It's not dead yet
Jayne Kulikauskas
without him, does not mean it is so. Since when did people around here
believe everything he says without question. I believed him when he said
he would stick to his commitment to be a moderator and look how that turned
out.
SMM still has moderators, is still accepting posts and is still a
functioning newsgroup. Subscribe and see for yourselves.
--
Jayne Check out soc.men.moderated. If your news provider
doesn't carry it, ask. While you're waiting for it use
the web interface:
http://news.killfile.org/?group=soc.men.moderated
Jayne Kulikauskas
> On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 10:53:28 -0400, in soc.men,
> Message-Id <12hwc2zq3vguj$.vrr0olcd...@40tude.net>,
> regarding: "It's not dead yet",
> Jayne Kulikauskas <jayne.ku...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Just because PJR thinks that soc.men.moderated will not be able to manage
>>without him, does not mean it is so. Since when did people around here
>>believe everything he says without question. I believed him when he said
>>he would stick to his commitment to be a moderator and look how that turned
>>out.
>
> Did you really believe PJR could pass up an opportunity to mock you and the
> BMs?
It has nothing to doing with mocking me or the Board. As I understand his
motives, he found that he could not in good conscience remain a moderator
of a group in the which the charter allowed so many posts that he found
deeply objectionable. While I am, of course, diappointed, I can respect
the decision.
>>SMM still has moderators, is still accepting posts and is still a
>>functioning newsgroup. Subscribe and see for yourselves.
>
> I haven't seen a new post since PJR's announcement.
Based on the time zones of the other moderators, I wouldn't expect to yet.
saur
> It has nothing to doing with mocking me or the Board. As I understand his
> motives, he found that he could not in good conscience remain a moderator
> of a group in the which the charter allowed so many posts that he found
> deeply objectionable. While I am, of course, diappointed, I can respect
> the decision.
The Charter wasn't made public prior to PJR's accepting a moderator's
position? Or are you saying that PJR lacks the intelligence to anticipate
that people would post within the boundaries of the Charter? Now you're
mocking yourself, Jayne. You were the only one who didn't know that your
co-proponents were playing you, and now you're the only one who refuses to
acknowledge that PJR played you, too. PJR's behavior is Standard Operating
Procedure for AUKers.
Andre Lieven
> Just because PJR thinks that soc.men.moderated will not be able to manage
> without him, does not mean it is so. Since when did people around here
> believe everything he says without question. I believed him when he said
> he would stick to his commitment to be a moderator and look how that turned
> out.
Bwa ha ha ha !!!! Well, Jill and I TOLD you ! And, we were... RIGHT !
> SMM still has moderators, is still accepting posts and is still a
> functioning newsgroup. Subscribe and see for yourselves.
Why ? Tell us what it's posting per day rate is right now.
And, its so lacking that my server cannot find it...
Andre
Sharon B
<6tf3nc51kx2k$.d...@saur.rdc-nyc.rr.com>:
Heh! Watch yer generalizations, saur.
So far, you and I haven't tangled. I /never/ troll in email, nor do I
take Usenet off Usenet....AND....I've never called you a "whiner".
Peter wasn't trolling to be moderator. He just VASTLY overrated the
soc.fr00t capability to remain unfr00ty. He expected them to behave
near-normal in situations outside of soc.fr00ts.
Cuz he's an optimist.
Now, unless Graham pulls a rabbit out of his hat, this is going to end
up /just/ as I said it would during the CFV. Usenet will have a
SECOND moderated hate group.
Way to go, Big 8 Board. Way to do all you can do to make the world a
worse place.
Now give Richard the Stupid a moderated Big 8 group to discuss how to
trade kiddie pr0n without getting arrested.
AUK added
Andre Lieven
Not only " agreed ", but it should be noted that the kooks did this
to Jayne last year, as well.
Shes 0-2 now. <shrug>
Andre
Jayne Kulikauskas
> Jayne Kulikauskas (jayne.ku...@gmail.com) writes:
>> Just because PJR thinks that soc.men.moderated will not be able to manage
>> without him, does not mean it is so. Since when did people around here
>> believe everything he says without question. I believed him when he said
>> he would stick to his commitment to be a moderator and look how that turned
>> out.
>
> Bwa ha ha ha !!!! Well, Jill and I TOLD you ! And, we were... RIGHT !
You were.
>> SMM still has moderators, is still accepting posts and is still a
>> functioning newsgroup. Subscribe and see for yourselves.
>
> Why ? Tell us what it's posting per day rate is right now.
The average is about 8 posts per day. I expect that to increase once
Google starts carrying it.
> And, its so lacking that my server cannot find it...
Some servers have a policy of only adding groups when requested by their
customers.
--
Jayne
Jayne Kulikauskas
> On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 10:53:28 -0400, Jayne Kulikauskas
> <jayne.ku...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Welcome back out of my killfile, Jayne.
>
>>Just because PJR thinks that soc.men.moderated will not be able to manage
>>without him, does not mean it is so. Since when did people around here
>>believe everything he says without question.
>
> Maybe since you started doing it so very publicly and vehemently,
> Jayne. There's oodles in Google to back that comment up, BTW.
You don't need Google. I admit it.
>>I believed him when he said
>>he would stick to his commitment to be a moderator and look how that turned
>>out.
>
> Yes, you certainly did. As I told Andre in another post this morning,
> he has earned the right to say "I told you so!" to me in reference to
> Denise and my over enthusiastic past defense of her.
>
> Now I'm saying the same to you, Jayne, in reference to your over
> enthusiastic defense of PJR. I told you so!
Yes, you did.
>>SMM still has moderators, is still accepting posts and is still a
>>functioning newsgroup. Subscribe and see for yourselves.
>
> I have. Not much to see.
Perhaps not yet. Peter is in a much earlier time zone than the others. It
will take some time for them to find out what has happened and start
picking up the slack left by his departure.
--
Jayne
Jayne Kulikauskas
[...]
> Judging from the volumes of defensive posts Jayne issued vouching for
> PJR's supposed "good character" in August alone, I would say that,
> YES, she really believed PJR was a nice guy at heart and would never
> lie or make a fool of her or her SMM. Some people's balloons never
> land.
[...]
And I still believe it. I believe that he did not lie and fully intended
to do a good job of being a moderator.
Masculist
Jayne Kulikauskas wrote:
> Just because PJR thinks that soc.men.moderated will not be able to manage
> without him, does not mean it is so. Since when did people around here
> believe everything he says without question. I believed him when he said
> he would stick to his commitment to be a moderator and look how that turned
> out.
>
> SMM still has moderators, is still accepting posts and is still a
> functioning newsgroup. Subscribe and see for yourselves.
It's an excellent group now that the long hair frOOt PJ is gone <smile>
Was it something I said to PJ Jayne?
Now tell me, what the heck is Mange doing on the group? She's not as
aggravating as Hyerewhore, but aggravating enough. She belongs on a
feminist group. They rule the damn republic and are in no position to
act as insurgents. If we (masculists) ruled then it'd be OK. Can't
wait for that day.
Tom
Veronica O'Donoghue
<jayne.ku...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 11:46:21 -0500, Jill wrote:
>
>[...]
>> Judging from the volumes of defensive posts Jayne issued vouching for
>> PJR's supposed "good character" in August alone, I would say that,
>> YES, she really believed PJR was a nice guy at heart and would never
>> lie or make a fool of her or her SMM. Some people's balloons never
>> land.
>[...]
>
>And I still believe it. I believe that he did not lie and fully intended
>to do a good job of being a moderator.
Indeed he did, and he put in a great deal of work throughout. But a
moderated group cannot run with, in effect, only one moderator. The
concept, mechanics and rules of a moderated group need to be
understood both by all of those who agree to moderate and all of
those who wish to post. This did not happen in the case of smm despite
Peter's best efforts.
Kadaitcha Man
> Borgerson is still sort of around. He's posted maybe a half dozen
> times at best but GA and Sobolewski remain missing in action.
> Personally I don't think SMM will have a moderator to approve posts
> unless Borgerson steps up to the bat.
