To Catch a Troll...
Bill Palmer
remark that started me thinking about some matters
I would now--with your kind patience--like to share
with you.
Essentially, the person did not seem to enjoy
what I observed in "Close Encounter with Punctu-
ation Bigot" but he was not at all forthright about
challenging any of my assertions in that article.
Instead, he made some vaguely resentful remarks
directed at me rather than the many ideas in my
article.
In the course of his unfriendly comments, he said
something that made it clear he was accusing me of
being a troll.
That's right. Me, Bill Palmer, "a troll".
That sort of thing bothers me, because it smacks
of witch hunting, certainly so when we throw all
reason out the window and start applying vague
criteria defining "trolls" and "trolling" to
suit our own whims.
Further, a few months back when I posted another
controversial article in still another group
someone did in fact call me a troll then too.
I thought then that the epithet was incredibly
unfair and I still think that.
Anyway, letting bygones be bygones, in the
first place "troll" can mean different things
to different people. However, the word was
used against me in a negative fashion, so I
will stay with that sort of troll here: the
infamous Usenet pest kind of troll.
A troll in the negative sense is simply a person
who will do anything for attention. The aim of
a troll is not to entertain or enlighten readers.
The troll has no pride in writing or thought quality.
Rather, the only goal for a troll is to make the
readers aware of the troll's shabby net-existence.
I view such a troll as simply an attention-starved
misfit who craves any sort of attention, no matter
how negative.
On the other hand, we never want to get into
a witch hunting frame of mine regarding trolls.
We must have some sensible criteria to apply.
I have, in fact, encountered situations where
anyone who comes into a group and posts on-topic
material that does conform to what the more
active and often aggressive members of the group
deem to be "okay" will be branded a troll.
Well, then, let's set up some fair system of
determining who is or is not likely a troll.
Here is what I suggest regarding questions to
be asked of a suspected troll:
1) Are the person's posts mostly or entirely
off-topic? (ON-topic being defined in a fair
way, of course, such as asking sincerely if any
reasonable person was likely to agree that the
material in question was on-topic).
2) Did the person come into the newsgroup posting
vicious personal attacks having nothing to do
with the newsgroup topic?
3) Does the person follow up on topic articles by
others with personal attacks having nothing to
do with the things being discussed on a thread?
4) Does the person crosspost from your group to the
flaming newsgroups?
5) Are the person's posts very poorly-written and
generally quite skimpy in actual content?
6) Does the person post under a phony name?
(Now, I am not suggesting pseudonyms are
bad, but in general trolls will use false
names because people soon catch on to trolls
and stop reading their posts.)
If the person is indeed a troll, you will have
likely answered YES to most or all of those
questions.
I might add that there is nothing at all wrong
with a poster's wanting to get lots of intel-
ligent feedback to his or her articles.
I say that because I have read posts by people
who seem to insinuate that if you get a good
deal of followup, you are a troll.
That notion boggles the mind for its silliness.
In reality, the test of any poster's standing in
the intellectual portion of the Usenet community
involves the question of how many original, on-
topic stand-alone articles generating lots of
interesting follow-up the person has posted.
A true Usenet intellectual is by nature a thread
starter. A Usenet genius, then, would have to be
the genius of thread starting, would have to be
someone proving capable of starting thousands
of successful threads, not with "Star Wars
sucks" trolls, but with original articles
containing unique, fully-realized ideas that
can challenge or otherwise inspire others to
respond in turn.
I can't imagine a nuttier, topsy-turvyier
state of affairs than what we would have
in Usenet if posters had to hesitate,
thinking, "Gee, I hope a lot of people
don't follow me up on the article I just
posted--someone might think I am a troll."
(We are to imagine the speaker shuddering
and wringing his or her hands.)
After all, the best of Usenet culture has a lot
to do with DISCUSSION, and that does not occur
when we have a state of affairs where people
simply post their own ideas and that's the end
of the matter.
Discussion means give and take, at best "give
and take" leading somewhere productive in the
intellectual or the creative sense, not a series
of curt statements going nowhere.
As a Usenet poster, one of the things that makes
me proudest occurs when I post an original article
that gets plenty of good feedback.
And believe me, I don't define "good feedback" as
being something that compliments me personally.
Good feedback consists of interesting, reasonably
well-expressed, somewhat-original thoughts. That's
all.
Getting back to trolls, though, let's apply the
above sensible criteria before we accuse.
Let's not cry troll when someone rubs us the wrong
way with on-topic opinions, either.
Finally, I would ask this of the gentleman who so
rudely accosted me over my frank and on-topic views:
Sir, let's not start throwing people in a pond
and saying if they float they are a troll and
if they sink they are not a troll. Let's use
criteria understandable and applicable to all,
newbies as well as "oldbies". Fair enough?
Bill Palmer
alt.genius.bill-palmer
>
Guy and Karen Enki
<wil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Earlier today a poster in another newsgroup made a
> remark that started me thinking about some matters
> I would now--with your kind patience--like to share
> with you.
>
> Essentially, the person did not seem to enjoy
> what I observed in "Close Encounter with Punctu-
> ation Bigot" but he was not at all forthright about
> challenging any of my assertions in that article.
>
> Instead, he made some vaguely resentful remarks
> directed at me rather than the many ideas in my
> article.
>
> In the course of his unfriendly comments, he said
> something that made it clear he was accusing me of
> being a troll.
>
> That's right. Me, Bill Palmer, "a troll".
>
If the shoe fits and
1) it's Biil palmer, wear it -or-
2) it's almost any other usenet poster, it's up Biil's butt.
> That sort of thing bothers me, because it smacks
> of witch hunting, certainly so when we throw all
> reason out the window and start applying vague
> criteria defining "trolls" and "trolling" to
> suit our own whims.
Nothing you don't do on a daily basis, Janus. You're
deja-dungheap is a tribute to your hypocrisy.
<snip redundant pleas>
> A troll in the negative sense is simply a person
> who will do anything for attention. The aim of
> a troll is not to entertain or enlighten readers.
>
You, then, qualify.
> The troll has no pride in writing or thought quality.
> Rather, the only goal for a troll is to make the
> readers aware of the troll's shabby net-existence.
>
More than a few people have said the above about you.
><snip on Palmer's vision of trolldom>
>
> Sir, let's not start throwing people in a pond
> and saying if they float they are a troll and
> if they sink they are not a troll. Let's use
> criteria understandable and applicable to all,
> newbies as well as "oldbies". Fair enough?
Well, if you wear cement overshoes:
1) you won't be a troll
2) you won't bother us much, any longer.
I say let's subject Palmer to the test...
Jeroen C.P. van Kessel
*FLAME OFF*
> Well, then, let's set up some fair system of
> determining who is or is not likely a troll.
> Here is what I suggest regarding questions to
> be asked of a suspected troll:
Okay then, Bill. I'm sure you wouldn't mind these self-serving criteria to be
applied to you:
> 1) Are the person's posts mostly or entirely
> off-topic? (ON-topic being defined in a fair
> way, of course, such as asking sincerely if any
> reasonable person was likely to agree that the
> material in question was on-topic).
Yes, Bill, you are mostly off-topic. Although you sometimes put in a
half-hearted attempt to included the focus of a group in your articles, the gist
of those articles is Bill Palmer and his supposed greatness as a writer.
> 2) Did the person come into the newsgroup posting
> vicious personal attacks having nothing to do
> with the newsgroup topic?
Your diatribe against Wyatt of alt.fan.harlan-ellison still fresh in mind, I'd
say "Yes". You, Bill Palmer, post legions of off-topic attacks on various
posters in non-flaming groups. Also remember your tirade against Bob Pastorio of
misc.writing.
> 3) Does the person follow up on topic articles by
> others with personal attacks having nothing to
> do with the things being discussed on a thread?
Indeed you do, Bill. You attacked Wyatt and myself after he and I were
discussing a short story of Harlan Ellison.
> 4) Does the person crosspost from your group to the
> flaming newsgroups?
Since alt.genius.bill-palmer is a de facto flaming group, again I'd have to say
"Yes". You, Bill Palmer" cross-post to flaming groups.
> 5) Are the person's posts very poorly-written and
> generally quite skimpy in actual content?
That's very subjective to say the least, but I think your articles are poorly
written and I don't believe I am the only one ever to say that.
> 6) Does the person post under a phony name?
> (Now, I am not suggesting pseudonyms are
> bad, but in general trolls will use false
> names because people soon catch on to trolls
> and stop reading their posts.)
What is a phony name, Bill? I used to post using my full name (Jeroen van
Kessel) but have since switched to 'Flame Jeroen'. (I will most likely switch to
'FJ' quite soon.) You have no guarantee that my real name is Jeroen van Kessel,
unless I post a jpg of my passport.
Who's to say that your name is 'Bill Palmer'? Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't.
Can you prove it? No. Ergo: Phony name.
> If the person is indeed a troll, you will have
> likely answered YES to most or all of those
> questions.
You, Bill Palmer, are a troll by your own definition.
Now you can snip all my text, write your usual diatribe about Parasite van
Kessel this and leeching on net writers that. In your folly, you will never
realize you're making my case. You see: It is totally impossible to
reason/debate with you, because you will not accept any opinion to be valid but
your own. That's why I (and many others) flame you...
Have a nice day, Billy!
*FLAME ON*
--
FJ - http://www.wilhelp.demon.nl/
Bill Palmer
The ICEKNIFE-style troll has no pride in writing or
thought quality. Rather, the only goal for such a
troll is making the ]readers aware of the troll's
shabby net-existence.
I view a troll like ICEKNIFE as simply an attention-
starved misfit who craves any sort of attention, no
matter how negative.
On the other hand, we never want to get into
a witch hunting frame of mine regarding trolls.
We must have some sensible criteria to apply.
I have, in fact, encountered situations where
anyone who comes into a group and posts on-topic
material that does conform to what the more
active and often aggressive members of the
group deem to be "okay" will be branded a troll.
When I first began posting in alt.slack, I
got a lot of that sort of flack about my posts.
Some groups are much worse than others in that
regard. Nontheless, there are plenty of great
people in alt.slack and I think they are
trying to get a handle on the situation. I
commend them for it.
questions. {With ICEKNIFE of alt.slack, I
think most people in a.s. would agree ICY
should get a YES for all six items.)
I might add that there is nothing at all wrong
with a poster's wanting to get lots of intel-
ligent feedback to his or her articles.
I say that because I have read posts by people
who seem to insinuate that if you get a good
deal of followup, you are a troll.
That notion boggles the mind for its silliness.
In reality, the test of any poster's standing in
the intellectual portion of the Usenet community
involves the question of how many original, on-
topic stand-alone articles generating lots of
interesting follow-up the person has posted.
A true Usenet intellectual is by nature a thread
starter. A Usenet genius, then, would have to be
the genius of thread starting, would have to be
someone proving capable of starting thousands
of successful threads, not with "Star Wars
sucks" trolls, but with original articles
containing unique, fully-realized ideas that
can challenge or otherwise inspire others to
respond in turn.
I can't imagine a nuttier, topsy-turvyier
state of affairs than what we would have
in alt.slack or alt.genius.bill-palmer than
if posters had to hesitate, thinking, "Gee,
I hope a lot of people don't follow me up
on the article I just posted--someone might
think I am a troll." (We are to imagine
the speaker shuddering and wringing his
or her hands.)
After all, the best of Usenet culture has a lot
to do with DISCUSSION, and that does not occur
when we have a state of affairs where people
simply post their own ideas and that's the end
of the matter.
Discussion means give and take, at best "give
and take" leading somewhere productive in the
intellectual or the creative sense, not a series
of curt statements going nowhere.
As a Usenet poster, one of the things that makes
me proudest occurs when I post an original article
that gets plenty of good feedback.
And believe me, I don't define "good feedback" as
being something that happpens to compliment me.
Flame Jeroen
> In<mailto:929212249.17669....@news.demon.n>
> (Parasite Jeroen Van Kessel) writes:
>
> [...] Drivel denying that troll Van Kessel
> is a troll snipped as being blatantly
> false.
I neither confirmed nor denied that I was a troll, simply because the topic of
my article dealt with *you* being one. I realize it's rather convenient to snip
all my text and then make up lies about what I said, but aren't you stretching
your credibility a bit here, Palmjob?
[...]
> Pretty amazing fear reaction, even for a spamming
> coward like Jeroen...Anyway, the most amazing thing
> is, my six criteria fit Jeroen Van Kessel to a
> tee, though I did not mention his name at all!
The six criteria matched my posting behavior with regard to flaming you, I'll
grant you that. Three quick points though (although you will snip them as
usual):
[1] You made up your 6 points to match my behavior rather than the other way
around. Very convenient, so you can whine to every group I post to that I am a
troll, according to your definition.
[2] Your definitions for Usenet phenomena are generally disregarded given your
monumental cluelessness of the medium you abuse daily.
[3] Your posting behavior matches your 6 criteria pretty nicely.
[flush re-post of essay attempt]
--
FJ - http://www.wilhelp.demon.nl/
"Parasite Van Kessel has little wrting skill",
Billy Palmjob lays it all down, in article:
<7is4tb$b...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>
Dr. Retribution
news:7k1kt0$b...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com...
[snip]
*slap* Shut up!
Bill Palmer
Van Kessel" writes:
Spammer Van Kessel still fulminates because the "shoe"
in "To Catch a Troll.." fits him so well.
>> (Parasite Jeroen Van Kessel) writes:
>>
>> [...] Drivel denying that troll Van Kessel
>> is a spamming troll snipped as being
blatantly false.
>
>I neither confirmed nor denied that I was a troll, [...]
Your long and shabby record of flooding non-flaming
groups with personal attacks having nothing at all to
do with newsgroup topic demonstrates your trolldom to
everyone, Parasite Van Kessel. Your cowardly
evasions will not help you at all here.
If the law was such that people got one day in jail for
spamming off-topic drivel into non-flaming newsgroups,
you'd be doing a life sentence right now (where you
could impress the inmates with your grasp of the sewer
argot you spew daily into the net, of course) Leech
Jeroen.
The worst thing about your spamming and abuse of
the net, Trolling Parasite Van Kessel, is that you
ABSOLUTELY refuse to recognize the need to be consi-
derate to the readers of the non-flaming newsgroups.
In order to let everyone know about your parasitical
obsession with me, Parasite Van Kessel, you have
spammed hundreds, if not thousands, of off-topic
articles--personal attacks having NOTHING to do
with either newsgroup topic or thread-dicussion
subject--into newsgroups where those articles
are off-topic.
In other words, you prove so arrogant that--by
your off-topic, spamming behavior--you declare that
you, Parasite Jeroen Van Kessel, have a right to
post anything to ANY group you want, regardless
of topic, and in callous disregard to the wishes
of the readers.
Your little con game for your net-abusive actions
is that you are "just flaming." Well, that's
no good, Parasite Jeroen. Almost no real flamers
engage in that sort of behavior. They like to keep
their flames in groups where people go to read flames,
because they know they will be appreciated that way.
But not you and a few other parasites--you claim
special privileges when it comes to spamming your
off-topic manure.
But not being a real flamer at all, and merely
being a netstalking parasite and all-around net-
sewer denizen with a big axe to grind, Parasite
Van Kessel, you care nothing the fact that people
don't read misc.writing, alt.cyberspunk.chatsubo,
alt.prose, al.journalism, soc.culture.british,
rec.arts.fine,etc etc., for your off-topic drivel.
You can't seem to grasp that at all, in your "I Van
Kessel am a netstalking, spamming parasite and pround
of it," approach to Usenet.
The most revealing thing about your parasitical
obsession with me, Parasite Jeroen, is your crazy
rationalizaton for your spamming that argues, "Well,
if Bill Palmer can post an ON-topic article in a group,
I guess that I, Van Kessel, as a leading Palmer's
Parasite, can spam MY OFF-topic assaults on Palmer
(having nothing to do with the group topic) into
that same group. After all, I Jeroen want everyone
on the net to understand that I am a leading Palmer's
Parasite since that's my claim to fame on the net."
That's EXACTLY what your off-topic behavior says,
Van Kessel--and your Dejanews archive is stuffed
with evidence for it, including thousands of your
off-topic spams to dozens of non-flaming newsgroups.
As a troll, you are an usually boorish and inconsiderate
one, Parasite Van Kessel. You place your need to be a
notorious Palmer's Parasite--and your need to PROVE you
are a parasite--above the wishes of all the readers in
the non-flaming groups where you regularly spam your
off topic rubbish. If you kept your crudely-perverted
trash in alt.flame and alt.tasteless, that would be
fine, but your arrogance and your obsession with me
won't permit you to do that.
Oh yes, and as to the Six Criteria, your drivel won't
get you around that you fit ALL of them and I fit
NONE of them. How on earth do you think you think
you can worm around that one, Parasite Van Kessel?
Have you zapped both of our Dejanews archives today,
or something?
The big difference between us, Parasite Jeroen,
of course, is that though I love to amuse the
flaming fans as the Amazing Flame Giant, I have
ALSO posted many hundreds of directly on-topic,
original stand-alone articles in non-flaming
groups. Many of those articles have become
net classics inspiring long threads including
some excellent on-topic input from thread
discussion participants.
You have done NOTHING, Parasite Van kessel, other
writing and spamming your lame "snip and drool"
efforts between the lines of MY original, on-topic
articles.
So again, all six criteria fit you to a tee--NONE of
them apply to me. You are neither a flamer worthy
of the name in the flame groups, nor a contributor
worthy of the name in the non-flaming groups,
Parasite Van Kessel.
You are simply a spamming, parasitical net troll Van
Kessel, who--unfortunately--has such an obsession
with me that at least half of your archived posts
(since you've been on the net) damn you for the
net parasite you are!
As to your article on THIS thread, coming on
the heels of my original essay, well
>[...]
>
>> Pretty powerful fear reaction, even for a spamming
>> coward like Jeroen...Anyway, the most amazing thing
>> is, my six criteria fit Jeroen Van Kessel to a
>> tee, though I did not mention his name at all
>> in my original article! Our leech sure popped up
>> fast to wail his innocence though...
[...]
Bill Palmer
alt.genius.bill-palmer
Bill Palmer
>
>Bill Palmer wrote:
>-----
>> "utilize" was perfectly correct for expressing
>> my idea.
>>....
>
>Tsk, tsk. You should have capitalized "utilize."
>
>------
>> I don't do my writing with the notion
>> of studiously avoiding everything that certain
>> usage experts frown on. The word is either
>> correct in context or it isn't.
>>.....
>
>"Do my writing with the notion of studiously avoiding" is
>ponderous. Try for a little simpler language, fewer words.
When YOU become the most famous writer on
the net, then maybe I'll start listening
to your gratuitous advice regarding one
of the most recognizeable writing styles
on the English-speaking wired planet...
I have had at least 500 satires written
and posted on my famous Usenet style, written
in fact by the best writers on the net--as
well as the worst, of course--and I DO know
one thing, you have to HAVE a style before
people are going to satirize your writing.
[If you have real writing talent, and you
want to use your energy satirizing a
Usenet poster's style of writing, you want
to pick a target that is well-enough known
that many readers will be able to get the
point of your satire. Right? That's common
sense, I think.]
I haven't noticed too many "N. Mitchem"
satires around the net lately.
Take my public pratfalls though I do, it is
not my goal to sound like everyone on the
net or to nurture a prose style that might
best be characterized as "grammatical."
I HAVE read Strunk and White, and if I
wanted to post under a phony name and be
self-effacing, you would never know I
was around. This is not business
English, though, and I have no interest
in a self-effacing Usenet-posting style,
except as merely something available
in my repertoire of styles that I can
employ in my more serious posts if I
so desire.
Bill Palmer
alt.genius.bill-palmer
>
>------
>> If you want
>> to argue my use of "utilize" was INCORRECT,
>> do it. My rebuttals are marshalled and
>> waiting.
>>.....
>
>Anyone who utilizes "utilize" when he could have used "use" will
>of course have marshalled rebuttals.
>
>-----
>> Then there's the confusion of calling numerous people "a
>> >troll."
>>
>> No confusion at all. Any confusion is in your
>> picayunish mind, old rooster.
>>.....
>
>I think you've confused me with TOR. I'm a different rooster.
>
>------
>> I had something to say I believed would be of
>> interest to members of this group.
>>.....
>
>Has your belief proved correct? (I'm not going to read the whole
>thread, so I'll have to rely on your assessment.)
>
>-----
>> The Deja-mountain
>> will streamroller you flat, whether you
>> realize it or not.
>>.....
>
>The what? It'll do what?
The Deja-mountain, stupid. It is the only
personal section of the Dejanews archive
that is so well known its nickname is
recognized all over the net now. [Go to
The Mountain, for instance, and read, "Libel
Goblin Sexton Fleeing Dejamountain in Terror!"]
>
>------
>> You make me want to read more of Mr. P's bulletins!
>>
>> I have nothing but pity for minds that studiously
>> avoid ideas
>>.....
>
>Which has nothing to do, I gather, with the notion of studiously
>avoiding, uh, avoiding ... how did that go again? Anyway, I'm
>grateful for your pity.
>
>
>----NM
>
>
Guy and Karen Enki
<wil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> In <376410...@lafn.org> "N.Mitchum" <aj...@lafn.org> writes:
> >
> >Bill Palmer wrote:
> >-----
> >> "utilize" was perfectly correct for expressing
> >> my idea.
> >>....
> >
> >Tsk, tsk. You should have capitalized "utilize."
> >
> >------
> >> I don't do my writing with the notion
> >> of studiously avoiding everything that certain
> >> usage experts frown on. The word is either
> >> correct in context or it isn't.
> >>.....
> >
> >"Do my writing with the notion of studiously avoiding" is
> >ponderous. Try for a little simpler language, fewer words.
>
> When YOU become the most famous writer on
> the net, then maybe I'll start listening
> to your gratuitous advice regarding one
> of the most recognizeable writing styles
> on the English-speaking wired planet...
Ha hah hah. What a knee slapper. Dejanews will show 2 things:
1) you appear to think you are the most famous writer on the net
2) you don't take advice you offer
So, your conditional has no relation to you might or might not do.
History has shown us what you will do. Nothing.
Ed Foster
(Bill Palmer) wrote:
> When YOU become the most famous writer on
> the net,
You're mistaking boring for famous.
> then maybe I'll start listening
> to your gratuitous advice regarding one
> of the most recognizeable writing styles
> on the English-speaking wired planet...
If it bores you to tears, it's a palmjob.
> I have had at least 500 satires written
> and posted on my famous Usenet style, written
> in fact by the best writers on the net--as
> well as the worst, of course--and I DO know
> one thing,
You know diddly-squat or you wouldn't continue to post tediously long,
boring crap.
> you have to HAVE a style before
> people are going to satirize your writing.
Get it through your thick skull, palmjob, making fun of you is a sport,
and better than kicking the dog after a tough day at work, but just
barely.
> [If you have real writing talent, and you
> want to use your energy satirizing a
> Usenet poster's style of writing, you want
> to pick a target that is well-enough known
> that many readers will be able to get the
> point of your satire. Right?
Wrong.
> That's common sense, I think.
If you don't think too well, don't think too much.
> I haven't noticed too many "N. Mitchem"
> satires around the net lately.
>
> Take my public pratfalls though I do, it is
> not my goal to sound like everyone on the
> net or to nurture a prose style that might
> best be characterized as "grammatical."
You've succeeded.
> I HAVE read Strunk and White,
I don't have my copy in front of me, but I seem to recall that their
advice was to keep it short and to the point, something you've never
learned to do, you overblown gasbag.
> and if I
> wanted to post under a phony name and be
> self-effacing, you would never know I
> was around. This is not business
> English, though, and I have no interest
> in a self-effacing Usenet-posting style,
What are you talking about, you idiot. Damned few usenet posts are
self-effacing. No one's asking you to be self-effacing; we're pointing
out that you don't need 100 or more lines to express a thought that can be
said in less than 10. Sad to say, most of your thoughts are worth 10 less
lines than that. Once again, palmjob, quantity does not equal quality.
The only status you've achieved is that of the most boring writer on
usenet. People respond to you because you're an easy punching bag. The
fact that you view this as some form of fame only indicates how pathetic
your sad life is.
> except as merely something available
> in my repertoire of styles that I can
> employ in my more serious posts if I
> so desire.
You have no serious posts, palmjob. Well, maybe you have, but no one's
going to find it among the 1000s of lines of drek you publish so
regularly. You're boring in the extreme. By posting so much crap, you've
guaranteed that, in the unlikely event that you do have something useful
to say, and that you manage to say it in less than 100 lines of overblown,
turgid prose, no one will notice it.
One more time, palmjob, quantity does not equate to quality!!! Take that
to heart and you might become writer as opposed to a typist.
--
erRMV...@MediaOne.net
(remove "RMV" to reply)
Bill Palmer
writes:
>
>Mimi Kahn wrote:
>>
>> On 13 Jun 1999 10:32:41 GMT, pe...@pjm2.newcastle.edu.au (Peter
>> Moylan) wrote:
>>
>> >Somebody wrote:
>> >
>> >> Bill Palmer
>> >> alt.genius.bill-palmer
>> >
>> >Great newsgroup name. Is that where we should send the bad poetry?
But it doesn't carry Bill Palmer.
In fact, alt.genius.bill-palmer has been fully-propagated
almost since it was created. That means as "fully-
propagated" as an alt. group gets, of course, since
ISP'S around the planet have their own rules on which
alt. groups they carry, and those rules and polices
shift so much that "newsgroup propagation" is really
a thing in flux, rather than a static, unchanging
reality.
I can tell you that AOL has featured alt.genius.bill-
palmer in its in house selection for two years, and
that a.g.b-p gets posts from "the demon" in Europe,
from many other ISP'S in europe, and from Asia and
from Australia all the time.
Old rooster hints alt.genius.bill-palmer is an obscure
group on the net, but anyone who will do a halfway
competent Dejanews search for keywords alt.genius.
bill-palmer and a.g.b-p will see that old rooster
is full of beans.
It would be difficult to imagine a fun group
in the alt. category (based on someone who is
not an off-line celebrity like Howard Stern,
anyway) which could be any more popular than
alt.genius.bill-palmer. After all, it has
received about 65,000 posts from around the
planet in the approximately two-and-one-half
years it has existed.
On the other hand, as I said in another
query on this, it certainly isn't my job to
start fretting about which ISP carries or does
not carry a popular Usenet fun group owned by
all and which I don't a nickel from.
>
>Deja.com *does* jave alt.genius.bill.palmer. You should see the Bill
>Palmer who posts there! Here's a brief selection from one of his
>typical postings to his own group, copied from Deja.com and posted
under
>a claim of fair use:
!!!OLD ROOSTER DIRTY TRICK ALERT!!!!
Here is old rooster's trick this time, and it's a
lame and dishonest one I have encoutered before.
What he does is take a flame that was written for
a newsgroup audience where it was appropriate at
the time it was posted, and he reposts it here out
of its thead context and where it is not appropriate.
It's like taking something out of MAD and sneaking
it into THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY, saying, "You see
what sort of nut this guy is?" of the dishonestly
maligned author.
Is it old rooster's contention that now alt.usage
english should become a repository for old flames?
After all, I am the creater of a fully developed
entertainment creation, the Amazing Flame Giant,
who is LITERALLY AND DEMONSTRABLY the most famous
flamer on the planet. Anyone who wants to can
visit the flame world and see why it is hard to
imagine a flame universe without the World
Champion at the top of it throwing his
lightning bolts into the flaming newsgroups.
But I see it like this: old rooster is setting
a very bad precedent here, since readers do not
come to this non-flaming group to read reposted
flames, even ones by the world champion of flaming.
I think old rooter's dishonesty and his eagerness
to have readers confuse a famous net writer with his
copyighted entertainment personas means old rooster
is trying--whether he knows it or not--to open a
Pandora's box he never should have lugged into
alt.usage.english. I suggest he put the lid
back down gently.
>
Quote from an old rooster-reposted flame that was
neither written for, nor originally posted by its
writer in, this newsgroup:
>
>
> Another foul snip-and-drool stew wherein this nitwit
> pounces the very few typos my 3,000 word post (in
> which I did a terrific proofreading job, as far
> as 3,000 word off-the-cuff Usenet discussion posts
> run, by the way). Anyway, while he is busy ferreting
> out those "terrible typos" he is committing ignorant
> howler upon ignorant howler; therein lies the
> true irony.
In its proper context, it was the best thing
that could be said at the time.
>
> I thought it was especially significant
> that this ignoramus ignored what another
> poster tried to tell him today, as she strived
> to let him down gently regarding his vastly
> ignorant remarks about English punctuation.
I said it, I stand by it one-hundred percent as
being fully correct in the newsgroup and thread
context from which old rooster mischievously
and dishonestly removed it and reposted it
where it did not belong (with ample misleading
commentary, of course).
>
></quote>
>
>Perhaps this "ignoramus" is the "punctuation bigot" who showed up in
>Palmer's posting [...] Perhaps the quotation above gives a somewhat
>better picture of Bill Palmer. If you want more, it's all there at
>Deja.com. I got very tired of it very fast.
So of course you reposted it entirely out of
newsgroup context and thread context in a non-
flaming newsgroup to be sure that everyone in group
me for one of my famous copyrighted literary creations!
Well, old rooster, why be a half-ass? Why not
simply repost the entire two or three million
Deja-mountain into the same newsgroup? (Kidding,
folks; he's likely inconsiderate enough to do it.)
Palmer's postings appear
>to be less rotten than most, so you can just imagine what the rest
look
>like.
People who don't like flames and want to read something
I would say is fairly representative of my serious Usenet
writing are referred to "Facts in the Case of Bill
Palmer"; "Refuge in Art"; "Symbolism: One Hundred
Years of Neglect"; "MORE ELDRITCH THAN FICTION!";
"Uncanny Resemblance"; "Retard"; "On Misunderstanding
Stevens", about poet Wallace Stevens; or any of
hundreds of other serious, stand alone articles
I have posted--occasional typos and all, be warned--
since I've been on the net. People who enjoy poety
might also want to read my "We Are Assembled Here Today",
"I'll slash you to ribbons", and "Gothic Whispers". (Fewer
or no typos in my poems of course; I DO proofread those,
as is only respectable.) If you have and interest in
syumbolist art, check out my "Symbolist Bibliography".
