uncomfortable.
That's a serious accusation, Coop. I don't blame you for making it,
though (unless you really *are* CJ); it "goes with the territory", as you
salesmen are wont to say.
> If it is a giant fraud, then what of it? If it is, it seems like a
> rather good joke to have played; an intellectual exercise. Where's
> the damage?
Shades of what Jan Sand said on the matter some time ago. I'm with those
who say that, while it may have some aspects of a good practical joke,
those aspects are overshadowed by other disturbing and creepy features.
I'm reluctant to discuss the whole thing non-superficially precisely
because CJ *may* be the genuine article. If he's really 14, do I, do we,
have a responsibility not to speak candidly on the subject? I don't know,
Coop, but I can tell you that I've censored myself. I haven't revealed in
detail why there's something very disturbing about this whole thing,
whether CJ is fake or not. The very fact that you seem to be unconcerned
by the creepiness factor makes me suspect, if only for a few seconds, that
you might be CJ, again. Again I say, Coop, that you and this CJ person
have some characteristics in common, chief among which is a poor sense of
domain-specific content-appropriateness. I have alluded to this before,
in reference to your remarks pertaining to the subject of prison rape, but
I've determined that you are incapable of understanding what is wrong with
those remarks, in the form you make them and in the manner you direct
them.
Simon R. Hughes
[snip]
> This all sounded very convincing....until I recalled that you earlier
> proposed that I was the creator of Christopher.
I also proposed that the picture on the AUE website was a fake
because you're black.
If you read it properly, apart from it being a Very Silly Posting,
it effectively ruled you out as a contender. It would be too
difficult for you (and me, for that matter) to pull off. As you have
candidly admitted on numerous occasions, you do not have the
technical skills that you would need to place yourself in Chicago. A
quick look at the front page of your website confirms your claim.
> That rather destroyed
> your credibility.
I wasn't aware that I had any left, in your eyes.
> I accept Christopher at face value. I don't even look for signs that
> there may be a game afoot.
More fool you.
> You and Areff have added a bit of
> McCarthyism to the group, and I find that uncomfortable.
I suppose you might liken it to McCarthy, had McCarthy been
convinced that one person, and one person only were guilty of anti-
American behaviour.
> If it is a giant fraud, then what of it? If it is, it seems like a
> rather good joke to have played; an intellectual exercise. Where's
> the damage?
He caused trouble the last two times he came in here. The first time
he was after people's money; the second time he started mailbombing
three regulars. This time he is posing as a 14 year-old, and you
suspect innocent motives.
Some people shouldn't be allowed on the Internet without adult
supervision.
> If it is a giant fraud, I hope that a "regular" pulled it off. It
> would be much more difficult for a poster with an established style to
> effectively invent a new persona and not be immediately caught out
> with inconsistencies.
>
> If it is a giant fraud, the perpetuator might be an interesting
> regular under his own colors. I'm disposed to favor him, anyway. I
> like the observation that you look a bit thuggish in your picture.
Ugly and thuggish are synonyms to you? Or is it that people with
Down's Syndrome look thuggish? That's a rather nasty prejudice you
have there, C**per.
Simon R. Hughes
Troll:
> "Simon R. Hughes" wrote:
>
> [..]
>
> > The above is the result of a couple of days' discussion with
> > another, respected, poster to the newsgroup; it's not all my own
> > work. The similarities of Christopher's, Usenet Troll's, and the
> > English Proofreader's writing styles--the clinching evidence--can be
> > documented. It is not hard evidence, but this is not a courtroom.
>
> Right, it's not "hard evidence" and this is indeed "not a
> courtroom". Nevertheless, I would be genuinely interested to see
> these alleged "similarities" properly documented and posted here.
And help you do better next time? I don't think so.
Now do what you did last time when you were confronted with your
misdeeds: run away.
Dena Jo
> If it is a giant fraud, then what of it? If it is, it seems like a
> rather good joke to have played; an intellectual exercise. Where's
> the damage?
