info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Derbyshite hates his pic -was- Re: NOMINATION Re: Buggy behavior of server
6 views
Skip to first unread message
Kia
Jan 20, 2013, 8:16:38 AM1/20/13
to
kensi Seamus Derbyshire <loo...@headspace.for.rent.com>
asked for help with:
>On 18/01/2013 1:11 PM, Bruce Dollep wrote:
>> kensi brought next idea :
>>> Haven't you got anything better to do, like frantically getting that
>>> illegally-taken photo pulled off that webshite before the cops come
>>> knocking or something?
>>
You first. What is a "illegally-taken photo" exactly?
>> This one?
>>
>> http://www.imagebam.com/image/44d69d232251662
>
>No, that's just a bit of photoshopped fanfic, and it's from Steve, not
>
The image is not pshopp'd, idiot.
>Murphy. I was talking about the surreptitious photos Murphy took of
>someone's house (someone who he *thinks* is Derbyshire, and who might
>actually *be* Derbyshire for all I know, but Murphy's track record
>suggests a very low likelihood he was right that particular time) and
>which are evidence of illegal stalking for which he could probably get
>his lo0ny ass arrested.
>
He did?
Is that what you did with "Murphy", got him arrested?
>He even photoshopped in some text (scribbled like a child, natch, just
>like his usenet posts come across) so it's likely the image file has
>metadata identifying the Adobe software license registration information
>*and* the make, model, and serial number of the camera he used. Why, if
>that photo were to become the focus of any kind of serious criminal
>investigation, the cops'd be on his doorstep within *minutes* afterward.
>
... yew got a link to this photo?
Some help with leeching the metadata is within my skillset. [snarf]
... yer trolling, right guv>
asked for help with:
>On 18/01/2013 1:11 PM, Bruce Dollep wrote:
>> kensi brought next idea :
>>> Haven't you got anything better to do, like frantically getting that
>>> illegally-taken photo pulled off that webshite before the cops come
>>> knocking or something?
>>
You first. What is a "illegally-taken photo" exactly?
>> This one?
>>
>> http://www.imagebam.com/image/44d69d232251662
>
>No, that's just a bit of photoshopped fanfic, and it's from Steve, not
>
The image is not pshopp'd, idiot.
>Murphy. I was talking about the surreptitious photos Murphy took of
>someone's house (someone who he *thinks* is Derbyshire, and who might
>actually *be* Derbyshire for all I know, but Murphy's track record
>suggests a very low likelihood he was right that particular time) and
>which are evidence of illegal stalking for which he could probably get
>his lo0ny ass arrested.
>
He did?
Is that what you did with "Murphy", got him arrested?
>He even photoshopped in some text (scribbled like a child, natch, just
>like his usenet posts come across) so it's likely the image file has
>metadata identifying the Adobe software license registration information
>*and* the make, model, and serial number of the camera he used. Why, if
>that photo were to become the focus of any kind of serious criminal
>investigation, the cops'd be on his doorstep within *minutes* afterward.
>
... yew got a link to this photo?
Some help with leeching the metadata is within my skillset. [snarf]
... yer trolling, right guv>
kensi
Jan 21, 2013, 2:06:16 PM1/21/13
to
On 20/01/2013 8:16 AM, Kia wrote:
of someone's back yard, kOok.
>>> This one?
>>>
>>> http://www.imagebam.com/image/44d69d232251662
>>
>> No, that's just a bit of photoshopped fanfic, and it's from Steve, not
>
> The image is not pshopp'd, idiot.
Prove it, ko0ky. Also, prove it is who you say it is.
>> Murphy. I was talking about the surreptitious photos Murphy took of
>> someone's house (someone who he *thinks* is Derbyshire, and who might
>> actually *be* Derbyshire for all I know, but Murphy's track record
>> suggests a very low likelihood he was right that particular time) and
>> which are evidence of illegal stalking for which he could probably get
>> his lo0ny ass arrested.
>
> He did?
> Is that what you did with "Murphy", got him arrested?
Are you currently still posting your foamy bubbles of retardation to usenet?
Do they typically allow prisoners access to the net?
Then it is my sad duty to inform you that no, you have not yet been
arrested for your crimes.
That you had to ask me instead of already knowing the answer speaks
volumes about whatever passes for your "intellectual capacity", by the
way, kOok.
>> He even photoshopped in some text (scribbled like a child, natch, just
>> like his usenet posts come across) so it's likely the image file has
>> metadata identifying the Adobe software license registration information
>> *and* the make, model, and serial number of the camera he used. Why, if
>> that photo were to become the focus of any kind of serious criminal
>> investigation, the cops'd be on his doorstep within *minutes* afterward.
>
> ... yew got a link to this photo?
Suffering from memory problems, ko0ky?