(It's not just a list, but an academic-syle bibliography
with my brief critique of each book.)
>
>Actually, the most remarkable thing about "Bill Palmer," at least as
>evidenced by his conduct [...] is that he has absolutely NO sense of
>humor whatsoever. I think that explains a lot.
No, old rooster, you are just scratching at the
surface, near-sightedly and peevishly, of things
you know nothing of. There is in a fact a gigantic
laughter echoing from Deja-mountain. You might as
well be trying to tell everyone about what lies
at the center of this Milky Way galaxy you stumble
around in with so much foolish confidence...
Bill Palmer
alt.genius.bill-palmer.retard
>
>TOR
Bill Palmer
Queen) writes another typo pounce:
Well, I'll say it again, Professor Typo-pounce.
I WRITE.
Real Usenet stand-alone articles, not skimpy, constipated,
measly two-line typo-pounces of the sort you favor.
What apparently happened here was that you made your
snide and ignorant comments about alt.genius.bill-palmer.
I refuted you.
Did you offer ONE IOTA of counter-rebuttal?
Of course not.
You typo-pounced.
Essentially, you are a constipated nitwit
just like old rooster. Bunged up Tommy-two lines
like you have an instinctive hatred for WRITERS.
With you, your habitual typo-pounces are sort of an
envious attempt to "level"--you think that if you make
a big enough point about my occasional typos, somebody
will forget that you are damn near a non-writer, at
least as far as every producing any Usenet writing
that anyone one his right mind would be proud of.
But that's fine. Typo-pouncing is the lowliest flame
tactic of all. I do a famous flaming performance art
routine in groups like alt.flame, so I'm very adept at
dealing with lowly typo-pouncing nitwits like you.
You keep pouncing my typos, and I will keep writing famous
Usenet stand alone articles, of the variety that I write in
twenty minutes and YOU could not write successfully if
you had six months to spend on attempting to do it.
Fair enough?
>
>On 13 Jun 1999 20:59:27 GMT, wil...@ix.netcom.com (Bill Palmer)
>wrote:
>
>>In fact, alt.genius.bill-palmer has been fully-propagated
>>almost since it was created. That means as "fully-
>>propagated" as an alt. group gets, of course, since
>>ISP'S around the planet have their own rules on which
>>alt. groups they carry, and those rules and polices
>>shift so much that "newsgroup propagation" is really
>>a thing in flux, rather than a static, unchanging
>>reality.
>>I can tell you that AOL has featured alt.genius.bill-
>>palmer in its in house selection for two years...
Well, it's the biggest ISP there is, and we have
had some pretty funny stuff making it to alt.genius.
bill-palmer from AOL.
>>On top of that, a.g.b-p gets posts from "the demon"
>>in Europe, and from Asia, and from Australia all the
>>time. We are not talking vanity groups here, plainly.
>>It would be difficult to imagine a fun group
>>in the alt. category (based on someone who is
>>not an off-line celebrity like Howard Stern,
>>anyway) which could be any more popular than
>>alt.genius.bill-palmer. After all, it has
>>received about 65,000 posts from around the
>>planet in the approximately two-and-one-half
>>years it has existed.
>>!!!OLD ROOSTER DIRTY TRICK ALERT!!!!
>>
>>Here is old rooster's trick this time, and it's a
>>lame and dishonest one I have encoutered before.
>
>Come off it. There was nothing at all dishonest about what Mr.
>Lieblich did.
Of course it was dishonest. I have made over six-
thousand postings to Usenet, which include hundreds
of the most famous stand alone article in net history.
For someone to ferret though the Dejamountain and repost
an article into a newsgroup where the article is not on
topic and was neither intended to go is absolutely
dishonest and indefensible. If he wanted the readers
to see an article of mine, he should have had the
courtesy to ask me which article I would recommend
that he repost. But of course, his intent was to be
neither courteous or honest.
In point of fact, he described in great detail what he
>did. You may not like having your words held up to ridicule, but allow
>yourself to be archived, and I cannot imagine you not allowing
>yourself to be archived, and it will happen time and time again.
Well, in the long haul, that is between the poster
and the newsgroup readers. You plainly think that
a non-flaming group is a proper repository for flames
that were written for and posted in other groups,
but I don't share that. And contrary to your
drivel, it DOESN'T "happen time and again" in
non-flaming newsgroups, since it doesn't take
most regulars very long to see the implications
of such dishonest, off-topic behavior and start
protesting loudly to the cretinish reposter.
I mean, I am certainly proud of The Mountain. If
all the readers of alt.english.usage want the
entire two or three million-word archive posted
here, go ahead. Far be it from me to be
censorious if people are acting within their
legal rights. However, *I* DON'T repost my
old flames here since I feel that is not
what people come here to read. I would call
that common courtesy fro the other readers,
which you and old rooter seem to lack.
Somebody started the same thing in another
writing group for the same dishonest reason.
It didn't take long for others in the group to
put the clamps on the repost boor in question.
I mean, in the last analysis it boils down to
whether you think a group like that should be
a sort of showcase for postings written for
other groups and off-topic here.
Most people don't share that opinion. On the other
hand, you seem to be saying that I should somehow
be less than proud of owning the Dejamountain.
Poppycock! When I am reposted, most of time I
make the same sincere comment: I said it, I stand
by it one hundred percent. All of it, six-thousand
and more articles, many of them--as I have said--
the most famous stand alone articles in het
history.
Even so, if someone is going to repost a Bill
Palmer article I am the best possible judge
of which article would fit a particular forum
the best. Posting other people's articles
out of context where they are off-topic is
simply boorish and indefensible conduct,
most especially when misleading comments
are added to confuse the readers as to
the original context of the repost.
Maybe it is my occasional typos that cause
you to think I am not extemely proud of
the Mountain, from my first Usenet post
to this one. Fiddlesticks. If it were
not for the fact that I have enough "writers
spine" to smoke the keyboard time and time
again, I would not own Dejamountain in the
first place. Non-productive ninnies like
you or Raoul are permanently unable to grasp
that typos can always be cleaned up for print
or website publication (or for the next post,
as a matter of fact).
Conversely, regarding YOUR skimpy, constipated
drivel, the best editor in England could polish
it until the cows come home and there would STILL
be nothing to your "gems of succinctness", except
perhaps, if I may borrow a phrase from Wallace
Stevens, "...a comic ugliness or a lustered
nothingness."
How does that other line from Stevens
go? "He who has lost the folly of the
moon becomes the prince of the proverbs
of pure poverty..." That's you. Snicker
at my typos, fine, since that's all you
can do anyway in your constipated, envious
and creatively-impoverished condition.
You and Raoul Xemblinosky.
>
>I could have done the same thing with even more--let us call them
>amazing--posts of yours,
It's a free country. A "virtual non-writing" typo-pouncer
like you can never slow down a WRITER. For instance, *I*
wrote the two most famous Usenet articles for the second
week of June, 1999, "Close Encounter with a Punctuation
Bigot" and "To Catch a Troll". YOU pounced my typos.
In other words, we were both acting out our natural
roles in the ebb and flow of Usenet mental activity,
and that's fine with me.
but there has been too much of yours in this
>newsgroup already, and most people here, from what I can see, find you
>exceedingly annoying.
Well, the best advice I can give them if they
get too annoyed is to refrain from clicking
where it says wilhelp. I never post under
a phony name, so I'm an easy guy to avoid,
I guess, UNLESS someone is addicted to the
Usenet writing of Bill Palmer, and I must
say that quite a few people would seem to
have that addiction 'cause I never seem to
run out of readers.
>
>[...more...]
>
>>After all, I am the creater of a fully developed
>>entertainment creation, the Amazing Flame Giant,
>>who is LITERALLY AND DEMONSTRABLY the most famous
>>flamer on the planet....
>
>Has anyone ever heard of this "most famous flamer on the planet"?
Keyword Bill Palmer. Keyword wilhelp. Keyword Flame Giant.
Judge for yourself.
>
>>Anyone who wants to can
>>visit the flame world and see why it is hard to
>>imagine a flame universe without the World
>>Champion at the top of it throwing his
>>lightning bolts into the flaming newsgroups.
>
>Good God.
Big hands shape flame universe. It's nothing
much but Flame Giant anymore in all the major
dozen Usenet flame forums. I mean, if you
hang there for a while, you see that's where
all the ACTION is. There's no flame action
worth mentioning that does not involve the
Flame Giant.
>
>[...yet again...]
>
>>I think his dishonesty and his eagerness to have
>>readers confuse a famous net writer...
>
>Stop right there. "[F]amous net writer"? Good God.
Well, let's let our Deja-researchers do a search
on the frequency of Red Queen "mentions" and the
frequency of Bill Palmer "mentions" (not counting
our own postings, of course, to be fair: only
"mentions" by others). The last time a "Deja-whiz
kid" in a writing group did that, for the period
tested, I had 36,000 mentions and Steven King had
about ninety thousand. I can live with that,
especially when I know for a fact that there
haven't been half as many Steven King satires in
Usenet as there have been Bill Palmer satires.
But by all means, keep pouncing those typos,
since that is essentially all you have when
it comes to creativity. You and Dr. Typo-pounce
Xemblinosky should get married. You are made
for one another, Red Queen.
>
>[...you know...]
>
>>No, old rooster, you are just scratching at the
>>surface, near-sightedly and peevishly, of things
>>you know nothing of. There is in a fact a gigantic
>>laughter echoing from Deja-mountain....
[...]
Bill Palmer
alt.genius.bill-palmer
Will Acheson
(Bill Palmer) wrote:
> In <3763C1...@erols.com> Robert Lieblich <lieb...@erols.com>
> writes:
> >
> >Mimi Kahn wrote:
> >>
> >> On 13 Jun 1999 10:32:41 GMT, pe...@pjm2.newcastle.edu.au (Peter
> >> Moylan) wrote:
> >>
> >> >Somebody wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Bill Palmer
> >> >> alt.genius.bill-palmer
> >> >
> >> >Great newsgroup name. Is that where we should send the bad poetry?
> But it doesn't carry Bill Palmer.
>
> In fact, alt.genius.bill-palmer has been fully-propagated
> almost since it was created.
Funny thing. pacbell.net's hundred thousand plus customers
are spared from your blather. Full propagation, my ass. Did
it ever occur to you that a horse in a hoop skirt could get
full propagation?
> That means as "fully-
> propagated" as an alt. group gets, of course, since
> ISP'S around the planet have their own rules on which
> alt. groups they carry,
And a good number of them have filtered you and your
bandwidth-busting biilshit right out. HAND.
> and those rules and polices
> shift so much that "newsgroup propagation" is really
> a thing in flux, rather than a static, unchanging
> reality.
Rather like your own fantasy world, eh? One minute you're
a "computer expert" (I still laugh at that), the next you're
the "sole wilhelp proprietor," the next you're a "retard."
Jesus, Bill. Make up your mind which autoflame you want to
carry around, will ya?
> I can tell you that AOL has featured alt.genius.bill-
> palmer in its in house selection for two years,
AOL? You're *proud* of this!?
> and
> that a.g.b-p gets posts from "the demon"
Oh, yeah. demon.local, home of the sigbunnies and Jules, the
guy who thinks all black kids should be shot at birth. No wonder
they like you, you drooling racist bastard.
> in Europe,
> from many other ISP'S in europe, and from Asia and
> from Australia all the time.
Yammer, yammer, yammer. Only you could be so proud of being
propagated, Biil. Like I said, it's no great feat, and it's
not as if they carried you out of any great respect for you and
your long-winded shite. Most of them probably haven't heard of
you at all, they just haven't managed to pinpoint the source of
the massive bandwidth drain their NNTP server is experiencing
as yet.
> Old rooster hints alt.genius.bill-palmer is an obscure
> group on the net,
Very obscure.
> but anyone who will do a halfway
> competent Dejanews search for keywords alt.genius.
> bill-palmer and a.g.b-p will see that old rooster
> is full of beans.
Do you know why that is, Palmer? It's because the 'Nosers
hang out here. And 'Nosers crosspost everywhere. So yeah,
stuff will show up in Deja's searches eventually.
> It would be difficult to imagine a fun group
> in the alt. category (based on someone who is
> not an off-line celebrity like Howard Stern,
> anyway) which could be any more popular than
> alt.genius.bill-palmer.
No, it wouldn't. alt.fan.dan-quayle would be ten times
as enjoyable as listening to you ramble on and on and on.
> After all, it has
> received about 65,000 posts from around the
> planet in the approximately two-and-one-half
> years it has existed.
It helps that you continually repost and repost and repost
the same old shit day in and day out, articles which should
never have seen the light of day in the *first* place. Yet
you post them five, six, maybe even seven times just to
satisfy the demands of your own mutated ego.
One other point: 80% of the articles in a."g".b.p are
posts specifically flaming you. The other 20% are you
posturing and preening and pretending you're some sort
of writer or something.
> On the other hand, as I said in another
> query on this, it certainly isn't my job to
> start fretting about which ISP carries or does
> not carry a popular Usenet fun group owned by
> all and which I don't a nickel from.
You don't a nickel from?
Some writer *you* are, Palmbot.
> >Deja.com *does* jave alt.genius.bill.palmer. You should see the Bill
> >Palmer who posts there! Here's a brief selection from one of his
> >typical postings to his own group, copied from Deja.com and posted
> under
> >a claim of fair use:
>
> !!!OLD ROOSTER DIRTY TRICK ALERT!!!!
Of course, it's a dirty trick any time anyone kicks your ass,
isn't it, Palmer?
> Here is old rooster's trick this time, and it's a
> lame and dishonest one I have encoutered before.
>
> What he does is take a flame that was written for
> a newsgroup audience where it was appropriate at
> the time it was posted, and he reposts it here out
> of its thead context and where it is not appropriate.
What is a "thead", pray tell? I can't seem to find it in my
OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY.
<snicker>
> It's like taking something out of MAD and sneaking
> it into THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY, saying, "You see
> what sort of nut this guy is?" of the dishonestly
> maligned author.
The difference here, Palmer, is that you *are* a nut. A nut,
a certified netkook, and a permanent resident of the Global
Killfile.
There are very, very good reasons for that, too.
> Is it old rooster's contention that now alt.usage
> english should become a repository for old flames?
If you have anything to say about it, it'll certainly become
a repository for articles about Bill Palmer.
And that we just cannot have.
> After all, I am the creater of a fully developed
> entertainment creation, the Amazing Flame Giant,
Fully developed except that it lacks a brain.
> who is LITERALLY AND DEMONSTRABLY the most famous
> flamer on the planet.
Then demonstrate it.
> Anyone who wants to can
> visit the flame world and see why it is hard to
> imagine a flame universe without the World
> Champion at the top of it throwing his
> lightning bolts into the flaming newsgroups.
Bill, you lighting your farts hardly qualifies as lightning
bolts. Although those who come in contact with what you so
ironically call "flames" might wish they'd been struck by
lightning instead. At least the stench would be less intense.
> But I see it like this: old rooster is setting
> a very bad precedent here, since readers do not
> come to this non-flaming group to read reposted
> flames, even ones by the world champion of flaming.
Who is that "world champion," anyway, and why doesn't he
ever poke his head into a."g".b.p?
> [merciful, blessed snip]
Shut the fuck up, Palmer. Nobody believes your dog-and-
pony act. At least, nobody with an IQ higher than their
belt size.
Fuckheadyt.
--
Will Acheson, the Virtual Gypsy
grund...@popmail.com
http://acheson.webjump.com
Will Acheson
(Bill Palmer) wrote:
> In <37657abd...@news.sfo.com> redq...@sfo.sansspam.com (The Red
> Queen) writes another typo pounce:
>
> Well, I'll say it again, Professor Typo-pounce.
>
> I WRITE.
Liar.
You spew, you barf, you vomit. But you do not write.
A real writer would have the good sense and common
intelligence to realize when he IS NOT WANTED. You
have displayed neither.
> Real Usenet stand-alone articles, not skimpy, constipated,
> measly two-line typo-pounces of the sort you favor.
You mean really really huge bandwidth-busting steaming mounds
of biilshit, not concise, thoughtful articles that say what
needs saying and no more.
> What apparently happened here was that you made your
> snide and ignorant comments about alt.genius.bill-palmer.
Snide and ignorant comments are apparently welcome here
in alt."genius".bill-palmer, since you've got precious
little else to say.
> I refuted you.
Did I mention you're a liar?
> Did you offer ONE IOTA of counter-rebuttal?
Probably not that you were brave enough to read.
> Of course not.
Exactly, you coward.
> You typo-pounced.
And it was probably absolutely hilarious.
> Essentially, you are a constipated nitwit
> just like old rooster. Bunged up Tommy-two lines
> like you have an instinctive hatred for WRITERS.
No, Bill. Those of us with any sense at all just
hate you. You are, after all, the Supreme Idiot of
Usenet. Who better to hate?
> [blabbity-blabbity-blabbity-blab]
Snip, some hundred-or-so lines of pure and utter Biilshit.
Fuckhead.
Bill Palmer
grund...@popmail.com (Dishonest Dunce Will Acheson) writes:
[...] Another Palmer's Parasite-style snip-and-drool.
The parasite is INCAPABLE of anything but typo
pounces and snip-and-drools. He couldn't write
a decent 500 word stand alone post if he had
six months to do it. No wonder the leech drools
greedily these days about what his fantasizes
is his right to steal my copyrighted property.
Well, let's sum up Dishonest Dunce Acheson's
main points.
--More Acheson drivel to the effect that he
he is crying in his beer that alt.genius.bill-
palmer is not alt.genius.will-acheson. Too
bad loser. Face reality.
--More lame typo pounces from the Acheson Leech
who has yet to write his first effective subject
line, let alone his first stand alone article worthy
of the name.
--Clueless drivel from Acheson knocking the same
group, a.g.b-p, he has been loitering around
in and disgusting the readers.
--Crazy spin from Acheson that alt.genius.bill-
palmer only achieved it's great popularity
from alt.fan.karl-malden.nose, somehow.
It hasn't occurred to our envious nitwit
that it is impossible to crosspost a
newsgroup to success. I see it tried all
the time; people just shave the extra groups
off the newsgroup line. On top of that,
people make alt.genius.bill-palmer posts
all the time that are NOT crossposted to
the nose. Acheson's "all your success
is due to the nose" is as nutty as Acheson
is. What a dunce! If EVER anyone was full
of shit up to his eyebrows it is Palmer's
Parasite Will Acheson.
--Clueless blather that anyone can have a group
fully propagated. More Dunce Acheson bullshit.
I am continually reading about people
trying to start newsgrops that go no where
because they don't get propagated. Imbecile
Acheson does not read news.groups or alt.
config, apparently. In fact, he does not
seem to read ANYHING. He thinks ANYONE
can start a newsgroup and have it become
wildly popular in Usenet. The facts don't
bear that out, of course. Usenet newsgroups
die on the vine all the time from lack
of both propagation (first) and often
lack of popularity (even if they do get
wide propogation). Imbecile Acheson,
who has never come close to starting
a newsgroup, is an expert all of a
sudden! Usenet expert Acheson!
[...] The rest of Dunce Acheson's bullshit was
far too loopy to deserve comment. Will
Acheson the famous Usenet expert now!
Gee, next someone will start an
alt.genius.will-acheson for him,
and he won't have to hang around
alt.genius.bill-palmer favoring me
with his pearls of wisdom on
Usenet operations any more. Won't
THAT be a great loss, now? How
will in a.g.b-p ever be able to
replace someone with an IQ of
Acheson's magnitude? (fret, fret...)
Bill Palmer
alt.genius.bill-palmer
Bill Palmer
grund...@popmail.com (Dishonest Dunce Will Acheson) writes:
[...] Dishonest Dunce Acheson's beef here seems
to stem from the fact that he is a snipping
and drooling typo pouncer who has yet to
prove he is capable of writing an effective
subject line, let alone a stand alone, let
alone a MEMORABLE stand-alone. What a
talentless chickenshit this Acheson leech
proves to be. Real IQ type! We need a
genius group for this boy FAST! Er,
tell me Acheson, are you a registered
dunce or an unregistered one? I could
just see Acheson's resume: "Knows how to
shuck, jive, and typo-pounce all at once and
has proved it in hundreds of Usenet posts."
Bill Palmer
alt.genius.bill-palmer
Dr. Retribution
> "Knows how to
> shuck, jive, and typo-pounce all at once and
> has proved it in hundreds of Usenet posts."
Palmjob again resorts to use of a racial stereotype to make a point. Is
nothing beneath you, Palmjob?
Guy and Karen Enki
<wil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> In <grundletwig-14...@sdn-ar-002casfrap116.dialsprint.net>
> grund...@popmail.com (Dishonest Dunce Will Acheson) writes:
>
> [...] Dishonest Dunce Acheson's beef here seems
> to stem from the fact that he is a snipping
> and drooling typo pouncer who has yet to
> prove he is capable of writing an effective
> subject line, let alone a stand alone, let
> alone a MEMORABLE stand-alone. What a
> talentless chickenshit this Acheson leech
> proves to be. Real IQ type! We need a
> genius group for this boy FAST! Er,
> tell me Acheson, are you a registered
> dunce or an unregistered one? I could
> just see Acheson's resume: "Knows how to
> shuck, jive, and typo-pounce all at once and
> has proved it in hundreds of Usenet posts."
Only if he let a moron of your calibre write it. I'd be willing to be
the plamer resume is over a 1000 pages long and contains references to
poltroons: "My last boss was such a poltroon because he wouldn't listen
to my ideas on how to cook fries."
Bill Palmer
writes:
>
>Mimi Kahn wrote:
>>
>> On 13 Jun 1999 10:32:41 GMT, pe...@pjm2.newcastle.edu.au (Peter
>> Moylan) wrote:
>>
>> >Somebody wrote:
>> >
>> >> Bill Palmer
>> >> alt.genius.bill-palmer
>> >
>> >Great newsgroup name. Is that where we should send the bad poetry?
In fact, alt.genius.bill-palmer has been fully-propagated
almost since it was created. That means as "fully-
propagated" as an alt. group gets, of course, since
ISP'S around the planet have their own rules on which
alt. groups they carry, and those rules and polices
shift so much that "newsgroup propagation" is really
a thing in flux, rather than a static, unchanging
reality.
I can tell you that AOL has featured alt.genius.bill-
palmer in its in house selection for two years, and
that a.g.b-p gets posts from "the demon" in Europe,
from many other ISP'S in europe, and from Asia and
from Australia all the time.
Old rooster hints alt.genius.bill-palmer is an obscure
group on the net, but anyone who will do a halfway
competent Dejanews search for keywords alt.genius.
bill-palmer and a.g.b-p will see that old rooster
is full of beans.
It would be difficult to imagine a fun group
in the alt. category (based on someone who is
not an off-line celebrity like Howard Stern,
anyway) which could be any more popular than
alt.genius.bill-palmer. After all, a.g.b-p has
received about 65,000 posts from around the
planet in the approximately two-and-one-half
years it has existed.
On the other hand, as I said in another
query on this, it certainly isn't my job to
start fretting about which ISP carries or does
not carry a popular Usenet fun group owned by
all and which I don't a nickel from.
>
>Deja.com *does* jave alt.genius.bill.palmer. You should see the Bill
>Palmer who posts there! Here's a brief selection from one of his
>typical postings to his own group, copied from Deja.com and posted
under
>a claim of fair use:
!!!OLD ROOSTER DIRTY TRICK ALERT!!!!
Here is old rooster's trick this time, and it's a
lame and dishonest one I have encoutered before.
What he does involves taking flame that was written
Dr. Retribution
[snip]
*slap* Shut up!
Lee Jackson Beauregard
wil...@ix.netcom.com (The Supreme Idiot of Usenet) wrote:
[...] Another Palmjob-style blah blah blah blah blah.
The moron is INCAPABLE of anything but spam spam
spam spam spam spam spam. He couldn't make
a point in one of his PalmerPiles if he had
six months to do it. No wonder the leech drools
greedily these days about what his fantasizes
is his right to whine whine whine whine whine.
Well, let's sum up Blitherin' Biil Palmjob's
main points.
* Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.
* Whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine
whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine
whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine
whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine.
* Spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam
spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam
spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam
spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam.
* Lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie
lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie
lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie
lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie.
* Mommy, dey fwame me again.
>Biil Palmjob
>alt.stupid-ass.bill-palmer
- --
-----------============<[ Lee Jackson Beauregard ]>============-----------
PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
Delenda est Windoze!
----
"To bad you don't own a good dictionary, Ignormus Montgomery."
- Biil shows his ignormus proficiency in English in
<7ho81q$b...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQB1AwUBN2XEK9I2qWwNrtyxAQEsbgL/eiltVYnGJrs6zX++Y2Ag+ZXr70raJPpj
aJclcocSdydeh4RaktSiVCCnPUAyeJShtDj7ngp48oKfQzpj7iNI56kYAKiUucWs
o2Vx6u8WrdOPubdIF7eVrBthZcLcFyO5
=S73f
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Rev. Magdalen
blub
Bill Palmer <wil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:7k3o15$j...@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com...
This is so hysterically funny that I thought it was a brilliant frogery.
The token typos! The laughably irrelevant responses! It's almost TOO
PALMJOB TO BE PALMJOB!!
What a fuckheadyt!
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
BLUB
]*>>>>>>Volunteer Fire Department, alt.fan.karl-malden.nose
]*>>>>>Meow University, College of Usenet Performance Art
]*>>>>Clealy sir have proved me factually wrong
]*>>>Pjenguin Ljiberation Army, Rjeservist
]*>>Nun Sequestering
]*>Zrbj, etcetera!!!11!!1!!!!
[] click here [] do not click here
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mike MacLennan
>
> In <37657abd...@news.sfo.com> redq...@sfo.sansspam.com (The Red
> Queen) writes another typo pounce:
>
> Well, I'll say it again,
....and again and again and again.
Professor Typo-pounce.
>
> I WRITE.
No. YOU TYPE. To be more precise; YOU CUT AND PASTE. Chimps can
learn a few simple patterns and four keys, Biil.
>
> Real Usenet stand-alone articles, not skimpy, constipated,
> measly two-line typo-pounces of the sort you favor.
"One of these things is not like the others..."
>
> What apparently happened here was that you made your
> snide and ignorant comments about alt.genius.bill-palmer.
Where do snide and ignorant comments go when they die?
>
> I refuted you.
Biil, you couldn't refute the statement that small, uncastrated digs
really don't hump things.
>
> Did you offer ONE IOTA of counter-rebuttal?
Was it ever needed?
>
> Of course not.
Bingo.
[flush]
--
No one has ever come up with any evidence that
anyone used wilhelp in Usenet before I did, and
even if anyone is later found to have done so,
it won't change the fact that I created wilhelp
-Palmjob demonstrates his time travel abilities in
<7jfcv3$f...@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>
Bill Palmer
Van Kessel" writes:
Spammer Van Kessel still fulminates because the "shoe"
in "To Catch a Troll.." fits him so well.
>> (Parasite Jeroen Van Kessel) writes:
>>
>> [...] Drivel denying that troll Van Kessel
>> is a spamming troll snipped as being
blatantly false.
>
>I neither confirmed nor denied that I was a troll, [...]
Your long and shabby record of flooding non-flaming
groups with personal attacks having nothing at all to
do with newsgroup topics demonstrates your trolldom to
It's only sore-losing net-leeches like you,
like Spankard Acheson, or like Sewerpipe Stu who
feel desperate enough as losers to spam your
flame-drivel into non-flaming groups. I
suppose you fantasize that you can confuse
non-flame fans and make them think you are
"flamers" but in reality you simply disgust
people with your off-topic rubbish.
But not being a real flamer at all, and merely
being a netstalking parasite and all-around net-
sewer denizen with a big axe to grind, Parasite
Van Kessel, you care nothing the fact that people
don't read misc.writing, alt.cyberspunk.chatsubo,
alt.prose, al.journalism, soc.culture.british,
rec.arts.fine,etc etc., for your off-topic drivel.
You can't seem to grasp that at all, in your "I Van
Kessel am a netstalking, spamming parasite and pround
of it," approach to Usenet.
Sewerpipe Stu has the same problem regarding his
own spamming.
The most revealing thing about your parasitical
obsession with me, Parasite Jeroen, is your crazy
rationalizaton for your spamming that argues, "Well,
if Bill Palmer can post an ON-topic article in a group,
I guess that I, Van Kessel, as a leading Palmer's
Parasite, can spam MY OFF-topic assaults on Palmer
(having nothing to do with the group topic) into
that same group. After all, I Jeroen want everyone
on the net to understand that I am a leading Palmer's
Parasite since that's my claim to fame on the net."
All the infamous "Palmer's Parasites" harbor
the same illusion.
Steve Pritchard
Will Acheson wrote in message ...
>In article <7k2li3$l...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>, wil...@ix.netcom.com
>(Bill Palmer) wrote:
>
>> In <grundletwig-14...@sdn-ar-002casfrap116.dialsprint.net>
>> grund...@popmail.com (Dishonest Dunce Will Acheson) writes:
>>
>> [...] Dishonest Dunce Acheson's beef here seems
>> to stem from the fact that he is a snipping
>> and drooling typo pouncer
>
>
>This is becoming tiresome, Palmer. What's your plan
>here, to bore me to death?
>
>Fuckhead.
>
>[Subject line corrected and relevant newsgroups added]
[Irrelevant newsgroups snipped]
Ed Foster
<grundletwig-14...@sdn-ar-004casfrap174.dialsprint.net>,
grund...@popmail.com (Will Acheson) wrote:
> In article <7k2li3$l...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>, wil...@ix.netcom.com
> (Bill Palmer) wrote:
>
> > In <grundletwig-14...@sdn-ar-002casfrap116.dialsprint.net>
> > grund...@popmail.com (Dishonest Dunce Will Acheson) writes:
> >
> > [...] Dishonest Dunce Acheson's beef here seems
> > to stem from the fact that he is a snipping
> > and drooling typo pouncer
>
> ... said after again snipping the entirety of my post.
