Jeff 'Lord Elgin' Kennett - Art Thief
Che Guava
illegal possession of a $50,000 painting belonging to the
Victorian people.
And it's not as if this is a first offence, either.
He was previously found in possession of a government
owned exercise bike, and had fraudulently misused a
government credit card, for personal purposes.
Three strikes and he should be jailed, according to Dave Moss
John Howard, and dozens of other tory hard-liners! ;-)
Why isn't he even charged?
He isn't black, and he's a tory. B^p
Che
------
"The National Gallery of Victoria yesterday retrieved a portrait
of the former premier Sir Henry Bolte from the home of Mr Jeff Kennett
- five months after the artwork was removed from the Premier's
Department at 1 Treasury Place." - [ The Age 29/2/00]
Who authorized it's removal? If someone other than Jeff actually
stole the painting, he may merely be charged with receiving
stolen artworks.
"Gallery staff picked up the Paul Fitzgerald portrait from Mr Kennett's
Surrey Hills home yesterday, ending a two-week search for the painting." [ibid]
Caught red-handed. It's an open and shut case.
"The painting, which had been on loan to the former coalition Government,
was removed from the Department of Premier and Cabinet days before the
ALP came to power last October." [ibid]
Taking full advantage of the window of opportunity before accountability
was restored to Victorian government. It was clearly planned with
great timing.
'A spokesman for the Premier, Mr Steve Bracks, said last night that the
Government would today "be demanding to know how a publicly owned
asset such as this found its way into a private home".' [ibid]
Well, motive for the theft is something that the magistrate may take
into account as mitigating circumstances, in those states which permit
such latitude.. but public speculation should not delay criminal
prosecution.
"But Mr Kennett said last night he had been under the mistaken belief that
the painting had been given to him by a private citizen, and had taken the
artwork with him when he lost office last year." [ibid]
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! B^D
That belongs up there with "Fell off the back of a truck" and
"won it in a pub raffle"! B^D
WHO IS HE KIDDING!
You can't escape responsibility by claiming that some flunkey has
any right to 'donate' you a painting which isn't theirs to give!
IT'S THEFT, MISAPPROPRIATION, RECEIVING STOLEN GOODS!
It's the law.. no other citizen would be allowed to mount this
feeble excuse.. CHARGES MUST BE LAID!
Is he in the habit of 'mistakenly' taking home any item he fancies?
It's simple, Jeff, If you don't own it, you don't take it.
If you take property which isn't yours, and get caught, you can't
soy 'ooops' I made a mistake, you are a thief, and should be charged.
Mr Kennett said he was first contacted about the painting when a woman
from the Premier's Department spoke to him last Friday.
He said the painting carried no gallery markings or identification, but bore
the signature of the artist on the back of the canvas.
WHO GIVES A FUCK!?
IT WASN'T BOUGHT!
IT WASN'T PAID FOR.
IT WASN'T HIS..
IF YOU TAKE WHAT YOU KNOW DOESN'T BELONG TO YOU
IT'S CALLED *STEALING*
After speaking to Mr Fitzgerald over the weekend, Mr Kennett said he
telephoned the National Gallery yesterday morning and offered to return the
portrait.
After being apprehended with the stolen goods the thief offered
to return them, the owner said thanks, no charges laid.. WHAAAAAT! ?
....
He said he had a ``very, very, vivid memory'' of a woman
offering him the painting.
This 'person' must be identified and interviewed by police,
clearly 'she' was engaged in a criminal activity.
If such a person is produced and corroborates Lord Elgins
tale, he may only be faced with charges of receiving and handling.
``She said, `We don't need this any more. We'd like you to have this','' Mr
Kennett said.
"Honest judge, this bloke *offered* me the $23 worth of
biscuits, I didn't steal it"
'Me too judge.. I was told by someone claiming to be the owner
that I could have some textas and pencils" B^p
FAT CHANCE!
He described his actions in taking painting as ``very inadvertent''.
An absurd defence.. you don't 'accidentally' pick up and take
home a $50,000 painting belonging to your employer!
PADDY
Lift ya game please
thanks
--
PADDY
Join Dingo Blue and get $40 credit. Unlimited hours, sessions,
downloads;unlimited everything, for only $25 a month.(conditions may
apply) To get the credit as a result of signing up visit
www.dingoblue.com.au .Feel free to quote 100034781 so we both get 40$
credit.
ralph
process when we have Mother Che Teresa to pronounce the verdict ;-)
Tell us again about those core social values of yours - I guess
"justice" wasn't one of them (but "hypocrisy" must be) ;-)
You didn't quite explain why being a "tory" had anything to do with
not being charged - especially as he's living in a socialist state
now. Unless you are aiming a side-swipe at the Bracks' government?
;-)
Only the most silly political opportunist would even bother to suggest
this was a deliberate act. Sure Kennett looks dumb with this - but you
manage to look positively vile ...
On Tue, 29 Feb 2000 18:26:45 +1100, Che Guava <che_...@my-deja.com>
David Moss
>
> Jeff Kennett should have been charged with the theft and
> illegal possession of a $50,000 painting belonging to the
> Victorian people.
So charge him Che.
Now is your big chance.
Drag the AG in too, its an obvious case of conspiracy to pervert the
course of justice. What ? You mean the AG is from the Labor Party ?
Shouldn't make a difference should it ? Should it ?
Che Guava
Ah, we all know what Paddy wrote.
.... he's a true tory Rhetoricbot , eh, Wearing, Guff? B^p
Chanting from his tiny repertoire of clichés! B^D
Still it gives me a chance to add some further delicious tidbits..
and to ask very loudly.. WHY DON'T OUR MEDIA
ASK THESE SLEAZE BAGS THE *HARD* QUESTIONS?
Check this:
"Mr Kennett told the Herald Sun he believed the painting had
been given to him by an anonymous well-wisher"
-[The Herald sun 29/2/00]
ANONYMOUS GIFTS, WORTH IN EXCESS OF $50,000,
TO POLITICIANS... *NO QUESTIONS ASKED!*
Are you getting an idea of what these tory rorters regard as
acceptable moral practice! Some idea of the damage done during
the Kennett regime to notions of accountability and transparency?
So, if we are to believe our ex-premier, he accepts valuable
considerations from any drug-dealing, coke sniffing, paedophile
ring leader with large, deep pockets ... NO QUESTIONS ASKED! B^p
"'About four years ago a Bolte painting, as best we can recall,
appeared at the office (at Treasury Place)' he said." [ibid]
Sure, i can understand that, any Manna from heaven, large
wads of cash in brown paper bags, or valuable 'considerations'
which 'materialise' ... then it's finders keepers! B^D
"It was said it ws left by some person we thought was moving into
a flat and didn't want the painting anymore and was leaving it with us,
in part." [ibid]
Oh, Im sure we can guess the 'other' part, Lightfingers!
Who was this mysterious benefactor? Who told you this story?
Was it recorded as a gift in a register? If not, why not?
How many other favours, gifts, commissions, considerations
and bribes have you received from 'unknown' donors?
With that sort of 'curiosity' he was lucky it wasn't a letter bomb. B^p
His story reminds me of a bloke my dad told me about.
My old man wouldn't bring home a pencil from his employer..
the SEC. He regarded it as theft, which of course it is,
no matter how common it may be.
One day a bloke collapsed in the car park.. he seemed
to have stopped breathing, his chest wasn't moving.
The reason was soon discovered as his clothing was loosened,
around his upper body he had wound metres of copper wire,
but perhaps a bit too tightly. ;-)
"I have been gifted a lot of bits and pieces" [ibid]
Isn't that the nub of the issue. What is the difference between
a gift and a bribe? Accountability, Openness, Transparency
and a register of gifts and donations?
Or was this just stolen goods?
> Pathetic chey.
I am glad after all these months you finally agree with one of
my assessments of a tory skuzbucket.
Not just pathetic, but prima facie criminal!
> Lift ya game please
Perhaps I should do a little ad hom tap dance on your skull?
You obviuosly aren't using it for anything important like containing brains. B^D
> thanks
you can have a sarcasm suppository anytime, you brain dead cretin!
>
>
> Che Guava wrote:
> >
> > Jeff Kennett should have been charged with the theft and
> > illegal possession of a $50,000 painting belonging to the
> > Victorian people.
> >
PADDY
Che Guava wrote: his usual left winf peurile dribble, thus the majority
has been snipped.
>
> > Lift ya game please
>
> Perhaps I should do a little ad hom tap dance on your skull?
If you must attack me for ad hom, why engage in it yourself Chey Whey?
Pathetic, simply pathetic, don't you worry about that.
Now please lift your game, before it's too late.
thanks in advance
Hope this helps
TJ Lim
The proscecutor should charge him and let the court decide whether he is
innocent. The proscecutor has no right to be judge and jury and lay no
charges.
Any body else caught would have long been charged
Che Guava <che_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:38BBAC62...@my-deja.com...
TJ Lim
David Wareing <dwar...@adelaide.on.net> wrote in message
news:B4E289EF.520D%dwar...@adelaide.on.net...
> CliChe writes:
>
> > Jeff Kennett should have been charged with the theft and
> > illegal possession of a $50,000 painting belonging to the
> > Victorian people.
>
> something for a change, instead of just whining and bitching.
> Why don't YOU start proceedings against Kennett?
>
> You're pathetic.
>
Che Guava
ralph wrote:
> Art thief? Wow - no trial, no jury, no verdict -
Indeed it is a terrible state of affairs when high crimes and
misdemeanors does not even warrant a police investigation,
let alone a trial.
People will have to make do with Kennetts totally implausible
story, (it really is a ripper! B^D ) and ongoing public commentary
for the rest of his career.
A bit like that other corrupt tory, Elliot, who was unlucky enough to
have charges laid, but got off on a technicality.
(Oh I figure I'm safe from the Pigs Arses lawyers for two reasons,
first its the truth! B^D Always a good defence!
And as everyone who follows the NT Chief ministers recent humiliation
by the courts ;-) realises 'corrupt' is a DP term for 'damaged data' B^p
> but who needs due
> process when we have Mother Che Teresa to pronounce the verdict ;-)
Oh, don't worry widdle walfie, your man will get away with it..
you only get 'me' when there is to be NO TRIAL, not even
a police investigation... Kennett only had to stare down the
public servants he ruled for years! , and the legal system lets
another crime go unpunished!
> Tell us again about those core social values of yours - I guess
> "justice" wasn't one of them (but "hypocrisy" must be) ;-)
But that's what I'm calling for, Ralph, A TRIAL, not a whitewash!
Theft, misappropriation, these ARE justice issues!
Kennetts explanation raises more questions than it answered.
But the prima facie case is clear... a painting which is not his,
worth $50,000, and missing for four months has turned up
in his house. Now you don't have to be Sherlock Homes
to see what's going on do you Ralph? He should be charged
with theft, or receiving. THEN let the court decide!
I can understand your objection to having this matter publicly
discussed, the tory view is clearly that theft of public property
is your right, political spoils and all that.
It's just that some of us paid taxes for that painting.
Can I come to your place and remove some of your property?
It's ok, someone anonymous, perhaps it was Mosley, said
I could have it! B^D B^D B^D
GROW UP!
> You didn't quite explain why being a "tory" had anything to do with
> not being charged -
That is the mystery, they get away with every time! Entsch, Elliot
Kennett.. they are the political equivalent of white collar crims..
seemingly untouchable!
Then again if you look at the quality of their appointments to the
judiciary, ( the High Court judge who lied about his involvement
in a case but then had to excuse himself B^p) you start to understand
how the elites scratch their own backs.
So, the Gallery staff who decided to accept his story NO QUESTIONS
ASKED, are past appointees of his administration, they have the
Kennett frontal lobotomy scars, part of the obsequious network of YES-MEN.
> especially as he's living in a socialist state now.
Have you forgotten so quickly that the WHOLE VICTORIAN PARTY,
INCLUDING EVERY PARLIAMENTARIAN, WAS SUBJECT TO
HIS ABSOLUTE CONTROL... Jeff was king.. his minions are everywhere.
It will take decades to winkle out the corruption, and restore due process.
> Unless you are aiming a side-swipe at the Bracks' government? ;-)
If they don't order an investigation.. or attempt the sort of apologetic
cover up you seen to favour, they will deserve it!
> Only the most silly political opportunist would even bother to suggest
> this was a deliberate act. Sure Kennett looks dumb with this - but you
> manage to look positively vile ...
Oh right, theft is 'silly'
demanding accountability is 'vile'
Stick your tory morality where it fits.
(If anyone asks say it was an 'anonymous gift' ;-)
TheMan
Che Guava wrote in message <38BB74B5...@my-deja.com>...
>Jeff Kennett should have been charged with the theft and
>illegal possession of a $50,000 painting belonging to the
>Victorian people.
>
>And it's not as if this is a first offence, either.
>
>He was previously found in possession of a government
>owned exercise bike, and had fraudulently misused a
>government credit card, for personal purposes.
>
>Three strikes and he should be jailed, according to Dave Moss
>John Howard, and dozens of other tory hard-liners! ;-)
>
>Why isn't he even charged?
>
>He isn't black, and he's a tory. B^p
Che Che Che, why did you keep insisting that this was NOT a race issue, and
yet continuing to point out RACE in this debate? Don't you think that's a
little hypocritical?
>
>Che
>------
David Wareing
> Jeff Kennett should have been charged with the theft and
> illegal possession of a $50,000 painting belonging to the
> Victorian people.
Here's your big chance, fruity. Your chance to actually do
TJ Lim
provision in the law for having someone's painting mysteriously in your home
without the permission of the owner of the painting. The difference in the
value of tim tms and the painting has nothing to do with the severity of the
action.
ralph <rste...@geocities.nospm.com> wrote in message
news:5c7nbs0lhvs38n2lk...@4ax.com...
TJ Lim
asking the Attorney General to file charges against him. For the sake of the
Coalition party this needs to be done or else an impression will be created
off this party's leaders.news:38BB74B5...@my-deja.com...
Lev Lafayette
On Wed, 1 Mar 2000, David Wareing wrote:
> CliChe writes:
>
> > Jeff Kennett should have been charged with the theft and
> > illegal possession of a $50,000 painting belonging to the
> > Victorian people.
>
> Here's your big chance, fruity. Your chance to actually do
> something for a change, instead of just whining and bitching.
> Why don't YOU start proceedings against Kennett?
Because Che didn't own the painting of Mr. Bolte, fine investor of
public funds that he was (pity about his line of the death penalty tho')
Methinks it has to come from a public prosecution, the DPP to be precise.
>
> You're pathetic.
The last person to suffering from pathos, imho. Very good at riling people
tho'.
Here's to the freedom of borrowing art from the NGV! *clink*
Regardez,
Lev
Che Guava
David Moss wrote:
> Che Guava wrote:
> >
> > Jeff Kennett should have been charged with the theft and
> > illegal possession of a $50,000 painting belonging to the
> > Victorian people.
> [cut]
>
> So charge him Che.
> Now is your big chance.
This is an interesting spin from a tory Law and Order hardliner! B^D
Unhappy with the dire social consequences of "inadvertently misappropriated"
biscuits, outraged by battlers who inadvertently miss filing a dole form,
you want the full weight of the legal system to fall on the working class,
but not even an INVESTIGATION of a member of the millionaire tory
elite caught red-handed with stolen property!
Are you suggesting that "User Pays" "Citizen Initiated" prosecutions
replace police investigations all over the country? I imagine this
approach will prove very popular with Lunar Right Wing Militias
but perhaps not so well with the general populace, who may not be
so happy to have to have a fund raiser everytime they want a burglary
or home invasion investigated!
Wearing obviously supports abolishing the state criminal investigation
and prosecution functions as you do. Is this official tory party policy?
This represents a fundamental philosophical difference.. I think it is only
in corrupt tinpot dictatorships where the police force is used simply to
protect the top politicians, and never to investigate them.
It reeks of totalitarianism, or Banana Republics (With our Foreign
Debt and plummeting dollar, I suppose we are the latter ;-)
I think this is election campaign quality material! B^D
It certainly redefines the concept of the "Guilty Party"! B^D
Repost: (update on 'Lightfingers' in response to Wearing's post)
Jeff Kennett should have been charged with the theft and
illegal possession of a $50,000 painting belonging to the
Victorian people.
And it's not as if this is a first offence, either.
Che
------
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! B^D
IT'S CALLED *STEALING*
home a $50,000 painting belonging to your employer!
>
> Drag the AG in too, its an obvious case of conspiracy to pervert the
> course of justice.
Excellent idea! I will ring my local member and make my views known
immediately. I am sure your suggestion will be followed my many thousands
of Victorians... once they can stop laughing at Lord Elgin red-handed,
and can pick themselves up off the floor!
> What ?
Are you heraring voices again?.. Ignore them..
try and stay focused on reality, no matter how painful it is. B^D
> You mean the AG is from the Labor Party ?
Is the news a bit slow arriving up where you live?
Or are you just a bit slow taking it on board?
Our AG is from the new administration which replaced Jeff's
minions months ago.
>
> Shouldn't make a difference should it ?
Oh I think so, we have returned to Openess, Accountability
and Transparacy in government.
We all sleep much better at nights, knowing that processes
for independent audit place limits on the potential abuse of power..
Not one of Kennetts strong points.. do you know.. his government
dit no even keep audit records of the public artworks loaned out?
Can you imagine such prudential incompetence...
Typical tory really, totally unconcerned with public property, happy
to see it run down so it can be flogged off cheaply to some mates..
Or just taken home because you like it! B^D
> Should it ?
Are you deaf or stupid, or stuttering?
Answering the question once should be enough.
It's more than you will ever do! B^D
Che Guava
he took home as a consolation prize after the Victorian people
terminated his contract rather abruptly, was an 'anonymous gift'?
"We should be so lucky.. LUCKY LUCKY LUCKY.." B^D
Well, his alibi is coming unstuck, rather quickly.
Remember his story:
> "Mr Kennett told the Herald Sun he believed the painting had
> been given to him by an anonymous well-wisher"
> -[The Herald sun 29/2/00]
>
> "I have been gifted a lot of bits and pieces" [ibid]
"It was also revealed yesterday that if Mr Kennett believed
the portrait was a gift, HE FAILED TO LIST IT ON THE
PARLIAMENT'S PECUNIARY INTEREST REGISTER,
which requires all gifts above $ 500 to be identified."
- [ The Herald Sun 1/3/00] {My Emphasis}
Well, that blows his first excuse! The Prima facie case
remains, WITHOUT SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION!
Just how many laws has Lord Elgin-Kennett breached?
Che
------
Other evidence further undermines his fantastic tale of
mysterious 'anonymous donors' of precious art, never
declared on the anti-bribe pecuniary interest register:
"A $50,000 painting found in the home of former premier Jeff
Kennett was borrowed from the National Gallery by one of
his senior staff members" - [The Herald Sun 1/3/00]
Are these Senior Staff the generous benefactors which
Lightfingers wants to keep anonymous? Have these
members of his inner circle, fro whom he is responsible,
been interviewed to find out which one told the Premier
he could keep the painting.
"Documents obtained by the Herald Sun show Mr Kennett's
former Chief of Staff, John Griffin, signed the loan agreement
to take the portrait of Sir Henry Bolt, along with about $280,000
worth of other paintings, from the gallery in february 1996." [ibid}
Is John Griffin the anonymous donor of public goods
to his bosses private collection..
And who has the other paintings? If no audit records were
maintained how do we know?
"Dr Vaughan (NGV Director) expressed surprise that Mr
Kennett's office could mistake the painting for a private possession,
given a gallery official and Mr Kennett's staff member were
required to re-sign the loan agreement every year."
The people of Victoria can't believe it either! B^p
Ferg
TJ Lim <tj...@impaq.com.au> wrote in message
news:EtZu4.1718$4F6.4...@news0.optus.net.au...
> Jeff Kennerth should avail himself of the opportunity to
clear his name by
> asking the Attorney General to file charges against him.
For the sake of the
> Coalition party this needs to be done or else an
impression will be created
> off this party's leaders.
Put your trust in the right wing politician who valued money
and "ethically-novel" casino deals over attention to the
health and education needs of his electorate.
Caught red-handed with a valuable oil painting pinched from
the gallery which owned it he humourously declares "I
thought somebody I don't know gave it to me" despite the
fact that he had never declared any such gift as required by
parliamentary regulations.
An honest excuse revealing of incompetence? or a complete
fabrication designed to smokescreen a blatant theft attempt?
Put your trust in the right! They'll take you for a wild
ride you'll never forget.
> Che Guava <che_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:38BB74B5...@my-deja.com...
David Moss
<Pine.OSF.4.10.100030...@cassius.its.unimelb.edu.au>:
>On Wed, 1 Mar 2000, David Wareing wrote:
>> Why don't YOU start proceedings against Kennett?
>
>Because Che didn't own the painting of Mr. Bolte, fine investor of
>public funds that he was (pity about his line of the death penalty tho')
>
>Methinks it has to come from a public prosecution, the DPP to be precise.
Nope. Anyone can start a private criminal prosecution however the DPP can
elect to take over the case at any time.
I looked into the concept during the euthanasia debate a few years ago.
--
David Moss
personal opinion only
http://plato.itsc.adfa.edu.au/apr
The Australian Politics Resource
Chris Lumb
Steve Bracks chucking spadefuls of sand at him, I wish! Though I doubt it,
Steve, unlike Jeff, is a gent!
Most appropriate that he's working for 60 Minutes, tabloid TV. Or as
Stuart Littlemore used to call it "38 Minutes" (for a number of reasons).
I stopped watching 38 Minutes when Richard Carleton, Canberra bon-vivant,
did a number on his home town. Alleging, amongst other things, that people
accross Aus pick up the tab for Canberra's bus system. The programme is
fraudulent and Jeffo is in good company! I shan't be watching.
Chris Lumb
Kennett. When the press asked him what he'd be doing while Ronald Ryan
swung on a noose, he said "having a shit, shower, or shave". Jeff is
welcome to the portrait I reckon!
David Wareing
Pine.OSF.4.10.100030...@cassius.its.unimelb.edu.au, Lev
Lafayette at l...@student.unimelb.edu.au wrote on 1/3/00 11:24:
>> Here's your big chance, fruity. Your chance to actually do
>> something for a change, instead of just whining and bitching.
>> Why don't YOU start proceedings against Kennett?
>
> Because Che didn't own the painting of Mr. Bolte, fine investor of
> public funds that he was (pity about his line of the death penalty tho')
At least you're consistent in your apologies.
> Methinks it has to come from a public prosecution, the DPP to be precise.
Then press for one. I thought it belonged to the "Victorian people"?
What's wrong, too hard for you?
>> You're pathetic.
>
> The last person to suffering from pathos, imho. Very good at riling people
> tho'.
If you can't take it, stay out of the kitchen Lev. Oh, that's right,
you already are. Feel free to resume the debate any time you like.
> Here's to the freedom of borrowing art from the NGV! *clink*
Wow, Lev is interested in freedoms all of a sudden. How...novel.
David Wareing
tj...@impaq.com.au wrote on 1/3/00 10:57:
> Jeff Kennerth should avail himself of the opportunity to clear his name by
> asking the Attorney General to file charges against him. For the sake of the
> Coalition party this needs to be done or else an impression will be created
> off this party's leaders.
Hush up. You're just giving more people more reasons to be
pro-abortion.
Lev Lafayette
On Wed, 1 Mar 2000, David Wareing wrote:
> in article
> Pine.OSF.4.10.100030...@cassius.its.unimelb.edu.au, Lev
> Lafayette at l...@student.unimelb.edu.au wrote on 1/3/00 11:24:
(rm)
> Then press for one. I thought it belonged to the "Victorian people"?
> What's wrong, too hard for you?
Please see previous posts on this issue. I am.
> If you can't take it, stay out of the kitchen Lev. Oh, that's right,
> you already are. Feel free to resume the debate any time you like.
I did. February 27.
> > Here's to the freedom of borrowing art from the NGV! *clink*
>
> Wow, Lev is interested in freedoms all of a sudden. How...novel.
*groan* Well, at least everyone else found it amusing.
Regardez,
Lev
ralph
On Wed, 01 Mar 2000 00:18:53 GMT, "TJ Lim" <tj...@impaq.com.au> wrote:
>It is an infringement of one law for those who steal a few tim tams and no
>provision in the law for having someone's painting mysteriously in your home
>without the permission of the owner of the painting. The difference in the
>value of tim tms and the painting has nothing to do with the severity of the
>action.
I don't argue with the tim tams/paintings theory - but I doubt your
legal opinion about "no provision" in the law. I think there is
plenty of provision in the law for not convicting someone for a
non-deliberate act - but that's a matter Victorian prosecutors isn't
it? I mean not like Kennett has friends in the Victorian government
these days, so maybe it's simple lack of evidence to successfully
prosecute?
Anyway, my main point is that Kennett hasn't had a trial (not even
charged), but the original post labelled him an art thief. Even the
media uses the term "alleged" when describing actions not proven in
court. Think Che's "core social values" should include a sense of
"fair play" for all - even dreaded tories ;-)
Seppo Renfors
Che Guava wrote:
>
> Jeff Kennett should have been charged with the theft and
> illegal possession of a $50,000 painting belonging to the
> Victorian people.
WAS it "illegal possession"? My understanding was that it was ON LOAN,
and the museum LOST IT. (They didn't know of its whereabouts). Jeff's
excuse was a bit lame, but because of it being so damned lame it is
likely to be true.
>
> And it's not as if this is a first offence, either.
Prove you are not telling a LIE by quoting the Court cases where he
has been found GUILTY of an offences!!
>
> He was previously found in possession of a government
> owned exercise bike, and had fraudulently misused a
> government credit card, for personal purposes.
So where are the COURT CASES that PROVES YOUR CLAIMS, or do you go
about defaming "tory" politicians for sport?
>
> Three strikes and he should be jailed, according to Dave Moss
> John Howard, and dozens of other tory hard-liners! ;-)
>
> Why isn't he even charged?
>
> He isn't black, and he's a tory. B^p
...and you don't tell the TRUTH!
[snip]
--
SIR -Philosopher Unauthorised
------------------------------------------------------------------
" Don't resent getting old. A great many are denied that privilege "
---------------------------------------------------------------
Seppo Renfors
Che Guava wrote:
>
> You all remember Jeff's fabulous story that the $50,000 painting
> he took home as a consolation prize after the Victorian people
> terminated his contract rather abruptly, was an 'anonymous gift'?
>
> "We should be so lucky.. LUCKY LUCKY LUCKY.." B^D
>
> Well, his alibi is coming unstuck, rather quickly.
>
Well why don't you go after him, Che? You can instigate YOUR OWN
criminal action against him. After all you hate Jeff's guts, here is
your opportunity to kick him in the gust too!!
After all a "good upstanding citizen" like you (gaaaaarrggg, cough,
splutter) had the Moral DUTY to go after any and all "tory"
politicians, don't you. perhaps it is that you would rather defame the
politicians, whilst hiding behind that false name of yours?
Seppo Renfors
Che Guava wrote:
>
> ralph wrote:
>
> > Art thief? Wow - no trial, no jury, no verdict -
>
> Indeed it is a terrible state of affairs when high crimes and
> misdemeanors does not even warrant a police investigation,
> let alone a trial.
>
> People will have to make do with Kennetts totally implausible
> story, (it really is a ripper! B^D ) and ongoing public commentary
> for the rest of his career.
>
> A bit like that other corrupt tory, Elliot, who was unlucky enough to
> have charges laid, but got off on a technicality.
>
> (Oh I figure I'm safe from the Pigs Arses lawyers for two reasons,
> first its the truth!
Che that is something that you haven't told in a LONG WHILE! Secondly
why YOU will get away with it, is that you are HIDING BEHIND A FALSE
NAME. That is why you are GAME to make the false statements that are
nothing but MALICIOUS DEFAMATION, but you wouldn't DARE come out under
your REAL name and GENUINE e-mail address and make the same claims!
[snip]
Seppo Renfors
Che Guava wrote:
>
> PADDY wrote:
>
> Ah, we all know what Paddy wrote.
> .... he's a true tory Rhetoricbot , eh, Wearing, Guff? B^p
>
> Chanting from his tiny repertoire of clichés! B^D
>
> Still it gives me a chance to add some further delicious tidbits..
> and to ask very loudly.. WHY DON'T OUR MEDIA
> ASK THESE SLEAZE BAGS THE *HARD* QUESTIONS?
>
Well, I'm not "the media", but I have attempted just that, but you
WON'T ANSWER ME, all you do is ABUSE ABUSE ABUSE....
Lev Lafayette
On Tue, 29 Feb 2000, TheMan wrote:
>
> Che Guava wrote in message <38BB74B5...@my-deja.com>...
> >Jeff Kennett should have been charged with the theft and
> >illegal possession of a $50,000 painting belonging to the
> >Victorian people.
> >
> >And it's not as if this is a first offence, either.
> >
> >He was previously found in possession of a government
> >owned exercise bike, and had fraudulently misused a
> >government credit card, for personal purposes.
> >
> >Three strikes and he should be jailed, according to Dave Moss
> >John Howard, and dozens of other tory hard-liners! ;-)
> >
> >Why isn't he even charged?
> >
> >He isn't black, and he's a tory. B^p
>
>
> Che Che Che, why did you keep insisting that this was NOT a race issue, and
> yet continuing to point out RACE in this debate? Don't you think that's a
> little hypocritical?
Hey Man. See that little emoticon that Che left behind? The 'B' is a pair
of (sun)glasses the '^' a nose and the 'p' is a mouth with a tongue
sticking out. It's not a race issue, Che is just taking the piss. But of
course, we can imagine what would have happened if a Koori ended up wth
the painting in their house, can't we? eh?
Regarde,
Lev
TJ Lim
JAILED INDEFINITELY IF FOUND IN POSSESSION OF PAINTINGS BELONGING TO THE
PUBLIC. IMMUNITY TO PROSCECUTION FOR HIM IS AN EXCEPTION.
Lev Lafayette <l...@student.unimelb.edu.au> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.4.10.100030...@cassius.its.unimelb.edu.au...
tjlim
receipt of gift as a politician whilst in government? I think he should
check and determine how many other gifts he or his wife or family members
have received whilst he was in government. Whistle blowers wanted here.