>
> I'm very disappointed in the other two. If they didn't want to be
> moderators, they should have declined in the first place. Then again
> maybe that was their plan...to let the k00ks have the run of SMM.
>
> LOL. If that was the case PJ just blew it big time with his "cute"
> little outburst, but outside of Jayne, no one ever gave that little
> fr00t credit for being the least bit intelligent.
>
> No. PJR was just waiting and biding his time to pull off this stunt.
> Since I was the only one who could post to SMM who was also one of the
> most vocally against his being a moderator, it is no accident he chose
> to go off on me personally. What better way to intentionally make a
> complete fool out of Jayne???
>
> Had Andre had access and posted to SMM, PJR would have been just as
> likely to do it to Andre instead of me.
>
> The point (which Jayne completely misses) is that PJR chose to do it
> to someone who forewarned Jayne loudly and for a long time NOT to let
> PJR moderate. His whole point in this was to embarass her and he
> succeeded magnificently.
>
> I know you posted on SMM, Tom, so you've probably seen the little
> ponytailed fr00t k00k's blow up post in response to me but most on
> soc.men haven't had the "priviledge" of viewing his "honorable"
> character as a moderator.
>
> For that reason I will repost PJR's "clever" little fr00ty k00ky SMM
> diatribe on soc.men so that everyone can enjoy the moron's "pithy
> prose" one more time for old time's sake.
>
> That reposting it makes a fool of Jayne all over again won't matter.
> She can't see the forest for the trees. She will in all likelihood
> continue defending PJR as she has already done today even though she
> was PJR's intended target when he wrote that post.
>
> PJR was the only one putting through posts (actively moderating) on
> SMM. He and Mange are as thick as cow shit in a barn yard so
> naturally Mange's nasty crap would get approved by PJ. It only took
> ONE moderator to approve. Another stupid idea.
>
> Final analysis: PJR was planning this from the start and all k00ks
> were just intent on making a fool of Jayne again this year like they
> did last year with the John Winsor (Sean Monahagwhatever) protagonist
> scam.
>
> Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
>
> Still Jayne defends PJR. What comes after shame me twice?
Sir Frothalot? Is that you, Sir Frothalot?
--
alt.usenet.kooks - Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker:
September 2005 and April 2006
"K-Man's particular genius, however, lies not merely in his humour,
but his ability to make posters who had previously seemed reasonably
well-balanced turn into foaming, frothing, death threat-uttering
maniacs" - Snarky, Demon Lord of Confusion
Aratzio
secret probation because:
No, you moron, the only SOP in AUK is there is no SOP. The only real
trolls were Jade and myself having our usual fun. PJR meant what he
said, SharonB meant what she said and Bob Officer meant what he said.
I did not give one flying fuck whether the whole thing worked or went
down with a flush. The fact that pusilanimous whiney wankers like you,
ignoroant paranoid freaks of nature like Pangborn, cowardly little
bois like GA or stupid trusting Jayne get your panties in a bunch over
text on a screen is what it is always about.
Nothing on usenet is more enjoyable than watching the idjits of the
world create whole worlds of delusion populated by their own beliefs
that have no basis in fact.
News.groups and soc.men were led down the primrose path, were told
they were being led down the primrose path and given evidence that
they were on the primrose path. Did any of the matter, no, because
they wished to believe that their little fantasy world they were
creating actually existed.
"Build it and they will come"
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Morons.
Aratzio
double secret probation because:
>On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 16:16:45 GMT, saur <sa...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in
><6tf3nc51kx2k$.d...@saur.rdc-nyc.rr.com>:
>
>> Jayne Kulikauskas <jayne.ku...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> It has nothing to doing with mocking me or the Board. As I understand his
>>> motives, he found that he could not in good conscience remain a moderator
>>> of a group in the which the charter allowed so many posts that he found
>>> deeply objectionable. While I am, of course, diappointed, I can respect
>>> the decision.
>>
>>The Charter wasn't made public prior to PJR's accepting a moderator's
>>position? Or are you saying that PJR lacks the intelligence to anticipate
>>that people would post within the boundaries of the Charter? Now you're
>>mocking yourself, Jayne. You were the only one who didn't know that your
>>co-proponents were playing you, and now you're the only one who refuses to
>>acknowledge that PJR played you, too. PJR's behavior is Standard Operating
>>Procedure for AUKers.
>
>Heh! Watch yer generalizations, saur.
>
>So far, you and I haven't tangled. I /never/ troll in email, nor do I
>take Usenet off Usenet....AND....I've never called you a "whiner".
I believe that is just me that has called the whiney lil fuck a
whiner. He has not stopped whining about it yet.
>
>Peter wasn't trolling to be moderator. He just VASTLY overrated the
>soc.fr00t capability to remain unfr00ty. He expected them to behave
>near-normal in situations outside of soc.fr00ts.
>
>Cuz he's an optimist.
We do like that about Peter.
>
>Now, unless Graham pulls a rabbit out of his hat, this is going to end
>up /just/ as I said it would during the CFV. Usenet will have a
>SECOND moderated hate group.
I Nominate SharonB as new moderator!
>
>Way to go, Big 8 Board. Way to do all you can do to make the world a
>worse place.
They are a fun bunch of kooks, them rose coloroed glasses are so
stylish.
>
>Now give Richard the Stupid a moderated Big 8 group to discuss how to
>trade kiddie pr0n without getting arrested.
RtS may be too smart for this bunch.
>
>AUK added
alt.fucknozzles added
Andre Lieven
> On 17 Sep 2006 16:24:59 GMT, dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)
> wrote:
>
>>Jayne Kulikauskas (jayne.ku...@gmail.com) writes:
>>> Just because PJR thinks that soc.men.moderated will not be able to manage
>>> without him, does not mean it is so. Since when did people around here
>>> believe everything he says without question. I believed him when he said
>>> he would stick to his commitment to be a moderator and look how that turned
>>> out.
>>
>>Bwa ha ha ha !!!! Well, Jill and I TOLD you ! And, we were... RIGHT !
>
<g> Yes, its good to be us.
>>> SMM still has moderators, is still accepting posts and is still a
>>> functioning newsgroup. Subscribe and see for yourselves.
>>
>>Why ? Tell us what it's posting per day rate is right now.
>
> Less than 12 per day on a "good" day. Just guessing but I'd say that
> approximately a third of the posts/topics are generated by Jayne.
My isp's server found it, and shows 34 posts in 5 days. And, #1, from
a Victoria somebody, reads like an outtake from soc.feminism.
>>And, its so lacking that my server cannot find it...
>
> Apparently Supernews accepts any group. I've had the rare treat of
> being able to view SMM from the first day it was online. Not much to
> see there, though.
Well, PJR's admission of his having trolled Jayne and news.groups
certainly merits some consideration. Its nice that he so openly
proved you and myself... right.
Andre
Aratzio
secret probation because:
>On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 12:36:19 -0400, in alt.usenet.kooks,
> Message-Id <tvtqg294l3finmoeo...@4ax.com>,
> regarding: "Re: It's not dead yet",
> Sharon B <sha...@lart.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 16:16:45 GMT, saur <sa...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in
>><6tf3nc51kx2k$.d...@saur.rdc-nyc.rr.com>:
>>
>>> Jayne Kulikauskas <jayne.ku...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It has nothing to doing with mocking me or the Board. As I understand his
>>>> motives, he found that he could not in good conscience remain a moderator
>>>> of a group in the which the charter allowed so many posts that he found
>>>> deeply objectionable. While I am, of course, diappointed, I can respect
>>>> the decision.
>>>
>>>The Charter wasn't made public prior to PJR's accepting a moderator's
>>>position? Or are you saying that PJR lacks the intelligence to anticipate
>>>that people would post within the boundaries of the Charter? Now you're
>>>mocking yourself, Jayne. You were the only one who didn't know that your
>>>co-proponents were playing you, and now you're the only one who refuses to
>>>acknowledge that PJR played you, too. PJR's behavior is Standard Operating
>>>Procedure for AUKers.