>
> This is becoming tiresome, Palmer. What's your plan
> here, to bore me to death?
That seems to be Palmjob's standard method of debate.
Lee Jackson Beauregard
wil...@ix.netcom.com (The Supreme Idiot of Usenet) wrote:
>The worst thing about your spamming and abuse of
>the net, Trolling Parasite Van Kessel, is that you
>ABSOLUTELY refuse to recognize the need to be consi-
>derate to the readers of the non-flaming newsgroups.
[Palmjob, in a "non-flaming newsgroup"] Blah blah blah blah parasite blah
blah blah Louse-Monkey blah blah most famous writer on Usenet blah blah blah
whine whine whine....
[Visiting flamer] Shut up, Palmjob.
[Palmjob] Blah blah blah insult everyone named Palmer blah blah blah
parasite blah blah Van Kessel blah blah flame-war loser blah blah blah whine
whine whine....
[Residents of non-flaming newsgroup] Shut up, Palmjob. *plonk*
(Biilshit flushed)
>Biil Palmjob
>alt.stupid-ass.bill-palmer
- --
-----------============<[ Lee Jackson Beauregard ]>============-----------
PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
Delenda est Windoze!
----
"To bad you don't own a good dictionary, Ignormus Montgomery."
- Biil shows his ignormus proficiency in English in
<7ho81q$b...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQB1AwUBN21PetI2qWwNrtyxAQEGYAL/TqYQTSMn5MKmikSC9E6TQ8KjZEgdy3MJ
NAzM1c3jfp5L9nV1UqOVcYHyzhUpdyy/ro6G6Sm46GwoL10XiDv4t9XCN0+IbSw4
/xZbkUax3u4jUTv8jfHFHEWbv5wATu26
=+WE1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Will Acheson
erRMV...@mediaone.net (Ed Foster) wrote:
> In article
> <grundletwig-14...@sdn-ar-004casfrap174.dialsprint.net>,
> grund...@popmail.com (Will Acheson) wrote:
>
> > In article <7k2li3$l...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>, wil...@ix.netcom.com
> > (Bill Palmer) wrote:
> >
> > > In <grundletwig-14...@sdn-ar-002casfrap116.dialsprint.net>
> > > grund...@popmail.com (Dishonest Dunce Will Acheson) writes:
> > >
> > > [...] Dishonest Dunce Acheson's beef here seems
> > > to stem from the fact that he is a snipping
> > > and drooling typo pouncer
> >
> > ... said after again snipping the entirety of my post.
> >
> > This is becoming tiresome, Palmer. What's your plan
> > here, to bore me to death?
>
>
> That seems to be Palmjob's standard method of debate.
Then it seems to be a good thing that one of my degrees is in
political science. If I can withstand a debate on Leninism In
Newly Socialized Nations, I can handle ol' Palmjob, easy.
--
Will Acheson, the Virtual Gypsy
grund...@popmail.com
http://www.starweaver.net/acheson/
Bill Palmer
mba...@icrr.no.u-tokyo.spam.ac.jp (Mark Barton) writes:
>>In <%mXa3.12966$PN5....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com> "Albion Topp"
>><n...@home.com> writes:
Bill Palmer wrote in the original
"To Kill a Troll Article":
[...]
>>>>Sir, let's not start throwing people in a pond
>>>>and saying if they float they are a troll and
>>>>if they sink they are not a troll. Let's utilize
>>>>criteria that is understandable to all, newbies
>>>>as well as "oldbies". Fair enough?
>
>>>Okay. Try this. If what they post is tedious, harping, and
>>>self-aggrandising, then they are either trolls or bores, and who
cares
>>>which?
>>>How understandable is that?
>>
>>Well, there is considerable difference. If you have
>>read my article, you know there are very specific ways
>>trolls can be identified.
>>
>>With bores it is a bit different.
>>
>>The best way to tell a bore is to count the number
>>of people who follow him up. The biggest bores in
>>Usenet don't get any follow-up at all, since people
>>might BEGIN to read them, but readers will soon stop
>>and then "killfile" the person at least mentally
>>and not read him again.
>
>I think you're probably right here. I think the word Albion wanted was
>closer to "boor" rather than "bore". Certainly although I am fairly
good
>at tuning out bores I do occasionally find myself sorely tempted to
tell
>boors to shut up.
Good. Now you can define "boorish" newsgroup
behavior for us. I will start you off with
a few BOORISH examples of beastly newsgroup
behavior:
a) Attacking someone at the personal level
when that person has never addressed
a word to you by name or mentioned
you in any way. We might call that
"the rude accost."
b) When someone has posted an original, on-topic
"stand alone", then harping on the very few
typos in a post of perhaps 1,000 words (while
studiously avoiding ALL the person's ideas) is
both boorish and intellectually cowardly.
c) Ransacking Dejanews and reposting an article
that is not on-topic in a group and was
never meant by the writer to be reposted in
the group in question. Add ample dishonest
narration, and you create egregiously boorish
behavior.
d) Calling a contributing poster in excellent
standing a "visitor" to "your" Usenet newsgroup.
e) Calling someone a troll simply because the
person candidly and honestly under his own
name expresses and defends points of view you
may not happen to agree with.
Bill Palmer
alt.genius.bill-palmer
>
>Cheers,
>
>Mark B.
>
>--
>Please remove the spam block (both bits) from my address to reply.
>If you receive this by email, note that it was posted as well. Please
>make your preferences about CCing known. My default is to CC when
>answering a serious query or if I severely criticise a post.
Guy and Karen Enki
<wil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
You forgot one.
f) Any post by Biil Palmjob.
O'Neill Quigley
>
> In <grundletwig-14...@sdn-ar-002casfrap116.dialsprint.net>
> grund...@popmail.com (Dishonest Dunce Will Acheson) writes:
>
> [...] Dishonest Dunce Acheson's beef here seems
> to stem from the fact that he is a snipping
> prove he is capable of writing an effective
> subject line, let alone a stand alone, let
> alone a MEMORABLE stand-alone. What a
> talentless chickenshit this Acheson leech
> proves to be. Real IQ type! We need a
> genius group for this boy FAST! Er,
> tell me Acheson, are you a registered
> dunce or an unregistered one? I could
> just see Acheson's resume: "Knows how to
> shuck, jive, and typo-pounce all at once and
> has proved it in hundreds of Usenet posts."
>
> alt.genius.bill-palmer
Gosh, that seems a little hard, Bill.
But you're used to hearing that comment I expect...
FJ
Bill Palmer, alt.flame's Best Punching Bag 1998,
alt.flame's Worst Flamer 1998,
alt.flame's Most Boring Writer 1998, "wrote":
> In <929272673.17304....@news.demon.nl> "Parasite Jeroen
> Van Kessel" writes:
>
> Spammer Van Kessel still fulminates because the "shoe"
> in "To Catch a Troll.." fits him so well.
It's nice, isn't it, Bill? Snipping my text and then making up things about what
I said. "Fulminates"? Hardly.
> >> (Parasite Jeroen Van Kessel) writes:
> >>
> >> [...] Drivel denying that troll Van Kessel
> >> is a spamming troll snipped as being
> blatantly false.
> >
> >I neither confirmed nor denied that I was a troll, [...]
[thud]
Bill, you left a sentence in! How terribly brave of you. As a reward, I won't
call you names in this article.
> Your long and shabby record of flooding non-flaming
> groups with personal attacks having nothing at all to
> do with newsgroup topic proves THAT for everyone,
> Parasite Van Kessel. Your cowardly evasions will
> not help you at all here.
Evasions of what, Bill? That I may or may not be a troll according to *your*
definition? I responded to your article to demonstrate that you too can easily
be branded a troll according to your definition.
Sadly, I think you are not a troll. I believe you to be quite real as you are,
which is really a pity for you and me both. You see, I simply cannot stand
self-centered, self-obsessed, megalomaniac, overbearing, pompous windbags. I
feel this deep-rooted compulsion to flame you.
By the way, about trolling: It usually involves posting (off-topic) articles to
solicit reactions from newsgroups. If they're solely aimed at one specific
person, it hardly qualifies as trolling. (But just my opinion and since it's
contrary to yours, you will deem it to be dishonest).
> If the law was such that people got a day in jail for
> spamming off-topic drivel into non-flaming newsgroups,
> you'd be doing a life sentence right now (where you
> could impress the inmates with your grasp of the sewer
> argot you spew daily into the net, of course) Leech
> Jeroen.
Funnily enough, I can imagine you happily daydreaming about that notion. But
since were talking about being off-topic, would you care to explain what's so
on-topic about your article on trolling in rec.arts.prose, where you originally
posted your latest essay attempt to?
> The worst thing about your spamming and abuse of
> the net, Trolling Parasite Van Kessel, is that you
> ABSOLUTELY refuse to recogize the need to be consi-
> derate to the readers of the non-flaming newsgroups.
Frankly, Bill, that is not true and you know it. I've always made it clear to
groups like alt.cyberpunk or alt.fan.harlan-ellison that if *anyone* objected to
my presence I would graciously withdraw or at least stick to the topic. I have
always honored that pledge. If you don't believe me, check DejaNews.
And to be direct, *you* are hardly in a position to lecture me on this, because
the same groups I just mentioned, asked you politely to take your articles
elsewhere. You responded by spewing your "their noses are out of joint" drivel
and refused to go.
Care to comment, Bill?
> In order to let everyone know about your parasitical
> obsession with me, Parasite Van Kessel, you have
> spammed hundreds, if not thousands, of off-topic
> articles--personal attacks having NOTHING to do
> with either newsgroup topic or thread-dicussion
> subject--into newsgroups where those articles
> are off-topic.
I get a kick out of pissing you off, Bill.
> In other words, you prove so arrogant that--by
> your off-topic, spamming behavior--you declare that
> you, Parasite Jeroen Van Kessel, have a right to
> post anything to ANY group you want, regardless
> of topic, and in callous disregard to the wishes
> of the readers.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
> Your little con game for your net-abusive actions
> is that you are "just flaming."
Do you want me to stop flaming you? Just ask me, here and now, "Jeroen, will you
please stop flaming me?" and I promise I will *never* post a follow-up to you
again.
["Jeroen is a parasite" snipped. One paragraph is enough, Bill. You grossly
overestimate the attention span of your "readers".]
> Oh yes, and as to the Six Criteria, your drivel won't
> get you around that you fit ALL of them and I fit
> NONE of them. How on earth do you think you think
> you can worm around that one, Parasite Van Kessel?
> Have you zapped both of our Dejanews archives today,
> or something?
I disagree. I think you fit all six criteria to a tee and have in fact argued
every single one of them. You just snipped; I hardly call that a refutation.
["Jeroen is a troll" snipped. One paragraph is enough, Bill. You grossly
overestimate the attention span of your "readers".]
Care to debate this point by point, Bill? We'll see what kind of man you are
now...
--
FJ - http://www.wilhelp.demon.nl/
From the 'If I ever become an Evil Overlord' list:
"The artifact which is the source of my power will not be kept
on the Mountain of Despair beyond the River of Fire guarded by
the Dragons of Eternity.
It will be in my safe-deposit box."
Bill Palmer
<funny-little-wil...@wilhelp.demon.nl> writes:
[The funny little wilhelp man is a copyrighted
literary persona of Bill Palmer. I continue
to object to this leech's parasitical use of it.]
--One trick that Parasite Van Kessel tries here
is justifying his spamming of off-topic material
by pointing out that as an outspoken writer
and satirest *I* am sometimes told to leave groups
by people whose noses get shoved out of joint
by my candid, ON-topic articles. Parasite Van
Kessel's fallacy is somethimes called one of
false equivalency: falsely insisting that two
dissimilar situations are the same.
I don't post to a newsgroup with the idea
of never making anyone, no matter how stubborn
and narrow, angry. If I have something on-topic
that I think should be said-- and if I believe
some people in the group, love me or hate me--
will want to read my article, I post to a group
even if fifteen people tell me to get lost because
they did not like my style and/or my views. I see
nothing wrong with that at all. I'm not trying to
sell anything, and I'm not trying to get elected
president of Usenet, either. I'm simply trying
to amuse and inform as many people as I can
with on-topic articles to appropriate newsgroups.
I have been known to tweak pompous beaks and
shove pushy noses over to sides of faces.
I make no apology for that, since the articles
wherein I did those things were ON-topic, sincere,
and no one was forced to read them in them in the
first place. And in all the groups where I
pushed noses out of joint I have to my credit
many original, directly on-topic articles--
meaning I'm a contributor in excellent standing,
popular with everyone or not.
On the other hand, the case with Parasite
Jeroen Van Kessel is FAR different. This bozo
is anything but a "contributor". In the
groups where Van Kessel spams his garbage
he has not made one on-topic posting. After
he spammed alt.fan.harlan-ellison, for instance,
this ignorant leech confessed--no, BOASTED--
that he had never read ONE article on Harlan
Ellsion. THAT'S the sort of LOUT Parasite
Jeroen Van Kessel is! He claims a special
license to spam his drivel anyplace he wants
to, the readers of the newsgroup be damned.
And this dishonest cretin Van Kessel tries
to justify his boorishly off-topic behavior
with the fact that my candid, on-topic articles
on Mr. Ellison tweaked--and probably will tweak
in the future--some smug a.f.h-e beaks.
Oh yes, one other point about Cretinish Parasite
Van Kessel. Like the self-serving lug he is,
he equates the need to be on topic with how
many people happen to protest his foul presence.
That's absurd. Some groups have more vocal
regulars than others. In some groups, an
off topic article will immediately bring a
flurry of protests but in other groups, someone
might make quite a few off-topic postings before
anyone begins objecting. However, that has
NOTHING at all to do with whether or not
a nitwit like Van Kessel is behaving in
a loutish fashion by spamming personal
off-topic attacks in response to ON-topic
posts by Parasite Van Kessel's "host".
If you are wildly off-topic you are
wildly off topic, Troglodyte Van Kessel--
and whether you get zero protests over your
boorishly off-topic behavior, or twenty,
should make no difference. Were you not
a lout, that is.
Bill Palmer
alt.genius.bill-palmer
Will Acheson
(Bill Palmer) wrote:
> In <930116516.1392....@news.demon.nl> "FJ"
> <funny-little-wil...@wilhelp.demon.nl> writes:
>
> [The funny little wilhelp man is a copyrighted
> literary persona of Bill Palmer. I continue
> to object to this leech's parasitical use of it.]
No. It is a pseudonym for Biil "Supreme Idiot of Usenet"
Palmjob. In other words, it's a NAME, and you can't
copyright it. So object until you're blue in the face,
you won't find anyone who gives a flying fuck.
Fuckhead.
Lee Jackson Beauregard
wil...@ix.netcom.com (The Supreme Idiot of Usenet) wrote:
>In <930116516.1392....@news.demon.nl> "FJ"
><funny-little-wil...@wilhelp.demon.nl> writes:
>
>[The funny little wilhelp man is a copyrighted
>literary persona of Bill Palmer. I continue
>to object to this leech's parasitical use of it.]
So? What are you going to do about it, Palmjob? Are you going to shut up
and sue, or are you just going to whine some more?
[Mommy-dey-fwame-me-again sent to /dev/null where all Biilshit belongs]
>Blitherin' Biil
>alt.stupid-ass.bill-palmer
- --
-----------============<[ Lee Jackson Beauregard ]>============-----------
PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
Delenda est Windoze!
----
"To bad you don't own a good dictionary, Ignormus Montgomery."
- Biil shows his ignormus proficiency in English in
<7ho81q$b...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQB1AwUBN3GhldI2qWwNrtyxAQFtLgMArGWhxUqODoA8ZJLf4cRQTJYJWtMpC8wo
IG7z/QlOFuXs6rYUt3arpxPhnWpt/kww89K34Cdh/rfxGg/IJvdCWlEKwECjQ3Ay
UEJlqoiPHzSZHZN+R/VAqDesiAtK1T8A
=V8XD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
FJ
alt.flame's Most Boring Writer 1998, "wrote":
> <funny-little-wil...@wilhelp.demon.nl> writes:
^^^^^^^^^
Ooooooh, Billy. You so wicked, dude! <snicker>
> [The funny little wilhelp man is a copyrighted
> literary persona of Bill Palmer. I continue
> to object to this leech's parasitical use of it.]
[No, it isn't. You hate it, don't you, Palmjob?]
> --One trick that Parasite Van Kessel tries here
> is justifying his spamming of off-topic material
> by pointing out that as an outspoken writer
> and satirest *I* am sometimes told to leave groups
Okay, so you're a satirest. Fine. Whatever. What's a satirest?
> by people whose noses get shoved out of joint
> by my candid, ON-topic articles. Parasite Van
A random post by Palmjob to alt.fan.harlan.ellison:
Palmjob: HE is afraid of the net. I am blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah net writer blah blah...
[20 more paragraphs of ego-masturbating drivel.]
On topic my ass, Palmjob.
> Kessel's fallacy is somethimes called one of
Fhuckhead.
> false equivalency: falsely insisting that two
> dissimilar situations are the same.
Palmjob's fallacies are legion. Were I to list them all and post them, Usenet
would grind to a halt and cease to function as we know (and love) it. But in
summary: Palmjob can't write for shit and he's not completely in touch with
reality.
> I don't post to a newsgroup with the idea
> of never making anyone, no matter how stubborn
> and narrow, angry. If I have something on-topic
> that I think should be said-- and if I believe
> some people in the group, love me or hate me--
> will want to read my article, I post to a group
> even if fifteen people tell me to get lost because
> they did not like my style and/or my views. I see
So, why exactly do you want to censor my rights to post, while at the same time
publicly admitting that you don't give a shit when people tell you that your
presence is not wanted?
> nothing wrong with that at all. I'm not trying to
True. Just don't be a hypocrite about it then.
> sell anything, and I'm not trying to get elected
> president of Usenet, either. I'm simply trying
Isn't being the Village Idiot of Usenet enough for you, Palmjob?
> to amuse and inform as many people as I can
> with on-topic articles to appropriate newsgroups.
The amusement value of your posts lies in the auto-flaming character of your
stupidity and you could only be informative if you posted to a psychiatrics
group as a case study. HTH.
[...]
> meaning I'm a contributor in excellent standing,
> popular with everyone or not.
Do I detect a sense of doubt creeping in, Palmjob? Good. I'll make a human out
of you yet, boy.
> On the other hand, the case with Parasite
> Jeroen Van Kessel is FAR different. This bozo
> is anything but a "contributor". In the
> groups where Van Kessel spams his garbage
> he has not made one on-topic posting. After
> he spammed alt.fan.harlan-ellison, for instance,
> this ignorant leech confessed--no, BOASTED--
> that he had never read ONE article on Harlan
> Ellsion. THAT'S the sort of LOUT Parasite
> Jeroen Van Kessel is! He claims a special
> license to spam his drivel anyplace he wants
> to, the readers of the newsgroup be damned.
Such easily disproved lies...
*** BEGIN REPOST ***
From: "Jeroen van Kessel" <jeroen.v...@wilhelp.demon.nl>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.harlan-ellison
Subject: Re: It's About Readers and Writers, Harlan (was Twilight of the Word)
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1999 21:18:47 +0100
Organization: The Karen Jesse Novel Institute for Palmer Baiting
Message-ID: <921788324.28665...@news.demon.nl>
Prodigal wrote in message ...
>
>Carol Clements wrote in message <36f00ef1...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>>On Tue, 16 Mar 1999 21:48:11 +0100, "Flame Jeroen"
>><funny-little...@wilhelp.demon.nl> wrote:
>>
>>>I haven't had a chance to read "Paladin of the Lost Hour" yet, but I will.
>Then
>>>I'll check HE out in the local bookstore.
>>
>>Make Paladin a priority. It's a wonderful story. And if you can get
>>it on tape, do so. He's a terrific reader, and that story comes to
>>life even more when he reads it.
>
>Rick Wyatt has it on his site (somewhere off the main www.harlanellison.com
>address,) and I wholeheartedly recommend listening to it there, if you have
>the hardware and bandwidth for it.
It took me some time to read it, because I found it too long to read comfortably
from a screen. I had to find a printer first. :)
I liked the story. It was a bit familiar though; I think someone mentioned it
being adapted to a TZ script, so I might have *seen* it before.
There's two things that I noted specifically:
[1] After describing Gaspar and Billy at the cemetery, HE writes this: "One of
these men was black; the other was white". He leaves it to the reader to
determine who's black and who's white.
In my mind I pictured Billy to be black (to me, he looks like Herbert Jefferson
Jr.), and Gaspar to be white though I don't know an actor that looks like him.
[2] Describing Billy's apartment, HE wrote: "Neither warmth nor chill marked
those spaces. It was a place to wait". I *used* to live there but I could never
have described it so accurately.
>Billy's speech about what happened in Vietnam almost breaks my heart every
>time I read it, but hearing Harlan read it almost shattered me. Wonderful
>stuff.
It's the way Billy starts telling it, I think. Unasked for, he finally shares
his most secret thought/experience with his friend. It was the courage of
confiding, that I found moving.
(I'd love to hear him read it, but MS Media Player gives me error messages. I'll
wait for MSIE 5.0 to ship before trying again.)
>>>Who ever said that Usenet flaming is fruitless and leads to nothing? :)
>>
>>LOL!
>
>Good to see you turned into a productive (and on-topic) member of the group,
>Jeroen!
Thanks! Out of respect for the group, I've changed my flame handle and removed
the fancy sig. (About time I had a separate nick for non-flame stuff anyway).
--
Jeroen van Kessel
http://www.wilhelp.demon.nl/ (Last updated: 16 March 1999)
**** END REPOST ****
> And this dishonest cretin Van Kessel tries
> to justify his boorishly off-topic behavior
> with the fact that my candid, on-topic articles
> on Mr. Ellison tweaked--and probably will tweak
> in the future--some smug a.f.h-e beaks.
An a.f.h-e regular about me:
"Good to see you turned into a productive (and on-topic) member of the group,
Jeroen!"
You're still not welcome there, aren't you, Palmjob?
[More babbling about parasites shitcanned.]
> Biil Palamer
> alt.stupid-ass.bill-palmer.nobody.likes.me.waaaaaah.waaaaaah.waaaaaah
P.S. Fuckhead.
Mike MacLennan
>
> Bill Palmer, alt.flame's Best Punching Bag 1998, alt.flame's Worst Flamer 1998,
> alt.flame's Most Boring Writer 1998, "wrote":
> > In <930116516.1392....@news.demon.nl> "FJ"
> > <funny-little-wil...@wilhelp.demon.nl> writes:
> ^^^^^^^^^
>
> Ooooooh, Billy. You so wicked, dude! <snicker>
>
> > [The funny little wilhelp man is a copyrighted
> > literary persona of Bill Palmer. I continue
> > to object to this leech's parasitical use of it.]
>
> [No, it isn't. You hate it, don't you, Palmjob?]
>
> > --One trick that Parasite Van Kessel tries here
> > is justifying his spamming of off-topic material
> > by pointing out that as an outspoken writer
> > and satirest *I* am sometimes told to leave groups
>
> Okay, so you're a satirest. Fine. Whatever. What's a satirest?
Typo. He meant Satyrest. As in, "that is the Satyrest half-man, half
goat that I have ever seen."
>
> > by people whose noses get shoved out of joint
> > by my candid, ON-topic articles. Parasite Van
>
> A random post by Palmjob to alt.fan.harlan.ellison:
>
> Palmjob: HE is afraid of the net. I am blah blah blah
> blah blah blah blah net writer blah blah...
[wouldn't that be a random post by Palmjob anywhere?]
FJ
> FJ wrote:
> >
> > Bill Palmer, alt.flame's Best Punching Bag 1998, alt.flame's Worst Flamer
> > 1998, alt.flame's Most Boring Writer 1998, "wrote":
[snip]
> > > by pointing out that as an outspoken writer
> > > and satirest *I* am sometimes told to leave groups
> >
> > Okay, so you're a satirest. Fine. Whatever. What's a satirest?
>
> Typo. He meant Satyrest. As in, "that is the Satyrest half-man, half
> goat that I have ever seen."
An unfortunate oversight on my part; I stand corrected.
Bill Palmer
two of the above five newsgroup forums. This is a con-
siderably-revised version, so if you read the first one
and enjoyed it, you still might want to check this one
out.]
-----------------------------------------------------
To Catch a Troll...
Earlier today a poster in another newsgroup made a
remark that started me thinking about some matters
I would now--with your kind patience--like to share
with you.
Essentially, the person did not seem to enjoy
what I observed in "Close Encounter with Punctu-
ation Bigot".
Unfortunately, my attacker was not at all forth-
right about challenging any of my assertions in
that article.
[Note: "Close Encounters of a Punctuation
Bigot" was featured in last week's issue of
MillenniumWriters.com. The artist/editor
added some very clever graphics, so you might
want to check it out even if you have already
read it in the newsgroups where it appeared.]
Instead of troubling himself with attempting
a reasoned refutation of my assertions, he posted
some peevish remarks directed at me as a person
rather than at the many ideas in my article.
In the course of his unfriendly comments, he said
something that made it clear he was accusing me of
being a troll. In fact, he actually used the term
"troll" as he did this.
That's right. Me, Bill Palmer, "a troll"!
The person who has posted over 6,000 articles,
most by far to generally appropriate newsgroup
forums and has done so proudly under his own name
every time.
The net writer who has generated follow-up from many
thousands of DIFFERENT readers and who has written a
significant percentage of the best known original Usenet
articles of the past few years.
The proud owner of "Dejamountain", the only personal
archive famous by its own name.
My critic's style of unjust name-calling bothers me
because it smacks of witch hunting, certainly so when
we throw all reason out the window and start applying
vague criteria defining "trolls" and "trolling" to
suit our own whims by unfairly branding someone who
rubs our nose out joint with his or her controversial
(but on-topic) articles.
Further, a few months back when I posted another
original article in a different newsgroup someone
did in fact call me a troll then too. I thought
at the time that the epithet was incredibly
unreasonable and I still think that.
Anyway, letting bygones be bygones, let's examine
what "troll" in fact means in our cyber-culture.
In the first place "troll" can mean different
things to different people, and I can respect
each person's right to his own meaning.
The universally-respected Usenet expert Professor
Chudov, for instance, makes it plain he believes
in a sort of "productive (my own term trying to
sum up what I have read by him) trolling", where
the troll generates entertaining or amusing feed-
back for the intellectual benefit of the entire
newsgroup by gently (or not so gently) tweaking
beaks now and then with thought-provoking postings.
However, since the word was used against me in the
negative sense that so many posters seem today to prefer,
I will stay with that sort of troll here: our "infamous
Usenet pest" kind of troll, as opposed to the "newsgroup
gadfly" who uses actual wit for stirring up productive
or simply amusing posted reactions from newsgroup readers.
A troll in the negative sense is simply a person who will do
anything for attention.
The aim of such a troll is not to entertain or enlighten
readers, but to have the troll's existence validated
by any sort of response at all.
A troll in this same pejorative sense is by nature
insincere, too.
Such a "Usenet critter" will generally post what will get
the most replies, not expressions of things the troll
actually believes in.
This variety of troll has no pride in writing or thought
quality either.
Rather, the only goal for our pesky sort of troll is to
make the readers aware--and stay aware--of the troll's
shabby net-existence.
As you know by now, then, I view this kind of troll as
simply but an attention-starved misfit who craves any
sort of attention, no matter how unfavorable.
While there are "trollling newsgroups" and while
the net is a big place, I feel that ninety-nine-
point-nine percent of all Usenet groups, at least,
would be far better off without the sort of troll
I describe above.
On the other hand, we never want to get into a witch
hunting frame of mine regarding trolls.
We must have sensible criteria to apply, if we
wish to be at all fair.
I have, in fact, encountered newsgroup situations
where anyone who comes into a group and posts
*ON*-topic material that does conform to what the
more active and often aggressive members of the
group deem to be "okay" will be branded a troll.
To help avoid unfair application of the word
troll in its highly-negative sense, then, let's
work together toward encouraging some sort of just
though practicable method for determining who is
or is not likely a non-productive Usenet troll.
Here is what I suggest regarding questions to be
asked--and honestly and reasonably answered--of
any troll suspected of merely trying to get
attention by stirring up mischief:
1) Are the suspected troll's posts mostly or entirely
OFF-topic?
(*ON*-topic being defined in a fair way, of course,
such as inquiring sincerely if any reasonable person
was likely to agree that the material in question
was close to being on-topic in the newsgroup where
it was posted.)
2) Did the suspected troll come into the newsgroup
posting vicious personal attacks having nothing
to do with the newsgroup topic?
3) Does the suspected troll FOLLOW UP on-topic articles
by others with personal assaults having nothing to
do with the things being discussed on a thread?
The notorious Palmer's Parasites are very big
on this. They claim a rather peculiar license for
following up any ON-topic article of mine with
slimy, OFF-topic attacks having nothing at all to
do with a newsgroup subject OR an ongoing thread
discussion.
I make no apology for Palmer's Parasites, anymore
than I would "apologize" for a gang of muggers who
assaulted me at an ATM. People are responsible for
THEIR OWN postings. The Palmer's Parasites should
therefore be immediately run out of any non-flaming
group where they post off-topic rubbish, in my view.
Of course, Palmer's Parasites are naturally
trolls, too, which is why I mention them, but when
the trolling becomes so personal that you get a half-
dozen or so human parasites netstalking a net writer
through Dejanews and flooding serious newsgroups
with off-topic personal attacks, you have trolling
in its ugliest and most vicious form.
In a way, you can call these aggressive, trolling
parasites one of the prices of great success as a net
writer. You reach a certain degree of popularity, and
they start crawling out of the woodwork after you.
Even so, that sort of "netstalking troll" is unusually
reprehensible and I suspect most Usenet users loathe
them fully as much as I do.
4) Does the person crosspost from your group to the
flaming newsgroups?