Ferg <fergu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:89i2oo$3d9$1...@bomb.dynamite.com.au...
tjlim
shovel.
Did he pay compensation for the damage he caused? Nothing was said about it.
It is unbelievable that the TV people let him off.
Chris Lumb <cl...@ultra.net.au> wrote in message
news:01bf8344$de5cc620$734750ca@default...
Chris Lumb
still to see him standing in a queue in Centrelink! I mean, what goes
around comes around, in theory.
Chris Lumb
Che Guava
Seppo Renfors wrote:
> Che Guava wrote:
> >
> > Jeff Kennett should have been charged with the theft and
> > illegal possession of a $50,000 painting belonging to the
> > Victorian people.
>
> WAS it "illegal possession"? My understanding was that it was ON LOAN,
> and the museum LOST IT.
Nope, they signed it over to a Kennett Staffer!
The agreement was signed every year for $280,000 of art works
to hang in government buildings. All governments do this.
What DOESN'T happen, is that MPs don't usually 'accidentally'
take the paintings off the wall, 'accidentally' pack them up and
'accidentally' remove them to their private home, or 'accidentally' hang them
on their own wall!
> (They didn't know of its whereabouts).
Sure they did, signed over to Kennett's staffers!
What do you understand by the term RESPONSIBILITY
for tens of thousands of dollars of public property!?
> Jeff's excuse was a bit lame
BWAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
A BIT LAME! B^D B^D
Listen, you drongo, there is a video of him standing
in front of the painting, before he liberated it from the
government office, telling schoolchildren *exactly*
what the NGV had said about it being stored:
"it was hidden away, no one knew it existed"
-Jeff Kennett, Video evidence! [Herald sun 2/3/00]
remember this is the bloke who claimed it was 'given'
to him by an anonymous donor!
LET A JURY OF HIS PEERS DECIDE ON THE
BASIS OF REASONABLE DOUBT!
> but because of it
> being so damned lame it is likely to be true.
Your stupidity never ceases to amaze!
>
> >
> > And it's not as if this is a first offence, either.
>
> Prove you are not telling a LIE by quoting the Court cases where he
> has been found GUILTY of an offences!!
That's a *conviction*, dummy.
Like now, those who are soft on criminals, like you and
the other tory apologists, will ensure he doesn't even
get charged, let alone come to trial!
> >
> > He was previously found in possession of a government
> > owned exercise bike, and had fraudulently misused a
> > government credit card, for personal purposes.
>
> So where are the COURT CASES that PROVES YOUR CLAIMS,
Like his famous assault, captured on film, the facts are not in dispute,
even by Jeff.
He just has 'excuses', appointed all the law officers, and muzzled the rest.
> or do you go about defaming "tory" politicians for sport?
It's the only form of justice when you are all soft on crime.
> >
> > Three strikes and he should be jailed, according to Dave Moss
> > John Howard, and dozens of other tory hard-liners! ;-)
> >
> > Why isn't he even charged?
> >
> > He isn't black, and he's a tory. B^p
>
> ...and you don't tell the TRUTH!
> [snip]
I tell the truth, but you snip it!
You never can sustain your case in the face of the detail:
Che Guava
Seppo Renfors wrote:
>
> Che Guava wrote:
>
>> You all remember Jeff's fabulous story that the $50,000 painting
>> he took home as a consolation prize after the Victorian people
>> terminated his contract rather abruptly, was an 'anonymous gift'?
>>
>> "We should be so lucky.. LUCKY LUCKY LUCKY.." B^D
>>
>> Well, his alibi is coming unstuck, rather quickly.
>>
>> Remember his story:
>>
>> > "Mr Kennett told the Herald Sun he believed the painting had
>> > been given to him by an anonymous well-wisher"
>> > -[The Herald sun 29/2/00]
>> >
>> > "I have been gifted a lot of bits and pieces" [ibid]
>>
>> "It was also revealed yesterday that if Mr Kennett believed
>> the portrait was a gift, HE FAILED TO LIST IT ON THE
>> PARLIAMENT'S PECUNIARY INTEREST REGISTER,
>> which requires all gifts above $ 500 to be identified."
>> - [ The Herald Sun 1/3/00] {My Emphasis]
>>
>> Well, that blows his first excuse! The Prima facie case
>> remains, WITHOUT SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION!
>>
>> Just how many laws has Lord Elgin-Kennett breached?
>
So the challenge to all the tory apologists, and to their
lap-dogs like SSchleppo, is to tell the people if they believe in
accountability for politicians, or just in making excuses for them! B^p
Do you want a pecuniary register, telling us if they received a $50,000
present from an anonymous drug dealer, paedophile or other criminal,
or can they just accept any brown paper bag which comes their way?
Because at the moment you all sound JUST LIKE HOWARD,
not the BEFORE image where he was full of piss and wind
about Parliamentary Responsibility and Codes of Conduct..
but AFTER, where he just cut his standards to fit his sleazebags!
> Well why don't you go after him, Che?
It's not my painting, SSchleppo, it belongs to the people, through
the state.. they have two choices.. expect the police to
uphold the law, or push their heads about as far up their arses
as your is.
> You can instigate YOUR OWN criminal action against him.
> After all you hate Jeff's guts, here is your opportunity to
> kick him in the gust too!!
I could interdict drug supplies coming into Australia too, but
that's what we have police for!?
I could cut my lawns, but it is far more efficient to hire the
little man from the village! Its specialization.. he makes a living,
and his hourly rate is less than mine... win/win!
What is it with you lamers that ALL of a SUDDEN, you
abandon due process, reneg on law and order and suggest vigilantism?
Political motivation!?
> After all a "good upstanding citizen" like you (gaaaaarrggg, cough,
> splutter)
I know you choke on paying enemies a compliment, no matter how
well deserved.. it's you fundamental vile bastadry coming out.
> had the Moral DUTY to go after any and all "tory"
> politicians,
So you have moved from fascism where YOU determine who gets to
have a say based on political allegiance, to now telling me who and
what I must criticise...
Fuck off Nazi!
> don't you.
No, stick you social control up your arse!
Maybe when you can mount a rational case you can tell others
who their targets should be.
> perhaps it is that you would rather defame the
> politicians, whilst hiding behind that false name of yours?
If Jeff wants to take legal action he can approach my ISP. ;-)
I have merely repeated facts reported publicly.
He has the opportunity to present his case and defend
against the prima facie case of theft! B^D
So if you, Moss, Wearing et al ARE ALL SO OUTRAGED
WHY DON'T YOU ALL SUE ME! B^D B^P
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
You blokes are the ones suggesting that private litigation
should substitute for criminal prosecution! B^D
Che
-----
It's more tory shoot-the-messenger.
Che is NOT the story!
Klepto Kennett IS!
Seppo Renfors
Che Guava wrote:
>
> Seppo Renfors wrote:
[snip to where he responds to my points]
> >
> > Well why don't you go after him, Che?
>
> It's not my painting, SSchleppo, it belongs to the people, through
> the state.. they have two choices.. expect the police to
> uphold the law, or push their heads about as far up their arses
> as your is.
You really CAN'T TAKE IT can you. Here's your big opportunity to
really have a go, instead of namby-pamby gutless sniping on a news
group, but OH NO, you wouldn't get of your arse to do anymore than
snipe with inane comments from the sidelines.
"The people" haven't done anything. ISn't that a demonstration that
"the people" don't want to pursue your fairy tails? Go ahead YOU have
got the RIGHT to pursue them via the courts if you feel strongly
enough, but then you don't, all you want to do is to snipe from the
sidelines.
>
> > You can instigate YOUR OWN criminal action against him.
> > After all you hate Jeff's guts, here is your opportunity to
> > kick him in the gust too!!
>
> I could interdict drug supplies coming into Australia too, but
> that's what we have police for!?
THIS IS OFF SUBJECT! Are you attempting to wheedle you way onto a
different subject?
> I could cut my lawns, but it is far more efficient to hire the
> little man from the village! Its specialization.. he makes a living,
> and his hourly rate is less than mine... win/win!
IRRELEVANT!
>
> What is it with you lamers that ALL of a SUDDEN, you
> abandon due process, reneg on law and order and suggest vigilantism?
Perhaps YOU re the only on seeing ghosts? If you think "the LAMERS" (I
thought you previously called them "people", perhaps I was wring..)
aren't doing enough YOU HAVE THE RIGHT to instigate action. Are you
merely an armchair critic, who in reality has NO BELIEFS if it is UP
TO YOU to do something. Are you merely another of the "gimme gimme
type people? (or should that be "LAMERS"?)
>
> Political motivation!?
Yours is that!
>
> > After all a "good upstanding citizen" like you (gaaaaarrggg, cough,
> > splutter)
>
> I know you choke on paying enemies a compliment, no matter how
> well deserved.. it's you fundamental vile bastadry coming out.
Oh but I'm a quick learner, after all that is YOUR style of doing
things... do onto others... :-)
>
> > had the Moral DUTY to go after any and all "tory"
> > politicians,
>
> So you have moved from fascism where YOU determine who gets to
> have a say based on political allegiance, to now telling me who and
> what I must criticise...
Are you now saying that YOU DO NOT OBJECT to the events of how the
painting ended up with Jeff? That you NOW accept it was a genuine
mix-up? Well well talk about doing a FAST turnaround... the MINUTE you
were called on to actually DO something :-)
>
> Fuck off Nazi!
(Chalk another up to Seppo... :-)
>
> > don't you.
OH, BTW who was it that said: "attempting to blunt or bury a telling
point, by burying it in a mountain of verbiage!" that WAS you wasn't
it :-) Look at how badly YOU have been chopping up my post, only left
TWO WORDS to make some inane comments about! Can't help yourself can
you :-)
>
> No, stick you social control up your arse!
> Maybe when you can mount a rational case you can tell others
> who their targets should be.
From my TWO WORDS. "don't you", you come up with the above FANTASTIC
meanings you imply on your response? You are INCREDIBLE! A MASTER at
the BULLSHIT!
>
> > perhaps it is that you would rather defame the
> > politicians, whilst hiding behind that false name of yours?
>
> If Jeff wants to take legal action he can approach my ISP. ;-)
Oh SURE... that's why you use "my-deja.com" to post from isn't it, so
you can HIDE like a scared little mouse!
>
> I have merely repeated facts reported publicly.
NO, you have EMBELLISHED on reported matters and EXTENDED THEM beyond
what is reported.
> He has the opportunity to present his case and defend
> against the prima facie case of theft! B^D
Hang on a minute. Top defend against something they have to be CHARGED
IN COURT first. You have no real understanding of the laws either I
see.
>
> So if you, Moss, Wearing et al ARE ALL SO OUTRAGED
>
> WHY DON'T YOU ALL SUE ME! B^D B^P
>
...says Che, hiding like a scared little mouse behind his my-deja.com
address...
>
> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
> You blokes are the ones suggesting that private litigation
> should substitute for criminal prosecution! B^D
No, it is private CRIMINAL prosecution we have proposed you take.
Clearly you cannot understand what you are talking about or you
wouldn't have made that statement.
>
> Che
> -----
>
> It's more tory shoot-the-messenger.
There has been no "messenger" -merely a bullshit artist who likes see
his own text on the screen, and then RUNS AWAY when the hard questions
are asked.
>
> Che is NOT the story!
Che isn't a "messenger" either!
> Klepto Kennett IS!
That is Che style mindless abuse!
Seppo Renfors
Che Guava wrote:
>
> Seppo Renfors wrote:
>
> > Che Guava wrote:
> > >
> > > Jeff Kennett should have been charged with the theft and
> > > illegal possession of a $50,000 painting belonging to the
> > > Victorian people.
> >
> > WAS it "illegal possession"? My understanding was that it was ON LOAN,
> > and the museum LOST IT.
>
> Nope, they signed it over to a Kennett Staffer!
So it was NOT JEFF KENNET! OK we got that!
> The agreement was signed every year for $280,000 of art works
> to hang in government buildings. All governments do this.
There for every government is in the same boat as Jeff Kennett.
>
> What DOESN'T happen, is that MPs don't usually 'accidentally'
> take the paintings off the wall, 'accidentally' pack them up and
> 'accidentally' remove them to their private home, or 'accidentally' hang them
> on their own wall!
.... err could it just have been one of his STAFFERS again who did the
packing, hmmm? Are you ABSOLUTELY 100% SURe that it was KENNETT
personally as you accuse above?
>
> > (They didn't know of its whereabouts).
>
> Sure they did, signed over to Kennett's staffers!
What were they looking for it, for then if they KNEW where it was??
Must have been with "Kennett's staffers" as that is who signed for it,
right?
>
> What do you understand by the term RESPONSIBILITY
> for tens of thousands of dollars of public property!?
Good question! Pity you have made no attempts to ANSWER it. Obviously
as you HAVE no answer. Don't you think the Gallery should have KNOWN
where it was? Why wasn't the painting ID'd with the required
labelling?
>
> > Jeff's excuse was a bit lame
>
> BWAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>
> A BIT LAME! B^D B^D
BTW Who exactly was it again who said: "I do not clutter the post with
irrelevant dross, although I note that is one of your favoured
techniques, attempting to blunt or bury a telling point, by burying it
in a mountain of verbiage!", Hmmmm That WAS you wasn't it?
> Listen, you drongo, there is a video of him standing
> in front of the painting, before he liberated it from the
> government office, telling schoolchildren *exactly*
> what the NGV had said about it being stored:
>
> "it was hidden away, no one knew it existed"
> -Jeff Kennett, Video evidence! [Herald sun 2/3/00]
Again a quote out of its context and therefor meaningless.
>
> remember this is the bloke who claimed it was 'given'
> to him by an anonymous donor!
>
> LET A JURY OF HIS PEERS DECIDE ON THE
> BASIS OF REASONABLE DOUBT!
>
> > but because of it
> > being so damned lame it is likely to be true.
>
> Your stupidity never ceases to amaze!
>
BTW Who exactly was it again who said: "I do not clutter the post with
irrelevant dross, although I note that is one of your favoured
techniques, attempting to blunt or bury a telling point, by burying it
in a mountain of verbiage!", Hmmmm That WAS you wasn't it?
> >
> > >
> > > And it's not as if this is a first offence, either.
> >
> > Prove you are not telling a LIE by quoting the Court cases where he
> > has been found GUILTY of an offences!!
>
> That's a *conviction*, dummy.
Pssst... If I was you, *I* wouldn't be so quick to show my ignorance!
To be able to say he has committed an "offence" in the legal sense as
you state, there HAS TO BE a conviction, you bloody big dummy! Other
wise at best you can say it is an ALLEGED offence, but it has to have
been ALLEGED first by other than yourself!
> Like now, those who are soft on criminals, like you and
> the other tory apologists, will ensure he doesn't even
> get charged, let alone come to trial!
This is merely demonstrating your IGNORANCE OF LAW!
>
> > >
> > > He was previously found in possession of a government
> > > owned exercise bike, and had fraudulently misused a
> > > government credit card, for personal purposes.
> >
> > So where are the COURT CASES that PROVES YOUR CLAIMS,
>
> Like his famous assault, captured on film, the facts are not in dispute,
> even by Jeff.
> He just has 'excuses', appointed all the law officers, and muzzled the rest.
Was he ever convicted? BTW PROVE the false allegation you now make!
Come on, back up your claims!
>
> > or do you go about defaming "tory" politicians for sport?
BTW Who exactly was it again who said: "I do not clutter the post with
irrelevant dross, although I note that is one of your favoured
techniques, attempting to blunt or bury a telling point, by burying it
in a mountain of verbiage!", Hmmmm That WAS you wasn't it?
>
> It's the only form of justice when you are all soft on crime.
>
> > >
> > > Three strikes and he should be jailed, according to Dave Moss
> > > John Howard, and dozens of other tory hard-liners! ;-)
> > >
> > > Why isn't he even charged?
> > >
> > > He isn't black, and he's a tory. B^p
> >
> > ...and you don't tell the TRUTH!
>
> > [snip]
>
> I tell the truth, but you snip it!
There is PRECIOUS LITTLE in anything I have seen and then you FAIL to
proved PROOF when asked! Oh, and if I want to read a paper I'll
purchase my own, I don't need your edited versions.
Like attempt to PROVE your subject line is TRUE. Newspaper articles do
NOT qualify as "proof of the truth", unless it is a court report!
[snip]
David Moss
[cut]
>I could interdict drug supplies coming into Australia too, but
>that's what we have police for!?
This is a pretty startling revealation Che.
You have insider knowledge concerning drug distribution but don't share it
with the police ? That kind of makes you an accessory doesn't it ?
Or perhaps you couldn't interdict drug supplies coming to Australia but
just like making loony statements on usenet ?
Are you a drug traffiker or were you just talking through your arse ?
Che Guava
to crimes and misdemeanors by those in public office..
but now the folly of their soft-on-crime approach is manifest:
David Moss wrote:
> Che Guava wrote:
> >
> > Jeff Kennett should have been charged with the theft and
> > illegal possession of a $50,000 painting belonging to the
> > Victorian people.
> [cut]
Moss was first to suggest that citizens should undertake
the police role and initiate private prosecutions:
> So charge him Che.
> Now is your big chance.
Wearing took the same line, abrogating state responsibilities
in line with his usual mantra of user-pays 'choice':
"Here's your big chance, fruity. Your chance to actually do
something for a change, instead of just whining and bitching.
Why don't YOU start proceedings against Kennett?"
SSchleppo, not very originally, tried the same tack..
Others, easily led, joined the baying of the pack.
The danger, of course is expressed in the old saying that:
"The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man
is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at
once the consequence of his crime, and the punishment of his guilt"
- [John Curran, 1750-1817]
As Pastor Martin Niemoller so eloquently stated, once the path of
cowardice and irresponsibility is taken it may become difficult to
avoid the logical destination.
Now we face a crisis in fuel supply, and this same sense of lawless
anarchy grips the tories at the federal level.
Like their NG compatriots this rudderless administration points the finger
and shrieks shrilly "WHY DON'T *YOU* TAKE ACTION!"
The states pointed to federal authorities, the feds pointed to customs,
customs pointed to the ATO, the ATO says they only have excise
responsibility... the government, as with Bronwyn Bishopgate only
last week, wrings it's hands and says over and over and over, how
tewwible it all is!
They are all imitating Moss and Wearing.. because when there is
a problem.. the tories expect YOU to take up private legal action,
if you can afford it (B^p) to find a solution.
*Responsible* government is unknown to this mob!
Che
------
When *ONE* is allowed to escape punishment, the whole
law is undermined.
"In Germany, they came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up
because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and
I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then, they came for
the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a
trade unionist, then they came for the Protestants and I didn't
speak up because I wasn't a Protestant. Then they came for me,
and by that time, there was no one left to speak up."
- Pastor Martin Niemoller
Che Guava
Dave, shouldn't you be taking out a private citizens suit
against me or something?
Isn't this "Che Guava a drug traffiker ?" a little grubby for a
candidate for Liberal Party preselection... ? B^p
...even WITH the coy "?" B^D
GO FOR IT SON! YOU CAN'T BRAWL FOR SHIT! B^D
Lets show the rural marginals what limp-dicks the tories really are! B^D
> che_...@my-deja.com (Che Guava) wrote in <38BE1D16...@my-deja.com>:
>
> [cut]
>
> >I could interdict drug supplies coming into Australia too, but
> >that's what we have police for!?
>
> This is a pretty startling revealation Che.
Only to a veteran of a sheltered workshop such as you!
Who said anything about *illegal* drugs dummy! B^D
Anyone can 'interdict' drug supplies,
They can get a court order! B^D
Isn't that your law and order policy.. have everyone litigating
against each other! B^p
you really are a lame brain! ;-)
And how quickly you abandon Law and order..
what's the problem, Dave.. Kennet is too tall?
too old for you to take on? or just a relative? B^p
Don't miss the bonus joke (no.. not Moss! Another one) :
> Che Guava wrote:
>
>> Seppo Renfors wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Che Guava wrote:
>> >
>> >> You all remember Jeff's fabulous story that the $50,000 painting
>> >> he took home as a consolation prize after the Victorian people
>> >> terminated his contract rather abruptly, was an 'anonymous gift'?
>> >>
>> >> "We should be so lucky.. LUCKY LUCKY LUCKY.." B^D
>> >>
>> >> Well, his alibi is coming unstuck, rather quickly.
>> >>
>> >> Remember his story:
>> >>
>> >> > "Mr Kennett told the Herald Sun he believed the painting had
>> >> > been given to him by an anonymous well-wisher"
>> >> > -[The Herald sun 29/2/00]
>> >> >
>> >> > "I have been gifted a lot of bits and pieces" [ibid]
>> >>
>> >> "It was also revealed yesterday that if Mr Kennett believed
>> >> the portrait was a gift, HE FAILED TO LIST IT ON THE
>> >> PARLIAMENT'S PECUNIARY INTEREST REGISTER,
>> >> which requires all gifts above $ 500 to be identified."
>> >> - [ The Herald Sun 1/3/00] {My Emphasis]
>> >>
>> >> Well, that blows his first excuse! The Prima facie case
>> >> remains, WITHOUT SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION!
>> >>
>> >> Just how many laws has Lord Elgin-Kennett breached?
>> >
>>
>> So the challenge to all the tory apologists, and to their
>> lap-dogs like SSchleppo, is to tell the people if they believe in
>> accountability for politicians, or just in making excuses for them! B^p
>
I'm sure SSchleppo can recognise a gauntlet when he sees one! B^D
Moss will probably try and work out why any one would
fabricate a five person condom in METAL!
And then, frighteningly... the ANSWER WILL DAWN ON HIM:
BRONWYN BISHOP!!!!!!!!!!!
<snip>
Che Guava
Seppo Renfors wrote:
<Snip pre-epiphany>
> You are INCREDIBLE! A MASTER
Thanks SSchleppo! I know. *8^)
<snip post-epiphany>
hold that thought. ;-)
Che
-------
Now that you know the secret of the *trueblue* THIRD EYE,
you can stop peering down the end of your willy
looking for answers! B^D
(I must tell you what I told Duigood: No peddlers, hawkers
or acolytes! ;-)
Che Guava
Seppo Renfors wrote:
> Che Guava wrote:
> >
> > ralph wrote:
> >
> > > Art thief? Wow - no trial, no jury, no verdict -
> >
> > Indeed it is a terrible state of affairs when high crimes and
> > misdemeanors does not even warrant a police investigation,
> > let alone a trial.
> >
> > People will have to make do with Kennetts totally implausible
> > story, (it really is a ripper! B^D ) and ongoing public commentary
> > for the rest of his career.
> >
> > A bit like that other corrupt tory, Elliot, who was unlucky enough to
> > have charges laid, but got off on a technicality.
> >
> > (Oh I figure I'm safe from the Pigs Arses lawyers for two reasons,
> > first its the truth!
>
> Che that is something that you haven't told in a LONG WHILE! Secondly
> why YOU will get away with it, is that you are HIDING BEHIND A FALSE
> NAME. That is why you are GAME to make the false statements that are
> nothing but MALICIOUS DEFAMATION, but you wouldn't DARE come out under
> your REAL name and GENUINE e-mail address and make the same claims!
Any serious legal action would breach ISP customer confidentiality in a second!
I take my responsibility as seriously as I take my chances! B^]
I am as legally accountable for my words as any one.. B^)
even if they have an unlikely nom-de-net like SSchleppo! B^D
Frankly, you persist in the same error, you are focused on
WHO has done something, rather than WHAT they have done.
ALL your excuses go to the notion which separates white collar crime
from the sort of petty offences for which people in the NT are jailed.
It is the same attitude which used to see Bank managers as 'approved'
people to be witnesses to documents, or become JPs.
ralph
wrote:
>
>
Well of course you are aware that, most importantly, Kennet wouldn't
give a fuck about the blatherings here, so you are safe.
Now, the big difference is that the people in NT were convicted in a
court of law, while Kennett was not - but this did not stop you from
pronouncing a verdict. Clearly, "fair play" only applies to those
you wish to defend, while the "rich" you despise are due no such
courtesy. If you weren't such a hypocrite, you might have initially
argued simply that the man should be charged - and leave the verdict
to a court of law where it belongs. Convicting someone on newspaper
reports is hardly justice, is it?
You did the same with Prince William - based on a gossip-column style
newspaper report about a so-called "friend" using drugs, you slurred
the man himself. Quite simply unbelievable - I don't care how
privileged he is - how can you decide he's an illegal drug user with
such flimsy evidence.
These posts show what a load of horseshit your so-called "core social
values" are. You display a lack of decency and equality more
reminiscent of some of the vile racists and homophobes who post in
this group.
Seppo Renfors
Che Guava wrote:
>
> Seppo Renfors wrote:
>
> <Snip pre-epiphany>
>
> > You are INCREDIBLE! A MASTER BULLSHIT ARTIST!
>
> Thanks SSchleppo! I know. *8^)
...oh and good at altering peoples posts to mean the opposite from
what was actually said too.
>
> <snip post-epiphany>
>
> hold that thought. ;-)
... I never had the thought you achieved by "judicious" editing, in
the first place!!
>
> Che
> -------
> Now that you know the secret of the *trueblue* THIRD EYE,
Oh, someone finally socked you in the eye did they? Oh, sorry kicked
you in the BUM till you are truly blue!
Come on how about you justifying some of the obnoxious claims you have
made? Can't do it, hmmm? WHY can't you, perhaps because they aren't
true!
Seppo Renfors
Che Guava wrote:
>
> No one was more surprised than me to see the tory response
> to crimes and misdemeanors by those in public office..
> but now the folly of their soft-on-crime approach is manifest:
SO far you haven't PROVEN a crime even EXISTS!
>
> David Moss wrote:
>
> > Che Guava wrote:
> > >
> > > Jeff Kennett should have been charged with the theft and
> > > illegal possession of a $50,000 painting belonging to the
> > > Victorian people.
> > [cut]
>
> Moss was first to suggest that citizens should undertake
> the police role and initiate private prosecutions:
>
> > So charge him Che.
> > Now is your big chance.
>
> Wearing took the same line, abrogating state responsibilities
> in line with his usual mantra of user-pays 'choice':
>
> "Here's your big chance, fruity. Your chance to actually do
> something for a change, instead of just whining and bitching.
> Why don't YOU start proceedings against Kennett?"
>
> SSchleppo, not very originally, tried the same tack..
> Others, easily led, joined the baying of the pack.
Isn't that interesting. There is POOR old Che standing forlorn in the
rain yelling has abuse like some kind of Super Socialist evangelist!
Then he is wondering why on earth he is IGNORED! Naturally if Che
actually had any CONVICTIONS he would have taken up all that valuable
advise! But did he???? Ooooooh no, it takes more effort that banging
on the keyboard a few times. He would have to GET OFF HIS ARSE and DO
something, but he really doesn't have the conviction of his extreme
statements.
>
> The danger, of course is expressed in the old saying that:
>
> "The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man
> is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at
> once the consequence of his crime, and the punishment of his guilt"
> - [John Curran, 1750-1817]
>
> As Pastor Martin Niemoller so eloquently stated, once the path of
> cowardice and irresponsibility is taken it may become difficult to
> avoid the logical destination.
...and that is EXACTLY what is holding CHE back and resort to a lot of
bleating. whilst hiding behind a FAKE NAME!
"A mere ulcer; a sore from head to foot; a poor devil so completely
flayed that there is not a square inch of healthy flesh on his
carcass; an overgrown pimple, sore to the touch"
-[Quarterly Review on William Hazlitt 1817]
...and it applies very aptly to Che as well.
>
> Now we face a crisis in fuel supply, and this same sense of lawless
> anarchy grips the tories at the federal level.
Your hallucinating! Been eating some poison mushrooms again ?
>
> Like their NG compatriots this rudderless administration points the finger
> and shrieks shrilly "WHY DON'T *YOU* TAKE ACTION!"
You are the ACCUSER in very foul terms after all, so the question
remains, who don't you?
>
> The states pointed to federal authorities, the feds pointed to customs,
> customs pointed to the ATO, the ATO says they only have excise
> responsibility... the government, as with Bronwyn Bishopgate only
> last week, wrings it's hands and says over and over and over, how
> tewwible it all is!
What ARE you blabbering about now? Lost the last marble?
>
> They are all imitating Moss and Wearing.. because when there is
> a problem.. the tories expect YOU to take up private legal action,
> if you can afford it (B^p) to find a solution.
Could it just be that all came to the SAME conclusion independently,
hmmm? Perhaps you are doing a bit of trolling again, eh?
>
> *Responsible* government is unknown to this mob!
>
Responsible utterances are unknown to Che!
> ------
>
> When *ONE* is allowed to escape punishment, the whole
> law is undermined.
What just because he happens to be JEFF KENNETT? Isn't that where the
shoe REALLY pinches. YOU will say and do ANYTHING AT ALL, just to kick
your hated "tory". Isn't it that YOU are so BLINDED by your hatred you
cannot see that a CRIME has actually NOT been committed! NOBODY in the
ALP (note the OPPOSING PARTY) government has seen cause to take
action. No, it takes the Super Socialist Che, to call for "persecution
of a tory"
>
> "In Germany, they came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up
> because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and
> I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then, they came for
> the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a
> trade unionist, then they came for the Protestants and I didn't
> speak up because I wasn't a Protestant. Then they came for me,
> and by that time, there was no one left to speak up."
> - Pastor Martin Niemoller
Your efforts here is aptly described by the words of Virginia Wolf:
"The work of a queasy undergraduate scratching his pimples"
Perhaps even better in the words of Senator Reed Smoot:
"It is written by a man with a diseased mind and soul so black that he
would even obscure the darkness of hell."
che_...@my-deja.com
So what is your point then? ALL the blathering below is for show?
If I could summarise, you don't care that a man in a position
of power abuses that power and appropriates public property to
the value of $50,000
But you are upset that I call it theft, even though we all
know the person concerned cares not a fig what I think!
I think you are twanging it ralph! B^D
I think you are straining at gnats and swallowing camels.
I think your idea of morality has nothing to do with propriety..
you haven't bleated a word of prostest at Kennetts theft..
and I, posessing a dictionary and my wits, CALL IT SUCH.
