Thirty Years ...
Dolly B.Coughlan Jr
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Thirty Years ...
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: 11 Sep 2003 16:45:03 GMT
>
>... to the day.
>
>Whilst 'America' (sic) is quite rightly honouring the memory of those who
>perished on '9/11' (sic), let us not forget that on 11 September 1973,
>'America' (sic) engaged in some more state terrorism, when General
>Pinochet's men, with the financial and logistic aid of the Central
>'Intelligence' (sic) Agency, assassinated the democratically elected
>Salvador Allende.
>
>Perhaps Shit-For-Brains#2 would care to comment ..? FuckWit ? Or perhaps
>someone of intelligence (cf. abolitionist) ?
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |desmond [at] zeouane [dot] org
>Yamaha YZF-R1 (2002)
>http://www.chez.com/desmondcoughlan/dp/gimmicks/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!newsstand.cit.cornell.edu
!lnsnews.lns.cornell.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!headwall.stanford.edu!fu-be
rlin.de!uni-berlin.de!pc1-epso1-4-cust198.herm.cable.ntl.COM!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Thirty Years ...
>Date: 11 Sep 2003 16:45:03 GMT
>Lines: 16
>Message-ID: <slrnbm1aih.itf.p...@cyberian.ath.cx>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: pc1-epso1-4-cust198.herm.cable.ntl.com (80.3.57.198)
>X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1063298703 22658791 80.3.57.198 (16 [91468])
>X-No-Archive: Yes
>User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (FreeBSD)
>
>
Welcome to the Desmond Coughlan archive; the home of Desi's psychotic rants and
homosexual trolling. As he remains unfulfilled, please help Desmond Coughlan
find the man of his dreams.
As Desi lies, the archive grows!
RichardJ
Desmond Coughlan wrote:
>... to the day.
>
>Whilst 'America' (sic) is quite rightly honouring the memory of those who
>perished on '9/11' (sic), let us not forget that on 11 September 1973,
>'America' (sic) engaged in some more state terrorism, when General
>Pinochet's men, with the financial and logistic aid of the Central
>'Intelligence' (sic) Agency, assassinated the democratically elected
>Salvador Allende.
>
>Perhaps Shit-For-Brains#2 would care to comment ..? FuckWit ? Or perhaps
>someone of intelligence (cf. abolitionist) ?
>
>
>
I'll comment. This shit is off topic.
Teflon
Hugh Neary
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> wrote:
>... to the day.
>
>Whilst 'America' (sic) is quite rightly honouring the memory of those who
>perished on '9/11' (sic), let us not forget that on 11 September 1973,
>'America' (sic) engaged in some more state terrorism, when General
>Pinochet's men, with the financial and logistic aid of the Central
>'Intelligence' (sic) Agency, assassinated the democratically elected
>Salvador Allende.
>
>Perhaps Shit-For-Brains#2 would care to comment ..? FuckWit ? Or perhaps
>someone of intelligence (cf. abolitionist) ?
When's the ceremony honouring all the innocent Afghan and Iraqui
victims of Bush & Blairs war crimes due, has the date been posted yet?
Perhaps a brief request to Bush, Blair, or any of the cabal requesting
the names of the non combatants could be made. Methinks that unlike
their western bretheren, they probably were not deemed worth counting.
HN
drdoody
Why, oh why didn't we just let the nazis *have* France? Right now we
could be in a mutually beneficial economic relationship with a global
industrial power of mammoth proportions, but we had to go fuck it up
and liberate the godamned french.
Well, we could have also wound up watching most of the world's
population drift out of the air as radioactive cinders, but that would
have been fine too.
Doc
A Planet Visitor
>... to the day.
>
>Whilst 'America' (sic) is quite rightly honouring the memory of those who
>perished on '9/11' (sic), let us not forget that on 11 September 1973,
>'America' (sic) engaged in some more state terrorism, when General
>Pinochet's men, with the financial and logistic aid of the Central
>'Intelligence' (sic) Agency, assassinated the democratically elected
>Salvador Allende.
Sept 11, 1943 - Beginning of Jewish family transports from Theresienstadt to
Auschwitz.
Sept 11, 1943 - Germans occupy Rome, after occupying northern and central
Italy, containing in all about 35,000 Jews.
>Perhaps Shit-For-Brains#2 would care to comment ..? FuckWit ? Or perhaps
>someone of intelligence (cf. abolitionist) ?
>
Of course I care to comment... You're a racist, murderer-loving
slimeball, who laughed at the murder of more than a dozen innocent
human beings... who *giggles* about the murder of thousands in
the WTC attack.... and who has admitted that he would himself
more easily commit murder on a young infant than would Theodore
Frank. See --
The Nameless One alternate gimmick n° 4
== The - keep me away from little children gimmick == See --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1r_D9.204037%24fa.4431379%40twister.tampabay.rr.com
Your words -- "Indeed, the chances of _me_ murdering someone, are
greater than the chances that Theodore Frank would have done so."
BTW-- Ready to admit your 'factual error' in respect to
Lockerbie?
PV
Some space saver devices --
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/JPB.html
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/Goblin.htm
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desi-JPB-love-affair.htm
>--
>The Nameless One
Dolly B.Coughlan Jr
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Thirty Years ...
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: 12 Sep 2003 11:33:29 GMT
>
>Le 11 Sep 2003 18:19:26 -0700, drdoody <drd...@hotmail.com> a écrit :
>
>>> >... to the day.
>>> >
>>> >Whilst 'America' (sic) is quite rightly honouring the memory of those who
>>> >perished on '9/11' (sic), let us not forget that on 11 September 1973,
>>> >'America' (sic) engaged in some more state terrorism, when General
>>> >Pinochet's men, with the financial and logistic aid of the Central
>>> >'Intelligence' (sic) Agency, assassinated the democratically elected
>>> >Salvador Allende.
>>> >
>>> >Perhaps Shit-For-Brains#2 would care to comment ..? FuckWit ? Or
>perhaps
>>> >someone of intelligence (cf. abolitionist) ?
>
>>> I'll comment. This shit is off topic.
>
>> Why, oh why didn't we just let the nazis *have* France?
>
>Another dumbfuck 'American' (sic) who thinks that they won the war
>singlehandedly ...
>
>LMAO !!!
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |desmond [at] zeouane [dot] org
>Yamaha YZF-R1 (2002)
>http://www.chez.com/desmondcoughlan/dp/gimmicks/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!newsfeed1!bredband!uio.no
!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!p
c1-epso1-4-cust198.herm.cable.ntl.COM!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Thirty Years ...
>Date: 12 Sep 2003 11:33:29 GMT
>Lines: 27
>Message-ID: <slrnbm3cma.kl9.p...@cyberian.ath.cx>
>References: <slrnbm1aih.itf.p...@cyberian.ath.cx>
><3F60FC2B...@myvine.com>
><a050c062.03091...@posting.google.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: pc1-epso1-4-cust198.herm.cable.ntl.com (80.3.57.198)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1063366409 22952733 80.3.57.198 (16 [91468])
>X-No-Archive: true
>User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (FreeBSD)
>
>
Welcome to the Desmond Coughlan archive; the home of Desi's psychotic rants and
off-topic homosexual trolling. As he remains unfulfilled, please help Desmond
Just passing by
> Of course I care to comment... You're a racist, murderer-loving
> slimeball, who laughed at the murder of more than a dozen innocent
> human beings... who *giggles* about the murder of thousands in
> the WTC attack.... and who has admitted that he would himself
> more easily commit murder on a young infant than would Theodore
> Frank.
> Your words -- "Indeed, the chances of _me_ murdering someone, are
> greater than the chances that Theodore Frank would have done so."
Another "quote" and another lie (the others mentioned there were lies
too). Words deliberately taken completely out of context. The
sentence, "Indeed, the chances of _me_ murdering someone, are greater
than the chances that Theodore Frank would have done so," were clearly
written to make the point that Theodore Frank (whoever he is) was
unlikely to murder, rather than that DC was likely to murder.
I don't even know who Theodore Frank is, and I didn't even see the
original post in which the above words appeared, and yet I had no
difficulty in working that one out. I must admit that I did have a
start in that every "quote" PV ever offers in support of his pathetic
attempts to discredit posters he either envies or fears (in DC's case,
both) is deliberately distorted, rewritten or totally misrepresented.
So as soon as I saw PV's name, I knew it was a lie.
And it seems I am not alone in regarding all PV's "quotes" as nothing
more than his desperate lies to conceal his fear and envy of others.
It is now seven days since the call went out for anyone knowing of a
single such "quote" from him that has been totally true, to produce
it. And not one such "true quote" has yet been found by anyone.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=21b1da28.0309051337.4dd8ed59%40posting.google.com
And the agony of waiting for this elusive "true quote" is obviously
getting to PV. Only yesterday he claimed that because DC had (many
months ago) acknowledged that PV had once been correct over a matter
that had absolutely nothing to do with any of his "quotes" that meant
that DC had effectively come forward to exonerate him.
Hey, PV, why not find a post in which someone wished you a happy
vacation (I think even I did that) and claim that was also someone
declaring that your "quotes" are true? You are certainly desperate
enough to.
Dolly B.Coughlan Jr
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Thirty Years ...
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: 13 Sep 2003 18:11:16 GMT
>
>Le 12 Sep 2003 16:18:39 -0700, Just passing by <unimpre...@yahoo.com> a
>écrit :
>
>>> Of course I care to comment... You're a racist, murderer-loving
>>> slimeball, who laughed at the murder of more than a dozen innocent
>>> human beings... who *giggles* about the murder of thousands in
>>> the WTC attack.... and who has admitted that he would himself
>>> more easily commit murder on a young infant than would Theodore
>>> Frank.
>
>>> Your words -- "Indeed, the chances of _me_ murdering someone, are
>>> greater than the chances that Theodore Frank would have done so."
>
>> Another "quote" and another lie (the others mentioned there were lies
>> too).
>
>I'm still waiting for FuckWit to post something truthful to the group.
>
><to FuckWit> FuckWit, when you decide to tell the truth in one of your
>posts, would you care to include some sort of 'marker' in the Subject:
>field ? Put '[TRUE POST]' in there, or something. That way, I'm sure that
>some posters to news:alt.activism.death-penalty who currently read three or
>four lines before skipping to the next post (i.e. roughly 98.5% of the
>newsgroup, if current 'polls' are anything to go by), might consider
>reading the post in its ... sorry, 'it's' (sic [1]) entirety.
>
>
>[1] ROTFLMAO !!!
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |desmond [at] zeouane [dot] org
>Yamaha YZF-R1 (2002)
>http://www.chez.com/desmondcoughlan/dp/gimmicks/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!newsfeed1!bredband!news.t
ele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!pc1-epso
1-4-cust198.herm.cable.ntl.COM!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Thirty Years ...
>Date: 13 Sep 2003 18:11:16 GMT
>Lines: 31
>Message-ID: <slrnbm6oc2.psn.p...@cyberian.ath.cx>
>References: <slrnbm1aih.itf.p...@cyberian.ath.cx>
><3go2mvobpf2n14vqd...@4ax.com>
><21b1da28.03091...@posting.google.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: pc1-epso1-4-cust198.herm.cable.ntl.com (80.3.57.198)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1063476676 24764084 80.3.57.198 (16 [91468])
A Planet Visitor
>A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message news:<3go2mvobpf2n14vqd...@4ax.com>...
>
>
>> Of course I care to comment... You're a racist, murderer-loving
>> slimeball, who laughed at the murder of more than a dozen innocent
>> human beings... who *giggles* about the murder of thousands in
>> the WTC attack.... and who has admitted that he would himself
>> more easily commit murder on a young infant than would Theodore
>> Frank.
>
>> Your words -- "Indeed, the chances of _me_ murdering someone, are
>> greater than the chances that Theodore Frank would have done so."
>
>Another "quote" and another lie (the others mentioned there were lies
>too). Words deliberately taken completely out of context.
Oh... they are EXACTLY in the context he hopes to express. That
HE would be more likely to murder than Theodore Frank. You cannot
possibly parse those words in any other meaning. Not possible at all.
The sentence does not contain a single quotation mark to presume he
means to quote another. Those are HIS WORDS... and HIS MEANING
as to his own character in respect to committing murder compared to
the character of Theodore Frank in respect to Theodore Frank
committing murder. I did not compose them. HE DID!! That is
assuredly the most uncomplicated wording in any post he could have
possibly provided to claim such a comparison of respective characters.
He does not use an anonymous third person. He does not equivocate.
He does not place conditions on either him or Theodore Frank. It is
HIM vs. Theodore Frank as to their respective characters in the
possible commission of a murder. It is the same as him comparing
himself with ANY specific human... EXCEPT he is comparing
HIMSELF and Theodore Frank... specifically... exactly. The two
people....unconditional comparison... no strings attached. No escape
clauses. He offered this comparison in an attempt to argue that 'ALL
murderers' are actually 'nice guys,' who are no worse than the 'average
man on the street,' (which he presumed himself to be in his destruction
of his own character). Contending that the 'average man on the street'
has a character more base than any murderer. The 'average man' he
contended would more likely commit murder than would a murderer
recommit murder. It was simply another of his love affairs with
murderers gone sour.
> The
>sentence, "Indeed, the chances of _me_ murdering someone, are greater
>than the chances that Theodore Frank would have done so," were clearly
>written to make the point that Theodore Frank (whoever he is) was
>unlikely to murder, rather than that DC was likely to murder.
>
Well... that does bring up a point. That point being you presume that
Theodore Frank would not murder.. and the additional point that you
are obviously too ignorant to even be posting in this group if you are
unaware of Theodore Frank. The events surrounding Theodore
Frank are central to the issue of 'what kind of murderer DESERVES
execution.' If there were no murderers such as Theodore Frank, the
DP would be a much weaker argument.
>I don't even know who Theodore Frank is,
I will 'enlighten' you... and perhaps that incandescent beam of pure
racism from the Nameless One will dim perceptibly... but I really
doubt it... because when you are obsessed... reality disappears for
you -- If you had the slightest bit of intelligence you could have
researched this for yourself... but that would have obviously been
beyond your limited intellect -- So pay attention now -- Here is
the short version of Theodore Frank --
----------------------------------------------------
On the morning of March 14, in Ventura County community
of Camarillo, twenty-four month old Amy Sue Seitz,
blonde-haired and blue-eyed, was being dropped off at the
home of a relative who cared for her during the week, while
her mother worked.
While Amy's relative was busy upstairs with housework,
little Amy watched cartoons on television, then fell asleep
on the living room couch.
When the relative heard the downstairs front door close,
she thought nothing of it. Amy Sue, she assumed, had
awakened and decided to play in the front yard. Minutes
later, the relative came back downstairs and went out into
the yard to find Amy. She was not there. When she called
out, "Amy Sue! Amy Sue!" She got no answer. She began
searching the streets, yelling at the top of her lungs for
Amy Sue Seitz. But the tiny tot, only thirty-two inches tall
and weighing a mere 32 pounds, had disappeared.
Approximately 28 miles from where 24 month old Amy
Sue had last been seen, Fred Straylaw looked out his
bedroom window and saw his two dogs with something
bloody in the driveway. He called the dogs and locked
them inside. He went immediately back out to see what
his dogs had been playing with....... Using palm prints,
the M.E. identified her as twenty-four month old Amy
Sue Seitz.
The M.E.'s report stated:
1- Amy Sue had been forced to drink alcohol.
2- Amy Sue had been raped.
3- Amy Sue had been punched in the face full force.
4- Amy Sue suffered massive brain hemorrhage.
5- Amy Sue had extensive skull fractures.
6- Amy Sue's skin had been peeled from her body with
vise-grips or pliers while she was still alive.
7- Amy Sue had been strangled to death.
After an extensive search and with the help of one witness
who had seen the suspect prior to Amy Sue's disappearance,
rape, torture and murder, the police had the lead they needed.
The suspect's name was THEODORE FRANCIS FRANK
He was 43 years old. This is what was learned about Frank:
1)- Frank's most recent arrest had been in connection with the
molestation of an eight-year-old girl.
2)- Theodore Frank had spent 14 years locked up in
hospitals or prisons in Missouri and California.
3)- Six weeks after he was released from Atascadero, where
he was doing time for raping a four year old child, Amy
Sue Seitz was raped, tortured, and murdered.
4)- After Amy's Death Frank was arrested for two other
molestations in the San Fernando Valley! He was convicted
in those two cases.
5)- In 1958, he was arrested and charged with fondling a ten
year-old girl in front of a church.
6)- Two years later he was once again a free man!
7)- In the 1960s, Frank was charged with several sex offences.
8)- He served a second hospital term and another Missouri
prison term.
