wilh...@ix.netcom.com (Bill Palmer ) writes:

        *shrug*  Killfiles are transient.  Well, they can be, anyway;
mine, after a few offenses, tends not to be.

        What, as in 'Scurvy scallawag!'?  From pirates, et al?  It's
still after the disease.

        Out of curiousity, how many people were featured quite
prominently in it?  Do you have a list?

        (I'm not trolling for another Kook-Code list, no, of course
not...)

                                - Tim Skirvin (tskir...@uiuc.edu)
--
<a href="http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/tskirvin">Skirv's Homepage</a>
<a href="http://arh0062.urh.uiuc.edu/killfile.html">The Daemons</a>
Washington Delenda Est! -- Protest the CDA! http://www.vtw.org/speech/

See Summary

In article <4g4a1q$...@reader2.ix.netcom.com>,
Bill Palmer  <wilh...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

George Curtis asks that you make sure you include him.  Remember - he's
the cockroach.

--
          Her kisses left something to be desired -- the rest of her.

: In YOUR case, Woof, "The Soft-in-the-Teeth Mutts' List" would
: do fine.  Of course, you, the Sleaze Tank, the Jack Booted Turd,
: Mealy Rat Wotan and a few others merit inclusion on "The Singed
: Losers' List".  

We're all waiting expectantly.  Be sure not to miss anyone.  You wouldn't
want to be the cause of hurt feelings I'm sure.

: Toodle-oo, old hound...

Damn, how do you manage to hit that high note?  Someone stick a pin in
your ass.

--
              A_A    I know syllables
John Davis   (o o)           and I use them in almost every word.      
----------oOO-(^)-OOo----------------------------------------------------
               ~                    Steve Winter

I reserve the right to post, at my discretion, any nasty or harassing
e-mail I receive.  Repeated occurrences of such e-mail will be referred to
the senders postmaster with a request for action.

Unsolicited commercial e-mail will be proofread at $100/hour (minimum one
(1) hour).  

: See Summary

: In article <4g4a1q$...@reader2.ix.netcom.com>,
: Bill Palmer  <wilh...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
: >In <jrdavisDMwonF....@netcom.com> jrda...@netcom.com (John Davis)
: >writes:
: >>
: >>Tim Skirvin (tskir...@arh0062.urh.uiuc.edu) wrote:
: >>
: >>:     Out of curiousity, how many people were featured quite
: >>: prominently in it?  Do you have a list?
: >>
: >>:     (I'm not trolling for another Kook-Code list, no, of course
: >>: not...)
: >>
: >>Gee, You don't think he'd actually put us in a *list* do you?  Maybe
: >>called something real awful like:
: >>
: >>The net insect, parasite, vermin, and real nasty bad guys list.
: >>
: >In YOUR case, Woof, "The Soft-in-the-Teeth Mutts' List" would
: >do fine.  Of course, you, the Sleaze Tank, the Jack Booted Turd,
: >Mealy Rat Wotan and a few others merit inclusion on "The Singed
: >Losers' List".  

: George Curtis asks that you make sure you include him.  Remember - he's
: the cockroach.

Oh, I'm sure he's written down all our names and stricken a line through them.

(Anyone else remember, "Little Caesar.")

--
              A_A    I know syllables
John Davis   (o o)           and I use them in almost every word.      
----------oOO-(^)-OOo----------------------------------------------------
               ~                    Steve Winter

I reserve the right to post, at my discretion, any nasty or harassing
e-mail I receive.  Repeated occurrences of such e-mail will be referred to
the senders postmaster with a request for action.

Unsolicited commercial e-mail will be proofread at $100/hour (minimum one
(1) hour).  

In <wotanDMxo3w....@netcom.com> wo...@netcom.com (Wotan) writes:

I don't know any "George Curtis" but I guess you are
intoroducing him as a cockroach, Wotan, so I can
accept your word on it.

On the other hand, if you are suggesting he is one of the
various pseudos who jumped on me recently in support of
you and the Woof, then I still have no idea WHICH pseudo.

