Critters
A Planet Visitor
crevice down here in Florida.
It's too darned hot to put up with their slithery ways, and I wish they'd
just go back to where they belong, the critters.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
Naughty boy, Mark!
Mr Q. Z. D.
--
Drinker, systems administrator, wannabe writer, musician and all-round bastard.
"My parents always told me I could be what I wanted to be. ((o))
So I became a complete bastard." ((O))
A Planet Visitor
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
news:aaklkh$li7$1...@paris.btinternet.com...
> I've had just about enough of these ornery *******s crawling out of every
> crevice down here in Florida.
>
> It's too darned hot to put up with their slithery ways, and I wish they'd
> just go back to where they belong, the critters.
>
>
high morals) has copied my handle in deceit, unable to
cope with the reality of any rational argument.
PV
A Planet Visitor
"Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> wrote in message
news:diablo-722ABA....@newsroom.utas.edu.au...
> In article <aaklkh$li7$1...@paris.btinternet.com>, "A Planet Visitor"
> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
> > crevice down here in Florida.
> >
> > It's too darned hot to put up with their slithery ways, and I wish they'd
> > just go back to where they belong, the critters.
>
> Naughty boy, Mark!
>
have to be (and be English) to nic another's handle to provide a
racist post?
Whoever it is, has obviously been deeply stung by the truth of
my words, and needs to retaliate with the only weapon they
have left. LIES AND DECEIT. It leads me to believe that
the argument of the abolitionist is in deep trouble, if their
ranks consist of this poster. It only makes MY case more
strong. To think a post such as that one is supposed to be
funny, simply shows how shallow and insecure the original
poster actually is. I would hope if it is Mark, I could expect
a full apology or a full denial, one or the other. Most
especially because his recent words were "Truly the British
are morally superior." And I don't believe LIES AND
DECEIT meet such a definition.
PV
A Planet Visitor
"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@noos.fr> wrote in message
news:slrnacrnha.31i6....@lievre.voute.net...
> Le Mon, 29 Apr 2002 23:40:01 +0000 (UTC), A Planet Visitor
<abc...@abcxyz.com> a écrit :
> he has yet seen the error of his ways, and moved to the UK ...
>
> > NNTP-Posting-Host: host217-34-86-203.in-addr.btopenworld.com
>
You're right... it's not me.... Rather, it's one of 'your own,' desi.
Don't you feel especially proud? Don't you think Mark's
recent words ring rather hollow about now? - His claim that
"Truly the British are morally superior" Funny definitions
you people come up with.
PV
> --
> Desmond Coughlan
A Planet Visitor
my handle might have something to hide -- Perhaps
he frequently visits or lives in Burnley, and is a member
of the British National Party (BNP).
See http://www.bnp.org.uk/
"LONDON --- Prime Minister Tony Blair's director of
communications Sunday took the unusual step of urging
people in one of Britain's most racially divided cities to
stop a far-right party from gaining seats in upcoming
local elections. Alastair Campbell said a vote for the
British National Party would be disastrous for the Northern
England town of Burnley and three other neighboring cities
where last spring's race riots occurred to field candidates
for Thursday's local elections around the country."
One wonders, in view of the racist poster who used my
handle, if the U.K. is all really as serene racially as some
English would like you to believe. And one wonders how
close behind France the U.K. actually is, considering
the depths someone will go to spread deceit and vomit
lies even into an arena where physical confrontation is
not involved.
At the very least, since the poster in question has been
identified from the U.K., I would expect others from the
U.K. to at the least voice disapproval, at the risk of
presuming that they view the original poster's try to
be a reasonable means of argument here. Much as
one would view terrorism as a reasonable means of
argument.
> PV
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
OK, PV, OK. It was a troll in _extremely_ poor taste (and I mean
_extremely_). I have a far more tolerant view of the language used (it
only makes me cringe a lot rather than actually get angry) but I'm not
particularly tolerant of post forging, no matter how transparent it is.
The headers indicate that it was Mark and I feel that it's now up to him
to apologise for his egregious lapse in taste and netiquette.
John Rennie
No, it isn't serene as some really do believe. People
who live in, shall we say Cheltenham, can be sheltered
from the realities of life in Oldham and Burnley. They,
the denizens of Cheltenham, can cheerfully use
derogatory words about their coloured countrymen
in normal conversation in their local drinking places
that would earn them, at the very least, a knuckle
sandwich in many an inner city area. I am not
shocked but I am saddened by the post illegally using
your address. If, indeed it is Mark, I am really
surprised - I had hoped that his return would
be a filip to the news group. As it is only doggie and
Desmond will rejoice.
St.George
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
news:YUnz8.351764$K52.57...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> "Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:diablo-722ABA....@newsroom.utas.edu.au...
> > In article <aaklkh$li7$1...@paris.btinternet.com>, "A Planet Visitor"
> > <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I've had just about enough of these ornery ********s crawling out of
every
> > > crevice down here in Florida.
> > >
> > > It's too darned hot to put up with their slithery ways, and I wish
they'd
> > > just go back to where they belong, the critters.
> >
> > Naughty boy, Mark!
> >
> Good grief... how desperate and mentally sick does someone
> have to be (and be English) to nic another's handle to provide a
> racist post?
Yet MORE racism from evil PV.
Not only does he detest the jigaboos, but he detests the English too!
No wonder he is so nasty to poor old dirtdog.
St.George
<snip>
> OK, PV, OK. It was a troll in _extremely_ poor taste (and I mean
> _extremely_). I have a far more tolerant view of the language used (it
> only makes me cringe a lot rather than actually get angry) but I'm not
> particularly tolerant of post forging, no matter how transparent it is.
>
> The headers indicate that it was Mark and I feel that it's now up to him
> to apologise for his egregious lapse in taste and netiquette.
Never explain, never apologise, never admit anything - that's my motto.
St.George
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:WQsz8.227$8N3.1...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
<snip>
> No, it isn't serene as some really do believe. People
> who live in, shall we say Cheltenham, can be sheltered
> from the realities of life in Oldham and Burnley. They,
> the denizens of Cheltenham, can cheerfully use
> derogatory words about their coloured countrymen
> in normal conversation in their local drinking places
> that would earn them, at the very least, a knuckle
> sandwich in many an inner city area. I am not
> shocked but I am saddened by the post illegally using
> your address. If, indeed it is Mark, I am really
> surprised - I had hoped that his return would
> be a filip to the news group. As it is only doggie and
> Desmond will rejoice.
Christ, John, you can really be a miserable old bugger, can't you?
Whoever made that post was certainly just yanking PV's chain (with the usual
amount of success, I might add) and was not making any meaningful
statement - certainly not one that would detract from the brilliance of his
serious posts...
A Planet Visitor
"St.George" <ama.99@bt££internet.00com> wrote in message
news:aam3gg$931$1...@paris.btinternet.com...
Speaking of brilliance in supposedly serious posts, I would
remind you of four of yours, from which no hint of gleam
or shine of insight seems to emerge.
1. Your racist, and totally contrary statements within the same
post, where you say "Genetically inferior people are inferior
based on their genetic inferiority. It has nothing to do with
race or nationality, it has to do with genes." And then,
later on you contradict yourself when you state "Whites are
the most mediocre race on the planet. They excel at nothing,
and are physically, mentally, emotionally, philosophically and
culturally inferior to other breeds of homo sapiens." One
reading this comes away with the realization that you actually
don't know WHAT the fuck you're even trying to say. And I
recall you practically threatened legal action against Neil,
having had your tender sensitivity thoroughly spanked.
Claiming something similar to desi, that because they
could track your REAL name... they were 'coming after
you.' Perhaps to 'firebomb' your flat. Not to mention that
you practically called me a liar, in even less pleasant terms
for simply reprinting your words.
2. You say "according to author Bill Bryson, the percentage
of the U.S. population that is foreign-born is just 6%" If not
an out-and-out lie, it was certainly one of the more ridiculous
and less researched claims I've seen here. Yet you cited it
as some form of authority for your diatribe against the U.S.
once again. And then your absurd conclusion that "In fact,
the UK has TEN times as many immigrants per square
mile as the U.S. does." Of course, that's a totally senseless
observation, having no ACTUAL meaning when valued against
the total population density of these two countries. The U.K.
has a population density of 640 per/sq mile, while the U.S.
has 79 per/sq mile. That alone demonstrates that you
have a 'population' of EVERYONE in the U.K. that is 8.1 times
the population density of EVERYONE in the U.S. per sq mile.
Thus demonstrating your lack of knowledge regarding interpretation
of some rather fundamental data. In that particular case..
Where the hell is that 200 IQ being demonstrated?
3. Your fantastically absurd and totally laughable post of
St. George's day. I've perhaps never seen a more bigoted
and biased offering here in this newsgroup.
4. Your absurd statement that "Truly the British are morally
superior!" Another narrow-minded claim, that I think we can put
to bed, in light of your present reaction to the fraud that was
just perpetrated here, presumable as an excuse for argument.
If it seems as if I'm upset by the forgery perpetrated here,
in the name of whatever... you'd be right.
PV
A Planet Visitor
> Le Tue, 30 Apr 2002 12:35:56 +0000 (UTC), St.George
<ama.99@bt££internet.00com> a écrit :
>
> {snip }
>
> >> Good grief... how desperate and mentally sick does someone
> >> have to be (and be English) to nic another's handle to provide a
> >> racist post?
>
> > Yet MORE racism from evil PV.
> >
> > Not only does he detest the jigaboos, but he detests the English too!
> >
> > No wonder he is so nasty to poor old dirtdog.
>
> terabyte special, lamenting how 'the Gang' treats him differently from
> others ...
>
> Not that it would occur to him that he gets treated 'differently' because
> he's a sanctimonious, opiniated, egocentric, arrogant, patronising,
> hypocritical old cunt ...
>
> Oh, no.
>
Because most of the British here, view you as a leper.... your
vote doesn't count. You're just a ---
1. perverted, -- (you saying "and send that 16-year-old niece
of yours around to give me a blowjob whenever I want one.")
2 Racist -- (You saying in respect to your idea of what a
robber would remark to you "Gimme da dough, mothafucka o
ah toast yo ass !!" Apparently all robbers, speak only in a
Black vernacular in your handbook)
3. Murderer-loving -- (You invoking the help of God for
escaped murderers when you said "Were the two sentenced
to die ? If so, may God guide them to the Mexican border.")
4.Lying - (You saying " I have personally never felt the terror
of imminent death, yet I do not fear death." After having
clearly said "Personally, the guards would have a job
holding me down, as the litres of excreta that would be
covering my legs, would make it difficult for them to grab
a hold of me ...")
piece of worthless anti-Semitic trash.
I get treated 'differently,' because if I did not, my argument
could not be countered. Certainly not by you, since you
represent a comparison to nothing more than a laughable
version of Cherynobl to 'safe nuclear power,' in the argument
of the DP. It is only when that treatment reverts to creating
web pages, and thieving handles that it shows that
face-to-face confrontation can't hack it. That's the coward's
way, sport. That's your way.
If it seems as if I'm upset by the forgery perpetrated here,
in the name of whatever... you'd be right.
PV
> --
> Desmond Coughlan |MORON #1
A Planet Visitor
"St.George" <ama.99@bt££internet.00com> wrote in message
>
> No wonder he is so nasty to poor old dirtdog.
>
only a matter of degrees that separate the both of you.
Certainly, if as you've claimed "Truly the British are morally
superior!" you both should be seen as pariahs among those
'morally superior,' and we should expect them to detest you both
as well. But don't hide behind the English, with your OWN
individual racism. Since we've seen it, and know it well
from the both of you. And apparently you've now shown you
support those who are cowards as well. Supporting those
who hide behind Mother's skirts, afraid to face the argument
using their own name. I also remember the time you stated
to me "PV, irrelevant as it is, please stop implying that
I am dishonest, because I am not." I took you at your
word, but quite possibly you were not that truthful to begin
with.
Now I understand that your support stands behind some
slimeball, back-stabbing, cowardly cocksucker, trying to
find a way to mask their own racism with this latest
display of moronic pedomorphism.
A Planet Visitor
"St.George" <ama.99@bt££internet.00com> wrote in message
Unable to fight the fair fight, having had your arguments so
totally destroyed so often in the past, you presume it's
reasonable for a poster to find another way to attack,
though back-stabbing. Like a cowardly rapist stalking his
victim. And make no mistake, this pathetic attempt was
an attempt to rape. And then you have the arrogance to
claim you have a 200 IQ. But are unable to see THIS.
My God... you're actually mentally, morally and
emotionally-challenged, if you see no problem here. Like dirt,
who constantly trots out his presumed credentials hoping to
add luster to his obviously blemished arguments. Apparently
you support the belief that arguments can be supported
with lies, deceit, deception and outright forgery.
You piss-ant prick... a post which steals another's handle
stays in archive for decades. It's sickening that you could
presume stealing, like a thief in the night, an acceptable
form of argument. Stealing the only thing we have here,
our name in whatever form we present it, It presumes
the poster HAS NO argument. Unable to grasp hold of
the argument, beginning to believe a form of argument
which is forgery is a reasonable usage of word-weapons
in the argument. How 'moral' is that??? Apparently you
find rape, stealing and forgery is 'moral' and acceptable to
you. Because that's what this was.
Jürgen
A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...
