Verbal Abuse? Or Verbal Retribution?
$Zero
9797Q
Verbal Abuse? Or Verbal Retribution?
(Was: Re: Kathie Meyer is FORTY YEARS OLD TODAY)
lou...@mail.wsu.edu (Kathie Meyer) apparently can dish it out, but can't
take it:
ze...@hour.com says...
[snip my satirical but sincere birthday wishes, and my hopes for a less
judgmental decade ahead for the slanderous cunt]
>Oh, this must be the place where I get to say "go fuck yourself."
go fuck myself, huh? sounds like fun. care to demonstrate? is that
your specialty?
>Kathie (but thanks to everyone else for
>the loads of birthday wishes!) Meyer
hmm.. this must be where i retract my sincere birthday wishes and just
reiterate my hopes that you will somehow become less judgmental and
slanderous over the course of your fifth decade on mother earth.
listen here, you fuckin' empty-headed cunt, if you make false derogatory
statements about me and my parenting, you'd best accept your verbal
lumps, lest they escalate into a verbal sparring you can never win, or a
lawsuit (i could put your blood money to far better use than you could
ever imagine). retract or pay. or just shut the fuck up, you
brainwashed twit.
-$Zero... "KissAPigToday... BecauseTomorrowNeverKnows..." -- K. Meyer?
`'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``' Day 13193
TheASCIIGraphicAbove...PaysHomageToTheEndlessCyclesOf...
DarknessAndLight...WhichMakeUp...ThePassingOfTheDays
AsOf...9708312352EST...IHaveZeroControlOverAnythingWrittenBelow:
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
$Zero
9791Q
lu...@bellatlantic.net (The Last Real Marlboro Man)
the last real self-righteous opportunist composes
more hypocritical moral drivel:
>$Zero <ze...@hour.com> wrote:
>>listen here, you fuckin' empty-headed cunt, if you make false derogatory
>>statements about me and my parenting, you'd best accept your verbal
>>lumps, lest they escalate into a verbal sparring you can never win, or a
>>lawsuit (i could put your blood money to far better use than you could
>>ever imagine). retract or pay. or just shut the fuck up, you
>>brainwashed twit.
>
>That's enough Zero.
just *who* the fuck do you think you *are*? the censor board?
>That's enough Zero. You've crossed the line again.
so i've crossed the mighty moral line of Wayne the Hypocrite.
(the christian with the lynching rope.) who cares? not i.
i'd better repent or i'll be in BIG trouble, huh?
you are certainly not my moral point of reference. LOL.
listen you fuckin' ungrateful bastard,
(BTW: please send me back my last ten bucks)
do you even know what this is in reference to?
do you condone what this cunt posted about me?
if so, please go on the record, otherwise butt the fuck out.
or is it simply the use of the word "cunt". writer? LOL.
>Just get out of here and leave people alone.
i ain't bothering anyone that isn't or hasn't bothered me.
i never provoke. but i do retaliate. and fairly.
on the rare occasions that i've accidently crossed the line, i've
apologized. this is not such an occasion. i stand by my strong, heated
words.
much more than i can say for you, Mister "kill the bastard(s)"
>You don't belong here, or anywhere else where people congregate.
you're such a people person, (kill the bastards) i guess you'd know, huh?
is the above some sort of macho-psychotic threat?
perhaps you should go pump some iron and count to
a hundred (email me if you need a complete list)
before you post self-righteous shit like this.
unless you know the facts, you had better shut the fuck up.
>Do yourself and us a favor and go away, for good.
and you know what's good, huh Wayne? typical.
if you want me to go away, just killfile me like all
of the other narrow-minded folk of your ilk have.
BTW: this will make the third time you've chosen to do so.
get a grip man. grow up and, for once, try to be fair.
-$Zero... WhatAWorld...
MaybeYouIntolerantHypocriticalAssholesDeserveEachother...
`'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``' Day 13194
TheASCIIGraphicAbove...PaysHomageTo...Jan
AsOf...9709010226EST...IHaveZeroControlOverAnythingWrittenBelow:
Jan S.
On Sun, 31 Aug 1997 22:51:12 -0600, $Zero (ze...@hour.com) says...
>
...whack...
*>Plonk<*
Oh, and, by the way, go fuck yourself until you bleed out, you fucking
ignorant subliterate shitbrained moronic subhumanoid succubus.
--jan (PeaceLoveUnderstanding, you fucking asshole)
The Last Real Marlboro Man
On Sun, 31 Aug 1997 22:51:12 -0600, $Zero <ze...@hour.com> wrote:
>listen here, you fuckin' empty-headed cunt, if you make false derogatory
>statements about me and my parenting, you'd best accept your verbal
>lumps, lest they escalate into a verbal sparring you can never win, or a
>lawsuit (i could put your blood money to far better use than you could
>ever imagine). retract or pay. or just shut the fuck up, you
>brainwashed twit.
That's enough Zero. You've crossed the line again. Just get out of
here and leave people alone. You don't belong here, or anywhere else
where people congregate. Do yourself and us a favor and go away, for
good.
- Wayne
--------------------------------------------------------------
Drinking beer transcends the sensory level; it
educates, creates friends, and enlarges humanity's
grasp of its own commonalities. - Los Testigos de Cerveza
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wayne Lutz (lu...@bellatlantic.net) http://www.lutzbooks.com
$Zero
9793Q
j...@who.net (Jan S.) was... offended?
>$Zero (ze...@hour.com) says...
>
> ...whack...
>
see what i mean about speking my heart?
>*>Plonk<*
YES!!! swish... three points!!!
at this rate... it'll be a white-wash.
>Oh, and, by the way, go fuck yourself until you bleed out, you
>fucking ignorant subliterate shitbrained moronic subhumanoid
>succubus.
Jeez.. i must have called some slanderous asshole a cunt.
>--jan (PeaceLoveUnderstanding, you fucking asshole)
i suppose *Miss* Meyer's vial slander is ok, huh? turn the other cheek
stuff, right?
don't worry, i'll still be here Jan. spreading
PeaceLoveAndUnderstanding... unlike Kathy Meyers, who spreads baseless
lies and can't take the heat.
be sure to check out my web page explaining the phsycho-illogical and
socialo-ilogical "reasons' behind everyone who publically killfiles me.
it'll be a keeper, i assure you.
-$Zero... WhatABunchOfWordPansies
`'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``' Day 13194
TheASCIIGraphicAbove...PaysHomageTo...Jan
AsOf...9709010143EST...IHaveZeroControlOverAnythingWrittenBelow:
$Zero
9786Q
jes...@airmail.net (Thomas Michaels)
>$Zero <ze...@hour.com> wrote:
>=snipping obscenities in the interest of good taste=
really? so, what's the current interest rate on "good" taste?
>Sinking to the level of the gutter is the surest sign
>that a battle has been lost.
that's odd, i always thought a battle was lost by the fuckin' loser.
and one good sign of a typical loser is someone who is offended
by mere "curse" words and places their use above all logic.
the gutter? LOL. where do you suppose false derogatory
statements concerning someone's children (aka slander)
where do they fit in your white-bread illusion world?
the roofing shingles perhaps?
grow the fuck up you twit.
>Tom Michaels
why do i get the feeling that you're just another cowardly
regular hiding behind some bogus email id?
must be the frightful fear of words i see in this so-called
writer's group. i hope it never reaches epidemic levels.
-$Zero... <---AFuckin'InoculatedSOB
`'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``' Day 13194
TheASCIIGraphicAbove...PaysHomageTo...Jan
AsOf...9709010728EST...IHaveZeroControlOverAnythingWrittenBelow:
$Zero
9783Q
jes...@airmail.net (Thomas Michaels) frantically responded to another
post-o-mine:
[the jester's hot on my trail, which further convinces me
that the jester is a cowardly regular]
>$Zero <ze...@hour.com> wrote:
[spell-checked <g>]
>>be sure to check out my web page explaining the psycho-illogical
>>and socio-illogical "reasons' behind everyone who publically killfiles
>>me. it'll be a keeper, i assure you.
>
>Gee, I'd never publically killfill you, Zero.
>You are too valuable for that. You serve
>as a constant reminder of "There, but for
>the grace of God, go I."
not a chance. creative genius is not mass-produced. <g>
>No, I'll always read what your twisted mind has to say---
>it helps when I want to write about a deranged person in
>my novel. Thanks.
humbleness aside:
let's face it, the reason you'll always read what
my untwisted, unbrainwashed mind has to say...
is because i'm consistently interesting.
if i were deranged, i'd be painfully boring.
but if you need that label "deranged" as an excuse for reading my posts
(even when i undiplomatically put some assholes in their place) be my
guest.
>Tom Michaels
-$Zero... You'reOnlyAsDerangedAs... ThePrudishCensoriousAssholes...
InsistThatYouAre... UnlessOfCourse... You'reActuallyDeranged <g>
`'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``' Day 13194
TheASCIIGraphicAbove...PaysHomageTo...Jan
AsOf...9709010824EST...IHaveZeroControlOverAnythingWrittenBelow:
Thomas Michaels
On Mon, 01 Sep 1997 01:32:07 -0600, $Zero <ze...@hour.com> wrote:
>-$Zero... WhatAWorld...
>MaybeYouIntolerantHypocriticalAssholesDeserveEachother...
Maybe we do, Zero, because we sure as hell don't deserve you---unless
some of us have been really, really bad people in a former
incarnation, and this is Karma's way of payback. Personally, I find
you amusing...but then again, I drink Sterno.
Who loves ya, baby?
Tom Michaels
"I was born to question everything---especially my sanity."
---Al Simmons
Support the Alfred Hitchcock Memorial Fund
Cash donations only
Thomas Michaels
P.O. Box 666
Seventh Level of Hell
Hades, USA 66666-6666
Thomas Michaels
On Sun, 31 Aug 1997 22:51:12 -0600, $Zero <ze...@hour.com> wrote:
=snipping obscenities in the interest of good taste=
Sinking to the level of the gutter is the surest sign that a battle
has been lost.
Thomas Michaels
On Mon, 01 Sep 1997 00:51:09 -0600, $Zero <ze...@hour.com> wrote:
>be sure to check out my web page explaining the phsycho-illogical and
>socialo-ilogical "reasons' behind everyone who publically killfiles me.
>it'll be a keeper, i assure you.
Gee, I'd never publically killfill you, Zero. You are too valuable
for that. You serve as a constant reminder of "There, but for the
grace of God, go I." No, I'll always read what your twisted mind has
to say---it helps when I want to write about a deranged person in my
novel. Thanks.
Tom Michaels
Thomas Michaels
On Mon, 01 Sep 1997 07:32:04 -0600, $Zero <ze...@hour.com> wrote:
> 9783Q
>
>jes...@airmail.net (Thomas Michaels) frantically responded to another
>post-o-mine:
>
>[the jester's hot on my trail, which further convinces me
>that the jester is a cowardly regular]
Not cowardly, Zero---I'm using my real name. Why don't you try it?
Unless your parents, in a flash of prescience, *did* name you Zero.
>
>>>be sure to check out my web page explaining the psycho-illogical
>>>and socio-illogical "reasons' behind everyone who publically killfiles
>>>me. it'll be a keeper, i assure you.
>>
>>Gee, I'd never publically killfill you, Zero.
>>You are too valuable for that. You serve
>>as a constant reminder of "There, but for
>>the grace of God, go I."
>
Creative genius isn't tedious, either, so forget about considering
yourself a creative genius.
>not a chance. creative genius is not mass-produced. <g>
>
>>No, I'll always read what your twisted mind has to say---
>>it helps when I want to write about a deranged person in
>>my novel. Thanks.
>
>humbleness aside:
>let's face it, the reason you'll always read what
>my untwisted, unbrainwashed mind has to say...
>is because i'm consistently interesting.
>
No. The reason I'll always read what you have to say is because I
love to play with idiots. It's a failing of mine.
>if i were deranged, i'd be painfully boring.
>
>but if you need that label "deranged" as an excuse for reading my posts
>(even when i undiplomatically put some assholes in their place) be my
>guest.
>
Tom Michaels
Thomas Michaels
On Mon, 01 Sep 1997 06:34:34 -0600, $Zero <ze...@hour.com> wrote:
> 9786Q
>
>jes...@airmail.net (Thomas Michaels)
>really? so, what's the current interest rate on "good" taste?
>
It wouldn't matter to you, Zero. You have no interest in good taste,
so why ask?
>>Sinking to the level of the gutter is the surest sign
>>that a battle has been lost.
>
>that's odd, i always thought a battle was lost by the fuckin' loser.
>
Correct, Zero. And, if you want to see the current loser, take a look
in the mirror.
>and one good sign of a typical loser is someone who is offended
>by mere "curse" words and places their use above all logic.
>
You are an amusing little man, aren't you? I'm not offended by mere
"curse" words (they're called obscenities, by the way---they have
nothing to do with "curses," although obviously, the gods must have
disliked you to plague you with such an apparent lack of wit). But,
you never seem to say anything---just spew forth filth, and if I want
to be entertained by that, I'll just go down to the local sewage
plant.
>the gutter? LOL. where do you suppose false derogatory
>statements concerning someone's children (aka slander)
>where do they fit in your white-bread illusion world?
>
>the roofing shingles perhaps?
>grow the fuck up you twit.
>
>>Tom Michaels
>
>why do i get the feeling that you're just another cowardly
>regular hiding behind some bogus email id?
>
>must be the frightful fear of words i see in this so-called
>writer's group. i hope it never reaches epidemic levels.
>
We do not fear words here. We fear stupidity---and, man, we're
terrified of you.
>-$Zero... <---AFuckin'InoculatedSOB
>
>
>`'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``' Day 13194
>
>TheASCIIGraphicAbove...PaysHomageTo...Jan
>
>
>AsOf...9709010728EST...IHaveZeroControlOverAnythingWrittenBelow:
>
>-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Tom Michaels
$Zero
9781Q
Re: Verbal Abuse? Or Verbal Retribution?
jes...@airmail.net (Thomas Michaels) dumbs down and writes:
a series of replies that convinces me beyond a shadow of doubt
that Thomas Michaels is a cowardly front for an MW regular...
only an MW denizen could have the skill to feign such lame responses.
however, in the highly unlikely case that i am wrong, and he is genuine,
i provide below... a course on Lame Responses:
From Lame to Clever (TM)
(The Creative-Genius Guide to Verbal Exchanges)
includes "The Seven Basic Syndromes Of Lame Responses"
>$Zero <ze...@hour.com> wrote:
>> 9786Q
>>jes...@airmail.net (Thomas Michaels)
[first, jester snipped his own "snipping obscenities in the interest
of good taste", which is just mild incoherent lameness, but helps hide
some of his lameness below]
>>really? so, what's the current interest rate on "good" taste?
>>
>It wouldn't matter to you, Zero.
>You have no interest in good taste, so why ask?
this ain't so bad really, but it needs rewording for optimal effect:
>>really? so, what's the current interest rate on "good" taste?
irrelevant. you couldn't afford the basic "principle".
>>>Sinking to the level of the gutter is the surest sign
>>>that a battle has been lost.
BTW: for the record, Kathy Meyer was the first to slide into the gutter
when she told me to "go fuck yourself". i expanded 10 fold (as i always
do and have promised to do when provoked---the bugs bunny rules of
engagement) then Jan S went for a wild gutter binge. again, i upped the
ante. so your lack of gutter comments about them invalidates any claim
here. that's called "Lame Selective High-Ground Syndrome" and it's
mixed-in with the often involuntary "Lame Poorly-Constructed Logic
Syndrome".
>>>Sinking to the level of the gutter is the surest sign
>>>that a battle has been lost.
>>that's odd, i always thought a battle was lost by the fuckin' loser.
>>
>Correct, Zero. And, if you want to see the current loser,
>take a look in the mirror.
oh god... not the "Lame Rubber/Glue Mirror Syndrome". look, if you must
cannot create your very own verbage, at least recompose it and for god's
sake, don't use the words: mirror, rubber or glue, they tend to expose
your intellectual age. instead try something like this:
>>that's odd, i always thought a battle was lost by the fuckin' loser.
liar, liar, pants on fire!
LOL
no... but, seriously, try something along these lines:
>>that's odd, i always thought a battle was lost by the fuckin' loser.
Correct, Zero. my mistake. i suppose that, after losing so many
battles, you are far better qualified to understand what constitutes a
loser than i.
[see how nice that mirrors back the logic to the logic producer?]
>>and one good sign of a typical loser is someone who is offended
>>by mere "curse" words and places their use above all logic.
>>
>You are an amusing little man, aren't you? I'm not offended by mere
>"curse" words (they're called obscenities, [1] by the way---they have
>nothing to do with "curses," although obviously, the gods must have
>disliked you to plague you with such an apparent lack of wit). [2]
>But, you never seem to say anything---just spew forth filth, [2]
above you provide some pretty good examples of
the three most common mistakes of lame responses:
[1] Direct-Contradiction Of Yourself Syndrome
[2] Making Wild Claims Which do not Bear-Out
Evidencially in Previous History Syndrome
(usually awarded a BUBO)
[3] Obviously-Didn't-Comprehend-The-Words-
To-Which-You-Were-Responding Syndrome
([3] your entire paragraph)
>But, you never seem to say anything---just spew forth filth, and
>if I want to be entertained by that, I'll just go down to the local
>sewage plant.
phew... that really stinks. but word-bigots like yourself are always
doomed to struggle with the debabiltating:
"Lame Replace-A-'Curse'Word w/ a Whole Sentence Syndrome"
looky here:
If, for some depraved reason, i craved your brand of entertainment,
i would simply put puppet strings on my shit.
