[Hate] Good Lord, But I Do Hate Computers
The Last Real Marlboro Man
It's come to my attention that many psychos are posting to this new
list of mine without my permission. This will stop.
Henceforth, all submissions to this list will be e-mailed to me first
for my approval. If approved, I will then post it for you.
If you send me 5 approved posts in a row, you will earn the privilage
of posting without first going through me - right up until you fuck
up, at which time I will mortify you by publicly pulling your posting
priviliages.
It's the Dawn Of A Brave New Age for this Writing List.
- Wayne (Whee!)
Ejucaided Redneck
--
Nazism was "national socialism." National
Socialism is not fascism
-- Wayne Lutz
--
Have I mentioned that the Palestinians are
animals? The politicians and diplomats will
say the things that they must say, but the terror
will never stop - not until the Palestinian animals
have been exterminated like the filthy vermin that
they are.
--Wayne Lutz
--
http://www.bobsloansampler.com:
Chapter 1 of "Home Call," a novel to be released July 1st
Links to and about "Bearskin to Holly Fork: Stories From Appalachia,"
Latest Herald-Leader Column: http://tinyurl.com/2amz7
Fiction, poetry, essays, MP3s, radio & TV interviews
John Kulczycki
The Last Real Marlboro Man wrote:
Donna deMedicis
The Last Real Marlboro Man wrote:
>
> If you send me 5 approved posts in a row, you will earn the privilage
> of posting
I'm thinking you should offer green stamps.
Donna (You remember green stamps? You should. You're old.)
Ray Haddad
Donna deMedicis <adl...@mindspring.com> instead replied:
Quiz time. What were the two letters on those green stamps and what
did they stand for?
Ray
TaniO
(in message <2mo1d0hl78hmquj2c...@4ax.com>):
S and H
TaniO
Donna deMedicis
TaniO wrote:
No, S&H stamps were YELLO.
Wendy Chatley Green
wrote:
:> S and H
:>
:
:No, S&H stamps were YELLO.
Sperry and Hutchinson Green Stamps were green. Somewhere in
the fusty cranial archives are the lyrics to a song about them sung to
the tune of "Greensleeves":
Green Stamps were all she gave
Green Stamps were all she took
Green Stamps were all she saved
and she put them into her Green Stamp book
--
Wendy Chatley Green
wcg...@cris.com
Robert McClelland
"The Last Real Marlboro Man" <lu...@REMOVElutz.kicks-ass.org> wrote in
message news:q7s1d0db5md6n42hv...@4ax.com...
> Now that I've gotten that out of the way...
>
> It's come to my attention that many psychos are posting to this new
> list of mine without my permission. This will stop.
<snip>
I find it hard to take you seriously considering you had most of the worst
offenders at your house this past weekend and none of them went home
sporting a black eye.
--
Visit my blahg site.
GO NOW DAMMIT!
http://myblahg.blogspot.com/
The Last Real Marlboro Man
<rls...@mindspring.com> wrote his usual obsessive sweet nothings.
Excuse me, Bobby, but I don't remember approving this post. Not that I
wouldn't have, because it contains good, solid information.
But proceedure is proceedure. And you, being more stupid than most,
must at the very least follow proceedure if there is to be any hope
for you. Your advanced age is no excuse.
You get one more chance, after which it'll be no more Mr. Nice
Guy...you will be banished forever.
- Wayne (The shit I put up with...)
Ray Haddad
Good on ya, Wendy. The S&H Green Stamps are actually quite collectible these
days.
Ray
I have met the enemy, the gods of SPAM, and I have triumphed.
pandora
> On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 19:00:25 -0400, Ejucaided Redneck
> <rls...@mindspring.com> wrote his usual obsessive sweet nothings.
>
> Excuse me, Bobby, but I don't remember approving this post. Not that I
> wouldn't have, because it contains good, solid information.
>
> But proceedure is proceedure. And you, being more stupid than most,
> must at the very least follow proceedure if there is to be any hope
> for you. Your advanced age is no excuse.
Ageist! Phaw!!!
> You get one more chance, after which it'll be no more Mr. Nice
> Guy...you will be banished forever.
Just as soon as I get my book of spells back from Sylvia, well....you just
better look out.
Marg
Davida Chazan - The Chocolate Lady
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 18:20:16 -0700, The Last Real Marlboro Man
<lu...@REMOVElutz.kicks-ass.org> wrote:
>
>It's come to my attention that many psychos are posting to this new
>list of mine without my permission. This will stop.
No, it will not.
(Keep trying.)
--
Davida Chazan (The Chocolate Lady)
<davidac AT jdc DOT org DOT il>
~*~*~*~*~*~
"What you see before you, my friend, is the result of a lifetime of
chocolate."
--Katharine Hepburn (May 12, 1907 - June 29, 2003)
~*~*~*~*~*~
TaniO
(in message <7T5Ac.2335$bs4....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>):
I got my husband with green stamps. They were green.
Ejucaided Redneck
gekko
becoming a spammer:
> --
> Nazism was "national socialism." National
> Socialism is not fascism
> -- Wayne Lutz
>
> --
> Have I mentioned that the Palestinians are
> animals? The politicians and diplomats will
> say the things that they must say, but the terror
> will never stop - not until the Palestinian animals
> have been exterminated like the filthy vermin that
> they are.
> --Wayne Lutz
>
--
gekko
Type fast, think slow. -- From "A Hacker's Oath"
Robert McClelland
"gekko" <ge...@lutz.kicks-ass.org.invalid> wrote in message
news:slrncd3rag....@enews2.newsguy.com...
> Ejucaided Redneck <rls...@mindspring.com> is on his way toward
> becoming a spammer:
>
> > --
> > Nazism was "national socialism." National
> > Socialism is not fascism
> > -- Wayne Lutz
> >
> > --
> > Have I mentioned that the Palestinians are
> > animals? The politicians and diplomats will
> > say the things that they must say, but the terror
> > will never stop - not until the Palestinian animals
> > have been exterminated like the filthy vermin that
> > they are.
> > --Wayne Lutz
> >
>
>
> <http://tinyurl.com/27v5q>
I was thinking it's time to buy gones cause they're three for a dollar, it's
all a food caught under the bridgework, time to bury the cat and other
misremembered proverbs. Besides, we should all be more upset with Wayne for
having Sylvia at his house and not smacking some sense into the vapid cow's
head.
Sylvia
"Robert McClelland" <robert.m...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> "The Last Real Marlboro Man" <lu...@REMOVElutz.kicks-ass.org> wrote in
> message news:q7s1d0db5md6n42hv...@4ax.com...
> > Now that I've gotten that out of the way...
> >
> > It's come to my attention that many psychos are posting to this new
> > list of mine without my permission. This will stop.
>
> <snip>
>
> I find it hard to take you seriously considering you had most of the worst
> offenders at your house this past weekend and none of them went home
> sporting a black eye.
It must be boring finding out yer wrong like that all the time, huh?
Points for admitting it, though.
--
Sylvia
"All power corrupts. Absolute power is kinda neat though."
Sylvia
<...>
> - Wayne (The shit I put up with...)
Add comfry.
The Last Real Marlboro Man
wrote:
Mr. Sloan is very selective in his outrage, as are all
totalitarian-supporting, murder-excusing, dictator appeasing,
baby-killer-apologist leftist scum like he. Wishing terror attacks on
innocent Americans is in vogue, and gets a pass in Bob Sloan's
disgusting, twisted little world, and in this reeking sewer called
misc.writing.
Here's something for you, Bobby. I'm going to give you some fresh
quotes - the ones you are using, while very good, are getting stale.
I'll even do you the favor to tying the two ideas together.
Question, Bob Sloan (One which you will ignore, because you lack the
intellectual capacity, and the balls, to face this issue head-on, but
what the heck).
Was Saddam Hussein's murdering Baathist party Socialist, or Fascist?
(Or do you, Bob Sloan, hate Jews, America and Democracy so much that
you don't care?)
"While there are many differences between the two, the finer
ideological distinctions are generally lost on the regime's victims."
- Paul Crespo
What about the tyrant-terrorist Arafat's "Palestinians," Bobby? You
know, the baby-bombers. Socialist, or Fascist? "Palestinian" is,
after all, and as I have patiently explained, nothing more than yet
another political construct. Just as there is no religion, race or
nationality called "Nazi," neither is there a religion, race or
nationality called "Palestinian." And there is no country called
"Palestine" any more than there was a country called "Nazi-Land."
In fact, the Nazi's and the Palestinians have so much more in common
than just their nationalistic socialism - they hate Jews just as much
as you American and European leftists do. Difference is that they,
the Palestinians and the Nazis, both set out to exterminate them.
The Nazi's needed to be put down and destroyed forever. They wanted to
exterminate the Jews, and set out to do it. The Palestinian's want to
exterminate the Jews, and have set out to do it. You tell me what the
difference is, Bob. Tell me, by all means. The Nazi's were destroyed
by defenders of freedom, and the Palestinians will be destroyed by
same, and for the same reasons - so that Jewish babies will not be
slaughtered like calves, so that Jewish families will not be torn
apart by violence, and so that Jews may finally live securely, in
peace, in their own land.
This is the hope of Conservatives and the hope of Christians and of
all freedom-loving people around the world. It is the darkest fear of
Totalitarian Socialists, Communists, Fascists and their apologists -
like you.
Answer to above question: The Baath Party was, of course, Socialist.
You may quote me. Exposure of this *fact* enrages you and slime like
you because *you* are Socialists, and the difference between your sick
ideology, Bob Sloan, and Saddam's, Hitler's, or even Stalin's and
Castro's is only one of degree. And the end result of your sick
Socialist Ideology is always murder and human suffering on a huge
scale, and you just don't want to acknowledge that fact. So it's
easier for you to deny and rewrite history and point old wrinkled
fingers at Conservatives.
"With most of these dictatorships, only the ideological rhetoric
differs. For Hussein's Socialist Baath Party, it was about
Pan-Arabism. For Castro's Communist Party, it's international
socialism. For Hitler, it was national socialism (Nazism). For
Mussolini, it was corporate statism (true fascism)." - Paul Crespo
The most ironic part of all this is that modern "Conservatives" have
more in common with traditional "liberals" than you ever will:
"In reality, modern American conservatives have more in common with
classical liberals than many of today's so-called liberals can ever
hope to have. This is particularly true because American liberalism in
many ways has been hijacked in recent years by a collectivist and
pacifist left wing that is closer to European socialism than to
American ideals.
"These differences do matter because the battle now is not between
right-wing fascism and left-wing liberalism. The contest is between
American constitutional democracy and free markets on one side and
leftist socialism, rightist statism and ultimately totalitarianism of
any stripe on ther other.
"Today ''right-wing'' conservatives are the ones promoting democracy
and liberal American ideas throughout the world, while many of our
so-called liberals seem bent on opposing them." - Paul Crespo
That's you, Bob Sloan. Bent on defending baby-killing, bent on
defending Jew-exterminating, bent on preserving your precious
Socialist order at all costs - and the human cost is high indeed.
You and your kind make me sick, Sloan, you disgust me. You appease,
apologize and excuse terror. You remain silent when freedom is
trampled and women, children and innocents are brutally slaughtered by
ideologues - like you. You and your kind helped make it possible for
the most murderous regimes in history to slaughter and imprison
countless millions of innocents in the 20th century - you apologized
and excused and obstructed and lied and appeased for decades while
people died, and you are trying to do it again now. You make me want
to vomit.
- Wayne Lutz, and you may fucking quote me, scum.
B. Callaghan
> Mr. Sloan is very selective in his outrage, as are all
> totalitarian-supporting, murder-excusing, dictator appeasing,
> baby-killer-apologist leftist scum like he.