If more people stood up for decent values, there
would be less of this thieving going on!
>
> Now, the big difference is that the people in NT were convicted in a
> court of law,
Yes that is a big difference. So?
My hue and crie is because I SEE NO RIGOROUS INVESTIGATION
WHICH MAY BRING IT ABOUT!
IN FACT I THINK THE BRACKS GOVERNMENT IS SO AFRAID OF
BEING ACCUSED OF REVENGE, THEY WILL SWEEP IT UNDER THE CARPET...
UNLESS PEOPLE MAKE IT VERY CLEAR THEY WANT THE ELLIOTS,
THE COLSTONS, AND THE KENNETTS OF THIS WORLD BROUGHT TO BOOK!
Does that make it clearer for you miss prissy pants?
I have never pretended Kennett has been tried and found guilty!
HE is such a public figure, everyone KNOWS his circumstances!
Stop twanging it.
> while Kennett was not - but this did not stop you from
> pronouncing a verdict.
I never pronounced a 'verdict' there hasn't been a trial!
In plain terms that everyone can understand, and mount a legal
challenge to if they wish.. I proclaimed a man, found with
$50,000 worth of property not his own, with no reasonable
excuse as to why he had it, to be PRIMAE FACIE .. A THIEF!
Don't you like plain speech?
Would you like to mince around like Bronwyn'Kero'Bishop?
Or Rod'tolulene'Kemp?
Well FUCK YOU PAL! B^p
> Clearly, "fair play" only applies to those you wish to defend,
What 'fair play'? You admit my challenges are innefectual!
Do you know what I find most appalling about this craven
"Big Man" bullshit... three wankers propose to by him an
artists copy...
It's like you pricks are saying TO EVERY CHILD IN THE NATION,
BE A FUCKING TORY HERO
STEAL FROM THE PEOPLE!
WE WILL PROTECT AND REWARD YOU!
YOU ARE A TRUE TORY RULER!
Fuck Jeff, fuck theft, fuck apologists for thieves like you!
> while the "rich" you despise are due no such courtesy.
I never called Jeff a thief when he was just a rich
ex-parliamentarian superannuant!
So your attempt to pervert the issue is as phoney as Jeffs excuse!
I don't hate the rich, I HATE CROOKS!
I did not attack him for being rich... I ATTACKED HIM FOR THEFT!
> If you weren't such a hypocrite, you might have initially
> argued simply that the man should be charged -
What, like all of you did!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!
YOU COULDN'T WAIT TO PUT THE BOOT INTO THE FIRST
PERSON WHO CRITICISED THE RED-HANDED PRICK!
What are the odds of Jeff coming to trial?
About the same as Colston?
About the same as Pinochet?
THEY ARE RICH AND POWERFUL!
WHEN THE FUCK WILL YOU ****WAKE UP!****
> and leave the verdict
> to a court of law where it belongs.
> Convicting someone on newspaper
> reports is hardly justice, is it?
Sure Ralph, aus.politics peoples soviet just took
comrade Jeff out and shot him! B^D
THIS IS POLITICAL THEATRE YOU MORON! NOT A COURTHOUSE!
WHEN CHILEANS STAND ON THE STREET CORNER AND SHOUT
"DEATH TO THE BUTCHER.. PINOCHET, MURDERER!
only the lamest, weakest, tory pissant would deny their right!
only the most pathetic, pompous, prissy prick would say..
"Eh, hold on chaps.. there has been no trial.. you can't say that!"
Where I come from, if you are caught with someone elses
clobber, and you can't explain yourself.. you are called
a thief.
Now this is another matter:
>
> You did the same with Prince William -
I most certainly did not!
I have accused william of no more than consorting with known
hard drug takers, lacking judgement, and being a royal.
> based on a gossip-column style
> newspaper report about a so-called "friend" using drugs, you slurred
> the man himself.
By sayinfg the simple truth, that he hangs with druggies?
That his own security men are concerned he will be compromised?
DO you, like Moss, approve of associating with criminals.
Is that a necessary pre-requisite to be a tory Head of State?
Why are millions of decent young Trueblue Australians not
good enough, but this Royal who is known for nothing but
having a famous mum, and hanging with drugtakers, is?
WHAT IS IT WITH YOU TORIES? ARE ONLY THIEVES AND THOSE
WHO HANG WITH HARD DRUG TAKERS EXCITING ENOUGH FOR YOU PERVERTS?
> Quite simply unbelievable -
yes, what you write below IS unbelievable.. A COMPLETE FABRICATION!
> I don't care how privileged he is -
Oh you don't have to tell us that!
We know your attitude to wealth, power and class.
> how can you decide he's an illegal drug user with
> such flimsy evidence.
So it seems after all the prissy moralising and self-
righteous breast beating you will do EXACTLY what
you accused me of doing, only you do it with NO
supporting evidence.
I did not decide William was an illegal drug user.
Not only have you found me guilty of such libel
WITHOUT A TRIAL, but YOU have done so without facts.
rank hypocrisy!
>
> These posts show what a load of horseshit your so-called "core social
> values" are.
Like SSchleppo, we can't rely on your bent ruler to measure
straightness.
> You display a lack of decency and equality more
> reminiscent of some of the vile racists and homophobes
> who post in this group.
And you say that because I call a man with stolen property
a thief, and someone who consorts with drug takers
a consorter... WELL DONE JUDGE JUDY! B^D
Another unsuccessful character assasination by the
tory-shoot-the-messenger crew! B^p
The lowest bunch of bastards on the block!
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
che_...@my-deja.com
but legitimate AND TRANSPARENTLY ACKNOWLEDGED,
Snipping:
Seppo Renfors wrote:
<Snip pre-epiphany>
> You are INCREDIBLE! A MASTER
Thanks SSchleppo! I know. *8^)
<snip post-epiphany>
hold that thought. ;-)
As is traditional in responding to a post, I took
EXACTLY THOSE WORDS OF MY OPPONENT WHICH BEST
PROVED MY POINT, AND SHOWCASED HIS LEADEN SARCASM.
A small witticism on my part, but not at all invalid.
Compare it to this text, which has been clearly DOCTORED
to add two words to the INDENTED TEXT! Attempting
to escape his embarassment by RE-WRITING HISTORY!
In article <38BFA4E1...@adelaide.on.net>,
Seppo Renfors <sren...@adelaide.on.net> wrote:
>
>
> Che Guava wrote:
> >
> > Seppo Renfors wrote:
> >
> > <Snip pre-epiphany>
> >
> > > You are INCREDIBLE! A MASTER BULLSHIT ARTIST!
> >
> > Thanks SSchleppo! I know. *8^)
>
Now that is deliberate DOCTORING so that my response
now indicates concurrence with a *totally false statement*.
It appears you do not understand the difference between
cleverness to make your opponent look stupid, and fraud
which pretends he was. B^p
Not only bad sportsmanship, but it gives the lie to all
your prissy posturing about protecting the good name of
a common thief.. clearly you do so BECAUSE you are a fraud.
> ...oh and good at altering peoples posts to mean the opposite from
> what was actually said too.
You are both a humourless, false, and a witless boor.
The snips are clearly indicated:
> >
> > <snip post-epiphany>
> >
Honour is satisfied! B^D
Call your nanny! B^p
> > hold that thought. ;-)
>
> ... I never had the thought you achieved by "judicious" editing, in
> the first place!!
If you want to claim your words flow without thought, you
will get no argument from me! B^D
But the words are clearly YOURS. ;-)
*YOU* CALLED ME INCREDIBLE, YOUR *exact* words
are shown in my post, in your fraudulent post words are added!
They were "You are incredible"
Now, as to what you MEANT!
well, frankly... WHO GIVES A TOSS! B^D
Che
------
You were right though, I am incredible. B^D
ralph
Not justice, not equality, but good ole envy and class hatred. Anyone
for "show trials"?
THE POINT IS YOU DON'T CONVICT SOMEONE BASED ON AN ITEM IN THE
NEWSPAPER.
>If I could summarise, you don't care that a man in a position
>of power abuses that power and appropriates public property to
>the value of $50,000
>
THE POINT IS YOU DON'T CONVICT SOMEONE BASED ON AN ITEM IN THE
NEWSPAPER.
>But you are upset that I call it theft, even though we all
>know the person concerned cares not a fig what I think!
>
YOU CALLED HIM "ART THIEF".
THE POINT IS YOU DON'T CONVICT SOMEONE BASED ON AN ITEM IN THE
NEWSPAPER.
>I think you are twanging it ralph! B^D
>
THE POINT IS YOU DON'T CONVICT SOMEONE BASED ON AN ITEM IN THE
NEWSPAPER.
>I think you are straining at gnats and swallowing camels.
>
THE POINT IS YOU DON'T CONVICT SOMEONE BASED ON AN ITEM IN THE
NEWSPAPER.
>I think your idea of morality has nothing to do with propriety..
>you haven't bleated a word of prostest at Kennetts theft..
>and I, posessing a dictionary and my wits, CALL IT SUCH.
>
By all means, it should be investigated and charges laid if
appropriate - that's why we have police and public prosecutors - it's
called due process. To counter the lynch mob mentality you are
displaying. SO TELL US WHY CHARGES WERE NOT LAID? WHO IS CORRUPT?
OR COULD IT BE SIMPLY THAT THERE IS NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE THERE FOR A
SUCCESSFUL PROSECUTION?
THE POINT IS YOU DON'T CONVICT SOMEONE BASED ON AN ITEM IN THE
NEWSPAPER.
>If more people stood up for decent values, there
>would be less of this thieving going on!
>
DECENT VALUES? HYPOCRITE.
THE POINT IS YOU DON'T CONVICT SOMEONE BASED ON AN ITEM IN THE
NEWSPAPER.
>>
>> Now, the big difference is that the people in NT were convicted in a
>> court of law,
>
>Yes that is a big difference. So?
>
SO - THE POINT IS YOU DON'T CONVICT SOMEONE BASED ON AN ITEM IN THE
NEWSPAPER.
>My hue and crie is because I SEE NO RIGOROUS INVESTIGATION
>WHICH MAY BRING IT ABOUT!
>
ART THIEF - your words exactly.
>IN FACT I THINK THE BRACKS GOVERNMENT IS SO AFRAID OF
>BEING ACCUSED OF REVENGE, THEY WILL SWEEP IT UNDER THE CARPET...
>
>UNLESS PEOPLE MAKE IT VERY CLEAR THEY WANT THE ELLIOTS,
>THE COLSTONS, AND THE KENNETTS OF THIS WORLD BROUGHT TO BOOK!
>
But the courts let both Elliott and Colston off? So are you claiming
corruption in the courts too?
I'll leave it to you to pronounce your verdicts again - but for
someone who, when ABA didn't come down hard enough on Laws/Jones, was
arguing that we should rely on the courts to see that justice is done,
it seems that even that is not good enough!
FACE IT HYPOCRITE - YOU ARE ONLY HAPPY TO LET COURTS OPERATE WHEN THE
RESULT IS THE ONE YOU WANT.
SO IF YOU HAVE ALREADY DECIDED THEY ARE GUILTY - GUESS THAT ONLY
LEAVES A SHOW TRIAL TO COMPLETE THE CHARADE OF JUSTICE?
Where I come from, we don't convict people except in a courtroom.
Where do you come from?
>Does that make it clearer for you miss prissy pants?
>
NOT QUITE - YOUR INITIAL POST LABELLED HIM AN "ART THIEF" - DID I MISS
THE TRIAL SOMEWHERE?
>I have never pretended Kennett has been tried and found guilty!
>
Backtracking - "ART THIEF" SAYS IT ALL.
>HE is such a public figure, everyone KNOWS his circumstances!
>
>Stop twanging it.
>
>> while Kennett was not - but this did not stop you from
>> pronouncing a verdict.
>
>I never pronounced a 'verdict' there hasn't been a trial!
>
Backtracking - "ART THIEF" SAYS IT ALL.
>In plain terms that everyone can understand, and mount a legal
>challenge to if they wish.. I proclaimed a man, found with
>$50,000 worth of property not his own, with no reasonable
>excuse as to why he had it, to be PRIMAE FACIE .. A THIEF!
>
The initial post is there for anyone to read - "ART THIEF" SAYS IT
ALL.
>
>Don't you like plain speech?
>
DEFAMATION is your idea of plain speech?
Tell us again about your CORE SOCIAL VALUES ;-)
>Would you like to mince around like Bronwyn'Kero'Bishop?
>
>Or Rod'tolulene'Kemp?
>
You gonna start convicting others now? Thanks for proving my point.
>Well FUCK YOU PAL! B^p
>
Tell us again about your CORE SOCIAL VALUES ;-)
THE POINT IS YOU DON'T CONVICT SOMEONE BASED ON AN ITEM IN THE
NEWSPAPER.
>> Clearly, "fair play" only applies to those you wish to defend,
>
>What 'fair play'? You admit my challenges are innefectual!
>
THE POINT IS YOU DON'T CONVICT SOMEONE BASED ON AN ITEM IN THE
NEWSPAPER.
Tell us again about your CORE SOCIAL VALUES ;-)
>Do you know what I find most appalling about this craven
>"Big Man" bullshit... three wankers propose to by him an
>artists copy...
>
>It's like you pricks are saying TO EVERY CHILD IN THE NATION,
>
>BE A FUCKING TORY HERO
>
Got nothing to do with being tory mate - it's just me calling you a
hypocrite.
Back here Che - you are wandering.
>STEAL FROM THE PEOPLE!
>
THE POINT IS YOU DON'T CONVICT SOMEONE BASED ON AN ITEM IN THE
NEWSPAPER.
>WE WILL PROTECT AND REWARD YOU!
>
THE POINT IS YOU DON'T CONVICT SOMEONE BASED ON AN ITEM IN THE
NEWSPAPER.
>YOU ARE A TRUE TORY RULER!
>
Got nothing to do with being tory mate - it's just me calling you a
hypocrite.
THE POINT IS YOU DON'T CONVICT SOMEONE BASED ON AN ITEM IN THE
NEWSPAPER.
LOL - tell us again about your CORE SOCIAL VALUES ;-)
>
>Fuck Jeff, fuck theft, fuck apologists for thieves like you!
>
THE POINT IS YOU DON'T CONVICT SOMEONE BASED ON AN ITEM IN THE
NEWSPAPER.
Tell us again about your CORE SOCIAL VALUES ;-)
>> while the "rich" you despise are due no such courtesy.
>
>I never called Jeff a thief when he was just a rich
>ex-parliamentarian superannuant!
>
>So your attempt to pervert the issue is as phoney as Jeffs excuse!
>
THE POINT IS YOU DON'T CONVICT SOMEONE BASED ON AN ITEM IN THE
NEWSPAPER.
Tell us again about your CORE SOCIAL VALUES ;-)
>I don't hate the rich, I HATE CROOKS!
THE POINT IS YOU DON'T CONVICT SOMEONE BASED ON AN ITEM IN THE
NEWSPAPER.
>I did not attack him for being rich... I ATTACKED HIM FOR THEFT!
>
THE POINT IS YOU DON'T CONVICT SOMEONE BASED ON AN ITEM IN THE
NEWSPAPER.
Tell us again about your CORE SOCIAL VALUES ;-)
>
>> If you weren't such a hypocrite, you might have initially
>> argued simply that the man should be charged -
>
>What, like all of you did!
>
All of you? Who the fuck are you talking to? It's only me calling
you a hypocrite.
>BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!
>
>YOU COULDN'T WAIT TO PUT THE BOOT INTO THE FIRST
>PERSON WHO CRITICISED THE RED-HANDED PRICK!
>
THE POINT IS YOU DON'T CONVICT SOMEONE BASED ON AN ITEM IN THE
NEWSPAPER.
Tell us again about your CORE SOCIAL VALUES ;-)
>What are the odds of Jeff coming to trial?
>
>About the same as Colston?
>About the same as Pinochet?
>
>THEY ARE RICH AND POWERFUL!
>
>WHEN THE FUCK WILL YOU ****WAKE UP!****
>
We weren't talking about Colston or Pinochet - but try to change the
subject. Come back Che.
THE POINT IS YOU DON'T CONVICT SOMEONE BASED ON AN ITEM IN THE
NEWSPAPER.
>
>> and leave the verdict
>> to a court of law where it belongs.
>> Convicting someone on newspaper
>> reports is hardly justice, is it?
>
>Sure Ralph, aus.politics peoples soviet just took
>comrade Jeff out and shot him! B^D
>
Tell us again about your CORE SOCIAL VALUES ;-)
>THIS IS POLITICAL THEATRE YOU MORON! NOT A COURTHOUSE!
>
So decency and fair play don't apply?
Tell us again about your CORE SOCIAL VALUES ;-)
HYPOCRITE.
>WHEN CHILEANS STAND ON THE STREET CORNER AND SHOUT
>
>"DEATH TO THE BUTCHER.. PINOCHET, MURDERER!
>
Chile? Pinochet - thought we were talking Kennett and Prince William.
Come back Che - you are losing it - tell us again about your CORE
SOCIAL VALUES ;-)
WHAT THE FUCK DOES PINOCHET HAVE TO DO WITH YOU LABELLING KENNETT A
THIEF?
>only the lamest, weakest, tory pissant would deny their right!
>
>only the most pathetic, pompous, prissy prick would say..
>
>"Eh, hold on chaps.. there has been no trial.. you can't say that!"
>
THE POINT IS YOU DON'T CONVICT SOMEONE BASED ON AN ITEM IN THE
NEWSPAPER.
>Where I come from, if you are caught with someone elses
>clobber, and you can't explain yourself.. you are called
>a thief.
>
Where I come from, we don't convict people except in a courtroom.
Where the fuck do you come from? Are you proposing we should allow
lynch mobs? Keep digging Che, your hole is getting deeper.
THE POINT IS YOU DON'T CONVICT SOMEONE BASED ON AN ITEM IN THE
NEWSPAPER.
>
>Now this is another matter:
>
>>
>> You did the same with Prince William -
>
>I most certainly did not!
>
The posts are there for all to decide.
>I have accused william of no more than consorting with known
>hard drug takers, lacking judgement, and being a royal.
>
"known hard drug takers"?
Based on a newspaper report? Was his "friend" convicted or even
charged? Sorry, I didn't see the article but it sounded as if
somebody saw a friend of the Prince using cocaine - hardly convincing
that. Sounds like Murdoch tabloid shit.
>> based on a gossip-column style
>> newspaper report about a so-called "friend" using drugs, you slurred
>> the man himself.
>
>By sayinfg the simple truth, that he hangs with druggies?
>
SIMPLE TRUTH???? YOU ARE CLAIMING SINCE IT WAS IN THE PAPER IT MUST
BE TRUE? YOU TRUST RUPERT MURDOCH 100% NOW DO YOU?
>That his own security men are concerned he will be compromised?
>
>DO you, like Moss, approve of associating with criminals.
>
Which criminal? Was this "friend" convicted?
Sorry I don't read the gossip columns - you'll have to give me more
information. Your initial article cut-and-paste on Prince William
made it sound like nothing more than unsubstantiated rumour.
>Is that a necessary pre-requisite to be a tory Head of State?
>
Was this "friend" convicted?
>Why are millions of decent young Trueblue Australians not
>good enough, but this Royal who is known for nothing but
>having a famous mum, and hanging with drugtakers, is?
>
Che - the referendum was lost - so take the "head of state" issue up
with the majority of Australians who voted against the republic.
Now, back to your allegations - can you confirm the newspaper report
was accurate and on what basis? Was/is the "friend" a convicted drug
taker?
>WHAT IS IT WITH YOU TORIES? ARE ONLY THIEVES AND THOSE
>WHO HANG WITH HARD DRUG TAKERS EXCITING ENOUGH FOR YOU PERVERTS?
>
Got nothing to do with being tory mate - it's just me calling you a
hypocrite.
THE POINT IS YOU DON'T CONVICT SOMEONE BASED ON AN ITEM IN THE
NEWSPAPER.
Tell us again about your CORE SOCIAL VALUES ;-)
>> Quite simply unbelievable -
>
>yes, what you write below IS unbelievable.. A COMPLETE FABRICATION!
>
What was fabricated? Do you deny you labeled Kennett a thief? Do you
deny you implied that Prince William consorts with drug users?
THE POINT IS YOU DON'T CONVICT SOMEONE BASED ON AN ITEM IN THE
NEWSPAPER.
Tell us again about your CORE SOCIAL VALUES ;-)
>> I don't care how privileged he is -
>
>Oh you don't have to tell us that!
>We know your attitude to wealth, power and class.
>
THE POINT IS YOU DON'T CONVICT SOMEONE BASED ON AN ITEM IN THE
NEWSPAPER.
Tell us again about your CORE SOCIAL VALUES ;-)
>> how can you decide he's an illegal drug user with
>> such flimsy evidence.
>
>So it seems after all the prissy moralising and self-
>righteous breast beating you will do EXACTLY what
>you accused me of doing, only you do it with NO
>supporting evidence.
>
>I did not decide William was an illegal drug user.
>
Was this "friend" convicted or even charged?
>Not only have you found me guilty of such libel
>WITHOUT A TRIAL, but YOU have done so without facts.
>
>rank hypocrisy!
>
>>
>> These posts show what a load of horseshit your so-called "core social
>> values" are.
>
>Like SSchleppo, we can't rely on your bent ruler to measure
>straightness.
>
THE POINT IS YOU DON'T CONVICT SOMEONE BASED ON AN ITEM IN THE
NEWSPAPER.
Tell us again about your CORE SOCIAL VALUES ;-)
>
>> You display a lack of decency and equality more
>> reminiscent of some of the vile racists and homophobes
>> who post in this group.
>
>And you say that because I call a man with stolen property
>a thief, and someone who consorts with drug takers
>a consorter... WELL DONE JUDGE JUDY! B^D
>
THE POINT IS YOU DON'T CONVICT SOMEONE BASED ON AN ITEM IN THE
NEWSPAPER.
>Another unsuccessful character assasination by the
>tory-shoot-the-messenger crew! B^p
>
>The lowest bunch of bastards on the block!
>
Tell us again about your CORE SOCIAL VALUES ;-)
At least the racists and homophobes don't pretend to believe in
justice and equality for all. You on the other hand mouth shite about
"core social values" and then proceed to display your own prejudices
for all to see - a real hypocrite.
In your world, it's ok to label someone a thief or drug taker simply
on the basis of a newspaper report, because that person happens to be
wealthy.
And when the courts fail to convict a rich person (Colston, Elliott),
you aren't satisfied because it's not the result you wants.
Personally, I'm not in favour of "show trials" for anyone - rich or
poor!
'All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.'
- George Orwell, Animal Farm, 1945
Seppo Renfors
Che Guava wrote:
>
> Seppo Renfors wrote:
[snip]
>
> ALL your excuses go to the notion which separates white collar crime
> from the sort of petty offences for which people in the NT are jailed.
> It is the same attitude which used to see Bank managers as 'approved'
> people to be witnesses to documents, or become JPs.
I was actually commenting on the "crimes" you have committed here. You
bleat like a stuck pig about someone else and do something that COULD
in monetary terms run into a lot more $$ than a mere painting! What
right have you to comment at all in that situation?
Why shouldn't I comment on YOUR activities as you are bleating about
breaking laws. That is exactly what you have been doing. You don't
have an BALANCE, it appears to be OK for one CHE to breach laws to his
hearts content, whilst someone else isn't even allowed a
misunderstanding!. There is definitely something SICK in your views.
Che Guava
of repetitions of a single misconception: ;-)
ralph wrote:
<snip>
> THE POINT IS YOU DON'T CONVICT SOMEONE BASED ON AN ITEM IN THE
> NEWSPAPER.
Has Jeff been convicted?
Excellent! couldn't happen to a nicer bloke!
Where did you hear this news?, It certainly didn't come from me!
I have no power to CONVICT, merely to describe...
So lets see:
"Jeff Kennett Art Thief" .. no, I said *NOTHING* about 'convicted felon'.
As I thought, you are twanging it, Miss Prissy Pants.
*My usage* is perfectly normal and descriptive (all definitions from the
Macquarie ;-)
Art - I assume is not in dispute, how else to describe a $50,000 painting? B^)
thief - "one who steals, especially secretly or without open force" SPOT ON!
B^D
steal - "to take or take away dishonestly or wrongfully , esp secretly"
..... what could be a more PERFECT description!? B^D
I repeat: JEFF KENNET, in the plain meaning of the term, IS A THIEF! B^D
Not a convicted felon, that would require a trial! B^)
But Jeff, BY HIS OWN ADMISSION, did wrongfully and secretly take away
a painting which did not belong to him, ergo he stole it away,
ergo HE IS A THIEF! B^D
WHOOOOOO! WHOOOOOOOOOOOO! B^D (EAT SHIT, BUSH LAWYER!)
Now, as to the legal status, if charges will be laid, a conviction obtained,
a sentence served, justice carried out.. then we will need to be careful
with our public discussion to avoid contempt... but all these things remain to
be seen,
despite your attempt to pretend a trial has already taken place. ;-)
[to forestall further obfuscation, there is a second meaning;
"one guilty of theft or larceny" which seems to go closer to the notion
of CONVICTED felon which *you* have assumed, quite incorrectly
it appears. ;-)
As the chief Law officer of the NT maintained when he was challenged
on his description of the Law Courts as CORRUPT, the meaning he
meant was 'as in damaged data'.. B^p We thought he was being
disingenuous, but of course words *can* have more than one meaning,
can't they Ralph. B^)
I have heard a child described as "You little thief", when of course conviction
would be impossible! B^D ]
But of course all this is pedantic word-smithery, what is not in dispute
is that a painting which doesn't belong to him was in Kennett's house.
He has admitted the painting, worth $50,000 is not his, that it was
wrongfully removed by him, or people in his charge, and secretly taken
to his house (The rightful owners knew only that it was gone.
In plain, DICTIONARY English to take it in this way is to STEAL.
One who steals IS A THIEF.
QED
The trail, should charges be laid will determine his guilt and whether
or not he should become a *convicted* thief.
I will not be mealy mouthed about what is clear and apparent to ANY reasonable
man!
<snip, the rest is merely more repetitions of : >
> THE POINT IS YOU DON'T CONVICT SOMEONE BASED ON AN ITEM IN THE
> NEWSPAPER.
the point is, you won't even *talk* about it honestly, IF IT's a tory mate! B^p
> >I think your idea of morality has nothing to do with propriety..
> >you haven't bleated a word of prostest at Kennetts theft..
> >and I, posessing a dictionary and my wits, CALL IT SUCH.
> >
>
> By all means, it should be investigated and charges laid if
> appropriate - that's why we have police and public prosecutors - it's
> called due process.
Well, now there you go!
Lets investigate the theft and put the thief(s) on trial!
Your tory mates, Moss, Wearing,
SSchleppo, insist that I should be pursuing a citizens arrest
and private prosecution... you guys are all over the place! B^D
<snip>
> 'All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.'
> - George Orwell, Animal Farm, 1945
There was really no need to rub peoples noses in the fact
that the tory elite often go unpunished.
We know.
ralph
More hypocrisy ... Che's core social values appear to have been
flushed down his toilet as he continues his lynch mob rant against
Kennett (and Prince William has been neatly snipped from this
discussion - maybe at least he realises he was a little hasty in that
slur).
Tell us exactly what your core values are Che? Not fair play and
equality for sure.
On Sun, 05 Mar 2000 00:26:15 +1100, Che Guava <che_...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
>We can reduce your output somewhat, it seems to consist
>of repetitions of a single misconception: ;-)
>
But when it's done to yours, you scream blue murder and deception?
Hypocrite.
I notice you removed the references to Colston and Elliott that you
originally mentioned - both of whom did appear before the courts and
(like it or not) were not convicted.
Do you agree that only a show trial would have satisfied you - or will
you claim here that they got off due to corruption in our judicial
process (I'm sure your newspapers wouldl love to hear the proof you
have of that).
You also snipped references to Prince William - do you agree that you
were hasty in slurring the man based on gossip column stuff?
Do you agree now my description of you as a hypocrite is quite
accurate? You call for justice and due process - but you have no
interest in that when it's your despised "tory elites" who are the
subject - for them, nothing less than a show trial would suffice.
>ralph wrote:
><snip>
>
>> THE POINT IS YOU DON'T CONVICT SOMEONE BASED ON AN ITEM IN THE
>> NEWSPAPER.
>
>Has Jeff been convicted?
>
>Excellent! couldn't happen to a nicer bloke!
>
Were you trying to be clever? Your reply doesn't even make sense to
the statement.
>Where did you hear this news?, It certainly didn't come from me!
>I have no power to CONVICT, merely to describe...
>
Yup - based on a newspaper report.
>So lets see:
>
>"Jeff Kennett Art Thief" .. no, I said *NOTHING* about 'convicted felon'.
>
>As I thought, you are twanging it, Miss Prissy Pants.
>
>*My usage* is perfectly normal and descriptive (all definitions from the
>Macquarie ;-)
>
>Art - I assume is not in dispute, how else to describe a $50,000 painting? B^)
>
>thief - "one who steals, especially secretly or without open force" SPOT ON!
>B^D
>
>steal - "to take or take away dishonestly or wrongfully , esp secretly"
>
Thank you. Now proof please...
> ..... what could be a more PERFECT description!? B^D
>
Do tell - he says it was an accident. You decide otherwise? Lynch
mob mentality.
>I repeat: JEFF KENNET, in the plain meaning of the term, IS A THIEF! B^D
>Not a convicted felon, that would require a trial! B^)
>
Yes it certainly would - in the meantime, it makes your defamation
pretty hypocritical.
>But Jeff, BY HIS OWN ADMISSION, did wrongfully and secretly take away
>a painting which did not belong to him, ergo he stole it away,
>ergo HE IS A THIEF! B^D
>
BY HIS OWN ADMISSION??
From what I read in your trusted papers, he believed the painting
belonged to him! I suggest we leave it for the law to decide if that
explanation is reasonable - not your fucked up lynch mob mentality.
So now on this issue you are both a liar and a hypocrite.
If the police and prosecution don't feel charges should be laid, what
the fuck do you know that they don't?