[now below: you do a great "Non-Snipping, Yet, 100% Avoidance
Of The-Substantive-Flaw-Of-Your-Logic Syndrome"]
this can sometimes be attributed to either the
"Simply-Forgot-To-Snip Syndrome"
or it can indicate:
"The Complete-Break-From-Rational-Thought Syndrome"
either one is the kiss of death in a Lame Response,
the latter is best treated by calling 911 and
patiently waiting by your keyboard while drooling.
Zero:
>>the gutter? LOL. where do you suppose false derogatory
>>statements concerning someone's children (aka slander)
>>where do they fit in your white-bread illusion world?
>>
>>the roofing shingles perhaps?
>>grow the fuck up you twit.
>>
>>>Tom Michaels
>>
>>why do i get the feeling that you're just another cowardly
>>regular hiding behind some bogus email id?
>>
>>must be the frightful fear of words i see in this so-called
>>writer's group. i hope it never reaches epidemic levels.
>>
>We do not fear words here. We fear stupidity---and, man, we're
>terrified of you.
ahhhh... the now famous and weakest of all Lame Responses is the
"We-Syndrome"
(characterized by speaking on behalf of entire diverse communities
without their consent, approval or even skewed or tampered polling)
it is often used by politicians (read- "We Americans...") and
religious leaders (read "We Christians [etc.]...) or self-appointed
spokespeople.
Wayne Lutz typically gravitates towards that particular babe of lameness.
it's always remotely possible that while invoking the "We-Syndrome"
that you may well be correct in your assessment of a vast community,
however, the simple act of invoking it without substantiation
is extremely lame.
also, your last lame response above also naturally qualifies for the:
Making Wild Claims Which do not Bear-Out
Evidencially in Previous History Syndrome
(usually awarded a BUBO)
many of these "Lame Response Syndromes" are similarly interrelated with
each-other. it's all part of the intrinsicly Lame dynamic.
>>-$Zero... <---AFuckin'InoculatedSOB
>>`'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``' Day 13194
>>TheASCIIGraphicAbove...PaysHomageTo...Jan
>>AsOf...9709010728EST...IHaveZeroControlOverAnythingWrittenBelow:
>
>Tom Michaels
>
>"I was born to question everything---especially my sanity."
>---Al Simmons
BTW: this is a great quote. always liked it when i saw it in your sigs.
reminded me of my own philosophy. wish more people could understand the
value of such higher consciousness.
-$Zero... aka: TomMichaels... GeorgeStevens... DavidPeters... BobRichards
`'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``' Day 13194
TheASCIIGraphicAbove...PaysHomageTo...Jan
AsOf...9709012354EST...IHaveZeroControlOverAnythingWrittenBelow:
erin
Does this not bother anyone? I find it amazing that we spar with
someone who exhibits these kinds of sentiments.
I know it's not acceptable to any of you, that this person plainly
shows the attitude that women are nothing more than holes for his
penis, that the worst insult in his mind is to slam the concept of sex
all over a female that he is angry with.
This is violent and dangerous.
I was under the impression that although he's insane, he's harmless
and had been basically just skipping over him. You can imagine the
surprise of actually reading something he had posted this morning, and
finding this slammed all over the message. Is this his M.O.?
It's sick and pathetic. Not one of us should have to listen to this
crap, or put up with it.
Erin
On Sun, 31 Aug 1997 22:51:12 -0600, $Zero <ze...@hour.com> wrote:
[snip]
>judgmental decade ahead for the slanderous cunt]
[snip]
>care to demonstrate? is that
>your specialty?
[snip]
>listen here, you fuckin' empty-headed cunt,
[snip]
>(i could put your blood money to far better use than you could
>ever imagine).
[snip]
$Zero
9778Q
Gad...@berlin.snafu.de (Andrew Kelly) pontificated to the black kettle:
>$Zero <ze...@hour.com> wrote:
>
>pretty much something worth puking over
quite fair, and articulate too!
hey, did you catch Jan's or Meyer's pukish bullshit?
Selective High-Ground strikes again. boring. inane.
>I've suffered, and still suffer, through the hordes of
>meatwhistles and scumwads that plague this group,
>by pressing the shit out the N on my keyboard.
nice language yourself, you hypocritical twit.
>It's tedious, but I've never considered using a kill file
>because you never know where you might find a nugget.
very open-minded of you Gadfly.
i must say, your lack of consistence amazes.
>Well... you only get one more finger from me, zero,
>and it's the middle one.
look, if you insist on masterbing, please leave me out of it.
>Fuck you, Peter. Fuck you very much.
more self-righteous hypocrisy. the 5000 year trend continues.
>Seek help.
from who? some brainwashed twit like yourself?
BTW: there-in lies my single source of cynicism: the "help" provided by
the mental "health" community. will that be MC or Visa? ok... and would
you like to be either:
1] a basic functional idjit, or..
2] an out and out brainwashed-to-the-gills conformist zealous idjit?
LOL
>But mostly, Fuck you...
where have i heard that before? oh yeah, in this post. and all the
other members of the blind loyalty to the slanderous cunt society. enjoy
yourselves in your multi-contradiction sheltered lives.
>And (PLONKPLONKPLONKPLONK) rew
YES!!! <swish> <swish> <swish> <swish>
12 more points for Zero (the white-wash continues)
0 points for the self-righteous narrow-minded
selevctively-moral brainwashed idjits.
-$Zero...
`'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``' Day 13195
TheASCIIGraphicAbove...PaysHomageTo...GoodThoughtsOnAnOceanAdventure
AsOf...9709021521EST...IHaveZeroControlOverAnythingWrittenBelow:
$Zero
9777Q
er...@best.com (erin) amazingly and dangerously wrote:
>Does this not bother anyone? I find it amazing that we
>spar with someone who exhibits these kinds of sentiments.
but it was ok for Kathy Meyer to tell me to "go fuck myself"?
or jabn to go off on some rant decribing the draining of blood from my
carcass. lovely. what a twisted sense of fairness you have.
is Citron partially right? are you all just selectively PC?
>I know it's not acceptable to any of you, that this person
>plainly shows the attitude that women are nothing more
>than holes for his penis,
absolutely ridiculous. I love woman for their tenderness, nuturing
nature, general lack of macho-psychotic ego-depraved behavior (unless of
course you call one a "cunt",---it's just a word, hell i see nothing but
"penis" threads ever where i look... do i make a fuss that men are being
denigrated as not worth anything but the stick they provide for women?
wake the fuck up. clear your brain of it's ultra prejudices).
as i've stated several times in the past, i think women should run the
country and the world (for the exact reasons i stated before the previous
"cunt" parenthesis).
my how fast people freak-out over words.
>that the worst insult in his mind is to slam the concept of sex
>all over a female that he is angry with.
that is definitely not the worst insult in my mind, but i am aware of how
it highly irrates certain women, which is why i used it. Ms Meyer
slandered me with a much worse insult than a mere vulgar word. stop
being so incredibly childish.
>This is violent and dangerous.
that's a joke right? if it's not, you're the one who is DANGEROUS (i
have no idea if you're violent, so i won't slander you with that comment.
i do not consider words violent in any way shape or form. they can
incite violence, but they are not violence.)
and calling someone a cunt is far from violence.
>I was under the impression that although he's insane,
what the fuck, is everybody looking for a civil libel suit against them?
you got any bucks there Erin? watch where you tread or you'll find
yourself in fuckin' court next Monday for defamation of character, among
other things.
>I was under the impression that although he's insane,
>he's harmless and had been basically just skipping over him.
i am harmless. i've never hurt a fly. (well actully i have on occasion
hurt flies, but only when i was sleeping and they were buzzing around my
nose---unconsious reflex action)
for you to now publically call me "violent" and "insane" for no fucking
reason is definitely crossing the lines. legal, moral and ethical.
consult your attorney.
>You can imagine the surprise of actually reading something
>he had posted this morning, and finding this slammed all over
>the message. Is this his M.O.?
you can imagine my surprise to find your tunneled mindless reaction.
my M.O. is to react appropriately when provoked.
>It's sick and pathetic.
no, it's verbal escalation, started by that cunt Meyer who told me to "go
fuck myself" after wishing her a happy birthday and a more open-minded
decade.
>Not one of us should have to listen to this
>crap, or put up with it.
and what exactly is it that you propose to do about it? i know what i
have in mind.
>Erin
[snip selective-morality--a serious of out of context snips by Erin]
-$Zero... Again.. IAsk... *Writers*? Sheesh...
`'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``' Day 13195
TheASCIIGraphicAbove...PaysHomageTo...GoodThoughtsOnAnOceanAdventure
AsOf...9709021600EST...IHaveZeroControlOverAnythingWrittenBelow:
Jack Mingo
erin wrote:
>
> Does this not bother anyone? I find it amazing that we spar with
> someone who exhibits these kinds of sentiments.
Oh, is Zero still here? Haven't bothered reading him since before my
sabbatical--too much ore for the little bit of gold in them there ills,
and I figure his chief contribution--sometimes starting interesting
threads--will become without having the read the primary source.
Still, he used to be crazy but apparently harmless.
Now he's calling a very respected member of the group a "cunt"? Clearly
he's even crazier and no longer so harmless.
Peter, cut it out.
Jack (You of all people should know better) Mingo
Jenna Thomas-McKie
$Zero wrote:
> absolutely ridiculous. I love woman for their tenderness, nuturing
> nature, general lack of macho-psychotic ego-depraved behavior
Unless she disagrees with you, in which case she's a "stupid fuck" or a
"cunt" or a raving lunatic materialistic gun-nut.
--
Jenna C. Thomas-McKie
jth...@aug.edu
Fight Spam! Join CAUCE (Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email)
at http://www.cauce.org/ and help outlaw UCE spamming.
Bill Oliver
In article <340ad84c...@snews.zippo.com>, erin <er...@best.com> wrote:
>
>This is violent and dangerous.
>
It is not violent in the sense that it is an example of actual
violence. There is no evidence that it is dangerous. It may be
offensive, uncalled for, etc., but do not mistake words for actions.
There was no threat there. Being offensive is not being violent.
Using the terms like "violent" and "dangerous" to make offensive
actions more than they are does more to lessen people's reaction
to real violence in the long run than any propaganda gains in the short
run justify.
billo
Bill Oliver
In article <340C72...@aug.edu>, Jenna Thomas-McKie <jth...@aug.edu> wrote:
>
>
>Unless she disagrees with you, in which case she's a "stupid fuck" or a
>"cunt" or a raving lunatic materialistic gun-nut.
>
No, *I'm" the raving lunatic materialistic gun-nut. Sheesh.
billo
Stan (the Man)
erin wrote:
>
> Does this not bother anyone? I find it amazing that we spar with
> someone who exhibits these kinds of sentiments.
>
> shows the attitude that women are nothing more than holes for his
> all over a female that he is angry with.
>
>
> surprise of actually reading something he had posted this morning, and
> finding this slammed all over the message. Is this his M.O.?
>
> crap, or put up with it.
>
<snipped Zero's vile rambling>
I don't think there is anybody left here who finds Peter anything more
than an offensive embarrassment. It still astonishes me that anyone
responds to any of his posts. This, the latest of his vomito negro,
should convince any who would still give him any of their time that he
is not worth their efforts. I haven't killfiled him because Netscape
doesn't have that capability. I probably wouldn't anyway for the same
reason people slow down and gawk at a traffic accident. You and
everybody else who've been targeted for his mental instability have my
sympathy. He's become a tiresome little pest. Unfortunately, there's
nothing you can do to stop him from continuing to defecate in full view.
--
Stan
cc: email
Support the Jayne Hitchcock HELP Fund:
http://www.geocities.com/~hitchcockc/story.html#fund
erin
>Unfortunately, there's
>nothing you can do to stop him from continuing to defecate in full view.
Thank you everyone for informing me - Jack, Deck, Stan, Jenna.
I didn't know that no one was responding to him, I just knew I hadn't
read him in months. I'm still not sure why I double clicked on that
thread the other day.
In many ways I'm glad I did; bringing the finger back on the pulse,
and also a chance to tell Kathie that I think his attitudes are
deplorable and insulting to everyone, especially to her in particular.
Shocking really, in today's world as a woman.
Oh well. Usenet's full of 'em I suppose.
Carry on, everyone. I'll go back to ignoring him.
Erin
$Zero
9774Q
>From: Jenna Thomas-McKie <jth...@aug.edu>
>Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 16:11:05 -0400
>Message-id: <340C72...@aug.edu>
>
>$Zero wrote:
>
>> absolutely ridiculous. I love woman for their tenderness, nuturing
>> nature, general lack of macho-psychotic ego-depraved behavior
>
>Unless she disagrees with you, in which case she's a "stupid fuck" or a
>"cunt" or a raving lunatic materialistic gun-nut.
no, unless someone slanders me with false derogatory statements (about my
children) and then has the gall to tell me to go fuck myself. in that
case said person gets a taste of the same verbal abuse (without the
libel).
me and Sal used to disagree about a lot of things, and we remained pals
for a long time, until some weird thing happened, which i cannot explain
because she won't communicate with me. same goes for me and Anna
Halbert. we had our disagreements (haven't talked to her in a while, so
i don't don't if she has shunned me or not) in neither of these cases did
i call Sal or Anna or Pat M (whom i also disagree with often) a "cunt" or
a "stupid fuck" because they disagreed with me. they never deserved to
be called a "cunt" because they never posted terrible vial lies about me
like Kathie Meyer did.
nor did i ever call you a cunt, Jenna. did i? and we certainly disagree
about many things.
all of you people ganging up on me like wild wolves need to shake your
silly preconceptions and prejudices from your word-bigot minds.
OTOH the term "stupid fuck" applies to all of us.
>Jenna C. Thomas-McKie
>jth...@aug.edu
-$Zero... AbsolutelyAmazed... AtTheHypocrisyAndSelectiveMorality...
I'mExperiencingFromEveryone... ShameOnYou...
`'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``' Day 13195
TheASCIIGraphicAbove...PaysHomageTo...GoodThoughtsOnAnOceanAdventure
AsOf...9709022235EST...IHaveZeroControlOverAnythingWrittenBelow:
$Zero
9773Q
>From: lou...@mail.wsu.edu (Kathie Meyer)
>Date: 2 Sep 1997 19:10:00 GMT
>Message-id: <5uhoa8$dqq$1...@leopard.it.wsu.edu>
>
>ze...@hour.com says...
>> 9797Q
>>lou...@mail.wsu.edu (Kathie Meyer) apparently can dish it out,
>>but can't take it:
>>ze...@hour.com says...
>>[snip my satirical but sincere birthday wishes, and my hopes
>>for a less judgmental decade ahead for the slanderous cunt]
>
>No wonder Jessica left you, Zero.
actually, Jessica is someone else in my life, you twit.
my ex-wife left me because she was a faithless
moronic alchoholic coward with childish peer issues.
>Speaking of slander, do you think she'd be interested in a
>Deja News file on all of the things you've said about her
>in this newsgroup? I bet she would be.
i think she'd be awful embarrassed. but i doubt that she would deny
anything i wrote about her. the pathetic loser certainly could not
sue me for libel. for two reasons:
1] i never gave her name
but more importantly (and unfortunately for our two children)
2] i never wrote anything that wasn't true.
but if you'd like to put my kids through even more greif,
expect more than a simple libel suit, you heartless cunt.
>Kathie (I think the correct term is libel) Meyer
you've got a lot of balls there kathie, to continue this badgering
after writing those vial lies about me (which are *definitely* actionable)
because they are not true and they have certainly defamed my character.
the least i would expect from an ignorant slanderous cunt like you
is a simple apology. but no... instead you beg for punishment.
so be it.
-Peter
do you want to email me your lawyer's address info, or do i have
to go through more pain and aggravation on your account?
Erin, feel free to email me as well, although yours was stated as
sort of an opinion, i'm no public figure, so i'll have to get a
lawyer to verify if it too is actionable.
you guys want to freak out over some words?
well, get ready for some major word-freaking.
(from those slimiest of word-freakers: your attorneys)
`'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``' Day 13195
TheASCIIGraphicAbove...PaysHomageTo...GoodThoughtsOnAnOceanAdventure
AsOf...9709022314EST...IHaveZeroControlOverAnythingWrittenBelow:
$Zero
9772Q
>From: Jack Mingo <mi...@pacbell.net>
>Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 12:39:40 -0700
>Message-id: <340C6B...@pacbell.net>
>
>erin wrote:
>>Does this not bother anyone? I find it amazing that we spar with
>>someone who exhibits these kinds of sentiments.
>
>Oh, is Zero still here? Haven't bothered reading him since before my
>sabbatical--too much ore for the little bit of gold in them there ills,
jeez Jack, what a short memeory, you just responded to one of my
posts hours ago, in relation to copyrighting epigrams.
i was about to ask you whether you are the actual originator
of the couch potatoe (tm) term. now i really don't care.
>and I figure his chief contribution--sometimes starting interesting
>threads--will become without having the read the primary source.
i didn't start that thread, i don't know who did.
anyway, who knows how many aliases you post under.
>Still, he used to be crazy but apparently harmless.
libelous bunch aren't ya?
>Now he's calling a very respected member of the group a "cunt"?
i lost any respect for her after her careless personal lieing insult.
which, by any comparison, is far worse than calling someone a "cunt"
which is merely slang for "vagina". jeez, i guess if i call someone
a "prick" instead of a "'penis" i'd have all the wolves attacking me
from here to china.
>Clearly he's even crazier and no longer so harmless.
ohhhh... you're just joking about my sanity and danger. good one!
