It's another slow kook day. Even CastAlone only dribbled a couple of itty bitty screedlets, and the latest "blast from the past" dredged up by the kooks has, once again, failed to amount to very much. Rasta Khan generated a fair amount of traffic, while proving ineffectual against the New Cabal. "The Demon of Mockery" turned out to be a Level 1 Imp armed with an unenchanted dagger, rather than the Balrog Ferd was undoubtedly intending to unleash with his summon spell. And now "hu flung dung"?! All Ferd needs now is a big striped tent and he can go into business as a carnie with this freak show.
Nadegda, thou art essentially a natural coward without instinct, thou unmuzzled earth-vexing clack-dish, thou villainous pottle-deep varlot, ye whined:
> It's another slow kook day. Even CastAlone only dribbled a couple of
> itty bitty screedlets, and the latest "blast from the past" dredged up
> by the kooks has, once again, failed to amount to very much. Rasta Khan
> generated a fair amount of traffic, while proving ineffectual against
> the New Cabal. "The Demon of Mockery" turned out to be a Level 1 Imp
> armed with an unenchanted dagger, rather than the Balrog Ferd was
> undoubtedly intending to unleash with his summon spell. And now "hu
> flung dung"?! All Ferd needs now is a big striped tent and he can go
> into business as a carnie with this freak show.
On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 14:34:17 +0000, hu flung dung wrote:
> Nadegda, thou art essentially a natural coward without instinct, thou
> unmuzzled earth-vexing clack-dish, thou villainous pottle-deep varlot,
> ye whined:
>> It's another slow kook day. Even CastAlone only dribbled a couple of
>> itty bitty screedlets, and the latest "blast from the past" dredged up
>> by the kooks has, once again, failed to amount to very much. Rasta Khan
>> generated a fair amount of traffic, while proving ineffectual against
>> the New Cabal. "The Demon of Mockery" turned out to be a Level 1 Imp
>> armed with an unenchanted dagger, rather than the Balrog Ferd was
>> undoubtedly intending to unleash with his summon spell. And now "hu
>> flung dung"?! All Ferd needs now is a big striped tent and he can go
>> into business as a carnie with this freak show.
> It's another slow kook day. Even CastAlone only dribbled a couple of itty
> bitty screedlets, and the latest "blast from the past" dredged up by the
> kooks has, once again, failed to amount to very much. Rasta Khan
> generated a fair amount of traffic, while proving ineffectual against the
> New Cabal. "The Demon of Mockery" turned out to be a Level 1 Imp armed
> with an unenchanted dagger, rather than the Balrog Ferd was undoubtedly
> intending to unleash with his summon spell. And now "hu flung dung"?! All
> Ferd needs now is a big striped tent and he can go into business as a
> carnie with this freak show.
If I'm not too terribly mistaken, that's the supposedly fearsome agent of cyber-doom, Kadaitcha Man. Unfortunately for the ko0ks, it actually looks like he might be choosing *our* side, or at least is on the fence.
-- "To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
> On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 14:47:35 -0400, kensi wrote:
>> On 06/09/2012 2:15 PM, pandora wrote:
>>> On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 14:34:17 +0000, hu flung dung wrote:
>>>> Nadegda, thou art essentially a natural coward without instinct, thou
>>>> unmuzzled earth-vexing clack-dish, thou villainous pottle-deep varlot,
>>>> ye whined:
>>>>> flung dung"?! All Ferd needs now is a big striped tent and he can go
>>>>> into business as a carnie with this freak show.
>>>> My lady, I used to *operate* the freak show.
>>> IT ain't no lady.
>> Got any proof of that, kO0K?
> What you doin outta my killfile, kooky?
Who are you calling "kooky", ko0k?
-- "To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 14:34:17 +0000, hu flung dung wrote:
> Nadegda, thou art essentially a natural coward without instinct, thou
> unmuzzled earth-vexing clack-dish, thou villainous pottle-deep varlot,
> ye whined:
>> It's another slow kook day. Even CastAlone only dribbled a couple of
>> itty bitty screedlets, and the latest "blast from the past" dredged up
>> by the kooks has, once again, failed to amount to very much. Rasta Khan
>> generated a fair amount of traffic, while proving ineffectual against
>> the New Cabal. "The Demon of Mockery" turned out to be a Level 1 Imp
>> armed with an unenchanted dagger, rather than the Balrog Ferd was
>> undoubtedly intending to unleash with his summon spell. And now "hu
>> flung dung"?! All Ferd needs now is a big striped tent and he can go
>> into business as a carnie with this freak show.
