Flea Bailey trashes Terri Baker on LKL
The General
Terri Baker, the niece of O.J. Simpson,
who has a new book out, was on Larry King
Live tonight to promote her book. Wolf
Blitzer was filling in for Larry and he
went directly to the question of whether
she thinks O.J. is guilty and then tried
to get her to tell about her mother hitting
her when she expressed her opinion of O.J.’s
guilt.
I didn’t know anything about Terri until I
saw her on this show, and I was pleasantly
surprised. She is very attractive and seems
to be intelligent. At least she is articulate
and well spoken. She also has a certain
sweetness about her. She said that she wrote
this book because it was cathartic for her.
She said she had started to drink and she
needed to let it all out in order to cure
her drinking problem.
After she spoke, the show gave equal time
to F. Lee Bailey who trashed her big time.
I don’t think LKL should have had Bailey
on the same show; they should have let her
have her time in the spotlight. I felt sorry
for Terri after hearing what Bailey had to say.
Bailey said “I heard a lot of waffling” and
“She’s walking on eggs.” I agree that Terri
was trying not to say anything bad about O.J.
Simpson, so Bailey was right about this.
Then Bailey said that her book is a waste of
money and a rip off because it “doesn’t add
anything.” He said that Terri is the
“problem child” of the family with her
“excess drinking”. He said, “She’s bitten
the hand that fed her.”, referring to the
fact that O.J. Simpson was very generous to
her with his money.
Bailey said that O.J. is not angry about the
book. He said that the Simpson’s are an
“elegant family”. I thought that was very
well put, and an apt description.
Bailey said that Terri’s publisher made her
write what she did. He says that Terri thought
O.J. was innocent until “money was put on the
table in front of her.”
He said that O.J. paid for Terri’s apartment
while she was in college. Apparently Terri has
a criminal past because she writes in the book
about stealing $900 from a bank by impersonating
a woman. Bailey thinks the publishers told her to
include this because people were sure to bring it
up.
Bailey said that Terri has “created a wound” by
writing this book. He thinks the publishers told
her to “kick O.J. around or we won’t give you any
money.” He says that Terri sat on O.J.’s lap after
the civil trial and told him that she was outraged
after the civil verdict.
In answer to a question from Wolf Blitzer, Bailey
said that he is “absolutely convinced” that O.J.
“couldn’t have done it even if he had wanted to.”
He pointed out that O.J. doesn’t “whine or complain.”
He’s right; I’ll give O.J. credit for that.
Bailey ended by saying that Pat McKenna is still
working on the case, trying to find TRK. Bailey says
that TRK came to collect a drug debt from Faye
Resnick and killed Nicole by mistake. He said that
he could find TRK if he had $3 million because someone
will always talk for money. He said, “Give me 3 million
bucks to put on the street, and I’ll get answers”
regarding TRK.
Yvonne mentioned Terri Baker several times in her
reports from the trial, describing her as attractive
and intelligent. Now I understand what she was talking
about.
BL P
(General)
Agreed , Terri Baker is a good looking articulate lady ,but she had
nothing of significence to offer. Her take on the case is about the same
as mine and the other Pro's . On one hand she thinks he might have done
it , on the other hand she has
problems. F. Lee Bailey was right in his describing her. She appears
somewhat unstable and is being sacrificed for the almighty dollar.
I was bracing for a more damaging statement from her. I hope that Bailey
does get the needed money to seek out
the real killer . Maybe some will contribute to a fund to that end .
General , you were very complimintary of
Terri , I question your surprise at her beauty and intelligence . They
happen to be a family of good looks , Arnelle Simpson is stunningly
beautiful , I'm
not calling you the "R" word this time , but
your mere surprise is telling . One suggestion , when meeting people or
seeing them for the first time , allow yourself to believe they will be
"all that ,
and some ". Expecting less does nothing for anyone , Terri has been to
college ,
and should be well spoken. Some see the glass as half full , others
(like yourself )
see it as half empty.
BLP
Thomas P. Jabine
In article <5v7req$il0$1...@newsd-3.alma.webtv.net>,
BL P <BET...@webtv.net> wrote:
>(General)
>
>Agreed , Terri Baker is a good looking articulate lady ,but she had
>nothing of significence to offer. Her take on the case is about the same
>as mine and the other Pro's . On one hand she thinks he might have done
>it , on the other hand she has
>problems. F. Lee Bailey was right in his describing her. She appears
>somewhat unstable and is being sacrificed for the almighty dollar.
>
>I was bracing for a more damaging statement from her. I hope that Bailey
>does get the needed money to seek out
>the real killer . Maybe some will contribute to a fund to that end .
Andy Rooney has offered a $1,000,000 reward with no takers. Maybe
that's why Bailey is holding out for three. Maybe he has inside
knowledge that three is the magic number among the kind of lowlifes
who hold the key to this case. And maybe today you'll see pigs
flapping their wings outside your third story window.
>BLP
Thomas P. Jabine
In article <5v9chi$jva$1...@newsd-5.alma.webtv.net>,
BL P <BET...@webtv.net> wrote:
>
>Tom,
>Two stories mind you . Maybe there were no takers because only the ones
>who took part know the facts . What is the price of freedom worth ?
>
>
>
>BLP
You are right.
Tom
Carrot
Swordfish wrote:
>
> On 11 Sep 1997 08:33:19 -0400, tj...@loc.gov (Thomas P. Jabine) wrote:
>
> >In article <5v7req$il0$1...@newsd-3.alma.webtv.net>,
> >BL P <BET...@webtv.net> wrote:
> >>(General)
> >>
> >>Agreed , Terri Baker is a good looking articulate lady ,but she had
> >>nothing of significence to offer. Her take on the case is about the same
> >>as mine and the other Pro's . On one hand she thinks he might have done
> >>it , on the other hand she has
> >>problems. F. Lee Bailey was right in his describing her. She appears
> >>somewhat unstable and is being sacrificed for the almighty dollar.
> >>
> >>I was bracing for a more damaging statement from her. I hope that Bailey
> >>does get the needed money to seek out
> >>the real killer . Maybe some will contribute to a fund to that end .
> >
>
> like the police and the media, had Mr. Simpson found guilty before the
> jury was seated.
Spoken like a cretin, cretin.
rotfl
bm.