>>
>> Yet MORE racism from evil PV.
>>
>> Not only does he detest the *******s, but he detests the English too!
>>
>> No wonder he is so nasty to poor old dirtdog.
>>
>Actually I detest both you and dirt as individuals. It is
>only a matter of degrees that separate the both of you.
>Certainly, if as you've claimed "Truly the British are morally
>superior!" ....
<snipped>
If such a ridiculous joke makes you react like you do then you are actually
excused. For all.
A Planet Visitor
"Jürgen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:aan23f$rit$06$1...@news.t-online.com...
And we know that Mark is formed from the genre who believe
in those ridiculous statements. It is not a bolt-from-the-blue
type statement from Mark, but representative of most of his
posts, claiming superiority for both himself (his 200 IQ) and
his country.
PV
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
pasdespa...@noos.fr wrote:
> Le Tue, 30 Apr 2002 12:35:56 +0000 (UTC), St.George
> <ama.99@btŁŁinternet.00com> a écrit :
>
> {snip }
>
> >> Good grief... how desperate and mentally sick does someone
> >> have to be (and be English) to nic another's handle to provide a
> >> racist post?
>
> > Yet MORE racism from evil PV.
> >
> > Not only does he detest the jigaboos, but he detests the English too!
> >
> > No wonder he is so nasty to poor old dirtdog.
>
> Oh dear, I can tell that we're about to be treated to another PV 5-
> terabyte special, lamenting how 'the Gang' treats him differently from
> others ...
>
> Not that it would occur to him that he gets treated 'differently' because
> he's a sanctimonious, opiniated, egocentric, arrogant, patronising,
> hypocritical old cunt ...
>
> Oh, no.
I think that Mark should be bloody well regretting what he did,
actually. I could post something that was an anathema to _you_ using
your address (even if the headers indicated that it was me) and it would
be archived forever, associated (albeit superficially) with your name.
I don't doubt that it would piss you off enormously.
Whatever else PV may or may not be, he ain't a racist. I actually feel
that he's a little overly politically correct with regard to race but at
least we can confidently say that he's not a racist. Now leave the poor
old bugger alone on this one - a case where he is unarguably in the
right.
EndlsRayne
> It is not a bolt-from-the-blue
>type statement from Mark, but representative of most of his
>posts, claiming superiority for both himself (his 200 IQ) and
>his country.
Hardly anything new. Next we'll be told about the trains running on time.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
[snip angry responses]
> No, it isn't serene as some really do believe. People
> who live in, shall we say Cheltenham, can be sheltered
> from the realities of life in Oldham and Burnley. They,
> the denizens of Cheltenham, can cheerfully use
> derogatory words about their coloured countrymen
> in normal conversation in their local drinking places
> that would earn them, at the very least, a knuckle
> sandwich in many an inner city area. I am not
> shocked but I am saddened by the post illegally using
> your address. If, indeed it is Mark, I am really
> surprised - I had hoped that his return would
> be a filip to the news group. As it is only doggie and
> Desmond will rejoice.
I was happy to see Mark's return. I really have no problem with
outright rudeness. I have no problem with the "j-word" (how twee) as it
has been used here [1]. What I have been surprised and saddened by is a
"forged" post. It may have seemed like a great joke at the time to Mark
[2] but it is _extremely_ hurtful in a way that no slinging of insults
can possibly be.
I'm quite happy to have someone call me a cunt or make derogatory
remarks about my intelligence/looks/education/whatever. I was perfectly
OK with Mark finding some pictures of me online and publishing the URLs.
I was upset (and continue to be upset) by Donnie/billybob's
misidentification of me because it's misrepresentation of me and, worse,
misrepresentation of someone else who is beastly careless about this NG.
How, then, can I be anything but appalled at the forgery that has caused
this storm in the a.a.d-p. teacup? I am reluctant to view Mark as
malicious but what he did was, at best, extremely thoughless and utterly
boorish. If he wants to piss PV off, there are nobler ways of doing so
than forging a post.
Mr Q. Z. D.
[1] - I continue to believe that it has been used ironically and also to annoy PV.
[2] - Such an obvious forgery with tell-tale signs of Mark's machine in the headers was, I believe, intended as a joke/troll but the fact that such forgeries are archived is, as PV points out, a very important consideration when judging the harm done by them.
St.George
<snip>
> If it seems as if I'm upset by the forgery perpetrated here,
> in the name of whatever... you'd be right.
It wasn't a "forgery", PV.
The term 'forgery', of necessity, includes an intention to deceive on the
part of the forger as to the authenticity of the material.
Whoever posted the original post in this thread made no attempt to seriously
pretend that it was a post by you. Hence, there is no deception perpetrated,
and neither was such attempted.
Besides, you are a cantankerous and anonymous Usenet handle, and hence have
no more right to use the name you use than anyone else.
St.George
<snip>
> > No wonder he is so nasty to poor old dirtdog.
> >
> Actually I detest both you and dirt as individuals.
Oh, PV - you _detest_ little old me?
What a quite remarkable statement!
It is
> only a matter of degrees that separate the both of you.
> Certainly, if as you've claimed "Truly the British are morally
> superior!" you both should be seen as pariahs among those
> 'morally superior,' and we should expect them to detest you both
> as well. But don't hide behind the English, with your OWN
> individual racism. Since we've seen it, and know it well
> from the both of you. And apparently you've now shown you
> support those who are cowards as well. Supporting those
> who hide behind Mother's skirts, afraid to face the argument
> using their own name.
PV, in case you didn't realise it, YOU are the most anonymous poster here.
Hence accusing others of being "afraid to face the argument using their own
name" is hypocritical in the extreme...
I also remember the time you stated
> to me "PV, irrelevant as it is, please stop implying that
> I am dishonest, because I am not." I took you at your
> word, but quite possibly you were not that truthful to begin
> with.
I am _extremely_ honest and truthful, in all important ways.
> Now I understand that your support stands behind some
> slimeball, back-stabbing, cowardly cocksucker, trying to
> find a way to mask their own racism with this latest
> display of moronic pedomorphism.
I don't think the original poster was trying to "mask" his own racism - he
seemed rather proud of it!
Either that or he was being satirical.
> If it seems as if I'm upset by the forgery perpetrated here,
> in the name of whatever... you'd be right.
I'm sure the original poster has the technical ability to forge headers
considerably more convincingly than he did, PV. Had he _really_ been
attempting to deceive, this is certainly what he would have done.
Now enough of my seriousness, you hateful old man - future contributions to
this thread from me will be restricted to abuse and derision at your
expense!
St.George
>
> "St.George" <ama.99@btŁŁinternet.00com> wrote in message
> news:aam372$71f$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
> >
> > "Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> wrote in
message
> > news:diablo-64301F....@newsroom.utas.edu.au...
> >
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >
> > > OK, PV, OK. It was a troll in _extremely_ poor taste (and I mean
> > > _extremely_). I have a far more tolerant view of the language used
(it
> > > only makes me cringe a lot rather than actually get angry) but I'm not
> > > particularly tolerant of post forging, no matter how transparent it
is.
> > >
> > > The headers indicate that it was Mark and I feel that it's now up to
him
> > > to apologise for his egregious lapse in taste and netiquette.
> >
> >
> >
> > Never explain, never apologise, never admit anything - that's my motto.
> >
> That's ALWAYS been your motto, you silly, immature twit.
> Unable to fight the fair fight, having had your arguments so
> totally destroyed so often in the past, you presume it's
> reasonable for a poster to find another way to attack,
> though back-stabbing. Like a cowardly rapist stalking his
> victim. And make no mistake, this pathetic attempt was
> an attempt to rape.
ROTFL!
No, literally, ROTFL!!
"Make no mistake...this was an attempt to rape"
Bwahahahahahaha - you are a moron, PV.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
<ama.99@btŁŁinternet.00com> wrote:
Oh bollocks, Mark, and you know it. Either that or your understanding
of Usenet and handles chosen for posting to Usenet is _extremely_
limited.
St.George
<snip>
.
> [2] - Such an obvious forgery with tell-tale signs of Mark's machine in
the headers was, I believe, intended as a joke/troll but the fact that such
forgeries are archived is, as PV points out, a very important consideration
when judging the harm done by them.
Oh all right, all right, I didn't think about the archiving bit.
Hence, it was mischievous of me to use PV's handle.
Bad, naughty Mark deserves a smacked bottom.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
<ama.99@btŁŁinternet.00com> wrote:
Of course, I would have continued to insist that it was you in public,
even if I actually knew otherwise.
An actual "sorry, PV" mightn't hurt - apart from your pride.
Mr Q. Z. D.
A Planet Visitor
> In article <slrnact6rk.2fk.p...@lievre.voute.net>,
> pasdespa...@noos.fr wrote:
>
> > Le Tue, 30 Apr 2002 12:35:56 +0000 (UTC), St.George
> >
> > {snip }
> >
> > >> Good grief... how desperate and mentally sick does someone
> > >> have to be (and be English) to nic another's handle to provide a
> > >> racist post?
> >
> > > Yet MORE racism from evil PV.
> > >
> > > Not only does he detest the jigaboos, but he detests the English too!
> > >
> > > No wonder he is so nasty to poor old dirtdog.
> >
> > Oh dear, I can tell that we're about to be treated to another PV 5-
> > terabyte special, lamenting how 'the Gang' treats him differently from
> > others ...
> >
> > Not that it would occur to him that he gets treated 'differently' because
> > he's a sanctimonious, opiniated, egocentric, arrogant, patronising,
> > hypocritical old cunt ...
> >
> > Oh, no.
>
> I think that Mark should be bloody well regretting what he did,
> actually. I could post something that was an anathema to _you_ using
> your address (even if the headers indicated that it was me) and it would
> be archived forever, associated (albeit superficially) with your name.
> I don't doubt that it would piss you off enormously.
>
> Whatever else PV may or may not be, he ain't a racist. I actually feel
> that he's a little overly politically correct with regard to race but at
> least we can confidently say that he's not a racist. Now leave the poor
> old bugger alone on this one - a case where he is unarguably in the
> right.
>
one thing is for sure. He has his gonads in an uproar because
his own racism has been 'outted' by me.
PV
A Planet Visitor
"St.George" <ama.99@bt££internet.00com> wrote in message
have found a better way to defend from your own racism.
PV
A Planet Visitor
"St.George" <ama.99@bt££internet.00com> wrote in message
>
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
> news:bgBz8.357912$K52.57...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
>
>
> <snip>
>
>
> > > No wonder he is so nasty to poor old dirtdog.
> > >
> > Actually I detest both you and dirt as individuals.
>
>
>
> Oh, PV - you _detest_ little old me?
>
> What a quite remarkable statement!
>
And your behavior was nothing short of that. And you
know it. It was a backstabbing attack, in retaliation
for my posting a DIRECT quote from you. It hurts
when you've been PROVEN to be a racist, so you
needed to find a way to retaliate, and you could
not do so in a straightforward fashion. Thus, you're
no worse than any thief.
>
>
> It is
> > only a matter of degrees that separate the both of you.
> > Certainly, if as you've claimed "Truly the British are morally
> > superior!" you both should be seen as pariahs among those
> > 'morally superior,' and we should expect them to detest you both
> > as well. But don't hide behind the English, with your OWN
> > individual racism. Since we've seen it, and know it well
> > from the both of you. And apparently you've now shown you
> > support those who are cowards as well. Supporting those
> > who hide behind Mother's skirts, afraid to face the argument
> > using their own name.
>
>
>
> PV, in case you didn't realise it, YOU are the most anonymous poster here.
> Hence accusing others of being "afraid to face the argument using their own
> name" is hypocritical in the extreme...
>
But I never pretend to be who I am NOT. While that's
exactly what you've done. I know who I am. You're
totally lost as to who you are, regardless of how you
appear here. Because you believe you need to steal MY
handle, to make YOUR case. You have a screw loose
if you think it isn't the height of hyprocrisy to attempt
to present yourself in the guise of another to make them
look racist. Why don't you just put on your white robe
and mask, and claim to be PV? Because that's
EXACTLY what you did.
>
>
> > I also remember the time you stated
> > to me "PV, irrelevant as it is, please stop implying that
> > I am dishonest, because I am not." I took you at your
> > word, but quite possibly you were not that truthful to begin
> > with.
>
>
>
> I am _extremely_ honest and truthful, in all important ways.
>
ROTFLMAO. Shit, Mark... You're just another poster suffering
from Eisoptrophobia. You really don't examine yourself.
If you did, you'd see that it's absurd to call yourself honest,
when you've just demonstrated most graphically your
inherent dishonesty. I'm astonished that you cannot
see the hypocrisy of calling yourself honest, after just
engaging in an act of dishonesty. What an assbackward
world your mind must live in.
>
>
> > Now I understand that your support stands behind some
> > slimeball, back-stabbing, cowardly cocksucker, trying to
> > find a way to mask their own racism with this latest
> > display of moronic pedomorphism.
>
> I don't think the original poster was trying to "mask" his own racism - he
> seemed rather proud of it!
>
There's no doubt you're rather proud of it... and unfortunately
I actually thought it might be an examination of yourself,
and the world around you. But no... you're just a typical
'run-of-the-mill' racist. Plain and simple... no better than
FRANK, or the current crop of 'Tom Shelly, White Trash'
I think the latest trend of your comments has rather
attracted that miserable crowd of dementia... like sharks to
blood. What you need to do is some self-examination.
