Obama: Thank you Aaron Sorkin!

[Ubiquitous]

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/the-five/index.html#/v/1775726781001/obama-thank-you-aaron-sorkin/?playlist_id=1040983441001

--
"Re-electing Obama is like backing The Titanic up and hitting the iceberg
a second time."

[S.R. Newport]

Re-electing Bush was like backing The Titanic up and hitting the iceberg
a second time.

*********************************

[S.R. Newport]

Sorkin's main character in THE NEWSROOM tears apart anonymous internet
posters. They deserve it.

*********************************

[benjamin]

On Thursday, 9 August 2012 18:34:30 UTC-4, S.R. Newport wrote:
> Sorkin's main character in THE NEWSROOM tears apart anonymous internet

Overall the episode was sentimental and mawkish as only Aaron Sorkin can be but at least the subject matter made it forgiveable. I thought the scene where the guy on on the plane [sorry still haven't gotten their names down except Will and Mackenzie] realizes how especially meaningful the event would be to the pilot.

It was funny to watch a stoned Will trying to act straight. Stopping for a Gyros on his run to the studio. LOL.

[S.R. Newport]

From: ben...@gmail.com (benjamin)
THE NEWSROOM: I thought the scene where the guy on on the plane realizes

how especially meaningful the event would be to the pilot

----------------------------------------
SN: Yes, that was a good wrap-up scene-- but that character is one of
two I really dislike on the show.
  

*********************************

[Barry Margolin]

In article <cc8ee7cd-3b0a-4185...@googlegroups.com>,

benjamin <ben...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, 9 August 2012 18:34:30 UTC-4, S.R. Newport wrote:
> Overall the episode was sentimental and mawkish as only Aaron Sorkin can be
> but at least the subject matter made it forgiveable. I thought the scene

I started getting misty at the end, as often happens to me with Sorkin
shows like this.

> where the guy on on the plane [sorry still haven't gotten their names down
> except Will and Mackenzie] realizes how especially meaningful the event would
> be to the pilot.

I didn't get how he knew. Was the pilot's name significant?

--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA

[BTR1701]

He focused in on the United Airlines logo on his name tag and realized that
a United pilot would probably have a special interest in knowing bin Laden
was dead.

[benjamin]

Im not sure who you mean by 'he'. The NEwsroom staffers figured it out from, email/online/cell phone contacts.

The pilot's name wasnt significant. It's just that the news guy looking at the uniform realized he was being an asshole to a guy but for chance who could have been the pilot on one of the Sept 11 planes.

The same thing when Will tells his bodyguard/veteran and lets him tell the NYPD officers.

[S.R. Newport]

From: ben...@gmail.com (benjamin)

when Will tells his bodyguard/veteran and lets him tell the NYPD
officers.

--------------------------------------------
SN: Terry Crews is great as the bodyguard. I loved him on EVERYBODY
HATES CHRIS.

*********************************

[RichA]

His main character's polemics are not very good (or accurate)
sometimes and can be ripped apart too.

[Barry Margolin]

In article <eaf14b65-81f3-4f54...@googlegroups.com>,

benjamin <ben...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, 9 August 2012 22:02:45 UTC-4, Barry Margolin wrote:
> > In article <cc8ee7cd-3b0a-4185...@googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > benjamin <ben...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Thursday, 9 August 2012 18:34:30 UTC-4, S.R. Newport wrote:
> >
> > > Overall the episode was sentimental and mawkish as only Aaron Sorkin can
> > > be
> >
> > > but at least the subject matter made it forgiveable. I thought the scene
> >
> >
> >
> > I started getting misty at the end, as often happens to me with Sorkin
> >
> > shows like this.
> >
> >
> >
> > > where the guy on on the plane [sorry still haven't gotten their names
> > > down
> >
> > > except Will and Mackenzie] realizes how especially meaningful the event
> > > would
> >
> > > be to the pilot.
> >
> >
> >
> > I didn't get how he knew. Was the pilot's name significant?
>
> Im not sure who you mean by 'he'. The NEwsroom staffers figured it out from,
> email/online/cell phone contacts.

I think you're talking about something else. I'm not talking about how
they knew about Bin Laden, but why he felt the need to apologize to the
pilot for his earlier behavior.

> The pilot's name wasnt significant. It's just that the news guy looking at
> the uniform realized he was being an asshole to a guy but for chance who
> could have been the pilot on one of the Sept 11 planes.

Yet he was a total asshole to the flight attendant, who also could
potentially have been on one of the 9/11 planes (well, except that she
probably would have been too young -- but was the pilot old enough?).

To me, it seemed like he was reacting to this particular pilot, not any
random United pilot.

> The same thing when Will tells his bodyguard/veteran and lets him tell the
> NYPD officers.

Yeah, but Will isn't so much of an ass, he likes to "do the right thing".

[Dano]

"Barry Margolin" wrote in message
news:barmar-D9820E....@news.eternal-september.org...

In article <eaf14b65-81f3-4f54...@googlegroups.com>,
benjamin <ben...@gmail.com> wrote:



> The pilot's name wasnt significant. It's just that the news guy looking at
> the uniform realized he was being an asshole to a guy but for chance who
> could have been the pilot on one of the Sept 11 planes.

Yet he was a total asshole to the flight attendant, who also could
potentially have been on one of the 9/11 planes (well, except that she
probably would have been too young -- but was the pilot old enough?).

To me, it seemed like he was reacting to this particular pilot, not any
random United pilot.

==============================================

Not to me. I "got it".

And the flight attendant was a ridiculous ass. Just the type, who when
given a modicum of authority chooses to exercise it without a hint of common
sense or humanity. In short...a total bitch.

[Barry Margolin]

In article <k03dnn$5k0$1...@dont-email.me>, "Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

I think that's a bit unfair. Flight attendants are required to enforce
the laws rigorously, I don't think they're *allowed* to use common
sense. Do you really expect her to be familiar with the engineering and
safety studies that prompted these rules, so she can decide when it's OK
to be lax about it?

While it may be true that some of these rules don't really have any
strong basis, it's not up to a flight attendant to make such decisions.

When the plane lurched, he fell on the floor, and pointed out flippantly
that nothing bad happened. But the aisle is incredibly narrow, and a few
inches one way or the other could have resulted in banging his head
against an armrest. Maybe it wouldn't have been serious, but maybe it
would have. And if it came out that the flight attendant *allowed* him
to get out of his seat, the airline might be legally liable, or at least
it would be an insurance issue.

[S.R. Newport]

From: bar...@alum.mit.edu (Barry Margolin) Flight attendants are
required to enforce the laws rigorously.
When the plane lurched, he fell on the floor.
---------------------------------------
SN: He was the jerk. But then that actor-- along with Alison Pill, is
one of the show's problems.

*********************************

[Dano]

"Barry Margolin" wrote in message

news:barmar-766CDA....@news.eternal-september.org...

===============================================

All true. Just as true is that all she needed to do was ask the pilot if it
would be okay. But instead chose to flaunt her authority.

[benjamin]

On Friday, 10 August 2012 14:41:48 UTC-4, Dano wrote:
> "Barry Margolin" wrote in message

> I think that's a bit unfair. Flight attendants are required to enforce
>
> the laws rigorously, I don't think they're *allowed* to use common
>
> sense. Do you really expect her to be familiar with the engineering and
>
> safety studies that prompted these rules, so she can decide when it's OK
>
> to be lax about it?
>
>
>
> While it may be true that some of these rules don't really have any
>
> strong basis, it's not up to a flight attendant to make such decisions.
>
>
>
> When the plane lurched, he fell on the floor, and pointed out flippantly
>
> that nothing bad happened. But the aisle is incredibly narrow, and a few
>
> inches one way or the other could have resulted in banging his head
>
> against an armrest. Maybe it wouldn't have been serious, but maybe it
>
> would have. And if it came out that the flight attendant *allowed* him
>
> to get out of his seat, the airline might be legally liable, or at least
>
> it would be an insurance issue.
>
>
>
> ===============================================
>
>
>
> All true. Just as true is that all she needed to do was ask the pilot if it
>
> would be okay. But instead chose to flaunt her authority.

I'm sure the pilot and airline would love it if they had to intercede everytime a passenger wanted to flout a rule. Riiiight.

Not mentioned so far is the meta point of both Will and the guy on the air plane. How they both realize getting the big story out on the air was less important than getting the story to those individuals: the pilot, the NYPD, the veteran. About the only group left out was the FDNY but I guess Sorkin couldn't figure out a way to work them in.

The guy on the plane said in his comment to the effect that he had reported the news by simply telling the flight crew.

[benjamin]

On Friday, 10 August 2012 12:05:51 UTC-4, Barry Margolin wrote:
> In article <eaf14b65-81f3-4f54...@googlegroups.com>,

>
> > The pilot's name wasnt significant. It's just that the news guy looking at
>
> > the uniform realized he was being an asshole to a guy but for chance who
>
> > could have been the pilot on one of the Sept 11 planes.
>
>
>
> Yet he was a total asshole to the flight attendant, who also could
>
> potentially have been on one of the 9/11 planes (well, except that she
>
> probably would have been too young -- but was the pilot old enough?).

Id say yes but that isn't really the point. He was one of the groups particularly impacted by Sept11. And the News guy was somewhat apologetic to the flight attendant while still not totally getting that she was just doing her job.

[benjamin]

On Friday, 10 August 2012 14:08:29 UTC-4, Barry Margolin wrote:
>
> I think that's a bit unfair. Flight attendants are required to enforce
>
> the laws rigorously, I don't think they're *allowed* to use common
>
> sense. Do you really expect her to be familiar with the engineering and
>
> safety studies that prompted these rules, so she can decide when it's OK
>
> to be lax about it?

Exactly. This is one of my pet peeves that I've seen from both sides of the customer service divide: Why do people give grief to some poor working stiff who you know didn't make the rules?

If you must vent your spleen then ask for a manager or equivalent. At least they are paid to take the grief.

This is the same issue with that pinhead who verbalkly abused the girl at the Chik-fil-a take-out window. It wasn't about whether or not you agree with same sex marriage or the CEO's opinion. He took it out on some poor minimum wage employee.

Ok. Now getting off my soapbox.

[BTR1701]

In article <43b42536-4a24-4d55...@googlegroups.com>,

benjamin <ben...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday, 10 August 2012 14:08:29 UTC-4, Barry Margolin wrote:
> >
> > I think that's a bit unfair. Flight attendants are required to enforce
> >
> > the laws rigorously, I don't think they're *allowed* to use common
> >
> > sense. Do you really expect her to be familiar with the engineering and
> >
> > safety studies that prompted these rules, so she can decide when it's OK
> >
> > to be lax about it?
>
> Exactly. This is one of my pet peeves that I've seen from both sides of the
> customer service divide: Why do people give grief to some poor working stiff
> who you know didn't make the rules?

It's when the working stiff is obviously just making the rules up as
they go that I start to get irked.

[benjamin]

And how do you 'know' this?

[S. Ross Newport]

From: ben...@gmail.com (benjamin)

from both sides of the customer service divide: Why do people give grief
to some poor working stiff who you know didn't make the rules?

------------------------------------------
SN: The NEWSROOM guy did just that.

*********************************
Pets are life enriching. TV ratings are not.

[BTR1701]

In article <c18037d0-3a11-46eb...@googlegroups.com>,

When she tells you that you can't hold your iPad on your lap and quotes
you a 'rule' that no large objects can be on your lap during take-off
because they might shoot away and hit someone. You point at the guy next
to you who's reading a hardcover book that's twice the size and weight
of the iPad and she frowns for a second and says that the rule only
covers electronics. I damn well know she's making shit up at that point
just to cover for the fact that she's either misapplying the rule or
choosing not applying it to everyone.

And what the hell is up with your newsreader? Why does it insert blank
lines between every line of text?

[Barry Margolin]

In article <atropos-8E8B44...@news-europe.giganews.com>,

There's probably a rule that says all electronic devices have to be
stowed. So her explanation of WHY you can't have the iPad on your lap
may be bullshit, but the rule that says you can't probably does exist.

>
> And what the hell is up with your newsreader? Why does it insert blank
> lines between every line of text?

That's one of Google Groups' recent "quirks". When quoting replies, it
either smushes them together so that nested quotes are all messed up, or
it double-spaces them.

[Huntress]

On 10/08/2012 9:39 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <c18037d0-3a11-46eb...@googlegroups.com>,
> benjamin <ben...@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

> And what the hell is up with your newsreader? Why does it insert blank
> lines between every line of text?

What newsreader? The dweeb's using Google Groups. ;)

[benjamin]

You have no idea whether or not she made it up or is misapplying it. You think she is because you think its a stupid rule [electronics forbidden but not a book] It might well be a stupid rule that she is required to enforce.

