WERE RINGMA'S GAY COMMENTS TWO YEAR'S OLD?
Georges Skorpios
This is what author-jounalist Michael Harris claims. And he
implies that Ringma's statements were recently bruited
and publicized by Canada's
liberal media to aid and abet the passage of Allan Rock's gay
rights legislation, Bill C-33, which is calculated to undermine
the traditional, heterosexual Canadian family.
"Bob Ringma's comments on gays were used to bludgeon reasoned
critics (of Bill C-33) into silence", writes Harris.
"Those same comments had been on the record for two years, yet
they only emerged last week. Who tipped the Vancouver reporter
who broke this stale, 24- month-old story, and more importantly,
why? Was it just a coincidence or part of the (leftist)
justice minister's
strategic planning for shepherding Bill C-33 through the Commons?
Harris also points out that there was no mention of gay rights
legislation in Chretien's infamous "Red Book", no doubt because
most ordinary Canadians would oppose such undemocratic special
rights for a particular group and this would have
damaged the Liberals' election prospects.
So from all this we can see the devious and duplicitous
political opportunism of Jean Chretien's Liberals at its worst.
Have these people no ethics or shame? They certainly have
unbridled arrogance and continuously display contempt for ordinary,
middle-class Canadians.
Charles van Duren
Georges Skorpios <gi...@interlog.com> writes:
>So from all this we can see the devious and duplicitous
>political opportunism of Jean Chretien's Liberals at its worst.
>Have these people no ethics or shame? They certainly have
>unbridled arrogance and continuously display contempt for ordinary,
>middle-class Canadians.
Hey, that's me! And I think Ringma (who shares my national origin) and
Dave Chatters (who's my MP) are total and utter assholes who have
no ethics or shame. They may be devoted Christians, but that says
something in itself, doesn't it?
Chatters claims to represent my views. He doesn't.
Please don't suggest that my socio-cultural status puts me behind
those dickheads and their views.
CvD
Malcolm Dunnett
In article <4mnh1u$2...@steel.interlog.com>,
Georges Skorpios <gi...@interlog.com> writes:
> This is what author-jounalist Michael Harris claims.
...
> "Those same comments had been on the record for two years, yet
> they only emerged last week.
As I've mentioned several times in this NG, Bob Ringma did indeed
make very similar comments quite some time ago ( I recall it as being
about 1 1/2 years ago, but why quibble ). These comments were printed
in the Nanaimo Times and/or the Nanaimo Daily Free Press.
--
=============================================================================
Malcolm Dunnett Malaspina University-College Email: dun...@mala.bc.ca
Computer Services Nanaimo, B.C. CANADA V9R 5S5 Tel: (604)755-8738
Voltron, Defender of the Universe
Georges Skorpios <gi...@interlog.com> wrote:
>"Bob Ringma's comments on gays were used to bludgeon reasoned
>critics (of Bill C-33) into silence", writes Harris.
>who broke this stale, 24- month-old story, and more importantly,
>why? Was it just a coincidence or part of the (leftist)
>justice minister's
>strategic planning for shepherding Bill C-33 through the Commons?
Yes, that's it! It was a conspriracy! Only you left out that several
Reform MPs including Ringma himself, were in on it. Regardless of how
old the story was, Ringma and his fellow bigots were quick to
repeat/defend/echo the sentiments. The news that followed, and the
subsequent Reform purge were all in *real time*.
How insideous that this communist plot could include Reform MPs. Such
treachery! Can no-one be trusted?
---
Timothy Gleason Adventure? Excitement?
tim...@io.org A Jedi craves not these things.
David Reilley
In article <4mnosk$m...@aurora.cs.athabascau.ca> char...@cs.athabascau.ca (Charles van Duren) writes:
>From: char...@cs.athabascau.ca (Charles van Duren)
>Subject: Re: WERE RINGMA'S GAY COMMENTS TWO YEAR'S OLD?
>Date: 7 May 1996 15:05:56 GMT
John Lambourn <gi...@interlog.com> writes:
Lambourn doesn't have a fucking clue what middle-class, mainstream Canadians
think about anything. He lives in a dream world.
Georges Skorpios
like your Karl Marx--a dreamer? You leftist assholes just
cannot deal with that, can you?