But that's obviously beyond you.
> Now enough of my seriousness, you hateful old man - future
> contributions to this thread from me will be restricted to
> abuse and derision at your expense!
More threats?? What are you going to do to me that's
worse than what you've done? Let's see... so far we
have you lying, backstabbing, thieving, forgery, racism...
what's next? Going to claim oral copulation with my Mother,
perhaps? You miserable little prick. Reduced to
behavior like that, because you're unable to mount
any rational frontal attack. And you call me HATEFUL!!!
You're so fuckin' full of shit. The bile just flows out of
you. And remembering the thief of desi's name last
year... you need to recognize the company you've put
yourself in.
PV
A Planet Visitor
"St.George" <ama.99@bt££internet.00com> wrote in message
>
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
> news:cgBz8.357915$K52.57...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> >
PV
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
pasdespa...@noos.fr wrote:
> Le Tue, 30 Apr 2002 23:34:39 GMT, Mr Q. Z. Diablo
> <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> > I think that Mark should be bloody well regretting what he did,
>
> Perhaps he does.
>
> > actually. I could post something that was an anathema to _you_ using
> > your address (even if the headers indicated that it was me) and it
> > would
> > be archived forever, associated (albeit superficially) with your name.
> > I don't doubt that it would piss you off enormously.
>
> I don't recall PV getting so upset when accounts were created in my name,
> and I was accused of being gay, a white supremacist, a bigamist, and my
> father was accused of alcoholism, my mother of incest, and my sister of
> being a prostitute.
>
> PV was remarkably silent during those episodes, so whilst I can agree
> that
> I haven't seen any evidence of racism in PV's posts, you'll forgive me if
> I don't get 'all indignant' about what was very obviously, a joke.
It is one of PV's faults that he will expect his opponents to call other
members of his opposition when they indulge in questionable behaviour
but will only act similarly himself when pressed. It may be a double
standard but it is reasonably understandable and not worthy of universal
and unequivocal condemnation.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
pasdespa...@noos.fr wrote:
> Le Wed, 01 May 2002 10:51:13 GMT, Mr Q. Z. Diablo
> <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> > It is one of PV's faults that he will expect his opponents to call
> > other
> > members of his opposition when they indulge in questionable behaviour
> > but will only act similarly himself when pressed. It may be a double
> > standard but it is reasonably understandable and not worthy of
> > universal
> > and unequivocal condemnation.
>
> As someone else pointed out, 'PV' doesn't use his real name. No one
> knows
> who he is, where he lives, what he looks like, whatever.
I know that PV lives in Tampa Bay, Florida. He is a retired engineer.
He's probably slim, wears T-shirts with "I love Paris" printed on him
(and who could blame him ;) ), has a pony tail and said appendage is
probably grey. He's 68 years old +/- 2 years and is not a Southerner by
birth, having been born in Chicago.
I suspect that, if I were to see him in the street, I'd recognise him
instantly. I'd probably then drag him into a pub for beer and loud
argument.
> So to whinge
> because someone posts under his 'handle', is hypocrisy, _especially_ when
> he didn't say a word when Drewl was creating personae to impersonate me,
It's hypocritical, for sure. But then again, hypocrisy is part and
parcel of humanity. I don't expect PV to be anything more than human.
You may clash with him but he reminds me of a very conservative friend
of mine with whom I disagree about just about everyting so I can't
dislike him despite his occasional lapses into nastiness.
> and my family, _and_ posting private information to this newsgroup, using
> _my real name_.
On the other hand, Donnie is a malevolent piece of shit. I enjoy
goading him immensely.
> Second, it took me all of one, maybe two seconds, to know that it wasn't
> PV who had made that post. That's why I immediately checked the headers,
> and saw that it had been made from a btopenworld account, or whatever.
> No
> one here would have been fooled, even if he hadn't got all hot under the
> collar about it.
There is a difference between you and the casual observer, though. Like
it or not, PV's handle is associated witha particular person and he has
both a purpose and a message. I don't agree with either but I cringe to
see him misrepresented.
> Third, what's all the fuss about, for Christ's sake ? He doesn't _own_
> the letters 'PV'. If I wanted to post under that 'handle', I can do
> so. If Mark had posted using the name 'Jedro Clampett', that would have
> been different.
For sure. I've never found the "Jedro Clampett" PV-baiting remotely
funny, FWIW. I've giggled at doggie's "greengrocer-boy" taunts and the
provocative use of the "j-word."
> Fourth, can we drop it, please ? We're only giving the pathetic old cunt
> the attention that his bloated ego so desperately craves ...
Soon but not right now. PV has been a hypocrite on occasion but it
doesn't make what Mark did in any way permissible. He's stopped just
short of apology and PV has been somewhat graceless when dealing with
the almost-apology but I think that most of us are more civilised than
Donnie and should be encouraged to remain so.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
pasdespa...@noos.fr wrote:
> Le Wed, 01 May 2002 11:32:26 GMT, Mr Q. Z. Diablo
> <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> As someone else pointed out, 'PV' doesn't use his real name. No one
> >> knows
> >> who he is, where he lives, what he looks like, whatever.
>
> > I know that PV lives in Tampa Bay, Florida. He is a retired engineer.
> > He's probably slim, wears T-shirts with "I love Paris" printed on him
> > (and who could blame him ;) ), has a pony tail and said appendage is
> > probably grey. He's 68 years old +/- 2 years and is not a Southerner
> > by
> > birth, having been born in Chicago.
>
> No, you know none of the above. You suspect it, you feel sure about it,
> you're convinced of it ... but you do not, and cannot know it. Unless
> you've met him in person, that is (if this is the case, let me know, and
> I
> shall retract the above).
There are some things that you simply have to believe. PV's obvious
moods are consistent with what he claims to be. He's obviously bright
but not particularly socially ept. A geek (and I mean that in the
nicest possible way), in short. The non-explicit things about his
character that are telegraphed by his posting style speak volumes and I
believe him when we speaks of his own character and background.
Anyway, he married a French girl so we can't question his taste.
> I know that you're a fat cunt,
Only by your standards, you brilliantine stick insect! ;)
> around 6'2",
6'1", actually.
> with long fairish hair, and
> that you talk with a very light Australian accent (such that, if my
> memory
> serves me correctly, I even told you that it sounded like a New Zealand
> accent).
It's definitely an Australian accent, although Yorkshiremen have
asserted that I must be "from down south" (If only they knew) on more
than a few occasions.
> I know these things because I've met you. I'm not sure about
> the height bit, as I'm not very good at evaluating the height of those
> smaller than I.
I _weigh_ more than you. ;)
> The problem is that PV spends so much time on this newsgroup, obsessing
> over himself,
Obsessing about his views, which he (erroneously ;) ) believes are
correct, surely?
> posting reams and reams of hot air-filled (Grammar
> Police: was that hyphen in the right place ?) about himself,
To bew fair, he's only a minor offender in the "dear diary" league,
yourself and myself being niticeably "naughtier" in that regard.
> and then he
> complains when someone pulls a prank ?
An ill-considered prank, though. Mark didn't mean any harm but some was
done.
> Sorry ... I'm not convinced.
I'll tell you if/when I ever get to the USA. I shall be insisting that
I meet the old bugger and I'll find him whether he likes it or not.
I've got standing offers of booze from Richard and Jiggy so, if I can
snare PV, I've got the South stitched up in terms of alcohol.
Anyone from north of the Mason-Dixon line care to provide me with rither
incentive...?
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
pasdespa...@noos.fr wrote:
> Oooooops ....
>
> Le Wed, 1 May 2002 11:42:14 +0000, Desmond Coughlan
> <pasdespa...@noos.fr> a écrit :
>
> > I know that you're a fat cunt, <----
>
> Really, I'm laughing out loud at the moment. I forgot the smiley. No,
> really. Honest ... 'don't hit me!!!' :-D
As I say, that's a bit rich coming from someone who has to walk around
under the shower to get wet. ;)
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
pasdespa...@noos.fr wrote:
> Le Wed, 01 May 2002 12:12:50 GMT, Mr Q. Z. Diablo
> <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> a écrit :
>
> >> > I know that you're a fat cunt, <----
> >>
> >> Really, I'm laughing out loud at the moment. I forgot the smiley.
> >> No,
> >> really. Honest ... 'don't hit me!!!' :-D
>
> > As I say, that's a bit rich coming from someone who has to walk around
> > under the shower to get wet. ;)
>
> You bastard, that cost me a cup of coffee sprayed over my keyboard !!
>
> :-)))
All part of the service.
> Regrettably, my wife's cooking, coupled with one too many beers, has
> resulted in my lithe frame now weighing a tad under 100 kg ... :-(
I'm somewhat smaller these days, owing to having take up residence on my
lonesome. Former flatmates were so maddening that take-aways were my
staple diet and now I'm able to cook for myself. It's nice. I'm an
un-fucking-believable cook (ask A.) and it's better for one than stuff
that you buy from elsewhere.
Note to Craig: The 1999 Leasingham Bastion Shiraz Cabernet is bloody
good value. A BBQ quaffer to be sure but a great wine for AUS$10.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
pasdespa...@noos.fr wrote:
> Le Wed, 01 May 2002 12:33:30 GMT, Mr Q. Z. Diablo
> <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> > Note to Craig: The 1999 Leasingham Bastion Shiraz Cabernet is bloody
> > good value. A BBQ quaffer to be sure but a great wine for AUS$10.
>
> <blatant troll>
> What's that in real money (i.e. euros) ?
> </bt>
About EUR$5. Around £3.30 in real money.
Heh.
St.George
>
> > "Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> wrote in
message
> > news:diablo-FE9F4C....@newsroom.utas.edu.au...
> >
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > .
> > > [2] - Such an obvious forgery with tell-tale signs of Mark's machine
in
> > the headers was, I believe, intended as a joke/troll but the fact that
> > such
> > forgeries are archived is, as PV points out, a very important
> > consideration
> > when judging the harm done by them.
> >
> >
> >
> > Oh all right, all right, I didn't think about the archiving bit.
> >
> > Hence, it was mischievous of me to use PV's handle.
> >
> > Bad, naughty Mark deserves a smacked bottom.
>
> Of course, I would have continued to insist that it was you in public,
> even if I actually knew otherwise.
>
> An actual "sorry, PV" mightn't hurt - apart from your pride.
But I'm not sorry.
Simple as that, I'm afraid - PV has indulged in a hilarious and ludicrous
over-reaction ('this was an attempt to rape') which is exactly what was
hoped for when I trolled for it.
That's what trolls do, you know...
Bwahahaha - je ne regrette rien
St.George
>
> "St.George" <ama.99@btŁŁinternet.00com> wrote in message
> news:aanf9m$h2p$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
> >
> > "Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> wrote in
message
> > news:diablo-FE9F4C....@newsroom.utas.edu.au...
> >
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > .
> > > [2] - Such an obvious forgery with tell-tale signs of Mark's machine
in
> > the headers was, I believe, intended as a joke/troll but the fact that
such
> > forgeries are archived is, as PV points out, a very important
consideration
> > when judging the harm done by them.
> >
> >
> >
> > Oh all right, all right, I didn't think about the archiving bit.
> >
> > Hence, it was mischievous of me to use PV's handle.
> >
> > Bad, naughty Mark deserves a smacked bottom.
> >
> Bad, naughty Mark can go straight to hell.
ROTFL!! The day God introduces eternal damnation as a punishment for Usenet
trolling is the day I choose the other bloke!
> You should
> have found a better way to defend from your own racism.
Well, that sentence doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but why are you the
only one who seems to believe that my use of 'jigaboo' is not far more
jocular than racist?
A Planet Visitor
"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@noos.fr> wrote in message
news:slrnacve7l.61f.p...@lievre.voute.net...
> Le Tue, 30 Apr 2002 23:34:39 GMT, Mr Q. Z. Diablo
<dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> > I think that Mark should be bloody well regretting what he did,
>
>
> > actually. I could post something that was an anathema to _you_ using
> > your address (even if the headers indicated that it was me) and it would
> > be archived forever, associated (albeit superficially) with your name.
> > I don't doubt that it would piss you off enormously.
>
> and I was accused of being gay, a white supremacist, a bigamist, and my
> father was accused of alcoholism, my mother of incest, and my sister of
> being a prostitute.
>
> PV was remarkably silent during those episodes, so whilst I can agree that
> I haven't seen any evidence of racism in PV's posts, you'll forgive me if
> I don't get 'all indignant' about what was very obviously, a joke.
>
Keep in mind I never DEFENDED someone dishonestly
using your name. Therefore, there is a certain hypocrisy,
and a lot of weird logic within your post. Presuming that
because I didn't comment one way or the other on the
dishonest nature of someone who dishonestly imitated
you, you feel it's right for you to DEFEND someone who has
dishonestly imitated me.
At no time did I CONDONE or comment in a supportive
sense of anyone doing that to you. In fact, a few times
at the beginning, I was tricked myself into responding to
some of those posts, actually believing they were from
you. And in those instances I felt my instincts had been
betrayed. As I feel now. Nonetheless, that's what I now
see coming from you. Condoning and supporting someone
who has been dishonest to me.
