Dirty Eddie's Fantasies
Mike Restivo
wonder if
indeed your behavior beyond that of your imagined "Freemasonic Idealism"
is really
what this is all about.
I would invite readers to take a quick look at your recent endeavors as
"Sir
Stephen" at http://www.pathcom.com/~mtronics/erotica/ <NOTE:
X-Rated!!! "This web
site is reserved for my fantasy and fictional accounts involving a
variety of human
sexual relationships probed from an emotional and psychological
perspective towards
the optimal understanding of the limits, if any, of sexual
relationships. These
accounts involve fictional composites of persons and involve real sexual
theories
whose candid and explicit exploration of heterosexual sex, or domination
and
submission and bondage and discipline, is only for the edification of
the sexually
mature adult. The sexuality is detailed, intense and prolonged." Is what
you've
been up to lately outlined in "College Tutoring in Human Sexuality 101"
or is it
just another fantasy like your becoming Grand Master of all Masonry?
Sorry, Mike,
but I think your credibility is now REALLY going to take a tumble. I'd
wondered
what a 54 year old was doing in college when he wasn't moaning about the
evil
Masonic goons; guess I see he was fantasizing. Too bad you can only
fantasize....>>>
Hey Eddie, need to peek at my private web site? Unsure about your
sexuality? Want me to write some stories just for you? hah. Get a life
boy. I'll move 'em off to keep prying eyes out. Gotcha! Have you
looked at my scatological page boy? Can you say flushed out? or
flushed down? Poor Eddie doesn't know whehn he's been set up, already
telling his lackey Nelson what to do ... It's too easy. just wiggle his
spider web and Eddie pops out. I got more games for you ...
† Mike Restivo
Evil Joe Schmuckatelli
<mtronicsREM...@tor.axxent.ca> wrote:
> Hey Eddie, need to peek at my private web site? Unsure about your
> sexuality? Want me to write some stories just for you? hah. Get a life
> boy. I'll move 'em off to keep prying eyes out. Gotcha! Have you
> looked at my scatological page boy? Can you say flushed out? or
> flushed down?
Translation: Mikey just got caught with his pants down, and he's frantically
trying to dispose of the evidence.
------------------------------------------------+------------------
"One World, One Web, One Program." -- Microsoft | OS/2 Warp
| Solid like Linux
"Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer." -- Hitler | Easy like Windows
------------------------------------------------+-------------------
"...but is what we're doing evil?"
"Of course not! Listen, Zip -- EVIL spelled backwards
is LIVE -- and we all want to do that!"
Hi! I'm the Spawn of Satan (tm)!
Ask me about franchise opportunities in your area!
All your base are belong to us.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Restivo
Mike Restivo wrote:
>
> << dunno, Mike: seems like you've been a busy boy lately and one must
> wonder if
> indeed your behavior beyond that of your imagined "Freemasonic Idealism"
> is really
> what this is all about.
>
Ed King wrote:
> Hey Eddie, need to peek at my private web site? Unsure about your
> sexuality? Want me to write some stories just for you? hah. Get a life
> boy. I'll move 'em off to keep prying eyes out. Gotcha! Have you
> looked at my scatological page boy? Can you say flushed out? or
> flushed down? Poor Eddie doesn't know whehn he's been set up, already
> telling his lackey Nelson what to do ... It's too easy. just wiggle his
> spider web and Eddie pops out. I got more games for you ...
>
> † Mike Restivo
I removed the index.htm from my root directory so that it could be
viewed by the nosey led by their own lust to rush to judgement, little
knowing that they had been set up. Tempted? Yes. Nobody forced Ed King
to fall into my trap. Makes one wonder what other little things he and
his pals are up to? Anybody reading my garbage or peeking in my
window? Hah. What a so-called Mason. Eddie's just a neurotic, Restivo
obsessed porn junkie. What other stuff do you need to see, Eddie? Try
elsewhere. The trap works only once. I thought I would catch somebody
else. Tip of the hat to Eugene Goldman for not playing with this one.
<yet?>
I would have wagered otherwise and lost. Good not to rush to pile on or
jump into a hole instead. Summer holidays soon. More fun.
† Mike Restivo
Mike Restivo
Sorry Joe boy, no stories for you. Disappointed? What haven't seen my
other stuff? Like Mexican jumping beans I keep these puerile goofs
hopping. Ask Eddie for 'em. Hah!
† Mike Restivo
Mike Restivo
I needed something really outrageous to tempt certain parties, including
Ed King. I had two other people in mind also. I have been playing the
sex card against Eddie for years with queer and small potatoes
innuendo. So, I took a radical test. Ok I let my curiosity run wild.
Here's the thing, I have wondered for years, to what lengths these goons
would go to discredit Restivo. How illegal? Phone harrassment? Just
what? So I cooked up this test and stuck my neck out too. Can't get
good prey without good bait. I still have not answered my question.
That means more test to come, yes, over the years if need be. I'm
patient and creative. Eh Ed? And the next time there's a Masonic
convention somewhere, am I supposed to be on a roof-top with my Captain
Midnight gear or what?
On a sane note ... To those sensitive and uninvolved in Restivo's strife
with a few neurotics, just ignore or not at will, it's just a test, no
real porn, no bomb making plans, no crack from cane sugar plans.
Aaaawwwww
So Joe, what would Eddie do or say to your employer or your clients if
he decided to do a number on YOU? Suppose he claimed that you had aids
and spread it around? Or the best/worst, that you are a child
molester? hard to dispel that one when the goons decide to bark in
unison. Just something to think about, if you can get over your hate
for Microsoft.
† Mike Restivo
Ed King
to Joe Schmuckatelli:
> I needed something really outrageous to tempt certain parties, including
> Ed King. I had two other people in mind also.
Uh-huh. Caught 'in the act' and now trying frantically to cover things up. Your
advertisement for 'Firehand Ember' now takes on a whole new connotation, doesn't
it? <ROFL>
> I have been playing the sex card against Eddie for years with queer and
> small potatoes innuendo.
Well, this admission of yours does tend to show your true character, doesn't it?
Unable to best me by your typical braggadocio and hot air, you revert to the most
base level. Proud of yourself, Mike? Think that makes you a great debater?
Wonder how others view this....
> So, I took a radical test. Ok I let my curiosity run wild.
Little more than that, I'd say. Your 'explanation' is that of the little boy
caught with his hand in the cookie jar. "I just wanted to see if you'd catch me."
is SO juvenile as to be nearly unimaginable amongst adults. Using PORNOGRAPHY to
do so really reeks of bad taste at best.
Did you have fun writing that stuff, Mike?
Did you REALLY want that type of thing associated with your name?
> Here's the thing, I have wondered for years, to what lengths these goons
> would go to discredit Restivo. How illegal? Phone harrassment? Just
> what?
Poor, poor persecuted Mike. When will you EVER get a life, eh?
> So I cooked up this test and stuck my neck out too. Can't get
> good prey without good bait.
Uh-huh. That's a pretty great excuse and I'm SURE your loyal minions will jump to
your defense in this. I'll wait for the outpouring of support.
> I still have not answered my question.
> That means more test to come, yes, over the years if need be.
My gosh, Mike: you are simply OBSESSED aren't you?
> I'm patient and creative. Eh Ed?
Not as far as your so-called 'erotic writing' would indicate.
You must have been taking lessons from the guys in the Inquisition: torture
someone until they confess to an imagined crime and then kill them because of
their confession. How unique.
You crawl into the gutter to get 'dirt' on your imagined 'enemies': this is NOT
the behavior of the rational adult, imbued with extraordinary reasoning abilities
that you claim to have, do you think?
If you were 19 years old and used such a 'trap', I'd have dismissed it as the
actions of an immature person. In YOUR case - at 54 - you can HARDLY use that
defense.
> And the next time there's a Masonic
> convention somewhere, am I supposed to be on a roof-top with my Captain
> Midnight gear or what?
It was you who first made the suggestion the last time around, Mike.
> On a sane note ... To those sensitive and uninvolved in Restivo's strife
> with a few neurotics, just ignore or not at will, it's just a test, no
> real porn, no bomb making plans, no crack from cane sugar plans.
> Aaaawwwww
Hmmmmm..... I think those who saw it would kinda disagree, Mike. What incredible
hubris prompted you to do such a thing in the first place. Admit it: you were
CAUGHT. I have no idea why someone like yourself would post pornography (POORLY
written pornography at best) but obviously there's something REALLY wrong with
your synapses these days.
> So Joe, what would Eddie do or say to your employer or your clients if
> he decided to do a number on YOU?
So if I say: "Mike Restivo posted erotica on his web site." that's somehow now
wrong in the rabbit-hole world of Mike Restivo? Are you imagining that you DIDN'T
do it?
> Suppose he claimed that you had aids and spread it around? Or the
> best/worst, that you are a child molester?
Stretch a little further, Mike, so EVERYONE can see the depths of depravity
you've sunk to.
> hard to dispel that one when the goons decide to bark in
> unison. Just something to think about, if you can get over your hate
> for Microsoft.
You really fancy yourself someone of importance, don't you? How can you even
suggest such evil and awful things? You'll do ANYTHING to cover your tracks,
won't you? Admit it: you've followed the path of Leo Taxil and now you're trying
to dig yourself out of a hole by admission and the attempts to shift guilt. Won't
work, Mike: you're now 'outed' as a pornographer - and it WON'T be forgotten!!!
Ed King
http://www.masonicinfo.com -- Anti-Masonry: Points of View
Internet newsgroup posting. Copyright 2001. All rights reserved.
Ed King
> Translation: Mikey just got caught with his pants down,
<shudder> Perish the thought!
> and he's frantically trying to dispose of the evidence.
It's typical, isn't it? Every time he gets into one of these 'situations', he
tries to paint EVERYONE ELSE as the culprit.
When, after an absence of a couple of weeks, he reappeared with a cite of his
site which appeared to have new material, I went to check it out (just as I do
with EVERYONE who posts stuff on web sites about Freemasonry). Curiously, the
link to 'home' was gone but by looking around, I stumbled on this directory
titled "Erotica" there. For those who didn't see it, it was pretty poor writing.
Erotica it wasn't! Visual imagery was of the level of a high school sophomore
but strangely, it had a resonance of our boy Mike Restivo.
Now, caught in the act, Mike attempts to claim it was a "trap" he set. <ROFL>
Like the tax protester claiming that the government had 'tricked' him into not
paying his taxes or the bank robber who claims he was just testing the police to
see if they were smart enough to catch him, Mike has been _exposed_ (so to
speak) 'diddling around'. He's going to howl on this for a LONG time but the
fact is simple: a man of good moral character as he claims to be would have
NEVER done anything this - REGARDLESS of motivation.
Frat,
Ed King
> I removed the index.htm from my root directory so that it could be
> viewed by the nosey led by their own lust to rush to judgement, little
> knowing that they had been set up. Tempted? Yes.
Sounds like a VERY limp excuse, Mike. Where did you come up with that
material in the first place? <ROFL>
> Nobody forced Ed King to fall into my trap.
Uh-huh. What a twist on reality. Everything's about you, Mike, and always
will be it seems. You were caught posting porn and now claim that you just
did it to make OTHERS look bad. How absolutely amazing.
> Makes one wonder what other little things he and his pals are up to?
For my web site, I regularly look at the 'entire' picture on web sites.
Remember, Mike: it's posted PUBLICLY so there's no sneaking around involved.
If you wanted your pornography keep privately, you shouldn't have posted it
on the web. You did. Think about the depravity of that action - and stop
trying to excuse it by blaming others.
> Anybody reading my garbage or peeking in my window? Hah. What a
> so-called Mason. Eddie's just a neurotic, Restivo obsessed porn junkie.
Let's remember, Mike: YOU posted the material. Try to keep a faint hold on
reality if you can. YOU are the guilty party. YOU were caught with porno on
your web site, not me. Shall we go back and review what you had to say about
this when Kennie was accusing a Mason of having porn on _his_ web site?
Seems to me you took a pretty firm position about folks not EVER having a
reason for doing that. Shall we revisit all of those posts again? No, never
mind: you'll have _some_ kind of song and dance to explain your depravity
away trying to convince others that you weren't just caught in the act of
bad (VERY bad) taste at best.
> What other stuff do you need to see, Eddie? Try elsewhere. The trap
> works only once.
I'm sure you'll be more careful next time. But you REALLY do need to get
psychological help, Mike: these behaviors of yours are NOT those of rational
people.
> I thought I would catch somebody else. Tip of the hat to Eugene
> Goldman for not playing with this one. <yet?>
When has Gene Goldman EVER written about web sites with information on them
relevant to this venue? When has Gene Goldman EVER sent anyone to another
web site? Let's compare: I do it about 5-10 times a month while Gene might
do it a couple of times a year. So you REALLY want us to believe this was a
trap for Gene too? Your imagined superior powers of reasoning are really
failing you here, Mike.
> I would have wagered otherwise and lost. Good not to rush to pile on or
> jump into a hole instead. Summer holidays soon. More fun.
It's always all about you, isn't it Mike?
You really need to get a life!
Ed King
> Evil Joe Schmuckatelli wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 21 Mar 2001 04:18:00, Mike Restivo
> > <mtronicsREM...@tor.axxent.ca> wrote:
> >
> > > Hey Eddie, need to peek at my private web site?
Never got your original message, Mike. Guess your hands must have been busy doing
something other than hitting the 'send' key, huh? <ROFL>
> > > Unsure about your sexuality?
Not at all, thanks. I didn't have to pretend to be a college tutor....
> > > Want me to write some stories just for you? hah.
Thanks anyway, Mike, but I'll pass. Your so-called "erotic" writing is even more
tiresome than your regular stuff here.
> > > Get a life boy.
Funny thing: I was going to suggest the same thing for you....
> > > I'll move 'em off to keep prying eyes out.
Little late for that, don't you think? What hubris it was for you to put that
stuff there in the first place. How immature....
> > > Gotcha! Have you looked at my scatological page boy?
