Astrology is for idiots
Cygnus66
as astrology? From the perspective of any one of the 100 billion other stars
in our galaxy, the constellations visible from Earth don't even exist!
I realize that many people have a deep need to feel connected to the rest
of the universe by some spiritual force. But, I'm afraid we must now accept
the fact that modern science has killed the whole idea of spiriuality.
What you see is all you get!
GeriWrites
MPremi9025
terrestial events.
I may post some of this in the next few weeks. Just a matter of getting the
time to put a post together.
I wouldn't say that modern science has killed the whole idea of spirituality.
Science itself has produced information that supports what was once thought of
as the realm of spirituality.
But there are some not so intellectually well endowed people who call
themselves scientists that filter out the evidence they don't like and foster
only the view of the universe that suits them, namely, the materialistic
non-spiritual view.
But I don't regard folks who filter evidence as being worth listening to.
Martha
PinkZsaZsa
(Cygnus66) writes:
>How can anyone at this late stage in history still believe in such fairy
>tales
>as astrology? From the perspective of any one of the 100 billion other
>stars
>in our galaxy, the constellations visible from Earth don't even exist!
>
>I realize that many people have a deep need to feel connected to the rest
>of the universe by some spiritual force. But, I'm afraid we must now accept
>the fact that modern science has killed the whole idea of spiriuality.
>
>What you see is all you get!
^^^^^^^^^^PINKing shear snippage^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sorry, dahling, but I have been into astrology since I was 8, and I have a
truly fabulous life, so, no. The proof is in the pudding!
Pink Wishes
Pink Zsa Zsa
lacee
Micki
Cygnus66 <cygn...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19990301135314...@ng03.aol.com>...
jfred
So.... you filter out people who have opinions you don't like, and
foster only the view of the universe that suits you?
--
Cahooter #14
#irrelevant on powerchat
Everybody's got something to hide except for me and my monkey.
Habent Abdenda Omnes Praeter Me ac Simiam Meam.
aka Henry Campbell
>What you see is all you get!
Well, I'm gonna try and forget I ever saw your ignorant post, if
that's the case.
-- aka Henry Campbell
Hesperia 1993
Wollmann, Edmond
>
> How can anyone at this late stage in history still believe in such fairy tales
> as astrology? From the perspective of any one of the 100 billion other stars
> in our galaxy, the constellations visible from Earth don't even exist!
>
> I realize that many people have a deep need to feel connected to the rest
> of the universe by some spiritual force. But, I'm afraid we must now accept
>
> What you see is all you get!
What study have you made of the subject?
"Astrology, bar sinister in the escutcheon of astronomy, maintains a
unique and lonely position in human thought. It is "believed in" by a
lot of people who know practically nothing about it; and it is
"disbelieved in" by even more who know ABSOLUTELY nothing about it. Of
no other art or science can this be said." Grant Lewi, "Why I believe in
Astrology"
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 1999 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
Artworks http://www.astroconsulting.com/personal/
http://home.earthlink.net/~arcturian1/
Ken Anglesea
wrote:
SNIP
As he usually does.
Ed + subject header = the right stuff.
>Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
>© 1999 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
>Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
>Artworks http://www.astroconsulting.com/personal/
>http://home.earthlink.net/~arcturian1/
...
...
This post comes to you care of RoachFlame inc.
Have a good rest my friend,and comeback soon.
Official Roach Clipper.
Lou Minatti™
>
> Can you disprove astrology?
Can you disprove Santa Clause?
--
We're watching you at SpOOk Central.
http://www.watchingyou.com
"Y2K advocates were like newly hatched mosquitoes. They only have a
short amount of time to suck blood before they die." - Paul Kedrosky
Andrew Chin
that astrology does not influence events on earth.
The fact of the matter is that you can't prove or disprove it, which is why
people like us do not shut our minds from all possibilities.
To give you an idea, read the book Contact by Carl Sagan. Or if you want,
watch the movie instead (not recommended, but what the hell)
PinkZsaZsa wrote in message
<19990302052156...@ngol02.aol.com>...
>In article <19990301135314...@ng03.aol.com>, cygn...@aol.com
>(Cygnus66) writes:
>
>>How can anyone at this late stage in history still believe in such fairy
>>tales
>>as astrology? From the perspective of any one of the 100 billion other
>>stars
>>in our galaxy, the constellations visible from Earth don't even exist!
>>
>>I realize that many people have a deep need to feel connected to the rest
>>of the universe by some spiritual force. But, I'm afraid we must now
accept
>>the fact that modern science has killed the whole idea of spiriuality.
>>
>>What you see is all you get!
>
Melcsouth
that we live in. It proves that there is an intelligence inherent in all
things, that we are all linked. As for "What you see is what you get " well
that depends on where you are actually looking.
PinkZsaZsa
writes:
>Andrew Chin wrote:
>>
>> Can you disprove astrology?
>
>Can you disprove Santa Clause?
And, why, precious, would you want to? What personel investment, on your part,
makes this such a cause célèbre for you, that you would bother posting and
debating it in a newsgroup dedicated to it? In an insulting thread? Go
through your life in whatever condition you choose, but, do, please, grant the
same privilege to the rest of us.
MPremi9025
discovered by scientific studies.
Those who deny the facts are not worth listening to since they have some kind
of defect in their minds.
They are not good sources. Not well connected to reality. Not sources of truth.
Martha
Tom Kerr
>In article <36DE00...@yahoo.com>, Lou Minatti™ <loumi...@yahoo.com>
>writes:
>
>>Andrew Chin wrote:
>>>
>>> Can you disprove astrology?
>>
>>Can you disprove Santa Clause?
>
>And, why, precious, would you want to? What personel investment, on your part,
>makes this such a cause célèbre for you, that you would bother posting and
>debating it in a newsgroup dedicated to it? In an insulting thread? Go
>through your life in whatever condition you choose, but, do, please, grant the
>same privilege to the rest of us.
>
alt.astrology is for discussing astrology. According to the charter, it's also
about discussing a lot more than that.
Why should an astrology newsgroup not include skeptical posts about astrology
and about its methodology?
Lou Minatti™
>
> In article <36DE00...@yahoo.com>, Lou Minatti™ <loumi...@yahoo.com>
> writes:
>
> >Andrew Chin wrote:
> >>
> >> Can you disprove astrology?
> >
> >Can you disprove Santa Clause?
>
> And, why, precious, would you want to?
If an adult believed in Santa Clause, would you think they are still all
"there"?
jfred
Martha, meet Edmo... Edmo, meet Martha. You should be very happy
together!
RoachClip™
wrote:
>MPremi9025 <mprem...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> We're not talking opinions. We're talking what is fact and what has been
>> discovered by scientific studies.
>>
>> Those who deny the facts are not worth listening to since they have some kind
>> of defect in their minds.
>>
>> They are not good sources. Not well connected to reality. Not sources
>> of truth.
>>
>> Martha
>
>Martha, meet Edmo... Edmo, meet Martha. You should be very happy
>together!
hehehehe, jfred
cupidjfred the matchmaker.
make me a match.
=)
More kooks for the fire. Good.
Bah Fongool.
1. RoachClip™/ cahooter™ #28; ttl'r #4/Aries Moon,Tarus Rising,Gemini Sun
2. Studying astrologer; septic cultist (and a woo); psychic; censor; abuser/ User of astrospinology and *kennology
3. This post powered by RoachFlame™ (Merc Sq Pluto+Aries Moon)/ irc.powerchat.net Channel #irrelevant ~To irr is human~
4. PERSONAL ATTACKS WILL BE MET WITH VEHEMENT RESPONSE... So, what's your problem? (Aries Moon kicks ass)
Edmond Wollmann
> Why should an astrology newsgroup not include skeptical posts about astrology
> and about its methodology?
We have seen skeptics sir, and you sir are not one.
http://www.astroconsulting.com/FAQs/propagan.htm
A spinic is a bigoted and biased person/group who hides behind the
skepticism concept and attempts to belittle a paradigm or area of
interest without investigation, knowledge, or study of any sort. This is
bigotry, not skepticism. Propaganda is then "spun" against the
paradigm/person and they are religiously and zealously defamed
(evidenced by the multitude of defamation sites under my name-none of
which evidence any truth whatever). The individual or groups then hold
dogmatically onto their fallacious refutation despite all discrediting,
academic refutation, or current/past acceptance by a large majority of
said paradigm by the populace. This is called religion.
Spinic's actions betray their stated goals of "skepticism" by the
malicious defamation they perpetrate. Their continued hounding and
defamation of those they are bigoted against continues unabated despite
evidence of the validity and value of the paradigms they seek to
denigrate, from their bigotry not logic. Their psychological denial of
facts, refutations, and evidenced constructiveness of the paradigms they
seek to denigrate only evidences their own insecurity and intellectual
deficiency. Ignored are the rights, dignity, choice or desire for
preference of the individuals/groups they seek to destroy through this
propagandic spin and defamation.
The indices listed below are valid referenced academic areas of accepted
knowledge that refutes and describes the fallacious and defective
arguments of the typical spinic's attempts to "color" their defamation
as "argument" or disagreement.
CYNIC=From the Greek kynikos, -doglike, churlish. Philos. one of a sect
of ancient Greek philosophers who taught that pleasure is an evil if
sought for its own sake, and made an ostentatious show of contempt for
riches and enjoyment.; sneering faultfinder; one who disbelieves in the
goodness of human motives, and who is given to displaying his disbelief
by sneers and sarcasm-cynicism=the practice of a cynic; a morose
contempt of the pleasures and arts in life. Lexicon/Webster
Ig no rant=Deficient of knowledge of either general information or a
specific field; uninformed; untaught; unenlightened-ignorance, the state
of being ignorant, or of lacking knowledge; the condition of not being
cognizant or aware of. Lexicon/Webster..between ignoramus and ignore.
Bigot=a person intolerant of creeds, opinions etc. other than his own.
(Webster College Dict.)