David Reilley
>drei...@pinc.com (David Reilley) wrote:
>>>(Charles van Duren) writes:
>> >Hey, that's me! And I think Ringma (who shares my national origin) and
>> >Dave Chatters (who's my MP) are total and utter assholes who have
>> >no ethics or shame. They may be devoted Christians, but that says
>> >something in itself, doesn't it?
>>
>> >Chatters claims to represent my views. He doesn't.
>>
>> >Please don't suggest that my socio-cultural status puts me behind
>> >those dickheads and their views.
>> Lambourn doesn't have a fucking clue what middle-class, mainstream
Canadians >> think about anything. He lives in a dream world.
> Is not that what Hegel called leftist utopian revolutionaries
> like your Karl Marx--a dreamer? You leftist assholes just
> cannot deal with that, can you?
Now this is exactly what I mean by kliving in a dream world. I have NEVER
defended Marx in any newsgroup posting (or anywhere else). However in
Lambourn's dreamworld, anyone who disagrees with his goofy, extreme=ist,
poorly researched and poorly thought-out dribble is automatically a Marxist.
I wonder if that was his response to his mother when she told him not to play
in the traffic: "Mom - you're a marxist asshole!!!"
Well John -- just to prove conculsively that I am not a Marxist, I want to
tell you that I have no objection to you playing road hockey on a busy freeway
at rush hour. Go! Enjoy!
Egon Schiele
In article <4mt4io$1...@steel.interlog.com>, Georges Skorpios <gi...@interlog.com> says:
>
>drei...@pinc.com (David Reilley) wrote:
>(snip)
>> Is not that what Hegel called leftist utopian revolutionaries
> like your Karl Marx--a dreamer? You leftist assholes just
> cannot deal with that, can you?
AAAAAAGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
FOR THE LAST TIME, YOU STUPID IMBECILE, HEGEL NEVER
CALLED MARX ANYTHING!!!!!! HE DIED JUST AS MARX
WAS ENTERING PUBERTY! WILL YOU GET *THAT* THROUGH
*YOUR* HEAD!!!!
Who'm I kidding? This isn't the last of anything. When you're
as aggressively stupid and ignorant as George-Dave-Bruce-Cerise-et al,
you never, ever have to admit defeat. The sky is blue? No! It's more
of a green. Is two and two four? No! According to fuzzy logic it's sometimes
five. Did Lincoln go to war to save the Union? No! He went to war to combat
"left-wing" tendencies in the South.
When you're as obstinately dumb as the Dave Lambourn entity, all things
are possible. Incidentally, that explains more about our contemporary
world than I'd like it to.
Egon
=========================================================================================
"Hey! They're going to visit the turd museum!"
-Crow T. Robot-
=========================================================================================
Bruce Roberts
Response to Egon Shiele:
You are like that other brain dead character, David Reilley. You
cannot read. We wrote that Hegel referred to "leftist utopians LIKE
Marx" as dreamers. Any subtle nuances in in what we write are
continually being overlooked or misinterpreted by you "liberal"
morons. Also your ignorance is truly abysmal.
You make no attempt to be objective. Why do we waste time in even
responding to you meatheads?
Bruce Roberts
David Reilley
In article <4n27ib$q...@news1.sympatico.ca> Bruce Roberts <rob...@sympatico.ca> writes:
>From: Bruce Roberts <rob...@sympatico.ca>
>Subject: Re: WERE RINGMA'S GAY COMMENTS TWO YEAR'S OLD?
>Response to Egon Shiele:
>You are like that other brain dead character, David Reilley. You
>cannot read. We wrote that Hegel referred to "leftist utopians LIKE
>Marx" as dreamers.
And then you failed to make one rigorous argument that linked the targets of
Hegel's criticism to the writings of Marx which were published decades later.
The closest you came to doing that was to assert that Marx and the people
Hegel criticized were all the same school of "utopian socialists." You
developed no argument to support that assertion.
If I handed in a history essay based on the kind of flimsy intellectual
reasoning you used here, I would expect to get a D-minus. If I presented a
graduate thesis based on this substandard level of reasoniong, I would expect
it to be rejected.
THE WHOLE WORLD'S LAUGHING!
Egon Schiele
David "Dickhead" Lambourn said:
>> Is not that what Hegel called leftist utopian revolutionaries
> like your Karl Marx--a dreamer? You leftist assholes just
> cannot deal with that, can you?