Bet...@webtv.net
In article <5v8oef$4d...@rs8.loc.gov>,
tj...@loc.gov (Thomas P. Jabine) wrote:
>
> In article <5v7req$il0$1...@newsd-3.alma.webtv.net>,
> BL P <BET...@webtv.net> wrote:
> >(General)
> >
> >Agreed , Terri Baker is a good looking articulate lady ,but she had
> >nothing of significence to offer. Her take on the case is about the same
> >as mine and the other Pro's . On one hand she thinks he might have done
> >it , on the other hand she has
> >problems. F. Lee Bailey was right in his describing her. She appears
> >somewhat unstable and is being sacrificed for the almighty dollar.
> >
> >I was bracing for a more damaging statement from her. I hope that Bailey
> >does get the needed money to seek out
> >the real killer . Maybe some will contribute to a fund to that end .
>
> that's why Bailey is holding out for three. Maybe he has inside
> knowledge that three is the magic number among the kind of lowlifes
> who hold the key to this case. And maybe today you'll see pigs
> flapping their wings outside your third story window.
>
> >BLP
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Question for Tom ,
What would you say if you learned factually that someone else committed
the murder ? Would you be so trusting of people who tell lies at varied
levels ? Do you think that people should believe those who swear to tell
the truth and proceed to lie ? Do you think that the memory of those who
changed thier stories was better one year later or two and a half years
later ?
Put yourself in our places , From the very beginning there were things
that caused doubt . Unless you were predisposed to believe that O.J. did
this . Beginning with the stilletto knife and the insinuation that not
only did he buy it , but had it sharpened to do a masterful throat
cutting. (as if a dull knife couldn't kill) . Then comes the cut in the
glove , upon searching for a cut they concluded that Ron Goldman pulled
it off . The cut was suppose to match the one on the middle finger of his
left hand .Upon learning there was no matching cut , they quickly
concluded that Ron pulled it off during the non struggle . During a
struggle that never happened . We're suppose to believe that he didn't
put up a fight , because to say that he did one would expect O.J. to have
some major bruises . You can't have it both ways . We're suppose to
believe that there was at least a scuffle . yet in the area where it took
place there was a loose compost or mulch . yet the socks booked into
evidence had no traces of the dirt <?> . The evidence bag that it was put
in .likewise had no traces of loose soil . Blood , being a sticky
substance would have been like a magnet to flying dirt.
The video after the recital dis-proved the testimony of those who
described the dark mood of O.J.. The video of O.J. being handcuffed ,
made a liar of Vannatter . The video of the criminalist handeling the
evidence proved them to be liars. The sock theory was from far out in
left field. The Timeline didn't support all that had to be accomplished
within less than two hours. The GLOVES DIDN'T FIT. You guys keep
referencing the alibis of others , what proof do you have that anyone
else was asked where they were ? O.J was the one and only suspect from
the early morning hours of 06/13/94 until the present (for many). The
manner in which he conducted himself then and now does not support your
claim that he brutally killed two people .
Accuse us of being biased if you will . call us stupid if you must , but
if you really put aside you prejudices and do some research , you will
learn that there are too many missing pieces.
THINK , THINK AND BE HONEST :)
BLP
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
M.A.
The General wrote:
>
> Bailey said that Terri has “created a wound” by
> writing this book. He thinks the publishers told
> her to “kick O.J. around or we won’t give you any
> money.” He says that Terri sat on O.J.’s lap after
> the civil trial and told him that she was outraged
> after the civil verdict.
>
> In answer to a question from Wolf Blitzer, Bailey
> said that he is “absolutely convinced” that O.J.
> “couldn’t have done it even if he had wanted to.”
> He pointed out that O.J. doesn’t “whine or complain.”
> He’s right; I’ll give O.J. credit for that.
>
> Bailey ended by saying that Pat McKenna is still
> working on the case, trying to find TRK. Bailey says
> that TRK came to collect a drug debt from Faye
> Resnick and killed Nicole by mistake. He said that
> he could find TRK if he had $3 million because someone
> will always talk for money. He said, “Give me 3 million
> bucks to put on the street, and I’ll get answers”
> regarding TRK.
>
> Yvonne mentioned Terri Baker several times in her
> reports from the trial, describing her as attractive
> and intelligent. Now I understand what she was talking
> about.
TERRI IS A LIAR AND DRUNK LIKE SOME OTHER PEOPLE AROUND HERE!
THE "DRUGS" KILLED NICOLE AND BOT THE "ALL-AMERICAN HERO" O.J.SIMPSON.
ELECT AL SHARPTON MAYOR AND SEND "THEM A MESSAGE"
REMEMBER WHAT "JESSE" SAID !
M.A.ON THE SIMPSON-SHARPTON VICTORY TRAIN....................1
BL P
The General
BL P wrote:
>
> (General)
>
> Agreed , Terri Baker is a good looking articulate lady ,but she had
> nothing of significence to offer. Her take on the case is about the same
> as mine and the other Pro's . On one hand she thinks he might have done
> it , on the other hand she has
> problems. F. Lee Bailey was right in his describing her. She appears
> somewhat unstable and is being sacrificed for the almighty dollar.
>
> I was bracing for a more damaging statement from her. I hope that Bailey
> does get the needed money to seek out
> the real killer . Maybe some will contribute to a fund to that end .
>
> Terri , I question your surprise at her beauty and intelligence . They
> happen to be a family of good looks , Arnelle Simpson is stunningly
> beautiful , I'm
> not calling you the "R" word this time , but
> your mere surprise is telling . One suggestion , when meeting people or
> seeing them for the first time , allow yourself to believe they will be
> "all that ,
> and some ". Expecting less does nothing for anyone , Terri has been to
> college ,
> and should be well spoken. Some see the glass as half full , others
> (like yourself )
> see it as half empty.
>
>
>
> BLP
The reason that I was surprised to learn that
Terri Baker is very attractive is because this
is the first time we've seen her in the limelight.
I thought that someone this attractive would have
been sought out by the TV shows long ago. I agree
that Arnelle is a stunner and O.J. was easily the
best looking man connected with the trial.
BTW, I think that Star Jones is one of the most
beautiful women I've ever seen on TV.
Swordfish
On 11 Sep 1997 08:33:19 -0400, tj...@loc.gov (Thomas P. Jabine) wrote:
>In article <5v7req$il0$1...@newsd-3.alma.webtv.net>,
>BL P <BET...@webtv.net> wrote:
>>(General)
>>
>>Agreed , Terri Baker is a good looking articulate lady ,but she had
>>nothing of significence to offer. Her take on the case is about the same
>>as mine and the other Pro's . On one hand she thinks he might have done
>>it , on the other hand she has
>>problems. F. Lee Bailey was right in his describing her. She appears
>>somewhat unstable and is being sacrificed for the almighty dollar.