Here, this oughta jog your memory, you fucking imbecile:
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=134379564600
I checked just the other day and the URL at the bottom of that post is
*still* live. Better get rid of it quick. Oh, but won't that be
destruction of evidence? Uh-oh. Looks like you may be screwed either
way. Evidence tampering, or criminal harassment and interstate stalking?
Choose your charge(s), fel0n.
> Some help with leeching the metadata is within my skillset. [snarf]
But none at covering your tracks, you ridiculous, clownish, brainless,
xylocephalic, unreliable, miserable, spamming, irrational, inept, insane
_______ _______ _ _______ _
( ____ \( ____ \( \ ( ___ )( ( /|
| ( \/| ( \/| ( | ( ) || \ ( |
| (__ | (__ | | | | | || \ | |
| __) | __) | | | | | || (\ \) |
| ( | ( | | | | | || | \ |
| ) | (____/\| (____/\| (___) || ) \ | _
|/ (_______/(_______/(_______)|/ )_) (_)
> ... yer trolling, right guv>
Oops, some bits and bytes were lost in the intertubes. Fix0red:
> ... how much are they gonna give me, guv?
Oh, maybe ten to twenty. If you manage to get time off for good behavior
somehow. Which you won't.
*snicker*
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"A clue, a clue. My kingdom for a clue!!!!" ~Gweggles,
in an uncommon moment of self-awareness.
> kensi wrote:
>> On 18/01/2013 1:11 PM, Bruce Dollep wrote:
>>> kensi brought next idea :
>>>> Haven't you got anything better to do, like frantically getting that
>>>> illegally-taken photo pulled off that webshite before the cops come
>>>> knocking or something?
>>>
> You first. What is a "illegally-taken photo" exactly?
Skulking around in the bushes on private property taking stalker-photos
>> On 18/01/2013 1:11 PM, Bruce Dollep wrote:
>>> kensi brought next idea :
>>>> Haven't you got anything better to do, like frantically getting that
>>>> illegally-taken photo pulled off that webshite before the cops come
>>>> knocking or something?
>>>
> You first. What is a "illegally-taken photo" exactly?
of someone's back yard, kOok.
>>> This one?
>>>
>>> http://www.imagebam.com/image/44d69d232251662
>>
>> No, that's just a bit of photoshopped fanfic, and it's from Steve, not
>
> The image is not pshopp'd, idiot.
>> Murphy. I was talking about the surreptitious photos Murphy took of
>> someone's house (someone who he *thinks* is Derbyshire, and who might
>> actually *be* Derbyshire for all I know, but Murphy's track record
>> suggests a very low likelihood he was right that particular time) and
>> which are evidence of illegal stalking for which he could probably get
>> his lo0ny ass arrested.
>
> He did?
> Is that what you did with "Murphy", got him arrested?
Do they typically allow prisoners access to the net?
Then it is my sad duty to inform you that no, you have not yet been
arrested for your crimes.
That you had to ask me instead of already knowing the answer speaks
volumes about whatever passes for your "intellectual capacity", by the
way, kOok.
>> He even photoshopped in some text (scribbled like a child, natch, just
>> like his usenet posts come across) so it's likely the image file has
>> metadata identifying the Adobe software license registration information
>> *and* the make, model, and serial number of the camera he used. Why, if
>> that photo were to become the focus of any kind of serious criminal
>> investigation, the cops'd be on his doorstep within *minutes* afterward.
>
> ... yew got a link to this photo?
Here, this oughta jog your memory, you fucking imbecile:
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=134379564600
I checked just the other day and the URL at the bottom of that post is
*still* live. Better get rid of it quick. Oh, but won't that be
destruction of evidence? Uh-oh. Looks like you may be screwed either
way. Evidence tampering, or criminal harassment and interstate stalking?
Choose your charge(s), fel0n.
> Some help with leeching the metadata is within my skillset. [snarf]
xylocephalic, unreliable, miserable, spamming, irrational, inept, insane
_______ _______ _ _______ _
( ____ \( ____ \( \ ( ___ )( ( /|
| ( \/| ( \/| ( | ( ) || \ ( |
| (__ | (__ | | | | | || \ | |
| __) | __) | | | | | || (\ \) |
| ( | ( | | | | | || | \ |
| ) | (____/\| (____/\| (___) || ) \ | _
|/ (_______/(_______/(_______)|/ )_) (_)
> ... yer trolling, right guv>
> ... how much are they gonna give me, guv?
Oh, maybe ten to twenty. If you manage to get time off for good behavior
somehow. Which you won't.
*snicker*
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"A clue, a clue. My kingdom for a clue!!!!" ~Gweggles,
in an uncommon moment of self-awareness.
Kia
Jan 22, 2013, 11:13:22 PM1/22/13
to
kensi twist...@gmail.com WINNER - KOTM July 2012 wrote:
... bringing you closer to the true attribution
you do not want others to know of, Paul.