<ROFL> No, and after seeing what you did with "erotica", I have NO desire to see
that sort of thing. You really are an immature person, aren't you?
> > > Can you say flushed out? or flushed down?
I think, Mike, rational minds would say that applied to YOU and not me.
> > Translation: Mikey just got caught with his pants down, and he's frantically
> > trying to dispose of the evidence.
Answered separately.
> Sorry Joe boy, no stories for you. Disappointed? What haven't seen my
> other stuff? Like Mexican jumping beans I keep these puerile goofs
> hopping. Ask Eddie for 'em. Hah!
You know, Mike, your excuses are awfully lame.... Oooopppps: sorry! I shouldn't
use the word "lame" around you, should I?
Fish Taco Joe Schmuckatelli
wrote:
>It's typical, isn't it? Every time he gets into one of these 'situations', he
>tries to paint EVERYONE ELSE as the culprit.
Watch him try to "refute" this. By any chance did you mirror his site
before he had a chance to ditch the files in question?
>Erotica it wasn't! Visual imagery was of the level of a high school sophomore
>but strangely, it had a resonance of our boy Mike Restivo.
I bet the hero of the story gets to "refute" common myths about sex.
>Now, caught in the act, Mike attempts to claim it was a "trap" he set. <ROFL>
What do you wanna bet he starts claiming you entrapped him somehow?
>Like the tax protester claiming that the government had 'tricked' him into not
>paying his taxes or the bank robber who claims he was just testing the police to
>see if they were smart enough to catch him, Mike has been _exposed_ (so to
>speak) 'diddling around'.
Don't forget that one senator (I think it was during the ABScam sting)
that claimed that he was investigating these evil deeds that everyone
else got nailed for, but that the FBI blew his cover...
-------------------------------------------------+-------------------
"One World; One Web; One Program." -- Microsoft | OS/2 Warp
| Solid like Linux
"Ein Volk; Ein Reich; Ein Fuhrer." -- Hitler | Easy like Windows
-------------------------------------------------+-------------------
Use your bandwidth. If you don't, it'll go stale.
If Bill Gates had a dime for every time a Windows box
crashed... oh, wait. He does.
I Am Not A Number... Um...except for my TCP/IP address.
If you can read this .sig, you're too damn close.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Hudson
""Fish Taco Joe" Schmuckatelli" <joesc...@KILL.SPAMFORD.WALLACE.NOW> wrote
in message news:3ab8fc4c...@news.armored.net...
| On Wed, 21 Mar 2001 08:20:19 EST, Ed King <edk...@masonicinfo.com>
| wrote:
|
| >Now, caught in the act, Mike attempts to claim it was a "trap" he set.
<ROFL>
|
| What do you wanna bet he starts claiming you entrapped him somehow?
|
From Restivo's 'replacement page' :
{ You have fallen for a trap set for enemies of Restivo.
{ I created a sex page to see who would post the info
{ about it against me. It was a psychological trap and
{ Ed King of Maine fell for it! Silly boy. This no life
{ needs to prowl porno sites for his edification! I trap
{ this guy regularly over the years and he still falls for
{ it. Hey Eddie wait for my next test.
{
{ Mike Restivo
Once again, I'm left not knowing what to think of this 'Restivo' persona. I
want to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that his actions are
deliberate rather than 'reactive', but it seems to be a real stretch this
time.
My conclusion
*** Either: ***
He was serious about his private 'experiments' in writing erotica, (which
IMHO, while unusual, is certainly plausible), but lacked the balls to stand
up for his rights to free speech against somewhat mild criticism from
someone (who admittedly doesn't respect him to begin) with when his
experiment was unintentionally 'discovered'.
*** Or: ***
He really is so obsessed with his 'enemies' that he went to a great deal of
trouble (including taking the time to write at least than five several page
stories with explicit themes) all for the sole purpose to find out who'd
discover it first and who would report it once discovered (apparently known
in intelligence circles as a 'dye test').
======
I'm not quite sure which one of these two scenarios is sadder, but I tend to
think the first one reflects shame or at least a lack of courage, whereas
the second demonstrates much more obsession that is probably healthy. Too
bad. I really could have respected Restivo a great deal more he had just
stood up for himself, rather than 'covering up' like a young boy caught
doing something 'naughty'.
In my opinion writing out one's thoughts for private discovery is nothing
shameful -- even if they contain material that might be objectional to some.
Neither it necessarily 'hubris' in thinking your creative works might appeal
to the right audience. Still, if a person feel deep shame or embarassment
for what they're doing, in my opinion they should either not do it or get
over the shame. And regardless, the decision to 'publish' to the web or
elsewhere (even a ng) really should be based on whether or not you can stand
by your words or deal with any flack that comes in about it.
Hey Mike, a really good mondo I try to practice is:
'What can be talked about but not done is best not talked about.
What can be done but not talked about is best not done'.
Alas, I don't always keep it either.
--
Steven M. Hudson .*.
Jerusalem Lodge No. 49
remove _NOSPAM to reply
Evil Joe Schmuckatelli
> Sounds like a VERY limp excuse, Mike.
Maybe that's why he was trying to write erotica? >:-)
------------------------------------------------+------------------
"One World, One Web, One Program." -- Microsoft | OS/2 Warp
| Solid like Linux
Mike Restivo
Subject: Re: Dirty Eddie's Fantasies
Newsgroups: alt.freemasonry
Date: 2001-03-21 05:22:38 PST
In article <3AB85558...@tor.axxent.ca>, Mike Restivo wrote:
to Joe Schmuckatelli:
> I needed something really outrageous to tempt certain parties, including
> Ed King. I had two other people in mind also.
[Eddie's rant snipped.]>>
Hey Eddie here's how I prove that you're a sex obsessed neurotic fool:
Firstly I put some of my private writings on my private web site and
removed the index.html file.
Eddie, who makes a habit of trying to hack into sites and trespass into
places uninvited, found to his surprise that what had failed previously,
now worked: he could read my site's entire directory.
Now an normal person would pause to consider: Hey, why do I have access
now, when previously it was not possible? But Eddie's crooked mind does
not run honestly. He sees an unlocked door and the first thing that
enters his mind is to illegally trespass or otherwise peep into the
windows of others' homes. Edward L. King is a voyeur. That is
incontestably proven.
Now he copies whatever he like, like a burglar invading one's home,
messing around with private journals, papers and such, maybe divorce
proceedings or financial or court affairs which one would prefer to keep
private, and which one would have the expectancy of privacy in one's own
private quarters, like the private, not public directories of my web
site.
Restivo deliberately set a trap for the goons of Eddie's ilk. I
contrived to the last detail how his vulgarity would entrap him, and
others it was my anticipation, in my snare. I succeeded but expected
more.
continuing, Eddie decides to post the url to my private web pages. He
and he alone has published Restivo's private writings, which as his
quote suggests, are partly based upon my real experiences. Part true
and part fiction. I'm not saying the proportions of each, nor the
actual events involved in the genesis of my stories, meant not for the
public, but for a small circle of lady intimates, who requested them. I
complied as a lark and then used them as bait.
That makes Edward L. King now voyeur and public publisher of
pornography. It is he who publicly posted the URL, available in archive
yet! I undertook no such thing. Little Eddie is the self proclaimed
president of the Mike "Italian Stallion" Restivo fan club, and hands out
copies of my exploits to all his loser friends. [guffaw]
Make no mistake: Edward L. King knew that his public posting of the url
would be archived by Deja News/Google, so that those publicly and
privately that he told to go to that site, would read my private
writings, not meant for public viewing. he knows that anybody at any
time can do a search and find his archived post and visit the site
again. that makes Edward L. King not only a one time pornographer and
solicitor to read pornography and public corrupter of morals, it makes
him a continuous, even now, public publisher of pornography!
Yet he calls Restivo a pornographer. I, who alone removed the pages
back to their secure place, so that his public solicitation to view
pornography, would be denied. Eddie the voyeur and peeping tom, Eddie
the trespasser, Eddie the pornographic publisher, handing my private
writings about to his loser friends.
Edward L. King is and continues to be a publisher of pornography,
obtained by trespass and intended to bring discredit upon Restivo. He
would probably poke his video cam into windows and tape me in my bedroom
if he could, such is the prodigy of his vulgarity.
Am I to be blamed because Edward L. King takes it upon himself to
trespass into web site or even my home if he could, search through my
private belongings and then parade them in public, continuously via
archive?
Of course not. Restivo is the victim. Has Restivo been libelled?
that's a good question. it is unequivocal, that Eddie boy seeks to sue
whatever and whoever he can against me, especially given my sting of him
of late: There have been others, and there will be others to come.
this goof is a slave to his neuroses and obsession with Restivo. Maybe
its a sex thing. I suppose he was disappointed that he couldn't find
porno to his liking, maybe some homosexual erotica. I cannot please
everyone. Catch as catch can little one.
So.... The Philalethes Society's man (????) of the Year (???????) or
whatever is in the public pornography business, continually pointing to
a site, which I, not he or anyone else, have rendered empty.
Does your Lodge and Grand Lodge and the Philalethes Society know or care
that it endorses a public and continuous pornographer? One who's
business is to libel Restivo? Have they no shame or integrity?
No wonder you hide your credentials, so much to hide your hacker and
voyeur habits.
Oh yes, the libel part. Well for years, Eddie and the gang have mocked
Restivo as not having a life, a loner, buried in the cellar (hah!),
etc., etc., now the boy finds that Restivo enjoys an intense sex life
hot enough to burn the phosphor off a monitor's screen and raise
callouses on a wanker's hand (blush).
Yes indeed, shout it from the rooftops: Mike Restivo has a high sex
drive and enjoys a sex life that is the envy of men half his age. Get
my age right: This old geezer, Restivo, does it all naturally, no
viagra. I aim to please and hit the bell over and over. No complaints
from my lady intimes yet (Guffaw)!
I'm sure you won't forget, what with your little cache of autoerotic
material stolen from Restivo, your relationship with your hands will
grow warmer and warmer. (guffaw) Anybody need some el primo wanker
material, can ask Edward L. King. How many copies have you made yet
Eddie. Hah, hah, hah.
Stud Restivo, mmmmmmm
Mike "Italian Stallion" Restivo, much better.
So Eddie boy succeeds in proving that Restivo is more virile and potent
than he claimed. So what's next? Why Restivo sightings from the
"Grassy Knoll" to "Graceland", Restivo perched on every roof-top ready
to strike, Restivo bedding half the city's adult women and receiving
love letters from the other half. (Guffaw)
mercy .... I'm laughing so hard, I gotta wipe the tears of laughter from
my eyes. So you're jealous of Restivo, finishing university. Jealous
of Restivo's strength of character. It comes with the gonads, boy. Now
Edward L. King is jealous of Restivo's sex life. it never ends.
jealous of my clothes, my soap, whatever. This hacker, voyeur, peeping
tom, and pornographer, Edward L. King would trespass and steal if given
the very opportunity that I gave him as a sting and test, only. He
failed the test miserably.
Oh, yeah, about proving Eddie's a moron:
I've already explained how I manipulated his rush to acquire by foul
means whatever he could to advance his neurotic ends and business, which
is Restivo hating, and has been for years. Does he think for one moment
that it could be yet another one of Restivo's traps? Naaawww. I got
him and reeled him in. Need juicy bait for the big prey. I delivered
and he swallowed greedily like some of my characters (guffaw)!
Okay. What is the best option to take, unsure if one is being set up?
Do nothing. Duh! The onus is on Restivo to sweeten the bait all the
more, to the point of recklessness and beyond. In the alternative, if
Restivo feels that the trap failed, I fold my game. Either way, Eddie
is not incriminated or jeopardized. Alas he lacks both brains and
patience.
Does he wait? Nah! That would be too logical. This goof can't think
past his next thought. He runs head long into the sting I set for him,
then proceeds to incriminate himself in public, on the net, to his loser
buddies and continuously so by archive. Is this guy stupid or what?
Doesn't even ask anybody if what he is about to do makes sense:
Philalethes Man of the Year Edward L. King *self appointed* head of the
Restivo pornography publishing club. (guffaw)
I, Mike Restivo declare that I have no interest in this person Edward L.
King's public pornography racket, and affirm that he obtained my private
writings by computer hacking and trespass into my site. I am not
responsible for the corruption of minors that this man may so corrupt
though the dissemination (!!!!) of erotic material which he has no
entitlement to possess.
Guffaw. Wait 'till the next one sucker.
† Mike "Italian Stallion" Restivo
N757ZN
In article <3AB85558...@tor.axxent.ca>, Mike Restivo wrote:
to Joe Schmuckatelli:
> I needed something really outrageous to tempt certain parties, including
> Ed King. I had two other people in mind also.
Uh-huh. Caught 'in the act' and now trying frantically to cover things up. Your
advertisement for 'Firehand Ember' now takes on a whole new connotation,
doesn't
it? <ROFL>
> I have been playing the sex card against Eddie for years with queer and
> small potatoes innuendo.
Why? What is the purpose of this kind of "exposure"? The cornerstone of your
arguments, Mike have been consistently touted by you as irrefutable logic. Why
do you now wander into this area as though it is relevant to to the logical
foundation of anything Ed King or anyone else has to say? So what if Ed did (or
does) frequent porn sites? I do not believe he does based on this incident but
even if he did what "trap" have you caught him in and what have you proven with
regard to anything Ed has to say about Freemasonry? Ed hasn't posted that he'd
never look at a porn site and he certainly doesn't maintain pornographic
content in any form on his website so what have you demonstrated with this act?
What statement of Ed's have you unraveled? These are fair questions.
>>(Ed to Mike)--- Well, this admission of yours does tend to show your true
character, doesn't it?<<
Unable to best me by your typical braggadocio and hot air, you revert to the
most
base level. Proud of yourself, Mike? Think that makes you a great debater?<<
Or perhaps a Mass-debator? heheheh. Sorry, I couldn't resist a cheap shot.
>>Wonder how others view this....
