(Caution Extremely Graphic Sexual Content) Jack Trawick Writes a Letter to an 8 Year Old Murder Victim
Neil
What follows is an extremely graphic description of the rape of a young girl
written by serial killer Jack Trawick. The letter is written to the girl as if
she were alive today, but Trawick murdered her in 1991.
06/19/mm2
My Dearest Mini-Mommy,
I owe you an apology. Ever since 1991 I had thought as I spread your little
chubby butt, surprisingly shapely legs and penetrated your bald, sweet,
fat-lipped pussy and you kept looking towards your nude, tied up mother - I
always thought you were begging her to help you. Now that I have read your
latest letter to me I suddenly realize you wanted her to join us - not
physically defend you. I am so sorry for the mistake. I hope you can forgive
me. Just between me and you; you made the better lover. After you stopped
playing our wonderful sex game - I did eventually rape your sloppy cock maw
twice and sodomize her once - but still; the thrill of the while event was you.
Do you remember when I drug the head of my excited dick just along the outside
of your hairless pussy lips - just pretending to penetrate the childish
baby-fat of your inner thighs, barely caressing my balls was so delicious.
Each night since our date - I see your face in my mind's eye. The super
surprised look on your round, pouty lipped face as I penetrated you so deeply,
I could actually see an impression of my hard dick on your blemish free white
tummy. Your sloppy cock mother was like trying to fuck a storm sewer or some
cow elephant. But you - you were tight and firm, well lubricated, smooth and
your clit was like a young green twig - still, bendable but totally
unbreakable. It was almost a shame to end up hacking it off. Oh
well - shit happens. Your old cum cunt mother's clit was limp and hairy.
Hell, you could have hung a for real cow bell off of it. I do not believe that
I am exaggerating when I say a regulation NFL football could be pushed inside
her sloppy, cum dripping cunt with no pressure at all. The woman didn't have a
pussy. She had a portable garage.
Anyway, my Dearest Mini-Mommy, I do apologize for not allowing your mother to
join us. She most likely licked your bald, sweet pussy quite often. Oh well -
I drowned your cum cock mommy. You should have watched her face as she was
drowned and strangled. As she fought to stay alive she kicked water all over
the bathroom. She was so messy. Eventually she took the easy way out. With
her eyes and mouth wide open she went into her death spasms. I guess she just
figured that you and me would clean up her mess.
It's been eleven years since we shared a USR. You were 8 years old the last
time I felt the soft skin of your inner thighs. You're what? Twenty now - I
bet you are one fine dick sucking, pussy licking, butt fucking, sloppy cock,
supple titted, big nippled, cum drunk, gutter hugging street slut - Oh wait a
minute - You're dead. You died - You died as I used my thumbs to stuff your
panties down your throat. I did strangle you - just a little and place your
adolescent but sensual body face down on top of your sloppy cock mommy in the
bathtub. I was within a heartbeat of sodomizing your naked, graveyard dead
body but I wanted my physical trophies and down come all too soon.
Rot in hell - Mini-Mommy,
The man that
raped and killed
you and your
sloppy cock bitch
slut mother
J
P.S. Write as often as possible.
DedNdogYrs
mouthed disrespect for his victims.
Dogs & children first.
mothra...@hotmail.com
Don't read it. Look at the subject headers, and don't read it. It's
real hard to take, but I think it's important, and I'm glad we're given
the choice to read it or not.
Martha
shar...@mindspring.com
<mothra...@hotmail.com>
neiloc...@aol.com posted child porn/rape: "My Dearest Mini-Mommy,
I owe you an apology. Ever since 1991 I had thought as I spread your
little
chubby butt, surprisingly shapely legs and penetrated your bald, sweet,
fat-lipped pussy and you kept looking towards your nude, tied up mother
..."
If you read any further than that, you're one truly sick individual. If
you hurry you might be able to pick up some more of Trawick's
"important" work at http://drfixator.www6.50megs.com/signed.html where
he's offering "(2) multi-page letters, one of them graphically
confessional as he describes the murders, very disgusting stuff , both
signed J. ~ $24.95." Oh, Danny Rolling is there, too.
Has anyone found any details about this Trawick? All I dug up was that
he's a murderer with a history of violence against *women* dating back
to age 10. http://www.editionnine.deathrowbook.com/noflash/nf_vigs.htm
I hope Neil is motivated by Martha's encouragement to post more violent
porn featuring child rape, I *really* do. They might both receive
"treatment" then.
spo...@petitmorte.net
news:ah2cac$fkr$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net:
You're one fucked up asshole, Sharon.
Did you report that post?
--
Amazing
Thing growing
Just waiting for the juice to flow
shar...@mindspring.com
<spo...@petitmorte.net>
> > <mothra...@hotmail.com>
Why? Are you afraid I beat you to the punch, Bullis-Boi? Are you wanting
to "play around" with him, pedo-troller?
Chocolic
<mothra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3D341A...@erols.com...
I have a morbid curiosity on reading the details of a crime, but I have
never read one quite so graphic and from the mouth of the animal that wrote
it, and hope I never do again. Now I can make the choice not to read those
subject headers. Too bad I didn't know before I read this recent one. It
made me plain sick to my stomach and I can't quit thinking about the horror
of it. IMO, irregardless of a person's choice, this beast is using other
people to gratify himself by repeating what he did. I picture him drooling
and jacking off while writing. Oh gag gag gag. And, no Martha, this is not
important. What the hell is important about some sick sick sick individual
finding an audience to listen to his sexual tortures of women and children.
No way, no way, no way. He should have no freedom of speech, he lost his
rights.
Chocolic <I have never ever regretted reading anything before, this is a
first
Every9man
Every9man
barbara<----------------trying to figure out if she's part of Martha's Ilk or
Martha's Claque
Every9man
I cant imagine how much more explicit the warning in the subject line could
have been yet you chose to read it anyway.
It's irrelevent to me what he's doing while he's writing, he's going to do it
whether or not I read it.
I appreciate being able to get inside the head of such an enraged person just
as I appreciate being able to glimpse the mind of any violent person.
I think it's a fascinating study, for me, it doesnt have to be for anyone else.
Ever read the Marquis De Sade?
Barbara
Chocolic
"Every9man" <ever...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020717010332...@mb-mq.aol.com...
The warning sign was in the other posts too and I found them interesting,
though also gruesome. Don't get me wrong, usually I can read just about
anything, but for some reason, this one really got to me. I will know
better next time (maybe). I guess it was the morbid curiosity that got the
better of me. Now, when I read about those little girls that are taken,
i.e., Smart, Runnion, Van Dam, I picture the torture they must have gone
through, through the words of that sub-human creature. I just can't get it
out of my mind. I too appreciate getting inside the heads of the criminal.
I find it so interesting. But these writings of his doesn't really get into
his mind. It's just giving him an audience to spew his sexual sick
fantasies that he made real.
I have never read Marquis De Sade. I have read of him tho.