>On 20/01/2013 8:16 AM, Kia wrote:
>> kensi wrote:
>>> On 18/01/2013 1:11 PM, Bruce Dollep wrote:
>>>> kensi brought next idea :
>>>>> Haven't you got anything better to do, like frantically getting that
>>>>> illegally-taken photo pulled off that webshite before the cops come
>>>>> knocking or something?
>>>>
>> You first. What is a "illegally-taken photo" exactly?
>
>Skulking around in the bushes on private property taking stalker-photos
>of someone's back yard, kOok.
>
I believe you are in error with your definition but I do say those
allegations (of themselves) could well bring you a whole new
paradigm of pain, Paul.. were you to pursue them at your
sheriff's office.
>>>> This one?
>>>>
>>>> http://www.imagebam.com/image/44d69d232251662
>>>
>>> No, that's just a bit of photoshopped fanfic, and it's from Steve, not
>>
>> The image is not pshopp'd, idiot.
>
>Prove it, ko0ky. Also, prove it is who you say it is.
>
To what end, Paul?
To satisfy your beg for help with images?
>>> Murphy. I was talking about the surreptitious photos Murphy took of
>>> someone's house (someone who he *thinks* is Derbyshire, and who might
>>> actually *be* Derbyshire for all I know, but Murphy's track record
>>> suggests a very low likelihood he was right that particular time) and
>>> which are evidence of illegal stalking for which he could probably get
>>> his lo0ny ass arrested.
>>
>> He did?
>> Is that what you did with "Murphy", got him arrested?
>
>Are you currently still posting your foamy bubbles of retardation to usenet?
>Do they typically allow prisoners access to the net?
>Then it is my sad duty to inform you that no, you have not yet been
>arrested for your crimes.
>
'scuse me?
Articles exist on servers for the purpose of reading/interpreting,
do you agree with that basic?
Where ^some^ net.people choose to regurgitate your posts it is
a very long bow to draw in branding that work an indictable
offence and even loonier still to preempt a conviction.
But that is your skill, Paul... producing preemptions as accusations in
partnership with fanciful fait accompli conclusions.
Here is just a sample of your posts you can now use to
report my posting of them as an indictable offense! haw haw!
First.. your link to that silly script (robot) you insist on
as one of your personalities (MPD affliction);
From: thoolen <th0...@th0lenbot.thorium>
Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2011 00:04:03 -0400
Message-ID: <j49erj$k3u$1 @speranza.aioe.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: sACVE1W5aZWPOUAkR9itHA.user.speranza.aioe.org
From: kensi <kensi_ke...@zoonoses.de>
Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2011 00:17:12 -0400
Message-ID: <j49fk8$lfc$2 @speranza.aioe.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: sACVE1W5aZWPOUAkR9itHA.user.speranza.aioe.org
Then.. your obsession with discrediting the
Down Under antepodeans;
From: Cthun <cthu...@qmail.net.au>
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 20:45:29 -0500
Message-ID: <jgsk40$htn$2 @speranza.aioe.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: KOBpGgRu6P+phIY+ZNkevA.user.speranza.aioe.org
From: kensi <kensi_ke...@zoonoses.de>
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 20:40:36 -0500
Message-ID: <jgsjqr$htn$1 @speranza.aioe.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: KOBpGgRu6P+phIY+ZNkevA.user.speranza.aioe.org
You got a number for your sherriff's office?
Maybe I should be calling this in, Paul?
[snarf]
>That you had to ask me instead of already knowing the answer speaks
>volumes about whatever passes for your "intellectual capacity", by the
>way, kOok.
>
Do tell how I am retarded (your view) in not knowing what you did
with "Murphy". It is now a crime of intelligence (IQ) to ask you
questions, Paul?
>>> He even photoshopped in some text (scribbled like a child, natch, just
>>> like his usenet posts come across) so it's likely the image file has
>>> metadata identifying the Adobe software license registration information
>>> *and* the make, model, and serial number of the camera he used. Why, if
>>> that photo were to become the focus of any kind of serious criminal
>>> investigation, the cops'd be on his doorstep within *minutes* afterward.
>>
>> ... yew got a link to this photo?
>
>Suffering from memory problems, ko0ky?
>
>Here, this oughta jog your memory, you fucking imbecile:
>
>http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=134379564600
>
... just another posted list of your known identity shifts, so what?
>I checked just the other day and the URL at the bottom of that post is
>*still* live. Better get rid of it quick. Oh, but won't that be
>destruction of evidence? Uh-oh. Looks like you may be screwed either
>way. Evidence tampering, or criminal harassment and interstate stalking?
>Choose your charge(s), fel0n.
>
... yer a piece of work, in naivety. Paul.
How and why would I or anyone else pursue removing
that file from that server, and why is a removal so
important to ^you^?