Jury is still out but things are looking kind of raunchy at this point. I don't
which scenario is worse. --A. Mike is really so obsessed with his opponents
that he went to these lengths or B. That he just got caught out there and now
uses this angle to evade his exposure.
>> So, I took a radical test. Ok I let my curiosity run wild. <<
>Little more than that, I'd say. Your 'explanation' is that of the little boy
caught with his hand in the cookie jar. "I just wanted to see if you'd catch
me."
is SO juvenile as to be nearly unimaginable amongst adults. Using PORNOGRAPHY
to
do so really reeks of bad taste at best.
Did you have fun writing that stuff, Mike?<
Well, you did say that he wasn't very good at it, Ed. Perhaps it's not his
usual vocation, afterall.
>Did you REALLY want that type of thing associated with your name?
I get the impression that he wants that sort of thing associated with your name
but it is not working out that way at the moment.
>> Here's the thing, I have wondered for years, to what lengths these goons
> would go to discredit Restivo. How illegal? Phone harrassment? Just> what?
The same question may now be asked with regard to how far Brother Restivo is
willing to go to discredit Brother Ed King and his associates ("legal" moral or
otherwise).
(Ed to Mike)-- Poor, poor persecuted Mike. When will you EVER get a life, eh?
> So I cooked up this test and stuck my neck out too. Can't get
> good prey without good bait.
What was so "good" about this "bait"? You're fishing with hand grenades. Anyone
could have wandered into this "erotica" site -- children even. If it was just
you and Ed on the Internet maybe I could see your point but you did this where
everyone could access the content regardless of it's real or alternate intent.
There was no way for you to restrict access to just Ed.
(Ed to Mike)>> Uh-huh. That's a pretty great excuse<<
I think it's kind of weak, actually.
>> and I'm SURE your loyal minions will jump to
your defense in this.<<
By this I'll assume you mean me or Renzland. I don't appreciate your label, Ed
but I can understand how you would make that assignment. In case you missed it,
Ed, I was concerned with the principle of a Masonic process rather than the
person involved but the way you see it is going to have to be the final word on
the matter. 'nuff said.
(Ed to Mike) > I'll wait for the outpouring of support.<
Don't be surprised if nobody jumps on this one.
(Mike to Ed)>> I still have not answered my question.
> That means more test to come, yes, over the years if need be.<<
Why? For what purpose? You are the one who has gone over the top with this
"demonstration." Ed King's, Gene Goldman's & anyone else's sexual arousal,
confusion, preferences or orientations are not germain to the topic of
Freemasonry or anything they could say (or have said) on the subject. If this
really was some sort of elaborate test it was an attempt to define (or defame)
the character of the persons you sought to ensnare and proves NOTHING about
Freemasonry or the arguments of the men you oppose.
(Ed)--- My gosh, Mike: you are simply OBSESSED aren't you?
There is a lot of obsession going on around here and perhaps this would be a
good time to back off and take a distant view of it.
> I'm patient and creative. Eh Ed?
Too bad you couldn't use your time more constructively, Mike. Is it really
worth all of this?
In article <3AB85558...@tor.axxent.ca>, Mike Restivo wrote:
to Joe Schmuckatelli:
mecifully snipped ><
(Ed to Mike) >Not as far as your so-called 'erotic writing' would indicate.
You must have been taking lessons from the guys in the Inquisition: torture
someone until they confess to an imagined crime and then kill them because of
their confession. How unique.<
Hey, even the Pope apologized for that little inquisition thing. Too bad it
only took him 700 years to do it. Funny, I don't recall reading about
reparations to the injured parties. Perhaps that was in the 1945 NY Times
article?
>You crawl into the gutter to get 'dirt' on your imagined 'enemies': this is
NOT
the behavior of the rational adult, imbued with extraordinary reasoning
abilities
that you claim to have, do you think?
If you were 19 years old and used such a 'trap', I'd have dismissed it as the
actions of an immature person. In YOUR case - at 54 - you can HARDLY use that
defense.<
He's got a point, Mike.
> (Mike to Ed)--- And the next time there's a Masonic
> convention somewhere, am I supposed to be on a roof-top with my Captain
> Midnight gear or what?
Perhaps. My only concern after reading this is what the weapon of choice is
going to be.<BWG> Oh, I can't help it. I slay myself sometimes - heh heh heh. I
think that whole rooftop thing was an incredible stretch of imagination.
> (Ed to Mike) ---It was you who first made the suggestion the last time
around, Mike.<
Here we go again. No.
> On a sane note ... To those sensitive and uninvolved in Restivo's strife
> with a few neurotics, just ignore or not at will, it's just a test, no
> real porn, no bomb making plans, no crack from cane sugar plans.>
A sane note. An interesting aside considering what just went down. Oooops!
Sorry, another Freudian slip, I imagine.<G> What is sane about constructing a
porn page to create an opportunity to salm your opponent when he predictably is
going to make mention of something like that. If Ed hosted a porn section on
his website would you sit quiet about it, Mike? I don't think so.
(Ed to Mike)--->> Hmmmmm..... I think those who saw it would kinda disagree,
Mike. What incredible
hubris prompted you to do such a thing in the first place. Admit it: you were
CAUGHT. I have no idea why someone like yourself would post pornography (POORLY
written pornography at best) but obviously there's something REALLY wrong with
your synapses these days.<<
Ed, you keep comenting on the poor quality of Mike's pornographic writings. How
would you know what consitutes "good" porn, BTW? Hmmmm? <G>
>(Mike to Joe Schmuck) So Joe, what would Eddie do or say to your employer or
your clients if
> he decided to do a number on YOU?
Isn't this one of those world class evasions that I was jumping all over people
for a few months ago? An interesting topic switch but not really relevent to
Freemasonry or your test or the issue at hand (so to speak <G>), is it?
(Ed to Mike) So if I say: "Mike Restivo posted erotica on his web site." that's
somehow now
wrong in the rabbit-hole world of Mike Restivo? Are you imagining that you
DIDN'T
do it?
Another point made. Was it your intention to "trap" Ed and be able to claim
that he read a porno page while cleverly ensnaring yourself into being the guy
who created the page in the first place? You play chess like the Russian
Masters, Mike. Too much sacrifice if you ask me.
>(Mike to Joe)--- Suppose he claimed that you had aids and spread it around?
Or the
> best/worst, that you are a child molester?
Suppose Ed had actually created a porn page to trap you, Mike? How sick would
that be? What would you have to say if Ed did this and subsequently claimed he
was laying a trap for YOU?
(Ed to Mike)---Stretch a little further, Mike, so EVERYONE can see the depths
of depravity
you've sunk to.
That's not a stretch, Ed. It's a switch.
>(mike to Joe)--- hard to dispel that one when the goons decide to bark in
> unison. Just something to think about, if you can get over your hate
> for Microsoft.
More non-topic writing. What ills have been suffered by anyone here over the
years of ranting that have been going on? I saw a glimmer of it during my
disagreements with Brother Poll but this is really past reason.
(Ed to Mike) ---You really fancy yourself someone of importance, don't you? How
can you even
suggest such evil and awful things? You'll do ANYTHING to cover your tracks,
won't you? Admit it: you've followed the path of Leo Taxil and now you're
trying
to dig yourself out of a hole by admission and the attempts to shift guilt.
Won't
work, Mike: you're now 'outed' as a pornographer - and it WON'T be forgotten!!!
So I guess this means you guys are finally gonna bring Mike up on charges? I
didn't think so.
Jerome
Blacksheep
relate to Masonry, and yourself, cannot be serious with the convoluted
reasoning you pen here? Who is more guilty of moral turpitude, the
investigator who caught Jimmy Swaggart, or Jimmy himself for ethical lapses.
You blame others for finding that which you do not deny as your own
writings. You also do not deny that you created those writings, not to
catch an inquisitive individual whom you have a feud with, but for
dissemination to "Lady friends".
Even if one were to buy into your highly dubious claim of a trap, that still
does not absolve you of the content. As for your statements about "private
website and private writings", only a fool would believe that anything
posted on the net without security, and firewall protection is anything but
public. You cannot possibly believe what you post here in equating visiting
a website with directory browsing enabled, allowing for perusal of all
contained therein as to breaking into someone's home and rifling through
private documents?
Mike, those who have followed your ongoing skirmish with Masons, may give
you the benefit of the doubt, that not all concerning your petition was
handled appropriately, but this situation??? Mike, you got caught, take it
like a man, and admit it.
Yes, Mike I have been lurking, I have not gone away, merely amused myself
with your ongoing pariacal obsession of persecution. I just have found
nothing worthy of response over the past few months.
To Gene, Jack, et. al. Hello again, I'm still alive and kicking
Garry Pratt
Semper Fi
"Mike Restivo" <mtronicsREM...@tor.axxent.ca> wrote in message
news:3ABAD733...@tor.axxent.ca...
> ? Mike "Italian Stallion" Restivo
>
Robert Pringle
< all snipped for the benefit of everyone.>
Hey Mike,
Save the rest of us the bandwidth and take your squabbles into
private e-mail.
Bob Pringle MM
St. Marks #5
St. Andrews, NB
Animal Style Gene Goldman.·.
Semper Fi, Garry,
IMHBCO, so what if Mike wants to post his own personal attempts at
porn on his personal web page? That is his right, and although it
certainly does not interest me in the least, I rise to defend his
right to do so. Mike is publishing his porn legally, and harming no
one (save possibly his *own* image) in the process. The porn is his
own creation, and he has every right to show it to whomsoever wants to
bother to read it. There are CERTAINLY many, many worse things he
could be writing.
If Mike wants to post his own porn, for his own amusement, on his own
web page, why should any of us even try to talk him out of it?
Mike,
Go ahead, publish your writings on your page. Don't let these
potential oppressors get to you.
--
|O| Be well. Travel with a light heart.
Brother Gene .*.
H.M.S.H.
Q.P.H.D.
http://www.calodges.org/no442
http://www.blackmountainlodge.net
http://www.freemason.org
MBBFMN #387
ICQ #503060
And in case I don't see ya' - Good Afternoon, Good Evening and Good Night!
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCM/CC/TW/O d--(++) s:,s++ a+ C+(++++) U--- P! L-- E!
W++ N+++ o-- K- w++++ O---- M--(+) V? PS+++ Y+ PGP--
t* 5 X- R* tv+++ b++ DI+++ D G e* h---- r+++ y++++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Remember: You are someone's impression of Masonry
Internet newsgroup posting. Copyright 2001. All rights reserved.
Any Mason may use the contents for any valid Masonic purpose, permission may be granted to others upon request.
Objects in this post are funnier than they appear
Be seeing you
cameron
Translation: This is so transparent I feel ashamed to witness it.
Cameron
Ed King
> Why? What is the purpose of this kind of "exposure"? The cornerstone of your
> arguments, Mike have been consistently touted by you as irrefutable logic. Why
> do you now wander into this area as though it is relevant to to the logical
> foundation of anything Ed King or anyone else has to say? So what if Ed did (or
> does) frequent porn sites?
Actually, if I (or anyone) WAS looking for porn sites, they'd have NEVER found
Mike Restivo's. It was (based on the file date) put up just a day or two earlier
- FAR too soon to get listed by ANY Yahoo-type directory. Clearly the attempted
explanation that I was just 'surfing the web' and happened upon his porn is
ludicrous in the extreme. His name was not on the site: how would I have known it
was his even if I _had_ been just surfing?
Oh, and shall we talk about what his ISP would have done with his account had he
actually listed it as a porn site and started getting the flood of visitors such
things produce? <ROFL> I suspect, in fact, that his ISP probably had a rule
against him doing it in the first place - yet another inappropriate behavior from
one who seems to revel in such things.
> I do not believe he does based on this incident
I've got better things to do, thanks!
> but even if he did what "trap" have you caught him in and what have you
> proven with regard to anything Ed has to say about Freemasonry?
Mike - as you may remember - plans to be a lawyer so he can sue me. He's confused
on the definition of "entrapment" apparently.
> Ed hasn't posted that he'd
> never look at a porn site and he certainly doesn't maintain pornographic
> content in any form on his website so what have you demonstrated with this act?
It seems to me, Bro. Jerome, that Mike was QUITE vocal a while ago about a Mason
who'd had a link to a porn site buried somewhere on his personal web site. Guess
I'll have to go pull that post and reread it.
> What statement of Ed's have you unraveled? These are fair questions.
I'll wait with bated breath for the answer.
> >>(Ed to Mike)--- Well, this admission of yours does tend to show your true
> character, doesn't it?<<
> Unable to best me by your typical braggadocio and hot air, you revert to the
> most base level. Proud of yourself, Mike? Think that makes you a great
debater?<<
>
> Or perhaps a Mass-debator? heheheh. Sorry, I couldn't resist a cheap shot.
And you think _Gene_ comes out with some bad ones? Hey, guy....
> >>Wonder how others view this....
>
> Jury is still out but things are looking kind of raunchy at this point. I don't
> which scenario is worse. --A. Mike is really so obsessed with his opponents
> that he went to these lengths or B. That he just got caught out there and now
> uses this angle to evade his exposure.
I wonder if we'll ever know the true story. Either way, it's pretty pitiful in my
opinion. Regrettably, there's no joy on my part. Mike has been deteriorating for
some time (I've commented on this before) and this is just one more - probably
the worst - example.
> >> So, I took a radical test. Ok I let my curiosity run wild. <<
>
> >Little more than that, I'd say. Your 'explanation' is that of the little boy
> caught with his hand in the cookie jar. "I just wanted to see if you'd catch
> me." is SO juvenile as to be nearly unimaginable amongst adults. Using
> PORNOGRAPHY to do so really reeks of bad taste at best.
> Did you have fun writing that stuff, Mike?<
>
> Well, you did say that he wasn't very good at it, Ed. Perhaps it's not his
> usual vocation, afterall.
If you could take a typical Mike Restivo post and put all sorts of
sexually-related nouns and verbs in it, you'd have it. Not something I'd want to
curl up with on a lonely night, believe me!