>>
>>I was bracing for a more damaging statement from her. I hope that Bailey
>>does get the needed money to seek out
>>the real killer . Maybe some will contribute to a fund to that end .
>
I sincerely hope you are not counting on the No-J's for support. They,
Ron
On Thu, 11 Sep 1997 00:18:34 -0400, BET...@webtv.net (BL P) wrote:
>(General)
>
>Agreed , Terri Baker is a good looking articulate lady ,but she had
>nothing of significence to offer. Her take on the case is about the same
>as mine and the other Pro's
A typical asinine statement. Just when did you or any of your fellow
morons ever spend time with Butch? Talk with him? Live in his house?
Look diectly into his murdering eyes as he tries to bullshit you? You
make a bigger fool of yourself every day.
>. On one hand she thinks he might have done
>it , on the other hand she has
>problems.
Strange, I heard her say point-blank on Tuesday that Butch was at
least involved,
> F. Lee Bailey was right in his describing her. She appears
>somewhat unstable and is being sacrificed for the almighty dollar.
It was after 10AM. Bailey was drunk. Who gives a shit what he says?
>
>I was bracing for a more damaging statement from her.
Her hesitation is called "Buy the book and see", nitwit.
>General , you were very complimintary of
>Terri , I question your surprise at her beauty and intelligence . They
>happen to be a family of good looks ,
Right. Shirley & Benny Baker belong on the covers of several magazines
because they are so marvelously attractive.
>l , I'm
>not calling you the "R" word this time ,
Why not? You do in every other one of your bullshit posts.
<Further racist ramblings deleted>
>
>BLP
Like Hyeguy, if you weren't so pathetic, you'd almost be funny.
RE
sik...@utx$v$.cc.utexas.edu
On Thu, 11 Sep 1997 00:18:34 -0400, BET...@webtv.net wrote:
>General , you were very complimintary of
>Terri , I question your surprise at her beauty and intelligence . They
>happen to be a family of good looks , Arnelle Simpson is stunningly
>beautiful , I'm
>not calling you the "R" word this time , but
>your mere surprise is telling . One suggestion , when meeting people or
I can't believe you're even hinting at judging someone else on the "R" issue.
You demolished your own credibility (what little existed) on the race issue
when you posted the following:
"THE LIKELYHOOD OF THAT IS NOT SO REMOTE. AT THE RATE THIS COUNTRY IS
GOING EVERY WEEK
SOME CRACKER GOES BONKERS AND KILLS UP OTHER CRACKERS. ( I GUESS YOU
CALL IT WHITE ON WHITE CRIME)."
--BLP, 8/23/97 (courtesy of Dejanews)
You lose credibility just as fast with the "C-word" as you do with the
"N-word." People who use the "C-word" to refer to people have the same
motivation as people who use the "N-word" to refer to people.
As for Terri's looks, it's absolutely amazing to me that anyone genetically
related to Shirley Baker-Simpson is not absolutely repulsive in appearance
dept. And that has absolutely nada to do with race.
--
For e-mail replies, replace the utx$v$ in my address with utxsvs
Swordfish
On Thu, 11 Sep 1997 20:56:02 GMT, Bas...@spamhell.com (aka Ritch Š)
wrote:
>I didn't see Tom's post..but I did see FLeeB Trash Ms. Baker on LKL...He is
>just a paid drunken "mouthpiece" for his butt-suck-buddy Simpson!...He is
>bound by "privilege" to defend his pal...but to trash his pal's niece on
>national TV is pretty low....Not that I think that TB's book will sell..but
>she has as much right as anybody to write it....And he was there because
>all the other DT members are trying to distance themselves from the pariah
>known as Simpson...most of them still practice..
>
>BTW..She won't say that she thinks that Simp did it because she knows that
>he might sue her to try and get any money she makes from it...I can assure
>her that he won't...he would rather she have it than Fred..<G>
>
>My question is this:...Is FLeeB really stupid enough to believe and say
>what he says?...or is it that he just thinks that the rest of us are?..The
>latter gets my vote...Or maybe he was just "shit-faced" during the entire
>trial (a strong possibility, given his record)....and don't know any
>better..
>
>Why was Johnnie Cochran not on LKL defending his client?...Why did they
>send the "lowest-life" member of the so-called DT?..could it be that JC
>wants to distance himself from Simp?...hmmm?
>
>There will always be work for those like JC, that can use the "race card"
>to it's fullest monetary gain (providing the prosecutors allow him to
>dictate the mental make-up of the jury) ...but the Dershits...the
>Shap's...the Shmuck's of the Dream Team will disappear into oblivion
>soon..(good riddance!) ..and of course, FleeB will get his occasional
>invite to LKL..
>
>
>Bassman...aka Ritch
>
>PS Want to know why Simp is free?...It's not the talent on the DDT...It was
>the talent of that Bleach-Blond-Bitch Jo Ellan DeMitrius (sp?)...How many
>knew that?
>
>For email purposes: ((spamhell.com = snowhill.com))
Wrong. Mr. Simpson is free because the state failed to prove
its' case beyond a reasonable doubt. Bassman knows this well,
but won't admit it because he has his own reasons why he wished
Mr. Simpson convicted, and everyone of his posts indicates this.
NKC
On 12 Sep 1997 03:58:49 GMT, sikkid@utx$v$.cc.utexas.edu wrote:
>
>As for Terri's looks, it's absolutely amazing to me that anyone genetically
>related to Shirley Baker-Simpson is not absolutely repulsive in appearance
>dept.
>And that has absolutely nada to do with race.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
And the use of the term "nada" has everything to do with race. Until
you revise your white supremacist campaign against affirmative action
and civil rights, you have NO right to skin latino culture by
incorporating spanish language into your own.
Entiendes, carnal?
|||||||||||||||||||||maguey
Carrot
You don't have any rights, cretin.
rotfl
bm.
Bill
M.A. wrote:
> TERRI IS A LIAR AND DRUNK LIKE SOME OTHER PEOPLE AROUND HERE!
I assume the "other people around here" refers to Flea Bailey... The
only dream team lawyer required to leave the court room when the lights
were dimmed, because his nose glowed so brightly that it distracted the
jury... Which didn't really matter, as the jury wasn't listening anyway.
Bill
--------------------------------------------------------
Washington DC is just Hollywood for those who
are unattractive
Ron
Being somewhat of a newbie, I was unaware of my ability to post through
Deja.