>Peter, cut it out.
listen, i certainly didn't start this crap. had the cunt publically
retracted her false derogatory statements and apologized a couple
months ago, when i posted that i would try to cool off before responding
to her vial crap, i may have accidentally forgot about the whole thing.
now she has the gall to tell me to go fuck myself? so i went back and
read her libelous post.
and i was INFURIATED again!
(especially since i forgot to do anything about it before)
>Jack (You of all people should know better) Mingo
Kathie should know better, she claims to be a responsible adult.
i, OTOH, never made such a claim. i reject the traditional brainwash.
i'm the non-traditional mother-father figure. *i* nurtue my kids.
brainwashed twits like kathie don't have a clue about how they levy
their hypocritical double-standards left and right.
-$Zero... SoAreYouTheActual"CouchPotatoe"Originator?...
OrDidYouJustCopyrightItFirst?
`'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``' Day 13196
TheASCIIGraphicAbove...PaysHomageTo...MW'sSteadyFairnessAndEqualJustice
AsOf...9709030004EST...IHaveZeroControlOverAnythingWrittenBelow:
$Zero
9771Q
"Stan (the Man)" <veri...@ix.netcom.com> takes an opportunist que from
his conservative colleague Wayne:
[those conservatives are so desperate to label intellectuals as kooks]
>erin wrote:
[snip an extremely over-reacting incoherent interpretation of a four
letter word]
>>$Zero <ze...@hour.com> wrote:
><snipped Zero's vile rambling>
well, after erin got done snipping my post,
i tend to agree with that assessment.
>I don't think there is anybody left here who finds Peter
>anything more than an offensive embarrassment.
the evidence is certainly mounting.
but it's obviously a new phenomenum.
>It still astonishes me that anyone responds to any of his posts.
why, because i expose things as unimportant as the Blue Wall of Silence?
>This, the latest of his vomito negro, should convince any who would
>still give him any of their time that he is not worth their efforts.
sure. use the word cunt among penis word users and it's the kiss of
death. pretty ironic considering that particular combo is usually the
jkiss of life.
>I haven't killfiled him because Netscape doesn't have that capability.
hmmm... did netscape force you to wish me happy birthday? maybe i'd
better not use that newsreader when i set up with my new ISP this week.
>I probably wouldn't anyway for the same reason people slow down and gawk
>at a traffic accident.
well there's one copy sold of the national enquirer when they publish
the photo's of Princess Diana's mangled wreck.
>You and everybody else who've been targeted for his mental instability
>have my sympathy.
huh, another libel suit. pretty soon i'll have a closet full of these
suits.
>He's become a tiresome little pest.
for those who engae in toilet plunger justice, i suppose you're correct
Stan.
>Unfortunately, there's nothing you can do to stop him from continuing to
>defecate in full view.
how about sticking a toilet plunger up my defecating ass?
i rename this post: the Blue Wall of Freudian Slips of Stan
-$Zero... PestToTheTyrannicalManiacs
and don't think that i won't be watching your wall of blue influence.
this disclaimer post of yours, throwing your innocent arms up saying:
"what can you do?" didn't get past *me*.
>cc: email
oh lookie, above, he even went to the effort of cc: emailing it to me
i've got your fuckin' number Stan baby.
sounds paranoid, huh? well...
"BUTTER safe, than sorry."
anyway, that's what my cousin Guido always tells me.
cc: email
`'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``' Day 13196
TheASCIIGraphicAbove...PaysHomageTo...MW'sSteadyFairnessAndEqualJustice
AsOf...9709030028EST...IHaveZeroControlOverAnythingWrittenBelow:
G.L. Morrison
> Trouble is, I'm firmly against censorship.
>
"I may disagree with what you say, but I'll die defending your right to
say it." --Voltaire (as I remember him)
"I may disagree with what you say, but I'll die defending my right not
listen to it." --Votive (as I lit it)
Alexander J Berman
$Zero wrote:
> >But mostly, Fuck you...
>
> where have i heard that before? oh yeah, in this post. and all the
> other members of the blind loyalty to the slanderous cunt society. enjoy
> yourselves in your multi-contradiction sheltered lives.
> -$Zero...
Exactly who dumped you and why did she do so in such a destructive way,
$Z? Damn, but she got you good, man. It's okay, bud, you can come out of
your foxhole now; not all women are like the one who so darkly colored
your views against her gender.
In fact, most aren't.
$Z, could you try to be nice just *once* in a while? I don't care
whether its here or in your day-to-day life.
(prescient moment: $Z replys to this: "I don't care what you care, you
brainwashed simp/gender traitor.")
It might just help you somehow; and even if it doesn't, you can still
say that you made the effort.
Alex Jay Berman
-- entirely too wanting of female companionship of an intimate nature
himself (too damn picky) ...
--
"If you figure out that you don't need to figure it all
out, you are finally getting all your shit together."
-- Jimmy Buffett
G.L. Morrison
Bill Oliver wrote:
> There was no threat there. Being offensive is not being violent.
> Using the terms like "violent" and "dangerous" to make offensive
> actions more than they are does more to lessen people's reaction
> to real violence in the long run
I agree that we should use words very carefully. (Example: using rape or
the Holocaust as metaphors is diminishing to the survivors of such horrors
and desensatizes us to hearing about them.) But there's a connection
between "talk" and "violence". Often it creates an environment in which
people who are prone to violence are supported or imagine themselves to be
supported. (this is how abortion clinic bombings/shooters happen.)
likewise anti-gay "talk" encourages gay-bashing. With the level of
violence against women (who are as or more at risk at home with loved ones
as with strangers on the street) as high as it is in this country, would
you wager there's no connection between *offensive* (bill's view) and
*dangerous* (erin's view) references to women?
G.L.
Andrew Kelly
On Sun, 31 Aug 1997 22:51:12 -0600, $Zero <ze...@hour.com> wrote:
pretty much something worth puking over
I've suffered, and still suffer, through the hordes of
meatwhistles and scumwads that plague this group, by pressing the
shit out the N on my keyboard. It's tedious, but I've never
considered using a kill file because you never know where you
might find a nugget. Well...
you only get one more finger from me, zero, and it's the middle
one.
Fuck you, Peter. Fuck you very much.
Seek help.
But mostly, Fuck you...
And (PLONKPLONKPLONKPLONK) rew
Towse
[cc: Kathie]
$Zero wrote:
>
> 9797Q
>
> Verbal Abuse? Or Verbal Retribution?
> (Was: Re: Kathie Meyer is FORTY YEARS OLD TODAY)
>
> lou...@mail.wsu.edu (Kathie Meyer) apparently can dish it out, but
> can't take it:
>
> ze...@hour.com says...
>
> [snip my satirical but sincere birthday wishes, and my hopes for a
> less judgmental decade ahead for the slanderous cunt]
>
> >Oh, this must be the place where I get to say "go fuck yourself."
[snip a fine example of something resembling either a 'roid rage or
medication mismanagement]
As part of her bday wishes, I told Kathie that now she's forty she can
say "go fuck yourself" to folks if what she does bothers them. Obviously
she bothered Zero, and her reply to his "satirical" bday greeting was
spot on.
Poor ol' Zero. He maybe just doesn't quite have the people skills to put
into practice the PeaceLoveAndUnderstanding he says is his mantra, his
philosophy, his code.
And he wonders why no one answers his posts and they seem to drop into
oblivion. He thinks PLOTS! He thinks BAD ISP! He thinks SOMETHING is
awry.
Clue for the clueless:
Zero - Most of your posts get here; most aren't worth the trouble to
read let alone respond to.
Folks, the only reason I'm posting to this thread of Zero's re Kathie is
because too often when a raging bully beats on a member of this group,
people don't respond, hoping the bully will shutup if they get no
attention.
Unfortunately, a side effect of this reaction is that the person getting
pounded feels like her (usually "her" - odd wot?) pain is either
unrecognized or dismissed as unimportant and the group doesn't care and
would rather let the bully bash about with impunity than stick their
collective necks out.
Kathie - Zero's behavior and his hypocrisy re his continuing desire to
spread PeaceLoveAndUnderstanding are inexcusable.
Ah, well. That's Usenet, eh?
Sal
Kathie Meyer
In article <8730858...@dejanews.com>, ze...@hour.com says...
>
> 9797Q
>
>Verbal Abuse? Or Verbal Retribution?
>(Was: Re: Kathie Meyer is FORTY YEARS OLD TODAY)
>
>lou...@mail.wsu.edu (Kathie Meyer) apparently can dish it out, but can't
>take it:
>
>ze...@hour.com says...
>
>[snip my satirical but sincere birthday wishes, and my hopes for a less
>judgmental decade ahead for the slanderous cunt]
No wonder Jessica left you, Zero.
Speaking of slander, do you think she'd be interested in a Deja News
file on all of the things you've said about her in this newsgroup?
I bet she would be.
Kathie (I think the correct term is libel) Meyer
Jan S.
On Tue, 02 Sep 1997 11:44:22 -0700, Towse (to...@null.net) says...
>
...snip for length...
>
>Kathie - Zero's behavior and his hypocrisy re his continuing desire to
>spread PeaceLoveAndUnderstanding are inexcusable.
>
This deserves a loud ME TOO!!!!!!!
>Ah, well. That's Usenet, eh?
>Sal
Much as I appreciate so many aspects of this here li'l ol' anarchy, $Null's
behavior exemplifies one thing I dislike about it.
Trouble is, I'm firmly against censorship.
--jan
erin
On 2 Sep 1997 16:56:52 -0400, oli...@cs.unc.edu (Bill Oliver) wrote:
>In article <340ad84c...@snews.zippo.com>, erin <er...@best.com> wrote:
>>
>>This is violent and dangerous.
>>
>It is not violent in the sense that it is an example of actual
>violence. There is no evidence that it is dangerous. It may be
>offensive, uncalled for, etc., but do not mistake words for actions.
Okay Bill. Next time you lose your penis and gain a vagina, and live
with jerks like this on a day to day basis, you come back and tell me
these attitudes are not violent and dangerous. K?
What perceptions such as Peter's do just to the self esteem of women
is incredible. Add to that the way women are *treated* and viewed by
men and other women with these same attitudes, and you begin to
realize the seriousness of them.
Other than that, I'm not going to get in a debate with you about this.
You have no concept, and I don't mean that in a negative way. Of
course you're entitled to your own opinion. And if you had some way
of understanding what it IS like to live in my world, I might be more
willing to hear your views on what you consider to be warning flags
for me. But you don't. So carry on. You know how I feel about it
now, and there's not much more to add.
Erin
The Last Real Marlboro Man
On Tue, 02 Sep 1997 21:38:04 GMT, er...@best.com (erin) wrote:
>Thank you everyone for informing me - Jack, Deck, Stan, Jenna.
>I didn't know that no one was responding to him, I just knew I hadn't
>read him in months. I'm still not sure why I double clicked on that
>thread the other day.
Zero's verbal sewage is hurtful. The most frightening thing about it,
however, is that he truly believes that *he* is good and everyone else
is *evil*, or at least hopelessly wrong.
He sees no contradictions in his "peace-love.." stuff and the hatred
that emanates from him like a foul odor.
As for his rantings about suing for "libel", well, it wouldn't
surprise me one bit if he actually attempted it. It would be
completely in keeping with his attitudes about money - that people who
earn it are evil, but that he has some kind of moral right to get
*your* money through panhandling and lawsuits.
(Not that he would get anywhere with a lawsuit, mind you. The
defendant would merely have to bring out the reams of ZeroSense usenet
archives and he would be laughed out of court.)
On the positive side, I have noticed, over the last few months, an
awful lot of "Zero" posts sitting alone and unremarked. Every now
and then a relative newbie responds to his drivel, or one of the other
outcasts like HCC, but mostly he goes totally unnoticed. He only
showed up to so many of us here because he posted a thinly veiled
insult to Kathy's birthday thread.
The Gillies and the Roberts and even the Boursies of this group are
nothing worse than annoying, in an amusing kind of way. They add
something to the unique character of usenet. Zero adds nothing, not
anymore, and he is one of only two people who have ever showed up on
this group who I believe should leave for good. The other is Grubor.
I am truly sorry that Kathy's birthday thread was ruined by zero. And
I am truly sorry that you were so deeply offended by his hate-speach.
Let him post his 200+ line long responses to these posts. And let
them go unread.
- Wayne
cc: e-mail
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You should try the gutter, before it's too late." - Robert Maughn describes his mental state in misc.writing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$Zero
9766Q
j...@who.net (Jan S.) wasted bandwidth with a "me too!"
>(to...@null.net) says...
> ...snip for length...
>>Kathie - Zero's behavior and his hypocrisy re his continuing
>>desire to spread PeaceLoveAndUnderstanding are inexcusable.
since we're all in the mood to waste bandwidth, i'll reiterate it again.
spreading PeaceLoveAndUnderstanding has *nothing* to do with the use of
vulgarity or the existence of conflicts between people. certainly nobody
here has yet to spread PeaceLoveAndUnderstanding in this conflict as it
pertains to me. put that in your alleged thinking cap.
[about my alleged hypocrisy]
>This deserves a loud ME TOO!!!!!!!
>>Ah, well. That's Usenet, eh?
>>Sal
>
>Much as I appreciate so many aspects of this here li'l ol' anarchy,
>$Null's behavior exemplifies one thing I dislike about it.
you mean my articulate opposing opinions which stifle you into a drinking
binge?
>Trouble is, I'm firmly against censorship.
no trouble. you might want to open your mind though,
i believe you'll find most of your trouble in there.
>--jan
-$Zero... IsEveryoneHereMorallyBarren? WhatAboutWhat "Kathie Meyer"
PostedTwoMonthsAgo? (YouStupidBlindedHypocriticalFucks)
`'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``' Day 13196
TheASCIIGraphicAbove...PaysHomageTo...MW'sSteadyFairnessAndEqualJustice
AsOf...9709030234EST...IHaveZeroControlOverAnythingWrittenBelow:
$Zero
9770Q
er...@best.com (erin) thanked all for the unanimous confirmation of
ZeroReadership:
"Stan (the Man)" <veri...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>Unfortunately, there's nothing you can do to stop him
>>from continuing to defecate in full view.
hey Stan, did you try using a bigger toilet plunger yet?
aren't the new ones coming in at the department supposed to be
100% guaranteed to kill the victim, so he can't testify?
let me just repeat what Stan the cop said above,
while accentuating one word:
"Unfortunately, there's nothing YOU can do to stop him"
america the beautiful.. the beautiful blue wall of silence.
>Thank you everyone for informing me - Jack, Deck, Stan, Jenna.
>I didn't know that no one was responding to him, I just knew
>I hadn't read him in months.
well, they respond to my innovations, that's good enough for me.
proves i'm still interesting as fuck. ain't it funny how vocal
everyone is about having been ignoring me? it's funny to me. <g>
BTW: how many aliases *are* there out there anyway?
it's gonna take some serious 0A meetings to get all of
the "newbies" to stop responding to me. <g>
cocky bastard, aren't i?
oops... i said "cocky". is that grounds for the fuckin' death penalty?
>I'm still not sure why I double clicked on that
>thread the other day.
Erin, you wrote a hilarious parody about me a couple months ago
remember? the one where i'm crucifying myself up against a brick wall
and Citron's holding my hand's steady so i can get the nails in?
just wanted to thank you for the excellent humor before you
flipped your (word-bigot) lid. in case i don't recogniize one of
your psuedo-email addresses. wish *i* could afford to have more than
one. i suppose with my new ISP i can just make them up post by post.
check your headers carefully, soon Zero's gonna have real net access. <g>
>In many ways I'm glad I did; bringing the finger back on the pulse,
>and also a chance to tell Kathie that I think his attitudes are
>deplorable and insulting to everyone, especially to her in particular.
they were definitely meant to be insulting to kathie.
she vially slandered me. the rest of you are just
moral cowards for letting her off the hook.
thanks, i'll remember that. (unless i forget)
>Shocking really, in today's world as a woman.
grow up little girl. swear words do not penetrate.
>Oh well. Usenet's full of 'em I suppose.
cunts? yep.
penises? yep.
fair, unhypocritical human beings? sighhhhh....
big shortage of them EVERYWHERE
>Carry on, everyone. I'll go back to ignoring him.
"make it so." said Captain Erin, and all of the others joined in
with her over-reacting selective-morality and word-bigotry.
-$Zero... AnyOneSeenGeorgeCarlinLately?... HeKeepsTheOfficialList...
Doesn'tHe?
`'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``' Day 13196
TheASCIIGraphicAbove...PaysHomageTo...MW'sSteadyFairnessAndEqualJustice
AsOf...9709030106EST...IHaveZeroControlOverAnythingWrittenBelow:
$Zero
9767Q
Towse <to...@null.net> my old pal Vinnie finally finds time for me and
spews out this nonsense:
>[cc: Kathie]
i won't ask what the "cc" stands for. i do know this.
all you people who are jumping on this defense of kathie
are showing yourselves to be extremely unfair and proving
that you are all capable of the worst sort of human nature.
you are condemning me for defending myself against slander
just because i responded to kathies' "go fuck yourself"
with escalated vigor. pathetic. you should all be thoroughly
ashamed, instead you'll be protectively indignant.
this is a perfect microcosm of what's wrong with our world.
i hope someone sees that inescapable truth.
but, ever since Sal turned against me (for some bizarre reason
that she refuses to articulate or show me the common decency to
at least hint at, or even simply aknowledge that i even exist --
hope you're real proud of yourselves Wendy and Kathy V.) ...
ever since Sal turned against me, and even threatened me in
email saying something to the effect of:
"if you don't kiss my ass just so, i hope you know what
the consequences will be"
(not an exact quote, but the gist is the same) ever since then,
i have lost a lot of faith in people in general... again.
so i doubt that i can expect any modicum of fairness here anymore.
probably because i had viewed Sal as one of the most fair people
i had ever talked to online. except for perhaps Anna Halbert
and Pat Marcello, who are extremely objective and fair, (at least
in my experience) but what do i know, they could all be the same
people, who really knows for sure? all of their personalities are
definitely different, but that might just be genius writing at work. <g>
>$Zero wrote:
>> 9797Q
>>lou...@mail.wsu.edu (Kathie Meyer) apparently can dish it out,
>>but can't take it:
>>ze...@hour.com says...