> My lady, I used to *operate* the freak show.
I'll take that under advisement. Meanwhile, perhaps you can tell me this:
On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 14:32:03 -0400, kensi wrote:
> On 05/09/2012 7:11 PM, Nadegda wrote:
>> It's another slow kook day. Even CastAlone only dribbled a couple of
>> itty bitty screedlets, and the latest "blast from the past" dredged up
>> by the kooks has, once again, failed to amount to very much. Rasta Khan
>> generated a fair amount of traffic, while proving ineffectual against
>> the New Cabal. "The Demon of Mockery" turned out to be a Level 1 Imp
>> armed with an unenchanted dagger, rather than the Balrog Ferd was
>> undoubtedly intending to unleash with his summon spell. And now "hu
>> flung dung"?! All Ferd needs now is a big striped tent and he can go
>> into business as a carnie with this freak show.
> If I'm not too terribly mistaken, that's the supposedly fearsome agent
> of cyber-doom, Kadaitcha Man.
Well, shit.
> Unfortunately for the ko0ks, it actually looks like he might be
> choosing *our* side, or at least is on the fence.
Wow. Ferd shoots himself in the foot yet again. Looks like K-Man accepted *Phoenix* (or maybe one of us two) as FNVW in that post, unless there's a Ferd post flaming Pope Snarky that's been missed by all *three* of my read servers.
Not only is Ferd's recruitment drive producing nothing for *his* side but lowly cannon fodder, it's also adding to *our* side!
but -- get this -- he's not buying into the kooky "Derbyshire Sock Army" thing, and Murphy gets a big fat Pickett vote. (He also lets Scatboi and §pamßµstčr have it in both ballots.)
I'd say Ferd's drumming up of the corps is turning into the farce of the decade. Of course, that's par for the course for a kook like Ferd.
>> On 05/09/2012 7:11 PM, Nadegda wrote:
>>> It's another slow kook day. Even CastAlone only dribbled a couple of
>>> itty bitty screedlets, and the latest "blast from the past" dredged
>>> up by the kooks has, once again, failed to amount to very much.
>>> Rasta Khan generated a fair amount of traffic, while proving
>>> ineffectual against the New Cabal. "The Demon of Mockery" turned
>>> out to be a Level 1 Imp armed with an unenchanted dagger, rather
>>> than the Balrog Ferd was undoubtedly intending to unleash with his
>>> summon spell. And now "hu flung dung"?! All Ferd needs now is a big
>>> striped tent and he can go into business as a carnie with this
>>> freak show.
>> If I'm not too terribly mistaken, that's the supposedly fearsome
>> agent of cyber-doom, Kadaitcha Man.
> Well, shit.
>> Unfortunately for the ko0ks, it actually looks like he might be
>> choosing *our* side, or at least is on the fence.
> Wow. Ferd shoots himself in the foot yet again. Looks like K-Man
> accepted *Phoenix* (or maybe one of us two) as FNVW in that post,
> unless there's a Ferd post flaming Pope Snarky that's been missed by
> all *three* of my read servers.
> Not only is Ferd's recruitment drive producing nothing for *his* side
> but lowly cannon fodder, it's also adding to *our* side!
> but -- get this -- he's not buying into the kooky "Derbyshire Sock
> Army" thing, and Murphy gets a big fat Pickett vote. (He also lets
> Scatboi and §pamßµstčr have it in both ballots.)
> I'd say Ferd's drumming up of the corps is turning into the farce of
> the decade. Of course, that's par for the course for a kook like Ferd.
>> On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 14:32:03 -0400, Paul G. Derbyshire AKA kensi wrote:
Proof, kooky? Nice postedit by the way. Your tacit admission that you have no point that you can make without resorting to dishonesty has been noted, kook.
> You stupid cunt.
Is that the entirety of your argument? So, basically you've been reduced even below foam-by-numbers to just plain ignoring every point we make, putting words in our mouths by altering the quoted text, and then calling us names. Still think you're *winning*, for fuck's sake?