I'm certainly not someone to rudely start calling
people "cokroaches" when they were simply expreesing an
innoucuous and polite opinion of me--if that is what
you are trying to insinuate, Mealy.

And after all, I'm not in with sleazoids' in-crowd.  Since
the name you mention didn't appear on any postings attacking
me--I have no way of knowing who you are reffering to.

In fact, I've told you before in so many words that I'm no
"Sherlock Holmes" when it comes to pseudos' indentification.  
I've got better things to do.  If you do in fact imply
the person in question  IS psuedo who attacked me (like YOU)--
Well, when he puts his real name in some post directed at me,
I'll address him by that name.  Until then, I'm not mincing
any words about the matter.

: I don't know any "George Curtis" but I guess you are
: intoroducing him as a cockroach, Wotan, so I can
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^
: accept your word on it.

: On the other hand, if you are suggesting he is one of the
: various pseudos who jumped on me recently in support of
: you and the Woof, then I still have no idea WHICH pseudo.

: I'm certainly not someone to rudely start calling
: people "cokroaches" when they were simply expreesing an
          ^^^^^^^^^^                        ^^^^^^^^^^
: innoucuous and polite opinion of me--if that is what
  ^^^^^^^^^^
: you are trying to insinuate, Mealy.

You really don't know what you do, do you?  Do you have any short term
memory at all?  George was one of the first people you attacked back in
January.  George is one of the nice guys around.  He was just trying to be
helpful.  You wrote a fairly lengthy and highly uncomplimentary article
about him.  You called him a cockroach and expounded on it at length.  You
may not remember him but he remembers you.  I think it's safe to assume
you have his vote locked up.

I rarely indulge myself in these little spelling lames.  You, however,
have been at Wotan pretty hard.  What was it you said, he misspells every
third word?  Well, there are four of yours in just the little portion I
quoted.  You really need to get a spelling checker, and use it.

--
              A_A    I know syllables
John Davis   (o o)           and I use them in almost every word.      
----------oOO-(^)-OOo----------------------------------------------------
               ~                    Steve Winter

I reserve the right to post, at my discretion, any nasty or harassing
e-mail I receive.  Repeated occurrences of such e-mail will be referred to
the senders postmaster with a request for action.

Unsolicited commercial e-mail will be proofread at $100/hour (minimum one
(1) hour).  

In <jrdavisDMxtpM....@netcom.com> jrda...@netcom.com (John Davis)
writes:

You got the wrong movie, Woof.  You want the true analogy that
is working in this flame war?   Well, the name starts with "C"
and it's not Capone or Caesar.

I doubt if you go to foreign movies, Woof.  I'm sure you're
one of those sub-literates who moans and groans if he has to
see a subtitled movie.  You probably have never heard of
Depardieu, the actor.  You have probably never heard of
Rostand the19th Century French writer.

I'm trying to give you a clue, Woof.  

The movie you are looking for to help your dim mind
understand me better is not  "little Caesar", it's "Cyrano"!  
That's why I am getting  bored drubbing you and a handful
of pseudonymous lackies.  

Bring on the big guns, Woof.   Just like the night Cyrano
whipped one-hundred who jumped on him--I'm waiting for the
day I have hte opportunity to THRASH AND HUMILIATE 100
flunkies and losers like YOU, Jack-booted Turd, Pinhead
the Bettledick, The Human Sleaze Tank CancleBot--come one,
come all, you sorry packs of Net bullies and newsgroup
"proprietors"--

THE BIG BATTLE IS COMING, WOOF.  NOT THIS EASY, "BILL PALMER
SCORCHES SIX OR EIGHT SORRY MUTTS AND PSEUDOS A DAY"--I
WANT TO MAKE IT *100* BULLIES REPORTING IN WITH THIRD DEGREE
FLAME BURNS ONE OF THESE NIGHTS.  

THAT'S RIGHT, WOOF. YOU AND MEALY RAT WOTAN BRAG THAT I'M
WAY OUTNUMBERED BY YOUR COWARDLY PACK.  WELL, SCROUNGE UNDER
THE ROCKS, WOOF--SEE IF YOU CAN COAX OUT A FEW DOZEN MORE
PSEUDOS TO BACK YOU UP...

