Crossposting to boring arseholes just for the hell of it.
Robert Maughan
"Erin C. D." <th...@worldcontrol.org> writes
>
> Tell me of one person who's made decent $ off of something fiction
>previously printed online. I just finished writing a novel. I'd much rather
>send it out to publishers then let people have it for free and hope that
>someone publishes it (given the one in a million chance that they find my
>www page and read the manuscript in it's entirety) and then already have
>lost the potential royalites from the readers who've already read it for
>free.
> (I mention fiction there because occasionly non-fiction works, which in
>general sell higher then fiction, do get online momentum, usually based on a
>personal crisis, ie "I had aneoxeria, here's how to fight it".)
> You'll see people asking to put your works on their www page, claiming
>that the exposure will sell your work. What are the chances that anyone will
>go to their page, and read your stuff? And that those readers will be people
>in high enough places to get you published? Those people have better things
>to do with their time then look for the next Plath on the net.
> Wrong. Your work will sell your work, if you send it out to places.
> Giving it out for free does nothing but ruin your chances in the long
>run.
> As more people get online, we're talking readers here, not publishers,
>the less likely they'll be to pay for your book of poems when they can print
>off the deja news search.
> My panties are fine. Then again, i'm aiming to sell what i write. Are
>you? If this is a hobby, and you don't care, then don't worry. But the
>contracts i'm seeing are begining to have something called Electronic Rights
>in there. And by posting to newsgroups and the www, you can be cutting
>yourself out.
> Erin Cashier Denton (sending this to another detractor as well, rather
>then cross posting again)
>
Fascinating. I defer to your contemporary wisdom, of course, I haven't
published a novel for thirty years. But I must ask you: why is it that
you, and the other terminally boring arseholes in alt.writing and misc.
writing and elsewhere are so determined to provide free information to
the world at large? I've been writing for money since I graduated and I
also regularly submit fiction, poetry, articles, which I write because I
write. You would have to wire up my balls to the mains before I parted
with the insights gained in a writing life. Why should I tell every dip-
shit with a keyboard what to do or not to do so said dipshit can go out
and steal my money? Fees for fiction are insulting enough as it is and
articles in specialist magazines often break even, or worst case, cost
money - research, time etc. I'm not unwilling to pass on information,
privately, or even discreetly (!) in the newsgroup but I mostly like
to choose who I get in bed with, especially when I'm paying.
While I have your attention, I have to tell you your pathetic whimper
about crossposting is just too tempting for words. Fucking ignore the
things, you stupid, stupid arseholes. I forget the name of the original
poster here, Laura Rosebud(?), but what possible harm can it do when she
innocently inflicts her juvenile gropings on your stupid newsgroup. Now,
when I crosspost, you're going to have to worry about it, because when I
crosspost I do it with extreme prejudice and malice aforethought. What
I suggest you do now is fuck off back to your stupid newsgroup and never
come here again. Note that I have omitted misc.writing from this sally
because I've just done them, and once in a blue moon is enough; I'm not
a cruel man, nearly. But you could provide me with an opportunity.
RJM.
Skip Press
He said it so well below. And in response to Erin, I might add, I sold a
couple of short stories last year to an online publication
(http://www.pulpfiction.com) for $300 each, more than I got for the print
versions. In the last few years, I've sold everything I've written via
contacts made online. Which is precisely why I did a rewrite of my How to
Write What You Want & Sell What You Write and put it online in an
electronic version cheaper than the original. I don't spend much time
whining--maybe that's why I sell a lot.
In article <PXmivOAT...@etymon.demon.co.uk>, Robert Maughan
<r...@etymon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
--
Skip Press, the Duke of URL
Book: http://www.primapublishing.com/life/76150399.html
Another book: http://www.cmonline.com/boson/howto.html
Column: http://www.computoredge.com/Editorial/business.htm
Stuff: http://www.hollywoodnetwork.com/skip
hino truet hoesli
Bravo bravissimo!
I wonder who sends these people in. As far as rec.arts.poems is
concerned we don't need idiot's delight in order to provide as
fountains of insight. Awful sentence and I could have said it
better but just returned from a 80 mile trip and am bushed, the
wrong way as usual.
Your telling point with me revolves around the word insight and
as you used it. That is the trouble with newsgroups as everyone
has a fire to put out, stoke, or spread. This last is so typical
of the clique rant on MW and the prime reason I left -- felt like
a paper match in monsoon rain. I've seen enough to know that the
clique MO is entrenched and I agree with your view wholeheartedly.
Busy working in an article re: Cambodia and how a small group --
those not connected in anyway with the _charity-media_ events
have come up with a solution to have Cambodians gain better
images of themselves because of Pol Pot's [Khmer Rouge] continuing
slaughter of Cambodians. Will keep you posted. Think I'd better
quit now as my mind is wandering in between my fingers.
Thankyou for your post -- nothing in it surprised me.
Ta,
H!no
++++
On Thu, 30 Apr 1998, Robert Maughan wrote:
> Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 12:59:15 +0100
> From: Robert Maughan <r...@etymon.demon.co.uk>
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.poems, rec.arts.prose, alt.writing
> Subject: Crossposting to boring arseholes just for the hell of it.
wil...@ix.netcom.com
In
<skippress-300...@pool014-max24.mpop2-ca-us.dialup.earthlink.
et> skip...@earthlink.net (Skip Press) writes:
>
>He said it so well below. And in response to Erin, I might add, I sold
a
>couple of short stories last year to an online publication
>(http://www.pulpfiction.com) for $300 each, more than I got for the
>versions. In the last few years, I've sold everything I've written via
>contacts made online. Which is precisely why I did a rewrite of my How
to
>Write What You Want & Sell What You Write and put it online in an
>electronic version cheaper than the original. I don't spend much time
>whining--maybe that's why I sell a lot.
>
>In article <PXmivOAT...@etymon.demon.co.uk>, Robert Maughan
><r...@etymon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
The thing about Maughan is that he represents just
another dinosaur (I'm talking about mentality, not
chronological age) who insists on bringing into the
net all the age old truisms of the print world and
forcing them down everyone's throat. (He's not
the only one; there seem to be a few in each
writing and prose newsgroup.)
They basically take the point of view that the net
is just a place to shit, not a place to write.
To people like Maughan, you have more validity if
you sell somthing to a printed 'zine for five
pounds than if you give your best shot to net
readers for free.
You might say Maughan is "publisher obsessed": He
needs the pat on the head, the validation, that comes
from THE PUBLISHER. If someone set up a phony
publishing operation and offered Maughan five
pounds for something he wrote, Maughan would be
kissing "the publisher"'s butt: Here comes
somebody to validate Maughan's existence again!
Of course, "dinos" like Maughan despise serious
net writers like me, since I write strictly for
my readers. I have never received the "papal
blessing" of being patted on the head and given
some money by a publisher. To Maughan, that
means I don't exist as a writer, despite the
very strong evidence that I likely have more
readers than at least ninety-percent of the
authers in BOOKS IN PRINT.
[People who know nothing about the realities of
print publishing will immediately croak, regarding
my assertion above, "Post proof, Palmer." Again,
what I said is common sense. In the first place,
dear reader, start going through the BOOKS IN PRINT
at your local bookstore and see what percentage
of the writers YOU recognize. Lots of them
are "publish or perish" professors, with a few
hundred readers at most, most of those being
their students. Further, who remembers the
name of the aruthor of HOW TO BUILD A BETTER
HUMMINGBIRD HOME or MACRAME MADE EASY, even
if a book buying customer has had those volumes
around the house for years?]
Anyway, I have never submitted anything at all for
print publication, which is not the same as saying
that I may never choose to do so in the future.
Right now, being a famous net writer keeps me
content. For my many readers, I remain grateful,
and I scarcely feel the need for the validation
of having a "print publisher" pat me on the
head and slip a few bucks into my pocket.
>
>> "Erin C. D." <th...@worldcontrol.org> writes
>> >
>> > Tell me of one person who's made decent $ off of something
fiction
>> >previously printed online. I just finished writing a novel. I'd
much rather
>> >send it out to publishers then let people have it for free
The problem is, Maughan, you are writing for a hypothetical
print publisher and not for your readers. Since you don't
have any regard for readers, per se, you consider the net
to be merely a place to dump your blatherings. You have
implied on many occasions that you save your "real stuff"
for print publication. If you didn't know who I was,
and I contacted you in the guise of a "print publisher",
you would be kissing my fanny for a five-hundred pound
advance, even totally part from whether or not you needed
the money: it would be the thought of another "validation"
that thrilled you.
and hope that
>> >someone publishes it (given the one in a million chance that they
find my
>> >www page and read the manuscript in it's entirety) and then already
have
>> >lost the potential royalites from the readers who've already read
it for
>> >free.
What the hell is wrong about writing for your net readers
and not worrying about all that, Maughan?
>> > (I mention fiction there because occasionly non-fiction works,
which in
>> >general sell higher then fiction, do get online momentum, usually
based on a
>> >personal crisis, ie "I had aneoxeria, here's how to fight it".)
>> > You'll see people asking to put your works on their www page,
claiming
>> >that the exposure will sell your work. What are the chances that
anyone will
>> >go to their page, and read your stuff?
Funny, when I made nearly the same point a few months
back, you in no way supported me. My point at time
was that readers need to LURED, through good newsgroup
articles, to a website, not told, "To see some great
writing come to ------------ website." People have
been burned far too often with boring websites. You
have to show them, not tell them. [Some may recall
how my posting to that effect led to parasite Wilkes
getting in my face, and he's been there ever since,
much to my disgust. He remains of the opinion that
net readers have nothing better to do with their
on-line minutes than flit endlessly around from
one one deadly boring website to another.]
And that those readers will be people
>> >in high enough places to get you published? Those people have
better things
>> >to do with their time then look for the next Plath on the net.
While I don't think too many people want to be the
"next Plath", it remains very likely that some net
writers who now are complete unknowns in the "print
world" will make it very big as authors. You lack
vision, and you lack faith in the great promise of
the net, Maughan.
>> > Wrong. Your work will sell your work, if you send it out to
places.
>> > Giving it out for free does nothing but ruin your chances in
the long
>> >run.
Giving it away might or might not be a bad financial move,
but writing that reaches enough readers will stand or fall
on its merits. I have that much faith in the readers.
>> > As more people get online, we're talking readers here, not
publishers,
>> >the less likely they'll be to pay for your book of poems when they
can print
>> >off the deja news search.
I disagree. If they like you, they will still want the
printed book, most especially if you are talking to about
poetry or literature, as opposed to things like "100
HOTTEST NIGHT SPOTS IN MIAMI".
>> > My panties are fine. Then again, i'm aiming to sell what i
write. Are
>> >you? If this is a hobby, and you don't care, then don't worry. But
the
>> >contracts i'm seeing are begining to have something called
Electronic Rights
>> >in there. And by posting to newsgroups and the www, you can be
cutting
>> >yourself out.
To bad you missed that excellent Brad Templeton FAQ that
I reposted the other day. All Brad does is sum up some
basic legal realities of copyright law, 1998, that all
net writers should know. However, he does a very good
job of that, and I have seem most of what he says verified
in comments posted here and there by various intellectual
property rights experts. Anyway, it remains very plain that
a) when you post, what you post does NOT go into the public
domain, unless you specify you wish it to, b) all your
original writing--posted and otherwise--is in effect
automatically copyrighted (which is not the same as
saying you may never be called upon to assert your
copyright, so "proof" is still important), and
c) those selling your work without your permission
or even giving it away for free can be successfully
sued.
>> > Erin Cashier Denton (sending this to another detractor as well,
rather
>> >then cross posting again)
>> >
>> Fascinating. I defer to your contemporary wisdom, of course, I
haven't
>> published a novel for thirty years. But I must ask you: why is it
that
>> you, and the other terminally boring arseholes in alt.writing and
misc.
>> writing and elsewhere are so determined to provide free information
to
>> the world at large?
I think the point is that at least some of us are
trying to share our best writing with those net readers
who may enjoy it. That used to be what writing and
prose groups were all about, anyway. As to free
"information", yes, I DO admit it gets tedious to
see "gems" from the 1964 edition of THE WOULD-BE
WRITER reposted again and again...
I've been writing for money since I graduated and I
>> also regularly submit fiction, poetry, articles, which I write
because I
>> write. You would have to wire up my balls to the mains before I
parted
>> with the insights gained in a writing life. Why should I tell every
dip-
>> shit with a keyboard what to do or not to do so said dipshit can go
out
>> and steal my money? Fees for fiction are insulting enough as it is
and
>> articles in specialist magazines often break even, or worst case,
cost
>> money - research, time etc. I'm not unwilling to pass on
information,
>> privately, or even discreetly (!) in the newsgroup but I mostly like
>> to choose who I get in bed with, especially when I'm paying.
[...]
So you prefer to drivel your worst writing into newsgroups
and save "your good stuff" for those times a publisher is
willing to validate your existence as a writer?
Bill Palmer
alt.genius.bill-palmer
Joe
So. Who shit in yor cornflakes this morning?
Robert Maughan <r...@etymon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Fascinating. I defer to your contemporary wisdom, of course, I haven't
>published a novel for thirty years. But I must ask you: why is it that
>you, and the other terminally boring arseholes in alt.writing and misc.
>writing and elsewhere are so determined to provide free information to
>the world at large? I've been writing for money since I graduated and I
>also regularly submit fiction, poetry, articles, which I write because I
>write. You would have to wire up my balls to the mains before I parted
>with the insights gained in a writing life. Why should I tell every dip-
>shit with a keyboard what to do or not to do so said dipshit can go out
>and steal my money? Fees for fiction are insulting enough as it is and
>articles in specialist magazines often break even, or worst case, cost
>money - research, time etc. I'm not unwilling to pass on information,
>privately, or even discreetly (!) in the newsgroup but I mostly like
>to choose who I get in bed with, especially when I'm paying.
> While I have your attention, I have to tell you your pathetic whimper
>about crossposting is just too tempting for words. Fucking ignore the
>things, you stupid, stupid arseholes. I forget the name of the original
>poster here, Laura Rosebud(?), but what possible harm can it do when she
>innocently inflicts her juvenile gropings on your stupid newsgroup. Now,
>when I crosspost, you're going to have to worry about it, because when I
>crosspost I do it with extreme prejudice and malice aforethought. What
>I suggest you do now is fuck off back to your stupid newsgroup and never
>come here again. Note that I have omitted misc.writing from this sally
>because I've just done them, and once in a blue moon is enough; I'm not
>a cruel man, nearly. But you could provide me with an opportunity.
> RJM.
Joe McGinn
===================================================
Author of Inside LotusScript
http://www.manning.com/McGinn/459.html
===================================================
Robert Maughan
Jack Mingo <mi...@pacbell.net> writes
>Robert Maughan wrote:
>> fuck up... stupid cunt... stupid whimpering... horrid guttersnipes...
>> pissing.
>
>
>Robert,
>
>If you wish to discuss it with me, as you say above (oh, edited out as
>extraneous...but I'm sure you remember), here is my e-mail address:
>mi...@pacbell.net.
>
Mr Mingo, I will repeat this as often as necessary. Your emails to me
will be ignored, you are not to be trusted. I will discuss anything you
like or that I like in public forums in any newsgroup where I find you.
>I have no desire to bore the folks from alt.writing by responding to
>your tediously repetitious anger; suggest that they likewise ignore
>you; and will pointedly not engage you further here. The next sound you
>hear is me, saying absolutely nothing.
Whether you have the desire or not, Mr Mingo, you are a congenital bore
and have no choice. Why do you keep insisting that I am angry, Mr Mingo?
I'm doing writing, that's the point. Any excuse will do, even you.
RJM.
Robert Maughan
wil...@ix.netcom.com writes
>In <HwrQ2tAk...@etymon.demon.co.uk> Robert Maughan
><r...@etymon.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>
>> Amazing.
>
>No, really it's just some down to earth dirt about
>your pathetic and obsolete net existence,
Pathetic I can't argue with; your opinion is under consideration of
course. But obsolete net existence? In this newsgroup I exchange prose
on a daily basis, post occasional fiction, fight with anyone interested,
and take the piss out of you, you sad cunt. How is that obsolete net
existence?
>"dino". One
>thing I DIDN'T mention is that you try to cajole OTHERS to
>take your spineless point of view on net writing, such
>as your incorrectly "warning" people that anything they
>post goes into public domain when that is blatantly
>false.
It is patently true. Anything posted in Usenet is abandoned to its fate
like a puppy thrown out in the snow. It is not protected (I assume that
is what you're on about) by automatic copyright. I suspect that it may
be necessary for you to believe that because your only 'existence' is in
this place, as you keep saying. It is entirely possible to take legal
steps to protect postings in Usenet (so far no precedent I think), just
as it is to protect writing in any other medium. I do it all the time.
> In other words, when I caught you doing that
>last year, your message was, "Be like me Maughn and
>just shit into the net 'cause if you post anything at
>all good someone might rip you off." No, those were
>not your exact words, but that represents the gist
>of what you have blathered on many occasions, Maughan
>the Fake.
Caught me? You're snatching at my coat tails, you snivelling coat tail
snatcher. It sounds very much like me, I must admit, though you're quite
right, you'd never approach the language I'd have used. What do you
think happens to stuff on the net? You think there's a word accountant
in an office somewhere entering the quantities into a ledger, don't you?
Your ouevre is a block of DejaNews, pal. Ephemeral, like you, a pre-dead
entity. I don't subscribe to the cruel taunts of some of your baiters, I
actually think your million words a month or is it minute bullshitting
will one day prove a valuable resource. Students will study you, your
net entity, the first personality-devoid-electric-has-been being had
by pretty much anyone cruel enough to tap a keyboard in response to
your ravings. By the time the men in white coats come for you your
output will be in the billions of words, all meaningless, and all
as entertaining as sand in a sock. Someone will write a thesis.
>
>>I'll leave this untouched in case anyone abandoned it seeing
>>your name as author.
>
>I stand by everything I said, Maughan. That's why
>you merely try to scorn the entire article rather
>than showing the spine for challenging any specific
>points I made about Maughan-think and how it pollutes
>the net and erodes weaker net writers' backbones.
>
Mad. You're fucking bonkers. Net crazy. 'Weaker net writers'? You are
completely insane, mate. Who are these people? Whoever they are, fuck
them. I'm not a fucking charity.