> pandora <pand...@peak.org> posted as news in
> <5JWdneaQ673GatXNnZ2dnUVZ_sqdn...@scnresearch.com>:
>>On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 14:47:35 -0400, kensi wrote:
>>> On 06/09/2012 2:15 PM, pandora wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 14:34:17 +0000, hu flung dung wrote:
>>>>> Nadegda, thou art essentially a natural coward without instinct,
>>>>> thou unmuzzled earth-vexing clack-dish, thou villainous pottle-deep
>>>>> varlot, ye whined:
>>>>>> flung dung"?! All Ferd needs now is a big striped tent and he can
>>>>>> go into business as a carnie with this freak show.
>>>>> My lady, I used to *operate* the freak show.
>>>> IT ain't no lady.
>>> Got any proof of that, kO0K?
>>What you doin outta my killfile, kooky?
> errrr, testing the "ignore him and he will go away" as decreed by the
> FNVW?
> as you see, very effective.
> [sarcasm]
> as is the effort to shear off sock generation and froGGin' of the guy
> busting' derbyshire's chops, me ;-------D [amused observation]
> step careful where you read, my work has been noticed, the pain felt,
> the reaction is to FroGG and keep on froGGin'...!...no less[G]
> [friendly advice]
So now you're k'laiming that some of your posts are really by you and some are really by Derbyshire, but not, of course, specifying which are which and how we can tell them apart? So you can, in the future, backpedal on *any* k'lame you make by k'laiming later on that that post was actually by Derbyshire?
You *do* realize what a colossal fucking corner you've just painted yourself into with that, right?
Your ultimate escape hatch just turned into the ultimate trap, with you caught in it, because now everyone who's drunk your Derbyshire kool-aid will trust *nothing* you've posted, just in case it's really from Derbyshire. And, of course, if there really *is* someone forging you, whoever it is can post a forgery screeching "Derbyshire wrote that, not me!" and pointing at a post by *you*. You insane fuckwit.
Do you still think you're *winning*, for fuck's sake?
>> pandora <pand...@peak.org> posted as news in
>> <5JWdneaQ673GatXNnZ2dnUVZ_sqdn...@scnresearch.com>:
>>> On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 14:47:35 -0400, kensi wrote:
>>>> On 06/09/2012 2:15 PM, pandora wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 14:34:17 +0000, hu flung dung wrote:
>>>>>> Nadegda, thou art essentially a natural coward without instinct,
>>>>>> thou unmuzzled earth-vexing clack-dish, thou villainous
>>>>>> pottle-deep varlot, ye whined:
>>>>>>> flung dung"?! All Ferd needs now is a big striped tent and he
>>>>>>> can go into business as a carnie with this freak show.
>>>>>> My lady, I used to *operate* the freak show.
>>>>> IT ain't no lady.
>>>> Got any proof of that, kO0K?
>>> What you doin outta my killfile, kooky?
>> errrr, testing the "ignore him and he will go away" as decreed by the
>> FNVW?
>> as you see, very effective.
>> [sarcasm]
>> as is the effort to shear off sock generation and froGGin' of the guy
>> busting' derbyshire's chops, me ;-------D [amused observation]
>> step careful where you read, my work has been noticed, the pain felt,
>> the reaction is to FroGG and keep on froGGin'...!...no less[G]
>> [friendly advice]
> So now you're k'laiming that some of your posts are really by you and
> some are really by Derbyshire, but not, of course, specifying which
> are which and how we can tell them apart? So you can, in the future,
> backpedal on *any* k'lame you make by k'laiming later on that that
> post was actually by Derbyshire?
> You *do* realize what a colossal fucking corner you've just painted
> yourself into with that, right?
> Your ultimate escape hatch just turned into the ultimate trap, with
> you caught in it, because now everyone who's drunk your Derbyshire
> kool-aid will trust *nothing* you've posted, just in case it's really
> from Derbyshire. And, of course, if there really *is* someone forging
> you, whoever it is can post a forgery screeching "Derbyshire wrote
> that, not me!" and pointing at a post by *you*. You insane fuckwit.
> Do you still think you're *winning*, for fuck's sake?