FOSOTN.
-bettina
The Last Real Marlboro Man
<bett...@comcast.net> wrote:
> FOSOTN.
Thasswat I likes. Womens what ree-posts 123 lines and adds six
letters.
Bandwidth's cheap an' plentiful as opinions around here.
- Wayne (An' broads. Broads is cheap. An' plentiful.)
Rick
Marlboro Man <lu...@REMOVElutz.kicks-ass.org> wrote:
> > FOSOTN.
>
> Thasswat I likes. Womens what ree-posts 123 lines and adds six
> letters.
Brevity is the soul of wit, but of course there's no way you could be
expected to know that.
--
Rick
B. Callaghan
> On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 17:18:29 -0400, "B. Callaghan"
> <bett...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > FOSOTN.
>
> Thasswat I likes.
I'm glad I pleased you.
note: in the future it will just be "IGIPY".
- bettina
Robert McClelland
>
> "Palestinian" is, after all, and as I have patiently explained, nothing
more than yet
> another political construct.
So is America. What does that have to do with the fact that innocent people
are dying on both sides of the conflict but you see fit to only condemn the
murderers on one side?
The Last Real Marlboro Man
<bett...@comcast.net> wrote:
>note: in the future it will just be "IGIPY".
Don't matter none, little filly. I doesn't speak cyber.
- Wayne (Y'all could be sayin' to me "An the horse you rode in on!" an
I wunt know it.)
pandora
"B. Callaghan" <bett...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:cat1n...@news1.newsguy.com...
>
> "The Last Real Marlboro Man" <lu...@REMOVElutz.kicks-ass.org> wrote in
message
> news:uss3d0hcki0g2cbto...@4ax.com...
>
> > Mr. Sloan is very selective in his outrage, as are all
> > totalitarian-supporting, murder-excusing, dictator appeasing,
> > baby-killer-apologist leftist scum like he.
>
>
> FOSOTN.
?
I apologize for my slowness but this *old* lady would like to know what that
means.
Marg
The Last Real Marlboro Man
<robert.m...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>So is America.
Don't be so dense. "America" (I'm assuming you mean the U.S.) is a
nation. (Yes, a nation is a political construct. Go back and figure
out the distinction I've been trying to make.) I wouldn't advocate
eradicating Germany in 1939 either. Only Nazi's.
"Palestinians" are terrorists. Those adherents to Palestinianism not
actively engaged in terror support it, which is the same thing. There
are no more innocent "Palestinians" than there are innocent Al Quaeda
members or Baathists or Communists or Nazis or Gay Activists.
(Just kidding on that last one, for those of you drooling over new
quotes. Lighten the fuck up, for chrissakes.)
Palestinianism has to go, Robbie.
Now, I don't doubt that there are some, not many, but some, *Arabs*
living within the area currently overrun by Palestinianism who are
"innocent." Especially the children. Just as there were many Germans
in Germany who were innocent - especially the children. And a great
many more, *many* more, *Arabs* throughout the Middle East who are
innocent, who want only to live free and in peace.
Let's see if anyone here can understand that distinction. I seriously
doubt it.
All your mewling protests are a crock of shit anyway. We've been
through this ad nauseum. Bottom line is that we need to hurry up and
free the Middle East. so we can get busy freeing the North Koreans. We
will do both, whether you like it or not.
Once that's out of the way, we'll annex Mexico and Canada, then set
our sights on that huge, Totalitarian State in waiting...
...the new Evil Empire...
...the E.U.
- Wayne (We'll only be doing it so we can steal their cobblestones.
There's a cobblestone shortage in the U.S., don't you know.)
The Last Real Marlboro Man
<robert.m...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>only condemn the
>murderers on one side?
Them fucking Jews, Robby? Runnin' around blowin' up babies 'n shit.
Right?
Drive 'em into the sea, Robbie?
- Wayne ( Moral equivalency? What an ugly thing - and such an easy way
out.)
Rick
<pan...@peak.org> wrote:
> "B. Callaghan" <bett...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:cat1n...@news1.newsguy.com...
> >
> > "The Last Real Marlboro Man" <lu...@REMOVElutz.kicks-ass.org> wrote in
> message
> > news:uss3d0hcki0g2cbto...@4ax.com...
> >
> > > Mr. Sloan is very selective in his outrage, as are all
> > > totalitarian-supporting, murder-excusing, dictator appeasing,
> > > baby-killer-apologist leftist scum like he.
> >
> >
> > FOSOTN.
>
> ?
> I apologize for my slowness but this *old* lady would like to know what that
> means.
Friends of Selective Outrage Take Notice.
--
Rick
Robert McClelland
> On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 18:50:22 -0400, "Robert McClelland"
> <robert.m...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> >only condemn the
> >murderers on one side?
>
> Them fucking Jews, Robby?
No, I mean Israel, rube.
pandora
"Rick" <ric...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:170620042039399126%ric...@nyc.rr.com...
Thank you! I always appreciate courteous explanations.
Marg
[a bit slow, perhaps, but learning]
> --
> Rick
Robert McClelland
> On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 18:50:22 -0400, "Robert McClelland"
> <robert.m...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> >So is America.
>
> Don't be so dense. "America" (I'm assuming you mean the U.S.) is a
> nation. (Yes, a nation is a political construct. Go back and figure
> out the distinction I've been trying to make.)
You haven't been making one. Palestine was a recognized nation prior to `48
and was even on maps. Hence, the people are known as Palestinians. The fact
that some Palestinians are terrorists does not mean all Palestinians are
terrorists nor does it mean Palestinian is an ideology of terrorism.
<rubbish hosed>
gekko
news:7JqdnZpWE5L...@scnresearch.com by "pandora"
<pan...@peak.org> i see tonight:
I'm thinking "Fans", not "Friends".
--
gekko
I intend to live forever - so far, so good -- Steven Wright
Rick
> pandora wrote:
> > "Rick" wrote:
> >> Friends of Selective Outrage Take Notice.
> > Thank you! I always appreciate courteous explanations.
> I'm thinking "Fans", not "Friends".
I'm thinking you're right. Bitch.
--
Rick
Sylvia
"Robert McClelland" <robert.m...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Besides, we should all be more upset with Wayne for
> having Sylvia at his house and not smacking some sense
> into the vapid cow's head.
<bristling>
MIZ deMEDICIS!!! Front and center, Missy!
You *told* him about my cow moo imitations, didn'tcha? Yer still
ticked 'cause I wouldn't do them again when you asked!
Boy, see if I ever entertain you with Meanwhile, Back At The Ranch
Stories again!
<leaving in huff>
And I most certainly am *not* gonna bring Cow Head Story Props no
more, not if someone's gonna smack it! http://tinyurl.com/2n99s
--
Sylvia (unless, of course, there's gonna be Java Chip ice cream)
"Mr. Paperclip Guy is a fuckwit."
- Miz UV
pandora
"gekko" <ge...@lutz.kicks-ass.org.invalid> wrote in message
Marg
Beth
I'm thinking somebody needs chocolate.
I was following a Sal link and apparently you have a whack of
excellent chocolate destinations in NY:
http://lovesecrets.topcities.com/index_chocolate3.html
I'm thinking you could spend more than a day totally chocolating out.
Beth (nummmm)
Donna deMedicis
Sylvia wrote:
> In article <HnmAc.45987$7H1.1...@news20.bellglobal.com>,
> "Robert McClelland" <robert.m...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
>> Besides, we should all be more upset with Wayne for
>>having Sylvia at his house and not smacking some sense
>>into the vapid cow's head.
>
>
> <bristling>
>
> MIZ deMEDICIS!!! Front and center, Missy!
I am here.
>
> You *told* him about my cow moo imitations, didn'tcha? Yer still
> ticked 'cause I wouldn't do them again when you asked!
Look, my daddy has cows. I know cows. I know the sound they make. And
this woman, right here, can make a sound, and you'd swear you're out in
the pasture. It is amazing. I'm hearing it right now, in my head.
Deep, guttural, from the diaphragm, cow-like.
It is a cow imitation for the ages.
Do not let them bring you down, Little Buddy. Stand tall, have pride in
your cow imitation.
Stand tall, I said.
>
> Boy, see if I ever entertain you with Meanwhile, Back At The Ranch
> Stories again!
I'm thinking I shared a few Down on the Farm stories, but I don't really
remember. I might have had just a wee bit too much to drink, but I'm
sure no one noticed.
>
> <leaving in huff>
Come back. I can't sleep. Entertain me.
>
> And I most certainly am *not* gonna bring Cow Head Story Props no
> more, not if someone's gonna smack it! http://tinyurl.com/2n99s
Next year, I'm going to bring an actual cow. As a hostess gift.
Rick
wrote:
> I'm thinking somebody needs chocolate.
>
> I was following a Sal link and apparently you have a whack of
> excellent chocolate destinations in NY:
>
> http://lovesecrets.topcities.com/index_chocolate3.html
>
> I'm thinking you could spend more than a day totally chocolating out.
Absolutely! And thanks for the link. I had no idea there were /that/
many chocolatiers in NYC. And I'm glad to see that Lilac Chocolate,
which is just a couple of blocks from me, is designated as "notable."
> A neighborhood favorite located in the heart of the West Village since
> 1923. Li-Lac makes delicious truffles, chocolate, fudge, and covered
> chocolate treats. They also have a shop at Grand Central Market.
> Chocolates are $20-30/lb. For a super bargain, look for the $1.50 bags
> of broken chocolates.
>
> · 120 Christopher Street (bet. Bleecker & Bedford/Hudson St.)
> phone: 1.212.242.7374, fax: 1.212.366.5874
> · Grand Central Terminal Market Hall, 43th St and Lexington.
> phone: 1.212.370.4866
(Aside to Sylvia: the chocolate pudding I recommended at Sazerac House
is made with Lilac chocolate.)
(Aside to Hope: I promise not to ever again mention My Dinner Without
Andr
--
Rick
Rick
<ric...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> (Aside to Hope: I promise not to ever again mention My Dinner Without
> Andr
Oops. Pushed the wrong button, trying to be all fancy with the accent
marks and everything. Anyway, I promise not to ever again mention My
Dinner Without Andre But With Stan and Sylvia.
--
Rick
Ray Haddad
and "Robert McClelland" <robert.m...@sympatico.ca> instead
replied:
>"The Last Real Marlboro Man" <lu...@REMOVElutz.kicks-ass.org> wrote in
>message news:uss3d0hcki0g2cbto...@4ax.com...
>>
>> "Palestinian" is, after all, and as I have patiently explained, nothing
>more than yet
>> another political construct.
>
>So is America. What does that have to do with the fact that innocent people
>are dying on both sides of the conflict but you see fit to only condemn the
>murderers on one side?
I'll wait for your definition of innocent people to emerge. The last
time, it was Saddam on the head of your list.
Ray
Davida Chazan - The Chocolate Lady
Jun 2004 16:44:11 -0400, during the misc.writing Community News Flash
The Last Real Marlboro Man <lu...@REMOVElutz.kicks-ass.org> reported:
>The Nazi's needed to be put down and destroyed forever. They wanted to
>exterminate the Jews, and set out to do it. The Palestinian's want to
>exterminate the Jews, and have set out to do it. You tell me what the
>difference is, Bob. Tell me, by all means.
I'll tell you what the difference is. The difference is that the
Nazis were a political party that grew up *within* a certain people or
groups of peoples. Taking the Nazis out did not rid the world of a
race of people. If it had, then there wouldn't be any Germany today.
Palestinians are considered today to be a people - despite all the
misconceptions that brought this about. Like it or not, real or fake,
they've succeeded in becoming recognized as a people with a legitimate
right for their own nation.