I don't know assfucker, did he call them that? Care to cite the
source? Been reading some Hegel this week? No shame, no shame,
no shame.
Egon
Bruce Roberts
>You stupid little prick, egghead Egon
Schiele. We are not citing any sources
for you, a half-educated shithead. It would just be a waste of time
and effort.
Mark Mushet
bo...@bogus.com (Egon Schiele) wrote:
>David "Dickhead" Lambourn said:
Uh, to the best of our knowledge it's *John* "Dickhead" Lambourn!
David Reilley
>bo...@bogus.com (Egon Schiele) wrote:
>>
>>David "Dickhead" Lambourn said:
>>
>>>> Is not that what Hegel called leftist utopian revolutionaries
>>> like your Karl Marx--a dreamer? You leftist assholes just
>>> cannot deal with that, can you?
>>
>>I don't know assfucker, did he call them that? Care to cite the
>>source? Been reading some Hegel this week? No shame, no shame,
>>no shame.
>>
>>Egon
>>You stupid little prick, egghead Egon
> Schiele. We are not citing any sources
> for you, a half-educated shithead. It would just be a waste of time
> and effort.
When asked to back up his made-up statement about Hegel, Lambourn calls his
challenger an "egghead." "Egghead" is something that people who don't do
their homework call people who do -- in grade five.
Bruce Roberts
sut...@portal.ca (Mark Mushet) wrote:
>bo...@bogus.com (Egon Schiele) wrote:
>
>
>>David "Dickhead" Lambourn said:
>
>
make reference to a conservative economist, writer or philosopher
your reactions are always the same. Negative and prejudiced.
Both of you half-witted jerks
are in need of brain transplants. You want us to read Marx, but
you have not read, or will not read, "The Bell Curve", one of the great
works of our time. But then it would be useless for you to try to
read it as the authors state in their preface that the reader must
have a superior I.Q to understand and appreciate what they have
written, That means, of course that lame brains like you, Reilley,
Bergmann, and Johnson are disqualified right from the start.
None of you have read "The Trouble With Canada" either. We
can tell from your ignorance of what is really going on in this
country economically, politically and socially.
Mark Mushet
Bruce Roberts <rob...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>sut...@portal.ca (Mark Mushet) wrote:
>>bo...@bogus.com (Egon Schiele) wrote:
>>>David "Dickhead" Lambourn said:
>>Uh, to the best of our knowledge it's *John* "Dickhead" Lambourn!
>>Fuck off you leftist assholes, Mushet and Schiele.
Actually, Egon Schiele was an Austrian secessionist painter. He died
in 1918 and was not, to the best of my knowledge, a leftist. In fact,
he was only 28 when he died. However, he was *alive* during the
October Revolution so, according to your impeccable logic, he probably
*is* a leftist!
The man posting as Egon (no, its not me this time, though I once had
you fooled as "Carlos Alomar") also has a fake ISP. But then, you are
technically illiterate as well as a failure in Art History.
> Whenever we
> make reference to a conservative economist, writer or philosopher
> your reactions are always the same. Negative and prejudiced.
My responses are never based solely on your references, Lambourn.
Rather, they are based on your inconsistencies, distortions,
repetition, and common baiting techniques.
And, if you'll recall (though I know you won't), I've actually
responded positively to some of your posts and pointed out that your
constant references to the left-sympathizing Camus are amusing in
light of your repetitive, reactionary rants.
> Both of you half-witted jerks
> are in need of brain transplants. You want us to read Marx, but
> you have not read, or will not read, "The Bell Curve", one of the great
> works of our time.
Who are you referring to? I've never made any such suggestions nor
have I said I am not interested in "The Bell Curve."
> But then it would be useless for you to try to
> read it as the authors state in their preface that the reader must
> have a superior I.Q to understand and appreciate what they have
> written, That means, of course that lame brains like you, Reilley,
> Bergmann, and Johnson are disqualified right from the start.
I guess this qualifies as an "I know you are but what am I?" grade
taunt. Par for the course with John "Lamebrain" Lambourn.
> None of you have read "The Trouble With Canada" either. We
> can tell from your ignorance of what is really going on in this
> country economically, politically and socially.