My understanding is that the problem with electronics is the concern they might interfere with the plane's electronics

>
> And what the hell is up with your newsreader? Why does it insert blank
>
> lines between every line of text?

It's Google. Some posted get hashed other dont.But this particular one looks fine from my viewing. Go figure.

[BTR1701]

In article <30862393-b990-4b1d...@googlegroups.com>,

benjamin <ben...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday, 10 August 2012 21:39:49 UTC-4, BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <c18037d0-3a11-46eb...@googlegroups.com>,

> > When she tells you that you can't hold your iPad on your lap and quotes
> > you a 'rule' that no large objects can be on your lap during take-off
> > because they might shoot away and hit someone. You point at the guy next
> > to you who's reading a hardcover book that's twice the size and weight
> > of the iPad and she frowns for a second and says that the rule only
> > covers electronics. I damn well know she's making shit up at that point
> > just to cover for the fact that she's either misapplying the rule or
> > choosing not applying it to everyone.
>
> You have no idea whether or not she made it up or is misapplying it.

Yeah, I do.

> You think she is because you think its a stupid rule [electronics
> forbidden but not a book]

The rule she quoted was "no large objects on the lap". If that's the
rule, then the book is covered, too, and she's just not enforcing it
because people have been allowed to read during take-off since the
Wright Bros. It's just these fancy new gizmos that have them all het up.

> My understanding is that the problem with electronics is the concern
> they might interfere with the plane's electronics

The iPad wasn't on. I was just holding it so I wouldn't have to crawl
all over everyone after takeoff to get it out of my bag in the overhead
bin.

Oh, and back home we have an American Airlines pilot who lives next door
to my parents in Texas. Pretty good friend of the family. He was over
for a neighborhood BBQ last time I was home and we got to talking about
the whole forbidden electronics deal. He said it's absolute nonsense.
There's no way a cell phone or an iPad can have any effect on a plane's
ability to fly. Those aircraft are designed to absorb lightning strikes
and keep flying with hardly a bump. If cell phones had even the remotest
chance to endanger a plane, they'd be as prohibited on board as guns.

Aircraft safety wasn't even the reason they were originally prohibited.
It was an FCC rule, not an FAA rule. The FCC was worried that people
trying to use cell phones that high, traveling that fast, would
overwhelm the cell towers on the ground as they bounced from one to the
other at 500+ mph. That problem has long since been solved also. Our
pilot friend told me that at this point, the real reason for it is just
a matter of keeping people under control during the flight. They don't
want people talking on them or playing Angry Birds instead of listening
to the flight attendants talk over the intercom, which means all those
people reading books and magazines should also have to put them away but
they flight crew chooses not to enforce the rule on anything but
electronics.

The book thing is a choice made by the crew/individual flight attendant.
It's not the law. Basically they're making shit up. And they're also
making shit up when they tell you that you have to turn everything off
so the plane doesn't crash.

> > And what the hell is up with your newsreader? Why does it insert blank
> > lines between every line of text?
>
> It's Google. Some posted get hashed other dont.But this particular
> one looks fine from my viewing.

Well, yes. I went back in and manually deleted all the extra lines
before responding.

[Adam H. Kerman]

benjamin <ben...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Overall the episode was sentimental and mawkish as only Aaron Sorkin can
>be but at least the subject matter made it forgiveable. I thought the
>scene where the guy on on the plane [sorry still haven't gotten their
>names down except Will and Mackenzie] realizes how especially meaningful
>the event would be to the pilot.

"Our boys got him for you." Fuck that.

Will's "out of tragedy comes greatness" speech was totally full of shit.
The Patriot Act? National security letters? Warrantless wiretapping?
Detainees in the prison at Guantanamo?

A second war with Iraq?

Fuck Aaron Sorkin

> It was funny to watch a stoned Will trying to act straight. Stopping
>for a Gyros on his run to the studio. LOL.

Yes, I agree.

[BTR1701]

In article <barmar-E15757....@news.eternal-september.org>,

Fantastic. Seems like they're going out of their way to destroy the
Usenet experience for everyone.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

>Yet he was a total asshole to the flight attendant, who also could
>potentially have been on one of the 9/11 planes (well, except that she
>probably would have been too young -- but was the pilot old enough?).

Would she have behaved any differently if, for instance, a passenger
needed to use the bathroom or needed to get up to drink water or to
take medication?

I think you know the answer to that.

[Adam H. Kerman]

BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:

>benjamin <ben...@gmail.com> wrote:

>And what the hell is up with your newsreader? Why does it insert blank
>lines between every line of text?

Posts through Google Groups have been in bad format, and are often in bad
syntax, for many years. A new enhancement puts in those blank lines, which
I suspect are soft line breaks within a paragraph near a hard line break,
but I haven't looked.

Luck on your project of reasoning with a Google Groups user who will just
state, It works fine for me, so I don't care.

Anyway, a new pseudonym probably means guess what.

[Adam H. Kerman]

BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

>>BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:

>>>And what the hell is up with your newsreader? Why does it insert blank
>>>lines between every line of text?

>>That's one of Google Groups' recent "quirks". When quoting replies, it
>>either smushes them together so that nested quotes are all messed up, or
>>it double-spaces them.

>Fantastic. Seems like they're going out of their way to destroy the
>Usenet experience for everyone.

Duh

[Xerula radicata]

On 11/08/2012 12:15 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
41111> Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv

41111> Posts through Google Groups have been in bad format, and are
often in bad
41111> syntax, for many years. A new enhancement puts in those blank
lines, which
41111> I suspect are soft line breaks within a paragraph near a hard
line break,
41111> but I haven't looked.

What does the poor formatting of Google Groups originated news articles
have to do with television, Kerman?

41111> Luck on your project of reasoning with a Google Groups user who
will just
41111> state, It works fine for me, so I don't care.

What does your presupposition have to do with television, Kerman?

41111> Anyway, a new pseudonym probably means guess what.

What does your paranoia have to do with television, Kerman?

[S. Ross Newport]

From: a...@chinet.com (Adam H. Kerman) Fuck Aaron Sorkin
------------------------------------
SN: You'd like that, I bet.  

[benjamin]

On Saturday, 11 August 2012 11:58:09 UTC-4, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <30862393-b990-4b1d...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> benjamin <ben...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Friday, 10 August 2012 21:39:49 UTC-4, BTR1701 wrote:
>
> > > In article <c18037d0-3a11-46eb...@googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> > > When she tells you that you can't hold your iPad on your lap and quotes
>
> > > you a 'rule' that no large objects can be on your lap during take-off
>
> > > because they might shoot away and hit someone. You point at the guy next
>
> > > to you who's reading a hardcover book that's twice the size and weight
>
> > > of the iPad and she frowns for a second and says that the rule only
>
> > > covers electronics. I damn well know she's making shit up at that point
>
> > > just to cover for the fact that she's either misapplying the rule or
>
> > > choosing not applying it to everyone.
>
> >
>
> > You have no idea whether or not she made it up or is misapplying it.
>
>
>
> Yeah, I do.

No you do not.

> > You think she is because you think its a stupid rule [electronics
>
> > forbidden but not a book]
>
>
>
> The rule she quoted was "no large objects on the lap". If that's the
>
> rule, then the book is covered, too, and she's just not enforcing it
>
> because people have been allowed to read during take-off since the
>
> Wright Bros. It's just these fancy new gizmos that have them all het up.
>
>
>
> > My understanding is that the problem with electronics is the concern
>
> > they might interfere with the plane's electronics
>
>
>
> The iPad wasn't on. I was just holding it so I wouldn't have to crawl
>
> all over everyone after takeoff to get it out of my bag in the overhead
>
> bin.

And no one with a device on their lap would turn it on after the attendent goes by.

> Oh, and back home we have an American Airlines pilot who lives next door
>
> to my parents in Texas. Pretty good friend of the family. He was over
>
> for a neighborhood BBQ last time I was home and we got to talking about
>
> the whole forbidden electronics deal. He said it's absolute nonsense.

First of all, no offence, but I'm suspicious of 'I know a _____ expert and he says arguments on the net. It's just too easy.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/12/22/10-facts-about-portable-electronics-and-airplanes/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_on_aircraft

"In the United States, the use of mobile phones and similar devices on airborne aircraft has been banned by the Federal Communications Commission.[1]"

>
> There's no way a cell phone or an iPad can have any effect on a plane's
>
> ability to fly. Those aircraft are designed to absorb lightning strikes
>
> and keep flying with hardly a bump. If cell phones had even the remotest
>
> chance to endanger a plane, they'd be as prohibited on board as guns.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_10/interfere_textonly.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/18/business/18devices.html

http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/aerospace/aviation/do-mobile-electronics-really-interfere-with-flight-they-could

> Aircraft safety wasn't even the reason they were originally prohibited.
>
> It was an FCC rule, not an FAA rule. The FCC was worried that people
>
> trying to use cell phones that high, traveling that fast, would
>
> overwhelm the cell towers on the ground as they bounced from one to the
>
> other at 500+ mph. That problem has long since been solved also. Our
>
> pilot friend told me that at this point, the real reason for it is just
>
> a matter of keeping people under control during the flight. They don't
>
> want people talking on them or playing Angry Birds instead of listening
>
> to the flight attendants talk over the intercom, which means all those
>
> people reading books and magazines should also have to put them away but
>
> they flight crew chooses not to enforce the rule on anything but
>
> electronics.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/riskfactor/aerospace/aviation/electronic-devices-airplanes-and-interference-significant-danger-or-not

http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsid=6275

> The book thing is a choice made by the crew/individual flight attendant.
>
> It's not the law. Basically they're making shit up. And they're also
>
> making shit up when they tell you that you have to turn everything off
>
> so the plane doesn't crash.

Obviously I'm not going to convinced you that the flight attendant was out to screw you over personally and you are completely unaware of the policies regarding electronics aren't formulated by flight attendant on the fly - pardon the phrase - so I wont try any more.

>
>
>
> > > And what the hell is up with your newsreader? Why does it insert blank
>
> > > lines between every line of text?
>
> >
>
> > It's Google. Some posted get hashed other dont.But this particular
>
> > one looks fine from my viewing.
>
>
>
> Well, yes. I went back in and manually deleted all the extra lines
>
> before responding.

No. I mean on my screen the formatting issues you describe aren't there in my post - not your follow-up.


Although this exchange has caused me to reconsider regarding the flight attendant. Given how you seem to talk to people here and as you describe the incident on the plane it might well be that the flight attendant did decide to personally screw you over for your rudeness.

Good day.

[BTR1701]

In article <1af5e532-be43-4669...@googlegroups.com>,

benjamin <ben...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, 11 August 2012 11:58:09 UTC-4, BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <30862393-b990-4b1d...@googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > benjamin <ben...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > You have no idea whether or not she made it up or is misapplying it.

> > Yeah, I do.
>
> No you do not.

Yeah, I do.

> > The iPad wasn't on. I was just holding it so I wouldn't have to crawl
> > all over everyone after takeoff to get it out of my bag in the overhead
> > bin.

> And no one with a device on their lap would turn it on after the attendent
> goes by.

With that logic, everyone should have to put their cell phones in their
checked luggage and be forbidden from even bringing them into the
aircraft cabin because someone might turn theirs on after the attendant
goes by and there's no way the flight crew can check every device on
everyone's belt or in purses or carry-ons to be sure they're off.

> > Oh, and back home we have an American Airlines pilot who lives next door
> > to my parents in Texas. Pretty good friend of the family. He was over
> > for a neighborhood BBQ last time I was home and we got to talking about
> > the whole forbidden electronics deal. He said it's absolute nonsense.

> First of all, no offence, but I'm suspicious of 'I know a _____ expert and he
> says arguments on the net. It's just too easy.

You can believe it or not. My world will continue to turn either way.
I'm satisfied that I know the truth.

> "In the United States, the use of mobile phones and similar devices on
> airborne aircraft has been banned by the Federal Communications
> Commission.[1]"

Note the FCC, not the FAA. The FCC is an agency that has nothing to do
with aviation or aircraft safety, yet they're the ones who made the
rule, not the FAA. That one fact alone should clue you in that the rule
has nothing to do with flight safety.

[benjamin]

On Saturday, 11 August 2012 21:48:14 UTC-4, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <1af5e532-be43-4669...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> benjamin <ben...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Saturday, 11 August 2012 11:58:09 UTC-4, BTR1701 wrote:
>
> > > In article <30862393-b990-4b1d...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> > >
>
> > > benjamin <ben...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > > You have no idea whether or not she made it up or is misapplying it.
>
>
>
> > > Yeah, I do.
>
> >
>
> > No you do not.
>
>
>
> Yeah, I do.