I will, from now on, when replying to someones post.
BLP 7-27-97
When are you going to start, Phony?
RE
Carrot
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------665158DCA8A
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Swordfish wrote:
>
> On Thu, 11 Sep 1997 20:56:02 GMT, Bas...@spamhell.com (aka Ritch ©)
Go fish, cretin
rotfl
bm.
--------------665158DCA8A
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="B.TXT"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="B.TXT"
--------------665158DCA8A--
Ron
>BLT said:
>>>A whole lot more moronic racial shrieking.
BWAAAHHAAAAAAHAHAHAAA
What a sad old hag.
RE
BL P
Ron,
besides being a stupid fuck , you are a liar as well . As for how
Shirley and Benny look , (you didn't have to go there) , you want fugly
? Kim Goldman and Marcia Clark . Oops ! there it is . I would venture a
guess that you look like shit as well.
The one proven thing about you is , you are one ignorant S-O-B .
BLP
dsi...@pacbell.net
In article <3419a477....@news.sirius.com>,
Voltaire said: "I may disagree violenty with what you say, but I will
defend to the death your right to say it."
Well, cretin, you have every right to make a horse's ass out of yourself
by posting cretinish drivel as you have just done. Thanks for making my
day.
I say: "You don't have any rights, cretin."
rotfl
bm.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
NKC
On Sat, 13 Sep 1997 03:45:32 GMT, re...@mc.net (Ron) wrote:
>On Fri, 12 Sep 1997 20:28:56 GMT, mag...@unforgettable.com (NKC)
>wrote:
>
>>On 12 Sep 1997 03:58:49 GMT, sikkid@utx$v$.cc.utexas.edu wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>As for Terri's looks, it's absolutely amazing to me that anyone genetically
>>>related to Shirley Baker-Simpson is not absolutely repulsive in appearance
>>>dept.
>>>And that has absolutely nada to do with race.
>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>And the use of the term "nada" has everything to do with race. Until
>>you revise your white supremacist campaign against affirmative action
>>and civil rights, you have NO right to skin latino culture by
>>incorporating spanish language into your own.
>>
>>Entiendes, carnal?
>>
>>|||||||||||||||||||||maguey
>>
>
>Cojones, mericon?
"Cojones, mericon"...is that some town in the Cuban countryside?
Nothing more amusing than watching a gringo struggle for soul.
###########################################
BL P
RON, RON, RON , FAG , ASSHOLE,
STUPID SON OF A BITCH:
THE SAME TIME YOU START
RON ASSHOLE ; YOU OBVIOUSLY KNOW THAT IT IS VERY HAD TO ACCESS.
HAVE YOU EVER DISCUSSED THE SUBJECT , OR DO YOU COME HERE TO GET YOUR
ROCKS OFF BY BASHING PEOPLE. ?? IT IS NAPPARENT THAT THE BEST PART OF
YOU RAN DOWN YOUR MOTHERS LEG.
BLP
Ron
>On 12 Sep 1997 03:58:49 GMT, sikkid@utx$v$.cc.utexas.edu wrote:
>
>
>>
>>As for Terri's looks, it's absolutely amazing to me that anyone genetically
>>related to Shirley Baker-Simpson is not absolutely repulsive in appearance
>>dept.
>>And that has absolutely nada to do with race.
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>And the use of the term "nada" has everything to do with race. Until
>you revise your white supremacist campaign against affirmative action
>and civil rights, you have NO right to skin latino culture by
>incorporating spanish language into your own.
>
>Entiendes, carnal?
>
>|||||||||||||||||||||maguey
>
Cojones, mericon?
RE
Bet...@webtv.net
In article <5vdk1i$36b$1...@newsd-1.alma.webtv.net>,
**************************************
Ron,
forgot how its done?????????????
**************************************
sik...@utx$v$.cc.utexas.edu
On Fri, 12 Sep 1997 20:28:56 GMT, mag...@unforgettable.com wrote:
>On 12 Sep 1997 03:58:49 GMT, sikkid@utx$v$.cc.utexas.edu wrote:
>
>>
>>As for Terri's looks, it's absolutely amazing to me that anyone genetically
>>related to Shirley Baker-Simpson is not absolutely repulsive in appearance
>>dept.
>>And that has absolutely nada to do with race.
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>And the use of the term "nada" has everything to do with race. Until
Oh come on, pat, you can do better than this; you've been rather creative at
making (or trying to make) non-racial issues into racial issues - I'd think you
could do better in this situation, even though I gave you nothing to work with.
>you revise your white supremacist campaign against affirmative action
>and civil rights,
Yeah, I'm downright evil. How could I possibly NOT agree with you that "EQUAL
standards for all" should really mean LOWER standards for certain preferred
racial groups? How stupid of me not to agree with you that giving special
preferences to minorities is different than giving special preferences to white
people.
>you have NO right to skin latino culture by
>incorporating spanish language into your own.
S'il vous plait! First of all, I wasn't aware that the "spanish language" was
the exclusive property of the "latino culture." I wasn't aware that Spain or
any of the zillion other places where the "spanish language" is spoken were all
"latino," either. If I do choose to incorporate a language into my own, it
won't be anything as harsh as Spanish (when spoken properly), perhaps the
ugliest-sounding language out there with the possible exception of German.
And get real, pat - Spanish is as much a part of south Texas culture as it is
any "latino culture." I suspect the only place in the U.S. where you'll hear
more Spanish spoken is southern Cal. We probably have more Spanish-speakers in
south Tejas than a lot of Spanish speaking nations.
anti-Hyeguy
In article <5vdk1i$36b$1...@newsd-1.alma.webtv.net>, BET...@webtv.net says...
>
>RON, RON, RON , FAG , ASSHOLE,
>STUPID SON OF A BITCH:
>
>
>
>THE SAME TIME YOU START
>RON ASSHOLE ; YOU OBVIOUSLY KNOW THAT IT IS VERY HAD TO ACCESS.
>
>HAVE YOU EVER DISCUSSED THE SUBJECT , OR DO YOU COME HERE TO GET YOUR
>ROCKS OFF BY BASHING PEOPLE. ?? IT IS NAPPARENT THAT THE BEST PART OF
>YOU RAN DOWN YOUR MOTHERS LEG.
>
I'm still trying to figure out what "napparent" means.
Idiots. They're all idiots.
"Who makes the law?"