>>It is a demonstration of the distance between you
>>and reality, and simple proof that at any given time you have no idea
>>who it is you are actually addressing:
>
>Nonsense. Every comment I made is addressed to you--
You were addressing posts by somebody else, Palmer. Someone completely
different to me altogether entirely, and calling them/her by my name.
Please, when you discover this to be so, just forget about it, don't
try on one of your meandering excuses, they really are weak.
>though some of it reflected past statements by you that
>were merely brought to my mind by what other parties on
>this thread stated. You know that, so spare me the
>"Palmer can't read attribution marks," diversion. My
>words were ALL meant for you Maughan, and for all the
>readers...
>
I could tell they were ALL meant for me, you sad, sad creature sorry I
meant cunt. But it wasn't me who wrote what you were slamming.
RJM.
neville genie
stop cunting, please.
- deb
On Fri, 1 May 1998 03:56:24 +0100, Robert Maughan
<r...@etymon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
---------------------------------
http://people.tamu.edu/~kilgore
wil...@ix.netcom.com
In <nyk4GKBY...@etymon.demon.co.uk> Robert Maughan
<r...@etymon.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>
> wil...@ix.netcom.com writes
>
>>In <HwrQ2tAk...@etymon.demon.co.uk> Robert Maughan
>><r...@etymon.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>>
>>> Amazing.
>>
>>No, really it's just some down to earth dirt about
>>your pathetic and obsolete net existence,
>
> Pathetic I can't argue with;
Shows you have a tenuous tie to reality, at least,
Maughan.
your opinion is under consideration of
>course. But obsolete net existence?
My point was that you're always pawining off your hoary
ideas of what being a net writer is all about, "Dino"
Maughan.
In this newsgroup I exchange prose
>on a daily basis, post occasional fiction, fight with anyone
interested,
>and take the piss out of you, you sad cunt. How is that obsolete net
>existence?
>
>>Well, "dino" Maughan, one
>>thing I DIDN'T mention is that you try to cajole OTHERS to
>>take your spineless point of view on net writing, such
>>as your incorrectly "warning" people that anything they
>>post goes into public domain when that is blatantly
>>false.
>
> It is patently true.
It's a bald-faced lie, and it is potentially very
harmful. First of all, it is obvious that you
don't know the Berne Convention of the 1980's from
the Diet of Wurmz, so all I can do there for
now is refer you back to the very helpful Brad
Templeton FAQ on intellectual property rights
(that I just reposted in this very newsgroup).
I notice you didn't "set people staight" about
Brad's "misconceptions" on that FAQ, Maughan.
Now, here is why you "public domain" nonsense
is harmful, Maughan.
First, your drivel has a tendency to degrade prose
and writing newsgroups, since the message (of
"anything you post goes into the public
domain") is that people should merely Drool,
a la the Maughan-creature and his pals, into
prose and writing groups, since anything worth
reading can be stolen with impunity.
[If any newbies are confused, anything in the
public domain can be used at will without giving
credit to the writer; without the permission of the
writer; and without remuneration to the writer.
That makes the net just a great big candy for
thieves, then, doesn't it? Of course, the
notion is NOT in the least bit true; Maughan
clings to one of the hoariest and most
incorrect canards on the net.]
Other harm from the "public domain" canard could
be lawsuits and ever arrests. If what Maughan
says is true, than some "entrepreneur" could
ransack rec.arts.poems for the best poems of the
last couple of years and publish a "Best of The
Net" print poetry anthology. In reality, even
if not one of those poems were separately
copyrighted, the thief would face lawsuits
and even arrest.
Anything posted in Usenet is abandoned to its fate
>like a puppy thrown out in the snow.
No, it isn't.
It is not protected (I assume that
>is what you're on about) by automatic copyright.
In other words, you know more about all this
than Brad Templeton who has carefully studying
the issues, but you let his FAQ pass by without
comment two days ago and then you call ME stupid
for merely reminding you of the realities that
Brad stressed in his helpful FAQ.
I suspect that it may
>be necessary for you to believe that because your only 'existence' is
in
>this place, as you keep saying. It is entirely possible to take legal
>steps to protect postings in Usenet (so far no precedent I think),
just
>as it is to protect writing in any other medium. I do it all the time.
Nonsense. As of the time of the Berne accords,
essentially everything original you write is in
effect copyrighted. That's not to say you might
not need proof in order to ASSERT your copyright,
so things like registration are still important
regarding protecting of copyrights.
>
>> In other words, when I caught you doing that
>>last year, your message was, "Be like me Maughan and
>>just shit into the net 'cause if you post anything at
>>all good someone might rip you off." No, those were
>>not your exact words, but that represents the gist
>>of what you have blathered on many occasions, Maughan
>>the Fake.
>
> Caught me? You're snatching at my coat tails, you snivelling coat
tail
>snatcher. It sounds very much like me, I must admit, though you're
quite
>right, you'd never approach the language I'd have used. What do you
>think happens to stuff on the net? You think there's a word accountant
>in an office somewhere entering the quantities into a ledger, don't
you?
>Your ouevre is a block of DejaNews, pal. Ephemeral, like you, a
pre-dead
>entity. I don't subscribe to the cruel taunts of some of your baiters,
No, I don't worry about the sniping by envious
flame war losers, either, Maughan. As the World
Champion of flaming, I get dozens of little cheap-
shots every day. That's part of the price of net
fame, and I don't lose any sleep over it. What
you call "cruel taunts" are the flames I sprinkle
over my breakfast cereal in the morning before I
go for my jog. If I glance over lots of newsgroups
and don't see plenty of flames directed my way,
I begin to feel undernourished. So much for
your "cruel taunts of [my] baiters," eh, Maughan?
I
>actually think your million words a month or is it minute bullshitting
>will one day prove a valuable resource. Students will study you, your
>net entity, the first personality-devoid-electric-has-been being had
>by pretty much anyone cruel enough to tap a keyboard in response to
>your ravings. By the time the men in white coats come for you your
>output will be in the billions of words, all meaningless, and all
>as entertaining as sand in a sock. Someone will write a thesis.
That's why I don't have any readers and of course
no one to follow up my posts, eh, Maughan?
>>
>>>I'll leave this untouched in case anyone abandoned it seeing
>>>your name as author.
>>
>>I stand by everything I said, Maughan. That's why
>>you merely try to scorn the entire article rather
>>than showing the spine for challenging any specific
>>points I made about Maughan-think and how it pollutes
>>the net and erodes weaker net writers' backbones.
>>
> Mad. You're fucking bonkers. Net crazy. 'Weaker net writers'? You are
>completely insane, mate. Who are these people?
As I think you know, I was referring to people who
are afraid to post their best stuff in prose and
writing groups, and so merely chitchat-and-dribble,
as a result of YOUR drooling hoary and incorrect
canards about "public domain", Maughan.
>Whoever they are, fuck
>them. I'm not a fucking charity.
No, you embody a sewage outfall pipe polluting several
newsgroups because you are too lazy to check the
same easily-obtainable facts that Brad Templeton
did before putting together his very helpful
intellectual property rights FAQ, Maughan--
the FAQ I reposted in rec.arts.prose two days
back, so it won't be hard for you to find and
"tear apart" for us, sharing your exclusive
knowledge of all those key property rights
decisions to the contrary of what Mr. Templeton
states.
>
>>>It is a demonstration of the distance between you
>>>and reality, and simple proof that at any given time you have no
idea
>>>who it is you are actually addressing:
>>
>>Nonsense. Every comment I made is addressed to you--
>
> You were addressing posts by somebody else, Palmer. Someone
completely
>different to me altogether entirely, and calling them/her by my name.
Nonesense, in some cases the writers merely put me
in mind of some of your reamrks I hadn't refuted yet,
Maughan.
>Please, when you discover this to be so, just forget about it,
Won't give it a moment's thought, Maughan, never fear.
>don't
>try on one of your meandering excuses, they really are weak.
Everything I said about you in that article
fits you to a tee, Maughan. That's the real
issue here.
>>Fact is, Maughan, all those remarks, including the ones
>>made by others, reflected past statements by you that
>>were merely brought to my mind by what different parties
>>on the thread were saying. You know that, so spare me the
>>"Palmer can't read attribution marks," diversion. My
>>words were ALL meant for you Maughan, and for all the
>>readers...
>>
> I could tell they were ALL meant for me, you sad, sad creature sorry
I
>meant cunt. But it wasn't me who wrote what you were slamming.
I was slamming YOU, Maughan, and I'll slam you
again tomorrow...
>
> RJM.
Bill Palmer
alt.genius.bill-palmer
Christopher Stolle
Dear Mr. Maughan:
My good sir, I do not wish to offend you in any way, but it's becoming
more and more apparent that you like to pick fights on as many newsgroups
as you possibly can. Why don't you do us one small favor and post a good
poem to RAP or a quick bit about how you progress as a writer on MW or
post a short piece of prose to RAProse. I think people would rather read
your work than your complaints about other people and/or their work.
Otherwise, take all your arguments to private e-mail. I think people post
on these newsgroups to share writing tips and their work. We do not really
want to listen to what you have to say in regards to them when they only
pertain to the author. And I dare say that if you continue your small
tirades, enough people will eventually find a way for you to lose your
Internet connections. And I will gladly lead the petition.
Sincerely,
Christopher Stolle
P.S. I do hope you respond to these charges in a civilized manner because
I do not see that as asking too much from you. Peace.
************************************************************ "i am now
Christopher Stolle -- 230 S.W. 4th St. -- Richmond, IN 47374 heading into
Last days to see my website: http://php.indiana.edu/~cstolle oblivion
After May 9, this e-mail address will no longer work. Sorry. where i know
************************************************************ i belong."
Adrian Smith
In article <Pine.OSF.3.96.980501...@copper.ucs.indiana.
edu>, Christopher Stolle <cst...@indiana.edu> writes
>My good sir, I do not wish to offend you in any way, but it's becoming
>more and more apparent that you like to pick fights on as many newsgroups
>as you possibly can. Why don't you do us one small favor and post a good
>poem to RAP or a quick bit about how you progress as a writer on MW or
>post a short piece of prose to RAProse.
The prose, she is already here.
>I think
The evidence, she is not visible.
>people would rather read
>your work than your complaints about other people and/or their work.
The 'complaint', she is also work. Often more entertaining.
>Otherwise, take all your arguments to private e-mail.
The imperative, she is dangerous.
>I think people post
>on these newsgroups to share writing tips and their work.
>We
The mouse in the pocket, she not count.
>do not really
>want to listen to what you have to say in regards to them when they only
>pertain to the author. And I dare say that if you continue your small
>tirades, enough people will eventually find a way for you to lose your
>Internet connections.
The flame, she is not usually sufficient justification for a TOS.
>And I will gladly lead the petition.
demon.co.uk, she generally not listen to netcopping plonkers.
>Sincerely,
>
> Christopher Stolle
>
>P.S. I do hope you respond to these charges in a civilized manner because
>I do not see that as asking too much from you. Peace.
The killfile, she provide protection to the sadly vulnerable.
--
Adrian Smith
wil...@ix.netcom.com
In <Pine.OSF.3.96.980501...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu>
Christopher Stolle <cst...@indiana.edu> writes:
>
>
> Dear Mr. Maughan:
>
>My good sir, I do not wish to offend you in any way,
Net-churls like Maughan get offended if you sneeze, so
don't worry about it.
but it's becoming
>more and more apparent that you like to pick fights
Yes, he does, and he seems to like to LOSE fights,
too, since he picks fights with the wrong people.
If you will excuse a bit of earthy language,
Maughan's plainly got a corncob up his butt
and a big buffalo chip on each shoulder.
on as many newsgroups
>as you possibly can. Why don't you do us one small favor and post a
good
>poem to RAP
That's impossible, unless he plagiarizes it, since
loser Maughan has no skill. But he will tell you he
can't post a good poem because it would automatically
become public domain property and someone would steal
it from him and sell it for five thousand pounds.
That's bullshit, of course, but he will tell you
that anyway, so be warned.
or a quick bit about how you progress as a writer on MW or
>post a short piece of prose to RAProse.
Same excuse. Maughan will tell you he can't post any
prose in rec.arts.prose since it will mysteriously become
part of the public domain and he will lose his rights
to his own writing! In other words, he's either a
liar or his ignorance is appalling, or both.
I think people would rather read
>your work
I take it you have never seen his "work"!
than your complaints about other people and/or their work.
He has no "work". That's why all Maughan does is hang
around rec.arts.prose like a vulture and wait for
someone else to post something serious so he can
pick it apart.
>Otherwise, take all your arguments to private e-mail.
Please. Don't give the loser ideas. I've got half
a dozen email pests now. No, I don't read them. Yes,
they do disappear into my cute little GUI rubbish can--
but I DO have to read their subject lines, which is bad
enough.
I think people post
>on these newsgroups to share writing tips and their work.
The most creative people do, since that's what these
groups were supposed to be for. Unfortunately, a
little clique of people who share Maughan's "views",
try to turn rec.arts.prose into a ratty little
lounge for jaded, malicious, envious, unproductive
"minds".
We do not really
>want to listen to what you have to say
No, we don't. It's quite painful to our ears, as
a matter of fact.
in regards to them when they only
>pertain to the author. And I dare say that if you continue your small
>tirades, enough people will eventually find a way for you to lose your
>Internet connections. And I will gladly lead the petition.
You've made some good points, but I can't go along with
the last part. I've seen too many of those "orchestrated
crying campaigns" soon become nasty little gangs trying to
get rid of anybody in a group they don't like. Personally,
as an outspoken poster, though I have been the target of
some pretty rotten behavior from people far lower than
Maughan, I never take my beefs off the newsgroup screen.
Sneaking around trying to interfere with net connections
for a blathersome party, even a shitass like Maughan,
never solves problems. The best advice I can give you
is to just stop reading misfit Maughan. Nobody's
twisting your arm, are they? Pretend he's not there.
Sooner or later he'll blow away if people start ignoring
him. Maughan's just whining for attention because some
fat tub waddled out of his life...
Bill Palmer
alt.genius.bill-palmer
>
>Sincerely,
>
> Christopher Stolle
>
>P.S. I do hope you respond to these charges in a civilized manner
Maughan won't.
because
>I do not see that as asking too much from you.
You wouldn't be asking too much from a "reasonable
person." Big difference.
B. Callaghan
You guys are obviously having problems with your Internet Service
Providers. I would be very upset - you both seem to be missing RJM's poems
and short stories. I suppose you could wait until they come out in literary
journals but it's kinda fun to read them here first.
bettina
Robert Maughan
wil...@ix.netcom.com writes
>That's impossible, unless he plagiarizes it, since
>loser Maughan has no skill.
Down you go, Palmer, down, down, down the toilet.
Mr Stolle, whatever we may argue about elsewhere, take my word for it
here, this is not your level.
RJM.
Robert Maughan
neville genie <dkil...@NOFASTMONEYgeocities.com> writes
>stop cunting, please.
>- deb
Censorship, Your Ladyship?
>
>On Fri, 1 May 1998 03:56:24 +0100, Robert Maughan
><r...@etymon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
><snip>
>
I do try, Deb, I'm not insensitive to my sisters ... but it's such a
lovely word. In both its senses. Please consider - if I were to stop
cunting for anyone in RAP, it would be for you (since you are the first
to ask). Herself has her own rules in the matter which I am obliged to
follow or get whacked. Sadly, you're too far away.
X.
RJM.
Robert Maughan
Mr Stolle.
I take it you are determined to sever my Internet connection by mob
action. A copy of your post is in my mail box.
Please believe that my ISP is dedicated, and declared so in simple, to
the principle of free speech. I'll address your concerns here with care,
Mr Stolle, in rec.arts.prose, copied to rec.arts.poems and alt.writing,
the only three groups to which I am currently subscribed. I will add
misc.writing for your sake and mail a further copy to your postmaster@
indiana.edu asking that you be restrained from emailing me. Note well,
Mr Stolle, that my email correspondence is mostly about writing, about
mutual interests, and by invitation. I told you this previously and you
seem unable to get my drift. I look forward to our discussion in the
newsgroup.
Christopher Stolle <cst...@indiana.edu> writes
>
> Dear Mr. Maughan:
>
>My good sir, I do not wish to offend you in any way,
My young friend, you would have to cover yourself in dogshit and stand
very near me before you caused offence. You are extremely inoffensive.
An irritant only; so far.
> but it's becoming
>more and more apparent that you like to pick fights on as many newsgroups
>as you possibly can.
More and more apparent to who? I subscribe to two newsgroups normally,
three at the moment. A fourth is likely to be added, thanks to you.
See above, Mr Stolle. I am subscribed to writing newsgroups and in them
I do writing. It is true I fight. I am picking a fight as we speak, with
Mr Mingo in alt.writing. You will perhaps get a glimmer of what provokes
my confrontational stance. To help you, I will explain: I cannot abide
pompous arseholes who know what is best for everybody. I hate a petty
censor. I cannot stand pretentious fools with delusions of grandeur.
I cringe when I come across semi-literate garbage perpetrated by
unskilled writers, but I mostly suffer it in silence. I mostly
suffer fools with tolerance but in your case I am making
an exception.
>Why don't you do us one small favor and post a good
>poem to RAP
I can't guarantee a good poem, Mr Stolle, I sit down, I write. You
will find some three hundred and fifty or so poems of mine in the
archive; some of them good, some of them not so good, and a few
about elephants. I regularly post two or three poems a week.
> or a quick bit about how you progress as a writer on MW
Mr Stolle, your inexperience is matched by the astonishing numbers of
posters in writing groups who are dead set on providing free information
to the potential competition. This is not the time I'll discuss it, but
if you try very hard you will deduce a willingness on my part to offer
insights from a writing life. Were you less stupid you might have taken
advantage of my willingness, and experience such as it is, and joined
the band of correspondents in email with whom I discuss progress as a
writer.
> or
>post a short piece of prose to RAProse.
Mr Stolle, you appear to be blind as well as stupid. I do prose in
RAProse. I exchange prose with other contributers. Like this. Do you see
how this works, Mr Stolle? I also post fiction from time to time, most
recently this Thursday, 30th, search for 'Photographing ships in winter
light'. Be sure you comment on it in the appropriate forum. I posted a
piece a week before that and another a week before that ...