No.

>
> > > The iPad wasn't on. I was just holding it so I wouldn't have to crawl
>
> > > all over everyone after takeoff to get it out of my bag in the overhead
>
> > > bin.
>
>
>
> > And no one with a device on their lap would turn it on after the attendent
>
> > goes by.
>
>
>
> With that logic, everyone should have to put their cell phones in their
>
> checked luggage and be forbidden from even bringing them into the
>
> aircraft cabin because someone might turn theirs on after the attendant
>
> goes by and there's no way the flight crew can check every device on
>
> everyone's belt or in purses or carry-ons to be sure they're off.
>
>
>
> > > Oh, and back home we have an American Airlines pilot who lives next door
>
> > > to my parents in Texas. Pretty good friend of the family. He was over
>
> > > for a neighborhood BBQ last time I was home and we got to talking about
>
> > > the whole forbidden electronics deal. He said it's absolute nonsense.
>
>
>
> > First of all, no offence, but I'm suspicious of 'I know a _____ expert and he
>
> > says arguments on the net. It's just too easy.
>
>
>
> You can believe it or not. My world will continue to turn either way.
>
> I'm satisfied that I know the truth.

I'm sure you feel more comfortable taking the offhand comments of someone at a BBQ than the consideration of the agency responsible for regulating communications devices. Your choice.

> > "In the United States, the use of mobile phones and similar devices on
>
> > airborne aircraft has been banned by the Federal Communications
>
> > Commission.[1]"
>
>
>
> Note the FCC, not the FAA. The FCC is an agency that has nothing to do
>
> with aviation or aircraft safety, yet they're the ones who made the
>
> rule, not the FAA. That one fact alone should clue you in that the rule
>
> has nothing to do with flight safety.

All it indicates is that in the process of deciding which agency was best suited to determine the risk of interference of electronic devices, the FCC was given jurisdiction.

But let's assume for the moment that you and your pilot friend are
right and the FCC is wrong:

(Apologies for caps but it seems that you are having trouble understanding it)

IT WAS NOT THE FLIGHT ATTENDANT WHO MADE THE RULE SIMPLY TO PISS YOU OFF.

[BTR1701]

In article <8340f71d-fbb9-4c75...@googlegroups.com>,

benjamin <ben...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, 11 August 2012 21:48:14 UTC-4, BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <1af5e532-be43-4669...@googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > benjamin <ben...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > On Saturday, 11 August 2012 11:58:09 UTC-4, BTR1701 wrote:
> >
> > > > In article <30862393-b990-4b1d...@googlegroups.com>,

> > > > benjamin <ben...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > You have no idea whether or not she made it up or is misapplying it.

> > > > Yeah, I do.

> > > No you do not.

> > Yeah, I do.

> No.

Yeah, I do.

> > You can believe it or not. My world will continue to turn either way.
> > I'm satisfied that I know the truth.
>
> I'm sure you feel more comfortable taking the offhand comments of

> someone at a BBQ (with 30 years flying the very planes in question
> and who knows what can affect them and what can't) than the consideration
> of a bunch of bureacrats in an agency full of people who know
> nothing about aircraft safety.

FTFY

> Your choice.

Yes, it is my choice and I certainly don't need your blessing for it.

> > Note the FCC, not the FAA. The FCC is an agency that has nothing to do
> > with aviation or aircraft safety, yet they're the ones who made the
> > rule, not the FAA. That one fact alone should clue you in that the rule
> > has nothing to do with flight safety.
>
> All it indicates is that in the process of deciding which agency was best
> suited to determine the risk of interference of electronic devices, the FCC
> was given jurisdiction.

But after all the research you're willing to do with all your links, you
won't look into why the FCC passed the regulation because you suspect
I'm right and seamus would rather chew off his own arm than ever admit
he's wrong about anything.

> But let's assume for the moment that you and your pilot friend are
> right and the FCC is wrong:
>
> (Apologies for caps but it seems that you are having trouble understanding
> it)

As you are having trouble understanding that the rule in question has
nothing to do with electronics. It's a rule that supposedly requires
ANYTHING that could come loose during takeoff and hurt someone to be
stowed. Yet some passengers are nevertheless allowed to hold large heavy
objects while others are not, apparently at the whim of the flight crew.

Got it now or do I have to resort to capital letters also?

> IT WAS NOT THE FLIGHT ATTENDANT WHO MADE THE RULE SIMPLY TO PISS YOU OFF.

No, she just made up some bullshit about how only electronic things are
dangerous missiles should they fly lose during takeoff.

[anim8rFSK]

In article <atropos-7F6CF7...@news-europe.giganews.com>,

Okay, I can't see any of the early posts on this, but what are you
discussing? If this is something current, then Sorkin lifted a hunk of
a The West Wing script with Toby and the flight attendant ...

--
"Every time a Kardashian gets a TV show, an angel dies."

[0udemansie1la]

On 12/08/2012 11:05 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
19> Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv

19> Yeah, I do.

What does that have to do with television, BTR1701?

19> > I'm sure you feel more comfortable taking the offhand comments of
19> > someone at a BBQ (with 30 years flying the very planes in question
19> > and who knows what can affect them and what can't) than the
consideration
19> > of a bunch of bureacrats in an agency full of people who know
19> > nothing about aircraft safety.

Benjamin did not write that, BTR1701, but you attributed it to him
anyway. Classic dishonesty on your part, BTR1701.

19> FTFY

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do
with television, BTR1701?

19> Yes, it is my choice and I certainly don't need your blessing for it.

What does your choice have to do with television, BTR1701?

19> But after all the research you're willing to do with all your links, you
19> won't look into why the FCC passed the regulation because you suspect
19> I'm right and seamus would rather chew off his own arm than ever admit
19> he's wrong about anything.

Who is "seamus", BTR1701? There is nobody in this newsgroup using that
alias.

19> As you are having trouble understanding that the rule in question has
19> nothing to do with electronics. It's a rule that supposedly requires
19> ANYTHING that could come loose during takeoff and hurt someone to be
19> stowed. Yet some passengers are nevertheless allowed to hold large heavy
19> objects while others are not, apparently at the whim of the flight crew.

What does that have to do with television, BTR1701?

19> Got it now or do I have to resort to capital letters also?

What does your question of benjamin have to do with television, BTR1701?

19> No, she just made up some bullshit about how only electronic things are
19> dangerous missiles should they fly lose during takeoff.

What does your foul language have to do with television, BTR1701?

[benjamin]

For my part I'd like to apologize for continuing this off topic discussion.
I was going to respond just to point out the dishonest altering of my words by BTR but there really is no point.

Once again I apologize for enabling him.

[BTR1701]

In article <anim8rfsk-EE3F9...@news.easynews.com>,

anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:

> Okay, I can't see any of the early posts on this, but what are you
> discussing? If this is something current, then Sorkin lifted a hunk of
> a The West Wing script with Toby and the flight attendant ...

It was a similar scene between one of the producer characters from
Newsroom and a flight attendant on a plane that was stuck on the runway.

[Hunter]

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 22:02:45 -0400, Barry Margolin
<bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

>In article <cc8ee7cd-3b0a-4185...@googlegroups.com>,
> benjamin <ben...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>> On Thursday, 9 August 2012 18:34:30 UTC-4, S.R. Newport wrote:
>> Overall the episode was sentimental and mawkish as only Aaron Sorkin can be
>> but at least the subject matter made it forgiveable. I thought the scene
>

>I started getting misty at the end, as often happens to me with Sorkin
>shows like this.

>
>> where the guy on on the plane [sorry still haven't gotten their names down
>> except Will and Mackenzie] realizes how especially meaningful the event would
>> be to the pilot.
>

>I didn't get how he knew. Was the pilot's name significant?
----
No, just that he was a pilot and the news would be important to the
flight crew, including the flight attendant considering it was
airliners that were used as weapons. Maggie's douche bag boyfriend was
acting like an ass in front of the whole time not realizing how
passengers acting up looks like to flight crew in the post 9/11 world.

------>Hunter

"No man in the wrong can stand up against
a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'."

-----William J. McDonald
Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907

[Hunter]

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 12:05:51 -0400, Barry Margolin
<bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

>In article <eaf14b65-81f3-4f54...@googlegroups.com>,
> benjamin <ben...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>> On Thursday, 9 August 2012 22:02:45 UTC-4, Barry Margolin wrote:
>> > In article <cc8ee7cd-3b0a-4185...@googlegroups.com>,
>> >
>> > benjamin <ben...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > On Thursday, 9 August 2012 18:34:30 UTC-4, S.R. Newport wrote:
>> >
>> > > Overall the episode was sentimental and mawkish as only Aaron Sorkin can
>> > > be
>> >
>> > > but at least the subject matter made it forgiveable. I thought the scene
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I started getting misty at the end, as often happens to me with Sorkin
>> >
>> > shows like this.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > where the guy on on the plane [sorry still haven't gotten their names
>> > > down
>> >
>> > > except Will and Mackenzie] realizes how especially meaningful the event
>> > > would
>> >
>> > > be to the pilot.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I didn't get how he knew. Was the pilot's name significant?
>>

>> Im not sure who you mean by 'he'. The NEwsroom staffers figured it out from,
>> email/online/cell phone contacts.
>
>I think you're talking about something else. I'm not talking about how
>they knew about Bin Laden, but why he felt the need to apologize to the
>pilot for his earlier behavior.
-----
He wasn't listening to the flight attendant and was making a scene,
something you don't do anymore on a plane.
>
>> The pilot's name wasn't significant. It's just that the news guy looking at
>> the uniform realized he was being an asshole to a guy but for chance who
>> could have been the pilot on one of the Sept 11 planes.

>
>Yet he was a total asshole to the flight attendant, who also could
>potentially have been on one of the 9/11 planes (well, except that she
>probably would have been too young -- but was the pilot old enough?).

-----
Oh yes definitely old enough; both were easily in their forties which
means they were in their thirties 10 years before. The Flight
attendant community is just like the cops and firefighters and pilots.
They feel a comradery.

She symbolically represented all flight attendants not just herself
>
>To me, it seemed like he was reacting to this particular pilot, not any
>random United pilot.
-----
He did know the pilot. He just realized how much of an asshole he was
acting like until that moment. He just didn't connect his behavior to
9/11 and remember the relevance of his acting up until then.
>
>> The same thing when Will tells his bodyguard/veteran and lets him tell the
>> NYPD officers.
>
>Yeah, but Will isn't so much of an ass, he likes to "do the right thing".
----
True.

[anim8rFSK]

In article <atropos-AA3EB5...@news-europe.giganews.com>,

thanks

[Hunter]

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 18:48:14 -0700, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:

>In article <1af5e532-be43-4669...@googlegroups.com>,
> benjamin <ben...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, 11 August 2012 11:58:09 UTC-4, BTR1701 wrote:
>> > In article <30862393-b990-4b1d...@googlegroups.com>,
>> >
>> > benjamin <ben...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > > You have no idea whether or not she made it up or is misapplying it.
>
>> > Yeah, I do.
>>
>> No you do not.
>
>Yeah, I do.
>
>> > The iPad wasn't on. I was just holding it so I wouldn't have to crawl
>> > all over everyone after takeoff to get it out of my bag in the overhead
>> > bin.
>
>> And no one with a device on their lap would turn it on after the attendent
>> goes by.
>
>With that logic, everyone should have to put their cell phones in their
>checked luggage and be forbidden from even bringing them into the
>aircraft cabin because someone might turn theirs on after the attendant
>goes by and there's no way the flight crew can check every device on
>everyone's belt or in purses or carry-ons to be sure they're off.

-----
I think it mostly concern is during take off and landing. But I guess
it is true it is an honor system at least in part. In the show
Maggie's boyfriend was trying to use his cellphone when the plane was
still landing so he wasn't playing by the rules from the beginning.
Aafter they landed the passengers could freely use their cellphoes.

>
>> > Oh, and back home we have an American Airlines pilot who lives next door
>> > to my parents in Texas. Pretty good friend of the family. He was over
>> > for a neighborhood BBQ last time I was home and we got to talking about
>> > the whole forbidden electronics deal. He said it's absolute nonsense.
>
>> First of all, no offence, but I'm suspicious of 'I know a _____ expert and he
>> says arguments on the net. It's just too easy.
>
>You can believe it or not. My world will continue to turn either way.
>I'm satisfied that I know the truth.

----
Your neighbor maybe giving his opinion but that is not what the law
is, not according to the FCC and FAA below

>
>> "In the United States, the use of mobile phones and similar devices on
>> airborne aircraft has been banned by the Federal Communications
>> Commission.[1]"
>
>Note the FCC, not the FAA. The FCC is an agency that has nothing to do
>with aviation or aircraft safety, yet they're the ones who made the
>rule, not the FAA. That one fact alone should clue you in that the rule
>has nothing to do with flight safety.