Case # 3,539,081
Conclusion-cynical and unable to acknowledge larger frameworks within
which fragmented knowledge fits.
Psych-Inferiority, persistent feeling that one does not measure up to
societal standards and personal fictional standards. Ego lock on
physicality and the belief that only psychic material accessible to
egoistic functions is "real."
Habitual responses. Inability for holistic cognitions.
Philo-The desire to participate in emotivism and the inability to remove
such judgments. Begging the question vicious and cyclic argumentation
which denies purposeful existence other than to prove pointlessness.
Fear that existence is pointless and construct development to reinforce
this conclusion. Pleasure derived from invalidating arguments that
inspire and improve the human condition.
Inability to understand coherence theory of truth. Inability to
understand the pragmatic theory of truth.
Frequently indulges in the logical defect fallacies of;
"Fallacy of suppressed evidence"The requirement of a true premises
includes the proviso that the premises not ignore some important piece
of evidence that outweighs the presented evidence and entails a very
different conclusion.
"Red Herring" fallacy="The red herring fallacy is committed when the
arguer diverts the attention of the reader by changing the subject to
some totally different issue.
"Missing the point" another fallacy of relevance-The conclusion of the
argument is irrelevant to the premises. "Missing the point illustrates a
special form of irrelevance. This fallacy occurs when the premises of an
argument support one particular conclusion, but then a different
conclusion, often vaguely related to the correct conclusion is drawn.
"Begging the question" occurs when an arguer uses some form of
phraseology that tends to conceal the questionably true character of a
key premise. If the reader or the listener is deceived into thinking
that a key premise is true, he or she will accept the argument as sound,
when in fact, it may not be.
"Appeal to the People" (Argumentum ad Populum)
Nearly everyone wants to be loved, esteemed, admired, valued, recog-
nized, and accepted by others. The appeal to the people uses these
desires to get the reader or listener to accept a conclusion. Two
approaches are involved, one of them direct, the other indirect.
The direct approach occurs when an arguer, addressing a large group of
people, excites the emotions and enthusiasm of the crowd to win
acceptance for his conclusion. The objective is to arouse a kind of mob
mentality. (the usenet group alt.usenet.kooks is used solely for this
defect).
Their favorite and highly relied upon one is called "Argument Against
the Person" (Argumentum ad Hominem)
This fallacy always involves two arguers. One of them advances (either
directly or implicitly) a certain argument, and the other then responds
by directing his or her attention not to the first person's argument but
to the first person himself. When this occurs, the second person is said
to commit an argument against the person.
"Bandwagon Argument" A variety of the "Appeal to the people" fallacy
that occurs when the arguer plays on the reader's or listener's need to
feel a part of the group (or to down another group). In the indirect
approach the arguer directs his or her appeal not to the crowd as a
whole but to one or more individuals separately, focusing upon some
aspect of their relationship to the crowd. The indirect approach
includes such specific forms as the bandwagon argument, the appeal to
vanity, and the appeal to snobbery. All are standard techniques of the
advertising industry. Here is an example of the bandwagon argument;
"Of course you will want to buy Zest toothpaste. Why, 90% of America
brushes with Zest."
Or
"Of course you will want to demean and defame Edmond Wollmann. Why, 90%
of alt.usenet kooks (not even 1% of usenet) voted him a kook."
Because spinics will try to discredit THESE accepted delineations, it
should be noted these definitions are taken from an academic work used
in colleges and Universities, Logic, 4th Edition Hurley, University of
San Diego, Wadsworth Publishing, 1991, page 128, "Informal Fallacies".
Sci-Participates in repeated inductive generalizations. Materialism
focused and rigid. Believes that because information not cognizable by
the ego self, it must not exist, delusional and inability for rigorous
investigation prior to conclusions. Projects that "others" are guilty of
this.
Conclusion-Perspective alteration necessary. Insists on misery and
negativity in order to resist the slightest appearance of a
relinquishment of control-which inadvertently reinforces inferiority
feelings. Denial. No known remediation at this point. Likelihood of
future crisis in perspective great.
Mature individuals can agree to disagree and recognize that often
disagreements simply boil down to preferences. There is no one truth,
except that the truth is the composition of all truths.
Analytical discernment begs for efficiency. I therefore respectfully beg
to differ with spinics and offer sincere success in their future search
for truths (should they decide to act on their preferences and stop
trying to defeat others preferences).
There is no one truth EXCEPT that THE truth is the composition of all
truths. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence-it may be a
difference in root assumptions.
My particular "Universes of inquiry" are psychology and astrology, I
respect all inquiry and the paradigms that articulate them.
Paradigms form from sets of beliefs and assumptions. To clarify the idea
of paradigms here is a quote from experimentation in abnormal psychology
taken from Thomas Kuhn's view, author of the widely acknowledged "The
Structure Of Scientific Revolutions";
"We believe every effort should be made to study abnormal behavior
according to scientific principles. It should be clear at this point
however, that science is NOT a completely objective and certain
enterprise. Rather, as we can infer by the comment from Kuhn, subjective
factors, as well as limitations in our perspective on the universe,
enter into the conduct of scientific enquiry. Central to any application
of scientific principles, in Kuhn's view, is the concept of a paradigm,
a conceptual framework or approach within which a scientist works. A
paradigm according to Kuhn, is a set of basic assumptions that outline
the PARTICULAR UNIVERSE OF SCIENTIFIC ENQUIRY..." (my emphasis)
In addition to injecting inevitable biases into the definition and
collection of data, a paradigm may also affect the interpretation of
facts. In other words, the meaning or import given to data may depend to
a considerable extent on a paradigm.
University of Southern California", State University of New York"
Davidson and Neale, 6th edition, 1996. Wiley and sons publishers.
"The decision to employ a particular piece of apparatus
and to use it in a particular way carries with it an assumption that
only certain sorts of circumstances will arise.
Normal science research is a strenuous and devoted attempt
to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by the professional
education. Anomalies are disregarded because they do not articulate the
paradigm" (Thomas Kuhn).
Or as Einstein said "It is the theory that determines what we observe."
In short paradigmatical definitions (beliefs) can affect perception.
We don't live by logic and facts we live by trust-if you disagree with
this premise, provide the factual basis and logical reason and/or
purposes for living. If you can't produce any I suggest you stop living
because there is no evidence or "facts" available to justify and
quantify doing it anymore.
"Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, and knowledge without
integrity is dangerous and dreadful" Samuel Johnson
Skeptic=One who doubts the truth of any principle or system of
principles or doctrines. Questioning in the search for truth.
Cynic=a sneering faultfinder; one who disbelieves in the goodness of
human motives, and who is given to displaying his disbelief by sneers
and sarcasm.
"Knowledge is proud that he has learned so much;
Wisdom is humble that he knows no more"
William Cowper "The Task bk vi"
"The Winter Walk at Noon"
Woodenheaded thinking="assessing a situation in terms of preconceived
fixed notions while ignoring or rejecting any contrary signs" (Tuchman,
1984, p. 7).
"On Pseudo-Skepticism" -- Marcello Truzzi
One of CSICOP's founders exposes his former compeers.
http://www.cloud9.net/~patrick/anomalist/pseudo.html
"True Disbelievers: Mars Effect Drives Skeptics to Irrationality" --
Rich
Kammann
http://www.primenet.com/~lippard/kammann.html
"CSICOP and the Skeptics: An Overview" -- George Hansen
Sociological study of the organization; why they instituted their policy
*against* conducting scientific investigations.
ftp://ftp.rutgers.edu/pub/ufo/csicop-and-skeptic
Part 2:
ftp://ftp.rutgers.edu/pub/ufo/csicop-and-skeptic.2
"Myths of Skepticism" -- Michael Sofka
Common misconceptions skeptics have.
http://www.rpi.edu/~sofkam/talk/talk.html
"The Astronomer Who Abolished Gravity" -- Robert Anton Wilson
In Carl Sagan's debunking of Dr. Velikovsky, he omitted one minor factor
from his calculations: gravity.
http://www.tcp.com/~prime8/raw/trigger3.html
"Extraordinary Claim? Move the Goal Posts!" -- Patrick Huyghe
How science works, or doesn't.
http://www.cloud9.net/~patrick/anomalist/goal.html
"CSICOP Scare!" -- Dennis Stacy
http://www.cloud9.net/~patrick/anomalist/csicop.html
"Robert A. Baker's Unattributed Copying" -- Lippard
Copyright violations and plagiarism by a prominent skeptic.
http://www.primenet.com/~lippard/Bakerreport.txt
"A New Case of Scientific Serendipity?" -- "Diogenes, Jr." (Marcello
Truzzi) Satire on Robert Baker's plagiarism.
http://www.primenet.com/~lippard/baker-diogenes.html
"Response to Martin Gardner's Attack on Reich and Orgone Research in the
_Skeptical Inquirer_" -- James DeMeo
http://id.mind.net/community/orgonelab/gardner.htm
"Zen and the Art of Debunkery" -- Daniel Drasin
Satire of typical skeptical manoeuvers.
http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/pathskep.html
"Sceptic's Can't Play Ball" -- Jenny Randles
Various misdeeds of the local skeptics.
http://www.citadel.co.uk/citadel/eclipse/futura/bufora/times/randles/scept
ic.htm
"Debunkeritis -- A Partial List" -- Jerome Clark
Satire.
http://www.ufobbs.com/txt4/3256.ufo
--
Edmond Wollmann
SNIP!
anonym™
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
> Tom Kerr wrote:
>
> > Why should an astrology newsgroup not include skeptical posts about astrology
> > and about its methodology?
>
> We have seen skeptics sir, and you sir are not one.
Who's "we", asshole?
You and your sockpuppets?
You fucking fraud.
anonym™
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
> Lou Minatti™ wrote:
> SNIP!
>
> http://www.astroconsulting.com/FAQs/propagan.htm
>
> A spinic is a
Made-up word.
Made up by a kook!