>So now you're k'laiming that some of your posts are really by you and >some are really by Derbyshire, but not, of course, specifying which are >which and how we can tell them apart? So you can, in the future, >backpedal on *any* k'lame you make by k'laiming later on that that post >was actually by Derbyshire?
thanks for the confirmation of what i was well into working through, as your logic in froGGin my posts. i can only say it is "par for the course", and you should have begun well earlier than this.
>You *do* realize what a colossal fucking corner you've just painted >yourself into with that, right?
errr...do you?
>Your ultimate escape hatch just turned into the ultimate trap, with you >caught in it, because now everyone who's drunk your Derbyshire kool-aid >will trust *nothing* you've posted, just in case it's really from >Derbyshire. And, of course, if there really *is* someone forging you, >whoever it is can post a forgery screeching "Derbyshire wrote that, not >me!" and pointing at a post by *you*. You insane fuckwit.
you lost "illucid fuckwit" for a change?
[snarf] [snarf] [snarf]
>Do you still think you're *winning*, for fuck's sake?
there was never any doubt you were going to lose, paula.
running away from the real time "talkfest" challenge was the highlight (pinnacle) of your loss score...your shit just slid off the horizon after that foolery.
...and now you get "free go" to continue your stupidity....
>>So now you're k'laiming that some of your posts are really by you and
>>some are really by Derbyshire, but not, of course, specifying which are
>>which and how we can tell them apart? So you can, in the future,
>>backpedal on *any* k'lame you make by k'laiming later on that that post
>>was actually by Derbyshire?
> thanks for the confirmation
that you deserve this? Sure.
NOMINATION: Murphy for Coward of the Month (again!) for this elaborate escape hatch and for a Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart for the almost-instant backfire which he tries to repair below:
> of what i was well into working through, as your logic in froGGin my
> posts.
First, of course, with an unsubstantiated accusation that I'm froGGing him. Which he'll run from ever providing any proof of.
> i can only say it is "par for the course", and you should have begun
> well earlier than this.
And now he tries to repair the damage as best he can so as to try to preserve the "credibility" (such as it was) of all his posts from prior to, I guess, the past few days or so, by implying that no post earlier than that was a fake. (As for future posts? He'll morph and deny that he's the same person that posted as CastAlone, of course!)
Of course, his kooky escape hatch from the trap that his other kooky escape hatch turned into is easily turned into another trap: maybe *the post I'm responding to* is a fake and so some or all of his older posts might also be fakes despite the denial above? >;-)
>>You *do* realize what a colossal fucking corner you've just painted
>>yourself into with that, right?
> errr...do you?
I know just how badly you've fucked up, yes.
>>Your ultimate escape hatch just turned into the ultimate trap, with you
>>caught in it, because now everyone who's drunk your Derbyshire kool-aid
>>will trust *nothing* you've posted, just in case it's really from
>>Derbyshire. And, of course, if there really *is* someone forging you,
>>whoever it is can post a forgery screeching "Derbyshire wrote that, not
>>me!" and pointing at a post by *you*. You insane fuckwit.
> you lost "illucid fuckwit" for a change?
> [snarf] [snarf] [snarf]
That's Phoenix's preference. I like to specify the *cause* of your illucidity.
>>Do you still think you're *winning*, for fuck's sake?
> there was never any doubt you were going to lose, p<SPANK>
And yet we've taken over. We've run two successful ballots and counting. We're not going away anytime soon. And you're melting down along with the rest of the old-guard staukers. Now you've cast doubt on the authenticity of all of your own posts, without me or Phoenix or kensi or anybody else having had to raise a single finger. You did it to yourself, a colossal self-SPNAK. We goaded you and spun you up until you started making mistakes, some of them serious, and until you started voting *each other* for kook awards, and until you all started taking long and often simultaneous breaks from usenet. It's over, finito, caput. We've already won. It's all over except for some more amusing whining and crying and little-feets-stamping from you.
> running away from the real time "talkfest" challenge
Ah, your kooky challenge where we do as requested, so you move the goalposts, k'lame we didn't do what we clearly did do, and make a much vaguer and pretty much unintelligible new demand that we can't possibly accede to because, well, it's vague and pretty much unintelligible, then you k'lame VICTOLLY!!1!!!2!!!!3!! because of that? You insane fuckwit. Don't you think that's at least a *little* bit transparent to anyone who's paying attention?
> was the highlight (pinnacle) of your loss score...your shit just slid
> off the horizon after that foolery.