>>
>>Heh! Watch yer generalizations, saur.
>
>PJR wrote:
>
> "I [pjr] should never have been a moderator of a group in which the
> kind of spew you [jill] post is permitted by the charter."
>
>He knew what he was doing from the beginning.
>
Wow, and English may be his first language.
Andre Lieven
> On 17 Sep 2006 16:35:59 GMT, dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)
> almost feel some empathy for her if she hadn't been so damned superior
> and bombastic throughout the approval process. Not to mention the way
> she automatically and autocratically dismissed any evidence I provided
> to show her all was not the way she believed it to be. Now I feel
> I've earned the right to gloat.
Hearty agreement on every point.
Andre
Aratzio
double secret probation because:
>On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 16:50:16 GMT, saur <sa...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 12:36:19 -0400, in alt.usenet.kooks,
>> Message-Id <tvtqg294l3finmoeo...@4ax.com>,
>> regarding: "Re: It's not dead yet",
>> Sharon B <sha...@lart.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 16:16:45 GMT, saur <sa...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in
>>><6tf3nc51kx2k$.d...@saur.rdc-nyc.rr.com>:
>>>
>>>> Jayne Kulikauskas <jayne.ku...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It has nothing to doing with mocking me or the Board. As I understand his
>>>>> motives, he found that he could not in good conscience remain a moderator
>>>>> of a group in the which the charter allowed so many posts that he found
>>>>> deeply objectionable. While I am, of course, diappointed, I can respect
>>>>> the decision.
>>>>
>>>>The Charter wasn't made public prior to PJR's accepting a moderator's
>>>>position? Or are you saying that PJR lacks the intelligence to anticipate
>>>>that people would post within the boundaries of the Charter? Now you're
>>>>mocking yourself, Jayne. You were the only one who didn't know that your
>>>>co-proponents were playing you, and now you're the only one who refuses to
>>>>acknowledge that PJR played you, too. PJR's behavior is Standard Operating
>>>>Procedure for AUKers.
>>>
>>>Heh! Watch yer generalizations, saur.
>>
>>PJR wrote:
>>
>> "I [pjr] should never have been a moderator of a group in which the
>> kind of spew you [jill] post is permitted by the charter."
>>
>>He knew what he was doing from the beginning.
>
>Of course he did. Only the obtuse and the know-it-alls refused to
>look at the evidence provided to them that proved it to be so.
>>
So you agree with Peter that you are a useless piece of shit without a
redeeming feature.
Batroc Z. Leaper
jayne.ku...@gmail.com (Jayne Kulikauskas) says...
> Just because PJR thinks that soc.men.moderated will not be able to manage
> without him, does not mean it is so. Since when did people around here
> believe everything he says without question. I believed him when he said
> he would stick to his commitment to be a moderator and look how that turned
> out.
??? Is PJR really out of the picture? If so, I'll subscribe to the
moderated group and take a look at it. I have no idea what PJR has
posted, because I have that asshole killfiled for all eternity.
Aratzio
double secret probation because:
>Should we hold our breaths?
Use a rope.
Aratzio
>
>And I still believe it. I believe that he did not lie and fully intended
>to do a good job of being a moderator.
As opposed to the 3 other moderators who obviously fully intended to
fuck you in the ass BEFORE the group was formed?
Andre Lieven
Gee, I wonder what folks would fall into that last bunch...
<cough> Jayne, news.groups, board <cough>
Suckers.
Andre
Aratzio
double secret probation because:
>On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 13:46:32 -0400, Jayne Kulikauskas
><jayne.ku...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 11:46:21 -0500, Jill wrote:
>>
>>[...]
>>> Judging from the volumes of defensive posts Jayne issued vouching for
>>> PJR's supposed "good character" in August alone, I would say that,
>>> YES, she really believed PJR was a nice guy at heart and would never
>>> lie or make a fool of her or her SMM. Some people's balloons never
>>> land.
>>[...]
>>
>>And I still believe it. I believe that he did not lie and fully intended
>>to do a good job of being a moderator.
>
>You are a fool.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
So who was approving your posts, moron? One of your soc.froots?
Aratzio
<vm...@insurgent.org.invalid> got double secret probation because:
I actually thought he would have some help, which would have made the
results hilarious. But they just dumped it all on Peter and ran away,
not taking responsibility.
Funny that, a soc.froot unable to accept responsibility.
Aratzio
double secret probation because:
>I'm very disappointed in the other two. If they didn't want to be
>moderators, they should have declined in the first place. Then again
>maybe that was their plan...to let the k00ks have the run of SMM.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
The soc.froots had a *plan*.
Andre Lieven
> On 17 Sep 2006 16:24:59 GMT, Andre Lieven wrote:
>
>> Jayne Kulikauskas (jayne.ku...@gmail.com) writes:
>>> Just because PJR thinks that soc.men.moderated will not be able to manage
>>> without him, does not mean it is so. Since when did people around here
>>> believe everything he says without question. I believed him when he said
>>> he would stick to his commitment to be a moderator and look how that
>>> turned out.
>>
>> Bwa ha ha ha !!!! Well, Jill and I TOLD you ! And, we were... RIGHT !
>
> You were.
Well, I am a little surprised... But, as I just wrote " hope springs
eternal ", and so I will accept that, subject to one addition:
Your admission that Jill and my objections to BDSG Borgerson were
as reasonable.
>>> SMM still has moderators, is still accepting posts and is still a
>>> functioning newsgroup. Subscribe and see for yourselves.
>>
>> Why ? Tell us what it's posting per day rate is right now.
>
> The average is about 8 posts per day. I expect that to increase once
> Google starts carrying it.
What about that the only participating ( k00k ) moderator has fled
the scene of his crimes ?
>> And, its so lacking that my server cannot find it...
>
> Some servers have a policy of only adding groups when requested by their
> customers.
Well, ncf's has picked it up, as of it's posts from 13/9/06. 34 in
5 days is pretty small time, though...
Face it, Jayne; The kooks are 2-0 on you. And, had you listened to
Jill and myself, that would not now be the case.
Perhaps that will suggest to you that when Jill and I both tell
you that your path is incorrect, that there is a very good
possibility that that is true.
Andre
Andre Lieven
Well, IIRC, Mark is in the Eastern Time Zone. Was PJR farther to the
east of that ?
I grant that GA and BDSG Borgerson are in the far west.
Andre
Andre Lieven
> On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 11:46:21 -0500, Jill wrote:
>
> [...]
>> Judging from the volumes of defensive posts Jayne issued vouching for
>> PJR's supposed "good character" in August alone, I would say that,
>> YES, she really believed PJR was a nice guy at heart and would never
>> lie or make a fool of her or her SMM. Some people's balloons never
>> land.
> [...]
>
> And I still believe it. I believe that he did not lie and fully intended
> to do a good job of being a moderator.
Oh. Come. On ! He bailed in the first month of the group, by my server,
the first week, after slagging ( Against the charter of alt.usenet.kooks.
moderated&polite ) Jill off.
It is illogical to postulate that a person who so *swiftly* k00ked out,
meant to do anything, from the start.
That claim of yours is, in the face of the evidence from smm, an
extraordinary one. Where is your extraordinary PROOF for it ?
Exactly. You're headed for 0-3...
Andre
Andre Lieven
LOL ! He had no intent to do other than k00k out the place, and he
SAID SO in his goodbye fools post.
But, sicne you yourself tried to feed the tired old whore of a
" women get slagged by society, too " LIE, its no wonder that you
follow that up with another LIE.
Thanks for so clearly outing yourself, just like a... KOOK.
Feminism IS sexism. Proven again.
Andre
Andre Lieven
> On 17 Sep 2006 11:09:04 -0700, "Masculist" <MASC...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Jayne Kulikauskas wrote:
>>> Just because PJR thinks that soc.men.moderated will not be able to manage
>>> without him, does not mean it is so. Since when did people around here
>>> believe everything he says without question. I believed him when he said
>>> he would stick to his commitment to be a moderator and look how that
>>> turned out.