If it is a giant fraud, it *was* a rather good joke to have played.
But when it turned ugly -- and it has in my opinion (YMMV) -- it should
have been stopped, and the perpetrator should have apologized to the
newsgroup. I find the ugliness that's been seeping through his sweet
kid persona disturbing to a large degree. I don't care for that kind
of behavior in adults, I don't care for it in kids, and I certainly
don't care for it from an adult pretending to be a kid.
Dena Jo
> I think I would find it *really* disturbing if it turned out to be
> someone I knew.
Agreed.
Matti Lamprhey
> [...]
> He caused trouble the last two times he came in here. The first time
> he was after people's money; the second time he started mailbombing
> three regulars. This time he is posing as a 14 year-old, and you
I'd be interested to know what evidence you've got for linking these
three incarnations.
Matti
Christopher Johnson
> Thus spake Christopher Johnson, the English Usenet Proofreader
> Troll:
> > "Simon R. Hughes" wrote:
> >
> > [..]
> >
> > > The above is the result of a couple of days' discussion with
> > > another, respected, poster to the newsgroup; it's not all my own
> > > work. The similarities of Christopher's, Usenet Troll's, and the
> > > English Proofreader's writing styles--the clinching evidence--can be
> > > documented. It is not hard evidence, but this is not a courtroom.
> >
> > Right, it's not "hard evidence" and this is indeed "not a
> > courtroom". Nevertheless, I would be genuinely interested to see
> > these alleged "similarities" properly documented and posted here.
>
> And help you do better next time? I don't think so.
Just as I suspected -- you simply *cannot* do it (ie: document
your 'evidence' convincingly). Perhaps your unnamed accomplice is
up to the job, even if you're not. You're both chasing moonbeams
anyway, so I'm not particularly bothered, but it *might* have
made for some interesting reading. Whatever....
> Now do what you did last time when you were confronted with your
> misdeeds: run away.
No.
--
Christopher
Christopher Johnson
[..]
> I'm reluctant to discuss the whole thing non-superficially precisely
> because CJ *may* be the genuine article.
Why the reluctance *now*, RF? You've not really shown
any such reluctance in the past.
[..]
--
Christopher
Dena Jo
> Little sod. You've a right to be miffed. I bet he didn't check to
> find out if you had a card.
In point of fact, I was never a very good witch. They made me
surrender the card, even.
Tony Cooper
wrote:
>
>On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, Tony Cooper wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 12:54:49 +0200, Simon R. Hughes
>> <a5799...@yahoo.no> wrote:
>>
>> >The above is the result of a couple of days' discussion with
>> >another, respected, poster to the newsgroup; it's not all my own
>> >work. The similarities of Christopher's, Usenet Troll's, and the
>> >English Proofreader's writing styles--the clinching evidence--can be
>> >documented. It is not hard evidence, but this is not a courtroom.
>> >
>> >I will let the other poster out himself, if he so chooses, but I
>> >will reveal that it is not Richard Fontana.
>>
>> This all sounded very convincing....until I recalled that you earlier
>> proposed that I was the creator of Christopher. That rather destroyed
>> your credibility.
>
>I don't agree, Coop. I too have suggested that Christopher Johnson might
>be you. I think that, on balance, it's too unlikely, but there is *some*
>evidence pointing in that direction. A reasonable man might not conclude,
>now, that you and CJ are one and the same, but a reasonable man would
>suspect you before many other regular or non-unknown posters.
Nonsense. Anyone that reads my posts knows that I'm an in-your-face
person and the least likely of all to want to pose as someone else.
No bushels here.
>> I accept Christopher at face value. I don't even look for signs that
>> there may be a game afoot. You and Areff have added a bit of
>> McCarthyism to the group, and I find that uncomfortable.
>
>That's a serious accusation, Coop. I don't blame you for making it,
>though (unless you really *are* CJ); it "goes with the territory", as you
>salesmen are wont to say.