>>
>>[snip my satirical but sincere birthday wishes, and my hopes for a
>>less judgmental decade ahead for the slanderous cunt]
>>
>>>Oh, this must be the place where I get to say "go fuck yourself."
>
>[snip a fine example of something resembling either a 'roid rage or
>medication mismanagement]
ha ha. i won't even get into that with you, out of respect.
>As part of her bday wishes, I told Kathie that now she's forty she
>can say "go fuck yourself" to folks if what she does bothers them.
i guess i missed that post. but it's irrelevant anyway.
>Obviously she bothered Zero,
yes she most certainly did bother me, she slandered my character with
a string of lies and never apologized, and you, Mrs Deja News, i'm sure
you know why. and i'm surprised at you for condoning her statements.
but then again, conmsidering what you did with the whole "kill the
bastard(s)" thing, i guess this should come as no shock to me. but it
still does.
>and her reply to his "satirical" bday greeting was spot on.
if she would have publically retracted her highly derogatory lies weeks
ago, and cancelled her post, perhaps i would have found it funny. but i
did not. she has no right in my mind to tell me to "fuck off" AT ALL.
she's extremely lucky i haven't sued her silly ass yet.
>Poor ol' Zero. He maybe just doesn't quite have the people skills to put
>into practice the PeaceLoveAndUnderstanding he says is his mantra, his
>philosophy, his code.
poor ol' kathie, can't take responsibility for her lies and outrageous
defamation of charcter on her own, so a court has to do it.
PeaceLoveAndUnderstanding is my mantra, evidenced by the fact that i
haven't sued the silly cunt yet. however, i see no
PeaceLoveAndUnderstanding from you or anyone else that is unjustly
jumping down my back here.
instead i see the sickening part of human nature that results
in things such as the blue walls of silence or lynch mobs
in the no electronic communities of our world.
can't we all try to be just and fair? now i sound like fuckin' Rodney
King. look, my PeaceLoveAndUnderstanding mantra never indicated that i
was a mindless word bigot like all of you seem to be. vulgarity is no
contradiction to PeaceLoveAndUnderstanding. when people like kathie
meyer cross the line, they should be taken to task. she certainly has
shown no PeaceLoveAndUnderstanding.
>And he wonders why no one answers his posts and they seem to drop
>into oblivion.
people have been responding to me regularly all along. it's only when
i started posting about the brutality of those fuckin pigs in NYC that
my posts started to disapear. (and when my zeroeffort account died)
>He thinks PLOTS!
tell that to Tricky Dicky.
>He thinks BAD ISP!
absoltely no question about that. cold hard evidence.
>He thinks SOMETHING is awry.
something is always awry dipshit,
if you're so naive as to think it's not, i pity you.
yet, at the same time, i envy your ignorance.
>Clue for the clueless:
>
>Zero - Most of your posts get here;
most?
>most aren't worth the trouble to
>read let alone respond to.
and how would you know unless you read them? <g>
>Folks, the only reason I'm posting to this thread of Zero's re
>Kathie is because too often when a raging bully beats on a member
>of this group, people don't respond, hoping the bully will shutup
>if they get no attention.
*Very* commendable. but what about what kathie posted?
are you really that morally barren not to address her lies?
do you understand the reason i am enraged with that cunt?
do you even care? or is the use of the word "cunt" automatic
death penalty material?
>Unfortunately, a side effect of this reaction is that the person
>getting pounded feels like her (usually "her" - odd wot?)
not odd at all, if you ask me. and possibly a good indication
of what's dreadfully wrong here. and ironiically enough, is
pertinent to the whole slander issue in the first place.
>pain is either unrecognized or dismissed as unimportant and the
>group doesn't care and would rather let the bully bash about
>with impunity than stick their collective necks out.
yeah, tell me about impunity again, won't you? hypocrite.
>Kathie - Zero's behavior and his hypocrisy re his continuing
>desire to spread PeaceLoveAndUnderstanding are inexcusable.
the first step to PeaceLoveAndUnderstanding is communication and honesty.
the current vocal part of this group is behaving woefully bad on both
counts as it pertains to this particular conflict between me and kathie.
>Ah, well. That's Usenet, eh?
sure the fuck is. pity ain't it? a community that exists only by virtue
of communication, and it can't even hack it. what does that say for
the rest of society? i won't even comment about the honesty aspect.
apparently, that's totally hopeless. [read-"kill the batstard(s)"]
>Sal
-$Zero... YetStill... IRemainOptimistic... PerhapsI*Am*Insane...
`'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``' Day 13196
TheASCIIGraphicAbove...PaysHomageTo...MW'sSteadyFairnessAndEqualJustice
AsOf...9709030214EST...IHaveZeroControlOverAnythingWrittenBelow:
$Zero
9765Q
Dear Erin,
i hope it's ok to CC: this to you,
because i think you should read it.
i'm sorry for not knowing your trigger words, but...
for the sake of rhetoric, please excuse their use below.
-Peter
PS you still need to contact your lawyer,
unless you publicly retract your libel
er...@best.com (erin) attempts damage control:
>oli...@cs.unc.edu (Bill Oliver) wrote:
>>erin <er...@best.com> wrote:
>>>This is violent and dangerous.
>>>
>>It is not violent in the sense that it is an example of actual
>>violence. There is no evidence that it is dangerous. It may be
>>offensive, uncalled for, etc., but do not mistake words for actions.
thank you Bill for recognizing a simple basic truth. hallelujah!
i'd almost lost hope. does this mean i have to become a republican?
>Okay Bill. Next time you lose your penis and gain a vagina,
>and live with jerks like this on a day to day basis, you come
>back and tell me these attitudes are not violent and dangerous. K?
what the hell do the jerks you live with have to do with me?
nothing, that's what. jerks where i live say "brocholi' right
before they kill someone. should we crucify everyone who says
brocholi?
you read an attitude into a word i used which has no bearing to
me or my attitude whatsoever. why don't you just apologize, you twit.
>What perceptions such as Peter's do
are you nuts or something? what the hell perception of
mine are you talking about?
>What perceptions such as Peter's do just to the
>self esteem of women is incredible.
what about what that cunt kathie said about me?
do you realize the rage it caused me. i was so pissed
i almost had a heart attack when i read those slanderous
baseless derogatory lies two months ago. i love my kids
with all my heart, and i support and nurture them with every
bit of my soul. her brainless post was so uncalled for,
i was screaming at the monitor in rage.
"cunt" is just a generic slang swear wiord for vagina.
if i was a misogynist, i could understand your reaction,
similar to if i was a racist and called someone a "nigger"
but i am anything but a misogynist. if anything, i'm a feminist.
i'm practically raising my kids by myself. i understand women's issues,
i want women to run the world instead of men. most men suck as people.
i know. because i'm one of them. i hang around them.
but i'm also a militant anti-word bigot. so fuck you and your "cunt"
phobia.
>What perceptions such as [...insert male...] do just to the
>self esteem of women is incredible.
that's not a women's issue, that's a self-esteem issue.
don't confuse them. and don't drag me and my curse words
into your self-esteem issues and then read all sorts of
"perceptions" and "meanings" into the use of simple vulgarities.
>Add to that the way women are *treated* and viewed by
>men and other women with these same attitudes, and you
>begin to realize the seriousness of them.
that sounds whacko to me. and you call me insane?
>Other than that, I'm not going to get in a debate with you about this.
that's wise.
>You have no concept, and I don't mean that in a negative way.
you have no concept of my perceptions. none.
they are your perceptions of my perceptions,
and they are way off of what my perceptions are,
i can tell you that.
>Of course you're entitled to your own opinion.
how about me? naa... i used the "c" word.
off with my head.
>And if you had some way of understanding what it IS like to
>live in my world,
gee... wouldn't it be nice if we were all afforded that luxury?
i sure would like someone walking in my sneakers for a couple hours.
but logistically, it's quite impossible, that's why we cut people slack
and we shouldn't jump to mindless conclusions. (like Kathie Meyer did)
>I might be more willing to hear your views on what
>you consider to be warning flags for me.
how nice of you, unfortunately, you put up some unbelievable
obstacles to communication, you'd best rethink your strategy
for relating to other people.
>But you don't. So carry on. You know how I feel about it
>now, and there's not much more to add.
yikes... who's gonna maintain the database of everyone's
perspective so that we know which words we can use with which people?
>Erin
-$Zero... YouPeopleDon'tDeserveMyBrilliance... NotThisWeekAnyway...
`'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``' Day 13196
TheASCIIGraphicAbove...PaysHomageTo...MW'sSteadyFairnessAndEqualJustice
AsOf...9709030318EST...IHaveZeroControlOverAnythingWrittenBelow:
Towse
[snip]
> ever since Sal turned against me, and even threatened me in
> email saying something to the effect of:
>
> "if you don't kiss my ass just so, i hope you know what
> the consequences will be"
>
> (not an exact quote, but the gist is the same) ever since then,
> i have lost a lot of faith in people in general... again.
[snip]
Zero has shown himself contemptible enough when he cuts and pastes
people's words so they appear to be saying something not originally said
and not intended.
Now he stoops to utter lies.
How utterly pathetic.
Doesn't even sound like me. And isn't remotely like anything I would
ever say, even if you throw in the "gist" disclaimer.
Those who know me know so, and all those folks Zero must be hoping to
sway by showing them how despicable I can be are now saying, "Huh?"
Are you listening, folks? If Zero should ever put you on his shit list,
the lies don't matter as long as his point is made. The fact his points
are based on lies doesn't matter either.
Perhaps, even more pathetic, poor Zero actually believes his lies and
his paranoia and his flights of fancy.
PeaceLoveAndBrotherhood. Strange way to show it.
Sal
ki...@thecia.net
In article <6EA916E6F0390B08.FB1743FC...@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
lu...@bellatlantic.net (The Last Real Marlboro Man) wrote:
>
> On Tue, 02 Sep 1997 21:38:04 GMT, er...@best.com (erin) wrote:
>
> >I didn't know that no one was responding to him, I just knew I hadn't
> >thread the other day.
>
> Zero's verbal sewage is hurtful. The most frightening thing about it,
> however, is that he truly believes that *he* is good and everyone else
> is *evil*, or at least hopelessly wrong.
>
> He sees no contradictions in his "peace-love.." stuff and the hatred
> that emanates from him like a foul odor.
>
> As for his rantings about suing for "libel", well, it wouldn't
> surprise me one bit if he actually attempted it. It would be
> completely in keeping with his attitudes about money - that people who
> earn it are evil, but that he has some kind of moral right to get
> *your* money through panhandling and lawsuits.
>
> (Not that he would get anywhere with a lawsuit, mind you. The
> defendant would merely have to bring out the reams of ZeroSense usenet
> archives and he would be laughed out of court.)
>
> On the positive side, I have noticed, over the last few months, an
> awful lot of "Zero" posts sitting alone and unremarked. Every now
> and then a relative newbie responds to his drivel, or one of the other
> outcasts like HCC, but mostly he goes totally unnoticed. He only
> showed up to so many of us here because he posted a thinly veiled
> insult to Kathy's birthday thread.
>
> The Gillies and the Roberts and even the Boursies of this group are
> nothing worse than annoying, in an amusing kind of way. They add
> something to the unique character of usenet. Zero adds nothing, not
> anymore, and he is one of only two people who have ever showed up on
> this group who I believe should leave for good. The other is Grubor.
>
Only Pedophiles fight Dr. Grubor, so you must be a Pedophile.
> I am truly sorry that Kathy's birthday thread was ruined by zero. And
> I am truly sorry that you were so deeply offended by his hate-speach.
> Let him post his 200+ line long responses to these posts. And let
> them go unread.
>
> - Wayne
> cc: e-mail
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "You should try the gutter, before it's too late." - Robert Maughn describes his mental state in misc.writing.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wayne Lutz the Pedophile?
-K
Jack Mingo
$Zero wrote:
>
> 9765Q
>
> Dear Erin,
>
> i hope it's ok to CC: this to you,
> because i think you should read it.
>
> i'm sorry for not knowing your trigger words, but...
> for the sake of rhetoric, please excuse their use below.
Just don't get life yet, do you Peter? "A feminist" who loves and
understands women and calls them cunts, are you? I can fully understand
that, after all. For example, I don't have a racist bone in my body, so
I'm sure that the jigaboo nigger pickaninny lynch-bait jungle-bunny
spear-chucker community shouldn't feel insulted when I get mad and use
harmless little names. They're just words, and true, some of these words
have been thrown during lynchings and racial beatings...but how would I
know what would irrationally set those people off?
>
> PS you still need to contact your lawyer,
> unless you publicly retract your libel
A penniless guy with no case finding a lawyer to sue for libel? This
should be interesting.
Perhaps, Erin, you might want to hold off until you get the papers.
Jack (Guess which legal fund DOESN'T get my contribution?) Mingo
Wendy Chatley Green
For some inexplicable reason, "G.L. Morrison" <gl...@efn.org> wrote:
:> which is merely slang for "vagina". jeez, i guess if i call someone
:> a "prick" instead of a "'penis" i'd have all the wolves attacking me
:> from here to china.
:
:I'm guessing you already know that there's a world of difference between
:the "slang" you've been using and penis/prick. Saying they're equally
:insulting (when all they have in common is a biological, not social,
:association) is like saying the N-word is no more offensive than the word
:"Cracker" since they are both racial slurs.
Wait a minute--there are white, Southern folk who get very upset
when called Crackers; having won the struggle to escape poverty and
illiteracy, they don't like having their origins thrown back in their
faces.
There is a demeaning level to the word "prick"--why would an
intelligent man enjoy being told that he thinks only with his penis?
No all women seek an escape route when the word "cunt" appears in
a conversation. Some stay and straighten the speaker out.
Either all stereotypes and epithets are wrong or none are wrong.
No human groups should be targets of derision and scorn.
--
Wendy (let individuals prove themselves jerks)
Chatley (on a case-by-case basis)
Green -- wcg...@cris.com
D. Citron
--> WARNING: Remove the "BOUNCE" or your reply will BOUNCE! <--
In the "denigration" thread, $Zero <ze...@hour.com> wrote:
: my how fast people freak-out over words.
Words are our means of communication. If you abuse them, or use them
inappropriately, you devalue them and make it cost more (in words) to
express the same ideas you might have previously expressed more
thriftily.
Analogy: This is like an irresponsible government with inflationary
policies. The money becomes worth less and less, in real value, so more
of it is required to purchase any item. You, Zero, are inflating our
vocabulary by playing fast and loose with our meanings. And, as you
know, your lack of grammatical, spelling, and punctuation skills doesn't
add to your readability, either.
To steal from another recent thread, take the words "gay" and "queer" ...
They once had another meaning, beyond the current pop culture meaning.
Now it takes more words to express each of those concise original ideas.
What has been gained by adding these synonyms to an existing (and very
clear) ten-letter word and clouding their previous meanings? Nothing.
Nothing at all, except the further zeroization of the language.
Posted as a public service by .............................. D. Citron
"The very purpose of the First Amendment is to foreclose public
authority from assuming a guardianship of the public mind. ... In this
field every person must be his own watchman for the truth, because the
forefathers did not trust any government to separate the truth from
the false for us."
...Thomas v Collins, 323 U.S. 516 (1945)
K. Smith
D. Citron wrote:
>Words are our means of communication. If you abuse them, or use them
>inappropriately, you devalue them and make it cost more (in words) to
>express the same ideas you might have previously expressed more
>thriftily.
<snipping the rest>
Here! Here! Someone after my own heart. (sigh) And he's not the only one
to declare the same preference for understandable, clear speech and writing.
I had an English professor whose motto was: "Never use five words when one
will do." (Unlike a lawyer's training, which stipulates the reverse.)
One of George Carlin's old comedy routines features the growth of euphemisms:
"shell shocked" to "battle fatigue" to "post-war traumatic syndrome".
And upon the adulteration of meanings, let's go to yet another word
appropriated by sexual orientation: "faggot". "Faggot" used to mean a bundle
of sticks, larger than kindling, but smaller than the logs used to keep the
fire going.
Words, when devalued of meaning so that a greater number of other words must
be used to describe the same concept, lose their punch.
--K. Smith (suffering from multiple bruises)
The Last Real Marlboro Man
On Wed, 03 Sep 1997 07:01:12 -0600, ki...@thecia.net wrote:
>Wayne Lutz the pedophile.
>
>-K
>
>-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
This criminal actually sits and searches for his name on Deja News.
And with good reason.
C'mon, Grub. post some more. Your FBI file is already a foot thick.
A little more can only help.
- Wayne
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"i've been a student for the entire damn decade" - Gilly attempts to justify his bad manners in misc.writing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
si...@well.com
In message <8731723...@dejanews.com>, ze...@hour.com wrote:
> jes...@airmail.net (Thomas Michaels) dumbs down and writes:
>
> a series of replies that convinces me beyond a shadow of doubt
> that Thomas Michaels is a cowardly front for an MW regular...
My RL name is Thomas. So is jester's. I jest, so does he. But wait,
there's more.