You can take the blinkers off now.
David Reilley
>The man posting as Egon (no, its not me this time, though I once had
>you fooled as "Carlos Alomar") also has a fake ISP. But then, you are
>technically illiterate as well as a failure in Art History.
Unfortunately the Art History course had a schedule conflict with Lambourn's
major field of study: University Pub Polemics.
Bruce Roberts
>> like your Karl Marx--a dreamer? You leftist assholes just
>> cannot deal with that, can you?
>
>I don't know assfucker, did he call them that? Care to cite the
>source? Been reading some Hegel this week? No shame, no shame,
>no shame.
>
>Egon
>Look, Egon the Egghead, why don't you read and reread Adam Smith's
"The Wealth of Nations" and forget about those over-rated fascists
philosophists like Hegel? (Look up "philosophism" in a good
dictionary, you little asshole, and then you will realize that I have
taught you a new word).
* * *
It is not that we are on Adam Smith's, Milton Friedman's and Gary
Becker's side, it is that they are on our side.
--Bruce Roberts
Michael Young
Bruce Roberts <rob...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Response to Egon Shiele:
[insults deleted]
>You make no attempt to be objective. Why do we waste time in even
>responding to you meatheads?
Why indeed? If it's such a waste of time, then stop doing it.
And Mr Roberts, please stop insulting people who disagree with you.
It weakens your arguments and your credibility considerably.
--
Michael Young <myo...@cr.island.net>
David Reilley
>>>> Is not that what Hegel called leftist utopian revolutionaries
>>> like your Karl Marx--a dreamer? You leftist assholes just
>>> cannot deal with that, can you?
>>
>>I don't know assfucker, did he call them that? Care to cite the
>>source? Been reading some Hegel this week? No shame, no shame,
>>no shame.
>>
>>Egon
>>Look, Egon the Egghead, why don't you read and reread Adam Smith's
> "The Wealth of Nations" and forget about those over-rated fascists
> philosophists like Hegel?
Look Lambourn - it was YOU who introduced the topic of Hegel's view of Marx to
this thread. You complain about others not dealing with the "issue" when you
post your bullshit. Well here is another example of your critics dealing with
the issue to the point that you have been humiliateed in front of a world wide
audience, and your blowhard response is to try and change your topic from
Hegel to Smith.
Archers Addict
In article <dreilley.28...@pinc.com>, David Reilley
<drei...@pinc.com> writes
>In article <4mnosk$m...@aurora.cs.athabascau.ca> char...@cs.athabascau.ca
>(Charles van Duren) writes:
>>From: char...@cs.athabascau.ca (Charles van Duren)
>
>John Lambourn <gi...@interlog.com> writes:
>
>>>So from all this we can see the devious and duplicitous
>>>political opportunism of Jean Chretien's Liberals at its worst.
>>>Have these people no ethics or shame? They certainly have
>>>unbridled arrogance and continuously display contempt for ordinary,
>>>middle-class Canadians.
>
>>Dave Chatters (who's my MP) are total and utter assholes who have
>>no ethics or shame. They may be devoted Christians, but that says
>>something in itself, doesn't it?
>
>>Chatters claims to represent my views. He doesn't.
>
>>Please don't suggest that my socio-cultural status puts me behind
>>those dickheads and their views.
>
>Lambourn doesn't have a fucking clue what middle-class, mainstream Canadians
>think about anything. He lives in a dream world.
So what exactly is a middle class Canadian?
--
Archers Addict
Egon Schiele
In article <dreilley.29...@pinc.com>, drei...@pinc.com (David Reilley) says:
>
>In article <4n5jss$s...@thoth.portal.ca> sut...@portal.ca (Mark Mushet) writes:
>
>>The man posting as Egon (no, its not me this time, though I once had
>>you fooled as "Carlos Alomar") also has a fake ISP. But then, you are
>>technically illiterate as well as a failure in Art History.
No; my name and e-mail address are fake, but
my ISP (which I assumed meant "internet
service provider") IS real. I am a hostage
of Cadvision, just like Nalecki. Which should
make you think. Could a real person be so
shit-stupid?
Egon (or is it?)
Mark Mushet
bo...@bogus.com (Egon Schiele) wrote:
>Egon (or is it?)