Furthermore, it is not at all true that Palestinians want to
exterminate the Jews. The operative word should be *Israel*, and not
*the Jews*. And not even all Palestinians want to destroy Israel.
There are, however, groups within the Palestinians that are promoting
this and doing their best to succeed. That would be Islamic Jihad,
Hamas, Al Akasa Martyrs and others of their ilk. These are terrorist
groups which either came from within the Palestinian people or have
associated themselves to the Palestinian cause - which would also
include bin Laden's gangs. Getting rid of these terrorist groups will
not rid the world of Palestinians.
So, to eliminate Nazis is to eliminate a violent and destructive
political group. To eliminate Palestinians is to eliminate a whole
people which would include the violent and destructive ones along with
the peaceful and constructive ones.
(The latter is considered genocide.)
--
Davida Chazan (The Chocolate Lady)
<davidac AT jdc DOT org DOT il>
~*~*~*~*~*~
"What you see before you, my friend, is the result of a lifetime of
chocolate."
--Katharine Hepburn (May 12, 1907 - June 29, 2003)
~*~*~*~*~*~
Links to my published poetry - http://davidachazan.homestead.com/
~*~*~*~*~*~
Davida Chazan - The Chocolate Lady
Jun 2004 20:12:05 -0400, during the misc.writing Community News Flash
The Last Real Marlboro Man <lu...@REMOVElutz.kicks-ass.org> reported:
>Palestinianism
Congratulations. You have just coined a new word.
(I wonder if there is an Israelism, too? Nah.)
gekko
>
> So, to eliminate Nazis is to eliminate a violent and destructive
> political group. To eliminate Palestinians is to eliminate a whole
> people which would include the violent and destructive ones along with
> the peaceful and constructive ones.
Having had several brief encounters with diverse people who have
Palestinian ties, but who are indeed peaceful and hard-working, I
can sympathize with this.
One such was a man whose ancestors lived in Jerusalem or vicinity
for millennia. They were among the first to convert to the new
Way promoted by the followers of the risen Savior. He is racially
identical to the Muslim Palestinian people who likewise trace
their ancestry back across the millennia, but ideologically not
the same. He calls himself and his family Palestinians.
--
gekko
If work is so terrific, how come they have to pay you to do it?
Jenna Thomas-McKie
@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net:
> Sylvia wrote:
>> And I most certainly am *not* gonna bring Cow Head Story Props no
>> more, not if someone's gonna smack it! http://tinyurl.com/2n99s
> Next year, I'm going to bring an actual cow. As a hostess gift.
Oh, Stan! I think yer gonna need a bigger smoker!
--
Jenna Thomas-McKie
jth...@aug.edu
Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again.
Looney
"Robert McClelland" <robert.m...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:G_qAc.48531$7H1.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> "The Last Real Marlboro Man" <lu...@REMOVElutz.kicks-ass.org> wrote in
> message news:adb4d0hrjd27k8cue...@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 18:50:22 -0400, "Robert McClelland"
> > <robert.m...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >
> > >only condemn the
> > >murderers on one side?
> >
> > Them fucking Jews, Robby?
>
> No, I mean Israel, rube.
Now that was a stupid answer...
--
Looney
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rant of the Loon
http://looneytoohey.blogspot.com/
Stan (the Man)
> Donna deMedicis <adl...@mindspring.com> wrote in news:astAc.16014$Y3.14622
> @newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net:
>
>
>>Sylvia wrote:
>
>
>
>>>And I most certainly am *not* gonna bring Cow Head Story Props no
>>>more, not if someone's gonna smack it! http://tinyurl.com/2n99s
>
>
>
>>Next year, I'm going to bring an actual cow. As a hostess gift.
>
>
> Oh, Stan! I think yer gonna need a bigger smoker!
And, deMedicis will be walking behind it with a bucket.
--
Stan
The Last Real Marlboro Man
<dav...@jdc.com> wrote:
>Palestinians are considered today to be a people - despite all the
>misconceptions that brought this about. Like it or not, real or fake,
>they've succeeded in becoming recognized as a people with a legitimate
>right for their own nation.
Recognized by whom? That is precisely my point. I do *not* conisder
them that. I consider them Nazi's. Hence my statements. The whole
point, nothing but the point. I don't give a rat's ass what they've
succeeded in convincing you or the leftists or the United Nations of.
Show me one person in that group, in that land, who stood up and
objected to the mass-murder on 9/11, or to the constant
terror-bombings in Israel. Show me an account of one civilian standing
in the midst of the dancers in the streets and passing out of candies
to the kiddies and said, hey, wait a minute, this isn't right.
As compared, of course, to the countless thousands of examples of
Palestinians expressing joy over terror and murder. Anyone? Anyone?
But rather than speak out against the Palestinianism that is murdering
innocents every day, you leftists would rather wring your hands over
the semantics of someone who *is* outraged by baby-killings.
The battles you pick is very telling.
- Wayne
Alan Hope
>But rather than speak out against the Palestinianism that is murdering
>innocents every day, you leftists would rather wring your hands over
>the semantics of someone who *is* outraged by baby-killings.
Is your home-page closed down or what, you sanctimonious fuck?
Shouldn't you be keeping this sort of "editorial" for your "readers"?
What happened to all that "media attention" we were hearing about
anyway? Didn't you get Kenny Rogers or someone to do "articles" for
you? I'm wondering what happened to cause you to backslide to
precisely the spot you were in two years ago. Head-on collision with a
beer truck, maybe? Contributors give up calling when the checks
started to bounce?
I'm sure there's a fascinating story there, if you could get someone
else to write it. No offence to your skills, it's just I think this
might be better-suited to someone whose authorial voice is a bit less
whiny, self-justifying and, how shall I put it, obnoxious.
Course, the decision is entirely yours. I'm giving you the input of a
post-reader. TIOLI
--
AH
The Last Real Marlboro Man
wrote:
>He calls himself and his family Palestinians.
Why thank you so much for this anecdote. You've certainly cleaned
*my* clock. You're absolutely right. Because of the innocence of one,
the vast majority of them may now continue to murder, with blessings.
And rather than post condemnations of that murder, we will reserve our
comments for protestations of those reactionary wackos who are
infuriated by it.
- Wayne (I'm sure one could have found a single Hun in ad 400 or so
who would rather have just stayed home and made doilies.)
The Last Real Marlboro Man
directly to me, so shut your pink, flabby, spittle-flecked little
Communist mouth.
You'd do well to turn on a light, put on some clothes and look into a
mirror now and then, you morbidly obese freak. It might motivate you
to get a life.
- Wayne (Or to take more direct action...)
Josh Hill
The vast majority of Palestinian Arabs don't murder, Wayne. Why isn't
it sufficient to excoriate those who do?
--
Josh
To reply by email, delete "REMOVE" from the email address.
The Last Real Marlboro Man
<lu...@REMOVElutz.kicks-ass.org> wrote:
>Because of the innocence of one,
>the vast majority of them may now continue to murder, with blessings.
Clarification: I did not mean to imply, as the above sounds, that you
personally would "bless" murder. I was speaking generally.
- Wayne
Josh Hill
One might say the same of you. Davida, after all, lives with the
threat of Palestinian terrorism, as you do not, and yet she doesn't
condemn an entire people for the acts of a few.
Looney
gekko
bop-shoo-bop-shoo-bop, and, furthermore, said:
> Shouldn't you be keeping this sort of "editorial" for your
> "readers"?
>
Fucking net nanny.
--
gekko
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers. --Pablo Picasso
Josh Hill
<ant...@thetooheyshatespam.com> wrote:
>
>"Josh Hill" <Josh44...@snet.net> wrote in message
>news:0rj6d0hp3ah0imgif...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 16:13:59 -0400, The Last Real Marlboro Man
>> <lu...@REMOVElutz.kicks-ass.org> wrote:
>>
>> >On 18 Jun 2004 14:58:13 GMT, gekko <ge...@lutz.kicks-ass.org.invalid>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>He calls himself and his family Palestinians.
>> >
>> >Why thank you so much for this anecdote. You've certainly cleaned
>> >*my* clock. You're absolutely right. Because of the innocence of one,
>> >the vast majority of them may now continue to murder, with blessings.
>> >
>> >And rather than post condemnations of that murder, we will reserve our
>> >comments for protestations of those reactionary wackos who are
>> >infuriated by it.
>> >
>> >- Wayne (I'm sure one could have found a single Hun in ad 400 or so
>> >who would rather have just stayed home and made doilies.)
>>
>> The vast majority of Palestinian Arabs don't murder, Wayne. Why isn't
>> it sufficient to excoriate those who do?
>
>Ironic...
?
Alan Hope
>Excuse me, Hope. I don't remember giving you permission to speak
>directly to me, so shut your pink, flabby, spittle-flecked little
>Communist mouth.
Indeed you didn't, but I'm doing it anyway. You open your mouth to
issue forth a reproof and I piss in it. What are you going to do now?
>You'd do well to turn on a light, put on some clothes and look into a
>mirror now and then, you morbidly obese freak. It might motivate you
>to get a life.
A few more jars and you may find the courage to respond more like a
man and less like an emasculated version of Ray Haddad.
I fear I'm going to be seeing you scuttling off with your arse-cheeks
scorched and blackened just when I'm getting into my stride, Whiyne.
Tell me it won't be so. Tell me you'll find a backbone -- soonish?
--
AH
Alan Hope
>Alan Hope <ah...@skynet.be> put the bop in the
>bop-shoo-bop-shoo-bop, and, furthermore, said:
>> Shouldn't you be keeping this sort of "editorial" for your
>> "readers"?
>Fucking net nanny.
And the cannon-fodder rally to the flag.
Don't be creaming just yet, dear. I plan on sending your limp-dick
hero back to Pussyville where he came from. Where I sent him, what's
more, all those months ago.
My, those wounds took some licking. Did you help out? What else are
friends for?
--
AH
Alan Hope
>Clarification
It might be a good idea, old chap, if you thought about your posts
*before* sending them. Patches are all right in their place, but a
decent piece of fabric is always better.
--
AH
Ray Haddad
and Alan Hope <ah...@skynet.be> instead replied:
>The Last Real Marlboro Man goes:
>
>>Excuse me, Hope. I don't remember giving you permission to speak
>>directly to me, so shut your pink, flabby, spittle-flecked little
>>Communist mouth.
>
>Indeed you didn't, but I'm doing it anyway. You open your mouth to
>issue forth a reproof and I piss in it. What are you going to do now?
>
>>You'd do well to turn on a light, put on some clothes and look into a
>>mirror now and then, you morbidly obese freak. It might motivate you
>>to get a life.
>
>A few more jars and you may find the courage to respond more like a
>man and less like an emasculated version of Ray Haddad.
Hypocritical fishwife, Alan.
Wendy Chatley Green
wrote:
:On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 20:56:08 GMT, "Looney"
:<ant...@thetooheyshatespam.com> wrote:
:
:>
:>"Josh Hill" <Josh44...@snet.net> wrote in message
:>news:0rj6d0hp3ah0imgif...@4ax.com...
:>> The vast majority of Palestinian Arabs don't murder, Wayne. Why isn't
:>> it sufficient to excoriate those who do?
:>
:>Ironic...
:
:?
Clue--look up "excoriate" in a good dictionary.
--
Wendy Chatley Green
wcg...@cris.com
Davida Chazan - The Chocolate Lady
Jun 2004 16:27:33 -0400, during the misc.writing Community News Flash
The Last Real Marlboro Man <lu...@REMOVElutz.kicks-ass.org> reported:
Strange. On the one hand you want to exterminate all the
Palestinians, but on the other hand you don't want to bless murder.
(???)