>>>
>>> SMM still has moderators, is still accepting posts and is still a
>>> functioning newsgroup. Subscribe and see for yourselves.
>>
>>It's an excellent group now that the long hair frOOt PJ is gone <smile>
>
> times at best but GA and Sobolewski remain missing in action.
> Personally I don't think SMM will have a moderator to approve posts
> unless Borgerson steps up to the bat.
Indeed.
> I'm very disappointed in the other two. If they didn't want to be
> moderators, they should have declined in the first place. Then again
> maybe that was their plan...to let the k00ks have the run of SMM.
Sly boots, eh ? <g>
> LOL. If that was the case PJ just blew it big time with his "cute"
> little outburst, but outside of Jayne, no one ever gave that little
> fr00t credit for being the least bit intelligent.
Well, I would have. PJR isn't a literal reatrd. He merely *chooses*
to ape the behavior of such. But, that means that he is clever enough
to put one over on a willing victim. Like Jayne, last year, and Jayne,
this year. What could be an easier target than someone who has already
fallen for the same gag once before ?
>>Was it something I said to PJ Jayne?
>
> No. PJR was just waiting and biding his time to pull off this stunt.
> Since I was the only one who could post to SMM who was also one of the
> most vocally against his being a moderator, it is no accident he chose
> to go off on me personally. What better way to intentionally make a
> complete fool out of Jayne???
Bingo ! Which PROVES that PJR had AbZero bona fides wrt smm.
> Had Andre had access and posted to SMM, PJR would have been just as
> likely to do it to Andre instead of me.
>
> The point (which Jayne completely misses) is that PJR chose to do it
> to someone who forewarned Jayne loudly and for a long time NOT to let
> PJR moderate. His whole point in this was to embarass her and he
> succeeded magnificently.
Exactly. He k00ked her.
> I know you posted on SMM, Tom, so you've probably seen the little
> ponytailed fr00t k00k's blow up post in response to me but most on
> soc.men haven't had the "priviledge" of viewing his "honorable"
> character as a moderator.
I have, as of twenty minutes ago... Proved *everything* we said.
> For that reason I will repost PJR's "clever" little fr00ty k00ky SMM
> diatribe on soc.men so that everyone can enjoy the moron's "pithy
> prose" one more time for old time's sake.
>
> That reposting it makes a fool of Jayne all over again won't matter.
> She can't see the forest for the trees. She will in all likelihood
> continue defending PJR as she has already done today even though she
> was PJR's intended target when he wrote that post.
Which is just... amazing. Not in a good way.
>>Now tell me, what the heck is Mange doing on the group? She's not as
>>aggravating as Hyerewhore, but aggravating enough. She belongs on a
>>feminist group. They rule the damn republic and are in no position to
>>act as insurgents. If we (masculists) ruled then it'd be OK. Can't
>>wait for that day.
>
> PJR was the only one putting through posts (actively moderating) on
> SMM. He and Mange are as thick as cow shit in a barn yard so
> naturally Mange's nasty crap would get approved by PJ. It only took
> ONE moderator to approve. Another stupid idea.
Yep.
> Final analysis: PJR was planning this from the start and all k00ks
> were just intent on making a fool of Jayne again this year like they
> did last year with the John Winsor (Sean Monahagwhatever) protagonist
> scam.
100% accurate.
> Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
>
> Still Jayne defends PJR. What comes after shame me twice?
Seek therapy ?
Andre
Veronica O'Donoghue
>On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 19:29:39 +0100, Veronica O'Donoghue
>You think the way he went about "resigning" by going off on me
>personally was a reflection of "Peter's best efforts?"
>
>Obviously he was conning the whole bunch of you when he was "learning
>the concept, mechanics, and rules of a moderated group." Rules he
>managed to break entirely in the way he flamed out of SMM. Now he is
>likely sitting back and laughing his ass off
Not when I spoke to him earlier. Not at all. He put in a great deal of
work over the past weeks, tried very hard to get the moderation team
working, but two of them simply did not do any moderating and the
other did too little. Several moderators are needed on a regular
basis, or it becomes too much for one person in terms of time and also
in terms of either being solely responsible for what appears in the
group or leaving a long queue of posts waiting to be moderated for
days or even weeks until another moderator decides to moderate.
When one poster (Tom Smith) began repeatedly to rant abusively
against women in the familiar old unmoderated soc.men style ( which,
it was understood, smm was an attempt get away from), I think anyone
in Peter's position would have felt there was no point in trying to
continue. I suspect that your consistently nasty posts didn't help.
But that's just my opinion.
> as you and Jayne defend
>him for being a coniving k00k.
You really are full of hatred.
Jayne Kulikauskas
Yes, he is. Even if he wanted to post to smm, I hope the remaining
moderators will ban him for his clear violation of the charter in attacking
Jill.
I hope you will enjoy and participate in smm.
Jayne Kulikauskas
There is no proof. I will continue to believe that PJR was telling me the
truth until he informs me otherwise.
Call it faith or call it foolishness. That is just how I am.
Andre Lieven
> personally was a reflection of "Peter's best efforts?"
>
> Obviously he was conning the whole bunch of you when he was "learning
> the concept, mechanics, and rules of a moderated group." Rules he
> managed to break entirely in the way he flamed out of SMM. Now he is
> him for being a coniving k00k.
Well, in the case of Vagina Vickie, its no surprise, as its well
known here that Feminism caused brain rot. Since VV tried to equate
societal misandry with ( imaginary ) societal misogyny ( Of which
there is NONE ), its clear that she isn't wrapped at all tightly.
But, Jayne needs to learn the fullness of this lesson; She gave
unwarrented and fact free ( In fact, fact contraindicated )
credulity to k00ks. Who exist merely to be annoying idiots.
" Stupid is, as stupid *does*. " Forrest Gump.
Andre
Masculist
Jill wrote:
> On 17 Sep 2006 11:09:04 -0700, "Masculist" <MASC...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Jayne Kulikauskas wrote:
> >> without him, does not mean it is so. Since when did people around here
> >> believe everything he says without question. I believed him when he said
> >> he would stick to his commitment to be a moderator and look how that turned
> >> out.
> >>
> >> functioning newsgroup. Subscribe and see for yourselves.
> >
> >It's an excellent group now that the long hair frOOt PJ is gone <smile>
>
> Borgerson is still sort of around. He's posted maybe a half dozen
> times at best but GA and Sobolewski remain missing in action.
> Personally I don't think SMM will have a moderator to approve posts
> unless Borgerson steps up to the bat.
>
> moderators, they should have declined in the first place. Then again
> maybe that was their plan...to let the k00ks have the run of SMM.
>
> little outburst, but outside of Jayne, no one ever gave that little
> fr00t credit for being the least bit intelligent.
> >
>
> No. PJR was just waiting and biding his time to pull off this stunt.
> Since I was the only one who could post to SMM who was also one of the
> most vocally against his being a moderator, it is no accident he chose
> to go off on me personally. What better way to intentionally make a
> complete fool out of Jayne???
>
> likely to do it to Andre instead of me.
>
> The point (which Jayne completely misses) is that PJR chose to do it
> to someone who forewarned Jayne loudly and for a long time NOT to let
> PJR moderate. His whole point in this was to embarass her and he
> succeeded magnificently.
>
> ponytailed fr00t k00k's blow up post in response to me but most on
> soc.men haven't had the "priviledge" of viewing his "honorable"
> character as a moderator.
>
> diatribe on soc.men so that everyone can enjoy the moron's "pithy
> prose" one more time for old time's sake.
>
> That reposting it makes a fool of Jayne all over again won't matter.
> She can't see the forest for the trees. She will in all likelihood
> continue defending PJR as she has already done today even though she
> was PJR's intended target when he wrote that post.
> >
> >aggravating as Hyerewhore, but aggravating enough. She belongs on a
> >feminist group. They rule the damn republic and are in no position to
> >act as insurgents. If we (masculists) ruled then it'd be OK. Can't
> >wait for that day.