Or is it "Derek"? Yes, there have been rumours. But Derek's posts have
too much of an earnest streak to them to be concocted.
Mark Mushet
Archers Addict <li...@reflect.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <dreilley.28...@pinc.com>, David Reilley
><drei...@pinc.com> writes
>>Lambourn doesn't have a fucking clue what middle-class, mainstream Canadians
>>think about anything. He lives in a dream world.
> So what exactly is a middle class Canadian?
#52 on the endangered species list.
Egon Schiele
In article <4n94hu$h...@thoth.portal.ca>, sut...@portal.ca (Mark Mushet) says:
>
>bo...@bogus.com (Egon Schiele) wrote:
>
>Or is it "Derek"? Yes, there have been rumours. But Derek's posts have
>too much of an earnest streak to them to be concocted.
>
Ah, but you shouldn't underestimate my talents, O _Kalos K'agathos_;
it is impossible for the very stupid to mimic the intelligent but not
too difficult for the intelligent to mimic the very stupid (although it
is perhaps degrading).
Egon
Darren Crooks
In article <4mur77$1f...@elmo.cadvision.com>, bogus@bogus (Egon Schiele)
says...
>
>When you're as obstinately dumb as the Dave Lambourn entity, all things
>are possible. Incidentally, that explains more about our contemporary
>world than I'd like it to.
>
>Egon
The "Dave Lambourn entity"? Is that sort of like the Borg? "I am Cerise of
Borg. Resistance is futile."
--
Darren C.
"It seems easier to demand your neighbour's fish than to
learn to fish yourself."
David Reilley
>In article <4mur77$1f...@elmo.cadvision.com>, bogus@bogus (Egon Schiele)
>says...
>>
>>When you're as obstinately dumb as the Dave Lambourn entity, all things
>>are possible. Incidentally, that explains more about our contemporary
>>world than I'd like it to.
>>
>>Egon
>The "Dave Lambourn entity"? Is that sort of like the Borg? "I am Cerise of
>Borg. Resistance is futile."
That pretty well sums him up.
Georges Skorpios
bo...@bogus.com (Egon Schiele) wrote:
>
> In article <dreilley.29...@pinc.com>, drei...@pinc.com (David Reilley) says:
> >
> >In article <4n5jss$s...@thoth.portal.ca> sut...@portal.ca (Mark Mushet) writes:
> >
> >>The man posting as Egon (no, its not me this time, though I once had
> >>you fooled as "Carlos Alomar") also has a fake ISP. But then, you are
> >>technically illiterate as well as a failure in Art History.
>
> No; my name and e-mail address are fake, but
> my ISP (which I assumed meant "internet
> service provider") IS real. I am a hostage
> of Cadvision, just like Nalecki. Which should
> make you think. Could a real person be so
> shit-stupid?
>
> Egon (or is it?)
>You liar, Egon Schiele ( Brian Watson?). Derek has Cadvision
as his ISP. You have it as your "Organization" which means
fuck all. We fingered you
as Brian Watson in the Psychology Dept. at the U. of Penn. Your
name is fake but not your e-mail address, my friend.
Your little deceit is exposed.
Georges Skorpios
sut...@portal.ca (Mark Mushet) wrote:
>
> bo...@bogus.com (Egon Schiele) wrote:
>
> >In article <dreilley.29...@pinc.com>, drei...@pinc.com (David Reilley) says:
> >>
> >>In article <4n5jss$s...@thoth.portal.ca> sut...@portal.ca (Mark Mushet) writes:
> >>
> >>>The man posting as Egon (no, its not me this time, though I once had
> >>>you fooled as "Carlos Alomar") also has a fake ISP. But then, you are
> >>>technically illiterate as well as a failure in Art History.
>
> >No; my name and e-mail address are fake, but
> >my ISP (which I assumed meant "internet
> >service provider") IS real. I am a hostage
> >of Cadvision, just like Nalecki. Which should
> >make you think. Could a real person be so
> >shit-stupid?
>
> >Egon (or is it?)
>
> too much of an earnest streak to them to be concocted.
>
has been exposed. His game is over.
David Reilley
John Lambourn, using the name Georges Skorpios <gi...@interlog.com> writes:
>>You liar, Egon Schiele ( Brian Watson?). Derek has Cadvision
> as his ISP. You have it as your "Organization" which means
> fuck all. We fingered you
> as Brian Watson in the Psychology Dept. at the U. of Penn. Your
> name is fake but not your e-mail address, my friend.