SNIP!
Cygnus66
your hypothesis the astrology can predict future events, but for you to PROVE
that astrology works. I could claim that trees are gods and then
claim my belief it true because you can't disprove it.
Lou Minatti™
>
> Lou Minatti™ wrote:
> SNIP!
>
> http://www.astroconsulting.com/FAQs/propagan.htm
>
> A spinic is a bigoted and biased person/group who hides behind the
> skepticism concept and attempts to belittle a paradigm or area of
I didn't write any of that, Baldy. Why do you harass and attack
something you know 0 about?
Andrew Chin
of saying it.
The bottom line of what I was trying to say is that you shouldn't go around
calling people idiots, because you don't follow what they do, or vice versa.
But of course you're entitled to your own opinion. And posting it in
alt.astrology is just asking for a flame :-)
anonym™ wrote in message <36DF0353...@pacbell.net>...
>
>
>Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>>
>> Tom Kerr wrote:
>>
>> > Why should an astrology newsgroup not include skeptical posts about
astrology
>> > and about its methodology?
>>
>> We have seen skeptics sir, and you sir are not one.
>
PinkZsaZsa
Kerr) writes:
>>>Can you disprove Santa Clause?
>>
>>And, why, precious, would you want to? What personel investment, on your
>part,
>>makes this such a cause célèbre for you, that you would bother posting and
>>debating it in a newsgroup dedicated to it? In an insulting thread? Go
>>through your life in whatever condition you choose, but, do, please, grant
>the
>>same privilege to the rest of us.
>>
>
>alt.astrology is for discussing astrology. According to the charter, it's
>also
>about discussing a lot more than that.
>
>Why should an astrology newsgroup not include skeptical posts about astrology
>
>and about its methodology?
Sweetie, I'm not questioning your right to post to a public newsgroup, just
wondering why? It seems like the apex of hubris to come into a group, under an
insulting subject header, and demand that group satisfy your standards of
"proof". Are you trolling, or just addicted to negative attention?
PinkZsaZsa
writes:
>PinkZsaZsa wrote:
>>
>> In article <36DE00...@yahoo.com>, Lou Minatti™ <loumi...@yahoo.com>
>> writes:
>>
>> >Andrew Chin wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Can you disprove astrology?
>> >
>> >Can you disprove Santa Clause?
>>
>> And, why, precious, would you want to?
>
>If an adult believed in Santa Clause, would you think they are still all
>"there"?
For me it isn't a question of judging others' beliefs, that certainly isn't my
place, but *your* motivation in doing so.
anonym™
Andrew Chin wrote:
>
> I just mentioned the word disprove, because I can't think of any other way
> of saying it.
>
> The bottom line of what I was trying to say is that you shouldn't go around
> calling people idiots, because you don't follow what they do, or vice versa.
>
> But of course you're entitled to your own opinion. And posting it in
> alt.astrology is just asking for a flame :-)
>
> anonym™ wrote in message <36DF0353...@pacbell.net>...
> >
> >
> >Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> >>
> >> Tom Kerr wrote:
> >>
> >> > Why should an astrology newsgroup not include skeptical posts about
> astrology
> >> > and about its methodology?
> >>
> >> We have seen skeptics sir, and you sir are not one.
> >
> >Who's "we", asshole?
> >
> >You and your sockpuppets?
> >
> >You fucking fraud.
Stop speaking in non sequiturs, you fucking idiot.
PinkZsaZsa
>In article <19990305104141...@ngol05.aol.com>, PinkZsaZsa
><pinkz...@aol.com> wrote:
>: In article <7blm3g$dq1g$2...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com>, t...@prodigy.net
>(Tom
>: Kerr) writes:
>:
>:>>>Can you disprove Santa Clause?
>:>>
>:>>And, why, precious, would you want to? What personel investment, on your
>:>part,
>:>>makes this such a cause célèbre for you, that you would bother posting and
>:>>debating it in a newsgroup dedicated to it? In an insulting thread? Go
>:>>through your life in whatever condition you choose, but, do, please, grant
>:>the
>:>>same privilege to the rest of us.
>:>>
>:>
>:>alt.astrology is for discussing astrology. According to the charter, it's
>:>also
>:>about discussing a lot more than that.
>:>
>:>Why should an astrology newsgroup not include skeptical posts about
>astrology
>:>
>:>and about its methodology?
>:
>: Sweetie, I'm not questioning your right to post to a public newsgroup, just
>: wondering why? It seems like the apex of hubris to come into a group,
>under an
>: insulting subject header, and demand that group satisfy your standards of
>: "proof". Are you trolling, or just addicted to negative attention?
>
>Don't you just hate it when someone like Tom comes in here and tells the
>truth? Ruins your whole day, doesn't it?
Oh, dahling, please do not imagine that such a thing is even possible. I am
completely sang-froid to the posts of the professional sceptics, but, as a
public service, I would wish they examine their motives. It might even be
transformational.
237astro
>
> In article <19990305104141...@ngol05.aol.com>, pinkz...@aol.com (PinkZsaZsa) wrote:
> >In article <7blm3g$dq1g$2...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com>, t...@prodigy.net (Tom
> >Kerr) writes:
> >
> >>>>Can you disprove Santa Clause?
> >>>
> >>>And, why, precious, would you want to? What personel investment, on your
> >>part,
> >>>makes this such a cause célèbre for you, that you would bother posting and
> >>>debating it in a newsgroup dedicated to it? In an insulting thread? Go
> >>>through your life in whatever condition you choose, but, do, please, grant
> >>the
> >>>same privilege to the rest of us.
> >>>
> >>
> >>alt.astrology is for discussing astrology. According to the charter, it's
> >>also
> >>about discussing a lot more than that.
> >>
> >>Why should an astrology newsgroup not include skeptical posts about astrology
> >>
> >>and about its methodology?
> >
> >Sweetie, I'm not questioning your right to post to a public newsgroup, just
> >wondering why? It seems like the apex of hubris to come into a group, under an
> >insulting subject header, and demand that group satisfy your standards of
> >"proof". Are you trolling, or just addicted to negative attention?
> >
>
>
> Where have I *demanded* proof? I ask for evidence, that's all. So far, no-one
> has given me a jot of evidence in support of astrology that I'd consider at
> all valid.Take a ride over to www.cyberview900.com,read the A.G.D.F newsletter,then check out the pages at this site.If you still say there is no evidence of astrology,then your crazy.
>
> And I post here i) for fun, ii) for other people's entertainment and iii) to
> point out the idiocies of certain astrologers.
>
> What motivates you to read my posts, honeybunch?
Wally Anglesea™
>In article <7bp2vh$rfj$1...@dtbsx.databasix.com>, gbur...@databasix.com writes:
<SNIP>
>>Don't you just hate it when someone like Tom comes in here and tells the
>>truth? Ruins your whole day, doesn't it?
>
>Oh, dahling, please do not imagine that such a thing is even possible. I am
>completely sang-froid to the posts of the professional sceptics, but, as a
>public service, I would wish they examine their motives. It might even be
>transformational.
Well I'm not surprised you are "sangfroid" about the posts of
skeptics, were you not able to ignore reality, you'ld probably have
trouble charging $19.95 for basically nothing, wouldn't you?
Tell me, how do you pay for a 63 room castle in Illinois at $19.95 a
pop?
BTW, get an interior decorator dahling, the furniture is tres gauche.
Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~wanglese/pebble.htm
Fight spam:
http://www.caube.org.au/
"needs sugar...." -Socrates
Tom Kerr
>Take a ride over to www.cyberview900.com,read the A.G.D.F newsletter,then
>check out the pages at this site.If you still say there is no evidence of
>astrology,then your crazy.
Hardly.
All you ever do is post-dict and screw up your attributions.
Tell you what, how about screwing up some airline disaster predictions again?
Do you have any "make money fast" scams to repost, screwball?
Pete
(Cygnus66) wrote:
>How can anyone at this late stage in history still believe in such fairy tales
>as astrology? From the perspective of any one of the 100 billion other stars
>in our galaxy, the constellations visible from Earth don't even exist!
>
>I realize that many people have a deep need to feel connected to the rest
>of the universe by some spiritual force. But, I'm afraid we must now accept
>the fact that modern science has killed the whole idea of spiriuality.
>
>What you see is all you get!
Pete comments: all "modern" science has done is
killed the idea of "modern" science being
scientific. All "modern" science is today is
a tax trough rip off - with the peer review
system making it impossible for any real science
to be published.
I challenge you to prove astrology wrong by doing
horoscopes. By actually going out to prove
astrology wrong by doing what an astrologer does
every day - cast charts and then attempt to
interprent them. this is how one becomes and
astrology and learns about the totally unrealistic
view of our world currently being pedaled by
those who actually use the flat earth fiduciary of
Ptolemy to measure their celestial sphere.
Pete
Pete
(Cygnus66) wrote:
Pete comments: no, you are posting your
foolishness on alt.astrology. No one here sent for
you. so if you want to prove your ignorance by
posting your brainwashed nonsense here on an
astrological use - then explain the source of your
"scientific" knowledge. And of course you can't.
And thje main reason you can't is because the
astrological influences have been proven to exist
within just about every field of research extant.
Especially within medicine. You have heard of
the Beckers THE BODY ELECTRIC? Of course you
have.
Go out and look up at the northern lights and tell
us the solar winds do not affect the earths
magnetic fields - and after you have absored the
reality that the Northern lights are in fact
visual evidence of the earth's electro magnetic
spectrum being in a constant state of flux do
to the celestial bombardments from our solar
system- then prove we are all immune from this
all pervasive influence that directly affects
the human pineal gland.
And of course you will only sputter and blow
smoke, but you will not actually do the work.
Pete
Lucianarchy
>>If an adult believed in Santa Clause, would you think they are still all
>>"there"?
>
>For me it isn't a question of judging others' beliefs, that certainly isn't my
>place, but *your* motivation in doing so.