9)- In Illinois, when he was questioned about several sex
related crimes and child molestation and murder of a
seven year-old boy in Missouri, he fled to California.
10)- In Bakersfield in 1974, Frank was convicted of
molesting a small boy and was sent to Atascadero. At
Atascadero, a report by a psychologist stated that
"Frank is a chronic, habitual child molester whose
patterns are almost impossible to change."
11)- While Theodore Frank was at Atascadero, he wrote
this in a notebook; "Why do I want to degrade and
humiliate children? Sadism...I enjoy the humiliation. Defile
the innocent. Make them scared of sex. It's dirty. I
didn't have a happy childhood, neither will they...Revenge."
12)- On January 17, police went to Frank's apartment with
an arrest warrant. They discovered he was being held in
L. A. County Jail, charged with the molestation of still another
child!
13)- Theodore Frank had been recently sentenced to eight
years in prison in connection with the molestation of more
adolescent females. Those incidents had occurred five
months AFTER Amy Sue's tragic death.
Theodore Frank's trial got underway on November 5, one
year and eight months after Amy Sue Seitz's brutal murder.
Frank was charged with kidnapping, rape, child molestation,
and first-degree murder. The Los Angeles County M.E., Dr.
Manuel Breton, testified that little Amy's nipples had been
pinched horribly with pliers or vise grips. "There was
not only damage to the nipple itself, but there was also the
imprint of the weapon". Asked whether the child was alive
during this torture, the doctor somberly answered, "Yes, she
was."
The doctor further testified that Amy had been raped, had
suffered several vicious blows to her skull. Bruises on her
neck were characteristic of manual strangling, and, beneath
these, he said, he found a fracture of the hyoid bone of the
voice box and bruising of soft tissues behind.
On November 26, a nine-year-old girl testified that she had
been kidnapped by Frank four months AFTER Amy Sue's
death. She said he drove her to an isolated area, stripped
her, and attacked her. She said she was forced to drink
beer by Frank and he pinched her breasts. "He took
my panties and tried to stuff them down my throat," the
child told the court.
Seven days into the trial, a pair of vise-grips that had been
found during the search of Frank's apartment,were entered
into evidence. Jurors gasped as an expert gave a description
of how the pliers could apply 2,000 pounds of pressure when
clamped tight. On December 15, the seven-man, five-woman
jury found Theodore Frank guilty of rape, child molestation,
kidnapping, and murder.
On January 7, almost two years since the rape, torture and
murder of little 24 month old Amy Sue, jurors had no difficulty
in deciding Frank's fate. They quickly voted that the convicted
baby-killer should be executed.
---------------------------------------------------
So above we have a description of the murder committed by
Frank, that Desmond has ADMITTED he would have a greater
chance of committing than Frank. My question to you, JPB, is --
is the Nameless One someone you wish to hang your opinion
upon? Further, in another dialog concerning Theodore Frank,
the rather 'loaded' question was asked of the Nameless One,
that given only the choices of totally freeing Theodore Frank,
or executing Theodore Frank, he would choose totally freeing
Theodore Frank. See --
http://www.wtv-zone.com/LadyMaggie/php/AmySueStory.html
I can imagine that the Nameless One burnt many a candle at
his 'Shrine of Murderers,' to pray for the escape of Theodore
Frank rather than a lawful execution. His prayers were partially
answered as Theodore Frank died recently, in a peaceful sleep,
with the drool rolling off his chin, and that chilling grin on his
face, as he dreamt of all the children he had violated and murdered,
before he could be lawfully executed.
> and I didn't even see the
>original post in which the above words appeared, and yet I had no
>difficulty in working that one out.
Obviously you are another one who does not need to 'read' to
comment on what you admit you haven't read.
> I must admit that I did have a
>start in that every "quote" PV ever offers in support of his pathetic
>attempts to discredit posters he either envies or fears (in DC's case,
>both) is deliberately distorted, rewritten or totally misrepresented.
>So as soon as I saw PV's name, I knew it was a lie.
The quote is ABSOLUTELY accurate. You cannot call it a lie,
since it exists. You are a liar if you claim it does not.
>
>And it seems I am not alone in regarding all PV's "quotes" as nothing
>more than his desperate lies to conceal his fear and envy of others.
>It is now seven days since the call went out for anyone knowing of a
>single such "quote" from him that has been totally true, to produce
>it. And not one such "true quote" has yet been found by anyone.
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=21b1da28.0309051337.4dd8ed59%40posting.google.com
Umm... JPB... Your MESSIAH... remember him? He clearly
stated that "PV is right." Which is most certainly an admission that
I had been totally true, and his comments and yours had been lies.
What is necessary is for you to demonstrate that any of my quotes
are LIES. You cannot do so... so you hope and BEG the group
not to open their mouths. But two and two will always be four,
regardless if no one remarks that it is. The fact is I can demonstrate
that every quote I have provided is ABSOLUTELY EXACTLY as
I've placed those words in quotes. And anyone wishing to look
at them may freely do so. I do not have to PROVE they are there,
because they ARE there. It is YOUR responsibility, or anyone's
responsibility to prove they are FALSE. You obviously cannot
do so... so you simply hope that others who disagree with me in
so many arguments, but who cannot possibly refute the words I
quote, will simply not post a comment, and you thus claim THEIR
_non vote_ as YOUR _vote_. In effect you are BEGGING them
NOT to _vote_, since I do not need to prove anything, as the words
are absolutely accurate. It is as if you are asking people to _vote_
that the sun comes up in the East... and if no one responds you
can scream in dribbling gusts of spittle-filled ravings that ==>
SEE the Sun DOESN'T come up in the East because no one said
it did. <==
What is in fact, much more telling, is that a few posters who otherwise
have agreed with you... are calling YOU a liar, having begun claiming
you are 'full of shit,' in your racist attack on an anti-racist comment.
Those are the posters you have INSULTED. Those are the posters
YOU should concern yourself with... since THEY are destroying
your imaginary 'credibility.' THEY are the ones who have
demonstrated the shame for your comments that you do not possess
as an emotion. You naughty boy!
>And the agony of waiting for this elusive "true quote" is obviously
>getting to PV. Only yesterday he claimed that because DC had (many
>months ago) acknowledged that PV had once been correct over a matter
>that had absolutely nothing to do with any of his "quotes" that meant
>that DC had effectively come forward to exonerate him.
>
The one who is desperate is you... BEGGING the group.. OVER
and OVER. While having admitted that you don't even know enough
about racism to have EVER commented on it in your entire posting
history, until you found your racist MESSIAH (who has admitted
the chances were better that he would murder than would Theodore
Frank) under attack for his racism. Then you simply exposed your
own racism.
>Hey, PV, why not find a post in which someone wished you a happy
>vacation (I think even I did that) and claim that was also someone
>declaring that your "quotes" are true? You are certainly desperate
>enough to.
Desperation is your middle name, sport. And the sweat is literally
pouring off you, as you are being criticized by those you expected
to support you, since you proved yourself unable to do anything but
make a fool of yourself when faced with being on your own.. I see
you doing a lot of 'damage control' with other posters who are
of a mind to support you in other issues, but are ripping you a new
rear-end in respect to your racism, JPB. And you actually have no
idea how to conduct such 'damage control,' because it appears you
are only making the hole in the sub larger. Just as your MESSIAH
tried to do with Donna, when she stated the post in which your
MESSIAH laughed at the murder of more than a dozen innocent
humans, was obscene. He characterized her as too stupid to actually
find his post, and claimed she was simply taking my word for it,
lacking the intelligence to find it for herself. Sure enough... It seems
as if you're simply again imitating your MESSIAH, by claiming others
who now mildly disagree with you, on a very critical issue in respect
to your presumed imaginary 'credibility,' are too stupid to actually
examine the facts. Unless they walk lock-step with you in every
issue... well... you'll just call them stupid. It seems as if all you are
doing is insulting their intelligence, by claiming they don't know squat.
And just so you know... you are a peanut head compared to those
who are now criticizing you. And your own knowledge of your
intellectual limitations when confronted with them... has sent cold
shivers up your spine. Yes... desperation has certainly set in...
I can sense it in your every post.
<PV takes out anti-racist stick provide to him by Jedi Master Mr. D.>
spank...spank...spank...
<dusting hands in satisfaction... PV replaces anti-racist stick in golden
scabbard of TRUTH. Bows toward Mr. D.>
Ahhh.... That FEELS GOOD!!! A good spank...spank...spanking
applied with my stick to JPB's racist ass. my self-respect has most
certainly been elevated, in the spanking of a racist. Only the
spanking I apply to the ass of that other racist, the Nameless One,
can be as satisfying.
PV
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/JPB.html
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desi-JPB-love-affair.htm
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/Goblin.htm
Just passing by
> The fact is I can demonstrate
> that every quote I have provided is ABSOLUTELY EXACTLY as
> I've placed those words in quotes.
Oh dear, PV, you do love making things easy for me, don't you?
"How does one go about providing a counter-example to someone saying
'the judge was a crook'? " (A Planet Visitor, August 18, 2002)
Those words you put into quotes were completely made up by you, as you
were later forced to admit.
Here is another one:
'No... he has ADMITTED his TARGET was MY MEANING. Try to keep that
straight. 1) his words -- "So I destroyed _your_ meaning." ' (A Planet
Visitor, February 22, 2003)
See that full stop (period) after the word "meaning"? It was not in
the original words you claimed to be directly quoting, which were: "So
I destroyed _your_ meaning, which was a cynical attempt to clean up
your image."
But you didn't want people to see the words following "meaning"
because you were well into a lie & smear campaign based on the claim
that he recognised your meaning as being to offer a *genuine* tribute.
But as the missing words clearly show, he didn't think that tribute
was genuine at all.
That attempt to deceive this group was exposed in greater depth in
this post:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=21b1da28.03022...@posting.google.com
But even when you don't add or take away words, or completely make
them all up, you still lie every time. I don't dispute that Desmond
did write, "Indeed, the chances of _me_ murdering someone, are greater
than the chances that Theodore Frank would have done so." Your lie in
that example is not in changing the words, but in deliberately trying
to misrepresent his .... meaning (there's that word again).
My request, in the "Culling of the French Elderly" thread, for anyone
to show a single one of your "quotes" that is not based on your lies,
is not simply for someone to come along and say, "Here is one where PV
quoted the exact words with nothing changed." I could do that myself.
I know there are plenty of those, but the lies are in the way you
attempt to force your own totally distorted and dishonest
interpretations upon people, and the deliberate deception you use when
doing so. That is what I will show if anyone does ever offer any
"quote" of yours that they think was either accurate or not
misrepresented in some way. I don't believe there is such an example,
and the fact that it is now eight days since that call went out, with
still not a single offer, from anyone, suggests that nobody else - not
even your fans - believes any such "true quote" of yours exists.
Finally, an example of your confused mind:
> So above we have a description of the murder committed by
> Frank, that Desmond has ADMITTED he would have a greater
> chance of committing than Frank. My question to you, JPB, is --
> is the Nameless One someone you wish to hang your opinion
> upon?
Read those two sentences carefully, PV. Can you see anything wrong
with them? The first clue is in my words that preceded them, above.
The second clue is that it is not some spelling or grammatical error I
am referring to. You have 24 hours to find the answer .... starting
now.
A Planet Visitor
>Le 12 Sep 2003 16:18:39 -0700, Just passing by <unimpre...@yahoo.com> a écrit :
>
>>> Of course I care to comment... You're a racist, murderer-loving
>>> slimeball, who laughed at the murder of more than a dozen innocent
>>> human beings... who *giggles* about the murder of thousands in
>>> the WTC attack.... and who has admitted that he would himself
>>> more easily commit murder on a young infant than would Theodore
>>> Frank.
>
>>> Your words -- "Indeed, the chances of _me_ murdering someone, are
>>> greater than the chances that Theodore Frank would have done so."
>
>> Another "quote" and another lie (the others mentioned there were lies
>> too).
>
>I'm still waiting for FuckWit to post something truthful to the group.
>
Direct quote, Oh Nameless One... of course... if you had 'shame' as
an emotion... this would be the time to express it.
><to FuckWit> FuckWit, when you decide to tell the truth in one of your
>posts, would you care to include some sort of 'marker' in the Subject:
>field ? Put '[TRUE POST]' in there, or something. That way, I'm sure that
>some posters to news:alt.activism.death-penalty who currently read three or
>four lines before skipping to the next post (i.e. roughly 98.5% of the
>newsgroup, if current 'polls' are anything to go by), might consider
>reading the post in its ... sorry, 'it's' (sic [1]) entirety.
>
Given that your own 'disciple' has characterized you as an 'original and
creative' liar... perhaps you've like to now claim that your admission that
your character is more base than Theodore Frank was simply one of
your 'original and creative' lies. This would be the time to just say it was
another one of your 'original and creative' lies. You see, Oh Nameless
One... sometimes having 'friends' who SLURP....SLURP... SLURP...
up to you is the worst thing that can happen to you. They sometimes
slip up, and characterize you as they ACTUALLY see you... rather
than how you would hope they see you. Just as when you characterized
JPB as a liar, by stating "PV is right."
>
>[1] ROTFLMAO !!!
>
Very feeble, Oh Nameless One... I really don't think you're doing much
laughing. Unless you laugh at your own ignorance as you LAUGHED
at the murder of dozens of innocent human beings, which one of
the more reasonable abolitionists in this group called OBSCENE --
The Nameless One alternate gimmick n° 100...
== The - I laugh at murder because it eases the population problem ==
See --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20030806120202.00871.00001102%40mb-m17.aol.com
Your words -- Thanks is due "... to Bush and Blair, for easing the population problem
in Indonesia, by another 13." While posting a link to the murder of 13 innocent
humans in a bombing in a Jakarta hotel.
PV
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desi_begs.htm
--
>The Nameless One
A Planet Visitor
>A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message news:<8ef7mvggjc823vkfs...@4ax.com>...
>
>
>> The fact is I can demonstrate
>> that every quote I have provided is ABSOLUTELY EXACTLY as
>> I've placed those words in quotes.
>
>Oh dear, PV, you do love making things easy for me, don't you?
>
LOL... who exactly do you think believes that? Your MESSIAH [1], perhaps?
>"How does one go about providing a counter-example to someone saying
>'the judge was a crook'? " (A Planet Visitor, August 18, 2002)
>
>Those words you put into quotes were completely made up by you, as you
>were later forced to admit.
>
There are no 'quotes' there, sport. Regardless of your ignorance in presuming
I must 'abide' by YOUR rules. Nor is there an indication that I am quoting
YOU. Since it represents a theoretical question (see the question mark)
regarding how I might respond to 'SOMEONE' making such a claim.
>Here is another one:
>
>'No... he has ADMITTED his TARGET was MY MEANING. Try to keep that
>straight. 1) his words -- "So I destroyed _your_ meaning." ' (A Planet
>Visitor, February 22, 2003)
>
Exactly.... In fact he had to APOLOGIZE for attempting to destroy
the meaning of MLK... which was MY MEANING in my post.
Remember his APOLOGY? His words -- "I apologise to the group for
my strong language." And then the ugly bastard goes on to INSULT
the group YET AGAIN... with the following words -- "This group is not
known for the moral character of its posters." See --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20030125212906.09289.00000434%40mb-ch.aol.com
Without a doubt... the Nameless One is among the most arrogant
racists one can imagine. He claims to "apologise to the group," and
then embarks again on a disgusting display of attacking the group
en masse. Once again, only those who walk 'lock-step' with your
MESSIAH... as you do... receive the 'blessing of his racist benediction.'
>See that full stop (period) after the word "meaning"? It was not in
>the original words you claimed to be directly quoting, which were: "So
>I destroyed _your_ meaning, which was a cynical attempt to clean up
>your image."
>
LOL... You are so pathetic. We've already been down that road,
sport. And you've been shown to be a fool. Since that THOUGHT
he expressed WAS what required a FULL STOP. Everything else
was his pitiful attempt to JUSTIFY what he claimed was the destruction
of the meaning of my post... which was clearly meant as a destruction
of MLK, which was entire MEANING of that post.
>But you didn't want people to see the words following "meaning"
>because you were well into a lie & smear campaign based on the claim
>that he recognised your meaning as being to offer a *genuine* tribute.
>But as the missing words clearly show, he didn't think that tribute
>was genuine at all.
