FAQ: THE NETSTALKER AND NETBULLY PETER HOWARD AKA LITTLE HOWIE

[Andre Jute]

FAQ
THE NETSTALKER AND NETBULLY PETER HOWARD
AKA LITTLE HOWIE

Q. Who is Peter Howard?
A. Peter Howard is a minor Australian techie notorious as a netstalker of better-known people of greater achievements than his.

Q. What sort of a techie is he then?
A. A failed techie. Towards the end of his career he is still so low on the food ladder that he gets sent out to plug in the PCs of housewives.

Q. Doesn't sound like he's very bright.
A. You're right. He isn't very bright.

Q. I mean, doesn't sound like a guy you want in your house.
A. Inappropriate advances to housewives fits the pattern of general bragging and rudeness to customers.

Q. Whole lotta techies, so why call a troublemaker, right?
A. Right. Use the Yellow Pages, get someone reliable and polite.

Q. How does this Peter Howard stalk people?
A. He invents a "claim", then demands that they defend it. Then he screeches over and over again that they are liars.

Q. Don't people demand proof?
A. Sure they do. He invents proof, like anonymous witnesses. He lies that he owns items people who really own them talk about. He lies that he is in touch with Government departments.

Q. Does he get caught out?
A. All the time. Ignorance and lies and malice can't be hidden

Q. What drives this wretched Peter Howard?
A. His ancestors were transported criminals. He's a congenital social criminal, a psychopath who resents his lowly status, and total lack of talent and charm, and takes out his resentment on others.

Q. A nasty little man.
A. You can say that again. And ugly. See the oil portrait of the netstalker Peter Howard at http://coolmainpress.com/ajwriting/archives/4913

Q. Ugly! He's a short-ass alright. Is that why is he called Little Howie?
A. Not particularly. Apparently the name arose in a locker-room when he was at school. Draw your own conclusion.

Q. What else is known about him. Does he have a family?
A. He keeps a sheep called Daisy near him at all times.

Q. Gee, that's beastly. Does he--
A. Don't even go there! This is a family site. Let's just say that when Peter Howard is in the district, people don't eat mutton.

Q. Does this Peter Howard have any redeeming features?
A. No.

Q. There's more, isn't there?
A. It can't be published on a family site.

THIS DOCUMENT IS FREE TO DISTRIBUTE AS A PUBLIC SERVICE AS LONG AS THIS NOTICE IS NOT REMOVED.

Tags: Peter Howard, Little Howie, a sheep called Daisy, Slade Point, netstalker, stalker, bullying, netbully, the stalker Peter Howard, the bully Peter Howard.

[Frank Krygowski]

http://www.cyclebanter.com/showthread.php?t=204228

--
- Frank Krygowski

[avag...@gmail.com]

http://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/catfish.jpg

[Andre Jute]

Thank you, Franki-boy.

For newcomers: As Franki-boy Krygowski points out, in May 2009 Peter Howard (who is "Antiroll") assaulted me, someone he didn't know. I had done him no harm; I didn't even know who this insignifant little man was. Peter Howard apparently thought (or was told by Henry Pasternack of the Magnequest Scum, which had tried it before and come short, and are presently hiding behind a firewall) that he could raise his non-existent profile by attacking me, so he attacked me.

He has assaulted me at every opportunity since. I have waited six years for the criminal netstalker Peter Howard of Slade Point, Queensland, to grasp the immorality of his activities and to apologize, but he hasn't. I must conclude that Peter Howard, aka Antitroll, aka Little Howie, is irredeemable scum and act accordingly.

Besides this FAQ: THE NETSTALKER AND NETBULLY PETER HOWARD AKA LITTLE HOWIE, there is also a visual representation of the vicious character of Peter Howard in the oil portrait at http://coolmainpress.com/ajwriting/archives/4913

Now we'll see if the scummy little coward Peter Howard like taking it as much as he likes handing it out.

Andre Jute
Given as a public service

[avag...@gmail.com]

WELL SOMEONE HAS TO DO IT .....

[AMuzi]

That's a currently hot political topic:
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/economic-intelligence/2015/05/13/usda-catfish-program-wastes-taxpayer-money

Hey Frank, explain once more whatever difference you can see
between government and the lesser mafias.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[Frank Krygowski]

On 5/21/2015 1:32 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>
> Hey Frank, explain once more whatever difference you can see between
> government and the lesser mafias.

There are many. I suppose one way of summarizing is that I think
society would not only survive, but thrive without the "lesser mafias" -
in which I imagine you'd include ghetto gangs, biker groups that murder
each other, drug cartels, etc.