Anti-Hyeguy
Bet...@webtv.net
In article <5vcra8$3mq$1...@newsd-101.bryant.webtv.net>,
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
I STARTED , AND DO IT WHENEVER I CAN. WHAT ABOUT YOU (IMBECILE) CAN'T
FOLLOW YOUR OWN ADVICE ? TOO FUCKING LAZY HUH.
BLP
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
BL P
To all no's , you spell well, you make no errors, you are always
grammatically
correct, one problem. You are the dumbest inhabitants on the face of
this earth. You want laws and rights for only a select group and you are
blinded by your prejudices. Knowing how to spell don't mean a damn thing
if you have nothing to say.
If you aquire some facts by which you can put your good spelling to good
use, you
could at least put together a rational theory. As you boast about you
spelling ability, you become like the liars who testified in the
criminal case. Taking credit for the acomplishments of spell checkers.
What a sad group you are.
O.J. is F-R-E-E- , D-E-S-E-R-V-I-N-G-L-Y
S-O. H-E F-O-U-G-H-T- T-H-E- L-A-W-
A-N-D- W-O-N-
get over it.
BLP
carrot
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On 12 Sep 1997 03:58:49 GMT, sikkid@utx$v$.cc.utexas.edu wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>As for Terri's looks, it's absolutely amazing to me that anyone genetically
> >>>related to Shirley Baker-Simpson is not absolutely repulsive in appearance
> >>>dept.
> >>>And that has absolutely nada to do with race.
> >>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >>
> >>And the use of the term "nada" has everything to do with race. Until
> >>incorporating spanish language into your own.
> >>
> >>
> >>|||||||||||||||||||||maguey
> >>
> >
> >Cojones, mericon?
>
> Nothing more amusing than watching a gringo struggle for soul.
>
> ###########################################
Except watching a cretin struggle with logical thought, cretin.
rotfl
bm.
NKC
On 13 Sep 1997 19:02:28 GMT, sikkid@utx$v$.cc.utexas.edu wrote:
>On Fri, 12 Sep 1997 20:28:56 GMT, mag...@unforgettable.com wrote:
>
>>On 12 Sep 1997 03:58:49 GMT, sikkid@utx$v$.cc.utexas.edu wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>As for Terri's looks, it's absolutely amazing to me that anyone genetically
>>>related to Shirley Baker-Simpson is not absolutely repulsive in appearance
>>>dept.
>>>And that has absolutely nada to do with race.
>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>And the use of the term "nada" has everything to do with race. Until
>
>Oh come on, pat, you can do better than this; you've been rather creative at
>making (or trying to make) non-racial issues into racial issues - I'd think you
>could do better in this situation, even though I gave you nothing to work with.
You said it: I had little to work with. I still deePLORE the efforts
of culturally alienated whitefolk attempting to glean culture anywhere
they can. Which is usually: culture of color. For obvious reasons.
>
>>you revise your white supremacist campaign against affirmative action
>>and civil rights,
>
>Yeah, I'm downright evil. How could I possibly NOT agree with you that "EQUAL
>standards for all" should really mean LOWER standards for certain preferred
>racial groups? How stupid of me not to agree with you that giving special
>preferences to minorities is different than giving special preferences to white
>people.
I dunno. It's a good sign that you're starting to ask yourself the
question, though.
>
>>you have NO right to skin latino culture by
>>incorporating spanish language into your own.
>
>S'il vous plait!
French, That's ok! I don't have a problem with that. Go for it!
>First of all, I wasn't aware that the "spanish language" was
>the exclusive property of the "latino culture." I wasn't aware that Spain or
>any of the zillion other places where the "spanish language" is spoken were all
>"latino," either.
Spain, South America, North America, Central America, Caribbean. Tis
al, IberoAmerica, sen~or. Latino, Loud and Proud.
>If I do choose to incorporate a language into my own, it
>won't be anything as harsh as Spanish (when spoken properly), perhaps the
>ugliest-sounding language out there with the possible exception of German.
Of course you think the language is "ugly", since those who speak it,
you despise. You need to maintain that opinion to help justify your
campaign against civil rights/affirmative action.
>
>And get real, pat - Spanish is as much a part of south Texas culture as it is
>any "latino culture." I suspect the only place in the U.S. where you'll hear
>more Spanish spoken is southern Cal. We probably have more Spanish-speakers in
>south Tejas than a lot of Spanish speaking nations.
Time for YOU to get real: Tejas IS a Spanish speaking nation, compa.
As is california del sur, florida del sur, nuevo mexico, arizona,
colorado, ect. Lo que pasa contigo, es que tu no tienes la menor
idea, que lindo y fuerte es el pueblo latino. We're not your enemies.
Why do you insist on being ours?
######################
dsi...@pacbell.net
In article <341a24d8....@news.sirius.com>,
mag...@unforgettable.com (NKC) wrote:
>
> On Sat, 13 Sep 1997 03:45:32 GMT, re...@mc.net (Ron) wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 12 Sep 1997 20:28:56 GMT, mag...@unforgettable.com (NKC)
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On 12 Sep 1997 03:58:49 GMT, sikkid@utx$v$.cc.utexas.edu wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>As for Terri's looks, it's absolutely amazing to me that anyone genetically
> >>>related to Shirley Baker-Simpson is not absolutely repulsive in appearance
> >>>dept.
> >>>And that has absolutely nada to do with race.
> >>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >>
> >>And the use of the term "nada" has everything to do with race. Until
> >>incorporating spanish language into your own.
> >>
> >>
> >>|||||||||||||||||||||maguey
> >>
> >
> >Cojones, mericon?
>
> "Cojones, mericon"...is that some town in the Cuban countryside?
> Nothing more amusing than watching a gringo struggle for soul.
>
> ###########################################
Unless it's watching magooey, the sesquipedalian cretin, attempting
logical thought.
rotfl
bm.
Ron
In article <5vafo7$rqk$1...@newsd-1.alma.webtv.net>,
BET...@webtv.net (BL P) wrote:
>
> Ron,
Example #1, you dumb ass.
When somebody really jacks your jaws, and your only option to reply
sesnibly is Deja, you do like this.
>Wait unt[il it's up then go:
>
> besides being a stupid fuck , you are a >liar as well
Please give me a specific anything I've lied about.
>. As for how
> Shirley and Benny look , (you didn't have >to go there)
You, BLP stated some shit about they were an attractive family. (Arnelle
is so cute, etc)
Aint old Benny & Shirley her parents?
Why don't I have to go there? Bullshit.
>, you want fugly
> ? Kim Goldman
What the fuck does Kim Goldman have to do with the physical appearance of
Terri Baker?
and Marcia Clark
Believe me, my opinion of Marcia Clark is 10000 times worse than yours.