Second, why do you not garnish the message posting with
the same lame you use to excuse your refusal to man up
on Ray Banana reaming you a new asshole?
... said excuse being;
<kd9j99$ki1$1...@news.albasani.net>
"The question post's headers are suspect"
Thirdly, there is enough data in that file to develop a
search via Google Earth where indeed it is seen a mobile
very similar to the one you post is parked, out of full
view I note. I (personally) would lean to the conclusion you
are in the process of constructing an entrapment. To what
end I would leave to others in drawing their own conclusions.
But there is the exact lily livered kunt act you would embark
on (in your naivety) as you know very well the first step of
complaining about that file is to make a complaint to an
investigator who has the powers to peel back the layers.
What denies ^you^ that step is your fear of the list of questions
you would be asked at an initial interview, amongst which
would be;
"And Mr. Derbyshire do ^you^ send net.message to the
billboard that image was linked to?"
<crickets.wav> to that one, eh Paul?
There is why you will never complain to anyone but your
fantasy audience, Paul. You have built your own confines,
beginning with your spews from and about Carleton U more
than a decade ago. So, now trapped in that spin you will
always be unless of course you do post using your birthed
name whereupon you can have as much fun with your
'kooks' as Gwiggles will have when he posts
"I did it, it was me me me. I am that Usenet force el supremo".
[snortles]
... bringing you closer to the true attribution
you do not want others to know of, Paul.
>On 20/01/2013 8:16 AM, Kia wrote:
>> kensi wrote:
>>> On 18/01/2013 1:11 PM, Bruce Dollep wrote:
>>>> kensi brought next idea :
>>>>> Haven't you got anything better to do, like frantically getting that
>>>>> illegally-taken photo pulled off that webshite before the cops come
>>>>> knocking or something?
>>>>
>> You first. What is a "illegally-taken photo" exactly?
>
>Skulking around in the bushes on private property taking stalker-photos
>of someone's back yard, kOok.
>
allegations (of themselves) could well bring you a whole new
paradigm of pain, Paul.. were you to pursue them at your
sheriff's office.
>>>> This one?
>>>>
>>>> http://www.imagebam.com/image/44d69d232251662
>>>
>>> No, that's just a bit of photoshopped fanfic, and it's from Steve, not
>>
>> The image is not pshopp'd, idiot.
>
>Prove it, ko0ky. Also, prove it is who you say it is.
>
To satisfy your beg for help with images?
>>> Murphy. I was talking about the surreptitious photos Murphy took of
>>> someone's house (someone who he *thinks* is Derbyshire, and who might
>>> actually *be* Derbyshire for all I know, but Murphy's track record
>>> suggests a very low likelihood he was right that particular time) and
>>> which are evidence of illegal stalking for which he could probably get
>>> his lo0ny ass arrested.
>>
>> He did?
>> Is that what you did with "Murphy", got him arrested?
>
>Are you currently still posting your foamy bubbles of retardation to usenet?
>Do they typically allow prisoners access to the net?
>Then it is my sad duty to inform you that no, you have not yet been
>arrested for your crimes.
>
Articles exist on servers for the purpose of reading/interpreting,
do you agree with that basic?
Where ^some^ net.people choose to regurgitate your posts it is
a very long bow to draw in branding that work an indictable
offence and even loonier still to preempt a conviction.
But that is your skill, Paul... producing preemptions as accusations in
partnership with fanciful fait accompli conclusions.
Here is just a sample of your posts you can now use to
report my posting of them as an indictable offense! haw haw!
First.. your link to that silly script (robot) you insist on
as one of your personalities (MPD affliction);
From: thoolen <th0...@th0lenbot.thorium>
Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2011 00:04:03 -0400
Message-ID: <j49erj$k3u$1 @speranza.aioe.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: sACVE1W5aZWPOUAkR9itHA.user.speranza.aioe.org
From: kensi <kensi_ke...@zoonoses.de>
Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2011 00:17:12 -0400
Message-ID: <j49fk8$lfc$2 @speranza.aioe.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: sACVE1W5aZWPOUAkR9itHA.user.speranza.aioe.org
Then.. your obsession with discrediting the
Down Under antepodeans;
From: Cthun <cthu...@qmail.net.au>
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 20:45:29 -0500
Message-ID: <jgsk40$htn$2 @speranza.aioe.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: KOBpGgRu6P+phIY+ZNkevA.user.speranza.aioe.org
From: kensi <kensi_ke...@zoonoses.de>
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 20:40:36 -0500
Message-ID: <jgsjqr$htn$1 @speranza.aioe.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: KOBpGgRu6P+phIY+ZNkevA.user.speranza.aioe.org
You got a number for your sherriff's office?
Maybe I should be calling this in, Paul?
[snarf]
>That you had to ask me instead of already knowing the answer speaks
>volumes about whatever passes for your "intellectual capacity", by the
>way, kOok.