> >Did you REALLY want that type of thing associated with your name?
>
> I get the impression that he wants that sort of thing associated with your name
> but it is not working out that way at the moment.
Was it a trap cleverly conceived by a self-proclaimed Master of setting traps?
Or was Mike just guilty of incredibly bad judgement? Mike's set 'traps' before
and they've gone bad. Doesn't surprise me if another one did too.... OTOH, I
really think he got caught and is now squealing to cover himself.
> >> Here's the thing, I have wondered for years, to what lengths these goons
> > would go to discredit Restivo. How illegal? Phone harrassment? Just> what?
>
> The same question may now be asked with regard to how far Brother Restivo is
> willing to go to discredit Brother Ed King and his associates ("legal" moral or
> otherwise).
Clearly, to the point of being made the fool himself.
> (Ed to Mike)-- Poor, poor persecuted Mike. When will you EVER get a life, eh?
> > So I cooked up this test and stuck my neck out too. Can't get
> > good prey without good bait.
>
> What was so "good" about this "bait"? You're fishing with hand grenades. Anyone
> could have wandered into this "erotica" site -- children even. If it was just
> you and Ed on the Internet maybe I could see your point but you did this where
> everyone could access the content regardless of it's real or alternate intent.
> There was no way for you to restrict access to just Ed.
I've got copies I could send you privately. It was not a PG-13 type of thing.
> (Ed to Mike)>> Uh-huh. That's a pretty great excuse<<
>
> I think it's kind of weak, actually.
Sorry, forgot the tongue in cheek.
> >> and I'm SURE your loyal minions will jump to
> your defense in this.<<
>
> By this I'll assume you mean me or Renzland. I don't appreciate your label, Ed
> but I can understand how you would make that assignment. In case you missed it,
> Ed, I was concerned with the principle of a Masonic process rather than the
> person involved but the way you see it is going to have to be the final word on
> the matter. 'nuff said.
Don't assume too much! Bottom line: Mike Restivo - as he had done many times
previously - was able to drive a wedge between several Masons. Much of that wedge
remains in place, regrettably. They say time heals all wounds and perhaps seeing
the mean-spiritedness and underhanded behavior from Mike Restivo here might
explain why some of us felt so very strongly about his potential reaffiliation -
even to the point of making mistakes in haste to ensure that he wasn't able to
bowl over the unsuspecting.
> (Ed to Mike) > I'll wait for the outpouring of support.<
>
> Don't be surprised if nobody jumps on this one.
I'm pleasantly surprised! <smile> Sometimes in this venue, it's easy to make
broad - and very unwarranted - assumptions.
> (Mike to Ed)>> I still have not answered my question.
> > That means more test to come, yes, over the years if need be.<<
>
> Why? For what purpose? You are the one who has gone over the top with this
> "demonstration." Ed King's, Gene Goldman's & anyone else's sexual arousal,
> confusion, preferences or orientations are not germain to the topic of
> Freemasonry or anything they could say (or have said) on the subject. If this
> really was some sort of elaborate test it was an attempt to define (or defame)
> the character of the persons you sought to ensnare and proves NOTHING about
> Freemasonry or the arguments of the men you oppose.
You've got to wonder what the next "test" will be, don't you? <shrug> The mind
reels with the possibilities....
> (Ed)--- My gosh, Mike: you are simply OBSESSED aren't you?
>
> There is a lot of obsession going on around here and perhaps this would be a
> good time to back off and take a distant view of it.
Funny thing: I can ALWAYS walk away from Mike Restivo's foolishness - and have
done so regularly in the past. Can't say it's the same for him though. You're
right: I'll let this one go now with this lengthy post. However, when Mike wants
to moralize on how Freemasons should act, don't be surprised if it's used as an
example. You've got to admit: it DOES go to "the arguments" which he makes.
> > I'm patient and creative. Eh Ed?
>
> Too bad you couldn't use your time more constructively, Mike. Is it really
> worth all of this?
I suspect he'll continue to try and bully his way through.
> In article <3AB85558...@tor.axxent.ca>, Mike Restivo wrote:
> to Joe Schmuckatelli:
>
> mecifully snipped ><
>
> (Ed to Mike) >Not as far as your so-called 'erotic writing' would indicate.
> You must have been taking lessons from the guys in the Inquisition: torture
> someone until they confess to an imagined crime and then kill them because of
> their confession. How unique.<
>
> Hey, even the Pope apologized for that little inquisition thing. Too bad it
> only took him 700 years to do it. Funny, I don't recall reading about
> reparations to the injured parties. Perhaps that was in the 1945 NY Times
> article?
<ROFL> Maybe we can ask "Freemasonry Watch", huh?
> > You crawl into the gutter to get 'dirt' on your imagined 'enemies': this is
> > NOT the behavior of the rational adult, imbued with extraordinary
> > reasoning abilities that you claim to have, do you think?
> > If you were 19 years old and used such a 'trap', I'd have dismissed it as the
> > actions of an immature person. In YOUR case - at 54 - you can HARDLY use that
> > defense.<
>
> He's got a point, Mike.
> > (Mike to Ed)--- And the next time there's a Masonic
> > convention somewhere, am I supposed to be on a roof-top with my Captain
> > Midnight gear or what?
>
> Perhaps. My only concern after reading this is what the weapon of choice is
> going to be.<BWG> Oh, I can't help it. I slay myself sometimes - heh heh heh. I
> think that whole rooftop thing was an incredible stretch of imagination.
One of the things that folks like Mike Poll, Gene, and I wrote about earlier was
the lengths Mike Restivo would go to in order to "win". Clearly, he sees himself
locked in mortal battle with the "goon enforcer Masons" one of whom was going to
be in his back yard. Was it so foolish to think that he might do something
irrational - particularly now in retrospect? People in the (third most recent)
school shooting didn't think the kid would do such a thing.... Maybe I gave
Mike's erratic behavior more weight than it deserved. On the other hand, there
were Mounties and Toronto Detectives present (with weapons) who were alert rather
than being lulled into a false sense of security thinking nothing evil could
happen in a Masonic meeting. Did the warning Mike was given in advance disuade
him from more bizzare behavior? We'll never know - but I felt better knowing that
no one was harmed as a result of my minimizing a threat.
Many years ago while pledging a military fraternity, we were on manuevers at Fort
Devens. I minimized the guy behind me hitting me in the behind with an ammo can
thinking he was just horsing around. In reality, he was trying to tell me he'd
heard something and we were walking into an ambush. It was only "play" but had it
been real, 12 men would have been dead as a result of my 'minimizing a threat'.
Since then, when somebody threatens me, I take it seriously. It's not that I'm
not big enough to defend myself: those who've seen me know I could do it quite
well. I was more concerned for the safety of others at that meeting. Seeing the
lengths Mike goes to in his effort to prove what a big man he is, I STILL think I
made the appropriate call on it.
> > (Ed to Mike) ---It was you who first made the suggestion the last time
> around, Mike.<
>
> Here we go again. No.
> > On a sane note ... To those sensitive and uninvolved in Restivo's strife
> > with a few neurotics, just ignore or not at will, it's just a test, no
> > real porn, no bomb making plans, no crack from cane sugar plans.>
>
> A sane note. An interesting aside considering what just went down. Oooops!
> Sorry, another Freudian slip, I imagine.<G> What is sane about constructing a
> porn page to create an opportunity to salm your opponent when he predictably is
> going to make mention of something like that. If Ed hosted a porn section on
> his website would you sit quiet about it, Mike? I don't think so.
One can _still_ see Mike's rantings on his website about my choice of an ISP to
whom he couldn't figure out how to complain. That in and of itself provides the
answer.
> (Ed to Mike)--->> Hmmmmm..... I think those who saw it would kinda disagree,
> Mike. What incredible hubris prompted you to do such a thing in the first
> place. Admit it: you were CAUGHT. I have no idea why someone like yourself
> would post pornography (POORLY written pornography at best) but obviously
> there's something REALLY wrong with your synapses these days.<<
>
> Ed, you keep comenting on the poor quality of Mike's pornographic writings. How
> would you know what consitutes "good" porn, BTW? Hmmmm? <G>
In college, I majored in English Lit. I also read a lot (not porn, thanks) and
understand the types of things which go into the concept of "imagry". Mike's
writing left me.... well, limp!
> >(Mike to Joe Schmuck) So Joe, what would Eddie do or say to your employer or
> > your clients if he decided to do a number on YOU?
>
> Isn't this one of those world class evasions that I was jumping all over people
> for a few months ago? An interesting topic switch but not really relevent to
> Freemasonry or your test or the issue at hand (so to speak <G>), is it?
He's gotta look for cover somewhere.
> (Ed to Mike) So if I say: "Mike Restivo posted erotica on his web site." that's
> somehow now wrong in the rabbit-hole world of Mike Restivo? Are you
> imagining that you DIDN'T do it?
>
> Another point made. Was it your intention to "trap" Ed and be able to claim
> that he read a porno page while cleverly ensnaring yourself into being the guy
> who created the page in the first place? You play chess like the Russian
> Masters, Mike. Too much sacrifice if you ask me.
Good analogy.
> >(Mike to Joe)--- Suppose he claimed that you had aids and spread it around?
> > Or the best/worst, that you are a child molester?
>
> Suppose Ed had actually created a porn page to trap you, Mike? How sick would
> that be? What would you have to say if Ed did this and subsequently claimed he
> was laying a trap for YOU?
>
> (Ed to Mike)---Stretch a little further, Mike, so EVERYONE can see the depths
> of depravity you've sunk to.
>
> That's not a stretch, Ed. It's a switch.
I dunno....
> >(mike to Joe)--- hard to dispel that one when the goons decide to bark in
> > unison. Just something to think about, if you can get over your hate
> > for Microsoft.
>
> More non-topic writing. What ills have been suffered by anyone here over the
> years of ranting that have been going on? I saw a glimmer of it during my
> disagreements with Brother Poll but this is really past reason.
>
> (Ed to Mike) ---You really fancy yourself someone of importance, don't you? How
> can you even suggest such evil and awful things? You'll do ANYTHING to
> cover your tracks, won't you? Admit it: you've followed the path of Leo
> Taxil and now you're trying to dig yourself out of a hole by admission
> and the attempts to shift guilt. Won't work, Mike: you're now 'outed' as
> a pornographer - and it WON'T be forgotten!!!
>
> So I guess this means you guys are finally gonna bring Mike up on charges? I
> didn't think so.
1) No desire to waste time with a vexatious litigant. (Would YOU want to read his
800 page reply to a four paragraph charge?)
2) No desire to deal with GRC based on what I saw while in Toronto. (Read "Petty
Tyranny" on the freemasonry.org website to get a flavor of things.)
3) If I died of old age in the process, Mike would crow that he'd won. Wouldn't
want that, would I? <BWG>
Ergo, not me thanks. My life has more meaning that that. And Mike will - from
time to time - be reminded of his pecadillos which is quite enough for me.
Fraternally,
Evil Joe Schmuckatelli
Goldman.·.) wrote:
> Mike is publishing his porn legally, and harming no
> one (save possibly his *own* image) in the process.
That's right. From now on, he'll be known as the Pimp of Alt.Freemasonry.
Rob Sandilands
remember rightly, it translates more or less as "of the writings of
prostitutes" ... and let us not forget, what is pornography to one person
may be completely normal to another ... now if you want real obscenity, we
could discuss some of the extreme religious sects, or even the
televangelists, that are around at present ...
KIV11
>seeing
>the mean-spiritedness and underhanded behavior from Mike Restivo here might
>explain why some of us felt so very strongly about his potential
>reaffiliation -
>even to the point of making mistakes in haste to ensure that he wasn't able
>to
>bowl over the unsuspecting.
>
Ed, it might help if you re-read what Jerome wrote:
> Ed, I was concerned with the principle of a Masonic process rather than the
>> person involved
Perhaps, at that time, you, Mike Poll, Geno and several others did not give
those of us who argued about the process enough credit for having the
intelligence to separate the process from the individual.
You then wrote:
>Mike Restivo - as he had done many times
>previously - was able to drive a wedge between several Masons. Much of that
>wedge
>remains in place, regrettably.
Speaking for myself, I never saw a wedge ever seperating any of us. Differences
in opinions are not grounds enough to split up relationships with Brothers I
respect as individuals and for their contributions to the Fraternity.
The Masonic process was the only thing in question back then. The same
questionning of the process that prompted Jerome to recently ask about
appendant bodies.
Fraternally,
W.'. George F. Kivowitz, 32'
WM South Shore Lodge #1126 (2000)
North Shore Council #88 Cryptic Masons
Adjutant - Mort Weitman Post #50 Masonic War Veterans
Grand Lodge F&AM, State of NY
Steven M. Hudson
"Rob Sandilands" <rob...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:8r%u6.21570$992.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> actually, the use of the word "pornography" has always intrigued me ... If
I
> remember rightly, it translates more or less as "of the writings of
> prostitutes" ...
Wow. Thanks for the correction. I looked it up just to verify it. I had
always thought it was synonymous with 'obscenity' which I fundamentally
disagreed with. It's interesting to not that you were exactly correct...
[French pornographie, from pornographe, pornographer, from Late Greek
pornographos, writing about prostitutes: porn, prostitute; see per-5 in
Indo-European Roots + graphein, to write; see -graphy.]
So, technically, none of the writings that I read on Mike's website were
'pornography' in the sense that the two or three stories I read did not in
fact mention prostitutes at all. :-)
I also personally did not find them 'obscence' in the conventional
understanding of 'offensive' -- I personally have a pretty thick skin when
it comes to thoughts or ideas. I wasn't even particularly grossed out. He
didn't mention anything that I saw about children, animals or 'dirty'
practices such as coprophagia. I'm afraid the worst I would say about it
was that it was 'inappropriate for children' and that the writing was a tad
on the puerile and hackneyed side.