Davida Chazan - The Chocolate Lady
Jun 2004 16:28:52 -0400, during the misc.writing Community News Flash
Josh Hill <Josh44...@snet.net> reported:
>On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 15:57:35 -0400, The Last Real Marlboro Man
><lu...@REMOVElutz.kicks-ass.org> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 10:01:45 +0200, Davida Chazan - The Chocolate Lady
>><dav...@jdc.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Palestinians are considered today to be a people - despite all the
>>>misconceptions that brought this about. Like it or not, real or fake,
>>>they've succeeded in becoming recognized as a people with a legitimate
>>>right for their own nation.
>>
>>Recognized by whom? That is precisely my point. I do *not* conisder
>>them that. I consider them Nazi's. Hence my statements. The whole
>>point, nothing but the point. I don't give a rat's ass what they've
>>succeeded in convincing you or the leftists or the United Nations of.
I see.
>>But rather than speak out against the Palestinianism that is murdering
>>innocents every day, you leftists would rather wring your hands over
>>the semantics of someone who *is* outraged by baby-killings.
>>
>>The battles you pick is very telling.
So, apparently are yours.
>One might say the same of you. Davida, after all, lives with the
>threat of Palestinian terrorism, as you do not, and yet she doesn't
>condemn an entire people for the acts of a few.
I cannot take the holier than thou attitude. While I never voted for
the governments that have perpetrated the acts against Palestinians
that I consider immoral (and are possibly internationally illegal),
they were carried out by *my* duly elected government. I have and
will always protest these acts, as I believe they are wrong.
I believe that any violence is wrong. The death of an innocent person
effects me, and I could never promote anything that would lead to that
happening, nor support it after the fact. That's me.
I feel that the only way to achieve peace here is through peaceful
measures. The pulling out of Gaza is a good step in the right
direction. Not that this will be peacefully done, but it will be done
nonetheless. And while those who live in Gaza may not agree with me,
our taking them away from there is for their own good, as well as the
good of Israel and the Palestinians. I see it as a first step towards
ending the bloodshed on both sides.
Exterminating a whole group of people is *not* the way to end the
constant bloodshed we have here.
gekko
was heard to sing "What a day, what a day, for an Auto de Fay in
misc.writing" and then said:
> (Please NOTE: My correct e-mail address is in my Signature) On
> Fri, 18 Jun 2004 16:27:33 -0400, during the misc.writing Community
> News Flash The Last Real Marlboro Man
> <lu...@REMOVElutz.kicks-ass.org> reported:
>
>>On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 16:13:59 -0400, The Last Real Marlboro Man
>><lu...@REMOVElutz.kicks-ass.org> wrote:
>>
>>>Because of the innocence of one,
>>>the vast majority of them may now continue to murder, with
>>>blessings.
>>
>>Clarification: I did not mean to imply, as the above sounds, that
>>you personally would "bless" murder. I was speaking generally.
>>
> Strange. On the one hand you want to exterminate all the
> Palestinians, but on the other hand you don't want to bless
> murder.
>
Without commenting on what Wayne wants or does not want with respect
to Palestinians and murder, I do wish to point out that his response
indicates he did not intend to imply that *I* would bless murder.
--
gekko
The intoxication of anger, like that of the grape, shows us to
others, but hides us from ourselves. -- Charles C. Colton
Josh Hill
<ge...@lutz.kicks-ass.org.invalid> wrote:
>On 19 Jun 2004, Davida Chazan - The Chocolate Lady <dav...@jdc.com>
>was heard to sing "What a day, what a day, for an Auto de Fay in
>misc.writing" and then said:
>
>
>> (Please NOTE: My correct e-mail address is in my Signature) On
>> Fri, 18 Jun 2004 16:27:33 -0400, during the misc.writing Community
>> News Flash The Last Real Marlboro Man
>> <lu...@REMOVElutz.kicks-ass.org> reported:
>>
>>>On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 16:13:59 -0400, The Last Real Marlboro Man
>>><lu...@REMOVElutz.kicks-ass.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Because of the innocence of one,
>>>>the vast majority of them may now continue to murder, with
>>>>blessings.
>>>
>>>Clarification: I did not mean to imply, as the above sounds, that
>>>you personally would "bless" murder. I was speaking generally.
>>>
>> Strange. On the one hand you want to exterminate all the
>> Palestinians, but on the other hand you don't want to bless
>> murder.
>>
>
>Without commenting on what Wayne wants or does not want with respect
>to Palestinians and murder
ITYMTS "Wayne's gone nuts, but he throws good parties."
gekko
Thank you, but if I *meant* to say anything even remotely like that,
I would have said exactly that. Unlike you, I don't deal in
innuendo and coy commentary, but prefer to state exactly what
it is I wish to state. The rest of you mooks tend toward the
subtext, hence your unfortunate tendencies to read "into" what
others write.
I meant exactly what I wrote: I am not attempting with my comment to
say diddly about people's latest ass-crawling bugs. I put that
disclaimer in there *because* of people like you, of course, who
cannot understand the words that are there.
--
gekko
Your conscience never stops you from doing anything. It just stops
you from enjoying it.
Josh Hill
<ge...@lutz.kicks-ass.org.invalid> wrote:
Of course you didn't meant to say it, Gekko: he's a friend, and you've
made it clear that cronyism comes before principle.
>Unlike you, I don't deal in
>innuendo and coy commentary
If my jaw were any lower it could visit Tiananmen Square.
>but prefer to state exactly what
>it is I wish to state. The rest of you mooks tend toward the
>subtext, hence your unfortunate tendencies to read "into" what
>others write.
>
>I meant exactly what I wrote: I am not attempting with my comment to
>say diddly about people's latest ass-crawling bugs. I put that
>disclaimer in there *because* of people like you, of course, who
>cannot understand the words that are there.
Bwah.
Either you believe that Palestinians are animals, Gekko, or you
disagree with Wayne and don't have the guts to say so.
gekko
up three very lovely girls, one of whom was named Josh Hill
I didn't mean to say what you claim I meant to say, Josh, because I
do not hold those thoughts. That *you* believe he has gone nuts is
your opinion. I do not share that opinion.
"Cronyism", as you like to put it, is irrelevant to this topic.
If I *did* think there was a problem, such as insanity, with any of
my friends, it would not be a sign of "principle" to advertise that
belief on a Usenet site, in spite of *your* astounding belief that it
is important to blast your friends and family in Usenet.
Princples, Josh, would require me to talk to my friend, and possibly
encourage him or her to seek help.
>
>>Unlike you, I don't deal in
>>innuendo and coy commentary
>
> If my jaw were any lower it could visit Tiananmen Square.
Perhaps if you stopped trying to cram so much food into it? Or are
you admitting to abusing steroids?
>
>>but prefer to state exactly what
>>it is I wish to state. The rest of you mooks tend toward the
>>subtext, hence your unfortunate tendencies to read "into" what
>>others write.
>>
>>I meant exactly what I wrote: I am not attempting with my comment
>>to say diddly about people's latest ass-crawling bugs. I put that
>>disclaimer in there *because* of people like you, of course, who
>>cannot understand the words that are there.
>
> Bwah.
>
> Either you believe that Palestinians are animals, Gekko, or you
> disagree with Wayne and don't have the guts to say so.
The topic at hand, Josh, has naught to do with Wayne's beliefs, or my
beliefs, with respect to Palestinians.
If you would like to know my beliefs regarding Palestinians, you have
only to ask me. That would be *changing* the topic, of course.
--
gekko
No matter how much you do, you never do enough.
Josh Hill
A classic example of argumentum ad pretending to take things
literally to avoid responding to the pointum, Gekko.
I did not literally mean that Stan was insane, and, of course, you
knew that, just as you know that your claim that it is important that
I "blast" my friends and family on Usenet is an out-and-out lie.
Simply stating that one disagrees is generally sufficient. But
perhaps, having grown up in an environment characterized by
mud-slinging meanness, you never learned that such a thing is
possible?
>>>Unlike you, I don't deal in
>>>innuendo and coy commentary
>>
>> If my jaw were any lower it could visit Tiananmen Square.
>
>Perhaps if you stopped trying to cram so much food into it? Or are
>you admitting to abusing steroids?
My, my. Do a detect a hint of innuendo and coy commentary?
>>>but prefer to state exactly what
>>>it is I wish to state. The rest of you mooks tend toward the
>>>subtext, hence your unfortunate tendencies to read "into" what
>>>others write.
>>>
>>>I meant exactly what I wrote: I am not attempting with my comment
>>>to say diddly about people's latest ass-crawling bugs. I put that
>>>disclaimer in there *because* of people like you, of course, who
>>>cannot understand the words that are there.
>>
>> Bwah.
>>
>> Either you believe that Palestinians are animals, Gekko, or you
>> disagree with Wayne and don't have the guts to say so.
>
>The topic at hand, Josh, has naught to do with Wayne's beliefs, or my
>beliefs, with respect to Palestinians.
>
>If you would like to know my beliefs regarding Palestinians, you have
>only to ask me. That would be *changing* the topic, of course.
Here's what it says above, Gekko:
Wayne:
>>>>>>>>Because of the innocence of one,
>>>>>>>>the vast majority of them may now continue to murder, with
>>>>>>>>blessings.
Wayne:
>>>>>>>Clarification: I did not mean to imply, as the above sounds,
>>>>>>>that you personally would "bless" murder. I was speaking
>>>>>>>generally.
Davida:
>>>>>> Strange. On the one hand you want to exterminate all the
>>>>>> Palestinians, but on the other hand you don't want to bless
>>>>>> murder.
Gekko:
>>>>>Without commenting on what Wayne wants or does not want with
>>>>>respect to Palestinians and murder
I would be most obliged if you could explain to me how it is that this
topic has nothing to do with Wayne's beliefs with respect to
Palestinians, Gekko. Perhaps I overlooked a discussion of 16th-century
wind instruments? Of reindeer breeding?
gekko
I am responding to the words you write, Josh. If you want me to
respond to other words, words you did *not* write, then I suggest you
write the words to which you wish me to respond.
>
> I did not literally mean that Stan was insane,
I realize this froup is all about Stan, but in this case we were
discussing Wayne. You see, up there? Where Davida misinterpreted
what *Wayne* said? And I politely corrected her misinterpretation?
And you jumped in and have been attempting to turn it into a "let's
get gekko to bash Wayne" thread?
Wayne, Josh. Not Stan.
> and, of course, you
> knew that,
I have not addressed whether you felt Stan, or even Wayne, is insane
literally or not. I addressed the words you wrote, especially the
part where you sleazily attempted to indicate that my focusing on
Davida's misunderstanding was somehow indicative of a lack of
principles on my part.
> just as you know that your claim that it is important
> that I "blast" my friends and family on Usenet is an out-and-out
> lie.
I know no such thing, Josh. You have repeatedly called me a
hypocrite because I take the stance that slapping friends publicly is
the *wrong* thing to do, and you feel that slapping friends publicly
is the *right* thing to do. IOW, you feel that my refusal to cater
to what *you* think is right rather than what *I* think is right
constitutes hypocrisy on my part. You further feel there's no
problem divulging your family's problems in public places, even when
those family members are not here to comment on them. You think that
this is *important*. A "clearing of the air" or a "not hiding
skeletons" or something that is apparently some bizarre form of self-
therapy for you.
You and I simply disagree on the importance Usenet has in our lives.
For me, it is a television program, mostly fictional, where I get to
act up. If there are issues in my own life, I deal with them
privately, where such things belong.
> Simply stating that one disagrees is generally sufficient.
Simply doing whatever one personally believes is the right thing to
do is sufficient. I am under no obligation to divulge all of my
beliefs, agreements, or disagreements.
I repeat, Josh, that this is *Usenet*. A playground.
I am here for *my* entertainment, not yours.