(Trolls love to crosspost between serious newsgroups
and flaming/amusement newsgroups because they view
their goal as one of causing annoyance, and they
know that if they can suck additional off-topic posts
into the target newsgroup, the "annoyance factor"
increases proportionally as new trolls crosspost
their rubbish to the non-flaming group targeted.)
5) Are the person's posts very poorly-written and
generally quite skimpy in--or entirely devoid of--
intelligent content?
Trolls take pride in getting ANY sort of
reaction, good, bad, or wrathful. Development
of a writing style to be proud of, then, has
little to do with to with a troll's raison d'etre.
After all, when they drive away enough newsgroup
readers with their drivel, they simply pop up
with a new moniker and start over.
Most trolls specialize in the "snip and drool"
follow-up, which means they favor splashing puerile
insults after every few lines written by the poster
targeted. It's "writing" on the cheap, involving
reposting the trolls' (current) names while saying
nothing entertaining that a "naughty" computer-
literate sixth-grader could not have said better.
The trolls' purpose involves annoying all, while
associating themselves in the readers' minds
with the writer. As a result, actually posting
anything that is intelligent, well-expressed or
original has nothing to do with the "Here I am
again and ain't I cute?" snip-and-droll assault
by the off-topic troll.
6) Does the suspected troll post under a phony name?
Now, I am not suggesting pseudonyms are
wrong, but in general trolls will use false
names because, as I mentioned above, people
soon catch on to trolls and stop reading
their posts. When trolls of this sort feel
have driven off most of their readers, they
change their names again, and of course the
false name using makes them "braver" about the
ugly, malodorous slime many of them flood the
net with, too.
Even so, I defend everyone's RIGHT to post
under pseudonyms, and I don't want that
misunderstood. But allowing that all
people have the RIGHT to do something in
no way makes the lowly behavior of a few
(who are exercising the right only for
mischievious purposes) suddenly admirable.
Okay, think of someone you suspect of being a
troll. Ask yourself how many affirmatives
you get to the above questions when you are
trying to be completely unbiased in your
responses.
If the person is indeed a troll, you will have
likely answered YES to most or all of those
questions above.
Examining the matter from a slightly different
viewpoint now, I might add that there is nothing at
all wrong with a poster's wanting to get lots of
intelligent feedback to his or her articles.
I say that because I have read posts by people
who seem to insinuate that if you get a good
deal of followup, you are a troll per se.
That notion boggles the mind for its silliness.
In reality, the test of any poster's standing in
the intellectual portion of the Usenet community
involves the question of how many original, on-
topic stand-alone articles generating lots of
interesting follow-up the person has posted.
A true Usenet intellectual is by nature a thread
starter.
A Usenet genius, then, would have to be the genius
of thread-starting, would have to be someone proving
capable of starting thousands of successful threads--
not with "Star Wars sucks" trolls, of course, but
with original articles containing unique, fully-
realized ideas that can challenge or otherwise
inspire others to post creative or informative
thread-responses in their turn.
That's not trolling, at least to the extent the term
represents activities now causing unneeded annoyance
in so many Usenet newsgroups.
I can't imagine a nuttier, topsy-turvyier state of
affairs than what we would have in Usenet if posters
had to hesitate before clicking "send", thinking,
"Gee, I hope a lot of people DON'T follow me up
on the article I'm posting--someone might think I
am a troll." (We are to imagine the speaker
shuddering and wringing his or her hands.)
After all, the best of Usenet has a lot to
do with DISCUSSION, and discussion does not
occur when we have a state of affairs where
people simply post their own ideas and that's
the end of the matter.
Discussion means give and take, and at best that's
"give and take" leading somewhere productive in the
intellectual or the creative sense, not a very brief
series of curt, unresponded-to statements going nowhere.
As a Usenet poster, one of the things that makes
me proudest occurs when I post an original article
that garners plenty of entertaining and/or informative
feedback.
And believe me, I don't define "good feedback" as
being something that compliments me personally or
even agrees with anything at all I assert in my
article.
Good feedback consists of interesting, reasonably
well-expressed, somewhat-original thoughts. That's
all, and I feel that almost everyone in Usenet has
the capacity to add worthwhile follow-up remarks,
if inspired by others to do so.
When the thing works the way it's supposed to, I
call it "swimming in the thoughtstream." I love
being a part of it.
Getting back to trolls, though, let's apply the
above sensible criteria before we accuse.
Let's not cry troll when someone rubs us the wrong
way with on-topic opinions, either.
Finally, I would ask something of every reader, including
the person in who so rudely accosted me yesterday screaming
"Troll!" upon being upset by my frank, on-topic views:
Let's not start throwing people in a pond and saying
if they float they are a troll and if they sink they
are not a troll.
Let's use reasonable criteria understandable and
applicable to all, newbies as well as "oldbies".
You now have that criteria, so feel free to use it.
Fair enough?
Bill Palmer
alt.genius.bill-palmer
JoeDick
wrote:
Nose and Flonk added, and also alt.troll since you seem to be such and
expert Biilyboy.
____________________________________________
JoeDick mhm14x9 (I found my number)
http://come.to/BowlingForPeopleOnAcid
ICQ# 7227834
PoeticH...@innocent.com
"A nasty post is referred to as a "flame" and is
generally to be avoided. If someone flames you,
ignore it. Responding will only start what is known
as a "flamewar," and no one likes those."
-by Susan Groppi (Usenet at Harvard)
JoeDick: "The world needs Natalie Portman more than
Natalie Portman needs the world"
Per: "Hopefully she won't get fat"
JoeDick
(JoeDick) wrote:
[snip]
>>That's right. Me, Bill Palmer, "a troll"!
>>
>>The person who has posted over 6,000 articles,
>>most by far to generally appropriate newsgroup
>>forums and has done so proudly under his own name
>>every time.
>>
>>The net writer who has generated follow-up from many
>>thousands of DIFFERENT readers and who has written a
>>significant percentage of the best known original Usenet
>>articles of the past few years.
>>
>>The proud owner of "Dejamountain", the only personal
>>archive famous by its own name.
This is my favorite part.
Bill Palmer
PoeticH...@innocent.comNO-SPAM (JoeDick) writes:
[...] Crudely off-topic troll deleted (along
with my original article, since the
latter has already been reposted).
Leave it to a fake-named phony to worm onto
a thread about trolls in the Usenet culture
and to "add" a few crude sentiments to the
general effect he felt his trollish nose
shoved over to his left ear by my on-topic
post! Well, I won't add any words of rebuttal,
because the trolling ninny we just caught has
already been rebutted into the middle of next
week by my original article, which, upon reading,
he demonstrated EXACTLY what he was by adding
his off-topic follow-up rubbish to the thread.
(I wrote my article with the hope of stirring
up some serious thoughts on the issue, not for
"flypaper for catching trolling-blowflies" like
the fake-named "JoeDick", but I suppose I should
not be surprised if a few of them show their
colors on the thread anyway.)
Bill Palmer
alt.genius.bill-palmer
Bill Palmer
blowfly "JoeDick" should have adjusted them in
the first place, had he but a blowfly's brain
power.]
In <37792770....@news.stfx.ca>
PoeticH...@innocent.comNO-SPAM (the fake named "JoeDick") writes:
--spammed, off-topic trolling drivel
>
>On Tue, 29 Jun 1999 20:06:39 GMT, PoeticH...@innocent.comNO-SPAM
>(the fake-named "JoeDick") wrote more spammed, off-topic trolling
drivel:
>
>[snip]
>
>>>That's right. Me, Bill Palmer, "a troll"!
>>>
>>>The person who has posted over 6,000 articles,
>>>most by far to generally appropriate newsgroup
>>>forums and has done so proudly under his own name
>>>every time.
>>>
>>>The net writer who has generated follow-up from many
>>>thousands of DIFFERENT readers and who has written a
>>>significant percentage of the best known original Usenet
>>>articles of the past few years.
>>>
>>>The proud owner of "Dejamountain", the only personal
>>>archive famous by its own name.
>
>This is my favorite part.
Mine too. Wouldn't trade it for all the gold in
Fort Knox.
----------------------------------------
And coming from someone with YOUR impressive record
of posting ALL THOSE awesomely-original and breathtakingly
well-written Usenet articles, I feel terribly put down, of
course, Mr. "Joe Dick", Useless-Trolling-Usenet-Pest-with-
the-Fake-Name-who-is-too-much-the-shithead-to-keep-his-
flame-drivel-in-flame-groups.
copyright FLAME GIANT
On Wordscreens of the World
JoeDick
wrote:
>[Newsgroups readjusted to the way this spamming
>blowfly "JoeDick" should have adjusted them in
>the first place, had he but a blowfly's brain
>power.]
>
>In <37792770....@news.stfx.ca>
>PoeticH...@innocent.comNO-SPAM (the fake named "JoeDick") writes:
>
>--spammed, off-topic trolling drivel
>>
>>On Tue, 29 Jun 1999 20:06:39 GMT, PoeticH...@innocent.comNO-SPAM
>>(the fake-named "JoeDick") wrote more spammed, off-topic trolling
>drivel:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>>That's right. Me, Bill Palmer, "a troll"!
>>>>
>>>>The person who has posted over 6,000 articles,
>>>>most by far to generally appropriate newsgroup
>>>>forums and has done so proudly under his own name
>>>>every time.
>>>>
>>>>The net writer who has generated follow-up from many
>>>>thousands of DIFFERENT readers and who has written a
>>>>significant percentage of the best known original Usenet
>>>>articles of the past few years.
>>>>
>>>>The proud owner of "Dejamountain", the only personal
>>>>archive famous by its own name.
>>
>>This is my favorite part.
>
>Mine too. Wouldn't trade it for all the gold in
>Fort Knox.
So this you leave, yet in your other reply you snip all of the
newsgroups I added.-GutlessTurD
>----------------------------------------
>
>And coming from someone with YOUR impressive record
>of posting ALL THOSE awesomely-original and breathtakingly
>well-written Usenet articles, I feel terribly put down, of
>course, Mr. "Joe Dick", Useless-Trolling-Usenet-Pest-with-
>the-Fake-Name-who-is-too-much-the-shithead-to-keep-his-
>flame-drivel-in-flame-groups.
>
>
>copyright FLAME GIANT
>
> On Wordscreens of the World
>
>
Bill Palmer
PoeticH...@innocent.comNO-SPAM (JoeDick) writes:
[...] More off-topic rubbish from our trolling nitwit
with the fake name, who seems to be doing a lot
of wriggling in discomfort just now. I suppose
the thought that he should divert his crude,
barely-verbal rubbish to groups like alt.flame
has not entered his minuscule noggin.
Bill Palmer
alt.genius.bill-palmer
Ed Foster
(Palmjob) wrote:
> [Note: A previous version of this article was posted in
> two of the above five newsgroup forums. This is a con-
> siderably-revised version, so if you read the first one
> and enjoyed it,
Not bloody likely!!!!!!
> you still might want to check this one
> out.]
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
>
> To Catch a Troll...
>
>
> Earlier today a poster in another newsgroup made a
> remark that started me thinking about some matters
> I would now--with your kind patience--like to share
> with you.
>
> Essentially, the person did not seem to enjoy
> what I observed in "Close Encounter with Punctu-
> ation Bigot".
>
> Unfortunately, my attacker was not at all forth-
> right about challenging any of my assertions in
> that article.
>
> [Note: "Close Encounters of a Punctuation
> Bigot" was featured in last week's issue of
> MillenniumWriters.com. The artist/editor
> added some very clever graphics, so you might
> want to check it out even if you have already
> read it in the newsgroups where it appeared.]
The editor prefaced Palmjob's drivel with the statement:
"Some people worry about the suffering of Kosovo refugees or the Tamil
separatists or global warming or other issues. Bill Palmer has identified
an area of real concerm, however, and has chosen to speak out about his
convictions in the hope that the world will be a better place."
Just another example of the idiot Palmjob's not recognizing that he's
being made fun of. Potential sig material there. Check it out:
http://www.MillenniumWriters.com/Punctuation/PunctuationBigot.html
Yep, that's Palmjob.
> The aim of such a troll is not to entertain or enlighten
> readers, but to have the troll's existence validated
> by any sort of response at all.
Palmjob, again.
> A troll in this same pejorative sense is by nature
> insincere, too.
>
> Such a "Usenet critter" will generally post what will get
> the most replies, not expressions of things the troll
> actually believes in.
>
> This variety of troll has no pride in writing or thought
> quality either.
>
> Rather, the only goal for our pesky sort of troll is to
> make the readers aware--and stay aware--of the troll's
> shabby net-existence.
That's three in a row for Palmjob.
> As you know by now, then, I view this kind of troll as
> simply but an attention-starved misfit who craves any
> sort of attention, no matter how unfavorable.
Palmjob yet again.
> While there are "trollling newsgroups" and while
> the net is a big place, I feel that ninety-nine-
> point-nine percent of all Usenet groups, at least,
> would be far better off without the sort of troll
> I describe above.
But alt.genius.bill-palmer isn't in the 99.9 percent.
> On the other hand, we never want to get into a witch
> hunting frame of mine regarding trolls.
>
> We must have sensible criteria to apply, if we
> wish to be at all fair.
>
> I have, in fact, encountered newsgroup situations
> where anyone who comes into a group and posts
> *ON*-topic material that does conform to what the
> more active and often aggressive members of the
> group deem to be "okay" will be branded a troll.
>
> To help avoid unfair application of the word
> troll in its highly-negative sense, then, let's
> work together toward encouraging some sort of just
> though practicable method for determining who is
> or is not likely a non-productive Usenet troll.
First criterion, if he goes by the name of Bill Palmer, wilhelp, little
wilhelp man, Flame Giant he's a non-productive Usnet troll.
> Here is what I suggest regarding questions to be
> asked--and honestly and reasonably answered--of
> any troll suspected of merely trying to get
> attention by stirring up mischief:
>
>
> 1) Are the suspected troll's posts mostly or entirely
> [boring]?
>
>
> 2) Did the suspected troll [snip all the comments by the poster
> pointing out that the troll is a total turkey?]
>
>
> 3) Does the suspected troll FOLLOW UP on-topic articles
> by others [by snipping their comments, name mangling them with
> terms like "louse monkey", and then accusing them of name mangling?]
>
> The notorious [Palmjob is] very big
> on this. [He] claim[s] a rather peculiar license for
> following up any ON-topic article of <snip> with
> slimy, OFF-topic attacks having nothing at all to
> do with a newsgroup subject OR an ongoing thread
> discussion.
<snip>
> Of course, Palmer's Parasites are naturally
> trolls, too, which is why I mention them, but when
> the trolling becomes so personal that you get a half-
> dozen or so human parasites netstalking a net writer
> through Dejanews and flooding serious newsgroups
> with off-topic personal attacks, you have trolling
> in its ugliest and most vicious form.
It ain't trolling and it ain't in a serious news group. It's in
alt.genius. bill-palmer, and of course alt.stupid-ass.bill-palmer.
> In a way, you can call these aggressive, trolling
> parasites one of the prices of great success as a net
> writer.
You can call it anything you want. You could call a jackass's tail a leg
but it doens't make a jackass a five legged animal. And it doesn't make
you a writer.
> Even so, that sort of "netstalking troll" is unusually
> reprehensible and I suspect most Usenet users loathe
> them fully as much as I do.
Most posters to alt.genius.bill-palmer call you the most boring writer on
usenet. Why do you have such a hard time accepting it?
> 4) Does the person crosspost from your group to the
> flaming newsgroups?
>
> (Trolls love to crosspost between serious newsgroups
> and flaming/amusement newsgroups because they view
> their goal as one of causing annoyance, and they
> know that if they can suck additional off-topic posts
> into the target newsgroup, the "annoyance factor"
> increases proportionally as new trolls crosspost
> their rubbish to the non-flaming group targeted.)
>
>
> 5) Are the person's posts very poorly-written and
> generally quite skimpy in--or entirely devoid of--
> intelligent content?
Amazing, there's Palmjob again.
I got at least five that say Palmjob's a troll.
> If the person is indeed a troll, you will have
> likely answered YES to most or all of those
> questions above.
Yep, Palmjob's a troll.
> Examining the matter from a slightly different
> viewpoint now, I might add that there is nothing at
> all wrong with a poster's wanting to get lots of
> intelligent feedback to his or her articles.
>
> I say that because I have read posts by people
> who seem to insinuate that if you get a good
> deal of followup, you are a troll per se.
And I've read posts by Palmjob that claim the "popularity" of
alt.genius.bill-palmer proves he's a great writer and flamer.
> That notion boggles the mind for its silliness.
It surely does, Palmjob!
> In reality, the test of any poster's standing in
> the intellectual portion of the Usenet community
> involves the question of how many original, on-
> topic stand-alone articles generating lots of
> interesting follow-up the person has posted.
But all the followups to your "original, on-topic, stand-alone articles"
tell you to shut up. Why don't you get the message?
> A true Usenet intellectual is by nature a thread
> starter.
So is a troll.
> A Usenet genius, then, would have to be the genius
> of thread-starting, would have to be someone proving
> capable of starting thousands of successful threads--
> not with "Star Wars sucks" trolls, of course, but
> with original articles containing unique, fully-
> realized ideas that can challenge or otherwise
> inspire others to post creative or informative
> thread-responses in their turn.
But all your articles do is inspire people to tell you to shut up.
> That's not trolling, at least to the extent the term
> represents activities now causing unneeded annoyance
> in so many Usenet newsgroups.
There'd be less annoyance in many Usenet newsgroups if you'd follow the
advice of those telling you to shut up.
> I can't imagine a nuttier, topsy-turvyier state of
> affairs than what we would have in Usenet if posters
> had to hesitate before clicking "send", thinking,
> "Gee, I hope a lot of people DON'T follow me up
> on the article I'm posting--someone might think I
> am a troll." (We are to imagine the speaker
> shuddering and wringing his or her hands.)
In your case you should consider doing just that.
> After all, the best of Usenet has a lot to
> do with DISCUSSION, and discussion does not
> occur when we have a state of affairs where
> people simply post their own ideas and that's
> the end of the matter.
>
> Discussion means give and take, and at best that's
> "give and take" leading somewhere productive in the
> intellectual or the creative sense, not a very brief
> series of curt, unresponded-to statements going nowhere.
>
> As a Usenet poster, one of the things that makes
> me proudest occurs when I post an original article
> that garners plenty of entertaining and/or informative
> feedback.
You've never posted an original article and the only feedback you get is
telling you to shut up. Unfortunately you don't pay attention to that
feedback.
> And believe me, I don't define "good feedback" as
> being something that compliments me personally or
> even agrees with anything at all I assert in my
> article.
A good thing too, or you'd never get any "good feedback."
> Good feedback consists of interesting, reasonably
> well-expressed, somewhat-original thoughts. That's
> all, and I feel that almost everyone in Usenet has
> the capacity to add worthwhile follow-up remarks,
> if inspired by others to do so.
>
> When the thing works the way it's supposed to, I
> call it "swimming in the thoughtstream." I love
> being a part of it.
>
> Getting back to trolls, though, let's apply the
> above sensible criteria before we accuse.
>
> Let's not cry troll when someone rubs us the wrong
> way with on-topic opinions, either.
>
> Finally, I would ask something of every reader, including
> the person in who so rudely accosted me yesterday screaming
> "Troll!" upon being upset by my frank, on-topic views:
>
> Let's not start throwing people in a pond and saying
> if they float they are a troll and if they sink they
> are not a troll.
>
> Let's use reasonable criteria understandable and
> applicable to all, newbies as well as "oldbies".
>
> You now have that criteria, so feel free to use it.
> Fair enough?
Fair enough, Palmjob, now shut up.
Bill Palmer
writes:
[...]
>
>On Tue, 29 Jun 1999 21:52:06 GMT, PoeticH...@innocent.comNO-SPAM
>("JoeDick the Troll with the Phony Name") spewed forth the following:
[...] Off-topic flame-rubbish snipped
One of the most amazing things about this
particular troll (the fake-named "JoeDick")
is that despite his frantic denials of
being a troll, he fits so many of our
criteria: 1 & 2) He spams an off-topic
personal attack having nothing at all
to with either the newsgroup subject or
the thread topic, 3) He crossposts between
serious newsgroups and flame newsgroups
in order to try and suck more trolls into
the non-flaming newsgroups and annoy more
people, 4) The rubbish he posts is devoid
of any intelligent content, 5) He uses a
fake name. Well, if anyone needed an
example to demonstrate the truth of what
I argued in my article "To Catch a Troll",
we got one, crude and ugly though he is!
Now I'm going to "throw him back" and stop
responding to his trolling tripe. He's
proved my point very well already.
Bill Palmer
alt.genius.bill-palmer
>
Bill Palmer
credit for being right once out of four times, but then
I reread his nutty allegations and found that he took
a public pratfall hard on his backside every time he
opened his mouth.
-------------------------------------------------------------
In <jdoherty-290...@aus-tx29-43.ix.netcom.com>
jdoh...@ix.netcom.com (John Doherty) writes:
>
>In article <7lbi0t$c...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>,
wil...@ix.netcom.com
>(Bill Palmer) wrote:
>
>| Last month a poster in alt.usage.english made a
>| remark that started me thinking about some matters
>| I would now--with your kind patience--like to share
>| with you.
>
>I suppose the double hyphens above must be meant to represent
em-dashes.
>But if you use two hyphens for an em-dash, what do you use for an
en-dash,
>and how do you distinguish it from a plain hyphen?
>
>I recommend following one of two styles: use one hyphen for a hyphen,
two
>hyphens for an en-dash, and either three hyphens or two hyphens
preceded
>and followed by spaces for an em-dash.
That's silly. In your foolish pedantry, you are
writing posting-style rules for me and suggesting
I should adopt what might be called the "traditional
printing press approach" in my Usenet posts (for
pity's sake)!
No, I'm sorry to tell you I don't use the
"traditional printing press approach" for
my Usenet posts, however shocking and even
dangerously radical that may strike you.
I take the same approach as do the editors of
most style books written for typed manuscripts
that aren't supposed to be immediately headed
for the old time printing press: I use two
hyphens and no spaces for my dash, and one
hyphen and no spaces for--well, you guessed it.
I see no need at all in Usenet posts to distinguish
between anything other than a standard dash and a
hypen. I realize that in language groups it
is only normal to find a few posters who want to
prattle pedantically AS IF we their "victims"
flattered ourselves that our articles were going
into print in THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY exactly as we
posted them, but frankly, I harbor no such
illusions. Just one dash is fine, thanks
all the same.
>
>Strike one.
Do you grant yourself a "strike" each time you
make a pedantic jackanapes of yourself?
>
>| Essentially, the person did not seem to enjoy
>| what I observed in my a.u.e.-posted article,
>| "Close Encounter with Punctuation Bigot".
>
>Period goes inside the quotes.
No, it doesn't, Professor Pedant P. Jackanapes.
But here I will simply refer you to Dejanews or
to MillenniumWriters.com for a little gem of
mine entitled "Close Encounter with a Punctuation
Bigot" and save myself a few nanoseconds of typing
time setting you straight.
Did you know that you tend to precede
>carriage returns with spaces? Those spaces aren't doing anybody any
>good. This is a bad habit that you should try to remedy.
No, I didn't know that. And now that you have told me
I will try to forget that with all possible cognitive
alacrity, since I am got along fine WITHOUT having known
it. But I DO know a certain prating jackanapes who would
never seem to have learned that a full stop is followed by
TWO SPACES before beginning a following sentence in the same
paragraph.
Oh, wait, you were beating around the bush braying
about my famous short lines up there, weren't you? NOW
I get your silly jest, Professor Magnus Circumlocution.
Well, as to the famous short lines, those are deliberate
and necessary (as far as MY posting syle of choice,
I mean).
You see, being the controversial net writer I am, I often
start long threads with my original articles, and portions
of my articles may be quoted again and again on those
threads I start.
Okay, now YOU are probably not often quoted on a
thread, so you may not have noticed a certain accretion
of annoying little attribution marks gathering on the
left, which--when a poster's quotation is reposted
several times on a thread--tend to push the text to
the right, resulting in those stupid "split lines"
with the improperly divided words and the double
line-spacing. I LOATHE seeing anything I write
in such a deplorable cirumstances. The best stylist
in the world makes a miserable "read" under such
conditions. That answer your question, Mr. Smarty-
pants?
>
>Strike two.
>
>| [Note: "Close Encounters of a Punctuation
>| Bigot" was featured in last week's issue of
>| MillenniumWriters.com.
>
>Standard practice is for a colon to be followed by a single space.
No, you are wrong there too. At first I thought
you were right, since I didn't pay enough
attention after your captious complaint and
I assumed you had found a mere title or
a sentence fragment after my colon. Instead,
I had followed the colon with a COMPLETE
SENTENCE, so my two spaces were correct.
Apparently, you are confusing a colon for
a semicolon, but if you look at them carefully
you will see that a colon is two periods
aligned vertically, while a semicolon looks
like a comma with period directly above it.
Got it now?
>
>Strike three. Yer out.
No, you made a public jackanapes of yourself FOUR
TIMES by making FOUR captious, incorrect criticisms
in a row. That's not merely sophomoric; that's
just plain stupid. You are the front runner for
the "Pedant in a Dunce Cap Award, 1999". Keep
it up. (And I apologize to all for saying you
were "only" wrong three times in a row in my
earlier post. I guess I did not want to believe
that anyone could be so publicly foolish four
times in a row.)
Bill Palmer
alt.genius.bill-palmer
>
>[snip]
Bill Palmer
jdoh...@ix.netcom.com (John Doherty) writes:
>
>In article <7lc8t3$p...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>,
wil...@ix.netcom.com
>(Bill Palmer) wrote:
>
>| I see no need at all in Usenet posts to distinguish between anything
>| other than a standard dash and a hypen.
>
>if only we knew what a "standard dash" and a "hypen" were.
Maybe "we" don't, but *I* do. Everyone agrees on the
hyphen keystroke, and as to a sensible poster's choice
for the ONE dash really needed in posts, who cares, as
long the choice is consistently used. I favor the two
hypens and no spaces, and I could care less if other
posters prefer to make their dashes different ways
from mine. (I only get annoyed when it becomes clear
that I am reading a post by someone who hasn't the
foggiest notion of the traditional distinctions BETWEEN
a dash and a hyphen.) What is important is consistency
when making the dash, and care in distinguishing between
the correct uses of the dash and hyphen.
But as far
>as I'm aware, neither one even exists. I just like to preserve correct
>distinctions among hyphens, en-, and em-dashes, and even in an ASCII-
>only context like usenet, that's really pretty easy to do. I would
>think that a genius like you could figure this out: it's pretty
simple.
>
>| Oh, wait, you were beating around the bush braying
>| about my famous short lines up there, weren't you?
>
>No, I never said anything about that. I agree that it's annoying,
>though.
There's little more annoying than reading those
ridiculous "spilt double-spaced line things" that
occur when the same block of quoted text is
reposted over and over in a thread discussion.
Once I found out that readers were actually
leapfrogging my opponents' "full length, split
lines" (split because of "left attribution mark
accretion") to read my neat little paragraphs,
I knew I was on the right track, despite flack
from the non-comprehending.
The "traditional printing press approach to Usenet
posting" of Professor Pedant is again rejected.
You can't shilly-shally your way out of the fact
you made a pedant in a dunce cap of yourself!
Most grammar and style books don't distinguish
at all between the various dashes, EXCEPT when
it is clear they are giving instructions for
traditional printing. And, if I must inform
you again of a shocking fact, a Usenet post
is scarcely a product of traditional printing.
But just wait until you read my other post, where
I had to apologize to the readers for incorrectly
saying you were right once in four times, when
after rereading your tissue of error I discovered
to my amazement you were wrong all four times!
Toodle-oo, old chappie...
Bill Palmer
alt.genius.bill-palmer
Bill Palmer
To Catch a Troll...
Last month a poster in a different newsgroup from these
three made a remark that started me thinking about certain
matters I would now--with your kind patience--like to
share here in alt.slack, alt.genius.bill-palmer, and
alt.religion.kibology to inspire, I hope, your infor-
mative posted reactions.
Essentially, the person did not seem to enjoy
what I observed in my posted article, "Close
Encounter with a Punctuation Bigot".
My attacker was not at all forthright about
challenging any of my assertions in that
article, either.
[Note: "Close Encounters of a Punctuation
Bigot" was featured in last week's issue of
MillenniumWriters.com. The artist/editor
added some very clever graphics, so you might
want to check it out even if you have already
read it in the newsgroups where it appeared.]
As to my critic, instead of troubling himself with
attempting a reasoned refutation of my assertions,
this person posted some peevish remarks directed
at me rather than at the many ideas in my
"Punctuation Bigot" article.
In the course of his unfriendly comments, he said
something that made it clear he was accusing me of
being a troll. In fact, he actually used the term
"troll" as he did this.
That's right. Me, Bill Palmer, "a troll"!
--The person who has posted over 6,000 articles,
most by far to generally appropriate newsgroup
forums and has done so proudly under his own name
every time.
--The focus person of the net's first alt.genius
newgroup, alt.genius.bill-palmer, which--call it
a "three ring circus of the mind" or a "gigantic
funny farm" has received over 65,000 postings from
around the wired planet during the first two-and-one-
half years of its existence.
--The net writer who has generated follow-up from many
thousands of DIFFERENT readers and who has written a
significant percentage of the best known original
Usenet articles of the past few years.
--The proud owner of "Dejamountain", the only personal
archive famous by its own name.
Now, I am well aware that trolling and "troll-calling"
(for fair and unfair reasons) have often been the focus
of alt.slack, a.g.b-p, and a.r.k tings. I know too that
some alt.slack regulars have written "zine" articles on
trolling, but the one's I've seen, though amusing, missed
the mark in some important respects.
At any rate, my critic's style of unjust name-calling
bothers me because it smacks of witch hunting, certainly
so when we throw all reason out the window and start
applying vague criteria defining "trolls" and "trolling"
to suit our own whims by unfairly branding someone who
rubs our nose out joint with his or her controversial
(but on-topic) articles.