>I think people would rather read
>your work than your complaints about other people and/or their work.
I don't know what people would rather do, Mr Stolle, about my work or
anything else, that is the difference between us. Your implication is
that I complain about numbers of people for the sake of it. Provide
evidence, Mr Stolle, to give your theory substance. Put up or shut
the fuck up. Make sure you select from everything I write.
>Otherwise, take all your arguments to private e-mail.
Don't fucking presume to tell me what to do, Mr Stolle.
>I think people post
>on these newsgroups to share writing tips and their work.
I'm sure they do. Broadcasting writing tips is not part of the deal as
far as I'm concerned. If you can't comprehend well enough to glean tips
for yourself, then tough. Books on writing are widely available. Go and
buy.
>We do not really
>want to listen to what you have to say in regards to them when they only
>pertain to the author.
Who is 'we', Mr Stolle? Who appointed you spokesman? You contradict
your preceding sentence with blithe disregard for logic. I DO want to
hear everybody's opinions, about anybody and anything; to do with our
mutual interest if possible, or if not, about the price of fish.
> And I dare say that if you continue your small
>tirades, enough people will eventually find a way for you to lose your
>Internet connections. And I will gladly lead the petition.
>
Mr Stolle, I'm sure you want attention quite badly, and you're going to
get it. I understand from reading your contributions in the newsgroups
that you are having doubts about your abilities, and I'm sorry for you.
Do please disabuse yourself of the notion that you can compensate for
your inadequacies by snapping at my ankles. I understand you have made
your farewell speech from indiana.edu and this grandstanding is your
swan song. Well, I'm sure you will be remembered, Mr Stolle. I look
forward to reading you when your little train appears under its
own steam.
>Sincerely,
>
I don't think so, Mr Stolle. I think that you are quite transparently
insincere, but worse, that you deceive yourself.
> Christopher Stolle
>
>P.S. I do hope you respond to these charges in a civilized manner because
>I do not see that as asking too much from you. Peace.
>
Why, I can't think what you mean, Mr Stolle. You are insincere and, it
seems, a little timorous. Good luck with your future in the big, bad
world. Fuck peace. I'll see you in the war zone. Bring your pen.
>************************************************************ "i am now
>Christopher Stolle -- 230 S.W. 4th St. -- Richmond, IN 47374 heading into
>Last days to see my website: http://php.indiana.edu/~cstolle oblivion
>After May 9, this e-mail address will no longer work. Sorry. where i know
>************************************************************ i belong."
RJM.
Greg Jungheim
>
> Dear Mr. Maughan:
>
>My good sir, I do not wish to offend you in any way, but it's becoming
>more and more apparent that you like to pick fights on as many newsgroups
>as you possibly can. Why don't you do us one small favor and post a good
>poem to RAP or a quick bit about how you progress as a writer on MW or
>post a short piece of prose to RAProse. I think people would rather read
>your work than your complaints about other people and/or their work.
>Otherwise, take all your arguments to private e-mail. I think people post
>on these newsgroups to share writing tips and their work. We do not really
>want to listen to what you have to say in regards to them when they only
>pertain to the author. And I dare say that if you continue your small
>tirades, enough people will eventually find a way for you to lose your
>Internet connections. And I will gladly lead the petition.
>
>Sincerely,
>
> Christopher Stolle
>
>P.S. I do hope you respond to these charges in a civilized manner because
>I do not see that as asking too much from you. Peace.
>
>************************************************************ "i am now
>Christopher Stolle -- 230 S.W. 4th St. -- Richmond, IN 47374 heading into
>Last days to see my website: http://php.indiana.edu/~cstolle oblivion
>After May 9, this e-mail address will no longer work. Sorry. where i know
>************************************************************ i belong."
Young Christopher Stolle
while preparing
to jump down the memory hole
opines that Maughan's
flames are out of place;
guilty of takin' up
newsgroup space.
I have to maintain
that whether poem
or prose, Maughan's
flames are better
writing than most
of the regular posts.
He's not as old as
me but he's just
as evil.
--Greg
the saddest of words
are the ones you speak--after
you've said your goodbye.
--Senryu Sid
>
Christopher Stolle
I'm not out to keep anyone from saying anything they like. I'd much more
prefer, though, that people stick to topics at hand. --Chris
************************************************************ "i am now
Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes
Excerpts from netnews.rec.arts.prose: 1-May-98 Small Suggesstion by
Christopher Stolle@india
> P.S. I do hope you respond to these charges in a civilized manner because
> I do not see that as asking too much from you. Peace.
>
i do hope you go fuck yourself you insignificant little whiner.
http://english-server.hss.cmu.edu/home/wilkes/
Christopher Stolle
I thought I was mostly clear in the fact I merely wanted people to try
and stay on topic and not delve into non-writing related posts, which now
I have to engage in just to appease you. Sorry for trying to bring a
little peace and civility into these newsgroups. It won't happen again;
that I can assure you. --Chris
On Fri, 1 May 1998, Robert Maughan wrote:
neville genie
>
> neville genie <dkil...@NOFASTMONEYgeocities.com> writes
>
>>stop cunting, please.
>>- deb
>
> Censorship, Your Ladyship?
> I do try, Deb, I'm not insensitive to my sisters ... but it's such a
>lovely word. In both its senses. Please consider - if I were to stop
>cunting for anyone in RAP, it would be for you (since you are the first
>to ask). Herself has her own rules in the matter which I am obliged to
>follow or get whacked. Sadly, you're too far away.
>
> X.
>
> RJM.
she's/i'm obliged to do the whacking.
- deb
>
---------------------------------
http://people.tamu.edu/~kilgore
Scott Murphy
Robert Maughan <r...@etymon.demon.co.uk> quoted Will Palm:
>> They basically take the point of view that the net
>> is just a place to shit, not a place to write.
>> To people like Maughan, you have more validity if
>> you sell soothing to a printed 'zine for five
>> pounds than if you give your best shot to net
>> readers for free.
I must have moused some "button" and turned off Palmer.
Still, he leaks through--grease on the napkin.
I put my best & wurst on the wire, and hope others
do too. The instruction manuals I write are fucking
best-sellers, but only with electricians.
Murphy
--
Scott Murphy <murp...@ix.netcom.com>
05/01/98
---------
Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes
Excerpts from netnews.rec.arts.prose: 1-May-98 Re: Small Suggestion by
Christopher Stolle@india
> I thought I was mostly clear in the fact I merely wanted people to try
> and stay on topic and not delve into non-writing related posts, which now
> I have to engage in just to appease you. Sorry for trying to bring a
> little peace and civility into these newsgroups. It won't happen again;
> that I can assure you. --Chris
Good. Now go away
http://english-server.hss.cmu.edu/home/wilkes/
Robert Maughan
Christopher Stolle <cst...@indiana.edu> writes
> I'm not out to keep anyone from saying anything they like. I'd much more
>prefer, though, that people stick to topics at hand. --Chris
Rubbish, Mr Stolle. You put in writing your determination to censor me,
for one. To remind you -
> And I dare say that if you continue your small
>tirades, enough people will eventually find a way for you to lose your
>Internet connections. And I will gladly lead the petition.
Your piddling courage has disappeared along with your convictions. Do
yourself a favour and salvage some pride with honesty. Don't for one
moment believe that I, for one, will allow you to sweep away your
revolting attempt at censorship by pretending you were really
interested in Organisation and Method.
You'd much more prefer that horrid guttersnipes like me would go away
and leave you to your genteel posturing. Well, go to Disneyland, mate,
or misc.writing.
RJM.
Robert Maughan
Christopher Stolle <cst...@indiana.edu> writes
> I thought I was mostly clear in the fact I merely wanted people to try
>and stay on topic and not delve into non-writing related posts, which now
>I have to engage in just to appease you. Sorry for trying to bring a
>little peace and civility into these newsgroups. It won't happen again;
>that I can assure you. --Chris
Rubbish, Mr Stolle. You mounted your pulpit to preach. Unfortunately,
you have no message, no wit, and no balls. It seems also that you have
a small congregation.
The topic where I'm standing is writing. Do some, and shut the fuck
up about peace and civility and appeasement. Or stay in the newsgroups
where writing is discussed. You will get plenty of peace and civility.
On topic.
RJM.
Jeff Potter
If you don't dovetail well into the niche you're published in, you'll
sink without a trace, publisher or no. Just being published or even
being put out there has no effect. You need full support of The System,
academia, reviewers, the works.
Isn't the ratio of 'sinking without a trace': 1 survives for every 8
published? I read that somewhere. Even books that are 'successful'
in today's world are typically not successful next year. Thus
the world as usual is entirely wrong and backwards and disappearing
fast (not only the rainforest).
However, some books that were selfpublished changed the world
not too long ago: 'Common Sense' by Thomas Paine is even what
should be called a modern book.
Lastly, word of mouth might be your best ally, far beyond the
importance of The System. If you keep plugging at it, word gets
around and grows and builds momentum and eventually you
might break thru some back door or other.
Bukowski eventually broke thru via Europe, but he had several
'unreal' factors going for him: Euros love depravity. If you're trying
to do the most REAL art, steadily bettering yourself and revealing
that via art, you'll be far worse off than Buk, have a far harder
row to hoe, because for all his 'outsiderness' he plays strongly
to many indulgent and readily manipulated fads for young people
(superficial 'cool' and such). Easy to sell to idiots. Truth pointed in
the right direction always has the toughest time of all. (See: Jack Saunders)
Were Thoreau, Melville, Kerouac, Algren, Hemingway, Faulkner 'real' when they
were first published? Did publishing 'for real' help them? Really?
Thoreau at any rate (I lose track of the details with the others) was
published 'for real' and panned/dismissed at first and sank without a trace
until after his death.
Hemingway killed himself after realizing what he had to do to be published:
edit his work to please the soap manufacturers advertising in Life (took
the wind out of his sails having to cut thing in half due to the whims of
midgets). Same with Melville, Algren and Faulkner: they fought like
the devil to sell their best stuff, often losing. The main idea being
that to work with The System would require that they kill their talent.
Algren I hear actively withheld his best, refused to participate except
for giving them the fluff they wanted; I guess he also attacked The System
whenever he could.
--
Jeff Potter j...@glpbooks.BADMAIL.com delete '.BADMAIL' to reply
***"Out Your Backdoor": Friendly Magazine of DIY Adventure and Culture
http://www.glpbooks.com/oyb ... with new bookstore & bulletin board
wil...@ix.netcom.com
In <09980401035751...@ix.netcom.com> murp...@ix.netcom.com
>>> is just a place to shit, not a place to write.
>>> To people like Maughan, you have more validity if
>>> pounds than if you give your best shot to net
>>> readers for free.
>
>Still, he leaks through--grease on the napkin.
What you omit in you little cheapshot here is the fact
that Maughan has posted many incorrect statements
expressing his faith in the hoary (and utterly false)
canard that "whatever we post goes into the public
domain". It proved especially significant that Maughan
totally ignored the Brad Templeton FAQ that I reposted
the other day. From Maugahn's past remarks, you would
have thought that he would loved to cite legal
cases (that only Maughan seems to know of) to
show us Templeton's "errors" in Brad's FAQ on
intellectual property rights. Instead, like
a canard-drooling poltroon, Maughan totally
ignored the FAQ that exposed him as an ignorant
liar.
I consider Maughan's insupportable blather harmful
for two reasons: a) it sends the false message that
the net is just a big candy store for plagiarists
(since postings "go directly into the public
domain") and, b) it degrades newsgroups by
echoing the incorrect advice posters should
merely drivel, because if they post anything
good, it can be stolen with impunity.
Basically, Maughan is just a monger of false rumour,
He favors, and in fact clings to, that particular untrue
canard (about posted material automatically somehow
going into the public domain) since that justifies
Maughan's practice of posting his drool, while implying
he saves his "good stuff" for elsewhere. I wouldn't
mind that alone, but Maughan--by posting his poppy-
cock about "public domain"--is in effect encouraging
newbies to adhere to the same practice. That's
reprehensible.
Bill Palmer
alt.genius.bill-palmer
Dolya
Would you like to explain what the controversial word means in any of its
senses?
Free speech in a civilised society! Maybe. But there must always be some story
as to why a person tries so hard to be obnoxious.
Suka/Skeleton Girls
Joe
Robert Maughan <r...@etymon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Why do you keep insisting that I am angry, Mr Mingo?
It is plainly obvious from your rage-laced posts here that you have a
huge well of pent up anger. You are a man in utterly desperate need of
a blowjob.
Joe
Robert Maughan
Joe <mcg...@direct.ca> writes
>Why do you keep insisting that I am angry, Mr Mingo?
>
>It is plainly obvious from your rage-laced posts here that you have a
>huge well of pent up anger. You are a man in utterly desperate need of
>a blowjob.
Mr. McGinn your perspicacity is quite uncanny. I can't tell you how
badly I need a blowjob at this very minute. The thought of wet lips,
licked wet lips, gently kissing in the interstices of my inner thigh
as my hands play with tresses falling away from a neck sparkling gold
down, is driving me mad. I imagine the ochre light of streetlamps, hot
light falling on my engorged glans, I can't bear it, those lips, those
familiar lips, at last descending, down, down on me, a tiny frisson of
pain as a hair catches in bared teeth, and a scream of agony as I spill
my coffee in my lap ... oh hell, look at the time, look at the time, I
promised to have supper ready by ten thirty, she'll be here in half an
hour and she is such a BITCH if everything isn't perfect, the candles,
oh my god, where are the candles ... dear me, Mr McGinn, you'll get me
shot.
RJM.
Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes
Excerpts from netnews.rec.arts.prose: 1-May-98 Re: Small Suggestion by
> him. Maughan's just whining for attention because some
> fat tub waddled out of his life...
Ah. The "fat tub". Let's keep your mother out of this billy "penile
drip" palmer. She's a good woman, damn it. But she has her "needs".
http://english-server.hss.cmu.edu/home/wilkes/
Robert Maughan
Vanburen Wilkes <gv...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes
>> him. Maughan's just whining for attention because some
>> fat tub waddled out of his life...
>
>Ah. The "fat tub". Let's keep your mother out of this billy "penile
>drip" palmer. She's a good woman, damn it. But she has her "needs".
Insatiable, Gil, utterly unsatisfiable, and I usually get mine after
her boy has served her his customary half dozen times. Now he is a man,
Gilbert. His sweet mother back and forth on Concorde, often with nothing
but water and a blackened banana for sustenance, and no matter how much
I plead with her to stay, just until I've recovered, no, she's back on
that plane to satisfy his rabid lusts. Once, they put her on the wrong
flight, to Bahrein. Can you imagine? It was on the News. It was a long
time before I saw her again, I can tell you. Like now. God, I miss her.
RJM.
Adrian Smith
In article <199805011809...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, Dolya
<do...@aol.com> writes
Would you mean (ahem) c*nt? Probe if you will the possibility that the
obnoxiousness is in your own mind, and that words have the power *you*
give them. The Spanish cognate, cono, for example, hardly commands the
venom some attribute to (ahem) c*nt. Women use it without paroxysms of
political correctness. We may be faced with a cultural artifact. Maybe
you don't want to examine it. But the arbitrary triggers of moralising
judgement will always remain of interest to some.
--
Adrian Smith
Joe
Robert Maughan <r...@etymon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Mr. McGinn your perspicacity is quite uncanny. I can't tell you how
>badly I need a blowjob at this very minute. The thought of wet lips,
>licked wet lips, gently kissing in the interstices of my inner thigh
>as my hands play with tresses falling away from a neck sparkling gold
>down, is driving me mad. I imagine the ochre light of streetlamps, hot
>light falling on my engorged glans, I can't bear it, those lips, those
>familiar lips, at last descending, down, down on me, a tiny frisson of
>pain as a hair catches in bared teeth, and a scream of agony as I spill
>my coffee in my lap ... oh hell, look at the time, look at the time, I
>promised to have supper ready by ten thirty, she'll be here in half an
>hour and she is such a BITCH if everything isn't perfect, the candles,
>oh my god, where are the candles ... dear me, Mr McGinn, you'll get me
>shot.
Well, this time you responded with humor instead of napalm, that's
something I can appreciate! ;-)
Joe
Robert Maughan
Joe <mcg...@direct.ca> writes
>Well, this time you responded with humor instead of napalm, that's
>something I can appreciate! ;-)
Napalm yet. No wonder you need smileys to express yourself. What a
genius you turned out to be in the end Mr. McGinn. All it took was
a clown suit and red nose and suddenly comprehension dawned. Here,
jump through this hoop.
RJM.
Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes
> I think people post
> >on these newsgroups to share writing tips and their work.
>
> The most creative people do, since that's what these
> groups were supposed to be for. Unfortunately, a
> little clique of people who share Maughan's "views",
> try to turn rec.arts.prose into a ratty little
> lounge for jaded, malicious, envious, unproductive
> "minds".
Poor befuddled little billy "penile drip" palmer. The bloated little
floater bills himself as the "flame giant" and claims to be a "net
celebrity"--the most "popular writer on the net" says he. But who does
the press interview when they want the testimony of a genuine master of
incendiary discourse?--why, robert maughan of course, the connoisseur's
choice in all matters imflammatory. What fabulous irony. Oh, how it must
eat little billy palmer's insides out. If the boy's claims were true
then one would expect him to receive recognition, but those who report
on the internet simply refuse to acknowledge the hapless little mewler,
if they notice him at all. Life is *so* unfair.
http://english-server.hss.cmu.edu/home/wilkes/
Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes
Excerpts from netnews.rec.arts.prose: 1-May-98 Re: Crossposting from
borin.. by J...@direct.ca
> Robert Maughan <r...@etymon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Why do you keep insisting that I am angry, Mr Mingo?
>
> It is plainly obvious from your rage-laced posts here that you have a
> huge well of pent up anger. You are a man in utterly desperate need of
> a blowjob.
After you're done with robert can i have one too? After you've rinsed of
course. You will remove your dentures, won't you?
http://english-server.hss.cmu.edu/home/wilkes/
Rob Evans
In article <6iajvc$r...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>, wil...@ix.netcom.com
writes
>
>The thing about Maughan is that he represents just
>another dinosaur (I'm talking about mentality, not
>chronological age) who insists on bringing into the
>net all the age old truisms of the print world and
>forcing them down everyone's throat. (He's not
>the only one; there seem to be a few in each
>writing and prose newsgroup.)