> But perhaps, having grown up in an environment characterized by
> mud-slinging meanness, you never learned that such a thing is
> possible?
I see your willingness to lie and twist things has grown since last
we discussed this.
>
>>>>Unlike you, I don't deal in
>>>>innuendo and coy commentary
>>>
>>> If my jaw were any lower it could visit Tiananmen Square.
>>
>>Perhaps if you stopped trying to cram so much food into it? Or
>>are you admitting to abusing steroids?
>
> My, my. Do a detect a hint of innuendo and coy commentary?
Response-in-kind-boy forgets what flaming is?
>
>>>>but prefer to state exactly what
>>>>it is I wish to state. The rest of you mooks tend toward the
>>>>subtext, hence your unfortunate tendencies to read "into" what
>>>>others write.
>>>>
>>>>I meant exactly what I wrote: I am not attempting with my
>>>>comment to say diddly about people's latest ass-crawling bugs.
>>>>I put that disclaimer in there *because* of people like you, of
>>>>course, who cannot understand the words that are there.
>>>
>>> Bwah.
>>>
>>> Either you believe that Palestinians are animals, Gekko, or you
>>> disagree with Wayne and don't have the guts to say so.
>>
>>The topic at hand, Josh, has naught to do with Wayne's beliefs, or
>>my beliefs, with respect to Palestinians.
>>
>>If you would like to know my beliefs regarding Palestinians, you
>>have only to ask me. That would be *changing* the topic, of
>>course.
>
> Here's what it says above, Gekko:
<snip repeat>
I am uninterested in what it says above, Josh. I responded to the
words that were above exactly as I desired to: correcting Davida's
misinterpretation of Wayne's rather clear words.
>
> I would be most obliged if you could explain to me how it is that
> this topic has nothing to do with Wayne's beliefs with respect to
> Palestinians, Gekko.
Quite simply, Josh: You responded to *my* words by dishonestly
restating what they said and attempting to attribute your twist to
me. MY words indicate the topic *I* am discussing. That topic has
to do with what Wayne meant when he said, "Clarification: I did not
mean to imply [...] that you personally would 'bless' murder."
<snippage>
Again, if you want to know what I believe concerning Palestinians,
you have only to ask. You would be changing the topic, of course,
because I did not discuss what I believe concerning Palestinians.
--
gekko
Sarcasm is just one more service we offer.
Stan (the Man)
Josh Hill wrote:
<...>
>>>> ITYMTS "Wayne's gone nuts, but he throws good parties."
<...>
> I did not literally mean that Stan was insane,
A bit obsessed, are you? I'm haunting your dreams now, eh? Do you
pretend not to see me there, too, genius?
Bwah! What a jackass.
--
Stan
Davida Chazan - The Chocolate Lady
On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 17:55:39 GMT, gekko
<ge...@lutz.kicks-ass.org.invalid> wrote:
>On 19 Jun 2004, Davida Chazan - The Chocolate Lady <dav...@jdc.com>
>was heard to sing "What a day, what a day, for an Auto de Fay in
>misc.writing" and then said:
>
>
>> (Please NOTE: My correct e-mail address is in my Signature) On
>> Fri, 18 Jun 2004 16:27:33 -0400, during the misc.writing Community
>> News Flash The Last Real Marlboro Man
>> <lu...@REMOVElutz.kicks-ass.org> reported:
>>
>>>On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 16:13:59 -0400, The Last Real Marlboro Man
>>><lu...@REMOVElutz.kicks-ass.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Because of the innocence of one,
>>>>the vast majority of them may now continue to murder, with
>>>>blessings.
>>>
>>>Clarification: I did not mean to imply, as the above sounds, that
>>>you personally would "bless" murder. I was speaking generally.
>>>
>> Strange. On the one hand you want to exterminate all the
>> Palestinians, but on the other hand you don't want to bless
>> murder.
>>
>
>Without commenting on what Wayne wants or does not want with respect
>to Palestinians and murder, I do wish to point out that his response
>indicates he did not intend to imply that *I* would bless murder.
I stand corrected.
I should have said:
On the one hand Wayne still promotes his position to you that all
Palestinians should be exterminated (despite the existence of at least
one non-vermin in their midst), but on the other hand he can
understand that you, gekko, would not bless murder.
(All we need are nine more righteous people and perhaps then Wayne
would be willing to spare them all from his flood? Or...
http://bible.ort.org/books/haftarotd4.asp?action=displaypage&book=6&chapter=7&verse=18&portion=66)
Steve Pritchard
news:astAc.16014$Y3.1...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Do not let them bring you down, Little Buddy. Stand tall, have pride in
> your cow imitation.
>
> Stand tall, I said.
Godda love "short" jokes.
Bernie
"Davida Chazan - The Chocolate Lady" <dav...@jdc.com> wrote in message
news:od98d098u2k50qbm7...@4ax.com...
> (Please NOTE: My correct e-mail address is in my Signature) On Fri, 18
> Jun 2004 16:27:33 -0400, during the misc.writing Community News Flash
> The Last Real Marlboro Man <lu...@REMOVElutz.kicks-ass.org> reported:
>
> >On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 16:13:59 -0400, The Last Real Marlboro Man
> ><lu...@REMOVElutz.kicks-ass.org> wrote:
> >
> >>Because of the innocence of one,
> >>the vast majority of them may now continue to murder, with blessings.
> >
> >Clarification: I did not mean to imply, as the above sounds, that you
> >personally would "bless" murder. I was speaking generally.
> >
> Strange. On the one hand you want to exterminate all the
> Palestinians, but on the other hand you don't want to bless murder.
>
> (???)
>
> --
> Davida Chazan (The Chocolate Lady)
> <davidac AT jdc DOT org DOT il>
The Australian Broadcasting Corporation is currently repeating "The World at
War". (World War II).
Today's episode was the one in which survivors of the various death camps
recalled their experiences, most of which centred around the chilling
shrieks of naked* men, women and children who were flogged all the way to
being burned alive; the putrid, choking stench from the chimneys; the
obvious enjoyment of those participating in the atrocities, and all because
the captors had been brainwashed into believing they were dealing with
"animals".
Having earlier read the views of the originator of this thread, I believe I
can now excuse myself for wondering how many of the perpretators of those
obscenities could so easily have been named Lutz.
Bernie.
* Naked because all clothing, women's hair, etc., could be recycled. Teeth
with gold fillings were savagely extracted without anaesthetic. The bodies
of those who died as a result of their skin being salvaged by scalding were
piled into wagons for their last journey, etc., ad nauseam!
Ejucaided Redneck
<snippage>
> Having earlier read the views of the originator of this thread, I believe I
> can now excuse myself for wondering how many of the perpretators of those
> obscenities could so easily have been named Lutz.
Forget dated TV shows.
Have you read "Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the
Holocaust" (Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, ISBN: 0679772685)? An astonishing
book, especially if you believe the implementation of the Holocaust was
solely the responsibility of Nazis. Highly recommended.
--
Nazism was "national socialism." National
Socialism is not fascism
-- Wayne Lutz
--
Have I mentioned that the Palestinians are
animals? The politicians and diplomats will
say the things that they must say, but the terror
will never stop - not until the Palestinian animals
have been exterminated like the filthy vermin that
they are.
--Wayne Lutz
--
http://www.bobsloansampler.com:
Chapter 1 of "Home Call," a novel to be released July 1st
Links to and about "Bearskin to Holly Fork: Stories From Appalachia,"
Latest Herald-Leader Column: http://tinyurl.com/2amz7
Fiction, poetry, essays, MP3s, radio & TV interviews
Josh Hill
<ge...@lutz.kicks-ass.org.invalid> wrote:
Bwah.
>>
>> I did not literally mean that Stan was insane,
>
>I realize this froup is all about Stan, but in this case we were
>discussing Wayne. You see, up there? Where Davida misinterpreted
>what *Wayne* said? And I politely corrected her misinterpretation?
>And you jumped in and have been attempting to turn it into a "let's
>get gekko to bash Wayne" thread?
>
>Wayne, Josh. Not Stan.
I apologize to Stan for erroneously using his name. Whatever he's
done, he hasn't referred to an entire group as "animals" because of
the actions of a few.
>> and, of course, you
>> knew that,
>
>I have not addressed whether you felt Stan, or even Wayne, is insane
>literally or not. I addressed the words you wrote, especially the
>part where you sleazily attempted to indicate that my focusing on
>Davida's misunderstanding was somehow indicative of a lack of
>principles on my part.
Yada.
>> just as you know that your claim that it is important
>> that I "blast" my friends and family on Usenet is an out-and-out
>> lie.
>
>I know no such thing, Josh. You have repeatedly called me a
>hypocrite because I take the stance that slapping friends publicly is
>the *wrong* thing to do, and you feel that slapping friends publicly
>is the *right* thing to do. IOW, you feel that my refusal to cater
>to what *you* think is right rather than what *I* think is right
>constitutes hypocrisy on my part. You further feel there's no
>problem divulging your family's problems in public places, even when
>those family members are not here to comment on them. You think that
>this is *important*. A "clearing of the air" or a "not hiding
>skeletons" or something that is apparently some bizarre form of self-
>therapy for you.
I know it doesn't come naturally, Gekko, but try not to be ludicrous,
and try not to be dishonest. Not everyone shares your middle class
need to sweep things under the carpet, and, indeed, the more advanced
among us find that sort of hypocrisy ugly, leading as it does to
cronyism masquerading as loyalty and to neglect of social problems: to
powerful and respected senators whose unacknowledged half-black
daughters must enter through the black door, to Ronald Reagan's famous
dictum "Thou shalt not criticize a fellow Republican" as applied, one
supposes, to Joe McCarthy and Richard Nixon. It is, ultimately, a
selfish stance, albeit I recognize that in some circumstances social
reactions are so primitive that discretion may be the only option, as
in the case of gays who face court martial in the military.
I find it interesting, BTW, that you place such a high premium on
never never never criticizing your cronies and such a low one on
offensive dialect and ethnic slurs.
>You and I simply disagree on the importance Usenet has in our lives.
>For me, it is a television program, mostly fictional, where I get to
>act up. If there are issues in my own life, I deal with them
>privately, where such things belong.
>
>> Simply stating that one disagrees is generally sufficient.
>
>Simply doing whatever one personally believes is the right thing to
>do is sufficient. I am under no obligation to divulge all of my
>beliefs, agreements, or disagreements.
>
>I repeat, Josh, that this is *Usenet*. A playground.
>
>I am here for *my* entertainment, not yours.
This is not about obligations, but about doing what is right.
>> But perhaps, having grown up in an environment characterized by
>> mud-slinging meanness, you never learned that such a thing is
>> possible?
>
>I see your willingness to lie and twist things has grown since last
>we discussed this.
And what would those lies and twists be, Gekko? I merely made a
speculation, clearly marked as such. By way of contrast, your 'A
"clearing of the air" or a "not hiding skeletons" or something that is
apparently some bizarre form of self-therapy for you' above, which
was, in fact, an out-and-out lie, since I have made clear the reasons
I do not choose to hide such things.
And, of course, you did grow up in a world characterized by
intolerance. And that makes it necessary to sweep things under the
carpet -- why hide one's half-black daughter when such things are
accepted? Whereas I grew up in an environment characterized by
kindness and tolerance. Them's the shakes.
>>>>>Unlike you, I don't deal in
>>>>>innuendo and coy commentary
>>>>
>>>> If my jaw were any lower it could visit Tiananmen Square.
>>>
>>>Perhaps if you stopped trying to cram so much food into it? Or
>>>are you admitting to abusing steroids?
>>
>> My, my. Do a detect a hint of innuendo and coy commentary?
>
>Response-in-kind-boy forgets what flaming is?