Further, a few months back when I posted another
original article in a different newsgroup someone
else did in fact call me a troll then too. I
thought at the time that the epithet was incredibly
unreasonable and I still think that.
Anyway, letting bygones be bygones, let's examine
what "troll" in fact means in our newsgroup culture.
In the first place "troll" can mean different
things to different people, and I can respect
each person's right to his own meaning.
The universally-respected Usenet expert Professor
Chudov, for instance, makes it plain he believes
in a sort of "productive (my own term trying to
sum up what I have read by him) trolling", where
the troll generates entertaining or informative
follow-up for the intellectual and/or amusement
benefit of the entire newsgroup by gently (or not
so gently) tweaking beaks now and then with thought-
provoking postings.
However, since the word "troll" was used against me in
the negative sense that so many posters seem today to
favor, I will focus primarily on that sort of troll here:
our "infamous Usenet pest" kind of troll, as opposed to
the "newsgroup gadfly" who uses actual wit for stirring
up productive or merely amusing posted reactions from
newsgroup readers.
A troll in the negative sense is simply a person who
will do anything for attention.
The aim of such a troll is not to entertain or enlighten
readers, but to have the troll's existence validated
by any sort of response at all.
A troll in this same pejorative sense is by nature
insincere, too.
Such a "Usenet critter" will generally post content that
will get the most replies of any sort, rather than posting
messages asserting or defending ideas and opinions the
poster actually believes in.
This variety of troll has no pride in writing or thought
quality either.
Rather, the only goal for our pesky sort of troll is to
make the readers aware--and stay aware--of the troll's
shabby net-existence.
As you know by now, then, I view this kind of troll as
nothing but an attention-starved misfit who craves any
sort of notice, no matter how unfavorable.
While there are "trolling newsgroups" (like alt.troll)
and while the net is a big place, I feel that ninety-
nine-point-nine percent of all Usenet groups, at least,
would be far better off without the sort of troll
I describe above.
On the other hand, we never want to get into a witch-
hunting frame of mine regarding trolls.
We must have sensible criteria to apply, if we
wish to be at all fair.
I have, in fact, encountered newsgroup situations
where anyone who comes into a group and posts
*ON*-topic material that does conform to what the
more active and often aggressive members of the
group deem to be "okay" will be branded a troll.
This happened to me in alt.slack, as many readers
know, though as I understand they are now trying
to get the parties engaging in the false "crying
troll" out of the group. I have nothing but praise
for the way the intelligent members of a.s. are
trying to deal with the few who did not belong
there in the first place and were causing most
of the trouble.
To help avoid unfair application of the word
troll in its highly-negative sense, then, let's
work together here in alt.slack, alt.religion.
kibology, and genius.bill-palmer and elsewhere
toward encouraging some sort of just--and prac-
ticable--method for determining who likely is or
is not a non-productive Usenet troll.
Here is what I suggest regarding questions to be
asked--and honestly and reasonably answered--of
any troll suspected of merely trying to get
attention by stirring up newsgroup mischief:
trolls, too, which is why I mention them. And when
the flaming becomes so vindictive that you get a half-
dozen or so human parasites netstalking a net writer
via Dejanews and flooding serious newsgroups with
off-topic personal attacks, you have trolling in
its ugliest and most vicious form.
In a way, you can call these aggressive, trolling
parasites one of the prices of great success as a net
writer. You reach a certain degree of popularity, and
they start crawling out of the woodwork after you. Fast.
Even so, that sort of "netstalking troll" is unusually
reprehensible and I suspect most Usenet users loathe
them fully as much as I do.
4) Does the suspected troll crosspost from your group to
the flaming newsgroups?
Trolls love to crosspost between serious newsgroups
and flaming/amusement newsgroups because they view
their goal as one of causing annoyance, and they
know that if they suck additional off-topic flames
into the target newsgroup, the "annoyance factor"
increases proportionally as new trolls crosspost
their rubbish to the non-flaming group targeted.
(We saw Wormy Wilkes damn near ruin rec.arts.prose
that way.)
5) Are the suspected trolls' posts very poorly-written and
generally quite skimpy in--or entirely devoid of--
intelligent content?
Trolls take pride in getting ANY sort of
reaction, good, bad or wrathful. Development
of a writing style to be proud of, then, has
little to do with to with a troll's raison d'etre.
After all, when trolls drive away enough newsgroup
readers with their drivel, they simply pop up
with a brand new moniker and start all over.
Most "parasitical trolls" specialize in the "snip and
drool" follow-up, which means they favor splashing
puerile insults after every few lines written by the
net writer being targeted.
Further, since they love attention, such trolls take
great pains to pick the most successful writer they
can possibly find in Usenet for their "host". As far
as getting themselves read, the parasitical variety of
trolls know that posting their rubbish on a thread
started by a wildly-popular net writer insures the
trolls many readers, at least until people catch on
to them.
Snipping-and-drooling is "writing" on the cheap and
basically means posting the trolls' (current) names while
saying nothing entertaining that a naughty computer-
literate sixth-grader could not have said far better.
The parsitical-type trolls' purpose involves annoying
all, while associating themselves in the readers' minds
with the writer.
As a result, actually posting anything that is
intelligent, well-expressed or original has nothing
to do with the "Here I am again and ain't I cute?"
snip-and-drool assault by the parasitical troll.
6) Does the suspected troll post under a phony name?
Now, I am not suggesting pseudonyms are in any
way wrong, but in general trolls will use false
names because, as I mentioned above, people
soon catch onto trolls and stop reading their
posts. When trolls of this sort feel they
have driven off most of their readers, they
change their names again, and of course the
false name use makes trolls "braver" about the
ugly, malodorous slime many of them flood the
net with, too.
Even so, I defend everyone's RIGHT to post
under pseudonyms, and I don't want that
misunderstood here. But allowing that all
people have the RIGHT to do something in
no way makes the lowly behavior of a few
(who are exercising the right only for
mischievious purposes) suddenly above
criticism.
Okay, think of someone you suspect of being a
troll here in alt.slack or alt.religion.kibology.
Ask yourself how many affirmatives you get to the
above questions when you are trying to be completely
unbiased in your responses.
If the suspect is indeed a troll, you will have
likely answered YES to most or all of those
questions above.
Examining the matter from a slightly different
viewpoint now, I might add that there is nothing
at all wrong with an alt.slack, and a.r.k. or an
a.g.b-p postor wanting to get lots of intelligent
feedback to his or her articles.
I say that because I have read posts by people
who seem to insinuate that if you generate a good
deal of interesting follow-up, you are a troll
per se.
That notion boggles the mind for its silliness.
In reality, one test (and I don't suggest it's the
ONLY one) of any poster's standing in both the creative
and the intellectual portions of the Usenet community
involves the question of how many original, on-topic
stand-alone articles generating lots of interesting
follow-up the person has posted.
A true net-writer is by nature a thread starter, or at
least a thread-contributor with a talent for keeping the
interesting responses coming from others.
A Usenet genius, I believe, would have to be the genius
of thread-starting, would have to be someone proving
capable of starting thousands of successful threads--
not with "Star Wars sucks" trolls, of course, but
with original articles containing unique, fully-
realized ideas that can challenge or otherwise
inspire others to post creative or informative
thread-responses in their turn.
That's not trolling, at least to the extent the term
represents activities now causing unneeded annoyance
in so many Usenet newsgroups.
I can't imagine a nuttier, topsy-turvyier state of
affairs than what we would have in alt.slack if
posters had to hesitate before clicking "send",
thinking, "Gee, I hope a lot of people DON'T follow
me up on the article I'm posting--someone might
think I am a troll." (We are to imagine the
speaker shuddering and wringing his or her hands.)
After all, the best part of alt.genius.bill-palmer and
so many other newsgroups has a lot to do with DISCUSSION,
and discussion does not occur when we have a state of
affairs where people simply post their own ideas and
that's the end of the matter.
Discussion means give and take, and at best that's
"give and take" leading somewhere productive in the
intellectual or the creative sense, not a very brief
series of curt, unresponded-to statements funneling
themselves into an intellectual cul-de-sac.
Let's leave the "You had your say and I had my say so
let's drop it" stuff to those who make no pretense at
all of having even a slightly above-average command of
the English language.
Frankly--and I say this only in the "if the shoe fits
wear it" vein--if you seek to impress others as being
a person of few words, I think you can make a far better
impression in a auto repair shop than a newsgroup where
the focus is supposed to be on intelligent conversation.
As a Usenet contributor of some years standing, one of
the things that makes me proudest occurs when I post--
in an appropriate forum, of course--an original article
that garners plenty of entertaining and/or informative
feedback on the thread I start.
And believe me, I don't define "good feedback" as
being something that compliments me personally or
even agrees with anything at all I assert in my
article.
Good feedback consists of interesting, reasonably
well-expressed, somewhat-original thoughts. That's
all, and I feel that almost everyone in Usenet has
the capacity to add worthwhile follow-up remarks,
if inspired by others to do so.
When this "newsgroup thing" we have in Usenet works the
way it's supposed to, I call it "swimming in the
thoughtstream." I love being a part of it.
Getting back to trolls, though, let's apply the
above sensible criteria before we accuse.
Let's not cry troll when someone rubs us the wrong
way with on-topic opinions, either, or when we see
our own articles pass by ignored while someone
else in in any of these three newsgroup racks up
one informative or entertaining reply after another.
Finally, I would ask something of everyone in Usenet,
including the person in who so rudely accosted me
last month screaming "Troll!" upon being angered by
the frank, on-topic views I posted in the other
newsgroup:
Let's not start throwing people in a pond and saying
if they float they are a troll and if they sink they
are not a troll.
Let's use reasonable criteria understandable and
applicable to all, newbies as well as "oldbies".
You now have such criteria, so feel free to use them.
Fair enough?
Bill Palmer
"The most fascinating assemblage of words in net history."
alt.genius.bill-palmer
Chris McGonnell
Bill Palmer <wil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:7lchu7$2...@dfw-ixnews19.ix.netcom.com...
>
>
> To Catch a Troll...
>
<blah, blah, blah>
> As to my critic, instead of troubling himself with
> attempting a reasoned refutation of my assertions,
> this person posted some peevish remarks directed
> at me rather than at the many ideas in my
> "Punctuation Bigot" article.
>
> In the course of his unfriendly comments, he said
> something that made it clear he was accusing me of
> being a troll. In fact, he actually used the term
> "troll" as he did this.
>
> That's right. Me, Bill Palmer, "a troll"!
Quit trollerizing us, Mr. Newbie. The REAL Bill Palmer writes about llama
bigots and Pokemon songs. Sheesh!!!
--
Chris McG.
Harming humanity since 1951
"Wow, was that forced or what? -- The Avocado Avenger
Bill Palmer
erRMV...@mediaone.net (Ed Foster) writes:
"Big Ed" Foster (who has been fouling-up Usenet newsgroups
for quite a few years without ever having given evidence
of his being able to develop a paragraph) had a lot to
drool about my article, "To Catch a Troll." In fact,
ALL "Big Ed" did was give us a garden-variety, trollish
"snip-and-drool", which means that he simply smeared
his crude stupidities after every lines of my original
article.
Now, that's nothing new for "Big Ed" Foster, who never
seems to miss a posting, long or short by me, the writer
whom "posting non-writer" and obsessive Bill Palmer fan
Ed Foster declares to be so boring.
Anyway, most of the stuff in Foster's latest drivel
attack is par for the course with "Big Ed" Foster.
The only reason I am responding here is that Ed added
a few stupidities about an article of mine that--
MillenniumWriters.com
--has been featuring.
>> [Note: "Close Encounters of a Punctuation
>> Bigot" was featured in last week's issue of
>> MillenniumWriters.com. The artist/editor
>> added some very clever graphics, so you might
>> want to check it out even if you have already
>> read it in the newsgroups where it appeared.]
Ed Foster wrote:
>
>The editor prefaced [...Foster's crude insult to
>everyone named Palmer snipped out of decency]
>drivel with the statement:
The MillenniumWriters.com editor wrote:
>
>"Some people worry about the suffering of Kosovo refugees or the Tamil
>separatists or global warming or other issues. Bill Palmer has
identified
>an area of real concern, however, and has chosen to speak out about
his
>convictions in the hope that the world will be a better place."
Ed Foster wrote:
>
>Just another example of the idiot [...crude insult to all Palmers
>snipped] not recognizing that he's being made fun of. Potential
>sig material there. Check it out:
>http://www.MillenniumWriters.com/Punctuation/PunctuationBigot.html
Ed Foster's crude, envious, and humorless conclusions
aside, I'm very pleased with the way MillenniumWriters.com
presents "Close Encounters with a Punctuation Bigot".
The witty introduction was fully appropriate. Big
Ed is simply too stupid to grasp that IF I had written
the 56,485th Usenet article on Kosovo, etc., I likely
would NOT have been honored by having my article appear
in MillenniumWriters.com.
Of course, since "Big Ed" Foster (dedicated Bill Palmer
fan who never misses an article of mine) proved far too
thick to pick up on my humor in "Close Encounters with
a Punctuation Bigot", then naturally Foster would have
misunderstood the wit in the editor's clever introduction,
too.
I'm sure that "Big Ed" feels that those wonderful BIG
BLUE PUNCTUATION MARKS in the article were placed
there to mock Bill Palmer too. Actually, I love
'em. I know that people (with the normal sense of
humor that Ed Foster-the-dimwit lacks) have been
cracking up with laughter over the way that
MillenniumWriters.com presented my article to the
www reading public, AND that certainly includes the
effect of the artist/editor's hilarious layout.
In my view, the MillenniumWriters.com layout artist
showed a comic brilliance in bringing out the humor
of "Close Encounters with a Punctuation Bigot".
Yes, I suppose it could be seen as a writing
fault of mine that a few readers missed the humor
in that article when I posted it. However, I think
it is impossible to write an original Usenet article
that cracks up every single reader, anyway, because
we have so many different kinds of people here.
My goal, then, is to get readers to come back and
read my next article, not necessarily to send
them to the hospital emergency room with "split
sides" or anything like that.
The fact is, I have always worked on developing my
own humorous style, which of course is present in
much of my net writing.
One reason so many readers in the fun newsgroups come
back to me again and again is that appreciate the
fact that I'm not giving them warmed-over Woody
Allen or Steve Martin stuff, the way Human Leech
and leading Palmer's Parasite David Kendrick does,
for instance.
Readers can get all of that sort of humor they
want on the Comedy Channel nowadays. They don't
need Leech Kendrick's fourth-rate, stale attempts
at being funny. That's why Kendrick found
it necessary to kidnap my literary character,
the funny little wilhelp man, in order to try
and get back some of the readers Kendrick's
shop-worn, cribbed-from-tv tripe had driven
off.
Anyway, if that layout gem by MillenniumWriters.com be
"mockery of Bill Palmer" then the wired world stands in
great need of FAR MORE such wit, since you certainly
don't find any of it on the fifty or so unauthorized www
"Palmer's Parasite Sites" of David Kendrick and others
(which dimwit and obsessive Bill Palmer fan "Big Ed"
Foster has touted in the past and which mutilate
my work at the same time they steal my name and my
copyrighted writing to attract visitors). So.
------------------------------------------------
Congratulations MillenniumWriters.com.
-----------------------------------------------
Sysero
funny little wilhelp man blathered:
>In <erRMVfoster-29...@erfoster.ne.mediaone.net>
>erRMV...@mediaone.net (Ed Foster) writes:
<snip: sorry, but I don't intend to comment on this entire brain fart>
>>http://www.MillenniumWriters.com/Punctuation/PunctuationBigot.html
>
>Ed Foster's crude, envious, and humorless conclusions
>aside, I'm very pleased with the way MillenniumWriters.com
>presents "Close Encounters with a Punctuation Bigot".
It would appear that they were making fun of you--mainly because that
article especially sucked and they probably couldn't resist.
But, on the other hand, even if they were serious, it still looks like
they were making fun of you---and the article sucked anyway.
>---------------------------------------------------
>
>Congratulations wilhelp.com on more fine flameware
>
>--------------------------------------------------
>
>
>Bill Palmer
>"The most fascinating ass in Usenet history."
>alt.fuckhead.bill-palmer
Bill Palmer
article, "Close Encounter with a Punctuation Bigot"
many other newsgroups, I conclude that a number of
you might enjoy reading the following discussion.
Essentially, the post below gives my reaction to an envious,
almost entirely unlettered party and obsessive Bill Palmer
fan who is now sashaying around the net while bandying rather
clueless words to the effect that MillenniumWriters.com only
featured my "Punctuation Bigot" article to poke fun at me!
Further, since you will remember that even a couple of a.g.b-p
readers (!) entirely missed the humor of the "Punctuation Bigot"
article themselves, you may find my response enlightening in
that regard too. Enjoy.
------------------------------------------------------------
In <7lds6u$a...@dfw-ixnews15.ix.netcom.com> wil...@ix.netcom.com (Bill
Palmer) writes:
>
>In <erRMVfoster-29...@erfoster.ne.mediaone.net>
>erRMV...@mediaone.net (Ed Foster) writes:
>
>"Big Ed" Foster (who has been fouling-up Usenet newsgroups
>for quite a few years without ever having given evidence
>of his being able to develop a paragraph) had a lot to
>drool about my article, "To Catch a Troll." In fact,
>ALL "Big Ed" did was give us a garden-variety, trollish
>"snip-and-drool", which means that he simply smeared
>his crude stupidities after every few lines of my original
>article.
>
>Now, that's nothing new for Big Ed Foster, who never
>seems to miss a posting--long or short--by me, the writer
>whom "posting non-writer" and obsessive Bill Palmer-fan
>Ed Foster declares to be oh-so-boring.
>
>Anyway, most of the stuff in Foster's latest drivel-
>attack is par for the loopy course with Big Ed. As
>a net-bozo, he's as ignorant and loud-mouthed a
>specimen as you are likely to encounter. Somebody
>reported Foster was literally raised in a garbage can,
>and while that may be slight exaggeration, if you read
>Big Ed's posted rubbish a few times you will begin to
>believe it. Lately, Ed has decided to become a Palmer's
>Parasite, much to my utter disgust.
>
>The only reason I am responding at all is that Ed added
Bill Palmer wrote:
Ed Foster's crude, envious and humorless conclusions
aside, I'm VERY pleased with the way MillenniumWriters.com
presents "Close Encounters with a Punctuation Bigot".
The witty introduction was fully appropriate. Big
Ed is simply too thick to grasp that IF I had written
the 56,485th Usenet article on Kosovo, etc., I likely
would NOT have been honored by having my article appear
in MillenniumWriters.com.
Of course, since Big Ed Foster (dedicated Bill Palmer
fan who never misses an article of mine) proved far too
thick to pick up on MY humor in "Close Encounters with
a Punctuation Bigot", then naturally Foster would have
misunderstood the wit in the editor's clever introduction,
too.
I'm sure that Ed Foster feels that those astonishing BIG
BLUE PUNCTUATION MARKS in the Millennium layout appeared
there to mock Bill Palmer too.
I love those big blue punctuation marks.
I know that people (with the normal sense of
humor that Ed Foster-the-dimwit lacks) have been
cracking up with laughter over the way that
MillenniumWriters.com presented my article to the
www reading public, AND that certainly includes the
effect of the artist/editor's hilarious layout.
In my view, then, the MillenniumWriters.com layout
artist showed a comic brilliance in bringing out the
humor of "Close Encounters with a Punctuation Bigot".
Yes, I suppose it could be seen as a writing fault
of mine that a few readers missed the humor in
my "Punctuation Bigot" article when I posted it.
However, I think it is impossible to write an original
Usenet article that doubles every single reader up
with laughter anyway. That's because we have so many
different kinds of people here, and people don't always
laugh at the same things.
I thought my newsgroup critic was far off-the-wall
the other day talking about people laughing at me
instead of with me.
I mean, what does that mean inwriting?
When you are talking about stand-up comedy, well, if y
ou are the comedian and they are laughing AT YOU, they
are not going to come back and catch your next show.
That's the REAL tragedy.
On the other hand, since so many of my net readers keep
returning again and again, I think they are simply
laughing because they enjoy my humor.
In some cases, they might THINK they are laughing at me
when they are REALLY laughing at one of the funny little
wilhelp man's public pratfalls.
Who here really knows who's laughing at whom, or why they
are doing it?
My goal, at any rate, is to get readers to come back and
read my next article, not necessarily to send them to the
hospital emergency room with "split sides" or anything
like that.
The fact is, I have always worked on developing my
own original humorous style, which of course is
present in much of my net writing.
One reason so many readers in the fun newsgroups come
back to me again and again is that they appreciate
the fact that I'm not giving them warmed-over Woody
Allen or Steve Martin stuff, the way Human Leech
and leading Palmer's Parasite David Kendrick does,
for instance.
Readers can get all of that sort of humor they
want on the Comedy Channel nowadays.
They don't need Leech Kendrick's fourth-rate, stale
attempts at being funny.
That's why Kendrick found it necessary to kidnap my
literary character, the funny little wilhelp man, in
order to try and get back some of the readers Kendrick's
shop-worn, cribbed-from-tv tripe had driven off.
Anyway, if that layout gem by MillenniumWriters.com be
"mockery of Bill Palmer" then the wired world stands in
great need of FAR MORE such wit, since you certainly
don't find any of it on the fifty or so unauthorized www
"Palmer's Parasite Sites" of David Kendrick and others
(which dimwit and obsessive Bill Palmer-fan "Big Ed"
Sysero
blathered:
>Dear alt.genius.bill-palmer fans: Since my original
>article, "Close Encounter with a Punctuation Bigot"
>initiated considerable discussion in a.g.b-p.
I'm pretty sure that the rationale behind any discussion of such an
elementary level scribble had nothing to do with serious literary
criticism.
>and in many other newsgroups,
Simply due to crossposting which provoked considerable discussion
similar to that when someone farts really loud in a crowded
room--Don't flatter yourself. The article wasn't...well...it just
wasn't that good, biil.
>I conclude that a number of
>you might enjoy reading the following discussion.
Your conclusion is wrong and was obviously not derived from any kind
of scientific method. (see above)
<egotrip>
>Essentially, the post below gives my reaction to an envious,
>almost entirely unlettered party and obsessive Bill Palmer
>fan
</egotrip>
>who is now sashaying around the net while bandying rather
>clueless words to the effect that MillenniumWriters.com only
>featured my "Punctuation Bigot" article to poke fun at me!
Look, you said: "I'm sure that Ed Foster feels that those astonishing
BIG BLUE PUNCTUATION MARKS in the Millennium layout appeared
there to mock Bill Palmer too."
Now, you will take note that I somewhat agreed by saying that it
*appeared* they were making fun of you based on their use of
punctuation marks in ever increasing size. Regardless, the article
was virtually pointless. Devoid of any creativity, it lacked the
substance necessary for serious consideration. Basically, it reads as
though a child were telling on someone for making fun of the way they
write. Elementary writing at best. <snicker>
>Further, since you will remember that even a couple of a.g.b-p
>readers (!) entirely missed the humor of the "Punctuation Bigot"
>article themselves, you may find my response enlightening in
>that regard too. Enjoy.
No.
<snipped 10k re-run>
>--------------------------------------------------
>
>Congratulations wilhelp.com on more fine flameware
>
>-------------------------------------------------
>
>William Washington "Bill" Palmjob
>"The most fascinating ass in Usenet history."
>alt.fuckhead.bill-palmer
>IRC: on DalNet: #jackanapes
=======================================================
Sysero See biil nullify any claims to
copyright of his works:
"Those readers can pay cash, or they can--in a Usenet
world where everyone gives away his writing--pay with
an INVESTMENT IN READING TIME. That's still paying,
and it not without good reason that I call myself
"The Bill Gates of reader-time invested." --Bill Palmer
http://www.deja.com/home_ps.shtml
Keywords: Bill Palmer RE: VERTICAL ALIGNMENT (PART 3)
Forum: alt.publish.books
Date: 02/09/1999
========================================================
Bill Palmer
(Sysero) writes:
Oh, yeah "sysero" OF COURSE. How embarrassing for
me, the undisputed World Champion of Flaming, not
to have remembered that legendary name. SYSERO!
The houshold name in flaming, practically invented
it. (Isn't there a newsgroup, alt.genius.sysero,
or something?)
[...] Pseudonymous writer of nothing
in particular recently crawls
from the germy toilet bowl of net-
of net obscurity and immediately
turns "literary critic". Impressive
stuff, when considered in the light
of his many well-known articles.
The 2-Belo
>In <3781ad09...@news.champaign.pdnt.com> biil...@no.help.com
>(Sysero) writes:
>
>Oh, yeah "sysero" OF COURSE. How embarrassing for
>me, the undisputed World Champion of Flaming, not
>to have remembered that legendary name. SYSERO!
>The houshold name in flaming, practically invented
>it. (Isn't there a newsgroup, alt.genius.sysero,
>or something?)
That can be arranged.
--
The 2-Belo: EMPEROR OF MEOW news:alt.fan.karl-malden.nose
the2belo(at)eist(dot)co(dot)jp news:alt.flame
meowmeowmeowmeowmeowmeowmeowmeowmewmeowmeowmeowmeowmeowmeowmeowmeowmeow
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Visit the afk-mn WebCenter: http://afk-mn.eist.co.jp/
Visit the DungHeaP: http://www.freespeech.org/dungheap/
=======================================================================
"I am what you call a repeat offender. I repeat, I WILL offend again! I
get my orders from a HIGHER SOURCE--"
"Shut up, asshole."
Bill Palmjob
<7leo39$6...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>,wil...@ix.netcom.com (Bill
Palmjob, Mr Tidy Bowl) wrote:
>[...] Pseudonymous writer of nothing
> in particular recently crawls
> from the germy toilet bowl of net-
> of net (sic) obscurity and immediately
> turns "literary critic".
Biil, you seem to be fascinated by this image of "germy toilet bowls";
you use it so frequently.
Tell me, do you still hate your mother for telling you not to play
with the floaters when you had a good potty?
Did you misunderstand her when she said you could lick the bowl after
she had finished mixing a cake?
Where _did_ you get your literary personae that you are trying to
protect?
--
Remember folks, just keep clickin' on www.wilhelp.com
Bill Palmer
emperor...@alt.fan.karl-malden.nose.jp (The 2-Belo) writes:
>
>Bill Palmer pumped this hot load of text into alt.flame:
>
>>In <3781ad09...@news.champaign.pdnt.com> biil...@no.help.com
>>(Sysero) writes:
>>
>>Oh, yeah "sysero" OF COURSE. How embarrassing for
>>me, the undisputed World Champion of Flaming, not
>>to have remembered that legendary name. SYSERO!
>>The houshold name in flaming, practically invented
>>it. (Isn't there a newsgroup, alt.genius.sysero,
>>or something?)
>
>That can be arranged.
Wonderful! *YOU* post to it.
Lee Jackson Beauregard
wil...@ix.netcom.com (The Supreme Idiot of Usenet) wrote:
>[...] Pseudonymous writer of nothing
> in particular recently crawls
> from the germy toilet bowl of net-
> of net obscurity and immediately
> turns "literary critic". Impressive
> stuff, when considered in the light
> of his many well-known articles.
Impressive stuff, considering that every word that he said was true. You
can't handle the truth. You can't handle the fact that your many tormentors
see through all your ravings. You can't handle the fact that you're a
totally fucking pathetic blithering idiot claiming to be a writer.
You can't handle it, so you snip and run.
>copyright FLAME PISSANT
>
> In Killfiles of the World
- --
-----------============<[ Lee Jackson Beauregard ]>============-----------
PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
Delenda est Windoze!
----
"To bad you don't own a good dictionary, Ignormus Montgomery."
- Biil shows his ignormus proficiency in English in
<7ho81q$b...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQB1AwUBN3rrqNI2qWwNrtyxAQGWQQMAk5z0jj8ujgcsgaJGZRQo0UYRM/tE8UXj
PT85Wsdad/lKtIi7C0Yd03xwVuiE4QLcxxSI7RRoEUgxGP7HCeY9DiqNFYoHMSmq
yh8h7AHpXIrFmObinMUQpyR94knI/91E
=TvuA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Rev. Jihad Frenzy
(Bill Palmer) confessed:
>
> That's right. Me, Bill Palmer, "a troll"!
>
You misspelled "revolting, child-molesting, feculent net.loser"
HTH
Kissypoo, Palmjob
--
Windows 2000: You'll envy the dead!
<http://www.gis.net/~cht>
Sysero
>In <3781ad09...@news.champaign.pdnt.com> biil...@no.help.com
>(Sysero) writes:
>
>Oh, yeah "sysero" OF COURSE. How embarrassing for
>me, the undisputed World Champion of Flaming, not
>to have remembered that legendary name. SYSERO!
>The houshold name in flaming, practically invented
>it. (Isn't there a newsgroup, alt.genius.sysero,
>or something?)
Aww, I'm hurt.
<lame>
>[...] Pseudonymous writer of nothing
> in particular recently crawls
> from the germy toilet bowl of net-
> of net obscurity and immediately
> turns "literary critic". Impressive
> stuff, when considered in the light
> of his many well-known articles.
</lame>
You know, biil, it's just occured to me. When you rearrange:
>copyright FLAME GIANT
>
> On Wordscreens of the World
you get...
>copyright MATING FLEA
>
> Nerd Fondler to Whore Cows
Oh yeah, before I forget, why not rearrange some letters and find out
just what you're hiding in that name of yours...
>Mr. Libel Pal
>"The most fascinating ass in Usenet history."
>alt.fuckhead.bill-palmer
Now *that* is the first fucking thing about you that makes sense!
Jason Crowell
snip
>Where _did_ you get your literary personae that you are trying to
>protect?
And more importantly, can he get a refund?