Chocolic
Michael
I'm still an Orbiteer.
Michael
Michael
Did you see Quills? Extremely tame... considering
Michael
nan
> <shar...@mindspring.com> wrote in
> news:ah2cac$fkr$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net:
>
> >
> > <mothra...@hotmail.com>
> >
> >> DedNdogYrs wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Why give this sub-animal attention, companionship, and an ear for
> his garbage
> >> > mouthed disrespect for his victims.
> >> > Dogs & children first.
> >>
> >> Don't read it. Look at the subject headers, and don't read it. It's
> >> real hard to take, but I think it's important, and I'm glad we're
> given
> >> the choice to read it or not.
> >>
> >> Martha
> >
> > If you read any further than that, you're one truly sick individual. If
> > you hurry you might be able to pick up some more of Trawick's
> > "important" work at http://drfixator.www6.50megs.com/signed.html where
> > he's offering "(2) multi-page letters, one of them graphically
> > confessional as he describes the murders, very disgusting stuff , both
> > signed J. ~ $24.95." Oh, Danny Rolling is there, too.
> >
> > Has anyone found any details about this Trawick? All I dug up was that
> > he's a murderer with a history of violence against *women* dating back
> > to age 10. http://www.editionnine.deathrowbook.com/noflash/nf_vigs.htm
> >
> >
> > I hope Neil is motivated by Martha's encouragement to post more violent
> > porn featuring child rape, I *really* do. They might both receive
> > "treatment" then.
>
> You're one fucked up asshole, Sharon.
>
> Did you report that post?
Spoogy,
Considering the nature of Trawick's dialogue, it sounds as if you and
Martha collaborated on this "fiction". Martha is so enamoured with
and amused by the profane, and you being so much the master of the
profane. The T-C Literary Guild nominated you for the Iners Literarus
Profanity Award. I guess Porno writing is more explicit, sadisticly
violent and abusive than Profane writing.
So much for playing the "...priberling, ill nurtured lewdster*..."
Regards, Nan *Shaks.
nan
Dear Sharon,
Forget Trawick. Neil aka Supreme Allah is totally, really bonkers,
beyond Tx. Find him a cage. Check him out in another alt.group - do a
search under both neiloconnor and Supreme Allah in the Alt. groups.
The garbage is his garbage, not Trawick's. The LE's are monitoring
him.
Regards, from Nan
JC
"Michael" <do...@earthlinknospam.net> wrote in message
news:ii7Z8.18596$Kx3....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
I was just trying to think of the name of that movie. Ooo, Jeffrey Rush in
*all* his glory, be still my heart. :)
JC
DedNdogYrs
read it. It's real hard to take, but I think it's important, and I'm glad
we're given the choice to read it or not. Martha>
You don't understand my post at all. I didn't mean why read the post. I meant
why write to this vermin on death row and give him companionship and an ear for
his garbage.
Dogs & children first.
mothra...@hotmail.com
I have to say that I agree with you--this latest Trawick stuff was
unsettling in a way nothing I've read before was. I still think it's
important for those of us who *want* to know about the mental workings
of such a person to be able to read his writings, if we choose to. But
this was nightmare material.
It makes plain what Elizabeth Smart's aunt may have meant by saying the
other day--the comment that apparently sent some cowboy into hyperdrive
with his cyber threats--when she said that there were situations where
it might be better if ES is not alive. I was also reminded of the cruel
acts of Leonard Lake and Charles Ng, but Trawick clearly trumps them
imho.
I wish we could know about Trawick's childhood and family; I wish we
could know why his pleas for help--he has insight and has known he was a
violent predator who if not stopped would continue to torture and
kill--were not heeded. And I wish we knew why most of us have never
heard of this guy until now.
>
> I have never read Marquis De Sade. I have read of him tho.
I have read some of de Sade (in French, of course <G>), and never
encountered anything like Trawick's account of the rapes and murders he
described. I think fiction, fantasies, even violent fantasies, are so
far removed from the reality of nonconsensual sadism that they shouldn't
even be discussed together. Many people, especially women, enjoy
so-called "rape" fantasies, but those fantasies are about desire, not
violence, and even people who act out, consensually, fantasies of pain
and sexual torture do so in highly controlled environments, with
safeguards based on each person's desires--no one takes pleasure in
being a victim in the way these females were victims, and that's where
the difference lies. This was about as close to pure unadulterated
cruelty as I've ever encountered, and it horrified me.
Another thing it's made me think about is Trawick's diagnosis--is he
considered a psychopath, and does that mean he does not have the ability
to empathize? If that's the case, then I don't understand it because it
seems to me that in order to inflict such exquisitely unspeakable
torment--and to want to relive it through writing about it--he *must*
have at least the intellectual notion of love for another person, to be
able to create a torture based partly on mistreating a loved one in the
presence of the lover.
All in all, while it gives me nightmares, too, I'm glad I read it.
Martha
mothra...@hotmail.com
You don't understand the nature of usenet at all. You don't have to
write to this guy if you don't want to. You're objecting to something
that was posted here; if it had not been posted, you would not know that
someone was writing to him. See how it works?
Martha
Michael
"JC" <jonesi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3d353cb8$0$820$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
One *must* be careful what one says, JC. The Profane Police are watching
<G>
Michael
Melisande Rupert
I've read the Marquis (and only two sentences of Neil's crap). I'd
say the Marquis was sedate (especially in literary terms) by
comparison.
But that's not the point. I decide for myself whom to regard as a
person. For example, I regard most dogs as persons, because they
behave like persons to me.
I don't regard Neil or the idiot he pretends to be quoting as persons.
Would NOT have a problem denying them rights due to persons.
A human is more than a wad of DNA.
Melisande
JC
> > >
> > > Michael
> >
> > I was just trying to think of the name of that movie. Ooo, Jeffrey Rush
in
> > *all* his glory, be still my heart. :)
> >
> > JC
>
> One *must* be careful what one says, JC. The Profane Police are watching
> <G>
>
> Michael
<G>
JC
Bart Bailey
>
> Forget Trawick. Neil aka Supreme Allah is totally, really bonkers,
> beyond Tx. Find him a cage. Check him out in another alt.group - do a
> search under both neiloconnor and Supreme Allah in the Alt. groups.
> The garbage is his garbage, not Trawick's. The LE's are monitoring
> him.
> Regards, from Nan
I suspected that from the getgo,
but wasn't motivated to do any googlin'.
--
Bart
Neil
>Forget Trawick. Neil aka Supreme Allah is totally, really bonkers,
>beyond Tx. Find him a cage. Check him out in another alt.group - do a
>search under both neiloconnor and Supreme Allah in the Alt. groups.
>The garbage is his garbage, not Trawick's. The LE's are monitoring
>him.