>
> PJR was the only one putting through posts (actively moderating) on
> SMM. He and Mange are as thick as cow shit in a barn yard so
> naturally Mange's nasty crap would get approved by PJ. It only took
> ONE moderator to approve. Another stupid idea.
>
> were just intent on making a fool of Jayne again this year like they
> did last year with the John Winsor (Sean Monahagwhatever) protagonist
> scam.
>
>
> Still Jayne defends PJR. What comes after shame me twice?
I' m not worried about Jayne, she is just doing a technical job and
doing it well. It's up to the rest of us whether the moderated group
sinks or swims and who knows, maybe it is destined to sink. The
charter worries me.
Now what's this about others not having access to the group? This is
the first time I've heard ot this. I thought anyone could post.
Tom
> >Tom
Masculist
Wise move.
Smitty
Masculist
Wise move.
Smitty
Jayne Kulikauskas
> Jayne Kulikauskas (jayne.ku...@gmail.com) writes:
>> On 17 Sep 2006 16:24:59 GMT, Andre Lieven wrote:
>>
>>> Jayne Kulikauskas (jayne.ku...@gmail.com) writes:
>>>> Just because PJR thinks that soc.men.moderated will not be able to manage
>>>> without him, does not mean it is so. Since when did people around here
>>>> believe everything he says without question. I believed him when he said
>>>> he would stick to his commitment to be a moderator and look how that
>>>> turned out.
>>>
>>> Bwa ha ha ha !!!! Well, Jill and I TOLD you ! And, we were... RIGHT !
>>
>> You were.
>
> Well, I am a little surprised... But, as I just wrote " hope springs
> eternal ", and so I will accept that, subject to one addition:
>
> Your admission that Jill and my objections to BDSG Borgerson were
> as reasonable.
I don't think that I ever claimed that your objections were not reasonable.
It was just that I felt that there were other considerations that I
believed made it necessary to override your objections. I cannot say that
I have much confidence in my judgement in doing so, at the moment, since I
was wrong about PJR. On the other hand, I have no evidence that Mark B is
in any way falling short in his duties as a moderator.
>>>> SMM still has moderators, is still accepting posts and is still a
>>>> functioning newsgroup. Subscribe and see for yourselves.
>>>
>>> Why ? Tell us what it's posting per day rate is right now.
>>
>> The average is about 8 posts per day. I expect that to increase once
>> Google starts carrying it.
>
> What about that the only participating ( k00k ) moderator has fled
> the scene of his crimes ?
I think that PJR was doing the majority of the approvals just because of
the way that the times zones worked out. There are still moderators left
to approve posts and more can join if necessary.
>>> And, its so lacking that my server cannot find it...
>>
>> Some servers have a policy of only adding groups when requested by their
>> customers.
>
> Well, ncf's has picked it up, as of it's posts from 13/9/06. 34 in
> 5 days is pretty small time, though...
As I understand it, this is to be expected for the early days of a group.
> Face it, Jayne; The kooks are 2-0 on you. And, had you listened to
> Jill and myself, that would not now be the case.
>
> Perhaps that will suggest to you that when Jill and I both tell
> you that your path is incorrect, that there is a very good
> possibility that that is true.
Yes, it does.
Andre Lieven
" The lurkers support me in e-mail. "
Talk about old whores...
> He put in a great deal of
> work over the past weeks, tried very hard to get the moderation team
> working, but two of them simply did not do any moderating and the
> other did too little. Several moderators are needed on a regular
> basis, or it becomes too much for one person in terms of time and also
> in terms of either being solely responsible for what appears in the
> group or leaving a long queue of posts waiting to be moderated for
> days or even weeks until another moderator decides to moderate.
Or, that the other pair intended to let PJR show himself as the k00k
troll that he... ADMITTED that he IS.
> When one poster (Tom Smith) began repeatedly to rant abusively
> against women in the familiar old unmoderated soc.men style
No proof offered ? Cowshit bigot fact free ad hom claim fails.
Every political ideology can be challenged without it being " hate ".
Deal with it.
> ( which,
> it was understood, smm was an attempt get away from), I think anyone
> in Peter's position would have felt there was no point in trying to
> continue. I suspect that your consistently nasty posts didn't help.
No proof offered ? Ad hominem flailing cowshit claim fails.
> But that's just my opinion.
Indeed. As it is utterly free of FACTS.
>> as you and Jayne defend him for being a coniving k00k.
>
> You really are full of hatred.
<Massive Bigot Projection>
Feminism IS sexism. As proved by it's brain rotted adherants like
Vagina Vickie. How nice of then to so consistantly prove it. <laughs>
Andre
Andre Lieven
> On 17 Sep 2006 19:26:03 GMT, Andre Lieven wrote:
>
>> Jayne Kulikauskas (jayne.ku...@gmail.com) writes:
>>> On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 11:46:21 -0500, Jill wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>> Judging from the volumes of defensive posts Jayne issued vouching for
>>>> PJR's supposed "good character" in August alone, I would say that,
>>>> YES, she really believed PJR was a nice guy at heart and would never
>>>> lie or make a fool of her or her SMM. Some people's balloons never
>>>> land.
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> And I still believe it. I believe that he did not lie and fully intended
>>> to do a good job of being a moderator.
>>
>> Oh. Come. On ! He bailed in the first month of the group, by my server,
>> the first week, after slagging ( Against the charter of alt.usenet.kooks.
>> moderated&polite ) Jill off.
>>
>> It is illogical to postulate that a person who so *swiftly* k00ked out,
>> meant to do anything, from the start.
>>
>> That claim of yours is, in the face of the evidence from smm, an
>> extraordinary one. Where is your extraordinary PROOF for it ?
>>
>> Exactly. You're headed for 0-3...
>
> There is no proof.
<laughs> His farewell post WAS the proof. You're just too BLINDED
by your own previous *gullibility* to want to SEE it.
> I will continue to believe that PJR was telling me the
> truth until he informs me otherwise.
>
> Call it faith or call it foolishness.
It is foolishness, of course. Experience is a provider of lessons,
so that we do not REPEAT the same errors. You are denying your
experience based lessons. That is the way of the willfully
ignorant.
> That is just how I am.
What, *unable to learn* ? Thats a Bad Thing. Correct it.
Andre
Andre Lieven
> On 17 Sep 2006 19:21:46 GMT, Andre Lieven wrote:
>
>> Jayne Kulikauskas (jayne.ku...@gmail.com) writes:
>>> On 17 Sep 2006 16:24:59 GMT, Andre Lieven wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jayne Kulikauskas (jayne.ku...@gmail.com) writes:
>>>>> Just because PJR thinks that soc.men.moderated will not be able to manage
>>>>> without him, does not mean it is so. Since when did people around here
>>>>> believe everything he says without question. I believed him when he said
>>>>> he would stick to his commitment to be a moderator and look how that
>>>>> turned out.
>>>>
>>>> Bwa ha ha ha !!!! Well, Jill and I TOLD you ! And, we were... RIGHT !
>>>
>>> You were.
>>
>> Well, I am a little surprised... But, as I just wrote " hope springs
>> eternal ", and so I will accept that, subject to one addition:
>>
>> Your admission that Jill and my objections to BDSG Borgerson were
>> as reasonable.
>
> I don't think that I ever claimed that your objections were not reasonable.
You refused to even consider them. That *chosen action* on your part
speaks volumes about which views you were considering " reasonable ".
> It was just that I felt that there were other considerations that I
> believed made it necessary to override your objections. I cannot say that
> I have much confidence in my judgement in doing so, at the moment, since I
> was wrong about PJR. On the other hand, I have no evidence that Mark B is
> in any way falling short in his duties as a moderator.
Do you have any *positive* evidence that he is succeeding in said
duties ? I read one post of his on alt.usenet.kooks.moderated&polite
where he was as much a Feminist excusing PUSSY as he is well known
for being on soc.men.
>>>>> SMM still has moderators, is still accepting posts and is still a
>>>>> functioning newsgroup. Subscribe and see for yourselves.
>>>>
>>>> Why ? Tell us what it's posting per day rate is right now.