You must be new here, Pinky. Lou is a humorously challenged stale troll who posts children's
private email onto usenet, thinks all simulacra are forgeries and snapped up the Worst Of the
Web Award for New Years Eve 1998.
Your site though, seems very, Divine.
>Pink Wishes
>Pink Zsa Zsa
>
>http://members.aol.com/pinkzsazsa/page/index.htm
" Y'know, I think I recognise your face,
..........but I've never seen you before."
http://www.angelfire.com/me/lucianarchy/index.html
Lou Minatti™
>
> PinkZsaZsa wrote in message <19990305104142...@ngol05.aol.com>...
> >In article <36DE70...@yahoo.com>, Lou Minatti™ <loumi...@yahoo.com>
>
> >>If an adult believed in Santa Clause, would you think they are still all
> >>"there"?
> >
> >For me it isn't a question of judging others' beliefs, that certainly isn't my
> >place, but *your* motivation in doing so.
>
> You must be new here, Pinky. Lou is a humorously challenged stale troll who posts children's
> private email onto usenet, thinks all simulacra are forgeries and snapped up the Worst Of the
> Web Award for New Years Eve 1998.
I see you've taken a break from forging entries into your guestbook. Why
won't you show us your proof that you were threatened off Usenet?
PinkZsaZsa
<lucia...@dial.pipex.com> writes:
>You must be new here, Pinky.
Oh, dahling, 'tis true, I am the very newest of newbies, a mere babe in arms,
as it were, and so I really don't know the players, yet. One might say that I
am quite green, for one so pink, teehee!
> Lou is a humorously challenged stale troll
I try never to reply to trolls, (it just encourages them), so forewarned is
forearmed. Are there others who are just here for an ego rub, (because in RL
no one will do it for them?).
who
>posts children's
>private email onto usenet, thinks all simulacra are forgeries and snapped up
>the Worst Of the
>Web Award for New Years Eve 1998.
>
>Your site though, seems very, Divine.
OOOoooooooo, merci, precious! It is just my attempt to dabble in spreading the
joy. I did it myself, so it is neither very high tech, nor modern, but,
considering the source, well, teehee, you get my point! I thought if I could
offer others something more meaningful, than the sort of thing you find on the
last page of, like, "Town And Country", (at a very low price), it might open a
few doors for them, to benefit from something *I* have found to be most
beneficial in my own life. I hope they can get past my, um, "unique" spelling,
teehee!
PinkZsaZsa
Kerr) writes:
>Says Pink Zsa Zsa posting in a thread with an insulting subject header....
Oppsie! Should I have changed it? I'm rather new to this.
>Where have I *demanded* proof? I ask for evidence, that's all. So far, no-one
proof (pr¡f) noun
Abbr. prf.
1. The *evidence* or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion
as true.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition
copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from
InfoSoft International, Inc. All rights reserved.
>has given me a jot of evidence in support of astrology that I'd consider at
>all valid.
Does the fact that you have set yourself up as a judge strike you as just the
tiniest bit, um, presumptuous?
>And I post here i) for fun,
^^^^^^^^^^PINKing shear snippage^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
OOOOooooooooo, say no more, dahling, I'm all for a bit of fun! Perhaps if you
peppered your posts with more humour and less vitrol, it might be more apparent
to the casual observer?
Though, to be fair, you have not descended to the ad hominem attacks of some of
your fellows.
PinkZsaZsa
(Wally Anglesea™) writes:
>
>Well I'm not surprised you are "sangfroid" about the posts of
>skeptics, were you not able to ignore reality, you'ld probably have
>trouble charging $19.95 for basically nothing, wouldn't you?
Ooooooooo, someone has been to my website! I'm ~so~ flattered!
>Tell me, how do you pay for a 63 room castle in Illinois at $19.95 a
>pop?
That is exactly the point, precious, I don't need to make a living doing this.
I do it, on a very limited basis, to bring the gift that has given so much to
me, to others. And have a little fun.
>BTW, get an interior decorator dahling, the furniture is tres gauche.
Precious, the day I take advice from someone with *your* manners is distant,
indeed. I'm sorry you don't like my Louis XV Drawing Room, perhaps we travel
in very different circles.
Lou Minatti™
SNIP!
> OOOoooooooo, merci, precious! It is just my attempt to dabble in spreading the
> joy. I did it myself, so it is neither very high tech, nor modern, but,
> considering the source, well, teehee, you get my point! I thought if I could
> offer others something more meaningful, than the sort of thing you find on the
> last page of, like, "Town And Country", (at a very low price), it might open a
> few doors for them, to benefit from something *I* have found to be most
> beneficial in my own life. I hope they can get past my, um, "unique" spelling,
> teehee!
It appears you're just another spammer, only more nauseating that most.
jfred
> In article <36e47378...@news.ozemail.com.au>, wang...@ozemail.com.au
> (Wally Anglesea™) writes:
>
> >
> >Well I'm not surprised you are "sangfroid" about the posts of
> >skeptics, were you not able to ignore reality, you'ld probably have
> >trouble charging $19.95 for basically nothing, wouldn't you?
>
> Ooooooooo, someone has been to my website! I'm ~so~ flattered!
>
> >Tell me, how do you pay for a 63 room castle in Illinois at $19.95 a
> >pop?
>
> That is exactly the point, precious, I don't need to make a living doing this.
> I do it, on a very limited basis, to bring the gift that has given so much to
> me, to others. And have a little fun.
A gift for others. But you charge them 20 bucks for it? Do you charge
people for the birthday gifts you give them too?
How tacky!
Tom Kerr
>In article <7bqdv3$d8f0$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com>, t...@prodigy.net (Tom
>Kerr) writes:
>
>>Says Pink Zsa Zsa posting in a thread with an insulting subject header....
>
>Oppsie! Should I have changed it? I'm rather new to this.
>
Totally up to you, petkins.
>>Where have I *demanded* proof? I ask for evidence, that's all. So far, no-one
>
>proof (pr¡f) noun
>Abbr. prf.
>1. The *evidence* or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion
>as true.
>
>The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition
>copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from
>InfoSoft International, Inc. All rights reserved.
>
Are you really claiming that evidence=proof?, munchkins?
>>has given me a jot of evidence in support of astrology that I'd consider at
>>all valid.
>
>Does the fact that you have set yourself up as a judge strike you as just the
>tiniest bit, um, presumptuous?
>
A classic strawman if ever I saw one!
>>And I post here i) for fun,
>
>^^^^^^^^^^PINKing shear snippage^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>OOOOooooooooo, say no more, dahling, I'm all for a bit of fun! Perhaps if you
>peppered your posts with more humour and less vitrol, it might be more apparent
>to the casual observer?
>
You really are new here, aren't you, sugarpie?
>Though, to be fair, you have not descended to the ad hominem attacks of some of
>your fellows.
>
They're usually called Ed Hominems here, ducky.
Tom (sweetie)
--
P.E.A.T. C.O.M.M.E.N.T.S.
Ken Anglesea
>In article <36e47378...@news.ozemail.com.au>, wang...@ozemail.com.au
>(Wally Anglesea™) writes:
>
>>
>>Well I'm not surprised you are "sangfroid" about the posts of
>>skeptics, were you not able to ignore reality, you'ld probably have
>>trouble charging $19.95 for basically nothing, wouldn't you?
>
>Ooooooooo, someone has been to my website! I'm ~so~ flattered!
>
>>Tell me, how do you pay for a 63 room castle in Illinois at $19.95 a
>>pop?
>
>That is exactly the point, precious, I don't need to make a living doing this.
>I do it, on a very limited basis, to bring the gift that has given so much to
>me, to others. And have a little fun.
>
>>BTW, get an interior decorator dahling, the furniture is tres gauche.
>
>Precious, the day I take advice from someone with *your* manners is distant,
>indeed. I'm sorry you don't like my Louis XV Drawing Room, perhaps we travel
>in very different circles.
But
Dhaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrllllllllllllllllliiiiiiinnnnnnnggggggggg.
He was only offering a bit or interior decorating advice sweetie.
And as for travelling in circles I wonder if you know any good police
officers.
>Pink Wishes
>Pink Zsa Zsa
>
>http://members.aol.com/pinkzsazsa/page/index.htm
...
Dr..Ken Anglesea ROTFLMAO
Astrokenologist
Astrokenologist Consulting S.C. 92-01766-048.
Neumekenologist.1900 Shit or 1800 Bull
Fartworks http://www astrokenolgy consulting.com
This post comes to you care of RoachFlame inc.
Welcome back Roachie.
Official Roach Clipper.
Keera A. Fox
> PinkZsaZsa wrote:
> SNIP!
> > OOOoooooooo, merci, precious! It is just my attempt to dabble in
> > spreading the joy. I did it myself, so it is neither very high tech,
> > nor modern, but, considering the source, well, teehee, you get my point!
> > I thought if I could offer others something more meaningful, than the
> > sort of thing you find on the last page of, like, "Town And Country",
> > (at a very low price), it might open a few doors for them, to benefit
> > from something *I* have found to be most beneficial in my own life. I
> > hope they can get past my, um, "unique" spelling, teehee!
>
> It appears you're just another spammer, only more nauseating that most.
Naw, I kina like her. Especially the pinking shears. Granted I'm not
into interior decorating at all. But PinkZsaZsa does know astrology and
we need some of those around here!
--
****** Keera in Norway ******
** Think big. Shrink to fit. **
** http://home.sol.no/~keera **
RoachClip™
>In article <36e47378...@news.ozemail.com.au>, wang...@ozemail.com.au
>(Wally Anglesea™) writes:
>>BTW, get an interior decorator dahling, the furniture is tres gauche.
>
>Precious, the day I take advice from someone with *your* manners is distant,
>indeed. I'm sorry you don't like my Louis XV Drawing Room, perhaps we travel
>in very different circles.
I stick my nose in the air as well then.