-----
Benjamin is at least partly right. That quote is from wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_on_aircraft

And wikipedia uses the FCC page as the source (that was what the "[1]"
is for):

"Guide

Wireless Devices on Airplanes

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rules prohibit the use of
cellular phones using the 800 MHz frequency and other wireless devices
on airborne aircraft. This ban was put in place because of potential
interference to wireless networks on the ground.

In March 2007, the FCC terminated a proceeding that it began in late
2004 to consider potentially lifting this ban. The FCC determined that
the technical information provided by interested parties in response
to the proposal was insufficient to determine whether in-flight use of
wireless devices on aircraft could cause harmful interference to
wireless networks on the ground. Therefore, it decided at this time to
make no changes in the rules prohibiting in-flight use of such
devices.

In addition to the FCC's rules, the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) prohibits in-flight use of wireless devices because of potential
interference to the aircraft's navigation and communication systems.
For this same reason the FAA also regulates the use of all portable
electronic devices (PEDs), such as iPods and portable DVD players,
during flight."

The FCC has approved rules that allow in-flight voice and data
services, including broadband services using dedicated air-to-ground
frequencies that were previously used for seat-back telephone service.
Air-to-ground service providers are in the process of rolling out new
in-flight services, such as high-speed Internet access for laptop
computers. Because these services will operate in frequencies that are
dedicated to air-to-ground communications and are separate from those
used for wireless services on the ground, they do not pose an
interference risk to wireless networks on the ground. Providers of
in-flight wireless broadband and other communications services using
the air-to-ground frequencies must coordinate with airlines and comply
with any FAA rules in order to offer such services. "

http://www.fcc.gov/guides/wireless-devices-airplanes

So both the FCC and FAA ban the use of at least most wireless devices
on airplanes in flight, butt for different reasons.

[BTR1701]

In article <50288fb8...@news.optonline.net>,

Hunter <buffh...@my-deja.com> (Hunter) wrote:

> On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 18:48:14 -0700, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <1af5e532-be43-4669...@googlegroups.com>,
> > benjamin <ben...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> And no one with a device on their lap would turn it on after
> >> the attendent goes by.
> >
> >With that logic, everyone should have to put their cell phones in their
> >checked luggage and be forbidden from even bringing them into the
> >aircraft cabin because someone might turn theirs on after the attendant
> >goes by and there's no way the flight crew can check every device on
> >everyone's belt or in purses or carry-ons to be sure they're off.
> -----
> I think it mostly concern is during take off and landing. But I guess
> it is true it is an honor system at least in part.

Which pretty much gives lie to whole 'danger to the plane' nonsense. In
what rational world would they go by the honor system when it comes to
securing the plane against known hazards?

> >> > Oh, and back home we have an American Airlines pilot who lives next door
> >> > to my parents in Texas. Pretty good friend of the family. He was over
> >> > for a neighborhood BBQ last time I was home and we got to talking about
> >> > the whole forbidden electronics deal. He said it's absolute nonsense.
> >
> >> First of all, no offence, but I'm suspicious of 'I know a _____ expert and
> >> he says arguments on the net. It's just too easy.
> >
> >You can believe it or not. My world will continue to turn either way.
> >I'm satisfied that I know the truth.
> ----
> Your neighbor maybe giving his opinion but that is not what the law
> is, not according to the FCC and FAA below

Yes, and the point is, the FCC and FAA are feeding the public a line of
bullshit to justify keeping people from using their phones on an
aircraft. There may have once been justification for the regulation from
the FCC's point of view (overwhelming the cell towers, etc.), but that
limitation has long since been solved with the development of pico cells.

The rationale for the rule no longer exists, but it's so ingrained in
the flying public's psyche at this point that it's easier just to leave
it in place. And since the flight crews prefer to have it there as a way
of controlling passengers, it'll never actually go away.

Look, I actually *like* the rule. The last thing I want is some
loudmouth moron sitting next to me jabbering away about the inanities of
his life in that loud cell phone voice people invariably seem to use.
Flying coach is already damned unpleasant enough. No need to add that to
the mix. All I'm saying is that no matter what they say, those phones
are no danger to the aircraft whatsoever.

> >> "In the United States, the use of mobile phones and similar devices on
> >> airborne aircraft has been banned by the Federal Communications
> >> Commission.[1]"
> >
> >Note the FCC, not the FAA. The FCC is an agency that has nothing to do
> >with aviation or aircraft safety, yet they're the ones who made the
> >rule, not the FAA. That one fact alone should clue you in that the rule
> >has nothing to do with flight safety.
> -----
> Benjamin is at least partly right. That quote is from wikipedia:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_on_aircraft

Really? I'd have never guessed that, what with the word 'wikipedia'
being in the URL and all.

> In addition to the FCC's rules, the Federal Aviation Administration
> (FAA) prohibits in-flight use of wireless devices because of potential
> interference to the aircraft's navigation and communication systems.
> For this same reason the FAA also regulates the use of all portable
> electronic devices (PEDs), such as iPods and portable DVD players,
> during flight."

Which is even more ridiculous. Whatever tenuous case they might have had
about a cell transmitter interfering with the plane, there's absolutely
zero chance that an iPod other non-transmitting device will do so. Not
to mention all the other non-entertainment related battery powered
devices that have always been present on aircraft (pacemakers, camera
batteries, watches, etc.) and never seem to crash the plane.

[BTR1701]

In article <anim8rfsk-66D69...@news.easynews.com>,

Apparently Sorkin has only ever written one TV series. He just changes
the names of the characters and the setting.

[Jim G.]

BTR1701 sent the following on Sat, 11 Aug 2012 18:48:14 -0700:

> Note the FCC, not the FAA. The FCC is an agency that has nothing to do
> with aviation or aircraft safety,

Neither does the FAA. <rim shot>

Okay, cheap shot. But seriously, many of the current problems with
commercial flying stem from the fact that the FAA can't seem to decide
what its role is: cheerleader and sockpuppet for the airlines, or
aviation pit bull for the NTSB. Personally, I'd like to see the NTSB
running point as often as possible on things like this, but I'm not
gonna hold my breath.

> yet they're the ones who made the
> rule, not the FAA. That one fact alone should clue you in that the rule
> has nothing to do with flight safety.

It seems to me that no matter what call the FAA would make in this
regard, it would go against the interests of one of the groups that it's
tasked with placating. So it's probably perfectly happy to let the FCC
be the bad guy here.

--
Jim G. | Waukesha, WI
"You will create an evil of your own making." -- Knights Templar Grandmaster Data

[Jim G.]

BTR1701 sent the following on Sun, 12 Aug 2012 22:23:45 -0700:

> Which pretty much gives lie to whole 'danger to the plane' nonsense. In
> what rational world would they go by the honor system when it comes to
> securing the plane against known hazards?

But think of how much money TSA could save if they did this with
explosives, firearms, box cutters, flame throwers, nuclear devices, etc.
"Okay, you can bring it aboard, but promise me you won't use it." :)

[Hunter]

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 15:59:39 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<a...@chinet.com> wrote:

>benjamin <ben...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Overall the episode was sentimental and mawkish as only Aaron Sorkin can
>>be but at least the subject matter made it forgiveable. I thought the
>>scene where the guy on on the plane [sorry still haven't gotten their
>>names down except Will and Mackenzie] realizes how especially meaningful
>>the event would be to the pilot.
>
>"Our boys got him for you." Fuck that.

-----
So you don't like the fact that our soldiers got the most deadly
terrorist to ever attack the US?

>
>Will's "out of tragedy comes greatness" speech was totally full of shit.
>The Patriot Act? National security letters? Warrantless wiretapping?
>Detainees in the prison at Guantanamo?
>
>A second war with Iraq?
>
>Fuck Aaron Sorkin

-----
He wasn't talking about all that, but the Unity it produced as a
nation and our determination to get him. It is in the same spirit of
how we defeated Hitler and Tojo but unfortunately we imprisoned
unjustly the Japanese Americans on the US west coast and increased FBI
surveillance and getting into bed with the Mafia. Gross mistakes were
made fighting evil, but still our fighting troops and the American
people who never lost faith that we will get him is to be
congratulated.
(snip)

[Adam H. Kerman]

Hunter <buffh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>benjamin <ben...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>Overall the episode was sentimental and mawkish as only Aaron Sorkin can
>>>be but at least the subject matter made it forgiveable. I thought the
>>>scene where the guy on on the plane [sorry still haven't gotten their
>>>names down except Will and Mackenzie] realizes how especially meaningful
>>>the event would be to the pilot.

>>"Our boys got him for you." Fuck that.

>So you don't like the fact that our soldiers got the most deadly
>terrorist to ever attack the US?

It wasn't a mission of PERSONAL revenge nor retribution. What's the
matter with you?

>>Will's "out of tragedy comes greatness" speech was totally full of shit.
>>The Patriot Act? National security letters? Warrantless wiretapping?
>>Detainees in the prison at Guantanamo?

>>A second war with Iraq?

>>Fuck Aaron Sorkin

>He wasn't talking about all that, but the Unity it produced as a
>nation and our determination to get him.

Of course he wasn't. There's no greatness in retribution.

The second Iraq war set back the capture of Osama by 5 or 6 years. It's
not like Bush tried all that hard to capture him. Bush used Osama as
an excuse to start that second war with Iraq.

>It is in the same spirit of how we defeated Hitler and Tojo

>but unfortunately we imprisoned unjustly the Japanese Americans on the US
>west coast and increased FBI surveillance and getting into bed with the
>Mafia. Gross mistakes were made fighting evil, but still our fighting
>troops and the American people who never lost faith that we will get
>him is to be congratulated.

Starting an unnecessary war is by far a worse mistake than anything we
did wrong that we were able to justify by WWII. Remind me again what
Bush's daddy said Saddam was when he started that unnecessary war
versus Kuwait.

[Andrew Wilson]

On Aug 12, 5:01 pm, Derbyshire Police <laugh...@u.kook> wrote:

[nonexistent groups snecked]

Hi, Account Banned Almost Everywhere. Morphing again, fuckwit? You
might try to disguise your sock better next time.

> Paul G. Derbyshire = 0udemansie1la <0u-d3mansi3...@gmail.com>
>
> > Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
>
> Known Derbyshite target group.

Known everybody target group. It's one of usenet's highest-traffic
groups. Using a little google-fu, I found out that it gets about 7000
posts a month, is in the top 200 Big-8 groups by activity (which puts
it well inside the top 10% of Big-8 groups), and has hundreds of
distinct posters.

> > Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
>
> Attempt to trigger a flood by David Tholen's lame and kooky bot noted.

Wouldn't it be smarter to just directly add it to his crosspost, if
so?

> > Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 12:07:47 -0400
>
> Confirmed.

What is confirmed by that? The only thing there that comes remotely
close to narrowing the poster's identity down is the -0400, which
tells you he's on a particular 1/24th orange-wedge-shaped piece of the
Earth. The population of that particular 24th is over a hundred
million.

> > Organization: Murphy-Foam Detoxification Squad
>
> Known header of Paul G. Derbyshire, Usenet kook.

Ah, the old "anyone who opposes Murphy is Paul Derbyshire" fallacy
again.

> > Message-ID: <k08kcf$1s...@speranza.aioe.org>
>
> Recorded

For what purpose, kook?

> NNTP-Posting-Host: RgHqitPh4ljuim7yLljrqQ.user.speranza.aioe.org
>
> Noted.

For what purpose, kook? You're not nutty enough to think you can
actually decrypt that thing, are you?

> > User-Agent: NewsTap/3.5.5 (iPad)
>
> Common Derbyshite setting made via tin/1.6.2-20030910

Nice self-contradiction, kooky. The poster's newsreader must be tin,
because the user-agent header says it's NewsTap?! And is this really
the same Derbyshire that Murphy says argued vehemently and kookily
that unix command-line tools are trash for thousands of posts in one
of the comp newsgroups years ago, that you now claim is posting using
tin? That's another contradiction, though maybe not a self-
contradiction.

I'd vote for your July LMA but I see I already have, in <0946384a-
f831-445c-91a...@googlegroups.com>.

[This account has been banned because it violated the Google Groups Terms Of Use]

AUK's July Kook Of The Month, Paul G. Derbyshire AKA Andrew Wilson

<awils...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Aug 12, 5:01 pm, Derbyshire Police <laugh...@u.kook> wrote:
>
> [nonexistent groups snecked]

[Existing groups restored after Debyshire snecked them in an act of cowardice]

> Hi, Account Banned Almost Everywhere. Morphing again<SPANK>

Nice PeeWee, Derbyshite. Let's look at the evidence of yours below, shall we?