>
>> If it is a giant fraud, then what of it? If it is, it seems like a
>> rather good joke to have played; an intellectual exercise. Where's
>> the damage?
>
>Shades of what Jan Sand said on the matter some time ago. I'm with those
>who say that, while it may have some aspects of a good practical joke,
>those aspects are overshadowed by other disturbing and creepy features.
>
>I'm reluctant to discuss the whole thing non-superficially precisely
>because CJ *may* be the genuine article. If he's really 14, do I, do we,
>have a responsibility not to speak candidly on the subject? I don't know,
>Coop, but I can tell you that I've censored myself.
Good Lord. What you've said so far is "superficial"? If there's any
chance at all he's legitimate, what you've said so far has been an
extremely rude and offensive probe into personal issues that you have
no business commenting on. The only excuse you have for your
violations is that you suspect he may not be who and what he says he
is. McCarthyism.
> I haven't revealed in
>detail why there's something very disturbing about this whole thing,
>whether CJ is fake or not. The very fact that you seem to be unconcerned
>by the creepiness factor
*All* 14 year olds are fucked up to some degree. That's the nature of
the age. Things are happening to them and around them that they don't
understand and don't know how to react to. They don't know what the
conventional rules of behavior are. They don't know what the
conventional boundaries are. Many are lucky enough to not have the
intellectual curiosity to explore these strange things and are able to
just drift through this period without significant damage.
The fact that you think some of these strange emotions and outpourings
to be "creepy" tells me that you are either extremely out of touch
with what teenagers go through or that you were yourself an extremely
strange child. I think it's only the former and that you are just
unable to adjust your thinking to something that is beyond your
present age and situation.
If CJ is a fraud, then you should give him credit for doing what he
probably intended to do: send a bunch of people out chasing their
tails over what might have been a three-post career. If he is a
fraud, he's worked you like a lump of clay on wheel. He's figured out
your buttons and pushed them all.
> makes me suspect, if only for a few seconds, that
>you might be CJ, again.
I will state categorically that this is not true. If I were to
attempt such a coup, I'd want to claim credit for it at some point in
time. I wouldn't specifically deny it - as I am - because the effect
would be ruined if I had to admit to a lie.
> Again I say, Coop, that you and this CJ person
>have some characteristics in common, chief among which is a poor sense of
>domain-specific content-appropriateness.
> I have alluded to this before,
>in reference to your remarks pertaining to the subject of prison rape, but
>I've determined that you are incapable of understanding what is wrong with
>those remarks, in the form you make them and in the manner you direct
>them.
A serious - and totally unfounded - charge. You might want to check
to see if I have ever made any remarks about the subject of prison
rape. You've been duped by Rey's misdirection technique. He's rather
weak and ineffectual at verbal aggression, but he is good at
misdirection. I'll give him that. Do your checking. It might
surprise you. Note that Rey normally provides quoted cites for any
examples and loves to re-quote himself. Snip one of his dreary
paragraphs and he'll restore it in his reply. In this area, it's
been hand-waving allusions and created smoke.
Rey's invented an issue to elicit the sympathy factor because his
normal buffoonery and posturing wasn't working. Rather transparently,
but some might be taken in. As you have.
Tony Cooper
<a5799...@yahoo.no> wrote:
>Thus spake Tony Cooper:
>> On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 12:54:49 +0200, Simon R. Hughes
>> <a5799...@yahoo.no> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> This all sounded very convincing....until I recalled that you earlier
>> proposed that I was the creator of Christopher.
>
>I also proposed that the picture on the AUE website was a fake
>because you're black.
>
>If you read it properly, apart from it being a Very Silly Posting,
>it effectively ruled you out as a contender. It would be too
>difficult for you (and me, for that matter) to pull off. As you have
>candidly admitted on numerous occasions, you do not have the
>technical skills that you would need to place yourself in Chicago. A
>quick look at the front page of your website confirms your claim.
Website? I don't have one. Never did. I have posted some images to
the web as stand-alones, but never worked on a website. Do you just
make this stuff up on the fly?