Bill "Cyrano of Cyberspace" Palmer

: Bill "Cyrano of Cyberspace" Palmer

Well, Punchinello, your nose would be the only thing of significant size
about you.  Of course that could also be said of Pinocchio.  Be that as
it may, let us explore Cyrano a little farther.  Cyrano had some very
admirable character traits.  He was strong and brave but he was also shy
and gentile.  You can't lay honest claim to any of those qualities.  Your
posts have shown you to be cowardly, weak, bellicose, and vulgar.  Cyrano
did have one great character flaw.  He was overly concerned with what he
perceived as a physical defect, his rather large nose.  Here you come
closer to Cyrano.  You are overly concerned with what everyone else
perceives as a literary crime, the bilge you post to usenet.  Punchie old
fart, Roxanne would never fall in love with your writing.  It would turn
her stomach as fast as it turns everyone else's.

Here are a few words for your edification and enlightenment.  I played
Cyrano in a school presentation of that noble work.  I know Cyrano.  You
wouldn't make a pimple on Cyrano's nose.

--
              A_A    I know syllables
John Davis   (o o)           and I use them in almost every word.      
----------oOO-(^)-OOo----------------------------------------------------
               ~                    Steve Winter

I reserve the right to post, at my discretion, any nasty or harassing
e-mail I receive.  Repeated occurrences of such e-mail will be referred to
the senders postmaster with a request for action.

Unsolicited commercial e-mail will be proofread at $100/hour (minimum one
(1) hour).  

In <jrdavisDMyGG1....@netcom.com> jrda...@netcom.com (John Davis)
writes:

Old Mutt Davis' shit-storm of lies continues:

Mutt Davis, have you not one iota of respect for the truth?  My
point was that no one with the name "George Curtis" on his post
was called ANYTHING by me, let alone "cockroach".  If he did
in fact attack me in a manner sufficiently slimey to justify my
calling him that--he did so as a pseudo, not as "George Curtis".

But as usual, Mutt, you make generalized assaults.  You are one
of those semi-educated buffoons who thinks every pronouncement
no matter how ignorant, should stand unchallenged as truth,
simply because he himself said it.

Now tell me, Woof Davis--and tell all these good readers--what
is the header and date of this posting attacking me and bearing
the name "George Curtis" on it?

That's all, mutt.  Just back up your phony allegation with a
fact or two...

In <jrdavisDMynr2....@netcom.com> jrda...@netcom.com (John Davis)
writes:

Woof, your usual devious attempt to turn reality upside down
will only earn the approval of your "in-crowd" folks like
Mealy Rat Wotan.  Is this particular tissue of your fantasy
supposed to stand on the strength of the TWO BIG LIES I have
already caught you making--in two previous posts THIS VERY
DAY?

The fact remains, *I* AM the Cyrano of Cyberspace, AND YOU
are nothing but a cowardly, bullying buffoon who has been
poniarded with my words as many times as the real Cyrano
would have boxed your ears had he had the misfortune to
meet you!

I'm sure your comic attempt at playing Cyrano had the entire
school rolling in the aisles!  Must have been quite a
spectacle...
      Bill "The Cyrano of Cyberspace" Palmer            

Wee Willy, I note you have engaged in newsgroup creep here.  Keep this in
mind before writing any more posts complaining about me redirecting your
posts to appropraite forums like alt.bigfoot and alt.worst.of.usenet

In article <4g6dpc$...@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
Bill Palmer  <wilh...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

--
The intelligence of any discussion diminishes with the square of the
number of participants.
                -- Adam Walinsky

In article <4g5mk1$...@cloner2.ix.netcom.com>,
Bill Palmer  <wilh...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

Which told the wrold who George Curtis is.

ROTFLMAO

I didn't think it would be this easy to demonstrate that you have
absolutely no clue as to how to use your newsreader.  

George did not use one obscenity until his last couple of lines.  And
that was in reference to soething that everyone else has told you; but
you were to fucking stupid to understand then.