You're the one who criticized me for innuendo and coy commentary,
Gekko. Hypocrisy, of course.
Now, to watch the offending text disappear as the Gekko Automatic
History Reviser does its stuff.
You ducked, Gekko. You wrote a disclaimer that was worthy of a
government bureaucrat reacting to an inconvenient query.
Josh Hill
<dav...@jdc.com> wrote:
>>One might say the same of you. Davida, after all, lives with the
>>threat of Palestinian terrorism, as you do not, and yet she doesn't
>>condemn an entire people for the acts of a few.
>
>I cannot take the holier than thou attitude. While I never voted for
>the governments that have perpetrated the acts against Palestinians
>that I consider immoral (and are possibly internationally illegal),
>they were carried out by *my* duly elected government. I have and
>will always protest these acts, as I believe they are wrong.
>
>I believe that any violence is wrong. The death of an innocent person
>effects me, and I could never promote anything that would lead to that
>happening, nor support it after the fact. That's me.
>
>I feel that the only way to achieve peace here is through peaceful
>measures. The pulling out of Gaza is a good step in the right
>direction. Not that this will be peacefully done, but it will be done
>nonetheless. And while those who live in Gaza may not agree with me,
>our taking them away from there is for their own good, as well as the
>good of Israel and the Palestinians. I see it as a first step towards
>ending the bloodshed on both sides.
>
>Exterminating a whole group of people is *not* the way to end the
>constant bloodshed we have here.
It seems to me that Israel should, at this point, simply set
reasonable borders and grant Palestine independence. Then, if the
Palestinians want more, e.g., compensation for the descendants of
refugees and a resumption of economic cooperation, they can deal with
their terrorists and sign a final agreement. And I think Sharon is
working in that direction, although not nearly at the rate he should
be, and without being sufficiently willing (or perhaps able) to take
on the pro-settlement nutcases in his own party.
Unfortunately, a wall that cuts off Palestinian communities from one
another will make the whole thing moot.
Ultraviolet
<>
> I know it doesn't come naturally, Gekko, but try not to be ludicrous,
> and try not to be dishonest. Not everyone shares your middle class
> need to sweep things under the carpet,
Heavens, no! I wouldn't *dream* of sweeping anything anywhere.
That's the maid's job.
Tea, Joshie?
--
UV
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
http://paulalight.blogspot.com
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
gekko
place where the boy died and the girl was kidnapped and then to post
in news:bs4bd0p00qofcof3k...@4ax.com:
Heh. What Stan has "done", Josh, is succeed in irritating the hell
out of you to the point that you feel a need to slyly slime him even
while "apologizing" to him.
>
>>> and, of course, you
>>> knew that,
>>
>>I have not addressed whether you felt Stan, or even Wayne, is
>>insane literally or not. I addressed the words you wrote,
>>especially the part where you sleazily attempted to indicate that
>>my focusing on Davida's misunderstanding was somehow indicative of
>>a lack of principles on my part.
>
> Yada.
IOW: Yes, gekko, I'm trolling you by being sleazy and dishonest.
>
>>> just as you know that your claim that it is important
>>> that I "blast" my friends and family on Usenet is an out-and-out
>>> lie.
>>
>>I know no such thing, Josh. You have repeatedly called me a
>>hypocrite because I take the stance that slapping friends publicly
>>is the *wrong* thing to do, and you feel that slapping friends
>>publicly is the *right* thing to do. IOW, you feel that my
>>refusal to cater to what *you* think is right rather than what *I*
>>think is right constitutes hypocrisy on my part. You further feel
>>there's no problem divulging your family's problems in public
>>places, even when those family members are not here to comment on
>>them. You think that this is *important*. A "clearing of the
>>air" or a "not hiding skeletons" or something that is apparently
>>some bizarre form of self- therapy for you.
>
> I know it doesn't come naturally, Gekko, but try not to be
> ludicrous, and try not to be dishonest.
Bwah, as it were.
> Not everyone shares your
> middle class need to sweep things under the carpet,
More dishonesty from Josh.
> and, indeed,
> the more advanced among us
Heh. I agree that you are more advanced than a worm, Josh, but only
just.
> find that sort of hypocrisy ugly,
Since it is not hypocrisy, the descriptors you assign to it are of no
interest to me.
<snippage of sermon from the gully -- blessed are the sanctimonious
in your world, eh Joshers?>
>
> I find it interesting, BTW, that you place such a high premium on
> never never never criticizing your cronies and such a low one on
> offensive dialect and ethnic slurs.
Interesting that you pretend that you know what sort of "premium" I
place on anything, Josh.
What has your goat rammed deliciously up your pimpled ass is that I
will not criticize my friends in *public*, but will slap the shit out
of hypocritical dishonest idiots like you *in public*.
As for how I view "offensive" things and how I deal with them, you
really don't have a complete clue, nor shall you. I place a "low
premium" on attempting to impress pixels one of whose claims to fame
is their ability to morph into anything -- half hispanic, half jewish
and half menstrual teenager for example -- in order to "win" a
Usenet battle.
>
>>You and I simply disagree on the importance Usenet has in our
>>lives. For me, it is a television program, mostly fictional, where
>>I get to act up. If there are issues in my own life, I deal with
>>them privately, where such things belong.
>>
>>> Simply stating that one disagrees is generally sufficient.
>>
>>Simply doing whatever one personally believes is the right thing
>>to do is sufficient. I am under no obligation to divulge all of my
>>beliefs, agreements, or disagreements.
>>
>>I repeat, Josh, that this is *Usenet*. A playground.
>>
>>I am here for *my* entertainment, not yours.
>
> This is not about obligations, but about doing what is right.
In your world, then, doing what is "right" is to cavort, caper, and
cater to the Zens, Zeros, and Hills of Usenet, rather than do what is
meaningfully right in the real world.
For example, I might froth and moan for months on end in Usenet about
a criminal boy who is receiving justice of which I disapprove --
never actually doing anything about the situation, mind. That would
be Hillian "Right".
Another example of Hillian "Right" is to win points with people on
Usenet by blathering on about how wonderful I am and how shitty
everyone else is.
>
>>> But perhaps, having grown up in an environment characterized by
>>> mud-slinging meanness, you never learned that such a thing is
>>> possible?
>>
>>I see your willingness to lie and twist things has grown since
>>last we discussed this.
>
> And what would those lies and twists be, Gekko?
"having grown up in an environment characterized by mud-slinging
meanness"
> I merely made a
> speculation, clearly marked as such.
The speculation part is "perhaps you never learned that such a thing
is possible?"
> By way of contrast, your 'A
> "clearing of the air" or a "not hiding skeletons" or something
> that is apparently some bizarre form of self-therapy for you'
> above, which was, in fact, an out-and-out lie, since I have made
> clear the reasons I do not choose to hide such things.
I CBA to google up your exact comments, Josh. And the word
"apparently" clearly marks my view of your desire to reveal details
of your family's personal problems in spite of their not being here
to comment on, defend, or *refute* what you have to say concerning
them.
And, I really do not *care* why you gossip about your family, or
slime your friends on Usenet, Josh. It is simply something I do not
do, and your attempt to characterize your willingness to publicly
slime your friends and family (as opposed to dealing with it in a
medium more appropriate to correcting the situation) as somehow
"principled" and my unwillingness to be public about my personal
dealings as "unprincipled" is yet another indication of your sleazy
dishonesty.
I have stated my principles, in this respect, and I live by them.
A small reminder: hypocrisy is NOT failing to live up to others'
standards. It is, simply, insincerity by virtue of pretending to have
qualities or beliefs that you do not really have.
>
> And, of course, you did grow up in a world characterized by
> intolerance.
Changing the parameters, eh "goalpost"?
"mud-slinging meanness" versus "intolerance"
"environment" versus "world"
> And that makes it necessary to sweep things under the
> carpet -- why hide one's half-black daughter when such things are
> accepted?
You have no idea what sort of world I grew up in, Josh.
BTW, where did you come up with this fantasy of me having racially
mixed children?
Truly, Josh, your writing is abysmal. You'll want to tighten that
up, I think.
> Whereas I grew up in an environment characterized by
> kindness and tolerance.
Of course. Hence your claiming your Jewish ties and your Hispanic
ties as having meaning in a Usenet discussion surrounding
*intolerance*.
Sorry, but your satire is failing, here. Really. Work on it.
> Them's the shakes.
>
>>>>>>Unlike you, I don't deal in
>>>>>>innuendo and coy commentary
>>>>>
>>>>> If my jaw were any lower it could visit Tiananmen Square.
>>>>
>>>>Perhaps if you stopped trying to cram so much food into it? Or
>>>>are you admitting to abusing steroids?
>>>
>>> My, my. Do a detect a hint of innuendo and coy commentary?
>>
>>Response-in-kind-boy forgets what flaming is?
>
> You're the one who criticized me for innuendo and coy commentary,
> Gekko. Hypocrisy, of course.
Ah. I see my error now. I failed to differentiate between the sorts
of discussions where I treat things seriously, versus the sorts of
discussions where I slap the snot out of opportunistic sleazeballs
like you.
Let me clarify, then.
When I am addressing adults who possess the ability of responding
with mature, serious answers instead of blindsided, unprovoked, lying
*flameage*, I state exactly what I mean sans innuendo and coy
commentary. When I am addressing chewtoys who feel it necessary to
twist words, lie, and, without provocation insult someone who wasn't
addressing them, I wipe the floor with their asses.
Is that clear now, Responds-in-Kind-Boy?
A simple reminder: I was addressing Davida, and I was correcting her
misperception of Wayne's words. You popped into the conversation to
tell me what I "meant" to say, and I corrected your lies.
> Now, to watch the offending text disappear as the Gekko Automatic
> History Reviser does its stuff.
More lies. You're sinking fast, O Person Who Only Responds In Kind.
(bwah)
Not at all.
> You wrote a disclaimer that was worthy of a
> government bureaucrat reacting to an inconvenient query.
Not even close. I haven't bothered to answer any questions
concerning how I feel about Palestinians, simply because no one has
asked.
I responded to Davida concerning the way Wayne worded his message.
I responded to your sleazy provocation.
I have addressed your attempt to slime my "principles" and addressed
your false notion of what "hypocrisy" is.
But nowhere in there was a direct question concerning how I feel
about Palestinians, so I have not addressed anything like that.
Feel free to change the topic to one that suits you, if this one is
not to your liking. It would be helpful if you wrote the words you
wish for me to address, rather than rely on sleazy innuendo and
insinuation. I'm more likely to address your comments if they are
*honest*. If you insist on lies, twists, and shifts, then I'm afraid
I'll have to continue to flame your sad, saggy little butt.
--
gekko
All other nations are drinking Ray Charles beer and we are drinking
Barry Manilow. --Dave Barry
Josh Hill
wrote:
>Josh Hill <Josh44...@snet.net> wrote in
>news:bs4bd0p00qofcof3k...@4ax.com:
>
><>
>
>> I know it doesn't come naturally, Gekko, but try not to be ludicrous,
>> and try not to be dishonest. Not everyone shares your middle class
>> need to sweep things under the carpet,
>
>
>Heavens, no! I wouldn't *dream* of sweeping anything anywhere.
>
>That's the maid's job.
>
>Tea, Joshie?
It's not a working class value, either.
Ultraviolet
> On 20 Jun 2004 14:34:43 GMT, Ultraviolet <paula...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Josh Hill <Josh44...@snet.net> wrote in
>>news:bs4bd0p00qofcof3k...@4ax.com:
>>
>><>
>>
>>> I know it doesn't come naturally, Gekko, but try not to be ludicrous,
>>> and try not to be dishonest. Not everyone shares your middle class
>>> need to sweep things under the carpet,
>>
>>
>>Heavens, no! I wouldn't *dream* of sweeping anything anywhere.