(Sorry for the harsh critique Mike -- it really wasn't bad for a first
effort, but there was just a tad too much emphasis on body parts and
emissions to really be called 'erotica' as far as I'm concerned. Compare
your writing style of "she grabbed my throbbing <part>" to something like...
A garden inclosed is my sister, my spouse; a spring shut up, a fountain
sealed.
Thy plants are an orchard of pomegranates, with pleasant fruits; camphire,
with spikenard,
Spikenard and saffron; calamus and cinnamon, with all trees of frankincense;
myrrh and aloes, with all the chief spices: A fountain of gardens, a well of
living waters, and streams from Lebanon.
Awake, O north wind; and come, thou south; blow upon my garden, that the
spices thereof may flow out. Let my beloved come into his garden, and eat
his pleasant fruits.
(Song of Solomon 4 12-16).
Peter Renzland
> In article <20010323084659...@ng-mm1.aol.com>, N757Zn wrote:
>>> and I'm SURE your loyal minions will jump to your defense in this.
>> By this I'll assume you mean me or Renzland. I don't appreciate
>> your label, Ed but I can understand how you would make that
>> assignment. In case you missed it, Ed, I was concerned with the
>> principle of a Masonic process rather than the person involved
>> but the way you see it is going to have to be the final word on
>> the matter. 'nuff said.
> Don't assume too much! Bottom line: Mike Restivo - as he had
> done many times previously - was able to drive a wedge between
> several Masons. Much of that wedge remains in place, regrettably.
I take the advice and assume nothing. I simply ask: Ed King, please
explain *unequivocally* who those "loyal minions" are supposed to
be. And what was the message that you intended with that statement.
(And please don't say it was "just symbolic". ;-)
> They say time heals all wounds and perhaps seeing the mean-
> spiritedness and underhanded behavior from Mike Restivo here might
> explain why some of us felt so very strongly about his potential
> reaffiliation - even to the point of making mistakes in haste to
> ensure that he wasn't able to bowl over the unsuspecting.
This one sentence concisely contains the entire problem.
--
Peter Renzland Simcoe No.^.644 GRC Toronto ON CA
MasonTruth
>Date: 3/22/01 8:55 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <3ABAD733...@tor.axxent.ca>
Dear Sir,
I don't know that you are truly the Mike Restivo we know. Not one of telling
for me either...Posts just don't go along with thise of the original
Mike...Maybe someone can tell but I sure cann not..
Sincerely,
MasonTruth
Bro. Manny Blanco (S.W.) Finally
Moreno Valley Lodge # 804
Moreno Valley, CA
"Behold how good and pleasant it is for Brethren to dwell together in unity."
MasonTruth
>Message-id: <3AB8512D...@tor.axxent.ca>
>
>http://www.pathcom.com/~mtronics/erotica/
Dear Mike or Whoever you are,
I clicked on the site out of curiousity and it
reads that I have fallen into a trap. Surely you have better things to do in
your life then to try to trap Brethren. I have my doubts that you are the real
Mike Restivo..
Maybe one of the Brethren who are in contact with you can veryify that this is
indeed the real deal...
MasonTruth
>From: Mike Restivo mtronicsREM...@tor.axxent.ca
>Date: 3/20/01 8:18 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <3AB82B78...@tor.axxent.ca>
These posts just do not remind me of the Mike Restivo posts of old. Don't know
why I have doubets but can someone verify that this is indeed Mike Restivo and
not an impostor please?
N757ZN
In article <20010323084659...@ng-mm1.aol.com>, N757Zn wrote:
> Why? What is the purpose of this kind of "exposure"? The cornerstone of your
> arguments, Mike have been consistently touted by you as irrefutable logic.
Why
> do you now wander into this area as though it is relevant to to the logical
> foundation of anything Ed King or anyone else has to say? So what if Ed did
(or
> does) frequent porn sites?<<
>Actually, if I (or anyone) WAS looking for porn sites, they'd have NEVER found
Mike Restivo's. It was (based on the file date) put up just a day or two
earlier
- FAR too soon to get listed by ANY Yahoo-type directory. Clearly the attempted
explanation that I was just 'surfing the web' and happened upon his porn is
ludicrous in the extreme. His name was not on the site: how would I have known
it
was his even if I _had_ been just surfing?<
So, then you were examining his site! And you had the nerve to click on a topic
entitled "erotica"? Boy, that's some trap you went for, Ed. That'll teach you
to search for new material that criticises Freemasonry, won't it? Barring some
other revelation I don't see you as the one who was "trapped."
>Oh, and shall we talk about what his ISP would have done with his account had
he
actually listed it as a porn site and started getting the flood of visitors
such
things produce? <ROFL> I suspect, in fact, that his ISP probably had a rule
against him doing it in the first place<
For me, the bottom line is that it is really Mike's business if that's his cup
of tea but this declaratrion about it all being some sort of elaborate trap as
though he planned this is really surprising and as far as I can see
unsupported.
> - yet another inappropriate behavior from
one who seems to revel in such things.<
I don't know if Mike is wrapped up in such things but then again, it's not my
concern, either. The only reason I might be surprised would be from my own
unsupported preconcieved ideas about Mike's prerferences and behavior. I do not
have enough information and experience to make those types of determinations
about him. Furthermore, what I might consider obsecene might be the norm for
others. I didn't see the writings, only the disclaimer that stated you had fell
into a "trap."
>> I do not believe he does based on this incident<
>I've got better things to do, thanks!<
I have no reason to assume anything about you in this regard, Ed, but this
"incident" doesn't prove anything to me about you.
> but even if he did, what "trap" have you caught him in and what have you
> proven with regard to anything Ed has to say about Freemasonry?
>Mike - as you may remember - plans to be a lawyer so he can sue me.<
He doesn't need to BE a lawyer to sue you. He only needs to hire one. If he
keeps this up he may need to consult one.
> He's confused
on the definition of "entrapment" apparently.<
I don't think that is really going to figure into any potential litigation in
the future.
> Ed hasn't posted that he'd
> never look at a porn site and he certainly doesn't maintain pornographic
> content in any form on his website so what have you demonstrated with this
act? <<
>It seems to me, Bro. Jerome, that Mike was QUITE vocal a while ago about a
Mason
who'd had a link to a porn site buried somewhere on his personal web site.
Guess
I'll have to go pull that post and reread it.<
I missed it but then again, I don't read the NG like I used to, either. I would
not be surprised that Mike condemned true pornography on the Internet, however
- especially if posted by a Mason.
>> What statement of Ed's have you unraveled? These are fair questions.<<
>I'll wait with bated breath for the answer.<
Do you think you will get a satisfactory answer, Ed even if one comes?
> >>(Ed to Mike)--- Well, this admission of yours does tend to show your true
> character, doesn't it?<<
> Unable to best me by your typical braggadocio and hot air, you revert to the
> most base level. Proud of yourself, Mike? Think that makes you a great
debater?<<
>snip my clever answer><
And you think _Gene_ comes out with some bad ones? Hey, guy....
No, I'm certain that Gene comes out with some bad ones. You gotta admit that
it had it's effect...
> >>Wonder how others view this....>
> Jury is still out but things are looking kind of raunchy at this point. I
don't
> which scenario is worse. --A. Mike is really so obsessed with his opponents
> that he went to these lengths or B. That he just got caught out there and now
> uses this angle to evade his exposure.<<
>I wonder if we'll ever know the true story. Either way, it's pretty pitiful in
my
opinion. Regrettably, there's no joy on my part. Mike has been deteriorating
for
some time (I've commented on this before) and this is just one more - probably
the worst - example.<
It might be a good opportunity to back off and examine this feud a little more
objectively. Hey, Carter brought Egypt & Isreal together. How much further is
this situation?
> >> So, I took a radical test. Ok I let my curiosity run wild. <<
snip ><
>If you could take a typical Mike Restivo post and put all sorts of
sexually-related nouns and verbs in it, you'd have it. Not something I'd want
to
curl up with on a lonely night, believe me!<
I was trying to be somewhat humorous there, Ed. I dislike putting in those <G>
symbols, especially when I figure my audience is critical enough to know that I
am not being too serious.
> >Did you REALLY want that type of thing associated with your name?> >
> I get the impression that he wants that sort of thing associated with your
name
> but it is not working out that way at the moment.<<
>Was it a trap cleverly conceived by a self-proclaimed Master of setting traps?
Or was Mike just guilty of incredibly bad judgement? Mike's set 'traps' before
and they've gone bad. Doesn't surprise me if another one did too.... OTOH, I
really think he got caught and is now squealing to cover himself.<
Like I said, it's a nasty call, either way.
> >> Here's the thing, I have wondered for years, to what lengths these goons
> > would go to discredit Restivo. How illegal? Phone harrassment? Just>
what?
> > The same question may now be asked with regard to how far Brother Restivo
is
> willing to go to discredit Brother Ed King and his associates ("legal" moral
or
> otherwise).<<
>Clearly, to the point of being made the fool himself.<
It seems so.
> (Ed to Mike)-- Poor, poor persecuted Mike. When will you EVER get a life, eh?
> > So I cooked up this test and stuck my neck out too. Can't get
> > good prey without good bait.>
> What was so "good" about this "bait"? You're fishing with hand grenades.
Anyone
> could have wandered into this "erotica" site -- children even. If it was just
> you and Ed on the Internet maybe I could see your point but you did this
where
> everyone could access the content regardless of it's real or alternate
intent.
> There was no way for you to restrict access to just Ed.<<
>I've got copies I could send you privately. It was not a PG-13 type of thing.<
No thanks, Ed. Between your description and Mike's own disclaimers, I believe
that the content was for "mature adults" (whatever that's supposed to mean)
only.
> (Ed to Mike)>> Uh-huh. That's a pretty great excuse<<>
> I think it's kind of weak, actually.<
>Sorry, forgot the tongue in cheek.<
And I'm bad for that little "mass debator" line?
> >> and I'm SURE your loyal minions will jump to > your defense in this.<<
>
> By this I'll assume you mean me or Renzland. I don't appreciate your label,
Ed
> but I can understand how you would make that assignment. In case you missed
it,
> Ed, I was concerned with the principle of a Masonic process rather than the
> person involved but the way you see it is going to have to be the final word
on
> the matter. 'nuff said.
Don't assume too much!
OK. Let's ay that I am wrong. Who are the "loyal minions"? I don't have a
problem if that's how it is but let's be out with it so that there are no
misunderstandings. I'm a big boy and I can take it. Brother Peter and I have
both taken sides of an issue that involved Brother Restivo against other
Brothers. I do not believe that anyone else has done this so, who da "minions"?
> Bottom line: Mike Restivo - as he had done many times
previously - was able to drive a wedge between several Masons.<
I disagreed with the way Brother Poll handled things on the Internet. There was
no "wedge" to drive between he and I because we did not know eachother. Brother
Poll & I do not communicate and I do not blame him for a single solitary
second. I got in his face over the issue and we traded some tough comments.
It's over and we're still breathing so I guess everything is OK. I disagreed
and was at a loss to understand why Brother Gene would involve himself the way
he did. I abstained from confronting him because I did & DO like Gene.
Eventually, I did confront Gene and we both said our piece on and off the NG.
Gene and I are as tight as ever. You and I didn't even have any real powerful
disagreement over this and I commended you for your restraint throughout the
entire event. Where's the wedge?
> Much of that wedge
remains in place, regrettably.<
This is true to a degree. Brother Peter will NEVER be treated as anything other
than a Restivo advocate. That is a loss in my opinion because I think he has a
lot to offer. It's true that he's not going to let anyone off "easy" because
they happen to be a brother but then again, it is precisely that quality that
MAY make him such a valuable member. As for how the world feels about what I
did and wrote? Agree, disagree, reproof me, confirm me, whatever. I am
undamaged and I hope you are too. We're here to share opinions and
occassionally contend with one another (unless you'd suggest we come here to
simply agree all the time).
> They say time heals all wounds and perhaps seeing
the mean-spiritedness and underhanded behavior from Mike Restivo here might
explain why some of us felt so very strongly about his potential reaffiliation
- <
Nobody wrote that there was no reason for concern or even that such concern was
unwarranted.
>even to the point of making mistakes in haste to ensure that he wasn't able to
bowl over the unsuspecting.<
Y'know? This simple statement - "making mistakes in haste" - would have ended
it a long time ago. Nobody was willing to budge on the propriety of what
happened. The ends seemed to justify the means and that was my problem with it.
There seemed to be an "anything goes" altmosphere because the motives were
"pure" - (ie, the "good" of the fraternity). Hell, I understood your concerns
and I even shared some of them but that should not be used as a pass to tkae
license - in my opinion. It comes down to this - you guys had your point and we
had ours. The silent regulars on this NG made up their minds on the matter and
that's really the best we're going to get. Nobody was absolutely right and
nobody was completely wrong. Both were unwilling to bend for a time. We're
still here and we're still fraternal Brothers. I think it's better that we
dealt with it rather than let it fester like an infection. Do you feel things
would be better if we were all of one mind and simply railroaded Restivo's
re-affiliation as effectively as we possibly could on the Internet? People saw
balance between the 2 extremes which I think may actually have had a positive
presentation. Certainly it presents better than the appearance of a wolf pack
going to work on the "injured" impala. Filter the metaphor and it will work
just fine.
> (Ed to Mike) > I'll wait for the outpouring of support.<>
> Don't be surprised if nobody jumps on this one.
>I'm pleasantly surprised! <smile><
I'll bet. I can be a real ballbuster. Yes, that was humor. It's OK to laugh.
>Sometimes in this venue, it's easy to make
broad - and very unwarranted - assumptions.<
Yep. I think you're right about that. I think it stems from our inability to
look eachother in the eyes. Words on a computer screen are a poor method of
communication. I still think ALL anti's are unbalanced! That was one of those
broad and unwarranted assumptions, wasn't it?
> (Mike to Ed)>> I still have not answered my question.