> You
> might try to disguise your sock better next time.

Who said I was even trying to, kook?

>> Paul G. Derbyshire = 0udemansie1la <0u-d3mansi3...@gmail.com>
>>
>> > Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
>>
>> Known Derbyshite target group.
>

> Known<SPANK>

More obfuscation from Paul G. Derbyshire, abuser of the internet.

>> > Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
>>
>> Attempt to trigger a flood by David Tholen's lame and kooky bot noted.
>
> Wouldn't it be smarter to just directly add it to his crosspost, if
> so?

Your self-admission of stupdity is noted, Derbyshire.

>> > Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 12:07:47 -0400
>>
>> Confirmed.
>
> What is confirmed by that?

Guess, kooky.

> The only thing there that comes remotely
> close to narrowing the poster's identity down is the -0400, which
> tells you he's on a particular 1/24th orange-wedge-shaped piece of the
> Earth. The population of that particular 24th is over a hundred
> million.

So?

>> > Organization: Murphy-Foam Detoxification Squad
>>
>> Known header of Paul G. Derbyshire, Usenet kook.
>
> Ah, the old "anyone who opposes Murphy is Paul Derbyshire" fallacy
> again.

The kook who obsesses over Murphy is Paul G. Derbyshire, usenet kook.

>> > Message-ID: <k08kcf$1s...@speranza.aioe.org>
>>
>> Recorded
>
> For what purpose, kook?

Guess, kooky.

>> NNTP-Posting-Host: RgHqitPh4ljuim7yLljrqQ.user.speranza.aioe.org
>>
>> Noted.
>
> For what purpose<SPANK>

This prupose, you net abuser.


From: Stairway to Hell <sTh...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv,alt.usenet.kooks
Subject: Re: Google has fucked me
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 07:42:57 -0400
Message-ID: <k084s0$r21$1...@speranza.aioe.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: RgHqitPh4ljuim7yLljrqQ.user.speranza.aioe.org <----- SPANK!


From: Oudemansiella <ou-dema...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,rec.arts.tv,alt.usenet.kooks
Subject: Re: NBC's "Revolution" extended preview
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 07:55:56 -0400
Organization: Murphy-Foam Detoxification Squad
Message-ID: <k085ka$v9f$1...@speranza.aioe.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: RgHqitPh4ljuim7yLljrqQ.user.speranza.aioe.org <----- SPANK!


From: Nine of Seventeen <nos_1...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,sci.physics,rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: eternal-september getting spammed
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 08:01:52 -0400
Organization: Quaternary Adjunct of Unimatrix 3 3 4
Message-ID: <k085ve$v9f$6...@speranza.aioe.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: RgHqitPh4ljuim7yLljrqQ.user.speranza.aioe.org <----- SPANK!


From: Oudemansiella <ou-dema...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics,rec.arts.tv,alt.usenet.kooks
Subject: Re: eternal-september getting spammed
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 08:02:43 -0400
Organization: Murphy-Foam Detoxification Squad
Message-ID: <k08611$v9f$7...@speranza.aioe.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: RgHqitPh4ljuim7yLljrqQ.user.speranza.aioe.org <----- SPANK!

From: 0udemansie1la <0u-d3ma...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Thank you Aaron Sorkin!
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 12:07:47 -0400

Organization: Murphy-Foam Detoxification Squad
Message-ID: <k08kcf$1s6$1...@speranza.aioe.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: RgHqitPh4ljuim7yLljrqQ.user.speranza.aioe.org <----- SPANK!


From: Huntress <Huntr...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv,rec.arts.sf.tv
Subject: Re: NBC's "Revolution" extended preview
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 14:21:58 -0400
Organization: Don't mess with me
Message-ID: <k08s82$jag$3...@speranza.aioe.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: RgHqitPh4ljuim7yLljrqQ.user.speranza.aioe.org <----- SPANK!


You are a net abuser, Paul G. Derbyshire.

>> > User-Agent: NewsTap/3.5.5 (iPad)
>>
>> Common Derbyshite setting made via tin/1.6.2-20030910
>

> Nice self-contradiction<SPANK>

It's well-known that user-agents can be forged using tin - or Pan, Paula.
And Pan is the newsreader you use.


> I'd vote for your July LMA but<SPANK>

As a Kook of The Month, you are disenfranchised with prejudice and cannot
nominate, vote, or second anyone, Paula - so watch your rotted tongue.



--
<T><A><H><B><B><B><I><V><T><G><G><T><O><U> - "Vile Little Fucker" #1
^^^^^^^^?_______(my hook which a kook keeps biting)
If you want to see something lamer than John Edward Kook's Aratzio frogeries,
check out Scatboi's forgeries.

Anonopussy gets kicked to the kerb in <0xKRr.45217$7y4....@newsfe23.iad>
and again in <y4LRr.40166$lt3....@newsfe18.iad>
and gets SPANKED on film in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ED9c_d4eL1U
Paul Derbyshire and socks get spanked - <xH5Rr.27106$%Y2.2...@newsfe02.iad>

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler {One Of Three}]

This account has been banned because it violated the Google Groups

Terms Of Use, in <news:5sjngq....@news.alt.net> did thusly write:

> Your self-admission of stupdity is noted, Derbyshire.

<sniggle>

<chortle>

<guffaw>

BWWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!


"stupdity"


That's .sig-worthy, hey.

The rest of your retardation snipped unread. I can't read it laughing
so hard I have tears in my eyes.

> --
> <T><A><H><B><B><B><I><V><T><G><G><T><O><U> - "Vile Little Fucker" #1
> ^^^^^^^^?_______(my hook which a kook keeps biting)

SPNAK! on the historical revisionist kook.

Message-ID: <jvojl3$26r$1...@news.mixmin.net>

> <T><A><H><B><B><I><V><T><G><G><T><O><U> - "Retarded Little Fucker" #1

<sniggle>

--

/\ Properly known as James
\ /\ THERE IS NO CABAL -- LONG LIVE THE NEW CABAL
\/ \ The AUK coup is complete. The Old Cabal is no more.

Kook Awards Official Voting Ballot:
Message-ID: <jvafsv$h1h$1...@news.mixmin.net>
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.usenet.kooks/msg/9db5cf6d6cb202b5

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler {One Of Three}]

This account has been banned because it violated the Google Groups
Terms Of Use, in <news:5sjngq....@news.alt.net> did thusly write:

> Your self-admission of stupdity is noted, Derbyshire.

<sniggle>

<chortle>

<guffaw>

BWWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!


"stupdity"


That's .sig-worthy, hey.

The rest of your retardation snipped unread. I can't read it laughing
so hard I have tears in my eyes.

> --
> <T><A><H><B><B><B><I><V><T><G><G><T><O><U> - "Vile Little Fucker" #1
> ^^^^^^^^?_______(my hook which a kook keeps biting)

[Andrew Wilson]

On Aug 18, 3:25 am, This account has been banned because it violated

the Google Groups Terms Of Use <laugh...@u.kook> wrote:
> AUK's July Kook Of The Month, Paul G. Derbyshire AKA Andrew Wilson

Still haven't proven that though, have you kook? It's just a leap of
faith on your part. I use Tor. You have no fucking way of knowing who
the fuck I really am! Bwahahahaha!

> <awils384...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 12, 5:01 pm, Derbyshire Police <laugh...@u.kook> wrote:
>
> > [nonexistent groups snecked]
>
> [Existing groups restored after Debyshire snecked them in an act of cowardice]

Nonexistent groups snecked again. If the Almighty Google says they
don't exist, who teh FUCK are you to argue with Google? Oh, wait,
that's right, you're a FUCKING KOOK! <cackle>

> > Hi, Account Banned Almost Everywhere. Morphing again<SPANK>
>
> Nice PeeWee, Derbyshite.  Let's look at the evidence of yours below, shall we?

Pass the popcorn, FNVWs. This oughta be good for a few laffs!!

> > You
> > might try to disguise your sock better next time.
>

> Who said I was even trying to, k<SLAP>

If you weren't, then what the fuck were you expecting to accomplish,
kook? Getting out of killfiles? Not changing the email in your From is
real stupid then, kook. Or did you just feel you wanted to wear your
pet obsession on your sleeve for a while?

> >> Paul G. Derbyshire = 0udemansie1la <0u-d3mansi3...@gmail.com>
>
> >> > Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
>
> >> Known Derbyshite target group.
>
> > Known<SPANK>
>
> More obfuscation from Paul G. Derbyshire, abuser of the internet.

The fact that that's a high traffic group is not "obfuscation", you
BLITHERING FOOL, it is evidence proving you wrong!

> >> > Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
>
> >> Attempt to trigger a flood by David Tholen's lame and kooky bot noted.
>
> > Wouldn't it be smarter to just directly add it to his crosspost, if
> > so?
>
> Your self-admission of stupdity is noted, Derbyshire.

Kooky fucker. I didn't write that post, you ass-licking retard!

> >> > Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 12:07:47 -0400
>
> >> Confirmed.
>
> > What is confirmed by that?
>
> Guess, kooky.

Don't you get it? I'm calling your bluff, fucktard. What is confirmed
by that? No answer again will be taken as an admission that the answer
is "nothing", kook.

> > The only thing there that comes remotely
> > close to narrowing the poster's identity down is the -0400, which
> > tells you he's on a particular 1/24th orange-wedge-shaped piece of the
> > Earth. The population of that particular 24th is over a hundred
> > million.
>
> So?

So you can't seriously be suggesting that it's evidence that can
confirm anyone's identity, can you?

> >> > Organization: Murphy-Foam Detoxification Squad
>
> >> Known header of Paul G. Derbyshire, Usenet kook.
>
> > Ah, the old "anyone who opposes Murphy is Paul Derbyshire" fallacy
> > again.
>
> The kook who obsesses over Murphy is Paul G. Derbyshire, usenet kook.

So everyone involved in the UFF website is Derbyshire? Sweetness, who
argued a bunch with Murphy, is Derbyshire? Phoenix is Derbyshire? Greg
Hall is Derbyshire? They've all locked horns with or criticized Murphy
repeatedly. And that's just scratching the fucking surface!

> >> > Message-ID: <k08kcf$1s...@speranza.aioe.org>
>
> >> Recorded
>
> > For what purpose, kook?
>
> Guess, kooky.

Building a lits o' haet? That's soooo 2011. Get with the times!

> >> NNTP-Posting-Host: RgHqitPh4ljuim7yLljrqQ.user.speranza.aioe.org
>
> >> Noted.
>
> > For what purpose<SPANK>
>
> This prupose, you net abuser.

I don't know what a "prupose" even is, you fucking imbecile. You might
want to try defining your neologisms rather than just throwing them
out there and hoping their meanings will be magically obvious to
everyone.

> From: Stairway to Hell <sTh...@gmail.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv,alt.usenet.kooks
> Subject: Re: Google has fucked me
> Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 07:42:57 -0400
> Message-ID: <k084s0$r2...@speranza.aioe.org>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: RgHqitPh4ljuim7yLljrqQ.user.speranza.aioe.org <----- SPANK!
>

> From: Oudemansiella <ou-demansie...@gmail.com>
> Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,rec.arts.tv,alt.usenet.kooks
> Subject: Re: NBC's "Revolution" extended preview
> Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 07:55:56 -0400
> Organization: Murphy-Foam Detoxification Squad
> Message-ID: <k085ka$v9...@speranza.aioe.org>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: RgHqitPh4ljuim7yLljrqQ.user.speranza.aioe.org <----- SPANK!
>

> From: Nine of Seventeen <nos_17....@gmail.com>
> Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,sci.physics,rec.arts.tv
> Subject: Re: eternal-september getting spammed
> Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 08:01:52 -0400
> Organization: Quaternary Adjunct of Unimatrix 3 3 4
> Message-ID: <k085ve$v9...@speranza.aioe.org>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: RgHqitPh4ljuim7yLljrqQ.user.speranza.aioe.org <----- SPANK!
>

> From: Oudemansiella <ou-demansie...@gmail.com>
> Newsgroups: sci.physics,rec.arts.tv,alt.usenet.kooks
> Subject: Re: eternal-september getting spammed
> Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
> Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 08:02:43 -0400
> Organization: Murphy-Foam Detoxification Squad
> Message-ID: <k08611$v9...@speranza.aioe.org>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: RgHqitPh4ljuim7yLljrqQ.user.speranza.aioe.org <----- SPANK!
>

> From: 0udemansie1la <0u-d3mansi3...@gmail.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
> Subject: Re: Thank you Aaron Sorkin!
> Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
> Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 12:07:47 -0400
> Organization: Murphy-Foam Detoxification Squad
> Message-ID: <k08kcf$1s...@speranza.aioe.org>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: RgHqitPh4ljuim7yLljrqQ.user.speranza.aioe.org <----- SPANK!
>

> From: Huntress <Huntres...@gmail.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv,rec.arts.sf.tv
> Subject: Re: NBC's "Revolution" extended preview
> Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 14:21:58 -0400
> Organization: Don't mess with me
> Message-ID: <k08s82$ja...@speranza.aioe.org>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: RgHqitPh4ljuim7yLljrqQ.user.speranza.aioe.org <----- SPANK!
>
> You are a net abuser, Paul G. Derbyshire.