But you started off by calling him a cockroach.

We know you are inept and clueless.  But repeated evidence is not needed.

"you can't be bothered" is what you told antex.

Not that you didn't understand finger.

--
The intelligence of any discussion diminishes with the square of the
number of participants.
                -- Adam Walinsky

        [More of Punchinello's graveyard whistling deleted.]

:       Bill "The Cyrano of Cyberspace" Palmer            

You misspelled "The Scarlet Pimpernell of Usenet"

--
              A_A    I know syllables
John Davis   (o o)           and I use them in almost every word.      
----------oOO-(^)-OOo----------------------------------------------------
               ~                    Steve Winter

I reserve the right to post, at my discretion, any nasty or harassing
e-mail I receive.  Repeated occurrences of such e-mail will be referred to
the senders postmaster with a request for action.

Unsolicited commercial e-mail will be proofread at $100/hour (minimum one
(1) hour).  

: Now tell me, Woof Davis--and tell all these good readers--what
: is the header and date of this posting attacking me and bearing
: the name "George Curtis" on it?

: That's all, mutt.  Just back up your phony allegation with a
: fact or two...

Well Punchinello, You have been taking lessons at the James Keegan school
of net lying and bullshit slinging, haven't you?  It won't work Punchie.
Everyone knows that anything, as old as six weeks, has expired off.  Your
call to produce evidence is seen as what it is, a cowardly attempt to
wriggle out of the truth.  I guess we'll both just have to stand on our
reputations.  Since I have, on at least three occasions, produced proof of
my statements and you have never produced any, guess who has the higher
credibility rating?

Punchinello,  A lot of people know who George is.  They all know how he
posts.  

Hint:  Have you ever seen anyone refer to Wotan other than wotan,
to me other than John, to cat.man.do by any other name?  Why would they
refer to George as George if that were not the way he posted?  

Once again you prove yourself to be almost brain dead.  You really ought
to change your pusher.  That stuff you're sniffing up you nose is really
frying your brain.

--
              A_A    I know syllables
John Davis   (o o)           and I use them in almost every word.      
----------oOO-(^)-OOo----------------------------------------------------
               ~                    Steve Winter

I reserve the right to post, at my discretion, any nasty or harassing
e-mail I receive.  Repeated occurrences of such e-mail will be referred to
the senders postmaster with a request for action.

Unsolicited commercial e-mail will be proofread at $100/hour (minimum one
(1) hour).  

In <wotanDMzxHy....@netcom.com> wo...@netcom.com (Wotan) writes:

I had referred to the roll call of the people who jumped
on me when I had spoken out about some things they didn't
want to hear:

I told you before, Mealy Rat Wotan, the name is either
in the post or the poster is a pseudo.  

Now, Mealy Rat, next comes your devious way of saying
the guy jumped on me beore I had addressed one syllable.
But coward that you are, Mealy Rat Wotan, you try to
blunt the truth.  If ever there was proof of your
sleazy dishonesty, it is right here:

Now the truth is starting to come out.  You are describing
someone I have never addressed a word to, and in a sly way
you  admit the person used an obscenity to describe me
You of course sense I have the records, which can be checked
as soon as I learn the pseudonym that the guy hid behind
while launching his assault.

Now here you absolutely LIE.   It's a flat-out, no beating
around the bush LIE emerging through your dirty little
yellow  fangs.  I certainly DID NOT call someone a
"cockroach" unless I had very good reason--which would
have meant that he adressed his obscenities to me first.

But that's the way you are Wotan, after giving a dis-
torted version of the truth--you follow up with an
out and out lie!  That's the  Mealy One all right.

Now I notice you and the Woof are getting so desperate over
your repeated humiliations that you are double teaming me:
Woof Davis was pushing this same lie earlier today.

Clearly, I'm not in with the sleazoids' in-crowd, because
I'm flaming them.

Anthrax?  I thought cat.shit was bad enough...but now that
you mention it, "anthrax"  does does seem rather fitting
for the noxious material he posts...