I actually don't care if everyone examines his EXCUSE... I provided
a clear link to the evil words he offered in attempting to DESTROY
MLK. Just as you having been trying to do for some time now. And
others have seen through you. Without a doubt. Here was his
EXCUSE for DESTROYING the MEANING of MLK -- "which
was a cynical attempt to clean up your image." There has never been
a clearer case of the Nameless One hoping to JUSTIFY having
destroyed the MEANING of MLK... which was ALL that was
in my 3 paragraph, 17 line tribute to MLK. Here again is the
MEANING, that the racist Nameless One was trying to DESTROY -- See
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=fsWW9.113395%24Sa3.2633235%40twister.tampabay.rr.com
>
>That attempt to deceive this group was exposed in greater depth in
>this post:
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=21b1da28.03022...@posting.google.com
>
Once again.. the racist implications that you provided in the post above,
gave me my first indication that your defense of a racist was perhaps a
bit more relative to YOUR feelings on racism! A defense of racism
itself... rather than a defense of someone who supported you in your
love-affair with a fat baby-killer. Others also began to view it that
way. I began to more careful examine the thrust of your various
spittle-filled ravings, in defending a clear attack on MLK. And I
came to the conclusion... as your hysterical rants in support of a
racist raised to a cacophonous crescendo, that it resulted DIRECTLY
from YOUR OWN support of racism, rather than a support of your
MESSIAH. [1] YOU HATE MLK... and all he stood for. With
an intense hate that seems indescribable to me. Your characterizations
of him are no better than what a Grand Wizard of the KKK would
offer. As you mentioned.... YOU WISH you had been the author
of that hateful attack on MLK. Having never had the opportunity to
ever actually 'indulge' in your own racism... you SEIZED this
opportunity, to express YOUR OWN RACISM... when you
recognized the racism in someone whom you 'admired' because he
was 'sympathetic' to your deranged obsession with flab.
>But even when you don't add or take away words, or completely make
>them all up, you still lie every time. I don't dispute that Desmond
>did write, "Indeed, the chances of _me_ murdering someone, are greater
>than the chances that Theodore Frank would have done so." Your lie in
>that example is not in changing the words, but in deliberately trying
>to misrepresent his .... meaning (there's that word again).
>
LOL.. Well, thank you very much, JPB. It seems you have again
proved yourself to be your own worst enemy. You've been raging
up and down the newsgroup, BEGGING every to shhhh... in other
for you to _claim the apathy vote_, and here YOU go and _vote_
for me. That REALLY deserves mention as ROTFLMAO.
Remember you posted "It is now seven days since the call went
out for anyone knowing of a single such "quote" from him that has
been totally true, to produce it. And not one such "true quote" has
yet been found by anyone." Notice that I have provided a TRUE
quote of your EXACT words. And here you go and confirm that
YOU don't dispute my QUOTE of the words of the Nameless
One. Ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho.
>My request, in the "Culling of the French Elderly" thread, for anyone
>to show a single one of your "quotes" that is not based on your lies,
>is not simply for someone to come along and say, "Here is one where PV
>quoted the exact words with nothing changed."
Didn't change a word, sport. What is TRUE... is TRUE...is TRUE.
> I could do that myself.
Actually, I believe you are giving yourself more credit than is due...
since I haven't see you do it yet. All you do is ramble incoherently,
such as your claim of my never having produced a 'rant' calling
the Nameless One a racist, until recently. While I produced a
post of more than three years ago from me that expressly called
him a "fundamental racist." What other form of 'racist' is worse
than a "fundamental racist"? And have you ever produced a post
from him where he ever called ME a racist, previous to that?
No... you have not... and you CANNOT... thus you are simply
a liar. The Nameless One at some point fully realized that I
had picked him out OVER and OVER, providing PROOF of his
racism, at which point he recognized that the finger was pointing
at him... and he needed to develop the 'defense' of calling ME
a racist. Tell you what... if you wish to refute the fact that I am
CALLING YOU A LIAR, then produce the very first post you
can find where you see the Nameless One calls me a racist. And
you will find that it followed close on the heels of my having
PROVED he was a racist in another thread. And I will predate
any post you can provide, with clear proof that he did so simply
because the 'heat was on him' in respect to HIS OWN RACISM.
Like so many other 'challenges' I have placed before you... I am
quite sure this one will be ignored.
>I know there are plenty of those, but the lies are in the way you
>attempt to force your own totally distorted and dishonest
>interpretations upon people, and the deliberate deception you use when
>doing so.
Unfortunately, that simply remains 'your opinion' which in no
way can affect the EXISTENCE of a "true quote." However
one wishes to form an 'opinion' of that quote is quite divorced
from the FACT it IS a "true quote." And of course, that is
what you DENIED that I have provided. If you read your
BEGGING to the group groveling. Again, your logical
abilities are simply unbelievably inadequate to understand this
point.
>That is what I will show if anyone does ever offer any
>"quote" of yours that they think was either accurate or not
>misrepresented in some way. I don't believe there is such an example,
What one 'believes' has no FACTUAL significance unless
it can be FACTUALLY refuted. This has been demonstrated
for thousands of years, in respect to the possible existence
of a God that can either be 'believed' or not 'believed' exists.
If I were to post -- "There is a God" -- someone may repeat those
words in quotation marks, and state that they are MY words,
and that would be a "TRUE QUOTE," regardless of how
anyone might BELIEVE or NOT BELIEVE in the meaning of
those words. Can you possibly raise your intellectually level up
that enormous amount necessary to understand the DIFFERENCE
between a "TRUE QUOTE," which is what I provide, and you
have CONFIRMED I provide, and what anyone might BELIEVE
is within that TRUE QUOTE. That is why I have stated
over and over that the quotes I provide are EXACT quotes,
which ARE factual evidence. What one BELIEVES is
represented in those quotes is quite separate from the FACT
they are EXACT quotes, and thus BEING EXACT QUOTES
totally refute your claim that they are not "TRUE QUOTES."
I offer what "I believe" is the meaning of those TRUE QUOTES,
you can do whatever your racist little heart desires with them.
But the one thing you CANNOT do... without proving yourself
to be a liar... is to state that they are NOT "TRUE QUOTES."
Because they most definitely are.
>and the fact that it is now eight days since that call went out, with
>still not a single offer, from anyone, suggests that nobody else - not
>even your fans - believes any such "true quote" of yours exists.
>
But gee... JPB... you just CONFIRMED that my quote of the
words of the Nameless One as a "TRUE QUOTE." Thank you,
kindly.
>Finally, an example of your confused mind:
>
ho ho ho... That drew a laugh from me. You can be droll, even
if by accident.
>> So above we have a description of the murder committed by
>> Frank, that Desmond has ADMITTED he would have a greater
>> chance of committing than Frank. My question to you, JPB, is --
>> is the Nameless One someone you wish to hang your opinion
>> upon?
>
>
>Read those two sentences carefully, PV. Can you see anything wrong
>with them? The first clue is in my words that preceded them, above.
>The second clue is that it is not some spelling or grammatical error I
>am referring to. You have 24 hours to find the answer .... starting
>now.
Not a thing wrong with it. The quote was ACCURATE to a fault.
You agree with that. I don't see how anyone could find a different
meaning in those few words, but I've come to see that no stupidity
on the face of this planet is beyond you. Thus, you might argue that
the Nameless One was simply 'speaking in the pejorative.' Just
as when you argued that he could use as many racist slurs as his
racist heart desired and claim it was simply 'in the pejorative.' Of
course, you will see that the Nameless One has recently offered
a NEW EXCUSE for his racism... he claims it is "satire." According
to him... one may insult any race... using the most disgusting
of characterizations... and simply EXCUSE it, by calling it
"satire." Who the fuck does that racist believe he IS? Chris Rock?
Chris Rock can express racism in terms of "satire." The Nameless
One... that White-honkie-mother-fucking-MLK hating-European-Racist
CANNOT. He is simply a racist... trying to search for an EXCUSE
to demonstrate his racism, just as you are now doing in attacking
me, for having paid a tribute to MLK. I would not presume that I
could provide racist slurs and call it "satire." He should not presume
he can... and you should simply try not being a racist, now that you've
finally noticed it exists within you.
Just passing by
>
> Finally, an example of your confused mind:
>
> > So above we have a description of the murder committed by
> > Frank, that Desmond has ADMITTED he would have a greater
> > chance of committing than Frank. My question to you, JPB, is --
> > is the Nameless One someone you wish to hang your opinion
> > upon?
>
>
> Read those two sentences carefully, PV. Can you see anything wrong
> with them? The first clue is in my words that preceded them, above.
> The second clue is that it is not some spelling or grammatical error I
> am referring to. You have 24 hours to find the answer .... starting
> now.
Time's up, PV. Here is the answer.
In the first sentence you referred to DC as "Desmond" but in the
second sentence you said he was nameless.
With a memory as bad as that, you really should try to reduce your
reliance on all those gimmicks. So many gimmicks to remember, yet so
few brain cells to help you in remembering them
Just passing by
> On 14 Sep 2003 03:46:28 -0700, unimpre...@yahoo.com (Just passing by) wrote:
>
> >"How does one go about providing a counter-example to someone saying
> >'the judge was a crook'? " (A Planet Visitor, August 18, 2002)
> >
> >Those words you put into quotes were completely made up by you, as you
> >were later forced to admit.
> >
> There are no 'quotes' there, sport. Regardless of your ignorance in presuming
> I must 'abide' by YOUR rules. Nor is there an indication that I am quoting
> YOU. Since it represents a theoretical question (see the question mark)
> regarding how I might respond to 'SOMEONE' making such a claim.
You lied, PV. They are not my rules, as you say, but the rules of the
English Language. You lied that I had called Zobel a crook, and then
you lied again by saying: "But what he [i.e. JPB] is asking is that I
provide proof that the judge is not a crook," thus reinforcing the
lie. I never asked you to prove that or anything like it.
> >See that full stop (period) after the word "meaning"? It was not in
> >the original words you claimed to be directly quoting, which were: "So
> >I destroyed _your_ meaning, which was a cynical attempt to clean up
> >your image."
> >
> LOL... You are so pathetic. We've already been down that road,
> sport.
Yes, we have, and when we did so you were proven conclusively to have
lied, not only in the above deception, but in your attempts to cover
it up. You went to incredible lengths to try to pretend that you were
obeying the rules of what you call "American English" rather than
simply admit that you lied. You linked to a grammar web site, claiming
that it upheld your claim, when in fact it totally disproved it. You
claimed that your Webster's Handbook upheld your claim, when it
totally disproved it. So finally, to settle the matter once and for
all, I posted this:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=21b1da28.0303060756.2e6c2763%40posting.google.com
In that post, I gave clear and unchallengeable examples, all from
sites dealing with rules on correct written English, to prove that you
were wrong and had lied. And you did not challenge those examples; you
did not continue to insist that what you did was acceptable under
"American English" rules, because you knew it wasn't. Instead you
simply wrote:
"My QUOTE of his words was quite accurate in his stated PURPOSE. His
PURPOSE was to destroy the meaning of my words. The fact that he
claimed a racist MOTIVE for doing so, can hardly be seen as a
REASONABLE motive. Unless of course, YOU believe racism can provide a
REASONABLE motive."
Absolutely nothing there challenging my point, which all along had
been that by inserting the period where you did, and in the way you
did, was wrong. So instead you returned to your lying rant about
Desmond. If you had any decency you would have owned up at that point,
but you didn't because you have none.
> And you've been shown to be a fool.
No, as the above post of mine shows, YOU were shown to be the fool and
the liar. You didn't challenge the rules I showed you with those links
- instead you ran away from them.
> Since that THOUGHT he expressed WAS what required a FULL STOP.
No it didn't; as the proof I gave you in the post linked to above
shows, it required ellipsis marks. Your only purpose in inserting the
full stop was to deceive.
> I actually don't care if everyone examines his EXCUSE... I provided
> a clear link to the evil words he offered in attempting to DESTROY
> MLK.
But he didn't attempt to do anything of the kind. He destroyed you and
your bogus tribute, just as a year earlier you attempted to destroy
Jane's genuine tribute to MLK. You failed in your attempt because she
didn't respond to you with vitriol, hatred and lies, but kept her
dignity. Desmond succeeded in his attempt because you responded with
one of the most long running campaigns of bitterness and thirst for
personal revenge ever seen in a discussion forum, thus proving that
Desmond was right when he accused you of seeking "to hijack the day
when [your]own kind cut down a brave young man in the prime of his
life". Yes, PV, you did HIJACK Martin Luther King and the day that
your country has set aside in his honour. You did it, as you once
slipped up by admitting, to raise your own credibility in this group.
"... he was assured that my credibility would increase ..." (A Planet
Visitor, referring to the effect of his writing that MLK Day
"tribute".
And if ever there was a perfect example proving conclusively that DC
is not a racist, that post in which he stopped you in your tracks from
hijacking MLK was it. No way could a racist have written that
excellent defence of MLK against your attempts to spit on his grave by
exploiting his name, works and memory for nothing more than your plan
to plant a seed that you hoped would begin by raising your credibility
- as you have admitted - and then later give you "a stick" with which
to attack non racist posters whom you fear. No way would a racist have
described MLK as "a brave young man" as Desmond did when he defended
that brave young man from your insult to his memory.
Yes, PV, it was Desmond, not you, who provided the real tribute to
MLK. Your own "tribute" was nothing more than a disguised example of
this:
http://www.chez.com/desmondcoughlan/dp/gimmicks/133.html
> >But even when you don't add or take away words, or completely make
> >them all up, you still lie every time. I don't dispute that Desmond
> >did write, "Indeed, the chances of _me_ murdering someone, are greater
> >than the chances that Theodore Frank would have done so." Your lie in
> >that example is not in changing the words, but in deliberately trying
> >to misrepresent his .... meaning (there's that word again).
> >
> LOL.. Well, thank you very much, JPB. It seems you have again
> proved yourself to be your own worst enemy. You've been raging
> up and down the newsgroup, BEGGING every to shhhh... in other
> for you to _claim the apathy vote_, and here YOU go and _vote_
> for me. That REALLY deserves mention as ROTFLMAO.
> Remember you posted "It is now seven days since the call went
> out for anyone knowing of a single such "quote" from him that has
> been totally true, to produce it. And not one such "true quote" has
> yet been found by anyone." Notice that I have provided a TRUE
> quote of your EXACT words. And here you go and confirm that
> YOU don't dispute my QUOTE of the words of the Nameless
> One. Ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho.
Ahem .... here are the words from my post, asking for anyone to
provide a "true quote" of yours:
'Is there a single example, anywhere in this group's archives, of PV
accusing someone of having said something that, if true, would bring
discredit on that person, which was actually said, as PV reported it
and without the wider context having showed PV to have lied?'
The key words there are: "and without the wider context".
And this part:
'So can anyone (not including PV himself, of course) show a single
case of PV not having lied, in one way or another, when claiming to be
"quoting" another poster?'
The key words are "in one way or another".
And it is now eleven days since those words were posted, and still
nobody has been able to find a single "true quote" of yours that will
pass that test. Why do you think I included those words? Because I
looked ahead (something you never do) and expected you to ask someone
to post some "quote" in which although you lied about what the words
meant, did not actually change them. Yes, PV, I knew you would try
that one and so I made a provision for it. But not even I thought you
would be stupid enough to try it in spite of that provision clearly
being in place. You are even thicker than I thought you were. And, my
god, doesn't that show how desperate this matter has made you?
> >I know there are plenty of those, but the lies are in the way you
> >attempt to force your own totally distorted and dishonest
> >interpretations upon people, and the deliberate deception you use when
> >doing so.
>
> Unfortunately, that simply remains 'your opinion' which in no
> way can affect the EXISTENCE of a "true quote."
Until eleven days ago, when I posted that message, you could indeed
have claimed it was only my opinion and I couldn't have argued with
that. Until then, for all any of us knew, your "quotes" could have
been believed by many here. But not any more.
> >Finally, an example of your confused mind:
> >
> ho ho ho... That drew a laugh from me. You can be droll, even
> if by accident.
>
> >> So above we have a description of the murder committed by
> >> Frank, that Desmond has ADMITTED he would have a greater
> >> chance of committing than Frank. My question to you, JPB, is --
> >> is the Nameless One someone you wish to hang your opinion
> >> upon?
> >
> >
> >Read those two sentences carefully, PV. Can you see anything wrong
> >with them? The first clue is in my words that preceded them, above.
> >The second clue is that it is not some spelling or grammatical error I
> >am referring to. You have 24 hours to find the answer .... starting
> >now.
>
> Not a thing wrong with it.
See my earlier reply.
< remainder of PV's rant against DC, who is definitely not a racist,
as he proved when posting his own admirable tribute to MLK, defending
him from PV's cynical attempt to exploit MLK's name entirely for his
own ends, clipped >
A Planet Visitor
>A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message news:<fkvcmvk6uo5qb4vjp...@4ax.com>...