>Pink Wishes
>Pink Zsa Zsa
>
>http://members.aol.com/pinkzsazsa/page/index.htm
1. RoachClip™/ cahooter™ #28; ttl'r #4/Aries Moon,Tarus Rising,Gemini Sun roac...@NOSPAM.databasix.com
2. Studying astrologer; septic cultist (and a woo); psychic; censor; abuser/ User of astrospinology and *kennology
3. This post powered by RoachFlame™ (Merc Sq Pluto+Aries Moon)/ irc.powerchat.net Channel #irrelevant ~To irr is human~
4. PERSONAL ATTACKS WILL BE MET WITH VEHEMENT RESPONSE... So, what's your problem? (Aries Moon kicks ass)
kwantem mekanik
(Pete) wrote:
>Go out and look up at the northern lights and tell
>us the solar winds do not affect the earths
>magnetic fields - and after you have absored the
>reality that the Northern lights are in fact
>visual evidence of the earth's electro magnetic
>spectrum being in a constant state of flux do
>to the celestial bombardments from our solar
>system- then prove we are all immune from this
>all pervasive influence that directly affects
>the human pineal gland.
NOT the celestial bombardments of our solar system, pete, but from our
sun. It is radiation from our sun that alters the earth's magnetic field.
None of the planets produce radiation in sufficient amount, so they cannot
affect our magnetic field by "celestial bombardment"
**********************************************
* The language of truth *
* is unadorned and always simple. *
* - Ammianus Marcellinus *
* http://burtcom.com/kwantem *
Lou Minatti™
>
> In article <36e47378...@news.ozemail.com.au>, wang...@ozemail.com.au
> (Wally Anglesea™) writes:
>
> >
> >skeptics, were you not able to ignore reality, you'ld probably have
> >trouble charging $19.95 for basically nothing, wouldn't you?
>
> Ooooooooo, someone has been to my website! I'm ~so~ flattered!
I also went. Has anyone mentioned that you resemble the late Divine?
Ralph Page
>On 4 Mar 1999 22:13:48 GMT, cygn...@aol.com
>(Cygnus66) wrote:
>
>>You don't seem to understand how science works. It's not for me to
disprove
>>your hypothesis the astrology can predict future events, but for you to
PROVE
>>that astrology works. I could claim that trees are gods and then
>>claim my belief it true because you can't disprove it.
>>
>
>Pete comments: no, you are posting your
>foolishness on alt.astrology. No one here sent for
>you. so if you want to prove your ignorance by
>posting your brainwashed nonsense here on an
>astrological use - then explain the source of your
>"scientific" knowledge. And of course you can't.
>
>And thje main reason you can't is because the
>astrological influences have been proven to exist
>within just about every field of research extant.
>Especially within medicine. You have heard of
>the Beckers THE BODY ELECTRIC? Of course you
>have.
Let's see, this would be the book by Robert Becker that notes in chapter 15
that the density of radio waves around us on earth now is 100 - 200 million
times greater than that of the natural level reaching us from the sun? (this
despite that on a sunny day there is about 1 kW / square meter of EMR
reaching the surface of the earth?) That Robert Becker?
I suggest "I Sing The Body Electric" by Ray Bradbury, it's a better read.
Ralph Page
Pete
kwa...@nospam.burtcom.com (kwantem mekanik)
wrote:
>In article <36e10923...@news.earthlink.net>, pete...@c-zone.net
>(Pete) wrote:
>
>
>>Go out and look up at the northern lights and tell
>>us the solar winds do not affect the earths
>>magnetic fields - and after you have absored the
>>reality that the Northern lights are in fact
>>visual evidence of the earth's electro magnetic
>>spectrum being in a constant state of flux do
>>to the celestial bombardments from our solar
>>system- then prove we are all immune from this
>>all pervasive influence that directly affects
>>the human pineal gland.
>
>NOT the celestial bombardments of our solar system, pete, but from our
>sun. It is radiation from our sun that alters the earth's magnetic field.
>None of the planets produce radiation in sufficient amount, so they cannot
>affect our magnetic field by "celestial bombardment"
>
Pete comments: No, my original statement stands.
Your point is only true if our sun is in fact a
thermonuclear device - and there isn't really
anyone who believes that old astronomical fantasy
anymore. However, it is possible that our Sun is
the primary reamplifier of the "celestial
bombardment." This is really the only model that
fits what takes place up in the sky and the
co incidence of events here on the surface of
our Earth.
Of course one does have to do astrological charts
to be able to see the fallacy of the present day
credentialed communities insistence we are all
psychologically immune from this all pervasive
electro magnetic flux.
As far as your statement none of the planets
produce enough radiation to "bombard" our
earth - wasn't it just a short time ago you were
saying Jupiter was cover with ice - and had no
magnectic field whatsoever. Wasn't it just a
short time ago you were saying there were no line
of ecltro magnectic force within our Galaxy? (and
the same for our Solar system?) And on and on and
on. Soon you may catch up with astrologcial
reality and understand the Velikovsky only
validated what had to be true according to what
astrology proves on a daily basis. You do
remember Velikovsky? You know, the guy who wrote
the book that present day astronomers are quoting
from so freely - without any mention of his name.
Pete
Pete
kwa...@burtcom.com
ma...@earthlink.net (Pete) wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Mar 1999 16:00:33 -0700,
> kwa...@nospam.burtcom.com (kwantem mekanik)
> wrote:
> >NOT the celestial bombardments of our solar system, pete, but from our
> >sun. It is radiation from our sun that alters the earth's magnetic field.
> >None of the planets produce radiation in sufficient amount, so they cannot
> >affect our magnetic field by "celestial bombardment"
> >
>
> Pete comments: No, my original statement stands.
> Your point is only true if our sun is in fact a
> thermonuclear device - and there isn't really
> anyone who believes that old astronomical fantasy
> anymore.
Wrong again, pete. Why do we see the products of fusion coming from the sun if
it is not a fusion device? Why does the amount of energy detected from the sun
match what nuclear theory says should be produced?
And if it is not fusion, how can you explain where all the energy is coming
from while still fitting the observable facts?
And why is it that all astronomers and physicists and college students and
researchers and even grade school kids who have studied science believe that
the sun is powered by fusion? Are all of these the "nobodies" which you say
don't believe in nuclear fusion?
>
> As far as your statement none of the planets
> produce enough radiation to "bombard" our
> earth - wasn't it just a short time ago you were
> saying Jupiter was cover with ice - and had no
> magnectic field whatsoever. Wasn't it just a
> short time ago you were saying there were no line
> of ecltro magnectic force within our Galaxy? (and
> the same for our Solar system?)
Huh? Get your facts straight before you spout such nonsense -- I never said
such. As far back as I remember, Jupiter has been talked about as a gas
giant, with no ice cover. And there are lines of magnetic force within our
galaxy. But the lines of force coming from your TV are far stronger than
what's coming from jupiter, so why don't you figure in electronic appliances
in your astrology?
Think, pete, think!
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Lucianarchy
>In article <7br2jk$32k$1...@plug.news.pipex.net>, "Lucianarchy"
><lucia...@dial.pipex.com> writes:
>
>>You must be new here, Pinky.
>
>Oh, dahling, 'tis true, I am the very newest of newbies, a mere babe in arms,
>as it were, and so I really don't know the players, yet. One might say that I
>am quite green, for one so pink, teehee!
>
>> Lou is a humorously challenged stale troll
>
>I try never to reply to trolls, (it just encourages them), so forewarned is
>forearmed.
Excellent advice, Pinky.
>Are there others who are just here for an ego rub, (because in RL
>no one will do it for them?).
Yes, will find an article I wrote for Third Eye about these newsgroups buried somewhere at:
http://home.sprynet.com/~twinsouls/thirdeye.htm
>Pink Wishes
>Pink Zsa Zsa
>
>http://members.aol.com/pinkzsazsa/page/index.htm
" Y'know, I think I recognise your face,
Bart Lidofsky
>Where have I *demanded* proof? I ask for evidence, that's all. So far, no-one
>all valid.
I am not about to give you one now, but here's something that
might help a little. Most skeptics base their opinions on a single theory
of astrology, when, in fact, there are two major theories. The first is
the causative theory. In this, the positions of the stars, planets, etc.
create a physical influence on our own behavior, and control events. This
theory has a long way to go before it can be proven, and there is quite a
bit of evidence against it that has to be answered.
The other theory, which, while not proven, has nowhere nearly as
much evidence against it, is the correlative theory. In this theory, there
is a basic interconnectivity (or even unity) to the Universe. There are
basic causative "forces" (using the English rather than physics term; I am
not sure there IS a scientific term that is not overly limiting) that
influence our lives, and everything else in the Universe. Astrology can be
considered like throwing a stick in to a river before putting a raft in,
and observing the movements of the stick to see how the raft will move in
the river. Some of the proponents of this theory in the 19th century (and
even they stated that the correct interpretations had yet to be found)
also stated things that scientists considered ridiculous at the time, such
as the divisibility of the atom, the big-bang/steady state theory of the
universe, and that matter and energy were to facets of the same thing.
While this is no proof, it is a good indicator that there is something
worth looking into.
>And I post here i) for fun, ii) for other people's entertainment and iii) to
>point out the idiocies of certain astrologers.
So you are entertained by putting down others?
--
Bart Lidofsky
Systems Administrator
New York Theosophical Society
ny...@dorsai.org (official)
ba...@sprynet.com (personal)
PinkZsaZsa
<lucia...@dial.pipex.com> writes:
>>Are there others who are just here for an ego rub, (because in RL
>>no one will do it for them?).
>
>Yes, will find an article I wrote for Third Eye about these newsgroups buried
>somewhere at:
>http://home.sprynet.com/~twinsouls/thirdeye.htm
Dahling, I went there but couldn't find it, (so many interesting things to
click on, however), do you remember the month or title? Merci!