A few weeks back, Ellsworth aired his suspicion that Mingo and yours
truly could be one and the same person. Let's expand upon this
theory, shall we? If Harry Claude Cat = Mingo, then it follows
logically that Thomas Michaels is Mingo as well. Armaghost is hard to
spell, Michaels is easy to remember. Besides, maybe Jack/I got tired
of being a cat. So exit Harry, enter Michaels.
Zero/Peter, you'd make a fine alter ego amongst Jack's multiple
personalities, a repository for his faded liberal ideals.
With you acting as his conscience, he'd be free to become a yuppie
Clintonite moderate Republican, playing the Stock Market without
shame, cutting welfare without pity.
The point of my sarcasm is that you cannot be certain who is posting
as Jack Mingo or Thomas Michaels or Harry Claude Cat at any given
moment. Such is the nature of usenet.
- Harry Claude "ZeroEffort, custodian of our hippie heritage" Cat
--
HCC's Toon Show ---> http://www.pe.net/~sputnik | si...@well.com
$Zero
9764Q
Jack Mingo <mi...@pacbell.net> appaently doesn't understand the subtlies
of conflict (suprising, since he's been involved in as far more than i)
>$Zero wrote:
>> 9765Q
>> Dear Erin,
>> i hope it's ok to CC: this to you,
>> because i think you should read it.
>> i'm sorry for not knowing your trigger words, but...
>> for the sake of rhetoric, please excuse their use below.
>
>Just don't get life yet, do you Peter?
oh, i get it alright. life = selective morality. life = unfair.
>"A feminist" who loves and understands women and
>calls them cunts, are you?
no. i do not call women cunts. i called *kathie* a cunt. she was a
particular person i was intending to offend because she deeply offended
me. do you see the major distinction here, Jack? let me clarify: if
kathie were black, i would have called her a cunt nigger. that doesn't
make me a racist or a misogynist. it makes me a very pissed off person
using vulgar language to piss off the target of my infuriation.
i am reluctant to go into this, but because of the unbelievable level of
selective morality here, i will try to clarify my position.
kathie, 2+ months ago, while defending trigger happy cops who kill
guiltless mental patients, she essentially called me an irresponsible
dead-beat dad who is neglecting his children. this was a complete lie
and very insulting and very defamatory. i am perhaps the furthest thing
from a dead beat dad on this planet. (guessing)
not that it will mean anything to any of the brainwashed fucks here, but
last week i spent three entire days building an elaborate tree house with
my kids. i am extremely close and involved with my children on every
level. i'm just broke. kinda like many mothers who have been involved
in a divorce.
my ex takes care of the financial bullshit involved with providing my
children food and clothing (her choice) and i take care of their
emotional, intellectual, and spiritual nurturing. i'm just just like a
mom. and she's just like an alcoholic dad who is a self-indulgent pig.
"but brings home the bacon!". she can fuck the bacon, it's certainly not
what matters most to my children. of course if there were no bacon
coming in, i'd have to somehow manage fetch that shit too. do you see
any strange double-standards here in kathie's brainless slander?
if i were a woman who was left by a drunken selfish man, i would receive
complete sympathy. i am an absolute feminist in principle, but when
certain feminists deny my right to be the mom, i have to wonder if their
brains are attached to their understandable rage.
also, i am not a lazy mom who sits home collecting alimony and goes out
on shopping binges. but neither am i a worker (or an employee). i am an
entreprenuer. anyone that is a worker probably would not understand the
simple idea of gathering investors and how that relates to developing and
implementing an innovative business. i gathered almost $500,000 and
spent 5+ years developing an amazing cutting-edge business which is
sitting idle until i can gather a bit more money to reignite the sucker.
unfortunately, my poverty stricken creative-genius impatient attitude did
not go over well with my 5 bean-counting investors and they stranded
me... out of pure spite to heal their fragile cushy-life egos.
that whole story is much too complicated to summarize here. but it is
not "begging for money" as kathie denigrates it. it's simple fuckin'
capitalism.
>I can fully understand that, after all. For example, I don't have a racist
>bone in my body, so I'm sure that the jigaboo nigger pickaninny
>lynch-bait jungle-bunny spear-chucker community shouldn't feel
>insulted when I get mad and use harmless little names.
hey, if richard prior called someone a nigger while mad, or if i called
someone a dumb dago, i don't think my fellow dagos would be insulted. in
fact i'm sure of it. what has happened here is that Erin has flipped out
out of the lack of knowledge of my credentials.
>They're just words, and true, some of these words have been thrown
>during lynchings and racial beatings...but how would I know what would
>irrationally set those people off?
like i said to Erin, i suppose we need to maintain a national database of
perspectives and alliances and trigger words so that we can never offend
anyone again. it's just not practical. a better solution is to remove
the astounding power of these words by teaching all of our children all
of these words and not be a bunch of brainwashed victorian idjits.
don't you see how these class distinguishing words perpetuate the
alienation between us all? it is nothing short of voluntary madness that
would best be eliminated by de-fanging these words. after all, a well
crafted insult (using no vulgarity or slurrs), is still an insult. so
what is the fucking difference? everybody please buy my book "You Stupid
Fucks" when it comes out. it'll do ya good to examine the utter nonsense
which has been perpetuating itself for over 5 mileniums
>> PS you still need to contact your lawyer,
>> unless you publicly retract your libel
>
>A penniless guy with no case finding a lawyer to sue for libel?
>This should be interesting.
well, this penniless guy brought AOL to their knees. never underestimate
the power of poverty. necessity is the mother of invention. poverty is
the father. and rage is the grandfather.
>Perhaps, Erin, you might want to hold off until you get the papers.
Erin, a timely simple public retraction and apology would probably get
you off the hook. Ms Meyer is the one who should hold off until she
receives her papers (if she so desires... it's fine with me if her
attorneys are not prepared to spin up some riodiculous defense)
>Jack (Guess which legal fund DOESN'T get my contribution?) Mingo
as if i expected any understanding, sympathy, or support here. that is
reserved for the selected few. hell, why don't you start a kathie meyer
defense fund. i could care less. regardless, i supported the Wayne Lutz
charity (retroactively with much regret), and i still fully support the
Jayne Hitchcock Effort (on principle). i can't send any money, 'cause i
sent my last ten bucks to Wayne last year. and i'd like it back (with
interest, postage and money order fees).
-$Zero... FuckTheZeroFund... ZeroHasTheMoralHighGround...
AndTheEvidence... That'sAllACreativeGeniusNeeds... ToWinALawsuit
PS: Jack, i'm very surprised that you turned out to be one of those
pansy mail bouncers. i thought you were smarter than that. unless, of
course, it was just a temporary childish slap. Lamenes rule: if your
words cannot do the job, put on your blinders and ignore those you
disagree with or piss you off. certainly don't try communicating to make
it better. which is what you've done here, so i'm a bit puzzled.
CC: email
`'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``' Day 13196
TheASCIIGraphicAbove...PaysHomageTo...MW'sSteadyFairnessAndEqualJustice
AsOf...9709031627EST...IHaveZeroControlOverAnythingWrittenBelow:
PDNetzley
si...@well.com writes:
>The point of my sarcasm is that you
>cannot be certain who is posting
>as Jack Mingo or Thomas Michaels
>or Harry Claude Cat at any given
>moment. Such is the nature of usenet.
This is very true.
I know a woman whose visiting relatives once sat
down and posted using her computer and her
screen name. The writing style of the newcomers
was so similar that apparently no one in the
newsgroup could tell the difference.
And in my household, where we now have three
computers and more than one Internet access
provider, it would theoretically be possible for
me to have elaborate arguments with my pseudonym
online.
Therefore if Marty is right that lawsuits can be based
on slanderous posts, then the lawyers are going to
have a real headache on their hands. How do you
prove who was sitting at a keyboard when a post
was made, particularly when that keyboard is highly
accessible to others? And if you also consider the problem
of forged posts -- well, it becomes difficult to know who
anybody is anymore.
-- patricia, in a ponderous mood
Gene Royer
Wendy Chatley Green <wcg...@cris.com> wrote in article
<340d65ae...@news.cris.com>...
>snipsnipsnip>
>
> Wait a minute--there are white, Southern folk who get very upset
> when called Crackers; having won the struggle to escape poverty and
> illiteracy, they don't like having their origins thrown back in their
> faces.
>
> There is a demeaning level to the word "prick"--why would an
> intelligent man enjoy being told that he thinks only with his penis?
>
> No all women seek an escape route when the word "cunt" appears in
> a conversation. Some stay and straighten the speaker out.
>
> Either all stereotypes and epithets are wrong or none are wrong.
> No human groups should be targets of derision and scorn.
>
> --
> Wendy (let individuals prove themselves jerks)
> Chatley (on a case-by-case basis)
> Green -- wcg...@cris.com
>
>
>
Gene writes:
I just hate it when someone calls me tits. That really bugs me!
Scrotum is even worse.
--gene<pioneer in the industry>royer
$Zero
9759Q
Towse <to...@null.net> is either distancing herself or has just plain
forgotten (which is more likely)
moi:
>>ever since Sal turned against me, and even threatened me in
>>email saying something to the effect of:
>>
>> "if you don't kiss my ass just so, i hope you know what
>> the consequences will be"
>>
>>(not an exact quote, but the gist is the same) ever since then,
>>i have lost a lot of faith in people in general... again.
>Zero has shown himself contemptible enough when he cuts and pastes
>people's words so they appear to be saying something not originally
>said and not intended.
please, let's not go through that "kill the bastard(s)" horseshit again.
i had thought that my last post on that matter cleared up any bullshit
claim regarding the possiblity that Wayne's words could even remotely be
misinterpretted.
Wayne certainly meant exactly that: "kill the bastards"
nothing less, nothing more.
to characterize my usually not attributed "kill the bastards" epigram as
contemptible is itself contemptible.
and Sally, let's not forget how many times you completely misinterpretted
my words in email, through no fault of my inarticulation, but through
your own mysterious biases which we gradually cleared-up, on an as-needed
basis.
it's called feed-back and communication, trying to come to an
understanding and break down the bearers of each individual's
misinterpretations and prejudices, which you have now chosen to stop
completely. (to my utter bewilderment)
and which Wayne calls for, not only for himself, but (for the at least
the third time) he calls on the entire mw community to ignore me. well,
guess what? three's a charm: *i* now call on everyone here to ignore
that censorious narrow-minded idjit because he does not belong in a group
devoted to free expression and free speech. three strikes, you're out
wayne. it would be best for you, and for "us" if you left for good.
sound familiar? essentially Wayne's words (excepting the reason for
ignoring him)
i, like Wayne, have appointed myself spokeperson for the entire mw
community.
>Now he stoops to utter lies.
>How utterly pathetic.
well, i suppose that bit of slander gives me permission to search for and
publish the quote in question? do you mind Sal? like i said, it was not
verbatim. but that is the gist i got from it. i believe it was one of
the last emails you sent me, so it shouldn't be hard for either of us to
locate. but before i fire up the old zeroeffort file [which takes 10
minutes to load] and hunt it down, let me at this point explain something
about my loose quoting below:
>> "if you don't kiss my ass just so, i hope you know what
>> the consequences will be"
the "kiss my ass just so" part was the tone of how i interpretted your
email, but the exact words you used were more like:
[something i was supposed to do, and if not...]
"...i hope you realise what that means"
>Doesn't even sound like me.
you're correct. it didn't sound like you to me either,
that's why i never responded to it. i was shocked.
>And isn't remotely like anything I would ever say,
well, i believe you were in a bad mood about that "bastard(s) statistic"
fiasco and my posting of your emails. or it might've been right before
that, i'm not sure, so anyway, maybe you were deprressed and don't
remember what you said.
i will hunt it down and await your approval, becuase if memory serves, i
may have to post the entire email in order for anyone to see the tone i
described above.
>even if you throw in the "gist" disclaimer.
it was not a disclaimer, it was an loud identifier that i was not
quoting you verbatim.
>Those who know me know so, and all those folks Zero must be hoping to
>sway by showing them how despicable I can be are now saying, "Huh?"
i'm certain that those who know you (that you have not turned on) and
perhaps even those you *have* turned on (if any) would all be saying
"huh?"
but i assure you of this, i am not hoping to sway anybody into disliking
you at all. regardless of how you are behaving towards me, i still
remember the Vinny i loved, and i only wrote about this because i don't
understand your recent behavior at all. and since you are viciously
attacking me, i thought i would remind *you* as well about what you said
to me.
>Are you listening, folks? If Zero should ever put you on his shit list,
>the lies don't matter as long as his point is made.
>
>The fact his points are based on lies doesn't matter either.
look, i don't have a shit list. but so many of you people here certainly
do, i know, because i have been publically placed on many of youre
ever-growing shit lists. i don't believe in shit lists, kill files,
filtering out people, etc. i'm a writer. i believe in communication.
i believe in PeaceLove&Understanding NOT cliques and clubs and exclusion.
i believe in rehabilitation, not just blind punishment.
i could list all the people here with shit lists, but that would bore me
right now, instead, i want to find Sally's email to prove my point and
the fact that i was not lieing at all.
>Perhaps, even more pathetic, poor Zero actually believes his lies and
>his paranoia and his flights of fancy.
i'll just let that stand here in the frying pan, and perhaps
add some salt... do you like salt Sal? or would you prefer
garlic powder, pepprer, or perhaps curry?
>PeaceLoveAndBrotherhood. Strange way to show it.
>Sal
i'll say.
-$Zero... I'llBeBackSoonIHope... Don'tLetThoseWordsBurnWhileI'mGone...
IWouldn'tWantYouToHaveToEatTooMuchCarbon...
CC: [Towse]
`'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``' Day 13196
TheASCIIGraphicAbove...PaysHomageTo...MW'sSteadyFairnessAndEqualJustice
AsOf...9709032022EST...IHaveZeroControlOverAnythingWrittenBelow:
Kathie Meyer
In article <gekko.873325098@valley>, ge...@aztec.asu.edu says...
>Bullshit, Peter. Kathie did one thing a few months back to which
>you had the opportunity to respond.
>
>You waited. You posted a rather sour birthday greeting that was
>*designed* to get Kathy ticked off, and were gratified to have
>her respond and fall so neatly into your "trap". You then launched
>on your "retribution".
I apologize for one thing and that is I fell into the "trap" and
others since have become involved. I knew I was being goaded then
as I have been goaded in the past. With other posters I have had
difficulty with, I've been more successful in ignoring. Obviously,
where Zero is concerned, I am not so strong.
Therefore, I now have e-mail with a killfile and will soon have a news
reader with a killfile (thanks to Jen and my friend Ray at work). As far as
I'm concerned, there is no more need to set the record straight although
I appreciate what others have said in my defense.
Kathie Meyer
D. Citron
--> WARNING: Remove the "BOUNCE" or your reply will BOUNCE! <--
$Zero <ze...@hour.com> cluelessly whined:
: if kathie were black, i would have called her a cunt nigger. that
: doesn't make me a racist or a misogynist. it makes me a very pissed off
: person using vulgar language to piss off the target of my infuriation.
This demonstrates your lack of imagination, your lack of couth, and
mainly your poor writing skills, Zero. If you know how to write well,
you can communicate this thought without being obscene. Example follows:
If I wanted to piss you off (perish the thought) I would remind you that,
although you pride yourself in being the world's best writer, your
rhetorical skills are no better than those of a losing seventh-grade
debating team. You insult those who dare to disagree with you, and accuse
THEM of being brainwashed! Your utter disinterest in the mastery of
grammar, punctuation, and spelling is comparable to Yassir Arafat's
disinterest in the laws of Kashruth. You don't even understand what you
are missing! (Knowing how bad the Buffalo public schools are, and not
knowing if they are typical of other Western New York jurisdictions,
I can only hope you are not a typical product and one of the many reasons
why people are still abandoning New York State in droves.) How does it
feel to be an obnoxious too-often-poster whose average posting is more
boring, less relevant, and less professionally written than any
massively-crossposted Make-Money-Fast spam/scam chosen at random? At least
Woodside doesn't think (much less proclaim) that he is better than anyone
else, like you do with nauseating frequency. I suggest that you get a job
that has nothing to do with writing, since you have to eat. And you insist
on insulting those of us who *DO* write for money, and *ARE* capable of
doing so. Just jealous, I guess. Maybe you could get a job in one of those
restaurants where they say that "you haven't dined at Bennie's 'til you've
been insulted by their waiters." I ate at one of those places once. The
food sucked, but you'd be right at home, Zero. Tell the patrons you're a
"starving writer" and see if you get tips. That reminds me, there's a job
opening at the Buffalo Zoo, circumcising elephants. The pay is lousy but
the tips are huge.
Notice that I didn't mention your sex organs or ethnic background or size
or excrement anywhere in the above paragraph, Zero. Why bother when there
is so much about you to discuss that is NOT beyond your control? And
unlike your insulting diatribes, I think my narrative above was funny!
And if it urinated you off, I made my point!
Chris Spaight
gekko wrote:
>
>
> Ah, yes. "Prick". Still and so, "prick" doesn't carry quite the
> same connotations as "cunt". You call someone a "prick", and you
> imply he is a jerk. You call someone a "cunt", and you
> imply that (s)he is a mindless hole who's only purpose is to provide
> pleasure for someone's penis. Considering how many women are
> subjugated by thoughts like these ... rapists, women-haters,
> etc, and how women are even today struggling to overcome these
> horrid crimes against them, the word "cunt" is so much more loaded
> than "prick". No, "cunt" is not mere slang for "vagina". ... see
> my earlier post on this subject for the full rant.
>
As a friend of mine so succinctly put it, "'Cunt' is so....vivid."