>> On 14 Sep 2003 03:46:28 -0700, unimpre...@yahoo.com (Just passing by) wrote:
>
>>
>> >"How does one go about providing a counter-example to someone saying
>> >'the judge was a crook'? " (A Planet Visitor, August 18, 2002)
>> >
>> >Those words you put into quotes were completely made up by you, as you
>> >were later forced to admit.
>> >
>> There are no 'quotes' there, sport. Regardless of your ignorance in presuming
>> I must 'abide' by YOUR rules. Nor is there an indication that I am quoting
>> YOU. Since it represents a theoretical question (see the question mark)
>> regarding how I might respond to 'SOMEONE' making such a claim.
>
>You lied, PV. They are not my rules, as you say, but the rules of the
>English Language.
You're so full of shit. Those are NOT the rules that I must abide by, since
I post in American English.. whether you like it or not. You do not MAKE
MY RULES. My rules are made by those in American English grammar.
For two examples of what I mean --
http://newark.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Writing/p.html#punctuation
Rutgers University grammar site -- Quoting ---- "In American usage, all
quoted material goes in "double quotation marks"; if you need a quotation
inside a quotation, use 'single quotation marks' (also called "inverted commas")
inside:" In no case, in American English grammar, do single quotes ALONE,
not within double quotes have ANY meaning in respect to an EXACT QUOTE.
In fact, you will see that it was almost distasteful of the University of Rutgers to
even refer to "single quotation marks," insuring the reader understood that it
was a reference to "inverted commas" as well.
Then see --
http://webster.commnet.edu/grammar/marks/quotation.htm
Quoting -- "British practice, again, is quite different. In fact, single-quote
marks and double-quote marks are apt to be reversed in usage."
Note at the very beginning that "quotation marks" are shown only as
double-quotation marks when they enclosed direct quotes of others.
The use of single-quotation marks that are not enclosed in double-quotation
marks has no meaning in American English in respect to a quotation.
The Chicago Manual of Style... which is the defining authority on
American English has this to say of single quotation marks not inside
of double quotation marks -- "in philosophical discourse, key concepts
may be set apart with single-quote marks." See that quotation at the
end of the URL, above. That is EXACTLY what I presume to imply
when I use single quotation marks not inside of double quotation marks.
A 'key concept,' to the idea being expressed... thus my words to dirtdog
-- /QUOTE/ How does one go about providing a counter-example to
someone saying 'the judge was a crook'? /UNQUOTE/ You will seen
that this provides NO ACTUAL QUOTE... but a 'key philosophical
concept,' to my question. Nor does that sentence even come close to
presuming it was YOUR QUOTE. You should get used to this style
of grammar if you expect to argue American criminal law. Because
YOU are the foreigner!
Also see --
http://www.bartleby.com/68/40/4940.html
I could go on and on, and provide a vast amount of proof of what I
am saying... but it simply doesn't matter... since you're full of shit.
If you wish.... you can presume that American English is another
language completely to yours. It doesn't matter to me, since this
newsgroup is mainly about the U.S. DP, and thus anyone speaking
of that penalty in a post, who does not abide by American English
could be characterized as the 'foreigner.' I rather like that thought.
I pandered to John Rennie... I should not have done so. I did so
because I have realized that much of his arguments are based on
his personal principles, as offensive as those principles might sometimes
seem to me. In this particular case I believe he lost his 'principled
way,' and was simply looking for something to grab a hold of to support
the argument in defense of the 'Great White Whale.' Given that it
is truly a 'lost cause' [1] The true lie is to presume that I intended to
provide a TRUE QUOTE of your words. Nothing could be more
obviously not what I intended, nor demonstrated. There is absolutely
no indication I was trying to do so in the post in question, when looking
as ANY of my posting style prior to that post. I have always presumed
that ONLY double quotes provide EXACT QUOTES, and single
quotes can serve a purpose of 'pointing out' trends in the argument.
The example in my comment to dirtdog was simply picked out
of thin air, after I had already posted in that style for quite some time.
Thus, the distortion rests with those who would try to distort my meaning.
And it's a demonstration of the distorted methods you use. Since you
argue that my ACTUAL TRUE QUOTES... Those absolutely meant
to provide TRUE QUOTES... Word for word... are NOT TRUE
QUOTES. For example all the TRUE QUOTES I provide of the
Nameless One's absurd ravings about various subjects including
his LAUGHING at murder. You characterize THEM as lies.. but
the TRUE lie rests in your calling them lies... since THEY are the
TRUE QUOTES.... and my words were simply as the Chicago Manual
of Style states --> a key concept in a philosophical discourse... which is
rather obvious from the question posed in that discourse.
I would offer this advice... don't presume that the British Empire still exists,
or that the English language cannot evolve in different fashions depending
upon the geographical areas, and the people involved. It actually constitutes
nothing other than an insult, and an absurdly arrogant presumption of a
superiority which no longer exists or has any meaning. In other words..
in the future, when any member speaking 'British English,' attempts to
tell me how to post in 'American English,' or demands that I post in
'their' British English... I will simply tell them to fuck off... so fuck off.
> You lied that I had called Zobel a crook, and then
>you lied again by saying: "But what he [i.e. JPB] is asking is that I
>provide proof that the judge is not a crook," thus reinforcing the
>lie. I never asked you to prove that or anything like it.
>
Ummm. JPB... there is no comma in the words you QUOTE are
mine....remember how you blew a gasket when I put a period
inside a quote? Damn... you can't get ANYTHING right. I
guess I can now refer to your 'quote' of my words as a LIE,
since that comma is not in the words you QUOTE are mine.
I expect you to apologize immediately and admit you LIED
by placing that comma that does not exist in my words with
your quotation of my words. Do you see how foolish it is
to depend on stupid pedantry to deny the MEANING of
a TRUE QUOTE?
However, I was speaking of the implication, sport.. You will find
no quotation from any person within that philosophical argument.
I spoke of "someone" in the third-person. From every indication
you offered at that point your implication was clear
to me. You FACTUALLY STATED -- "Zobel certainly knows
she didn't do it," But, Jesus, JPB... he FOUND HER GUILTY.
This was the philosophical question I was asking. How can
I prove Judge Zobel is 'not a crook,' when you already stated
that he KNOWS she didn't do it... but STILL he found her
guilty.
The TRUE LIES are your words that rest within the EXACT QUOTES
I provide of your lies... in [1]. Including a very clear lie, where you use
the word "FACT" twice, in a short 21 word sentence, which contains
an ABSOLUTE LIE.
>> >See that full stop (period) after the word "meaning"? It was not in
>> >the original words you claimed to be directly quoting, which were: "So
>> >I destroyed _your_ meaning, which was a cynical attempt to clean up
>> >your image."
>> >
>> LOL... You are so pathetic. We've already been down that road,
>> sport.
>
>Yes, we have, and when we did so you were proven conclusively to have
>lied, not only in the above deception, but in your attempts to cover
>it up. You went to incredible lengths to try to pretend that you were
>obeying the rules of what you call "American English" rather than
>simply admit that you lied.
You will find that I have again referred to PROOF of what I've said.
> You linked to a grammar web site, claiming
>that it upheld your claim, when in fact it totally disproved it. You
>claimed that your Webster's Handbook upheld your claim, when it
>totally disproved it. So finally, to settle the matter once and for
>all, I posted this:
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=21b1da28.0303060756.2e6c2763%40posting.google.com
>
ROTFLMAO... Yes... go to your post... And then go to the "Blue
Book of Grammar and Punctuation" you refer to -- See
http://www.grammarbook.com/default.htm
And then click on "punctuation," and click again on the symbol
for double-quotation marks. And you will find all examples of
direct quotes use DOUBLE-QUOTATION marks. Not single!!
Look at rule 4 inside that link. This is what is there
/QUOTE/
Rule 4. Use single quotation marks for quotes within quotes. Note
that the period goes inside all quote marks.
Example He said, "Mary said, ‘Do not treat me that way.’"
/UNQUOTE/
Clearly, your reference proves that single-quotation marks have
no meaning in respect to any quote UNLESS they are inside
of double-quotation marks which represent the actual primary quote.
And NOTE that the "period goes inside all quote marks." Which
is EXACTLY what I did in my ACCURATE QUOTE of the
Nameless One laughing at his belief that he had DESTROYED
THE MEANING OF MLK. In these words -- "So I destroyed
_your_ meaning." See --
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=cboo5vg4dcln1qruhns9sm71vb44aegch9%404ax.com
Posted in respect to the MEANING of my words in --
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=fsWW9.113395%24Sa3.2633235%40twister.tampabay.rr.com
Just as YOU are now working hard to destroy the meaning of
my words... which were simply a very mild expression of anti-racism.
But it was ENOUGH to cause racists to raise their ugly heads and
try to DESTROY the meaning of those words. And DESTROY
the life and work of MLK in the process.
>In that post, I gave clear and unchallengeable examples, all from
>sites dealing with rules on correct written English, to prove that you
>were wrong and had lied.
You have lost all your marbles. You should recheck your post,
and find that what you did was provide a link which proved ME
right in respect to any claim that my post to dirtdog implied a
'direct quote' of anything you had posted. You really have this
way of 'stepping on your dick,' JPB.
> And you did not challenge those examples; you
>did not continue to insist that what you did was acceptable under
>"American English" rules, because you knew it wasn't. Instead you
>simply wrote:
>
Why should I challenge what proves ME right? Check your source.
What the hell do references to "ellipses marks" have to do with
quotation marks? There are no "ellipses marks" within those words
in question. Your post clearly shows that QUOTATIONS in
American English are those words placed inside of DOUBLE
QUOTATION MARKS... not single-quotation marks. And there
is not ONE double-quotation mark in my entire comment, in
respect to the Judge Zobel-crook dialog. Thus it could not
possibly be a 'direct quotation' from anyone. And in respect to
my DIRECT QUOTE of the disgusting words of the Nameless
One in which he admitted he intended to DESTROY the MEANING
OF MLK, there is no need for "ellipses marks" since I was
omitting NOTHING within the framework of those double-quotes.
Jesus... you are either incredible stupid or incredible ignorant... you
choose. Of course the true answer is that you are an incredible
liar. Little wonder that you so praised the Nameless One's ability
to produce the 'original and creative' LIE.
>"My QUOTE of his words was quite accurate in his stated PURPOSE. His
>PURPOSE was to destroy the meaning of my words. The fact that he
>claimed a racist MOTIVE for doing so, can hardly be seen as a
>REASONABLE motive. Unless of course, YOU believe racism can provide a
>REASONABLE motive."
>
Absolutely accurate. My quote of his words was posted in double-quotation
marks, meaning I was providing a TRUE and ACCURATE account of his
words.
>Absolutely nothing there challenging my point, which all along had
>been that by inserting the period where you did, and in the way you
>did, was wrong.
Absolutely wrong. That period belonged right were it was. Representing
the end of my quotation of his exact words. Certainly there was no
requirement for "ellipses marks,": which are used to show a gap within
a quote. And has been pointed out... In American English, the period
goes INSIDE of the quotation. See below -- ""In America, commas and
periods go inside quotation marks."
> So instead you returned to your lying rant about
>Desmond. If you had any decency you would have owned up at that point,
>but you didn't because you have none.
>
I've never lied about the Nameless One. There is no necessity to
do so... just as there is no necessity to do so with you. You both manage
quite elegantly to destroy yourselves and each other. You've called
HIM a liar, and he's called YOU a liar. What more could I ask for?
The Nameless One has been caught in more lies than I can count...
and you are not far behind.
>> And you've been shown to be a fool.
>
>No, as the above post of mine shows, YOU were shown to be the fool and
>the liar. You didn't challenge the rules I showed you with those links
>- instead you ran away from them.
>
Challenge WHAT rules? That single-quotes do NOT represent a DIRECT
QUOTE in American English? Challenged... beaten you to a pulp. You
having even provided the proof of what I claim in your providing a
reference to American English. That there was a period inside of a
direct quotation of the Nameless One? That's exactly where it belonged,
to represent the end of MY sentence, which concluded with the last word
of his words I was quoting. Again referring to the Rutgers University
reference to American grammar given above --
http://newark.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Writing/p.html#punctuation
Once again QUOTING from that reference -- "In America, commas and
periods go inside quotation marks, while semicolons and colons go
outside, regardless of the punctuation in the original quotation."
>> Since that THOUGHT he expressed WAS what required a FULL STOP.
>
>No it didn't; as the proof I gave you in the post linked to above
>shows, it required ellipsis marks. Your only purpose in inserting the
>full stop was to deceive.
>
Of course it did... everything that followed was his pathetic EXCUSE
for what he clearly claimed he intended to accomplish. Which was to
DESTROY THE MEANING OF MLK. I don't care about racist
EXCUSES. You post enough excuses for them without my having to help
you.
>
>> I actually don't care if everyone examines his EXCUSE... I provided
>> a clear link to the evil words he offered in attempting to DESTROY
>> MLK.
>
>But he didn't attempt to do anything of the kind. He destroyed you and
>your bogus tribute, just as a year earlier you attempted to destroy
>Jane's genuine tribute to MLK. You failed in your attempt because she
>didn't respond to you with vitriol, hatred and lies, but kept her
>dignity. Desmond succeeded in his attempt because you responded with
>one of the most long running campaigns of bitterness and thirst for
>personal revenge ever seen in a discussion forum, thus proving that
>Desmond was right when he accused you of seeking "to hijack the day
>when [your]own kind cut down a brave young man in the prime of his
>life". Yes, PV, you did HIJACK Martin Luther King and the day that
>your country has set aside in his honour. You did it, as you once
>slipped up by admitting, to raise your own credibility in this group.
>"... he was assured that my credibility would increase ..." (A Planet
>Visitor, referring to the effect of his writing that MLK Day
>"tribute".
>
yada, yada, yada... You simply keep proving over and over that you
ARE A RACIST... Need I remind you of what others have characterized
the absolutely disgusting attempt of the Nameless to DESTROY the
MEANING of MLK? Let's see -- John Rennie posted --
""I will break my own vow of silence about commenting on Desmond's
posts when I say that his attack on PV's tribute to King was amongst his
worst." And then we have his 'friend' who even in that friendship could
not help but note in reference to my original MLK day post that -- "The
post should not have been attacked and it was mean-spirited of those
who attacked it to do so as it was obviously a heartfelt post and a nice
thing to do in any case." So why are you still here, if not to accuse me
of being a racist? And by the way... a question you have NEVER
answered... the Nameless One claimed that I was 'demonizing' him...
but who was the FIRST to 'demonize' in the MLK day thread?
For the answer, see your 'favorite post,' from the Nameless One.
Of course it is your favorite, since it attempts to demonize an
anti-racist post.. and like the 'good little KKK racist' you are...
you salivated over such a demonization.
>And if ever there was a perfect example proving conclusively that DC
>is not a racist, that post in which he stopped you in your tracks from
>hijacking MLK was it.
See above. No one but you seems to believe that. But you being
that KKK member I can see why you've formed that opinion. I did
not hijack MLK. The Nameless One admitted that he intended to
DESTROY THE MEANING of MLK. You have hijacked his
attempt to destroy that meaning of MLK... and have been at it
far longer than he was.
> No way could a racist have written that
>excellent defence of MLK against your attempts to spit on his grave by
>exploiting his name, works and memory for nothing more than your plan
>to plant a seed that you hoped would begin by raising your credibility
>- as you have admitted - and then later give you "a stick" with which
>to attack non racist posters whom you fear. No way would a racist have
>described MLK as "a brave young man" as Desmond did when he defended
>that brave young man from your insult to his memory.
>
What a load of horseshit. He was ATTACKING MLK, through me.
There is no other way to view that disgusting attack on MLK. No
other way. His pathetic attempts to characterize MLK as 'a brave
'young man,' when the ONLY mention of him prior to that had been
when he included a racist slur right next to his name. See -
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=pIMuAPAXaRKzEwxA%40maudit.demon.co.uk
And again, USING a racist slur to presume another is a racist, when
it is quite obvious who the racist is.
>Yes, PV, it was Desmond, not you, who provided the real tribute to
>MLK. Your own "tribute" was nothing more than a disguised example of
>this:
>
>http://www.chez.com/desmondcoughlan/dp/gimmicks/133.html
>
Ummm... actually you should realize that he BEGGED the group to
_vote_ for his racism... in a thread which contains NO response from
anyone... it sits there all alone. Could it possibly be because he also
insulted the entire group, and demanded they leave AADP if they did
not _vote_ for him? Talk about the _apathy_vote. Notice that
not ONE poster replied to this BEGGING. Not one. See what it
says when looking at the post in google? It says -- "This is the ONLY
article in this thread." Holy Smokes, JPB!!! What's it been now?