. Oops ! there it is . I would venture a
> guess that you look like shit as well.
> The one proven thing about you is , you are one ignorant S-O-B .
>
> BLP
You are truly the Queen of the Dumb-Fucks.
I was dying to crucify you on this idiotic bullshit you put up last
night. But, you didn't show up on my server, nor Deja. I stayed up late
waiting, but no go.
Try it yourself sometime.
RE
(Oh, yeah, BWAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAA!!)
If it wasn't so trite, I'M THE ONE ROTFLLMAO!
Either shut up, or take your punishment.
I know, more punishment.
Ron
Ron
On Sat, 13 Sep 1997 23:41:05 -0600, Bet...@WebTv.Net wrote:
>In article <5vcra8$3mq$1...@newsd-101.bryant.webtv.net>,
> B1...@webtv.net (Ron) wrote:
>>
>>
>%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
>
>I STARTED , AND DO IT WHENEVER I CAN. WHAT ABOUT YOU (IMBECILE) CAN'T
>FOLLOW YOUR OWN ADVICE ? TOO FUCKING LAZY HUH.
>
>BLP
>%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
You are really swell at making stupid designs on here. They look
really stupid, but that accurately reflects your mental age.
A bit of advice, phony..
Spend more time on you grammatical and compositional skills. (Not to
mention the art of expressing a coherent thought.), and someday, you
may elevate to the rank of Cretin.
But I Doubt It,
RE
Ron
On Sat, 13 Sep 1997 16:02:05 -0600, Bet...@WebTv.Net wrote:
>In article <5vdk1i$36b$1...@newsd-1.alma.webtv.net>,
> BET...@webtv.net (BL P) wrote:
>>
>> RON, RON, RON , FAG , ASSHOLE,
>> STUPID SON OF A BITCH:
How can a Barnyard creature like you throw stones?
>>
>> THE SAME TIME YOU START
>> RON ASSHOLE ; YOU OBVIOUSLY KNOW THAT IT IS VERY HAD TO ACCESS.
I will say BULLSHIT!!
The ony problem is that it takes about 12 hours for a post to become
available sometimes. Is that what you mean by "access?"
I KNOW THAT IS YOUR PROBLEM! You would rather shoot off you mouth
right now, than have to answer something in any depth.
.
Fuck off, you old hag. You aint fooling anybody.
>>
>> HAVE YOU EVER DISCUSSED THE SUBJECT , OR DO YOU COME HERE TO GET YOUR
>> ROCKS OFF BY BASHING PEOPLE. ?? IT IS NAPPARENT THAT THE BEST PART OF
>> YOU RAN DOWN YOUR MOTHERS LEG.
>>
>> BLP
>
>**************************************
>Ron,
>
>forgot how its done?????????????
>
>**************************************
>
>-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Ahh, well,,,, BWAHAHAAAHHAAAAAHHAAAHAHA!
You fucking idiot, It's REPLY TO A POST SO IT"S UNDERSTANDABLE..
Not write one to yourself.
You are good at that.
You are also totally insane. (And I'd bet well over 220)
RE
sik...@utx$v$.cc.utexas.edu
On Sat, 13 Sep 1997 23:27:23 -0400, BET...@webtv.net wrote:
>To all no's , you spell well, you make no errors, you are always
>grammatically
>correct, one problem. You are the dumbest inhabitants on the face of
>this earth. You want laws and rights for only a select group and you are
>blinded by your prejudices. Knowing how to spell don't mean a damn thing
>if you have nothing to say.
It also doesn't mean much if you don't realize that the "don't" in your last
sentence would be "doesn't" if you'd successfully completed elementary school.
>If you aquire some facts by which you can put your good spelling to good
>use, you
>could at least put together a rational theory. As you boast about you
>spelling ability, you become like the liars who testified in the
>criminal case. Taking credit for the acomplishments of spell checkers.
Interesting theory...wrong, a bit pathetic, but interesting.
First of all, most newsreaders don't have spell checkers. The one I'm using
doesn't, and I can only think of one that does. If we make a mistake, you see
it. Second, spell checkers can only tell you when you've used a word that
doesn't exist - it's useless when you mix up "you're" and "your," or "its" and
"it's." Given that most pro-Js have problems differentiating between the words
in the previous sentence, I think that's probably relevant.
My own personal theory is this: people learn how to spell by picking out what
isn't correct and doesn't fit and vice-versa, a skill that is also important in
watching a trial like Simpson's, where most of what the defense presented
wasn't correct and didn't fit. It's no surprise that people who can't pick out
words that don't belong in their own spelling aren't able to pick out testimony
and facts that don't fit in the testimony.
>What a sad group you are.
If that's not the pot calling the cocaine illegal...
>O.J. is F-R-E-E- , D-E-S-E-R-V-I-N-G-L-Y
>S-O. H-E F-O-U-G-H-T- T-H-E- L-A-W-
>A-N-D- W-O-N-
And he wouldn't spit on you if you were on fire.
You pro-Js are so entertaining because you're so stupid. This is a man who
charged you $30 (or whatever it was) to hear his side of the story, yet you're
all here wasting hours and hours of your time defending him and telling us how
wonderful he is. At best, he'd probably give you an autograph - that is, if he
wasn't wearing a fake cast like he has in the past so he'd have a good excuse
NOT to waste his time giving autographs to fools like you. Do the words
"unrequited love" mean anything to you?
Talk about a sad group.
dsi...@pacbell.net
In article <341b3964...@news.sirius.com>,
mag...@unforgettable.com (NKC) wrote:
>
> On 13 Sep 1997 19:02:28 GMT, sikkid@utx$v$.cc.utexas.edu wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 12 Sep 1997 20:28:56 GMT, mag...@unforgettable.com wrote:
> >
> >>On 12 Sep 1997 03:58:49 GMT, sikkid@utx$v$.cc.utexas.edu wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>As for Terri's looks, it's absolutely amazing to me that anyone genetically
> >>>related to Shirley Baker-Simpson is not absolutely repulsive in appearance
> >>>dept.
> >>>And that has absolutely nada to do with race.
> >>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >>
> >>And the use of the term "nada" has everything to do with race. Until
> >
> >making (or trying to make) non-racial issues into racial issues - I'd think
you
> >could do better in this situation, even though I gave you nothing to work
with.
>
> You said it: I had little to work with. I still deePLORE the efforts
> of culturally alienated whitefolk attempting to glean culture anywhere
> they can. Which is usually: culture of color. For obvious reasons.