>
>They basically take the point of view that the net
>is just a place to shit, not a place to write.
>To people like Maughan, you have more validity if
>pounds than if you give your best shot to net
>readers for free.
>
>needs the pat on the head, the validation, that comes
>from THE PUBLISHER. If someone set up a phony
>publishing operation and offered Maughan five
>pounds for something he wrote, Maughan would be
>kissing "the publisher"'s butt: Here comes
>somebody to validate Maughan's existence again!
>
>Of course, "dinos" like Maughan despise serious
>net writers like me, since I write strictly for
>my readers. I have never received the "papal
>blessing" of being patted on the head and given
>some money by a publisher. To Maughan, that
>means I don't exist as a writer, despite the
>very strong evidence that I likely have more
>readers than at least ninety-percent of the
>authers in BOOKS IN PRINT.
>
>[People who know nothing about the realities of
>print publishing will immediately croak, regarding
>my assertion above, "Post proof, Palmer." Again,
>what I said is common sense. In the first place,
>dear reader, start going through the BOOKS IN PRINT
>at your local bookstore and see what percentage
>of the writers YOU recognize. Lots of them
>are "publish or perish" professors, with a few
>hundred readers at most, most of those being
>their students. Further, who remembers the
>name of the aruthor of HOW TO BUILD A BETTER
>HUMMINGBIRD HOME or MACRAME MADE EASY, even
>if a book buying customer has had those volumes
>around the house for years?]
>
>Anyway, I have never submitted anything at all for
>print publication, which is not the same as saying
>that I may never choose to do so in the future.
>Right now, being a famous net writer keeps me
>content. For my many readers, I remain grateful,
>and I scarcely feel the need for the validation
>of having a "print publisher" pat me on the
>head and slip a few bucks into my pocket.
>>
You are not published. You are not real. Anyone can post anything to the
net - the great anonymous void, full of fakes and posers - it doesn't
have to be good because nobody's paying for it. There are enough idiots
on the net for a percentage to tell anyone that they are good. It means
nothing. Convincing a publisher to invest in you and then convincing
somebody that your stuff is worth buying is what counts. Everything here
is just self-indulgence.
>
--
Rob Evans
Take arms against a sea of troubles? Dammit Will,
you gotta stop letting Georgie ghost this stuff for you!
Asbestos Dust
On 1 May 1998 06:34:38 GMT, wil...@ix.netcom.com () wrote:
>Unfortunately, a
>little clique of people who share Maughan's "views",
>try to turn rec.arts.prose into a ratty little
>lounge for jaded, malicious, envious, unproductive
>"minds".
Hi, ya li'l monkey fart. I wondered where you'd got off to after you
left our last thread, foaming like a rabid chihuahua and shaking with
impotent rage. Oh, God, you were just the cutest little thing -- no,
c'mon now, you know you were. Ask around -- everyone said "Aw, he's
so cute!" (Well, that's kind of a liberal translation -- what they
really said would probably just hurt your feelings, and as your
mentor, it's my job to buck you up [that *is* supposed to be spelled
with a "b", isn't it?], so we'll just ignore them, OK?)
As usual, you haven't got a clue what's going on here. Nobody "shares
Maughn's views". At best, we are a marginally intersecting Venn
diagram, with a very few common views and quite a lot of other ideas
that are diametrically opposed to each other. RM has every capability
of being a completely annoying, shit-for-brains asshole, reprehensible
in every respect, and he exercises that capability on a fairly
frequent basis. This is totally negated by a couple of facts:
1. He doesn't give a rat's rectum about what I or anyone else
thinks of him. I would admire this even in a blood enemy, which he
probably isn't, although that seems to vary from day to day. I
despise the opposite (read "you") as the weakest form of cowardice.
2. He's a pretty fair writer most of the time, and a damned
good one when he's on his game.
Point #2 *especially* is the issue: His weakest flame is high prose
compared to the bland skim-milk vomitus I find much too often on these
groups. *That's* what I'm interested in. I don't give a crap whether
he's flaming, critiquing, or posting fiction. I'll (usually) read it
because it's (usually) *good* writing. (To be fair, it occasionally
sucks the large taco, but much less frequently than most others
posting "prose" -- a couple of your pieces come to mind.)
In short, you and your whiny little buddy who are apparently used to
dealing with 6th-grade "what I did last summer" papers can just fuck
off till you grow up and can deal with the big kids and raw writing.
Thanks for your consideration.
AD
wil...@ix.netcom.com
In <Vp1xNAAJ...@mla001.demon.co.uk> Rob Evans
Nonsense. How "real" a net writer is can be indicated
in a number of ways. One of the best methods bases itself
on number of persons following someone up. If we examine
Dejanews archives, and we find that a couple of thousand
different people have followed up a net writer's articles,
that is proof that a large number of people are aware
of the person as a writer. [It's often said that ten to
fifty people will read a newsgroup article for every one who
follows up, so net writers who get significant follow-up DO
exist and are very real.]
You are simply a traditionalist, that's all. For
you, the net is just something to play on.
As to your, "you don't exist as a writer if you are
not published", well, what you say above might have
been said 200 years ago. After all, you REALLY mean
"You don't exist as a writer if you are not published
by an entity called a publisher'," don't you? In
fact, I'm beginning to see the publisher as just
another middleman, and perhaps one that won't be
necessary at all in the future.
The NET is changing things, and in my view it has a great
potential for eliminating the publisher entirely. What
will count for a writer will be how many people will buy
or her his works. Of course, it will take a while for
the net to circumvent the old "from publisher to
bookstore" route, but it can be done.
For one concrete example, I think there is a need for
net writers distribution associations, where a number
of net writers band together, and do some advertising.
They might have connected webstites for promoting and
selling their books by mail. The books could be
printed through an arrangement with a printer.
Books could be advertised off-line, throught, for
instance, the lower priced advertising found in such
things as the free, print weeklies found in many cities.
In other words, instead of saying, "Get this book at
Barnes and Noble", the ad might say, "To buy this book,
see (give website address)". I'm not talking about
mazon Com. I refer instead to a number of net writers
making deals with a printer and setting up a top to
bottom, writer-owned book sales organization, using
the net and mail order, and doing everything at
relatively low cost (compared with the expenses a
publisher has).
Now, I'm not saying that will happen, but I'm saying
it is the TYPE of thing that COULD happen, once writers
get away from from hidebound notions of the bookselling
business and began to tap into the potential of the net.
>by
>Anyone can post anything to the
>net - the great anonymous void, full of fakes and posers - it doesn't
>have to be good because nobody's paying for it.
Now, here I disagree, too. Actually, there exists a
great deal of competition on the net, but it involves
competition for the reader's investment in TIME, not
money. I mean, just think of the people reading this
article: Why aren't they instead reading one of the
thousands of OTHER articles also available to them
for free? Yes, you can tell me they will read many
other newsgroup articles too, but that will still
represent but a tiny percentage of the articles
AVAILABLE in newsgroups. As a net writer, I wish
to be informative or at least entertaining because
I want readers to read my next article, too. The
fact that I'm not getting paid is irrelevant. The
competition still exists.
Bill Palmer
alt.genius.bill-palmer
Kim Hodges
On Fri, 1 May 1998, Robert Maughan wrote:
> Joe <mcg...@direct.ca> writes
>Why do you keep insisting that I am angry, Mr Mingo?
>
>It is plainly obvious from your rage-laced posts here that you have a
>huge well of pent up anger. You are a man in utterly desperate need of
>a blowjob.
> Mr. McGinn your perspicacity is quite uncanny. I can't tell you how
> badly I need a blowjob at this very minute. The thought of wet lips,
> licked wet lips, gently kissing in the interstices of my inner thigh
> as my hands play with tresses falling away from a neck sparkling gold
> down, is driving me mad. I imagine the ochre light of streetlamps, hot
> light falling on my engorged glans, I can't bear it, those lips, those
> familiar lips, at last descending, down, down on me, a tiny frisson of
> pain as a hair catches in bared teeth, and a scream of agony as I spill
> my coffee in my lap ... oh hell, look at the time, look at the time, I
> promised to have supper ready by ten thirty, she'll be here in half an
> hour and she is such a BITCH if everything isn't perfect, the candles,
> oh my god, where are the candles ... dear me, Mr McGinn, you'll get me
> shot.
> RJM.
You and Rumpole.
'She who must be obeyed.'
- Kim :)
Robert Maughan
Kim Hodges <sanr...@teleport.com> writes
>You and Rumpole.
How rude. I'm neither as rotund, nor indeed as orotund, as your man.
>'She who must be obeyed.'
She who falls for it every time, sure. Sisters Rule! Where do I sign?
RJM.
Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes
Excerpts from netnews.rec.arts.prose: 2-May-98 Re: Can a Publisher Make
Yo.. by @ix.netcom.com
> Nonsense. How "real" a net writer is can be indicated
> in a number of ways. One of the best methods bases itself
Really? We went through this before and you could only come up with *one* way.
> on number of persons following someone up. If we examine
And you were never able to back up this claim. Merely counting followups
would idicate *nothing* unless you had both (a) a baseline or basis for
comparison and (b) data discriminating between *kinds* of followups.
> Dejanews archives, and we find that a couple of thousand
Who is *we*?
> different people have followed up a net writer's articles,
> that is proof that a large number of people are aware
Or this may be "proof" that the "writer" is a spammer, a troll, or a
depends undergarments wearing boy who provokes fights wherever he posts.
And *anyone* can do *that*, however talentless. E.g. billy "penile drip"
palmer.
> of the person as a writer. [It's often said that ten to
It's often said by *whom*--and what proof was offered by this anonymous
nobody whom you conceal with a passive construction?
> fifty people will read a newsgroup article for every one who
> follows up, so net writers who get significant follow-up DO
> exist and are very real.]
i love you the way you never bother to back up your absurd assertions.
It just wouldn't be billy "anal warts" palmer if you were ever to
actually *argue* a case.
http://english-server.hss.cmu.edu/home/wilkes/
Joe
Robert Maughan <r...@etymon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Napalm yet. No wonder you need smileys to express yourself. What a
>genius you turned out to be in the end Mr. McGinn. All it took was
>a clown suit and red nose and suddenly comprehension dawned. Here,
>jump through this hoop.
Ah, I see, you are congenitally incapable of accepting a compliment
gracefully. Seems my earlier impression of you was spot on after all.
Joe
alan hope
wil...@ix.netcom.com wrote in article
<6ieks0$d...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>...
> As a net writer, I wish
> to be informative or at least entertaining because
> I want readers to read my next article, too.
Start whenever you're ready.
AH
wil...@ix.netcom.com
In <8pGqEWK00...@andrew.cmu.edu> Gilbert Vanburen "Wormy" Wilkes
<gv...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
Still regurgitating your warmed-over, well-refuted
poppycock, eh, Wormy? You will note that I didn't
bother with with your last, 18k or whatever, tissue
of stale reiterations...
>
>Excerpts from netnews.rec.arts.prose: 2-May-98 Re: Can a Publisher
Make
>Yo.. by @ix.netcom.com
>
>> Nonsense. How "real" a net writer is can be indicated
>> in a number of ways. One of the best methods bases itself
>
>Really? We went through this before and you could only come up with
*one* way.
>
>> on number of persons following someone up. If we examine
>
>And you were never able to back up this claim. Merely counting
followups
>would idicate *nothing* unless you had both (a) a baseline or basis
for
>comparison and (b) data discriminating between *kinds* of followups.
Still desperately repeating the same well-refuted
drivel, eh, Wormy?
>
>> Dejanews archives, and we find that a couple of thousand
>
>Who is *we*?
>
>> different people have followed up a net writer's articles,
>> that is proof that a large number of people are aware
>
>Or this may be "proof" that the "writer" is a spammer, a troll,
Doesn't prove a thing! As much I have to give a
semiliterate pest credit, even the Dumpster Rodent
gets a certain amount of follow-up. He IS popular,
then, as loathe as I am to admit it. Of course, as
a result of Wotan's being semiliterate, he won't ever
be able to turn his net popularity (probably among
the same people who read HUSTLER magazine) into
anything productive, but anyone who does a study of
net trolls 1998 and leaves Wotan out of the picture
has not done his homework.
or a
>depends undergarments wearing boy who provokes fights wherever he
posts.
>And *anyone* can do *that*, however talentless.
And of course, guttersnipe Wormy Wilkes cannot "argue"
without showing off his guttersnipe vocabulary!
E.g. billy "penile drip"
>palmer.
[...] My comment that Wormy mangled is repeated below.
>
>It's often said by *whom*--and what proof was offered by this
anonymous
>nobody whom you conceal with a passive construction?
The point is, *I* have written many of the best known
"stand alone" (complete in themselves) net articles of
the past couple of years, Wilkes. That makes all the
difference in the world. In your case, you can't claim
any more well-known articles than Dumpie the Dumpster
Rodent, and HE--giving the little devil his due--is more
popular than YOU are. THAT'S where all your envious
drivel on this matter comes from, Wormy.
>> It has often been pointed out that it's likely twenty to
>> fifty people will read a newsgroup article for every one who
>> follows up, so net writers who get significant follow-up DO
>> exist and are very real.]
>
>i love you the way you never bother to back up your absurd assertions.
>It just wouldn't be billy "anal warts" palmer if you were ever to
>actually *argue* a case.
If there there EVER was a bag of sewage-sludge personified,
it is Wormy Wilkes! He would seem to have a tap on his
forehead which he opens to pour sewage into his modem.
THAT'S how Wilkes "argues"!
Anyway, as to his "point", Wormy has made it clear on many
occasions that I must "post proof" for every assertion, even
when I maintain that a net writer who has been followed up
by 3,000 different people in two years is very likely more
popular (meaning read by more people) than a poster who
has been followed up by THREE people during the same time
span!
Bill Palmer
alt.genius.bill-palmer
>
>
> http://english-server.hss.cmu.edu/home/wilkes/
>
Robert Maughan
Joe <mcg...@direct.ca> writes
>> Napalm yet. No wonder you need smileys to express yourself. What a
>>genius you turned out to be in the end Mr. McGinn. All it took was
>>a clown suit and red nose and suddenly comprehension dawned. Here,
>>jump through this hoop.
>
>Ah, I see, you are congenitally incapable of accepting a compliment
>gracefully. Seems my earlier impression of you was spot on after all.
>
Nah, see Asbestos Dust, an earlier post. I thought my silence graceful.
I can't suffer vacillating humourless literal dipshits is the trouble,
and you are a vacillating humourless dipshit, in spades.
You were on the money in the first place but too stupid to work it out.
It's nothing to do with your impression of me, nobody fucking cares,
least of all me - it's everything to do with writing.
Now take your tongue out of my arse and fuck off. Or stay, you're good
for a laugh.
RJM.
Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes
Excerpts from netnews.rec.arts.prose: 2-May-98 Re: Can a Publisher Make
Yo.. by @ix.netcom.com
>
> In <8pGqEWK00...@andrew.cmu.edu> Gilbert Vanburen "Wormy" Wilkes
> <gv...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>
> Still regurgitating your warmed-over, well-refuted
> poppycock, eh, Wormy? You will note that I didn't
> bother with with your last, 18k or whatever, tissue
> of stale reiterations...
That's because you were unable to refute it.
> >
> >Excerpts from netnews.rec.arts.prose: 2-May-98 Re: Can a Publisher
> Make
> >Yo.. by @ix.netcom.com
> >
> >> Nonsense. How "real" a net writer is can be indicated
> >> in a number of ways. One of the best methods bases itself
> >
> >Really? We went through this before and you could only come up with
> *one* way.
> >
> >> on number of persons following someone up. If we examine
> >
> >And you were never able to back up this claim. Merely counting
> followups
> >would idicate *nothing* unless you had both (a) a baseline or basis
> for
> >comparison and (b) data discriminating between *kinds* of followups.
>
> Still desperately repeating the same well-refuted
> drivel, eh, Wormy?
> >
> >> Dejanews archives, and we find that a couple of thousand
> >
> >Who is *we*?
> >
> >> different people have followed up a net writer's articles,
> >> that is proof that a large number of people are aware
> >
> >Or this may be "proof" that the "writer" is a spammer, a troll,
>
> Doesn't prove a thing! As much I have to give a
That's right. It doesn't. Thank you for making my point for me.
> semiliterate pest credit, even the Dumpster Rodent
> gets a certain amount of follow-up. He IS popular,
> then, as loathe as I am to admit it. Of course, as
> a result of Wotan's being semiliterate, he won't ever
> be able to turn his net popularity (probably among
> the same people who read HUSTLER magazine) into
> anything productive, but anyone who does a study of
> net trolls 1998 and leaves Wotan out of the picture
> has not done his homework.
So basically what you're saying is that *you* are popular in the same
sense that a "net troll" is popular. Yes. Precisely. Then we agree.
> or a
> >depends undergarments wearing boy who provokes fights wherever he
> posts.
> >And *anyone* can do *that*, however talentless.
>
> And of course, guttersnipe Wormy Wilkes cannot "argue"
> without showing off his guttersnipe vocabulary!
i enjoy abusing you, yes.
> E.g. billy "penile drip"
> >palmer.
>
> [...] My comment that Wormy mangled is repeated below.
> >
> >It's often said by *whom*--and what proof was offered by this
> anonymous
> >nobody whom you conceal with a passive construction?
>
> The point is, *I* have written many of the best known
> "stand alone" (complete in themselves) net articles of
> the past couple of years, Wilkes. That makes all the
No you haven't. And you have no proof of same. You make this "point"
entirely without grounds.
> difference in the world. In your case, you can't claim
> any more well-known articles than Dumpie the Dumpster
> Rodent, and HE--giving the little devil his due--is more
> popular than YOU are. THAT'S where all your envious
> drivel on this matter comes from, Wormy.
Why do you always detour off into these absurd digressions that have
nothing to do with what we're talking about?
> >> It has often been pointed out that it's likely twenty to
> >> fifty people will read a newsgroup article for every one who
> >> follows up, so net writers who get significant follow-up DO
> >> exist and are very real.]
> >
> >i love you the way you never bother to back up your absurd assertions.