Having been faced with dishonesty yourself, you now feel
it reasonable to support it when it is shown toward
another. Let's look at that -- If someone cheats you, and
another simply says NOTHING in respect to that particular
act... are we to assume that person SUPPORTS cheating?
And does having been cheated, mean that you can then
vocally SUPPORT any cheating of another? It seems as if
you have two standards there. Supposedly someone who
has said NOTHING about you being cheated, DESERVES to
be cheated as well, and you will DEFEND the one who has
cheated, rather than the one being cheated, in retaliation
for him having said NOTHING.
> { snip }
>
> --
> Desmond Coughlan |STILL HYPOCRITE #1
Rev. Don Kool
>A Planet Visitor <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
> { snip }
>
>
>>>PV was remarkably silent during those episodes, so whilst I can agree that
>>>I haven't seen any evidence of racism in PV's posts, you'll forgive me if
>>>I don't get 'all indignant' about what was very obviously, a joke.
>>>
>
>>The operative word is of course 'silent.'
>>
>>Keep in mind I never DEFENDED someone dishonestly
>>using your name. Therefore, there is a certain hypocrisy,
>>and a lot of weird logic within your post. Presuming that
>>because I didn't comment one way or the other on the
>>dishonest nature of someone who dishonestly imitated
>>you, you feel it's right for you to DEFEND someone who has
>>dishonestly imitated me.
>>
>
> 'He who is silent consents.'
>
> url:http://groups.google.com/groups?q=consents+author:planet+author:visitor&hl=fr&scoring=d&selm=h5ap8.24307%24K52.3854563%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.com&rnum=1
Apparently the irony of Desi posting a GOOGLE link is lost on him.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hope this helps,
Don
--
*********************** You a bounty hunter?
* Rev. Don McDonald * Man's gotta earn a living.
* Baltimore, MD * Dying ain't much of a living, boy.
*********************** "Outlaw Josey Wales"
John Rennie
snip
>
> I know who I am.
Oh, good.
John Rennie
"St.George" <ama.99@bt＃internet.00com> wrote in message
>
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
> news:m8Jz8.361564$K52.58...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> >
He's not the only one.
John Rennie
I'll tell you one thing, PV. You will conveniently forget that
two abolitionist, left wing subscribers immediately condemned
Mark for bad behaviour. You always forget support from
the 'other side', it's not convenient form you to remember.
A Planet Visitor
"St.George" <ama.99@bt££internet.00com> wrote in message
>
> "Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:diablo-A5A5B6....@newsroom.utas.edu.au...
> > In article <aanf9m$h2p$1...@helle.btinternet.com>, "St.George"
> > <ama.99@bt££internet.00com> wrote:
> >
> > > "Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> wrote in
> message
> > > news:diablo-FE9F4C....@newsroom.utas.edu.au...
> > >
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > .
> > > > [2] - Such an obvious forgery with tell-tale signs of Mark's machine
> in
> > > the headers was, I believe, intended as a joke/troll but the fact that
> > > such
> > > forgeries are archived is, as PV points out, a very important
> > > consideration
> > > when judging the harm done by them.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Oh all right, all right, I didn't think about the archiving bit.
> > >
> > > Hence, it was mischievous of me to use PV's handle.
> > >
> > > Bad, naughty Mark deserves a smacked bottom.
> >
> > Of course, I would have continued to insist that it was you in public,
> > even if I actually knew otherwise.
> >
> > An actual "sorry, PV" mightn't hurt - apart from your pride.
>
>
>
> But I'm not sorry.
>
that you're a racist... at least now we have a certain
degree of honesty coming from you. Perhaps derived
from your claim that "I am _extremely_ honest and
truthful, in all important ways." Presuming you can
decide what is important and what is not. So, if you
find that honesty itself is not an 'important way,' you
can be dishonest. Dishonesty that you've already
demonstrated. Do you see any absurdity and paradox
to your claim? Of course not.. but where's that 200
IQ? Going along with that, I would guess you also believe
that if you find racism 'not important' you can be racist.
The presumption being that by YOU determining 'what
is important,' you can do or say ANYTHING. I've come
to the conclusion that you are actually rather oafishly
thick-witted, and as dirt does, you feel the need to
constantly remind us that you're not, because of your
own insecurity that you are.
But, I actually never expected you to be 'sorry.' You
just wished to confirm your racism, and act the fool
in the process. Both objectives achieved. End of story.
> Simple as that, I'm afraid - PV has indulged in a hilarious and ludicrous
> over-reaction ('this was an attempt to rape') which is exactly what was
> hoped for when I trolled for it.
>
> That's what trolls do, you know...
>
Ah, yes... they make fools of themselves.
> Bwahahaha - je ne regrette rien
>
Ah, yes... and they never regret making fools of themselves.
This newsgroup abounds with proof of that.
PV
A Planet Visitor
"St.George" <ama.99@bt££internet.00com> wrote in message
>
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
> news:m8Jz8.361564$K52.58...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> >
> > news:aanf9m$h2p$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
> > >
> > > "Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> wrote in
> message
> > > news:diablo-FE9F4C....@newsroom.utas.edu.au...
> > >
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > .
> > > > [2] - Such an obvious forgery with tell-tale signs of Mark's machine
> in
> > > the headers was, I believe, intended as a joke/troll but the fact that
> such
> > > forgeries are archived is, as PV points out, a very important
> consideration
> > > when judging the harm done by them.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Oh all right, all right, I didn't think about the archiving bit.
> > >
> > > Hence, it was mischievous of me to use PV's handle.
> > >
> > > Bad, naughty Mark deserves a smacked bottom.
> > >
> > Bad, naughty Mark can go straight to hell.
>
>
>
> ROTFL!! The day God introduces eternal damnation as a punishment for Usenet
> trolling is the day I choose the other bloke!
>
Figuratively, you jagoff.
> > You should
> > have found a better way to defend from your own racism.
>
> Well, that sentence doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but why are you the
> only one who seems to believe that my use of '******' is not far more
> jocular than racist?
>
ROTFLMAO. Do you actually READ what you post?
Obviously not. I think everyone here recognizes who
lacks a 'whole lot of sense.' And you just keep
perpetuating your racism, in your hysterically funny
denial that you're 'just being jocular.' When you've
already admitted to being a racist.
A few clues, Mark ---
First clue -- Racism is NOT a 'jocular' subject.
It is destructive to those innocents that you claim you
hold important elsewhere, thus we can only assume that
you don't 'really' see Blacks as 'that innocent,' which is
about how we define racism.
Second clue -- Saying it more and more, doesn't make
it less and less. It only makes it more and more. As
Antaeus, the word only gains greater strength each time
it touches the earth from our lips, or words. Saying
it once, in apostrophes, in the perceived context can be
argued that it was meant to deride the 'word' itself
(I don't accept that, except in a scholarly presentation,
but I can understand how others might). But repeating
it OVER and OVER, can only be seen as giving it more
POWER, rather than detracting from the destructive
power of the word. The word has power, and it's power
does not diminish with the more you say it. It actually
gains greater strength. Stacking shit on top of shit,
doesn't make the smell go away.
PV
JIGSAW1695
From: Desmond Coughlan pasdespa...@noos.fr
Date: 5/1/2002 10:20 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <slrnacvuch.76u.p...@lievre.voute.net>
Le Wed, 01 May 2002 12:12:08 GMT, Mr Q. Z. Diablo
<dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> a écrit :
{ snip }
> Anyway, he married a French girl so we can't question his taste.
This (and the stuff that I snipped} you can only know, by meeting
him. Otherwise, it's his word, and bearing in mind his quite obvious
megalomania, I'd take whatever he says, with a pinch of salt.
{ snip }
> I've got standing offers of booze from Richard and Jiggy so, if I can
> snare PV, I've got the South stitched up in terms of alcohol.
I'm going there next year, probably. Sit your bike test now, and we can
hire a couple of bikes for the trip ... what about it ?
As for Jigsaw, I probably will go and see him. As I said previously, he's
dangerous, and I think capable of violence, but I shall cross that bridge
when I come to it. Richard, definitely. I was supposed to be dropping in
to see Anthony Crawford (before your time, son ;-)) in Missouri, but
didn't get that far. We did meet Randy and his family, though.
===============================
Hmmmm...lets see what is on the schedule..... humm.... Friends of the Klan
meeting.....Adolph Hitler Remerance Week...Committe to Remove all Immigrints
meeting.....Remembering King George: a Salute to our English
Heritage.....Lesbians and Dwarves: Our True Enemy (I think you will enjoy this
one Dez) .......... The Five Best Executed Conspiracies in the Past Ten Years
and finally ...... How We Manipulated Bill Clinton by Contol Thru the Use of
Rays.
Looking forward to seeing you so we can have fun, fun, fun.
Signed
Yours in Anticipation
Jigsawd
A Planet Visitor
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:rtUz8.9291$8N3.1...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
stated your disapproval. Clearly that doesn't extend to
desi having stated any disapproval. Thus he can hardly claim
that my NOT stating disapproval when he was abused, can
provide him justification for supporting my name being
abused. We often get accused of toadyism when we
excessively remark on those who support us. dirt would
be among the first to comment on that, were he to see a
remark from me. Faced with such dilemmas, I've become
more cautious in praise, in my old age. Both of you,
had of course, NO DUTY to speak out, so do not think it
has gone unnoticed. The contrary argument that desi
offers is however, simply full of his typical hot air. He
presumes that because we DON'T say anything it MUST
be taken as approval. But we certainly can't be expected
to comment on EVERYTHING we disapprove of. We'd
have time for little else. When we do not comment it
should always be taken in the negative. Meaning
NOTHING can be concluded from a non-comment.
In the case of desi's handle being abused, if asked at
that time I would have said I disapproved, quite strongly.
PV.
A Planet Visitor
> Le Wed, 01 May 2002 14:43:58 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@abcxyz.com> a
écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> PV was remarkably silent during those episodes, so whilst I can agree that
> >> I haven't seen any evidence of racism in PV's posts, you'll forgive me if
> >> I don't get 'all indignant' about what was very obviously, a joke.
>
> > The operative word is of course 'silent.'
> >
> > Keep in mind I never DEFENDED someone dishonestly
> > using your name. Therefore, there is a certain hypocrisy,
> > and a lot of weird logic within your post. Presuming that
> > because I didn't comment one way or the other on the
> > dishonest nature of someone who dishonestly imitated
> > you, you feel it's right for you to DEFEND someone who has
> > dishonestly imitated me.
>
>
>
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?q=consents+author:planet+author:visitor&hl=f
r&scoring=d&selm=h5ap8.24307%24K52.3854563%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.com&rnum=1
>
meaning of 'he who is silent consents.'
We obviously cannot speak in ALL cases of approval or
disapproval. My time would be consumed with only
disapproval of your every post (Just take it as a given
that I disagree with all your conclusions). Certainly, implying
we DO need to do so means EVERY member would need
to comment on EVERY post with which disagreement is
found, regardless of how slight, or how trivial that disagreement.
Some things are always left unsaid. But when we DO
speak, we should speak to what we believe in, and others
should not presume that when we don't speak we have
simply taken a view contrary to their view, in either direction.
Proof in fact, is ALWAYS in the negative. So things left
unsaid cannot be assumed to be agreement. The Latin
proverb does not imply that we must ALWAYS speak or
it is assumed consent. Those proverbs are seen as similar
to those in the Bible, offering 'turn the other cheek,'
for example, which does not mean a LITERAL 'turn the other
cheek.' The saying addresses the question that if asked
directly, I would have said I disapproved, quite strongly of
your name being stolen. 'He who is silent consents' has a
meaning ONLY when confronted with the clear obligation to
speak to a view. It goes to the heart of 'non-voting' as
well. The implication of the phrase is that moral dilemmas
cannot simply be "solved" by silence, or passiveness. That
large scale evils require the cooperation of many, of whom
a large number are just going along with the crowd, afraid of
being different and victimized for speaking out. Yours is
the basic lack of understanding the difference between
duties of omission and duties of commission. 'Duties of
omission' in respect to seeing a wrong being committed,
are never considered to be as harmful as 'duties of
commission' in respect to the commission of that wrong.
We can well commit an act of omission toward an evil
being committed. A standby victim of a bank robbery can
be seen to commit an act of omission toward an evil by
not attacking the robber, But acting otherwise, would
certainly lead to even more disastrous consequences.
While an act of commission implies an ACTIVE rather
than passive role in that evil. Such as driving the getaway
car. Which I see as your role in this particular argument.
You've become a party to that wrong. By you finding it a
'duty of commission' to speak out in DEFENSE of this
evil; presuming that such is reasonable, because I didn't
speak out in a 'duty of omission' when you were the victim;
you are only a little bit less evil than the person committing
such evil. 'He who is silent consents' always has that
flip side. 'He who is vocal in support of evil is part of
that evil.'
Think about it. But I know you won't!
PV
> { snip }
>
> --
> Desmond Coughlan |EVIL SUPPORTER #1
A Planet Visitor
PV
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
>"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@noos.fr> wrote in message
>news:slrnact6rk.2fk.p...@lievre.voute.net...
>> Le Tue, 30 Apr 2002 12:35:56 +0000 (UTC), St.George
><ama.99@btŁŁinternet.00com> a écrit :
>>
>> {snip }
>>
>> >> Good grief... how desperate and mentally sick does someone
>> >> have to be (and be English) to nic another's handle to provide a
>> >> racist post?