> >
> >>and civil rights,
> >
"EQUAL
> >standards for all" should really mean LOWER standards for certain preferred
> >racial groups? How stupid of me not to agree with you that giving special
> >preferences to minorities is different than giving special preferences to
white
> >people.
>
> I dunno. It's a good sign that you're starting to ask yourself the
> question, though.
> >
> >>incorporating spanish language into your own.
> >
Cretin, have you ever considered that Spanish is the language forced on
most of the indigenous people of the Western hemisphere. Do caucasian,
Spanish people have the right to use Spanish? Consider that the
caucasian Spanish are the direct descendants of Cortez who was more
effective eradicating cultures than Hitler ever was.
It seems to me that your expropriation of Spanish as the language
reserved only for those native Spanish speakers in this hemisphere who
have been subject to white oppression is as logical as German Jews
expropriating German. But I forgot, you are a cretin, cretin.
rotfl
bm.
Ron
Did I say something wrong?
RON RON NAPPAERNT SONOFABITCH??
Cretiina Suprema.
(Copyrighted, yesterday)
NKC
On Sun, 14 Sep 1997 03:25:27 GMT, Bas...@spamhell.com (aka Ritch Š)
wrote:
>
>
>Como?
>
>This is real LAME!....all languages "skin" from each other...much of our
>scientific and legal "jargon" came from other languages..I.E.
>"pro-bono".."Voire dire" (sp?)....and from the French inventor of the
>multi-cell battery (Voltaire) comes the terms "volts" and "voltage" ..The
>'espanol language "skins" from Italian and French and many
>others...etc...etc...and there are even major variations in the spanish
>language...so much so that a visitor from Mexico might have a hard time
>communicating in certain parts of Spain and it even varies some in South
>America...and what about Portuguese?
You're a trip, music man. But you no comprende the concept of cultural
skinning. If you're interested, I'll explain it to you.
>You be stoopid blood...really! (even Ebonics <aka "gang speak"> "skins"
>from American English)
Well, Ebonics IS "American English." If you're talking about
"standard english," that language gleans from ebonics.
>
>What's that all over your face?....could it be egg?
Yummm. slurp. [un poco like egg, un poquitico]
>
...............................................
Terry Hallinan
Bas...@spamhell.com (aka Ritch Š) wrote:
>On Fri, 12 Sep 1997 20:28:56 GMT, mag...@unforgettable.com (NKC) wrote:
>>On 12 Sep 1997 03:58:49 GMT, sikkid@utx$v$.cc.utexas.edu wrote:
>>>As for Terri's looks, it's absolutely amazing to me that anyone genetically
>>>related to Shirley Baker-Simpson is not absolutely repulsive in appearance
>>>dept.
>>>And that has absolutely nada to do with race.
>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>And the use of the term "nada" has everything to do with race. Until
>>you revise your white supremacist campaign against affirmative action
>>and civil rights, you have NO right to skin latino culture by
>>incorporating spanish language into your own.
>>Entiendes, carnal?
>>|||||||||||||||||||||maguey
>Como?
>This is real LAME!....all languages "skin" from each other...much of our
>scientific and legal "jargon" came from other languages..I.E.
>"pro-bono".."Voire dire" (sp?)....and from the French inventor of the
>multi-cell battery (Voltaire) comes the terms "volts" and "voltage" ..The
>'espanol language "skins" from Italian and French and many
>others...etc...etc...and there are even major variations in the spanish
>language...so much so that a visitor from Mexico might have a hard time
>communicating in certain parts of Spain and it even varies some in South
>America...and what about Portuguese?
>Hell, down South, we even occasionally "skin" from the English
>language...hehehe...
>You be stoopid blood...really! (even Ebonics <aka "gang speak"> "skins"
>from American English)
>What's that all over your face?....could it be egg?
>Comprende' usted?..(I doubt it)
This is so funny it even tops Maguey's ultimate stupidity of "white
supremacist campaign against affirmative action."
I wonder if a racist like Maguey is capable of understanding the joke?
Best, Terry
"Christian - One who believes the New Testament is a divinely
inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his
neighbor" - The Devil's Dictionary
The Antichrist
BL P wrote:
>
> To all no's , you spell well, you make no errors, you are always
> grammatically
> correct, one problem. You are the dumbest inhabitants on the face of
> this earth.
You're funny. You want credit for intelligence but you are unwilling to
acknowledge any objective test of same. You list off all of the
objective, independent criteria that precisely demonstrate the
contention that noj's in this group are smarter than proj's, then you
summarily reject these criteria and offer us NOTHING in their place.
What are we supposed to do according to your rules, BLiP, believe you're
right because, well, because you SAY so? You're almost as lame as "Al
Walker," another sterling example of your breed; your only redemption is
you don't need as many words as Hyeguy does to reach the summit of your
lameness.
666, baby, 666,
THE Antichrist
(The Antichrist is a registered trademark of Prince Of Darkness
Enterprises.)
Ron
In article <5vafo7$rqk$1...@newsd-1.alma.webtv.net>,
BET...@webtv.net (BL P) wrote:
>
> Ron,
>
> besides being a stupid fuck , you are a liar as well .
Care to illustrate that lie, fool?
> As for how
> Shirley and Benny look , (you didn't have >>to go there)
What the fuck are you talking about, "Didn't have to go there'? They are
her parents, aren't they? You are the cretin who tried to take an
innocuous comment and turn it into a racial issue, aren't you?
You said "They're an attractive family", didn't you, fatass? Aren't her
parents part of that family?
>, you want fugly
> ? Kim Goldman and Marcia Clark . Oops ! >>there it is .
Who fucking cares how ugly they are? What does that have to do with what
you said?
> I would venture a
> guess that you look like shit as well.
I sure aint Clark Gable, but compared to you, I just might be
> The one proven thing about you is , you >>are one ignorant S-O-B .
>
> BLP
See, Lard ass, this is the proper use of Dejanews for posting with webtv.
I waited so long for it to show up so I could ridicule you, that I forgot
about it until now.
Baaaa Baaaaa, Mooo Mooo, Bleat bleat,
RE
From webtv
Ron
On Sat, 13 Sep 1997 05:33:07 GMT, mag...@unforgettable.com (NKC)
wrote:
>On Sat, 13 Sep 1997 03:45:32 GMT, re...@mc.net (Ron) wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 12 Sep 1997 20:28:56 GMT, mag...@unforgettable.com (NKC)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On 12 Sep 1997 03:58:49 GMT, sikkid@utx$v$.cc.utexas.edu wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>As for Terri's looks, it's absolutely amazing to me that anyone genetically
>>>>related to Shirley Baker-Simpson is not absolutely repulsive in appearance
>>>>dept.