205 DAYS! Two hundred and five days, JPB! And counting.
Talk about the _apathy vote_. ho ho ho ho ho Let's take a look --
The Nameless One alternate gimmick n° 166 -- See
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=20030224230644.03943.00001014%40mb-fj.aol.com
== The all AADP needs to redeem themselves gimmick ==
His words --
"This is your chance to redeem yourselves. This is your chance to show the
newsgroup that you have backbone. So far, only dirt and 'JPB' have
bothered to stand up and ridicule FW when he called me a racist, based on
words that were designed to call _him_ a racist. Whatever your 'vote', be
it for me or against me, I accept it. But either stand up now and be
counted, or at least have the decency to leave the newsgroup, for you are
nothing but pawns of a sick, perverted lunatic who demonises all those with
whom he cannot debate."
There does not exist in all of Usenet, a more desperate appeal for friends to
_vote for his racism_. In his role as the Messiah of racism, he offers
all those who _vote_ for him the _opportunity_ to "redeem" themselves.
That's you -- he 'redeemed YOU... lucky you... no wonder you fall at
the feet of your MESSIAH. Of course, for the others...if they do not
_vote_ for him... well.. he accuses them of lacking "backbone," and
consigns them to the depths of Hell... Banishment from AADP!!. Talk
about a post that tries to change a lie into the truth...through BEGGING
others to accept that lie as the truth.
Yes, JPB. The 'incandescent glow of that racist light has fallen on you.' In the
beginning, the Nameless One, the God of all things depraved, rose in nakedness
from his particular moral chaos, but finding nothing of substance to rest upon,
commenced to vent his venom in all his hypocrisy, and demand that
everyone in AADP _vote_ for him, to "redeem" themselves, or they
have no "backbone." How much we've missed the unpleasant vitriol
that gurgles up from the deep recesses of the bowels of the Nameless
One. Where would we be without the benchmark by which we gauge
all other forms of irrational ravings that he provides? Why.. we'd simply
have to now use JPB for that benchmark!
No, sport... the 'key words' lie in your claim that I have lied in
my TRUE QUOTES. I remind you of your words -- " "It is now
seven days since the call went out for anyone knowing of a single
such "quote" from him that has been totally true, to produce it.
And not one such "true quote" has yet been found by anyone."
But you ADMITTED that have "found" exactly such a "true
quote," in your admission of finding it, with those words from you --
/QUOTE/
I don't dispute that Desmond did write, "Indeed, the chances
of _me_ murdering someone, are greater than the chances that
Theodore Frank would have done so."
/UNQUOTE/
There could not possibly be a greater admission that I HAVE
produced a "TRUE QUOTE" and you have FOUND IT. Thank
you. Of course, you are so easy... having also called your 'friend'
a liar, by complimenting him on his ability to produce 'original and
imaginative' lies, to confront my very 'unoriginal and unimaginative'
TRUTHS. Did you manage to get a copy of Plato's Republic yet?
>
>And it is now eleven days since those words were posted, and still
>nobody has been able to find a single "true quote" of yours that will
>pass that test. Why do you think I included those words? Because I
>looked ahead (something you never do) and expected you to ask someone
>to post some "quote" in which although you lied about what the words
>meant, did not actually change them.
I did not need to ask... you volunteered. Thank you.
> Yes, PV, I knew you would try
>that one and so I made a provision for it. But not even I thought you
>would be stupid enough to try it in spite of that provision clearly
>being in place. You are even thicker than I thought you were. And, my
>god, doesn't that show how desperate this matter has made you?
>
Ummm... God should necessarily be capitalized... But I suppose
some would argue that Godlessness and racism go hand in hand.
And I certainly didn't need to 'ask' anyone for anything, since you
do enough BEGGING for the both of us. While you and the
Nameless one BEGGING in tandem is quite more than this
newsgroup can handle.
>
>> >I know there are plenty of those, but the lies are in the way you
>> >attempt to force your own totally distorted and dishonest
>> >interpretations upon people, and the deliberate deception you use when
>> >doing so.
>>
>> Unfortunately, that simply remains 'your opinion' which in no
>> way can affect the EXISTENCE of a "true quote."
>
>Until eleven days ago, when I posted that message, you could indeed
>have claimed it was only my opinion and I couldn't have argued with
>that. Until then, for all any of us knew, your "quotes" could have
>been believed by many here. But not any more.
>
But, JPB... YOU believed one of them. You blithering idiot...YOU
agreed that one of them was a TRUE QUOTE, in fact. You said
"I don't dispute that Desmond did write,...."
>
>> >Finally, an example of your confused mind:
>> >
>> ho ho ho... That drew a laugh from me. You can be droll, even
>> if by accident.
>>
>> >> So above we have a description of the murder committed by
>> >> Frank, that Desmond has ADMITTED he would have a greater
>> >> chance of committing than Frank. My question to you, JPB, is --
>> >> is the Nameless One someone you wish to hang your opinion
>> >> upon?
>> >
>> >
>> >Read those two sentences carefully, PV. Can you see anything wrong
>> >with them? The first clue is in my words that preceded them, above.
>> >The second clue is that it is not some spelling or grammatical error I
>> >am referring to. You have 24 hours to find the answer .... starting
>> >now.
>>
>> Not a thing wrong with it.
>
>See my earlier reply.
>
You mean your last 'rant'? Read it... puked over it. I always puke when
I see racist drivel posted to this great newsgroup. A newsgroup which
has of late become polluted by the likes of you.
>< remainder of PV's rant against DC, who is definitely not a racist,
>as he proved when posting his own admirable tribute to MLK, defending
>him from PV's cynical attempt to exploit MLK's name entirely for his
>own ends, clipped >
>
>http://www.chez.com/desmondcoughlan/dp/gimmicks/133.html
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=fsWW9.113395%24Sa3.2633235%40twister.tampabay.rr.com
PV
[1] http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/JPB.html
A Planet Visitor
>unimpre...@yahoo.com (Just passing by) wrote in message news:<21b1da28.03091...@posting.google.com>...
>
>>
>> Finally, an example of your confused mind:
>>
>> > So above we have a description of the murder committed by
>> > Frank, that Desmond has ADMITTED he would have a greater
>> > chance of committing than Frank. My question to you, JPB, is --
>> > is the Nameless One someone you wish to hang your opinion
>> > upon?
>>
>>
>> Read those two sentences carefully, PV. Can you see anything wrong
>> with them? The first clue is in my words that preceded them, above.
>> The second clue is that it is not some spelling or grammatical error I
>> am referring to. You have 24 hours to find the answer .... starting
>> now.
>
>Time's up, PV. Here is the answer.
>
>In the first sentence you referred to DC as "Desmond" but in the
>second sentence you said he was nameless.
They are one and the same... interchangeable....Just as "JPB" and
"racist," are interchangeable. You will find that intimate and unbreakable
'spiritual' connection explained to you at [1]... Suck it up, JPB.
>With a memory as bad as that, you really should try to reduce your
>reliance on all those gimmicks. So many gimmicks to remember, yet so
>few brain cells to help you in remembering them
>
>http://www.chez.com/desmondcoughlan/dp/gimmicks/172.html
Heh..heh..heh... Call that the --
Obsessive Followers of the Nameless One Gimmick n° 2 --
== using the Nameless One's Gimmick file because the poster
lacks the intellectual wherewithal to formulate a thought of their
own ==
You remember what the --
Obsessive Followers of the Nameless One Gimmick n° 1 is??
Simple enough... since you also demonstrate it here -- That
would be the = SLURP....SLURP... SLURP... gimmick ==
as you bow down before your MESSIAH, as the helpful little
goblin you have always been. [2]
Of course we also have your other unique gimmicks... lies, distortions,
and racist arguments. And the proven gimmicks that you use --
JPB Gimmick n° 1
== JPB's failed gimmick in defending the Nameless One ==
Your most pathetic gimmick, which has been exposed as a gimmick,
and exposed you as a racist, who would try to destroy the life of
MLK, by characterizing anti-racist posts as "phoney," and MLK as a
"phoney" as well. While assaulting all that he stood for, characterizing
it, and his life as simply a "gimmick," a "trick," and "bogus."
JPB Gimmick n° 2.
== JPB's "literary fingerprinting" gimmick. ==
Your pathetic announcement that you intend to _expose_ me.
And your purposely distorted attempt to make your lie seem
like a 'certainty,' as you posted "I am personally certain...."
While I am "personally certain" that you are a racist.. having
been exposed and now becoming quite hysterical at being
exposed.
JPB gimmick n° 3.
== JPB's neurotic need to become obsessive about some
very evil ideas ==
JPB's obsession with Fat Women baby-killers [3]. JPB's obsession
with an affection for dictators. JPB's obsession in agreeing with those
who find murderers to be just like innocent slaves. JPB's obsession
with defending anti-Semites who argue that no Jews were murdered
in Dachau, because 'Dachau was not a death-camp for Jews.' And
finally JPB's obsession with idolizing racists, in an almost religious
revelation experience.[1] All of these obsessions have been carefully
documented and exposed. JPB's obsession in attaching himself to
some of the most disgusting principles imaginable -- AL:L EXPOSED.
And, of course, the central obsession now dominating JPB's psychotic
condition... his obsession with PV... trying desperately to extract
himself from having 'called' someone who posted a tribute to MLK..
a racist for doing so. But he has been EXPOSED... all the facade
stripped away.. piece by ugly piece.
JPB gimmick n° 4.
== When confronted with evidence... lie, cheat, steal or ignore it. ==
You LIED by stating in--
url:http://www.google.com/groups?selm=21b1da28.0303040404.6ec39dbc%40posting.google.com
"Prior to that, there were no such rants from PV about racism - neither
that which he is accusing Desmond of nor general racism in society.
PV only decided to don this anti-racism hat of his after Desmond began
accusing him of racism. "
My response to your comment which PROVES you lied was --
url:http://www.google.com/groups?selm=40ua6vcg4pnit535hj1a4n1avsm44i3291%404ax.com
A post which lists references to seven different mentions of my seeing
racism in desi, ALL dating back more than three years ago.
The first only a bit more than a month after I first posted to this group.
Where is your admission that you LIED, JPB? Since my "rants" (sic)
noting racism in desi, are fully DOCUMENTED in the referenced posts
I have provided in this newsgroup. With certainly many dating over two
years ago.
And that's simply one of the MANY lies, and distortions you have flooded
this group with.. since your first disgusting attempt to characterize Judge
Zobel as a crook, and the entire State of Massachusetts as riddled with
corruption... including calling 47 doctors all liars. The evidence of that
is FIRMLY established in [3].
JPB gimmick n° 5.
== Imply PV is a racist. Imply that everyone can see PV is a racist,
simply by them looking at his MLK Day tribute... but then deny actually
calling PV a racist ==
A two-faced, gutless, disgusting gimmick of yours.
PV
[1] http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desi-JPB-love-affair.htm
[2] http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/Goblin.htm
[3] http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/JPB.html
Just passing by
> JPB's obsession
> with defending anti-Semites who argue that no Jews were murdered
> in Dachau, because 'Dachau was not a death-camp for Jews.'
See the new post, "To PV's fans" for further comment on that sick
fantasy you just dreamed up. This is another that is going to run and
run.
Just passing by
> On 16 Sep 2003 07:52:05 -0700, unimpre...@yahoo.com (Just passing by) wrote:
> >
> >You lied, PV. They are not my rules, as you say, but the rules of the
> >English Language.
>
> You're so full of shit. Those are NOT the rules that I must abide by ...
You don't have to abide by any rules - including those of honesty and
decency - if you choose not to, as clearly you have chosen. But what
you can't do is change the rules that already exist, then try to hide
your lies behind your own rules.
> since I post in American English..
No you don't because you don't even understand American English, as
you demonstrate every time you try referring to some website or
handbook to back up your errors/lies. Every time you do that you
completely misread and misunderstand whichever rule it is you think
supports your claim. And here is a good example:
> MY RULES. My rules are made by those in American English grammar.
> For two examples of what I mean --
> http://newark.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Writing/p.html#punctuation
> Rutgers University grammar site -- Quoting ---- "In American usage, all
> quoted material goes in "double quotation marks"; if you need a quotation
> inside a quotation, use 'single quotation marks' (also called "inverted
> commas") inside:"
That has absolutely nothing to do with your lie about me calling the
judge a crook. Those words you used WERE NOT a quotation inside a
quotation, which is what the above refers to. You do that every time -
producing completely irrelevant and inapplicable examples, such as
that one.
The bottom line here, PV, is that what proves you told that lie
wilfully is that when I challenged you about it day after day, again
and again, you NEVER ONCE offered this excuse about "American English
rules" and "quotes within quotes". You simply ran away, never once
trying to justify what you had written - all of that is easy to prove
through the archives. It was only months later, after the matter was
raised again, that you came up with this ridiculous tale. So why
didn't you offer this story back then? The answer is because it took
you months to dream it up.
> > You lied that I had called Zobel a crook, and then
> >you lied again by saying: "But what he [i.e. JPB] is asking is that I
> >provide proof that the judge is not a crook," thus reinforcing the
> >lie. I never asked you to prove that or anything like it.
> >
> Ummm. JPB... there is no comma in the words you QUOTE are
> mine....remember how you blew a gasket when I put a period
> inside a quote? Damn... you can't get ANYTHING right. I
> guess I can now refer to your 'quote' of my words as a LIE,
> since that comma is not in the words you QUOTE are mine.
> I expect you to apologize immediately and admit you LIED
> by placing that comma that does not exist in my words with
> your quotation of my words. Do you see how foolish it is
> to depend on stupid pedantry to deny the MEANING of
> a TRUE QUOTE?
Oh dear! And that was after you had just written a very long piece
about "American English" and the rules you seem to think you can
always blame for lying about what people have written. You don't know
why I put the comma at the end of your words I quoted, do you? You
think I was misquoting you by doing that, don't you? And that is
because you have never learned what all the children in your
neighbourhood could have told you.
So, once again, I have to show you, using a grammar website, why you
are wrong .... yawn!
The comma after the word "crook" was required because the quoted words
were part of the overall flow of MY sentence. Look at this site:
http://blackraptor.hispeed.com/m7fic/contents/grammar.htm
And in particular, look at this example from that page:
________________________________
How to Write Quotations
If the phrase following a quote tells the reader who said it, or how
it was spoken, then the quote should end in a comma, not a period.
Example:
Correct: "I want to see him," Chris said.
Incorrect: "I want to see him." Chris said
_____________________________________
And this, from the same site:
___________________________________________________
The punctuation always comes before the " not after.
Correct: "He backed down like a yellow dog," JD said.
Incorrect: "He backed down like a yellow dog", JD said.
____________________________________________________
And from another site:
______________________________________________________
Punctuation
Rule 1: Periods and commas always go inside quotation marks, even
inside single quotes.
Examples:
The sign changed from "Walk," to "Don't Walk," to "Walk" again within
30 seconds.
http://www.acs.brockport.edu/~gsaxton/grammar.htm
_______________________________________________________
Now, are you going to again try to hide behind your usual "I was using
American English, not British English" drivel? Then look at this page:
http://www.xylostyle.com/grammar.html
And read this part:
_________________________________________
'The sign in the shop window said "Closed," which was somewhat
unusual.'
This is the punctuation required by teachers throughout the U.S.
However, the sign did NOT say "Closed,". It said "Closed". We can be
quite sure that the comma was absolutely nowhere to be found in the
message.
__________________________________________
Some people believe that a distinction should be made between spoken
words and written ones, but, as the above tells us, teachers
throughout the US don't agree.
The rule is that the comma, if it is required to separate the quote
from the words following it, goes inside the quotation marks - it does
not have to have been part of the original quote. The exceptions are
if the quoted words ended in a question mark or exclamation mark ...
and your words didn't. I could have written, 'You lied that I had
called Zobel a crook, and then you lied again by saying: "But what he
[i.e. JPB] is asking is that I provide proof that the judge is not a
crook." That reinforced the lie.' That too would have been correct,
but as I used the word "thus" it required a comma because your quote
was part of my overall sentence.
You stupid man!
You even bang on about that very rule in your post, without
understanding what it refers to.
> Absolutely wrong. That period belonged right were it was. Representing
> the end of my quotation of his exact words. Certainly there was no
> requirement for "ellipses marks,": which are used to show a gap within
> a quote. And has been pointed out... In American English, the period
> goes INSIDE of the quotation. See below -- ""In America, commas and
> periods go inside quotation marks."