--
It's good to have a job where you've got a button marked "Zot!".
fimbulvetr, Erol's Abuse Minion in news.admin.net-abuse.email
The 2-Belo
>In <3782eab2....@news.alt.net>
>emperor...@alt.fan.karl-malden.nose.jp (The 2-Belo) writes:
>>
>>Bill Palmer pumped this hot load of text into alt.flame:
>>
>>>In <3781ad09...@news.champaign.pdnt.com> biil...@no.help.com
>>>(Sysero) writes:
>>>
>>>Oh, yeah "sysero" OF COURSE. How embarrassing for
>>>me, the undisputed World Champion of Flaming, not
>>>to have remembered that legendary name. SYSERO!
>>>The houshold name in flaming, practically invented
>>>it. (Isn't there a newsgroup, alt.genius.sysero,
>>>or something?)
>>
>>That can be arranged.
>
>Wonderful! *YOU* post to it.
a.g.s. added. I'm sure he, unlike you, will understand that the alt.genius.*
hierarchy is a joke.
But, actually, I wanted to thank you, Palmjob, for ONCE IN YOUR FUCKING LIFE
posting with brevity. Even though there's still no flame content, it's at least
a step in the right direction.
Zimri
> me, the undisputed World Champion of Flaming,
Stay away from Romath's sock drawer, Biil.
-- Z
Bill Palmer
clickin_o...@yahoo.com (Sysero) writes:
-----------------------------------------------------------
>"Those readers can pay cash, or they can--in a Usenet
>world where everyone gives away his writing--pay with
>an INVESTMENT IN READING TIME. That's still paying,
>and it not without good reason that I call myself
>"The Bill Gates of reader-time invested." --Bill Palmer
-------------------------------------------------------------
I said it. I stand by it proudly one-hundred
percent as a statement of fact. What is amazing
though, is how our "flame titan" with the "big
name in flaming" can be moronic enough to think
that such a statement of fact invalidates my
COPYRIGHT. Whether a writer asks his readers
to pay with cash or merely with their reading
time, it hasn't the slightest effect on the
author's copyright. I don't lose my copyright
for letting people read my stuff for free any
more than Steven King (or Bill Gates, who has
a new book out) lose THEIR copyrights to the
people who buy their books--or even if they
gave their books for free as a promotion,
or whatever. To bad our "flame titan"
proves too stupid to know the difference
between giving away your WRITING to your
readers and fans, and giving away your
COPYRIGHTS *TO* that writing. There's all
the difference in the world and I'm well
aware of it.
Well, another stupid little "gotcha game"
hosed away...
Bill Palmer
alt.genius.bill-palmer
Bill Palmer
Crowell) writes:
>
>In article <378ceeee....@n3.idirect.com>
>snip
>>Where _did_ you get your literary personae that you are trying to
>>protect?
Fair question, except that I have SEVERAL literary
characters and entertainment personas. I got them
the same way, though: I thought them up and
developed them (AND made them famous) in thousands
of copyrighted Usenet newsgroup postings. As far
as the basic principles copyright law with specific
regard to sole drivative rights of an author, that's
just as valid as if I developed them for a novel or
a screenplay.
Bill Palmer
alt.genius.bill-palmer
Sysero
expounded:
>In <37830582...@news.champaign.pdnt.com>
>clickin_o...@yahoo.com (Sysero) writes:
>
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>
>>"Those readers can pay cash, or they can--in a Usenet
>>world where everyone gives away his writing--pay with
>>an INVESTMENT IN READING TIME. That's still paying,
>>and it not without good reason that I call myself
>>"The Bill Gates of reader-time invested." --Bill Palmer
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------
>
>I said it. I stand by it proudly one-hundred
>percent as a statement of fact.
Good. We've cleared this whole wilhelp mess up then.
>What is amazing
>though, is how our "flame titan" with the "big
>name in flaming"
Remember...You said it, not I.
>can be moronic enough to think
>that such a statement of fact invalidates my
>COPYRIGHT. Whether a writer asks his readers
>to pay with cash or merely with their reading
>time, it hasn't the slightest effect on the
>author's copyright. I don't lose my copyright
>for letting people read my stuff for free any
>more than Steven King (or Bill Gates, who has
>a new book out) lose THEIR copyrights to the
>people who buy their books--or even if they
>gave their books for free as a promotion,
>or whatever. To bad our "flame titan"
>proves too stupid to know the difference
>between giving away your WRITING to your
>readers and fans, and giving away your
>COPYRIGHTS *TO* that writing. There's all
>the difference in the world and I'm well
>aware of it.
Nope, sorry biil, but you didn't say that. You clearly said: "in a
Usenet world where everyone gives away his writing", with no mention
whatsoever of "letting people read my stuff for free". You chose the
words: "gives away" therefore leaving the connotation of public domain
and hence nullifying your claims to copyright on Usenet.
If you didn't mean this, then you should have chosen the proper words.
Besides, I am shocked that you didn't in the first place. By doing
so, it would have taken more words and hence more disk space to store
it.
Take it like a man, biil. Just like when you called a certain someone
"coolie" and then when the flames began to burn, you blathered
incessantly, insisting that the word "coolie" had a different
connotation and the meaning in which you used it was merely satirical.
Therefore, in the case of copyright issues and your past statements
concerning such, neither I nor anyone else here should assume any
different.
>Mr. Libel Pal
>alt.wilhelp.bill-palmer
Bill Palmer
emperor...@alt.fan.karl-malden.nose.jp (The 2-Belo) writes:
>
>Bill Palmer pumped this hot load of text into alt.flame:
>
>>In <3782eab2....@news.alt.net>
>>emperor...@alt.fan.karl-malden.nose.jp (The 2-Belo) writes:
>>>
>>>Bill Palmer pumped this hot load of text into alt.flame:
>>>
>>>>In <3781ad09...@news.champaign.pdnt.com> biil...@no.help.com
>>>>(Sysero) writes:
>>>>
>>>>Oh, yeah "sysero" OF COURSE. How embarrassing for
>>>>me, the undisputed World Champion of Flaming, not
>>>>to have remembered that legendary name. SYSERO!
>>>>The houshold name in flaming, practically invented
>>>>it. (Isn't there a newsgroup, alt.genius.sysero,
>>>>or something?)
>>>
>>>That can be arranged.
>>
>>Wonderful! *YOU* post to it.
>
>a.g.s. added. I'm sure he, unlike you, will understand that the
alt.genius.*
>hierarchy is a joke.
Well, in the case of our "flame titan" with the
"big name in flaming" the GROUP would be a joke.
In no way is the alt.genius HIERARCHY a joke, of
course, as I have proven. You would expect that
the focus person of an alt.genius newsgroup would
write a lot of articles that would become Usenet
classics, and I certainly have. You would
expect such a person to have a famous Dejanews
archive section, and I can tell you you don't
go to the Dejamountain to look for the collected
works of Wotan the Dumpster Rodent, etc., etc.
You would expect the group to become famous
quickly, and alt.genius.bill-palmer did.
So 2-Belo, I have proven that the alt.genius
hierarchy is no joke as you very well know. I like
to say genius is as genius does. There have been
other alt.genius groups, and so far none of them
have been successful, although that may change
in the future. In one case, the focus person
of a genius group (alt.genius.supergenius.ben-
pollan) left Usenet rather precipitously under
a cloud after some embarrassing questions
were raised about his intellectual abilities.
None of the other genius groups have taken off
and become popular in the Usenet community, for
the obvious reason that genius, like IQ, has
to DO SOMETHING, or it's meaningless.
I mean, you can put the name of a fourth-rate
flame wimp on a "genius group" but what you
will get is a nearly empty group cluttering
up storage space while doing nothing to amuse
or inform anyone.
People will do what I just did: shave the group
right off the newsgroup line. I, and I think
most users, have no interest in cluttering up
our newsgroup lines with the names of groups
without any readership. Also, as the World
Champion of Flaming, I don't want to post my
flames in some runty little group anymore
than a boxing world champ wants to fight
a match in some decrepit, back-alley gym.
It just doesn't look right. The flame
groups I post to are the ones I believe
are the top flaming venues at the time
I post there. I would say right now
that alt.genius.bill-palmer, alt.flame,
and "the nose" are the world's top
flaming venues.
We don't get nearly as many flames in a.g.b-p
as alt.flame does, of course, and that's good,
since in a.g.b-p there is more emphasis on
QUALITY flaming, where in alt.flame it's just
"flaming". That's why as the World Champ
I ignore most of the fourth-rate stuff
that wannabes post in a.g.b-p. And of
course, if you post flames in alt.genius.
bill-palmer and get ignored by The Champ,
that's the worst thing that could happen
to you. But I don't owe anybody a spanking.
If they don't take any pride in their
flames, I consider them too worthless
to bother with, and I DON'T bother with
'em.
As to readers, if most of the people who post to
a.g.b-p did not know for a fact that we have an
extemely large readership, they would not post here
either. I have seen--and you must have seen--group
after group pop up and try to become a major flaming
venue. Most of them soon blow away. It isn't
easy for most people to create a major flaming
group, since you have to have a flame-powerhouse
behind the group, like a.g.b-p has, to make it
work.
A group bearing someone's name that no one posts
to is about as significant as a vanity license
plate, so in those cases "vanity group" is a
good name for the result.
Now, there, 2-Belo, I tried to talk to you
AS IF you were a normal human being capable
of actually understanding something, though
it will probably be in vain...I think it's
good for a flame champion like me to talk
to a wannabe from the flame basement like
you once in a while, just to give you a bit
of recognition and show everyone that being
the world champion of flaming hasn't gone to
my head...Don't forget, there once WAS a
flame universe without the AMAZING FLAME
GIANT towering over it, though I don't
think many people can now imagine it, and
I think everyone agrees it must have been
a pretty boring place.
Bill Palmer
clickin_o...@yahoo.com (Sysero) writes:
[...] More lame drivel from our "flame titan"
trying to pretend no one knows the
difference between an author's WRITING,
and an autor's COPYRIGHT TO his writing.
Since our "household word in flaming"
merely restated his well-refuted
drivel, no rebuttal is needed.
>
>On 1 Jul 1999 07:15:42 GMT, wil...@ix.netcom.com (Bill Palmer)
>expounded:
>
>>In <37830582...@news.champaign.pdnt.com>
>>clickin_o...@yahoo.com (Sysero) writes:
>>
>>
>>-----------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>>"Those readers can pay cash, or they can--in a Usenet
>>>world where everyone gives away his writing--pay with
>>>an INVESTMENT IN READING TIME. That's still paying,
>>>and it not without good reason that I call myself
>>>"The Bill Gates of reader-time invested." --Bill Palmer
>>
>>-------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>I said it. I stand by it proudly one-hundred
>>percent as a statement of fact.
>What is amazing though, is how our "flame titan"
>>with the "big name in flaming" can be moronic
>>enough to think that such a statement of fact
>>invalidates my COPYRIGHT. Whether a writer asks
>>his readers to pay with cash or merely with their
>>reading time, it hasn't the slightest effect on the
>>author's copyright. I don't lose my copyright
>>for letting people read my stuff for free any
>>more than Steven King (or Bill Gates, who has
>>a new book out) lose THEIR copyrights to the
>>people who buy their books--or even if they
>>gave their books for free as a promotion,
>>or whatever. To bad our "flame titan"
>>proves too stupid to know the difference
>>between giving away your WRITING to your
>>readers and fans, and giving away your
>>COPYRIGHTS *TO* that writing. There's all
>>the difference in the world and I'm well
>>aware of it.
Bill Palmer
alt.genius.bill-palmer
Sysero
expounded:
>In <37852122...@news.champaign.pdnt.com>
>clickin_o...@yahoo.com (Sysero) writes:
>
>[...] More lame drivel from our "flame titan"
> trying to pretend no one knows the
> difference between an author's WRITING,
> and an autor's COPYRIGHT TO his writing.
> Since our "household word in flaming"
> merely restated his well-refuted
> drivel, no rebuttal is needed.
>>
Confronted with his own failings, biil hurriedly begins backpeddling
on a tricycle with training wheels. Either challenge the evidence, or
take it like a man.
=======================================================
Sysero See biil nullify any claims to
copyright of his works:
"Those readers can pay cash, or they can--in a Usenet
world where everyone gives away his writing--pay with
an INVESTMENT IN READING TIME. That's still paying,
and it not without good reason that I call myself
"The Bill Gates of reader-time invested." --Bill Palmer
http://www.deja.com/home_ps.shtml
Keywords: Bill Palmer RE: VERTICAL ALIGNMENT (PART 3)
Forum: alt.publish.books
Date: 02/09/1999
"I said it. I stand by it proudly one-hundred
percent as a statement of fact." ---Bill Palmer
<7lf4iu$o...@dfw-ixnews14.ix.netcom.com>
========================================================
Sysero
expounded:
>In <377d0ea1....@newsfeed.sexzilla.net>
>emperor...@alt.fan.karl-malden.nose.jp (The 2-Belo) writes:
>>
>>Bill Palmer pumped this hot load of text into alt.flame:
>>
>>>In <3782eab2....@news.alt.net>
>>>emperor...@alt.fan.karl-malden.nose.jp (The 2-Belo) writes:
>>>>
>>>>Bill Palmer pumped this hot load of text into alt.flame:
>>>>
>>>>>In <3781ad09...@news.champaign.pdnt.com> biil...@no.help.com
>>>>>(Sysero) writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>Oh, yeah "sysero" OF COURSE. How embarrassing for
>>>>>me, the undisputed World Champion of Flaming, not
>>>>>to have remembered that legendary name. SYSERO!
>>>>>The houshold name in flaming, practically invented
>>>>>it. (Isn't there a newsgroup, alt.genius.sysero,
>>>>>or something?)
>>>>
>>>>That can be arranged.
>>>
>>>Wonderful! *YOU* post to it.
>>
>>a.g.s. added. I'm sure he, unlike you, will understand that the
>alt.genius.*
>>hierarchy is a joke.
>
>So 2-Belo, I have proven that the alt.genius
>hierarchy is no joke as you very well know.
Yes they are. Do you really think anyone views a.g.b-p as some great
hallowed hall of literature and wit but you? Nope. Not a one. In
fact, people, while browsing for interesting ng's pass a.g.b-p and
say, "Man, what an arrogant fuckhead!"
>I like to say genius is as genius does.
In your case though...What is it doing?
>Now, there, 2-Belo, I tried to talk to you
>AS IF you were a normal human being capable
>of actually understanding something, though
>it will probably be in vain...I think it's
>good for a flame champion like me to talk
>to a wannabe from the flame basement like
>you once in a while,
Biil, wipe your ass. You're drooling again.
>copyright LAMB RIPPER
>
>
> Of Ewescreams in the Barn
JoeDick
>Well, in the case of our "flame titan" with the
>"big name in flaming" the GROUP would be a joke.
>In no way is the alt.genius HIERARCHY a joke, of
>course, as I have proven. You would expect that
>the focus person of an alt.genius newsgroup would
>write a lot of articles that would become Usenet
>classics, and I certainly have. You would
>expect such a person to have a famous Dejanews
>archive section, and I can tell you you don't
>go to the Dejamountain to look for the collected
>works of Wotan the Dumpster Rodent, etc., etc.
>You would expect the group to become famous
>quickly, and alt.genius.bill-palmer did.
Do you even believe this stuff, or are you like the ultimate usenet
troll and everything you've ever written is a big joke on us?
>
>So 2-Belo, I have proven that the alt.genius
>hierarchy is no joke as you very well know.
Biil this is the same hierarchy that includes alt.genius.anus. And as
always, you haven't proven anything at all.
>I like
>to say genius is as genius does.
Speaking of copyright infringements...
>There have been
>other alt.genius groups, and so far none of them
>have been successful, although that may change
>in the future. In one case, the focus person
>of a genius group (alt.genius.supergenius.ben-
>pollan) left Usenet rather precipitously under
>a cloud after some embarrassing questions
>were raised about his intellectual abilities.
Biil, your intellect is questioned on an hourly basis. Think about
it.
>None of the other genius groups have taken off
>and become popular in the Usenet community, for
>the obvious reason that genius, like IQ, has
>to DO SOMETHING, or it's meaningless.
The reason is, there has yet to be an idiot of your magnitude in all
of usenet. Be proud Biil.
>I mean, you can put the name of a fourth-rate
>flame wimp on a "genius group" but what you
>will get is a nearly empty group cluttering
>up storage space while doing nothing to amuse
>or inform anyone.
>
>People will do what I just did: shave the group
>right off the newsgroup line. I, and I think
>most users, have no interest in cluttering up
>our newsgroup lines with the names of groups
>without any readership. Also, as the World
>Champion of Flaming, I don't want to post my
>flames in some runty little group anymore
>than a boxing world champ wants to fight
>a match in some decrepit, back-alley gym.
>It just doesn't look right. The flame
>groups I post to are the ones I believe
>are the top flaming venues at the time
>I post there. I would say right now
>that alt.genius.bill-palmer, alt.flame,
>and "the nose" are the world's top
>flaming venues.
I think it's important to note the amount of posts to a.g.b-p which
are x-posts and those which are flames of you Biil. That's the reason
for the smashing success.
>We don't get nearly as many flames in a.g.b-p
>as alt.flame does,
Flames in alt.flame... who would have thunk it?
>of course, and that's good,
>since in a.g.b-p there is more emphasis on
>QUALITY flaming,
Except where you're concerned.
>where in alt.flame it's just
>"flaming". That's why as the World Champ
>I ignore most of the fourth-rate stuff
>that wannabes post in a.g.b-p. And of
>course, if you post flames in alt.genius.
>bill-palmer and get ignored by The Champ,
When did you start referring to yourself in the third person? And
Biil I can declare myself the World Bowling Champ - it doesn't make it
true.
>that's the worst thing that could happen
>to you. But I don't owe anybody a spanking.
>If they don't take any pride in their
>flames, I consider them too worthless
>to bother with, and I DON'T bother with
>'em.
Good. Less of your pointless drivil for us to sort through.
>As to readers, if most of the people who post to
>a.g.b-p did not know for a fact that we have an
>extemely large readership, they would not post here
>either. I have seen--and you must have seen--group
>after group pop up and try to become a major flaming
>venue. Most of them soon blow away. It isn't
>easy for most people to create a major flaming
>group, since you have to have a flame-powerhouse
>behind the group, like a.g.b-p has,
Biil, you had nothing to do with the creation of this group. It was
made in honour of the hours of countless enjoyment your posts result
in because of the flames generated by those you refer to as "fourth
rate flamers" which would be... just about everybody.
[snip rest of useless Palmjob posting]
Shut the fuck up Biil.
__________________________________________________
||| _/T\_ ||| Joe Dick mhm 14x9
||| \\|// ||| ICQ# 7227834
||| '-|-' |||http://come.to/BowlingForPeopleOnAcid
==================================================
"A nasty post is referred to as a "flame" and is
generally to be avoided. If someone flames you,
ignore it. Responding will only start what is known
as a "flamewar," and no one likes those."
-by Susan Groppi (Usenet at Harvard)
==================================================
JoeDick
[...]
>(or Bill Gates, who has
>a new book out)
only you would care.
blub
Bill Palmer <wil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote
Fucking SHUT UP, Palmjob. You have NO credibility whatsoever. NOBODY
agrees with you. EVER.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
BLUB
]*>>>>>>Volunteer Fire Department, alt.fan.karl-malden.nose
]*>>>>>Meow University, College of Usenet Performance Art
]*>>>>Clealy sir have proved me factually wrong
]*>>>Pjenguin Ljiberation Army, Rjeservist
]*>>Nun Sequestering
]*>Zrbj, etcetera!!!11!!1!!!!
[] click here [] do not click here
----------------------------------------------------------------
blub
Shut up, Palmjob.
blub
Sysero <clickin_o...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:378839ca...@news.champaign.pdnt.com...
> On 1 Jul 1999 08:14:20 GMT, wil...@ix.netcom.com (Bill Palmer)
> expounded:
>
> >In <377d0ea1....@newsfeed.sexzilla.net>
> >emperor...@alt.fan.karl-malden.nose.jp (The 2-Belo) writes:
> >>
> >>Bill Palmer pumped this hot load of text into alt.flame:
> >>
> >>>In <3782eab2....@news.alt.net>
> >>>emperor...@alt.fan.karl-malden.nose.jp (The 2-Belo) writes:
> >>>>
> >>>>Bill Palmer pumped this hot load of text into alt.flame:
> >>>>
> >>>>>In <3781ad09...@news.champaign.pdnt.com> biil...@no.help.com
> >>>>>(Sysero) writes:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Oh, yeah "sysero" OF COURSE. How embarrassing for
> >>>>>me, the undisputed World Champion of Flaming, not
> >>>>>to have remembered that legendary name. SYSERO!
> >>>>>The houshold name in flaming, practically invented
> >>>>>it. (Isn't there a newsgroup, alt.genius.sysero,
> >>>>>or something?)
> >>>>
> >>>>That can be arranged.
> >>>
> >>>Wonderful! *YOU* post to it.
> >>
> >>a.g.s. added. I'm sure he, unlike you, will understand that the
> >alt.genius.*
> >>hierarchy is a joke.
> >
> >So 2-Belo, I have proven that the alt.genius
> >hierarchy is no joke as you very well know.
>
> Yes they are. Do you really think anyone views a.g.b-p as some great
> hallowed hall of literature and wit but you? Nope. Not a one. In
> fact, people, while browsing for interesting ng's pass a.g.b-p and
> say, "Man, what an arrogant fuckhead!"
Welcome to the club of Palmer Debunkers, Sysero. The club consists of EVERY
SINGLE PERSON that EVER READ A PALMJOB POST.
>
> >I like to say genius is as genius does.
>
> In your case though...What is it doing?
>
> >Now, there, 2-Belo, I tried to talk to you
> >AS IF you were a normal human being capable
> >of actually understanding something, though
> >it will probably be in vain...I think it's
> >good for a flame champion like me to talk
> >to a wannabe from the flame basement like
> >you once in a while,
>
> Biil, wipe your ass. You're drooling again.
It's his new bib. He needs to break it in.
>
> >copyright LAMB RIPPER
> >
> >
> > Of Ewescreams in the Barn
copyright Biil Palmer, Famous Net Fuckhead
and he's On Prozac and Lithium from Pharmaceutical Companies of the World
marge
PoeticH...@innocent.comNO-SPAM (JoeDick) wrote:
On 29 Jun 1999 20:04:37 GMT, wil...@ix.netcom.com (Bill Palmer)
wrote:
Nose and Flonk added, and also alt.troll since you seem to be such and
expert Biilyboy.
>[Note: A previous version of this article was posted in
>two of the above five newsgroup forums. This is a con-
>siderably-revised version, so if you read the first one
>and enjoyed it, you still might want to check this one
>out.]
>
>
>-----------------------------------------------------
>
>
> To Catch a Troll...
>
>
>Earlier today a poster in another newsgroup made a
>remark that started me thinking about some matters
>I would now--with your kind patience--like to share
>with you.... etc, etc, etc,
This is my favorite part:
>5) Are the person's posts very poorly-written and
> generally quite skimpy in--or entirely devoid of--
> intelligent content?
>
And all this time i thought a troll was an ugly hairy guy living under a
bridge...
--
Panties, take'em off, and the little shirt too.
Bill Palmer
article, "Close Encounter with a Punctuation Bigot"
initiated considerable discussion in a.g.b-p. and in
many other newsgroups, I conclude that a number of
you might enjoy reading the following discussion.
Much of it was already posted under "Big Blue Punctuation
Marks", though I have added some new material for you.
Essentially, the post below gives my reaction to an envious,
almost entirely unlettered party and obsessive Bill Palmer
fan who is now sashaying around the net while bandying rather
clueless words to the effect that MillenniumWriters.com only
featured my "Punctuation Bigot" article to poke fun at me!
That parties name is "Big Ed" Foster, and his "writing"
seems to indicate that he's been pigging out on ugly
pills these days, in fact, Ed seems to be gulping ugly
pills like they were M&M's!
Further, since you will remember that even a couple of a.g.b-p
readers (!) entirely missed the humor of the "Punctuation Bigot"
article themselves, you may find my response enlightening in
that regard too. Enjoy.
------------------------------------------------------------
In <7lds6u$a...@dfw-ixnews15.ix.netcom.com> wil...@ix.netcom.com (Bill
Palmer) writes:
>
>In <erRMVfoster-29...@erfoster.ne.mediaone.net>
>erRMV...@mediaone.net (Ed Foster) writes:
>
>"Big Ed" Foster (who has been fouling-up Usenet newsgroups
>for quite a few years without ever having given evidence
>of his being able to develop a paragraph) had a lot to
>drool about my article, "To Catch a Troll." In fact,
>ALL "Big Ed" did was give us a garden-variety, trollish
>"snip-and-drool", which means that he simply smeared
>his crude stupidities after every few lines of my original
>article.
>
>Now, that's nothing new for Usenet Cretin Ed Foster, who never
Bill Palmer wrote:
I mean, what does that mean in WRITING, people laughing
at you and not with you? Just tell me what that means
when the folks who are supposedly laughing AT a writer
return to him over and over?
When you are talking about stand-up comedy, well, if
you are the comedian and they are laughing AT YOU, they
are not going to come back and catch your next show.
That's the REAL tragedy.
On the other hand, since so many of my net readers keep
coming back to me again and again, I think they are simply
Sysero
>
>Welcome to the club of Palmer Debunkers, Sysero. The club consists of EVERY
>SINGLE PERSON that EVER READ A PALMJOB POST.
Thanks for the welcome! I am honored. A little over a year ago I used
to hang out quite a bit in n.a.n-a.e and a few times in the hierarchy,
usually censorship, I did come across biil's long tirades about
Kendrick, copyright, wilhelp, etc. Never said much to him, just an
occasional "biil, I'm having trouble following your point." After
yesterday though, I think I'll enjoy my stay here.
Sysero
expounded:
>Essentially, the post below gives my reaction to an envious,
>almost entirely unlettered party and obsessive Bill Palmer
>fan who is now sashaying around the net while bandying rather
>clueless words to the effect that MillenniumWriters.com only
>featured my "Punctuation Bigot" article to poke fun at me!
>
>That parties name is "Big Ed" Foster, and his "writing"
>seems to indicate that he's been pigging out on ugly
>pills these days, in fact, Ed seems to be gulping ugly
>pills like they were M&M's!
"But remember, if your flames are poorly done (such as consisting of
nothing but crude insults) you will likely simply end up being
ignored. The best flaming is about parodying, lampooning, and
other forms of satire, not dirty-name calling." --Bill Palmer
<7lgk8d$h...@dfw-ixnews21.ix.netcom.com>
>--------------------------------------------------
>
>Congratulations wilhelp.com on more fine flameware
>
>-------------------------------------------------
>
>Mr. Libel Pal
>"The most fascinating ass in Usenet history."
>alt.fuckhead.lamb-ripper
>
>
=======================================================
Sysero See biil explain why he sucks
aka Mick DeValera so bad:
"But remember, if your flames are poorly done (such as
consisting of nothing but crude insults) you will likely
simply end up being ignored. The best flaming is about
parodying, lampooning, and other forms of satire, not
dirty-name calling." --Bill Palmer
<7lgk8d$h...@dfw-ixnews21.ix.netcom.com>
========================================================
Bill Palmer
clickin_o...@yahoo.com (Sysero) writes:
>
>On 2 Jul 1999 01:53:59 GMT, wil...@ix.netcom.com (Bill Palmer)
>this unknown from the flame cellar will proceed to misrepresent
>out of it's proper context (which gave Foster's "ugly pill-
>inspired" remarks):
>
>>Essentially, the post below gives my reaction to an envious,
>>almost entirely unlettered party and obsessive Bill Palmer
>>fan who is now sashaying around the net while bandying rather
>>clueless words to the effect that MillenniumWriters.com only
>>featured my "Punctuation Bigot" article to poke fun at me!
>>
>>That parties name is "Big Ed" Foster, and his "writing"
>>seems to indicate that he's been pigging out on ugly
>>pills these days, in fact, Ed seems to be gulping ugly
>>pills like they were M&M's!
>
>
>nothing but crude insults) you will likely simply end up being
>ignored. The best flaming is about parodying, lampooning, and
>other forms of satire, not dirty-name calling." --Bill Palmer
><7lgk8d$h...@dfw-ixnews21.ix.netcom.com>
I said it. I stand by it one-hundred percent
as an accurate depiction of fact *AND* as my
copyrighted intellectual property.
--Bill Palmer
[Apparently this talentless fourth-rater flamer-
wannabe does not have "the standard reply" burned
into his brain yet, or he would not bother with
his little "misapplied snippet" repost cons.
Above his ploy is to snip a paragraph out of a
long post of mine and insinuate that the paragraph
represented the other ninety eight percent
of the article! It didn't, of course.
That's all right, if he is hell bent on
reposting me, I can type "I-said-it-and-I-
stand-by-it-one-hundred-percent" far faster
than he can repost ANYTHING. Real net writers
NEVER try to distance themselves from their
copyrighted property. On the net, that's a
very bad habit to get into.]
-------------------------------------------
[Note to myself: It's about time to write
and post a new version of last year's "If the
Giant Has Not Responded to Your Flame," things.
Some of these lazy wimps like Acheson and the
Blubbersome One think a World Champion is
obligated to respond to all their fourth-rate
drivel. Take a Tip from The Giant: A Flame
Champ is obligated to do no such thing.]
Sysero
demonstrates his bad memory thusly:
>In <377f5e7f....@news.champaign.pdnt.com>
>clickin_o...@yahoo.com (Sysero) writes:
>
>>On 2 Jul 1999 01:53:59 GMT, wil...@ix.netcom.com (Bill Palmer)
>>expounded and here is the two-percent of Bill's post that
>>this unknown from the flame cellar will proceed to misrepresent
>>out of it's proper context (which gave Foster's "ugly pill-
>>inspired" remarks):
You have once again proven that you lack the intelligence necessary
for a "net writer".
<cluestick>I already responded to this reposted spam of yours in the
thread "Re: Big Blue Punctuation Marks! (was "To Catch a
Troll...")", which contains 25 responses. Therefore, why should I
have to let this massive text remain intact again so that you can
claim more GigaBytes in your Deja-sand dune?