I always thought that was a perfect, if short, answer to the question of
why it's so offensive.
erin
On 4 Sep 1997 03:33:44 GMT, vinc...@wfu.edu (Kathy Vincent) wrote:
>Maybe, since we seem to be into lists lately,
>we could just post a new list regularly?
>The MW Suggested Killfile Entries List?
>I have several suggestions ...
It certainly wouldn't be a horrible idea for someone like me who
doesn't get to the newsgroup every single day. I skip a lot because
of time and unfortunately DO open up posts from people I normally skip
over. Once in awhile, I've found some cool people here, and then of
course I read Peter... <sigh>
Okay I'm for it. Maybe in Jen's killfile tutorial (!!!).
Erin
(cc'ed)
Jack Mingo
Grey wrote:
> What about "Anti-Breeder" talk? Does that encourage Heterosexual
> Bashing?
If that becomes a problem, with roaming bands of drunken gays regularly
pounding on random heteros simply because they're pushing a stroller,
then we should reconsider whether the rhetoric is helping lead to that
and, as writers on the forefront of word use, calibrate our word use.
If roaming gangs or women, or single predators, make it a widespread
practice to strip, sexually humiliate, beat, inject with venereal
disease, and sometimes murder men simply because they're men, then we
should reconsider whether using "prick" is helping lead to that.
Writers considering words without their societal context is like a
painter judging colors in the dark.
Jack (Otherwise, "All Jews Should Be Gassed" would make a lovely ad
slogan for the Jerusalem Gas & Electricity Company) Mingo
Hound of Cullen
Against my better judgement, I respond to Zero:
:no. i do not call women cunts. i called *kathie* a cunt. she was a
:particular person i was intending to offend because she deeply offended
:me. do you see the major distinction here, Jack? let me clarify: if
:kathie were black, i would have called her a cunt nigger. that doesn't
:make me a racist or a misogynist. it makes me a very pissed off person
:using vulgar language to piss off the target of my infuriation.
Peter, if you meant to insult Kathie alone, then you should have done so
privately, not in a public forum. Regardless of your intent, the words and
tone you used were offensive to more people than just Kathie.
All we know you by are your words, Peter. When you choose to use words that
are demaning or offensive, you will be seen as demeaning and offensive.
You build your own image on usenet, Peter.
Hound
--
Wotthehell, wotthehell...
--Mehitabel
Support the Jayne Hitchcock HELP Fund:
http://www.geocities.com/hollywood/6172/helpjane.htm
Paine Ellsworth
Gene Royer wrote:
>
> Wendy Chatley Green <wcg...@cris.com> wrote in article
> <340d65ae...@news.cris.com>...
<shear>
> > Not all women seek an escape route when the word "cunt" appears in
> > a conversation. Some stay and straighten the speaker out.
> >
> > Either all stereotypes and epithets are wrong or none are wrong.
> > No human groups should be targets of derision and scorn.
> >
> > --
> > Wendy (let individuals prove themselves jerks)
> > Chatley (on a case-by-case basis)
> > Green -- wcg...@cris.com
>
> Gene writes:
> I just hate it when someone calls me tits. That really bugs me!
>
> Scrotum is even worse.
baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaag
--
Indelibly yours,
Paine (so sorry, i was forced by my funny gene) Ellsworth
news:---.What.is.this.--.an.audience.or.an.oil.painting?
-Milton Berle
Jason K. Chapman
On Thu, 4 Sep 1997 02:16:17 -0700, faeros0...@juno.com (Grey)
wrote:
<snip>
>My question is this: Since when is the "Self Esteem" of women dependent
>upon the attitudes of men? Why is it that a woman must be acknowledged
>by men in general in a certain way in order to be fulfilled? Isn't it
>possible that when certain "attitudes" affect the "self esteem" of
>"women" that these are people with no self worth? I believe it was a
>certain Psycologist who said "Work on you character, and the self esteem
>will take care of itself."
>
>It never ceases to amaze me how women want it both ways. "We understnad
>you but you can't possibly understand us..."
>
>
>--
>Grey -- Occasionally Maniacle
>
Ordinarily, I would agree with you, in that I believe that the source
of self-esteem, for any individual regardless of sex, is self-image.
However, it seems that there has to be a distinction made between the
effect caused by a small group of individuals and that caused by a
prevailing social attitude.
It is far easier to say "this person is wrong, so I will not accept
this person's conclusions about me" than it is to say "I'm right and
the rest of the world is wrong". The two are not necessarily
different in nature, but the magnitude has to have an impact.
I don't know if it is so much a matter of being "acknowledged . . . in
a certain way" as it is not being denigrated in a certain way. On a
societal level, one quickly runs into the chicken/egg question. If
the denigration occurs relentlessly during those years when the armor
of self-esteem should be formed, there is little chance to build an
adequate defense. There is no solid ground from which to create an
objective appraisal of one's own value.
Jason K. Chapman (sub 'interserv' for 'sprynet' to reply)
"A writer is a controlled schizophrenic." -Edward Albee
beber
Why Dear Erin do you surmise so much from a word? I accuse you of
aping feminist politics.
I call women cunts and twats at times, and when a tool hurts me,
I call it a whore. When driving and thwarted, I sometimes use the
words to vent road rage.
My wife wonders why I don't use the words 'prick' or "penis."
"Because they're all fucking whores," I answer.
Does this make me a madman, dangerous and violent?
Animals follow me around all day. It used be kids. Whenever they
got in a fight I'd say, "stop it you little shits."
One of our children thought his name was shits for years.
The point is most men were taught by example to use the words.
They're just oaths we use without thinking. Please Erin don't take
them away from us. Our arsenals are poor enough as it is.
chris mclaughlin
The problem is, if you are using beer traps to catch
slugs in your garden, that they don't like lite beer.
But then, neither do I.
Chris
Towse
[cc:]erin wrote:
> that gekko wrote:
> >that $Zero <ze...@hour.com> wrote:
> >> that erin wrote:
> >>>And if you had some way of understanding what it IS like to
> >>>live in my world,
> >>gee... wouldn't it be nice if we were all afforded that luxury?
> Hey cool! Even ignoring him, I found out he thinks I have money...
>
> Sal? Would you care to clear things up here a little? <snicker>
>
> I have no money. I have no assets.
>
> Erin
> Could I interest you in a pair of cement apt. patio frogs? A cat,
> perhaps?
Wealth is a curious thing.
Some folks think if they only had wealth they'd be happy and it is their
lack of wealth which makes them unhappy. Some folks think if others are
happier, it must mean those others are better off.
Erin, it is true, has no assets beyond some stone patio frogs, a Volvo
which has been aging gracefully for quite a while, some painted chairs,
a guitar, a cat being fostered by friends for the time being, a
computer, miscellanea, a best friend named Rob, a bike which her husband
rides to and fro work so she can have the Volvo to be-bop around with
her hellions (the trip to work takes hours! but BOY is he getting into
shape!) and
Friends
Husband
Children
Attitude
Talent
Charm
You'll notice when she was offering up some of her assets for sale she
didn't put the wee ones on the auction block, nor her husband nor her
friends.
Erin's wealthy, you know, in all the things that matter, but I can
attest that no little rich girl is she.
Her friends are the sort she's earned and aren't the sort one could buy.
She sticks by them and they her. Her attitude (why *is* her nom de
virago "Bite"?) is something she's developed through hard times. Her
talent isn't going to fade away through lack of use. Her charm is
undeniable.
One can't buy the lifestyle Erin has, but it's not a lifestyle which
depends on lucre.
Luckily, eh Erin?
Sal
Pat Marcello
cc: Zero
Hound of Cullen <zi...@aol.com> wrote in article
<zisbo-ya02318000...@news.bbn.com>...
>
> Peter, if you meant to insult Kathie alone, then you should have done so
> privately, not in a public forum. Regardless of your intent, the words
and
> tone you used were offensive to more people than just Kathie.
>
> All we know you by are your words, Peter. When you choose to use words
that
> are demaning or offensive, you will be seen as demeaning and offensive.
>
> You build your own image on usenet, Peter.
I concur, Hound.
Pete, I gotta tell you, you asked for this, man.
First of all, and remember *you're the one who said I was fair, you
shouldn't have sent the nasty birthday greeting. I mean, how did you
expect Kathie to respond? I'd have blasted you, and perhaps in the very
same words. "Go fuck yourself" is a mild expletive these days. She could
have said a lot worse.
You did. I don't like the c-word. The connotation is much worse, and
you're using it as much as possible now, just to annoy everyone. But then,
I don't like a lot of the words I see here. Yet, I have no right to stop
people from typing them. You'll say I'm a word bigot, but it's not the
words. I can swear with the best of sailors when I want to. What bothers
me is how they're directed at people. What ever happened to disagreeing?
Does it always have to be all-out war? Ripping of jugulars? Why is it
okay to be uncivilized in in cyberspace?
What really put the icing on the cake was when you brought Sal's e-mail
into the discussion. What's up with that? I'm a little embarrassed,
kiddo. Sal's a super person, and you know that. You've admitted it. You
really didn't "quote" her, you paraphrased in your own inimitible way. Are
you really surprised that everyone's pissed off at you?
--
Pat M. Wishing this would all end, but knowing that it won't.
Support the Jayne Hitchcock HELP Fund:
http://www.geocities.com/~hitchcockc/story.html#fund
Jack Mingo
After beering, they can be immediately prepared and eaten in the same
way as escargot, preferable with krill.
Jack (What? You think a few slugs of beer will krill you?) Mingo
Jan S.
On 4 Sep 97 20:44:18 GMT, gekko (ge...@aztec.asu.edu) says...
>
...whack...snip...tuck...
>
>Please mail all of your tit-ular assets to me at
>
>ge...@aztec.asu.edu (The Assets For Erin Fund)
>
>Give the breast that you can give.
>
Finally, someone willing to lighten my burden. So to speak. Having been an
early bloomer in the mammary sense, and having been blessed (so many have told
me), I've been ridiculed by many with my grumbles about shoulder and back pain
and my threats to undergo breast reduction surgery.
No more.
Today, I am a free woman. I can get bras with smaller cups. I can get bras
that have fewer than four hooks. I can look down at my chest and see the
buttons staying buttoned as, indeed, Cod intended buttons to do. I can look
down at my chest and see a sweater not distorted and pulled out of shape. I
can wear my husband's tee-shirts and not have to listen to him whine that I've
stretched it out of shape and now it has bumps on the chest and he'll never be
able to wear it again (didn't the poor man ever learn that what stretches
_out_ will frequently shrink back _in_ when the pressure is relieved -- you'd
think _any_ man would understand that).
Erin, the boobs are in the mail to the lizard lady, and I'm sure she'll
forward them to you post haste. Be sure to let me know how you like 'em.
--jan (damn good idea, gekko)
Jason K. Chapman
On 4 Sep 1997 19:40:29 GMT, chris mclaughlin
<cmcl...@post.its.mcw.edu> wrote:
<snip>
>
>And I remained mystified until I realized they'd
>been hearing car talk propaganda about how good
>Volvos were, how safe and all. You know.
>
<snip>
Did they ask for one that came with really big dual air bags?
Jason K. Chapman
Grey
In article <340ed1b8...@news.sprynet.com>, Jason K. Chapman says...
>
> On Thu, 4 Sep 1997 02:16:17 -0700, faeros0...@juno.com (Grey)
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >My question is this: Since when is the "Self Esteem" of women dependent
> >upon the attitudes of men? Why is it that a woman must be acknowledged
> >by men in general in a certain way in order to be fulfilled? Isn't it
> >possible that when certain "attitudes" affect the "self esteem" of
> >"women" that these are people with no self worth? I believe it was a
> >certain Psycologist who said "Work on you character, and the self esteem
> >will take care of itself."
> >
> >It never ceases to amaze me how women want it both ways. "We understnad
> >you but you can't possibly understand us..."
> >
> >
> >--
> >Grey -- Occasionally Maniacle
> >
> Ordinarily, I would agree with you, in that I believe that the source
> of self-esteem, for any individual regardless of sex, is self-image.
> However, it seems that there has to be a distinction made between the
> effect caused by a small group of individuals and that caused by a
> prevailing social attitude.
<Snipped Argument>
Last time I checked, Society was made up of Individuals. This I am
absolutely shocked that you people would be making Blanket Statements
about Society as a Whole, and Women in General.
Individual Responsibility is paramount. If you can't take the heat, stay
out of the fire. If you can't handle a derrogitory remark, move back in
with your parents, you haven't grown up yet.
--
Grey -- Occasionally Maniacal
faer...@juno.com (automatic reply disabled with no-spam)
Occasionally Welcome on #Authors
http://www.bright.net/~fawnn01/authors/authors.htm
Reluctant Channel Manager for #Artist
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Studios/4235/
aasimon
No, this got OT somewhere. Those were beer _Bear_ traps.
You need 55 gallon drums.
On Topic: Zane Grey's cooking diaries...
AAS
--
Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies.
--seen on bumper sticker
(To reply, remove the word "botcatcher" from my address)
No Spam
>
> >> Kathy Vincent writes:
>
> [about something else, but it is a good place to start a new topic]
>
> Kathy> Maybe, since we seem to be into lists lately, we could just
> Kathy> post a new list regularly? The MW Suggested Killfile Entries
> Kathy> List? I have several suggestions ...
>
> IMHO, the problem with such a list is that by the time you added all
> the suggestions, very few of us wouldn't be on the list, and somebody
> would think of a way to turn it into a libel suit or a three piece
> suit or something heavy (in wool? perhaps.)
>
> I don't have a better idea, but if are going to have another list, I
> do have a more positive idea. Why don't we put together the
> misc.writing *MOST ADMIRED* posters list?
>
> Now that's a list *I* would be willing to maintain, and post
> periodically.
>
> I think anybody who has posted more than 10 times in the last year
> should be eligible to nominate someone or to vote.
>
> I think anybody who gets more than 30 votes should be put on the list.
>
> I think all three of the above numbers are highly arbitrary.
>
> To start the ball rolling, I propose:
>
> 1) I'm not eligible -- the keeper can't be on the list.
>
> 2) Bill Quick
> Hands down the most professional, most helpful, and classiest act
> among us; (when he is among us.)
>
> 3) A whole lot of other names jump to mind, but I'll yield the floor
> for other nominations.
>
> Marty
>
> A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man
> contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.
> -- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Thomas Michaels
On 4 Sep 97 20:44:18 GMT, gekko <ge...@aztec.asu.edu> wrote:
>
>Friends,
>
>This may have slipped by you-all, but it rang out loud and clear to
>me. A plea for assets.
>
>Now I am a fairly well-endowed person. I am willing to dig deep into
>my bosom and provide a little bit of *my* assets for poor Erin, who
>has clearly been left flat.
Once again, we see women being turned into objects of ridicule and
mockery, as if being "flat" were a crime. *Sigh* Oh, when will it
end? Gekko, I expected so much better of you. Now, I see that you
are just like all the others.
Tom Michaels
"I was born to question everything---especially my sanity."
---Al Simmons
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~This space dedicated to the wondrous and unique Zero...may he never be silenced~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
rit...@bbs.cruzio.com
Wendy said:
>
> Either all stereotypes and epithets are wrong or none are wrong.
> No human groups should be targets of derision and scorn.
This is true. But it's also true that not all stereotypes have the same
social power. So it's not surprising that some people should make more noise
about the stereotypes and epithets relating to them than other people do about
the ones relating to themselves. How did I hear it put? "It's not
symmetrical."
Lucy Kemnitzer
erin
On Thu, 04 Sep 1997 14:08:59 -0700, Towse <to...@null.net> wrote:
>One can't buy the lifestyle Erin has, but it's not a lifestyle which
>depends on lucre.
>
>Luckily, eh Erin?
No shit.
Sal? You're a goddess and I love you, girl.
Erin
(cc'ed, of course...)
Grey
In article <340fea60....@news.sprynet.com>, Jason K. Chapman
says...
> "You people"? I don't recall making any blanket statements about
> "society as a whole" or "women in general". What I said was that it
> is easier to reject denigrating attitudes from a small quantity of
> individuals than it is to reject those of a predominating social
> viewpoint; the term I used for this was "prevailing social attitude".
"Prevailing Social Attitude" affecting the "Self Esteem" of women in
general is a blanket statement. That is what you were eluding to.
> While the transplanted bonsai can, and will, eventually adjust, it
> will take time.
Invalid Comparisson. What you're talking about is direct surpression of
an individual tree, and NOT on a forrest of trees.
> That is the difference between the effect of a small group of
> individuals and the pressure of a prevailing social attitude.
>
> Unfortunately, moving back with one's parents is often of no help.
> Many of the attitudes which affect self-esteem are often perpetuated
> unknowingly by parents, or at least not corrected, which amounts to
> the same thing.
Not society's responsibility to correct lame attitudes of parents.
> To make an identical point unrelated to any sexual issues, I can not
> believe that you would have told Dr. Martin Luther King to get out of
> the fire or move back with his parents. He, too, was attempting to
> heal damage caused by long-term immersion in a prevailing social
> attitude.
Dr. Martin Luther King wasn't out to make the word "Nigger" illegal, he
was out to make sure Black People had equal protection under the law.
Martin Luther King was intelligent enough to understand that you can't
change peoples attitudes toward race, and was also intelligent enough to
know that in the over all scheme of things it wouldn't matter one way or
the other as SPEECH and ACTION are not the same thing.
Your argument is reminisent of proponents of Social Engineers who want to
teach children as young as eight about homosexuality while at the same
time making it illegal to talk about the physical dangers involved.
If Martin Luther King had been said in august of 1963 "Let's All Get
Allong, and Make the word 'Nigger' Unacceptable" I would have called him
stupid. But he spoke of the content of one's character. MLK Could Take
an insult in stride! That's a mark of intelligence, IMHO.