> >It just wouldn't be billy "anal warts" palmer if you were ever to
> >actually *argue* a case.
>
> If there there EVER was a bag of sewage-sludge personified,
> it is Wormy Wilkes! He would seem to have a tap on his
> forehead which he opens to pour sewage into his modem.
> THAT'S how Wilkes "argues"!
Oh look, the little one substitutes insult for reason.
> Anyway, as to his "point", Wormy has made it clear on many
> occasions that I must "post proof" for every assertion, even
> when I maintain that a net writer who has been followed up
i don't make you post proof for *all* of your assertions, little one.
Only the more stupid ones. Well, i suppose that does qualify as *most*
of them, though probably not all.
> by 3,000 different people in two years is very likely more
> popular (meaning read by more people) than a poster who
> has been followed up by THREE people during the same time
> span!
Now, now, little one. That's not what you said. You're changing your
story. Initially you said you were the most popular writer on the net.
Now you want to soften your claim: now you want to say that of only two
contributers, the one with an absurdly large number of followups is the
most popular. No, little one, this still doesn't hold, because you'd
*still* have to control for the number of newsgroups each contributer
posted to etc., and normalize the data with respect to any number of
factors. Listen, little one, *anyone* can do what you do: spam multiple
newsgroups with immflammatory posts, thereby generating followups. To
claim that this is somehow verification of one's talents (i.e. to claim
that one is a "popular" writer) is simply wrong.
> Bill Palmer
> alt.genius.bill-palmer
> >
> >
> > http://english-server.hss.cmu.edu/home/wilkes/
> >
>
http://english-server.hss.cmu.edu/home/wilkes/
wil...@ix.netcom.com
In <wpGsUS_00...@andrew.cmu.edu> Gilbert Vanburen "Wormy" Wilkes
<gv...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes: [...]
In the interest of saving article space, I will omit a
number of instances where Wormy merely repeats refuted
and stale arguments, and I will deal here with his
newer and larger falsehoods.
>
>> ...In your case, you can't claim
Yes, it is, you liar. I've said it many times.
And don't bother to pull a "Xemblinosky" who will
repost something I said on a different occasion,
and state, "This is what you REALLY said." I'm
wise to that one.
You're changing your
>story. Initially you said you were the most popular writer on the net.
I could have been using hyperbole. If you want me to
say what I REALLY think--what I would stake money on if
I were a gambling man--I think I am one of the half-dozen
most popular writers on the net, exculuding all who
are famous writers off line. I'll be more specific
than that: I DON'T think I am more popular than
Steve Boursy. I think there are likely many people
on the net who have never heard of me who would
bypass an article of mine to read one by Steve.
I suspect that because Steve usually has lots of
interesting things to discuss; he has been on the net
lots longer than I have; and he has paid his dues
(through worthwhile discussion input) in lots
of groups I've never even posted in.
>Now you want to soften your claim: now you want to say that of only
two
>contributers, the one with an absurdly large number of followups is
the
>most popular. No, little one, this still doesn't hold,
Yes it does. You show me someone who many thousands
of different people have followed up, and I'll show
you a popular net writer.
because you'd
>*still* have to control for the number of newsgroups each contributer
>posted to etc.,
Bullshit! Forget your detours, Wormy. Let's
get to the point.
and normalize the data with respect to any number of
>factors.
Bullshit! More detours...
Listen, little one, *anyone* can do what you do: spam multiple
>newsgroups
Now our desparate Wormy stoops even lower than his
guttesnipe epithet-hurling; now its bald-faced lying!
Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes
>
> In <wpGsUS_00...@andrew.cmu.edu> Gilbert Vanburen "Wormy" Wilkes
> <gv...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes: [...]
>
> In the interest of saving article space, I will omit a
> number of instances where Wormy merely repeats refuted
> and stale arguments, and I will deal here with his
> newer and larger falsehoods.
If you don't refute them, little one, then they still stand. So yes, i
repeat them. They make you shriek and gibber every time. So why not?
> >
> >> ...In your case, you can't claim
> Yes, it is, you liar. I've said it many times.
No it's not. You claimed to be the most popular writer on the net.
Clearly you softened your claim. You're still wrong, but you softened
your claim.
> And don't bother to pull a "Xemblinosky" who will
> repost something I said on a different occasion,
> and state, "This is what you REALLY said." I'm
> wise to that one.
You're not "wise" to anything, rube.
> You're changing your
> >story. Initially you said you were the most popular writer on the net.
>
> I could have been using hyperbole. If you want me to
Hyperbole you say? So now you're backing away from your claim to be the
most popular writer on the net? It was but hyperbole?
> say what I REALLY think--what I would stake money on if
> I were a gambling man--I think I am one of the half-dozen
> most popular writers on the net, exculuding all who
Really? One of the "half-dozen most popular writers on the net"? That's
very different from "the most popular". But even so, you still have no
grounds upon which to make such a claim.
> are famous writers off line. I'll be more specific
Which would exclude jack mingo and robert maughan.
> than that: I DON'T think I am more popular than
> Steve Boursy. I think there are likely many people
Neither do i.
> on the net who have never heard of me who would
> bypass an article of mine to read one by Steve.
i agree. Steve writes better than you do. Steve has a sense of humor.
> I suspect that because Steve usually has lots of
> interesting things to discuss; he has been on the net
> lots longer than I have; and he has paid his dues
> (through worthwhile discussion input) in lots
> of groups I've never even posted in.
And steve is reasonably intelligent. You, however, are not.
>
> >Now you want to soften your claim: now you want to say that of only
> two
> >contributers, the one with an absurdly large number of followups is
> the
> >most popular. No, little one, this still doesn't hold,
>
> Yes it does. You show me someone who many thousands
> of different people have followed up, and I'll show
> you a popular net writer.
You still have yet to demonstrate that the number of followups you
receive means anything at all.
>
> because you'd
> >*still* have to control for the number of newsgroups each contributer
> >posted to etc.,
>
> Bullshit! Forget your detours, Wormy. Let's
> get to the point.
No detours, little one, just standard practice for empirical research.
You've got to control for confounding factors, little one.
> and normalize the data with respect to any number of
> >factors.
>
> Bullshit! More detours...
You reveal your ignorance, little one. Merely crying "detours"! hardly
constitutes a rebuttle.
> Listen, little one, *anyone* can do what you do: spam multiple
> >newsgroups
>
> Now our desparate Wormy stoops even lower than his
> guttesnipe epithet-hurling; now its bald-faced lying!
Not at all. You spam hundreds of newsgroups--your precious dejanews will
certify that much. And anyone can do *that*.
http://english-server.hss.cmu.edu/home/wilkes/
Jerry Sturdivant
Robert Maughan
> Now, when I crosspost, you're going to have to worry about it, because
when I crosspost I do it with extreme prejudice and malice aforethought.
Aw. What's the matter; didn't Bobby get enough attention as a child?
"If I cannot brag of knowing something,
then I brag of not knowing it; at any rate, brag."
--Emerson
wil...@ix.netcom.com
In <wpGsUS_00...@andrew.cmu.edu> Gilbert Vanburen "Wormy" Wilkes
<gv...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes: [...]
In the interest of briefer posts, I decided to split my
refutation (in my reply to the Wilkes' article referenced
by the above message ID) of The Wormy One's prevarications.
Consider this "Part 2" of my reply then.
This was worth repeating:
>> If EVER there was a bag of sewer-sludge personified,
>> it is Wormy Wilkes! He would seem to have a tap on his
>> forehead which he opens to pour sewage into his modem.
>> THAT'S how Wilkes "argues"!
[...]
My main point this time involves rubbing Wormy's nose
in a gross prevarication of his:
>
>[...] Listen, little one, *anyone* can do what you do: spam multiple
THAT's another bonafide Wormy Wilkes' whopper!
In fact, well over 99 percent of my 7,500 articles
fell directly on topic in the newsgroups where I
placed them in order to reach appropriate audiences.
In the very few cases where I was in fact off-topic,
it was the result of an honest oversight. Any time
I am aware of such a posting error, I apologize.
In short, The Wormy One lieth big!
As a net writer, I consider spamming harmful to my
goals. People who encounter off-topic articles of
mine are more likely to get peeved and skip the next
article by me they see. (That's why, for instance,
you won't see this post in alt.rabbits.pets--or
in thousands upon thousands of other newsgroups.)
Wormy Wilkes, on the other hand, proves FAR more the
spammer than I do. Wormy is big on demamding
proof for what I say about him, though, and in this
case all anyone needs to do in the way of examining
evidence is simply comparing the follow-up lines on
MY r.a.p. posts with those of Wilkes. In most cases,
I've posted ONLY to rec.arts.prose, alt/hgough at
times I may include another appropriate newsgroup
like alt.zines.
On the other hand, a great many of Wilkes r.a.p.
posts show multiple crosspostings, often to
groups where Wormy's persoanal attacks prove
wildly off-topic!
On top of that, "Spammer Wilkes" often plays the
netstalker by following up an *ON* topic article
of mine in a serious newsgroup with Wilkes' *OFF*-
topic personal assault having nothing at all to do
with either the thread he pollutes OR the newsgroup
topic!
My own point of view is that articles should be
posted in the groups where they are on-topic and
where it is reasonable to expect that readers
in the groups may appreciate the posting. If
my post is appropriate in three newsgroups, I
want to place it in three newsgroups. If it is
on-topic in eight, I want it to appear in eight.
The idea that anyone can make any intellgent
criticism of any crossposting (or posting, for
that matter) without considering the content of
my article along with the newsgroup topic is
absurd.
I've said it before, and it bears repeating:
"Relevance, relevance, RELEVANCE of article
subject to newsgroup topic is the first and
most important key to determining the
appropriatenenss of ANY posting, crossposting,
or reposting. Of course, there are secondary
considerations, such as "Was the article posted
in the newsgroup in question previously?" and
"How long ago?"
Anyway, the notion that someone can blather
intelligently about someone else's making, say,
eight postings WITHOUT first considering carefully
the article subject and the topic of all eight
newsgroups is absurd. Only a moron would try
to do that, and, yes, some morons DO try that.
Sort of like, "Wow, he posted in EIGHT NEWSGROUPS,
man; he must be a big time spammer!" "Tsk, tsk,
EIGHT WHOLE NEWSGROUPS! Why didn't he just go
ahead and post in ALL the newsgroups on the net,
if he's going to spam EIGHT WHOLE GROUPS?--Er,
what was his SPAM about, anyway, duh?..."
I might add that I WILL make single "courtesy-postings",
where appropriate, out of respect to the way the majority
in a newsgroup feels. Some groups discourage even on-topic
crossposts, others do not. When I post to a group where
most of the readers seem to discourage ANY crossposting at
all, no matter how on-topic and appropriate, I will
generally make a single post, followed up by what I
call a "considerate repost" to any other newsgroups
where my article is also on directly on topic.
Plainly, then, I have a very sensible, very considerate,
crossposting philosophy and in fact I abide by it.
[I wish "Spammer Wormy" would be a bit more careful,
both about his false allegations, and about his own
spamming behavior!]
>newsgroups with immflammatory posts,
I detect a largish dissimulation, if not a bald-
faced lie! No, I certainly don't make "Star Trek
Sucks" posts just to get responses, Wormy. On the
other hand, as a net satirist, I DO want my satires
to be "inflammatory" in the highest sense of the term.
A typical example can be seen in my "Confessions of a
Killfile Coward". That was an original, fully-realized
article, a "stand-alone" (meaning it was not a mere
thread discussion but was intended to be meaningful to
people who had neither heard of me nor heard of the
specific folks--such as YOU, Wormy--I was poking
fun at).
Yes, "Confessions" got plenty of people stirred up
last year. After all, it turned out to be one of
the more famous net articles of 1997. [But of course,
Wormy, you will swear on your grandmother's false teeth
you have never heard of "Confessions of a Killfile
Coward"! or "Never Bet The Flame Giant Your Head" or
"WORMY WILKES WRIGGLES!"]
>thereby generating followups.
"Confessions" sure as hell DID generate follow-ups! On top
of that, since it represented an original, complete article
by me, I remain delighted that it got so many noses out of
joint. The follow-ups demonstrate that irrefutably.
[I might remind you, Wormy, that I wrote "Confessions of
a Killfile Coward" with YOU in mind; I wrote it just after
that famous episode of last year where you picked a fight
with me and then wriggled off to the safety of your
killfile when you got more than you bargained for in
the little skirmish that ensued. Yes, I know, now you've
grown a new spine and you've come back, but you prove
feebler and more dishonest than ever, Wilkes...]
To
>claim that this is somehow verification of one's talents (i.e. to
claim
>that one is a "popular" writer) is simply wrong.
I'm the author of dozens of original articles that
a great many net readers would instantly recognize by
name as my original work. YOU aren't, though, and
that's where your envious, "but we are in the same
barrel, Palmer" nonsense comes from, Wilkes...
Bill Palmer
alt.genius.bill-palmer
wil...@ix.netcom.com
In <spGvNNm00...@andrew.cmu.edu> Gilbert Vanburen "Wormy" Wilkes
<gv...@andrew.cmu.edu> repeats a few more bald-faced lies:
In this case, Wormy worms his vermiform way around
nearly all my points, regrugitates a few more oft-
refuted claims from his past postings, and "spittle-
sprays" a few additional perverted insults in my
direction.
I do find it quite interesting that we can agree
on thing: It seems very likely that Mr. Boursy
is the most popular poster on the 1998 net.
What bugs me about Wormy Wilkes however is that he
keeps blathering his new, gigantic lie that *I*
spam. Now, I just refuted Wormy's bald-faced lie
on that score and shoved it down his throat in
a posting I made not fifteen minutes back under
this very hearder, so there is no point in
repeating all that again here. Nontheless,
I'll make a few comments on what he said this
time...
You're changing your
>> >story. Initially you said you were the most popular writer on the
net.
>>
>> I could have been using hyperbole. If you want me to
>
>Hyperbole you say? So now you're backing away from your claim to be
the
>most popular writer on the net? It was but hyperbole?
When I said I was ONE of the most popular writers on
the net, it was not, Wilkes. The main point is, you
are a near-unknown outside a very few newsgroups.
>
>> say what I REALLY think--what I would stake money on if
>> I were a gambling man--I think I am one of the half-dozen
>> most popular writers on the net...
>Really? One of the "half-dozen most popular writers on the net"?
That's
>very different from "the most popular". But even so, you still have no
>grounds upon which to make such a claim.
Of course I do. YOU, however--having never posted ONE
notable article or even subject line, Wilkes--have well
earned your envious, miserable obscurity through your
laziness and lack of writing talent.
>> excluding those who
>> are famous writers off line. I'll be more specific
>
>Which would exclude jack mingo and robert maughan.
>
>> than that: I DON'T think I am more popular than
>> Steve Boursy. I think there are likely many people
>
>Neither do i.
[I wish Wilkes wasn't so damn clumsy about his
inter-textual remarls. The "Neither do I" should
have followed the word "Boursy". Has Wormy learned
NOTHING in all his years on the net?]
>
>> on the net who have never heard of me who would
>> bypass an article of mine to read one by Steve.
>
>i agree. Steve writes better than you do. Steve has a sense of humor.
>
>> I suspect such because Steve usually has lots of
>> interesting things to discuss; he has been on the net
>> lots longer than I have; and he has paid his dues
>> (through worthwhile discussion input) in lots
>> of groups I've never even posted in.
>
>And steve is reasonably intelligent. You, however, are not.
Despite your sleazy put-downs of me, I am glad we
agree on Steve. I get a kick out of the some of the
assholes putting him down: MOST Usenet readers would
bypass fifty of those shitheads to read one post by
Steve. Why? For the simple reason that Steve has
given readers a better return on the TIME the readers
invested with Steve, than have fifty of the envious
little pot-shooters with nothing to say!
[...]
>
>> Now our desparate Wormy stoops even lower than his
>> guttesnipe epithet-hurling; now its bald-faced lying!
>
>Not at all. You spam hundreds of newsgroups--your precious dejanews
will
>certify that much. And anyone can do *that*.
[...]
This is a baldfaced lie by the envious and obscure
Wormy One of Little Talent! While I have responded in
detail to Wilkes in a different post a few minutes back,
I'll say again, I don't spam. It is very rare that I
have posted the same article in even one-dozen newsgroups!
By far, most of my articles appear in anywhere from
three to eight newsgroups, with every posting being
on-topic and fully appropriate for the reading audience
of the newsgroup.
Of my 7,500 posted articles, well-over 99 percent of
them were directly on-topic, and those few that weren't
were errors. (There are also some "special cases",
such as when I catch someone like Ratcliffe flaming
me behind my back in a newsgroup where Ratcliffe's
flame is off-topic, and then--as most people
will do in such cases--I defend myself brfore the
same readers that I have been unfairly vilified in
front of.)
All things considered, "Spammer Wilkes" could have
picked a few thousand people who would qualify far
better than I as spammers, including himself, but he
chose to lie about me--though his own postings make
him a far more fitting candidate for the word "spammer."
Wormy's REAL gripe, I suspect, is that I am very widely
read by readers in "hundreds of newsgroups" as a result
of my entertaining and on-topic articles. Wilkes proves
far too lazy and talentless to ever hope to match THAT,
so he takes a list of all the newsgroups I have posted to
and falsely accuses me of spamming, since Wormy can't
comprehend the mind that could write original and popular
articles for all those very different newsgroup audiences.
Robert Maughan
Jerry Sturdivant <jer...@pacifier.com> writes
>Aw. What's the matter; didn't Bobby get enough attention as a child?
Of course I didn't get enough attention as a child you terrifyingly
stupid wanker. Why else would I be here winding up twerps like you?
You're a little late with this aren't you? The thread's days old and
I was about to put my rods away. Still, now you're here, I'll give it
two posts to see how you work out. Elaborate on your theme, perhaps
delve into the deeper areas of psychological despair, suggest a few
sexual deviations that might have been caused by deprivation of love
as a child. To help you along, me and my kid brother were always in
some pain knowing the servants loved us more than our parents did. I
think it happened to a lot of kids in the far flung reaches of Empire
and you could maybe work up a thesis on the lines of, say, derelict
parents and their offspring, the consequences for Usenet. Something
that a mind like yours could really get to grips with; your urbane,
patently neanderthal prose style exactly suited to the presentation
of dull cliche. I can see it now. Whatever you do, don't embarrass
me, or yourself. People will be watching, and you know what people
are like. Bastards.