That doesn't prove anything. All it does is suggest that Oudemansiella
has a handful of nyms and not just one. The last time I checked,
that's neither a) net abuse nor b) proof that Oudemansiella is this
Derbyshire of yours. Looks like maybe one user uses Oudemansiella to
reply to Murphy's garbage, so people can killfile that stuff and still
read her on topic posts, and uses Nine of Seventeen in sci-fi groups,
Huntress in the big TV group, and Stairway to Hell in some other
groups. Nothing wrong with that. Even Murphy claims there's nothing
wrong with that, and he's one of the most ardent netkkkops on YOUR
side!

> >> > User-Agent: NewsTap/3.5.5 (iPad)
>
> >> Common Derbyshite setting made via tin/1.6.2-20030910
>
> > Nice self-contradiction<SPANK>
>
> It's well-known that user-agents can be forged using tin - or Pan

You're leaving out the part where you prove that the user-agent IS
being forged, kook. Why do you seem to think that you can just post a
bunch of leaps of faith completely unsupported by any actual evidence
and everyone will flock to you as a great prophet of the digital age
or something? You're a fucking kook! A brain-dead, lily-livered,
bluffing and blustering kook with delusions of adequacy!

> And Pan is the newsreader you use.

I use Google Groups, you fucking imbecile, and that's easily proved by
examining my Path headers, which for the most part *can't* be forged.

> > I'd vote for your July LMA but<SPANK>
>
> As a Kook of The Month, you are disenfranchised with prejudice and cannot
> nominate, vote, or second anyone

That's funny, I don't see any post establishing Andrew Wilson as Kook
of the Month in *EITHER* set of awards! So it looks like you're
fucking wrong again, even if you use your side's miserable excuse for
kook awards! Bwahahahahaha!

[Fred Hall]

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 21:18:48 -0700 (PDT), Andrew Wilson
<awils...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I use Tor.

<giggle>

Fucking coward.

[This account has been banned because it violated the Google Groups Terms Of Use]

AUK's July Kook Of The Month, Paul G. Derbyshire AKA Andrew Wilson

<awils...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Aug 18, 3:25 am, This account has been banned because it violated
> the Google Groups Terms Of Use <laugh...@u.kook> wrote:
>> AUK's July Kook Of The Month, Paul G. Derbyshire AKA Andrew Wilson
>

> Still haven't proven that though<SPANK>

Are you Paul G Derbyshire? Let's clear this up, once ance for all.

Answer yes or no to the question above, without any screed.

>> <awils384...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Aug 12, 5:01 pm, Derbyshire Police <laugh...@u.kook> wrote:
>>
>> > [nonexistent groups snecked]
>>
>> [Existing groups restored after Debyshire snecked them in an act of cowardice]
>

> Nonexistent<SPANK>

Added again, coward.

>> > Hi, Account Banned Almost Everywhere. Morphing again<SPANK>
>>
>> Nice PeeWee, Derbyshite. Let's look at the evidence of yours below, sh
> all we?
>

> Pass the popcorn, FNVWs<SPANK>

There is only one FNVW, you retard.

> This oughta be good for a few laffs!!

Since you cannot deny your net abuse, it always is, Paula - at your expense.

>> > You
>> > might try to disguise your sock better next time.
>>

>> Who said I was even trying to, kook?
>
> If you weren't, then what the fuck were you expecting to accomplish<SPANK>

Laughs - at your expense. And I succeeded.

> Getting out of killfiles?

By purposely not changing my 'From' address?

> Not changing the email in your From is

> real stupid then<SPANK>

Wrong, net abuser. I did not change my 'From' address on purpose, you fuckwit.

".... Please note that morphing involves changing the email address. Simply
changing the from name is not morphing. You should be kill filing on email
address, not name. ..."

source = http://www.eternal-september.org/index.php?showpage=abuse#Morphing

> Or did you just feel you wanted to wear your
> pet obsession on your sleeve for a while?

I did it for laughs at your expense, kook.

>> >> Paul G. Derbyshire = 0udemansie1la <0u-d3mansi3...@gmail.com>
>>
>> >> > Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
>>
>> >> Known Derbyshite target group.
>>
>> > Known<SPANK>
>>
>> More obfuscation from Paul G. Derbyshire, abuser of the internet.
>

> The fact that that's a high traffic group is not "obfuscation"<SPANK>

It is when you use that as a non sequiteur excuse to escape another spanking, Paula.

>
>> >> > Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
>>
>> >> Attempt to trigger a flood by David Tholen's lame and kooky bot noted.
>>
>> > Wouldn't it be smarter to just directly add it to his crosspost, if
>> > so?
>>
>> Your self-admission of stupdity is noted, Derbyshire.

(hehe, Paula missed the First Typo Trap)

<Paula does a PeeWee>
> Kooky fucker.

<Now Paula lies>
> I didn't write that post<SPANK>

Liar.

>> >> > Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 12:07:47 -0400
>>
>> >> Confirmed.
>>
>> > What is confirmed by that?
>>
>> Guess, kooky.
>

> Don't you<SPANK>

You still didn't guess, Paula.

>> > The only thing there that comes remotely
>> > close to narrowing the poster's identity down is the -0400, which
>> > tells you he's on a particular 1/24th orange-wedge-shaped piece of the
>> > Earth. The population of that particular 24th is over a hundred
>> > million.
>>
>> So?
>
> So you can't seriously be suggesting that it's evidence that can
> confirm anyone's identity, can you?
>
>> >> > Organization: Murphy-Foam Detoxification Squad
>>
>> >> Known header of Paul G. Derbyshire, Usenet kook.
>>
>> > Ah, the old "anyone who opposes Murphy is Paul Derbyshire" fallacy
>> > again.
>>
>> The kook who obsesses over Murphy is Paul G. Derbyshire, usenet kook.
>

> So everyone involved in the UFF website is Derbyshire? S<SPANK>

The UFFtards are kooks, Paula. Like you.

>> >> > Message-ID: <k08kcf$1s...@speranza.aioe.org>
>>
>> >> Recorded
>>
>> > For what purpose, kook?
>>
>> Guess, kooky.

<Paula makes a wrong guess>

> Building a lits o' haet? That's soooo 2011. Get with the times!

You guessed wrong, Paula.

>> >> NNTP-Posting-Host: RgHqitPh4ljuim7yLljrqQ.user.speranza.aioe.org
>>
>> >> Noted.
>>
>> > For what purpose<SPANK>
>>

>> This purpose, you net abuser.
>
> I don't know what a "prupose"<SPANK>

It's a typo, Paula, you fucking retard. The second one I put in there, so
you'd obsess all over the typos instead of commenting about the evidence
of your net abuse.

So you say, net abuser.

> All it does is suggest that Oudemansiella
> has a handful of nyms and not just one.

It proves Paul G. Derbyshire morphs excessively to evade killfiles.

> The last time I checked,

> that's neither a) net abuse<SPANK>

Excessive morphing to evade killfiles is abuse of the net, Paula.

http://www.eternal-september.org/index.php?showpage=faq#nymshifting

Which is why you don't pull the same trick on Eternal September, Paula.

> nor b) proof that Oudemansiella is this
> Derbyshire of yours.

'Derbyshire of [mine]'? Is this your admission that I Pwn you, Paula?

And, did you forget how your 'Nine of Seventeen' sock appears above,
which is already a known sockpuppet of Paul G. Derbyshire?

<watch Paula try and pretend again how all of his sockpuppets are different people>

> Looks like maybe one user uses Oudemansiella to
> reply to Murphy's garbage, so people can killfile that stuff and still
> read her on topic posts, and uses Nine of Seventeen in sci-fi groups,
> Huntress in the big TV group, and Stairway to Hell in some other
> groups. Nothing wrong with that.

It's your excessive morphing to evade killfiles, you fuckwit.


> Even Murphy<SPANK>

Murphy is your obsession, fuckwit.

>> >> > User-Agent: NewsTap/3.5.5 (iPad)
>>
>> >> Common Derbyshite setting made via tin/1.6.2-20030910
>>
>> > Nice self-contradiction<SPANK>
>>
>> It's well-known that user-agents can be forged using tin - or Pan

<Now, Paula screeds some obfuscation>

> You're leaving out the part where you prove that the user-agent IS
> being forged, kook. Why do you seem to think that you can just post a
> bunch of leaps of faith completely unsupported by any actual evidence
> and everyone will flock to you as a great prophet of the digital age
> or something? You're a fucking kook! A brain-dead, lily-livered,
> bluffing and blustering kook with delusions of adequacy!
>
>> And Pan is the newsreader you use.
>

> I use Google Groups<SPANK>

I know, fuckwit. You abuse it too. With <thol...@gmail.com>, for example.

>> > I'd vote for your July LMA but<SPANK>
>>
>> As a Kook of The Month, you are disenfranchised with prejudice and cannot
>> nominate, vote, or second anyone
>

> That's funny, I don't see any post establishing Andrew Wilson<SPANK>

Why do you keep pretending to be other people, Paula?

[Nadegda]

Avoiding questions like "Is Account Banned Derbyshire?" is cowardly. Not
revealing your real IP address, which is none of anyone here's business
anyway, is not cowardly.

So the coward here is you, Coward of the Month nominee (with *two*
seconds!).

[Harry Dreyfus]

On 13/08/2012 1:25 AM, Hunter (Hunter) wrote:
> So both the FCC and FAA ban the use of at least most wireless devices
> on airplanes in flight, butt for different reasons.

Bah! There's only one reason, and it's not "phones can crash a plane as
surely as bombs" or they'd not let phones past security in the airport,
and it's not "phones magically become terrible sources of interference
to the very ground-based networks they were designed to operate with,
just because they're more than X feet up in the air or moving quickly"
either, or they'd ban phones in the top halves of skyscrapers or in
high-speed trains.

The *real* reason is pretty obvious: to force passengers to use special
in-flight services that the airline can charge an arm and a leg extra
for, of course. The regulatory agencies have been paid off, just like
Disney has paid off ICE to shut down websites Disney doesn't like.

[kensi]

On 18/08/2012 12:18 AM, Andrew Wilson wrote:
> Still haven't proven that though, have you kook? It's just a leap of
> faith on your part. I use Tor. You have no fucking way of knowing who
> the fuck I really am! Bwahahahaha!

Oh, but haven't you heard? Apparently all 400,000 Tor users are really
sockpuppets of just one guy! Whodathunkit, huh? ;)

>>> Hi, Account Banned Almost Everywhere. Morphing again<SPANK>
>>
>> Nice PeeWee, Derbyshite. Let's look at the evidence of yours below, shall we?
>
> Pass the popcorn, FNVWs. This oughta be good for a few laffs!!

Oh, it was!

>>> You might try to disguise your sock better next time.
>>
>> Who said I was even trying to, k<SLAP>
>
> If you weren't, then what the fuck were you expecting to accomplish,
> kook? Getting out of killfiles? Not changing the email in your From is
> real stupid then, kook. Or did you just feel you wanted to wear your
> pet obsession on your sleeve for a while?

Ah, but you see, in the k00k's mind he *really is actually the police*
in this here unmoderated newsgroup. He's just donning and doffing his
uniform when he goes on and off duty. Or that's how he sees it anyway.
To the rest of us, his uniform bears a suspicious resemblance to the
sort of clothing generally worn inside one's shoes, but he'd just
attribute that to budget cuts at the uniform-sewing department or
something, and say that ALL police uniforms should have a bold argyle
pattern on them, the better to make them stand out. ;)

>>>>> Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
>>>> Known Derbyshite target group.
>>> Known<SPANK>
>> More obfuscation
>

> The fact that that's a high traffic group is not "obfuscation", you
> BLITHERING FOOL, it is evidence proving you wrong!

But there's no such thing as evidence proving him wrong, since he's a
kook and k0oks are NEVER wrong. ;)

>>>>> Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
>>>> Attempt to trigger a flood by David Tholen's lame and kooky bot noted.
>>> Wouldn't it be smarter to just directly add it to his crosspost, if
>>> so?

