Crocodile tears from Michael Hypocrisy

[starga...@gmail.com]

On May 14, 4:54 pm, Michael Pendragon
<michaelmaleficapendra...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip for brevity/point focus>

> Hmm... considering all those ugly names you've made up to call me,
> you're the perfect example of what you're railing against.

You dare complain of being victimized after initiating victimization?
Or conflate a moral equivalency between your slander and lies and some
name-calling?

How many times do I have to tell you I remain singularly, patently,
unimpressed forever, from the beginning to the end of time, by your
crocodile tears (cries of victimization)? Of course, you know,
crocodile tears won't work with me; you're hoping they work with 3rd-
party onlookers (readers).

Why don't you just go away, bend over and blow yourself forever?

[Michael Pendragon]

On May 15, 4:58 pm, "stargazer...@gmail.com" <stargazer...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On May 14, 4:54 pm, Michael Pendragon
>
> <michaelmaleficapendra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip for brevity/point focus>
>
> > Hmm... considering all those ugly names you've made up to call me,
> > you're the perfect example of what you're railing against.
>
> You dare complain of being victimized after initiating victimization?

I'm not playing the victim, Tom. I'm merely pointing out that you're
every bit as guilty as myself. Yet another classic pot/kettle post
from you.

> Or conflate a moral equivalency between your slander and lies and some
> name-calling?

What slander? Woody's? I learned about Woody's from one of your old
posts.
The gerbil? I've told you 100 times that it was a play on your then
handle of "Phillyguy" (as a version of the "raggot" urban legend had
long been circulating about a former south Philly news reporter).

The jokes are harmless. It's your over-the-top reactions to them that
sends everybody's red flags waving.

> How many times do I have to tell you I remain singularly, patently,
> unimpressed forever, from the beginning to the end of time,  by your
> crocodile tears (cries of victimization)?  Of course, you know,
> crocodile tears won't work with me; you're hoping they work with 3rd-
> party onlookers (readers).

Like I said, Tom -- I wasn't asking for sympathy. I'm just pointing
out the hypocrisy of your statement.

> Why don't you just go away, bend over and blow yourself forever?

Ugly thoughts, Tom ... ugly thoughts.

[DCar...@aol.com]

On May 15, 10:44 pm, Michael Pendragon

We'd tell you the same thing Tom but the fountain pens would fall out
of your damn shirt pocket thus depriving us of our weekly dose of
literary gold, baby!!!!


Dennis C from Tennessee

[Michael Pendragon]

It's hard to see in that little picture, Dennis, but it's *not* a
bunch of fountain pens in Tommy's pocket: http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/8954/nickkwraggot.jpg

[starga...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, May 15, 2012 10:44:32 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On May 15, 4:58 pm, "stargazer...@gmail.com" <stargazer...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On May 14, 4:54 pm, Michael Pendragon
> >
> > <michaelmaleficapendra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > <snip for brevity/point focus>
> >
> > > Hmm... considering all those ugly names you've made up to call me,
> > > you're the perfect example of what you're railing against.
> >
> > You dare complain of being victimized after initiating victimization?
>
>

> > Or conflate a moral equivalency between your slander and lies and some
> > name-calling?
>
> What slander? Woody's? I learned about Woody's from one of your old
> posts.

Accusing someone of being a sexual predator is slander, and then some
>
> The jokes are harmless.

Slander and misrepresentation are not harmless.

[Michael Pendragon]

On May 20, 8:59 pm, "stargazer...@gmail.com" <stargazer...@gmail.com>

wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 15, 2012 10:44:32 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > On May 15, 4:58 pm, "stargazer...@gmail.com" <stargazer...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > On May 14, 4:54 pm, Michael Pendragon
>
> > > <michaelmaleficapendra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > <snip for brevity/point focus>
>
> > > > Hmm... considering all those ugly names you've made up to call me,
> > > > you're the perfect example of what you're railing against.
>
> > > You dare complain of being victimized after initiating victimization?
>
> > > Or conflate a moral equivalency between your slander and lies and some
> > > name-calling?
>
> > What slander?  Woody's?  I learned about Woody's from one of your old
> > posts.
>
> Accusing someone of being a sexual predator is slander, and then some

There's what? Twelve people who participate in this group? And all
of them know that I'm just messin' with you. What makes it funny is
that you threw 6 kinds of hissy-fits over it.

> > The jokes are harmless.
>
> Slander and misrepresentation are not harmless.

Oh grow up.

[starga...@gmail.com]

Why don't you go lick Bruce Grossberg's ass or something? Or Dennis's, better yet. They're your chief enablers here in this scene; you owe them something. Your haletosis couldn't be any worse than it already is, Michael Mealy-mouth, anyway. You would turn into a cause-celebre, then, too, perhaps...and wouldn't that suit your attention-grabbing ego just fine, then? Imagine the possibility....

[DCar...@aol.com]

On May 21, 5:54 pm, "stargazer...@gmail.com" <stargazer...@gmail.com>

> Why don't you go lick Bruce Grossberg's ass or something? Or Dennis's, better yet. They're your chief enablers here in this scene; you owe them something. Your haletosis couldn't be any worse than it already is, Michael Mealy-mouth, anyway. You would turn into a cause-celebre, then, too, perhaps...and wouldn't that suit your attention-grabbing ego just fine, then? Imagine the possibility....- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Why don't you go lick Bruce Grossberg's ass or something? Or Dennis's,
better yet.