>WHOOOOOO! WHOOOOOOOOOOOO! B^D (EAT SHIT, BUSH LAWYER!)
>
Oh that's clever - coming from the man trying the case in a newsgroup.
>Now, as to the legal status, if charges will be laid, a conviction obtained,
>a sentence served, justice carried out.. then we will need to be careful
>with our public discussion to avoid contempt... but all these things remain to
>be seen,
>despite your attempt to pretend a trial has already taken place. ;-)
>
Of course that's a lie and you know it. I repeat: if their is enough
evidence there he should be charged. That's why we have police and
public prosecution. ARE YOU CLAIMING THEY ARE CORRUPT?
As for contempt - I'm guessing only you should be the one worried
about that - I didn't call the man a thief, you did.
>[to forestall further obfuscation, there is a second meaning;
>"one guilty of theft or larceny" which seems to go closer to the notion
>of CONVICTED felon which *you* have assumed, quite incorrectly
>it appears. ;-)
Keep backtracking.
>As the chief Law officer of the NT maintained when he was challenged
>on his description of the Law Courts as CORRUPT, the meaning he
>meant was 'as in damaged data'.. B^p We thought he was being
>disingenuous, but of course words *can* have more than one meaning,
>can't they Ralph. B^)
>
Keep backtracking.
>I have heard a child described as "You little thief", when of course conviction
>would be impossible! B^D ]
>
Yes a child would say that - well at least we agree on what level you
are operating ;-)
>But of course all this is pedantic word-smithery, what is not in dispute
>is that a painting which doesn't belong to him was in Kennett's house.
>He has admitted the painting, worth $50,000 is not his, that it was
>wrongfully removed by him, or people in his charge, and secretly taken
>to his house (The rightful owners knew only that it was gone.
>In plain, DICTIONARY English to take it in this way is to STEAL.
>One who steals IS A THIEF.
>
>QED
>
Thanks again for proving my point - you are happy for a lynch mob to
settle this.
>The trail, should charges be laid will determine his guilt and whether
>or not he should become a *convicted* thief.
>
Keep backtracking.
>I will not be mealy mouthed about what is clear and apparent to ANY reasonable
>man!
>
Except the police and public prosecutor apparently. Care to comment
on that?
><snip, the rest is merely more repetitions of : >
>
To summarise the above: you can be as verbose as you want mate -
doesn't change the clear injustice of your original post, or the fact
of your rampant hypocrisy.
And now you are lying about his admitting theft, when clearly he said
he thought the painting belonged to him.
>> THE POINT IS YOU DON'T CONVICT SOMEONE BASED ON AN ITEM IN THE
>> NEWSPAPER.
>
>the point is, you won't even *talk* about it honestly, IF IT's a tory mate! B^p
>
I think maybe the police and public prosecutor don't share your rank
bias against the man, and won't put on a show trial just to satisfy
you?
I think they know more about the situation than you or I - so I won't
pretend to claim the man is guilty or innocent based on media reports.
You share no such decency, because of your prejudices against the man
- and you can't even see that can you?
>> >I think your idea of morality has nothing to do with propriety..
>> >you haven't bleated a word of prostest at Kennetts theft..
>> >and I, posessing a dictionary and my wits, CALL IT SUCH.
>> >
>>
>> By all means, it should be investigated and charges laid if
>> appropriate - that's why we have police and public prosecutors - it's
>> called due process.
>
>Well, now there you go!
>Lets investigate the theft and put the thief(s) on trial!
>
See above - a show trial perhaps?
Anyway that's why we have police, prosecutors, and courts - not lynch
mobs.
>Your tory mates, Moss, Wearing,
Nothing to do with "tory" - it's just me calling you a hypocrite.
>SSchleppo, insist that I should be pursuing a citizens arrest
>and private prosecution... you guys are all over the place! B^D
><snip>
>
Maybe they just want you to prove in public how stupid you are on this
issue? Anyway you can ask them about that - this is my post you are
replying to.
Personally, I'm just calling you a hypocrite, and you keep proving
it.
>> 'All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.'
>> - George Orwell, Animal Farm, 1945
>
>There was really no need to rub peoples noses in the fact
>that the tory elite often go unpunished.
>
Keep trying to change the subject - but it's got nothing to do with
"tory" - it's just me calling you a hypocrite.
You want a lynch mob or a show trial - I say what about your core
social values?.
If you wanna claim corruption by the police or public prosecution in
Victoria - prove it. But until charges are laid and evidence before
the court, you are attempting to convict the man based on your
precious newspapers (same as you did with gossip-column slur against
Prince William).
So, tell us again about your core social values - clearly fair play
and equality before the law don't apply.
>We know.
>
Yup we sure do.
Hypocrite.
Che Guava
legal judgement, it's a term describing wrongful, not
necessarily criminal, removal of property.
As his embarrassment at his folly grows, he digs himself into
a morass by committing the very 'crimes' of accusation
and trial he mistakenly accused me of... but we hear less
and less about 'core moral values': ;-)
ralph wrote:
> More hypocrisy ... Che's core social values appear to have been
> flushed down his toilet as he continues his lynch mob rant against
> Kennett (and Prince William has been neatly snipped from this
> discussion - maybe at least he realises he was a little hasty in that
> slur).
Just wanted to underscore your hypocrisy, Ralph. You seemed to think
any distraction by you could be introduced, (as you introduced
Prince William in your post of 3 March ;-) but if I raised similar
cases SUBSEQUENTLY ;-) you bleated:
"We weren't talking about Colston or Pinochet - but try to change the
subject. Come back Che."
B^D
I find your mixture of 'high moral ground' and low gutter tactics
most amusing. B^D
> Tell us exactly what your core values are Che? Not fair play and
> equality for sure.
Hang on, Ralph, YOU are the one expousing the tory values of Animal
Farm.. you gloatingly quoted them at us....what was it..
"All Animals are equal but some tory animals should
never be accountable?"
> On Sun, 05 Mar 2000 00:26:15 +1100, Che Guava <che_...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> >We can reduce your output somewhat, it seems to consist
> >of repetitions of a single misconception: ;-)
> >
>
> But when it's done to yours, you scream blue murder and deception?
Well Ralph, lets face it.. apart from you, very few people
abandon rational discourse to dogmatically chant a SINGLE
line over and over .. what 25 times!!??
And then to have it shown to be COMPLETELY WRONG! B^D
How many times have you used it in this post?.. B^D
> Hypocrite.
>
> I notice you removed the references to Colston and Elliott that you
> originally mentioned - both of whom did appear before the courts and
> (like it or not) were not convicted.
Your mantra made clear your key, and fatally flawed point..
I wanted to showcase your stupidity.
> Do you agree that only a show trial would have satisfied you - or will
> you claim here that they got off due to corruption in our judicial
> process (I'm sure your newspapers wouldl love to hear the proof you
> have of that).
Have you abandoned Kennet already? B^D
After trying to distract to Prince Willy.. then chiding ME for
mentioning Pinochet! NOW you want to avoid Kennet
because you can see what a fool you made of yourself with your
wild and inappropriate comments about *conviction* ..and
you desperately try and shift ground! B^D Priceless!
Let me use YOUR OWN WORDS as a wakeup:
We weren't talking about Colston or Pinochet - but try to change the
subject. Come back Che."
Hypocrite! B^D
> You also snipped references to Prince William - do you agree that you
> were hasty in slurring the man based on gossip column stuff?
Which YOU INTRODUCED! B^D
BEFORE you bitched about 'changing the subject' when I
did likewise.
And now you want to chase the possum again! B^D
Good hunting! (We are going to talk about Jeff in this post aren't
we... I know your agenda is 'fill the space with noise.."
That's ok, I will do what i did with your last post..
gut the key errors. ;-)=
> Do you agree now my description of you as a hypocrite is quite
> accurate? You call for justice and due process - but you have no
> interest in that when it's your despised "tory elites" who are the
> subject - for them, nothing less than a show trial would suffice.
>
> >ralph wrote:
> ><snip>
> >
> >> THE POINT IS YOU DON'T CONVICT SOMEONE BASED ON AN ITEM IN THE
> >> NEWSPAPER.
> >
> >Has Jeff been convicted?
> >
> >Excellent! couldn't happen to a nicer bloke!
> >
>
> Were you trying to be clever? Your reply doesn't even make sense to
> the statement.
Well you were talking about 'conviction' of a crime, and you were the only
one doing so.. I was describing Jeff's theft of a $50,000 art work...
But all that was described in the post... are you still confused about what
words mean?
> >Where did you hear this news?, It certainly didn't come from me!
> >I have no power to CONVICT, merely to describe...
> >
>
> Yup - based on a newspaper report.
No moral dilemma in repeating a newspaper report is there Ralph?
Is that what you regard as heinous lack of core values? A well reported,
cross referenced, multi media news event.. hell man, I heard Jeff himself
interviewed, I heard and read his own statements...
THIS IS HARDLY AN OBSCURE AND ESOTERIC MYSTERY CASE
RALPH! B^D
John Clarke was sending it up! You can't get more in the open, public,
well documented, red-handed, thievery than this one! B^D
But instead.. Ralph, mild mannered cub reporter for the tory times, is
hot on the scent of a BIG SCOOP! Che reckons if you have a $50,000
painting in your house, and it isn't yours and you can't provide a legitimate
excuse for it being there, that it's THEFT!
So Che, must be an evil totalitarian plotting show trials, lynch mobs
and vigilante hit squads! B^D
Ralph... get a grip, mate. You are starting to look like a right prat.
> >So lets see:
> >
> >"Jeff Kennett Art Thief" .. no, I said *NOTHING* about 'convicted felon'.
> >
> >As I thought, you are twanging it, Miss Prissy Pants.
> >
> >*My usage* is perfectly normal and descriptive (all definitions from the
> >Macquarie ;-)
> >
> >Art - I assume is not in dispute, how else to describe a $50,000 painting? B^)
> >
> >thief - "one who steals, especially secretly or without open force" SPOT ON!
> >B^D
> >
> >steal - "to take or take away dishonestly or wrongfully , esp secretly"
> >
>
> Thank you. Now proof please...
Jesus Ralph.. where have you been?
You are willing to accuse me 'convicting' Jeff when I never even
passed a bar exam.
You are willing to convict me of running a 'lynch mob' for merely
calling a theft a theft in a public discussion forum.
You are willing to label me a totalitarian monster holding 'star chambers'
based on nothing more than YOUR OWN LACK OF UNDERSTANDING
OF YOUR MOTHER TONGUE!
If I claim to tender 'PROOF' in the terms you DEMAND, I would be running
a kangaroo court! His guilt is for the court to decide.
I have *merely* *accurately* described what happened!
Theft - "wrongful removal, especially secretly"
You are straining at gnats, and swallowing camels.
Your willingness to make all kinds of false accusations about me,
and refuse to discuss the simple facts of the matter at hand are
nothing more than rank hypocrisy. And all the time you prattle
about 'core values'... i doubt you know the meaning of values.
> > ..... what could be a more PERFECT description!? B^D
> >
>
> Do tell - he says it was an accident.
Please explain how this 'accident' occurred, and then tell us
why the removal STILL WAS NOT *WRONGFUL* !!!???
We await your wisdom, solomon.
> You decide otherwise?
You keep referring to matters a court would have to determine after
carefully weighing ALL the facts, and you present none.
I have merely described the wrongful removal, or THEFT in common
english, of a $50,000 painting belonging to the people of Victoria
and it's subsequent recovery in Jeff Kennett's home.
The court must decide if he is to be convicted of a felony,
but the theft is apparent.
> Lynch mob mentality.
On your part certainly. You, SSchleppo, Moss, Wearing.. all
baying for the bloodhounds blood! B^D
> >I repeat: JEFF KENNET, in the plain meaning of the term, IS A THIEF! B^D
> >Not a convicted felon, that would require a trial! B^)
> >
>
> Yes it certainly would - in the meantime, it makes your defamation
> pretty hypocritical.
There is no defamation, you fool.
The problem is YOUR confusion between the words 'thief'
and 'convicted felon'. *All* your ranting is based on
your pretence that I said the latter, rather than the former.
It's like Moss's careful question mark at the end of his
post subject : "Che Guava a drug trafficker ?" B^D
> >But Jeff, BY HIS OWN ADMISSION, did wrongfully and secretly take away
> >a painting which did not belong to him, ergo he stole it away,
> >ergo HE IS A THIEF! B^D
> >
>
> BY HIS OWN ADMISSION??
>
> From what I read in your trusted papers, he believed the painting
> belonged to him!
BWAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
He is on a video, standing in front of the portrait when it
still hung in Treasury place offices.. telling schoolchildren
in words identical to those of the NGV how the painting
had been stored in dusty obscurity!
The story of a gift from the 'anonymous donor' unraveled
when it was revealed NO ENTRY for the painting was
made in the Parliaments pecuniary interests register.
And members of his OWN staff signed for receipt of the
valuable artwork from the NGV, not once, but EVERY
year.
Prima facie, it appears you only choose to believe the single,
unsupported, discredited story of the participant with the
greatest vested interest, rather than the facts.
But you are merely attempting to try the case here, ;-)
my post has never been about his conviction.. but his behaviour.
What is most telling, and the foundation for my comment
that by his own admission, he is a thief, is that:
He returned it, did he not?
And he acknowledged that he did not own it.
And therefore IT WAS WRONGFULLY IN HIS POSSESSION!
And it is TRUTH, not defamation to describe it as stealing,
and the man who is responsible for it, as a thief.
QED again! B^D
You can play with words as much as you like, Miss Prissy pants..
it fools no-one. Except those who chose, like you, to
deceive themselves.
> I suggest we leave it for the law to decide if that
> explanation is reasonable -
That is not the sole prerogative of the law.
All citizens can and must, measure the performance, or non-
performance of politicians and public figures on moral grounds,
assessing their behaviour as I do here... this is not usurping
the law.. only a desperate apologist would try and protect
a fellow tory by pretending it was.
> not your fucked up lynch mob mentality.
Just what is your agenda here? No discussion of the behaviour
of tory public figures?
Call anyone who try's 'a star chamber totalitarian' B^D
then what.. shoot them?
> So now on this issue you are both a liar and a hypocrite.
>
> If the police and prosecution don't feel charges should be laid, what
> the fuck do you know that they don't?
What has the court process to do with our discussion of Jeff's
responsibility in the wrongful removal of our property to his home?
Or in common English, his theft of a $50,000 painting?
> >WHOOOOOO! WHOOOOOOOOOOOO! B^D (EAT SHIT, BUSH LAWYER!)
> >
>
> Oh that's clever - coming from the man trying the case in a newsgroup.
YOU are the only one who seems to be conducting a witchunt.
And your evidence is in inverse proportion to the gravity of
the charges you make! B^p
> >Now, as to the legal status, if charges will be laid, a conviction obtained,
> >a sentence served, justice carried out.. then we will need to be careful
> >with our public discussion to avoid contempt... but all these things remain to
> >be seen,
> >despite your attempt to pretend a trial has already taken place. ;-)
> >
>
> Of course that's a lie and you know it.
You did say 25 times that we can't 'convict' on news didn't you?
You did claim I was the one 'trying' to convict, didn't you?
Why are you now backing away from your previous pretence
that I had conducted a trial?
> I repeat: if their is enough evidence there he should be charged.
Where have I said he shouldn't?
> That's why we have police and public prosecution.
Your argument here is with Moss, Wearing and SSchlepo;
they insist that the police should be dispensed and private
prosecutions be undertaken by those able to afford justice.
I can see why you tories quote Animal Farm so readily! B^D
> ARE YOU CLAIMING THEY ARE CORRUPT?
Don't you have enough misrepresentations to run with at the moment?
Why do you want to start another ground shift?
> As for contempt - I'm guessing only you should be the one worried
> about that - I didn't call the man a thief, you did.
You are just too thick to see the question mark on the end of
Moss's header "Che Guava a drug trafficker ?" B^D
> >[to forestall further obfuscation, there is a second meaning;
> >"one guilty of theft or larceny" which seems to go closer to the notion
> >of CONVICTED felon which *you* have assumed, quite incorrectly
> >it appears. ;-)
>
> Keep backtracking.
that was *forwardtracking* Ralph. I tried to show that *your*
meaning of thief (a felon) ALSO exists, but that it is NEITHER
THE ONLY MEANING... NOR WAS IT MINE!!!! B^D
And therein lies your folly.
> >As the chief Law officer of the NT maintained when he was challenged
> >on his description of the Law Courts as CORRUPT, the meaning he
> >meant was 'as in damaged data'.. B^p We thought he was being
> >disingenuous, but of course words *can* have more than one meaning,
> >can't they Ralph. B^)
> >
>
> Keep backtracking.
I can't help it if you can't recognise the dissection of your error.
ALL your rants are based on "Thief as convicted felon",
totally irrelevant to my usage.
All my posts are based on the alternative, and equally
valid definition: "Thief as one who steals"
(and "to steal is to wrongfully remove").
No show trials here Ralph, except the one you are attempting
in the tory Bigtop! B^D
> >I have heard a child described as "You little thief", when of course conviction
> >would be impossible! B^D ]
> >
>
> Yes a child would say that - well at least we agree on what level you
> are operating ;-)
You can't even scan a simple sentence.. The child didn't SAY it, Ralph...
the adult said it *to* the little thief....
ooops that could only mean CONVICTED FELON to YOU!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Keep jousting with the Black Knight, Monty, you still have your chompers..
toothless by now, but perhaps you can just gum us to submission! B^D
> >But of course all this is pedantic word-smithery, what is not in dispute
> >is that a painting which doesn't belong to him was in Kennett's house.
> >He has admitted the painting, worth $50,000 is not his, that it was
> >wrongfully removed by him, or people in his charge, and secretly taken
> >to his house (The rightful owners knew only that it was gone.
> >In plain, DICTIONARY English to take it in this way is to STEAL.
> >One who steals IS A THIEF.
> >
> >QED
> >
>
> Thanks again for proving my point -
This proves *your* point? BWAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
"But of course all this is pedantic word-smithery, what is not in dispute
is that a painting which doesn't belong to him was in Kennett's house.
He has admitted the painting, worth $50,000 is not his, that it was
wrongfully removed by him, or people in his charge, and secretly taken
to his house (The rightful owners knew only that it was gone.
In plain, DICTIONARY English to take it in this way is to STEAL.
One who steals IS A THIEF.
QED"
> you are happy for a lynch mob to
> settle this.
If you are so obdurate, perhaps I shouldn't stop them from
taking you out and hanging you in your own illogic! B^D
> >The trail, should charges be laid will determine his guilt and whether
> >or not he should become a *convicted* thief.
> >
>
> Keep backtracking.
It just seems like that to you, because your brain is
about to catch up to your mouth! B^D
It's all relativity, Einstein...
Once you get out of you black-hole of preconception
and read what was actually written you will realise your
construction is flawed. Then again.. *you* may not! B^D
> >I will not be mealy mouthed about what is clear and apparent
> >to ANY reasonable man!
> >
>
> Except the police and public prosecutor apparently. Care to comment
> on that?
Are you INVITING ME to form a Star Chamber? B^D
They determine guilt, Ralph.
They prosecute and *convict*
We discuss behaviour.
If they carry out a successful prosecution, Jeff will move from
being the thief I have described to be the convicted felon you have
been rabbiting on about.
It's simple really.
But it is very dangerous of you to mix the two up.. you risk
undermining the justice system, defaming individuals who are merely
objective thieves, by implying they are convicted thieves, and
on the other hand suppressing any discussion of the behaviour
of public figures, especially in cases where it involves the
wrongful removal of property belonging to others, as was
the case with Jeff Kennet, Art Thief.
> ><snip, the rest is merely more repetitions of : >
> >
>
> To summarise the above: you can be as verbose as you want mate -
BWAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Anything YOU can't understand is verbose.. but one line
chanted like a blind religious fanatic is what.. divine wisdom
from ArchProtector Ralph! B^D
> doesn't change the clear injustice of your original post, or the fact
> of your rampant hypocrisy.
What is unjust about my original post, Ralph...
compared to say, your lies and misrepresentations subsequently
in presenting it as something else?
> And now you are lying about his admitting theft,
HE admitted the painting was wrongful removed, dummy!
HE even returned it!
wrongful removal is stealing... plain and simple.
One who is responsible for stealing is a thief.
The police and courts really should look into this and
determine if a crime has been committed..
DON'T YOU THINK, RALPH!?
Or are you too busy trying to shoot the messenger!? B^D
> when clearly he said he thought the painting belonged to him.
If he received a stolen painting, or someone other than the
owner 'gifted' it to him, when of course his own staff had signed
for custodianship of $258,000 of NGV paintings. then in your view
it's removal would no longer be *wrongful* ?
Don't come to my place for dinner, at least don't expect us
to use gran's good silver! B^D
More importantly GET EVERY TORY POLITICIAN
WITH SIMILAR VIEWS AWAY FROM PUBLIC ASSETS!!!
NOW!!!!! B^D
> >> THE POINT IS YOU DON'T CONVICT SOMEONE BASED ON AN ITEM IN THE
> >> NEWSPAPER.
> >
> >the point is, you won't even *talk* about it honestly, IF IT's a tory mate! B^p
> >
>
> I think maybe the police and public prosecutor don't share your rank
> bias against the man,
Just show where I am wrong in fact, and I will retract.
Otherwise you really should... you have walked both sides
of the argument here, and your credibility is looking
a bit tattered. (Not to say your English comprehension! B^)
> and won't put on a show trial just to satisfy you?
Only you have asked for one...
I want a rigorous and open investigation into the wrongful
removal.... Theft of public property is important to some of us.
Your attempts to stifle any call for one only adds
to suspicion.
> I think they know more about the situation than you or I - so I won't
> pretend to claim the man is guilty or innocent based on media reports.
At least I have got you to accept that point during this discussion..
now if we could only get you to stop using that as an excuse for
attempting to stifle calls for the investigation of the theft!
> You share no such decency, because of your prejudices against the man
> - and you can't even see that can you?
I praised him before.
I frequently quote him approvingly in regard to the disaster which a
GST with some food removed (such as the current Howard Lees
Growth Suppressing Tax) would be.
But I can't defend his actions here. Wrongful, in the view of a
simple, honest bloke. ;-)
And, depending upon police and legal actions, perhaps criminal.
That is the difference between us. I judge behaviour.
You look to see first if it's a tory mate, or a NG nemesis,
and trim your assessments accordingly.
You have done nothing but accept EVERY statement of Jeff's
at it's literal, face value, NO MATTER HOW ABSURD, INCONSISTENT
OR CONTRARY TO THE FACTS
and simultaneously you take every one of my statements
and distort it to meanings other than the ones I have clearly
elaborated for you.
Twice now I have shown you that my words are plain
clear common English usage.. and you have insisted on
a narrow, incongruent, legalistic jargon interpretation..
(which reveals much about your thinking.. BTW)
I think it is pure malice. (perhaps driven by jealousy ;-)
But certainly based on prejudice and ignorance.
> >> >I think your idea of morality has nothing to do with propriety..
> >> >you haven't bleated a word of prostest at Kennetts theft..
> >> >and I, posessing a dictionary and my wits, CALL IT SUCH.
> >> >
> >>
> >> By all means, it should be investigated and charges laid if
> >> appropriate - that's why we have police and public prosecutors - it's
> >> called due process.
> >
> >Well, now there you go!
> >Lets investigate the theft and put the thief(s) on trial!
> >
>
> See above - a show trial perhaps?
See, *your* natural inclinations betray you..
The Animal Farm motto should have been a dead giveaway! B^p
> Anyway that's why we have police, prosecutors, and courts - not lynch
> mobs.
Speaking of Lynch mobs.. your mates have gone quiet..
despite your line being the DIAMETRIC opposite of their
'laissez faire', 'user pays' justice, they seem to have decided you
have the best crack at the title..
sorry boys! B^D
> >Your tory mates, Moss, Wearing,
>
> Nothing to do with "tory" - it's just me calling you a hypocrite.
Chanting the same weak point over and over just doesn't
hack it though, you have failed to prove your case, Ralph
> >SSchleppo,
Jesus SSchleppo, he didn't even want you to be on the same
charge sheet as the front bench! ;-)
> >insist that I should be pursuing a citizens arrest
> >and private prosecution... you guys are all over the place! B^D
> ><snip>
> >
>
> Maybe they just want you to prove in public how stupid
> you are on this issue?
BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
They ran like scattered sheep at the first salvo!
Your armless, legless torso is all that's left Stumpy!
So what's your next ploy, going to bore me to death?
> Anyway you can ask them about that
Sure, i have shouted my critique at their fleeing backs! B^D
> - this is my post you are replying to.
stay focused like that.. B^p
> Personally, I'm just calling you a hypocrite, and you keep proving
> it.
Chanting the same weak point over and over just doesn't
hack it though, you have failed to prove your case, Ralph ;-)
> >> 'All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.'
> >> - George Orwell, Animal Farm, 1945
> >
> >There was really no need to rub peoples noses in the fact
> >that the tory elite often go unpunished.
> >
>
> Keep trying to change the subject -
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I comment on your motto when you quote it at me, and
you accuse me of 'changing the subject'! B^D
No wonder you have such problems with common English words
having MORE THAN ONE MEANING! B^D
> but it's got nothing to do with
> "tory" - it's just me calling you a hypocrite.
>
> You want a lynch mob or a show trial -
Can you have both, Ralph... or are you just confused over
what it is you want to wrongfully accuse me of, today? B^p
> I say what about your core
> social values?.
I'm against theft and for due process..
there are two things we disagree on which we can discuss if you wish.
> If you wanna claim corruption by the police or public prosecution in
> Victoria - prove it.
Incitement to show trial? B^D
> But until charges are laid and evidence before the court,
Then I am as free as any citizen to discuss the facts of the
incident in a way which is honest, balanced and fair.
And robustly resist your attempts to stifle my protest.
And just as I can say, with your recent posts to substantiate my
claim, that you have slandered me, without needing a court
to determine if a *criminal offence* of slander has taken place
I have described Jeff's Art theft as theft, without needing
a court to pre-determine if a criminal offence has been
committed.
You can *utter* your inane misconceptions, but if you
are *convicted* of 'uttering', it is quite a different matter. B^o
If Jeff, or you or anyone wishes to contest my view...
take the 'tory tort' path.... sue me! B^D
> you are attempting to convict the man based on your
> precious newspapers
YOu are lying. I have, and have not sought,
any power, venue or mandate to *convict* the Art thief.
That is the States role.
I HAVE DONE NO MORE THAN YELL "STOP! THIEF!"
I repeat, if you claim i have broken the law, prosecute. ;-)
I have not even bent common social convention
and plain English language usage.
> (same as you did with gossip-column slur against
> Prince William).
Stop trying to change the subject Ralph! ;-)
Your dick is hanging out on this one! B^D
> So, tell us again about your core social values -
I don't believe someone should remove property worth $50,000
which does not belong to him. And you?
> clearly fair play and equality before the law don't apply.
No, I don't believe anyone should wrongfully remove property..
Why, did you get some too? B^D
It wouldn't surprise me, tories seem to regard taxpayer funds
as their personal slush fund to produce PR spin for their GST.
> >We know.
> >
>
> Yup we sure do.
Amen to that brother. ;-)
> Hypocrite.
I like your new sig, it is very apt for you.
Che Guava
ralph wrote:
"You did the same with Prince William - based on a gossip-column style
newspaper report about a so-called "friend" using drugs, you slurred
the man himself. Quite simply unbelievable - I don't care how
privileged he is - how can you decide he's an illegal drug user with
such flimsy evidence."
Simple, I never did, you are a liar.
You can find no words of mine claiming Prince William is an illegal drug user.
All this hypocrisy from you about 'fairness' and 'decency',
'core social values', show trials and 'convicting people without evidence'..
you demonstrate every one of these in your attempt to blacken me:
> <snip>
> On Fri, 03 Mar 2000 14:23:05 GMT, che_...@my-deja.com wrote:
> <snip>
> >
> >Don't you like plain speech?
> >
>
> DEFAMATION is your idea of plain speech?
lets see what your idea of defamation is, shall we?
> Tell us again about your CORE SOCIAL VALUES ;-)
I'll go one better, I'll DEMONSTRATE them:
First some definitions, and scene setting.
You claim I usurp the role of courts and declare people
convicted felons.. I claim you are illiterate:
> >Would you like to mince around like Bronwyn'Kero'Bishop?
> >
> >Or Rod'tolulene'Kemp?
> >
>
> You gonna start convicting others now? Thanks for proving my point.
This *is* your concept of 'criminal conviction' and 'defamation'...isn't it.
B^p
to either DESCRIBE or DISCUSS, is in your view to CONVICT in a star chamber!
> >> and leave the verdict
> >> to a court of law where it belongs.
> >> Convicting someone on newspaper
> >> reports is hardly justice, is it?
> >
> >Sure Ralph, aus.politics peoples soviet just took
> >comrade Jeff out and shot him! B^D
> >
>
> Tell us again about your CORE SOCIAL VALUES ;-)
So you have a problem with any middle path between silence
(your position) and vigilantism (your strawman's position)?
> >THIS IS POLITICAL THEATRE YOU MORON! NOT A COURTHOUSE!
> >
> So decency and fair play don't apply?
Well, *you* don't seem to display any, but you
have yet yo say, SPECIFICALLY, what I have said
which is unfair and indecent.
> Tell us again about your CORE SOCIAL VALUES ;-)
>
> HYPOCRITE.
>
> >WHEN CHILEANS STAND ON THE STREET CORNER AND SHOUT
> >
> >"DEATH TO THE BUTCHER.. PINOCHET, MURDERER!
> >
>
> Chile? Pinochet - thought we were talking Kennett and Prince William.
No, I was talking about Kennett, you tried to change the subject to
Prince Willy a few posts back, I ignored your ground shifting ;-)
(After all it is another thread, if you chose to debate, rather than
misrepresent it.) Of course, debating the real text, doesn't give you
the same freedom to misrepresent, does it now, Ralph Corevalues!? B^D
<snip>
As I said, Willy is another matter:
> >
> >Now this is another matter:
> >
> >>
> >> You did the same with Prince William -
> >
> >I most certainly did not!
> >
>
> The posts are there for all to decide.