>> That rather destroyed
>> your credibility.
>
>I wasn't aware that I had any left, in your eyes.
Oh, yes. I don't care for you very much, but I hardly under-rate your
intelligence. There are many areas in which I would give you full
marks for credibility. This isn't one of them.
You do what you want, but don't assume that everyone extends their
personal feelings about someone else's written persona into making
judgements about the rest of the person's character.
>> I accept Christopher at face value. I don't even look for signs that
>> there may be a game afoot.
>
>More fool you.
Foolish? Perhaps. How about "it just doesn't interest me"? What
does interest me are the reactions of others.
>> You and Areff have added a bit of
>> McCarthyism to the group, and I find that uncomfortable.
>
>I suppose you might liken it to McCarthy, had McCarthy been
>convinced that one person, and one person only were guilty of anti-
>American behaviour.
One person at a time. Today, you've charged CJ. Who tomorrow?
>> If it is a giant fraud, then what of it? If it is, it seems like a
>> rather good joke to have played; an intellectual exercise. Where's
>> the damage?
>
>He caused trouble the last two times he came in here. The first time
>he was after people's money; the second time he started mailbombing
>three regulars. This time he is posing as a 14 year-old, and you
>suspect innocent motives.
You haven't convinced me that any of this is true. These are
assumptions on your part. The only "proof" you have is your statement
that you have consulted with someone else. Piddy, for all we know.
>> If it is a giant fraud, I hope that a "regular" pulled it off. It
>> would be much more difficult for a poster with an established style to
>> effectively invent a new persona and not be immediately caught out
>> with inconsistencies.
>>
>> If it is a giant fraud, the perpetuator might be an interesting
>> regular under his own colors. I'm disposed to favor him, anyway. I
>> like the observation that you look a bit thuggish in your picture.
>
>Ugly and thuggish are synonyms to you? Or is it that people with
>Down's Syndrome look thuggish? That's a rather nasty prejudice you
>have there, C**per.
I avoided the Down's Syndrome reference. I really don't like this
type of comment, and wouldn't make it myself. Don't make fun of real
problems. Like Rey's usage of terms referring to real mental
problems, it's just not appropriate.
Simon, you *are* ugly and thuggish looking in that picture. You look
like the minder for some local hoodlum.
Skitt
> Charles Riggs wrote:
Padraig Breathnach wrote:
> [regarding "McDonald's":]
>
>>> what's the deal with the apostrophe? Who cares?).
>>
>> Lovers of the language, of course. The apostrophe is needed because
>> their full name is McDonald's Restaurant.
>
> That's a good argument, but what does one do about restaurants whose
> full names don't contain apostrophes but whose shortened forms do? I
> refer to things like Friendly Restaurants and Pizzeria Uno, which
> I've always
> referred to as "Friendly's" and "Uno's". Where do those "-'s"es come
> from?
Friendly's is really Friendly's. Trust me. OK, verify, if you must.
http://www.friendlys.com/about/
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
R H Draney
Beats me...I'm too busy trying to figure out "Carl's Jr"...(I've just about got
"Ruth's Chris Steak House")....r
Christopher Johnson
[..]
> > makes me suspect, if only for a few seconds, that
> >you might be CJ, again.
>
> I will state categorically that this is not true.
[..]
I, too, wish to state categorically that this is not
true. Tony, I'm so sorry you got dragged into this
ridiculous situation. There's nothing I can say here
that can help you get out of it; I'm probably just
making things worse by saying anything at all. I'd
e-mail you, but your inbox (like mine) is probably
disabled by all the 'Microsoft Security Patch'
stuff at the moment, so there's no point in even
trying to contact you privately at the moment.
I just want you to know that I'm so sorry. The
language Rey uses to insult you is funny, but
I never approved of what he said about you. You
know that you're not me, and I know that I'm not
you. I honestly don't know how to handle all this
stuff; I refuse to "run away" as Simon Hughes
would have me do, but, on the other hand, I know
that things can't go on like this. Tony, please
feel free to advise me if you feel so inclined.