> > That means more test to come, yes, over the years if need be.<< >
> Why? For what purpose? You are the one who has gone over the top with this
> "demonstration." Ed King's, Gene Goldman's & anyone else's sexual arousal,
> confusion, preferences or orientations are not germain to the topic of
> Freemasonry or anything they could say (or have said) on the subject. If this
> really was some sort of elaborate test it was an attempt to define (or
defame)
> the character of the persons you sought to ensnare and proves NOTHING about
> Freemasonry or the arguments of the men you oppose.<<
>You've got to wonder what the next "test" will be, don't you? <shrug> <
With this last little exemplar? Heh heh heh... I have a hell of an imagination.
The fun I could have with this one but I won't. Time to let it go for me
although I'm sure others will bat this one around for a while longer.
>The mind reels with the possibilities....<
It soitenly does.
> (Ed)--- My gosh, Mike: you are simply OBSESSED aren't you?>
> There is a lot of obsession going on around here and perhaps this would be a
> good time to back off and take a distant view of it.<<
>Funny thing: I can ALWAYS walk away from Mike Restivo's foolishness - and have
done so regularly in the past. Can't say it's the same for him though. You're
right: I'll let this one go now with this lengthy post. However, when Mike
wants
to moralize on how Freemasons should act, don't be surprised if it's used as an
example.<
Oh, it's fair game now. It's out there and I'm sure it will resurface as
opportunity permits. The next post on Masonic Morality will undoubtedly be
balanced with "were those sheets satin or rubber, Mike?" I can hear it now....
snip ><
> You must have been taking lessons from the guys in the Inquisition: torture
> someone until they confess to an imagined crime and then kill them because of
> their confession. How unique.<>
> Hey, even the Pope apologized for that little inquisition thing. Too bad it
> only took him 700 years to do it. Funny, I don't recall reading about
> reparations to the injured parties. Perhaps that was in the 1945 NY Times
> article?
<ROFL> Maybe we can ask "Freemasonry Watch", huh?
You mean the "other, other" "authoratative" webpage? Yeah, nothing like a
casual surf through "Freemasonry Watch" to recapture the noble origins of
journalistic integrity and virtue, eh, Ed? Anytime I get tired of the agenda
peddling media in American television I always run right over to the clowns at
"Freemasonry Watch" to get some balance. How can the creators of a webpage with
the word "watch" in the title not know what time it is?
snip ><
> > (Mike to Ed)--- And the next time there's a Masonic
> > convention somewhere, am I supposed to be on a roof-top with my Captain
> > Midnight gear or what?>
> Perhaps. My only concern after reading this is what the weapon of choice is
> going to be.<BWG> Oh, I can't help it. I slay myself sometimes - heh heh heh.
I
> think that whole rooftop thing was an incredible stretch of imagination.<<
>One of the things that folks like Mike Poll, Gene, and I wrote about earlier
was
the lengths Mike Restivo would go to in order to "win".<
OK. I remember that but all 3 of you together have as much time in Mike
Restivo's company as I have which is exactly - 0%. What he's gonna type on the
NG is not exactly a solid indication that he will station himself on a rooftop
and start dropping strangers with a scoped Enfield. Doesn't mean he won't but
c'mon, can you really say that based on your combined Internet "profile" of
this total stranger that he is a bigger risk for violence than any other
unknown quantity? You don't even know if the guy can shoot.
> Clearly, he sees himself
locked in mortal battle with the "goon enforcer Masons" one of whom was going
to
be in his back yard.<
Yes, I think it's fair to say that you are considered (by Restivo) a "goon",
"thug" and "enforcer" among the regular participants of alt. Freemasonry.
> Was it so foolish to think that he might do something
irrational<
No, it was not foolish to consider the possibility. However, to treat it as a
probabliltiy was kind of pushing things but it's your safety and you have every
right to take whatever precautions you deem necessary.
- particularly now in retrospect?
You mean now that Mike posted "adult" content on his website? Yeah, I still
don't see him as any larger or smaller a threat. It is my experience that the
most serious & deadly threats do not announce themselves. This is not an
absolute but it seems to pan out that way more often than not.
> People in the (third most recent)
school shooting didn't think the kid would do such a thing.... Maybe I gave
Mike's erratic behavior more weight than it deserved. On the other hand, there
were Mounties and Toronto Detectives present (with weapons) who were alert
rather
than being lulled into a false sense of security thinking nothing evil could
happen in a Masonic meeting. Did the warning Mike was given in advance disuade
him from more bizzare behavior? We'll never know - but I felt better knowing
that
no one was harmed as a result of my minimizing a threat.<
You did the right thing based on the information you had. I am not faulting you
for that, Ed. The real stretch of the issue came when Mike posted that he might
demonstrate with signs and a bullhorn outside of the convention and that was
quickly turned into a rooftop sniper threat. That was my problem with this "he
threatened us - let's call the Police" reaction.
>Many years ago while pledging a military fraternity, we were on manuevers at
Fort
Devens. I minimized the guy behind me hitting me in the behind with an ammo can
thinking he was just horsing around. In reality, he was trying to tell me he'd
heard something and we were walking into an ambush. It was only "play" but had
it
been real, 12 men would have been dead as a result of my 'minimizing a
threat'.<
Personally, I'm a complete stranger to hostile environments but this is good to
know the next time one is a combat situation. We're talking about attending a
Masonic convention in Toronto, however. "Anti's in the wire, Sarge - what do we
do?" "Frag 'em, corporal."
>Since then, when somebody threatens me, I take it seriously.<
No body has suggested that you do otherwise. The issue is - Did Mike really
"threaten" you?
> It's not that I'm
not big enough to defend myself: those who've seen me know I could do it quite
well.<
You've mentioned this before. To this statement I can only say that - "size
doesn't matter" ...unless you're writing porn, of course! Sorry, I couldn't
help myself. I'm such a child where these things are concerned - heh heh heh.
> I was more concerned for the safety of others at that meeting. Seeing the
lengths Mike goes to in his effort to prove what a big man he is, I STILL think
I
made the appropriate call on it.<
Ed, you did the right thing under the circumstances as you saw them. Don't take
me too seriously.
> > (Ed to Mike) ---It was you who first made the suggestion the last time
> around, Mike.<> > Here we go again. No.
> > On a sane note ... To those sensitive and uninvolved in Restivo's strife
> > with a few neurotics, just ignore or not at will, it's just a test, no
> > real porn, no bomb making plans, no crack from cane sugar plans.>>
> A sane note. An interesting aside considering what just went down. Oooops!
> Sorry, another Freudian slip, I imagine.<G> What is sane about constructing a
> porn page to create an opportunity to slam your opponent when he predictably
is
> going to make mention of something like that. If Ed hosted a porn section on
> his website would you sit quiet about it, Mike? I don't think so.
>One can _still_ see Mike's rantings on his website about my choice of an ISP
to
whom he couldn't figure out how to complain. That in and of itself provides the
answer.<
What was he going to complain about?
snip ><
> Ed, you keep comenting on the poor quality of Mike's pornographic writings.
How
> would you know what consitutes "good" porn, BTW? Hmmmm? <G>
>In college, I majored in English Lit. I also read a lot (not porn, thanks) and
understand the types of things which go into the concept of "imagry". Mike's
writing left me.... well, limp!<
Well, that's proof enough for me! Mike should go back to logical argument and
steer clear of "adult" linguistic legerdemain.
snip ><
> (Ed to Mike) ---You really fancy yourself someone of importance, don't you?
How
> can you even suggest such evil and awful things? You'll do ANYTHING to
> cover your tracks, won't you? Admit it: you've followed the path of Leo
> Taxil and now you're trying to dig yourself out of a hole by admission
> and the attempts to shift guilt. Won't work, Mike: you're now 'outed' as
> a pornographer - and it WON'T be forgotten!!!>
> So I guess this means you guys are finally gonna bring Mike up on charges? I
> didn't think so.
>1) No desire to waste time with a vexatious litigant. (Would YOU want to read
his
800 page reply to a four paragraph charge?)<
As I recal, Ed, you weren't one of the Masons who was standing in line around
the block to file charges on Mike as soon as he slipped. Your point is well
made with respect to the voluminous response that would no doubt be forthcoming
in retaliation to any attempt to file charges of Masonic misconduct. I don't
even know if what he did qualifies for charges. I would guess that it doesn't
in New York. Canada may be a different story.
>2) No desire to deal with GRC based on what I saw while in Toronto. (Read
"Petty
Tyranny" on the freemasonry.org website to get a flavor of things.)<
Understood.
>3) If I died of old age in the process,<
And we all may be long dead before this case ever finds resolution.
> Mike would crow that he'd won. Wouldn't
want that, would I? <BWG><
I wouldn't take that laying down!
>Ergo, not me thanks. My life has more meaning that that. And Mike will - from
time to time - be reminded of his pecadillos which is quite enough for me.<
Yes. Id' say - that unlike the Helms E-mail nonsense, this qualifies as a
bonified "gotcha."
S & F,
Jerome
Animal Style Gene Goldman.·.
> What I don't understand is how this makes Ed King look bad.
Because he read Mike Restivo's porn.
I guess.
--
|O| Be well. Travel with a light heart.
Brother Gene .*.
H.M.S.H.
Q.P.H.D.
http://www.calodges.org/no442
http://www.blackmountainlodge.net
http://www.freemason.org
MBBFMN #387
ICQ #503060
And in case I don't see ya' - Good Afternoon, Good Evening and Good Night!
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCM/CC/TW/O d--(++) s:,s++ a+ C+(++++) U--- P! L-- E!
W++ N+++ o-- K- w++++ O---- M--(+) V? PS+++ Y+ PGP--
t* 5 X- R* tv+++ b++ DI+++ D G e* h---- r+++ y++++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Remember: You are someone's impression of Masonry
Internet newsgroup posting. Copyright 2001. All rights reserved.
Rick Irving
Scrolls,
as in Christianity, Judaism, and Muslims....
Ran around naked for 3 years........
(Isaiah, see restored Tanakh )
Seems, at least one piece of Apocrypha attributed to JC,
has him answering the following question:
"Rabbi, how will I know when I am saved ?"
JC answers:
"When you can throw down your clothes, and trample
upon them with the innocence of a child, you have
been saved"
And only last week, I saw pictures af a Baha'i meditating Naked
in the streets of Israel. The caption read, Baha'i faithful
demonstrates
escape from the grips of materialism.....the irrelevance of this
world.
Remember:
-Your- moral values may not be the moral values of the bible....
the moral values of your church...
or even the moral values of your peers...
-You- just assume they are.
Now, he who is without sin, cast the first stone....
:)
Mike Restivo
Subject: Re: Dirty Eddie's Fantasies
Date: 2001-03-23 05:50:05 PST
Brother Ed wrote:
In article <3AB85558...@tor.axxent.ca>, Mike Restivo wrote:
to Joe Schmuckatelli:
> I needed something really outrageous to tempt certain parties, including
> Ed King. I had two other people in mind also.
Uh-huh. Caught 'in the act' and now trying frantically to cover things
up. Your
advertisement for 'Firehand Ember' now takes on a whole new connotation,
doesn't
it? <ROFL>
> I have been playing the sex card against Eddie for years with queer and
> small potatoes innuendo.
Why? What is the purpose of this kind of "exposure"? The cornerstone of
your
arguments, Mike have been consistently touted by you as irrefutable
logic. Why
do you now wander into this area as though it is relevant to to the
logical
foundation of anything Ed King or anyone else has to say? So what if Ed
did (or
does) frequent porn sites?>>
You miss what I've been writing. I care nothing about his miserable sex
life and habits.
I caught him breaking into my private web site. It was inaccessible to
the public unless they hacked into it and further clicked on the
contents of the root directory. This is something Eddie does as a
practice, but was unsuccessful previously. so I let him have his way
and gave him some juice bait. and the jackass took it after trespassing
into my private and unpublished areas of my web site. Just what part of
"private" and "unpublished" have I not made clear. The material was
never published and was never public. Dirty Eddie made it BOTH. Not
Restivo. And what does the "Firehand Ember" crack mean? As much as
"That Restivo uses a pencil speaks volumes. eh? eh?" does, which is
zilch.
Here's the logic: I wrote the stories that he stole for his own unknown
uses. I have no need of any aids whatsoever, software or otherwise.
Eddie may need Viagra, but not Restivo. Dirty Eddie may use Firehand
Ember to view his own collection of pornographic images. I deliberately
restricted my bait to written material which he could be tempted to
include at his hate site. Pictures would not have served my purposes.
maybe Dirty Eddie needs to put his brain in gear: An image viewer was
not required to read the material. He must be confusing his own porn
viewing with his break and enter and theft of my bait.
<< I do not believe he does based on this incident but
even if he did what "trap" have you caught him in and what have you
proven with
regard to anything Ed has to say about Freemasonry? Ed hasn't posted
that he'd
never look at a porn site and he certainly doesn't maintain pornographic
content in any form on his website so what have you demonstrated with
this act?
What statement of Ed's have you unraveled? These are fair questions.>>
Ed King illegally trespassed into Restivo's private web page area and
stole the contents that he found, which was really bait with which I had
planned to trap several of his gang. he then published in public, the
address to that same private material, without my authorization. That
made him, not Restivo a publisher of porn.
What does thief Eddie's criminal acts have to do with Freemasonry?
nothing? How have they harmed Restivo? No how. but even now his
little brain is working overtime to use it in some extortion scheme.
suppose he picked the lock on your residence or taped and photoed you
surreptitiously? well, maybe you might have no objection to the
invasion of your privacy. suppose the photos were associated with
stories that inferred something more sinister than what the prima facie
contents of the photos and tapes showed? And furthermore you were
compromised and unable to defend yourself against public slander? Still
ok to have your civil rights nullified? I don't think so. Ed "black
bag" King, performed criminal acts in his war of vilification against
Restivo, and I trapped him at at with a sting operation. Simple, but
you have to keep your eyes open, no denial allowed.