>Regards, from Nan
Most of this is true and I am being monitored by law enforcement. In fact, the
FBI is currently reviewing several hundreds of pages from letters that Trawick
and I have exchanged over the past several months -- long story and I can't go
into it, but a consent to search my apartment was signed (not by me) and they
took everything. The Trawick letters are real though. Here is his address:
Jack Trawick Z-561
Holman Station 6U7
P.O. Box 3700
Atmore, AL 36503
Write to him and then tell me if you think I'm bullshitting you or not.
- Neil
Neil
>meant
>why write to this vermin on death row and give him companionship and an ear
>for
>his garbage.
When vermin were dying next to Christ he invited them to come to heaven with
him. I think I heard that on OZ. I'm like Christ.
- Neil
Neil
>heard of this guy until now.
That's an easy one. Going all the way back to 1972 when Trawick murdered Betty
Jo Richards her boyfriend was tried and acquited. When he murdered Francis
Aileen Pruitt her husband was at his sentencing hearing before Trawich let law
enforcement know he was the killer. There are a lot of important people with
badges out there who put a lot of indigent and unintelligent people away for
crimes Trawick committed. Trawick has told me several times -- there's a
"don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding him and the state of Alabama. I
believe him.
- Neil
spo...@petitmorte.net
news:8f49fa86.02071...@posting.google.com:
Nan, don't be a stupid cunt.
spo...@petitmorte.net
news:ah2pmq$tjv$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net:
No Sharon, I'm asking you if you have the decency to report something that
you consider to be "porn featuring child porn" to the proper parties.
You need to spend more than 5 minutes in AUK, Po. I'm not one of the
people who make a Usenet career out of harassing Bullis. In point of fact,
you stupid woman, I've probably replied to you more often than I ever have
to him, and you keep running away whenever I come around here, you cowardly
little shit.
BTW, you still owe Kevin an apology.
shar...@mindspring.com
<spo...@petitmorte.net>
> > Why? Are you afraid I beat you to the punch, Bullis-Boi? Are you
wanting
> > to "play around" with him, pedo-troller?
> No Sharon, I'm asking you if you have the decency to report something
that
> you consider to be "porn featuring child porn" to the proper parties.
No, you're looking for ammunition. There is no "spooge-approved" answer
to your question. As a self-proclaimed troll, you are required to attack
every answer to every question. Your behavior is proscribed by your self
characterization.
> You need to spend more than 5 minutes in AUK, Po. I'm not one of the
> people who make a Usenet career out of harassing Bullis. In point of
fact,
> you stupid woman, I've probably replied to you more often than I ever
have
> to him, and you keep running away whenever I come around here, you
cowardly
> little shit.
I don't spend *any* time in AUK; and I haven't for a long while. When I
did read the ng, I never saw you object to the trivialization of Bullis'
apparent attraction to children. This person should never have been
given the public attention he garnered. You and your ilk made him a
legend, some of you by not speaking up.
I'm not a stupid woman; and I never run away. I dislike you and prefer
to avoid you. There is nothing cowardly about declining a dance with a
troll. On a personal note, you will be gratified to know that I was
quite hurt by your little troupe's ambush two years ago. That was *not*
Usenet, John; so I'm betting you'll understand why I think you're
basically a dishonest individual.
> BTW, you still owe Kevin an apology.
What business is that of yours? Kevin and I are more alike than
different. Scary, isn't it?
de...@cts.com
Chocolic
"Neil " <neiloc...@aol.com44698> wrote in message
news:20020717222127...@mb-ca.aol.com...
If all that is true, then I wonder if Trawick really did commit some of
those crimes or he just fantasized them? Maybe a couple of the real killers
~were~ let loose? I haven't read any of the background stuff on him or
those cases because I haven't seen any so can't argue about it either way.
I've known, and known of, a few men who bragged about their sexual prowness
their whole adult life quite convincingly and then I found out later they
were either impotent or were virgins.
Chocolic
mothra...@hotmail.com
Why is LE interested in you and in searching your apartment? Is this
standard procedure with someone who corresponds with a notorious felon?
Martha
mothra...@hotmail.com
And that seems to answer my earlier question about why LE is interested
in you. Of course I noticed that in the Trawick material you posted
here and in the news articles you referred me to privately that Trawick
must be an embarrassment to LE and the judicial system.
Has he ever talked to you about his childhood? Do you have any ideas
about why he is the way he is?
Martha
Neil
>standard procedure with someone who corresponds with a notorious felon?
No.
Neil
>about why he is the way he is?
>
>Martha
According to the newsmedia, Trawick attacked his first victim when he was ten,
but he told me of an earlier experience that happened when he was eight. I'll
go find the letter, type it up, and post it in an hour or so.
- Neil
P.S. Trawick is the way he is because he was born that way. Some people like
normal sex, some people are into bondage, Trawick can only reach the height of
his sexual pleasure through violence and knowing him, I believe it is an
organic thing and not a result of his enviornment. I truly like the man. He's
smart, witty, polite to my girlfriend and I, and just an all around pleasant
person to know.
Cujo
news:ah5g3d$6o8$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net:
>
> <spo...@petitmorte.net>
>
>> <shar...@mindspring.com>
>> > Why? Are you afraid I beat you to the punch, Bullis-Boi? Are you
> wanting
>> > to "play around" with him, pedo-troller?
>
>
>> No Sharon, I'm asking you if you have the decency to report something
> that
>> you consider to be "porn featuring child porn" to the proper parties.
>
>
> No, you're looking for ammunition. There is no "spooge-approved"
> answer to your question. As a self-proclaimed troll, you are required
> to attack every answer to every question. Your behavior is proscribed
> by your self characterization.
Evasion noted.
>> You need to spend more than 5 minutes in AUK, Po. I'm not one of the
>> people who make a Usenet career out of harassing Bullis. In point of
> fact,
>> you stupid woman, I've probably replied to you more often than I ever
> have
>> to him, and you keep running away whenever I come around here, you
> cowardly
>> little shit.
>
>
> I don't spend *any* time in AUK; and I haven't for a long while. When
> I did read the ng, I never saw you object to the trivialization of
> Bullis' apparent attraction to children. This person should never have
> been given the public attention he garnered. You and your ilk made him
> a legend, some of you by not speaking up.
More PoHo hyperbole. I'm quite sure there's damned few who want to
follow in the footsteps of Stupid Richard. So what the hell is your
point? As for the 'trivialization' of Stupid and his taste for child
porn, I would love to know how you came to that conclusion. You're
obviously missing a few facts. Too bad nobody will trust you enough to
tell you them. Get used to that.
> I'm not a stupid woman; and I never run away.
Archived!
> I dislike you and prefer
> to avoid you. There is nothing cowardly about declining a dance with a
> troll. On a personal note, you will be gratified to know that I was
> quite hurt by your little troupe's ambush two years ago.
Ah! More of your claims of a conspiracy! Good to know you're still a
paranoid nutcase. You seem to forget that you brought it up *again*.
> That was
> *not* Usenet, John; so I'm betting you'll understand why I think
> you're basically a dishonest individual.
Because you are a nutcase?