>
with "Murphy". It is now a crime of intelligence (IQ) to ask you
questions, Paul?
>>> He even photoshopped in some text (scribbled like a child, natch, just
>>> like his usenet posts come across) so it's likely the image file has
>>> metadata identifying the Adobe software license registration information
>>> *and* the make, model, and serial number of the camera he used. Why, if
>>> that photo were to become the focus of any kind of serious criminal
>>> investigation, the cops'd be on his doorstep within *minutes* afterward.
>>
>> ... yew got a link to this photo?
>
>Suffering from memory problems, ko0ky?
>
>Here, this oughta jog your memory, you fucking imbecile:
>
>http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=134379564600
>
>I checked just the other day and the URL at the bottom of that post is
>*still* live. Better get rid of it quick. Oh, but won't that be
>destruction of evidence? Uh-oh. Looks like you may be screwed either
>way. Evidence tampering, or criminal harassment and interstate stalking?
>Choose your charge(s), fel0n.
>
How and why would I or anyone else pursue removing
that file from that server, and why is a removal so
important to ^you^?
Second, why do you not garnish the message posting with
the same lame you use to excuse your refusal to man up
on Ray Banana reaming you a new asshole?
... said excuse being;
<kd9j99$ki1$1...@news.albasani.net>
"The question post's headers are suspect"
Thirdly, there is enough data in that file to develop a
search via Google Earth where indeed it is seen a mobile
very similar to the one you post is parked, out of full
view I note. I (personally) would lean to the conclusion you
are in the process of constructing an entrapment. To what
end I would leave to others in drawing their own conclusions.
But there is the exact lily livered kunt act you would embark
on (in your naivety) as you know very well the first step of
complaining about that file is to make a complaint to an
investigator who has the powers to peel back the layers.
What denies ^you^ that step is your fear of the list of questions
you would be asked at an initial interview, amongst which
would be;
"And Mr. Derbyshire do ^you^ send net.message to the
billboard that image was linked to?"
<crickets.wav> to that one, eh Paul?
There is why you will never complain to anyone but your
fantasy audience, Paul. You have built your own confines,
beginning with your spews from and about Carleton U more
than a decade ago. So, now trapped in that spin you will
always be unless of course you do post using your birthed
name whereupon you can have as much fun with your
'kooks' as Gwiggles will have when he posts
"I did it, it was me me me. I am that Usenet force el supremo".
[snortles]
Friendly Neighbor Vote Wrangler (The Only One) ®
Jan 22, 2013, 11:27:01 PM1/22/13
to
In article <kdno2i$gho$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, spooksRus@derbyshire-
crania.org says...
LOL Sockboi gets slapped again.
--
Properly known as FNVW
The Monster You Kooks Can't Handle
THERE IS NO NEW CABAL - LONG LIVE THE OLD CABAL
The AUK coup is complete. The New Cabal is no more.
Given that some butthurt kook keeps cancelling the roster posts, they
are now included in each of my posts.
Spin, kooky, spin! <snicker>
crania.org says...
--
Properly known as FNVW
The Monster You Kooks Can't Handle
THERE IS NO NEW CABAL - LONG LIVE THE OLD CABAL
The AUK coup is complete. The New Cabal is no more.
Given that some butthurt kook keeps cancelling the roster posts, they
are now included in each of my posts.
Spin, kooky, spin! <snicker>
HVAC
Jan 23, 2013, 10:26:51 AM1/23/13
to
On 1/22/2013 11:13 PM, Kia wrote:
> kensi twist...@gmail.com WINNER - KOTM July 2012 wrote:
> ... bringing you closer to the true attribution
> you do not want others to know of, Paul.
I thought Kensi was a girl?
> kensi twist...@gmail.com WINNER - KOTM July 2012 wrote:
> ... bringing you closer to the true attribution
> you do not want others to know of, Paul.
"OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo .. 变亮
http://www.richardgingras.com/tia/images/tia_logo_large.jpg
Message has been deleted
HVAC
Jan 23, 2013, 12:41:59 PM1/23/13
to
On 1/23/2013 12:20 PM, Mirror of TRVTH wrote:
>
> But if s/h/it spurns you both, at least you& Gwig have each
> other.
So you know for a fact that Kensi is not female?
> HVAC<hv...@physicist.net> wrote:
>
>> On 1/22/2013 11:13 PM, Kia wrote:
>>> kensi twist...@gmail.com WINNER - KOTM July 2012 wrote:
>>> ... bringing you closer to the true attribution
>>> you do not want others to know of, Paul.
>>
>>
>> I thought Kensi was a girl?
>
> So did Gwiggles.
>
>> On 1/22/2013 11:13 PM, Kia wrote:
>>> kensi twist...@gmail.com WINNER - KOTM July 2012 wrote:
>>> ... bringing you closer to the true attribution
>>> you do not want others to know of, Paul.