>>>Essentially, the post below gives my reaction to an envious,
>>>almost entirely unlettered party and obsessive Bill Palmer
>>>fan who is now sashaying around the net while bandying rather
>>>clueless words to the effect that MillenniumWriters.com only
>>>featured my "Punctuation Bigot" article to poke fun at me!
Essentially, the post that was below before I had mercy on Usenet and
snipped it, is nothing but spam from a bad writer whining about
someone who disagrees with your article. Stop reposting it
everywhere--Like in rec.arts.prose.
>>>That parties name is "Big Ed" Foster, and his "writing"
>>>seems to indicate that he's been pigging out on ugly
>>>pills these days, in fact, Ed seems to be gulping ugly
>>>pills like they were M&M's!
"But remember, if your flames are poorly done (such as consisting of
nothing but crude insults) you will likely simply end up being
ignored. The best flaming is about parodying, lampooning, and
other forms of satire, not dirty-name calling." --Bill Palmer
<7lgk8d$h...@dfw-ixnews21.ix.netcom.com>
[Note: The above Bill Palmer quote complies with Fair Use doctrine of
U.S. Copyright law]
>I said it. I stand by it one-hundred percent
>as an accurate depiction of fact *AND* as my
>copyrighted intellectual property.
> --Bill Palmer
But you said your feelings about copyright was:
"Those readers can pay cash, or they can--**in a Usenet
world where everyone gives away his writing**--pay with
an INVESTMENT IN READING TIME. That's still paying,
and it not without good reason that I call myself
"The Bill Gates of reader-time invested." --Bill Palmer
http://www.deja.com/home_ps.shtml
Keywords: Bill Palmer RE: VERTICAL ALIGNMENT (PART 3)
Forum: alt.publish.books
Date: 02/09/1999
>[Apparently this talentless fourth-rater flamer-
>wannabe does not have "the standard reply" burned
>into his brain yet, or he would not bother with
>his little "misapplied snippet" repost cons.
Apparently this talentless fourth-rate Net writer wannabe does not
have "the standard intelligence" necessary, or he would have
remembered that I applied nearly the whole of this spam in a response
to him in the above mentioned thread.
>Above his ploy is to snip a paragraph out of a
>long post
An extremely long post indeed, that was spammed across many ng's
constituting Net Abuse.
>of mine and insinuate that the paragraph
>represented the other ninety eight percent
>of the article! It didn't, of course.
Only in your mind. However, I'm sorry to say that it did.
>That's all right, if he is hell bent on
>reposting me, I can type "I-said-it-and-I-
>stand-by-it-one-hundred-percent" far faster
>than he can repost ANYTHING.
No! No! Surely not, no!
>Real net writers
>NEVER try to distance themselves from their
>copyrighted property. On the net, that's a
>very bad habit to get into.]
Then, I guess you shouldn't have picked up the habit:
"Those readers can pay cash, or they can--**in a Usenet
world where everyone gives away his writing**--pay with
an INVESTMENT IN READING TIME. That's still paying,
and it not without good reason that I call myself
"The Bill Gates of reader-time invested." --Bill Palmer
http://www.deja.com/home_ps.shtml
Keywords: Bill Palmer RE: VERTICAL ALIGNMENT (PART 3)
Forum: alt.publish.books
Date: 02/09/1999
>-------------------------------------------
>
>[Note to myself: It's about time to write
>and post a new version of last year's "If the
>Giant Has Tried to Frotteurize Your Sheep," things.
>Some of these lazy wimps like Acheson and the
>Blubbersome One think a World Champion is
>obligated to respond to all their fourth-rate
>drivel. Take a Tip from The Giant: A Flame
>Champ is obligated to do no such thing.]
That's right Bill....Turn tail and run when you get burnt.
>
>no copyright assumed LAME WRITER
>
>
> In the Public Domain
=======================================================
Sysero See biil explain why he sucks
aka Mick DeValera so bad:
"But remember, if your flames are poorly done (such as
consisting of nothing but crude insults) you will likely
simply end up being ignored. The best flaming is about
parodying, lampooning, and other forms of satire, not
dirty-name calling." --Bill Palmer
<7lgk8d$h...@dfw-ixnews21.ix.netcom.com>
========================================================
Bill Palmer
clickin_o...@yahoo.com (Sysero) writes:
>"Those readers can pay cash, or they can--in a Usenet
>world where everyone gives away his writing--pay with
>an INVESTMENT IN READING TIME. That's still paying,
>and it not without good reason that I call myself
>'The Bill Gates of reader-time invested.' --Bill Palmer
I said it. I stand behind it one-hundred percent
as an accurate depiction of facts about the amazing
Bill Palmer and his approach to net writing AND as
a small but significant piece of my coprighted
Usenet writing, which includes, of course, every
original word I have written and posted
since I have been on the net.
>
>>[Apparently this talentless fourth-rater flamer-
>>wannabe does not have "the standard reply" burned
>>into his brain yet, or he would not bother with
>>his little "misapplied snippet" repost cons.
I said it; I stand by it one-hunderd percent
as a highly-accurate protrayal of the dishonest
little loser whose "name" (such as it is) is far
too insignificant for me to mention here.
>>That's all right, if he is hell bent on
>>reposting me, I can type "I-said-it-and-I-
>>stand-by-it-one-hundred-percent" far faster
>>than he can repost ANYTHING.
>>Real net writers
>>NEVER try to distance themselves from their
>>copyrighted property. On the net, that's a
>>very bad habit to get into.]
>
>"Those readers can pay cash, or they can--**in a Usenet
>world where everyone gives away his writing**--pay with
>an INVESTMENT IN READING TIME. That's still paying,
>and it not without good reason that I call myself
>"The Bill Gates of reader-time invested." --Bill Palmer
I said it. I stand by it one-hundred percent
as an accurate depiction of the most famous
writer on the net, barring off-line celebrities
like the distinguished Mr. Gates. No poster charges
newsgroup readers to read his copyrighted writing;
I am no exception.
>"But remember, if your flames are poorly done (such as
>consisting of nothing but crude insults) you will likely
>simply end up being ignored. The best flaming is about
>parodying, lampooning, and other forms of satire, not
>dirty-name calling." --Bill Palmer
Excellent point, if I do say so. I stand
behind it one-hundred percent as sound
advice from the most famous flamer on the
planet.
Sysero
thusly:
<snip of Palmjob's attempt to hear himself talk and waste bandwidth
again.>
If you aren't going to respond to my arguments, then shut the fuck up,
Palmjob!
>copyright FLAME GIANT
>
> I Concede My Kicked Red Ass to Everyone Here
>
>>
=====================================================
Sysero
aka Mick DeValera
"Some people CAN write fifty-six (OR 600)word
grammatically-correct sentences that work, and
I am one of those people. ---Bill Palmer
<7lhs8h$g...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>
======================================================
Bill Palmer
"parasitical trolls" ("Beauregard") alluded to--but
not mentioned by name in this now very controversial
article, "To Catch a Troll"--thinks he can have my
article about him cancelled or even have my service
cut for making so many telling points about him and
other "Palmer's Parasite trolls" of his foul, spamming
ilk.
And what about notorious troll "Beauregard"s sliming
my articles arguing for more decency regarding the
way posters talk about retarded people?
Let's not forget how this spamming leech attacked me
over those articles on the retarded, since that is
really a big part of what is behind this controversy.
What about the campaign of the Palmer's Parasites to
follow up all my reasonable complaints of copyright
violation with their personal attacks aimed at muddying
the waters regaerding MY reasonable protest over MY
copyrights being violated?
We don't want to overlook all THAT, either, while folks
are of a complaining mind, especially not since Palmer's
Parsites like "Beauregard" claim for themselves the right
to violate my copyrights with legal impunity.
What about the little things, like this heartless,
gutless, whining garden slug "Beauregard" making
off topic posts all over hell for purposes of
sliming hundreds of my directly on-topic, original,
very serious articles having NOTHING to do with him,
such as my poetry or anything else, in so many
newsgroups where he has yet to post ONE on-topic
article?
To say "Top Catch a Troll" infuriated Palmer's
Parasite "Beauregard" would be far too much the
understatement.
It did more than infuritate "Beauregard" and the
other Palmer's Parsites. It pinned 'em smack
against the wall and they are still wriggling there.
In fact, judging from his crazy attacks, our
spamming-leech "Beauregard" seems to be spitting
blue sparks!
Talk about the "shoe fitting" all too well!
This comes after "Beauregard"'s loitering around in
alt.genius.bill-palmer for a couple of years and
after his spamming hundreds of entirely off-topic
personal assaults on me and after his following up
my on-topic articles with his off-topic rubbish in
groups as diverse as rec.arts.prose and misc.legal.
"Beauregard" is not only a notorious human leech, now
he's become a censorial one at that.
Tough, "Beauregard".
"To Catch a Troll..." got the cat out of the bag
about you and yours and the way you pollute Usenet
while causing trouble in so many newsgroups
where your flame-rubbish is WHOLLY off topic
and where YOU have yet to post ONE *ON*-topic
article.
Of course, except for raw newbies, everyone
reading this will know that when I talk about
"parasitical trolls" and "Palmer's Parasites",
I have "Beauregard", Sewerpipe Stu (or the
Copeland/Leech Sewerpipe Entity), Jeroen
Van Kessel, and Mike "Lousy" MacLennan, as
well as a few others, well in mind.
Look at their archives. They bear the stench
of net abuse and a particulary ugly obsession
with the "host organism". And the "host
organism" is mad as hell over it, as anyone
reading this should be.
Nobody loves human parasites like "Bearegard."
I know it. You know it. They know it.
And thanks to "Beauregard"'s whines, lots of
other people are finding about the Palmer's
Parasites too.
Good. They are the most malicious form of net-
abusive troll, and the best thing this Usenet
community could do is to take a good look at
all their Deja-archives, puke, and flush 'em
out of the net.
"To Catch a Troll..."
Let's run it again for everyone, including the
folks in the net abuse and censorship groups who
may have missed it, and for Palmer's Parasite
"Beauregard", the whining, sore-losing troll
with the very fake name and the ugly, destructive
obsession with things that rightfully belong to
others:
-------------------------------------------------------
To Catch a Troll...
Last month a poster in a different newsgroup made a
remark that started me thinking about certain matters
I would now--with your kind patience--like to share
here in these several fitting newsgroups to inspire,
I hope, your informative posted reactions.
[Not YOUR hypocritical whines, Parasite Beauregard,
your "informative posted reactions" to my arguments."]
Essentially, the person did not seem to enjoy
what I observed in my posted article, "Close
Encounter with a Punctuation Bigot".
My attacker was not at all forthright about
challenging any of my assertions in that
article, either.
[Note: "Close Encounters of a Punctuation
Bigot" was featured in last week's issue of
MillenniumWriters.com. The artist/editor
added some very clever graphics, so you might
want to check it out even if you have already
read it in the newsgroups where it appeared.]
Instead of troubling himself with attempting
a reasoned refutation of my assertions, this person
posted some peevish remarks directed at me rather
than at the many ideas in my "Punctuation Bigot"
article.
In the course of his unfriendly comments, he said
something that made it clear he was accusing me of
being a troll. In fact, he actually used the term
"troll" as he did this.
Now, as a controversial net writer and satirist, and
a reader of many newsgroups, I am well aware that
trolling and "troll-calling" (for fair and unfair
reasons) have often been the focus of newsgroup
postings.
I know too that some abuse and censorship group regulars
have written "zine" articles on trolling, but the one's
I've seen, though amusing, missed the mark in some
important respects.
At any rate, my critic's style of unjust name-calling
bothers me because it smacks of witch hunting, certainly
so when we throw all reason out the window and start
applying vague criteria defining "trolls" and "trolling"
to suit our own whims by unfairly branding someone who
rubs our nose out joint with his or her controversial
(but on-topic) articles.
Further, a few months back when I posted another
original article in a different newsgroup (different
from the one I alluded to above, I mean) someone
else did in fact call me a troll then too.
I thought at the time that the epithet was incredibly
unreasonable and I still think that.
Anyway, letting bygones be bygones, let's examine
what "troll" in fact means in our newsgroup culture.
In the first place "troll" can mean different
things to different people, and I can respect
each person's right to his own meaning.
The universally-respected Usenet expert Professor
Chudov, for instance, makes it plain he believes
in a sort of "productive (my own term trying to
sum up what I have read by him) trolling", where
the troll generates entertaining or informative
follow-up for the intellectual and/or amusement
benefit of the entire newsgroup by gently (or not
so gently) tweaking beaks now and then with thought-
provoking postings.
However, since the word "troll" was used against me in
the negative sense that so many posters seem today to
favor, I will focus primarily on that sort of troll here:
our "infamous Usenet pest" (some would say "net abusive")
kind of troll, as opposed to the "newsgroup gadfly" who
uses actual wit for stirring up productive or merely
amusing posted reactions from newsgroup readers.
A troll in the negative sense is simply a person who
will do anything for attention. Some are out-and-out
net abusers, others manage to skirt the line between
pest and abuser.
The aim of such a troll is not to entertain or enlighten
readers, but to have the troll's existence validated
by any sort of response at all.
A troll in this same pejorative sense is by nature
insincere, too.
Such a "Usenet critter" will generally post content that
will get the most replies, rather than posting messages
asserting or defending ideas and opinions the troll
actually believes in.
This variety of troll has no pride in writing or thought
quality either.
Rather, the only goal for our pesky sort of troll is to
make the readers aware--and stay aware--of the troll's
shabby net-existence.
As you know by now, then, I view this kind of troll as
nothing but an attention-starved misfit who craves any
sort of attention, no matter how unfavorable.
While there are "trolling newsgroups" (like alt.troll)
and while the net is a big place, I feel that ninety-
nine-point-nine percent of all Usenet groups, at least,
would be far better off without the sort of troll
I describe above.
On the other hand, we never want to get into a witch-
hunting frame of mine regarding trolls.
We must have sensible criteria to apply, if we
wish to be at all fair.
I have, in fact, encountered newsgroup situations
where anyone who comes into a group and posts
*ON*-topic material that does conform to what the
more active and often aggressive members of the
group deem to be "okay" will be branded a troll.
To help avoid unfair application of the word
troll in its highly-negative sense, then, let's
work together here in these several groups and elsewhere
toward encouraging some sort of just--and practicable--
method for determining who likely is or is not a non-
productive Usenet troll.
Here is what I suggest regarding questions to be
asked--and honestly and reasonably answered--of
any troll suspected of merely trying to get
attention by stirring up newsgroup mischief:
1) Are the suspected troll's posts mostly or entirely
OFF-topic?
(*ON*-topic being defined in a fair way, of course,
such as inquiring sincerely if any reasonable person
was likely to agree that the material in question
was close to being on-topic in the newsgroup where
it was posted.)
2) Did the suspected troll come into the newsgroup
posting vicious personal attacks having nothing
to do with the newsgroup topic?
3) Does the suspected troll FOLLOW UP on-topic articles
by others with personal assaults having nothing to
do with the things being discussed on a thread?
The notorious Palmer's Parasites are very big
on this. They claim a rather peculiar license for
following up any ON-topic article of mine with
slimy, OFF-topic attacks having nothing at all to
do with a newsgroup subject OR an ongoing thread
discussion.
I make no apology for Palmer's Parasites, anymore
than I would "apologize" for a gang of muggers who
assaulted me at an ATM. People are responsible for
THEIR OWN postings. The Palmer's Parasites should
therefore be immediately run out of any non-flaming
group where they post off-topic rubbish, in my view.
Of course, Palmer's Parasites are naturally
trolls, too, which is why I mention them. And when
the flaming becomes so vindictive that you get a half-
dozen or so human parasites netstalking a net writer
through Dejanews and flooding serious newsgroups
with off-topic personal attacks, you have trolling
in its ugliest and most vicious form.
In a way, you can call these aggressive, trolling
parasites one of the prices of great success as a net
writer. You reach a certain degree of popularity, and
they start crawling out of the woodwork after you.
Even so, that sort of "netstalking troll" is unusually
reprehensible and I suspect most Usenet users loathe
them fully as much as I do.
4) Does the suspected troll crosspost from your group to
the flaming newsgroups?
Trolls love to crosspost between serious newsgroups
and flaming/amusement newsgroups because they view
their goal as one of causing annoyance, and they
know that if they suck additional off-topic flames
into the target newsgroup, the "annoyance factor"
increases proportionally as new trolls crosspost
their rubbish to the non-flaming group targeted.
5) Are the suspected trolls posts very poorly-written and
generally quite skimpy in--or entirely devoid of--
intelligent content?
Trolls take pride in getting ANY sort of
reaction, good, bad or wrathful. Development
of a writing style to be proud of, then, has
little to do with to with a troll's raison d'etre.
After all, when trolls drive away enough newsgroup
readers with their drivel, they simply pop up
with a brand new moniker and start all over.
Most "parasitical trolls" specialize in the "snip and
drool" follow-up, which means they favor splashing
puerile insults after every few lines written by the
poster being targeted.
Snipping-and-drooling is "writing" on the cheap and
basically posting the trolls' (current) names while
saying nothing entertaining that a naughty computer-
literate sixth-grader could not have said far better.
The trolls' purpose involves annoying all, while
associating themselves in the readers' minds
with the writer.
As a result, actually posting anything that is
intelligent, well-expressed or original has nothing
to do with the "Here I am again and ain't I cute?"
snip-and-drool assault by the off-topic troll.
6) Does the suspected troll post under a phony name?
Now, I am not suggesting pseudonyms are in any
way wrong, but in general trolls will use false
names because, as I mentioned above, people
soon catch onto trolls and stop reading
their posts. When trolls of this sort feel they
have driven off most of their readers, they
change their names again, and of course the
false name using makes them "braver" about the
ugly, malodorous slime many of them flood the
net with, too.
Even so, I defend everyone's RIGHT to post
under pseudonyms, and I don't want that
misunderstood here. But allowing that all
people have the RIGHT to do something in
no way makes the lowly behavior of a few
(who are exercising the right only for
mischievious purposes) suddenly admirable.
Okay, think of someone you suspect of being a
troll here in any of these groups. Ask yourself how
many affirmatives you get to the above questions
when you are trying to be completely unbiased in
your responses (as intelligent people should always
be anyway, in my view).
If the person is indeed a troll, you will have
likely answered YES to most or all of those
questions above.
Examining the matter from a slightly different
viewpoint now, I might add that there is nothing at
all wrong with a rec.org.mensa poster's wanting
to get lots of intelligent feedback to his or her
articles.
I say that because I have read posts by people
who seem to insinuate that if you generate a good
deal of interesting follow-up, you are a troll
per se.
That notion boggles the mind for its silliness.
In reality, one test (and I don't suggest it's the
ONLY one) of any poster's standing in the intellectual
portion of the Usenet community involves the question
of how many original, on-topic stand-alone articles
generating lots of interesting follow-up the person
has posted.
IQ is as IQ does, you might say, at least when it comes
to strutting your stuff as a thinker in our Usenet
community.
A true Usenet intellectual is by nature a thread
starter, or at least a thread-contributor with a
talent for keeping the interesting responses coming
from others.
A Usenet genius, I believe, would have to be the genius
of thread-starting, would have to be someone proving
capable of starting thousands of successful threads--
not with "Star Wars sucks" trolls, of course, but
with original articles containing unique, fully-
realized ideas that can challenge or otherwise
inspire others to post creative or informative
thread-responses in their turn.
That's not trolling, at least to the extent the term
represents activities now causing unneeded annoyance
in so many Usenet newsgroups.
I can't imagine a nuttier, topsy-turvyier state of
affairs than what we would have in rec.org.mensa if
posters had to hesitate before clicking "send",
thinking, "Gee, I hope a lot of people DON'T follow
me up on the article I'm posting--someone might
think I am a troll." (We are to imagine the
speaker shuddering and wringing his or her hands.)
After all, the best part of rec.org.mensa and so many
other newsgroups has a lot to do with DISCUSSION, and
discussion does not occur when we have a state of affairs
where people simply post their own ideas and that's
the end of the matter.
Discussion means give and take, and at best that's
"give and take" leading somewhere productive in the
intellectual or the creative sense, not a very brief
series of curt, unresponded-to statements funneling
themselves into an intellectual cul-de-sac.
Let's leave the "You had your say and I had my say so
let's drop it" stuff to those who make no pretense at
all of having even a slightly above-average command of
the English language.
Frankly--and I say this only in the "if the shoe fits
wear it" vein--if you seek to impress others as being
a person of few words, I think you can make a far better
impression in a auto repair shop than a newsgroup where
the focus is supposed to be on intelligent conversation.
As a Usenet contributor of some years standing, one of
the things that makes me proudest occurs when I post--
in an appropriate forum, of course--an original article
that garners plenty of entertaining and/or informative
feedback on the thread I start.
And believe me, I don't define "good feedback" as
being something that compliments me personally or
even agrees with anything at all I assert in my
article.
Good feedback consists of interesting, reasonably
well-expressed, somewhat-original thoughts. That's
all, and I feel that almost everyone in Usenet has
the capacity to add worthwhile follow-up remarks,
if inspired by others to do so.
When this "newsgroup thing" we have in Usenet works the
way it's supposed to, I call it "swimming in the
thoughtstream." I love being a part of it.
Getting back to trolls, though, let's apply the
above sensible criteria before we accuse.
Let's not cry troll when someone rubs us the wrong
way with on-topic opinions, either, or when we see
our own articles ignored while someone else in the
newsgroup racks up one informative or entertaining
reply after another.
Finally, I would ask something of everyone in Usenet,
including the person in who so rudely accosted me
last month screaming "Troll!" upon being angered by
the frank, on-topic views I posted in the other
newsgroup:
Let's not start throwing people in a pond and saying
if they float they are a troll and if they sink they
are not a troll.
Let's use reasonable criteria understandable and
applicable to all, newbies as well as "oldbies".
You now have such criteria, so feel free to use them.
Fair enough?
Bill Palmer
alt.genius.bill-palmer
Jules
>
>
>Bill Palmer <wil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote
>
>Fucking SHUT UP, Palmjob. You have NO credibility whatsoever. NOBODY
>agrees with you. EVER.
I do, you "Parasite" you. Quit hassling the guy, he's worth fifteeen
of you.
--
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Jules. &&&&&&&&& Hell flame wars &&&&&&&&&&
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
H.F.W. The sign of *true* class...
JoeDick
wrote:
>On Thu, 1 Jul 1999 18:42:22 -0700, "blub" <x...@y.com> chanted:
>
>>
>>
>>Bill Palmer <wil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote
>>
>>Fucking SHUT UP, Palmjob. You have NO credibility whatsoever. NOBODY
>>agrees with you. EVER.
>
>I do, you "Parasite" you. Quit hassling the guy, he's worth fifteeen
>of you.
Ohmigawd! Jules and Palmjob! The perfect pair, after all - Fuckheads
of a feather, flock together.
Bill Palmer
"parasitical trolls" ("Beauregard") alluded to--but
article, "To Catch a Troll", reposted below, reacted
to my original article.
He flew into a rage and he now fancies he can have my
article about him (about him in the "shoe fits" sense)
cancelled or even have my service cut for making so
many telling points about him and other "Palmer's
Parasite trolls" of "Beauregard"'s foul, spamming ilk.
And what about notorious troll "Beauregard"'s sliming
my articles arguing for more decency regarding the
way posters talk about retarded people?
Let's not forget how this spamming leech attacked me
over those articles on the retarded, since that is
really a big part of what is behind this controversy.
What about the campaign of the Palmer's Parasites to
follow up all my reasonable complaints of copyright
violation with their personal attacks aimed at muddying
the waters regarding MY reasonable protest over MY
copyrights being violated?
We don't want to overlook all THAT, either, while folks
are of a complaining mind, especially not since Palmer's
Parasites like "Beauregard" claim for themselves the right
to violate my copyrights with legal impunity and the right
to follow up serious, on-topic articles of mine with
their off-topic flame-spams.
Yes, what about the little things, like this heartless,
gutless, whining garden slug "Beauregard" making off
topic posts all over hell for purposes of sliming hundreds
of my directly on-topic, original, very serious articles
having NOTHING to do with him, such as my poetry or
anything else, in so many newsgroups where he has yet
to post ONE on-topic article?
To say "Top Catch a Troll" infuriated Palmer's
Parasite "Beauregard" would be far too much the
understatement.
It did far more than infuritate "Beauregard" and the
other Palmer's Parasites.
Tough, "Beauregard".
with their "host organism".
And the "host organism" is mad as hell over it, as
anyone reading this would be if the target were
them instead of me.
"To Catch a Troll..."
-------------------------------------------------------
To Catch a Troll...
After all, the best part of alt.genius.bill-palmer and so
Ed Foster
(Palmjob) wrote:
> The only reason I am responding here is that Ed added
> a few stupidities about an article of mine that--
>
> MillenniumWriters.com
>
> --has been featuring.
>
>
> >> [Note: "Close Encounters of a Punctuation
> >> Bigot" was featured in last week's issue of
> >> MillenniumWriters.com. The artist/editor
> >> added some very clever graphics, so you might
> >> want to check it out even if you have already
> >> read it in the newsgroups where it appeared.]
>
> Ed Foster wrote:
> >
> >The editor prefaced Palmjob's
> >drivel with the statement:
>
> The MillenniumWriters.com editor wrote:
> >
> >"Some people worry about the suffering of Kosovo refugees or the Tamil
> >separatists or global warming or other issues. Bill Palmer has
> >identified an area of real concern, however, and has chosen to speak out
> >about his convictions in the hope that the world will be a better place."
>
> Ed Foster wrote:
> >
> >Just another example of the idiot Palmjob's not recognizing that he's
> >being made fun of. Potential sig material there. Check it out:
>
> >http://www.MillenniumWriters.com/Punctuation/PunctuationBigot.html
>
> Ed Foster's crude, envious, and humorless conclusions
> aside, I'm very pleased with the way MillenniumWriters.com
> presents "Close Encounters with a Punctuation Bigot".
That's because you're a total idiot who couldn't recognize a clue by four
even when applied directly between your eyes. They're making fun of you,
you don't realize it even when it's pointed out to you. Just more proof
of your total cluelessness.
> The witty introduction was fully appropriate. Big
> Ed is simply too stupid to grasp that IF I had written
> the 56,485th Usenet article on Kosovo, etc., I likely
> would NOT have been honored by having my article appear
> in MillenniumWriters.com.
But by writing your 56,485th boring article, and about punctuation, no
less, you've been "honored" by MillenniumWriters.com by having it held up
to ricicule and you're too stupid to recognize it.
> Of course, since "Big Ed" Foster (dedicated Bill Palmer
> fan who never misses an article of mine)
Untrue, untrue, absolutely untrue!!!! I fall asleep in the middle of most
of them.
> proved far too
> thick to pick up on my humor in "Close Encounters with
> a Punctuation Bigot", then naturally Foster would have
> misunderstood the wit in the editor's clever introduction,
> too.
You're the one who misunderstood the "wit in the editor's clever introduction."
> I'm sure that "Big Ed" feels that those wonderful BIG
> BLUE PUNCTUATION MARKS in the article were placed
> there to mock Bill Palmer too.
Didn't get that far, fell asleep.
> Actually, I love
> 'em. I know that people (with the normal sense of
> humor that Ed Foster-the-dimwit lacks) have been
> cracking up with laughter over the way that
> MillenniumWriters.com presented my article to the
> www reading public, AND that certainly includes the
> effect of the artist/editor's hilarious layout.
They're laughing at you, Bill, not with you.
> In my view, the MillenniumWriters.com layout artist
> showed a comic brilliance in bringing out the humor
> of "Close Encounters with a Punctuation Bigot".
He did, the joke's on you, but you're too stupid to realize it.
> Yes, I suppose it could be seen as a writing
> fault of mine that a few readers missed the humor
> in that article when I posted it.
It is a writing fault of yours, and virtually everyone missed the "humor"
in that article when you posted it. To most of us it was just another
Palmjob whine about how everyone picks on you. But with
MillenniumWriters.com's introduction:
"Some people worry about the suffering of Kosovo refugees or the Tamil
separatists or global warming or other issues. Bill Palmer has identified
an area of real concern, however, and has chosen to speak out about his
convictions in the hope that the world will be a better place."
suddenly everyone saw the joke, and the joke's on you.
> However, I think
> it is impossible to write an original Usenet article
> that cracks up every single reader, anyway, because
> we have so many different kinds of people here.
But it is quite possible to write a usenet article that bores everyone to
tears as you have proved quite often.
> My goal, then, is to get readers to come back and
> read my next article, not necessarily to send
> them to the hospital emergency room with "split
> sides" or anything like that.
>
> The fact is, I have always worked on developing my
> own humorous style, which of course is present in
> much of my net writing.
Pissing up a rope is equally effective.
> One reason so many readers in the fun newsgroups come
> back to me again
Name two.
> and again is that appreciate the
> fact that I'm not giving them warmed-over Woody
> Allen or Steve Martin stuff, the way Human Leech
> and leading Palmer's Parasite David Kendrick does,
> for instance.
>
> Readers can get all of that sort of humor they
> want on the Comedy Channel nowadays. They don't
> need Leech Kendrick's fourth-rate, stale attempts
> at being funny. That's why Kendrick found
> it necessary to kidnap my literary character,
> the funny little wilhelp man, in order to try
> and get back some of the readers Kendrick's
> shop-worn, cribbed-from-tv tripe had driven
> off.
>
> Anyway, if that layout gem by MillenniumWriters.com be
> "mockery of Bill Palmer" then the wired world stands in
> great need of FAR MORE such wit, since you certainly
> don't find any of it on the fifty or so unauthorized www
> "Palmer's Parasite Sites" of David Kendrick and others
> (which dimwit and obsessive Bill Palmer fan "Big Ed"
> Foster has touted in the past and which mutilate
> my work at the same time they steal my name and my
> copyrighted writing to attract visitors). So.
Don't find any wit in any of your droolings either, Bill. But, tell you
what, try a DejaNews search and see if you can find more that three
postings by people asking for more of your "wit" rather than postings
telling you to shut the fuck up. "Shut the fuck up" postings are all I
find in alt.genius.bill-palmer. Except those by Palmjob, of course.