Actually, just as an aside, it gets to the point where I yearn for
Mr. Mingo, the thinking man's victim. At least he's intelligent and
you know you're slicing him up into intellectually viable pieces. Oh,
he's donkey stupid, sure, but that just gives it all such a theatrical
frisson. Still, I've got you, Mr. Sturdivant, and you'll just have to
do. Don't let me down, will you?
RJM.
Joe
Robert Maughan <r...@etymon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> You were on the money in the first place ...
So you are a rage-maddened shithead troll after all, by your own
admission.
<plonk>
Joe McGinn
===================================================
Author of Inside LotusScript
http://www.manning.com/McGinn/459.html
===================================================
Robert Maughan
Paul Harwood <Pa...@computerbits.com> writes
>Anyway, I don't get it. What's with the urbane / Neanderthal
>juxtaposition?
The juxtaposition.
Sophisticated reference to psychological disturbance 'no attention as a
child' suggested social experience by proximity at least, if not empiric
conviction: 'urbane' by default. The word itself coming at the end of a
line provided an opportunity to decry the style (primitive, reactionary,
in a word, 'neanderthal') by unexpected contrast.
RJM.
Robert Maughan
Joe <mcg...@direct.ca> writes
>Robert Maughan <r...@etymon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> You were on the money in the first place ...
>
>So you are a rage-maddened shithead troll after all, by your own
>admission.
>
><plonk>
Plonk??
Of course, I'm a shithead troll. You have been, are being, very gently
played by a shithead troll. This is not an admission, dumbshit, it's a
statement. Even money you're kicking yourself for not elaborating on the
alternative meaning of 'shithead', while you had the chance. Get with
the programme, Mr McGinn. Do writing. I'm thinking of writing a poem
about it all, 'Tracy McGimmesome meets Joe McGinny'. You'd love it.
YOU are a rage-maddened impotent jerk with the comprehension skills of
a dog approaching a lamp post. You know what comes next, so you do it;
mark out a territory that is defined by a single sense. Smell, in the
dog's case, and in you it's righteous indignation. By now anyone else
with two brain cells to rub together and make a spark to light a flame
would have figured out the endless possibilities, for me, the declared
shithead troll, and changed up a gear, but not you; no, you go 'plonk',
that miserable cri de coeur of every hapless wannabe on the rack. Where
have I seen it before?
Keep coming, Mr McGinn, as I say, you're good for a laugh. You're a
John Story.
RJM.
Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes
Excerpts from netnews.rec.arts.prose: 3-May-98 Re: Can a Publisher Make
Yo.. by @ix.netcom.com
[...] mercy snip
> I'm the author of dozens of original articles that
> a great many net readers would instantly recognize by
> name as my original work. YOU aren't, though, and
Really? Name one reader.
> that's where your envious, "but we are in the same
i never claimed to be and no, how could i be envious?--i think what you
do is laughable.
> barrel, Palmer" nonsense comes from, Wilkes...
Barrel?--i never claimed to spam multiple newsgroups with imflammatory
posts. That's what *you* do.
http://english-server.hss.cmu.edu/home/wilkes/
Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes
Excerpts from netnews.rec.arts.prose: 3-May-98 Re: Can a Publisher Make
Yo.. by @ix.netcom.com
> >> I could have been using hyperbole. If you want me to
> >
> >Hyperbole you say? So now you're backing away from your claim to be
> the
> >most popular writer on the net? It was but hyperbole?
>
> When I said I was ONE of the most popular writers on
> the net, it was not, Wilkes. The main point is, you
> are a near-unknown outside a very few newsgroups.
No, you said you were *the* most popular. But either way, you have no
grounds upon which to make such a claim.
> >
> >> say what I REALLY think--what I would stake money on if
> >> I were a gambling man--I think I am one of the half-dozen
> >> most popular writers on the net...
>
> >Really? One of the "half-dozen most popular writers on the net"?
> That's
> >very different from "the most popular". But even so, you still have no
> >grounds upon which to make such a claim.
>
> Of course I do. YOU, however--having never posted ONE
No you don't. Otherwise, share it.
> notable article or even subject line, Wilkes--have well
> earned your envious, miserable obscurity through your
> laziness and lack of writing talent.
Really? Why don't you prove that as well.
>
> >> excluding those who
> >> are famous writers off line. I'll be more specific
> >
> >Which would exclude jack mingo and robert maughan.
> >
> >> than that: I DON'T think I am more popular than
> >> Steve Boursy. I think there are likely many people
> >
> >Neither do i.
>
> [I wish Wilkes wasn't so damn clumsy about his
> inter-textual remarls. The "Neither do I" should
> have followed the word "Boursy". Has Wormy learned
> NOTHING in all his years on the net?]
My but you complain a lot. Are your depends undergarments all in a bunch?
> >
> >> on the net who have never heard of me who would
> >> bypass an article of mine to read one by Steve.
> >
> >i agree. Steve writes better than you do. Steve has a sense of humor.
> >
> >> I suspect such because Steve usually has lots of
> >> interesting things to discuss; he has been on the net
> >> lots longer than I have; and he has paid his dues
> >> (through worthwhile discussion input) in lots
> >> of groups I've never even posted in.
> >
> >And steve is reasonably intelligent. You, however, are not.
>
> Despite your sleazy put-downs of me, I am glad we
> agree on Steve. I get a kick out of the some of the
> assholes putting him down: MOST Usenet readers would
> bypass fifty of those shitheads to read one post by
> Steve. Why? For the simple reason that Steve has
> given readers a better return on the TIME the readers
> invested with Steve, than have fifty of the envious
> little pot-shooters with nothing to say!
Yes. And you never give readers *anything*.
>
> [...]
>
> >
> >> Now our desparate Wormy stoops even lower than his
> >> guttesnipe epithet-hurling; now its bald-faced lying!
> >
> >Not at all. You spam hundreds of newsgroups--your precious dejanews
> will
> >certify that much. And anyone can do *that*.
>
> [...]
>
> This is a baldfaced lie by the envious and obscure
> Wormy One of Little Talent! While I have responded in
> detail to Wilkes in a different post a few minutes back,
No you didn't.
> I'll say again, I don't spam. It is very rare that I
Yes you do.
> have posted the same article in even one-dozen newsgroups!
> By far, most of my articles appear in anywhere from
> three to eight newsgroups, with every posting being
> on-topic and fully appropriate for the reading audience
> of the newsgroup.
On-topic you say? Your definition of on-topic must be somewhat different
than the norm.
> Of my 7,500 posted articles, well-over 99 percent of
> them were directly on-topic, and those few that weren't
> were errors. (There are also some "special cases",
Really? Please provide the analysis with which you came up with that figure.
> such as when I catch someone like Ratcliffe flaming
> me behind my back in a newsgroup where Ratcliffe's
> flame is off-topic, and then--as most people
> will do in such cases--I defend myself brfore the
> same readers that I have been unfairly vilified in
> front of.)
Ah. Is that how you excuse yourself? Self defense? Odd how you have
enemies *everywhere*, don't you think?
> All things considered, "Spammer Wilkes" could have
Spammer wilkes? IKYABWAI.
> picked a few thousand people who would qualify far
> better than I as spammers, including himself, but he
> chose to lie about me--though his own postings make
> him a far more fitting candidate for the word "spammer."
i know of no better spammer than you billy "penile drip" palmer.
> Wormy's REAL gripe, I suspect, is that I am very widely
> read by readers in "hundreds of newsgroups" as a result
Why would i gripe about that? i don't believe it.
> of my entertaining and on-topic articles. Wilkes proves
What "entertaining and on-topic articles?
> far too lazy and talentless to ever hope to match THAT,
> so he takes a list of all the newsgroups I have posted to
> and falsely accuses me of spamming, since Wormy can't
> comprehend the mind that could write original and popular
> articles for all those very different newsgroup audiences.
i can't comprehend that *your* tiny mind could do so, yes.
http://english-server.hss.cmu.edu/home/wilkes/
Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes
Excerpts from netnews.rec.arts.prose: 3-May-98 Re: Can a Publisher Make
Yo.. by @ix.netcom.com
[...] mercy snip
> I'm the author of dozens of original articles that
> a great many net readers would instantly recognize by
> name as my original work. YOU aren't, though, and
Really? Name one reader.
> that's where your envious, "but we are in the same
i never claimed to be and no, how could i be envious?--i think what you
do is laughable.
> barrel, Palmer" nonsense comes from, Wilkes...
Barrel?--i never claimed to spam multiple newsgroups with imflammatory
posts. That's what *you* do.
http://english-server.hss.cmu.edu/home/wilkes/
http://english-server.hss.cmu.edu/home/wilkes/
Asbestos Dust
> Nah, see Asbestos Dust, an earlier post.
Huh? Hello? Who's there? Did someone call me? Oh, RM, it's you.
Sorry, I was out in the garage gutting and skinning Palmer's corpse,
which is presently hanging by its heels from a rafter cross-beam.
It's a messy job, and I suppose I could'a had a professional butcher
take care of it, but they charge by the pound and, as expected, most
of his weight was bile and bullshit, so I'd have been wasting my
money. Besides, I'm just gonna grind him into catfood and perhaps
make some jerky strips for the neighborhood po' folk (I'm a
humanitarian, as you know).
As I worked, the pleasant smells and perfect warmth of Spring beckoned
through the open door, and I took a break. Sitting on the deck with a
cold beer, the sun warming my face, and a purring cat rasping the
drying blood off my hands with sandpaper tongue, I kinda dozed off.
It's an awfully nice day.
But, I'm back (for the moment). Let's see; reading through the
thread.... yes, yes, screwing with some basically inoffensive fan....
uh huh, I see.... oh, *that* was funny.... right, he should have known
better.... ok, now *that* was a little much, but.... ah, here we are:
>>Ah, I see, you are congenitally incapable of accepting a compliment
>>gracefully. Seems my earlier impression of you was spot on after all.
>>
> Nah, see Asbestos Dust, an earlier post. I thought my silence graceful.
OK, you lost me. Or, to quote a radio transmission from Catch-22
(movie or book? Who remembers?): "What the fuck? Over."
AD
Duke Lemoyne
Robert Maughan wrote:
Dude! Are you English, or what?
wil...@ix.netcom.com
In <kpH5PDu00...@andrew.cmu.edu> Gilbert Vanburen "Wormy" Wilkes
<gv...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
Wormy again proves his lowliness and cowardice, which, of
course, make idea compliments for his utter lack of writing
talent.
Anyway, Wilkes now proves himself the most feeble, dishonest,
and miserable of flame war losers. Having been--for his
agressive, off-topic attacks on me--spitted, basted, roasted
and toasted publicly for quite a while now to his complete
humiliation, now The Wormy One has turned to big lie tactics.
Through Wilkes fits the term "spammer" far, FAR better
than even come close to doing, he keeps drooling his
newest false allegations anyway. As usual, he snipped
out most of my post last time, so I will stress again
a) I am careful not to do anything that would look to
an honest mind anything like "spamming", because it would
only hurt my aims as a serious net writer by alienating
readers, 2) almost all of my net postings have been on
topic; those few which havent have either represented
honest errors or a few cases where I discovered someone
libeling me in an off-topic fashion, and where decency
required me to protest the libel in the same groups
where it appeared.
On the other hand, people need go further than to
compare the newsgroup lines of posts that I have
made to rec.arts.prose with those of Wormy Wilkes
to see the man embodies a spammer. In case after
case, Wilkes has followed up ON-topic articles of
mine with OFF-topic personal attacks on me having
nothing to do with either the thread or the
newsgroup topic (not only in rec.arts.prose,
but in MANY other newsgroups as well) proving
that Wormy typifies an obsessed netstalker as
well as a spammer.
[...]
>> >> Now our desparate Wormy stoops even lower than his
>> >> guttesnipe epithet-hurling; this time it's bald-faced
>> >> lying from our famous flame war starter-and-loser,
>> >> Wilkes!
>> >
>> >Not at all. You spam hundreds of newsgroups--your precious dejanews
>> will
>> >certify that much. And anyone can do *that*.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> This is a baldfaced lie by the envious and obscure
>> Wormy One of Little Talent! In fact, it is very rare
>> that I have posted the same article in even one-dozen
>> newsgroups!
>> By far, most of my articles appear in anywhere from
>> three to eight newsgroups, with every posting being
>> on-topic and fully appropriate for the reading audience
>> of the newsgroup.
>> Of my 7,500 posted articles, well-over 99 percent of
>> them were directly on-topic, and those few that weren't
>> were errors. (There are also some "special cases",
>> such as when I catch someone like Dave Ratcliffe flaming
>> me behind my back in a newsgroup where Ratcliffe's
>> flame is off-topic, and then--as most people
>> will do in such cases--I defend myself before the
>> same readers I have been unfairly vilified in
>> front of.)
One note: Now Wormy "challenges" me to "prove" my
statement about my 7,500 articles being on topic!
YOU make the false allegations, Wormy, it is up
to YOU to support those my allegations. When
you try to do that, I will simply refer you to
Dejanews for my refutation of your nonsense.
>> All things considered, "Spammer Wilkes" could have
>> picked a few-thousand people who would qualify far
>> better than I as spammers, including himself, but he
>> chose to lie about me--though Wilkes own postings make
>> him a far more fitting candidate for the word "spammer.
>
>> Wormy's REAL gripe, I suspect, stems from the fact I am
>> widely read by readers in so many totally different groups.
>> As a result of his being far too lazy and talentless to ever
>> hpoe to match that, Wormy takes a list of all the newsgroups
>> I have posted to, and, then, simply because I have written
>> original articles appropriate to such a wide array of groups,
>> Wilkes falsely accuses me of spamming--since our dim "Wormy-
>> brain" can't begin to comprehend the mind that could write
>> highly popular articles to entertain those very different
>> newsgroup audiences.
>> With his new spasm of false allegations, Wormy not only proves
>> envious and stupid, but he makes it clear that he has lost
>> the quarrel he deliberately picked with me in the first place.
Bill Palmer
alt.genius.bill-palmer
Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes
Warning: i snipped here or there. Guess where.
> In <kpH5PDu00...@andrew.cmu.edu> Gilbert Vanburen "Wormy" Wilkes
> <gv...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>
> Wormy again proves his lowliness and cowardice, which, of
> course, make idea compliments for his utter lack of writing
> talent.
Really? How interesting. Why do you always write the same things over
and over, little one?
> Anyway, Wilkes now proves himself the most feeble, dishonest,
> and miserable of flame war losers. Having been--for his
> agressive, off-topic attacks on me--spitted, basted, roasted
> and toasted publicly for quite a while now to his complete
> humiliation, now The Wormy One has turned to big lie tactics.
My, that's a lot of adjectives, adjective boy.
> Through Wilkes fits the term "spammer" far, FAR better
> than even come close to doing, he keeps drooling his
> newest false allegations anyway. As usual, he snipped
What false accusation?
> topic; those few which havent have either represented
> honest errors or a few cases where I discovered someone
> libeling me in an off-topic fashion, and where decency
> required me to protest the libel in the same groups
> where it appeared.
Explain why your responses to me find their way all over the net, little one.
> but in MANY other newsgroups as well) proving
> that Wormy typifies an obsessed netstalker as
> well as a spammer.
i'm sorry, what were you saying?
> [...]
>
> >> >> Now our desparate Wormy stoops even lower than his
> >> >> guttesnipe epithet-hurling; this time it's bald-faced
> >> >> lying from our famous flame war starter-and-loser,
> >> >> Wilkes!
> >> >
> >> >Not at all. You spam hundreds of newsgroups--your precious dejanews
> >> will
> >> >certify that much. And anyone can do *that*.
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> This is a baldfaced lie by the envious and obscure
> >> Wormy One of Little Talent! In fact, it is very rare
> >> that I have posted the same article in even one-dozen
> >> newsgroups!
Really? No, i don't think so.
> >> By far, most of my articles appear in anywhere from
> >> three to eight newsgroups, with every posting being
> >> on-topic and fully appropriate for the reading audience
> >> of the newsgroup.
Really? i disagree.
> >> Of my 7,500 posted articles, well-over 99 percent of
Oh, i don't think so. Not unless you're changing the meaning of the word
"on-topic" the same way you changed the meaning of the term "popular."
> >> them were directly on-topic, and those few that weren't
> >> were errors. (There are also some "special cases",
> >> such as when I catch someone like Dave Ratcliffe flaming
> >> me behind my back in a newsgroup where Ratcliffe's
> >> flame is off-topic, and then--as most people
> >> will do in such cases--I defend myself before the
> >> same readers I have been unfairly vilified in
> >> front of.)
>
> One note: Now Wormy "challenges" me to "prove" my
> statement about my 7,500 articles being on topic!
> YOU make the false allegations, Wormy, it is up
> to YOU to support those my allegations. When
> you try to do that, I will simply refer you to
> Dejanews for my refutation of your nonsense.
Okay. i perused dejanews. You're wrong.
> >> All things considered, "Spammer Wilkes" could have
> >> picked a few-thousand people who would qualify far
> >> better than I as spammers, including himself, but he
> >> chose to lie about me--though Wilkes own postings make
> >> him a far more fitting candidate for the word "spammer.
Really? Prove same.
> >> Wormy's REAL gripe, I suspect, stems from the fact I am
> >> widely read by readers in so many totally different groups.
Why would that irk me?--i don't believe it to be true.
> >> As a result of his being far too lazy and talentless to ever
> >> hpoe to match that, Wormy takes a list of all the newsgroups
Did i? What list?
> >> I have posted to, and, then, simply because I have written
> >> original articles appropriate to such a wide array of groups,
What original "articles"?
> >> Wilkes falsely accuses me of spamming--since our dim "Wormy-
> >> brain" can't begin to comprehend the mind that could write
> >> highly popular articles to entertain those very different
> >> newsgroup audiences.
Well, we are talking about *you*, after all. Do you blame me?
> >> With his new spasm of false allegations, Wormy not only proves
> >> envious and stupid, but he makes it clear that he has lost
> >> the quarrel he deliberately picked with me in the first place.
Really? i hadn't noticed. Since i won every point, how could i possibly
have lost?