>>
>> > Yet MORE racism from evil PV.
>> >
>> > Not only does he detest the jigaboos, but he detests the English too!
>> >
>> > No wonder he is so nasty to poor old dirtdog.
>>
>> Oh dear, I can tell that we're about to be treated to another PV 5-
>> terabyte special, lamenting how 'the Gang' treats him differently from
>> others ...
>>
>> Not that it would occur to him that he gets treated 'differently' because
>> he's a sanctimonious, opiniated, egocentric, arrogant, patronising,
>> hypocritical old cunt ...
>>
>> Oh, no.
>>
>
>Because most of the British here, view you as a leper.... your
>vote doesn't count. You're just a ---
>
>1. perverted, -- (you saying "and send that 16-year-old niece
>of yours around to give me a blowjob whenever I want one.")
>
>2 Racist -- (You saying in respect to your idea of what a
<snooze>
yada yada yada.
w00f
A Planet Visitor
<ama.99@bt＃internet.00com> wrote:
>
>"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
>news:cgBz8.357914$K52.57...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
>
>
><snip>
>
>
>> If it seems as if I'm upset by the forgery perpetrated here,
>> in the name of whatever... you'd be right.
>
>
>
>It wasn't a "forgery", PV.
>
>The term 'forgery', of necessity, includes an intention to deceive on the
>part of the forger as to the authenticity of the material.
>
>Whoever posted the original post in this thread made no attempt to seriously
>pretend that it was a post by you. Hence, there is no deception perpetrated,
>and neither was such attempted.
>
Their really is NO way that I am GOING to SWALLOW that, MARK.
I am sick of this AND this is'nt the first TIME this has ever
happened. They're have been MANY time's BEFORE when people have
WILLFULLY posted USING MY handle
dirtdog
<dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> wrote:
>In article <slrnact6rk.2fk.p...@lievre.voute.net>,
>pasdespa...@noos.fr wrote:
>
>> Le Tue, 30 Apr 2002 12:35:56 +0000 (UTC), St.George
>> <ama.99@btŁŁinternet.00com> a écrit :
>>
>> {snip }
>>
>> >> Good grief... how desperate and mentally sick does someone
>> >> have to be (and be English) to nic another's handle to provide a
>> >> racist post?
>>
>> > Yet MORE racism from evil PV.
>> >
>> > Not only does he detest the jigaboos, but he detests the English too!
>> >
>> > No wonder he is so nasty to poor old dirtdog.
>>
>> Oh dear, I can tell that we're about to be treated to another PV 5-
>> terabyte special, lamenting how 'the Gang' treats him differently from
>> others ...
>>
>> Not that it would occur to him that he gets treated 'differently' because
>> he's a sanctimonious, opiniated, egocentric, arrogant, patronising,
>> hypocritical old cunt ...
>>
>> Oh, no.
>
>I think that Mark should be bloody well regretting what he did,
Shut up, you miserable twat.
w00f
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
<snipped>
>The problem is Mark doesn't know right from wrong.
Pleeeeeeease.
> 'outted'
Glad to see you have finally ackowledged that this is wrong.
w00f
dirtdog
<dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> wrote:
<snipped>
> It may be a double
>standard but it is reasonably understandable and not worthy of universal
>and unequivocal condemnation.
Your opinion.
I find few things more unforgivable than hypocrisy, especially when
one is perfectly aware one is being hypocritical, as is the case with
PV.
w00f
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
>"St.George" <ama.99@btŁŁinternet.00com> wrote in message
>news:aam33c$8d9$1...@paris.btinternet.com...
>>
>> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
>> news:YUnz8.351764$K52.57...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
>> >
>> > "Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> wrote in message
>> > news:diablo-722ABA....@newsroom.utas.edu.au...
>> > > In article <aaklkh$li7$1...@paris.btinternet.com>, "A Planet Visitor"
>> > > <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > I've had just about enough of these ornery ********s crawling out of
>> every
>> > > > crevice down here in Florida.
>> > > >
>> > > > It's too darned hot to put up with their slithery ways, and I wish
>> they'd
>> > > > just go back to where they belong, the critters.
>> > >
>> > > Naughty boy, Mark!
>> > >
>> > Good grief... how desperate and mentally sick does someone
>> > have to be (and be English) to nic another's handle to provide a
>> > racist post?
>>
>>
>> Yet MORE racism from evil PV.
>>
>> Not only does he detest the *******s, but he detests the English too!
>>
>> No wonder he is so nasty to poor old dirtdog.
>>
>Actually I detest both you and dirt as individuals.
Actually showing how _sad_ you really are.
<snipped childish whine>
w00f
dirtdog
<ama.99@bt＃internet.00com> wrote:
>
>"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
>news:cgBz8.357915$K52.57...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
>>
>> "St.George" <ama.99@bt＃internet.00com> wrote in message
>> news:aam372$71f$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
>> >
>> > "Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> wrote in
>message
>> > news:diablo-64301F....@newsroom.utas.edu.au...
>> >
>> >
>> > <snip>
>> >
>> >
>> > > OK, PV, OK. It was a troll in _extremely_ poor taste (and I mean
>> > > _extremely_). I have a far more tolerant view of the language used
>(it
>> > > only makes me cringe a lot rather than actually get angry) but I'm not
>> > > particularly tolerant of post forging, no matter how transparent it
>is.
>> > >
>> > > The headers indicate that it was Mark and I feel that it's now up to
>him
>> > > to apologise for his egregious lapse in taste and netiquette.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Never explain, never apologise, never admit anything - that's my motto.
>> >
>> That's ALWAYS been your motto, you silly, immature twit.
>> Unable to fight the fair fight, having had your arguments so
>> totally destroyed so often in the past, you presume it's
>> reasonable for a poster to find another way to attack,
>> though back-stabbing. Like a cowardly rapist stalking his
>> victim. And make no mistake, this pathetic attempt was
>> an attempt to rape.
>
>
>
>ROTFL!
>
>No, literally, ROTFL!!
>
>"Make no mistake...this was an attempt to rape"
>
>Bwahahahahahaha - you are a moron, PV
Actually, I prefer this bit
"You piss-ant prick... "
Not quite a ROTFL. But certainly a LOL!
w00f
doggie
<j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
<snipped>
>
>No, it isn't serene as some really do believe. People
>who live in, shall we say Cheltenham, can be sheltered
>from the realities of life in Oldham and Burnley. They,
>the denizens of Cheltenham, can cheerfully use
>derogatory words about their coloured countrymen
>in normal conversation in their local drinking places
>that would earn them, at the very least, a knuckle
>sandwich in many an inner city area.
Apologies for the change of name, John, but I really feel I must call
you up on this particular slice of idiocy.
I am from Leicester. Born a fucking bred, matey. You may wish to look
up the figures on our racial diversity here - and yet we all get along
just fine. Did you know Leicester will be the first town in the UK to
have a non-white majority?
Where do I fit into your little theory?
<self-important nonsense snipped>
w00f
dirtdog
<dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> wrote:
<snipped>
> If he wants to piss PV off, there are nobler ways of doing so
>than forging a post.
Yet none quite so effective.
If there's one thing PV _hates_ it's people posting using 'his'
handle.
In making such a song and dance each time, he unfortunately shows his
Achilles Heel.
w00f
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
>"St.George" <ama.99@btŁŁinternet.00com> wrote in message
>news:aaorhr$34q$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
>>
>> That's what trolls do, you know...
>>
>Ah, yes... they make fools of themselves.
Exactly.
Which is why I am somewhat convinced your comments on mitigation were
really a troll.
w00f
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
<snipped>
>First clue -- Racism is NOT a 'jocular' subject.
From such a 'sensible' point of view, nor are spastics, or incest. Yet
you use such notions in a jocular fashion each time you are in the
process of getting spanked by me, PV.
When you get angry, you talk real shit.
<rant snipped>
w00f
St.George
<snip>
> > > You should
> > > have found a better way to defend from your own racism.
> >
> >
> >
> > Well, that sentence doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but why are you
the
> > only one who seems to believe that my use of 'jigaboo' is not far more
> > jocular than racist?
>
>
> He's not the only one.
>
Hmph. Well, I don't care what one non-thinking, humourless, cantankerous,
reactionary old bastard thinks, so why should I care about two?
Local council elections May 2nd - Vote Tory!
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
<dog.de.la....@w00f.w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote:
You gonna make me the, slaaaaahg???
Mr Q. Z. D.
--
Drinker, systems administrator, wannabe writer, musician and all-round bastard.
"My parents always told me I could be what I wanted to be. ((o))
So I became a complete bastard." ((O))
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
pasdespa...@noos.fr wrote:
> Le Wed, 01 May 2002 12:42:39 GMT, Mr Q. Z. Diablo
> <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> a écrit :
>
> >> > Note to Craig: The 1999 Leasingham Bastion Shiraz Cabernet is
> >> > bloody
> >> > good value. A BBQ quaffer to be sure but a great wine for AUS$10.
>
> >> <blatant troll>
> >> What's that in real money (i.e. euros) ?
> >> </bt>
>
> > About EUR$5. Around £3.30 in real money.
>
> What's 'EUR$' ? :-)
My sodding keyboard doesn't have a symbol for that non-currency. Didn't
the French understand that the Franc had a certain romance about it but
the Euro looks like something you'd use to put two houses on Park Lane.
> Anway, five euros ? Our local plonkshop has a rather nice Merlot, for
> 1.5
> EUR. Lovely ...
Merlot...hmmm...isn't that the grape that most people blend with
Cabernet Sauvignon... ;)
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
pasdespa...@noos.fr wrote:
> Le Thu, 02 May 2002 00:00:51 GMT, Mr Q. Z. Diablo
> <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> > Merlot...hmmm...isn't that the grape that most people blend with
> > Cabernet Sauvignon... ;)
>
> url:http://www.epinions.com/fddk-Wines-By_Name-All-Fortant_de_France_Merlo
> t__Vin_de_Pays_d_Oc__1998
And there I was thinking that the French weren't keen on varietal
wines...
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.de.la....@w00f.w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
news:c2l0du44md0nv92jn...@4ax.com...
Try the entire argument in various threads regarding the 'self' of
society. You're one of the most miserable hypocrites I've
ever come across.
PV
> w00f
>
>
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.de.la....@w00f.w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
PV
> w00f
>
>
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.de.la....@w00f.w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
Looks like you brought a few friends along with you from your
other favorite newsgroups -- Tom Shelly - Mr. One - Apostle 13 -
Iben Getiner, and all your other little wennie friends. You people
are like fuckin' flies on shit.
PV
> w00f
>
>
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.de.la....@w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
news:r1m0duoj687702qj1...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2002 23:48:31 GMT, "Mr Q. Z. Diablo"
> <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> wrote:
>
> <snipped>
>
> > If he wants to piss PV off, there are nobler ways of doing so
> >than forging a post.
>
> Yet none quite so effective.
>
me off far more often and far more deeply than a silly forging
of a post. You're still the champ, even more than desi.
Because you are more DANGEROUS. desi we can see
through like a stripper's last veil. He's only Don's toy.
While Mark is no longer a factor among reasonable thinkers,
with his latest act. You're still as dangerous as that nest of
rattlesnakes under that rock, in spite of your obscene
character. About now, I'm can't even say I'm unhappy about
this thread, since it demonstrates the lengths some will go to
hide their own flaws. That was certainly the intent of Mark.
He tried to hide the racism that I'd shown in his posts,
only proving him to actually be a racist... And it seems
you now find yourself in the commission of an act which
supports his act. What it has done, is separate the men
from the boys. Those who we can see as reasonable here.
Those who hold a counter-argument to my argument in
respect to the DP, but are still appalled by the dishonesty
demonstrated. John Rennie and Mr. D. Obviously, anyone
who presumes that what Mark did was RIGHT, within the
TOS that we supposedly abide by here, also believes that
what happened to desi before was ALSO RIGHT. So we
can assume you agree with whoever did that. You can't
have it both ways. Of course, YOU can!! But that's because
you're an idiot, who doesn't recognize the 'difference' between
two ways.
> If there's one thing PV _hates_ it's people posting using 'his'
> handle.
>
> In making such a song and dance each time, he unfortunately shows his
> Achilles Heel.
>
Actually what it proves is that any further comment that
I can possible lose validity in any of my arguments by not
providing my real name is just so much rubbish. Should I
have ever provided that name, I'm certain that you or Mark
or some other irrational moron would be calling in a drunken
stupor at 3 in the morning my time, after spending
considerable time and effort tracking down my phone number.
It seems I recall you did that to someone in the U.K. before,
and found yourself in danger of getting your head ripped off by
some thick neck bodybuilder, if he could get a hold of you.
It's obvious that you and a few others are fuckin' crazy
obsessive about my postings. The evidence is right
there. Some here are so monomaniacally obsessed with
my presence here, perhaps because it stifles their purpose
of spreading poison, that they have become practically
psychotic in their purpose. Why else would this happen?
Why else would others devote web space and time to
create web sites solely about me? Why else would
others create new names using a play on words on my
handle (Plenary verbositor), never making ANY comment
unless it is an insult to a post of mine? Why else would
others dishonestly post under my handle to make it look
like I've made a racist statement? Certainly I don't give
a shit about them. Nor have I done any such thing. What
makes them so obsessed about me? I can only assume
because their emotional elevator doesn't ACTUALLY go
to the top floor. And they fear the truth. Because they
cannot argue the truth in this forum, but need to find a
dishonest way to do so.