PinkZsaZsa
keer...@usa.net (Keera A. Fox) writes:
>Naw, I kina like her. Especially the pinking shears. Granted I'm not
>into interior decorating at all. But PinkZsaZsa does know astrology and
>we need some of those around here!
Merci, dahling! It will take me a while to sort out the white hats from the
black, but once I have a better grip on who are the trolls, I'll be doing the
AOL version of killfilling, and be up for all sorts of fabulous chit-chat on
trines, cusps, and if people with a Gemini asc can *really* avoid a life behind
bars, teehee!
Lucianarchy
>In article <7c04r2$n1d$1...@plug.news.pipex.net>, "Lucianarchy"
><lucia...@dial.pipex.com> writes:
>
>>>Are there others who are just here for an ego rub, (because in RL
>>>no one will do it for them?).
>>
>>Yes, will find an article I wrote for Third Eye about these newsgroups buried
>>somewhere at:
>>http://home.sprynet.com/~twinsouls/thirdeye.htm
>
>Dahling, I went there but couldn't find it, (so many interesting things to
>click on, however), do you remember the month or title? Merci!
"The Lowdown on alt.paranormal", last issue, I think.......
Lucianarchy
>In article <1do9g03.zqg...@ti21a25-0026.dialup.online.no>,
>keer...@usa.net (Keera A. Fox) writes:
>
>>Naw, I kina like her. Especially the pinking shears. Granted I'm not
>>into interior decorating at all. But PinkZsaZsa does know astrology and
>>we need some of those around here!
>
>Merci, dahling! It will take me a while to sort out the white hats from the
>black, but once I have a better grip on who are the trolls, I'll be doing the
>AOL version of killfilling, and be up for all sorts of fabulous chit-chat on
>trines, cusps, and if people with a Gemini asc can *really* avoid a life behind
>bars, teehee!
I'd be interested to see your Troll list, Pinkie.
Wake me up when you've found it......
Luci.
" Y'know, I think I recognise your face,
..........but I've never seen you before."
http://www.angelfire.com/me/lucianarchy/index.html
>
>
Lou MinattiЩйо
>
> In article <1do9g03.zqg...@ti21a25-0026.dialup.online.no>,
> keer...@usa.net (Keera A. Fox) writes:
>
> >Naw, I kina like her. Especially the pinking shears. Granted I'm not
> >into interior decorating at all. But PinkZsaZsa does know astrology and
> >we need some of those around here!
>
> Merci, dahling! It will take me a while to sort out the white hats from the
> black, but once I have a better grip on who are the trolls, I'll be doing the
> AOL version of killfilling, and be up for all sorts of fabulous chit-chat on
> trines, cusps, and if people with a Gemini asc can *really* avoid a life behind
> bars, teehee!
For someone who's never posted to Usenet until a little over a week ago,
you sure are familiar with Usenet terminology.
--
We're watching you at SpOOk CentralЩйо.
Keera A. Fox
> In article <1do9g03.zqg...@ti21a25-0026.dialup.online.no>,
> keer...@usa.net (Keera A. Fox) writes:
>
> >Naw, I kina like her. Especially the pinking shears. Granted I'm not
> >into interior decorating at all. But PinkZsaZsa does know astrology and
> >we need some of those around here!
>
> Merci, dahling! It will take me a while to sort out the white hats from
> the black, but once I have a better grip on who are the trolls, I'll be
> doing the AOL version of killfilling, and be up for all sorts of fabulous
> chit-chat on trines, cusps, and if people with a Gemini asc can *really*
> avoid a life behind bars, teehee!
>
My girlfriend with 00 Gemini rising has managed to stay out of the
clutches of the local police, but considering how cute Norwegian cops
are, I wish she'd try. Then maybe I'd meet someone interesting, too. Oh,
dear, that must by my 7th house Mars talking. Me wanting a man in a
uniform. ;-)
> Pink Wishes
> Pink Zsa Zsa
>
> http://members.aol.com/pinkzsazsa/page/index.htm
--
Bob Officer
(PinkZsaZsa) wrote:
>In article <7bqdv3$d8f0$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com>, t...@prodigy.net (Tom
>Kerr) writes:
>
>>Says Pink Zsa Zsa posting in a thread with an insulting subject header....
>
>Oppsie! Should I have changed it? I'm rather new to this.
>
>>Where have I *demanded* proof? I ask for evidence, that's all. So far, no-one
>
>proof (pr¡f) noun
>Abbr. prf.
>1. The *evidence* or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion
>as true.
>
>The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition
>copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from
>InfoSoft International, Inc. All rights reserved.
>
>>has given me a jot of evidence in support of astrology that I'd consider at
>>all valid.
>
>Does the fact that you have set yourself up as a judge strike you as just the
>tiniest bit, um, presumptuous?
I don't think he has set himself judge. I think he has joined a jury.
He has learned to ask and understand specific answers. I have studied
astrology for over 30 years and I don't think the evidence is in to
say astrology works. The best case for astrology is still only a small
fraction over random guessing.
>>And I post here i) for fun,
>
>Though, to be fair, you have not descended to the ad hominem attacks of some of
>your fellows.
I find Tom's post not attacking at all and for the most part, very
funny.
astudentonthejurystillsaysthere evidenceisn'tthere.
Bob Officer
Warning! Reproduction without the writen permission in or on any other media than USENET NEWS GROUPS is
prohibited. All claims for copyright according to the BERN and UCC
Agreements are held by the writers. Quotes are allowed subject to Fair Use Rules of the above agreements.
Bob Officer
kwa...@nospam.burtcom.com (kwantem mekanik) wrote:
>In article <36e10923...@news.earthlink.net>, pete...@c-zone.net
>(Pete) wrote:
>
>
>>Go out and look up at the northern lights and tell
>>us the solar winds do not affect the earths
>>magnetic fields - and after you have absored the
>>reality that the Northern lights are in fact
>>visual evidence of the earth's electro magnetic
>>spectrum being in a constant state of flux do
>>to the celestial bombardments from our solar
>>system- then prove we are all immune from this
>>all pervasive influence that directly affects
>>the human pineal gland.
>
>NOT the celestial bombardments of our solar system, pete, but from our
>sun. It is radiation from our sun that alters the earth's magnetic field.
>None of the planets produce radiation in sufficient amount, so they cannot
>affect our magnetic field by "celestial bombardment"
Becareful you are playing with Pooper Pete, and his StarSpangled
astrology that works every time for 250 dollars and hours.
Pete is ignorant fool that resents science and thinks the sun isn't a
object creating energy via fusion.
PinkZsaZsa
<lucia...@dial.pipex.com> writes:
>>Merci, dahling! It will take me a while to sort out the white hats from the
>>black, but once I have a better grip on who are the trolls, I'll be doing
>the
>>AOL version of killfilling, and be up for all sorts of fabulous chit-chat on
>>trines, cusps, and if people with a Gemini asc can *really* avoid a life
>behind
>>bars, teehee!
>
>I'd be interested to see your Troll list, Pinkie.
>
>Wake me up when you've found it......
>
>Luci.
Dahling, I've just found the moderated version of this group, and it seems to
be particularly free of, well, you know. Is there some reason why those who
are interested in astrology have not abandoned this for that?
While I am new to *this* group, I am very familiar with newsgroups. Since AA
allows cross-posting and has an amazing ratio of trolls, is it that you don't
mind them? I think that's fine, (I think there are groups particularly
dedicated to the variety of tendention that these individuals provide), but, do
let me know if this is an anomaly or the status quo. Do you have a FAQ? Can
you direct me to it?
Lucianarchy
>In article <7c1h4i$47e$1...@plug.news.pipex.net>, "Lucianarchy"
><lucia...@dial.pipex.com> writes:
>
>>>Merci, dahling! It will take me a while to sort out the white hats from the
>>>black, but once I have a better grip on who are the trolls, I'll be doing
>>the
>>>AOL version of killfilling, and be up for all sorts of fabulous chit-chat on
>>>trines, cusps, and if people with a Gemini asc can *really* avoid a life
>>behind
>>>bars, teehee!
>>
>>I'd be interested to see your Troll list, Pinkie.
>>
>>Wake me up when you've found it......
>>
>>Luci.
>
>Dahling, I've just found the moderated version of this group, and it seems to
>be particularly free of, well, you know. Is there some reason why those who
>are interested in astrology have not abandoned this for that?
Yes. Although moderated groups are flame free, they do not allow non-proponent views. Now,
this is fair enough for those who want that kind of restriction, but it does inhibit the
dynamic of philosophical movement.
And so, the option left is alt.astrology ( and alt.paranormal ) for the discussion of things
divine.
>While I am new to *this* group, I am very familiar with newsgroups. Since AA
>allows cross-posting and has an amazing ratio of trolls, is it that you don't
>mind them?
All usenet post are trolls, Pinky. It depends on how the reader perceives, reacts and
responds to what they see.
>I think that's fine, (I think there are groups particularly
>dedicated to the variety of tendention that these individuals provide), but, do
>let me know if this is an anomaly or the status quo.
There are certainly many here who display the metaphysical version of homophobia towards that
which they cannot perceive. As with homophobes, they are here merely to learn. These people,
you could call trolls, but their absence of wit leaves them in the vulnerable though
hilariously ironic position of being unconscious subjects themselves.
>Do you have a FAQ? Can you direct me to it?
My best advice is for you to read the article I wrote for Third Eye called 'The Lowdown on
alt.paranormal'. a.p. and a.a are quite similar in patronage. There are no 'rules', just use
your AUP as a guideline to what you can post.
If you object to being called a motherfucking-shit-eating-pervert, I suggest the more sedate
moderated groups will be to your liking. If not, why, come on in and join us..... the water's
*lovely*.
Luci.