What foolery did you hallucinate this time, kooky?
> ...and now you get "free go" to continue your stupidity....
Your tacit admission that we've won and there's nothing you can do about it but cry and sling mud has been noted, kook.
On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 21:28:24 -0400, CastAlone wrote:
> pandora <pand...@peak.org> posted as news in
> <5JWdneaQ673GatXNnZ2dnUVZ_sqdn...@scnresearch.com>:
>>On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 14:47:35 -0400, kensi wrote:
>>> On 06/09/2012 2:15 PM, pandora wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 14:34:17 +0000, hu flung dung wrote:
>>>>> Nadegda, thou art essentially a natural coward without instinct,
>>>>> thou unmuzzled earth-vexing clack-dish, thou villainous pottle-deep
>>>>> varlot, ye whined:
>>>>>> flung dung"?! All Ferd needs now is a big striped tent and he can
>>>>>> go into business as a carnie with this freak show.
>>>>> My lady, I used to *operate* the freak show.
>>>> IT ain't no lady.
>>> Got any proof of that, kO0K?
>>What you doin outta my killfile, kooky?
> errrr, testing the "ignore him and he will go away" as decreed by the
> FNVW?
> as you see, very effective.
> [sarcasm]
Ummm, yeah.......
> as is the effort to shear off sock generation and froGGin' of the guy
> busting' derbyshire's chops, me ;-------D [amused observation]
> step careful where you read, my work has been noticed, the pain felt,
> the reaction is to FroGG and keep on froGGin'...!...no less[G]
> [friendly advice]
> >>So now you're k'laiming that some of your posts are really by you and
> >>some are really by Derbyshire, but not, of course, specifying which are
> >>which and how we can tell them apart? So you can, in the future,
> >>backpedal on *any* k'lame you make by k'laiming later on that that post
> >>was actually by Derbyshire?
> > thanks for the confirmation
> that you deserve this? Sure.
> NOMINATION: Murphy for Coward of the Month (again!) for this elaborate
> escape hatch and for a Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart for the
> almost-instant backfire
I second both nominations.
> which he tries to repair below:
> > of what i was well into working through, as your logic in froGGin my
> > posts.
> First, of course, with an unsubstantiated accusation that I'm froGGing
> him. Which he'll run from ever providing any proof of.
Of course.
> > i can only say it is "par for the course", and you should have begun
> > well earlier than this.
> And now he tries to repair the damage as best he can so as to try to
> preserve the "credibility" (such as it was) of all his posts from prior
> to, I guess, the past few days or so, by implying that no post earlier
> than that was a fake. (As for future posts? He'll morph and deny that
> he's the same person that posted as CastAlone, of course!)
> Of course, his kooky escape hatch from the trap that his other kooky
> escape hatch turned into is easily turned into another trap: maybe *the
> post I'm responding to* is a fake and so some or all of his older posts
> might also be fakes despite the denial above? >;-)
And of course perhaps there will even soon be a CastAlone post
specifically denouncing that one as a fake! If, of course, someone
really is forging him. (Who the hell would want to?)
> >>You *do* realize what a colossal fucking corner you've just painted
> >>yourself into with that, right?
> > errr...do you?
> I know just how badly you've fucked up, yes.
The amazing thing is how it's just one blunder after another with this
g00n. It's a wonder it took this long for him to get nominated for a
Cody.
> >>Your ultimate escape hatch just turned into the ultimate trap, with you
> >>caught in it, because now everyone who's drunk your Derbyshire kool-aid
> >>will trust *nothing* you've posted, just in case it's really from
> >>Derbyshire. And, of course, if there really *is* someone forging you,
> >>whoever it is can post a forgery screeching "Derbyshire wrote that, not
> >>me!" and pointing at a post by *you*. You insane fuckwit.
> > you lost "illucid fuckwit" for a change?
> > [snarf] [snarf] [snarf]
> That's Phoenix's preference. I like to specify the *cause* of your
> illucidity.
SPNAK.
> >>Do you still think you're *winning*, for fuck's sake?
> > there was never any doubt you were going to lose, p<SPANK>
> And yet we've taken over. We've run two successful ballots and counting.