Absence of legitimate government, on the other hand, gives you poverty,
total lack of security and cholera. Again, refer to Mogadishu.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Andre Jute]

On Thursday, May 21, 2015 at 6:25:14 PM UTC+1, avag...@gmail.com wrote:
> WELL SOMEONE HAS TO DO IT .....

Absolutely. Nobody wants to get his hands dirty, though. I waited six years for someone else to pour some toilet cleaner on Peter Howard. In the end I had to do it myself.

Andre Jute
If you want a job done right, do it yourself

[Tosspot]

On 21/05/15 20:30, Andre Jute wrote:
> On Thursday, May 21, 2015 at 6:25:14 PM UTC+1, avag...@gmail.com wrote:
>> WELL SOMEONE HAS TO DO IT .....
>

> Absolutely. Nobody wants to get his hands dirty, though. I waited six years...

<snip>

Ffs! If I waited 6 hours on usenet I'd consider it a waste of time.

[Andre Jute]

I know. But I always want to believe the best of people, so I'm tempted to give them another chance, and another, and another. It takes me a while to decide that even a scumball like Peter Howard of Slade Point, Queensland, is irredeemable. Still, by being slow in deciding to take care of some scumball, I don't make any mistakes that turn innocent bystanders into collateral damage.

Andre Jute
Marshmallow centre

[avag...@gmail.com]

I'm taken aback by the American Iron Works CEO + ..... fresh off Fred Gray.

brutal terror

[Peter Howard]

On 22/05/2015 12:19 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> http://www.cyclebanter.com/showthread.php?t=204228
>

For heavens sake, has that drooling old fraud Jute got his panties in a
twist again? All I did was say that his opinions on technical subjects
and English usage are worthless. Fortunately, his continued existence
only comes to my notice at second hand.
PH

[Andre Jute]

On May 18, 5:23 pm, Lord Valve <detri...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Q: How is it that Jute owns some poor assholes so completely they write thousands
> of words about him?
>
> A: It is the destiny of assholes to be owned. In fact, a convincing argument
> can be mounted that they are uncomfortable in the extreme without chains
> of some sort, or at least without an object on which to focus their worship.

[Andre Jute]

On Thursday, May 21, 2015 at 11:50:22 PM UTC+1, Peter Howard wrote:

That's in another thread you claim you didn't see, Litte Howie: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.bicycles.tech/2-n1JT57WR0
You really are a very poor liar.

[John B.]

You use too many words. While a "Lack of Government" certainly ends
up with poverty, etc., but a (to western eyes) non-legitimate
government doesn't necessarily result in the same thing. Under the
Emperors in both China and Japan there were (for their times) wealthy
people, in medieval Europe there were wealthy people and one might
even mention the early Roman Church that was, in a sense, a
dictatorship was, at one time, the major financial power in Europe.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

I get your point. And I know that some people feel that a benevolent
dictatorship may be better than democracy, at least in some situations.

But my inclusion of the word "legitimate" was recognition of the fact
that there will always be some sort of "government." When all other
systems fail, the "government" function is assumed by the meanest,
roughest guy with the most effective weapons and staff. Some "Drown the
government in the bathtub" freaks seem to forget that.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[John B.]

On Fri, 22 May 2015 08:45:07 -0400, Frank Krygowski

<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 5/21/2015 10:56 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 May 2015 14:26:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/21/2015 1:32 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hey Frank, explain once more whatever difference you can see between
>>>> government and the lesser mafias.
>>>
>>> There are many. I suppose one way of summarizing is that I think
>>> society would not only survive, but thrive without the "lesser mafias" -
>>> in which I imagine you'd include ghetto gangs, biker groups that murder
>>> each other, drug cartels, etc.
>>>
>>> Absence of legitimate government, on the other hand, gives you poverty,
>>> total lack of security and cholera. Again, refer to Mogadishu.
>>
>> You use too many words. While a "Lack of Government" certainly ends
>> up with poverty, etc., but a (to western eyes) non-legitimate
>> government doesn't necessarily result in the same thing. Under the
>> Emperors in both China and Japan there were (for their times) wealthy
>> people, in medieval Europe there were wealthy people and one might
>> even mention the early Roman Church that was, in a sense, a
>> dictatorship was, at one time, the major financial power in Europe.
>
>I get your point. And I know that some people feel that a benevolent
>dictatorship may be better than democracy, at least in some situations.
>

My own experience is that a benevolent dictator, in this case Lee Quan
U, P.M. and leader of the People's Action Party, in Singapore, for
most of its history, certainly did prove the point and I can remember
when Singapore revealed that there had been "ONLY 10% growth this
year", a period when the U.S., for instance, was bragging about single
digit growth. And during the growth years no one had a thing bad to
say about Lee he was, honestly, a Hero, and still is for that matter.