" Y'know, I think I recognise your face,
..........but I've never seen you before."
http://www.angelfire.com/me/lucianarchy/index.html
>Pink Wishes
Lou MinattiЩйо
>
> In article <7c1h4i$47e$1...@plug.news.pipex.net>, "Lucianarchy"
> <lucia...@dial.pipex.com> writes:
>
> >>Merci, dahling! It will take me a while to sort out the white hats from the
> >>black, but once I have a better grip on who are the trolls, I'll be doing
> >the
> >>AOL version of killfilling, and be up for all sorts of fabulous chit-chat on
> >>trines, cusps, and if people with a Gemini asc can *really* avoid a life
> >behind
> >>bars, teehee!
> >
> >I'd be interested to see your Troll list, Pinkie.
> >
> >Wake me up when you've found it......
> >
> >Luci.
>
> Dahling, I've just found the moderated version of this group, and it seems to
> be particularly free of, well, you know. Is there some reason why those who
> are interested in astrology have not abandoned this for that?
>
> allows cross-posting and has an amazing ratio of trolls, is it that you don't
> dedicated to the variety of tendention that these individuals provide), but, do
> you direct me to it?
>
Here are some other Pink Zsa Zsa resources:
http://www.queenofcold.com/ <------Yikes! "Divine" springs to mind.
http://members.aol.com/princesspk/AA.html
http://www.geocities.com/Broadway/3060/home.html
Your secret past as one of Usenet's more infamous trolls has been
revealed to me. But I promised not to reveal these secrets. I do want to
congratulate you because you have a trait not found with trolls such as
Lucianarchy: You are original. Good job!
Lou MinattiЩйо
>
> In article <36E5BA...@yahoo.com>, Lou MinattiЩйо <loumi...@yahoo.com>
> writes:
>
> >Here are some other Pink Zsa Zsa resources:
> >
> >http://www.queenofcold.com/ <------Yikes! "Divine" springs to mind.
> >http://members.aol.com/princesspk/AA.html
> >http://www.geocities.com/Broadway/3060/home.html
>
>
> Oh, Goddess, dahling you've missed some of the better ones!
> http://members.aol.com/PRINCESSPK/B.html
> http://members.aol.com/PRINCESSPK/C.html
> http://members.aol.com/FACEMAKERS/F.html
>
> BTW, precious, I'm *far* older than Divine, so I shall have the grace to take
> that as a compliment!
Oh my gawd. Divine LIVES! No, I'm not trying to be mean. I mean that in
a GOOD way. Movies just haven't been the same without Hollywood's (and
Baltimore's!) most famous 300-pound transvestite. John Waters has been
in a rut since Divine moved to that great trailer park in the sky. You,
PinkZsaZsa, could be just the person Waters needs for his next movie!
I grok your publicity plans, but an astrology newsgroup (or the others
you've posted to) probably aren't the best places to get noticed by a
movie director. Get yourself an agent, get some stills, and get out to
Hollywood. I'm serious!
PinkZsaZsa
>Here are some other Pink Zsa Zsa resources:
>
>http://www.queenofcold.com/ <------Yikes! "Divine" springs to mind.
>http://members.aol.com/princesspk/AA.html
>http://www.geocities.com/Broadway/3060/home.html
^^^^^^^^^^PINKing shear snippage^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Oh, Goddess, dahling you've missed some of the better ones!
http://members.aol.com/PRINCESSPK/B.html
http://members.aol.com/PRINCESSPK/C.html
http://members.aol.com/FACEMAKERS/F.html
BTW, precious, I'm *far* older than Divine, so I shall have the grace to take
that as a compliment!
Lucianarchy
>PinkZsaZsa wrote:
>>
>> In article <7c1h4i$47e$1...@plug.news.pipex.net>, "Lucianarchy"
>> <lucia...@dial.pipex.com> writes:
>>
>> >>Merci, dahling! It will take me a while to sort out the white hats from the
>> >>black, but once I have a better grip on who are the trolls, I'll be doing
>> >the
>> >>AOL version of killfilling, and be up for all sorts of fabulous chit-chat on
>> >>trines, cusps, and if people with a Gemini asc can *really* avoid a life
>> >behind
>> >>bars, teehee!
>> >
>> >I'd be interested to see your Troll list, Pinkie.
>> >
>> >Wake me up when you've found it......
>> >
>> >Luci.
>>
>> Dahling, I've just found the moderated version of this group, and it seems to
>> be particularly free of, well, you know. Is there some reason why those who
>> are interested in astrology have not abandoned this for that?
>>
>> While I am new to *this* group, I am very familiar with newsgroups. Since AA
>> allows cross-posting and has an amazing ratio of trolls, is it that you don't
>> mind them? I think that's fine, (I think there are groups particularly
>> dedicated to the variety of tendention that these individuals provide), but, do
>> let me know if this is an anomaly or the status quo. Do you have a FAQ? Can
>> you direct me to it?
>>
>
>http://www.queenofcold.com/ <------Yikes! "Divine" springs to mind.
>http://members.aol.com/princesspk/AA.html
>http://www.geocities.com/Broadway/3060/home.html
>
>revealed to me. But I promised not to reveal these secrets. I do want to
>congratulate you because you have a trait not found with trolls such as
>Lucianarchy: You are original. Good job!
Oh, so I'm a troll now am I? So far, I've been labelled a drug dealer, baby killer,
prostitute, bitch, cunt and whore.
If I'm a troll, I'm a damn good one. How many trolls get their articles into print?
How many trolls earn a living from what they do?
Still stinging after that WOW award eh?..... never mind Clueless Lou, move on.
anonym™
Actually, you;ve been a roll ever since you came onto Usenet.
>So far, I've been labelled a drug dealer, baby killer,
> prostitute, bitch, cunt and whore.
>
> If I'm a troll, I'm a damn good one.
Actually, not.
A lo of your posts go by unresponded to, because you are such a LAME trol.
> How many trolls get their articles into print?
Printed PAPER? Or electronically, on the Net?
If the lattter, ALL of them.
>
> How many trolls earn a living from what they do?
Most of them. Trolling's usually a hobby.
>
> Still stinging after that WOW award eh?.
Actually, as many times as you try to troll that as a stinging thing,
Lou's pretty proud of it.
Same way I am proud of my horribly difficult to read background/text
color combo on my website.
Same way you should be proud of YOUR website!
anonyml
anonym™ wrote in message <36E63EA6...@pacbell.net>...
>
>>Lucianarchy wrote:
>>
>> Lou Minatti™©® wrote in message <36E5BA...@yahoo.com>...
I see, so why are you bothering to even respond?
I can almost hear the sound of a half empty bottle being thrown against the wall.
Lucianarchy
>> Still stinging after that WOW award eh?.
>
>Actually, as many times as you try to troll that as a stinging thing,
>Lou's pretty proud of it.
>
>Same way I am proud of my horribly difficult to read background/text
>color combo on my website.
>
>Same way you should be proud of YOUR website!
Do you mean *this* one, http://www.angelfire.com/me/lucianarchy/index.html ?
Lucianarchy
Lou MinattiЩйо
>Oh, so I'm a troll now am I? So far, I've been labelled a drug dealer, baby killer,
>prostitute, bitch, cunt and whore.
I don't know if you are. I've never gotten into your flame wars with
others and don't plan to. But you are certainly a pathetic,
unentertaining troll who is ignored more often than not.
Pink Zsa Zsa's prior Usenet history shows she can be entertaining, plus
her sites are pretty dang funny. She also doesn't resort to phony
guestbook entries in a pathetic attempt to prove her worth, forge names,
or make up phony excuses to flee Usenet while getting her ass kicked.
>If I'm a troll, I'm a damn good one. How many trolls get their articles into print?
Certainly not you.
>How many trolls earn a living from what they do?
Certainly not you.
>Still stinging after that WOW award eh?..... never mind Clueless Lou, move on.
You are too stupid to grasp what's going on, so there's no point in
going through this again.
anonym™
Lucianarchy wrote:
>
> anonym™ wrote in message <36E63EA6...@pacbell.net>...
> >
> >Lucianarchy wrote:
>
> >> Still stinging after that WOW award eh?.
> >
> >Actually, as many times as you try to troll that as a stinging thing,
> >Lou's pretty proud of it.
> >
> >Same way I am proud of my horribly difficult to read background/text
> >color combo on my website.
> >
> >Same way you should be proud of YOUR website!
>
> Do you mean *this* one,...
http://www.angelfire.com/me2/lucianarchy/
Yes.
anonym™
Lucianarchy
>Lucianarchy <lucia...@dial.pipex.com> spooged:
>
>>Oh, so I'm a troll now am I? So far, I've been labelled a drug dealer, baby killer,
>>prostitute, bitch, cunt and whore.
>
>I don't know if you are. I've never gotten into your flame wars with
>others and don't plan to.
No. You will join the other pack mentality kooks and lambaste Wollman for the obvious target
he is.
>But you are certainly a pathetic,
>unentertaining troll who is ignored more often than not.
Lou, wake up. You, Bob Officer and Anonym slavishly respond to just about *everything* I
post.
When the going gets tough and he makes a fool out of himself, Bob uses a killfile.
The other two kooks, Sidaway and PZ have wised up to this.
I suggest you do the same.
>Pink Zsa Zsa's prior Usenet history shows she can be entertaining, plus
>her sites are pretty dang funny. She also doesn't resort to phony
>guestbook entries in a pathetic attempt to prove her worth,
Paranoid chap aren't you.
> forge names,
How, 'Lou Minatti', does one "forge" a name on the shit-house wall that is Usenet?
>or make up phony excuses to flee Usenet while getting her ass kicked.
Oh, you mean when anonym was posting all that "Luci is a baby murderer" stuff.
The trouble is, that sort of *real* kook behaviour by anonym attracts piranhas.
I took a break whilst the correct authorities dealt with the email harassment. Is that a
problem for you?
>>Still stinging after that WOW award eh?..... never mind Clueless Lou, move on.
>
>You are too stupid to grasp what's going on, so there's no point in
>going through this again.
What nonsense. You *always* respond to the fact you are recorded for posterity as a
humourless geek.