Should I stay or should I leave? I know the
decision, one way or the other, must ultimately
be mine, but I respect and value your opinion,
and would appreciate some guidance; I don't care
if others accuse me of 'sucking up' for saying
so.
--
Christopher
Don Aitken
Things "went on like this" before you arrived, and will do so after
you go, if you go. The group is not going to adjust itself to what you
expect or require. No apologies for the state of things are needed, or
appropriate. The thing you need to get your head around is that this
group does not revolve around you. It doesn't care about whether you
approve of its ways or not, and it doesn't care if you stay or go, but
it has a low boredom threshold. The whole "who is CJ, really?" thing
would have died down long ago if you didn't keep stoking it up again.
There are others here who attract opprobium by seeming unable to talk
about anything but themselves - some of them quite elderly.
--
Don Aitken
Harvey Van Sickle
-snip re: the "is CJ who he says" thing-
> I honestly don't know how to handle all this stuff;
My approach would be to kill-file any and all threads that turn to your
identity -- as you've tried to do once or twice, and as others in here
seem determined to stop you doing.
Don't announce that you're killing anything -- no "plonk" posts or
statements of intent -- just do it. Then post and join in exclusively
on usage and words.
When one of the seemingly-obsessed posters manages to skunk the thread
for you -- by posting a "hah!" on some comment you make -- kill that
thread and continue the discussion on the original topic in a new
thread. Don't mention that that's what you're doing; just act as if
the offensive post had never been posted.
This would -- for me -- be extremely difficult to do, but "don't take
the bait" is the only way I see to handle it (and to confirm that
you're as bored with the subject as are the non-combatants).
--
Cheers, Harvey
....don we now our gay apparel....Ann Landers in drag....
Ottawa/Toronto/Edmonton for 30 years;
Southern England for the past 21 years.
(for e-mail, change harvey to whhvs)
Laura F Spira
Well, you obviously didn't take my previous advice to heart, did you?
(As both a mother and a teacher, I am used to that.)
If you don't want to attract criticism or opprobrium, confine yourself
to on-topic, non-personal posts. I can only hope that all this rubbish
about coming and going will become sufficiently boring to cause everyone
to ignore you, so that I can once again enjoy the wit, wisdom and
vicious repartee of those regulars who currently seem preoccupied with
speculation about your identity. (Otherwise *I* shall leave <flounce>)
Mike Oliver
> There are others here who attract opprobium by seeming unable to talk
> about anything but themselves - some of them quite elderly.
I think that was a little uncalled-for! I'm only 41.
Skitt
> There are others here who attract opprobium by seeming unable to talk
> about anything but themselves - some of them quite elderly.
Yeah, those highfalutin words give me problems too. Sometimes.
Aaron J. Dinkin
> Aaron J. Dinkin wrote:
>
>> I refer to things like Friendly Restaurants and Pizzeria Uno, which
>> I've always referred to as "Friendly's" and "Uno's". Where do those
>> "-'s"es come from?
>
> Friendly's is really Friendly's. Trust me. OK, verify, if you must.
> http://www.friendlys.com/about/
Well, gosh.
But I see from a series of photographs at
<http://www.friendlys.com/about/history.shtml> that at least one
restaurant still had a sign saying "Friendly" (no "-'s") as late at 1974;
and the parent corporation is Friendly Ice Cream, not Friendly's. So the
"-'s" must have gotten added to the official store name at some point in
its history, in the same manner I describe above.
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
> Reinhold (Rey) Aman wrote:
> >Christopher Johnson wrote:
> >
> >[...]
> >
> >> Psychotic sociopaths such as RF and Simon Hughes
> >> have made a real meal of the whole thing.
> >
> >[...]
> >Now, now, young man. RF and Simon don't deserve to be called
> >such inappropriate names. Please use terms such as "psychotic
> >sociopath" for *genuine* psychotic sociopaths such as T*ny
> >"The Toilet" C**per.