That has absolutely nothing to do with inserting a period where one
did not originally appear when it indicates you to be quoting
someone's entire sentence. It is a rule that is entirely unconnected
to the matter of your failure to indicate that you had removed words
from Desmond's sentence. That rule, as I told you before, is explained
here:
http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/perEllip.html
_________________________________
Which states:
Rule 3. If words are omitted at the end of a quoted sentence, use
ellipsis marks followed by the necessary ending punctuation mark.
Examples: The regulation states, "All agencies must document
overtime...." The original sentence read: The regulation states, "All
agencies must document overtime or risk losing federal funds."
_________________________________
That is a perfect example, showing why you were wrong to cut off
Desmond's sentence half way through without using ellipsis marks. And
once again you showed your ignorance of the language when you wrote:
> Certainly there was no
> requirement for "ellipses marks,": which are used to show a gap within
> a quote.
They are also used to indicate words taken from the end of a quote.
But you either didn't know that or are pretending not to have done, so
as to continue trying to cover your lie. I care not which it is. You
really are like a small child who kicks & screams when caught out
lying rather than simply owning up. You are truly the most pathetic
specimen I have ever encountered anywhere.
Remaining invocation of Patented Gimmick 133 clipped and unread.
A Planet Visitor
That would be FANTASTIC.... since it clearly demonstrates your
inability to read English.
I need only refer anyone to this post of yours to demonstrate that you
DID DEFEND that person. --
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=21b1da28.0305300225.1471ff8e%40posting.google.com
in these words of yours -->
"now you have done it to Neville by claiming that he said the Nazi death
camps were "okay" which he certainly did not say."
Is that not a DEFENSE of Neville? Is that not what I said you
had done?
PV
A Planet Visitor
>A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message news:<2pkfmv4rri259a51l...@4ax.com>...
>> On 16 Sep 2003 07:52:05 -0700, unimpre...@yahoo.com (Just passing by) wrote:
>
>> >
>> >You lied, PV. They are not my rules, as you say, but the rules of the
>> >English Language.
>>
>> You're so full of shit. Those are NOT the rules that I must abide by ...
>
>You don't have to abide by any rules - including those of honesty and
>decency - if you choose not to, as clearly you have chosen. But what
>you can't do is change the rules that already exist, then try to hide
>your lies behind your own rules.
>
All I have to abide by is the clear rule of American English that ONLY
double quotation marks indicate QUOTATIONS. That is an
undeniable fact, and you cannot presume that my using single
quotation marks MUST abide by YOUR rules, since they are not
MY rules.
>> since I post in American English..
>
>No you don't because you don't even understand American English, as
>you demonstrate every time you try referring to some website or
>handbook to back up your errors/lies. Every time you do that you
>completely misread and misunderstand whichever rule it is you think
>supports your claim. And here is a good example:
>
I sense you are about to 'step on your dick' most forcefully, yet again.
>
>> MY RULES. My rules are made by those in American English grammar.
>> For two examples of what I mean --
>> http://newark.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Writing/p.html#punctuation
>> Rutgers University grammar site -- Quoting ---- "In American usage, all
>> quoted material goes in "double quotation marks"; if you need a quotation
>> inside a quotation, use 'single quotation marks' (also called "inverted
>> commas") inside:"
>
>That has absolutely nothing to do with your lie about me calling the
>judge a crook.
But I did not QUOTE you as having said that. I can well characterize
ANYTHING you say into how I feel about what you have said.
I am only FACTUALLY responsible for DIRECT QUOTES,
and they MUST be encased in double quotation marks under the
grammar rules of American English. It is no lie to say you are an
idiot... but I certainly could not QUOTE you as having said it,
since you are blind to your own ignorance. That is why I recognize
you have CALLED Judge Zobel a crook. Because you characterized
him as a crooked judge, as far as I'm concerned, since any Judge
who KNOWS an accused is innocent (and you DID say he KNOWS
that), and STILL finds the accused guilty, and has the POWER to
find the accused innocent, is simply a crook if such is TRUE. in
my opinion which is how I characterized your words. But
it is not true... thus you LIED by characterizing Judge Zobel as a
crooked judge... a crook.
>Those words you used WERE NOT a quotation inside a
>quotation, which is what the above refers to. You do that every time -
>producing completely irrelevant and inapplicable examples, such as
>that one.
Quite true... and I'm gratified you finally understand. They were
not a quote of ANY KIND. Those words inside of single
quotes cannot BE a DIRECT QUOTATION unless THEY
are inside double quotes, and they are not. Thus they revert
to the meaning given in the Chicago Manual of Style, which is
every bit as much a recognized reference to American Grammar
as ANY reference to British grammar. They revert to concepts
of a 'philosophical discourse.' I also realize that you have just
about ripped out the heart of my previous, very precise
argument, because you could not HANDLE it. And never
indicated that you had clipped even one word of my comment.
As usual... you're simply a liar. So here you go again --
My rules are made by those in American English grammar. For
two examples of what I mean --
http://newark.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Writing/p.html#punctuation
Rutgers University grammar site -- Quoting ---- "In American usage,
all quoted material goes in "double quotation marks"; if you need
a quotation inside a quotation, use 'single quotation marks' (also
called "inverted commas") inside:" In no case, in American English
>The bottom line here, PV, is that what proves you told that lie
>wilfully is that when I challenged you about it day after day, again
>and again, you NEVER ONCE offered this excuse about "American English
>rules" and "quotes within quotes".
I have offered this over and over, many times with the fucking
Nameless One, who presumes there is no such thing as American
English. I no longer give a fuck... you can take it or shove it...
I will ONLY use double quotes, as I always have to indicate
DIRECT, ACCURATE, QUOTES of the words of others.
One can presume NOTHING from my use of single quotes,
other than it represents some extrapolation of a philosophical
separation of the meaning within those single quotes, for
emphasis, or the understanding that it has a unique meaning
within the context of my comment. Those not liking the way
I do so... can simply take a flying fuck or not read my comments,
since it doesn't concern me in the slightest. I am certain that
those who DO find something wrong with the style with which
I use single quotations are ALWAYS those of British origin,
which makes me doubly unconcerned, since I do not tell
them what 'style' to use when posting. Further, they are
also ALWAYS abolitionists... thus there is a rather obvious
attempt to drag away for the ISSUE, because they are UNABLE
to face that issue. Two points.. There is a 100% certainty
from any unbiased American observer that my comment to
dirtdog in no way exhibited ANY kind of a belief I was
quoting ANYONE EXACTLY. Second point. My use of
a period inside of that disgusting remark that the Nameless One
made was entirely appropriate, representing his EXACT
WORDS... and his EXACT MEANING as to his intentions
in respect to the MLK Day post of mine. There is no question
of that.
> You simply ran away, never once
>trying to justify what you had written - all of that is easy to prove
>through the archives. It was only months later, after the matter was
>raised again, that you came up with this ridiculous tale. So why
>didn't you offer this story back then? The answer is because it took
>you months to dream it up.
>
It's well explained above. I regret that I held John Rennie
in such respect, since I now consider his absurd accusation
to be mean and spiteful, in spite of what respect I might hold
for him otherwise. It was a cruel, vindictive attack on what
was obviously not MEANT to be an EXACT quotation of
your words, and there are a great number of times that John
has taken great liberties in HIS 'interpretations' of the words
of others. I would not have done the same to him. I am
certain of that. Just as I am certain that his methods where
less than honest in his approach to my comment. The more
I see of this... the more angry I become, yet I was most
accommodating at first, almost rueful, which was exactly the
wrong stance to take, since there is NOTHING to indicate
I meant to provide a DIRECT QUOTE of your pathetic
implication that Judge Zobel was a 'crooked judge.'
And the entire State of Massachusetts was 'riddled with
corruption.' YOURS was the sickening accusation..
not mine.
>
>> > You lied that I had called Zobel a crook, and then
>> >you lied again by saying: "But what he [i.e. JPB] is asking is that I
>> >provide proof that the judge is not a crook," thus reinforcing the
>> >lie. I never asked you to prove that or anything like it.
>> >
>> Ummm. JPB... there is no comma in the words you QUOTE are
>> mine....remember how you blew a gasket when I put a period
>> inside a quote? Damn... you can't get ANYTHING right. I
>> guess I can now refer to your 'quote' of my words as a LIE,
>> since that comma is not in the words you QUOTE are mine.
>> I expect you to apologize immediately and admit you LIED
>> by placing that comma that does not exist in my words with
>> your quotation of my words. Do you see how foolish it is
>> to depend on stupid pedantry to deny the MEANING of
>> a TRUE QUOTE?
>
>
>Oh dear! And that was after you had just written a very long piece
>about "American English" and the rules you seem to think you can
>always blame for lying about what people have written. You don't know
>why I put the comma at the end of your words I quoted, do you? You
>think I was misquoting you by doing that, don't you? And that is
>because you have never learned what all the children in your
>neighbourhood could have told you.
>
I was being facetious you fucking idiot! I don't care that you put that
silly comma in there... I was making a point about how you went
BALLISTIC about the period that I had placed inside of another
post. A period which was quite properly placed, BTW. In fact,
I well know the comma DOES go inside, since the 'thought' was
not completed, your sentence had not concluded, and commas go
inside in that case. Just as the period was properly placed in the
complete 'thought' and the end of MY sentence in my quote of
the Nameless One's disgusting exhibition of admitting he intended
to DESTROY THE MEANING OF MLK.
>So, once again, I have to show you, using a grammar website, why you
>are wrong .... yawn!
>
>The comma after the word "crook" was required because the quoted words
>were part of the overall flow of MY sentence. Look at this site:
>
I KNOW it, sport. Periods and commas go INSIDE the quotation
marks. That is why YOU were wrong in respect to the period I
placed inside the QUOTE of the Nameless One that I provided.
See my words below where I quote a source -- ""In America,
commas and periods go inside quotation marks." God... but
you are stupid.
>http://blackraptor.hispeed.com/m7fic/contents/grammar.htm
>
>And in particular, look at this example from that page:
>
>________________________________
>
>How to Write Quotations
>If the phrase following a quote tells the reader who said it, or how
>it was spoken, then the quote should end in a comma, not a period.
>Example:
>Correct: "I want to see him," Chris said.
>Incorrect: "I want to see him." Chris said
>
Absolutely irrelevant, since the comma obviously is
CORRECT because the entire comment is not TWO
sentences but ONE. If it's only one sentence, it
should not contain TWO PERIODS.
> _____________________________________
>
>And this, from the same site:
>___________________________________________________
>
>The punctuation always comes before the " not after.
>Correct: "He backed down like a yellow dog," JD said.
>Incorrect: "He backed down like a yellow dog", JD said.
Simply showing that the comma goes INSIDE in all cases.
>____________________________________________________
>
>And from another site:
>
>______________________________________________________
>
>Punctuation
>
>Rule 1: Periods and commas always go inside quotation marks, even
>inside single quotes.
Unfucking believable... You simply demonstrate a rule that shows my
placement of the period was CORRECT.. INSIDE the quotation marks.
>Examples:
>The sign changed from "Walk," to "Don't Walk," to "Walk" again within
>30 seconds.
>
>http://www.acs.brockport.edu/~gsaxton/grammar.htm
>_______________________________________________________
>
>
>Now, are you going to again try to hide behind your usual "I was using
>American English, not British English" drivel? Then look at this page:
>
Absolutely not... since you've proved rather nicely that my placement
of the period was quite correct.
>http://www.xylostyle.com/grammar.html
>
>And read this part:
>_________________________________________
>
>'The sign in the shop window said "Closed," which was somewhat
>unusual.'
>
>This is the punctuation required by teachers throughout the U.S.
>However, the sign did NOT say "Closed,". It said "Closed". We can be
>quite sure that the comma was absolutely nowhere to be found in the
>message.
>
That again has NOTHING to do with the placement of the period
in the quotation I provided.
>__________________________________________
>
>Some people believe that a distinction should be made between spoken
>words and written ones, but, as the above tells us, teachers
>throughout the US don't agree.
>
>The rule is that the comma, if it is required to separate the quote
>from the words following it, goes inside the quotation marks - it does
>not have to have been part of the original quote. The exceptions are
>if the quoted words ended in a question mark or exclamation mark ...
>and your words didn't. I could have written, 'You lied that I had
>called Zobel a crook, and then you lied again by saying: "But what he
>[i.e. JPB] is asking is that I provide proof that the judge is not a
>crook." That reinforced the lie.' That too would have been correct,
>but as I used the word "thus" it required a comma because your quote
>was part of my overall sentence.
>
Did you notice that you put the PERIOD inside of the QUOTATION
MARK?
>You stupid man!
>
Yes, you certainly are. In fact, you are undoubtedly one of the
most ignorant humans I have ever encountered. And I thank God
you are... given that you are a baby-killer lover, a lover of dictators,
a defender of someone who claimed he saw no gradation between
murderers and innocent slaves, a defender of an anti-Semite who
presumed that no Jews died in Dachau, a defender of a racist, and
yourself a racist. I dread the thought of the possibility of you NOT
being ignorant, since you would be a definite danger to humanity.
And I thank God you are not a retentionist... We have too many
ignorant ones already.
>You even bang on about that very rule in your post, without
>understanding what it refers to.
>
See below. While all you've done is simply prove I was right.
Thank you.
>> Absolutely wrong. That period belonged right were it was. Representing
>> the end of my quotation of his exact words. Certainly there was no
>> requirement for "ellipses marks,": which are used to show a gap within
>> a quote. And has been pointed out... In American English, the period
>> goes INSIDE of the quotation. See below -- "In America, commas and
>> periods go inside quotation marks."
>
>That has absolutely nothing to do with inserting a period where one
>did not originally appear when it indicates you to be quoting
>someone's entire sentence. It is a rule that is entirely unconnected
>to the matter of your failure to indicate that you had removed words
>from Desmond's sentence.
I never removed ONE SINGLE word from the words I quoted
of the Nameless One. And they represented his COMPLETE
thought... which was he intended to DESTROY MY MEANING
contained in the words I had provided in a 3 paragraph - 17 line
tribute to MLK.
> That rule, as I told you before, is explained
>here:
>
>http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/perEllip.html
>
>_________________________________
>
>Which states:
>
>Rule 3. If words are omitted at the end of a quoted sentence, use
>ellipsis marks followed by the necessary ending punctuation mark.
>Examples: The regulation states, "All agencies must document
>overtime...." The original sentence read: The regulation states, "All
>agencies must document overtime or risk losing federal funds."
>_________________________________
>
>That is a perfect example, showing why you were wrong to cut off
>Desmond's sentence half way through without using ellipsis marks. And
>once again you showed your ignorance of the language when you wrote:
>
>> Certainly there was no
>> requirement for "ellipses marks,": which are used to show a gap within
>> a quote.
>
>They are also used to indicate words taken from the end of a quote.
>But you either didn't know that or are pretending not to have done, so
>as to continue trying to cover your lie. I care not which it is. You
>really are like a small child who kicks & screams when caught out
>lying rather than simply owning up. You are truly the most pathetic
>specimen I have ever encountered anywhere.
>
>Remaining invocation of Patented Gimmick 133 clipped and unread.
>
LOL.. Another example of your 'reading disability.' I really wish
this group offered a 'comic book' picture format of posting so I
could get through that thick skull of yours.
>http://www.chez.com/desmondcoughlan/dp/gimmicks/133.html
125 days, sport. 125 days since you refused to answer.
I'm still waiting --
1) Might I ask when was the last time you disagreed with the
Nameless One, in respect to his racism?
2) When was the last time you condemned HIM for insulting the
memory of MLK, through me?
3) In respect to your lie that "Prior to that, there were no such
rants from PV about racism". Where is your admission that you
LIED, JPB?
4) And where is your answer to the very basic question of "Who
first demonized in the thread MLK Day?"
5) And, of course... where is your admission that you lied when you
stated "I stated it as a fact that he had no power in this case to do
that. It remains a fact..." Geeee... using the word "FACT," TWICE
in only 21 words in total...to offer a LIE. Does that 'count' as two
lies, JPB? Since even your MESSIAH called you a liar... when he
stated "PV is right."
125 days, JPB. But it is obvious to me that these questions will
never be answered by you. You can wiggle all you wish, but
each time you do, I will remind you that BOTH YOU and the
Nameless One have confirmed I have provided a "TRUE QUOTE."
And if my two greatest 'enemies' in AADP admit it... that's about
all there is to it. Of course... you can continue to BEG the group
for the _apathy vote_. Since the Nameless One achieved nothing
but the_apathy_ vote when he BEGGED for other to _vote_ for
his racism...snicker...snicker. For some of my other references to
TRUE QUOTES... see [1] and [2]
<PV takes out anti-racist stick provide to him by Jedi Master Mr. D.>
spank...spank...spank...