>>
>>That's the maid's job.
>>
>>Tea, Joshie?
>
> It's not a working class value, either.
My maids have maids; that makes them middle.
But seriously. "Middle class need?"
Josh Hill
Nope. What Stan has done is disappear from my life almost as
thoroughly as Dubya's cortex has disappeared from his. Should I choose
to lame him, I will do so forthrightly as I have in the past, but
that's fairly unlikely, given that I don't read his posts.
>>>> and, of course, you
>>>> knew that,
>>>
>>>I have not addressed whether you felt Stan, or even Wayne, is
>>>insane literally or not. I addressed the words you wrote,
>>>especially the part where you sleazily attempted to indicate that
>>>my focusing on Davida's misunderstanding was somehow indicative of
>>>a lack of principles on my part.
>>
>> Yada.
>
>IOW: Yes, gekko, I'm trolling you by being sleazy and dishonest.
Nope, I'm trolling you by being honest. And, as usual, you're falling
for it. I mean, I can post any number of criticisms of Dubya, and you
and most of the other Conservatives maintain an embarrassed silence --
the ascription of an intellect to Dubya is, after all, only slightly
less convincing than the ascription of chastity to Bill Clinton. But
mention your hypocrisy, and you're off like the horses at the Belmont
Stakes. "And pulling up on the outside, it's Gekko! That's right,
folks, it's the final stretch, and Gekko is moving from 368th to 367th
. . . "
>>>> just as you know that your claim that it is important
>>>> that I "blast" my friends and family on Usenet is an out-and-out
>>>> lie.
>>>
>>>I know no such thing, Josh. You have repeatedly called me a
>>>hypocrite because I take the stance that slapping friends publicly
>>>is the *wrong* thing to do, and you feel that slapping friends
>>>publicly is the *right* thing to do. IOW, you feel that my
>>>refusal to cater to what *you* think is right rather than what *I*
>>>think is right constitutes hypocrisy on my part. You further feel
>>>there's no problem divulging your family's problems in public
>>>places, even when those family members are not here to comment on
>>>them. You think that this is *important*. A "clearing of the
>>>air" or a "not hiding skeletons" or something that is apparently
>>>some bizarre form of self- therapy for you.
>>
>> I know it doesn't come naturally, Gekko, but try not to be
>> ludicrous, and try not to be dishonest.
>
>Bwah, as it were.
>
>> Not everyone shares your
>> middle class need to sweep things under the carpet,
>
>More dishonesty from Josh.
So you claim everyone shares your need to sweep things under the
carpet?
>> and, indeed,
>> the more advanced among us
>
>Heh. I agree that you are more advanced than a worm, Josh, but only
>just.
That is why I no longer argue with Ray.
>> find that sort of hypocrisy ugly,
>
>Since it is not hypocrisy, the descriptors you assign to it are of no
>interest to me.
While you're wrong, what one calls it makes no difference, Gekko. Not
only did you fail to disassociate yourself from Wayne's position, but
you did your "this page intentionally left blank" best to make it
clear that you were no way no how criticizing Wayne's position while
at the same time no way no how subscribing to it.
><snippage of sermon from the gully -- blessed are the sanctimonious
>in your world, eh Joshers?>
Gekkologists take note -- must have been pretty good, eh?
>> I find it interesting, BTW, that you place such a high premium on
>> never never never criticizing your cronies and such a low one on
>> offensive dialect and ethnic slurs.
>
>Interesting that you pretend that you know what sort of "premium" I
>place on anything, Josh.
>
>What has your goat rammed deliciously up your pimpled ass is that I
>will not criticize my friends in *public*, but will slap the shit out
>of hypocritical dishonest idiots like you *in public*.
Bwah. You are dishonest, Gekko. You are hypocritical, Gekko. You
apply, in public, one set of standards to your cronies, and another to
everyone else -- and then you compound that by claiming that the
reason you are hypocritical and dishonest is because the people you
are hypocritical and dishonest about are hypocritical and dishonest!
That's the justification of the evil, Gekko: I do what I do because
everyone else is worse.
Meanwhile, those non-hypocritical, non-dishonest friends whose views
you never dispute in public come out with such incredibly honest
charmers as calling those who are opposed to racism racist (Geno) and
those who are opposed to discrimination against gays biased (Wayne).
Orwellian talk of that sort isn't just a lie, Gekko, it is a Big Lie,
and here at least the conservatives seem to do much more of it than
the liberals.
>As for how I view "offensive" things and how I deal with them, you
>really don't have a complete clue, nor shall you. I place a "low
>premium" on attempting to impress pixels one of whose claims to fame
>is their ability to morph into anything -- half hispanic, half jewish
>and half menstrual teenager for example -- in order to "win" a
>Usenet battle.
Oh, so you're claiming that I'm not part Hispanic and half Jewish?
I didn't think so.
What then /are/ you claiming?
I didn't think so, either.
>>>You and I simply disagree on the importance Usenet has in our
>>>lives. For me, it is a television program, mostly fictional, where
>>>I get to act up. If there are issues in my own life, I deal with
>>>them privately, where such things belong.
>>>
>>>> Simply stating that one disagrees is generally sufficient.
>>>
>>>Simply doing whatever one personally believes is the right thing
>>>to do is sufficient. I am under no obligation to divulge all of my
>>>beliefs, agreements, or disagreements.
>>>
>>>I repeat, Josh, that this is *Usenet*. A playground.
>>>
>>>I am here for *my* entertainment, not yours.
>>
>> This is not about obligations, but about doing what is right.
>
>In your world, then, doing what is "right" is to cavort, caper, and
>cater to the Zens, Zeros, and Hills of Usenet, rather than do what is
>meaningfully right in the real world.
Bwah. This from the most prolific poster on mw!
If you're doing right in the real world rather than cavorting with the
Zens, Zeros, and Hills of Usenet, Gekko, you're doing it mighty fast.
>For example, I might froth and moan for months on end in Usenet about
>a criminal boy who is receiving justice of which I disapprove --
>never actually doing anything about the situation, mind. That would
>be Hillian "Right".
Or you might lie about the supposed "fact" that I did nothing. That
would be Gekkonian "right."
>Another example of Hillian "Right" is to win points with people on
>Usenet by blathering on about how wonderful I am and how shitty
>everyone else is.
Now, now, while I admit I'm wonderful, I can't say that I've been
going about yapping about it. As to everyone else -- I didn't say
/everyone/ was shitty, now, did I. In fact, I'm trying to think of
someone here whom I think genuinely shitty. Other than Fundoc, of
course. Hmmm . . .
BTW, it was a real pleasure to see that chorus of weenies when Fundoc
plonked me. Oh, and of course all the claims that Fundoc hadn't
/actually/ plonked me, as if anyone gave a shit (he probably hasn't --
he searches for his name in Google, and AFAIK Google doesn't let you
plonk someone -- but unlike some sensitive souls here, I don't give a
shit one way or the other).
Where's this chorus, Gekko?
I didn't think so.
>>>> But perhaps, having grown up in an environment characterized by
>>>> mud-slinging meanness, you never learned that such a thing is
>>>> possible?
>>>
>>>I see your willingness to lie and twist things has grown since
>>>last we discussed this.
>>
>> And what would those lies and twists be, Gekko?
>
>"having grown up in an environment characterized by mud-slinging
>meanness"
Which word didn't you understand, Gekko, "perhaps" or "perhaps"?
And if you didn't grow up in such an environment, where did you get
your fondness for flaming?
>> I merely made a
>> speculation, clearly marked as such.
>
>The speculation part is "perhaps you never learned that such a thing
>is possible?"
Could be either way. You have merely chosen the worst possible
interpretation.
>> By way of contrast, your 'A
>> "clearing of the air" or a "not hiding skeletons" or something
>> that is apparently some bizarre form of self-therapy for you'
>> above, which was, in fact, an out-and-out lie, since I have made
>> clear the reasons I do not choose to hide such things.
>
>I CBA to google up your exact comments, Josh. And the word
>"apparently" clearly marks my view of your desire to reveal details
>of your family's personal problems in spite of their not being here
>to comment on, defend, or *refute* what you have to say concerning
>them.
>
>And, I really do not *care* why you gossip about your family, or
>slime your friends on Usenet, Josh. It is simply something I do not
>do, and your attempt to characterize your willingness to publicly
>slime your friends and family (as opposed to dealing with it in a
>medium more appropriate to correcting the situation) as somehow
>"principled" and my unwillingness to be public about my personal
>dealings as "unprincipled" is yet another indication of your sleazy
>dishonesty.
WTF are you going on about? I mentioned a couple of facts, Gekko,
facts which are a matter of public record. You and the other flamers
seized on those as a weapon, which, as I said, gave me some insight
into the way you operate and think.
When you grow up with the sort of person who does that, Gekko, of
course you're going to keep stuff tight to your vest. Why give someone
else ammunition?
I'm struck as always by the fact that many conservatives don't seem to
have known what it's like to grow up in an environment where that
isn't the norm, and to reject such a possibility when it's mentioned.
>I have stated my principles, in this respect, and I live by them.
>
>A small reminder: hypocrisy is NOT failing to live up to others'
>standards. It is, simply, insincerity by virtue of pretending to have
>qualities or beliefs that you do not really have.
Right. We've been through this, Gekko, and when you speak inequitably
of others in public, you are giving the impression that you believe
/they/ are guilty of one thing or another, and that those whose
transgressions you overlook are not. That is hypocrisy, and everyone
seems to recognize it except you.
>> And, of course, you did grow up in a world characterized by
>> intolerance.
>
>Changing the parameters, eh "goalpost"?
>
>"mud-slinging meanness" versus "intolerance"
>"environment" versus "world"
Er, I'm most flattered, but "goalpost" is /your/ name, Gekko. And, of
course, the statement's are related, but not the same.
>> And that makes it necessary to sweep things under the
>> carpet -- why hide one's half-black daughter when such things are
>> accepted?
>
>You have no idea what sort of world I grew up in, Josh.
Bwah. It's written all over what you say, and whom you comport with,
and whom you support.
>BTW, where did you come up with this fantasy of me having racially
>mixed children?
I didn't, but, since you mention it, do you? I mean, why would I
expect you to be any more honest than the deservedly late Senator
Axehandle, given your admitted policy of sweeping such things under
the carpet?
>Truly, Josh, your writing is abysmal. You'll want to tighten that
>up, I think.
>> Whereas I grew up in an environment characterized by
>> kindness and tolerance.
>
>Of course. Hence your claiming your Jewish ties and your Hispanic
>ties as having meaning in a Usenet discussion surrounding
>*intolerance*.
I'm not even sure that /you/ know what you're going on about any more.
>Sorry, but your satire is failing, here. Really. Work on it.
>
>
>> Them's the shakes.
>>
>>>>>>>Unlike you, I don't deal in
>>>>>>>innuendo and coy commentary
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If my jaw were any lower it could visit Tiananmen Square.
>>>>>
>>>>>Perhaps if you stopped trying to cram so much food into it? Or
>>>>>are you admitting to abusing steroids?
>>>>
>>>> My, my. Do a detect a hint of innuendo and coy commentary?
>>>
>>>Response-in-kind-boy forgets what flaming is?
>>
>> You're the one who criticized me for innuendo and coy commentary,
>> Gekko. Hypocrisy, of course.
>
>Ah. I see my error now. I failed to differentiate between the sorts
>of discussions where I treat things seriously, versus the sorts of
>discussions where I slap the snot out of opportunistic sleazeballs
>like you.
>
>Let me clarify, then.