PV
> w00f
>
>
William Robert
...........
I'd like to do an experiment if Desi makes it to Cali. I'll give him a few
hundred dollars, drop him off at a Tijuana whorehouse and see if anyone will
take his money. What does everyone think?
William Robert
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.de.la....@w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
I've yet to see you talk ANYTHING but real shit, dirt. Try
your 'defense' is the OPPOSITE of 'protection,' argument.
My God... how ****ing ill-nurtured and ill-educated you must be.
PV
>
> <rant snipped>
>
> w00f
>
>
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.de.la....@w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
nothing but your silly opinion, I've provided a host of responsible,
and reputable, cites, definitions, and finding, including those of the
U.N. to put your argument in the trash bin, where it most
surely belongs. You won't get away, simply by using SG
Seminal observation 6) again. Claim victory in another thread.
PV
> w00f
>
>
A Planet Visitor
> Le Wed, 1 May 2002 13:45:31 +0000 (UTC), St.George
<ama.99@bt££internet.00com> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> > But I'm not sorry.
> >
> > Simple as that, I'm afraid - PV has indulged in a hilarious and ludicrous
> > over-reaction ('this was an attempt to rape') which is exactly what was
> > hoped for when I trolled for it.
> >
> > That's what trolls do, you know...
> >
>
> Heh ... Mark Andrew Spence (is that his name ?) once stated (or at
> least I think it was he) that in his opinion, my posting 'style' was such
> that, if nutjobs like Drewl, Grüber, and Jigsaw decided to stalk me, I
> only had myself to blame.
>
> Considering the rather tasteless personality cult that PV has tried to
> build (with himself as 'admirateur-en-chef'), he really shouldn't be
> surprised that everyone takes the piss out of him.
>
> This is something that he apparently doesn't stop to consider, inbetween
> whingeing rants about 'the Gang' are so wotten towards him ...
>
Holy shit!!!!! POT....KETTLE...BLACK. I mean big time ...
POT.... KETTLE.... BLACK.
Presumable you forget about how many you claim are
'against' you. Like they 'firebomb' your flat??? Or they
harassed you so much they were incarcerated????
Or you don't archive your posts because of some absurd
for sale sign you posted in another newsgroup??
I don't think I've seen a bigger cry-baby here. My God...
don't you EVER call anyone a hypocrite here again!
ANYONE! I've never seen a more DIRECT example
of the DEFINITION of someone being a hypocrite than
your example. Piously, and with an air of almost
profound and fatalistic strength, claim that you do not
fear death, while having said previously that faced with
it you'd actually shit in your pants. You must have
been shattered when I dug up that past comment.
ROTFLMAO. You've been 'outted,' sport. You're a
friggin' hypocrite. Big time. You don't know how
you feel about death... you just don't want to be there
when it happens, because you might shit your drawers
if you are.
PV
> --
> Desmond Coughlan |MORON #1
A Planet Visitor
"Rev. Don Kool" <old...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3CD002A4...@comcast.net...
> >
> >
> >>>PV was remarkably silent during those episodes, so whilst I can agree that
> >>>I haven't seen any evidence of racism in PV's posts, you'll forgive me if
> >>>I don't get 'all indignant' about what was very obviously, a joke.
> >>>
> >
> >>The operative word is of course 'silent.'
> >>
> >>Keep in mind I never DEFENDED someone dishonestly
> >>using your name. Therefore, there is a certain hypocrisy,
> >>and a lot of weird logic within your post. Presuming that
> >>because I didn't comment one way or the other on the
> >>dishonest nature of someone who dishonestly imitated
> >>you, you feel it's right for you to DEFEND someone who has
> >>dishonestly imitated me.
> >>
> >
> > 'He who is silent consents.'
> >
> >
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?q=consents+author:planet+author:visitor&hl=f
r&scoring=d&selm=h5ap8.24307%24K52.3854563%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.com&rnum=1
>
>
> LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
ROTFLMAO. desi is famous for his 'irony.'
PV
> Hope this helps,
> Don
>
>
>
> --
> *********************** You a bounty hunter?
> * Rev. Don McDonald * Man's gotta earn a living.
> * Baltimore, MD * Dying ain't much of a living, boy.
> *********************** "Outlaw Josey Wales"
>
>
A Planet Visitor
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
news:kk4A8.168764$nc.22...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
>
<everything clipped>
It appears that the firestorm regarding this thread has subsided.
So, if anything can be said of our species, it is that we try to
examine the nature of what happens, and look to see how it
affects us. Hence, let's take a short look at this thread --
Essentially, we had a poster dishonestly post a racist comment
under my handle, which if actually me, showed me to be a
racist. And we had various responses to that dishonesty.
The thread held 6 posters having contributed more than
a minor comment (and a rather short deriding toward me
in general, comment from Jürgen), to the concept of
deception and dishonest practices in our posting here --
1. The original poster providing a racist comment under my handle
which others might presume, if not providing a more intense
look, came from me.
2. My responses in various posts in this thread.
3. John Rennie in a condemnation of such dishonest practices.
4. Mr. D. in a condemnation of such dishonest practices.
5. Desmond in support of this dishonest practice.
6. Dirt in support of this dishonest practice.
Now apparently both dirt and Desmond feel that part of their
reasoning (other than the fact they just like 'dishonesty' here),
is that 'I deserve it,' thus feeling it is an appropriate 'punishment'
relative to my 'crime.' But this rather flies in the face of
their argument regarding the DP, where they claim 'no one
deserves it.' Apparently they believe THEY set the rules
regarding who 'deserves it.' Further, their contribution to
this thread formed a part of 'the commission of the act.'
It was not an act of 'omission' in respect to a support for
or opposition of a dishonest practices, but a direct
'commission' of support for that act. Rather like the
getaway driver of the bank robber. Because they might
presume that they would not drive that car in all instances
(actually that would be an attempt to 'excuse' their
remarks), that does not negate the fact that they WOULD
drive the getaway car in THIS particular robbery.
Apparently believing a 'victim' CAN somehow 'deserve' it.
Again, claiming THEIR view on who 'deserves it,' can
override the view of all others.
Then when looking at John and Mr. D., we also see an
act of 'commission' in their comments. But conversely
that act was in opposition to dishonesty, REGARDLESS
of who the act was perpetrated upon. That in itself,
speaks volumes. And I'll allow the reader to examine
their comments, recognizing that they are considered
opponents of mine, in the argument regarding the DP.
One needs to also note that the original perpetrator of
this dishonesty, has denied any regret for it. Although
he now realizes that a handle which I established over
years, where I feel I can defend EVERY post I've provided,
has now been contaminated by him personally. He seems
to find both humor and purpose in having done so. Of
course, I could easily construct a new handle. But the
question is, who has offended whom? If I keep this handle,
since I am certainly aggressive in my approach, I can
expect in the future, to encounter another poster such as
dirt, who once as everyone remembers, obsessively went
back years in my posting history, into even another group,
trying to find some post of mine that he could use to attack
me. And now ANOTHER poster has provided just such a
history IN MY NAME, IN DISHONESTY. And every time
it might be brought up, I will have to 'explain' it, and be
offended again by those who would deny my 'explanation.'
One thing that has emerged from this pitiful piece of
obsessive dishonesty, is that I come away with a great
degree of satisfaction that it actually happened , which
provides me the certainty that I could NEVER reveal my
true name. Doing so, would simply, AT THE LEAST,
provide another disturbed poster, disagreeing with my
argument, the possibility of again posting dishonestly
under my REAL NAME. Thereby shattering that name
as well, with some disgusting and dishonest post. I
believe that Mr. D., made a mistake he might regret
by letting it get to him so badly, that he felt it necessary
to provide his REAL NAME to EVERY member of this
group. There ARE some irrational people out there. To
see that, one only needs to recognize that the irrational
poster of the dishonest post I am discussing, claimed to
be 'honest,' in the past... claimed to be -very honest-. Some
may see it as 'irony' to claim one thing and act otherwise,
but I see it as irrational, and hypocritical to do so. So
irrational that they would go to ANY dishonest lengths to
discredit anyone who opposes their particular agenda.
In a forum where only argument means anything. I think
ANYONE who uses their real name in a forum as volatile
as this, needs to have their head examined, and EXPECT
that it will be used against them, at some time or the other,
if they are argumentative in their posting style, as I admit
I am.
Further, does anyone other than me see some aspect of
being 'disturbed' when one becomes so obsessive? When
someone pathetically argues that the WORDS have
no meaning if not matched with a REAL NAME,
are they not obsessing over that 'name'? While they
presume it's reasonable to hide their WORDS, if they
are over a month old? Or when they expend
excessive effort, totally divorced from any argument
and lacking anything one might presume is direct
confrontation, in construction of web pages against
my handle, as have both dirt and desi? Or
create a 'new' handle which is simply a play on
my handle, as has 'Plenary Verbositor,' to ONLY
provide childish, fractious comments to some of my
posts, while making no sense whatsoever, and not
even pretending to do so? Or, as here, using
dishonesty as a weapon, because of an inability to
argue?
Why would I claim people such as that are 'disturbed'?
Well, that's because I see their behavior as 'disturbed.'
Again, my appreciation to John and Mr D. for supporting
not ME necessarily, but, with the 'commission' of their
posts, putting this event into a proper context, and
opposing dishonest practices in this newsgroup,
and in general. Others who made no comment cannot be
expected to agree with the dishonesty that was shown,
since that represents simply an 'omission' of comment.
Desi and dirt have obviously opted for the side of
dishonesty in the 'commission' of their comments. The
original poster?? Well, he's now only to be recognized
as simply dishonest. Me? I'm gratified that my belief in
maintaining my anonymity has been fully substantiated
yet again. I really don't care if anyone believes it lessens
anything I say, because more rational minds now must
understand that it CAN'T. Unlike desi, who believes he
can hide his words, never to be recalled against him, I
value my past words greatly, and would wish to have
them recalled, because they do not demonstrate hypocrisy,
as his often do. Masked behind what he often refers to
as 'irony,' when that hypocrisy is recognized.
PV
St.George
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@xzacby.cxm> wrote in message
news:3pk0dus8su1c79f5i...@4ax.com...
PV, this is your best post ever!
St.George
>
> "St.George" <ama.99@btŁŁinternet.00com> wrote in message
> >
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >
> > > > No wonder he is so nasty to poor old dirtdog.
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > What a quite remarkable statement!
> >
> It's quite reasonable to detest those that are detestable.
> And your behavior was nothing short of that. And you
> know it. It was a backstabbing attack, in retaliation
> for my posting a DIRECT quote from you. It hurts
> when you've been PROVEN to be a racist,
Actually, and FWIW, I must interject here.
Unfortunately your paranoia has got the better of you. I assure you that my
little bit of silliness had nothing whatsoever to do with anything you did,
or for that matter any actual views that I hold.
The idea that it was a retaliatory attack is in your mind only.
<snip>
> More threats?? What are you going to do to me that's
> worse than what you've done? Let's see... so far we
> have you lying, backstabbing, thieving, forgery, racism...
> what's next? Going to claim oral copulation with my Mother,
> perhaps? You miserable little prick. Reduced to
> behavior like that, because you're unable to mount
> any rational frontal attack. And you call me HATEFUL!!!
> You're so fuckin' full of shit. The bile just flows out of
> you.
This is quite the most ludicrous serious-sounding diatribe I have read for
some time.
This is your big problem - you _care_ so much about irrelevancies and jokes
that I imagine you red-faced at your keyboard, monitor flecked in spittle.
As part of the trolling battle, you have copiously lost because you are
obviously so deeply personally involved.
As part of real life, you are literally delusional in your views of the
relative importance of this sort of thing. And the reason why you are
'hateful' is because YOU stated that you 'detested' me.
Due to your manifest super-over-reaction, I might find myself quite nervous
at the moment, fearful of the kind of real world assault undertaken against
others on this newsgroup. Fortunately, you are a decrepit old man, far too
over the hill to deal with me yourself, and bereft of the authority to
influence my life in any other meaningful way.
Nonetheless, I foresee a sharp decrease in my dialogue with you in future;
not only to ensure my own personal safety, but because you no longer have
the credibility to be trolled. Nor is it any _fun_ to converse with you
anymore, you self-righteous idiot.
There's no fool like an old fool...
dirtdog
Eh?
Why?
w00f
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
>"dirtdog" <dog.de.la....@w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
>news:0am0duophjsq40l08...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 01 May 2002 17:16:49 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
>> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snipped>
>>
>> >First clue -- Racism is NOT a 'jocular' subject.
>>
>> From such a 'sensible' point of view, nor are spastics, or incest. Yet
>> you use such notions in a jocular fashion each time you are in the
>> process of getting spanked by me, PV.
>>
>> When you get angry, you talk real shit.
>>
>As opposed to you talking it with no provocation whatsoever.
>I've yet to see you talk ANYTHING but real shit, dirt. Try
>your 'defense' is the OPPOSITE of 'protection,' argument.
>My God... how ****ing ill-nurtured and ill-educated you must be.
>
>PV
>
Poor answer, PV.