>>>
>>> The average is about 8 posts per day. I expect that to increase once
>>> Google starts carrying it.
>>
>> What about that the only participating ( k00k ) moderator has fled
>> the scene of his crimes ?
>
> I think that PJR was doing the majority of the approvals just because of
> the way that the times zones worked out. There are still moderators left
> to approve posts and more can join if necessary.
Well, from what I'm reading about all this, GA and Mark have not been
present. So, with only BDSG Borgerson, smm is well on the way to
being soc.feminism.2.
>>>> And, its so lacking that my server cannot find it...
>>>
>>> Some servers have a policy of only adding groups when requested by their
>>> customers.
>>
>> Well, ncf's has picked it up, as of it's posts from 13/9/06. 34 in
>> 5 days is pretty small time, though...
>
> As I understand it, this is to be expected for the early days of a group.
Not when said new group is a named offshoot of a well used existing
one...
>> Face it, Jayne; The kooks are 2-0 on you. And, had you listened to
>> Jill and myself, that would not now be the case.
>>
>> Perhaps that will suggest to you that when Jill and I both tell
>> you that your path is incorrect, that there is a very good
>> possibility that that is true.
>
> Yes, it does.
Then, listen to us when we both tell you that PJR clearly meant
to do what he did, from the very start. Hes a k00k, who fooled
you, for the *second* time, into enabling his k00ky activities.
His *record* is clear on this, wrt anything soc.menish. How you,
twice, failed to see that, and how you, twice, failed to hear us
explaining it to you, is a mystery to me.
Don't go for a 0-3, OK ?
Andre
saur
> There is no proof. I will continue to believe that PJR was telling me the
> truth until he informs me otherwise.
This is how PJR signed off of smm. He abused his moderator privileges to
post the following:
> I have better things to do with my time than read fuckwitted posts by
> misogynistic fake women such as you, Phil. Fuck off and kill
> yourself.
>
> /me unsubscribes from soc.fr00ts.moderated
>
> --
> Disclaimer:
> Btw, in effect, I *am* the moderation team, so every fucking word of
> the above is official. Fuck off back to soc.fr00ts, woman-haters.
> This circle-jerking wannabe newsgroup is dead.
The above are not the words of an honorable man. They are, however, the
standard vulgar diatribes which come out of AUKers. You were played, again.
Andre Lieven
> Jayne Kulikauskas <jayne.ku...@gmail.com> reflexed:
Exactly correct. Jayne, you were fooled, twice. Stop trying to defend
the undefendable. Its... k00ky.
Andre
juerge...@yahoo.com
Jill wrote:
>
> Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
>
> Still Jayne defends PJR. What comes after shame me twice?
Do you likewise mock all others less jaded than you are?
There is no disgrace in taking a man at his word and being let down.
That you get much pleasure from another's disappointment exposes your
own rotted soul.
Chances are that PJR has a pretty bad hangover today and doesn't even
remember having his tantrum last night. It wouldn't be the first time.
pandora
"Jill" <ask...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hu2rg2toonq55vrs7...@4ax.com...
> >
> >[...]
> >> Judging from the volumes of defensive posts Jayne issued vouching for
> >> PJR's supposed "good character" in August alone, I would say that,
> >> YES, she really believed PJR was a nice guy at heart and would never
> >> lie or make a fool of her or her SMM. Some people's balloons never
> >> land.
> >[...]
> >
> >And I still believe it. I believe that he did not lie and fully intended
> >to do a good job of being a moderator.
>
And you are.....vermin.
pandora
"Aratzio" <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:2e7rg2tkkigdg2oam...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 12:14:38 -0500, Jill <ask...@yahoo.com> got
> double secret probation because:
>
> redeeming feature.
Yes, he/she is all that.
And of course. I don't really know what it is that she/he is bitching
about. I mean, smm can now become their own private world for misogyny and
the vileness that he/she has already shown he/she is capable of. He/she and
Tom and Andre can spew all they want to with no one to stop them. If they
all just keep to smm, that will at least put them all in one corral; keep
their hate mongering off the rest of Usenet. Works for me.
Marg
Marg
pandora
"Andre Lieven" <dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:eek8rv$o0b$1...@theodyn.ncf.ca...
>
> Feminism IS sexism. As proved by it's brain rotted adherants like
> Vagina Vickie. How nice of then to so consistantly prove it. <laughs>
Penis Andre shows his great intelligence in the above. It's all he knows
how to do.
Marg
> Andre
Masculist
Jill's the champion of justice and a role model for good women, whereas
you are feminist slime and an example of the worse in women. There's
hope for you though Marg but not for your sister Hyerwhore. I sense a
kernel of goodness in you.
Smitty
pandora
"Jayne Kulikauskas" <jayne.ku...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:12hwc2zq3vguj$.vrr0olcdgyf1.dlg@40tude.net...
> Just because PJR thinks that soc.men.moderated will not be able to manage
> without him, does not mean it is so. Since when did people around here
> believe everything he says without question. I believed him when he said
> he would stick to his commitment to be a moderator and look how that
turned
> out.
>
> functioning newsgroup. Subscribe and see for yourselves.
Just how can you run a moderated newsgroup with absent moderators?
Oh, I know, you could suggest Jill or Andre as a moderator. Yeah, that
should work just fine.
Marg
pandora
> Jayne Kulikauskas (jayne.ku...@gmail.com) writes:
> > Just because PJR thinks that soc.men.moderated will not be able to
manage
> > without him, does not mean it is so. Since when did people around here
> > believe everything he says without question. I believed him when he
said
> > he would stick to his commitment to be a moderator and look how that
turned
> > out.
>
>
> > functioning newsgroup. Subscribe and see for yourselves.
>
>
Perhaps your server, like your brain, is sub par? Could be.
Marg
> Andre
>
Andre Lieven
which was a new thread lauched by Jayne, and ONE post all of
today, that is labelled as being at about 2:40 *AM*.
And, that was PJR not being able to hold in his utterly kook
self and blowing the whole scam out of the water " I'm gone
and you have been punked " post.
Yeah, its dead.
Nice work, all who *fell for the kook's ploy AGAIN*....
Lets see, that was Jayne, news.groups, the board, but not
Jill nor myself.
No wonder Usenet is in trouble, when the folks supposedly
in charge of it are... so foolish and gullible.
Andre
Tim Skirvin
>> Now what's this about others not having access to the group? This is
>> the first time I've heard ot this. I thought anyone could post.
> Anyone can so long as they abide by the charter and the post is
> approved by ONE moderator. Like I said earlier, the ONE moderator
> approval thing was another one of those stupid ideas so long as we
> were letting an AUKer be a moderator.
...and now the AUKer in question has resigned without appointing a
successor. AUK has left the game entirely, and you're *still* complaining
that they have too much power?
If you want the group to succeed, I'd try to scare up some
moderators, and fast. If you want the group to die, then I'd just shut up
and leave it alone.
- Tim Skirvin (sk...@big-8.org)
--
http://www.big-8.org/ Big-8 Management Board
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>
Andre Lieven
> Jill <ask...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>>> Now what's this about others not having access to the group? This is
>>> the first time I've heard ot this. I thought anyone could post.
>
>> Anyone can so long as they abide by the charter and the post is
>> approved by ONE moderator. Like I said earlier, the ONE moderator
>> approval thing was another one of those stupid ideas so long as we
>> were letting an AUKer be a moderator.
>
> ...and now the AUKer in question has resigned without appointing a
> successor. AUK has left the game entirely, and you're *still* complaining
> that they have too much power?
No, Jill is rightly complaining that the *people who installed a k00k
as a moderator* need to *learn from their MStake*.
You appear to just not grasp *your part in this mess at all*.
> If you want the group to succeed, I'd try to scare up some
> moderators, and fast. If you want the group to die, then I'd just shut up
> and leave it alone.
Take your own advice, oh k00k-moderator installer.
" This is soc.men. We know better. " Michael Snyder.
Andre
pandora
"Masculist" <MASC...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1158530656.7...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> pandora wrote:
> > "Jill" <ask...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:hu2rg2toonq55vrs7...@4ax.com...