>> BTW, you still owe Kevin an apology.
>
>
> What business is that of yours? Kevin and I are more alike than
> different. Scary, isn't it?
Fine, now how about that apology and/or retraction? We're not alike at
all, so you're just tossing out more falsehoods in an effort to divert
attention from your delusional outburst that came two years after your
original paranoid attempt to get me in hot water for trying to help you.
--
There wouldn't be as many satisfied ladies around, if I
hadn't ditched them long ago! - Edmo in a moment of candor.
Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in
alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych.
Winner of the August, 2000 HL&S award. Hail Petitmorte!
http://www.petitmorte.net/cujo/cujcert.jpg
Fanatic Legion # 555-PLNTY
Rank: Colonel
Motto: "ABUNDANCE!"
Mr. Mediadumb
there until the winds, or whatever, blow his remains away......
==================================
==================================
Vote against those aipac politicians!
Kosovo, Training Grounds for NWO Terrorism in the USA? Check out:
http://www.serbia-info.com/news/
and also http://maknews.com
and be warned!
Voice of Russia: http://www.vor.ru
For News From Ireland (Subscription) go to:
http://irlnet.com/rmlist/
Here in the United States, children,..... it's now 1984, forever. Media
Moguls are to USA population as Dr.Pavlov was to HIs Dog!!!!!!
Doesn't it sometimes seem that the common criminals have allies among
more than a few corrupt politicians?
The BBC is a liar murderer terrorist unit of Mi5-Mi6 espionage,
disinformation, and terror death squad organization.
shar...@mindspring.com
Cujo <cu...@petitmorte.net
> > No, you're looking for ammunition. There is no "spooge-approved"
> > answer to your question. As a self-proclaimed troll, you are
required
> > to attack every answer to every question. Your behavior is
proscribed
> > by your self characterization.
>
> Evasion noted.
There was no evasion, Kevin. I said flat out that I knew there was no
"correct" response to Spooge's query, and you know that's true. How
would you have responded?
> > I don't spend *any* time in AUK; and I haven't for a long while.
When
> > I did read the ng, I never saw you object to the trivialization of
> > Bullis' apparent attraction to children. This person should never
have
> > been given the public attention he garnered. You and your ilk made
him
> > a legend, some of you by not speaking up.
>
> More PoHo hyperbole. I'm quite sure there's damned few who want to
> follow in the footsteps of Stupid Richard. So what the hell is your
> point?
The point is that you and your ilk are *still* missing the point. This
creature should have been reported *quietly* to LE and ignored.
> As for the 'trivialization' of Stupid and his taste for child
> porn, I would love to know how you came to that conclusion. You're
> obviously missing a few facts. Too bad nobody will trust you enough to
> tell you them. Get used to that.
Making a joke of a suspected child molester has compromised both the
accusers and the suspect equally. The entire situation is a stalemate.
Neither side has any moves left; but Stoopid continues to taunt his
aggressors and gains courage from their impotence. You would likely be
quite surprised to know how many people *do* trust me; and I certainly
am used to that. After all, I'm the most trustworthy and loyal person on
Usenet - unless you decide to screw me over.
> > I'm not a stupid woman; and I never run away.
>
> Archived!
Good! Keep that quote handy and try to refute it.
> > I dislike you and prefer
> > to avoid you. There is nothing cowardly about declining a dance with
a
> > troll. On a personal note, you will be gratified to know that I was
> > quite hurt by your little troupe's ambush two years ago.
>
> Ah! More of your claims of a conspiracy! Good to know you're still a
> paranoid nutcase. You seem to forget that you brought it up *again*.
Nooooo, Desi brought it up.
> > That was
> > *not* Usenet, John; so I'm betting you'll understand why I think
> > you're basically a dishonest individual.
>
> Because you are a nutcase?
No, because you guys are basically dishonest.
> >> BTW, you still owe Kevin an apology.
> >
> >
> > What business is that of yours? Kevin and I are more alike than
> > different. Scary, isn't it?
>
> Fine, now how about that apology and/or retraction? We're not alike at
> all, so you're just tossing out more falsehoods in an effort to divert
> attention from your delusional outburst that came two years after your
> original paranoid attempt to get me in hot water for trying to help
you.
No apology/no retraction/no quotes. I know you socked using an AOL
account. Deal.
Ok - we're not alike at all. I'm loyal, honest, and tenacious. You're
not. How's that?
BTW, I never tried to get you in hot water; ask Taylor (of course, his
memory is pretty bad). Just think, if it weren't for Zitty and her
spin/meddling none of it would have happened.
Love...
de...@cts.com
~~What exactly did I bring up? The fact that you are a fucking cyber-psycho,
a fuckin' loser in life, a mal-content, a LIAR , a libeler, a piece-o-shit,
that posts chat logs, a ghoul
that feeds off of others pain, an ol' lady who denies her own grand-children,
a lying piece of filth, who libeled Jack, who used stupid Penny and Fucko
Jason to spread her insane obessive lies about Martha. Get it, Toots, we all
like Martha and you are shit around here. Move on, Bitch, you are history,
GET lost
You are the lowest ever I have ever encountered, get your
ass forever outta here. You are sooo hated. I hate you for what you did to
Jack O. I hate you for being a bottom feeder, you suck up pain and you are a
VIRUS and fucking virulent, ugly puss , a user and a LIBELER
desi
spo...@petitmorte.net
>
> <spo...@petitmorte.net>
>
>> <shar...@mindspring.com>
>> > Why? Are you afraid I beat you to the punch, Bullis-Boi? Are you
> wanting
>> > to "play around" with him, pedo-troller?
>
>
>> No Sharon, I'm asking you if you have the decency to report something
> that
>> you consider to be "porn featuring child porn" to the proper parties.
>
>
> No, you're looking for ammunition. There is no "spooge-approved" answer
> to your question. As a self-proclaimed troll, you are required to attack
> every answer to every question. Your behavior is proscribed by your self
> characterization.
Sharon, are you really so stupid that you can't understand something even
when it is explained to you twice?
Let's try this again. If you think the post contained something illegal,
why did you not take appropriate action?
Is that basic enough for you to parse my meaning?
>> You need to spend more than 5 minutes in AUK, Po. I'm not one of the
>> people who make a Usenet career out of harassing Bullis. In point of
> fact,
>> you stupid woman, I've probably replied to you more often than I ever
> have
>> to him, and you keep running away whenever I come around here, you
> cowardly
>> little shit.
>
>
> I don't spend *any* time in AUK; and I haven't for a long while. When I
> did read the ng, I never saw you object to the trivialization of Bullis'
> apparent attraction to children. This person should never have been
> given the public attention he garnered. You and your ilk made him a
> legend, some of you by not speaking up.
Right, it's your "friend" who fed you that incorrect intel... damn woman,
you seem to be surrounded by folks who don't know a fact from their own
assholes. Why is it that you chose to align yourself with such fools?
Birds of a feather?