Another lie from the Mealy Rat!  If *I* told cat.shit that,
I wouldn't have said "you" to mean ME, and yet you put
"you" in quotes, proving you are a vile  liar.  (I KNOW
it can't be a mistake, Wotan, because YOU are the self-
proclaimed quotation expert.)

In <jrdavisDn02F5....@netcom.com> jrda...@netcom.com (John Davis)
writes:

Nothing like a direct answer, eh Woof?  You opened your big and
lying mouth and I asked for some proof.  All you offer are your
cowardly insults and more lies. Then you answer with a question
instead of facts.  That's you.  That's Woof Davis.

 ur

But outside your sorry little coterie, you have no reputation
except as an ignorant,  angry, bullying mutt with a singed
tail--and an inveterate liar.

 Since I have, on at least three occasions, produced proof of

You have never done any such thing, and I think the fact
that you haven't cited any here proves it.  You are a "non-
citer", as a matter of fact.  After all your ignorant
woofings about my not being able to write a grammatical
sentence you never came up with ONE example (let alone
two thousand) to support your lies.  All you could do
was to prove yourself the typo-pouncing ignoramus.

and you have never produced any, guess who has the higher

Only a sleazebag like you would get into "credibility
ratings" as if they excused falsehoods.  

We're talking about YOU.  Woof Davis.  You made a
statement suspected to be a lie--where's the proof?
(If anyone missed the earlier postings, I'm asking
the Woof to supply a posting date and a man's
pseudonym to support a vague allegation Woof made.)

It's funny, I asked you to back up an assertion that
sounded to me like a big lie.  You said I called
someone a cockroach for no reason--you suggested,
although you didn't say it directly, that I just
read some article that had noting to do with me
and because I didn't like the person's opinion,
I called him a "cockroach".

See, that's your usual libel, Woof.  If I was attacked
and called someone a cockroach in response to obsceni-
ties, well and good. That probably happened, and that's
why you're shucking.  

You have made your lie; you suspect I keep records;
and you want to keep pushing this falsehood that I
just up and called some decent fellow a cockroach
for no reason.  

But it's funny, Woof--the truth has a way of getting
out, despite people like you.

I told you, Woof--I'm not in with your in crowd;  I don't
want to be.  And you didn't give a direct answer, Woof.
That's just what I have come to expect from you. Over and
over again, you make your big mouthed lies and then when
you are asked for proof you jive, you shuffle, you bark,
you waffle, you wag your singed stump of a tail--anything
but come straight out with the information to support
your statements.

In article <4g9n16$...@reader2.ix.netcom.com>,
Bill Palmer  <wilh...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

Well Wee Willy - you asked for proof of something that any reasonably
bright person might realize no longer exists.

Of course being neither bright or reasonable - we should remember you
don't have a clue to your name.

Not reputations in your mind Wee Willy.  Reputations in other people's
opinion.  You don't count in this.  

Or anything else for that matter.

He posted the proof you asked for - you whine that it is only typos.  And
then called him illiterate and un-educaated for not realizing this. All
the while pointing out "non-typos" as made by other posters.

BTW, that double standard of yours does wonders for your reputation.

You missed the point (again).  You have the reputation of being a whiny
little shit who can't write or take honest criticism.  John has a
somewaht better rep on the net.

Only one twit called it a lie.  The rest of us knew John was understating
the case.

The truly interesting thing is that I made an identical claim and you
never accused me of lying.

No, your asking for the post where you needlessly attacked someone in a
nasty fashion when they ahd been mostly polite to you.  As if you would
never do such a thing.

Funny - I came out and stated exactly that.  But you ignored that when
you skipped over my other claim.  (see above Wee Willy)

Translation:  I don't give a fuck who is who around here - and I really
have no desire to lower myself and find out either.

--
Christian, n.:
        One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired
        book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor.
        One who follows the teachings of Christ in so far as they are
        not inconsistent with a life of sin.

In article <4g9hbs$...@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
Bill Palmer  <wilh...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

John said it once, why should I repeat it?

Check the time stamps twit.  

You will find that I was posting before John.  Easy to do since I live
three hours East of him.