>
>When I am addressing adults who possess the ability of responding
>with mature, serious answers instead of blindsided, unprovoked, lying
>*flameage*, I state exactly what I mean sans innuendo and coy
>commentary.
Gekko, you can't go five minutes without innuendo and coy commentary.
But what I find particularly amusing today is that you're now claiming
what I've long said, and which you criticized in me -- which is that I
flame only those who flame me, and argue seriously with everyone else.
Imitation is the sincerest etc.
> When I am addressing chewtoys who feel it necessary to
>twist words, lie, and, without provocation insult someone who wasn't
>addressing them, I wipe the floor with their asses.
Bwah. This from the woman who, not long ago, was telling me every day
how I always responded to her trolls.
Keep degenerating and we'll make you Ray of the Month.
>Is that clear now, Responds-in-Kind-Boy?
Nothing you say is clear, Gekko: you're like the twisty little
passages all the same, a veritable generator of IKYABWAI's and PKB's.
>A simple reminder: I was addressing Davida, and I was correcting her
>misperception of Wayne's words. You popped into the conversation to
>tell me what I "meant" to say, and I corrected your lies.
One foil hat, coming up!
>> Now, to watch the offending text disappear as the Gekko Automatic
>> History Reviser does its stuff.
>
>More lies. You're sinking fast, O Person Who Only Responds In Kind.
>(bwah)
Oh, uh, right, Gekko doesn't routinely snip the parts where she's
losing.
With every bit of force in your welterweight being.
>> You wrote a disclaimer that was worthy of a
>> government bureaucrat reacting to an inconvenient query.
>
>Not even close. I haven't bothered to answer any questions
>concerning how I feel about Palestinians, simply because no one has
>asked.
>
>
>I responded to Davida concerning the way Wayne worded his message.
>
>I responded to your sleazy provocation.
>
>I have addressed your attempt to slime my "principles" and addressed
>your false notion of what "hypocrisy" is.
>
>But nowhere in there was a direct question concerning how I feel
>about Palestinians, so I have not addressed anything like that.
>
>Feel free to change the topic to one that suits you, if this one is
>not to your liking. It would be helpful if you wrote the words you
>wish for me to address, rather than rely on sleazy innuendo and
>insinuation. I'm more likely to address your comments if they are
>*honest*. If you insist on lies, twists, and shifts, then I'm afraid
>I'll have to continue to flame your sad, saggy little butt.
My comments are always honest, Gekko. Those of you who can't say the
same have a hard time believing that.
Stan (the Man)
Josh Hill wrote:
<...>
>>>I apologize to Stan for erroneously using his name. Whatever he's
>>>done, he hasn't referred to an entire group as "animals" because
>>>of the actions of a few.
>>
>>Heh. What Stan has "done", Josh, is succeed in irritating the hell
>>out of you to the point that you feel a need to slyly slime him even
>>while "apologizing" to him.
>
>
> Nope. What Stan has done is disappear from my life almost as
> thoroughly as Dubya's cortex has disappeared from his. Should I choose
> to lame him, I will do so forthrightly as I have in the past,
Yes, "lame" is the correct term for what you do, Josh. "Forthrightly,"
however, is not. The word you're searching for is "cowardly." You are,
above all things, a coward, Josh.
but
> that's fairly unlikely, given that I don't read his posts.
Surrrrrrrrrrrrre you don't. Fact is, you read them and seethe, praying
someone else will quote them so you can respond under the pretense that
you only saw them through the response post. Then, you pretend to run
and hide again so you can pretend you didn't get bitch-slapped for your
stupidity. Coward, remember?
The only good that has come from your cowardice is that you've become
much too afraid to play your idiotic little killfile game with anyone
else. And, the only other person stupid enough to demonstrate the
cowardice of playing the killfile game recently has been Jaybee. But, he
hasn't been around long enough this time to have observed the severe
beating you've been taking for your ignorance.
<...>
--
Stan
gekko
say that, but probably meant it after reading The Tocquevillian
<http://www.tocquevillian.com> and then posting
news:Xns950E5F1D2...@129.250.170.81:"
> But seriously. "Middle class need?"
innit.
--
gekko
You know you're drinking too much coffee when you can't even remember
your second cup.
gekko
<http://www.tocquevillian.com> and then posting
> What Stan has done is disappear from my life
Sure. Inventing new definitions again, I see.
"I did not literally mean that Stan was insane" -- Josh demonstrates a
new meaning for the term "disappear from my life"
gekko
say that, but probably meant it after reading The Tocquevillian
<http://www.tocquevillian.com> and then posting
news:egdbd0thjicbh3lgq...@4ax.com:"
> Nope, I'm trolling you by being honest. [...]
> But mention your hypocrisy
Honest (n): Lying ((c) 2004 HillianWords.com)
gekko
that, but probably meant it after reading The Tocquevillian
<http://www.tocquevillian.com> and then posting
news:egdbd0thjicbh3lgq...@4ax.com:"
> Not
> only did you fail to disassociate yourself from Wayne's position,
Can't fail in what has not been attempted, Josh.
The rest of your fantastical paragraph is as meaningless as the above,
of course. I suspect all your dreams are.
gekko
say that, but probably meant it after reading The Tocquevillian
<http://www.tocquevillian.com> and then posting
news:egdbd0thjicbh3lgq...@4ax.com:"
> What then /are/ you claiming?
At this exact moment, that you would benefit from a course in
remedial reading. But, prior to this, that you make it plain to all
that you have a powerful need to seem shining and good for a group of
pixels who play on Usenet. That not everyone shares your pathetic
need appears to vex you to the point that you make up new definitions
for terms (an inverse of what our schizophrenically Null friend does)
in order to sanctimoniously hold yourself higher than those with whom
you discourse.
gekko
that, but probably meant it after reading The Tocquevillian
<http://www.tocquevillian.com> and then posting
news:egdbd0thjicbh3lgq...@4ax.com:"
> BTW, it was a real pleasure to see that chorus of weenies when Fundoc
> plonked me.
When did he do that, Josh?
gekko
say that, but probably meant it after reading The Tocquevillian
<http://www.tocquevillian.com> and then posting
news:egdbd0thjicbh3lgq...@4ax.com:"
<Josh>
>>>>> But perhaps, having grown up in an environment characterized by
>>>>> mud-slinging meanness, you never learned that such a thing is
>>>>> possible?
>>>>
<me>
>>>>I see your willingness to lie and twist things has grown since
>>>>last we discussed this.
>>>
<Josh>
>>> And what would those lies and twists be, Gekko?
>>
<me>
>>"having grown up in an environment characterized by mud-slinging
>>meanness"
>
<Josh>
> Which word didn't you understand, Gekko, "perhaps" or "perhaps"?
"Perhaps" goes with "you never learned ...", Josh. See those little
comma thingies there, separating off the clause (the one that holds
the lie) from the main sentence?
<Josh>
> And if you didn't grow up in such an environment, where did you get
> your fondness for flaming?
Two-for-one at Walmart.
gekko
say that, but probably meant it after reading The Tocquevillian
<http://www.tocquevillian.com> and then posting
news:egdbd0thjicbh3lgq...@4ax.com:"
>>A small reminder: hypocrisy is NOT failing to live up to others'
>>standards. It is, simply, insincerity by virtue of pretending to
>>have qualities or beliefs that you do not really have.
>
> Right. We've been through this, Gekko,
I know. And you still get it wrong, you bullheaded moron.
> and when you speak
> inequitably of others in public, you are giving the impression
> that you believe /they/ are guilty of one thing or another,
Tough shit innit. I don't care, really, what "impression" others
tend to get from my words, until they turn them about and lie about
what I said.
> and
> that those whose transgressions you overlook are not.
Again, tough shit.
> That is
> hypocrisy,
No, Josh. That is others applying the rules they have set up either
for themselves or on my behalf expecting me to live by the rules
*they* have set up.
> and everyone seems to recognize it except you.
Everyone except for those who capture the current understanding of
the language -- the creators of the dictionaries where "hypocrisy" is
noted as being "insincerity by virtue of pretending to have qualities
or beliefs that you do not really have."
Note: pointing out the factual behaviors of others is not pretending
to have qualities or beliefs. That you are stupid enough to infer
same isn't my problem.
gekko: the sun is shining today
Josh: You hypocrite! The other day you were praising the rain!
gekko: it's warm out today
Josh: You hypocrite! You complained of the heat just the other day!
gekko: Wayne dyes his hair
Josh: You hypocrite! You yourself have claimed to be a faux redhead!
gekko
that, but probably meant it after reading The Tocquevillian
<http://www.tocquevillian.com> and then posting
news:egdbd0thjicbh3lgq...@4ax.com:"
>>You have no idea what sort of world I grew up in, Josh.
>
> Bwah. It's written all over what you say, and whom you comport with,
> and whom you support.
As I said, you have no idea.
gekko
that, but probably meant it after reading The Tocquevillian
<http://www.tocquevillian.com> and then posting
news:egdbd0thjicbh3lgq...@4ax.com:"
> Gekko, you can't go five minutes without innuendo and coy commentary.
Only because I can't go five minutes without flaming your self-
righteous lying ass, dipwad. Hello.
gekko
say that, but probably meant it after reading The Tocquevillian
<http://www.tocquevillian.com> and then posting
news:egdbd0thjicbh3lgq...@4ax.com:"
>>A simple reminder: I was addressing Davida, and I was correcting
>>her misperception of Wayne's words. You popped into the
>>conversation to tell me what I "meant" to say, and I corrected
>>your lies.
>
> One foil hat, coming up!
" ITYMTS "Wayne's gone nuts, but he throws good parties."" -- Josh
Hill, NOT saying ITYMTS.
gekko
say that, but probably meant it after reading The Tocquevillian
<http://www.tocquevillian.com> and then posting
news:egdbd0thjicbh3lgq...@4ax.com:"
> But what I find particularly amusing today is that you're now
> claiming what I've long said, and which you criticized in me --
> which is that I flame only those who flame me, and argue seriously
> with everyone else.
<kof>
My criticism of you is that you *lie*, Josh, about how much you hate
flaming, and now my criticism is that you *lie*, Josh, about flaming
only those who flame you first.
gekko
that, but probably meant it after reading The Tocquevillian
<http://www.tocquevillian.com> and then posting
news:egdbd0thjicbh3lgq...@4ax.com:"
> My comments are always honest, Gekko.
The biggest lie of all.
Josh Hill
<ge...@lutz.kicks-ass.org.invalid> wrote:
>Wayne Lutz is a Genius. Josh Hill <Josh44...@snet.net> did not say
>that, but probably meant it after reading The Tocquevillian
><http://www.tocquevillian.com> and then posting
>news:egdbd0thjicbh3lgq...@4ax.com:"
>
>
>> What Stan has done is disappear from my life
>
>Sure. Inventing new definitions again, I see.
>
>"I did not literally mean that Stan was insane" -- Josh demonstrates a
>new meaning for the term "disappear from my life"
Well, if it isn't Miss Literal. I take it that you genuinely think
people are anal openings, intend actual murder when you tell your kids
that you're going to kill them, and expect God to send your hammer to
Hell?
Josh Hill
<ge...@lutz.kicks-ass.org.invalid> wrote:
>Wayne Lutz is a Genius. Josh Hill <Josh44...@snet.net> did not say
>that, but probably meant it after reading The Tocquevillian
><http://www.tocquevillian.com> and then posting
>news:egdbd0thjicbh3lgq...@4ax.com:"
>
>
>> Not
>> only did you fail to disassociate yourself from Wayne's position,
>
>Can't fail in what has not been attempted, Josh.
>
>The rest of your fantastical paragraph is as meaningless as the above,
>of course. I suspect all your dreams are.
Ah, then you believe Palestinians are animals who should be
exterminated?