> > > On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 13:46:32 -0400, Jayne Kulikauskas
> > > <jayne.ku...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 11:46:21 -0500, Jill wrote:
> > > >
> > > >[...]
> > > >> Judging from the volumes of defensive posts Jayne issued vouching
for
> > > >> PJR's supposed "good character" in August alone, I would say that,
> > > >> YES, she really believed PJR was a nice guy at heart and would
never
> > > >> lie or make a fool of her or her SMM. Some people's balloons never
> > > >> land.
> > > >[...]
> > > >
> > > >And I still believe it. I believe that he did not lie and fully
intended
> > > >to do a good job of being a moderator.
> > >
> > > You are a fool.
> >
> > And you are.....vermin.
>
> Jill's the champion of justice and a role model for good women,
Since "Jill" isn't even a woman, I wouldn't hold her up as a role model for
women. As well, with *her* potty mouth, I wouldn't hold her up as role
model for a human being.
whereas
> you are feminist slime and an example of the worse in women. There's
> hope for you though Marg but not for your sister Hyerwhore. I sense a
> kernel of goodness in you.
But of course. Good of you to recognize it. However, since you consider
*Jill* to be a role model for women, your judgement is suspect. Carry on in
your hate mongering. I know that you will.
Marg
> Smitty
>
pandora
*Jill* please return to the sewer from which you sprang. Thanks.
Marg
pandora
> On 17 Sep 2006 13:09:41 -0700, juerge...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >
> >Jill wrote:
> >>
> >> Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
> >>
> >> Still Jayne defends PJR. What comes after shame me twice?
> >
> >
> >Do you likewise mock all others less jaded than you are?
>
> I suggest you get off your high and mighty horse and mind your own
> business.
> >
> >There is no disgrace in taking a man at his word and being let down.
>
> when you were repeatedly warned WITH PROOF that it was likely to
> happen again but you (meaning Jayne here) was too sure of her own
> superior knowledge to listen to anyone else. Again, if you don't know
> the history of how we got to today, then bud out.
Such nice words from a "role model for women". Yeah, uhuh,......
> >That you get much pleasure from another's disappointment exposes your
> >own rotted soul.
>
> Fuck you.
Again, the extent of *Jill's* vocabulary.
> >Chances are that PJR has a pretty bad hangover today and doesn't even
> >remember having his tantrum last night. It wouldn't be the first time.
>
> Should of known you were another of his apologist pals.
>
> Yeah, I've heard he's a real asshole but I missed the part about being
> a drunkard. No surprise there either.
>
> *plonk*
Oh, my. The mighty plonk from *Jill*. You are SO blessed, believe me.
Marg
pandora
Hey, Psssstttt! Idiot. The group is yours for the taking now. That is, IF
you can get your moderators to actually do what they agreed to do. Can
they? WIll they? Ah, the worm turns and it is.......rotten.
Marg
> Andre
pandora
> On 17 Sep 2006 15:04:16 -0700, "Masculist" <MASC...@gmail.com>
> thing. There is no hope for Mange...she is a nastier bitch than Parg
> by far. At least Parg has the guts to say what she really thinks.
> Mange can only drop veiled nasty comments full of vile hatred because
> she doesn't have the guts to be honest. And when that fails the best
> she can do is say "Me too!" What a loser.
Jill, I have been as honest with you as I care to be. I consider you to be
a gutter snipe and the worst of Usenet. Is that not honest enough for you?
Now just when are you going to FOAD as you were asked to? Thanks.
marg
pandora
"Tim Skirvin" <tski...@killfile.org> wrote in message
news:tskirvin.20060917225250$3e...@cairo.ks.uiuc.edu...
> Jill <ask...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> >> Now what's this about others not having access to the group? This is
> >> the first time I've heard ot this. I thought anyone could post.
>
> > Anyone can so long as they abide by the charter and the post is
> > approved by ONE moderator. Like I said earlier, the ONE moderator
> > approval thing was another one of those stupid ideas so long as we
> > were letting an AUKer be a moderator.
>
> ...and now the AUKer in question has resigned without appointing a
> successor. AUK has left the game entirely, and you're *still* complaining
> that they have too much power?
>
> If you want the group to succeed, I'd try to scare up some
> moderators, and fast. If you want the group to die, then I'd just shut up
> and leave it alone.
Tim, I don't know you and you don't know me, but let me tell you a bit about
*Jill*. *She* prefers to gloat when she believes *she's* right and piss and
moan when she's not. She also prefers to gloat when she thinks she's won
soimething. What is anyone's guess. She's too stupid to realize that she
(and her hate mongering co-horts), NOW have the opportunity to hide away in
their private news group. Will they? Of course not. They don't want to do
the work AND they're idiots. Thanks for listening.
Marg
pandora
> You're not me. As for what you'd do...you've done enough damage here
> already.
Calm down Jill. You can retract your claws now. He was only trying to be
helpfull.
pandora
> Tim Skirvin (tski...@killfile.org) writes:
> > Jill <ask...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >
> >>> Now what's this about others not having access to the group? This is
> >>> the first time I've heard ot this. I thought anyone could post.
> >
> >> Anyone can so long as they abide by the charter and the post is
> >> approved by ONE moderator. Like I said earlier, the ONE moderator
> >> approval thing was another one of those stupid ideas so long as we
> >> were letting an AUKer be a moderator.
> >
> > ...and now the AUKer in question has resigned without appointing
a
> > successor. AUK has left the game entirely, and you're *still*
complaining
> > that they have too much power?
>
> No, Jill is rightly complaining that the *people who installed a k00k
> as a moderator* need to *learn from their MStake*.
What about the other 3 soc men fruits still left as moderators? Are they
not worth counting? Have you forgotten them?
> You appear to just not grasp *your part in this mess at all*.
And your part in this mess? Ah, yes, to denigrate your supposed *friend* as
well as to complaing constantly about the group being created. Why are you
now upset about it not making it? That is, if it dies. Isn't that what you
wanted in the first place?
> > If you want the group to succeed, I'd try to scare up some
> > moderators, and fast. If you want the group to die, then I'd just shut
up
> > and leave it alone.
>
> Take your own advice, oh k00k-moderator installer.
You still have 3, count em, THREE moderators. Are you admitting that you
have NO confidence in them? They're soc.froots like you so they should be
just up your alley. You know, the one you share with that cat Jill?
Marg
Jayne Kulikauskas
> Jayne Kulikauskas (jayne.ku...@gmail.com) writes:
>
>> It was just that I felt that there were other considerations that I
>> believed made it necessary to override your objections. I cannot say that
>> I have much confidence in my judgement in doing so, at the moment, since I
>> was wrong about PJR. On the other hand, I have no evidence that Mark B is
>> in any way falling short in his duties as a moderator.
>
> Do you have any *positive* evidence that he is succeeding in said
> duties ? I read one post of his on alt.usenet.kooks.moderated&polite
> where he was as much a Feminist excusing PUSSY as he is well known
> for being on soc.men.
Mark's opinions about feminism are not relevant to his duties as a
moderator. He has been participating in the post approval process as much
as he can fit around his travel schedule, just as he said he would.
>
>> I think that PJR was doing the majority of the approvals just because of
>> the way that the times zones worked out. There are still moderators left
>> to approve posts and more can join if necessary.
>
> Well, from what I'm reading about all this, GA and Mark have not been
> present. So, with only BDSG Borgerson, smm is well on the way to
> being soc.feminism.2.
[...]
Mark S. has been delaying participating as moderator until his news
provider starts carrying smm. He has done a couple of posts to smm using
the temporary web interface.
I'm not sure what happened to GA. It may be Real Life issues since he
isn't posting in soc.men either.
Jayne Kulikauskas
> Jayne Kulikauskas (jayne.ku...@gmail.com) writes:
[...]
>> Perhaps not yet. Peter is in a much earlier time zone than the others.
>> It will take some time for them to find out what has happened and start
>> picking up the slack left by his departure.