I reiterate. Why is calling someone a Honkey/Paki/Jigaboo any worse
than making fun of spastics?
Answer please, you fuckin' hypocrite.
w00f
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
>"dirtdog" <dog.de.la....@w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
>news:o6m0du0b4onb9jus5...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 01 May 2002 16:36:00 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
>> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"St.George" <ama.99@btŁŁinternet.00com> wrote in message
>> >news:aaorhr$34q$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
>> >>
>>
>> >> That's what trolls do, you know...
>> >>
>> >Ah, yes... they make fools of themselves.
>>
>> Exactly.
>>
>> Which is why I am somewhat convinced your comments on mitigation were
>> really a troll.
>>
>ROTFLMAO. Quite apart from the fact that you've demonstrated
>nothing but your silly opinion, I've provided a host of responsible,
>and reputable, cites, definitions,
None of which proved your point in the slightest. In fact, the
'reputable' ones actually contradicted you (remember 'Diminished
Responsibility: A Partial Defence'?).
If I remember correctly, the only cite you produced which actually
went along with your position explicitly was written by a
psychologist, although a few other unrelaible sources (such as that
hilarious website you held up to be a beacon of legal definition,
before I pointed out to you that it defined 'intent' as 'desire') used
the word mitigation clumsily and inaccurately.
No malice (or whatever the mens rea might be defined as), PV, no
murder. If there is no murder, the crime is not 'mitigated' to
manslaughter, it is simply manslaughter.
I think you're learning now.
w00f
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
>"Rev. Don Kool" <old...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:3CD002A4...@comcast.net...
>> Desi Coughlan wrote:
>>
>> >A Planet Visitor <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > { snip }
>> >
>> >
>> >>>PV was remarkably silent during those episodes, so whilst I can agree that
>> >>>I haven't seen any evidence of racism in PV's posts, you'll forgive me if
>> >>>I don't get 'all indignant' about what was very obviously, a joke.
>> >>>
>> >
>> >>The operative word is of course 'silent.'
>> >>
>> >>Keep in mind I never DEFENDED someone dishonestly
>> >>using your name. Therefore, there is a certain hypocrisy,
>> >>and a lot of weird logic within your post. Presuming that
>> >>because I didn't comment one way or the other on the
>> >>dishonest nature of someone who dishonestly imitated
>> >>you, you feel it's right for you to DEFEND someone who has
>> >>dishonestly imitated me.
>> >>
>> >
>> > 'He who is silent consents.'
>> >
>> >
>url:http://groups.google.com/groups?q=consents+author:planet+author:visitor&hl=f
>r&scoring=d&selm=h5ap8.24307%24K52.3854563%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.com&rnum=1
>>
>>
>> Apparently the irony of Desi posting a GOOGLE link is lost on him.
>> LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>
>ROTFLMAO. desi is famous for his 'irony.'
>
Looking for new friends, PV?
w00f
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
>"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
>news:kk4A8.168764$nc.22...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
>>
><everything clipped>
>
>It appears that the firestorm regarding this thread has subsided.
>So, if anything can be said of our species, it is that we try to
>examine the nature of what happens, and look to see how it
>affects us. Hence, let's take a short look at this thread --
>
<long, dreary rant full of self-pity and misplaced indignation
snipped>
Fuck me, PV. You _are_ disturbed, aren't you.
Still, I hope you feel better now.
w00f
dirtdog
<pasdespa...@noos.fr> wrote:
>Le Thu, 02 May 2002 18:34:56 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@abcxyz.com> a écrit :
>
>{ snip }
>
>> 1. The original poster providing a racist comment under my handle
>> which others might presume, if not providing a more intense
>> look, came from me.
>> 2. My responses in various posts in this thread.
>> 3. John Rennie in a condemnation of such dishonest practices.
>> 4. Mr. D. in a condemnation of such dishonest practices.
>> 5. Desmond in support of this dishonest practice.
>> 6. Dirt in support of this dishonest practice.
>>
>> Now apparently both dirt and Desmond feel that part of their
>
>LOL ... one of these days, PV, you're going to manage an evening without
>obsessive over dirt and me.
>
>For the record, I do not 'support' what Mark did. Truth be told, I
>disapprove. I just decided to be 'silent', without 'consenting' (bien
>entendu), as I didn't see any reason to do otherwise.
>
>Nor for fuck's sake, PV, you're a petulant, arrogant, sanctimonious,
>immature, pseudo-intellectual arsewipe. But you're not (as far as I've
>been able to ascertain from your posts) a racist. So forget it, for
>heaven's sake !!!
>
>{ snip }
Sadly, he will not.
The central tenet of PV's own posting is dishonesty of the most
heinous kind - subtle distortion and diversion is the name of his
game.
I actually think that he likes instances such as these, since it gives
him the opportunity to harp on for hours on end, dragging out his
pseudo psychological interpretations to their (il)logical conclusions.
To anyone remotely sane, posting under another persons 'name' in a
manner which is patently _not_ designed to deceive might be annoying
to the person maligned. One might even understand why a person should
be pissed off about it.
However, it is most ironic that whilst the old cunt whines about the
deception of others, he is actually spinning a web of deceit himself
with his patently untrue and exaggerated talk of a hidden agenda and
SG attempting to mislead others. The 'attempt to rape' comment which
will soil his frilly pink panties for many years to come was perhaps
one of the most ridiculous comments I have ever heard. Yet PV hopes
that others will believe him.
You tell me, which is the more deceptive - a ridiculous post which was
_patently_ not made by PV, the aim of which was obviously a pure wind
up, or the long and clearly misleading diatribes which PV has produced
in return, through which he has _seriously_ attributed SG with all
sorts of heinous characteristics which he is clearly not afflicted by.
A fine example of 'verbosideception' can be found in the thread 'US
Immigration', in which PV made a quite idiotic statement that
mitigating circumstances reduce one criminal offence to another less
serious charge. He was wrong, and was quite correctly pulled up on
this fact by my good self. As a result, he has posted close to 500K of
impenetrably long long posts, peppered with quotes, cites and links
which on their face appear impressive. A closer inspection reveals
that those which are even slightly relevant are inevitaby either
contradictory to his position and carefully clipped, or taken from
Mickey Mouse sources. The aim is clearly to give the impression that
he has a point and evidence to prove it, and on a cursory inspection,
one might be fooled.
His doing this is deceptive, and deceptive in a manner which aims to
persuade. This to me is far more heinous than a simple piece of
posting which cannot even be called forgery and which will possibly
mislead only 'enigmacat'.
w00f
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
<snipped>
>
>One wonders, in view of the racist poster who used my
>handle, if the U.K. is all really as serene racially as some
>English would like you to believe.
Serene? Not at all.
However, with regard to race relations, we are, I am pleased to note,
light years ahead of your country, and indeed, much of the rest of the
world.
Tell me how many seats in parliament the BNP hold, PV.
Tell me what normally happens to BNP marches in my fine country.
<jibbering incontinent attempt to troll snipped>
w00f
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
>"Jürgen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote in message
>news:aan23f$rit$06$1...@news.t-online.com...
>>
>> A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...
>>
>> >>
>> >> Yet MORE racism from evil PV.
>> >>
>> >> Not only does he detest the *******s, but he detests the English too!
>> >>
>> >> No wonder he is so nasty to poor old dirtdog.
>> >>
>> >Actually I detest both you and dirt as individuals. It is
>> >only a matter of degrees that separate the both of you.
>> >Certainly, if as you've claimed "Truly the British are morally
>> >superior!" ....
>>
>> <snipped>
>>
>> If such a ridiculous joke makes you react like you do then you are actually
>> excused. For all.
>>
>Not a ridiculous 'joke,' Jürgen. More of a ridiculous statement.
Nope. It was a ridiculous joke.
Very funny, though.
w00f
dirtdog
<dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> wrote:
<snipped>
>
>An ill-considered prank, though. Mark didn't mean any harm but some was
>done.
No it wasn't. No harm at all was done except to PV's silly self
inflicted rise in blood pressure.
I should be most interested what harm you believe was done.
w00f
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
<dog.de.la....@w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote:
No. I disagree. PV is an entity. He is a person. He posts to
a.a.d-p. We know things about him and associate his handle with those
things. Mark's prank has been recorded for posterity and those who are
less observant (or conversant with a.a.d-p.) might not spot the forgery.
I post under a handle. I'm pretty sure that everyone here knows my real
name by now (except, apparently, for Donnie - still waiting for that
call, Donnie, you thick twat!). I'd be pretty pissed off if someone
forged a post in my name or using my handle. Not as angry as PV has
been on this occasion but pretty riled.
I was very angry about Donnie/billybob's attack on an innocent colleague
of mine (which continues to this very day - how's _that_ for both
retarded and depraved?) because it becomes a matter of public record.
Everything you post to Usenet, no matter how angry, nasty or just plain
fucking stupid is recorded for posterity. The forging of posts, for
whatever intent, undermines the record of your contribution. That's why
I'd be annoyed and I'd imagine that's why PV's upset.
To be honest, I think that PV has been more than reasonable - he's
expressed his anger and said some nasty things to Mark. At no point has
he cited possible TOS violations or attempted to get Mark's account
pulled as he would possibly be entitled to do.
> However, it is most ironic that whilst the old cunt whines about the
> deception of others, he is actually spinning a web of deceit himself
> with his patently untrue and exaggerated talk of a hidden agenda and
> SG attempting to mislead others. The 'attempt to rape' comment which
> will soil his frilly pink panties for many years to come was perhaps
> one of the most ridiculous comments I have ever heard. Yet PV hopes
> that others will believe him.
As I said, Google Groups is an indelible record of the things we say.
PV will probably regret his "attempt to rape" comment in time to come
and it is on record as having been posted but at least it was _him_
engaging in hyperbole and he'll have to wear it. Having to account for
the words of others posted in your name is a bit much, don't you think?
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
> Now apparently both dirt and Desmond feel that part of their
> reasoning (other than the fact they just like 'dishonesty' here),
> is that 'I deserve it,' thus feeling it is an appropriate 'punishment'
> relative to my 'crime.'
Note that Des has indicated his disapproval. doggie takes a more
anarchic approach to Usenet so his response has been unsurprising.
> One needs to also note that the original perpetrator of
> this dishonesty, has denied any regret for it.
I'm a little disappointed there. Mark's a rude bugger and could easily
hurt the more sensitive posters around here but I'd thought that he'd
understand the ramifications of his prank.
> Although
> he now realizes that a handle which I established over
> years, where I feel I can defend EVERY post I've provided,
> has now been contaminated by him personally. He seems
> to find both humor and purpose in having done so. Of
> course, I could easily construct a new handle. But the
> question is, who has offended whom? If I keep this handle,
> since I am certainly aggressive in my approach, I can
> expect in the future, to encounter another poster such as
> dirt, who once as everyone remembers, obsessively went
> back years in my posting history, into even another group,
> trying to find some post of mine that he could use to attack
> me. And now ANOTHER poster has provided just such a
> history IN MY NAME, IN DISHONESTY. And every time
> it might be brought up, I will have to 'explain' it, and be
> offended again by those who would deny my 'explanation.'
Your opinion of doggie aside, that's a very good point.
> One thing that has emerged from this pitiful piece of
> obsessive dishonesty, is that I come away with a great
> degree of satisfaction that it actually happened , which
> provides me the certainty that I could NEVER reveal my
> true name. Doing so, would simply, AT THE LEAST,
> provide another disturbed poster, disagreeing with my
> argument, the possibility of again posting dishonestly
> under my REAL NAME. Thereby shattering that name
> as well, with some disgusting and dishonest post. I
> believe that Mr. D., made a mistake he might regret
> by letting it get to him so badly, that he felt it necessary
> to provide his REAL NAME to EVERY member of this
> group.
The difference between you and me, though, is that anonymity was fun.
That's all. I'm not worried about what anyone can do to me on the basis
that they have my real name. I note that I've still got my job...
> Again, my appreciation to John and Mr D. for supporting
> not ME necessarily, but, with the 'commission' of their
> posts, putting this event into a proper context, and
> opposing dishonest practices in this newsgroup,
> and in general.
Post-forging is one of the cardinal sins of Usenet and has been for
quite some time. Do it on some of the other newsgroups to which I
subscribe and you'll find yourself without an account. I am glad that
things are a little more civilised around here and people merely express
their disapproval.
dirtdog
<dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> wrote:
>
>Post-forging is one of the cardinal sins of Usenet and has been for
>quite some time. Do it on some of the other newsgroups to which I
>subscribe and you'll find yourself without an account. I am glad that
>things are a little more civilised around here and people merely express
>their disapproval.
>
It is actually worth noting that one of this group's most prolific
'post forgers' is PV himself.
Since there is no property in a usenet handle, posting using one which
another has declared to be their own is wholly unactionable.
True post forging is of course posting an article on usenet which
might cause replies to be directed towards a third party's systems,
causing additional load.
Replying to one of PV's posts via email will cause unsolicited email
to be sent to mail.abcxyz.com - a server which appears to be part of
Tucows' Internet empire.
Thus,one of the only people in this group who _does_ risk being left
without a provider, is the sanctimonious old cunt himself.
w00f
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
<dog.de.la....@w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote:
Ouch. I didn't know that abcxyz existed. It does.