Kathie Meyer
I just want to say that I made that statement *in the context of* Zero's
constant belittling/stereotyping police officers and not as a general
statement against men who choose to stay home for their children.
But, if you need further illumination on Zero's attitude, maybe you should
do a Deja News search. Go to the *old* database and type in "Pay for Play
American Dream zeroe...@aol.com." Read them all, but especially read the
one where he bitches about having to pay $25 a month in child support.
After reading what he has to say, let me ask you this: If you were Zero and
felt your kids were living with a practicing alcoholic, wouldn't you do
whatever it took (including getting an job) to gain custody instead of
staying home every day and spewing out shit on usenet?
Kathie (not apologizing) Meyer
cc: gekko
In article <gekko.873393058@valley>, you say...
>
>You are right that Kathie was applying a double-standard, and in that
>she was wrong. There are many men who cannot earn as much as their
>wives who have wisely chosen to be stay-at-home-dads, and there are
>many men who are divorced men who have custody of their children and
>who are supported by their ex-wives, and that is not a bad thing.
> Subject: Re: I am tired
> From: lou...@mail.wsu.edu (Kathie Meyer)
> Date: 1997/06/06
> Message-Id: <EBD3w...@serval.net.wsu.edu>
>
> I think the thing(s) that offends me most about Zero and his opinion
> about police officers is the fact that he publicly criticized someone
> doing a difficult, dangerous job when Zero himself chooses to stay
> unemployed at the expense of taking responsibility for and supporting
> his own children.
>
Jack Mingo
Inzane Grey parrots something he heard on the radio:
>
> Your argument is reminisent of proponents of Social Engineers who want to
> teach children as young as eight about homosexuality while at the same
> time making it illegal to talk about the physical dangers involved.
Your logic is impeccable as always. As long as you do the same thing
when you talk about heterosexual marriage, this Social Engineer has only
a little problem with that.
"Look children, what are these two doing? 'Getting married,' that's
right. Many people do get married, although the idea may seem strange to
you and me. Despite all the lovely clothes, pretty candles and flowers,
though, do you know what they do after the cake and rice and decorated
cars. Let me show you....Now, stop crying, children. Does anybody know
what can happen from doing these things? Let's make a list:
1. "Syphillis." Good, Heather! Should we also list the other venereal
diseases?
2. "Death from childbirth." That's right, Carleton!
3. "Genital worts." Very good, Cleveland.
4. "Spousal abuse." Excellent, Jennifer. What else?....."
Actually, though, in the classroom discussions about heterosexuality /
homosexuality at the age, none of this would be appropriate--the
discussions are quite general, merely pointing out that people fall in
love in different ways. Are you saying, Grey, that you have a problem
with telling kids the obvious truth?
Jack (I became a Social Engineer because I thought I'd be able to drive
the train at parties) Mingo
Jason K. Chapman
On 4 Sep 97 20:44:18 GMT, gekko <ge...@aztec.asu.edu> wrote:
>er...@best.com (erin) writes:
>
>
>>I have no assets.
>
>
>Friends,
>
>This may have slipped by you-all, but it rang out loud and clear to
>me. A plea for assets.
>
<snip>
<sigh> I never was much of an asset man, myself. I prefer a well
balanced portfolio; some assets, some accounts in arrears. I mean,
vested interest is fine for some people, but the investment has to
have legs, you know? Also, hip investors will pay attention to
important details like corporate waist.
Still, the corporate philosophy is the most important part. The way
the company conducts its affairs far outweighs the numbers.
Of course, I've made my investment. And I have no plans to change it.
So I hardly even look at other stocks any more--much.
Thomas Michaels
>> I don't have a better idea, but if are going to have another list, I
>> do have a more positive idea. Why don't we put together the
>> misc.writing *MOST ADMIRED* posters list?
>>
Well, I'll just sit back and wait for the votes to come rolling in. I
figure this is one contest that I'll win, hands down. To those of you
in competition with me, I'm afraid that you might as well just head on
home. I'll be the one walking away with the trophy, the plaque, and
the fame and admiration I so richly deserved.
D. Citron
--> WARNING: Remove the "BOUNCE" or your reply will BOUNCE! <--
Kathie Meyer <lou...@mail.wsu.edu> wrote:
: I just want to say that I made that statement *in the context of* Zero's
: constant belittling/stereotyping police officers and not as a general
: statement against men who choose to stay home for their children.
: But, if you need further illumination on Zero's attitude, maybe you should
: do a Deja News search. Go to the *old* database and type in "Pay for Play
: American Dream zeroe...@aol.com." Read them all, but especially read the
: one where he bitches about having to pay $25 a month in child support.
You must have left out some digits. $25 a month won't buy them Happy Meals
once a week.
Don May
>>In article <340ad84c...@snews.zippo.com>, erin <er...@best.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>This is violent and dangerous.
>>>
<Bill >
>>It is not violent in the sense that it is an example of actual
>>violence. There is no evidence that it is dangerous. It may be
>>offensive, uncalled for, etc., but do not mistake words for actions.
>
<Erin>
>Okay Bill. Next time you lose your penis and gain a vagina, and live
>with jerks like this on a day to day basis, you come back and tell me
>these attitudes are not violent and dangerous. K?
<Bill, excerpts>
What stunning conceit. Your contention is wrong on two counts.
First, you are wrong in your contention that only women are the
innocent victims of violence and thus only women can have an
informed opinion [匽
<rebuff snipped>
Second, you are wrong in your contention that it is necessary to
"experience" something in order to draw valid conclusions about
it.
<discourse snipped>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
While I feel empathy for women's feelings regarding certain words used
toward them I can not truly know those feelings. I can only speak for
myself.
Spouse Bill and I both love the Southwest and visit the area often.
After a pleasant day enjoying the grandeur of Arches National park we
returned to Moab where we were lodging. It's a rustic small town,
fast growing into a tourist center, but remote and still small enough
that one can forget the world "out there."
After a searing hot day we were strolling down main street enjoying
the cool evening air when a truck pulled along side us. "Hey you
fucking faggots!" shattered the evening calm. The words struck,
adrenaline surged, the burning rage all who have ever been oppressed
know started to boil to the surface wanting to turn and scream back
"Fuck off, assholes." Instantly, without speaking we both slammed the
lid on our rage and did what for a lifetime we learned we had to do
for survival. Don't turn, don't look in their direction, look slightly
down and continue to walk forward as if you heard nothing. And wait
and hope you don't hear the next line. "Fucking queers we're talking
to you!" You know if you look their way the next line is usually.
"What are you looking at faggot!"
It's damned if you do, damned if you don't. We've seen the bloody
result of gay bashing on many occasions in our lifetime and we knew in
a split second we could be beaten senseless by a gang of youths. All
we can do is hope violent words do not change to violent action, as we
walk forward in total uncertainty, numb with fear and sadness, holding
down primal rage that cries to strike back.
You can study it for a life time in cool academic analytical terms.
You can understand all the reasons for their actions and words卌ome to
valid conclusions. You can say words and action are not the same. You
can have genuine heart felt empathy for my feelings. Still, you cannot
know the overwhelming sadness, fear and consuming rage I feel deep
inside when the word Faggot is hurled at me in overtones of pure hate.
Not until you have walked in my shoes. Stunning conceit?
Don
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The very purpose of existence is to reconcile the glowing opinion
we have of ourselves with the appalling things that other people
think about us.-- Quentin Crisp
erin
On 5 Sep 1997 13:07:07 GMT, chris mclaughlin
<cmcl...@post.its.mcw.edu> wrote:
>Now, styles being what they are today, chances are good that
>Erin will graciously decline these fleshly assets.
Well, amazingly enough I'm still trying to pull my chin back up off
the floor. I kept reading and re-reading, wondering, "How did she
KNOW?"
Then it dawned on me: She is a woman. She READ BETWEEN the LINES.
It's why it's so important to have women friends, you know. These
little subtleties are lost on mankind.
>But I
>am confident that others, perhaps not all of them female,
>will rush eagerly to press themselves and their case. . .
Well, I'm really not in the market for any new assets at the moment.
Small though they are, I don't have many complaints, and I don't go
looking for them. Attention can be an ugly thing.
So send them on, and dear Gekko can stockpile them for someone who has
greater need than I. I am, after-all a very wealthy woman indeed.
Erin
anyone who knows me in person and comments on this particular thread,
certainly has a great deal of misery coming their way....
Jason K. Chapman
You know, some companies have been known to dress things up in such a
way as to enhance, even overstate, their assets. While there's really
nothing wrong with this, it hardly seems necessary. I would think any
investor worth having would be looking toward the heart of the
company, not just its assets--or even its bottom line.
Jason K. Chapman (sub 'interserv' for 'sprynet' to reply)
"Anyone who tries to make a distinction between
education and entertainment doesn't know the first
thing about either."
-Marshall McLuhan
Bill Oliver
In article <970904192...@NOSPAMvicnet.net.au>,
<ne...@NOSPAMvicnet.net.au> wrote:
>>erin <er...@best.com> wrote:
>>> >This is violent and dangerous.
>>
>>> There was no threat there. Being offensive is not being violent.
>>> Using the terms like "violent" and "dangerous" to make offensive
>>> actions more than they are does more to lessen people's reaction
>>> to real violence in the long run
>
>I'm using someone elses post here as the origional hasn;t shown up asa
>yet :(
>
>Bill, word can and do cause great harm. I suffered through twenty years
>of hell because of other peoples words.
Indeed, most folk have suffered cruel words. It is, however,
not the same as physical violence. I am not arguing that words
cannot cause emotional distress. I am not arguing that folk
who are cruel in their expressions should not be called on it.
However, a cutting word that cuts to the heart is not the same
as an edged weapon in the chest, and mistaking the metaphor for
reality is a big mistake.
I have a learning disability, at
>school and later in my first job I recieved verbal abuse because I could
>not keep up with my peers. I have taken over a decade for me to feel
>like I have gained some form of control over my life. Four years ago I
>was physically assualted, I still have problems sitting with my back to
>a room or door and have only just been able to wear a neck tie agian.
Indeed, and it was not *words* that inflicted that physical damage.
>
>There is a definite line between offensive and violent behaviour. That
>line is not a physical one but one that is psychological in nature. In
>the case of vitual violence, there has been a number of insidents over
>the past five years where woman have been virtuallt assaulted and raped.
>The case that comes immediently to mind is the one reported in the New
>Yorker sometime in 1992/3 where a woman's characture was 'raped' by
>another characture in LambdaMOO - a virtual meeting space. The emotions
>that the woman when through were the same for her as they would have
>been if the act was physical in nature.
Please. If I take a virtual shotgun and place it in your virtual mouth
and pull the virtual trigger and splash your virtual brains all over the
virtual walls, the *real* you can get up and bitch about it. If
I take a real shotgun and place it in your real mouth and pull a real trigger
and splash your real brains all over the real wall, you are really dead.
There's a difference.
People can get up and unplug a computer. People can walk away from
chats and MOOs and MUDs. You can't walk away from a real rape. You
can't unplug a real rapist. As unpleasant as her interaction in
a MOO may be, it is fundamentally voluntary and it is not a real
physical encounter. If it is as you describe, that woman could have
walked away *at any time.* She *chose* to stay in that MOO. It was
not rape.
>
>When someone states that the words on her screen (it's usually woman -
>but not always) were violent and dangerous, it was to them.
Nope. Simply claiming something is violent and dangerous does not
make it so. Otherwise I could have you thrown into jail simply
because I claim to feel that the fact that you disagree with me constitutes
a "violent and dangerous" expression. In fact, I think that *anybody*
who disagrees with me is both violent and dangerous. You should all be
thrown in the hoosegow. You should be fired from your job and, most
important, liable for civil damages. Send me money, you insenstive
person, you.
What? Not so? But I "feel" you are engaging in "violent and dangerous"
expression! Who are you to question it? I am the *only* judge of the
reasonableness of whether or not something is violent and dangerous *to me.*
If I state that your words are violent and dangerous, then they
are. Period. Right?
>For some people only the physical is real (in terms of experience), for
>others the psychological experience can be just as real and has as much
>an effect on them it becomes a 'physical' experience. Eigher way the
>trauma is the same.
The trauma is not the same. A virtual shotgun is not a real shotgun.
A virtual bullet in the brain is not the same as a real bullet in
the brain. A pretend rape on a MOO is not a real rape. And, as much as one
may wish to enhance victim status by conflating the two, they are different.
And refusing to conflate the two does not imply that one *approves*
of either. Folks should not be gratuitously insulting, and when they
are, they should be taken to task. However, this kind of appeal
to the greater damage is a bad idea.
>
>Neil (I'm dyslexic what's your excuse?) Blenkiron
I just can't spell or type.
billo
erin
On 5 Sep 1997 13:45:30 -0400, oli...@cs.unc.edu (Bill Oliver) wrote:
>Nope. Simply claiming something is violent and dangerous does not
>make it so. Otherwise I could have you thrown into jail simply
>because I claim to feel that the fact that you disagree with me constitutes
>a "violent and dangerous" expression. In fact, I think that *anybody*
>who disagrees with me is both violent and dangerous. You should all be
>thrown in the hoosegow. You should be fired from your job and, most
>important, liable for civil damages. Send me money, you insenstive
>person, you.
This brings up an interesting point. I did not say, "Anyone who
disagrees with me is violent and dangerous." I said, "This is violent
and dangerous." (The attitudes behind the word, and the lack of
reaction to his usage of them. )
I read the post and Peter's usage of the word "cunt" in anger towards
a woman. I asked the question, "Is this acceptable?" And followed
with "This is violent and dangerous." I was referring to the fact
that no one at the time I read his post had commented, asked him to
stop, or called him on his word usage. THAT is unacceptable to me.
Anyone has the "right" to use any name they wish.
For me, it is violent and dangerous to keep silent about something as
serious as these attitudes. As an example, a group of people are
congregating and one person does something that is hurtful, careless,
or frightening. The rest of the group has choices here: they can
speak up, making it clear that the target is NOT alone, the one person
in question is not welcome to behave that way without comment, or they
can nervously look the other way, giving someone the "okay" to
continue the behavior since there are no consequences.
>
>The trauma is not the same. A virtual shotgun is not a real shotgun.
>A virtual bullet in the brain is not the same as a real bullet in
>the brain. A pretend rape on a MOO is not a real rape. And, as much as one
>may wish to enhance victim status by conflating the two, they are different.
And in no way did Peter cause me "trauma," although I will not presume
to speak for any other women. He caused me a great deal of anger
which I chose to deal with by saying something. He caused me anger at
the fact that in the life I've chosen, people DO NOT in any way,
shape, or form say derogatory things about women. He made me angry
that he attempted to use a word he knows is loaded with overtones of
domination, then turned around and tried to use the legal system to
strong arm a couple of women that called him on his behavior.
The denigration of women is still alive and well. There are still
individuals out there who cannot stop for a moment to consider the
ramifications of their actions, words, or their attitudes. There are
still men out there who are operating on the basis that a man is a man
and a woman is something you can dictate to, or disregard.
If we ignore it, it will continue. That, to me, is violent and
dangerous. Unfortunately, I'm also paying a price for speaking up.
Erin
bigoted? i have a few friends and family members that might
disagree...
and now, i'm officially on vacation from the ng for a little while.
have at it.
Paul Harwood
On 5 Sep 97 20:42:44 GMT, gekko said in misc.writing:
>jes...@airmail.net (Thomas Michaels) writes:
>
>
>>>> I don't have a better idea, but if are going to have another list, I
>>>> do have a more positive idea. Why don't we put together the
>>>> misc.writing *MOST ADMIRED* posters list?
>>>>
>
>I, for one, nominate Bruce "Paul" Harwood, for reasons that are apparent
>and obvious to all.
You really did it, huh? Well well well.
Okay. You win. I'll put the check in the mail tomorrow.
Five, wasn't it?
Paul
Never bet with a gekko ...
Stan (the Man)
Bill Oliver wrote:
>
> In article <340ad84c...@snews.zippo.com>, erin <er...@best.com> wrote:
> >
> >This is violent and dangerous.
> >
>
> It is not violent in the sense that it is an example of actual
> violence. There is no evidence that it is dangerous. It may be
> offensive, uncalled for, etc., but do not mistake words for actions.
Words can, indeed, be both violent and dangerous. They can be dangerous
when they incite to riot or move to war. They are violent when they
cause harm. You are apparently of the opinion that harm can only be
physical. Words can cause emotional harm. When they do that, they're
violent. The use of venemous words by a parent toward a child is a
violence that can cause more harm to that child than a physical beating.
Peter's use of the word cunt was intended to and did cause emotional
harm. The word, in the context that Peter used it, was violent.
> There was no threat there. Being offensive is not being violent.
> Using the terms like "violent" and "dangerous" to make offensive
> actions more than they are does more to lessen people's reaction
> to real violence in the long run than any propaganda gains in the short
> run justify.
True, not all offensive words would be considered violent. The words
chick or babe or broad, or stud-muffin or hunk, depending on the context
in which they're used, can be offensive. And, while they may
demonstrate the ignorance of the user, I don't believe them to be
violent. Peter used the word cunt as a weapon. It was as real violence
as a slap in the face. Should Kathie or Erin be entitled to physically
attack Peter for this? No. There is a difference between physical and
emotional violence. But both kinds fit the definition, and I don't
believe the term's impact is diminished by this fact.
> billo
--
Stan (who really wouldn't mind being called a stud-muffin)
G.L. Morrison
> No all women seek an escape route when the word "cunt" appears in
> a conversation. Some stay and straighten the speaker out.