> I'm not a stupid woman; and I never run away. I dislike you and prefer
> to avoid you. There is nothing cowardly about declining a dance with a
> troll. On a personal note, you will be gratified to know that I was
> quite hurt by your little troupe's ambush two years ago. That was *not*
> Usenet, John; so I'm betting you'll understand why I think you're
> basically a dishonest individual.
Well, you certainly come across as less than brilliant, and yes indedd, you
do run away. You promised to be back at the beginning of July, but you
weren't.
You weren't ambushed, Sharon, you were exposed. And you did it all my your
own lonesome self, too.
>> BTW, you still owe Kevin an apology.
>
>
> What business is that of yours? Kevin and I are more alike than
> different. Scary, isn't it?
You're not similar in the least.
Neil
Great Jack Trawick here.
- Neil
Cujo
news:ah84di$lac$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net:
>
> Cujo <cu...@petitmorte.net
>
>> <shar...@mindspring.com>
>> > No, you're looking for ammunition. There is no "spooge-approved"
>> > answer to your question. As a self-proclaimed troll, you are
> required
>> > to attack every answer to every question. Your behavior is
> proscribed
>> > by your self characterization.
>>
>> Evasion noted.
>
> There was no evasion, Kevin. I said flat out that I knew there was no
> "correct" response to Spooge's query, and you know that's true. How
> would you have responded?
Gee, you snipped out the question. How telling.
>> > I don't spend *any* time in AUK; and I haven't for a long while.
> When
>> > I did read the ng, I never saw you object to the trivialization of
>> > Bullis' apparent attraction to children. This person should never
> have
>> > been given the public attention he garnered. You and your ilk made
> him
>> > a legend, some of you by not speaking up.
>>
>> More PoHo hyperbole. I'm quite sure there's damned few who want to
>> follow in the footsteps of Stupid Richard. So what the hell is your
>> point?
>
>
> The point is that you and your ilk are *still* missing the point. This
> creature should have been reported *quietly* to LE and ignored.
How do you know it hasn't? You certainly don't know what you are talking
about. Again!
>> As for the 'trivialization' of Stupid and his taste for child
>> porn, I would love to know how you came to that conclusion. You're
>> obviously missing a few facts. Too bad nobody will trust you enough
>> to tell you them. Get used to that.
>
>
> Making a joke of a suspected child molester has compromised both the
> accusers and the suspect equally. The entire situation is a stalemate.
> Neither side has any moves left; but Stoopid continues to taunt his
> aggressors and gains courage from their impotence.
Really? I don't recall anyone producing proof of Stupid actually
molesting a child. What has been proven is that he has admitted to
downloading kiddie porn. There's a few other details that nobody will
trust you with but I'll just tell you that you really are clueless on
this subject.
> You would likely be
> quite surprised to know how many people *do* trust me; and I certainly
> am used to that. After all, I'm the most trustworthy and loyal person
> on Usenet - unless you decide to screw me over.
Still insisting I tried to screw you over? There was little incentive to
do so.
>> > I'm not a stupid woman; and I never run away.
>>
>> Archived!
>
>
> Good! Keep that quote handy and try to refute it.
How about that baseless accusation that I was using someone else's AOL
account? That was very stupid.
>> > I dislike you and prefer
>> > to avoid you. There is nothing cowardly about declining a dance
>> > with
> a
>> > troll. On a personal note, you will be gratified to know that I was
>> > quite hurt by your little troupe's ambush two years ago.
>>
>> Ah! More of your claims of a conspiracy! Good to know you're still a
>> paranoid nutcase. You seem to forget that you brought it up *again*.
>
>
> Nooooo, Desi brought it up.
Not when it was you that dragged my name into it.
>> > That was
>> > *not* Usenet, John; so I'm betting you'll understand why I think
>> > you're basically a dishonest individual.
>>
>> Because you are a nutcase?
>
>
> No, because you guys are basically dishonest.
Rilly? I've never had a problem with anyone else other than kooks like
Wollmann and paranoid asswipes like you. Care to explain that?
>> >> BTW, you still owe Kevin an apology.
>> >
>> >
>> > What business is that of yours? Kevin and I are more alike than
>> > different. Scary, isn't it?
>>
>> Fine, now how about that apology and/or retraction? We're not alike
>> at all, so you're just tossing out more falsehoods in an effort to
>> divert attention from your delusional outburst that came two years
>> after your original paranoid attempt to get me in hot water for
>> trying to help
> you.
>
>
> No apology/no retraction/no quotes. I know you socked using an AOL
> account. Deal.
Still going with that nonsense? I told you I would take a polygraph and
bet you a tidy sum that you would lose. did you somehow forget about
that? Take my bet and shut me up! You know you haven't got the guts to
admit you were wrong.
> Ok - we're not alike at all. I'm loyal, honest, and tenacious. You're
> not. How's that?
Great! So if you're all of those things you can either post proof, take
the bet or retract your words and apologize. It's your move.
> BTW, I never tried to get you in hot water; ask Taylor (of course, his
> memory is pretty bad). Just think, if it weren't for Zitty and her
> spin/meddling none of it would have happened.
Liar. She asked me to help you and I tried. You made a lot of
accusations which simply weren't true. You were laughed at and shown the
error of your ways. You didn't like what you heard and have remained a
bitter creature for years. It was explained to you what happened. Too
bad you didn't like the fact that the only one you can blame for your
hysterics is yourself.
Gayle
It's annoying when folks don't follow the rules and just do whatever they want,
isn't it?
Gayle
shar...@mindspring.com
de...@petitmorte.net <de...@cts.com
> shar...@mindspring.com wrote in message ...
> >Cujo <cu...@petitmorte.net
> >> Ah! More of your claims of a conspiracy! Good to know you're still
a
> >> paranoid nutcase. You seem to forget that you brought it up
*again*.
> >Nooooo, Desi brought it up.
> ~~What exactly did I bring up?
The Lie.
> The fact that you are a fucking cyber-psycho,
> a fuckin' loser in life, a mal-content, a LIAR , a libeler, a
piece-o-shit,
> that posts chat logs, a ghoul
> that feeds off of others pain, an ol' lady who denies her own
grand-children,
> a lying piece of filth, who libeled Jack, who used stupid Penny and
Fucko
> Jason to spread her insane obessive lies about Martha.
No, just The Lie. Your opinions are of no importance to me.
> Get it, Toots, we all
> like Martha and you are shit around here.
I sure get a lot of attention, though, don't I? I think Martha is
probably thrilled that you like her today; she deserves for more people
like you to become fans.
> Move on, Bitch, you are history,
> GET lost
Say "Pretty Please", 'mkay? I promise [really, I mean it] (really)
{would I kid you} I'll take your advice under serious advisement
<giggle> and give it every bit ofthe considerstion it deserves.
> You are the lowest ever I have ever encountered, get your
> ass forever outta here. You are sooo hated.