You won the Worst Of the Web award on New Years Eve fair and square for your cringing attempt
at irony. The thing is, the award givers thought your page on dog shit was simply shit; no
irony, no parody, just shit. The irony *is*, however, you have spent countless hours
obsessively trolling the likes of Kettler for their 'Tits' gif nonsense and the NYT review.
I find that irony quite charming.
Now, can you resist your temptation to post back another hissy little rant?
Or are you going to continue pushing your face into these custard pies I keep holding up for
you........
anonym™
Lucianarchy wrote:
>
> Lou MinattiЩйо wrote in message <36E662...@yahoo.com>...
> >Lucianarchy <lucia...@dial.pipex.com> spooged:
> >
> >>Oh, so I'm a troll now am I? So far, I've been labelled a drug dealer, baby killer,
> >>prostitute, bitch, cunt and whore.
> >
> >I don't know if you are. I've never gotten into your flame wars with
> >others and don't plan to.
>
> No. You will join the other pack mentality kooks and lambaste Wollman for the obvious target
> he is.
Says Luci, trolling with all s/h/it's might.
>
> >But you are certainly a pathetic,
> >unentertaining troll who is ignored more often than not.
>
> Lou, wake up. You, Bob Officer and Anonym slavishly respond to just about *everything* I
> post.
Actually, not.
There are many of your stupid posts we let go by without comment.
But not this one. When you lie like that, it's important to correct your lies.
> When the going gets tough and he makes a fool out of himself, Bob uses a killfile.
> The other two kooks, Sidaway and PZ have wised up to this.
> I suggest you do the same.
I suggest you decide whether you're a man, or a woman, and take
responsibility for the child you murdered.
>
> >Pink Zsa Zsa's prior Usenet history shows she can be entertaining, plus
> >her sites are pretty dang funny. She also doesn't resort to phony
> >guestbook entries in a pathetic attempt to prove her worth,
>
> Paranoid chap aren't you.
It isn't paranoid to point out that you're a forger.
>
> > forge names,
>
> How, 'Lou Minatti', does one "forge" a name on the shit-house wall that is Usenet?
By using fa alse name which gives people the false impression you are
someone else, you shit-sucker.
>
> >or make up phony excuses to flee Usenet while getting her ass kicked.
>
> Oh, you mean when anonym was posting all that "Luci is a baby murderer" stuff.
You ran away because I showed what a liar and troll you were. You never
lost a child, you fuckhead.
> The trouble is, that sort of *real* kook behaviour by anonym attracts piranhas.
Nothing kooky about it. It showed everyone that they can't trust
anything you say. For instance, you've alternatively said you were two
distinctly different people, but you also said you were both.
One's a male, one's female.
Why should we listen to anything you say with any trust?
> I took a break whilst the correct authorities dealt with the email harassment. Is that a
> problem for you?
Yes. Its a line of bullshit you've spewed for which you've given no
direct evidence.
You might as well claim you were out slaying purple dragons.
>
> >>Still stinging after that WOW award eh?..... never mind Clueless Lou, move on.
> >
> >You are too stupid to grasp what's going on, so there's no point in
> >going through this again.
>
> What nonsense. You *always* respond to the fact you are recorded for posterity as a
> humourless geek.
Actually, Lou is quite funny!
A HELL of a lot funnier that you, ya shit-eating whore!
Lou MinattiЩйо
<SNIP>
Here's the condensed version:
Lucianarchy is a mediocre troll who forges messages and posts phony
guestbook entries.
Lucianarchy is jealous because my site is many times more popular than
hers.
Lucianarchy is angry because no one believes she earns her money with
her writing skills.
--
We're watching you at SpOOk Central™©®.
Lucianarchy
>
>
>Lucianarchy wrote:
>>
>> Lou Minatti™©® wrote in message <36E662...@yahoo.com>...
>> >Lucianarchy <lucia...@dial.pipex.com> spooged:
>> >
>> >>Oh, so I'm a troll now am I? So far, I've been labelled a drug dealer, baby killer,
>> >>prostitute, bitch, cunt and whore.
>> >
>> >I don't know if you are. I've never gotten into your flame wars with
>> >others and don't plan to.
>>
>> No. You will join the other pack mentality kooks and lambaste Wollman for the obvious
target
>> he is.
>
>Says Luci, trolling with all s/h/it's might.
>>
>> >But you are certainly a pathetic,
>> >unentertaining troll who is ignored more often than not.
>>
>> Lou, wake up. You, Bob Officer and Anonym slavishly respond to just about *everything* I
>> post.
>
>Actually, not.
Hmmm, interesting point of view.
Lucianarchy
>Lucianarchy wrote
>>Lou Minatti™©® wrote
>>>
>>>>Oh, so I'm a troll now am I? So far, I've been labelled a drug dealer, baby killer,
>>>>prostitute, bitch, cunt and whore.
>>>
>>>I don't know if you are. I've never gotten into your flame wars with
>>>others and don't plan to.
>>
>>No. You will join the other pack mentality kooks and lambaste Wollman for the obvious
target
>>he is.
>>
>>>unentertaining troll who is ignored more often than not.
>>
>>Lou, wake up. You, Bob Officer and Anonym slavishly respond to just about *everything* I
>>post.
>>The other two kooks, Sidaway and PZ have wised up to this.
>>I suggest you do the same.
>>
>>>her sites are pretty dang funny. She also doesn't resort to phony
>>>guestbook entries in a pathetic attempt to prove her worth,
>>
>>Paranoid chap aren't you.
>
>
>>How, 'Lou Minatti', does one "forge" a name on the shit-house wall that is Usenet?
>>
>>
>>Oh, you mean when anonym was posting all that "Luci is a baby murderer" stuff.
>>problem for you?
>>
>>>
>>>You are too stupid to grasp what's going on, so there's no point in
>>>going through this again.
>>
>>What nonsense. You *always* respond to the fact you are recorded for posterity as a
>>humourless geek.
attempt
>>at irony. The thing is, the award givers thought your page on dog shit was simply shit; no
>>irony, no parody, just shit. The irony *is*, however, you have spent countless hours
>>obsessively trolling the likes of Kettler for their 'Tits' gif nonsense and the NYT review.
>>
>>I find that irony quite charming.
>>
>>Now, can you resist your temptation to post back another hissy little rant?
>>
>>Or are you going to continue pushing your face into these custard pies I keep holding up
for
>>you........
>
>guestbook entries.
>Lucianarchy is jealous because my site is many times more popular than
>hers.
>Lucianarchy is angry because no one believes she earns her money with
>her writing skills.
When I say "Jump", I want you to say "How high?".
Now, can you resist your temptation to post back another hissy little rant?
Or are you going to continue pushing your face into these custard pies I keep holding up for
you........
Luci.
Lou MinattiЩйо
SNIP!
Here are the facts:
Lucianarchy is a mediocre troll who forges messages and posts phony
guestbook entries.
Lucianarchy is jealous because my site is many times more popular than
hers.
Lucianarchy is angry because no one believes she earns her money with
her writing skills.
You are obviously a masochist because no one appears to disagree with my
diagnosis of you. If you wish to continue flogging yourself, feel free.
--
We're watching you at SpOOk CentralЩйо.
Lucianarchy
>Lucianarchy wrote
>>Lou Minatti™©® wrote
>>>Lucianarchy wrote
>>>>Lou Minatti™©® wrote
>>>>>Lucianarchy <lucia...@dial.pipex.com> spooged:
>>>>Lou, wake up. You, Bob Officer and Anonym slavishly respond to just about *everything* I
>>>Lucianarchy is a mediocre troll who forges messages and posts phony
>>>guestbook entries.
>>>Lucianarchy is jealous because my site is many times more popular than
>>>hers.
>>>Lucianarchy is angry because no one believes she earns her money with
>>>her writing skills.
>>
>>When I say "Jump", I want you to say "How high?".
>>
>>Now, can you resist your temptation to post back another hissy little rant?
>>
>>Or are you going to continue pushing your face into these custard pies I keep holding up
for
>>you........
>
>Here are the facts:
>Lucianarchy is a mediocre troll who forges messages and posts phony
>guestbook entries.
>Lucianarchy is jealous because my site is many times more popular than
>hers.
>Lucianarchy is angry because no one believes she earns her money with
>her writing skills.
</spamspell>
Not a bad height.
Now be a kook.
anonym™
Lucianarchy wrote:
> Lou Minatti™©® wrote
>>Lucianarchy wrote
>>>Lou Minatti™©® wrote
>>>>Lucianarchy wrote
>>>>>Lou Minatti™©® wrote
>>>>>>Lucianarchy <lucia...@dial.pipex.com> spooged:
Wrong, cunt.
Now you're forging a post to make it look like he quoted a bunch of your
shit in a post, when he didn't.
He snipped out all your bullshit, as I am doing now, and simply wrote:
> >
> >Here are the facts:
> >Lucianarchy is a mediocre troll who forges messages and posts phony
> >guestbook entries.
> >Lucianarchy is jealous because my site is many times more popular than
> >hers.
> >Lucianarchy is angry because no one believes she earns her money with
> >her writing skills.
Why do you forge, Luci?
GashHound
thpewed thith:
>In article <7c8t75$k3l$1...@plug.news.pipex.net>,The Bitch, Cunt, Whore,
>Spammer, Pot seller, Forger Virus on a Website poster and Baby Killer
>Lucianarchy <lucia...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>Nothing of value.
I can't really criticize her for selling pot. Where would we
be without dealers?
Sober, that's where.
Sober sucks.
--
-GashHound, formerly Zenii, sometimes Chaotica, formerly Drakkus.
ze...@bigfoot.com
Cult of Chaos!
--
Bob Officer
=?iso-8859-1?Q?anonym=99?= <ano...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>Lucianarchy wrote:
>>
>> Lou, wake up. You, Bob Officer and Anonym slavishly respond to just about *everything* I
>> post.
>
>Actually, not.
Actually I have her killfiled. I only see what she spews when people
post replies.