>>
>>
>> I thought Kensi was a girl?
>
>
> But if s/h/it spurns you both, at least you& Gwig have each
> other.
So you know for a fact that Kensi is not female?
Message has been deleted
kensi
Jan 23, 2013, 3:24:50 PM1/23/13
to
On 23/01/2013 12:41 PM, HVAC wrote:
> On 1/23/2013 12:20 PM, Mirror of TRVTH wrote:
>> HVAC<hv...@physicist.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/22/2013 11:13 PM, Kia wrote:
>>>> kensi twist...@gmail.com WINNER - KOTM July 2012 wrote:
>>>> ... bringing you closer to the true attribution
>>>> you do not want others to know of, Paul.
>>>
>>>
>>> I thought Kensi was a girl?
>>
>> So did Gwiggles.
>>
>> But if s/h/it spurns you both, at least you& Gwig have each
>> other.
>
> So you know for a fact that Kensi is not female?
He's a ko0k. He doesn't know for a fact that the Earth isn't flat, for
> On 1/23/2013 12:20 PM, Mirror of TRVTH wrote:
>> HVAC<hv...@physicist.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/22/2013 11:13 PM, Kia wrote:
>>>> kensi twist...@gmail.com WINNER - KOTM July 2012 wrote:
>>>> ... bringing you closer to the true attribution
>>>> you do not want others to know of, Paul.
>>>
>>>
>>> I thought Kensi was a girl?
>>
>> So did Gwiggles.
>>
>> But if s/h/it spurns you both, at least you& Gwig have each
>> other.
>
> So you know for a fact that Kensi is not female?
fuck's sake. Just check out his google history. Firstly, it mostly
doesn't exist: the kOok is an XNA coward, a nearly universal sign of a
troll or nutter of some sort. And furthermore, what *is* there shows a
long-lasting obsession that hassling one Emmett Gulley in the kOok
newsgroup. The inescapable diagnosis: that "Mirror of TRVTH" is a
obsessed creep and a raving lunatic.
There isn't enough salt even in the giant water-moon Europa to make a
grain suitable for garnishing *his* posts, so you'd probably do best to
just ignore the nutter.
kensi
Jan 23, 2013, 3:28:41 PM1/23/13
to
On 22/01/2013 11:13 PM, Kia wrote:
[161 lines of frothy foaming and ranting mostly snipped]
> Thirdly, there is enough data in that file to develop a
> search via Google Earth where indeed it is seen a mobile
> very similar to the one you post is parked, out of full
> view I note. ^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^
So, you admit that you had to trespass to take that photo, rather than
being able to take it from the public street?
Noted.
> I (per<MUSHROOM CLOUD>
I think that'll do for now, ko0ky. You've incriminated yourself enough
for one day.
[161 lines of frothy foaming and ranting mostly snipped]
> Thirdly, there is enough data in that file to develop a
> search via Google Earth where indeed it is seen a mobile
> very similar to the one you post is parked, out of full
^^^^^^^^^^^
So, you admit that you had to trespass to take that photo, rather than
being able to take it from the public street?
Noted.
> I (per<MUSHROOM CLOUD>
I think that'll do for now, ko0ky. You've incriminated yourself enough
for one day.
Kia
Jan 23, 2013, 8:40:02 PM1/23/13
to
Nadegda twist...@gmail.com WINNER - KOTM July 2012 wrote:
... bringing you closer to the true attribution
you do not want others to know of, Paul.
>On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 21:02:09 -0700, Mandraktophiles wrote:
... bringing you closer to the true attribution
you do not want others to know of, Paul.
>
snip
>> Do you want to pick on someone your own size?
>
>Murphy started it, by kooking out and harassing dozens of Usenetizens
>over years as a result of his paranoid, kooky quest. He can stop it at
>any time by getting evaluated by a psychiatrist and put on medication for
>his paranoia. Then he'd quit kooking out and kensi, and the rest of the
>Tetrarchy, wouldn't bother him anymore.
>
Hmmm.. 'nother kloo to the composition of your fake award structure, Paul?
Only recently one of you (ghost tetrarchy-?SP) spoke for all five/four/three - how
many personalities do you have tonight? - in making some outrageous claim.
Issat smart posting, you think?
Of course it is... to YOU, lunatic.
Not forgetting your threats attributed to an organised cabal, albeit phony.
In some states (now) you could be indicted for just that alone. haw haw!
alt.free.newsservers added for the benefit of your NSP to know just what a
mean ass revenge junkie you are, Paul.
>> You may have some trouble chewing and swallowing on me because you are
>> so used to bite-sized criminals.
>
>But ... but you're a *microscopic* little excuse for a kook.