In the picture in my head (clearly out of focus in our exchange) the woman
in question is walking and hears the word directed (perhaps) at her;
quickens her pace (or at least her blood pressure). It was never my intent
to suggest that any single syllable was sufficient to cause women to flee
the scene --like cartoon women run from mice. I too know plenty of women
who never duck a fight.
> Either all stereotypes and epithets are wrong or none are wrong.
> No human groups should be targets of derision and scorn.
I was suggesting there are degrees of offensiveness --not that there are
classes of people one may justifiably act offensively toward.
Jason K. Chapman
On Fri, 5 Sep 1997 07:35:10 -0700, faeros0...@juno.com (Grey)
wrote:
>In article <340fea60....@news.sprynet.com>, Jason K. Chapman
>says...
>
>> "You people"? I don't recall making any blanket statements about
>> "society as a whole" or "women in general". What I said was that it
>> is easier to reject denigrating attitudes from a small quantity of
>> individuals than it is to reject those of a predominating social
>> viewpoint; the term I used for this was "prevailing social attitude".
>
>"Prevailing Social Attitude" affecting the "Self Esteem" of women in
>general is a blanket statement. That is what you were eluding to.
>
I very specifically did *not* refer to women, because the argument
holds in the general case.
>> While the transplanted bonsai can, and will, eventually adjust, it
>> will take time.
>
>Invalid Comparisson. What you're talking about is direct surpression of
>an individual tree, and NOT on a forrest of trees.
>
No, I'm talking about a lot of constant pressure as opposed to a small
amount of intermittent pressure administered on rare occassions. The
number of individuals affected is immaterial.
>> That is the difference between the effect of a small group of
>> individuals and the pressure of a prevailing social attitude.
>>
>> Unfortunately, moving back with one's parents is often of no help.
>> Many of the attitudes which affect self-esteem are often perpetuated
>> unknowingly by parents, or at least not corrected, which amounts to
>> the same thing.
>
>Not society's responsibility to correct lame attitudes of parents.
>
I never said it was. I do, however, recognize that one must *have*
self-esteem in order to teach it to one's children.
>> To make an identical point unrelated to any sexual issues, I can not
>> believe that you would have told Dr. Martin Luther King to get out of
>> the fire or move back with his parents. He, too, was attempting to
>> heal damage caused by long-term immersion in a prevailing social
>> attitude.
>
>Dr. Martin Luther King wasn't out to make the word "Nigger" illegal,
Again, I never said he was. Neither did I say anything about making
anything illegal. We seem to be in different threads. The actual
question I was addressing is whether or not common decency dictates
the avoidance of denigrating terms when one is well aware that they
are socially charged.
Specifically, I responding to your assertion that if someone is
offended by the use of a word, it is their problem and their problem
only. My point is that avoiding the use of certain socially charged
words costs me nothing and that if I do choose to sling one at a
member of a group likely to be sensitive to it, it is with full
knowledge of its connotative meaning.
> he
>was out to make sure Black People had equal protection under the law.
>Martin Luther King was intelligent enough to understand that you can't
>change peoples attitudes toward race,
Not only can you, it is the only solution that will work in the long
run. Often, it is the change in attitudes that brings about the
change in law. The prevailing social attitudes today regarding race
are not what they were then. His work had a great deal to do with it.
No, you can't change the attitude of an individual or even a group.
You can, however, explain (if they will listen), demonstrate by
example, take every opportunity to proclaim a differing point of view,
and refuse to let bad assumptions go unchallenged and unquestioned.
After a time, often generations, a societal change comes about.
>and was also intelligent enough to
>know that in the over all scheme of things it wouldn't matter one way or
>the other as SPEECH and ACTION are not the same thing.
Again, I never said they were.
>
>Your argument is reminisent of proponents of Social Engineers who want to
>teach children as young as eight about homosexuality while at the same
>time making it illegal to talk about the physical dangers involved.
>
Forgive me if I missed something, but which argument was that? The
only point I've made is that prevailing social attitudes can and do
affect the process of developing self-esteem. I don't recall saying
anything about social engineering, proposed law, or any of the other
things you mention.
>If Martin Luther King had been said in august of 1963 "Let's All Get
>Allong, and Make the word 'Nigger' Unacceptable" I would have called him
>stupid. But he spoke of the content of one's character.
Exactly. Teaching the process of self-esteem to many who had not been
able to develop it for themselves because of *prevailing social
attitudes*.
>MLK Could Take
>an insult in stride! That's a mark of intelligence, IMHO.
>
But would you have intentionally used the word in his presence? Would
you have walked up and called him one to show him it was just a
harmless word? Would you have been surprised if he took offense when
you used it or that he made certain assumptions about your attitudes
because you used it? Or would you have, out of common decency,
avoided the use of a word which had significant impact beyond being
"just a word"?
I find it interesting that you immediately cast this in a right
wing/left wing political light. If I were to say that I think
outlining is the best plotting tool, would you think I meant to outlaw
any other method? Not everything that is right or proper is a matter
of law. In fact, most of it is not.
<sig snip>
Jason K. Chapman (sub 'interserv' for 'sprynet' to reply)
"A writer is a controlled schizophrenic." -Edward Albee
Jack Mingo
Me? I nominate you and you and you and especially YOU! Each and every
person here. You are a valuable and wonderful person, and I'm glad
you're in my universe.
Jack (Now, if even half the people return the compliment, I'll win this
thing, hands down. Heh heh heh, ain't I a stinker?) Mingo
Towse
Why thank you, punkin, (clear as clear the YOU! is ME!) but I *think*
there's been a slight transposition problem with the thread title, wot?
Call off the 'bots!
I think there may need to be some *minor* adjustments,
Sal
Bill Oliver
In article <34103759.22705806@news>, Don May <tm...@slip.net> wrote:
>
>
>It's damned if you do, damned if you don't. We've seen the bloody
>result of gay bashing on many occasions in our lifetime and we knew in
>a split second we could be beaten senseless by a gang of youths. All
>we can do is hope violent words do not change to violent action, as we
>walk forward in total uncertainty, numb with fear and sadness, holding
>down primal rage that cries to strike back.
>
>You can study it for a life time in cool academic analytical terms.
>valid conclusions. You can say words and action are not the same. You
>can have genuine heart felt empathy for my feelings. Still, you cannot
>know the overwhelming sadness, fear and consuming rage I feel deep
>inside when the word Faggot is hurled at me in overtones of pure hate.
>Not until you have walked in my shoes. Stunning conceit?
>
>Don
Yes. Stunning conceit. For a number of reasons.
First, there is a great difference between saying that one has does not
know the "overwhelming sadness, fear, and consuming rage" of something
and saying that, because one does has not "experienced" those emotions
that one knows nothing about that subject and cannot speak with real
knowledge. I have never had sex with a man, but I'll bet I know more
about homosexual fugue murders than you do. It *is* a stunning conceit
to state that, because I have never had sex with a man, that I know
nothing about gays and cannot express an informed opinion about gay
behaviors I have studied.
Second, it is a stunning conceit to believe that because I have never
experienced the "overwhelming sadness, fear and consuming rage"
associated with being the victim of anti-gay predjudice that I have
never experienced sadness, fear or rage, and thus cannot have any idea
of what you are writing about. In fact, most people *have* experienced
overwhelming sadness. Most people have experienced stark fear. Most
people have experienced consuming rage.
One of the things that upsets me the most about this attitude is
that the claim to special status on the basis that "nobody feels
like I do," is a fundamentally divisive and dehumanizing position.
Nobody feels fear like you do? Everybody feels fear like you do.
Men feel rage just like women when they are abused. Heterosexuals
feel fear just like homosexuals when they are threatened. White
folk feel sadness just like black folk when they suffer a loss.
And guess what. Men get abused, heterosexuals get threatened,
and white folk suffer loss. You know, I remember hearing a fellow
once when I was a kid explain that it was OK not to pay African-Americans
the same wages as white folk because African-Americans really didn't
feel things the same way white folk did, and didn't really have
the same needs. It's bullshit, and it's bullshit *both ways.*
When you deny that commonality of the human condition and claim
special "feelings" that nobody else can have, you are not only
claiming special status and dehumanizing others, but you are also
rejecting one of the things that makes understanding possible.
In fact, outside of sexual orientation, gays are *just like*
heterosexuals. And both heterosexuals and homosexuals have
suffered fear, loss, and rage. By rejecting that empathy, you
reject exactly what can bring people together.
Third, I reject the position that objective knowledge is not useful
knowledge. I further reject the position that judgement from a
distance is not of value. Believe it or not, often times it is
*precisely* the fact that someone has not "experienced" something that
makes him or her peculiarly able to have an opinion which sees beyond
that rage and sadness and fear. That is why mediation works. That's
what mediators and arbitrators are for. They are people who are
knowlegeable about a subject, and distant enough to provide judgement
less influenced by passion. That's one reason why historical review is
useful. The attitude that only people who are part of the dispute are
in a position to express a knowledgeable opinion or exercise good
judgement discounts this valuable knowledge, this useful judgment, and
this important perspective.
Of course I would not presume to claim that I have experienced
something that I have not experienced. And there *is* singular and
valuable knowledge that comes from these experiences. It is not
necessary, however, to discount all other knowledge to recognize the
value of direct emotional experience. And it is fundamentally bigoted
to judge an opinion on the basis of the gender, race, or sexual
orientation of the speaker. The claim that I have must cut off my
penis and grow a vagina to prove that I have an opinion of value or can
exercise adult judgement denies the universality of human experience,
is dehumanizing, and devalues objective knowledge.
Yes. Stunning conceit.
billo
Grey
In article <3410726b....@news.sprynet.com>, Jason K. Chapman
says...
<Snipped everything that amounted to redundant arguement>
> Specifically, I responding to your assertion that if someone is
> offended by the use of a word, it is their problem and their problem
> only.
That's exactly what I asserted, and I stand by it.
> My point is that avoiding the use of certain socially charged
> words costs me nothing and that if I do choose to sling one at a
> member of a group likely to be sensitive to it, it is with full
> knowledge of its connotative meaning.
And my point is that avoiding taking a slander personally ALSO costs you
nothing. It takes two to tango, after all...
Grey
In article <341032...@pacbell.net>, Jack Mingo says...
> Your logic is impeccable as always. As long as you do the same thing
> when you talk about heterosexual marriage, this Social Engineer has only
> a little problem with that.
>
> "Look children, what are these two doing? 'Getting married,' that's
> right. Many people do get married, although the idea may seem strange to
> you and me. Despite all the lovely clothes, pretty candles and flowers,
> though, do you know what they do after the cake and rice and decorated
> cars. Let me show you....Now, stop crying, children. Does anybody know
> what can happen from doing these things? Let's make a list:
>
> 1. "Syphillis." Good, Heather! Should we also list the other venereal
> diseases?
> 2. "Death from childbirth." That's right, Carleton!
> 3. "Genital worts." Very good, Cleveland.
All three of these of course are invalid examples when it comes to
Monogomous relationships... If you want to screw everything that walks,
however, you take your chances...
> 4. "Spousal abuse." Excellent, Jennifer. What else?....."
Separate issue, and I'm not going to get into it here.
Bottom line is that your grip on reality is obviously not very good, I
suggest you tie a knot, and hang on...
Bob Pastorio
chris mclaughlin wrote:
>
> Now, styles being what they are today, chances are good that
> Erin will graciously decline these fleshly assets. But I
> am confident that others, perhaps not all of them female,
> will rush eagerly to press themselves and their case. . .
>
> Chris, not exactly a piker herself
Um, this pressing thing. Tell me more about it.
Bob(will I go blind or do I misunderstand?)Pastorio
Bob Pastorio
chris mclaughlin wrote:
>
> Now, styles being what they are today, chances are good that
> Erin will graciously decline these fleshly assets. But I
> am confident that others, perhaps not all of them female,
> will rush eagerly to press themselves and their case. . .
>
> Chris, not exactly a piker herself
Does this press activity occur singly, doubly or in groups?
And, Chris, I've always seen you as more involved with rapiers than
pikes.
Bob(no, but seriously...)Pastorio
Alexander J Berman
erin wrote:
> It's why it's so important to have women friends, you know. These
> little subtleties are lost on mankind.
> Erin
... But not on kind men ...
Alex Jay Berman
-- a credit to his gender
--
"To live is to war with trolls." -- Henrik Ibsen
Grey
In article <5uqsfh$68...@web.wesley.com.au>, Jensen says...
>
> In article <MPG.e7a7eda5...@news.earthlink.net>,
> faeros0...@juno.com (Grey) wrote:
>
> >
> >In article <341032...@pacbell.net>, Jack Mingo says...
> >
> >> 1. "Syphillis." Good, Heather! Should we also list the other venereal
> >> diseases?
> >> 2. "Death from childbirth." That's right, Carleton!
> >> 3. "Genital worts." Very good, Cleveland.
> >
> >All three of these of course are invalid examples when it comes to
> >Monogomous relationships... If you want to screw everything that walks,
> >however, you take your chances...
> >
>
> Hmmm. Childbirth results only from sex with multiple partners?
>
> I think you better have a talk with your dad, Ian.
Exuse me... but Permiscuous Sex increases the likelyhood of infection and
damage to the Euteris which VASTLY increases the likelyhood of
complications in child birth... go talk to a doctor.
Jason K. Chapman
On Fri, 5 Sep 1997 21:32:54 -0700, faeros0...@juno.com (Grey)
wrote:
>In article <3410726b....@news.sprynet.com>, Jason K. Chapman
>says...
>
<more snipping>
>> My point is that avoiding the use of certain socially charged
>> words costs me nothing and that if I do choose to sling one at a
>> member of a group likely to be sensitive to it, it is with full
>> knowledge of its connotative meaning.
>
>And my point is that avoiding taking a slander personally ALSO costs you
>nothing. It takes two to tango, after all...
>
>--
You are correct. It costs *me* nothing. There are those, however,
for whom it is not so easy. For some of them, it is because they have
chosen not to think, however, for others, it is because they have had
more of an obstacle in the way of achieving this kind of self-esteem.
(There is a third group: those who feign injury strictly for
political ends, but that is beyond the realm of this discussion.)
I grew up as a fat kid, and the constant taunts of other children is
the closest I ever want to come to being the object of a prevailing
attitude of denigration on a societal level. (A child's society is so
much smaller.) Other than that, I am a white, third or fourth
generation American heterosexual. I have never and will never
experience what it is like to be a member of a group denigrated by a
majority of the individuals around me. (Unless you count working on a
navy base while wearing a pony tail down to the middle of your back.)
I can, however, imagine it. I can learn from others. I have the
capacity to understand things I do not experience directly.
In short, I am willing to cut people some slack, instead of spurning
their feelings and demanding that they see things for what they are.
In the end, yes, I would try to show them how little it really means
and that it has no lasting power. But only after a large dose of
sympathy and comfort.
And, yes, I would still feel anger toward the individual that tried to
use certain words as weapons. The anger is toward the attempt to
wound, not the particular organization of certain letters or sounds.
There is something more despicable, not to mention less imaginitive,
about insulting an individual by denigrating a particular group of
which they are a member.
Jason K. Chapman (sub 'interserv' for 'sprynet' to reply)
"Anyone can become a writer, but the trick
is to STAY a writer."
-Harlan Ellison
Jack Mingo
> > when you talk about heterosexual marriage, this Social Engineer has only
> > a little problem with that.
> >
> >
> > 1. "Syphillis." Good, Heather! Should we also list the other venereal
> > diseases?
> > 2. "Death from childbirth." That's right, Carleton!
> > 3. "Genital worts." Very good, Cleveland.
>
> All three of these of course are invalid examples when it comes to
> Monogomous relationships...
Really! Then there must've been a lot of slutting around in the old days
when death during childbirth was a very common occurrence. Serves those
Jezebels right, by cracky! Clearly we've become much more moral, since
birth deaths have gone way down.
The reality is also that monogamous homosexual relationships are also
quite safe--in fact, probably safer in many ways than comparable hetero
relationships (all those complications of childbirth, etc. skew things
upward).
Jack (Hate and revulsion do not make good corrective lenses if you want
to see the world clearly) Mingo
Jack Mingo
On Fri, 5 Sep 1997 21:32:54 -0700, faeros0...@juno.com (Grey)
wrote:
>In article <3410726b....@news.sprynet.com>, Jason K. Chapman
>says...
>
<more snipping>
>> My point is that avoiding the use of certain socially charged
>> words costs me nothing and that if I do choose to sling one at a
>> member of a group likely to be sensitive to it, it is with full
>> knowledge of its connotative meaning.
>
>And my point is that avoiding taking a slander personally ALSO costs you
>nothing. It takes two to tango, after all...
When I suddenly let fly with a knife directly at you as you tangoed, you
ducked and it missed your head by nearly a foot. So you have no right to
complain about me throwing knives! No harm done, so stop whining, and
why are taking it so damned personally?
Jack (If it triggered alarm, fear and anger, it's your own damn fault)
Mingo
Jan S.
On Sat, 6 Sep 1997 00:46:34 -0700, Grey (faeros0...@juno.com) says... ...snip...
>>
>> Hmmm. Childbirth results only from sex with multiple partners?
>>
>> I think you better have a talk with your dad, Ian.
>
>Exuse me... but Permiscuous Sex increases the likelyhood of infection and
>damage to the Euteris which VASTLY increases the likelyhood of
>complications in child birth... go talk to a doctor.
>
Grey, you're full of it. My doctor says so. And you spell like speedbump.
I know, I know, spelling corrections are just(sic) too(sic) too(sic) rude, but
I gotta(sic).
promiscuous
likelihood
uterus
childbirth
--jan (gee, I hope I didn't misspell anything)