[snip]
<<Jury is still out but things are looking kind of raunchy at this
point. I don't
which scenario is worse. --A. Mike is really so obsessed with his
opponents
that he went to these lengths>>
You know exactly to the degree to which I will defend myself to under
the law, and devote years to the task. I am patient.
<<or B. That he just got caught out there and now
uses this angle to evade his exposure.>>
Nah. I've set these guys up before. This is my most racy trap yet,
however.
[snip]
<<>Did you REALLY want that type of thing associated with your name?
I get the impression that he wants that sort of thing associated with
your name
but it is not working out that way at the moment.>>
Not the material, the illegal acts that he perpetrates to view it, to
secure it, to disseminate it, to publish it and to use it further in
extortion attempts. That is what I am associated with voyeur Eddie.
>> Here's the thing, I have wondered for years, to what lengths these goons
> would go to discredit Restivo. How illegal? Phone harrassment? Just> what?
The same question may now be asked with regard to how far Brother
Restivo is
willing to go to discredit Brother Ed King and his associates ("legal"
moral or
otherwise).
I will go to the maximum lengths allowed by law, for years as required.
Remember I told you that REVENGE is a seven letter word spelled RESTIVO?
<<(Ed to Mike)-- Poor, poor persecuted Mike. When will you EVER get a
life, eh?
> So I cooked up this test and stuck my neck out too. Can't get
> good prey without good bait.
What was so "good" about this "bait"? You're fishing with hand grenades.
Anyone
could have wandered into this "erotica" site -- children even.>>
No one could have "wandered" into those web pages. period. the URL was
never made public except by Dirty Eddie. At that instant he became a
publisher of pornography, not Restivo. I removed the pages to spare him
embarrassment if not criminal charges of corrupting minors. Who know
what he is doing with my bait? That is beyond my control.
<< If it was just
you and Ed on the Internet maybe I could see your point but you did this
where
everyone could access the content regardless of it's real or alternate
intent.
There was no way for you to restrict access to just Ed.>>
If you wagered, you would lose:
Firstly, one had to click on successively higher directories. when I
gave the address of my Freemasonry idealism web site, and Dirty Eddie's
response is designed to divert readers from it, one would simply click
on it to go to the intended web pages. No fiddling with successively
higher directory's required. it is illogical and too time consuming,
except to eddie "black Bag" King. He found the door unlocked this
time. He had tried it several times before without success. so he
trespassed and entered without authorization just because he physically
could. It is still break and entering. It's still a trap. Now all
that remains is to provide him with something salacious to steal. Now
publicly posting the private address is constitutive of publishing
pornography. reproducing files of my bait for other's or for printout
or for other use is theft. Not copyright infringement only, but outright
theft. No different than ransacking one's house for private financial
and personal papers.
<<(Ed to Mike)>> Uh-huh. That's a pretty great excuse<<
I think it's kind of weak, actually.>>
A re-read of my response proves otherwise. This is just a little sting
which is itself a by-product of my attempt to protect myself with a
first strike. I made him jump rashly and spill his hand, like i usually
do. I had to work hard at it yes, but I thought my catch would be equal
to my effort. If my enemies leave Restivo alone, then they don't make
fools of themselves. That's ok by me, too. maybe that idea is
beginning to sink in in some quarters...
>> and I'm SURE your loyal minions will jump to
your defense in this.<<
By this I'll assume you mean me or Renzland. I don't appreciate your
label, Ed
but I can understand how you would make that assignment. In case you
missed it,
Ed, I was concerned with the principle of a Masonic process rather than
the
person involved but the way you see it is going to have to be the final
word on
the matter. 'nuff said.
(Ed to Mike) > I'll wait for the outpouring of support.<
Don't be surprised if nobody jumps on this one.>>
Right. What has Restivo's strife with a few neurotics to do with
Freemasonry? Nothing. the wise and mature would roll their eyes in
boredom and filter it out. Is it off-topic? not as long as the
anti-Restivo hate gang keep it boiling on alt.freemasonry and maybe
elsewhere unknown to me.
(Mike to Ed)>> I still have not answered my question.
> That means more test to come, yes, over the years if need be.<<
Why? For what purpose? You are the one who has gone over the top with
this
"demonstration.">>
It could be argued so, yes.
<<Ed King's, Gene Goldman's & anyone else's sexual arousal,
confusion, preferences or orientations are not germain to the topic of
Freemasonry or anything they could say (or have said) on the subject.>>
And why are similar innuendoes germain to Freemasonry in the context of
Restivo, attakcs made ceaselessly since 1995! Oh but it's ok to screw
Restivo and deny him justice. When I rebuke and refute and expose these
neurotic anti-social and sometimes criminal creeps, Restivo, the victim,
is victimized all the more.
I don't need support to be right. Truth is it's own validation and
vindication. I just have to work at it much harder than most.
<< If this
really was some sort of elaborate test it was an attempt to define (or
defame)
the character of the persons you sought to ensnare and proves NOTHING
about
Freemasonry or the arguments of the men you oppose.>>
My strife with these goons never had anything to do with the Craft.
It's always been personal: their petty jealousy and paternal/sexual
identity conflict versus my self-defence and that of others that they
sought to victimize for sport.
<<(Ed)--- My gosh, Mike: you are simply OBSESSED aren't you?
There is a lot of obsession going on around here and perhaps this would
be a
good time to back off and take a distant view of it.>>
The victim is obsessed because he needs to struggle for air against the
jackboots of his attackers held against his throat. In that manner
Restivo is obsessed with life and with Justice which are just as vital
to civil life as air itself.
> I'm patient and creative. Eh Ed?
Too bad you couldn't use your time more constructively, Mike. Is it
really
worth all of this?>>
I am using it constructively. I have not even begun to assert myself.
You are blind to the big picture, refuse to stand up to small potatoes
King's anti-masonic schemes, then complain when Restivo scorches the
earth as it were in response. To me, these creeps are like KKK
criminals, who if not for the law, would have put a bullet through
Restivo years ago. dirty Eddie, voyeur Eddie, thief Eddie gets a pass by
Masons who need approval of those who can make trouble for them, more
than they actually live the principles conserved by the Craft.
My plan extends beyond my lifetime, and Freemasonry will be the better
for it in the long run and in the short run. The nonsense that prevails
in alt.freemasonry is not and cannot be a representative sample of
Freemasonry.
In article <3AB85558...@tor.axxent.ca>, Mike Restivo wrote:
to Joe Schmuckatelli:
mecifully snipped ><
(Ed to Mike) >Not as far as your so-called 'erotic writing' would
indicate.
You must have been taking lessons from the guys in the Inquisition:
torture
someone until they confess to an imagined crime and then kill them
because of
their confession. How unique.<
Hey, even the Pope apologized for that little inquisition thing. Too bad
it
only took him 700 years to do it. Funny, I don't recall reading about
reparations to the injured parties. Perhaps that was in the 1945 NY
Times
article?
>You crawl into the gutter to get 'dirt' on your imagined 'enemies': this is
NOT
the behavior of the rational adult, imbued with extraordinary reasoning
abilities
that you claim to have, do you think?
If you were 19 years old and used such a 'trap', I'd have dismissed it
as the
actions of an immature person. In YOUR case - at 54 - you can HARDLY use
that
defense.<
He's got a point, Mike.>>
And the point is:
Ed 'black bag" King broke into my private web pages, not accessible to
the public and not intended to be accessed by the public.
he further trespassed and stole the bait which I had left for him,
thinking that he could use it against me. I had extortion in mind, but
this goof just publicly posts the address and in so doing becomes a
public publisher of porn. Does he ever think about the consequences of
his acts? No. That's how I can mess with him at will. Well not quite
at will. But i set 'em up good and let him have what he though was
something he could lever against me. I ran a sting, a test, a trap,
etc. and his dirt has evaporated in his grubby little hands, BUT the
evidence of his criminal acts remain forever. That was what I wanted.
I'll get more on other stings over the next years. An open book is easy
to read. Like Ermel. I tell Eddie what to do and he does it, like a
desperate gambler, hoping that this crooked act against Restivo will
gross him the big payoff. that is the illusion that I keep alive in his
seared heart and with which I lead him about by the nose and nether
parts. [guffaw]
> (Mike to Ed)--- And the next time there's a Masonic
> convention somewhere, am I supposed to be on a roof-top with my Captain
> Midnight gear or what?
Perhaps. My only concern after reading this is what the weapon of choice
is
going to be.<BWG> Oh, I can't help it. I slay myself sometimes - heh heh
heh. I
think that whole rooftop thing was an incredible stretch of imagination.
> (Ed to Mike) ---It was you who first made the suggestion the last time
around, Mike.<
Here we go again. No.>>
yeah! yeah! Tell Nelson King that Restivo is going to disrupt the
convention by having sex miles away. Quick get the cops involved.
[guffaw]
> On a sane note ... To those sensitive and uninvolved in Restivo's strife
> with a few neurotics, just ignore or not at will, it's just a test, no
> real porn, no bomb making plans, no crack from cane sugar plans.>
A sane note. An interesting aside considering what just went down.
Oooops!
Sorry, another Freudian slip, I imagine.<G> What is sane about
constructing a
porn page to create an opportunity to salm your opponent when he
predictably is
going to make mention of something like that.>>
Just flexing but a portion of my abilities given my circumstances as a
student.
<<If Ed hosted a porn section on
his website would you sit quiet about it, Mike? I don't think so.>>
If it had nothing to do with me, I would ignore it, as I ignore
everything about his personal and professional life. I neither know nor
care if he is married or has a family. I neither know nor care what he
does for a living, other than attack Restivo. That's the difference
between honourable men and sleaze bags like him. he'll break and enter
to get what he thinks is dirt on Restivo. I don't need to read somebody
else's porn. i can write at will. sheesh. No prurient interest on my
part. I'm a doer and a writer.
<<(Ed to Mike)--->> Hmmmmm..... I think those who saw it would kinda
disagree,
Mike. What incredible
hubris prompted you to do such a thing in the first place. Admit it: you
were
CAUGHT. I have no idea why someone like yourself would post pornography
(POORLY
written pornography at best) but obviously there's something REALLY
wrong with
your synapses these days.<<>>
Ed, you keep comenting on the poor quality of Mike's pornographic
writings. How
would you know what consitutes "good" porn, BTW? Hmmmm? <G>>>
Like Restivo keeps saying: Dirty Eddie is an expert on porn from
Eddie's own autoerotic experience. he knows how to hack his way around
the net and around the windows and doors of homes too. A thief must be
able to assay quality quickly. If Eddie doesn't like it, maybe he has
better porn of his?
<<>(Mike to Joe Schmuck) So Joe, what would Eddie do or say to your
employer or your clients if
> he decided to do a number on YOU?
Isn't this one of those world class evasions that I was jumping all over
people
for a few months ago? An interesting topic switch but not really
relevant to
Freemasonry or your test or the issue at hand (so to speak <G>), is
it?>>
On the contrary it is. Joe doesn't see the points involved, the points
of Eddie's criminal acts.
<<(Ed to Mike) So if I say: "Mike Restivo posted erotica on his web
site." that's
somehow now
wrong in the rabbit-hole world of Mike Restivo? Are you imagining that
you
DIDN'T
do it?>>
Another point made. Was it your intention to "trap" Ed and be able to
claim
that he read a porno page while cleverly ensnaring yourself into being
the guy
who created the page in the first place? You play chess like the Russian
Masters, Mike. Too much sacrifice if you ask me.>>
By now you should realize even more was proven by my sting. I
anticipated a much more collaborative and sophisticated use of the bait
which Edward L. King stole. Alas I don't always get what I want. I
just got voyeur Eddie King. That's something.
>(Mike to Joe)--- Suppose he claimed that you had aids and spread it
around? Or the
> best/worst, that you are a child molester?
Suppose Ed had actually created a porn page to trap you, Mike? How sick
would
that be? What would you have to say if Ed did this and subsequently
claimed he
was laying a trap for YOU?>>
How do you know that he has not done just that very thing? Visual image
of dirty Eddie trolling homosexual sites daily to find mention of
Restivo. Is this guy dedicated or what? Who know furthermore to what
use he will use the material he stol from my private, inaccessible
site. will he corrupt minors then cry to the cops that Restivo did it?
The guy's nuts. I squeeze 'im like a pimple or in the alternative turn
up the heat and make him jump. Am I bitter over their destruction of my
Petition? What? Not Restivo.
<<(Ed to Mike)---Stretch a little further, Mike, so EVERYONE can see the
depths
of depravity
you've sunk to.
That's not a stretch, Ed. It's a switch.>>
In a related vein, I remarked that I have become a predator in the
defence against predators attacking me. So be it.
>(mike to Joe)--- hard to dispel that one when the goons decide to bark in
> unison. Just something to think about, if you can get over your hate
> for Microsoft.
More non-topic writing. What ills have been suffered by anyone here over
the
years of ranting that have been going on? I saw a glimmer of it during
my
disagreements with Brother Poll but this is really past reason.>>
Actually quite on topic, how group think keeps grown men silent like
mushrooms, while loose canons abuse Masonry and heap manure over them
and the Order. That my defence of the professional attacks that are
waged against me by neurotics for many years is complete in no ways
nullifies nor excuses their predatory and sadistic schemes. I have been
attacked for years by these goons. when I make fools of my attackers, I
get attacked. Imagine Restivo actually defending himself.
<<(Ed to Mike) ---You really fancy yourself someone of importance, don't
you?>>
Not me small potatoes. it's your self-image and paternal conflict that
projects these illusions about me. I'm just a person with courage and
perseverance, not important. Your neurotic obsession is your own
problem. I just happen to be the lightening rod of your convenience.
<< How
can you even
suggest such evil and awful things? You'll do ANYTHING to cover your
tracks,
won't you? Admit it: you've followed the path of Leo Taxil and now
you're
trying
to dig yourself out of a hole by admission and the attempts to shift
guilt.
Won't
work, Mike: you're now 'outed' as a pornographer - and it WON'T be
forgotten!!!>>
Note well Eddie King:
YOU break and enter in an act of criminal trespass into private and
inaccessible areas of my web site, not intended for public access.