>
><snicker>
--
replays to alt.usenet.kooks
Kia
Jan 24, 2013, 11:35:23 PM1/24/13
to
kensi twist...@gmail.com WINNER - KOTM July 2012 wrote:
... bringing you closer to the true attribution
you do not want others to know of, Paul.
snip
... bringing you closer to the true attribution
you do not want others to know of, Paul.
>
>You're a coward. If anyone actually challenged you to, say, a boxing
>match IRL, you'd run. Just like Shit Rot. Just like creepy Burnore.
>
"anyone"?
I would offer the majority of rational thinkers would evaluate
any challenge thoroughly before deciding either way.
I and a potential 70Billion readers note you fail in that regard.
You leap on anything!
>> You would have if AIOE had not finally tied down your
>> limp wristed efforts at power strokes, huh . . . haw haw
>
>Nadegda twist...@gmail.com doesn't even use AIOE, you idiot.
>
Fxd your lack of attribution for you, Paul.
Now screech it is pure coincidence that address is the same
as the one you will answer to, Paul.
Kia
Jan 24, 2013, 11:36:26 PM1/24/13
to
pandora <pan...@peak.org> wrote:
>On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 23:19:32 -0600, Kia wrote:
>
>[piggybacking once again]
>
It is all good, tho' trim I must as the posting server
rejects excessive quoting.
What quantifiable number is deemed "excessive" appears
to be an AIOE.org dynamic.
>> Nadegda twist...@gmail.com WINNER - KOTM July 2012 wrote: ...
>> bringing you closer to the true attribution you do not want others to
>> know of, Paul.
>>
>>>On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 20:31:52 -0600, pandora wrote:
snip
>>>> And this supposed vendetta of yours was turned in my direction for
>>>> what reason?
>>>
>>>Is it a "vendetta" to engage in kookological analyses of Murphy's posts
>>>for however long Murphy remains a kook?
>
>Nice back pedal. I didn't really expect a forthright answer.
>
This is your fault... in Paul speak.
>> ah Yes.. regardless of direction the problem always stems from someone
>> else other than... oh yes, YOU.
>> YOU are never at fault and IF you are it is always someone else's
>> 'fault' you are SEEN to be at fault as it is not really YOUR fault. Yer
>> a fookin' weirdo, Derbyshire. End of Story.
>>
>>>And are you Murphy?
>
>The question wasn't about murphy. But whatever.
>
All questions of and from Paul are about his "Murphy".
Again, it is your fault ;)
snip
>>>Then what the hell was that supposed to mean, kooky?
>>>
>> The poster "pandora" predates you by eons, yer fookin' autistic spastic.
>> I reciprocate "pandora"'s gracious acknowledgement of my recent post
>> (showing YOU to be a nadless conspirator) by bringing your shite to a
>> read that poster might just make. It would be too easy for that poster
>> to rip you a new asshole so I trust a simple stroke/pat of her cat(s)
>> with a purred "Indeed" is all you need to disappear up your own ass when
>> you do take that expectant gulp of air - wasted oxygen I do note.
>
>Indeed. :-)
>
I tried to rush over and cover the resultant mushrooming colon with
a fire blanket but alas I was slowed by the megastar twinkle in
your eye, dazzled ME!
snip
>>>Standard tholenbot response here would be "classic erroneous
>>>presupposition".
>>>
>> Bring it on, dweeb.
/cue <tip O hat.mpg>
I would have thought the least Paul could have done
was to confine the OF damage to a person or personality.
To allow pets into the target zone is just off, plainly off.
But then I read Paul's squirrel's story to discover he will
use ANY lever to be had in getting his revenge crusade
to carry as many victims as possible before it.
Nothing is "safe". (I bet he even eats the pretty flowers!)
>On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 23:19:32 -0600, Kia wrote:
>
>[piggybacking once again]
>
It is all good, tho' trim I must as the posting server
rejects excessive quoting.
What quantifiable number is deemed "excessive" appears
to be an AIOE.org dynamic.
>> Nadegda twist...@gmail.com WINNER - KOTM July 2012 wrote: ...
>> bringing you closer to the true attribution you do not want others to
>> know of, Paul.
>>
snip
>>>> And this supposed vendetta of yours was turned in my direction for
>>>> what reason?
>>>
>>>Is it a "vendetta" to engage in kookological analyses of Murphy's posts
>>>for however long Murphy remains a kook?
>
>Nice back pedal. I didn't really expect a forthright answer.
>
This is your fault... in Paul speak.
>> ah Yes.. regardless of direction the problem always stems from someone
>> else other than... oh yes, YOU.
>> YOU are never at fault and IF you are it is always someone else's
>> 'fault' you are SEEN to be at fault as it is not really YOUR fault. Yer
>> a fookin' weirdo, Derbyshire. End of Story.
>>
>>>And are you Murphy?
>
>The question wasn't about murphy. But whatever.
>
All questions of and from Paul are about his "Murphy".