> >
> >Thank you.
C**per's devious trick No. 7:
Note how that psychopathic hypocrite C**per *shamelessly* minimizes
and trivializes his own repulsive sociopathic behavior:
> I find it inconsistent that a person that finds any reference to
> a shower stall being an insensitive commentary about prison rape
This hypocritical cocksucker tries to weasel out by lying that his
references to a shower stall are harmless, merely "an insensitive
commentary about prison rape." Fact: His references are vicious,
nasty, sadistic, despicable acts of gloating that mean nothing less
than "Hey, Rey, you got fucked in the ass while in prison,
hah-hah-hah! That's funny!" One would have to be extremely stupid or
ignorant of English not to see what he's really saying with his
"references," which, BTW, in another post he denies having made.
In addition, he now also insults my friend "Big Dave," the brilliant
aerospace engineer who helped me design my Web site, by claiming that
Dave was in prison, too. What a filthy cocksucker that C**per is!
Only a mentally ill psychopath would sink that low, shooting in all
directions in the hope of hitting something, while his ass is getting
thrashed & shredded.
> can be consistently insensitive about mental illness.
> Some might find that hypocritical.
A hypocrite calling others hypocritical -- that's sooo C**per, the
master of projection who's detached from reality. In my describing
that mentally ill motherfucker C**per as a "psychopath" I'm not
insensitive, just honest, as usual. I have never been insensitive
about or made fun of mental illness or the mentally ill, consistently
or otherwise, because they and especially their families have enough
of a cross to bear without being ridiculed. If there *is* someone in
AUE who would gloat about someone's illness, it's that psychopath
C**per. That wacky nobody C**per, envious of Richard Fontana's
brilliant mind, "joked" that Richard was dropped on his head -- how
nasty can you get?
--
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
An "anarchism"
http://www.sonic.net/maledicta/
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
> R F wrote:
[...]
> >I have alluded to this before, in reference to your remarks
> >pertaining to the subject of prison rape, but I've determined
> >that you are incapable of understanding what is wrong with
> >those remarks, in the form you make them and in the manner you
> >direct them.
That's because C**per is a *psychopath*, beyond understanding. In
other words, he's a sick fuck.
> A serious - and totally unfounded - charge.
Christ! He's also a *pathological liar*, that cocksucker C**per. For
a while I counted how often he gloated about me being (allegedly)
assfucked in prison and I referred to the psychopathic Beast of
Berkeley, who gloated more than 75 times about me (allegedly) being
raped in prison.
> You might want to check to see if I have ever made
> any remarks about the subject of prison rape.
Can you believe that lying son-of-a-whore C**per!? He has
conveniently forgotten all his little "harmless jokes" about prison
showers, dropping the soap, bending over, etc.
And don't forget his admission yesterday that he *did* make remarks
about the subject of prison rape, to wit: "I find it inconsistent that
a person that finds any reference to a shower stall being an
insensitive commentary about prison rape...." Evidence of a liar and
mentally ill psychopath who suppresses reality.
> You've been duped by Rey's misdirection technique.
Another of C**per's devious tricks, but I've stopped counting. (No. 8).
> He's rather weak and ineffectual at verbal aggression,
Yeah, yeah, blah, blah. C**per's minimizing Trick No. 6 plus denial
of reality: more evidence of his mental illness. In other posts he
whines about my attacks on him and his family, and now he minimizes
them as "weak and ineffectual." What a lying sick fuck.
> but he is good at misdirection. I'll give him that.
That "misdirection" trick is new. He's getting desperate and scraping
the bottom of his slimy barrel for ammunition.
> Do your checking. It might surprise you. Note
> that Rey normally provides quoted cites for any
> examples and loves to re-quote himself.
Devious, slimy, lying cocksucker!
> Snip one of his dreary paragraphs and he'll restore it
> in his reply.
Slimy, lying, disingenuous bastard! I restore *only* the material
deviously snipped by that slimy piece of garbage C**per (for reasons
explained earlier) that is *essential* for the understanding of my reply.