YOU steal my files, making copies of them for purposes and dissemination
unknown.
YOU publicly publish the address of the materials used solely as bait
for you. that makes you the pornographic publisher. that was
interesting. I didn't think that you would be so stupid to spill your
hand, and for nothing. ermel and Poll too years to milk their extortion
racket. Don't you learn anyhthing from your mentors? [guffaw]
So I guess this means you guys are finally gonna bring Mike up on
charges? I
didn't think so.
Jerome>>
† Mike Restivo
Mike Restivo
Subject: Re: Dirty Eddie's Fantasies
Newsgroups: alt.freemasonry
[snip]
>From Restivo's 'replacement page' :
{ You have fallen for a trap set for enemies of Restivo.
{ I created a sex page to see who would post the info
{ about it against me. It was a psychological trap and
{ Ed King of Maine fell for it! Silly boy. This no life
{ needs to prowl porno sites for his edification! I trap
{ this guy regularly over the years and he still falls for
{ it. Hey Eddie wait for my next test.
{
{ Mike Restivo
Once again, I'm left not knowing what to think of this 'Restivo'
persona. I
want to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that his actions
are
deliberate rather than 'reactive', but it seems to be a real stretch
this
time.
My conclusion
[snip]
He really is so obsessed with his 'enemies' that he went to a great deal
of
trouble (including taking the time to write at least than five several
page
stories with explicit themes) all for the sole purpose to find out who'd
discover it first and who would report it once discovered (apparently
known
in intelligence circles as a 'dye test').>>
This alternative conclusion is correct. Just took a few days to set up,
part time. This is not rocket science. You haven't a clue to the length
and depth of the 6+ years' strife between Restivo and the hate Restivo
R'Us gang. And furthermore, you don't want to become informed either.
How can I claim that? You could have asked me directly as to my
motives. A few keystrokes is all it takes. That would have muted the
effect of your message. No need to allow Truth and facts to get in the
way of a good story. So when you do make opinions, they alas are
uninformed vis a vis Restivo. They don't have to be, but that's your
choice and your psychological handicap.
<<I'm not quite sure which one of these two scenarios is sadder, but I
tend to
think the first one reflects shame or at least a lack of courage,
whereas
the second demonstrates much more obsession that is probably healthy.
Too
bad. I really could have respected Restivo a great deal more he had
just
stood up for himself, rather than 'covering up' like a young boy caught
doing something 'naughty'.>>
Has it crossed your consciousness that I have read examples of the "My
opponent was made of better stuff.", Ad Hominem fallacy several dozen
times over the years? They were just as fallacious then and now.
A man besting a mob intent to discredit him for years, is by ignorant
fiat from your keyboard, "sad" or "unhealthy". Better for you that
their anti-masonry succeeded in silencing Restivo? It's never examine
the offences of the attackers against the victim, but blame the victim.
That's ignorant. Is that your best?
If you're going to do something at least avoid sleaze, but do whatever
you wish.
† Mike Restivo
<<In my opinion writing out one's thoughts for private discovery is
nothing
shameful -- even if they contain material that might be objectional to
some.
Neither it necessarily 'hubris' in thinking your creative works might
appeal
to the right audience. Still, if a person feel deep shame or
embarassment
for what they're doing, in my opinion they should either not do it or
get
over the shame. And regardless, the decision to 'publish' to the web or
elsewhere (even a ng) really should be based on whether or not you can
stand
by your words or deal with any flack that comes in about it.>>
It was not Restivo but Edward l. King who published the web pages by his
public posting of their address. they were never meant for public
consumption, but for entrapment only. That he made them public only
added to his criminal acts, which I nullified by removing the pages.
does Ed King have the right to hack into web site's? does he have the
right to enter a premisis just because the door is unlocked? Say he
picks the lock. it's unbroken, so it's not "breaking" and entering,
just entering/trespasses. I don't think so. And when he steals my
writing from my private web site, for uses and uses unkn own, is he
innocent and Restivo guilty?
<<Hey Mike, a really good mondo I try to practice is:
'What can be talked about but not done is best not talked about.
What can be done but not talked about is best not done'.
Alas, I don't always keep it either.
--
Steven M. Hudson .*.
Jerusalem Lodge No. 49
remove _NOSPAM to reply>>
So, no need to keep anything silent. No need for privacy either. Do
you then subscribe to erasing parts of the constitution of the United
States, and furthermore nullifying some citizens' civil rights?
As to your first sentence, that forces a severe limitation upon the
theories of Science and Mathematics. Are you as anti-Science as your
aphorism implies?
When the subject is about Restivo's sex life, it's easy to make cheap
shots. Try thinking some more considering the larger picture with an
open, not a closed mind. Your aphorism outside of the narrow inference
that Restivo's stories were all fiction (they were part true and part
fiction) is ignorant and anti-social and anti-Science.
What have you proved Bro. Hudson? That you can think like a fool? That
you can best Restivo? that you can curry favour from your peers by
insulting Restivo? And who are your peers? Who do you expect to be
impressed with your rush to uninformed judgement about Restivo, about
socio-political philosophy, and about Science and Mathematics?
I leave the answer to these questions for your meditation. Stay on the
square, no angles and be plumb upright and you'll get no abrasive
incidents of correspondence from me.
† Mike Restivo
Mike Restivo
Subject: Pyromania
Newsgroups: alt.freemasonry
Date: 2001-03-25 02:18:06 PST
Ed King wrote on Fri, 23 Mar 2001 23:59:00 EST:
> In article <20010323084659...@ng-mm1.aol.com>, N757Zn wrote:
>>> and I'm SURE your loyal minions will jump to your defense in this.
>> By this I'll assume you mean me or Renzland. I don't appreciate
>> your label, Ed but I can understand how you would make that
>> assignment. In case you missed it, Ed, I was concerned with the
>> principle of a Masonic process rather than the person involved
>> but the way you see it is going to have to be the final word on
>> the matter. 'nuff said.
> Don't assume too much! Bottom line: Mike Restivo - as he had
> done many times previously - was able to drive a wedge between
> several Masons. Much of that wedge remains in place, regrettably.
I take the advice and assume nothing. I simply ask: Ed King, please
explain *unequivocally* who those "loyal minions" are supposed to
be. And what was the message that you intended with that statement.
(And please don't say it was "just symbolic". ;-)>>
Just a small but important point of clarification. it has never been
part of my strategies, tests and traps to pit any person against
another. This is a claim made when a Mason merely asks for reasons for
the attacks on Restivo or similar inoffensive but rank breaking
queries. The response from those queried those who attack Restivo for
personal reasons disguised as Masonic reasons, is to shame the Mason
questioner into silence.
If there is any dissension, it is not on Restivo's account. I'm having
far too much fun fighting my own battles.
<<> They say time heals all wounds and perhaps seeing the mean-
> spiritedness and underhanded behavior from Mike Restivo here might
> explain why some of us felt so very strongly about his potential
> reaffiliation - even to the point of making mistakes in haste to
> ensure that he wasn't able to bowl over the unsuspecting.
This one sentence concisely contains the entire problem.
--
Peter Renzland Simcoe No.^.644 GRC Toronto ON CA>>
Good observation Bro. Renzland. Edward l. King fails to understand that
I appreciate the Hate Restivo R'Us gang's destruction of my Petition
process. By making it public I was able to cancel the petition without
harm to myself. I have consistently and repeatedly thanked eugene
Goldman for his direct and public intervention to thwart my Petition and
Ballot. So, Edward L. King doesn't have a clue to what he's talking
about.
I cancelled my petition, not because of their antics, but because, to
my surprise, General Mercer lodge
and indeed at least one Grand Officer of the Jurisdiction of Ontario,
ignored the regs and constitution, not only of Ontario Masonry, but the
Constitution of Canada.
I was denied due process of justice and the right to defend myself, both
rights I assumed I had under Masonic Jurisprudence. Nobody has them in
Ontario. My refusal to associate with any organization that demanded
unconstitutional behaviour from its members and/or the suspension of any
member's civil rights was and is not one with which I, Restivo wants to
be a member.
That is the reason why I am not a Lodge member in the Ontario
Jurisdiction, due to fundamental principles of political and civil
rights freedoms which I will not relinquish and with which I was forced
to so relinquish several civil rights, guaranteed by our Federal Charter
of Rights.
If it were not for the agitation of the hate Restivo R'Us gang, I would
have not known the extent of the indifference to justice and civil
rights that obtained in Ontario Craft Masonry.
Got that clear? No problem, I can repeat it a few thousand time more
over the years.
† Mike Restivo
Eugene Goldman
<mtronicsREM...@tor.axxent.ca> wrote:
>I appreciate the Hate Restivo R'Us gang's destruction of my Petition
>process.
> I was able to cancel the petition
> I have consistently and repeatedly thanked eugene
>Goldman for his direct and public intervention to thwart my Petition and
>Ballot.
> I cancelled my petition,
>I was denied due process of justice and the right to defend myself, both
>rights I assumed I had under Masonic Jurisprudence. Nobody has them in
>Ontario. My refusal to associate with any organization that demanded
>unconstitutional behaviour from its members and/or the suspension of any
>member's civil rights was and is not one with which I, Restivo wants to
>be a member.
Comment withheld
|O| Be well. Travel with a light heart.
Who said that?
Brother Gene .*.
And in case I don't see ya' - Good Afternoon, Good Evening and Good Night!
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCM/CC/TW/O d--(++) s:,s++ a+ C+(++++) U--- P! L-- E! W++ N+++ o-- K- w++++ O---- M--(+) V? PS+++ Y+ PGP-- t* 5 X- R* tv+++ b++ DI+++ D G e* h---- r+++ y++++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Remember: Your Masonry may not be the same as someone else's.
Internet newsgroup posting. Copyright 2000. All rights reserved.
Any Mason may use the contents for any valid Masonic purpose, permission may be granted to others upon request.
96.37% of all statistics are made up
Bryan
"Mike Restivo" wrote in message...
<snipped here and there>
> Firstly I put some of my private writings on my private web site and
> removed the index.html file.
Or deleted it by accident...
> Eddie, who makes a habit of trying to hack into sites and trespass into
> places uninvited, found to his surprise that what had failed previously,
> now worked: he could read my site's entire directory.
Those are some serious allegations - hacking into websites is illegal. If you
have proof, call the police - if you don't, which I am inclined to believe, shut
your cake-hole.
> Now an normal person would pause to consider: Hey, why do I have access
> now, when previously it was not possible?
Because some fool deleted or removed the index file... I have had access to the
directories of many sites.
> But Eddie's crooked mind does
> not run honestly. He sees an unlocked door and the first thing that
> enters his mind is to illegally trespass or otherwise peep into the
> windows of others' homes. Edward L. King is a voyeur. That is
> incontestably proven.
I would have had a look too - just to see what "Restivo" is really like, not the
"semi-intelligent debater" facade he tries to present.
> Now he copies whatever he like, like a burglar invading one's home,
> messing around with private journals, papers and such, maybe divorce
> proceedings or financial or court affairs which one would prefer to keep
> private, and which one would have the expectancy of privacy in one's own
> private quarters, like the private, not public directories of my web
> site.
Content of websites are put in plain view of the entire public. Anybody with a
little knowledge of the internet and how it works would be aware of that. It's
not like a burglar invading a person's house - it's like conducting your private
affairs in the public, and later whining that everybody knows about your private
matters...
Anybody could come along, without doing anything illegal, and find out a lot
about your site.
> continuing, Eddie decides to post the url to my private web pages. He
> and he alone has published Restivo's private writings, which as his
> quote suggests, are partly based upon my real experiences.
Ed King is not the publisher, he is not the author, he has nothing to do with
what you wrote, and what you published. You seem to think that what you placed
in the view of the public, whether there was a link to such material or not, is
your private material.
You are mistaken. You are the author, you are the publisher - you prepared your
material for publication on the internet.
> Part true
> and part fiction. I'm not saying the proportions of each, nor the
> actual events involved in the genesis of my stories, meant not for the
> public, but for a small circle of lady intimates, who requested them. I
> complied as a lark and then used them as bait.
Must be a very small circle - now, when you are counting the members of your
"circle of lady intimates", do not include blow-up dolls or imaginary
"girlfriends"... I think you'll find the membership numbers significantly
reduced...
> That makes Edward L. King now voyeur and public publisher of
> pornography.
How could he be a "voyeur and public publisher of pornography", when you are the
author and publisher? How could he be a "voyeur" when you placed such material
in the plain sight of anybody who wished to stumble across it.
> Make no mistake: Edward L. King knew that his public posting of the url
> would be archived by Deja News/Google, so that those publicly and
> privately that he told to go to that site, would read my private
> writings, not meant for public viewing.
Awww... Poor Mikey got caught with his pants down...
If it wasn't meant for public viewing, you should not have _published_ it on the
internet.
> Am I to be blamed because Edward L. King takes it upon himself to
> trespass into web site or even my home if he could, search through my
> private belongings and then parade them in public, continuously via
> archive?
No trespass involved. You seem to forget that you are the person that "removed"
(I still think you deleted it by accident) the index file. You opened up access
to your site's directory.
<snipped the rest>
So because you play on your computer, and dream up some lame stories, you claim
to have a highly active sex life... Now, take away your blow-up girls, your
hands, and your dreams... I think you'll find your activity level has
decreased.
--
Bryan Brimicombe, EA
T.H. Simpson Lodge, #692
Stoney Creek, ON
MasonTruth
>Date: 3/26/01 5:44 PM Mountain Standard Time
>Message-id: <3ABFE27A...@tor.axxent.ca>
>
Dear Mike,
Might I suggest that we that you and Brother Ed simply ignore each other?
Doesn't seem as if you are ever going to agree on much and both I am sure have
better things to do.
It keeps the peace on alt.freemasonry and
allows everyone involved more time to concentrate on Masonic issues...
Just a thought..
Sincerely & Respectfully,