<dusting hands in satisfaction... PV replaces anti-racist stick in golden
scabbard of TRUTH. Bows toward Mr. D.>
Ahhh.... That FEELS GOOD!!! A good spank...spank...spanking
applied with my stick to JPB's racist ass. my self-respect has most
certainly been elevated, in the spanking of a racist. Only the
spanking I apply to the ass of that other racist, the Nameless One,
can be as satisfying.
PV
[1] http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/JPB.html
[2] http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/The_Nameless_One.htm
Just passing by
Everything clipped and unread because PV's unfamiliarity with the
English language and his inability to understand its rules pales into
insignificance against his giggling at the holocaust, which is what I
will be now concentrating on rather than the trivial matter of
correcting his grammar for him.
A Planet Visitor: the man who giggled at the holocaust.
Just passing by
And as I have told you in other threads, this proves that your recent
giggling about the holocaust was not the first time you have done
that. Your false claim, back in May, that Neville had said the Nazi
death camps were "okay" was a much earlier example of you giggling at
the lie you had told and then sitting back and waiting for the
inevitable anger your lie had caused. You thought that was fun. You
think using the holocaust to support your trolling games is fun.
My regret is that I didn't pick up on this back in May .... but I
certainly have done now.
A Planet Visitor: the man who giggled about the holocaust.
A Planet Visitor
>A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message news:<q68imvgpmeme0agg3...@4ax.com>...
>
>Everything clipped and unread because PV's unfamiliarity with the
>English language and his inability to understand its rules pales into
>insignificance against his giggling at the holocaust, which is what I
>will be now concentrating on rather than the trivial matter of
>correcting his grammar for him.
>
How did you determine that -- if it remained unread, you stupid man?
It is clearly just head banging on your desk, and fist slamming into
the wall rage that is driving you on now, JPB. That's all it is...
and it's sad to see.
>A Planet Visitor: the man who giggled at the holocaust.
If you find a *giggle* in claiming that the evil in Dachau cannot be
diminished, as I have most assuredly insisted that it cannot be
diminished, that says a hell of a lot more about YOU, than it could
ever say about me. It says that YOU also do not believe that
Dachau needs to be recognized as evil personified. And it makes
YOU the same as Ol' Racist Nev. The same neo-Nazi that Simon
Wiesenthal has quite astutely recognized [1]. If you believe you
can raise my anger, with your obsessive lies, you are quite wrong.
If anyone is *giggling* right now... it is you. The fact that you
even imply I would *giggle* about the holocaust, is clear evidence
of your emotional decline here... as I keep pounding and pounding
away at your demonstrated immorality.
Read again the words of Ol' Racist Nev that deny the outrages and
corruption that were inflicted on humanity. THEN -- weep for that
humanity. Don't *giggle* as you have begun to do... but weep for
humanity. For just once in your pitiful life....
If you cannot weep for Matthew...
If you cannot weep for MLK...
If you cannot weep for innocent slaves...
If you cannot weep for the victims of Saddam...
then at least --
WEEP FOR THAT MURDERED HUMANITY IN DACHAU!
For just once in your life...
weep for the victim...
and not the murderer.
Or is that asking too much of you?
PV
[1] http://www.nizkor.org/features/qar/qar03.html
His words -- "Because there were no extermination camps on
German soil the Neo-Nazis are using this as proof that these
crimes did not happen [...]"
Just passing by
Everything clipped for two reasons.
1. Because at least some parts of PV's post were nothing more than
copy & pasted spam which have appeared, word for word, in other posts
he "wrote" on the same day, thus giving a good indication of how
little the man really cares about the subject of the holocaust.
2. Because all of PV's denials are dealt with in the true story of how
he has giggled about the holocaust. That can be found here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=21b1da28.0309180626.14ac946f%40posting.google.com
And all the evidence backing up every claim in that post can be found
here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=21b1da28.0309190831.105ba1e9%40posting.google.com
A Planet Visitor: the man who giggled about the holocaust.
A Planet Visitor
>A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message news:<3g6lmv410lviiu6m3...@4ax.com>...
>
>Everything clipped for two reasons.
>
>1. Because at least some parts of PV's post were nothing more than
>copy & pasted spam which have appeared, word for word, in other posts
>he "wrote" on the same day, thus giving a good indication of how
>little the man really cares about the subject of the holocaust.
>
Because they all bear repeating... and repeating... and repeating. How
can you possibly assert that because they are repeats of words you
have never addressed that they can now be ignored? What it shows
is how little YOU care... for the murdered victims of the holocaust.
>2. Because all of PV's denials are dealt with in the true story of how
>he has giggled about the holocaust. That can be found here:
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=21b1da28.0309180626.14ac946f%40posting.google.com
How droll... I thought you weren't into repeats? In every post you've
offered... you have repeated this same offering of a lie. And presume
others are too stupid to even look at it, so you can simply walk away
in your smug racist, holocaust denial persona, having posted one
line in a half-dozen posts.
Why do you hate the Jews, JPB? What drives this rage inside of you that
you would call it a "giggle" when someone expresses revulsion in respect
to the murders committed in the holocaust? Why would you call the murder
of MILLIONS of Jews, simply a "game" to you? These are questions that
go directly to the heart of your sanity. And I'd really like to know WHY?
Why do you hate the Jews? If you could express it concisely, I might be
able to get a better grasp on the anti-Semitism in Europe. But presently
I am at a loss, without understanding WHY you hate the Jews? Have they
HARMED you in the past? Does their appearance trouble you? Do you
fear them? Did you parents teach you how to hate? It would also help me
understand why Ol' Racist Nev hates the Jews so much. Listen carefully,
JPB... since I will provide a profound truth to you -- One can only be
"giggling" when they try to DIMINISH the scope of a monstrous event,
such as when Ol' Racist Nev tried to DIMINISH the scope of the
holocaust by implying that Dachau was 'not as bad as Guantanamo.'
When I stated that he had found Dachau to be 'good,' that was not a
"giggle" but a recognition that he was intent on INSULTING every
victim murdered in Dachau. And the same is in evidence with the Nameless
One as he tries to DIMINISH the scope of 9//11, by adding his 'signature
giggle' in an expression of the U.S. getting its comeuppance, as far as he is
concerned. While totally unconcerned that his methods might be seen as
an insult to those murdered victims. You see both Ol' Racist Nev and
the Nameless One are INSULTING the murdered victims. I
have never expressed any such thought. I have NEVER expressed
ANYTHING but absolute revulsion in respect to the holocaust
(and 9/11). Ol' Racist Nev tried to DIMINISH the scope of the holocaust
by implying in so many instances that Dachau was no worse than
Guantanamo. Don't you think that is an attempt to show that no
murders were committed in Dachau? If you cannot see that HE was
insulting those murdered in Dachau... I feel for you. And if you contend
that I feel anything other than an expression of my rage that Ol' Racist
Nev would try to DIMINISH the holocaust in such a manner, then you
are the one who is "giggling." And it's an ugly sight.
>And all the evidence backing up every claim in that post can be found
>here:
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=21b1da28.0309190831.105ba1e9%40posting.google.com
>
Repeating again... but thank you for that reference, since it rather
demonstrates you enjoy 'falling on your own sword,' as it proves
that you claimed the holocaust was simply a "game," and stated that
because I expressed revulsion over the murders committed in Dachau
it was simply *giggling* over those murders. While it's rather obvious
that calling an expression of revulsion over the murders committed in
Dachau - "giggling" - is an unbelievably obscene lack of respect for
those murdered in Dachau. Depriving them of the last vestige of
dignity they might hold in their role as victims of the most monstrous,
methodical annihilation of human beings ever witnessed. The Nazis
took away the lives of those murdered in Dachau, but as with Ol'
Racist Nev... you would rip out their souls, and their spirit with such
an insult. There is simply no excuse for your nauseating attempts
to excuse those murders, by claiming someone who demonstrates
a fierce loathing of those murders is simply "giggling."
FINALLY --
You think that Dachau was NOT a 'death camp'? Are you arguing Ol'
Racist Nev' argument that no murders of Jews occurred in Dachau,
because he needed to STRESS that it wasn't a 'death-camp for Jews'?
You must be DEFENDING that view. Because that was the view
I was attacking, and you are presuming I was wrong to attack it. So see --
http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/pages/t016/t01679.html
In there, you will find it states in respect to Dachau that "the number of Jews
rose steadily to about 1/3 of the total. Tens of thousands died through
starvation, disease, torture or in cruel medical experiments."
And for those 'medical experiments.' (What a ghastly word to use
for MURDER!) - see --
http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/text/x15/xm1597.html
Quoting again -- "In the period from 1942 to 1945, medical experiments
were conducted in concentration camps, rather than in hospitals and
research institutions. They were carried out on human beings regarded
as racially inferior, in locations that were the most concrete expression
of Nazi ideology." That's the Jews... and that's Dachau. Or are you
calling Simon Wiesenthal a liar?
Was Dachau 'only' a concentration camp, as Ol' Racist Nev
INSISTED? One is which no murders took place? Or did the
murder of Jews at Dachau take place on a scale which can be
recognized as being a 'death camp'? Do those murders committed
in Dachau suddenly not 'count' -- because there were 'death
camps' where a mechanical and methodical extermination of
human beings at the rate of up to 2,000 a day were taking place?
At what point do we find it necessary to reason that murders
of so many people... literally scream out for us to term it a 'death
camp,' even if there were no mechanical and methodical exterminations
of human beings taking place at the rate of other sites in Eastern
Europe. You see... my point has ALWAYS been that Ol' Racist
Nev wanted to FORGET about the murders committed in Dachau...
arguing that 'they don't count,' because of those other sites in
Eastern Europe. But Simon Wiesenthal has stated that such thinking
is that of a neo-Nazi, while never denying that the murders having
taken place in Dachau pale in comparison to those having taken
place in Eastern Europe. [1]
You have aligned yourself with some of the most evil human beings
to ever set foot on this planet. Those who committed the murders of
the holocaust in EVERY situation... in EVERY capacity... in EVERY
physical location. The shame you SHOULD feel SHOULD be
overwhelming. But I long ago, realized that 'shame' was not an
emotion you held.
Pardon me, gentle reader, if I refer back to this post in the future, or use
parts of it which essentially have destroyed every bit of the imaginary
'credibility' of JPB.
>
>A Planet Visitor: the man who giggled about the holocaust.
JPB... the man who has never shed a tear for any victim anywhere... and
calls any attempt to ask him to shed a tear... nothing but an unsolicited,
intrusive, an offensive request made of him. He finds it 'offensive' to
ask him to shed a tear for the victim... since he uses them all up...
shedding them for their murderers. Thus... I would BEG him. I
would IMPLORE him.... for just ONCE in his pitiful life to --
Don't *giggle* as you have begun to do... but weep for humanity.
For just once in your life....
If you cannot weep for Matthew...
If you cannot weep for MLK...
If you cannot weep for innocent slaves...
If you cannot weep for the victims of Saddam...
then at least --
WEEP FOR THAT MURDERED HUMANITY IN DACHAU!
Do it for them, JPB. Don't they at least deserve one little tear from you?
Instead of calling their murders a "game," and accusing someone who
DOES weep for them, of only "giggling"? You see, JPB... I don't
consider those words "spam." Just as I did not consider my tribute to
MLK to be "spam." But it seems that every time someone makes
a request for you to act in a human manner... you dismiss it as
unsolicited, intrusive, and offensive "SPAM," that you wish to have
no part of.
Just passing by
< PV's latest insult to the victims of the holocaust clipped >
The first half of PV's post appeared to be text that he had not posted
before. However, the second part was entirely made up of copied &
pasted spam, thus rendering the ENTIRE post yet another insult to the
victims of the Nazi holocaust.
I have therefore clipped the ENTIRE text because to do otherwise would
be to join PV in insulting those victims.
A Planet Visitor: the man who laughed at the holocaust, exploited it
to play his "games" with, and then, as if that were not insult enough
to the holocaust's victims, exploited them again to play a different
game (i.e. spamming) with.
PV's giggling at the holocaust exposed here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=21b1da28.0309180626.14ac946f%40posting.google.com
and proven here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=21b1da28.0309190831.105ba1e9%40posting.google.com
Those two URLs will soon be joined by another one which will link to a
detailed account of PV's current spamming campaign and how it reflects
the total disrespect he feels for the victims of the Nazi holocaust.
That account has not yet been written because the said spamming
campaign is still being conducted by PV as I write.
A Planet Visitor
>A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message news:<5d5qmv8o8d84pn1of...@4ax.com>...
>
Simple question, JPB -- How many murders would need to have been
committed in Dachau... before you would call it a death-camp?
>< PV's latest insult to the victims of the holocaust clipped >
>
Of course... by now we ALL know what that means... the holocaust
revisionist is about to resume his dirty business by clipping all references
to proof. Let me assure EVERYONE that JPB has asserted most
definitely that he will NOT, nor will he EVER... under ANY
circumstances, shed a single tear for any victim. He states that any
suggestions he do so, will be totally ignored and <clipped>, since
he finds such suggestions to be offensive "spam." This is my attempt
asking him to just once... weep for any victim. See -
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/The_victims.htm
JPB has clearly told me to 'go to hell,' and those victims to 'go to
hell,' as well, in a number of his 'responses' (which he simply <clips>
and calls "spam"). The number of times he has clipped this request
are mounting daily... Because he will NEVER worry or shed a tear
for ANY victim. He sees his 'time' as much more valuable if spent
defending murderers, racists, and holocaust deniers.
>The first half of PV's post appeared to be text that he had not posted
>before. However, the second part was entirely made up of copied &
>pasted spam, thus rendering the ENTIRE post yet another insult to the
>victims of the Nazi holocaust.
>
>I have therefore clipped the ENTIRE text because to do otherwise would
>be to join PV in insulting those victims.
>
TRANSLATION ==> Like the good little "holocaust revisionist" I am,
I will simply follow the example of my leader, David Irving... and deny...
deny...deny.... <==
>A Planet Visitor: the man who laughed at the holocaust, exploited it
>to play his "games" with, and then, as if that were not insult enough
>to the holocaust's victims, exploited them again to play a different
>game (i.e. spamming) with.
>
You are the one who claimed the holocaust was a "game," JPB. Quit
lying. You were caught cold. You are the only one laughing at the
holocaust...claiming that I "giggled" because I refused to accept the
disgusting idea that no murders occurred in Dachau... because
Ol' Racist Nev argued that Dachau was only a concentration camp...
and not a death-camp. And you have been DEFENDING his words...
thus you must agree with them. You make such a claim with the
obvious intent of DISCREDITING my words. My words that murders
of Jews took place in Dachau in horrendous number. And only
holocaust deniers try to discredit comments which recognize the vast
scope of the holocaust. You would trivialize that scope in denying those
murders in Dachau. You would try to discredit those such as me... who
will NOT forget those murdered in Dachau. As you have already
shown... you find it to be "spam" if asked NOT to forget. You'd just
as soon forget them... in your role as an admitted "holocaust revisionist,"
while I am simply an "inept" poster intent on exposing your revisionist
efforts.
>PV's giggling at the holocaust exposed here:
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=21b1da28.0309180626.14ac946f%40posting.google.com
>
If I'm giggling... why is that YOUR post? And why is that post, not only
yours... but the first post that makes reference to your claiming the
holocaust is a "game"? These are your words -- "What kind of sick,
twisted mind could ever dream up a "game" in which lies relating to
the holocaust would be posted in a newsgroup..." You are asking that
question of yourself... and characterizing the holocaust as a "game."
The lies are most positively claiming that NO murder of Jews occurred in
Dachau. The TRUTH, which I have tried over and over to drum into
your anti-Semitic head, is that murders of Jews DID occur in Dachau,
and they cannot be ERASED by stating that Dachau was 'simply' a
concentration camp... and not a death-camp. And you would try
to DISCREDIT my words... in your typical holocaust denier fashion.
Actually, what YOUR post shows is that you are DEFENDING the
argument that there were no murders in Dachau... since it was 'defined'
as 'only' a concentration camp by Ol' Racist Nev. Thus, it is obviously,
simply a part of your role as accepting your NEW MESSIAH. See --
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/Goblin1.htm
>and proven here:
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=21b1da28.0309190831.105ba1e9%40posting.google.com
>
Thank you for that reference. Just another post from YOU. You
keep referring to YOUR OWN posts as some sort of proof. But
that's on the order of 'self-swallowing logic." You presume you
are right...by simply referring to your lies from before. And your
post is one in which you 'fall on your sword.' as it again proves that
you claimed the holocaust was simply a "game," and stated that
because I expressed revulsion over the murders committed in Dachau
it was simply "giggling" over those murders. Your words represent
an unbelievably obscene lack of respect for those murdered in Dachau.