>> Your self-admission of stupdity is noted, Dxrbyshire.

>
> Kooky fucker. I didn't write that post, you ass-licking retard!

Of course you did -- in his mind, anyway, where half the world's
internet users are all socks of his nightmare figure, including all
400,000 Tor users.

Naturally, the fact that using that claim while attempting to prove it
is circular reasoning is lost on him, as he is a k000K!

>>>>> Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 12:07:47 -0400
>>>> Confirmed.
>>> What is confirmed by that?
>> Guess, kooky.
>
> Don't you get it? I'm calling your bluff, fucktard. What is confirmed
> by that? No answer again will be taken as an admission that the answer
> is "nothing", kook.

Of course he doesn't get it -- he's a ko0k.

>>> The only thing there that comes remotely close to narrowing the
>>> poster's identity down is the -0400, which tells you he's on a
>>> particular 1/24th orange-wedge-shaped piece of the Earth.

Ohhh, if only time zones had been drawn out quite that neatly. Though
that's at least approximately correct.

>>> The population of that particular 24th is over a hundred million.

That, too, is approximately correct, based on my research.

>> So?
>
> So you can't seriously be suggesting that it's evidence that can
> confirm anyone's identity, can you?

Of course he can -- he's a ko0k.

>>>>> Organization: Murphy-Foam Detoxification Squad
>>>> Known header of Paul

>>> Ah, the old "anyone who opposes Murphy is Paul" fallacy again.

>> The kook who obsesses over Murphy is Paul
>

> So everyone involved in the UFF website is? Sweetness, who argued a
> bunch with Murphy, is? Phoenix is? Greg Hall is? They've all locked

> horns with or criticized Murphy repeatedly. And that's just
> scratching the fucking surface!

Yep, they all are, except for any that the k00k makes "not Paul" by
special ko0ky dispensation that otherwise would be according to their
Paul criteria.

>>>>> Message-ID: <k08kcf$1s...@speranza.aioe.org>
>>>> Recorded
>>> For what purpose, kook?
>> Guess, kooky.
>
> Building a lits o' haet? That's soooo 2011. Get with the times!

It's probably going to turn up later on in another of his ko0ky posts of
"evidence" that are full of holes.

>>>> NNTP-Posting-Host: RgHqitPh4ljuim7yLljrqQ.user.speranza.aioe.org
>>>> Noted.
>>> For what purpose<SPANK>
>> This prupose, you net abuser.
>
> I don't know what a "prupose" even is, you fucking imbecile. You might
> want to try defining your neologisms rather than just throwing them
> out there and hoping their meanings will be magically obvious to
> everyone.

You're being too charitable. That isn't a neologism, it's Account
Banned's inability to use a keyboard properly.

> That doesn't prove anything. All it does is suggest that Oudemansiella
> has a handful of nyms and not just one. The last time I checked,
> that's neither a) net abuse nor b) proof that Oudemansiella is this

> Dxrbyshire of yours.

Ah, but in kO0kW0r1d anyone found to have ever used more than one nym is
Paul, unless it's Morphy or one of a few others that they arbitrarily
grant special Paulness exceptions to.

> Looks like maybe one user uses Oudemansiella to reply to Murphy's
> garbage, so people can killfile that stuff and still read her on
> topic posts, and uses Nine of Seventeen in sci-fi groups, Huntress
> in the big TV group, and Stairway to Hell in some other groups.

Ah, but that's too logical and too innocuous to be a remotely acceptable
explanation of events to a paranoid and ko0ky mind.

> Nothing wrong with that. Even Murphy claims there's nothing
> wrong with that, and he's one of the most ardent netkkkops on YOUR
> side!

Of course, Morphy keeps getting caught breaking his own "rules" even as
he seeks to impose those same rules on others, and seeks the assistance
of NSP admins in using *force* to impose them on others.

>>>>> User-Agent: NewsTap/3.5.5 (iPad)
>>>> Common Derbyshite setting made via tin/1.6.2-20030910
>>> Nice self-contradiction<SPANK>
>> It's well-known that user-agents can be forged using tin - or Pan
>
> You're leaving out the part where you prove that the user-agent IS
> being forged, kook.

Of course he is, since he can't.

> Why do you seem to think that you can just post a bunch of leaps of
> faith completely unsupported by any actual evidence and everyone will
> flock to you as a great prophet of the digital age or something?

Because ...

> You're a fucking kook!

Exactly.

> A brain-dead, lily-livered, bluffing and blustering kook with
> delusions of adequacy!

Couldn't have put it better myself.

>> And Pan is the newsreader you use.
>
> I use Google Groups, you fucking imbecile, and that's easily proved by
> examining my Path headers, which for the most part *can't* be forged.

In a kook's mind, using Google Groups can easily "prove" you're an slrn
user, Hitler, or Paul, or even all three; use of slrn could be prima
facie evidence that you were a dirty rotten Thunderbird user; and so forth.

>>> I'd vote for your July LMA but<SPANK>
>> As a Kook of The Month, you are disenfranchised with prejudice and cannot
>> nominate, vote, or second anyone
>
> That's funny, I don't see any post establishing Andrew Wilson as Kook
> of the Month in *EITHER* set of awards! So it looks like you're
> fucking wrong again, even if you use your side's miserable excuse for
> kook awards! Bwahahahahaha!

Nice SPNAK!s on Account Banned, Wilson! The ko0ks'd better learn to
watch out whenever you start breaking out the caps and four letter
words. So far, every time you've done that someone (and it thus far
seems especially likely to be Account Banned) has ended up with a
*badly* blistered ass.

--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks

[Royoporus badius]

kensi wrote:

> On 18/08/2012 12:18 AM, Andrew Wilson wrote:
> > Still haven't proven that though, have you kook? It's just a leap of
> > faith on your part. I use Tor. You have no fucking way of knowing
> > who the fuck I really am! Bwahahahaha!
>
> Oh, but haven't you heard? Apparently all 400,000 Tor users are
> really sockpuppets of just one guy! Whodathunkit, huh? ;)

You think, therefore you is?

>
> > > > Hi, Account Banned Almost Everywhere. Morphing again<SPANK>
> > >
> > > Nice PeeWee, Derbyshite. Let's look at the evidence of yours
> > > below, shall we?
> >
> > Pass the popcorn, FNVWs. This oughta be good for a few laffs!!
>
> Oh, it was!

Was it? Oh!

>
> > > > You might try to disguise your sock better next time.
> > >
> > > Who said I was even trying to, k<SLAP>
> >
> > If you weren't, then what the fuck were you expecting to accomplish,
> > kook? Getting out of killfiles? Not changing the email in your From
> > is real stupid then, kook. Or did you just feel you wanted to wear
> > your pet obsession on your sleeve for a while?
>
> Ah, but you see, in the k00k's mind he *really is actually the
> police* in this here unmoderated newsgroup. He's just donning and
> doffing his uniform when he goes on and off duty. Or that's how he
> sees it anyway. To the rest of us, his uniform bears a suspicious
> resemblance to the sort of clothing generally worn inside one's
> shoes, but he'd just attribute that to budget cuts at the
> uniform-sewing department or something, and say that ALL police
> uniforms should have a bold argyle pattern on them, the better to
> make them stand out. ;)

Do not harass the police. They have many important duties to perform.

>
> > > > > > Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
> > > > > Known Derbyshite target group.
> > > > Known<SPANK>
> > > More obfuscation
> >
> > The fact that that's a high traffic group is not "obfuscation", you
> > BLITHERING FOOL, it is evidence proving you wrong!
>
> But there's no such thing as evidence proving him wrong, since he's a
> kook and k0oks are NEVER wrong. ;)

Why do you think you are never wrong? I have evidence.

>
> > > > > > Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
> > > > > Attempt to trigger a flood by David Tholen's lame and kooky
> > > > > bot noted.
> > > > Wouldn't it be smarter to just directly add it to his
> > > > crosspost, if so?
> > > Your self-admission of stupdity is noted, Dxrbyshire.
> >
> > Kooky fucker. I didn't write that post, you ass-licking retard!
>
> Of course you did -- in his mind, anyway, where half the world's
> internet users are all socks of his nightmare figure, including all
> 400,000 Tor users.

Of course, your mind, anyway, with 400,000 nightmares.

>
> Naturally, the fact that using that claim while attempting to prove
> it is circular reasoning is lost on him, as he is a k000K!

Using that claim, Naturally, while the fact it is circular reasoning he
is lost on him k000K!

>
> > > > > > Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 12:07:47 -0400
> > > > > Confirmed.
> > > > What is confirmed by that?
> > > Guess, kooky.
> >
> > Don't you get it? I'm calling your bluff, fucktard. What is
> > confirmed by that? No answer again will be taken as an admission
> > that the answer is "nothing", kook.
>
> Of course he doesn't get it -- he's a ko0k.

k000K!

>
> > > > The only thing there that comes remotely close to narrowing the
> > > > poster's identity down is the -0400, which tells you he's on a
> > > > particular 1/24th orange-wedge-shaped piece of the Earth.
>
> Ohhh, if only time zones had been drawn out quite that neatly. Though
> that's at least approximately correct.
>
> > > > The population of that particular 24th is over a hundred
> > > > million.
>
> That, too, is approximately correct, based on my research.

based on my research is too approximately correct that.

k000K!

>
> > > So?
> >
> > So you can't seriously be suggesting that it's evidence that can
> > confirm anyone's identity, can you?
>
> Of course he can -- he's a ko0k.

k000K!

>
> > > > > > Organization: Murphy-Foam Detoxification Squad
> > > > > Known header of Paul
> > > > Ah, the old "anyone who opposes Murphy is Paul" fallacy again.
> > > The kook who obsesses over Murphy is Paul
> >
> > So everyone involved in the UFF website is? Sweetness, who argued a
> > bunch with Murphy, is? Phoenix is? Greg Hall is? They've all locked
> > horns with or criticized Murphy repeatedly. And that's just
> > scratching the fucking surface!
>
> Yep, they all are, except for any that the k00k makes "not Paul" by
> special ko0ky dispensation that otherwise would be according to their
> Paul criteria.

k000K!

except yep dispensation special they are all

>
> > > > > > Message-ID: <k08kcf$1s...@speranza.aioe.org>
> > > > > Recorded
> > > > For what purpose, kook?
> > > Guess, kooky.
> >
> > Building a lits o' haet? That's soooo 2011. Get with the times!
>
> It's probably going to turn up later on in another of his ko0ky posts
> of "evidence" that are full of holes.

evidence full of holes is a police matter probably later

>
> > > > > NNTP-Posting-Host:
> > > > > RgHqitPh4ljuim7yLljrqQ.user.speranza.aioe.org Noted.
> > > > For what purpose<SPANK>
> > > This prupose, you net abuser.
> >
> > I don't know what a "prupose" even is, you fucking imbecile. You
> > might want to try defining your neologisms rather than just
> > throwing them out there and hoping their meanings will be magically
> > obvious to everyone.
>
> You're being too charitable. That isn't a neologism, it's Account
> Banned's inability to use a keyboard properly.

k000K!

>
> > That doesn't prove anything. All it does is suggest that
> > Oudemansiella has a handful of nyms and not just one. The last time
> > I checked, that's neither a) net abuse nor b) proof that
> > Oudemansiella is this Dxrbyshire of yours.
>
> Ah, but in kO0kW0r1d anyone found to have ever used more than one nym
> is Paul, unless it's Morphy or one of a few others that they
> arbitrarily grant special Paulness exceptions to.

k000K! Morphy is Paul arbitrarily

>
> > Looks like maybe one user uses Oudemansiella to reply to Murphy's
> > garbage, so people can killfile that stuff and still read her on
> > topic posts, and uses Nine of Seventeen in sci-fi groups, Huntress
> > in the big TV group, and Stairway to Hell in some other groups.
>
> Ah, but that's too logical and too innocuous to be a remotely
> acceptable explanation of events to a paranoid and ko0ky mind.

k000K!

>
> > Nothing wrong with that. Even Murphy claims there's nothing
> > wrong with that, and he's one of the most ardent netkkkops on YOUR
> > side!
>
> Of course, Morphy keeps getting caught breaking his own "rules" even
> as he seeks to impose those same rules on others, and seeks the

> assistance of NSP admins in using force to impose them on others.

Morphy is Paul force impose seeks

>
> > > > > > User-Agent: NewsTap/3.5.5 (iPad)
> > > > > Common Derbyshite setting made via tin/1.6.2-20030910
> > > > Nice self-contradiction<SPANK>
> > > It's well-known that user-agents can be forged using tin - or Pan
> >
> > You're leaving out the part where you prove that the user-agent IS
> > being forged, kook.
>
> Of course he is, since he can't.

k000K!