Robert Maughan
>>>Ah, I see, you are congenitally incapable of accepting a compliment
>>>gracefully. Seems my earlier impression of you was spot on after all.
>>>
>> Nah, see Asbestos Dust, an earlier post. I thought my silence graceful.
>
>OK, you lost me. Or, to quote a radio transmission from Catch-22
>(movie or book? Who remembers?): "What the fuck? Over."
>
If you spent less time flogging a dead horse you'd pay more attention
to the available live targets.
Mr McGinn in a previous post which you obviously overlooked was kind
enough to compliment me on my near blow job. My reaction naturally was
to tell him he could shove it; I prefer my compliments tempered with a
little dissent. Mr McGinn took against my predictable, but not by him
obviously, reaction and concluded I did not take compliments gracefully.
I'd already done the graceful/gracious bollocks with that whatshername
girl, so I let it go and turned on him instead.
This is the post in question which I maintain I greeted with a graceful
silence -
> RM has every capability
>of being a completely annoying, shit-for-brains asshole, reprehensible
>in every respect, and he exercises that capability on a fairly
>frequent basis. This is totally negated by a couple of facts:
>
> 1. He doesn't give a rat's rectum about what I or anyone else
>thinks of him. I would admire this even in a blood enemy, which he
>probably isn't, although that seems to vary from day to day. I
>despise the opposite (read "you") as the weakest form of cowardice.
> 2. He's a pretty fair writer most of the time, and a damned
>good one when he's on his game.
>
>Point #2 *especially* is the issue: His weakest flame is high prose
>compared to the bland skim-milk vomitus I find much too often on these
>groups. *That's* what I'm interested in. I don't give a crap whether
>he's flaming, critiquing, or posting fiction. I'll (usually) read it
>because it's (usually) *good* writing. (To be fair, it occasionally
>sucks the large taco, but much less frequently than most others
>posting "prose" -- a couple of your pieces come to mind.)
RJM.
Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes
Excerpts from netnews.rec.arts.prose: 3-May-98 Re: Crossposting to
boring .. by Duke Lem...@ezonline.co
> > frisson. Still, I've got you, Mr. Sturdivant, and you'll just have to
> > do. Don't let me down, will you?
> >
> > RJM.
>
> Dude! Are you English, or what?
i blame our public schools.
http://english-server.hss.cmu.edu/home/wilkes/
wil...@ix.netcom.com
In <8pHBVsy00...@andrew.cmu.edu> Gilbert Vanburen "Wormy" Wilkes
<gv...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes: [...]
One of the more amazing things about how "Wormy" Wilkes
works on the net stems from the fact that he so closely
follows what I have identified previously as the "classic
net-parasite's style."
It goes like this: An aggressive nobody, desperately
trying to become a "somebody", picks a fight with the
most popular net writer he can find. He does so in
order to insinuate ("worm", if you will permit me)
onto the same threads with the popular writer in
an attempt to assure that our net-parasite will now
be read by many additional people. As you will recall,
Wilkes DID in fact attack me last year before I
had ever mentioned his obscure name at all. (Obscure"
when Wilkes gets out of the prose and writing
groups he has been polluting for quite some time;
in those few groups, "infamous name" would be a
better description of The Wormy One.)
Anyway, when things don't go right for the above-described
parasites, what usually happens is that they quickly
get very dirty and lowly in their tactics. How many
parasites can you think of who DO respect their "hosts",
after all? Once the parasites realize they have no
chance of winning a flame match with their target "host",
the parasite will often resort to things like plagiarism,
forgery, or libel.
So far, in Wormy's case, it has been libel.
Now, since my refutation of Wormy's spammming libel
is reposted below, I will not repeat it here, other
than to remind you it proves unusually ironic, since
one needs go no further than comparing the newsgroup
lines of my rec.arts.prose postings with those of
Wilkes, to see that HE fits the definition of
"spammer" far better than *I* do, making him a
hypocrite as well as a spamming net-parasite.
In addition, let's look at some of the other tactics
Wormy used last time. He knows he can't fool the
regular readers of rec.arts.prose, so instead, he
tries to deceive any newbies (or any hit-and-miss
readers who may have stumbled onto the thread).
Wormy attempts that deceit by employing one of the
feeblest of flaming tactics: the old "snip-and-drool."
The "snip-and-drool" occurs when someone chops
up an opponent's article and injects stupid little
"put-downs" in inappropriate places between what-
ever is left of the opponent's text after the
mutilation by the "snipper and drooler" occurs.
Wormy offered us such a classic example of this
last time, that I can even give us a paradigm:
--------------------------------------------------
a) Remark by Palmer, cut into fragments by Wormy
to render it nearly unintelligible.
b) Trite little "zinger" by Wormy.
a) Remark by Palmer, cut into fragments by Wormy
to render it nearly unintelligible.
b) Trite little "zinger" by Wormy.
--etc., etc., etc., throughout Wormy's "rebuttal"...
-----------------------------------------------------
That's it. That's how The Wormy One works.
Oh yes, one other point. Wormy still plays his
sophomoric "challenge game". With this lame tactic,
he interrupts nearly every assertion I make to
demand that I "post proof." As a result of his
drivel, what I SHOULD do is repost my 1.6 million
word Dejanews archive in its entirety, but I think
some of the rec.arts.prose readers might find that
"too much of a good thing" so I will content myself
to ridicule Wormy's shabby tactics.
With Wilkes' incessant "post proof" croaking, he reminds
me of a classmate in my sophomore year at the university.
The person would interrupt the professor's nearly every
statement to demand that the professor define common
words, cite statistics, etc. This sophomore typified
the semi-educated show-off with no manners. Before
long everyone in the class got sick of him.
Anyway, for the benefit of new readers who may have
read Wormy's "snip and drool" non-reply and have been
confused (as Wilkes intended, of course!) about what
I actually WROTE, here is my article before The Wormy
One "snipped and drooled" it:
--------------------------------------------
[If you have read my previous article before Wormy's
"snip and drool" attack, you may stop here.]
Restored text:
Wormy again proves his lowliness and cowardice, which, of
course, make ideal compliments for Wilkes' utter lack of
writing talent.
[Note: Wilkes did it again, too, even after reading
that!]
Anyway, Wilkes now proves himself the most feeble, dishonest,
and miserable of flame war losers. Having been--for his
agressive, off-topic attacks on me--spitted, basted, roasted
and toasted publicly for quite a while, to his complete
humiliation and chagrin, now The Wormy One turns to
big lie tactics.
Through Wilkes fits the term "spammer" far, FAR better
than *I* even come close to doing, he keeps drooling his
newest false allegations anyway. As usual, Wormy snipped
out most of my post last time, so I will stress again
a) I am careful not to do anything that would look to
an honest mind anything like "spamming", because it would
only hurt my aims as a serious net writer by alienating
readers, 2) almost all of my net postings have been on
topic; those few which havent have either represented
honest errors or a few cases where I discovered someone
libeling me in an off-topic fashion, and where decency
required me to protest the libel in the same groups
where it appeared.
On the other hand, people need go further than to
compare the newsgroup lines of posts that I have
made to rec.arts.prose with those of Wormy Wilkes
to see the man embodies a spammer. In case after
case, Wilkes has followed up ON-topic articles of
mine with OFF-topic personal attacks on me having
nothing to do with either the thread or the
newsgroup topic (not only in rec.arts.prose,
but in MANY other newsgroups as well) proving
that Wormy typifies an obsessed netstalker as
well as a spammer.
[...]
>> >> Now our desparate Wormy stoops even lower than his
>> >> guttesnipe epithet-hurling; this time it's bald-faced
>> >> lying from our famous flame war starter-and-loser,
>> >> Wilkes!
>> >
>> >Not at all. You spam hundreds of newsgroups--your precious dejanews
>> will
>> >certify that much. And anyone can do *that*.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> This is a baldfaced lie by the envious and obscure
>> Wormy One of Little Talent! In fact, it is very rare
>> that I have posted the same article in even one-dozen
>> newsgroups!
>> By far, most of my articles appear in anywhere from
>> three to eight newsgroups, with every posting being
>> on-topic and fully appropriate for the reading audience
>> of the newsgroup.
>> Of my 7,500 posted articles, well-over 99 percent of
>> them were directly on-topic, and those few that weren't
>> were errors. (There are also some "special cases",
>> such as when I catch someone like Dave Ratcliffe flaming
>> me behind my back in a newsgroup where Ratcliffe's
>> flame is off-topic, and then--as most people
>> will do in such cases--I defend myself before the
>> same readers I have been unfairly vilified in
>> front of.)
One note: Now Wormy "challenges" me to "prove" my
statement about my 7,500 articles being on topic!
[YOU make the false allegations, Wormy, it is up
to YOU to support those my allegations. When
you try to do that, I will simply refer you to
Dejanews for my refutation of your nonsense.]
>> All things considered, "Spammer Wilkes" could have
>> picked a few-thousand people who would qualify far
>> better than I as spammers, including himself, but he
>> chose to lie about me--though Wilkes own postings make
>> him a far more fitting candidate for the word "spammer!
>
>> Wormy's REAL gripe, I suspect, stems from the fact I am
>> widely read by readers in so many totally different groups.
>> As a result of his being far too lazy and talentless to ever
>> hpoe to match that, Wormy takes a list of all the newsgroups
>> I have posted to, and, then, simply because I have written
>> original articles appropriate to such a wide array of groups,
>> Wilkes falsely accuses me of spamming--since our dim "Wormy-
>> brain" can't begin to comprehend the mind that could write
>> highly popular articles to entertain those very different
>> newsgroup audiences.
>> With his new spasm of false allegations, Wormy not only proves
>> envious and stupid, but he makes it clear that he has lost
>> the quarrel he deliberately picked with me in the first place.
Bill Palmer
alt.genius.bill-palmer
Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes
Excerpts from netnews.rec.arts.prose: 3-May-98 Re: How Wormy Works (New
In.. by @ix.netcom.com
[...] mercy snip
> So far, in Wormy's case, it has been libel.
>
Libel is actionable, little one. Either retain a lawyer and sue me or
admit you're a liar.
http://english-server.hss.cmu.edu/home/wilkes/
Jerry Sturdivant
Bobby Maughan writes:
>>Jerry Sturdivant <jer...@pacifier.com> writes
>>Aw. What's the matter; didn't Bobby get enough attention as a child?
> Of course I didn't get enough attention as a child …
I knew I had you pegged. But I can tell your kind a mile away. You're ego's
as big as your mouth, so you cross post, then drool over your keyboard
looking into each NG to see if anybody's talking about you.
[Deleted a bunch of personal BS drivel, nobody give a
shit about, attempting to excuse his boorish behavior]
Tell you what, Mouth. I won't cross-post after this. You tell me what NG
you read in and I'll just post there. Otherwise I'll do what really hurts
you.
I'll ignore you.
Jerry Sturdivant
___~__*__/)__~__
Asbestos Dust
>>OK, you lost me. Or, to quote a radio transmission from Catch-22
>>(movie or book? Who remembers?): "What the fuck? Over."
>>
> If you spent less time flogging a dead horse you'd pay more attention
>to the available live targets.
<...snip an explanation and a requote of some tearjerker praise I
wrote in a weaker moment (I'm such a softy)...>
Right you are. OK, the cats are fed to bursting and the po' folk and
their sprogs are passing strips of dried meat around to gnaw on
between 40s of malt liquor, so my work here is done. Time to lazily
cruise the murk and delight in the occasional flashes of color, never
forgetting to listen for the flailing splash of panic and the faint
taste of blood that can only mean an incompetent in over his head.
AD
Adrian Smith
In article <354d1cb9...@news.cooke.net>, Asbestos Dust
<nos...@here.buddy> writes
>Right you are. OK, the cats are fed to bursting and the po' folk and
>their sprogs are passing strips of dried meat around to gnaw on
>between 40s of malt liquor, so my work here is done. Time to lazily
>cruise the murk and delight in the occasional flashes of color, never
>forgetting to listen for the flailing splash of panic and the faint
>taste of blood that can only mean an incompetent in over his head.
WebTVers on alt.peeves? Hmm...
--
Adrian Smith
alan hope
wil...@ix.netcom.com wrote in article
<6iit26$d...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>...
> [If you have read my previous article before Wormy's
> "snip and drool" attack, you may stop here.]
If you ever got this far.
AH
<snip large part of 1.6 million-word archive>
Asbestos Dust
On Mon, 4 May 1998 15:04:26 +0100, Adrian Smith
<Adr...@millenia3.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>WebTVers on alt.peeves? Hmm...
<chuckle> My, you do get around, don't you? Shhhh....
AD
Chris Mac
wil...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
And don't I wish he didn't.
--
"there ain't no devil,
there's just god when he's drunk."
chri...@mailexcite.com
In article <6iit26$d...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>#1/3,
wil...@ix.netcom.com () wrote:
That little "1/3" says a lot.
I'd just like to make it clear that you're a waste of time Bill.
--
"there ain't no devil,
there's just god when he's drunk."
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Chris Mac
Adrian Smith wrote:
> edu>, Christopher Stolle <cst...@indiana.edu> writes
> >My good sir, I do not wish to offend you in any way, but it's becoming
> >more and more apparent that you like to pick fights on as many newsgroups
> >as you possibly can. Why don't you do us one small favor and post a good
> >poem to RAP or a quick bit about how you progress as a writer on MW or
> >post a short piece of prose to RAProse.
> The prose, she is already here.
> >I think
> The evidence, she is not visible.
> >people would rather read
> >your work than your complaints about other people and/or their work.
> The 'complaint', she is also work. Often more entertaining.
> >Otherwise, take all your arguments to private e-mail.
> The imperative, she is dangerous.
> >I think people post
> >on these newsgroups to share writing tips and their work.
> >We
> The mouse in the pocket, she not count.
> >do not really
> >want to listen to what you have to say in regards to them when they only
> >pertain to the author. And I dare say that if you continue your small
> >tirades, enough people will eventually find a way for you to lose your
> >Internet connections.
> The flame, she is not usually sufficient justification for a TOS.
> >And I will gladly lead the petition.
> demon.co.uk, she generally not listen to netcopping plonkers.
> >Sincerely,
> > Christopher Stolle
> >P.S. I do hope you respond to these charges in a civilized manner because
> >I do not see that as asking too much from you. Peace.
> The killfile, she provide protection to the sadly vulnerable.
Heya, Meester smeeth, why ees eet this thread, she not appear on Deja
News?
Why DejaNews did shitcan my posts last thursday, eeseet conspiracy?
I'd ask HoHo, but he's not been around lately.
Adrian Smith
In article <354EC7...@mailexcite.com>, Chris Mac
<chri...@mailexcite.com> writes
>Heya, Meester smeeth, why ees eet this thread, she not appear on Deja
>News?
Dejanews, she is a feelthy whore. I reckon all those 'X-no-archive'
posts just go to a *different* archive, which will be more expensive for
future dataminers to access. What she do with 'lost' threads, I not
know.
>Why DejaNews did shitcan my posts last thursday, eeseet conspiracy?
>I'd ask HoHo, but he's not been around lately.
--
Adrian Smith
Edwin J. Noonan
RJM is still here? Been busy getting my novel published, was hoping my return to
MW would be graced by your absence. You've suffered thirty years without an
adequate idea for a novel? Poor Robert, suffering in a world awash in trash and
stupid, inferior people. Oh, woe is Robert. What's the problem, Bud? Could it
have something to do with that vacuum behind your eyebrows? Perhaps you should
try unwrapping your tongue from around your r's.
EJN
Robert Maughan wrote:
> "Erin C. D." <th...@worldcontrol.org> writes
> >
> > Tell me of one person who's made decent $ off of something fiction
> >previously printed online. I just finished writing a novel. I'd much rather
> >send it out to publishers then let people have it for free and hope that
> >someone publishes it (given the one in a million chance that they find my
> >www page and read the manuscript in it's entirety) and then already have
> >lost the potential royalites from the readers who've already read it for
> >free.
> > (I mention fiction there because occasionly non-fiction works, which in
> >general sell higher then fiction, do get online momentum, usually based on a
> >personal crisis, ie "I had aneoxeria, here's how to fight it".)
> > You'll see people asking to put your works on their www page, claiming
> >that the exposure will sell your work. What are the chances that anyone will
> >go to their page, and read your stuff? And that those readers will be people
> >in high enough places to get you published? Those people have better things
> >to do with their time then look for the next Plath on the net.
> > Wrong. Your work will sell your work, if you send it out to places.
> > Giving it out for free does nothing but ruin your chances in the long
> >run.
> > As more people get online, we're talking readers here, not publishers,
> >the less likely they'll be to pay for your book of poems when they can print
> >off the deja news search.
> > My panties are fine. Then again, i'm aiming to sell what i write. Are
> >you? If this is a hobby, and you don't care, then don't worry. But the
> >contracts i'm seeing are begining to have something called Electronic Rights
> >in there. And by posting to newsgroups and the www, you can be cutting
> >yourself out.
> > Erin Cashier Denton (sending this to another detractor as well, rather
> >then cross posting again)
> >
> Fascinating. I defer to your contemporary wisdom, of course, I haven't
> published a novel for thirty years. But I must ask you: why is it that
> you, and the other terminally boring arseholes in alt.writing and misc.
> writing and elsewhere are so determined to provide free information to
> the world at large? I've been writing for money since I graduated and I
> also regularly submit fiction, poetry, articles, which I write because I
> write. You would have to wire up my balls to the mains before I parted
> with the insights gained in a writing life. Why should I tell every dip-
> shit with a keyboard what to do or not to do so said dipshit can go out
> and steal my money? Fees for fiction are insulting enough as it is and
> articles in specialist magazines often break even, or worst case, cost
> money - research, time etc. I'm not unwilling to pass on information,
> privately, or even discreetly (!) in the newsgroup but I mostly like
> to choose who I get in bed with, especially when I'm paying.
>
> While I have your attention, I have to tell you your pathetic whimper
> about crossposting is just too tempting for words. Fucking ignore the
> things, you stupid, stupid arseholes. I forget the name of the original
> poster here, Laura Rosebud(?), but what possible harm can it do when she
> innocently inflicts her juvenile gropings on your stupid newsgroup. Now,
> when I crosspost, you're going to have to worry about it, because when I
> crosspost I do it with extreme prejudice and malice aforethought. What
> I suggest you do now is fuck off back to your stupid newsgroup and never
> come here again. Note that I have omitted misc.writing from this sally
> because I've just done them, and once in a blue moon is enough; I'm not
> a cruel man, nearly. But you could provide me with an opportunity.