> Your little deceit is exposed.
Maybe if "Egon" starts using eight different fake names (like you do), you
would have the right to get sanctimonious.
David Reilley
John Lambourn, using the fake name Georges Skorpios <gi...@interlog.com>
writes:
>> Go get him, Derek. Egon Schiele, the little liberal turd and liar
> has been exposed. His game is over.
Well if using ONE fake name ("Egon") means the game is over, where does that
leave YOU, who uses eight fake names?
I'll tell you where it leaves you:
Game over!
Game over!
Game over!
Game over!
Game over!
Game over!
Game over!
Game over!
Georges Skorpios
Georges Skorpios <gi...@interlog.com> wrote:
>
> sut...@portal.ca (Mark Mushet) wrote:
> >
> > bo...@bogus.com (Egon Schiele) wrote:
> >
> > >In article <dreilley.29...@pinc.com>, drei...@pinc.com (David Reilley) says:
> > >>
> > >>In article <4n5jss$s...@thoth.portal.ca> sut...@portal.ca (Mark Mushet) writes:
> > >>
> > >>>you fooled as "Carlos Alomar") also has a fake ISP. But then, you are
> > >>>technically illiterate as well as a failure in Art History.
> >
> > >No; my name and e-mail address are fake, but
> > >my ISP (which I assumed meant "internet
> > >service provider") IS real. I am a hostage
> > >of Cadvision, just like Nalecki.
>> Bullshit,Egon-Mushead. Derek has Cadvision as his ISP.
You have it only in "Organization" which doesn't mean
a thing. We fingered "bo...@bogus.com" to the Univ. of Penn,
but our e-mail letters there bounced. Something is rotten here.
Let us remind you it is one thing to use a pseudonym or have
more than one account with differnt pseudonyms (actually no
pseudonym can be used for more than one account) and pretending
to be somebody else on the Net. Then there are those forged
postings of a couple of months ago fraudulently attributed
to me and Cerise Lopez. Our advice to you, Mark Mushet, is
to come clean NOW.
Which should
> > >make you think. Could a real person be so
> > >shit-stupid?
> >
> > >Egon (or is it?)
> >
> > Or is it "Derek"? Yes, there have been rumours. But Derek's posts have
> > too much of an earnest streak to them to be concocted.
> >
Georges Skorpios
drei...@pinc.com (David Reilley) wrote:
>
> John Lambourn, using the fake name Georges Skorpios <gi...@interlog.com>
> writes:
>
> > has been exposed. His game is over.
>
> leave YOU, who uses eight fake names?
>
> I'll tell you where it leaves you:
>
>
>
> As we previously pointed out Reilley it is one thing to use
a pseudonym or have more than one account with different
pseudonyms ( i.e. different userids) which one would
have to have in any case). But it
is a completely different matter to fraudulently assume
someone else's identity (Mushet-Schiele-Nalecki) on the Net.
It is also an entirely different matter to forge a posting
using someone else's userid and ISP. We are not making any
accusations here. We are just expressing our suspicions.
If we had done anything really unethical or illegal, Interlog.com
or Sympatico.ca would have terminated us long ago.
And let us remind you that the whole world is not laughing at
us. Much of our e-mail is supportive. But even the substantial
number of people who disagree with us, do take us seriously.
Otherwise, they would not take the time to write and expostulate
with us. You and your fellow leftists, in spite of your denials,
do take us seriously also; otherwise, you would just ignore us
and let our postings go by unchallenged, right? Why don't
you do that? We don't like exchanging flames and we do
not like having to answer your stupid,
ignorant queries and explain and clarify points that are obvious
to the more intelligent and well read Net surfers.
David Reilley
>>> Bullshit,Egon-Mushead. Derek has Cadvision as his ISP.
> You have it only in "Organization" which doesn't mean
> a thing. We fingered "bo...@bogus.com" to the Univ. of Penn,
> but our e-mail letters there bounced. Something is rotten here.
> Let us remind you it is one thing to use a pseudonym or have
> more than one account with differnt pseudonyms (actually no
> pseudonym can be used for more than one account)
That's, not true -- "Cerise Lopez" was used by you on three differenct
accounts.