> We're not going away anytime soon. And you're melting down along with the
> rest of the old-guard staukers. Now you've cast doubt on the authenticity
> of all of your own posts, without me or Phoenix or kensi or anybody else
> having had to raise a single finger. You did it to yourself, a colossal
> self-SPNAK. We goaded you and spun you up until you started making
> mistakes, some of them serious, and until you started voting *each other*
> for kook awards, and until you all started taking long and often
> simultaneous breaks from usenet. It's over, finito, caput. We've already
> won. It's all over except for some more amusing whining and crying and
> little-feets-stamping from you.
The meltdown of the kooks over the past few weeks has truly been
amazing to watch. Excellent work by all three of you.
> > running away from the real time "talkfest" challenge
> Ah, your kooky challenge where we do as requested, so you move the
> goalposts, k'lame we didn't do what we clearly did do, and make a much
> vaguer and pretty much unintelligible new demand that we can't possibly
> accede to because, well, it's vague and pretty much unintelligible, then
> you k'lame VICTOLLY!!1!!!2!!!!3!! because of that? You insane fuckwit.
> Don't you think that's at least a *little* bit transparent to anyone
> who's paying attention?
Of course he doesn't -- he's a kook!
> > was the highlight (pinnacle) of your loss score...your shit just slid
> > off the horizon after that foolery.
> What foolery did you hallucinate this time, kooky?
That's for his psychiatrist to know and us to find out. ;)
> > ...and now you get "free go" to continue your stupidity....
> Your tacit admission that we've won and there's nothing you can do about
> it but cry and sling mud has been noted, kook.
Of course, he's going to cry us the whole damned Amazon (and earn
another Bad Tacos, most likely) and sling a whole Amazon Basin worth
of mud before he gives up. Murphy is one obsessed freak!
pandora, what a drunken knave was the sea to cast thee in our way, thou spleeny dread-bolted hedge-pig, thou hath not so much brain as ear wax, ye squalled:
> On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 14:34:17 +0000, hu flung dung wrote:
>> Nadegda, thou art essentially a natural coward without instinct, thou
>> unmuzzled earth-vexing clack-dish, thou villainous pottle-deep varlot,
>> ye whined:
>>> It's another slow kook day. Even CastAlone only dribbled a couple of
>>> itty bitty screedlets, and the latest "blast from the past" dredged up
>>> by the kooks has, once again, failed to amount to very much. Rasta
>>> Khan generated a fair amount of traffic, while proving ineffectual
>>> against the New Cabal. "The Demon of Mockery" turned out to be a Level
>>> 1 Imp armed with an unenchanted dagger, rather than the Balrog Ferd
>>> was undoubtedly intending to unleash with his summon spell. And now
>>> "hu flung dung"?! All Ferd needs now is a big striped tent and he can
>>> go into business as a carnie with this freak show.
>> My lady, I used to *operate* the freak show.
> IT ain't no lady.
That remains to be proved, and until and unless it is, I am inclined to take her at her word, ironic remarks from you notwithstanding.
On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 17:48:54 +0000, hu flung dung wrote:
> pandora, what a drunken knave was the sea to cast thee in our way, thou
> spleeny dread-bolted hedge-pig, thou hath not so much brain as ear wax,
> ye squalled:
>> On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 14:34:17 +0000, hu flung dung wrote:
>>> Nadegda, thou art essentially a natural coward without instinct, thou
>>> unmuzzled earth-vexing clack-dish, thou villainous pottle-deep varlot,
>>> ye whined:
>>>> It's another slow kook day. Even CastAlone only dribbled a couple of
>>>> itty bitty screedlets, and the latest "blast from the past" dredged
>>>> up by the kooks has, once again, failed to amount to very much. Rasta
>>>> Khan generated a fair amount of traffic, while proving ineffectual
>>>> against the New Cabal. "The Demon of Mockery" turned out to be a
>>>> Level 1 Imp armed with an unenchanted dagger, rather than the Balrog
>>>> Ferd was undoubtedly intending to unleash with his summon spell. And
>>>> now "hu flung dung"?! All Ferd needs now is a big striped tent and he
>>>> can go into business as a carnie with this freak show.
>>> My lady, I used to *operate* the freak show.
>> IT ain't no lady.
> That remains to be proved, and until and unless it is, I am inclined to
> take her at her word, ironic remarks from you notwithstanding.
It's already been proven but whatever. You do what you wish. Oh and *her* word is no good around here.