Really? I have a huge cadre of lurkers supporting me in email <g> -
some very famous people, too. They love me.
> I hate you for what you did to
> Jack O.
[Out of bounds ATM - foul]
> I hate you for being a bottom feeder, you suck up pain and you are a
> VIRUS and fucking virulent, ugly puss , a user and a LIBELER
>
> desi
Have you ever considered trying to find out why you have so much
negative energy? I know some therapists in SD; I might be able to
facilitate a group rate for you and Kevin. Let me know if you're
interested.
shar...@mindspring.com
<spo...@petitmorte.net>
> > No, you're looking for ammunition. There is no "spooge-approved"
answer
> > to your question. As a self-proclaimed troll, you are required to
attack
> > every answer to every question. Your behavior is proscribed by your
self
> > characterization.
>
> Sharon, are you really so stupid that you can't understand something
even
> when it is explained to you twice?
I'm not going to answer your question, because it's none of your
business. Are you really so stupid that you can't understand something
even when it is explained to you twice?
Your job is to attack; it's a mindless and witless imperative. And you
are a fair hand at it, though you are tiresome, a bit of a bore,
indiscriminate, and lacking any *zing*.
> Let's try this again. If you think the post contained something
illegal,
> why did you not take appropriate action?
>
> Is that basic enough for you to parse my meaning?
You don't, and won't, know what I did or didn't do. Quit fishing.
> > I don't spend *any* time in AUK; and I haven't for a long while.
When I
> > did read the ng, I never saw you object to the trivialization of
Bullis'
> > apparent attraction to children. This person should never have been
> > given the public attention he garnered. You and your ilk made him a
> > legend, some of you by not speaking up.
>
> Right, it's your "friend" who fed you that incorrect intel... damn
woman,
> you seem to be surrounded by folks who don't know a fact from their
own
> assholes. Why is it that you chose to align yourself with such fools?
> Birds of a feather?
My *friend*? What are you talking about?
> > I'm not a stupid woman; and I never run away. I dislike you and
prefer
> > to avoid you. There is nothing cowardly about declining a dance with
a
> > troll. On a personal note, you will be gratified to know that I was
> > quite hurt by your little troupe's ambush two years ago. That was
*not*
> > Usenet, John; so I'm betting you'll understand why I think you're
> > basically a dishonest individual.
>
> Well, you certainly come across as less than brilliant, and yes
indedd, you
> do run away. You promised to be back at the beginning of July, but
you
> weren't.
Troll mentality != normal mentality. When have I run away? I've stayed
and perservered through abominable assaults.
Where/when did I *promise* to be back at the beginning of July? If I had
known you needed a more precise itinerary, U might have emailed one to
you. Do you need my 3rd quarter travel plans?
> You weren't ambushed, Sharon, you were exposed. And you did it all my
your
> own lonesome self, too.
There is the Lie. Again.
> >> BTW, you still owe Kevin an apology.
> >
> >
> > What business is that of yours? Kevin and I are more alike than
> > different. Scary, isn't it?
>
> You're not similar in the least.
Well, I have hair and a sense of humor.
Michael
<shar...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:ahal9u$75h$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
>
>
>
> Really? I have a huge cadre of lurkers supporting me in email <g> -
> some very famous people, too. They love me.
LOL... the last act of the desperate troll. Gaining appreciated from the
unknown lurkers via email. But in this case "some very famous people, too."
What a sig you've just provided.
Michael
spo...@petitmorte.net
news:ahal9u$75h$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net:
> Really? I have a huge cadre of lurkers supporting me in email <g> -
> some very famous people, too. They love me.
The voices in your head do not count, unless you included them on your last
Census Questionaire.
HTH.
spo...@petitmorte.net
spo...@petitmorte.net
news:ahaoh5$6ap$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net:
>
> <spo...@petitmorte.net>
>
> <shar...@mindspring.com>
>> > No, you're looking for ammunition. There is no "spooge-approved"
> answer
>> > to your question. As a self-proclaimed troll, you are required to
> attack
>> > every answer to every question. Your behavior is proscribed by your
> self
>> > characterization.
>>
>> Sharon, are you really so stupid that you can't understand something
> even
>> when it is explained to you twice?
>
>
> I'm not going to answer your question, because it's none of your
> business. Are you really so stupid that you can't understand something
> even when it is explained to you twice?
Check: Sharon unable to understand things explained to her twice.
> Your job is to attack; it's a mindless and witless imperative. And you
> are a fair hand at it, though you are tiresome, a bit of a bore,
> indiscriminate, and lacking any *zing*.
No, you're wrong, Sharon. My "job" is to mock idiots and fuckheads. I'll
await your further advices as to which category you wish to be placed in.
>> Let's try this again. If you think the post contained something
> illegal,
>> why did you not take appropriate action?
>>
>> Is that basic enough for you to parse my meaning?
>
>
> You don't, and won't, know what I did or didn't do. Quit fishing.
Translation: No, Sharon didn't report the post, she just tried to use it
for flame material, and ended up looking like an idiot/fuckhead.
>> > I don't spend *any* time in AUK; and I haven't for a long while.
> When I
>> > did read the ng, I never saw you object to the trivialization of
> Bullis'
>> > apparent attraction to children. This person should never have been
>> > given the public attention he garnered. You and your ilk made him a
>> > legend, some of you by not speaking up.
>>
>> Right, it's your "friend" who fed you that incorrect intel... damn
> woman,
>> you seem to be surrounded by folks who don't know a fact from their
> own
>> assholes. Why is it that you chose to align yourself with such fools?
>> Birds of a feather?
>
> My *friend*? What are you talking about?
I see, so you don't hang in AUK, nor do you have a friend as a source, but
you do know what I do in AUK... Ummm, Sharon, you're going for the idiot
classification, aren't you?
>> > I'm not a stupid woman; and I never run away. I dislike you and
> prefer
>> > to avoid you. There is nothing cowardly about declining a dance with
> a
>> > troll. On a personal note, you will be gratified to know that I was
>> > quite hurt by your little troupe's ambush two years ago. That was
> *not*
>> > Usenet, John; so I'm betting you'll understand why I think you're
>> > basically a dishonest individual.
>>
>> Well, you certainly come across as less than brilliant, and yes
> indedd, you
>> do run away. You promised to be back at the beginning of July, but
> you
>> weren't.
>
> Troll mentality != normal mentality. When have I run away? I've stayed
> and perservered through abominable assaults.
I'm a troll? Really? You know this from...? You read it on Usenet, so it
must be true?
If you feel assaulted, then do something about it. Here's a hint: don't
come looking for more of the same treatment. :)
> Where/when did I *promise* to be back at the beginning of July? If I had
> known you needed a more precise itinerary, U might have emailed one to
> you. Do you need my 3rd quarter travel plans?
You did, Sharon. Just before you left for "Florida".
>> You weren't ambushed, Sharon, you were exposed. And you did it all my
> your
>> own lonesome self, too.