>
> > Why do you seem to think that you can just post a bunch of leaps of
> > faith completely unsupported by any actual evidence and everyone
> > will flock to you as a great prophet of the digital age or
> > something?
>
> Because ...
>
> > You're a fucking kook!

k000K!

>
> Exactly.
>
> > A brain-dead, lily-livered, bluffing and blustering kook with
> > delusions of adequacy!
>
> Couldn't have put it better myself.

Paul Morphy better myself.

>
> > > And Pan is the newsreader you use.
> >
> > I use Google Groups, you fucking imbecile, and that's easily proved

> > by examining my Path headers, which for the most part can't be

> > forged.
>
> In a kook's mind, using Google Groups can easily "prove" you're an
> slrn user, Hitler, or Paul, or even all three; use of slrn could be
> prima facie evidence that you were a dirty rotten Thunderbird user;
> and so forth.

k000K! Hitler Paul is Morphy or even all three;

>
> > > > I'd vote for your July LMA but<SPANK>
> > > As a Kook of The Month, you are disenfranchised with prejudice
> > > and cannot nominate, vote, or second anyone
> >
> > That's funny, I don't see any post establishing Andrew Wilson as

> > Kook of the Month in EITHER set of awards! So it looks like you're

> > fucking wrong again, even if you use your side's miserable excuse
> > for kook awards! Bwahahahahaha!
>
> Nice SPNAK!s on Account Banned, Wilson! The ko0ks'd better learn to
> watch out whenever you start breaking out the caps and four letter
> words. So far, every time you've done that someone (and it thus far
> seems especially likely to be Account Banned) has ended up with a

> badly blistered ass.

k000K!



--

[Nadegda]

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 22:00:21 +0000, Royoporus badius wrote:

> kensi wrote:
>
>> On 18/08/2012 12:18 AM, Andrew Wilson wrote:
>> > Still haven't proven that though, have you kook? It's just a leap of
>> > faith on your part. I use Tor. You have no fucking way of knowing who
>> > the fuck I really am! Bwahahahaha!
>>
>> Oh, but haven't you heard? Apparently all 400,000 Tor users are really
>> sockpuppets of just one guy! Whodathunkit, huh? ;)
>
> You think, therefore you is?

Morphy attempts to actually use capital letters correctly, resulting in
this:

Apparently it was too much for his brain because the *rest* of his post
is (quoted material aside) even less intelligible than usual.

EMTs to auk stat! Morphy has sustained a severe sprain of his neuron and
requires immediate medical attention!

[Andrew Wilson]

On Aug 18, 8:36 pm, kensi <kensi_kensing...@zoonoses.invalid> wrote:
> On 18/08/2012 12:18 AM, Andrew Wilson wrote:
>
> > Still haven't proven that though, have you kook? It's just a leap of
> > faith on your part. I use Tor. You have no fucking way of knowing who
> > the fuck I really am! Bwahahahaha!
>
> Oh, but haven't you heard? Apparently all 400,000 Tor users are really
> sockpuppets of just one guy! Whodathunkit, huh? ;)
>
> >>> Hi, Account Banned Almost Everywhere. Morphing again<SPANK>
>
> >> Nice PeeWee, Derbyshite.  Let's look at the evidence of yours below, shall we?
>
> > Pass the popcorn, FNVWs. This oughta be good for a few laffs!!
>
> Oh, it was!

Why, thank ye, ma'am!

> >>> You might try to disguise your sock better next time.
>
> >> Who said I was even trying to, k<SLAP>
>
> > If you weren't, then what the fuck were you expecting to accomplish,
> > kook? Getting out of killfiles? Not changing the email in your From is
> > real stupid then, kook. Or did you just feel you wanted to wear your
> > pet obsession on your sleeve for a while?
>
> Ah, but you see, in the k00k's mind he *really is actually the police*
> in this here unmoderated newsgroup. He's just donning and doffing his
> uniform when he goes on and off duty. Or that's how he sees it anyway.
> To the rest of us, his uniform bears a suspicious resemblance to the
> sort of clothing generally worn inside one's shoes, but he'd just
> attribute that to budget cuts at the uniform-sewing department or
> something, and say that ALL police uniforms should have a bold argyle
> pattern on them, the better to make them stand out. ;)

ROTFL!

> >>>>> Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
> >>>> Known Derbyshite target group.
> >>> Known<SPANK>
> >> More obfuscation
>
> > The fact that that's a high traffic group is not "obfuscation", you
> > BLITHERING FOOL, it is evidence proving you wrong!
>
> But there's no such thing as evidence proving him wrong, since he's a
> kook and k0oks are NEVER wrong. ;)

LOL

> >>>>> Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
> >>>> Attempt to trigger a flood by David Tholen's lame and kooky bot noted.
> >>> Wouldn't it be smarter to just directly add it to his crosspost, if
> >>> so?
> >> Your self-admission of stupdity is noted, Dxrbyshire.
>
> > Kooky fucker. I didn't write that post, you ass-licking retard!
>
> Of course you did -- in his mind, anyway, where half the world's
> internet users are all socks of his nightmare figure, including all
> 400,000 Tor users.
>
> Naturally, the fact that using that claim while attempting to prove it
> is circular reasoning is lost on him, as he is a k000K!

Ironically, one of them just accused all of *us* of circular
reasoning.

> >>>>> Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 12:07:47 -0400
> >>>> Confirmed.
> >>> What is confirmed by that?
> >> Guess, kooky.
>
> > Don't you get it? I'm calling your bluff, fucktard. What is confirmed
> > by that? No answer again will be taken as an admission that the answer
> > is "nothing", kook.
>
> Of course he doesn't get it -- he's a ko0k.
>
> >>> The only thing there that comes remotely close to narrowing the
> >>> poster's identity down is the -0400, which tells you he's on a
> >>> particular 1/24th orange-wedge-shaped piece of the Earth.
>
> Ohhh, if only time zones had been drawn out quite that neatly. Though
> that's at least approximately correct.

Yeah, I know, like everything else they've made a bit of a mess of
them.

> >>> The  population of that particular 24th is over a hundred million.
>
> That, too, is approximately correct, based on my research.
>
> >> So?
>
> > So you can't seriously be suggesting that it's evidence that can
> > confirm anyone's identity, can you?
>
> Of course he can -- he's a ko0k.

Point taken.

> >>>>> Organization: Murphy-Foam Detoxification Squad
> >>>> Known header of Paul
> >>> Ah, the old "anyone who opposes Murphy is Paul" fallacy again.
> >> The kook who obsesses over Murphy is Paul
>
> > So everyone involved in the UFF website is? Sweetness, who argued a
> > bunch with Murphy, is? Phoenix is? Greg Hall is? They've all locked
> > horns with or criticized Murphy repeatedly. And that's just
> > scratching the fucking surface!
>
> Yep, they all are, except for any that the k00k makes "not Paul" by
> special ko0ky dispensation that otherwise would be according to their
> Paul criteria.

Yeah, it does seem they have just designated that anyone with certain
patterns of behavior or net use that isn't one of *them* is Paul, and
regardless of the fact that some of *them* otherwise would also fit
their criteria!

> >>>>> Message-ID: <k08kcf$1s...@speranza.aioe.org>
> >>>> Recorded
> >>> For what purpose, kook?
> >> Guess, kooky.
>
> > Building a lits o' haet? That's soooo 2011. Get with the times!
>
> It's probably going to turn up later on in another of his ko0ky posts of
> "evidence" that are full of holes.

Undoubtedly.

> >>>> NNTP-Posting-Host: RgHqitPh4ljuim7yLljrqQ.user.speranza.aioe.org
> >>>> Noted.
> >>> For what purpose<SPANK>
> >> This prupose, you net abuser.
>
> > I don't know what a "prupose" even is, you fucking imbecile. You might
> > want to try defining your neologisms rather than just throwing them
> > out there and hoping their meanings will be magically obvious to
> > everyone.
>
> You're being too charitable. That isn't a neologism, it's Account
> Banned's inability to use a keyboard properly.

Yes, most likely.

> > That doesn't prove anything. All it does is suggest that Oudemansiella
> > has a handful of nyms and not just one. The last time I checked,
> > that's neither a) net abuse nor b) proof that Oudemansiella is this
> > Dxrbyshire of yours.
>
> Ah, but in kO0kW0r1d anyone found to have ever used more than one nym is
> Paul, unless it's Morphy or one of a few others that they arbitrarily
> grant special Paulness exceptions to.

Look, there's that arbitrariness of theirs again!

> > Looks like maybe one user uses Oudemansiella to reply to Murphy's
> > garbage, so people can killfile that stuff and still read her on
> > topic posts, and uses Nine of Seventeen in sci-fi groups, Huntress
> > in the big TV group, and Stairway to Hell in some other groups.
>
> Ah, but that's too logical and too innocuous to be a remotely acceptable
> explanation of events to a paranoid and ko0ky mind.

Sadly, I expected as much even as I wrote it.

> > Nothing wrong with that. Even Murphy claims there's nothing
> > wrong with that, and he's one of the most ardent netkkkops on YOUR
> > side!
>
> Of course, Morphy keeps getting caught breaking his own "rules" even as
> he seeks to impose those same rules on others, and seeks the assistance
> of NSP admins in using *force* to impose them on others.

Murphy is the world's biggest hypocrite, near as I can figure.

> >>>>> User-Agent: NewsTap/3.5.5 (iPad)
> >>>> Common Derbyshite setting made via tin/1.6.2-20030910
> >>> Nice self-contradiction<SPANK>
> >> It's well-known that user-agents can be forged using tin - or Pan
>
> > You're leaving out the part where you prove that the user-agent IS
> > being forged, kook.
>
> Of course he is, since he can't.

Heh.

> > Why do you seem to think that you can just post a bunch of leaps of
> > faith completely unsupported by any actual evidence and everyone will
> > flock to you as a great prophet of the digital age or something?
>
> Because ...
>
> > You're a fucking kook!
>
> Exactly.

Heh.

> > A brain-dead, lily-livered, bluffing and blustering kook with
> > delusions of adequacy!
>
> Couldn't have put it better myself.

And he was back tonight for another round. Ever the glutton for
punishment, that one!

> >> And Pan is the newsreader you use.
>
> > I use Google Groups, you fucking imbecile, and that's easily proved by
> > examining my Path headers, which for the most part *can't* be forged.
>
> In a kook's mind, using Google Groups can easily "prove" you're an slrn
> user, Hitler, or Paul, or even all three; use of slrn could be prima
> facie evidence that you were a dirty rotten Thunderbird user; and so forth.

Ah! Quite so.

> >>> I'd vote for your July LMA but<SPANK>
> >> As a Kook of The Month, you are disenfranchised with prejudice and cannot
> >> nominate, vote, or second anyone
>
> > That's funny, I don't see any post establishing Andrew Wilson as Kook
> > of the Month in *EITHER* set of awards! So it looks like you're
> > fucking wrong again, even if you use your side's miserable excuse for
> > kook awards! Bwahahahahaha!
>
> Nice SPNAK!s on Account Banned, Wilson!

Why, thank ye, ma'am.

> The ko0ks'd better learn to watch out whenever you start breaking out
> the caps and four letter words. So far, every time you've done that
> someone (and it thus far seems especially likely to be Account
> Banned) has ended up with a *badly* blistered ass.

That one is aggressive and stupid, always a troublesome combination.
The other one I'd worry about is Morphy. Now *he*'s what we in my part
of the world would call "seriously disturbed". His gibbering lunacy,
references to knives, and posting pictures of someone's home indicate
to me that, sooner or later and probably sooner, that one's going to
become a police matter of some kind.

[This account has been banned because it violated the Google Groups Terms Of Use]

AUK's July Kook Of The Month, Paul G. Derbyshire AKA Andrew Wilson

<awils...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Aug 18, 8:36�pm, Paul G. Derbyshire AKA kensi
> <kensi_kensing...@zoonoses.invalid> wrote:

Paula, try talking to your socks by locking yourself in a room without a computer.

Then turn the gas on.

--
<T><A><H><B><B><B><I><V><T><G><G><T><O><U> - "Vile Little Fucker" #1

^^^^^^^^?_______(my hook which the Peg Boi keeps biting)

If you want to see something lamer than John Edward Kook's Aratzio frogeries,
check out Scatboi's forgeries.

Anonypussy the [Tard] <fn...@altusenetkooks.com> is the Official AUK Peg Boi.
(after IKYABWAI, PeeWees, outer filthing and lies, Anonypussy is out of ammo)
The killfiled kook gets a SPANK http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ED9c_d4eL1U

Paul Derbyshire gets tarred and feathered - <5smbjh....@news.alt.net>