> In this area, it's been hand-waving allusions and created smoke.
Bullshit. You're a lying, devious whoreson and you know it.
> Rey's invented an issue
Cute. I "invented" the prison-rape issue, of which most AUEers were
sick years ago from the 75+ gloatings by that other sick swine and
which that malicious cocksucker C**per keeps puking up. I swear that
C**per is mentally ill; he *has* to be to come up with such
transparent lies and bullshit.
> to elicit the sympathy factor
Yeah, right. I seek and need sympathy like C**per needs another
bulbous nose. What a crazy bastard! You'd think that by now that
wacky ass-wipe salesman would "of" learned that AUE is *not* the place
to seek or get sympathy. All his current whining won't help: nobody
gives a shit about T*ny C**per.
> because his normal buffoonery and posturing wasn't working.
> Rather transparently, but some might be taken in. As you have.
More of C**per's mindless diarrhea. But he can't help it.
Psychopaths can't. It's just funny that this sick bastard whines that
I should keep him out of my posts, but *he* keeps dragging *me* into
his, twice so far today.
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
> Simon R. Hughes wrote:
[...]
> >Ugly and thuggish are synonyms to you? Or is it that people with
> >Down's Syndrome look thuggish? That's a rather nasty prejudice
> >you have there, C**per.
Sorry, you're wrong here, Simon: wacky C**per is an *incredibly
sensitive* gentleman, not only concerning mental illness but about
anything else. He's not prejudiced against the mentally ill (or
Negroes, or Jews, or prison rape, or rape in general). He's another
St. Paddy, oozing goodness and abhorring evil.
> I avoided the Down's Syndrome reference. I really don't like
> this type of comment, and wouldn't make it myself. Don't make
> fun of problems.
Except such minor problems as imprisonment, prison rape, and other
personal misfortunes. Lying C**per is exactly like The Beast of
Berkeley, who's reincarnated as C**per -- the same vulgar & obnoxious swine.
> Like Rey's usage of terms referring to real
> mental problems, it's just not appropriate.
That sick bastard C**per whines that I should keep him out of my
posts, but *he* keeps dragging *me* into his, twice so far today.
What a creep.
Describing a lying psychopath like C**per as a "psychopath" is "just
not appropriate"? Of all people here, Mr. Tactful is suddenly
concerned about what's appropriate and what isn't? What a laugh, plus
additional evidence of a sick mind. Tell us more about how your wife
washes her twat.
> Simon, you *are* ugly and thuggish looking in that picture.
> You look like the minder for some local hoodlum.
Another laugh: Having an alcoholic's crude proboscis, old
door-knob-nose C**per should be the very last to call others ugly.
Freaky-looking carnival geeks like C**per (and Dr Bignall) should not
be allowed out in public except during dark nights or heavy fog. And
wearing a mask to avoid frightening the prostitutes.
Christopher Johnson
[..]
> The whole "who is CJ, really?" thing
> would have died down long ago if you didn't keep stoking it up again.
That is an unjust accusation. I dare say I am not totally
blameless, but others here have done more than their fair
share of "stoking it up again"; I have very rarely been
*allowed* to post here without someone (or several people)
"stoking it up again" afterwards.
[..]
--
Christopher
Christopher Johnson
[..]
> This would -- for me -- be extremely difficult to do, but "don't take
> the bait" is the only way I see to handle it (and to confirm that
> you're as bored with the subject as are the non-combatants).
Agreed, Harvey, and thanks for your excellent advice.
--
Christopher
Simon R. Hughes
> On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 17:56:41 +0200, Simon R. Hughes
> <a5799...@yahoo.no> wrote:
> >Thus spake Tony Cooper:
> >> On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 12:54:49 +0200, Simon R. Hughes
> >> <a5799...@yahoo.no> wrote:
[snip]
> >> This all sounded very convincing....until I recalled that you earlier
> >> proposed that I was the creator of Christopher.