>
>
> There is the Lie. Again.
Nope, and you know it.
>> >> BTW, you still owe Kevin an apology.
>> >
>> >
>> > What business is that of yours? Kevin and I are more alike than
>> > different. Scary, isn't it?
>>
>> You're not similar in the least.
>
> Well, I have hair and a sense of humor.
And $100,000 or so to invest in a Usenet lawsuit, as I recall.
You silly, silly woman.
Better get on the blower to these "famous" people who slurp you in email.
I think you could use some friends.
de...@cts.com
and bow off the stage, fade.....fade away Baby Jane,
Curtsey, bow, ...now go eat your cheescake , Inga
desi
Gayle
> Gayle <gay...@rcn.com> wrote in news:3D38B8AE...@rcn.com:
>
> > Neil wrote:
> >
> >> All of you seem to be forgetting that we're supposed to be talking
> >> about The Great Jack Trawick here.
> >>
> >> - Neil
> >
> > It's annoying when folks don't follow the rules and just do whatever
> > they want, isn't it?
>
> Rules?
Neil's gentle chidings to remember what "we're supposed to be talking
about" struck me as kinda funny, John. According to some generally
accepted rules, The Great Jack Trawick was 'supposed to be' restraining
his urges to torture and kill, but apparently that's okay with Neil.
Thread drift, however, warrants criticism.
Gayle
mothra...@hotmail.com
<flameshield up>
I can see that in his writing.
Martha
spo...@petitmorte.net
> "spo...@petitmorte.net" wrote:
>
>> Gayle <gay...@rcn.com> wrote in news:3D38B8AE...@rcn.com:
>>
>> > Neil wrote:
>> >
>> >> All of you seem to be forgetting that we're supposed to be talking
>> >> about The Great Jack Trawick here.
>> >>
>> >> - Neil
>> >
>> > It's annoying when folks don't follow the rules and just do whatever
>> > they want, isn't it?
>>
>> Rules?
>
> Neil's gentle chidings to remember what "we're supposed to be talking
> about" struck me as kinda funny, John. According to some generally
> accepted rules, The Great Jack Trawick was 'supposed to be' restraining
> his urges to torture and kill, but apparently that's okay with Neil.
> Thread drift, however, warrants criticism.
Ah, I see. Thanks for clarifying this for me Gayle. Topic drift is indeed
one of the Scourges of Usenet... which is why I encourage it. :)
shar...@mindspring.com
<spo...@petitmorte.net>
> > I'm not going to answer your question, because it's none of your
> > business. Are you really so stupid that you can't understand
something
> > even when it is explained to you twice?
>
> Check: Sharon unable to understand things explained to her twice.
Check: Spooge unable to take "no" for an answer.
> > Your job is to attack; it's a mindless and witless imperative. And
you
> > are a fair hand at it, though you are tiresome, a bit of a bore,
> > indiscriminate, and lacking any *zing*.
>
> No, you're wrong, Sharon. My "job" is to mock idiots and fuckheads.
I'll
> await your further advices as to which category you wish to be placed
in.
No, you'll continue showing your treacherous ass as long as someone like
furball continues kissing it.
> > You don't, and won't, know what I did or didn't do. Quit fishing.
>
> Translation: No, Sharon didn't report the post, she just tried to use
it
> for flame material, and ended up looking like an idiot/fuckhead.
The thread was cleaned up PDQ, wasn't it :-)
> > My *friend*? What are you talking about?
>
> I see, so you don't hang in AUK, nor do you have a friend as a source,
but
> you do know what I do in AUK... Ummm, Sharon, you're going for the
idiot
> classification, aren't you?
OK.
> > Troll mentality != normal mentality. When have I run away? I've
stayed
> > and perservered through abominable assaults.
>
> I'm a troll? Really? You know this from...? You read it on Usenet,
so it
> must be true?
Oh, did I misread the post in which you called yourself a troll? Are you
saying it's not true?
> If you feel assaulted, then do something about it. Here's a hint:
don't
> come looking for more of the same treatment. :)
I didn't seek you out. You came after me. As a matter of fact, you and
Zitty both pulled another of your bait-switch-flame acts on other people
who considered you friends. It's a good thing you and Martha's Claque
finally found each other in the "sinking to a common level" scheme of
things, isn't it?
> > Where/when did I *promise* to be back at the beginning of July? If I
had
> > known you needed a more precise itinerary, U might have emailed one
to
> > you. Do you need my 3rd quarter travel plans?
>
> You did, Sharon. Just before you left for "Florida".
Cite please?
> >> You weren't ambushed, Sharon, you were exposed. And you did it all
my
> > your
> >> own lonesome self, too.
> >
> >
> > There is the Lie. Again.
>
> Nope, and you know it.
Nope, and you know it.You were an enthusiastic participant in an
insidious Lie that hurt a lot of people in rl. And you continue to
enthusiastically endorse and perpetuate it.
> > Well, I have hair and a sense of humor.
>
> And $100,000 or so to invest in a Usenet lawsuit, as I recall.
Are you totally bereft of reading skills? In the first place, $100,000
is not a lot of money in the context of a lawsuit; in the second place,
the threatened lawsuit had no foundation. The "unclean hands" doctrine
would have had it laughed out of court. Lastly, I would have gladly paid
to play.
> You silly, silly woman.
>
> Better get on the blower to these "famous" people who slurp you in
email.
> I think you could use some friends.
You would have a much nicer disposition if you weren't the jealous type.
spo...@petitmorte.net
news:ahckpb$ct8$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net:
>
> <spo...@petitmorte.net>
>
> <shar...@mindspring.com>
>> > I'm not going to answer your question, because it's none of your
>> > business. Are you really so stupid that you can't understand
> something
>> > even when it is explained to you twice?
>>
>> Check: Sharon unable to understand things explained to her twice.
>
>
> Check: Spooge unable to take "no" for an answer.
When the "no" is simply a rather fumble handed attempt to avoid a question,
no I don't.
See? This is how you explain yourself. If you want to say things on a
public forum, Sharon, then you'll have to deal with questions. And if you
choose to avoid answering those questions, then you'd better be prepared to
weather the resulting mockery.
Pretty fucking simple, isn't it?
>> > Your job is to attack; it's a mindless and witless imperative. And
> you
>> > are a fair hand at it, though you are tiresome, a bit of a bore,
>> > indiscriminate, and lacking any *zing*.
>>
>> No, you're wrong, Sharon. My "job" is to mock idiots and fuckheads.
> I'll
>> await your further advices as to which category you wish to be placed
> in.
>
> No, you'll continue showing your treacherous ass as long as someone like
> furball continues kissing it.
I've never had a "furball" kiss my ass. I'm not into beastiality. How
many different species have you bumped uglies with?
>> > You don't, and won't, know what I did or didn't do. Quit fishing.
>>
>> Translation: No, Sharon didn't report the post, she just tried to use
> it
>> for flame material, and ended up looking like an idiot/fuckhead.