Unfortunately in his later years he also proved the shortcomings of a
dictator as he became, very out spoken and dictatorial (:-) although
by that time he had resigned the premiership and had become the
"Minister Mentor" with no official powers. He did continue to tell the
truth though, as when he made a speech in Manila and said that the
main problem in the Philippines was that they were a lazy and indolent
people. Perfectly true but hardly the polite thing to say, as an
invited (and likely well remunerated) speaker :-)

>But my inclusion of the word "legitimate" was recognition of the fact
>that there will always be some sort of "government." When all other
>systems fail, the "government" function is assumed by the meanest,
>roughest guy with the most effective weapons and staff. Some "Drown the
>government in the bathtub" freaks seem to forget that.

Interestingly, the earliest forms of "democratic" government (which I
believe you mean when you say legitimate) understood its shortcomings
and had provisions for the appointment of a temporary "leader" in
cases of disaster, or war. And, the Greek and Roman democracies were
not what would be considered "proper" today as both were configured so
that the rich and powerful effectively controlled things.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 5/22/2015 10:26 PM, John B. wrote:
>
>
> Interestingly, the earliest forms of "democratic" government (which I
> believe you mean when you say legitimate) understood its shortcomings
> and had provisions for the appointment of a temporary "leader" in
> cases of disaster, or war. And, the Greek and Roman democracies were
> not what would be considered "proper" today as both were configured so
> that the rich and powerful effectively controlled things.

The last bit was repeated in the U.S., where at first only landholders
could vote, no?


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Andre Jute]

Hang on! This whole business of democracy being even a full male franchise, never mind a full adult franchise, is pretty recent, a matter of rewarding the men who fought in the largest wars in history: "A land fit for heroes." Among the Founding Fathers there were several who would have voted for a local monarchy, but only as a second choice to the enlighten dictatorship (of an hereditary monarch) favoured by the French philosophes, the Encyclopedists, who they all read and who provided the philosophical framework of the American Revolution. Washington and many others would have shuddered at the very idea of giving unlettered peasants a vote and a voice, so they settled on what was then the height of democratic practice, a property qualification for the franchise. And, if you know any European history, you will understand why they felt they were entitled to congratulate themselves on this decision when the Paris mob took over the French Revolution (which in its oriign was a revolution by the middle classes for advancement open to the talents rather than only to hereditary aristocrats of the land and the gown, the latter lawyers who could hand their titles and functions and sinecures on their children) and in its passions created massacres and terrors the like of which were not seen again until Lenin's bloodlust.

As for Slow Johnny's idea of Greek Democracy, in Athens about 700 heads of households, all men, who could meet a substantial property qualification, and didn't follow certain professions, essentially the Athenian male aristocracy, had the vote. Women, slaves, the poor, none had a vote, though some of "liberals" spoke for them.

It's incredible that Slow Johnny should class Greek and Roman society together. The Romans admired the Greeks and said they modeled their society on that of Greece, but all that really happened is that Greek architecture, plastic arts, and verse form colonized Rome. Roman society was absolutely nothing like Greek society. For a start, the mob had and exercised power; that is why the leading men paid out of their own pockets for the bloody entertainments in the arenas, to keep the mob entertained and quiet; emperors paid out of their own pockets for grain for distribution to the mob, to keep their thrones. "Bread and circuses." Next, the Army was a deciding factor (Ceasar crossing the Rubicon, Pompey parking his legions within striking distance of Rome, and so on); next, from the Claudians forward, the Imperial Guard murdered and made emperors. For most of the Empire phase of the Roman "Republic" the Senate, a self-perpetuating talking-shop of aristocrats (and rich ones at that: a senator had to prove a cash worth of well over a two million dollars in today's money) was a rubber stamp for the emperor. Don't let the outer forms carried forward from the real Republic mislead you. Those Tribunes "of the people" were positions for rich men who could buy the block votes of the districts; they were just pathways into the Senate for same kind of people as those who already sat in the Senate. As for the Consuls, it was a prerequisite for a Senator to have served a term as consul, so that tells you who the consuls were: aristocrats, and rich ones. Zero democracy, except if you count occasional mob violence.

Also, only superficial resemblance of the Roman government to the much more orderly (most of the time) government in Athens where, in more than theory, anyone with the franchise could initiate a policy, whereas in Rome the Emperor sent the policy to the Senate for rubber stamping.

Andre Jute

[John B.]

I don't remember for sure but wasn't that Jefferson's form for
democracy. If I remember correctly, he argued that the people that
paid the taxes should be the ones that decided how the tax money
should be used. Why, if the unwashed multitudes be allowed to vote
they might well vote for the tax money be used to benefit them.

I'm not sure that I don't, to some extent, agree :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.