>
> Well, IIRC, Mark is in the Eastern Time Zone. Was PJR farther to the
> east of that ?
PJR is in England. Mark S. has been delaying assuming his moderator duties
until his server starts carrying smm. This was an option while PJR was
doing extra work, but will be no longer. Anyhow, the server ought to have
Mark's request processed any day now.
> I grant that GA and BDSG Borgerson are in the far west.
Mark B can only put limited time into moderatation this week because of his
job. I would expect posts to appear within the next 48 hours.
Jayne Kulikauskas
> On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 13:43:53 -0500, Jill <ask...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 19:29:39 +0100, Veronica O'Donoghue
>><vm...@insurgent.org.invalid> wrote:
[...]
>>>Indeed he did, and he put in a great deal of work throughout. But a
>>>moderated group cannot run with, in effect, only one moderator. The
>>>concept, mechanics and rules of a moderated group need to be
>>>understood both by all of those who agree to moderate and all of
>>>those who wish to post. This did not happen in the case of smm despite
>>>Peter's best efforts.
>>
>>You think the way he went about "resigning" by going off on me
>>personally was a reflection of "Peter's best efforts?"
>>
>>Obviously he was conning the whole bunch of you when he was "learning
>>the concept, mechanics, and rules of a moderated group." Rules he
>>managed to break entirely in the way he flamed out of SMM. Now he is
>>likely sitting back and laughing his ass off
>
> Not when I spoke to him earlier. Not at all. He put in a great deal of
> work over the past weeks, tried very hard to get the moderation team
> working, but two of them simply did not do any moderating and the
> other did too little. Several moderators are needed on a regular
> basis, or it becomes too much for one person in terms of time and also
> in terms of either being solely responsible for what appears in the
> group or leaving a long queue of posts waiting to be moderated for
> days or even weeks until another moderator decides to moderate.
[...]
I can confirm this. Peter was working very hard on moderation and did far
more than any of the other moderators. Mark B. had warned us that he would
not be available much during September because of his work commitments.
Mark S. was waiting for his server to start carrying smm. While I can
understand why he would want to do this, I don't think he realized how much
of a burden it was placing on Peter. I'm not sure what happened to GA,
since I have not been able to contact him.
Peter was over-worked and I suspect that was a factor in him snapping like
that and making an inappropriate and dishonourable attack on Jill. Up to
that point, he was an exemplary moderator and I am grateful for his
contributions.
Sharon B
wrote in <k57rg21ekk60lq1t5...@4ax.com>:
>On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 12:36:19 -0400, Sharon B <sha...@lart.com> got
>double secret probation because:
>
>>On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 16:16:45 GMT, saur <sa...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in
>><6tf3nc51kx2k$.d...@saur.rdc-nyc.rr.com>:
>>
>>> Jayne Kulikauskas <jayne.ku...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It has nothing to doing with mocking me or the Board. As I understand his
>>>> motives, he found that he could not in good conscience remain a moderator
>>>> of a group in the which the charter allowed so many posts that he found
>>>> deeply objectionable. While I am, of course, diappointed, I can respect
>>>> the decision.
>>>
>>>The Charter wasn't made public prior to PJR's accepting a moderator's
>>>position? Or are you saying that PJR lacks the intelligence to anticipate
>>>that people would post within the boundaries of the Charter? Now you're
>>>mocking yourself, Jayne. You were the only one who didn't know that your
>>>co-proponents were playing you, and now you're the only one who refuses to
>>>acknowledge that PJR played you, too. PJR's behavior is Standard Operating
>>>Procedure for AUKers.
>>
>>Heh! Watch yer generalizations, saur.
>>
>>So far, you and I haven't tangled. I /never/ troll in email, nor do I
>>take Usenet off Usenet....AND....I've never called you a "whiner".
>
>I believe that is just me that has called the whiney lil fuck a
>whiner. He has not stopped whining about it yet.
>
>>
>>Peter wasn't trolling to be moderator. He just VASTLY overrated the
>>soc.fr00t capability to remain unfr00ty. He expected them to behave
>>near-normal in situations outside of soc.fr00ts.
>>
>>Cuz he's an optimist.
>
>We do like that about Peter.
Yes, we love Peter.
>>Now, unless Graham pulls a rabbit out of his hat, this is going to end
>>up /just/ as I said it would during the CFV. Usenet will have a
>>SECOND moderated hate group.
>
>I Nominate SharonB as new moderator!
oh HEYULL no
no way Jose
ARE YOU TRYING TO DRIVE ME OVER THE EDGE?
>>Way to go, Big 8 Board. Way to do all you can do to make the world a
>>worse place.
>
>They are a fun bunch of kooks, them rose coloroed glasses are so
>stylish.
>
>>
>>Now give Richard the Stupid a moderated Big 8 group to discuss how to
>>trade kiddie pr0n without getting arrested.
>
>RtS may be too smart for this bunch.
I dunno after his comment about wanting a host site to colocate his
tower 'o' power that he's REMOVED THE HARD DRIVES FROM.
Where's Lysander Spooner when we need him?
>>AUK added
>
>alt.fucknozzles added
Jayne Kulikauskas
> Jayne Kulikauskas <jayne.ku...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> There is no proof. I will continue to believe that PJR was telling me the
>> truth until he informs me otherwise.
>
> This is how PJR signed off of smm. He abused his moderator privileges to
> post the following:
>
>> I have better things to do with my time than read fuckwitted posts by
>> misogynistic fake women such as you, Phil. Fuck off and kill
>> yourself.
>>
>> /me unsubscribes from soc.fr00ts.moderated
>>
>> --
>> Disclaimer:
>> Btw, in effect, I *am* the moderation team, so every fucking word of
>> the above is official. Fuck off back to soc.fr00ts, woman-haters.
>> This circle-jerking wannabe newsgroup is dead.
>
> The above are not the words of an honorable man. They are, however, the
> standard vulgar diatribes which come out of AUKers. You were played, again.
I cannot defend this post. It was wrong. Peter is, however, an honourable
man in general, in spite of this lapse.
Sharon B
<qknrg2pgtmpkek1nn...@4ax.com>:
[...]
>What about Parg's potty mouth? I've asked that before and you
>couldn't answer the question because you are a two-faced bitch. Why
>is my potty mouth so fucking troublesome to you but Parg's constant
>penis licking, cum receptacle commentary is just A-OK with you? Ditto
>for Deb Terreson. She can more than keep up with me in the "potty
>mouth" (heh) department but you never mention that either.
So then, what you're saying is that you think your being vulgar and
low class is a good thing for a lady to aspire to and something that
good Christian men want in a traditional woman, right?
Henrietta K Thomas
wrote:
> Jayne Kulikauskas <jayne.ku...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> There is no proof. I will continue to believe that PJR was telling me the
>> truth until he informs me otherwise.
I am with you on this because I, too, believed Peter was sincere when he
offered to help moderate SMM.
>This is how PJR signed off of smm. He abused his moderator privileges to
>post the following:
>
>> I have better things to do with my time than read fuckwitted posts by
>> misogynistic fake women such as you, Phil. Fuck off and kill
>> yourself.
>>
>> /me unsubscribes from soc.fr00ts.moderated
>>
>> --
>> Disclaimer:
>> Btw, in effect, I *am* the moderation team, so every fucking word of
>> the above is official. Fuck off back to soc.fr00ts, woman-haters.
>> This circle-jerking wannabe newsgroup is dead.
>
>The above are not the words of an honorable man.
They appear to me to be the words of a very frustrated man who found
himself alone in the moderator's chair with no power to reject offensive
articles (because it takes TWO to reject in SMM). The other moderators
apparently just disappeared without doing much of anything. I don't
blame Peter for reacting angrily, but I'm sorry he did what he did. It
would have been better, IMO, if he had contacted Graham Drabble to see
what could be done about recruiting new moderators. But maybe he felt
that was a lost cause.
--
Henrietta
Usenet newsgroups for the blind or visually impaired:
news:alt.comp.blind-users
news:alt.disability.blind.social
news:soc.support.vision-impaired