Depriving them of the last vestige of dignity they might hold in their
role as victims of the most monstrous, methodical annihilation of human
beings ever witnessed. The Nazis took away the lives of those
murdered in Dachau, but as with Ol' Racist Nev... you would
rip out their souls, and their spirit with such an insult. There is
simply no excuse for your nauseating attempts to excuse those
murders, in trying to discredit my words that recognize their
murders.
>Those two URLs will soon be joined by another one
Is that the one in which I accused your brother, AS901, of posting
"spam"?
Or perhaps the one where you foolishly believed you could
'argue' the Peter Morris argument? It seems that one has now
been discarded by you (and of course Peter who was 'outta
here' like a shot... when I offered that proof). Now that you
see the rather overwhelming proof in Peter's own words that
he has admitted in the past to saying a drug-dealing pedophilic
murderer 'deserved' to be murdered, using his own definition
of what 'deserves' means.
> which will link to a detailed account of PV's current spamming
> campaign and how it reflects the total disrespect he feels for the
> victims of the Nazi holocaust.
You'll never change... When one sees you include something on the
order of ==> Stand by for a startling announcement.<== we are
assured that it will never materialize... but you have filled up some
'white space' in your post. You are nothing if not totally predicable.
And you really need to develop a new style, since most shut you
out after those few words and never read my fecund and devastating
responses. Which is a shame, actually.
Of course... what is TRUE -- is that the disrespect for those victims
belongs totally to both you and Ol' Racist Nev. Both of you have
DENIED that murders of Jews occurred in Dachau... in spite of
proof after proof after proof I have offered. You have tried to
discredit my words that address those murders... hoping to shut
them out, by clipping them, and calling them "spam" or "insults"
or "giggles." But I seriously doubt that anyone is stupid enough to
accept those excuses. And if they are... more is the sadness I
feel for them. You can shut out my words... and pray that others
do not read them... but my only concern is that others NEVER
believe the vile poison that YOU spew out onto this newsgroup...
the hateful, vile poison you spew out. And I believe no one does.
Even David Irving would find you disgusting. And I'm still unsure
about how Satan would feel about you. It's a toss-up.
>That account has not yet been written because the said spamming
>campaign is still being conducted by PV as I write.
You mean the one where I keep asking you why you cannot
weep for the victim?
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/The_victims.htm
Or the one where I ask you why you hate the Jews so much?
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=5d5qmv8o8d84pn1ofsps0552ht591ks0k6%404ax.com
PV
Just passing by
> >
> Simple question, JPB -- How many murders would need to have been
> committed in Dachau... before you would call it a death-camp?
That question is answered in this post:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=21b1da28.0309230147.bc2109%40posting.google.com
PV's disgusting "game" in which he laughs about holocaust victims is
in this post:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=21b1da28.0309180626.14ac946f%40posting.google.com
The evidence proving the above is in this post:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=21b1da28.0309190831.105ba1e9%40posting.google.com
A Planet Visitor: the man whose giggling about the holocaust and
proven lies showing how he has exploited its victims to play "games"
with are now coming back to haunt him.
A Planet Visitor
>A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message news:<icqvmv07jnvbp9g77...@4ax.com>...
>
>> >
>> Simple question, JPB -- How many murders would need to have been
>> committed in Dachau... before you would call it a death-camp?
>
>
>That question is answered in this post:
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=21b1da28.0309230147.bc2109%40posting.google.com
>
No... it's not answered at all. It's a pathetic excuse. These words
of yours -- "I have never questioned that Dachau was a death camp.."
DO NOT provide the answer to the question. Let me put it this
way... Do YOU call Dachau a death-camp?
Because the fact you have never 'questioned' in your mind the murders
committed in Dachau.. is simply another of your admissions that you
are a holocaust denier. You simply don't CARE if murders were
committed in Dachau... nor how many there were.. thus you don't
bother even 'questioning' how you feel about it. You see how that
can be seen in various ways? I need a DIRECT ANSWER... not
some obfuscation, one expects from a holocaust denier that can be
seen in two opposite directions.
>PV's disgusting "game" in which he laughs about holocaust victims is
>in this post:
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=21b1da28.0309180626.14ac946f%40posting.google.com
>
Actually that's one of a great number of YOUR posts that prove you
are a holocaust denier. In your own words. Since you state that the
holocaust is just a "game."
>The evidence proving the above is in this post:
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=21b1da28.0309190831.105ba1e9%40posting.google.com
>
Actually, that's ANOTHER of a great number of YOUR posts that
prove you are a holocaust denier. In your own words. Since you
AGAIN state that the holocaust is just a "game."
>A Planet Visitor: the man whose giggling about the holocaust and
>proven lies showing how he has exploited its victims to play "games"
>with are now coming back to haunt him.
You see, JPB... I no longer need to provide goggle references to your
admitting you are a holocaust denier. Since you do it for me. Why did
I ever waste my time provided so many of your other words that show
you are a holocaust denier... when you will do my work for me?
PV
Just passing by
> On 23 Sep 2003 06:30:52 -0700, unimpre...@yahoo.com (Just passing by) wrote:
>
> >A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message news:<icqvmv07jnvbp9g77...@4ax.com>...
> >
> >> >
> >> Simple question, JPB -- How many murders would need to have been
> >> committed in Dachau... before you would call it a death-camp?
> >
> >
> >That question is answered in this post:
> >
> >http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=21b1da28.0309230147.bc2109%40posting.google.com
> >
> No... it's not answered at all. It's a pathetic excuse. These words
> of yours -- "I have never questioned that Dachau was a death camp.."
> DO NOT provide the answer to the question. Let me put it this
> way... Do YOU call Dachau a death-camp?
It most certainly is answered in that post. That is my position - that
I have never debated with anyone about Dachau or any other camp. Your
question to me, above, of, "Do YOU call Dachau a death-camp?" is
answered in that post and I will answer it here too by saying that
unless and until I ever study the arguments, I take no position in
your argument with Neville except to repeat that you lied when you
accused him of saying that the death camps were "okay". That was my
only input to that argument.
If you had asked me before your argument with Neville if I considered
Dachau to have been a death camp, my answer would have been: "As far
as I am aware, it was." But I am no expert on these matters and so I
would have been giving nothing more than an uneducated opinion. Now,
having read both Neville's and John's posts on this matter, I know
more than I did before about Dachau (I don't include anything you have
written about it because I either ignore or forget it). But I still
wouldn't consider myself sufficiently knowledgeable to give a
considered opinion. If I were to spend some time researching, I could
change that and then give a more educated opinion, but as yet I
haven't studied it so my position remains one of offering no opinion.
So this again draws attention to your latest lie that I had accused
you of lying because you said that Dachau was a death camp, when what
I really accused you of lying for was in claiming that Neville had
said the death camps were "okay". This is what you wrote:
"Not a very responsive answer, JPB. It that a clear statement that you
WOULD call Dachau a death-camp? Because what you DID do was call MY
comments a lie... my comments that argue that the murders committed in
Dachau DO make Dachau a death camp."
That was yet another clear example of you playing "games" and using
the holocaust as material for those "games" of yours. I have exposed
that "game" in greater depth in the following post, and challenged
anyone wishing to defend you against my accusation, to offer their own
explanation for what you are trying to do when you lie as you did
above.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=21b1da28.0309240157.3d15a66a%40posting.google.com
And while they are at it, they can also try finding another way of
describing your lie that I have "admitted" being a holocaust
revisionist based on one occasion when I did no more than simply
mention that such people exist. That is exposed in this post:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=21b1da28.0309230303.39f95c05%40posting.google.com
Those two examples alone prove my claim that you are STILL playing
"games" with the holocaust. They both post date the post in which the
true story of your giggling at the holocaust appeared here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=21b1da28.0309180626.14ac946f%40posting.google.com
and the evidence proving that claim, which is here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=21b1da28.0309190831.105ba1e9%40posting.google.com
The very fact that you have continued playing these "games" and
giggling about the holocaust AFTER you were exposed for doing so, is
the ultimate vindication of my original accusations.
A Planet Visitor: the man whose giggling about the holocaust has
actually INCREASED since he was first exposed for it.
A Planet Visitor
>A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message news:<vve2nvoe4dgkuc2gv...@4ax.com>...
>> On 23 Sep 2003 06:30:52 -0700, unimpre...@yahoo.com (Just passing by) wrote:
>>
>> >A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message news:<icqvmv07jnvbp9g77...@4ax.com>...
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> Simple question, JPB -- How many murders would need to have been
>> >> committed in Dachau... before you would call it a death-camp?
>> >
>> >
>> >That question is answered in this post:
>> >
>> >http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=21b1da28.0309230147.bc2109%40posting.google.com
>> >
>> No... it's not answered at all. It's a pathetic excuse. These words
>> of yours -- "I have never questioned that Dachau was a death camp.."
>> DO NOT provide the answer to the question. Let me put it this
>> way... Do YOU call Dachau a death-camp?
>
>
>It most certainly is answered in that post. That is my position - that
>I have never debated with anyone about Dachau or any other camp. Your
>question to me, above, of, "Do YOU call Dachau a death-camp?" is
>answered in that post and I will answer it here too by saying that
>unless and until I ever study the arguments, I take no position in
>your argument with Neville except to repeat that you lied when you
>accused him of saying that the death camps were "okay". That was my
>only input to that argument.
>
Let's get this straight... "...until I ever study the arguments..."?? You
ADMIT that you have NEVER BOTHERED to "...ever study the
arguments..."? Oh, my God!! Isn't that just like the holocaust
denier you now admit to being. If you don't take a 'position' then
I can assume you believe the holocaust never happened. But
we already knew that. Admitting that you have never studied
the arguments, simply admits to your own stupidity in this
dialog. I just needed you to confirm it in your own words. And
now I KNOW -- You simply don't CARE if there were or were
not MURDERS in Dachau, which would permit you to answer
that question. Because you have NEVER BOTHERED to
"...ever study the arguments..." It just doesn't INTEREST you.
Once again, you demonstate your inability to weep for the victim.
I presume now that asking you to "study the arguments..." would lead to
you claiming I am only "spamming" you. When are you going
to admit that YOU find the holocaust to be a "ga**," yet lied
by accusing ME of saying it was? See --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=21b1da28.0309180626.14ac946f%40posting.google.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=21b1da28.0309190831.105ba1e9%40posting.google.com
Not ONCE... but TWICE!
Anyone who would ADMIT that they have NEVER BOTHERED
to "...ever study the arguments..." MUST certainly see those arguments,
which are arguments on the holocaust, as only a "ga**." Not even
worthy OF STUDYING THE ARGUMENTS. No wonder you
have offered responses of <clipped unread> to all of my ARGUMENTS
in respect to the holocaust. You wish to STAY ignorant, because
that gives you some kind of 'deniability' in respect to your admitted
holocaust revisionist views. Must I repeat ALL those arguments?
Cheee... ALL those arguments of mine?? Do your own research
of those arguments that you have ignored.
Further... You seem to believe you can accuse ME of inaccurate
quotes... yet feel perfectly free to do so yourself. When did I
ever call the holocaust a "ga**," before you QUOTED me as
saying so? Never is the answer... it has always been about how
YOU felt about the holocaust. You cannot provide a single post
where anyone would presume I believed the holocaust was as
YOU characterized it.
>If you had asked me before your argument with Neville if I considered
>Dachau to have been a death camp, my answer would have been: "As far
>as I am aware, it was." But I am no expert on these matters and so I
>would have been giving nothing more than an uneducated opinion.
And that would have been different.... how??? Given that a lack
of education is rather implied in posts of every racist, anti-Semite
and holocaust denier.
> Now,
>having read both Neville's and John's posts on this matter, I know
>more than I did before about Dachau (I don't include anything you have
>written about it because I either ignore or forget it).
If you read a single word, it would be more than before... since
up to now, all you've done is <clip unread>. Perhaps now you
will also read --
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/The_victims.htm
and answer that question, without calling it "spam."
> But I still
>wouldn't consider myself sufficiently knowledgeable to give a
>considered opinion. If I were to spend some time researching, I could
>change that and then give a more educated opinion, but as yet I
>haven't studied it so my position remains one of offering no opinion.
>
In other words... until you are better informed... to you -- those murders
never happened. How very moral.... staying stupid is your new
DEFENSE. No... come to think of it... that's ALWAYS been your
defense. Remember those three monkeys? No see -- no hear --
no speak... If you only ignored the first two.. and spent more
time with the last one. How I pity your ignorance... and yet am
thankful for it. Given you are a holocaust denier... and giving a
holocaust denier a brain has a very dangerous effect on our
species.
>So this again draws attention to your latest lie that I had accused
>you of lying because you said that Dachau was a death camp, when what
>I really accused you of lying for was in claiming that Neville had
>said the death camps were "okay". This is what you wrote:
>
>"Not a very responsive answer, JPB. It that a clear statement that you
> WOULD call Dachau a death-camp? Because what you DID do was call MY
>comments a lie... my comments that argue that the murders committed in
>Dachau DO make Dachau a death camp."
>
They most certainly do... to deny that is an attempt to erase the fact
that they happened. And your defense of Ol' Racist Nev has always
been to defend his words that Dachau was not a death camp.
>That was yet another clear example of you playing "games" and using
>the holocaust as material for those "games" of yours.
You keep saying that... and only prove that is how YOU see the
holocaust. When Ol' Racist Nev claims that 'no one is born
Jewish,' he means that they do not exist... thus they had no
meaning to him in respect to the death camps. No meaning at all.
And you agree with that. I hace ALWAYS tried to give
EXISTENCE to those humans murdered in the death camps.
Ol' Racist Nev wanted to take that existence away.
> I have exposed
>that "game" in greater depth in the following post, and challenged
>anyone wishing to defend you against my accusation, to offer their own
>explanation for what you are trying to do when you lie as you did
>above.
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=21b1da28.0309240157.3d15a66a%40posting.google.com
>
All you have done in YOUR WORDS in that post, is say how YOU
feel about the holocaust... how you SEE the holocaust in my words.
But that means YOU see it as a "ga**." Not me.
> And while they are at it, they can also try finding another way of
>describing your lie that I have "admitted" being a holocaust
>revisionist based on one occasion when I did no more than simply
>mention that such people exist. That is exposed in this post:
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=21b1da28.0309230303.39f95c05%40posting.google.com
>
See above.
>Those two examples alone prove my claim that you are STILL playing
>"games" with the holocaust. They both post date the post in which the
>true story of your giggling at the holocaust appeared here:
>
What they PROVE is how YOU see it, JPB. And that's the evil side
of you that I keep referring to. How YOU see it.
>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=21b1da28.0309180626.14ac946f%40posting.google.com
>
You keep adding to the evidence of your own words.. in which YOU
call the holocaust a "ga**." You seem to be exceptionally self-destructive
today, JPB. Proving over and over how YOU feel about the holocaust.
>and the evidence proving that claim, which is here:
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=21b1da28.0309190831.105ba1e9%40posting.google.com
>
See above. If only you were not so evil... that you would CONTINUE,
over and over... to refer to the holocaust as a "ga**." It's become
sickening. But you seem to be thoroughly enjoying it. Which rather
demonstrates, that you do see it as a "ga**." You must really
get a laugh out of yourself, each time you use that ugly word to
describe how YOU feel about the holocaust.
>The very fact that you have continued playing these "games" and
>giggling about the holocaust AFTER you were exposed for doing so, is
>the ultimate vindication of my original accusations.
>
>A Planet Visitor: the man whose giggling about the holocaust has
>actually INCREASED since he was first exposed for it.
It's been your characterizations of it as a "ga**," and your characterizations
as "gig****" in my demanding the murders in Dachau not be erased.
GIven that you admit that those murders do not interest you enough to
actually "...ever study the arguments," and thus you "take no position..."
it's now perfectly clear that those murders mean NOTHING to you.
I will remind you that you have never BOTHERED to "...ever study the
arguments," before you flew into your holocaust denial mode. Imagine
that... here we are 'arguing' about something you ADMIT that you have
never BOTHERED to EVER STUDY.
Nothing changes... you never 'ever studied the arguments' in respect to
your 'chubby chaser' love for the baby-killer, and you never 'ever
studied the arguments' that MLK's life had meaning and purpose. And
you now simply say that the holocaust has never interested you enough
to have 'ever studied the arguments.' Just like the typical holocaust
denier.
BTW -- I have done some minor revisions to the Second Edition
of my book. Not enough to call it a Third Edition... but I'm working
on it. Right now, I'm using this "literary fingerprinting" program to
see if you've posted under any other handles in the past... Quite
revealing, actually....It will come back to haunt you, JPB. See -
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/JPB.html
PV