Indeed! ..and your challenge is to produce a quote showing
where I called the Prince a drug taker, or else apologise for the
lie where you claimed I did:
"how can you decide he's an illegal drug user with
such flimsy evidence."
liar.
> >I have accused william of no more than consorting with known
> >hard drug takers, lacking judgement, and being a royal.
> >
>
> "known hard drug takers"?
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
How blithely you abandon your last unsubstantiated claim..
and invent a new complaint!
Now, you want me to *verify* all news reports before commenting! B^D
You grow more desperate by the minute:
> Based on a newspaper report?
So your beef is with NEWSCORP, ANN, The Age, BBC
and CNN... you just attack ME because of personal antipathy! B^D
I will take it as a compliment, your sense of humiliation and
embarrassment at being unable to support your lie.
> Was his "friend" convicted or even charged?
Don't you know the facts of the story?
Do you always fabricate lies about fellow members of the NG
whenever you are not in possession of the facts?
> Sorry, I didn't see the article
That much is apparent, but only irrelevant because you
want to lambast me for merely repeating it to others,
who unlike you may be interested in the NEWS! B^p
> but it sounded as if somebody saw a friend
> of the Prince using cocaine - hardly convincing
> that.
Stop guessing... as you have already admitted, you don't have a fucking clue,
but are quite willing to lie about my report which did!
AND TO TELL US WHY I SHOULDN'T HAVE
COMMENTED ON IT! (or perhaps even read it, Herr Ralph?)
> Sounds like Murdoch tabloid shit.
Which you haven't read! BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
*YOU* are the bloke who puffs his chest self-righteously about moral
values.. who pretends I have held a show trial because I dare to comment,
...and you judge without even a cursory familiarity with the facts!
WHAT A HYPOCRITE!
(It's all from your own mouth, ralph.. I don't have to invent as you do ;-)
> >> based on a gossip-column style
> >> newspaper report about a so-called "friend" using drugs, you slurred
> >> the man himself.
> >
> >By saying the simple truth, that he hangs with druggies?
> >
>
> SIMPLE TRUTH????
IS this the best you can do to try and paint me a liar?
Rhetorical questions disputing if the NEWSPAPER is accurate! B^D
Hey Ralph.... go tilt at some media windmills, you weak prick!
> YOU ARE CLAIMING SINCE IT WAS IN THE PAPER IT MUST
> BE TRUE?
I am claiming because it was in the paper, it can be commented on,
fairly and honestly, without you lying about what I said.
"how can you decide he's an illegal drug user with
such flimsy evidence."
How can you tell such a bare faced lie with NO EVIDENCE! ?
Any more exposed and you would get arrested, Ralph! B^D
What *IS* your problem?
You don't know the story!
You don't have any facts.
You don't like me.
So A comment on a newspaper story is a SLUR? B^D
Get a grip! Your partisan tory hatred has got the better of your judgement!
> YOU TRUST RUPERT MURDOCH 100% NOW DO YOU?
What has this latest red herring got to do with you
lying about what I said?
Why are you now assuming this story is the first?
Or the only one?
Or that Murdoch is the only source?
You are grasping! B^D
> >That his own security men are concerned he will be compromised?
> >
> >DO you, like Moss, approve of associating with criminals.
> >
>
> Which criminal? Was this "friend" convicted?
You don't know, do you Ralph? B^)
Care to go for deeper humiliation before being gutted? B^D
> Sorry I don't read the gossip columns - you'll have to give me more
> information.
I will not have to do anything of the sort! You lie about what I have already
told you! You will have to PROVE or apologise for:
"how can you decide he's an illegal drug user with
such flimsy evidence."
At the moment there is only ONE demonstrable lie on the table.. YOURS.
I have no intention of chasing NEW red herrings until YOU DEAL with
this blatant lie.
> Your initial article cut-and-paste on Prince William
> made it sound like nothing more than unsubstantiated rumour.
BWAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHA!
So now you start to back off and modify your claims to 'innuendo'
Nice backwards waltz you are dancing Ralph! B^D
> >Is that a necessary pre-requisite to be a tory Head of State?
> >
>
> Was this "friend" convicted?
Again you confuse my role with the courts. ;-)
Lets spell it out for you (again), Ralph.
A newspaper does NOT have to wait for a conviction to
describe someone as a drugtaker.
They just have to be sure of their facts!
If they aren't they get sued.
Now, which News stories to you have INDEPENDENTLY
INVESTIGATED before you read and discuss them?
Or are you capable, finally, of distinguishing between public
discussion and COURT PROCEEDINGS! B^D
MORON! B^p
Why do you hold ME responsible for a story, who's truth
you don't contest, while simultaneously telling a lie about
what i said in discussing it?
Hypocrite.
> >Why are millions of decent young Trueblue Australians not
> >good enough, but this Royal who is known for nothing but
> >having a famous mum, and hanging with drugtakers, is?
> >
>
> Che - the referendum was lost - so take the "head of state" issue up
> with the majority of Australians who voted against the republic.
So you have no reason why I shouldn't ask this perfectly reasonable
question; "Why are millions of decent young Trueblue Australians not
good enough, but this Royal who is known for nothing but
having a famous mum, and hanging with drugtakers, is?"
> Now, back to your allegations - can you confirm the newspaper report
> was accurate and on what basis?
Sure, they weren't sued. B^)
> Was/is the "friend" a convicted drug taker?
What is it with you and criminal convictions? B^)
Do you go around in judges robes and silk stockings or something? ;-)
You seem to think that 'drugtakers' means 'those convicted in a court'! B^D
Next you will be telling us other absurdities such as 'There are only
as many thieves as there are convicted felons" or "All paedophiles
have criminal records" ...
YOU SHOULD GET OUT MORE! B^D
<snip>
> >> Quite simply unbelievable -
> >
> >yes, what you write below IS unbelievable.. A COMPLETE FABRICATION!
> >
>
> What was fabricated? Do you deny you labeled Kennett a thief?
Nup (See "What is theft. Ask Proudhon, not Ralph" ;-)
> Do you deny you implied that Prince William consorts with drug users?
Nup.
Is that the COMPLETE FABRICATION which YOU write below?
Nup.
<Snip>
THIS IS THE COMPLETE FABRICATION YOU WRITE:
> >> how can you decide he's an illegal drug user with
> >> such flimsy evidence.
> >
> >So it seems after all the prissy moralising and self-
> >righteous breast beating you will do EXACTLY what
> >you accused me of doing, only you do it with NO
> >supporting evidence.
I'm still waiting, Ralph... for your evidence...
It's not MURDOCH spreading rumour.. IT'S YOU!
Please quote where I decided
"he's an illegal drug user with such flimsy evidence."?? B^p
Make it easy on yourself, just quote where I 'claimed'
he was a drug user, AT ALL???? B^P
> >
> >I did not decide William was an illegal drug user.
> >
>
> Was this "friend" convicted or even charged?
So, you concede that you lied above, I *DID NOT*
claim, or even imply Willy snorts coke!
I guess that is the closest I will get to a backdown from you!
But your counter charge is PRICELESS!
Are you now proposing that I can only comment on NEWS
which has resulted in a criminal conviction! B^D
Have you lost your senses!
AUS.POLITICS would cease to exist as we know it.
Your closest fascism is showing, Mr Alston.
> >Not only have you found me guilty of such libel
> >WITHOUT A TRIAL, but YOU have done so without facts.
> >
> >rank hypocrisy!
THE POINT IS YOU DON'T CONVICT SOMEONE BASED ON
AN ITEM YOU HAVE INVENTED.
Do you Ralph?
> >
> >>
> >> These posts show what a load of horseshit your so-called "core social
> >> values" are.
> >
> >Like SSchleppo, we can't rely on your bent ruler to measure
> >straightness.
> >
That
>
>
>
>
> Tell us again about your CORE SOCIAL VALUES ;-)
>
> >
> >> You display a lack of decency and equality more
> >> reminiscent of some of the vile racists and homophobes
> >> who post in this group.
> >
> >And you say that because I call a man with stolen property
> >a thief, and someone who consorts with drug takers
> >a consorter... WELL DONE JUDGE JUDY! B^D
> >
>
> THE POINT IS YOU DON'T CONVICT SOMEONE BASED ON AN ITEM IN THE
> NEWSPAPER.
Just WHAT does this mean, Ralph?
That if newspapers report the Prince consorts with drug-takers,
*I* am not allowed to say the Prince consorts with drug takers? B^p
Despite your slander, you CAN'T show *me* saying he WAS ONE! B^D
By what rule can we not comment on the news,
but you can lie and say I called him a coke shorter?
Get a grip, you fascist!
You might like to suck Royals, I won't be gagged! B^p
Che
-----
"You did the same with Prince William - based on a gossip-column style
newspaper report about a so-called "friend" using drugs, you slurred
the man himself. Quite simply unbelievable - I don't care how
privileged he is - how can you decide he's an illegal drug user with
such flimsy evidence." - Ralph, dissembler.
Yep, you are quite simply unbelievable!
Seppo Renfors
che_...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> this is what was achieved with some ruthless,
> but legitimate AND TRANSPARENTLY ACKNOWLEDGED,
> Snipping:
>
> Seppo Renfors wrote:
>
> <Snip pre-epiphany>
The following was written by Che, and sounds very much like a
CONFESSION when placed in the RIGHT position:
"Now that is deliberate DOCTORING so that my response now indicates
concurrence with a *totally false statement*."
>
> > You are INCREDIBLE! A MASTER
>
> Thanks SSchleppo! I know. *8^)
>
> <snip post-epiphany>
>
> hold that thought. ;-)
>
> As is traditional in responding to a post, I took
> EXACTLY THOSE WORDS OF MY OPPONENT WHICH BEST
> PROVED MY POINT, AND SHOWCASED HIS LEADEN SARCASM.
....and EDITED IT TO MEAN THE OPPOSITE from that stated!
>
> A small witticism on my part, but not at all invalid.
A highlight of the LENGTHS you go to....
>
> Compare it to this text, which has been clearly DOCTORED
> to add two words to the INDENTED TEXT! Attempting
> to escape his embarassment by RE-WRITING HISTORY!
DOCTORED!!! You hypocrite! The text was merely RESTORED to what it
was, FROM YOUR ALTERATIONS OF IT! It now has the ORIGINAL INTENDED
meaning, that YOU ORIGINALLY DOCTORED, so don't come the raw prawn
with ME on that one!
>
> In article <38BFA4E1...@adelaide.on.net>,
> Seppo Renfors <sren...@adelaide.on.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Che Guava wrote:
> > >
> > > Seppo Renfors wrote:
> > >
> > > <Snip pre-epiphany>
> > >
> > > > You are INCREDIBLE! A MASTER BULLSHIT ARTIST!
> > >
> > > Thanks SSchleppo! I know. *8^)
> >
>
> Now that is deliberate DOCTORING so that my response
> now indicates concurrence with a *totally false statement*.
...which is an ADMISSION BY YOU, that YOU ORIGINALLY CHANGED the
meaning to the OPPOSITE from what I WROTE. I'll take that as a
confession of your hypocrisy!
> It appears you do not understand the difference between
> cleverness to make your opponent look stupid, and fraud
> which pretends he was. B^p
DITTO DITTO!!
>
> Not only bad sportsmanship, but it gives the lie to all
> your prissy posturing about protecting the good name of
> a common thief.. clearly you do so BECAUSE you are a fraud.
DITTO DITTO!!
>
> > ...oh and good at altering peoples posts to mean the opposite from
> > what was actually said too.
>
> You are both a humourless, false, and a witless boor.
...and YOU GOT CAUGHT with your pants down!
>
> The snips are clearly indicated:
But ONLY before and AFTER the ALTERED TEXT, does NOT SHOW you altered
the text!
> > >
> > > <snip post-epiphany>
If you were entirely honest in showing the alterations your should
have done as follows:
You are INCREDIBLE! A MASTER [snip]
..but then that way you couldn't pat yourself toll you had a sore arm
and sore back, could you.
> Honour is satisfied! B^D
Errr.... Che you must first HAVE some for it to be satisfied!!
>
> Call your nanny! B^p
>
> > > hold that thought. ;-)
> >
> > ... I never had the thought you achieved by "judicious" editing, in
> > the first place!!
>
> If you want to claim your words flow without thought, you
> will get no argument from me! B^D
>
> But the words are clearly YOURS. ;-)
No they are NOT. I do NOT OWN WORDS. I own the meaning of the words. A
subtlety that you will no doubt fail to grasp.
>
> *YOU* CALLED ME INCREDIBLE, YOUR *exact* words
No, I believe you actually typed them, therefor NOT MY WORDS. It lacks
the essence if them BEING my words. It lacks THE MEANING I achieved
with them.
> are shown in my post, in your fraudulent post words are added!
YOU EDIT MY POST to mean the OPPOSITE, and you have the audacity to
call ME "fraudulent" for RESTORING MY OWN TEXT (the meaning), from
YOUR FRAUDULENT TEXT!
>
> They were "You are incredible"
>
> Now, as to what you MEANT!
>
> well, frankly... WHO GIVES A TOSS! B^D
Oh well, it was useful for getting even MORE egg on your face :-)
Chris Lumb
an even bigger arsehole than Kennett, we've just had Clean-up-Australia
day, Kennett for once has done something to clean up Aus by removing
Bolte's picture honestly or not, who cares!?
ralph
Mr "Core Social Values" show just how human he is by attempting to lie
his way out of a spot of bother - trouble is, his posts are available
for anyone to read what he said.
Personally, I couldn't care much more about the Royal Family than I
do Simon Crean or Cheryl Kernot - but regardless of my personal
opinion, I wouldn't slur *any* of them based on gossip column shit.
You preach to us about core values - but you clearly imply that
"Willy" takes drugs (see below for your EXACT quotes), and now you
have the nerve to say you never did! That makes you both a liar and a
hypocrite.
This NG is used to the unethical behaviour from the racists and
homophobes - but to see you sink to that level in "Future Head of
State's coke sniffing courtiers" and now this followup is ironic, to
say the least.
And you dare preach to us about core values?
On Sun, 05 Mar 2000 20:21:49 +1100, Che Guava <che_...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
>Executive summary for the busy NG reader:
>
>ralph wrote:
>
>"You did the same with Prince William - based on a gossip-column style
>newspaper report about a so-called "friend" using drugs, you slurred
>the man himself. Quite simply unbelievable - I don't care how
>privileged he is - how can you decide he's an illegal drug user with
>such flimsy evidence."
>
>Simple, I never did, you are a liar.
>You can find no words of mine claiming Prince William is an illegal drug user.
>
CHE WROTE IN "Future Head of State's coke sniffing courtiers":
"One of the wonderful things about a hereditary head of state
is that you get to see what you are in for well in advance.
Rich aristo brats with a long training in snobbery, protocol,
sex and drugs... that's what our nation needs as role models
for the young:"
WHAT THE FUCK DOES THAT SAY - WHICH HEREDITARY HEAD OF STATE ARE YOU
REFERRING TO IF NOT PRINCE WILLIAM?
AND
"Dad wants to be a tampon, Willy wants to be a nose plug.."
OH DEAR - AND WHAT DOES THAT IMPLY?
AND
"It is obvious our Aussie kids lack the right stuff to be our
Head of State.. some of them don't even take drugs, ..."
WOOHOO! JACKPOT!
READ IT AND WEEP, LIAR. YOUR ACCUSATION IS CLEAR AS DAY.
WANNA TRY TO BACKTRACK SOME MORE?
>All this hypocrisy from you about 'fairness' and 'decency',
>'core social values', show trials and 'convicting people without evidence'..
>
>you demonstrate every one of these in your attempt to blacken me:
>
See above. Keep backtracking.
>
>> <snip>
>
>> On Fri, 03 Mar 2000 14:23:05 GMT, che_...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> <snip>
>> >
>> >Don't you like plain speech?
>> >
>>
>> DEFAMATION is your idea of plain speech?
>
>lets see what your idea of defamation is, shall we?
>
>> Tell us again about your CORE SOCIAL VALUES ;-)
>
>I'll go one better, I'll DEMONSTRATE them:
>
>First some definitions, and scene setting.
No need - just go back to your original post.
>You claim I usurp the role of courts and declare people
>convicted felons.. I claim you are illiterate:
>
"ART THIEF" SAID IT ALL. And your Prince William quotes above are
pretty fucking clear.
>> >Would you like to mince around like Bronwyn'Kero'Bishop?
>> >
>> >Or Rod'tolulene'Kemp?
>> >
>>
>> You gonna start convicting others now? Thanks for proving my point.
>
>This *is* your concept of 'criminal conviction' and 'defamation'...isn't it.
>B^p
>
>to either DESCRIBE or DISCUSS, is in your view to CONVICT in a star chamber!
>
OR JUST GOOD OLE DEFAMATION.
Tell us again about your core social values.
>
>> >> and leave the verdict
>> >> to a court of law where it belongs.
>> >> Convicting someone on newspaper
>> >> reports is hardly justice, is it?
>> >
>> >Sure Ralph, aus.politics peoples soviet just took
>> >comrade Jeff out and shot him! B^D
>> >
>>
>> Tell us again about your CORE SOCIAL VALUES ;-)
>
>So you have a problem with any middle path between silence
>(your position) and vigilantism (your strawman's position)?
>
AND WE KNOW EXACTLY WHICH PATH YOU ARE ON.
>> >THIS IS POLITICAL THEATRE YOU MORON! NOT A COURTHOUSE!
So rules of decency don't apply? Do the words "Honesty" and "Courtesy"
ring a bell?
Core Values I think you called them?
HYPOCRITE.
>> >
>> So decency and fair play don't apply?
>
>Well, *you* don't seem to display any, but you
>have yet yo say, SPECIFICALLY, what I have said
>which is unfair and indecent.
>
>> Tell us again about your CORE SOCIAL VALUES ;-)
>>
>> HYPOCRITE.
>>
>> >WHEN CHILEANS STAND ON THE STREET CORNER AND SHOUT
>> >
>> >"DEATH TO THE BUTCHER.. PINOCHET, MURDERER!
>> >
>>
>> Chile? Pinochet - thought we were talking Kennett and Prince William.
>
>No, I was talking about Kennett, you tried to change the subject to
>Prince Willy a few posts back, I ignored your ground shifting ;-)
>(After all it is another thread, if you chose to debate, rather than
>misrepresent it.) Of course, debating the real text, doesn't give you
>the same freedom to misrepresent, does it now, Ralph Corevalues!? B^D
>
><snip>
>
But I don't mouth hypocrisy about core values - you do.
I don't accuse people of corruption, drug taking, theft, etc based on
nothing more than today's gossip column, or even based on my own
dislike of that person.
THAT IS NOT HONEST OR COURTEOUS ;-)
>As I said, Willy is another matter:
>
>> >
>> >Now this is another matter:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> You did the same with Prince William -
>> >
>> >I most certainly did not!
>> >
>>
>> The posts are there for all to decide.
>
>Indeed! ..and your challenge is to produce a quote showing
>where I called the Prince a drug taker, or else apologise for the
>lie where you claimed I did:
>
CHE WROTE...
"It is obvious our Aussie kids lack the right stuff to be our
Head of State.. some of them don't even take drugs, ..."
WANNA CLAIM THIS ISN'T ENGLISH NOW???
CAUSE OTHERWISE IT SHOWS WHO THE LIAR IS.
>"how can you decide he's an illegal drug user with
>such flimsy evidence."
>
>liar.
>
See above - your own post is there for anyone to read.
>> >I have accused william of no more than consorting with known
>> >hard drug takers, lacking judgement, and being a royal.
>> >
>>
>> "known hard drug takers"?
>
>BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>
>How blithely you abandon your last unsubstantiated claim..
>and invent a new complaint!
>
See above.
>Now, you want me to *verify* all news reports before commenting! B^D
>
LOL - ohhhhhhhhhhhh - "aus.politics.gossip" is it ;-)
Tell us again about your core social values.
>You grow more desperate by the minute:
>
>> Based on a newspaper report?
>
>So your beef is with NEWSCORP, ANN, The Age, BBC
>and CNN... you just attack ME because of personal antipathy! B^D
>
Yeah but only to point out what a hypocrite you are.
>I will take it as a compliment, your sense of humiliation and
>embarrassment at being unable to support your lie.
>
See above. Your own words are there for anyone to read.
>> Was his "friend" convicted or even charged?
>
>Don't you know the facts of the story?
>Do you always fabricate lies about fellow members of the NG
>whenever you are not in possession of the facts?
>
See above.
>> Sorry, I didn't see the article
>
>That much is apparent, but only irrelevant because you
>want to lambast me for merely repeating it to others,
>who unlike you may be interested in the NEWS! B^p
>
NEWS???? This story is NEWS???? A "friend" of a royal is alleged to
have taken drugs - and this is news worthy of aus.politics.
MOREOVER, YOU CLEARLY STATE THAT "THE HEREDITARY HEAD OF STATE" TAKES
DRUGS. TELL US *WHICH* PERSON YOU WERE REFERRING TO IF NOT PRINCE
WILLIAM?
>> but it sounded as if somebody saw a friend
>> of the Prince using cocaine - hardly convincing
>> that.
>
>Stop guessing... as you have already admitted, you don't have a fucking clue,
>but are quite willing to lie about my report which did!
>AND TO TELL US WHY I SHOULDN'T HAVE
>COMMENTED ON IT! (or perhaps even read it, Herr Ralph?)
>
Ok - well as long as we agree what you said now.
>> Sounds like Murdoch tabloid shit.
>
>Which you haven't read! BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>
>*YOU* are the bloke who puffs his chest self-righteously about moral
>values.. who pretends I have held a show trial because I dare to comment,
>
See above.
>...and you judge without even a cursory familiarity with the facts!
>
>WHAT A HYPOCRITE!
>
Wasn't me spouting "core social values" horseshit and then posting
gossip column crap and CLEARLY implying the Prince takes drugs based
on that flimsy shite.
>
>(It's all from your own mouth, ralph.. I don't have to invent as you do ;-)
>
>> >> based on a gossip-column style
>> >> newspaper report about a so-called "friend" using drugs, you slurred
>> >> the man himself.
>> >
>> >By saying the simple truth, that he hangs with druggies?
>> >
>>
>> SIMPLE TRUTH????
>
>IS this the best you can do to try and paint me a liar?
See above - you painted yourself one again.
>Rhetorical questions disputing if the NEWSPAPER is accurate! B^D
>
See above - is the friend charged and convicted?
>Hey Ralph.... go tilt at some media windmills, you weak prick!
>
>> YOU ARE CLAIMING SINCE IT WAS IN THE PAPER IT MUST
>> BE TRUE?
>
>I am claiming because it was in the paper, it can be commented on,
>fairly and honestly, without you lying about what I said.
>
>"how can you decide he's an illegal drug user with
>such flimsy evidence."
>
>How can you tell such a bare faced lie with NO EVIDENCE! ?
>
>Any more exposed and you would get arrested, Ralph! B^D
>
>What *IS* your problem?
>You don't know the story!
>You don't have any facts.
>You don't like me.
>So A comment on a newspaper story is a SLUR? B^D
>
>Get a grip! Your partisan tory hatred has got the better of your judgement!
>
>> YOU TRUST RUPERT MURDOCH 100% NOW DO YOU?
>
>What has this latest red herring got to do with you
>lying about what I said?
>
See above - your own words prove who is lying.
>Why are you now assuming this story is the first?
>Or the only one?
>Or that Murdoch is the only source?
>
>You are grasping! B^D
>
See above - you accused him of drug taking.
>> >That his own security men are concerned he will be compromised?
>> >
>> >DO you, like Moss, approve of associating with criminals.
>> >
>>
>> Which criminal? Was this "friend" convicted?
>
>You don't know, do you Ralph? B^)
>
Tell us.
>Care to go for deeper humiliation before being gutted? B^D
>
>> Sorry I don't read the gossip columns - you'll have to give me more
>> information.
>
>I will not have to do anything of the sort! You lie about what I have already
>told you! You will have to PROVE or apologise for:
>
>"how can you decide he's an illegal drug user with
>such flimsy evidence."
>
See above.
>At the moment there is only ONE demonstrable lie on the table.. YOURS.
>
>I have no intention of chasing NEW red herrings until YOU DEAL with
>this blatant lie.
>
See above - I think I have demonstrated quite clearly who lied.
>> Your initial article cut-and-paste on Prince William
>> made it sound like nothing more than unsubstantiated rumour.
>
>BWAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHA!
>So now you start to back off and modify your claims to 'innuendo'
>
>Nice backwards waltz you are dancing Ralph! B^D
>
See above.
>> >Is that a necessary pre-requisite to be a tory Head of State?
>> >
>>
>> Was this "friend" convicted?
>
>Again you confuse my role with the courts. ;-)
>
Not me who is making these absurd posts to begin with.
>Lets spell it out for you (again), Ralph.
>
>A newspaper does NOT have to wait for a conviction to
>describe someone as a drugtaker.
>They just have to be sure of their facts!
>
>If they aren't they get sued.
>
Oh do they? Just like art thiefs get charged no doubt. Make up your
fucking mind - is the justice system perfect or not?
;-)
>Now, which News stories to you have INDEPENDENTLY
>INVESTIGATED before you read and discuss them?
>
>Or are you capable, finally, of distinguishing between public
>discussion and COURT PROCEEDINGS! B^D
>
>MORON! B^p
>
See above, liar.
>Why do you hold ME responsible for a story, who's truth
>you don't contest, while simultaneously telling a lie about
>what i said in discussing it?
>
>Hypocrite.
>
See above liar.
Tell us again about your core social values.
>> >Why are millions of decent young Trueblue Australians not
>> >good enough, but this Royal who is known for nothing but
>> >having a famous mum, and hanging with drugtakers, is?
>> >
>>
>> Che - the referendum was lost - so take the "head of state" issue up
>> with the majority of Australians who voted against the republic.
>
>So you have no reason why I shouldn't ask this perfectly reasonable
>question; "Why are millions of decent young Trueblue Australians not
>good enough, but this Royal who is known for nothing but
>having a famous mum, and hanging with drugtakers, is?"
>
WHOOPS "HANGING WITH DRUGTAKERS"???
HEY LIAR - GO BACK AND READ YOUR ORIGINAL POST
Che wrote...
"It is obvious our Aussie kids lack the right stuff to be our
Head of State.. some of them don't even take drugs, ..."
>> Now, back to your allegations - can you confirm the newspaper report
>> was accurate and on what basis?
>
>Sure, they weren't sued. B^)
>
Hmm - so if Kennett wasn't charged - do you agree he is innocent of
any wrongdoing?
Whoops! Care to rephrase this?
>> Was/is the "friend" a convicted drug taker?
>
>What is it with you and criminal convictions? B^)
>Do you go around in judges robes and silk stockings or something? ;-)
>You seem to think that 'drugtakers' means 'those convicted in a court'! B^D
>
YOU SEEM TO BE A COMPLETE FUCKING HYPOCRITE - TELL US AGAIN ABOUT YOUR
CORE SOCIAL VALUES THEN - IF YOU THINK HURLING SLANDER AND INNUENDO IS
ACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOUR?
>Next you will be telling us other absurdities such as 'There are only
>as many thieves as there are convicted felons" or "All paedophiles
>have criminal records" ...
>
But would you accuse someone of being a paodophile prior to a
conviction?
Well - you would obviously - but I would tend to let the courts do
what the courts are there for.
>YOU SHOULD GET OUT MORE! B^D
>
Tell us again about your core social values.
><snip>
>
>> >> Quite simply unbelievable -
>> >
>> >yes, what you write below IS unbelievable.. A COMPLETE FABRICATION!
>> >
>>
>> What was fabricated? Do you deny you labeled Kennett a thief?
>
>Nup (See "What is theft. Ask Proudhon, not Ralph" ;-)
>
>> Do you deny you implied that Prince William consorts with drug users?
>
>Nup.
>
>Is that the COMPLETE FABRICATION which YOU write below?
>
>Nup.
>
><Snip>
>
>THIS IS THE COMPLETE FABRICATION YOU WRITE:
>
>> >> how can you decide he's an illegal drug user with
>> >> such flimsy evidence.
>> >
>> >So it seems after all the prissy moralising and self-
>> >righteous breast beating you will do EXACTLY what
>> >you accused me of doing, only you do it with NO
>> >supporting evidence.
>
>I'm still waiting, Ralph... for your evidence...
>It's not MURDOCH spreading rumour.. IT'S YOU!
>
See above - liar.
>Please quote where I decided
>"he's an illegal drug user with such flimsy evidence."?? B^p
>
>Make it easy on yourself, just quote where I 'claimed'
>he was a drug user, AT ALL???? B^P
>
>> >
>> >I did not decide William was an illegal drug user.
>> >
>>
>> Was this "friend" convicted or even charged?
>
>So, you concede that you lied above, I *DID NOT*
>claim, or even imply Willy snorts coke!
>
LIAR! WHAT THE FUCK DOES THE FOLLOWING QUOTE IMPLY THEN?
Che wrote...
"It is obvious our Aussie kids lack the right stuff to be our
Head of State.. some of them don't even take drugs, ..."
How fucking obvious could you be? Wanna backtrack more now?
>I guess that is the closest I will get to a backdown from you!
>
>But your counter charge is PRICELESS!
>
>Are you now proposing that I can only comment on NEWS
>which has resulted in a criminal conviction! B^D
>
No - by all means stick to gossip columns.
Tell us again about your core social values.
>Have you lost your senses!
>
>AUS.POLITICS would cease to exist as we know it.
>
>Your closest fascism is showing, Mr Alston.
>
>> >Not only have you found me guilty of such libel
>> >WITHOUT A TRIAL, but YOU have done so without facts.
>> >
>> >rank hypocrisy!
>
>THE POINT IS YOU DON'T CONVICT SOMEONE BASED ON
>AN ITEM YOU HAVE INVENTED.
>
See above.
>Do you Ralph?
>
Nope.
Che wrote...
"It is obvious our Aussie kids lack the right stuff to be our
Head of State.. some of them don't even take drugs, ..."
How fucking obvious could you be?
>> >
>> >>
>> >> These posts show what a load of horseshit your so-called "core social
>> >> values" are.