>
>
> The thread was cleaned up PDQ, wasn't it :-)
Cleaned up?
>> > My *friend*? What are you talking about?
>>
>> I see, so you don't hang in AUK, nor do you have a friend as a source,
> but
>> you do know what I do in AUK... Ummm, Sharon, you're going for the
> idiot
>> classification, aren't you?
>
>
> OK.
's what I thought. You don't recall claiming to have a friend who posts in
the flame groups then? I seem to recall you making that statement.
>> > Troll mentality != normal mentality. When have I run away? I've
> stayed
>> > and perservered through abominable assaults.
>>
>> I'm a troll? Really? You know this from...? You read it on Usenet,
> so it
>> must be true?
>
>
> Oh, did I misread the post in which you called yourself a troll? Are you
> saying it's not true?
You mean where I told Nan I was a Professional Usenet Troll? You believed
that post?
Have you tried breathing oxygen, Sharon? It does wonders for the brain.
>> If you feel assaulted, then do something about it. Here's a hint:
> don't
>> come looking for more of the same treatment. :)
>
>
> I didn't seek you out. You came after me. As a matter of fact, you and
> Zitty both pulled another of your bait-switch-flame acts on other people
> who considered you friends. It's a good thing you and Martha's Claque
> finally found each other in the "sinking to a common level" scheme of
> things, isn't it?
Friends? You mean Jason and Penny? Here's another FreeClew(tm) for you:
Jason, Penny, and you yourself, have acted horridly the past couple of
years. You've made silly, unsubstanciated accusations, brought the FBI
into things through lies, and even managed to silence a respected crime
writer who stopped posting here *because of you three*.
Anyone with any sense of decency, upon review of the actions of the three
of you, would indeed "turn" on the poeple responsible for that shit.
>> > Where/when did I *promise* to be back at the beginning of July? If I
> had
>> > known you needed a more precise itinerary, U might have emailed one
> to
>> > you. Do you need my 3rd quarter travel plans?
>>
>> You did, Sharon. Just before you left for "Florida".
>
> Cite please?
*sigh* Is Nan a sock of yours by any chance?
Message-ID: <ad47bo$pv8$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>
>> >> You weren't ambushed, Sharon, you were exposed. And you did it all
> my
>> > your
>> >> own lonesome self, too.
>> >
>> >
>> > There is the Lie. Again.
>>
>> Nope, and you know it.
>
>
> Nope, and you know it.You were an enthusiastic participant in an
> insidious Lie that hurt a lot of people in rl. And you continue to
> enthusiastically endorse and perpetuate it.
Sharon, even your use of the upper case letter l doesn't change the facts.
Nobody "hacked" your email. That's the bottom line, Sharon.
>> > Well, I have hair and a sense of humor.
>>
>> And $100,000 or so to invest in a Usenet lawsuit, as I recall.
>
>
> Are you totally bereft of reading skills? In the first place, $100,000
> is not a lot of money in the context of a lawsuit; in the second place,
> the threatened lawsuit had no foundation. The "unclean hands" doctrine
> would have had it laughed out of court. Lastly, I would have gladly paid
> to play.
You *didn't* pledge $100,000 to a lawsuit? Oh, please, please, PLEASE
insist that you didn't. It'll be all the more funny to prove that you did.
That you'd throw in funding for a lost cause is just icing on the laugh-
cake.
>> You silly, silly woman.
>>
>> Better get on the blower to these "famous" people who slurp you in
> email.
>> I think you could use some friends.
>
>
> You would have a much nicer disposition if you weren't the jealous type.
Jealous? Of the voices in your head?
How silly.
shar...@mindspring.com
<spo...@petitmorte.net>
> > Check: Spooge unable to take "no" for an answer.
>
> When the "no" is simply a rather fumble handed attempt to avoid a
question,
> no I don't.
I'm not avoiding the question at all. I'm telling *you* that I won't
answer *you*. Got it?
> See? This is how you explain yourself. If you want to say things on
a
> public forum, Sharon, then you'll have to deal with questions. And if
you
> choose to avoid answering those questions, then you'd better be
prepared to
> weather the resulting mockery.
>
> Pretty fucking simple, isn't it?
Yup; very simple. But I don't have to explain myself, do I? Not do I
have to deal with questions. I'm willing to do both when engaging in a
good faith dialog, which *this* definitely isn't. Being mocked by an
ineffectual troll is pretty funny, though.
> I've never had a "furball" kiss my ass. I'm not into beastiality
Sure you have. See that little furball, aka michael, humping your
leg/posts? You can't even fart anymore without furball giving you a high
five.
> Cleaned up?
Yup!
> 's what I thought. You don't recall claiming to have a friend who
posts in
> the flame groups then? I seem to recall you making that statement.
Nope, I didn't say that. Your reading comprehension really sucks.
> You mean where I told Nan I was a Professional Usenet Troll? You
believed
> that post?
Nope, you called yourself a troll with a noble calling. Are you saing
you lie?
> Friends? You mean Jason and Penny? Here's another FreeClew(tm) for
you:
>
> Jason, Penny, and you yourself, have acted horridly the past couple of
> years. You've made silly, unsubstanciated accusations, brought the
FBI
> into things through lies, and even managed to silence a respected
crime
> writer who stopped posting here *because of you three*.
PPOR. These sweeping generalizations are tiresome. If you won't
enumerate and substantiate your wild-assed accusations, you could be
considered a bandwagon jumper.
Olsen posted to atc whenever he wanted to.
> Anyone with any sense of decency, upon review of the actions of the
three
> of you, would indeed "turn" on the poeple responsible for that shit.
Where were you and your righteous indignation 2 years ago?
I think eventually everything and everyone involved is going to come
out. Distancing yourself now isn't going to change your involvement any
more that it changes the involvement of the others who scurried away
like rats when the FBI became involved.
> > Cite please?
>
> *sigh* Is Nan a sock of yours by any chance?
>
> Message-ID: <ad47bo$pv8$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>
Where do I promise to return July 1?
> Sharon, even your use of the upper case letter l doesn't change the
facts.
> Nobody "hacked" your email. That's the bottom line, Sharon.
Huh? I'm not talking about email. Do you ever pay attention?
> > Are you totally bereft of reading skills? In the first place,
$100,000
> > is not a lot of money in the context of a lawsuit; in the second
place,
> > the threatened lawsuit had no foundation. The "unclean hands"
doctrine
> > would have had it laughed out of court. Lastly, I would have gladly
paid
> > to play.
>
> You *didn't* pledge $100,000 to a lawsuit? Oh, please, please, PLEASE
> insist that you didn't. It'll be all the more funny to prove that you
did.
> That you'd throw in funding for a lost cause is just icing on the
laugh-
> cake.
Nope, I did not pledge $100,000 to a lawsuit. Prove that I did,
chuckles.
> Jealous? Of the voices in your head?
>
> How silly.
No, just jealous because you're such a have-not.