--
erRMV...@MediaOne.net
(remove "RMV" to reply)
blub
Ed Foster <erRMV...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:erRMVfoster-02...@erfoster.ne.mediaone.net...
[...[
course.
>
> --
> erRMV...@MediaOne.net
> (remove "RMV" to reply)
This is fucking HYSTERICAL! Biil gets basted in full view as a longwinded
blowhard (to nobody's surprise) and he touts it as *recognition* of his
*wit*!!!! Oh, this is rich! I can't -believe- anyone could be so stupid.
And Palmjob, since I'm sure you're eavesdropping as usual, SHUT THE FUCK UP.
blub
Sysero <clickin_o...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:377f5e7f....@news.champaign.pdnt.com...
> On 2 Jul 1999 01:53:59 GMT, wil...@ix.netcom.com (Bill Palmer)
> expounded:
>
> >Essentially, the post below gives my reaction to an envious,
> >almost entirely unlettered party and obsessive Bill Palmer
> >fan who is now sashaying around the net while bandying rather
> >clueless words to the effect that MillenniumWriters.com only
> >featured my "Punctuation Bigot" article to poke fun at me!
> >
> >That parties name is "Big Ed" Foster, and his "writing"
> >seems to indicate that he's been pigging out on ugly
> >pills these days, in fact, Ed seems to be gulping ugly
> >pills like they were M&M's!
>
>
> "But remember, if your flames are poorly done (such as consisting of
> nothing but crude insults) you will likely simply end up being
> ignored. The best flaming is about parodying, lampooning, and
> other forms of satire, not dirty-name calling." --Bill Palmer
> <7lgk8d$h...@dfw-ixnews21.ix.netcom.com>
>
Somehow he neglected to add Copyright AUTOFALME GNIAT
in Roundfiles of the World
blub
Sysero <clickin_o...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:377c43e0....@news.champaign.pdnt.com...
> On Thu, 1 Jul 1999 18:46:45 -0700, "blub" <x...@y.com> expounded:
>
>
> >
> >Welcome to the club of Palmer Debunkers, Sysero. The club consists of
EVERY
> >SINGLE PERSON that EVER READ A PALMJOB POST.
>
> Thanks for the welcome! I am honored. A little over a year ago I used
> to hang out quite a bit in n.a.n-a.e and a few times in the hierarchy,
> usually censorship, I did come across biil's long tirades about
> Kendrick, copyright, wilhelp, etc. Never said much to him, just an
> occasional "biil, I'm having trouble following your point." After
> yesterday though, I think I'll enjoy my stay here.
>
It's fun, in a way reminiscent of Whack-a-mole. He's so stupid, and such a
blowhard, that he'll autoflame himself to death after biting every hook,
then pop back out of spankdom after a week or so and declare himself the
winner like so much inflatable punching toy.
He'll flail away at any typo he sees (even the famous Biilisms like 'clealy'
and 'windbad') and whine about it when anyone points out his famous error
rate. He'll snip hell out of every post, and whine about how all of his
detractors (again, everyone that ever posted to the newsgroup that was
created to ridicule him) are "snipping lamers." He's got no originality
whatsoever, no credibility whatsoever, and no courage whatsoever, yet we
still hear him bleating flame giant this and blah blah famous that.
Some say he's a team troll. My personal theory is that he's a bot, but the
jury is still out.
After using up a few spots on your dance card and cowering like a whipped
mule, he'll write a long article about the fucking role of the tilde in
keyboard design or something, and tell the world that his line count is
evidence of his greatness. Blah blah blah, you get the idea.
Be forewarned, however, that inevitably he will bore you to tears and you'll
get the slightly guilty feeling of one who shoots fish in a barrel. When
that occurs, you can always start a fuckhead cascade. It's easy and fun!
Like this:
Shut up, Palmjob, you fuckhead.
(your turn!)
Bill Palmer
erRMV...@mediaone.net (Ed Foster) writes another of
his "warthog grunt" imitations:
Well, Big Fun, since you seem hell bent on
becoming a sort of junior Palmer's Parasite
lately, let's ask YOU a few questions:
How many years have you been in Usenet now without
giving evidence of being able to develop a paragraph?
--without EVER having posted ONE original, stand-alone
article?
--without EVER having written and posted even ONE
subject line catchy enough that most folks, myself
included would even want to post under it, knowing
it was too dull to attract readers?
Why is it that you seem to fancy that anyone will
take the "writing criticism" of someone like you
seriously, Foster? Someone like you whose every post
shows interesting evidence that--to the extent that
you have any "style" at all--your "style" is an odd
one in which you would seem to have mastered the art
of writing sentences that strike your readers as
somehow approximating the grunts of a diseased
warthog?
Do you not realize that your attempt to play
"literary critic" only makes you look more
foolish than usual then, Ed Foster Warthog?
Do you not realize that despite your drivel, my
Dejanews archive contains thousands of positive
responses to my articles--despite the fact that
it also contains plenty of flames as the result
of famous flame entertaianment performances in
alt.flame, etc., as The Amazing Flame Giant?
[...] The rest of Warthog Ed's "verbal grunts"
envoiusly trying to turn my happy event
of having an article in MillenniumWriters.com
into a failure. Nope, the Millennium artist
did a great job and the editors introduction
was hilarious. I am delghted that all sorts
of new www readers got to enjoy my Usenet
article too.
>> The only reason I am responding here is that Ed Foster added
>> a few warthog-like stupidities about an article of mine that--
>>
>> MillenniumWriters.com
>>
>> --has been featuring.
>>
>>
>> >> [Note: "Close Encounters of a Punctuation
>> >> Bigot" was featured in last week's issue of
>> >> MillenniumWriters.com. The artist/editor
>> >> added some very clever graphics, so you might
>> >> want to check it out even if you have already
>> >> read it in the newsgroups where it appeared.]
>
>> The MillenniumWriters.com editor wrote:
>> >
>> >"Some people worry about the suffering of Kosovo refugees or the
Tamil
>> >separatists or global warming or other issues. Bill Palmer has
>> >identified an area of real concern, however, and has chosen to
speak out
>> >about his convictions in the hope that the world will be a better
place."
>>
>> Ed Foster wrote:
>> >
>> >Just another example of the idiot Palmjob's not recognizing that
he's
>> >being made fun of. Potential sig material there. Check it out:
>>
>> >http://www.MillenniumWriters.com/Punctuation/PunctuationBigot.html
>>
>> Ed Foster's crude, envious, and humorless conclusions
>> aside, I'm very pleased with the way MillenniumWriters.com
>> presents "Close Encounters with a Punctuation Bigot".
>> The witty introduction was fully appropriate. Big
>> Ed is simply too stupid to grasp that IF I had written
>> the 56,485th Usenet article on Kosovo, etc., I likely
>> would NOT have been honored by having my article appear
>> in MillenniumWriters.com.
>> Of course, since "Big Ed" Foster (dedicated Bill Palmer
>> fan who never misses an article of mine)
>
>
>Untrue, untrue, absolutely untrue!!!! I fall asleep in the middle of
most
>of them.
Nonsense, Big Ed. All those ugly pills you have been
gulping are confusing your mind. You have posted ample
proof that you rarely if ever miss an article of mine,
since you have likely followed me up well-over one
hundred times now on articles having nothing at all
to do with you in the first place.
>
>
>> Big Ed Foster, posting warthog, proved far too
>> thick to pick up on my humor in "Close Encounters with
>> a Punctuation Bigot", so naturally Foster would have
>> misunderstood the wit in the editor's clever introduction.
>> I'm sure that "Big Ed" feels that those wonderful BIG
>> BLUE PUNCTUATION MARKS in the article were placed
>> there to mock Bill Palmer too.
>> Actually, I love those big blue punctuation marks.
>> I know that people (with the normal sense of
>> humor that Ed Foster-the-dimwit lacks) have been
>> cracking up with laughter over the way that
>> MillenniumWriters.com presented my article to the
>> www reading public, AND that certainly includes the
>> effect of the artist/editor's hilarious layout.
>
>
>They're laughing at you, Bill, not with you.
Another Big Ed stupidity! Writing is a bit different
from stand up comedy. If the audience is "laughing
at" (rather than "with") a comedian, that's bad, since
they likely won't catch the guy's next act. In writing,
something far more complicated occurs: If the fans
return to you time and again, they find your writing
to be entertaining. The denials of trolling warthogs
like Ed Foster mean nothing regarding this basic truth.
Laughing with you, laughing at you means NOTHING when
readers are looking at words on a screen. Those words
either entertain you-the-reader or they don't.
I realize I am being far too complex for our "Usenet
Cretin on Ugly Pills" Foster, but I know some of the
other readers will want to ponder this. Just consider
the words on your screen and then explain in simple
terms how you know if readers are laughing AT those
words or WITH those words.
Again, I argue it's irrelevant. The writers will
either find enough there to bring them back next
time or they won't.
>
>
>> In my view, the MillenniumWriters.com layout artist
>> showed a comic brilliance in bringing out the humor
>> of "Close Encounters with a Punctuation Bigot".
>> Yes, I suppose it could be seen as a writing
>> fault of mine that a few readers missed the humor
>> in that "Puynctuation Bigot" article when I posted it.
> It is impossible to write an original Usenet article
>> that cracks up every single reader, anyway, because
>> we have so many different kinds of people here.
>> My goal, then, is to get readers to come back and
>> read my next article, not necessarily to send
>> them to the hospital emergency room with "split
>> sides" or anything like that.
>>
>> The fact is, I have always worked on developing my
>> own humorous style, which of course is present in
>> much of my net writing.
>>
>> One reason so many readers in the fun newsgroups come
>> back to me again and again as Dejanews so clearly
>> demonstrates is that they very much appreciate the
>> fact that I'm not giving them warmed-over Woody
>> Allen or Steve Martin stuff, the way Human Leech
>> and leading Palmer's Parasite David Kendrick does,
>> for instance.
>>
>> Readers can get all of that sort of humor they
>> want on the Comedy Channel nowadays. They don't
>> need Leech Kendrick's fourth-rate, stale attempts
>> at being funny. That's why Kendrick found
>> it necessary to kidnap my literary character,
>> the funny little wilhelp man, in order to try
>> and get back some of the readers thief Kendrick's
>> shop-worn, cribbed-from-tv tripe had driven
>> off.
>>
>> Anyway, if that layout gem by MillenniumWriters.com be
>> "mockery of Bill Palmer" then the wired world stands in
>> great need of FAR MORE such wit, since you certainly
>> don't find any of it on the fifty or so unauthorized www
>> "Palmer's Parasite Sites" of David Kendrick and others
>> (which dimwit and obsessive Bill Palmer fan "Big Ed"
>> Foster has touted in the past and which mutilate
>> my work at the same time they steal my name and my
>> copyrighted writing to attract visitors). So.
[...] Many grunts of net-warthog Ed Foster snipped
as offensive to the mind's "ear".
Ed Foster
(Bill Palmer) wrote:
> In <erRMVfoster-02...@erfoster.ne.mediaone.net>
> erRMV...@mediaone.net (Ed Foster) writes another of
> his "warthog grunt" imitations:
>
> Well, Big Fun, since you seem hell bent on
> becoming a sort of junior Palmer's Parasite
> lately, let's ask YOU a few questions:
>
> How many years have you been in Usenet now without
> giving evidence of being able to develop a paragraph?
Says who?
> --without EVER having posted ONE original, stand-alone
> article?
Says who?
> --without EVER having written and posted even ONE
> subject line catchy enough that most folks, myself
> included would even want to post under it, knowing
> it was too dull to attract readers?
Says who?
> Why is it that you seem to fancy that anyone will
> take the "writing criticism" of someone like you
> seriously, Foster? Someone like you whose every post
> shows interesting evidence that--to the extent that
> you have any "style" at all--your "style" is an odd
> one in which you would seem to have mastered the art
> of writing sentences that strike your readers as
> somehow approximating the grunts of a diseased
> warthog?
>
> Do you not realize that your attempt to play
> "literary critic" only makes you look more
> foolish than usual then, Ed Foster Warthog?
Where did I say I was a "literary critic?" Post proof please. Besides,
when did I morph from "Big Ed" into "Ed foster Warthog?" You have to keep
these things straight, you know.
> Do you not realize that despite your drivel, my
> Dejanews archive contains thousands of positive
> responses to my articles
Post two please.
That's because you're an idiot who, even when people point out that you're
being made fun of, can't recognize that you're being held up to ridicule.
Your problem, not mine.
> >> The witty introduction was fully appropriate. Big
> >> Ed is simply too stupid to grasp that IF I had written
> >> the 56,485th Usenet article on Kosovo, etc., I likely
> >> would NOT have been honored by having my article appear
> >> in MillenniumWriters.com.
>
> >> Of course, since "Big Ed" Foster (dedicated Bill Palmer
> >> fan who never misses an article of mine)
> >
> >
> >Untrue, untrue, absolutely untrue!!!! I fall asleep in the middle of
> most
> >of them.
>
> Nonsense, Big Ed. All those ugly pills you have been
> gulping are confusing your mind. You have posted ample
> proof that you rarely if ever miss an article of mine,
> since you have likely followed me up well-over one
> hundred times now on articles having nothing at all
> to do with you in the first place.
How many articles have you posted? I'd guess quite a few more than a
thousand. So I must have missed quite a few articles of yours.
Mathematics was never your strong point, was it Palmjob?
> >> Big Ed Foster, posting warthog, proved far too
> >> thick to pick up on my humor in "Close Encounters with
> >> a Punctuation Bigot",
That's because there was none.
> >> so naturally Foster would have
> >> misunderstood the wit in the editor's clever introduction.
>
> >> I'm sure that "Big Ed" feels that those wonderful BIG
> >> BLUE PUNCTUATION MARKS in the article were placed
> >> there to mock Bill Palmer too.
Yep, actually, and you still don't get it.
> >> Actually, I love those big blue punctuation marks.
See previous comment. They don't come dubmer than palmjob.
> >> I know that people (with the normal sense of
> >> humor that Ed Foster-the-dimwit lacks) have been
> >> cracking up with laughter over the way that
> >> MillenniumWriters.com presented my article to the
> >> www reading public, AND that certainly includes the
> >> effect of the artist/editor's hilarious layout.
> >
> >
> >They're laughing at you, Bill, not with you.
>
> Another Big Ed stupidity! Writing is a bit different
> from stand up comedy. If the audience is "laughing
> at" (rather than "with") a comedian, that's bad, since
> they likely won't catch the guy's next act. In writing,
> something far more complicated occurs: If the fans
> return to you time and again, they find your writing
> to be entertaining. The denials of trolling warthogs
> like Ed Foster mean nothing regarding this basic truth.
Once again, Palmjob, please post more than two postings of your "fans"
asking for more of your drivel.
> Laughing with you, laughing at you means NOTHING when
> readers are looking at words on a screen. Those words
> either entertain you-the-reader or they don't.
Or put you to sleep, which is what yours do. You're an imsomniac's dream
come true.
> I realize I am being far too complex for our "Usenet
> Cretin on Ugly Pills" Foster, but I know some of the
> other readers will want to ponder this. Just consider
> the words on your screen and then explain in simple
> terms how you know if readers are laughing AT those
> words or WITH those words.
>
> Again, I argue it's irrelevant. The writers will
> either find enough there to bring them back next
> time or they won't.
Once again, Palmjob, alt.genius.bill-palmer is filled with posts telling
you what a wanker and boring writer you are. If you don't buy that, do a
deja news search to find articles from your "fans" telling you what a
great writer and flamer you are and post them in rebuttal. You won't
because you can't. Face it, you're a legend in your own mind only,
everyone else knows you're a wanker. Accept it, it's your fate.
Offensive to your ear, yes, because it's the truth, deal with it.
Bill Palmer
erRMV...@mediaone.net (Ed Foster) writes:
[...] Very typical of "Usenet writing critic"
Big Ed Foster. He dazzles us with his
"creativity" by removing HIS name from
a very appropriate subject line *I* wrote
for him, and he substitutes MY name.
My, what impressive verbal talents!
What ingenious wit!
>
In <erRMVfoster-02...@erfoster.ne.mediaone.net>
>> erRMV...@mediaone.net (Ed Foster) writes another of
>> his "warthog grunt" imitations:
>>
>> Well, Big Ed, since you seem hell bent on
>> becoming a sort of junior Palmer's Parasite
>> lately, let's ask YOU a few questions:
>>
>> How many years have you been in Usenet now without
>> giving evidence of being able to develop a paragraph?
>> --without EVER having posted ONE original, stand-alone
>> article?
>> --without EVER having written and posted even ONE
>> subject line catchy enough that most folks, myself
>> included would even want to post under it, knowing
>> it was too dull to attract readers?
[And the best Big Ed could do in they way of trying
to rebut me was to change one word in MY catchy
subject line! Foster has the writing talent of
a fruit fly, but that doesn't stop him from
playing writing critic.]
>
>> Why is it that you seem to fancy that anyone will
>> take the "writing criticism" of someone like you
>> seriously, Foster? Someone like you whose every post
>> shows interesting evidence that--to the extent that
>> you have any "style" at all--your "style" is an odd
>> one in which you would seem to have mastered the art
>> of writing sentences that strike your readers as
>> somehow approximating the grunts of a diseased
>> warthog?
>>
>> Do you not realize that your attempt to play
>> "literary critic" only makes you look more
>> foolish than usual then, Ed Foster Warthog
>
>> Do you not comprehend that despite your drivel, my
>> Dejanews archive contains thousands of positive
>> responses to my articles, despite the fact that
>> it also contains plenty of flames as the result
>> of famous flame entertaianment performances in
>> alt.flame, etc., as The Amazing Flame Giant?
>>
>> [...] The rest of Warthog Ed's "verbal grunts"
>> envoiusly trying to turn my happy event
>> of having an article in MillenniumWriters.com
>> into a failure. Nope, the Millennium artist
>> did a great job and the editor's introduction
>> was hilarious. I am delighted that all sorts
>> >> The witty introduction was fully appropriate. Big
>> >> Ed is simply too stupid to grasp that IF I had written
>> >> the 56,485th Usenet article on Kosovo, etc., I likely
>> >> would NOT have been honored by having my article appear
>> >> in MillenniumWriters.com.
>> >> Of course, since "Big Ed" Foster (dedicated Bill Palmer
>> >> fan who never misses an article of mine)
>> >
>> >
>> >Untrue, untrue, absolutely untrue!!!! I fall asleep in the middle
of
>> most
>> >of them.
>>
>> Nonsense, Big Ed. All those ugly pills you have been
>> gulping are confusing your mind. You have posted ample
>> proof that you rarely if ever miss an article of mine,
>> since you have likely followed me up well-over one
>> hundred times now on articles having nothing at all
>> to do with you in the first place.
>
>> >> Big Ed Foster, posting warthog, proved far too
>> >> thick to pick up on my humor in "Close Encounters with
>> >> a Punctuation Bigot", so naturally Foster would have
>> >> misunderstood the wit in the editor's clever introduction.
>>
>> >> I'm sure that "Big Ed" feels that those wonderful BIG
>> >> BLUE PUNCTUATION MARKS in the article were placed
>> >> there to mock Bill Palmer too.
>> >> Actually, I love those big blue punctuation marks.
> >> I know that people (with the normal sense of
>> >> humor that Ed Foster-the-dimwit lacks) have been
>> >> cracking up with laughter over the way that
>> >> MillenniumWriters.com presented my article to the
>> >> www reading public, AND that certainly includes the
>> >> effect of the artist/editor's hilarious layout.
>> >
>> >
>> >They're laughing at you, Bill, not with you.
>>
>> Another Big Ed stupidity! Writing is a bit different
>> from stand up comedy. If the audience is "laughing
>> at" (rather than "with") a comedian, that's bad, since
>> they likely won't catch the guy's next act. In writing,
>> something far more complicated occurs: If the fans
>> return to you time and again, they find your writing
>> to be entertaining. The denials of trolling warthogs
>> like Ed Foster mean nothing regarding this basic truth.
>[Foster-boor's insult against all Palmers snipped]
>...please post more than two postings of your "fans"
>asking for more of your drivel.
My Dejanews archive has proof of THOUSANDS of
people who have read me again and again and
followed me up many times to prove their fandom
to the world. That includes a high percentage
of people following up my serious posts with
interesting thread input, and well as flames
for the Flame Giant. I don't need to post proof,
since the Dejanews archive has a mountain of
proof that the same people enjoy me enough to
come back to me over and over.
Look at one of the many difference between US, Big Ed.
You continually follow me up on articles having nothing
to do with you, and I have rarely if ever followed YOU
up on artilcles having nothing to do with ME. That, of
course, is because YOU are boring. You are wily enough
to know that I will sometimes read you when you crawl
onto threads I start with my original articles and
subject lines, so that's what exactly you do when you
get desperate for any kind of attention, Foster. Anyway,
>
>> --laughing with you, laughing at you means NOTHING when
>> readers are looking at words on a screen. Those words
>> either entertain you-the-reader or they don't.
>
>> I realize I am being far too complex for our "Usenet
>> Cretin on Ugly Pills" Foster, but I know some of the
>> other readers will want to ponder this. Just consider
>> the words on your screen and then explain in simple
>> terms how you know if readers are laughing AT those
>> words or WITH those words.
>>
>> Again, I argue it's irrelevant. The writers will
>> either find enough there to bring them back next
>> time or they won't.
>
>Once again, {Snip of Foster-boor's insult to all Palmers),
>alt.genius.bill-palmer is filled with posts telling
>you what a wanker and boring writer you are. If you
>don't buy that,
No, I don't "buy that" all since every one of those
posts comes people like you, sore flame losers
like you who have been on the net without being
able to put together ONE well-done original
article because they don't have a lick of talent.
No, I don't buy the sour grapes of sore-losing
semi-literetates with big axes to grind, Ed.
In other words, I don't buy the horseradish
that you and others of your ilk enviously
drool in my direction.
do a
>deja news search to find articles from your "fans" telling you what a
>great writer and flamer you are and post them in rebuttal.
Nonesens. In addition to the thousands of anti-Bill
Palmer spams from losers like you, there is plenty of
fan mail for me on the Dejamountain. Further, as
far as serious articles go, when I post an article
to get people thinking, I'm not looking for
adulation. I don't care if people agree with
me or not, because I am much more interested
in getting informative responses.
It was just like with "NIGGARDLY NINCOMPOOPS NATTER!",
where I got darn near enough response on that thread
in the various groups I put it in to fill a book. '
No, this was not "I love Bill Palmer" stuff; it was
just a lot of very informative material that would
never have been written and posted were it not for
the orginal stimulous of my article. As far as
I'm concerned, that's one of the best things a
newsgroup poster can do, get those little wheels
turning in the readers' minds. YOU can't do
that, since there are NO figurative "little wheels"
turning in YOUR swamp of ingnorance, anyway.
I've done things like that thousands of
time (kick off a very interesting thread
discussion with an original "stand-alone"
article). That's the best "fan mail" I
could possibly imagine as a Usenet
contributor.
You won't
>because you can't. Face it, you're a legend in your own mind only,
>everyone else knows you're a wanker. Accept it, it's your fate.
Take it from the-boor-who-has-yet-in-all-his-years-in
Usenet-to-post-one-original-article!
>> [...] Many grunts of net-warthog Ed Foster snipped.
AGAIN.
Lee Jackson Beauregard
wil...@ix.netcom.com (Biil Poseur) wrote:
>I think it is very interesting that one of the
>"parasitical trolls" ("Beauregard")
"Mommy, dey fwame me again!"
>alluded to--but
>not mentioned by name in this now very controversial
>article, "To Catch a Troll"--
Poseur, your idea of "controversy" is yelling at the top of your lungs that
the sky is pink with purple polka-dots, and getting your diapers in a wad
when someone has the gall to tell you the sky is blue.
>thinks he can have my
>article about him cancelled or even have my service
>cut for making so many telling points about him and
>other "Palmer's Parasite trolls" of his foul, spamming
>ilk.
No, Poseur, I *know* (not think) that I can get your account cancelled for
spamming. You won't be the first and you won't be the last, just one more
notch on my clue-stick.
>And what about notorious troll "Beauregard"s sliming
>my articles arguing for more decency regarding the
>way posters talk about retarded people?
Yeah, Poseur, what about it? You posted a stinking load of ill-written
crap, and I flamed you for it. End of story. This also has nothing to do
with your spamming.
>Let's not forget how this spamming leech attacked me
>over those articles on the retarded, since that is
>really a big part of what is behind this controversy.
You, Biil Poseur, are the Supreme Idiot of Usenet. There is no controversy.
>What about the campaign of the Palmer's Parasites to
>follow up all my reasonable complaints of copyright
>violation with their personal attacks aimed at muddying
>the waters regaerding
Fuckheaed.
>MY reasonable protest over MY
>copyrights being violated?
1) You aren't capable of "reasonable protest." All you do is whine, whine,
whine.
2) I tried to set you straight re copyright and the need to register if you
plan to enforce it. I didn't tell you what you wanted to read, so you
called me a parasite, lost your temper, and got killfiled to hell and
back in misc.legal.
3) Federal court, not Usenet, is the proper forum for copyright disputes.
4) Fuckhead.
>We don't want to overlook all THAT, either, while folks
>are of a complaining mind, especially not since Palmer's
>Parsites like "Beauregard" claim for themselves the right
>to violate my copyrights with legal impunity.
1) Post proof, or be shown up for the liar you are.
2) What are you going to do about it? Yell at me some more?
3) Fuckhead.
>What about the little things, like this heartless,
>gutless, whining garden slug "Beauregard" making
>off topic posts all over hell for purposes of
>sliming hundreds of my directly on-topic, original,
>very serious articles having NOTHING to do with him,
>such as my poetry or anything else, in so many
>newsgroups where he has yet to post ONE on-topic
>article?
Aww, dere dere widdle Poseur. Diddums get its widdle feewings hurt? You
know you'll never be a Fwame Giant if you cwy wike a baby.
>To say "Top
Fuckheadp.
>Catch a Troll" infuriated Palmer's
>Parasite "Beauregard" would be far too much the
>understatement.
You're posting a long-winded rant about how I flamed your sorry ass to a
crisp, and *I'm* infuriated?
>It did more than infuritate "Beauregard" and the
>other Palmer's Parsites.
Fckhead.
>It pinned 'em smack
>against the wall and they are still wriggling there.
In your dreams, Poseur. You're the one losing your temper, and I'm not.
You're the one getting your diapers in a wad, and I'm not. You're the one
posting hundreds of lines of Biilshit that add up to "Mommy, dey fwame me
again!", and I'm not.
Face it, Poseur. As a writer, as a flamer, and most certainly as a legal
expert, you add up to a big fat zero.
>In fact, judging from his crazy attacks, our
>spamming-leech "Beauregard" seems to be spitting
>blue sparks!
In your dreams, Poseur. You're the one losing your temper, and I'm not.
You're the one getting your diapers in a wad, and I'm not. You're the one
posting hundreds of lines of Biilshit that add up to "Mommy, dey fwame me
again!", and I'm not.
Face it, Poseur. As a writer, as a flamer, and most certainly as a legal
expert, you add up to a big fat zero.
>Talk about the "shoe fitting" all too well!
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
>This comes after "Beauregard"'s loitering around in
>alt.genius.bill-palmer for a couple of years and
>after his spamming hundreds of entirely off-topic
>personal assaults on me
"Mommy, dey fwame me again!"
>and after his following up
>my on-topic articles with his off-topic rubbish in
>groups as diverse as rec.arts.prose and misc.legal.
Yeah, off-topic rubbish like posting to misc.legal to set you straight re
the law. Then again, your definition of "on-topic" is "what Poseur wants to
hear."
[Yawn. Biilshit flushed.]
>Of course, except for raw newbies, everyone
>reading this will know that when I talk about
>"parasitical trolls" and "Palmer's Parasites",
>I have
...anyone who's a better flamer than Poseur, i.e. everyone including the raw
newbies...
>well in mind.
[Biilshit flushed]
>Nobody loves human parasites like "Bearegard."
Fckhead. [Insulting everyone named Beauregard, are we?]
[Spam and other Biilshit flushed]
>Biil Poseur
>alt.stupid-ass.bill-palmer
- --
-----------============<[ Lee Jackson Beauregard ]>============-----------
PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
Sanford Wallace is a Yankee. YOU figure out my email address.
Delenda est Windoze!
----
"To bad you don't own a good dictionary, Ignormus Montgomery."
- Biil shows his ignormus proficiency in English in
<7ho81q$b...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQB1AwUBN32jI9I2qWwNrtyxAQHqCwL/RfI2HQbgG1GAOhJM12Z0dRKfQ0pMwk+u
i0Exg9qjScfi8/nC19ysCCniOSJxI+5ZMhKTFFDXftSzdRANdDFNZVJuLN8WXhKm
wA8ggr+S7k6iNwlpFQrxbyFUKlAH0jDR
=JDmg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
blub
Sysero <clickin_o...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:378788d9....@news.champaign.pdnt.com...
> On 2 Jul 1999 09:05:03 GMT, wil...@ix.netcom.com (Bill Palmer) lamed
> thusly:
>
> <snip of Palmjob's attempt to hear himself talk and waste bandwidth
> again.>
>
> If you aren't going to respond to my arguments, then shut the fuck up,
> Palmjob!
>
> >copyright FLAME GIANT
> >
> > I Concede My Kicked Red Ass to Everyone Here
> >
I -told- Palmjob about that, so there's really no excuse. Moreover, just
about every day someone else tells him the same thing. Palmjob, I know
you're eavesdropping as usual, so take a hint: YOU ARE A FAMOUS COWARD.
YOU ARE A SPINELESS AND WHINING LITTLE JELLYFISH. IF YOU WOULD RESPOND TO A
CONFRONTATION, JUST ONCE, YOU WOULD TAKE THE FIRST STEP TOWARD REJOINING THE
HUMAN RACE.
Otherwise you're the once and future king of fuckheads.
So shut the fuck up, Palmjob!