>> >
>> >Like SSchleppo, we can't rely on your bent ruler to measure
>> >straightness.
>> >
>
>That
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Tell us again about your CORE SOCIAL VALUES ;-)
>>
>> >
>> >> You display a lack of decency and equality more
>> >> reminiscent of some of the vile racists and homophobes
>> >> who post in this group.
>> >
>> >And you say that because I call a man with stolen property
>> >a thief, and someone who consorts with drug takers
>> >a consorter... WELL DONE JUDGE JUDY! B^D
>> >
>>
>> THE POINT IS YOU DON'T CONVICT SOMEONE BASED ON AN ITEM IN THE
>> NEWSPAPER.
>
>Just WHAT does this mean, Ralph?
>That if newspapers report the Prince consorts with drug-takers,
>*I* am not allowed to say the Prince consorts with drug takers? B^p
>
Liar.
Che wrote...
"It is obvious our Aussie kids lack the right stuff to be our
Head of State.. some of them don't even take drugs, ..."
>Despite your slander, you CAN'T show *me* saying he WAS ONE! B^D
>
Liar - see above.
>By what rule can we not comment on the news,
>but you can lie and say I called him a coke shorter?
>
>Get a grip, you fascist!
WOOHOO!
When all else fails, throw in the fascist label.
Getting desperate Che? Your own lies are there for all to read.
>You might like to suck Royals, I won't be gagged! B^p
>
I'm sure you won't - you gotta be more adept at cocksucking then you
are at lying - I mean when your own post is there for all to read!
And What is it with you and soupnazi's latest preoccupation with
fellatio? Easier for you than debating economic or ethics eh?
Personally, the only thing I'm gagging on is your blatant hypocrisy.
>Che
>-----
>
>"You did the same with Prince William - based on a gossip-column style
>newspaper report about a so-called "friend" using drugs, you slurred
>the man himself. Quite simply unbelievable - I don't care how
>privileged he is - how can you decide he's an illegal drug user with
>such flimsy evidence." - Ralph, dissembler.
>
>Yep, you are quite simply unbelievable!
>
CHE WROTE...
"One of the wonderful things about a hereditary head of state
is that you get to see what you are in for well in advance.
Rich aristo brats with a long training in snobbery, protocol,
sex and drugs... that's what our nation needs as role models
for the young:"
AND
"Dad wants to be a tampon, Willy wants to be a nose plug.."
AND
"It is obvious our Aussie kids lack the right stuff to be our
Head of State.. some of them don't even take drugs, ..."
YOUR WORDS ARE THERE FOR ALL TO READ.
BUT YOU NEVER CLAIMED PRINCE WILLIAM TOOK DRUGS????
NOW - TELL US AGAIN ABOUT "HONESTY" AND "COURTESY" ;-)
Che Guava
SSchleppo, I am sure that as one previously insisting that a private civil
action is the only way to proceed, your current decision to debate the
issues is merely a ploy to enable your mate Ralph to further attack me
for "convicting" Lightfingers.
So let me make quite clear (Legal disclaimer ;-) I have no authority to
*prosecute* the tory art thief.. BUT EVERY RIGHT TO DISCUSS
HIS ROLE IN THE RECENT ART THEFT! B^D
Your assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated..
(I think Ralph has retired, hurt.. ;-)
Che Guava wrote:
> >
> > Seppo Renfors wrote:
> >
> > > Che Guava wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Jeff Kennett should have been charged with the theft and
> > > > illegal possession of a $50,000 painting belonging to the
> > > > Victorian people.
> > >
> > > WAS it "illegal possession"? My understanding was that it was ON LOAN,
> > > and the museum LOST IT.
> >
> > Nope, they signed it over to a Kennett Staffer!
>
> So it was NOT JEFF KENNET! OK we got that!
That signed for the painting on handover from the NGV?
Of course not, you nutter.. THAT WAS NOT THE THEFT! B^D
(Besides, when does a boss cocky ever do any manual work? B^p )
What that DOES mean is that Kennetts staff, (responsible to 'guess who'? ;-)
were fully, and frequently, aware of WHO THE PAINTING ACTUALLY
BELONGED TO! B^)
And any story of an 'anonymous donor' who 'gifted' it to Jeff is just so
much eyewash. B^p
Thanks for allowing me to point that out. B^D
> > The agreement was signed every year for $280,000 of art works
> > to hang in government buildings. All governments do this.
>
> There for every government is in the same boat as Jeff Kennett.
ARE YOU A TOTAL FUCKIN LOONEY?
Yes, all governments display public artwork, on loan from State galleries,
in government offices.... ONLY JEFF TAKES IT HOME! B^D B^D
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to point that out! B^D
> >
> > What DOESN'T happen, is that MPs don't usually 'accidentally'
> > take the paintings off the wall, 'accidentally' pack them up and
> > 'accidentally' remove them to their private home, or 'accidentally' hang them
> > on their own wall!
>
> .... err could it just have been one of his STAFFERS again who did the
> packing, hmmm?
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
And JEFF just never noticed it unpacked and hung over the mantle at home?
GET A GRIP! B^D B^D B^D
Have you increased your dose of stupid pills since last we spoke? B^p
> Are you ABSOLUTELY 100% SURe that it was KENNETT
> personally as you accuse above?
Yup, *HE* returned the painting, from his private home, to which
it had been wrongfully removed. How exactly do you see him *out*
of the picture?.. (Tales involving faeries or alien anal probes will be
disallowed B^D )
> >
> > > (They didn't know of its whereabouts).
> >
> > Sure they did, signed over to Kennett's staffers!
>
> What were they looking for it, for then if they KNEW where it was??
Kennetts staffers *weren't*!!!!!! Like Kennet, they were schtum!
The gallery staff, (the same ones who seem slow to lay charges...)
seemed intimidated by the Big Man, and for months don't even seem
to have been able to ask if he knew anything about it! B^p
For Victorians, well used to the climate of fear and intimidation Jeff
fostered among, his complete corruption of an independent PUBLIC
SERVICE into a corporatised extension of the executive... this
quisling performance is NO SURPRISE!
Apparently, only the spreading rumours led them to finally act,
because (as Bronwyn'Kero'Bishopgate and Rod'Toluene'Kemp
demonstrate) tory minions only act when threat of public exposure is imminent.
> Must have been with "Kennett's staffers" as that is who signed for it,
> right?
> >
> > What do you understand by the term RESPONSIBILITY
> > for tens of thousands of dollars of public property!?
>
> Good question! Pity you have made no attempts to ANSWER it. Obviously
> as you HAVE no answer. Don't you think the Gallery should have KNOWN
> where it was?
Sure.. it was in the care and custody of Kennetts office.
Legal documents clearly establish that.
> Why wasn't the painting ID'd with the required labelling?
What 'required labeling'? "DO NOT STEAL" stickers?? B^D
> >
> > > Jeff's excuse was a bit lame
> >
> > BWAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
> >
> > A BIT LAME! B^D B^D
>
> BTW Who exactly was it again who said: "I do not clutter the post with
> irrelevant dross, although I note that is one of your favoured
> techniques, attempting to blunt or bury a telling point, by burying it
> in a mountain of verbiage!", Hmmmm That WAS you wasn't it?
So what "TELLING POINT" are you claiming I 'buried' here, Lame-O?
This one?:
"Jeff's excuse was a bit lame" - SSchleppo
There, consider it *dug out* and showcased! B^D B^D
And what a "telling' point it is... for the PROSECUTION!
Great "own-goal", dumkopf! B^D
> > Listen, you drongo, there is a video of him standing
> > in front of the painting, before he liberated it from the
> > government office, telling schoolchildren *exactly*
> > what the NGV had said about it being stored:
> >
> > "it was hidden away, no one knew it existed"
> > -Jeff Kennett, Video evidence! [Herald sun 2/3/00]
>
> Again a quote out of its context and therefor meaningless.
Really? Then read the WHOLE article and tell us the construction
which you believe DIFFERS from the one I have presented..
Consider that a gweat big nasty gawntlett! ;-) Slappo, SSchleppo!
(I actually know the answer, but your persistant rudeness, and petty
complaints about having information from newspapers presented to
you, leads me to say..... GO FETCH! B^D B^D B^D
> >
> > remember this is the bloke who claimed it was 'given'
> > to him by an anonymous donor!
Ah, there's the rub, eh, SSChleppo... a painting which 'no one knew
existed', which was hidden away in NGV basements could hardly be
'gifted' from 'an owner'. Especially when his office signed for it EVERY
YEAR it was on loan! B^p
We have the 'Smoking gun' for "Boltegate" ;-)
You tory apologists seem so bent on sucking members,
there is obviously a competition for who's to be "Deep Throat" B^D
> >
> > LET A JURY OF HIS PEERS DECIDE ON THE
> > BASIS OF REASONABLE DOUBT!
That's really all we want isn't it SSChleppo.. a FAIR TRIAL!
> >
> > > but because of it
> > > being so damned lame it is likely to be true.
> >
> > Your stupidity never ceases to amaze!
> >
>
> BTW Who exactly was it again who said: "I do not clutter the post with
> irrelevant dross, although I note that is one of your favoured
> techniques, attempting to blunt or bury a telling point, by burying it
> in a mountain of verbiage!", Hmmmm That WAS you wasn't it?
I wrote one line, you have just repeated four, ineptly and inappropriately.
I'll leave it to the reader to showcase your tellingly stupid point for themselves!
;-)
> > >
> > > >
> > > > And it's not as if this is a first offence, either.
> > >
> > > Prove you are not telling a LIE by quoting the Court cases where he
> > > has been found GUILTY of an offences!!
> >
> > That's a *conviction*, dummy.
>
> Pssst... If I was you, *I* wouldn't be so quick to show my ignorance!
I am always quick to show your ignorance. B^)
That's because there is so much of it I have to maintain a high turnover
exposing it. B^D
>
> To be able to say he has committed an "offence" in the legal sense as
> you state, there HAS TO BE a conviction, you bloody big dummy!
Ridiculous, one can have committed an offence without being charged,
and MUST be charged before being convicted. You are talking Shite again! B^D
> Other wise at best you can say it is an ALLEGED offence, but it has to have
> been ALLEGED first by other than yourself!
>
> > Like now, those who are soft on criminals, like you and
> > the other tory apologists, will ensure he doesn't even
> > get charged, let alone come to trial!
>
> This is merely demonstrating your IGNORANCE OF LAW!
Nah, just awareness of the alibis which the ruling elite provide each other.
> >
> > > >
> > > > He was previously found in possession of a government
> > > > owned exercise bike, and had fraudulently misused a
> > > > government credit card, for personal purposes.
> > >
> > > So where are the COURT CASES that PROVES YOUR CLAIMS,
> >
> > Like his famous assault, captured on film, the facts are not in dispute,
> > even by Jeff.
> > He just has 'excuses', appointed all the law officers, and muzzled the rest.
>
> Was he ever convicted? BTW PROVE the false allegation you now make!
> Come on, back up your claims!
There is video evidence of his assault on a TV camera crew.
With about 18 million witnesses. B^D
What do you call it?
An offence against persons, more serious than, say, stealing texta's.
But of course, at the time he had knobbled the DPP, removed
the common law process for individual initiation of prosecutions, and
the chief law officer of the state shared his Gran Prix box! B^p
> >
> > > or do you go about defaming "tory" politicians for sport?
>
> BTW Who exactly was it again who said: "I do not clutter the post with
> irrelevant dross, although I note that is one of your favoured
> techniques, attempting to blunt or bury a telling point, by burying it
> in a mountain of verbiage!", Hmmmm That WAS you wasn't it?
THAT'S *YOU* WHO YOU ARE burying in verbiage, you cretin! B^D
> >
> > It's the only form of justice when you are all soft on crime.
> >
> > > >
> > > > Three strikes and he should be jailed, according to Dave Moss
> > > > John Howard, and dozens of other tory hard-liners! ;-)
> > > >
> > > > Why isn't he even charged?
> > > >
> > > > He isn't black, and he's a tory. B^p
> > >
> > > ...and you don't tell the TRUTH!
> >
> > > [snip]
"The National Gallery of Victoria yesterday retrieved a portrait
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! B^D
IT'S CALLED *STEALING*
home a $50,000 painting belonging to your employer!
>
> >
> > I tell the truth, but you snip it!
>
> There is PRECIOUS LITTLE in anything I have seen and then you FAIL to
> proved PROOF when asked!
This isn't a court... have a word with Ralph! ;-)
> Oh, and if I want to read a paper I'll
> purchase my own,
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Except if there is a bit more of a quote you want and then you can't
look up an attribution and demand someone get it for you! B^D
What a LAMER! B^D
> [snip]
> --
Seppo Renfors
Che Guava wrote:
>
> We can reduce your output somewhat, it seems to consist
> of repetitions of a single misconception: ;-)
>
> ralph wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > THE POINT IS YOU DON'T CONVICT SOMEONE BASED ON AN ITEM IN THE
> > NEWSPAPER.
>
> Has Jeff been convicted?
>
> Excellent! couldn't happen to a nicer bloke!
>
> Where did you hear this news?, It certainly didn't come from me!
> I have no power to CONVICT, merely to describe...
>
> So lets see:
>
> "Jeff Kennett Art Thief" .. no, I said *NOTHING* about 'convicted felon'.
What RIGHT have you go to call Kennett an "Art Thief"??
>
> As I thought, you are twanging it, Miss Prissy Pants.
...and I see you continue with your attacks on people. I seem to
recall YOU always complaining about "shooting the messenger", and THAT
old boy, is ALL you ever do.
>
> *My usage* is perfectly normal and descriptive (all definitions from the
> Macquarie ;-)
...and DEFAMATORY, and UNTRUTHFUL - you cannot claim someone is a
THIEF until a Court has pronounced a judgement. Therefor if you CLAIM
he is such PROSECUTE HIM, you are allowed to do so, but it is pretty
gutless, to defame the man here because of your unhinged hatred on any
Liberals.
>
> Art - I assume is not in dispute, how else to describe a $50,000 painting? B^)
>
> thief - "one who steals, especially secretly or without open force" SPOT ON!
> B^D
>
> steal - "to take or take away dishonestly or wrongfully , esp secretly"
>
> ..... what could be a more PERFECT description!? B^D
>
> I repeat: JEFF KENNET, in the plain meaning of the term, IS A THIEF! B^D
> Not a convicted felon, that would require a trial! B^)
>
> But Jeff, BY HIS OWN ADMISSION, did wrongfully and secretly take away
> a painting which did not belong to him, ergo he stole it away,
> ergo HE IS A THIEF! B^D
You wouldn't know a law from a flaw - like your stupid, mindless
argument.
>
> WHOOOOOO! WHOOOOOOOOOOOO! B^D (EAT SHIT, BUSH LAWYER!)
>
> Now, as to the legal status, if charges will be laid, a conviction obtained,
> a sentence served, justice carried out.. then we will need to be careful
> with our public discussion to avoid contempt... but all these things remain to
> be seen,
> despite your attempt to pretend a trial has already taken place. ;-)
Fact remains, that if you weren't hiding behind dejanews and a false
name, and you were sued by Kennett for defamation (who is the only
person who CAN take action before you start any inane comments), the
damages would be GREATER than the 50K you accuse HIM off. Add to that
some very low court costs (as the case is open and shut - you have no
defence) they wouldn't be much over 20K that you would also have to
pay - unless you simply plead guilty, and then they would drop a bit..
Therefor, to judge YOU on the same basis as YOU judge Kennett, YOU ARE
A FAR WORSE CROOK THAT KENNETT!! YOU commit an indecent act right here
in public for everyone to see, that in monetary terms is FAR WORSE
than you accuse Kennett off.
>
> [to forestall further obfuscation, there is a second meaning;
> "one guilty of theft or larceny" which seems to go closer to the notion
> of CONVICTED felon which *you* have assumed, quite incorrectly
> it appears. ;-)
...and that is what you have been saying here to everyone -
[snip the rest of the obfuscation]
Your BIG trouble is Che, that you have NO ABILITY to actually debate
much anything. You are only here to attack the person - specially
Liberals whom you are totally unhinged about.
Take stock of what you do:
* Use exclusively abusive terms.
* Split people's posts to the point their arguments are lost or made
incoherent.
* Attack the poster, not their points, with massive amounts of drivel
and name calling.
* Evade answering direct questions.
* Tell outright lies - claiming "poetic licence".
* Constantly belittle and defame LIBERAL politicians.
* Post newspaper articles - already available to those interested.
* FAIL to then debate ANYTHING of substance IN the articles you
support!
* You scream blue murder when the same is used against YOU as you do
onto others.
* You never stand up for your "claimed" views.
* When taken to task on something you run away!
* You are constantly destructive in your comments.
I'm starting to wonder what the hell you're doing on this news group
at all? Seems to me your ideas are far better suited to *.flame
groups.
Che Guava
You claimed I *called* William a drug user! 8^o
*NOW* you claim I merely *implied* it.
Well done, you have arrived at what I already told you, re 'implications':
">> Do you deny you implied that Prince William consorts with drug users?
>
>Nup."
So, I accept your retraction; half hearted and mealy mouthed as it is.
As to your *speculations* on what else may be *implied*... well,
I'll just leave that for a dirty little tory scuzbucket like you to *insinuate*!
B^D
I think we are all adults here, and can draw our own 'implications'
I choose not to be drawn on them, without hard evidence, and clear utterance. ;-)
ralph wrote:
> Jeez you make this easy.
You just take the easy, rather than the honest, way.
> Mr "Core Social Values" show just how human he is by attempting to lie
> his way out of a spot of bother - trouble is, his posts are available
> for anyone to read what he said.
Only by defining your 'implications' as my 'CLEAR' meaning. ;-)
> Personally, I couldn't care much more about the Royal Family than I
> do Simon Crean or Cheryl Kernot - but regardless of my personal
> opinion, I wouldn't slur *any* of them based on gossip column shit.
You sound just like Bronwyn Bishop telling parliament about the
care she took getting her dad in a nursing home! B^D
I can hear the angel wings beating! B^p
> You preach to us about core values - but you clearly imply that
> "Willy" takes drugs
Clearly *IMPLY* , that's a contradiction in terms, old boy!
That's NOT what you accused me of. B^)
That's not what I denied. B^)
You claimed I *called him a drug user*.
I didn't.
You exaggerated, now you are backing off.
Learn the difference between a clear statement, and implications.
"It's like Moss's careful question mark at the end of his
post subject : "Che Guava a drug trafficker ?" B^D"
> (see below for your EXACT quotes), and now you
> have the nerve to say you never did! That makes you both a liar and a
> hypocrite.
No, you have the exact quotes, but not the meaning you claimed.
> This NG is used to the unethical behaviour from the racists and
> homophobes - but to see you sink to that level in "Future Head of
> State's coke sniffing courtiers" and now this followup is ironic, to
> say the least.
Actually, the original was ironic, as we shall soon see:
> And you dare preach to us about core values?
Sure, I hate hard drugs and the animals who are soft on them.
I slammed Kennett for allowing cigarette advertising on Formula I cars,
and I think this little shit deserves an arse kicking for his aristo
indulgences. So go beat your self into moral outrage! B^D
Oh, and thanks for this.. your lurid speculations are far more
damning of the total lack of character of these parasites than
I thought the bare facts would sustain:
> On Sun, 05 Mar 2000 20:21:49 +1100, Che Guava <che_...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Executive summary for the busy NG reader:
> >
> >ralph wrote:
> >
> >"You did the same with Prince William - based on a gossip-column style
> >newspaper report about a so-called "friend" using drugs, you slurred
> >the man himself. Quite simply unbelievable - I don't care how
> >privileged he is - how can you decide he's an illegal drug user with
> >such flimsy evidence."
> >
> >Simple, I never did, you are a liar.
> >You can find no words of mine claiming Prince William is an illegal drug user.
> >
>
> CHE WROTE IN "Future Head of State's coke sniffing courtiers":
>
> "One of the wonderful things about a hereditary head of state
> is that you get to see what you are in for well in advance.
Isn't it the truth.. His ancestors, of course, consorted with Nazis,
so we shouldn't be surprised if he hangs with coke-heads.
> Rich aristo brats with a long training in snobbery, protocol,
> sex and drugs...
Now ain't it the truth! B^D
> that's what our nation needs as role models for the young:"
(Thats irony right there, for those with Irony Deficit Disorder ;-)
> WHAT THE FUCK DOES THAT SAY -
It says aristo parasites make lousy role models for the young..
are you having trouble with comprehension again?
> WHICH HEREDITARY HEAD OF STATE ARE YOU
> REFERRING TO IF NOT PRINCE WILLIAM?
One that mixes with "Rich aristo brats with a long training
in snobbery, protocol, sex and drugs..." Obviously! B^D
Jeez you make this easy! B^D
Hey, it's YOUR *IMPLICATION*... do some work! B^D
ALL OF THEM!?!?! B^D
ALL THE ONES FROM TORY BUM-BUGGERING BOARDING SCHOOLS!?!?
ALL THE ONES WHO TOLERATE ILLEGAL DRUGS!?!?
OR LIKE YOU THINK 'DECENCY' IS ABOUT DEFENDING THEM! B^p
> AND
>
> "Dad wants to be a tampon, Willy wants to be a nose plug.."
>
> OH DEAR - AND WHAT DOES THAT IMPLY?
Eye of the beholder isn't it? Like all 'implications'? B^p
That they are both only suitable for plugging bodily orifices?
Royal Bleeders? Bleeding Royals?
What do you think is most appropriate for your Willy?
(Apart from the twanging you are giving it here?)
> AND
>
> "It is obvious our Aussie kids lack the right stuff to be our
> Head of State.. some of them don't even take drugs, ..."
>
> WOOHOO! JACKPOT!
"It's like Moss's careful question mark at the end of his
post subject : "Che Guava a drug trafficker ?" B^D"
Are you disputing that some Australian kids don't take drugs? }B^(
I take great pride and comfort that, unlike the aristo playmates
of that royal parasite, many young Australians 'don't even take
drugs', let alone mix with people who do. B^)
> READ IT AND WEEP, LIAR. YOUR ACCUSATION IS CLEAR AS DAY.
Clear as day? Do you seriously argue that I think Aussie kids
REALLY 'lack the right stuff to be our head of state'? B^D
That is so laced with sarcasm and irony that even you must be able to
detect it.
> WANNA TRY TO BACKTRACK SOME MORE?
Nah, I'm very comfortable with your retraction of the claim I
SAID something, and are reduced to EMPHATIC ASSERTIONS
OF POSSIBLE IMPLICATIONS! B^D B^D
Most entertaining... you almost have me, and possibly half the NG,
convinced that perhaps he did have a snort! B^D
Then again we could all put our heads up our arses and pretend like
you do.. ;-) Whatever that 'implies' B^)
<snip>
The rest seems to be repetitions of the same..
Feel free to re-post any new 'interpretations' in lieu of a
clear statement where I said Putz William was a hard drug user.
I like the way your imagination works.. and your 'no smoke
without fire' thinking is starting to grow on me. ;-)
soupnazi
>
<snip more tory hypocrisy on 'core' values>
rowlf wrote:
The request was simple - if someone claims corruption - they should at
least offer proof.
soupnazi wrote:
so where were you when your bum-buddy in the NT
was calling the justice system corrupt??
didnt hear you bleating for fucking proof then
did we??
rowlf wrote:
He didn't post to the fucking newsgroup did he?
BBBBBBBBWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH
all this from the tory butt-boy who preaches
'core values'
so rowlf......what are your core values then?
apart from hypocrisy of course??
you make it easy rowlf......i bet your the submissive type...
you know, the taker....not the giver.......;-)
soupnazi 2 - rowlf 0
--
The more you can increase fear of drugs and crime, welfare mothers,
immigrants and aliens, the more you control all the people.
- Chomsky.
REMOVE 'NO SPAM' TO REPLY.
ralph
that you use to alter meanings as convenient - so to make is easy for
you - I say you *called* William a drug user.
Anyone can go to Deja and refer to your original post "Future Head of
State's coke sniffing courtiers" then decide for themselves what you
were saying.
Absolutely no retraction given or intended by my previous post on this
thread ("Here Lies Che! RIP - Core Values") ;-)
On Tue, 07 Mar 2000 06:42:09 +1100, Che Guava <che_...@my-deja.com>
Rob Rivo
or two in his life time, or taken a headache tablet when he wasn't feeling himself...
In fact I would say that 99.9% of the population are drug users. But I didn't read that
Willy was a ILLICIT drug user. Now that is another thing.
Rob.
ralph
<calabri...@global.net.au> wrote:
>rowlf wrote:
>
>>
>
><snip more tory hypocrisy on 'core' values>
>
>rowlf wrote:
>The request was simple - if someone claims corruption - they should at
>least offer proof.
>
>soupnazi wrote:
>so where were you when your bum-buddy in the NT
>was calling the justice system corrupt??
>
>didnt hear you bleating for fucking proof then
>did we??
>
Umm as I said - the thread was and is on allegations of Howards
corruption.
I already said what I thought of mandatory sentencing - beyond that I
have leave it to whoever else is claiming NT system is corrupt to
prove - it has fuckall to do with this discussion, except in your
pea-brain.
>rowlf wrote:
>He didn't post to the fucking newsgroup did he?
>
>BBBBBBBBWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH
>
>all this from the tory butt-boy who preaches
>'core values'
>
Me preach? Nah - I just call a hypocrite a hypocrite, and a liar a
liar.
Try to fucking keep up - Che is the "core values" hypocrite - I just
pointed that out to everyone.
I'LL MAKE IT EASY FOR YOU - I DON'T HAVE "CORE VALUES" OKAY ;-)
I'll leave the preaching morals to the saints in the newsgroup.
BUT CLEARlY - PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN GLASS HOUSES SHOULD PROBABLY SHUT THE
FUCK UP ;-)
>so rowlf......what are your core values then?
>apart from hypocrisy of course??
>
See above - well of course I don't have any core values of course -I'm
a "tory" right? ;-)
>you make it easy rowlf......i bet your the submissive type...
>
>you know, the taker....not the giver.......;-)
>
Still on that sodomy kick.
>soupnazi 2 - rowlf 0
>
Whatever - keep playing with yourself for all I care.
I'M STILL WAITING FOR EVIDENCE OF HOWARD CORRUPTION - WHEN YOU CAN
TAKE A STAB AND ANSWER THAT MAYBE I'LL TAKE YOU AS FUCKING SERIOUS AS
YOU TAKE YOURSELF.
Seppo Renfors
Che Guava wrote:
Here is a 401 line post from a guy claiming the name "CHE" who said:
"I do not clutter the post with irrelevant dross, although I note that
is one of your favoured techniques, attempting to blunt or bury a
telling point, by burying it in a mountain of verbiage!"
The comedy of this is to watch Che froth more and more. The ABUSE
level rises as his inability to do other than call people names
diminishes... and it is a never-ending downward spiral down the
sewers, to Che country. In fact he has had to SNIP stuff just to make
space for his "irrelevant dross", that he "claims" not to post.
>
> Seppo Renfors wrote:
>
> SSchleppo, I am sure that as one previously insisting that a private civil
> action is the only way to proceed, your current decision to debate the
> issues is merely a ploy to enable your mate Ralph to further attack me
> for "convicting" Lightfingers.
>
> So let me make quite clear (Legal disclaimer ;-) I have no authority to
> *prosecute* the tory art thief.. BUT EVERY RIGHT TO DISCUSS
> HIS ROLE IN THE RECENT ART THEFT! B^D
...but you have NO "RIGHT" to DEFAME the man! You DO have a legal
right to instigate a private criminal prosecution. There you are,
WRONG again on BOTH of your opening remarks. Pity you know NOTHING
about Law!
>
> Your assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated..
>
> (I think Ralph has retired, hurt.. ;-)
I think Ralph kicked your arse REAL GOOD! You definitely lost that
encounter - as you have this one already.
>
> Che Guava wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Seppo Renfors wrote:
> > >
> > > > Che Guava wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Jeff Kennett should have been charged with the theft and
> > > > > illegal possession of a $50,000 painting belonging to the
> > > > > Victorian people.
> > > >
> > > > WAS it "illegal possession"? My understanding was that it was ON LOAN,
> > > > and the museum LOST IT.
> > >
> > > Nope, they signed it over to a Kennett Staffer!
> >
> > So it was NOT JEFF KENNET! OK we got that!
>
> That signed for the painting on handover from the NGV?
> Of course not, you nutter.. THAT WAS NOT THE THEFT! B^D
> (Besides, when does a boss cocky ever do any manual work? B^p )
>
> What that DOES mean is that Kennetts staff, (responsible to 'guess who'? ;-)
> were fully, and frequently, aware of WHO THE PAINTING ACTUALLY
> BELONGED TO! B^)
Are you suggesting that KENNETT told his staff to STEAL??
>
> And any story of an 'anonymous donor' who 'gifted' it to Jeff is just so
> much eyewash. B^p
>
> Thanks for allowing me to point that out. B^D
Keep digging that hole, it's getting deeper by the minute!
>
> > > The agreement was signed every year for $280,000 of art works
> > > to hang in government buildings. All governments do this.
> >
> > There for every government is in the same boat as Jeff Kennett.
>
> ARE YOU A TOTAL FUCKIN LOONEY?
Hmmm... a lack of vocabulary too I see... Are you now suggesting that
only KENNETT gets a lend of art work? If so why did your write that
bit about $280K for then?
>
> Yes, all governments display public artwork, on loan from State galleries,
> in government offices.... ONLY JEFF TAKES IT HOME! B^D B^D
Well make you bloody mind up will you. One minute only Kennet gets a
loan of Art, next everyone gets a loan of art. Don't you KNOW what you
are talking about?
How do you KNOW it was Jeff who took it home? Are you suggesting He
put it under his arm and carried it out the front door? Come on
provide PROOF! A bet London to a brick YOU HAVE NO IDEA AT ALL!
>
> Thanks for giving me the opportunity to point that out! B^D
.. you mean TELL MORE DEFAMATORY LIES don't you?
>
> > >
> > > What DOESN'T happen, is that MPs don't usually 'accidentally'
> > > take the paintings off the wall, 'accidentally' pack them up and
> > > 'accidentally' remove them to their private home, or 'accidentally' hang them
> > > on their own wall!