>
> RJM.
Robert Maughan
"Edwin J. Noonan" <ejno...@earthlink.net> writes
>RJM is still here? Been busy getting my novel published, was hoping my return
>to
>MW would be graced by your absence. You've suffered thirty years without an
>adequate idea for a novel? Poor Robert, suffering in a world awash in trash and
>stupid, inferior people. Oh, woe is Robert. What's the problem, Bud? Could it
>have something to do with that vacuum behind your eyebrows? Perhaps you should
>try unwrapping your tongue from around your r's.
You were hoping your 'return would be graced' by my absence? I hope you
had good editors for your novel. I know I did for mine thirty years ago.
Disappeared without trace despite them, alas, just as it deserved. Wish
you well with yours. Let me know when it publishes here and I'll add it
to my reading list. You can expect me to get to it around 2001.
I'm so impressed by your original wit and up to the minute discourses,
I'll leave quietly and let you catch up. You're not posting from MW, by
the way.
RJM.
Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes
Excerpts from netnews.rec.arts.prose: 14-May-98 Re: Crossposting to
boring .. by L.R. Ke...@usa.net
> In article <355A81B4...@earthlink.net>, ejno...@earthlink.net
[ ... ] whining snipped
>
> > try unwrapping your tongue from around your r's.
>
> <plonk>
It's about time someone "plonked" noonan. *What* a moron.
http://english-server.hss.cmu.edu/home/wilkes/
Edwin J. Noonan
Robert, did I catch you in a moment of personal crisis? Mourning a loved one? Lost
your turtle? Your response to my last post was almost civil. Have I been honored or
insulted?
Your fit of civility compels me to confess. I actually admire your craftsmanship.
You're one of the most accomplished writer's I've observed in the newsgroups. Can't
imagine where your come up with those bitter, barbarous, barbs to batter your
opponents. I'm making a collection. If I use any, would you like credit?
Not to worry. If you've got a slot open in 2001, should work out fine. At the rate
negotiations are going, the book should be published just in time.
Naw, the editors are making a muck of it, as you may expect. But it will probably
sell. As you are acutely aware, Robert, it's not craftsmen like you that make it in
today's market. It's hacks like me who have an idea. We cobble together something
that is more or less meaningful to eighth graders, then the editors refine it into
something that can be sold to third graders, and we all make a lot of money. Hell,
the book may never be published, but at least they're paying my rent.
I wouldn't pretend to give advice to wannabe writer's. But I'll say this: if you
want to be published, if you want to make a ton of money, you've got to have
something to say. Something meaningful to somebody. The more somebody's, the more
money. We live in a world of Roesannes and Seinfelds, unfortunate but true. If you
want to write the literary masterpiece of the century, by all means do so. But don't
be disappointed if it doesn't sell. Writhe in your your literary martyrdom, and
enjoy the agony of of being superior but unrewarded. It ain't all bad, there are
worse lives.
I'll also share this: I'm most grateful I wrote my novel before I started
researching the art of writing, before I started reading these newsgroups related to
writing. I had something to say and I said it, in my own style, in my own way. I
didn't write for money, I wrote because I had something to say.
I had your attention, so I digressed. Back on track, I think I've figured this out,
Robert. You and Jack Mingo are actually lovers who had a snit. Now you are airing
your domestic dispute in public, right? Why don't you two just kiss and make up?
EJN
Robert Maughan wrote:
> "Edwin J. Noonan" <ejno...@earthlink.net> writes
>
> >RJM is still here? Been busy getting my novel published, was hoping my return
> >to
> >MW would be graced by your absence. You've suffered thirty years without an
> >adequate idea for a novel? Poor Robert, suffering in a world awash in trash and
> >stupid, inferior people. Oh, woe is Robert. What's the problem, Bud? Could it
> >have something to do with that vacuum behind your eyebrows? Perhaps you should
> >try unwrapping your tongue from around your r's.
>
Robert Maughan
"Edwin J. Noonan" <ejno...@earthlink.net> writes
>Have I been honored or insulted?
>
Indulged.
>Can't imagine where your come up with those bitter, barbarous barbs ...
>
Years of practice and self-denial.
>I'm making a collection. If I use any, would you like credit?
>
Nah. Shove'em up your arse. Send money.
>As you are acutely aware, Robert, it's not craftsmen like you that make
>it in today's market.
>
I'll have you know I'm a tart, these many years.
>I'm most grateful I wrote my novel before I started researching the art
>of writing.
>
I wrote both mine before I started researching the art of business.
>I didn't write for money, I wrote because I had something to say.
>
You're contradicting yourself slightly but I know what you mean.
>You and Jack Mingo are actually lovers who had a snit.
>
No. No. Mr Mingo is a petty censor whose throat I would cheerfully cut
with the rusted lid of a can of peaches given a chance. I shit on him at
every opportunity, metaphorically. So should you.
RJM.
Jack Mingo
Robert Maughan wrote:
>
> No. No. Mr Mingo is a petty censor whose throat I would cheerfully cut
> with the rusted lid of a can of peaches given a chance. I shit on him at
> every opportunity, metaphorically. So should you.
A pity, Bob, that you don't hang around misc.writing for more than just
the opportunity to recycle your r.a.p. mix 'em, match 'em insults. We
just had a good discussion about censorship: You may want to track down
the actual meaning of the word, as opposed to the whining usenet "the
bad man is censoring me, mummy!" misuse of the word.
You are too modest, though: Not all of your metaphors are shit.
Jack Mingo
Neal Corbett
Jack (I have no willy) Mingo spouts shit. Crossposting is for castratos.
Neal
Robert Maughan
Neal Corbett <ncor...@coventry.ac.uk> writes
>
>Crossposting is for castratos.
>
Bollocks. Crossposting is nothing more or less than broadcasting. When
gratuitous, it is an annoyance, a nuisance, a pain in the arse. It also
is a means of reaching appropriate newsgroups which Mr Mingo has failed
to appreciate; he thinks crossposting is what OTHER people, other HORRID
people do. When Mr Mingo crossposts he thinks he is performing a service
to the community. Mr Mingo has a sewing kit provided by me so he can sew
on his balls whenever I cut them off but I'm told he has a cute baritone
in between times.
Try it, knock yourself out. Crossposting, I mean.
RJM.
Robert Maughan
Jack Mingo <mi...@pacbell.net> writes
>Robert Maughan wrote:
>>
>> No. No. Mr Mingo is a petty censor whose throat I would cheerfully cut
>> with the rusted lid of a can of peaches given a chance. I shit on him at
>> every opportunity, metaphorically. So should you.
>
>A pity, Bob, that you don't hang around misc.writing for more than just
>the opportunity to recycle your r.a.p. mix 'em, match 'em insults. We
>just had a good discussion about censorship: You may want to track down
>the actual meaning of the word, as opposed to the whining usenet "the
>bad man is censoring me, mummy!" misuse of the word.
>
Bollocks, you disgusting turd. Any discussion about censorship should
include you as an example of what petty censors SEEK to do. I DON'T say
you ARE censoring me, you pathetic netcopping cunt; you CAN't censor me
or anyone else. I say and I persist in saying it, in the RAPs, in misc.
writing, in alt.prose and any fucking where else I choose, that you SEEK
to censor me. You complain to my ISP, which act is SEEKING to censor me.
You complain because you seek to have me censored by my ISP, otherwise
you are saying in these newsgroups that you are merely making a nuisance
of yourself. I say you are a lilylivered, shiteating, netcopping cunt
and what's more I believe you are proud of that description. I intend it
to stick to you like diarrhea to a blanket. You had better complain to
my ISP yet again because I'm crossposting this and I'm most definitely
giving you the opportunity to complain because I'm calling you a bent
motherfucking dipshit and a creeping censor morum without portfolio.
Complain to Gilbert's ISP, you might as well; he's probably THINKING
you're a cunt. Complain to the ISP of any one who at any time regards
you with contempt. Complain to the FBI you sad fuck. Take note that I
am not an American, I don't tolerate self-appointed policemen, and I
certainly don't allow them to encroach on my freedoms. You better grab
hold of Neil Corbett while you have the chance before I crosspost you
both into fucking ORBIT.
>You are too modest, though: Not all of your metaphors are shit.
Grow fucking UP, you sad wuss. Pathetic dimwitted jerkoff with your
ludicrous fortune cookie mots. Get an original idea, why don't you.
RJM.
Ronnie the kid
news:___.Morality.may.be.simply.the.attitude.we.adopt.toward
people we personally dislike. - some ol' thimker
Robert Maughan wrote:
>
>
> Jack Mingo writes:
>
> >Robert Maughan wrote:
> >>
> >> No. No. Mr Mingo is a petty censor whose throat I would cheerfully cut
> >> with the rusted lid of a can of peaches given a chance. I shit on him at
> >> every opportunity, metaphorically. So should you.
> >
> >. . . . .. . . .. . . . .. .. .. . . . . . .. .. . ... . . .. ... .. .
> >. .. . . .. . . . .. .. .. . . . . . .. .. . ... . . .. ... .. .. .
> >. . . .. . . .. . . . .. .. .. . . . . . .. .. . ... . . .. ... .. .
> >. . .. . . .. . . . .. .. .. . . . . . .. .. . ... . . .. ... .. ..
> >. . . . .. . . .. . . . .. .. .. . . . . . .. .. . .
> >
> Bollocks, . . disgusting turd. . . . . ... .. .. . .. ... . .... . .
> . . . . .. . . .. . . . .. .. .. . . . . . .. .. . ... . . .. ... .. .
> . . .. . . .. . . . .you pathetic netcopping cunt... . . .. ... .. .
> . . . . .. . . .. . . . .. .. .. . . . . . .. .. . ... . . .. ... .. .
> . . .. . . .. . . . .. .. .. fucking . . . .. .. . ... . . .. ... .. .
> . . . .. . . .. . . . .. .. .. . . . . . .. .. . ... . . .. ... .. .
> . . . . .. . . .. . . . .. .. .. . . . . . .. .. . ... . . .. ... .. .
> . . . .. . . .. . . . .. .. .. . . . . . .. .. . ... . . .. ... .. .
> . . . .. . . .. . . . .. .. lilylivered, shiteating, netcopping cunt
> . . . . .. . . .. . . . .. .. .. . . . . . .. .. . ... . . .. ... .. .
> . .. . . .. . . . .. .. .. . . . .proud . .. .. . ... . . .. ... .. .
> . . . . .. . . .. . .diarrhea. .. . . . . . .. .. . ... . . .. ... .. .
> . . . .. . . .. . . . .. .. .. . . . . . .. .. . ... . . .. ... .. .
> . . . . .. . . .. . . . .. .. complain . . .. .. . ... . . .. ...bent
> motherfucking dipshit. . . .creeping censor morum without portfolio.. .
> . . . . .. .Gilbert . .. .. .. . . . . . .. .. . ... . . .. ... .. .
> .. . . .cunt. . . .. . . . .. .. .. . . . . . .. .. . ... . . .. .. .
> . . . . .contempt. . . .. . . . .. FBI .. .sad fuck.. . . .. ... .. .
> . . . . .. . . .. . . . .. .. .. . . . . . .. .. . ... . . .. ... .. .
> . .. . . .. . . . .. .. .. . ...roach . .. .. . ... . . .. ... .. .
> . . . . .. . . .. . . . .. .. .. . . . . . .. .. . ... .crosspost .. .
> both into fucking . .. .
>
> >. . . . .. .modest . .. . . . .. .. .. . . . . . .. .. . .shit.
>
> . . . fucking . .. . .sad wuss..Pathetic dimwitted jerkoff . . . .. .
> . . . . .. . . .. cookie mots. . . .. original idea.. .. . . . . ..
>
> RJM.
yo! i think i'm beginning to sense the attraction -- censoring
can be FUN --
(and they are *needed* in the military!)
do i need more direction???
--
Censoriously yours,
Paine (Uncle Spam wants YOU) Ellsworth
xoxoxox Free Help-Webook for NewComers & OldTimers
The Internet Story
http://home.att.net/~Ron.Lehl-Bach/PAINE.ELLSWORTH
Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes
Excerpts from netnews.rec.arts.prose: 17-May-98 Re: Crossposting to the
bible by Robert Mau...@etymon.de
> Complain to Gilbert's ISP, you might as well; he's probably THINKING
> you're a cunt.
Wow. Good call. That's *precisely* what i was thinking.
http://english-server.hss.cmu.edu/home/wilkes/
Ab Sconse
Neal Corbett <ncor...@coventry.ac.uk> wrote (écrivait) :
>
> Jack (I have no willy) Mingo spouts shit. Crossposting is for castratos.
>
I have no willy either. Is that such a big problem here?
Nathalie (retreating a bit)
Robert Maughan
Ab Sconse <nm...@club-internet.fr> writes
>I have no willy either. Is that such a big problem here?
>
>Nathalie (retreating a bit)
You can use my willy, so long as you wave it about in the forum while
it is in your position.
RJM.
Neal Corbett
On Sun, 17 May 1998, Ab Sconse wrote:
> Neal Corbett <ncor...@coventry.ac.uk> wrote (écrivait) :
>
> >
> > Jack (I have no willy) Mingo spouts shit. Crossposting is for castratos.
> >
>
> Nathalie (retreating a bit)
You show me what you have and we'll take it from there.
Neal
Neal Corbett
On Sun, 17 May 1998, Robert Maughan wrote:
> Neal Corbett <ncor...@coventry.ac.uk> writes
> >
> >Crossposting is for castratos.
> >
> Bollocks. Crossposting is nothing more or less than broadcasting. When
> gratuitous, it is an annoyance, a nuisance, a pain in the arse. It also
> is a means of reaching appropriate newsgroups which Mr Mingo has failed
> to appreciate; he thinks crossposting is what OTHER people, other HORRID
> people do. When Mr Mingo crossposts he thinks he is performing a service
> to the community.
So Mingo thinks he's reaches the appropriate audience by
crossposting. Is he broadcasting something he believe
they want to hear? Surely this is the same reason you're
doing it Mr. Maughan. For the two of you to find your ideal
target audience try crossposting to rec.piss-taking.mingo's.mama
and alt.maughan.pimp.inflatable.dolls
> Mr Mingo has a sewing kit provided by me so he can sew
> on his balls whenever I cut them off but I'm told he has a cute baritone
> in between times.
>
> Try it, knock yourself out. Crossposting, I mean.
You mean that me getting to sew is out of the question?
What about knitting? I could run up a blue sequenced scrotum
pouch.
Neal
Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes
Excerpts from netnews.rec.arts.prose: 17-May-98 Re: Crossposting to the
> > Try it, knock yourself out. Crossposting, I mean.
>
> You mean that me getting to sew is out of the question?
> What about knitting? I could run up a blue sequenced scrotum
> pouch.
Sequined, neal, sequined. Not "sequenced". And if we're discussing
mingo's scrotum, what on earth would you put in it? A glass bead? An
baby tooth? That's about all it would hold. And why "blue"? It's spring,
neal. Go with something lighter.
http://english-server.hss.cmu.edu/home/wilkes/
Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes
Excerpts from netnews.rec.arts.prose: 18-May-98 Re: Crossposting to the
bible by Robert Mau...@etymon.de
> Crossposting is infinitesimally unimportant, Neal.
And yet, and yet.
http://english-server.hss.cmu.edu/home/wilkes/
Jack Mingo
Neal Corbett wrote:
>
> So Mingo thinks he's reaches the appropriate audience by
> crossposting.
No, actually Mingo frowns on the practice and refrains from it as much
as possible. Mingo thinks most crossposts between the writing groups are
unnecessary and usually trolls. He has been proven right more times than
not.
Mingo suggests friendly notes to crossposters to ask them to refrain. He
finds that--with the exception of pretty much two fellows who revel in
being jerks because it's the only way they can have any impact--most
people can see the reasoning behind the practice of refraining from
crossposting, and most will refrain.
Jack Mingo
Edwin J. Noonan
I'll settle for indulged, Robert, and consider it an honor.
Guess I had a leg up with 22 years of business experience before I put two
fingers to the keys. The creative phrase was a rewarding and enjoyable
challenge, the business phase has been a breeze.
Your friend Jack has given me no reason to shit upon him, yet. He did send a
curious E-mail today. He asked me to refrain from crossposting to
alt.writing. I may have been confused as to where I was posting from the
other day, but I assured him I was posting directly to alt.writing.
Perhaps Jack would offer an explanation. Why was the E-mail sent and on what
authority?
EJN
Robert Maughan wrote:
> >SNIP<
> >You and Jack Mingo are actually lovers who had a snit.
> >
> No. No. Mr Mingo is a petty censor whose throat I would cheerfully cut
> with the rusted lid of a can of peaches given a chance. I shit on him at
> every opportunity, metaphorically. So should you.
>
> RJM.
Robert Maughan
Crossposting is infinitesimally unimportant, Neal.
RJM.
Rob Evans
In article <1998051722...@ppp-112-99.villette.club-internet.fr>,
Ab Sconse <nm...@club-internet.fr> writes
>Neal Corbett <ncor...@coventry.ac.uk> wrote (écrivait) :
>
>>
>> Jack (I have no willy) Mingo spouts shit. Crossposting is for castratos.
>>
>I have no willy either. Is that such a big problem here?
>
disfunctional family is blessed with such an eponymous killer whale
(and, in the sequel, even his was a bit limp).
ROB
--
Rob Evans
Take arms against a sea of troubles? Dammit Will,
you gotta stop letting Georgie ghost this stuff for you!
Robert Maughan
Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes <gv...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes
>And yet, and yet.
Tsk, Gilbert. No converting or leading astray.
RJM.
Robert Maughan
Jack Mingo <mi...@pacbell.net> writes
This is pretty much true, though I protest about it being the only way
we have impact. It's the only way we have impact on you. You just don't
grasp the exquisite irony of this post of yours, do you?
I'll resist the opportunity to impact some more on your thick skull and
let your post and its pathetic dissimulation stand.
I look forward to your next sermon, on profanity, you pious cunt.
RJM.