> and pretending
> to be somebody else on the Net.
You really are suffering from some kind of delusional disorder, aren't you.
I think you actually believe that using a series of eight different pseudonyms
is somehow different from "pretending to be someone else on the net."
David Reilley
>> As we previously pointed out Reilley it is one thing to use
> a pseudonym or have more than one account with different
> pseudonyms ( i.e. different userids) which one would
> have to have in any case). But it
> is a completely different matter to fraudulently assume
> someone else's identity
You have created EIGHT fraudulent identities on the net.
I wish you would make up your mind -- one week you deny your deceptive
practice of creating eight fake identities, and the next week (this week) you
defend your sleazy practice. Please tell your doctor about this side effect
of constantly switching your medications. He should pick one and stick to it.
David Reilley
> And let us remind you that the whole world is not laughing at
> us. Much of our e-mail is supportive.
Do you mean when one of your eight pseudonyms e-mails support to another one.
That's the ONLY support you get in the news groups, why should we believe your
e-mail is any different?
Egon Schiele
>>You liar, Egon Schiele ( Brian Watson?). Derek has Cadvision
> as his ISP. You have it as your "Organization" which means
> fuck all. We fingered you
> as Brian Watson in the Psychology Dept. at the U. of Penn. Your
> name is fake but not your e-mail address, my friend.
> Your little deceit is exposed.
Who is "Brian Watson?" Anyway, you shouldn't be calling others
"liars", O "George;" your own record for telling the truth is hardly
unblemished. Anyway, has anyone out there considered the possibility
that "Egon" (a manifest pseudonym) is ALSO David Lambourn/George
Skorpios/Cerise Lopez/Bruce Roberts/Derek Nalecki/Mark Mushet/Jason
Kodish/B. Bergmann/David Reilley, and many, many others? Has it
crossed anyone's mind that this ENTIRE newsgroup is but a creature
of my imagination? Better pinch yourself.
Egon (or is it?)
David Reilley
In article <4nlcf1$16...@elmo.cadvision.com> bo...@bogus.com (Egon Schiele) writes:
>From: bo...@bogus.com (Egon Schiele)
>Subject: Re: Lambourn skips Art History class!
>Date: 18 May 1996 20:37:53 GMT
I pinched myself and my fingers went right through me. He's right: I'm a
phantom. And all this time I thought I was real.
Egon Schiele
>>Look, Egon the Egghead, why don't you read and reread Adam Smith's
> "The Wealth of Nations" and forget about those over-rated fascists
> philosophists like Hegel? (Look up "philosophism" in a good
> dictionary, you little asshole, and then you will realize that I have
> taught you a new word).
It is not that we are on Adam Smith's, Milton Friedman's and Gary
>Becker's side, it is that they are on our side.
> --Bruce Roberts
"Egon the Egghead?" You have all that time and that's the BEST you can
do? How do you expect to be taken seriously?
Well, I will. I indeed am in the process of re-reading Adam Smith's
_The Wealth of Nations_. Unlike you, I like to do my homework.
So why don't we form a study group? Serious discussion about
what Smith actually said--as opposed to what ignoramuses assume
he must have said--surely has some utility. I am on chapter IX,
"Profits of Stock;" it shouldn't take you long to catch up.
Incidentally, while I think it highly objectionable to depend on the
opinion of others on authors one hasn't read, there is nothing
wrong with consulting secondary literature as long as one does
the primary reading. May I recommend the chapter on Smith
by Cropsey (in the _History of Political Philosophy_) and another
work by Heilbroner (the title eludes me now but I know just
where to find it at the main library branch)? You in turn
can feel free to recommend a few secondary sources you
deem worthy.
For the duration of what I intend to be a serious exercise
I will refrain from calling you a "dickhead" or anything
else derogatory; you, in turn, will refrain from calling
yourself anything but "Dave Lambourn." You can
call me whatever you like; I don't care.
Please don't mistake this post; it's not a flame-bait. If
you are as serious about these matters as you want us
to believe, here is a sterling opportunity to prove yourself.
Anyone else who feels up to a mature, serious, NON-IDEOLOGICAL
debate--or even a "dialogue" maybe--can feel free to join in.
Egon