> >
> > .... err could it just have been one of his STAFFERS again who did the
> > packing, hmmm?
>
> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>
> And JEFF just never noticed it unpacked and hung over the mantle at home?
[slap slap] STAY WITH IT!! You claimed "that MPs don't usually
'accidentally' take the paintings off the wall, 'accidentally' pack
them up.." "PACK THEM UP" is what you said!!
The ONLY MP under discussion is Jeff Kennett -therefor YOU CLAIMED he
PERSONALLY packed the painting.... before you claimed he walked out
with it under his arm.. what ARE you on about? Can't you stay with
your OWN claims? You're ALL OVER the place -like a mad woman's shit!
You said nothing about UNPACKING previously. Get a GRIP boy! FYI
"unpacking is the OPPOSITE to "packing". Therefor you have done a 180
deg about face on the subject - worse IT WAS IN FULL VIEW of all!
>
> GET A GRIP! B^D B^D B^D
Yeah, are you had of hearing too? Just told you to di that didn't I?
>
> Have you increased your dose of stupid pills since last we spoke? B^p
>
> > Are you ABSOLUTELY 100% SURe that it was KENNETT
> > personally as you accuse above?
>
> Yup, *HE* returned the painting, from his private home, to which
> it had been wrongfully removed. How exactly do you see him *out*
> of the picture?.. (Tales involving faeries or alien anal probes will be
> disallowed B^D )
*IF* you had done as you CLAIM: "I do not clutter the post with
irrelevant dross, although I note that is one of your favoured
techniques, attempting to blunt or bury a telling point, by burying it
in a mountain of verbiage!"
But that is just ANOTHER LIE. If you hadn't done it then you would
realise that it STILL refers to Jeff Kennett PACKING the paining. So
you have AGAIN EVADED answering a direct question: "Are you ABSOLUTELY
100% SURE" it was KENNETT who packed the painting?
As you have demonstrated YOU DON'T KNOW WHO packed the painting, as
you claimed. The you did so FALSELY. In a court it is called
"perjury".
>
> > >
> > > > (They didn't know of its whereabouts).
> > >
> > > Sure they did, signed over to Kennett's staffers!
> >
> > What were they looking for it, for then if they KNEW where it was??
>
> Kennetts staffers *weren't*!!!!!! Like Kennet, they were schtum!
> The gallery staff, (the same ones who seem slow to lay charges...)
> seemed intimidated by the Big Man, and for months don't even seem
> to have been able to ask if he knew anything about it! B^p
What PROOF have you that ANYONE was "intimidated by the Big Man". Some
affidavits will do, from people he has "intimidated" somehow to get
the painting into his house. Other wise it is merely ANOTHER LIE!
> For Victorians, well used to the climate of fear and intimidation Jeff
> fostered among, his complete corruption of an independent PUBLIC
> SERVICE into a corporatised extension of the executive... this
> quisling performance is NO SURPRISE!
... and here the frothing is getting to him :-)
>
> Apparently, only the spreading rumours led them to finally act,
> because (as Bronwyn'Kero'Bishopgate and Rod'Toluene'Kemp
> demonstrate) tory minions only act when threat of public exposure is imminent.
... and more name calling and piss and wind :-)
>
> > Must have been with "Kennett's staffers" as that is who signed for it,
> > right?
> > >
> > > What do you understand by the term RESPONSIBILITY
> > > for tens of thousands of dollars of public property!?
> >
> > Good question! Pity you have made no attempts to ANSWER it. Obviously
> > as you HAVE no answer. Don't you think the Gallery should have KNOWN
> > where it was?
>
> Sure.. it was in the care and custody of Kennetts office.
> Legal documents clearly establish that.
A painting was delivered, but was it THE painting in question? That is
the dilemma from the documents.
>
> > Why wasn't the painting ID'd with the required labelling?
>
> What 'required labeling'? "DO NOT STEAL" stickers?? B^D
You SKIP the bits that don't suit you in the papers you read, do you,
hmmm? Tell me, there is NO ID on the painting as is supposed to be
according to the gallery practises. How can they be SURE it was the
SAME painting -it has NO ID on it! How do they know it's THEIRS? Other
than the HONESTY of Jeff Kennett saying it is so.
>
> > >
> > > > Jeff's excuse was a bit lame
> > >
> > > BWAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
> > >
> > > A BIT LAME! B^D B^D
> >
> > BTW Who exactly was it again who said: "I do not clutter the post with
> > irrelevant dross, although I note that is one of your favoured
> > techniques, attempting to blunt or bury a telling point, by burying it
> > in a mountain of verbiage!", Hmmmm That WAS you wasn't it?
>
> So what "TELLING POINT" are you claiming I 'buried' here, Lame-O?
EVERYTHING I have written has been spread from arsehole to breakfast
time by CHE. That is your habit in order to: "attempting to blunt or
bury a telling point, by burying it in a mountain of verbiage!"
>
> This one?:
>
> "Jeff's excuse was a bit lame" - SSchleppo
>
> There, consider it *dug out* and showcased! B^D B^D
>
> And what a "telling' point it is... for the PROSECUTION!
>
> Great "own-goal", dumkopf! B^D
You are PATHETIC!
>
> > > Listen, you drongo, there is a video of him standing
> > > in front of the painting, before he liberated it from the
> > > government office, telling schoolchildren *exactly*
> > > what the NGV had said about it being stored:
> > >
> > > "it was hidden away, no one knew it existed"
> > > -Jeff Kennett, Video evidence! [Herald sun 2/3/00]
> >
> > Again a quote out of its context and therefor meaningless.
>
> Really? Then read the WHOLE article and tell us the construction
> which you believe DIFFERS from the one I have presented..
>
> Consider that a gweat big nasty gawntlett! ;-) Slappo, SSchleppo!
a sure sign of a LOSER :-)
(Chalk another up to Seppo... must be up around 500+ now)
>
> (I actually know the answer, but your persistant rudeness, and petty
> complaints about having information from newspapers presented to
> you, leads me to say..... GO FETCH! B^D B^D B^D
You wouldn't know if your ARSE was on fire! Well demonstrated here.
You can't tell from a few lines apart what you have said. The you
build ANOTHER strawman of abuse and proceed to attack THAT. Not only
that but you MISS the original one you built!
>
> > >
> > > remember this is the bloke who claimed it was 'given'
> > > to him by an anonymous donor!
>
> Ah, there's the rub, eh, SSChleppo... a painting which 'no one knew
> existed', which was hidden away in NGV basements could hardly be
> 'gifted' from 'an owner'. Especially when his office signed for it EVERY
> YEAR it was on loan! B^p
HA HA HA... This is where CHE becomes TOTALLY UNHINGED! HE ATTACKS
HIMSELF! Talk about a dog chasing its tail! What a COMPLETE worthless
WANKER Che has tuned out to be.
>
> We have the 'Smoking gun' for "Boltegate" ;-)
....and a hole in YOUR head.., put there BY YOURSELF :-)
>
> You tory apologists seem so bent on sucking members,
> there is obviously a competition for who's to be "Deep Throat" B^D
Well well, the PINKO instantly turns to the "tory" abuse... poor
little man... errr I suppose he is a man...
>
> > >
> > > LET A JURY OF HIS PEERS DECIDE ON THE
> > > BASIS OF REASONABLE DOUBT!
>
> That's really all we want isn't it SSChleppo.. a FAIR TRIAL!
..still talking to himself. There hasn't been ANYTHING FAIR what ever
about Che's defamatory and abusive attacks. I really feel sorry for
you Che. You have no arguments. You have no LOGIC to create them with,
and you are ultimately wallowing in the sewers of name calling.
Pathetic really.
> > >
> > > > but because of it
> > > > being so damned lame it is likely to be true.
> > >
> > > Your stupidity never ceases to amaze!
> > >
> >
> > BTW Who exactly was it again who said: "I do not clutter the post with
> > irrelevant dross, although I note that is one of your favoured
> > techniques, attempting to blunt or bury a telling point, by burying it
> > in a mountain of verbiage!", Hmmmm That WAS you wasn't it?
>
> I wrote one line, you have just repeated four, ineptly and inappropriately.
> I'll leave it to the reader to showcase your tellingly stupid point for themselves!
> ;-)
...and then count the lines of "irrelevant dross" you post. Well Done
Che!
> > > > > And it's not as if this is a first offence, either.
> > > >
> > > > Prove you are not telling a LIE by quoting the Court cases where he
> > > > has been found GUILTY of an offences!!
> > >
> > > That's a *conviction*, dummy.
> >
> > Pssst... If I was you, *I* wouldn't be so quick to show my ignorance!
> > To be able to say he has committed an "offence" in the legal sense as
> > you state, there HAS TO BE a conviction, you bloody big dummy!
> > Other wise at best you can say it is an ALLEGED offence, but it has to have
> > been ALLEGED first by other than yourself!
>
> I am always quick to show your ignorance. B^)
> That's because there is so much of it I have to maintain a high turnover
> exposing it. B^D
... hahahahahaha... you FALSE accusations are a LAUGH as we can SEE
for ourselves how ridiculous you are.
>
> Ridiculous, one can have committed an offence without being charged,
> and MUST be charged before being convicted. You are talking Shite again! B^D
WRONG again... but that's par for course with you, isn't it. One can
only be ALLEGED to have committed and offence UNTIL the Judge rules
that person GUILTY
>
> > > Like now, those who are soft on criminals, like you and
> > > the other tory apologists, will ensure he doesn't even
> > > get charged, let alone come to trial!
> >
> > This is merely demonstrating your IGNORANCE OF LAW!
>
> Nah, just awareness of the alibis which the ruling elite provide each other.
That is plain garbage PINKO talk!
> > > > > He was previously found in possession of a government
> > > > > owned exercise bike, and had fraudulently misused a
> > > > > government credit card, for personal purposes.
> > > >
> > > > So where are the COURT CASES that PROVES YOUR CLAIMS,
> > >
> > > Like his famous assault, captured on film, the facts are not in dispute,
> > > even by Jeff.
> > > He just has 'excuses', appointed all the law officers, and muzzled the rest.
> >
> > Was he ever convicted? BTW PROVE the false allegation you now make!
> > Come on, back up your claims!
>
> There is video evidence of his assault on a TV camera crew.
> With about 18 million witnesses. B^D
> What do you call it?
Nope! That is NOT assault, at BEST it is an alleged assault! YOU FAIL
again!
>
> An offence against persons, more serious than, say, stealing texta's.
> But of course, at the time he had knobbled the DPP, removed
> the common law process for individual initiation of prosecutions, and
> the chief law officer of the state shared his Gran Prix box! B^p
That you have done now, is a CRIMINAL DEFAMATION by your CLAIM he has
"knobbled the DPP" (by YOUR "justice" system) You are TWICE as bad as
Kennett on his WORST DAY!
> > > > or do you go about defaming "tory" politicians for sport?
> >
> > BTW Who exactly was it again who said: "I do not clutter the post with
> > irrelevant dross, although I note that is one of your favoured
> > techniques, attempting to blunt or bury a telling point, by burying it
> > in a mountain of verbiage!", Hmmmm That WAS you wasn't it?
>
> THAT'S *YOU* WHO YOU ARE burying in verbiage, you cretin! B^D
OH NO, not another LIE, virtually immediately after having confessed
to those words being YOURS! You sure are getting DESPERATE :-)
> > > It's the only form of justice when you are all soft on crime.
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Three strikes and he should be jailed, according to Dave Moss
> > > > > John Howard, and dozens of other tory hard-liners! ;-)
> > > > >
> > > > > Why isn't he even charged?
> > > > >
> > > > > He isn't black, and he's a tory. B^p
> > > >
> > > > ...and you don't tell the TRUTH!
> > >
> > > > [snip]
snip, I'm not reading news paper opinions, if you are UNABLE to
articulate something, FORGET IT
>
> Who authorized it's removal? If someone other than Jeff actually
> stole the painting, he may merely be charged with receiving
> stolen artworks.
Are you saying that Jeff Kennett specifically ordered the STEALING of
a painting? I want to see PROOF (No @#$%&! news paper snippings, they
ARE NOT proof!!!)
>
[snip same reason]
>
> Caught red-handed. It's an open and shut case.
What is?
>
[snip same reason]
>
> Taking full advantage of the window of opportunity before accountability
> was restored to Victorian government. It was clearly planned with
> great timing.
This is CRIMINAL DEFAMATION by YOU. You are TWICE as bad as Kennett on
his WORST day Pinko!
>
[snip same reason]
>
> Well, motive for the theft is something that the magistrate may take
> into account as mitigating circumstances, in those states which permit
> such latitude.. but public speculation should not delay criminal
> prosecution.
This is CRIMINAL DEFAMATION by YOU. You are TWICE as bad as Kennett on
his WORST day Pinko!
>
[snip same reason]
>
> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! B^D
>
> That belongs up there with "Fell off the back of a truck" and
> "won it in a pub raffle"! B^D
> WHO IS HE KIDDING!
> You can't escape responsibility by claiming that some flunkey has
> any right to 'donate' you a painting which isn't theirs to give!
> IT'S THEFT, MISAPPROPRIATION, RECEIVING STOLEN GOODS!
This is CRIMINAL DEFAMATION by YOU. You are TWICE as bad as Kennett on
his WORST day Pinko!
>
> It's the law.. no other citizen would be allowed to mount this
> feeble excuse.. CHARGES MUST BE LAID!
The LAW is something you don't give TWO HOOTS about as you so amply
demonstrate in this post. You really have the NERVE to call for his
prosecution when you commit CRIMINAL ACTS that in $$ terms are VASTLY
greater than your accusations. Is that how you Pinko's operate? Any
lie to bring down ANY "tory"?
>
> Is he in the habit of 'mistakenly' taking home any item he fancies?
> It's simple, Jeff, If you don't own it, you don't take it.
> If you take property which isn't yours, and get caught, you can't
> soy 'ooops' I made a mistake, you are a thief, and should be charged.
>
[snip the rest... simply couldn't bother with any more SLIME from CHe]
Seppo Renfors
ralph wrote:
It really is UNFAIR, Che is such an EASY TARGET, but boy have you ever
nailed his hide to the wall this time ;-)
--
Che Guava
One of the wonderful things about a hereditary head of state
is that you get to see what you are in for well in advance.
Rich aristo brats with a long training in snobbery, protocol,
sex and drugs... that's what our nation needs as role models
for the young:
"Another socialite friend of Prince William's has been seen taking
cocaine at an exclusive London party" - [The Herald Sun 28/2/00]
Some say that aristos look down their noses at people, but it's
just numb nostrils, without feeling they have to visually check
it's still there, and not bleeding.
" ..Party goers reported seeing Izzy Winkler, 22, sniffing the drug
from a table top" - [ibid]
Oh well so long as she is being discrete, there is no need for the police
to intervene. B^p
"The danger of drugs infiltrating the princes inner circle worries
his security staff" - [ibid] B^D
Lets see, Ms Winkler is a close friend of Camilla Parker Bowles
daughter. Prince Willys other close friend, Tom Parker Bowles, 25
admitted last year to taking cocaine, as did another mate, Lord
Fredericck Windsor. The only way drugs could more deeply
infiltrate the Prince's inner circle would be a coke suppository!
Dad wants to be a tampon, Willy wants to be a nose plug..
it must be genetic. ;-)
It is obvious our Aussie kids lack the right stuff to be our Head of State..
some of them don't even take drugs, have part time jobs, aren't
a white male aristo, come from faiths other than the C of E, and
don't belong to the only suitable bloodline for Aussie Head of State!
Don't you wish your children could MEASURE UP!
Che
-----
SCHEDULE
OATH
I, A.B., do swear (pass me that $20 note, mate) that I will be faithful
(there's two lines for you and two lines for me) and bear true allegiance
(SSSSSSSSSSSSSSNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNUUUUUUUUuuuuuK!)
(Ahhhhhhh) to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her heirs
(SSSSSSSSSSSSSSNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNUUUUUUUUuuuuuK!)
(Ahhhhhhh) and successors according to law.
SO HELP ME GOD)
ralph wrote:
> Sorry - as you wish - I keep forgetting you have a funny dictionary
Sure, mine calls 'wrongful removal' STEALING, and one who steals A THIEF
In your language of moral humbug they are called A TORY EX-PREMIER! B^p
> that you use to alter meanings as convenient - so to make is easy for
> you - I say you *called* William a drug user.
Clearly you lie.
You cannot, and have not, produced any words of mine CALLING
your Willy a hard drug user. The entire post is above so that people
can see difference between my words and your innuendo. ;-)
I have called him an aristo prat who will only become Australian Head
of State by a genetic accident. So lacking in judgement that he consorts
with users of illegal hard drugs.
Clearly I said "Future Head of States Coke Sniffing *Courtiers*"
Not in your dictionary? B^D
> Anyone can go to Deja and refer to your original post "Future Head of
> State's coke sniffing courtiers" then decide for themselves what you
> were saying.
I prefer to save them the effort, see above.
BTW, I would have your IDD seen to. ;-)
> Absolutely no retraction given or intended by my previous post on this
> thread ("Here Lies Che! RIP - Core Values") ;-)
>
You carp about "Core Moral Values"
So lets examine those raised.
I oppose illegal hard drugs. They are a scourge on our society, causing
death and destruction of many young lives. Hard drugs are corrosive;
they erode the individual spirit, they poison social values.
I condemn all those who encourage their use, all the panderers and
apologists and those who promote them as smart or cool.
You are willing to abandon all these issues to shoot the messenger
over what? YOUR INTERPRETATION OF WHAT I MIGHT MEAN!
Pathetic really, as PADDY might say.
I support democracy. The idea that people elect their political representatives.
I oppose hereditary monarchy, I oppose hereditary class. I despise those
who seek to perpetuate these archaic and profoundly undemocratic forms.
You prefer to take arms against A PERCEIVED slight to a rich aristo's name!?
I believe our public role models must set the highest standards of behaviour
because they are the visible markers of what our society recognises and rewards.
*Young Australians*, untainted by the long and corrupt historical practices of these
elite parasites, the Royals, DESERVE the opportunity to be Australian Head of State!
You clearly deem it more important to add one more bleating, sycophantic voice to
their million dollar PR machine!
I believe High Office holders should be appointed on merit, without discrimination
based excluding EVERYONE except a WHITE, MALE FIRSTBORN FROM A
PARTICULAR FAMILY OF INBREDS, WHO MUST BE AN ANGLICAN!
You clearly think protesting his lack of judgement is the real discrimination. B^p
You demand no comment should be made on Newspaper articles and broadcast
media disseminating information to hundreds of millions around the globe,
without prior verification to court standards of evidence!
You hold ME responsible for the accuracy and validity of public media.
And, fatally for your case, you deem that ANY INFERENCE YOU CAN
READ INTO MY WORDS SHALL CONSTITUTE PROOF OF YOUR
CHARGES. B^p
That it is not necessary that I ACTUALLY SAY what you claim I have said,
merely that you can quote something you think sounds like it, and ask
"WELL, WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?"
I have dealt with your irrelevant quotes which can have many 'implications',
but none of which call Willy a hard drug user.
I have quoted the entire post above so that people can make up their own
mind the difference between WHAT WAS SAID, and what *MAY* HAVE
BEEN INTENDED. B^)
"It's like Moss's careful question mark at the end of his
post subject : "Che Guava a drug trafficker ?" B^D"
Ralph.. I have noted your track record.
Clear, examples of outrageous attacks by tory public figures
such as the NT chief minister calling the Courts and Legal System
"Corrupt" go unremarked by you.
This is despite the fact that the libel is BLATANT, EXPLICIT,
without any of the evidence you demand of me, (and retracted
in abject humiliation! B^D ).
Instead you go to these extraordinary lengths to read into my
words an interpretation which may or may not be valid, ( ;-)
but is demonstrably tenuous and *not actionable*. B^)
You are not only a hypocrite, you are a bumbling and incompetent one. B^D
> On Tue, 07 Mar 2000 06:42:09 +1100, Che Guava <che_...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I posted of William consorting with drug-users, and appalling judgement.
> >
> >You claimed I *called* William a drug user! 8^o
> >
> >*NOW* you claim I merely *implied* it.
> >
> >Well done, you have arrived at what I already told you, re 'implications':
> >
> >">> Do you deny you implied that Prince William consorts with drug users?
> >>
> >>Nup."
> >
> >So, I accept your retraction; half hearted and mealy mouthed as it is.
> >
> >As to your *speculations* on what else may be *implied*... well,
> >I'll just leave that for a dirty little tory scuzbucket like you to *insinuate*!
> >B^D
> >
> >I think we are all adults here, and can draw our own 'implications'
> >
> >I choose not to be drawn on them, without hard evidence, and clear utterance. ;-)
> >
As you no longer defend your *implications* and innuendo, we can dispense
with them.
Seppo Renfors
Che Guava wrote:
>
[snip - leaving only bare essentials]
>
> No, you have the exact quotes, but not the meaning you claimed.
Che acknowledges quotes below to be accurate.
> > CHE WROTE IN "Future Head of State's coke sniffing courtiers":
> >
> > "One of the wonderful things about a hereditary head of state
> > is that you get to see what you are in for well in advance.
> > that's what our nation needs as role models for the young:
> > Rich aristo brats with a long training in snobbery, protocol,
> > sex and drugs..."
> > "It is obvious our Aussie kids lack the right stuff to be our
> > Head of State.. some of them don't even take drugs, ..."
> > "Dad wants to be a tampon, Willy wants to be a nose plug.."
[text restored after it had been deliberately split up by Che in order
to hide his previous statement]
Well it is CLEAR that Che has not only accused Prince William of drug
abuse, but also the Prince of Wales and all "aristocracy" in one foul
swoop. It amounts to meaningless ABUSE and is of NO VALUE, -other than
to demonstrate what a hypocrite he really is.
There is really NOTHING Che has to say. All he ever seems to do is
ABUSE all kinds of people who do NOT fit his PINKO philosophy, But
that's not all... for no extra cost Che will ABUSE shit out of anyone
who DARES to point out the valueless crap he posts, and blatant LIES
they contain.
[I have left Che's' text so that he doesn't cry for having it removed!
Read it at your own risk!]
> Isn't it the truth.. His ancestors, of course, consorted with Nazis,
> so we shouldn't be surprised if he hangs with coke-heads.
> Now ain't it the truth! B^D
> (Thats irony right there, for those with Irony Deficit Disorder ;-)
> It says aristo parasites make lousy role models for the young..
> are you having trouble with comprehension again?
> One that mixes with "Rich aristo brats with a long training
> in snobbery, protocol, sex and drugs..." Obviously! B^D
> Jeez you make this easy! B^D
> Hey, it's YOUR *IMPLICATION*... do some work! B^D
> ALL OF THEM!?!?! B^D
> ALL THE ONES FROM TORY BUM-BUGGERING BOARDING SCHOOLS!?!?
> ALL THE ONES WHO TOLERATE ILLEGAL DRUGS!?!?
> OR LIKE YOU THINK 'DECENCY' IS ABOUT DEFENDING THEM! B^p
> Eye of the beholder isn't it? Like all 'implications'? B^p
> That they are both only suitable for plugging bodily orifices?
> Royal Bleeders? Bleeding Royals?
> What do you think is most appropriate for your Willy?
> (Apart from the twanging you are giving it here?)
> "It's like Moss's careful question mark at the end of his
> post subject : "Che Guava a drug trafficker ?" B^D"
> Are you disputing that some Australian kids don't take drugs? }B^(
> I take great pride and comfort that, unlike the aristo playmates
> of that royal parasite, many young Australians 'don't even take
> drugs', let alone mix with people who do. B^)
> Clear as day? Do you seriously argue that I think Aussie kids
> REALLY 'lack the right stuff to be our head of state'? B^D
> That is so laced with sarcasm and irony that even you must be able to
> detect it.
> Nah, I'm very comfortable with your retraction of the claim I
> SAID something, and are reduced to EMPHATIC ASSERTIONS
> OF POSSIBLE IMPLICATIONS! B^D B^D
> Most entertaining... you almost have me, and possibly half the NG,
> convinced that perhaps he did have a snort! B^D
> Then again we could all put our heads up our arses and pretend like
> you do.. ;-) Whatever that 'implies' B^)
> The rest seems to be repetitions of the same..
> Feel free to re-post any new 'interpretations' in lieu of a
> clear statement where I said Putz William was a hard drug user.
> I like the way your imagination works.. and your 'no smoke
> without fire' thinking is starting to grow on me. ;-)
OK I'll take up the invitation to re-post, Che said above:
<snip>
"I said Putz William was a hard drug user"
<snip>
That IS a technique of "amending a statement", you have used YOURSELF
in the past, Che!!
Seppo Renfors
Che Guava wrote:
>
> Future Head of State's coke sniffing courtiers
>
> One of the wonderful things about a hereditary head of state
> is that you get to see what you are in for well in advance.
>
> Rich aristo brats with a long training in snobbery, protocol,
> sex and drugs... that's what our nation needs as role models
> for the young:
Now lets look at CHE'S words. The "hereditary head of state" is
definitely an "aristo" and as Che uses the term "brats" he is
necessarily referring to Prince Charles' offspring and William
specifically. Then he accuses the "brats" of having "a long training
in snobbery, protocol, sex and drugs". The reference to sex and
Charles' kids, means naturally premarital sex, or being sexually
promiscuous. The "drugs" were associated to cocaine use by a snippet
from a paper.
In other words Che is stating: "Our future head of state is a snob,
who indulges in hard drugs and is sexually promiscuous."
Clear as a bell!! What's the point in him now running around like a
Neville saying "I didn't say.. blah blah blah..." SSSS Che should be
ashamed of himself (Oh, the SSSS is for, Snivelling Snot Sucking Sissy
:-)
[snip the rest of the dribble]
Che Guava
Seppo Renfors wrote:
> Che Guava wrote:
> >
> > Future Head of State's coke sniffing courtiers
> >
> > One of the wonderful things about a hereditary head of state
> > is that you get to see what you are in for well in advance.
> >
> > Rich aristo brats with a long training in snobbery, protocol,
> > sex and drugs... that's what our nation needs as role models
> > for the young:
>
> Now lets look at CHE'S words. The "hereditary head of state" is
> definitely an "aristo"
with coke sniffing courtiers! Don't forget the drug connection! B^D
> and as Che uses the term "brats" he is
> necessarily referring to Prince Charles' offspring and William
> specifically.
Well, that is an interesting use of the word "necessarily"! B^D
When Prince Tampons mum arrives for her million dollar
taxpayer funded jaunt, be sure to tell her that If any one
uses the word 'brat', they are *necessarily* referring to her
grandchildren! B^D
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
(The "aristo brats" is a set which is a bit broader than the
immediate Royal family aristo brats, SSchleppo.. but carry on.. ;-)
you are maligning the Royals far more deliberately than
anything I would dare! B^D
> Then he accuses the "brats" of having "a long training
> in snobbery, protocol, sex and drugs". The reference to sex and
> Charles' kids, means naturally premarital sex,
Naturally... people NEVER HAVE ANY OTHER KIND! B^D
Jeez SSchleppo.. I hope for your sake you are a single bloke! B^D
> or being sexually promiscuous.
or perhaps... even... HAVING SEX! By god Watson! Thats it! B^D
> The "drugs" were associated to cocaine use by a snippet
> from a paper.
I thought drugs and cocaine were always associated?
Still, if you have a wee snippett at the paper, then by
all means, take her word for it!
> In other words
What was wrong with the original words?
Why do we need your 'other words'?
The words where YOU tell us "aristo brats" obviously means
Wee Willie, (and not the aforementioned "coke sniffing courtiers"? ) ?
My flabber is totally gasted at the energy you and Ralph have put into this! 8^)
Straining at gnats, and swallowing camels!
> Che is stating: "Our future head of state is a snob,
> who indulges in hard drugs and is sexually promiscuous."
Actually, YOU wrote that. ;-)
I wrote, of the 'coke sniffing courtiers':
" Rich aristo brats with a long training in snobbery, protocol,
sex and drugs... that's what our nation needs as role models
for the young:"
But I am half convinced you may also be right! B^D B^D
> Clear as a bell!!
You think that explains the ringing in your ears? B^)
More likely that's from the regular drubbing I give you! B^D
> What's the point in him now running around like a
> Neville saying "I didn't say.. blah blah blah..."
None really.. you have said it all!
Very persuasively.
You may be right.. I thought the evidence only supported
a suggestion of incredibly poor judgement, lack of character and
moral fibre, consorting, a dangerous permissiveness towards illegal
drugs, and running with Euro-trash.
But perhaps YOU are right, where there is smoke there may be fire! ;-)
Still I prefer to be more reticent than you. ;-)
> SSSS Che should be ashamed of himself
Why, I don't defend aristo parasites who are soft on hard drugs!
I don't accept them as divinely entitled to be our head of state
when bright, clean living Aussie kids don't even stand a chance!
> (Oh, the SSSS is for, Snivelling Snot Sucking Sissy :-)
Oh, ouch, hurties! B^D B^D B^D
Not very original SSchleppo. ;-)
(I don't have to explain SS, everyone on the NG knows you
and gets the connection instantly! B^D )
Now, *That's* innuendo, in the hands of a master! B^D
Che Guava
Seppo Renfors wrote:
> Che Guava wrote:
> <Snip>
> >
> > Seppo Renfors wrote:
> >
> > SSchleppo, I am sure that as one previously insisting that a private civil
> > action is the only way to proceed, your current decision to debate the
> > issues is merely a ploy to enable your mate Ralph to further attack me
> > for "convicting" Lightfingers.
> >
> > So let me make quite clear (Legal disclaimer ;-) I have no authority to
> > *prosecute* the tory art thief.. BUT EVERY RIGHT TO DISCUSS
> > HIS ROLE IN THE RECENT ART THEFT! B^D
>
> ...but you have NO "RIGHT" to DEFAME the man!
Truth is a legal defence.
I have not defamed Kennett.
(If he disagrees he can sue me.)
He took, and kept the painting wrongfully.
That is stealing in plain English.
Those who steal are thieves.
QED.