Again, it is your fault ;)
snip
>>>Then what the hell was that supposed to mean, kooky?
>>>
>> The poster "pandora" predates you by eons, yer fookin' autistic spastic.
>> I reciprocate "pandora"'s gracious acknowledgement of my recent post
>> (showing YOU to be a nadless conspirator) by bringing your shite to a
>> read that poster might just make. It would be too easy for that poster
>> to rip you a new asshole so I trust a simple stroke/pat of her cat(s)
>> with a purred "Indeed" is all you need to disappear up your own ass when
>> you do take that expectant gulp of air - wasted oxygen I do note.
>
>Indeed. :-)
>
I tried to rush over and cover the resultant mushrooming colon with
a fire blanket but alas I was slowed by the megastar twinkle in
your eye, dazzled ME!
snip
>>>Standard tholenbot response here would be "classic erroneous
>>>presupposition".
>>>
>> Bring it on, dweeb.
>> You would have if AIOE had not finally tied down your limp wristed
>> efforts at power strokes, huh . . . haw haw
>
>I'm thankful for that and also for your analysis.
>> efforts at power strokes, huh . . . haw haw
>
/cue <tip O hat.mpg>
I would have thought the least Paul could have done
was to confine the OF damage to a person or personality.
To allow pets into the target zone is just off, plainly off.
But then I read Paul's squirrel's story to discover he will
use ANY lever to be had in getting his revenge crusade
to carry as many victims as possible before it.
Nothing is "safe". (I bet he even eats the pretty flowers!)
kensi
Jan 25, 2013, 12:41:47 AM1/25/13
to
On 24/01/2013 11:35 PM, Kia wrote:
> I and a potential 70Billion readers note you fail in that regard.
Remind me again: what planet are you from? And is it bigger than ours,
or really, really overcrowded? Or perhaps your species is just very
small? Inquiring minds want to know ... and add it to the file labeled
"Murphy's Delusions", of course.
*snicker*
> You leap on anything!
This from the ko0k that's been dancing to my tune for several days now.
>>> You would have if AIOE had not finally tied down your
>>> limp wristed efforts at power strokes, huh . . . haw haw
>>
>> Nadegda twi<FOOM!>
I didn't write that, ko0ky. Don't ever put words in my mouth again,
unless of course you want to look like an *even bigger* fool in public
than you already do. No, wait, that surely can't be possible, can it?
Especially after your other post tonight -- you know, the one where you
mistook one of your other socks for Derbyshire and unloaded multiple
rounds into it, then wondered aloud why your ass was so sore?
> kensi wrote:
>> You're a coward. If anyone actually challenged you to, say, a boxing
>> match IRL, you'd run. Just like Shit Rot. Just like creepy Burnore.
>
> "anyone"?
> I would offer the majority of rational thinkers would evaluate
> any challenge thoroughly before deciding either way.
So? That's hardly relevant to how *you* would evaluate a challenge.
>> You're a coward. If anyone actually challenged you to, say, a boxing
>> match IRL, you'd run. Just like Shit Rot. Just like creepy Burnore.
>
> "anyone"?
> I would offer the majority of rational thinkers would evaluate
> any challenge thoroughly before deciding either way.
> I and a potential 70Billion readers note you fail in that regard.
or really, really overcrowded? Or perhaps your species is just very
small? Inquiring minds want to know ... and add it to the file labeled
"Murphy's Delusions", of course.
*snicker*
> You leap on anything!
This from the ko0k that's been dancing to my tune for several days now.
>>> You would have if AIOE had not finally tied down your
>>> limp wristed efforts at power strokes, huh . . . haw haw
>>
I didn't write that, ko0ky. Don't ever put words in my mouth again,
unless of course you want to look like an *even bigger* fool in public
than you already do. No, wait, that surely can't be possible, can it?
Especially after your other post tonight -- you know, the one where you
mistook one of your other socks for Derbyshire and unloaded multiple
rounds into it, then wondered aloud why your ass was so sore?
pandora
Jan 25, 2013, 3:43:04 AM1/25/13
to
> snip
>>>>Standard tholenbot response here would be "classic erroneous
>>>>presupposition".
>>>>
>>> Bring it on, dweeb.
>>> You would have if AIOE had not finally tied down your limp wristed
>>> efforts at power strokes, huh . . . haw haw
>>
>>I'm thankful for that and also for your analysis.
>
> /cue <tip O hat.mpg>
>
> I would have thought the least Paul could have done was to confine the
> OF damage to a person or personality. To allow pets into the target zone
> is just off, plainly off.
this individual to set him off like that. Oh well, perhaps he just
doesn't like my nym.
> But then I read Paul's squirrel's story to discover he will use ANY
> lever to be had in getting his revenge crusade to carry as many victims
> as possible before it. Nothing is "safe". (I bet he even eats the pretty
> flowers!)
0 new messages