Note to PV: you're probably advised to change abcxyz.com to something
like abcxyz.c0m.
While I was at it, I noticed the following:
root@emerson:> nslookup www.xyzzy.com
Server: diemen.its.utas.edu.au
Address: 131.217.1.19
Non-authoritative answer:
Name: twistymaze.xyzzy.com
Address: 206.20.181.11
Aliases: www.xyzzy.com
Real geeks will find it funny. A bit, anyway. Others probably won't
get it.
dirtdog
<dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> wrote:
<snippo>
>I was very angry about Donnie/billybob's attack on an innocent colleague
>of mine (which continues to this very day - how's _that_ for both
>retarded and depraved?) because it becomes a matter of public record.
>Everything you post to Usenet, no matter how angry, nasty or just plain
>fucking stupid is recorded for posterity. The forging of posts, for
>whatever intent, undermines the record of your contribution. That's why
>I'd be annoyed and I'd imagine that's why PV's upset.
Quite. Usenet is anarchy - which is precisely why anyone who posts to
it should be prepared for almost anything, and be able to laugh
anything off as part of the everyday rough and tumble it entails.
The ease with which a person may post using any name they choose means
that one can hardly be surprised when this sort of thing happens.
Besides, who gives the slightest fuck what anyone who doesn't know
this group thinks if they happen to stumble upon the old cunt's posts
on Google - especially if they are stupid enough to take a single post
in isolation which flies so much in the face of _gigabytes_ of other
material by the same person.
>
>To be honest, I think that PV has been more than reasonable - he's
>expressed his anger and said some nasty things to Mark. At no point has
>he cited possible TOS violations or attempted to get Mark's account
>pulled as he would possibly be entitled to do.
>
No, PV was not 'reasonable'. He acted like a silly old fool who can't
control his emotions and was just looking for sympathy and a word of
support. Any sympathy he might have had disappeared when, as he does
so regularly, he went completely over the top with his interpretation
of facts. This facet of his personality is what makes him such a
delight to troll, yet at the same time, is what makes him such an
intolerable old prick.
PV cannot just settle for the truth. He has to embelish it. Thus, a
flippant prank which particularly offended his sensibilities could
never be simply referred to by him as such. It must be something more.
It must be ABSOLUTE EVIDENCE of how DEPRAVED every poster who
regularly winds PV up is. It must be the final word that we are all
SICK.
Read all of his posts in this thread again and then tell me that he
has been 'perfectly reasonable'. I think you'll find that he is not.
w00f
dirtdog
<dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> wrote:
<snipped>
>
>To be honest, I think that PV has been more than reasonable - he's
>expressed his anger and said some nasty things to Mark. At no point has
>he cited possible TOS violations or attempted to get Mark's account
>pulled as he would possibly be entitled to do.
Oh, actually, I forgot why I orginally posted in reply to this, but
now I remembered.
SG wasn't responsible for any TOS violations, so it would have been
very silly of PV to threaten action with regard to them.
w00f
dirtdog
<pasdespa...@noos.fr> wrote:
>Le Thu, 02 May 2002 23:48:49 GMT, Mr Q. Z. Diablo <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> a écrit :
>
>{ snip }
>
>> Post-forging is one of the cardinal sins of Usenet and has been for
>> quite some time. Do it on some of the other newsgroups to which I
>> subscribe and you'll find yourself without an account. I am glad that
>> things are a little more civilised around here and people merely express
>> their disapproval.
>
>Don't delude yourself, QZD. I'm willing to bet some of Drewl's welfare
>'check' (sic) that the only thing which prevented PV from sending a
>complaint to doggie's ISP, is that he'd have had to use his real name in
>the e-mail.
>
>You're confusing PV's consistent desire to delude us, with some airy-fairy
>notion of magnanimity.
All this talk of TOS violations is making me want to fucking chuck up
my ringer.
Of course, Netcops will perish in the pit of Hades for all eternity,
showered by the acid piss of Satan himself.
However, I wonder how many of them realise the futility of their
actions?
In my time, the provider which i have been with for well over two
years must have had so many complaints about me it is untrue. MattMR2
was responsible for over 30 alone, I have been told.
However, how many warnings have I had? None. Have I ever been chopped?
Nope.
Take 'Sando', whose house I visit occasionally. During his main time
here in aadp and alt.abortion, he must have generated hundreds of
complaints as he graphically and lustfully described the brutal murder
and rape of women, children and animals. he would threaten people's
lives and at times actually disturb _me_ - and that takes some doing.
His account from which he posted remains active to this very day.
The most amusing thing is that during all that time he has received
_one_ warning under his ISP's TOS - not for the occasion when he went
too far in describing the rape and murder of a new-born baby, or even
when he spoke of how he was going to stalk everyone and kill their
parents. Oh no.
He got a TOS violation warning for a post in which he posted a jpeg of
a 'wretched filthy jackdaw' to this very group. Whoever made the
complaint can give themselves a little pat on the back
So there you go. Say what you like, however immoral, worrying,
threatening or violent. Just don't post binaries to a non-binary
group.
w00f
A Planet Visitor
> Le Wed, 01 May 2002 12:12:08 GMT, Mr Q. Z. Diablo
<dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> > Anyway, he married a French girl so we can't question his taste.
>
> This (and the stuff that I snipped} you can only know, by meeting
> him. Otherwise, it's his word, and bearing in mind his quite obvious
> megalomania, I'd take whatever he says, with a pinch of salt.
>
doesn't matter. Although I'm sure it bothers your intrusive nature.
What we DO know about you is what matters. You're the most
stupid mother****er on that god-forsaken continent. But let's
make it clear that you've certainly taken direct action to insure
we don't know about your posts that are over one month old.
I'm afraid I'll have to take a 'don,' and 'pray for you,' my son.
You need all the help you can get. Seeing as how you couldn't
find your way around the Paris Yellow Pages.
PV
> { snip }
> Desmond Coughlan |TWIT #1
A Planet Visitor
> Le Thu, 02 May 2002 18:34:56 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@abcxyz.com> a
écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> > 1. The original poster providing a racist comment under my handle
> > which others might presume, if not providing a more intense
> > look, came from me.
> > 2. My responses in various posts in this thread.
> > 3. John Rennie in a condemnation of such dishonest practices.
> > 4. Mr. D. in a condemnation of such dishonest practices.
> > 5. Desmond in support of this dishonest practice.
> > 6. Dirt in support of this dishonest practice.
> >
> > Now apparently both dirt and Desmond feel that part of their
>
> obsessive over dirt and me.
>
> For the record, I do not 'support' what Mark did. Truth be told, I
> disapprove. I just decided to be 'silent', without 'consenting' (bien
> entendu), as I didn't see any reason to do otherwise.
>
what that means. Clearly in your 'four point' post, you
strongly supported the fact that my handle was dishonestly
copied. Point 1 - You claimed I 'deserved' it since I had
not spoken when your handle was copies -- Point 2 --
You claimed it was no big deal, because YOU detected it.
Not to worry -- Point 3 - You said What's all the fuss
about? No big deal. Excusal again -- Point 4 - You
pathetically and hurriedly ask 'can we drop it, please'?... sweep
it under the rug, while you provide a paedomorphic insult in
the process. Apparently concerned that too much attention
was given to something you support in the end, because
you sense that I might gain some advantage by BEING
copied.
So we have some evidence that you DID support it, most
especially because I was the victim. Calling it 'a prank,'
and finding the entire process rather funny, and deserved.
Presuming that you don't see it as a serious offense, unless
it happens to you. While also obsessing again over the
fact that you don't know who I am. You certainly are an
intrusive fuck, considering that you hide YOUR posting history.
I can only attribute your glee over this event grows out of
the fact I've so often shown you to be a lying scuzzball.
And it looks like your stripes are still showing right here.
> Nor for ****'s sake, PV, you're a petulant, arrogant, sanctimonious,
> immature, pseudo-intellectual arsewipe. But you're not (as far as I've
> been able to ascertain from your posts) a racist. So forget it, for
> heaven's sake !!!
Being blind to your own racism, how the fuck could
you know? Need I remind you that your idea of someone
who would rob you, revolves about the mental image
of that robber being nothing but BLACK? Those
were your words, sport. Never even recognized,
or apologized as misleading by you. That wouldn't
fit in with your huge, bloated ego. Need I remind you
that supporting someone who demonstrates racism is
itself racism. And I've never seen an 'argument' from
you that offers any sensible meaning. Everyone
knows your ideas come from 'the conspiracy twilight
zone.' They're either lies, distortions, or as above,
one-word, pseudo-dirt, childish ravings. You can
really be pathetic at times, desi. This is one of those
times.
Have you EVER had a dialog where you offered any
REASONABLE argument? Of course not... it's all
hypocritical bullshit, pedantic posturing, and lies.
You claim I'm arrogant. But, Jesus... have you EVER
performed any self-examination? And petulant! How
do you think you're acting right now? You're a sorry
mess, desi. And the reason you dislike me so much,
is that I've shown you to be a sorry mess. Quite
unlike the way that Don and others show you to be
a sorry mess. I confront you DIRECTLY, using
YOUR OWN words. Shall I provide my LIST again?
With pleasure --
Lockerbie.
"the truth is that Osamo bin-Laden had
absolutely nothing to do with the events of 11
September"
Honor.
"The Balkans are not in Europe."
"Europe does not violate its citizens' human rights."
Not afraid of dying in one post - fear of dying in another.
Perversion -- posting to Jigsaw remarking "and send that
16-year-old niece of yours around to give me a
blowjob whenever I want one."
Dwight.
"FACT: the death penalty is wrong."
Theodore Frank.
God should help murderers.
"In matters of morals, Europe has led the world for over
2000 years."
'America' and 'the United States' are not synonyms.
"If it's legal, it's moral" ( followed a few days later with
"What is legal can be perfectly immoral").
A pathetic excuse as to why you hide your posts to AADP.
France has protected free speech (Of course ignoring
'Le Grand Secret,' and the Fabius-Gayssot Law for only
two certain instances of the restriction on free speech,
regardless of how offensive that speech might seem to anyone).
Denial of having created web pages I mentioned, with the
silly 'ironic' excuse that they weren't 'actually' web pages
(typical desi hypocrisy substituting for 'irony).
And finally, pitiful cries for help from other morons here.
NOTE -- Anyone wishing more extensive information
on those ' Wild, Confused and Disjointed Sayings
of a Disturbed Desi,' can wait for the book version to
be published shortly, or can simply ask me to provide
the full version of the particular comment.
Chamfort need not worry, desi. In remarking that
'If it were not for the government, we should have
nothing left to laugh at in France."
With Le Pen, we no longer even have a government
we can laugh at... but we still have you. ho ho ho.
Always something to laugh about in your posts.
PV
> Desmond Coughlan |SUPPORTER OF RAPE #1
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
>"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@noos.fr> wrote in message
>news:slrnacvuch.76u.p...@lievre.voute.net...
>> Le Wed, 01 May 2002 12:12:08 GMT, Mr Q. Z. Diablo
><dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> a écrit :
>>
>> { snip }
>>
>> > Anyway, he married a French girl so we can't question his taste.
>>
>> This (and the stuff that I snipped} you can only know, by meeting
>> him. Otherwise, it's his word, and bearing in mind his quite obvious
>> megalomania, I'd take whatever he says, with a pinch of salt.
>>
>ROTFLMAO...
Snooze
<snipped inevitable drivel>
w00f
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
<dog.de.la....@w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote:
> Take 'Sando', whose house I visit occasionally. During his main time
> here in aadp and alt.abortion,
alt.abortion? You nasty, nasty cunt!
Well done!
> He got a TOS violation warning for a post in which he posted a jpeg of
> a 'wretched filthy jackdaw' to this very group. Whoever made the
> complaint can give themselves a little pat on the back
Must have missed that one.
> So there you go. Say what you like, however immoral, worrying,
> threatening or violent. Just don't post binaries to a non-binary
> group.
Pisses people off. I've only got 28.8k from home (well, it's _free_) so
I don't want to deal with high-bandwidth tosh at all when I'm there.
A Planet Visitor
> Le Thu, 02 May 2002 18:34:56 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@abcxyz.com> a
> continué sa recherche pour un ami ainsi ...
>
> { snip }
>
> >> Apparently the irony of Desi posting a GOOGLE link is lost on him.
> >> LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> > ROTFLMAO. desi is famous for his 'irony.'
>
>
Not at all. Feeling stupid, desi?
> --
> Desmond Coughlan |DP SUPPORTER #1
A Planet Visitor
"St.George" <ama.99@bt££internet.00com> wrote in message
news:aas2u3$lsg$1...@paris.btinternet.com...
but by your racist partner. Have you two bought your white
sheets yet?
PV
A Planet Visitor
"St.George" <ama.99@bt££internet.00com> wrote in message
>
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
> news:HdJz8.361606$K52.58...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> >
<pathetic whining crybaby tears clipped>
>
> There's no fool like an old fool...
>
Oh, but there is... And you only need to look in the mirror.
Something that a few here have difficulty doing.
PV
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.de.la....@w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
> Why?
>
Ummm... that's because there is a 'self' of society, and you
in your hypocrisy refuse to admit what is 'self-evident.' You
are either a hypocrite or stupid... take your choice... it doesn't
matter to me.
PV
> w00f
>
>