<Snip>
David Wareing
wrote on 9/3/00 2:10:
>> ...but you have NO "RIGHT" to DEFAME the man!
>
> Truth is a legal defence.
> I have not defamed Kennett.
> (If he disagrees he can sue me.)
> He took, and kept the painting wrongfully.
> That is stealing in plain English.
> Those who steal are thieves.
Ah, the irony. Ok, Mr Courageous, if you have no fear of
him defaming you, why don't you send him some mail, telling him
that he is a thief and that you have said this in public?
Better yet, since you're sooooo concerned about accountability,
why don't you and your bolshie chums pool your dole cheques and
place an advertisement in The Age, calling Kennett a thief.
After all, truth is a legal defence, which should protect you
amply from legal action, right?
You're a hypocrite and a wanker. You're always bullshitting on
about this and that, but you never have the guts to actually
do anything about it.
Che Guava
David Wareing wrote:
> in article 38C67484...@my-deja.com, Che Guava at che_...@my-deja.com
> wrote on 9/3/00 2:10:
>
> >> ...but you have NO "RIGHT" to DEFAME the man!
> >
> > Truth is a legal defence.
> > I have not defamed Kennett.
> > (If he disagrees he can sue me.)
> > He took, and kept the painting wrongfully.
> > That is stealing in plain English.
> > Those who steal are thieves.
>
> Ah, the irony. Ok, Mr Courageous, if you have no fear of
> him defaming you, why don't you send him some mail, telling him
> that he is a thief and that you have said this in public?
This shows the absurdity of your mad litigious view of reality!
Why on earth would someone engaging in non defamatory discourse
go out of their way to invite litigation? B^p
Make some sense!
You reject simple regulatory measures, like having statutes and enforcing them
in favour with these surreal legalistic fantasies... a lawyers picnic:
> Better yet, since you're sooooo concerned about accountability,
> why don't you and your bolshie chums pool your dole cheques and
> place an advertisement in The Age, calling Kennett a thief.
> After all, truth is a legal defence, which should protect you
> amply from legal action, right?
BWAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Wearing's replacement for law and order!
Place ads in the paper! B^D
How dare citizens expect police and courts to enforce the law, eh Dave?
You want it to be all ad hoc, user pays! B^D
Chris Lumb
"Royals" being debauched, or Popes for that matter. I happen to feel sorry
for the kid, both his parents were questionable, and I think he should be
given a break. I don't, however, agree with the monarchy.
Seppo Renfors
Che Guava wrote:
>
> Seppo Renfors wrote:
>
> > Che Guava wrote:
> > >
> > > Future Head of State's coke sniffing courtiers
> > >
> > > One of the wonderful things about a hereditary head of state
> > > is that you get to see what you are in for well in advance.
> > >
> > > Rich aristo brats with a long training in snobbery, protocol,
> > > sex and drugs... that's what our nation needs as role models
> > > for the young:
> >
>
> with coke sniffing courtiers! Don't forget the drug connection! B^D
>
>
> Well, that is an interesting use of the word "necessarily"! B^D
> When Prince Tampons mum arrives for her million dollar
> taxpayer funded jaunt, be sure to tell her that If any one
> uses the word 'brat', they are *necessarily* referring to her
> grandchildren! B^D
>
> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>
> (The "aristo brats" is a set which is a bit broader than the
> immediate Royal family aristo brats, SSchleppo.. but carry on.. ;-)
> you are maligning the Royals far more deliberately than
> anything I would dare! B^D
[text restored]
> > Now lets look at CHE'S words. The "hereditary head of state" is
> > definitely an "aristo" and as Che uses the term "brats" he is
> > necessarily referring to Prince Charles' offspring and William
> > specifically.
> > Then he accuses the "brats" of having "a long training
> > in snobbery, protocol, sex and drugs". The reference to sex and
> > Charles' kids, means naturally premarital sex, or being sexually
> > promiscuous. The "drugs" were associated to cocaine use by a snippet
> > from a paper.
>
>
> Naturally... people NEVER HAVE ANY OTHER KIND! B^D
> Jeez SSchleppo.. I hope for your sake you are a single bloke! B^D
> or perhaps... even... HAVING SEX! By god Watson! Thats it! B^D
> I thought drugs and cocaine were always associated?
> Still, if you have a wee snippett at the paper, then by
> all means, take her word for it!
> What was wrong with the original words?
> Why do we need your 'other words'?
> The words where YOU tell us "aristo brats" obviously means
> Wee Willie, (and not the aforementioned "coke sniffing courtiers"? ) ?
> My flabber is totally gasted at the energy you and Ralph have put into this! 8^)
> Straining at gnats, and swallowing camels!
[text restored]
> > In other words
> > Che is stating: "Our future head of state is a snob,
> > who indulges in hard drugs and is sexually promiscuous."
>
> Actually, YOU wrote that. ;-)
Sure I did, but that is YOUR MEANING that YOU stated, hence the quote
marks!
>
> I wrote, of the 'coke sniffing courtiers':
> " Rich aristo brats with a long training in snobbery, protocol,
> sex and drugs... that's what our nation needs as role models
> for the young:"
>
> But I am half convinced you may also be right! B^D B^D
So you admit to being an arsehole. What the hell has any of this to do
with AUSTRALIAN POLITICS? Hmmm? Just a bit of gratuotous defamation of
people you apparently envy.
>
> > Clear as a bell!!
>
> > What's the point in him now running around like a
> > Neville saying "I didn't say.. blah blah blah..."
>
> You think that explains the ringing in your ears? B^)
>
> More likely that's from the regular drubbing I give you! B^D
>
> None really.. you have said it all!
> Very persuasively.
> You may be right.. I thought the evidence only supported
> a suggestion of incredibly poor judgement, lack of character and
> moral fibre, consorting, a dangerous permissiveness towards illegal
> drugs, and running with Euro-trash.
>
> But perhaps YOU are right, where there is smoke there may be fire! ;-)
>
> Still I prefer to be more reticent than you. ;-)
>
> > SSSS Che should be ashamed of himself
> > (Oh, the SSSS is for, Snivelling Snot Sucking Sissy :-)
> Why, I don't defend aristo parasites who are soft on hard drugs!
> I don't accept them as divinely entitled to be our head of state
> when bright, clean living Aussie kids don't even stand a chance!
I'm AGAINST your constant ABUSE for self gratification purposes...
like what you have your hand on constantly in public... and INABILITY
to debate anything.
> Oh, ouch, hurties! B^D B^D B^D
>
> Not very original SSchleppo. ;-)
Oh, but that it was! You on the other hand have had to BORROW (or is
that 'steal') from that low-life David Brindley. Shit you can't even
think up your own abuse! No wonder you have to resort to using jurno's
mouths constantly if your abilities are THAT limited!!
>
> (I don't have to explain SS, everyone on the NG knows you
> and gets the connection instantly! B^D )
>
> Now, *That's* innuendo, in the hands of a master! B^D
Oh, we KNOW what's in YOUR hands you disgusting old man.
Don't forgot your raincoat when you go to the playground!!!
Che Guava
Chris Lumb wrote:
> If any of you guys have read your history, there's nothing new about
> "Royals" being debauched, or Popes for that matter.
I didn't think my story was in vein. ;-)
> I happen to feel sorry for the kid,
It's the big cow eyes. like those wide-eye doll paintings..
we are hardwired to react.. It's baby physiognomy. B^)
> both his parents were questionable,
He is not alone in that, but if they are touting the divine right
of Kings, then they better be capable of delivering an example
somewhat better than less than ordinary! B^p
> and I think he should be given a break.
What, we should send a donation?
> I don't, however, agree with the monarchy.
That's all we are talking about here.. a totally bogus claim to
intrinsic superiority. A job too special for mere colonials.
As soon as he abdicates he can go back to his druggie mates..
No hard feelings, they can still send their cricket teams for a trouncing. ;-)
Calvin Schadenfreude
Not sure, but we all know Sloppo can't.
.
Off with Seppo's head for email replies.
Seppo Renfors
Che Guava wrote:
>
> Seppo Renfors wrote:
>
> > Che Guava wrote:
> > <Snip>
> > >
> > > Seppo Renfors wrote:
> > >
> > > SSchleppo, I am sure that as one previously insisting that a private civil
> > > action is the only way to proceed, your current decision to debate the
> > > issues is merely a ploy to enable your mate Ralph to further attack me
> > > for "convicting" Lightfingers.
> > >
> > > So let me make quite clear (Legal disclaimer ;-) I have no authority to
> > > *prosecute* the tory art thief.. BUT EVERY RIGHT TO DISCUSS
> > > HIS ROLE IN THE RECENT ART THEFT! B^D
> >
> > ...but you have NO "RIGHT" to DEFAME the man!
>
> Truth is a legal defence.
Not always! In any case you HAVEN'T told the truth.
> I have not defamed Kennett.
Yes you have, tonnes of times, and I'm NIT counting the truck loads of
mindless abuse.
> (If he disagrees he can sue me.)
... but that's why you HIDE isn't it.
> He took, and kept the painting wrongfully.
Well, lets put it a little bit more accurately shall we. It ended up
at his house wrongly.
> That is stealing in plain English.
No FAR FROM IT.
> Those who steal are thieves.
...if it has been PROVEN they actually STOLE something - but ONLY
then.
>
> QED.
>
> <Snip>
So again you FAILED the test of TRUTH.
Death
Calvin Schadenfreude <triagain@SEPPO'S.HEAD.iname.com> wrote in message
news:38c7ada...@NEWS.PICKNOWL.COM.AU...
>
> Not sure, but we all know Sloppo can't.
Sloppo, hehe, couldn't imagine every being wrong, for
then he could be wrong about there being a God
and we all know what happens to people that do
that. Yes, they think for themselves.
David Wareing
wrote on 9/3/00 18:01:
>>> Truth is a legal defence.
>>> I have not defamed Kennett.
>>> (If he disagrees he can sue me.)
>>> He took, and kept the painting wrongfully.
>>> That is stealing in plain English.
>>> Those who steal are thieves.
>>
>> Ah, the irony. Ok, Mr Courageous, if you have no fear of
>> him defaming you, why don't you send him some mail, telling him
>> that he is a thief and that you have said this in public?
>
> This shows the absurdity of your mad litigious view of reality!
>
> Why on earth would someone engaging in non defamatory discourse
> go out of their way to invite litigation? B^p
So what you will do instead is defame Kennett in this group,
and then hide under cover of "truth is a legal defence", hoping
like hell Kennett himself (the target of your adolescent barbs)
won't see them?
Poor little parasitic CliChe. He'll call Kennett a thief in
this group, but doesn't want to attract any attention to himself.
No wonder you hide your real name, you spineless worm.
Show some guts, dickhead. If you want to have a go at Kennett,
be a man and mail him your accusations. Don't spread your poison
here and then slink away when you are held to your words.
[snip]
Che Guava
stinky... lets take the pooper scooper to it!
Seppo Renfors wrote:
> Che Guava wrote:
> >
> <snip>
> >
> > "Jeff Kennett Art Thief" .. no, I said *NOTHING* about 'convicted felon'.
>
> What RIGHT have you go to call Kennett an "Art Thief"??
> <snip>
> > *My usage* is perfectly normal and descriptive (all definitions from the
> > Macquarie ;-)
>
> ...and DEFAMATORY, and UNTRUTHFUL - you cannot claim someone is a
> THIEF until a Court has pronounced a judgement.
Then by your logic, *you* cannot accuse me of defamation until it is
TESTED in a court... AND I am pronounced guilty! B^D
You are guilty of the same defamation you accused me of! B^D Hypocrite!
Except I am now guilty of the same defamatory (pre-trial) claim
that you have defamed ME! B^D
(*if* your logic held true.. he, he.. FAT FUCKING CHANCE!)
> [snip the rest of the obfuscation]
>
> Your BIG trouble is Che, that you have NO ABILITY to actually debate
> much anything. You are only here to attack the person - specially
> Liberals whom you are totally unhinged about.
I don't really think I talk much about the Liberals do I SSchleppo?
Since Chaney and that other bloke (McPhee?) went, there aren't to many
of them around. Its a bit like trying to find any True Believers in
the Labor Party... best of luck! B^p
> Take stock of what you do:
> #1
> * Use exclusively abusive terms.
What a load of SSchleppo shit, you stupid fucking wanker! B^D
(I have treated your claim with the respect its evidentiary
base deserved ;-)
> #2* Split people's posts to the point their arguments are lost or made
> incoherent.
Your arguments were already incoherent and lost,
they needed no help from me.
By 'splitting' I take it you mean *this* process, answering
point by point in detailed rebuttal.
Standard form old boy. How else to do it?
If you can't follow, not my fault. ;-)
> #3* Attack the poster, not their points, with massive amounts of drivel
> and name calling.
was that an example of the point you claim to be making?
> #4* Evade answering direct questions.
Do you mean i ignore you?
Yes, frequently. I intend to do so with increasing regularity.
You are turgid, obtuse illogical and frequently confused..
Merely being seen in the same thread as you endangers my reputation.
I am PAID to debate you, by a woman who claims to be your mother.
> #5* Tell outright lies - claiming "poetic licence".
I print them off, you can have one for $50 ;-)
> #6* Constantly belittle and defame LIBERAL politicians.
Belittle, perhaps.. defame, a contradiction in terms.
> #7* Post newspaper articles - already available to those interested.
you have already received a *comprehensive* drubbing on this one
I will not assist you to embarrass and humiliate yourself further.
> #8* FAIL to then debate ANYTHING of substance IN the articles you
> support!
Ah.. this is the one I have been waiting for! B^)
(The rest is window dressing and no further correspondence will
be entered into. (You may like to 'freshen' some of those wild
claims with a little hard evidence.. but I am still disinclined to talk to you ;-)
There are Eighty One(81) posts in this thread I started.
(I thought it would make an ideal case study,
*YOU* chose it for me, by raising this spurious claim IN IT. ;-)
Of those 81, fully Twenty Three(23) are mine..
the largest body by any single poster.
(You in contrast have submitted a mere seventeen (17)
all of very dubious quality, and most, highly derivative ;-)
It is obvious to any reasonable observer that on this crude evidence
I am quite vigorous in debate, and as a closer examination would
also reveal, I have mounted a substantive response to the charges laid
against me.
Now, you may not *like* my arguments, you may not *agree*
with my arguments, but you really should stop fucking *lying*
by pretending I don't make them.
Otherwise, I will revert to giving you what you seem only to deserve...
more of complaint #1 B^p
> #9* You scream blue murder when the same is used against YOU as you do
> onto others.
You would need to provide an example for me to give this
serious consideration. And frankly, your judgement in such matters is shitful.
> #10* You never stand up for your "claimed" views.
this is merely #8 repeated.
> #11* When taken to task on something you run away!
This is a variant of #4 My answer there applies.
I have had many long and sustained battles on this NG.
In most I find myself last standing, (but this is not to claim
they have been conceded.. ) Many of my posts are fiercely
contested.. some few sit without response.
The longer I'm here, the more I let go through to the covers.
I am completely at ease with my manhood,
you cannot provoke me to battle, only entice.
And you, frequently, lack all enticement.
From your perspective, you may find I avoid engagement,
(I can think of several encounters where you have abandoned
debate as the critical blow fell.. B^p )
I frankly believe most of your posts self-destruct.
Far better to let them stand and self-indict than to lose
valuable debating time.
Besides, It is unmanly to slap a cripple.
> #12* You are constantly destructive in your comments.
Remove the 'constantly' and you may have a case.
I chose the name of this virtual persona to suit its role,
relentless critique of the status quo.
Even so, my poetry, my stories, my gentle lyricism, has crept
in where it was not meant to be. Love, it seems, doth
conquer all.
Fortunately, for my subversive purpose, such goodness
and virtue as I manifest, falls on deaf ears. ;-)
> I'm starting to wonder what the hell you're doing on this news group
> at all?
Ah, a breakthrough!
We have stilled your mad charging long enough for a moment
of thoughtful reflection.
> Seems to me your ideas are far better suited to *.flame groups.
should I take your 'list of grievances' approach with me?
Tell me, if anyone should know it's you;
Is there a NG called aus.bleat.bleat.bleat?
Calvin Schadenfreude
<some...@other.than.here> wrote:
>
>Calvin Schadenfreude <triagain@SEPPO'S.HEAD.iname.com> wrote in message
>news:38c7ada...@NEWS.PICKNOWL.COM.AU...
>>
>> Not sure, but we all know Sloppo can't.
>
>Sloppo, hehe, couldn't imagine every being wrong, for
>then he could be wrong about there being a God
>and we all know what happens to people that do
>that. Yes, they think for themselves.
>
And thinking, whether for himself or someone else, is not one of
Sloppo's strong points.
Seppo Renfors
Che Guava wrote:
>
> This post of yours has sat here long enough to get truly
> stinky... lets take the pooper scooper to it!
>
> Seppo Renfors wrote:
>
> > Che Guava wrote:
> > >
> > <snip>
> > >
> > > "Jeff Kennett Art Thief" .. no, I said *NOTHING* about 'convicted felon'.
LIE No:1
> >
> > What RIGHT have you go to call Kennett an "Art Thief"??
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > *My usage* is perfectly normal and descriptive (all definitions from the
> > > Macquarie ;-)
> >
> > ...and DEFAMATORY, and UNTRUTHFUL - you cannot claim someone is a
> > THIEF until a Court has pronounced a judgement.
>
> Then by your logic, *you* cannot accuse me of defamation until it is
> TESTED in a court... AND I am pronounced guilty! B^D
Ahhhh... but that's where you are WRONG. In the case of defamation you
are presumed GUILTY until you prove yourself innocent, once a
defamatory imputation is made out. It is the reverse from criminal
matters, but then I don't expect you to know anything about that, or
you wouldn't have made the silly claim!
In your case, you calling Kennet a thief, and if it went to trial it
would be up to you to PROVE the truth of that statement - as you have
called him a "criminal". A task I'm sure you are unable to to
complete.
Therefor it is QUITE correct for me to say you HAVE defamed Kennett,
as you are GUILTY until proven innocent.
> You are guilty of the same defamation you accused me of! B^D Hypocrite!
Ignorance of the Law is NO EXCUSE!!
>
> Except I am now guilty of the same defamatory (pre-trial) claim
> that you have defamed ME! B^D
> (*if* your logic held true.. he, he.. FAT FUCKING CHANCE!)
Oh, bit it IS! That's the trouble when you runneth off at the mouth
not knowing what you are on about!
>
> > [snip the rest of the obfuscation]
> >
> > Your BIG trouble is Che, that you have NO ABILITY to actually debate
> > much anything. You are only here to attack the person - specially
> > Liberals whom you are totally unhinged about.
>
> I don't really think I talk much about the Liberals do I SSchleppo?
...you prefer to use your derogatory term "tory" instead. Howard,
Costello, Bishop and Reith are all Liberals. You are CONSTANTLY bad
mouthing them. Therefore your statement above is a LIE No:2. (are you
keeping count as you'll owe me HEAPS at the end of THIS post alone!)
> Since Chaney and that other bloke (McPhee?) went, there aren't to many
> of them around. Its a bit like trying to find any True Believers in
> the Labor Party... best of luck! B^p
LIE No:3
>
> > Take stock of what you do:
> > #1
> > * Use exclusively abusive terms.
>
> What a load of SSchleppo shit, you stupid fucking wanker! B^D
LIE No:4
>
> (I have treated your claim with the respect its evidentiary
> base deserved ;-)
>
> > #2* Split people's posts to the point their arguments are lost or made
> > incoherent.
>
> Your arguments were already incoherent and lost,
> they needed no help from me.
>
> By 'splitting' I take it you mean *this* process, answering
> point by point in detailed rebuttal.
> Standard form old boy. How else to do it?
> If you can't follow, not my fault. ;-)
It also includes inserting text in mid paragraph, taking the meaning
away. It includes inserting text in MID SENTENCE ruining the intended
meaning. It includes totally snipping PART of a sentence (without
indicating having done so) and altering the meaning to the OPPOSITE
from that stated!
>
> > #3* Attack the poster, not their points, with massive amounts of drivel
> > and name calling.
>
> was that an example of the point you claim to be making?
A statement of FACT boyo, -FACT! (something you have a hard time with)
>
> > #4* Evade answering direct questions.
>
> Do you mean i ignore you?
No EVADING in your replies that are usually not relevant to much
anything at all. Like the above and below comments.
> Yes, frequently. I intend to do so with increasing regularity.
> You are turgid, obtuse illogical and frequently confused..
> Merely being seen in the same thread as you endangers my reputation.
> I am PAID to debate you, by a woman who claims to be your mother.
>
> > #5* Tell outright lies - claiming "poetic licence".
>
> I print them off, you can have one for $50 ;-)
Up to $200 in THIS post alone!
>
> > #6* Constantly belittle and defame LIBERAL politicians.
>
> Belittle, perhaps.. defame, a contradiction in terms.
LIE No:5
>
> > #7* Post newspaper articles - already available to those interested.
>
> you have already received a *comprehensive* drubbing on this one
> I will not assist you to embarrass and humiliate yourself further.
LIE No:6
>
> > #8* FAIL to then debate ANYTHING of substance IN the articles you
> > support!
>
> Ah.. this is the one I have been waiting for! B^)
>
> (The rest is window dressing and no further correspondence will
> be entered into. (You may like to 'freshen' some of those wild
> claims with a little hard evidence.. but I am still disinclined to talk to you ;-)
>
> There are Eighty One(81) posts in this thread I started.
> (I thought it would make an ideal case study,
> *YOU* chose it for me, by raising this spurious claim IN IT. ;-)
>
> Of those 81, fully Twenty Three(23) are mine..
> the largest body by any single poster.
>
> (You in contrast have submitted a mere seventeen (17)
> all of very dubious quality, and most, highly derivative ;-)
>
> It is obvious to any reasonable observer that on this crude evidence
> I am quite vigorous in debate, and as a closer examination would
> also reveal, I have mounted a substantive response to the charges laid
> against me.
>
> Now, you may not *like* my arguments, you may not *agree*
> with my arguments, but you really should stop fucking *lying*
> by pretending I don't make them.
Not addressing the issue you replied to AT ALL.
How many times you post your irrelevant garbage, does NOT amount to
"arguments" let alone LOGICAL arguments! You claim to have posted 23
times, I responded to you (presumably) 17 times. That leaves only SIX
(6) posts, you haven't been told how how inaccurate you are by myself.
I see ralph hauled you over the coals pretty good too several times
(six times... there is the missing 6). Soupie did the same....
Every one asked you to PROVE your claims YOU WOULDN'T or more like
COULDN'T. From memory all you ever did was attack "ralph" personally
and EVADE providing the proof asked of you. I rest my case in this
"example" thread where you "claim" to actually have "debated"
something it turns out that YOU HAVE NOT!
The point being YOU DON'T HAVE ANY ARGUMENTS! You at BEST make
unsubstantiated statements (no, snipping specially selected little
bits from a paper is NOT substantiation).
Once you have posted the jurno's selectively edited articles, and
added your ABUSE to them, that's it! You do NOT in any way attempt to
SUBSTANTIATE the JURNO'S claims you add your abuse to it, as a "me
too" statement.
>
> Otherwise, I will revert to giving you what you seem only to deserve...
>
> more of complaint #1 B^p
That's what you do regularly now, what's the difference? And I'm not
the ONLY one whom you do it to. I'm quite convinced that there are a
far more than Neville who have you killfiled - or otherwise ignore
you. As in most cases you end up a total BORE!
> > #9* You scream blue murder when the same is used against YOU as you do
> > onto others.
>
> You would need to provide an example for me to give this
> serious consideration. And frankly, your judgement in such matters is shitful.
Oh, is your Alzheimer's playing up is it? Don't be CUTE, you are fully
well aware of them. I have used your bleating against yourself in a
few posts you have subsequently replied to, so I KNOW you ARE aware of
them.
>
> > #10* You never stand up for your "claimed" views.
>
> this is merely #8 repeated.
Well worth repeating... in the hope it will actually sink in!!
>
> > #11* When taken to task on something you run away!
>
> This is a variant of #4 My answer there applies.
NO, as you deliberately attempted to EVADE #4 back at #4!!
>
> I have had many long and sustained battles on this NG.
"Battles" of ABUSE!! The more you lose the greater the volume of the
abuse! It ranges between 50% and 75% as a standard, other garbage
fills the remainder. Of the posts I did stats on, you only had ONE
post with ANY substance, and that amounted to LESS than 4% of the post
IIRC.
> In most I find myself last standing, (but this is not to claim
> they have been conceded.. ) Many of my posts are fiercely
> contested.. some few sit without response.
Only because you mess the posts up that bad they are incomprehensible,
there is so much dribble in them, and the rest us pure ABUSE. You
become a BORE of no substance. Who wants to debate someone like that?
>
> The longer I'm here, the more I let go through to the covers...
...of the bed sheets and they are FARTS!
>
> I am completely at ease with my manhood,
> you cannot provoke me to battle, only entice.
I keep telling you I'm NOT INTERESTED in your sex life at all. What's
with you? Got a hang-up in reality, a bit like Mosley perhaps, hmmm?
> And you, frequently, lack all enticement.
Interpreted it means you cannot actually DEBATE the subject with
SUBSTANCE, so you run away!
> From your perspective, you may find I avoid engagement,
> (I can think of several encounters where you have abandoned
> debate as the critical blow fell.. B^p )
Errr.... you don't AVOID it, you never ENGAGE in a debate OF
SUBSTANCES in the first place! Your posts are unsubstantiated "me too"
garbage to another's utterances. THE END!
>
> I frankly believe most of your posts self-destruct.
> Far better to let them stand and self-indict than to lose
> valuable debating time.
> Besides, It is unmanly to slap a cripple.
In "Che speak" the "valuable debating time" in reality means "valuable
ABUSE time". As DEBATE is something very RARE indeed for Che.
>
> > #12* You are constantly destructive in your comments.
>
> Remove the 'constantly' and you may have a case.
No. It stands! Don't bring that one up about congratulating Howard
about Timor, as within a few words you abused shit out of him -
therefor it remains as ABUSE!
> I chose the name of this virtual persona to suit its role,
> relentless critique of the status quo.
ROFL.... as a PROTECTIVE measure so you won't be SUED. You would be
very poor indeed by now otherwise!
>
> Even so, my poetry, my stories, my gentle lyricism, has crept
> in where it was not meant to be. Love, it seems, doth
> conquer all.
Oh, I had forgotten about that. You are also a pompous old windbag who
needs a lot of self inflation with puerile hot air!
> Fortunately, for my subversive purpose, such goodness
> and virtue as I manifest, falls on deaf ears. ;-)
Ahhh.. now you FINALLY cracked and told your TRUE reasons, "my
subversive purpose". That is to say, to wreak havoc and cause
division, to foster discontent etc.... well well, it isn't only the
fortee of the PHONies it seems.
> > I'm starting to wonder what the hell you're doing on this news group
> > at all?
> Ah, a breakthrough!
> We have stilled your mad charging long enough for a moment
> of thoughtful reflection.
> > Seems to me your ideas are far better suited to *.flame groups.
> should I take your 'list of grievances' approach with me?
>
> Tell me, if anyone should know it's you;
>
> Is there a NG called aus.bleat.bleat.bleat?
There still isn't an answer to the last question. Typical of your
EVASION!
"I'm starting to wonder what the hell you're doing on this news group
at all?"
Oh, and you owe me $300 from this post alone. I'll accept a credit
card!
David Wareing
triagain@SEPPO'S.HEAD.iname.com wrote on 11/3/00 20:51:
>> Sloppo, hehe, couldn't imagine every being wrong, for
>> then he could be wrong about there being a God
>> and we all know what happens to people that do
>> that. Yes, they think for themselves.
>>
> And thinking, whether for himself or someone else, is not one of
> Sloppo's strong points.
I think you need to get over your fascination with Seppo. It's
unwholesome, and I'm sure that Seppo isn't the least bit interested
in you. Get over it.
Kevin V. Russell
Che Guava <che_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Jeff Kennett should have been charged with the theft and
> illegal possession of a $50,000 painting belonging to the
> Victorian people.
>
>
> owned exercise bike, and had fraudulently misused a
> government credit card, for personal purposes.
And what about his sly grog sale?
--
Don't walk ahead of me, I may not follow.
Don't walk behind me, I may not lead.
Don't walk beside me, just piss off.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Che Guava
David Wareing wrote:
Found your new tag-team bum boy, eh, Wearing! B^D
Good luck, this one is even more witless than Goof! B^D
Che
-----
"The only thing which counts is money"
"Menzies founded a small-l liberal party. All of that has gone.
They are no longer small-l liberals. They are now the right-wing side of
politics".
- Dame Rachel Cleland Australian Story ABC 3/5/99
Calvin Schadenfreude
<dwar...@adelaide.on.net> wrote:
>in article 38ca1cd7...@NEWS.PICKNOWL.COM.AU, Calvin Schadenfreude at
>triagain@SEPPO'S.HEAD.iname.com wrote on 11/3/00 20:51:
>
>
>>> Sloppo, hehe, couldn't imagine every being wrong, for
>>> then he could be wrong about there being a God
>>> and we all know what happens to people that do
>>> that. Yes, they think for themselves.
>>>
>> And thinking, whether for himself or someone else, is not one of
>> Sloppo's strong points.
>
>I think you need to get over your fascination with Seppo. It's
>unwholesome, and I'm sure that Seppo isn't the least bit interested
>in you. Get over it.
>
And Seppo doesn't need your head up his arse.
Get it out of there.
Che Guava
"Kevin V. Russell" wrote:
> In article <38BB74B5...@my-deja.com>,
> Che Guava <che_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > Jeff Kennett should have been charged with the theft and
> > illegal possession of a $50,000 painting belonging to the
> > Victorian people.
> >
> > And it's not as if this is a first offence, either.
> >
> > He was previously found in possession of a government
> > owned exercise bike, and had fraudulently misused a
> > government credit card, for personal purposes.
>
> And what about his sly grog sale?
Not a bad vintage, shall we open one?
Oh.. Shit.. that's not what you meant is it!? ;-)
Yes, gone are the days when an MP is gone for fiddling
the travel allowance.. nowadays people just shrug their shoulders.