> >
> >I also proposed that the picture on the AUE website was a fake
> >because you're black.
> >
> >If you read it properly, apart from it being a Very Silly Posting,
> >it effectively ruled you out as a contender. It would be too
> >difficult for you (and me, for that matter) to pull off. As you have
> >candidly admitted on numerous occasions, you do not have the
> >technical skills that you would need to place yourself in Chicago. A
> >quick look at the front page of your website confirms your claim.
>
> Website? I don't have one. Never did. I have posted some images to
> the web as stand-alones, but never worked on a website. Do you just
> make this stuff up on the fly?
What's this, then?
<http://geocities.com/tony_cooper213/index.html>
And this?
<http://geocities.com/tony_cooper213/aueboink.html>
It looks like *someone* has been working on a website in your name.
The mess behind the first link strengthens the case for your not
being CJ.
[snip]
> Simon, you *are* ugly and thuggish looking in that picture. You look
> like the minder for some local hoodlum.
Hence your running to hide when I threatened to smack you one. I
don't suppose the picture linked below presents me in a better
light.
Simon R. Hughes
> Hypocritical T*ny "The Toilet" C**per wrote:
> > Simon R. Hughes wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > >Ugly and thuggish are synonyms to you? Or is it that people with
> > >Down's Syndrome look thuggish? That's a rather nasty prejudice
> > >you have there, C**per.
>
> Sorry, you're wrong here, Simon: wacky C**per is an *incredibly
> sensitive* gentleman, not only concerning mental illness but about
> anything else. He's not prejudiced against the mentally ill (or
> Negroes, or Jews, or prison rape, or rape in general). He's another
> St. Paddy, oozing goodness and abhorring evil.
Damn! I hate it when I get it wrong.
[big snip]
Simon R. Hughes
I'm in the process of answering this by email.
Robert Lieblich
>
> Don Aitken wrote:
>
> > There are others here who attract opprobium by seeming unable to talk
> > about anything but themselves - some of them quite elderly.
>
> Yeah, those highfalutin words give me problems too. Sometimes.
I think it's "opprobrium" in the UK but "opprobrum" over here.
Chemical element 98.6.
--
Bob Lieblich
Why not?
Skitt
Not that MWCD10 knows of. In any case, that wasn't what I was referring to.
There was an "r" missing.
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
Tony Cooper
>Tony Cooper wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 11:53:44 -0400, R F <rfon...@mail.wesleyan.edu>
>> wrote:
>
>[..]
>
>> > makes me suspect, if only for a few seconds, that
>> >you might be CJ, again.
>>
>> I will state categorically that this is not true.
>
>[..]
>
>
>I, too, wish to state categorically that this is not
>true. Tony,
Well, errr, uhhh, do you mind not....I mean....uhhh....it might be
better if....ahem....that's OK. I think I can manage without your
support.
> I'm so sorry you got dragged into this
>ridiculous situation. There's nothing I can say here
>that can help you get out of it; I'm probably just
>making things worse by saying anything at all.
Yes.
> I'de-mail you,
No need to trouble yourself.
> but your inbox (like mine) is probably
>disabled by all the 'Microsoft Security Patch'
>stuff at the moment, so there's no point in even
>trying to contact you privately at the moment.
>
>I just want you to know that I'm so sorry. The
>language Rey uses to insult you is funny,
See! You must be 14. That's about the maximum age where Rey's posts
have any impact.
>Should I stay or should I leave?
Only if you get a better role. You're getting the drama queen
credentials down pat.
> I know the
>decision, one way or the other, must ultimately
>be mine, but I respect and value your opinion,
>and would appreciate some guidance; I don't care
>if others accuse me of 'sucking up' for saying
>so.
Stay. Initiate and respond to other subjects. Ignore this one. Even
Areff and Simon will eventually lose interest. Simon will find a new
slight to imagine, and Areff will be told something by his elevator
that he will decide is absolutely the way things are for everyone or
absolutely not the way things are for anyone.