Not since Fred Wilhelms became metaphysically challenged has there
been a nastier notion offered on these boards!!

Tommy might have been poorly socialized in his formative years.

Dennis C from Tennessee

[The Bloomfield Bloviator]

He's just channeling the things he sees (and does) at Woody's.

[starga...@gmail.com]

$ 100,000 to you if you can produced a non-forgery picture of me at Woody's. Hiring some goons to drag me in there and snap the photo wouldn't count. It (the photo) has to exist before this moment.
Your chances of doing this? Zip, or less than a infinitessimal positive.

[starga...@gmail.com]

Memo/aside to Michael Hypocrisy (re: common sense): Before you can tell other people to grow up, you have to start acting your age yourself (at least for a demonstrable sufficient prior period). - Nick

[Michael Pendragon]

On May 22, 2:40 pm, "stargazer...@gmail.com" <stargazer...@gmail.com>

Memo/aside to Nick Kockslop (re: growing up): I wasn't telling you to
grow up, Nicknack. I wrongly assumed you were bright enough to pick
up on that catch-phrase of Joan Rivers. As employed by Joan (usually
after an offensive joke that garners a negative audience reaction),
it's more like saying "Don't be so uptight -- it's only a joke."

[xpen...@gmail.com]

Anyone that gets as stirred up as you do by a bunch of faceless
people posting here should se \k professional help. If you had any
sense you'd simply ignore them.

[starga...@gmail.com]

You started the war between us both recently, and long ago from the beginning, Mike Full-O'Shitzky. So if you receive a few incoming "rounds", remember that you instigated then, and recently. So don't complain on that account. And if you deign to say differently, most of us realize your word is hardly your bond (i.e., you have no credibility), but this would certainly also not be the rare case of a liar telling the truth either. You take umbrage because someone presents the shoe, which fits, and but you don't want to wear it nonetheless. And you're off to the races.

If you don't like having a mirror held up, maybe you should polish up your act so that you are more presentable (likeable) to society. Remember the old dee-jay saw: "To be loved, you must be loveable". Right now, you are light-years away from that in the opposite direction, El Stinkador.

[The Bloomfield Bloviator]

On May 23, 12:21 pm, "stargazer...@gmail.com" <stargazer...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Mike Full-O'Shitzky.

> El Stinkador.

ROFL

Yes, someone who is full of shit probably does stink.

[Michael Pendragon]

As must a steaming pile of Dogshit.

Btw, congrats on your recent "win," Bruthie.

[Michael Pendragon]

On May 23, 12:21 pm, "stargazer...@gmail.com" <stargazer...@gmail.com>

I must've missed the "rounds," Tommy. You need to check your ammo.

> and recently.  So don't complain on that account.

Do I have to start posting little winky emoticons after every line
again?

> And if you deign to say differently, most of us realize your word is hardly your bond (i.e., you have no credibility), but
> this would certainly also not be the rare case of a liar telling the truth either.

En Anglais, s'il vous plait.

> You take umbrage

You flatter yourself.

> because someone presents the shoe, which fits, and but you don't want to wear it nonetheless. And you're off to the
> races.

Is there an interpreter in the house?

> If you don't like having a mirror held up, maybe you should polish up your act so that you are more presentable
> (likeable) to society. Remember the old dee-jay saw: "To be loved, you must be loveable".  Right now, you are light-
> years away from that in the opposite direction, El Stinkador.

Your observations were more astute 10 years ago when you called me
"Ahriman".

[Michael Pendragon]

On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 8:25 PM, starga...@gmail.com
<starga...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Yes, I've never once for a minute forgotten who you really are.

Private emails, Tom? Does this mean that we're buds?

> You get over on some others sometimes who have a longer learning curve who don't realize what a complete shit you
> really are. This "gentleman" get up you often put on before the world, or "the reformed act" (which is really
> unreformable) is merely the wolf in sheep's clothing.

Satan is often depicted as a gentleman. Nor should these two aspects
of my persona be seen as mutually exclusive. Evil has its charms.

> I've always said you don't fool me; your efforts are strictly to fool others. Nothing is more true than that. Disagree
> Michael?

Of course I disagree. I'm not trying to fool anyone, Tom. I am who I
am. If who I am seems like an often gentlemanly demon -- I'm cool
with that.

The trouble is that you read my "gentlemanly" posts as attempts to
disguise/deny my demonic ones. They're not. I believe that you do
manage to interpret my posts as a collective whole, rather than as
individual entities. Your error lies in your inability to grasp the
concept that I fully intend for them to be taken that way.

No one is being "fooled" by my posts, except you -- and that is
ultimately a case of self-deception.

> If he does disagree, consider who is saying that and his credibility factor, 3rd party onlookers. Others give you a shred
> of credibility anytime at their own risk.

As to any "3rd party onlookers," I'll repost this in the group so that
they may be suitably forewarned.