No, you whined you had no way of knowing who antex (cat.mandoo) really
is.  And he told you to try fingering him.

Your responce was that you could not be bothered to find out who was
behind these psuedos.

You may ask Senor Rowland if you don't remember the incedent.

--
Christian, n.:
        One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired
        book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor.
        One who follows the teachings of Christ in so far as they are
        not inconsistent with a life of sin.

In <wotanDn0xt5....@netcom.com> wo...@netcom.com (Wotan) writes:
   Nothing like a direct answer, eh Woof?  You opened your big and

Not so fast, Mealy Rat Wotan.  This whole argument began when
you and Woof--like the two scorched and angry losers you are--
started to "double-team" me with a BIG LIE to the effect that
for no reason at all, I had (you insinuated) just meanly
started to call some guy a cockroach.  

Since I had never heard the guy's name, and because I keep
records of my posts and posts related to me--I asked you
if the guy could have been using a pseudonym.  You waffled,
never giving a direct anwser.  Woof did the same.

My strong suspician is that you and Woof are taking a
case where somebody attacked me first under a pseudo,
and then after being vilely insulted I called the
aggressor a fitting name.

But in order to promulgate your BIG LIE, neither of
you will supply information, so your statements
can't be verified.  

The follwoing was true of Woof AND you, Mealy Rat Wotan
if in your case we subsitute "mutt" for "mealy rat":

Pinhead the Beetledick, fluke Hage, cat.shit, and the Sleaze Tank
CancleBot?

And as to Woof's furnishing proof of his (and your)
statement:

I might add, Mealy Rat Wotan,  that:

Nonesense.  Of course you are lying.  You and the
Woof have worked this one in tandem right from the
beginning.
And, you know, Mealy,

This struck me as totally false because I keep
good records and they didn't bear your claims
out.  To prove my suspicians were right,
neither you or the Woof would give me the date
of the post in question.

Most important, I have never addressed a posting
friendly or unfriendly--to a "George Curtis".

[...]

: Most important, I have never addressed a posting
: friendly or unfriendly--to a "George Curtis".

 ... said Sadam to the Free World.

                                - cat.mandoo

: In <jrdavisDn02F5....@netcom.com> jrda...@netcom.com (John Davis)
: >
: >Bill Palmer (wilh...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: >
: >: Now tell me, Woof Davis--and tell all these good readers--what
: >: is the header and date of this posting attacking me and bearing
: >: the name "George Curtis" on it?
: >
: >: That's all, mutt.  Just back up your phony allegation with a
: >: fact or two...
: >
: >Well Punchinello, You have been taking lessons at the James Keegan
: school
: >of net lying and bullshit slinging, haven't you?

: Nothing like a direct answer, eh Woof?  You opened your big and
: lying mouth and I asked for some proof.  All you offer are your
: cowardly insults and more lies. Then you answer with a question
: instead of facts.  That's you.  That's Woof Davis.

Do you take the accusation that you might seek out educational opportunities
as a cowardly insult?  Of course you do.  You, more than anyone, realizes a
real school wouldn't let you near the campus.

:  ur
: >call to produce evidence is seen as what it is, a cowardly attempt to
: >wriggle out of the truth.  I guess we'll both just have to stand on
: our
: >reputations.

: But outside your sorry little coterie, you have no reputation
: except as an ignorant,  angry, bullying mutt with a singed
: tail--and an inveterate liar.

Punchinello, we all know what your reputation is, don't we?

:  Since I have, on at least three occasions, produced proof of
: >my statements

: You have never done any such thing, and I think the fact
: that you haven't cited any here proves it.  You are a "non-
: citer", as a matter of fact.  After all your ignorant
: woofings about my not being able to write a grammatical
: sentence you never came up with ONE example (let alone
: two thousand) to support your lies.  All you could do
: was to prove yourself the typo-pouncing ignoramus.

Why do you insist on lying?  I'll give just one example.  Not for all
those who have read your lies ad nauseam, but just for you.  You said I
had not followed up one of your stale limericks with a limerick.  I
produced a post with complete headers to show you lied.  All you could
do was try and waffle on the strength of a couple of poorly used
modifiers.  You can't squirm away like that.  It just makes you look worse.

: and you have never produced any, guess who has the higher
: >credibility rating?

: Only a sleazebag like you would get into "credibility
: ratings" as if they excused falsehoods.  

: We're talking about YOU.  Woof Davis.  You made a
: statement suspected to be a lie--where's the proof?
: (If anyone missed the earlier postings, I'm asking
: the Woof to supply a posting date and a man's
: pseudonym to support a vague allegation Woof made.)

What pseudonym are you talking about.  You are the one who claims that so
many people save your stuff, surely one of your many fans will post the
article and vindicate you.  Why you probably saved it your self, for
posterity no doubt.  It should be easy for you to find, it's the one
where you called the guy the cockroach.  Surely you don't call that many
people cockroaches.  See what a wonderful opportunity I'm leaving you.  All
you have to do is post the article with full headers, just like I did, and
I should stand refuted.  Of course, you can stand around and cry for
evidence that everyone knows is no longer available on the net.  Be
advised, however, that is a very old ploy, used by every caught in the
act liar who has ever posted to usenet, and everybody knows it.

: It's funny, I asked you to back up an assertion that
: sounded to me like a big lie.  You said I called
: someone a cockroach for no reason--you suggested,
: although you didn't say it directly, that I just
: read some article that had noting to do with me
: and because I didn't like the person's opinion,
: I called him a "cockroach".

I didn't say or suggest any such thing.  What I said was, that what he
said didn't deserve the extreme reaction you gave it.  You might try
actually reading what is written before you make a fool of yourself.  I
guess you figure you're going to make a fool of yourself anyway so it
doesn't matter how.

: See, that's your usual libel, Woof.  If I was attacked
: and called someone a cockroach in response to obsceni-
: ties, well and good. That probably happened, and that's
: why you're shucking.  

The incidence of other people using obscenities as opposed to you is so
low as to be a usenet wonder.  You use obscenities and personal invective
in every post,  most seldom use them and a few never have.  That hasn't
protected them from your vitriol however.  I am a case in point.  I posted
several times in reply to you before I used my first obscenity on your
behalf.  As obscenity is in the eye of the reader, I suppose you're going
to claim, "your writing stinks" is obscene.  That's OK, there is no way
you can twist that into a personal attack.  That was an attack on
something you produced not on you.  The *only* attacks you have ever
mounted, against me or anyone else, have been personal.  

: You have made your lie; you suspect I keep records;
: and you want to keep pushing this falsehood that I
: just up and called some decent fellow a cockroach
: for no reason.  

: But it's funny, Woof--the truth has a way of getting
: out, despite people like you.

You have no idea just how true that statement is.  You make it, but you
don't really believe it.  The truth gets out not only here but it will
filter out all over the net.

: >Punchinello,  A lot of people know who George is.  They all know how
: he
: >posts.

: I told you, Woof--I'm not in with your in crowd;  I don't
: want to be.  And you didn't give a direct answer, Woof.
: That's just what I have come to expect from you. Over and
: over again, you make your big mouthed lies and then when
: you are asked for proof you jive, you shuffle, you bark,
: you waffle, you wag your singed stump of a tail--anything
: but come straight out with the information to support
: your statements.

That's Punchinello's usual kind of ploy, to confuse, misconstrue, and
misstate an issue.  He is always found out, indeed he never really fools
anybody.  You can try and spin fairy tails, but you have already posted
to much shit.  People know what you post, they know how you squrim.  They
know that you try to tar others with your own muddy brush.  It doesn't fool
them Punchie, it only fools you.  That's because you are the fool.  

--
              A_A    I know syllables
John Davis   (o o)           and I use them in almost every word.      
----------oOO-(^)-OOo----------------------------------------------------
               ~                    Steve Winter

I reserve the right to post, at my discretion, any nasty or harassing
e-mail I receive.  Repeated occurrences of such e-mail will be referred to
the senders postmaster with a request for action.

Unsolicited commercial e-mail will be proofread at $100/hour (minimum one
(1) hour).