>>>>And that has absolutely nada to do with race.
>>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>
>>>And the use of the term "nada" has everything to do with race. Until
>>>you revise your white supremacist campaign against affirmative action
>>>and civil rights, you have NO right to skin latino culture by
>>>incorporating spanish language into your own.
>>>
>>>Entiendes, carnal?
>>>
>>>|||||||||||||||||||||maguey
>>>
>>
>>Cojones, mericon?
>
>"Cojones, mericon"...is that some town in the Cuban countryside?
>Nothing more amusing than watching a gringo struggle for soul.
>
>###########################################
>
.Aww come on Maggie.
If you are an actual Hispanic, you sure know what "no cojones", means.
I'm quite sure you've heard that from everyone who ever knew you.
And "mericon?" Did you think that was just an affectionate nickname?
Alfonso Walker III
NKC
On Mon, 15 Sep 1997 00:08:46 GMT, re...@mc.net (Ron) wrote:
>>
>.Aww come on Maggie.
>
>If you are an actual Hispanic, you sure know what "no cojones", means.
>I'm quite sure you've heard that from everyone who ever knew you.
>
>And "mericon?" Did you think that was just an affectionate nickname?
>
It's *MARICON*, maricon.
Hohohorotflmoveovercarrothohorotflmfao
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
dsi...@pacbell.net
BL P
General,
I agree about Star Jones, she grew up
in the town my kids grew up in.
BLP
Bet...@webtv.net
In article <341bb0b...@news.mc.net>,
re...@mc.net (Ron) wrote:
>
> On Sat, 13 Sep 1997 23:41:05 -0600, Bet...@WebTv.Net wrote:
>
> >In article <5vcra8$3mq$1...@newsd-101.bryant.webtv.net>,
> > B1...@webtv.net (Ron) wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Deja.
> >> I will, from now on, when replying to someones post.
> >> BLP 7-27-97
> >> When are you going to start, Phony?
> >>
> >> RE
> >
> >
> >I STARTED , AND DO IT WHENEVER I CAN. WHAT ABOUT YOU (IMBECILE) CAN'T
> >FOLLOW YOUR OWN ADVICE ? TOO FUCKING LAZY HUH.
> >
> >BLP
> >%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
> You are really swell at making stupid designs on here. They look
> really stupid,
************************************** Complaining again? think you
problem might be a personal one? The designs will hopefully help the slow
and retarded (like yourself) know at what point the statement ends , that
way it might lessen your confusing the statements of others. Just an
attempt to help your dumb ass along. BLP 9/15/97
**************************************
but that accurately reflects your mental age.
>
> A bit of advice, phony..
>
> Spend more time on you grammatical and compositional skills. (Not to
> mention the art of expressing a coherent thought.), and someday, you
> may elevate to the rank of Cretin.
>
> But I Doubt It,
>
> RE
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
Bet...@webtv.net
In article <5vfs6o$r7s$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>,
sikkid@utx$v$.cc.utexas.edu wrote:
>
> On Sat, 13 Sep 1997 23:27:23 -0400, BET...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> >To all no's , you spell well, you make no errors, you are always
> >grammatically
> >correct, one problem. You are the dumbest inhabitants on the face of
> >blinded by your prejudices. Knowing how to spell don't mean a damn thing
> >if you have nothing to say.
>
> It also doesn't mean much if you don't realize that the "don't" in your last
> sentence would be "doesn't" if you'd successfully completed elementary school.
>
> >If you aquire some facts by which you can put your good spelling to good
> >use, you
> >could at least put together a rational theory. As you boast about you
> >spelling ability, you become like the liars who testified in the
> >criminal case. Taking credit for the acomplishments of spell checkers.
>
> Interesting theory...wrong, a bit pathetic, but interesting.
>
> First of all, most newsreaders don't have spell checkers. The one I'm using
> doesn't, and I can only think of one that does. If we make a mistake, you see
> it. Second, spell checkers can only tell you when you've used a word that
> doesn't exist - it's useless when you mix up "you're" and "your," or "its" and
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%SICKID or whatever you call your
self,
You are a primary example why todays educational system is considered a
failure, you like others place higher priority on your ability to
criticise than your ability to know of what you speak. I will add you to
the list of assholes who have committed the cardinal sin of accusing
without knowing. I hope that YOU'RE a student, YOU'VE- (contraction of
you have) a long way to go. Because you do not share my opinion about the
Simpson matter, please do not underestimate my ability to rationalize and
form an opinion. Please know that your theory is just that, a theory as
is mine. The problem for you is in trusting liars to give you the true
facts.
FROM THE DICTIONARY:
YOUR:form of posessive case of you
as in your own; belonging to you;
YOU'RE; contraction of you are;
CONTRACTION;a shortening of a word,
or group of words.
Example; you are an ASSHOLE;
YOU'RE A STUPID
ASSHOLE;
GET IT ?
BLP
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
> "it's." Given that most pro-Js have problems differentiating between the words
> in the previous sentence, I think that's probably relevant.
> My own personal theory is this: people learn how to spell by picking out what
> isn't correct and doesn't fit
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Now we're (We are) getting somewhere, if its not correct it doesn't fit,
right ? "IF IT DOESN'T FIT, YOU MUST AQUIT", finally found something that
we agree on.
BLP
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
and vice-versa, a skill that is also important in
> watching a trial like Simpson's, where most of what the defense presented
> wasn't correct and didn't fit. It's no surprise that people who can't pick out
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% How mistaken you are, it was the
prosecution who made the glove demo possible. GLOVES,GLOVES,GLOVES.
BLP
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
words that don't belong in their own spelling aren't able to pick out
testimony
> and facts that don't fit in the testimony.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Thats the problem, spelling and defining, or analyzing are not one and
the same. The confusion dwells within your little brain, when you clear
away those cobwebs you will see clearer or, understand better.
BLP
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
> >What a sad group you are.
>
> If that's not the pot calling the cocaine illegal...
>
> >O.J. is F-R-E-E- , D-E-S-E-R-V-I-N-G-L-Y
> >S-O. H-E F-O-U-G-H-T- T-H-E- L-A-W-
> >A-N-D- W-O-N-
>
> And he wouldn't spit on you if you were on fire.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
I, likewise might spit on him, that however does not mean that he should
not have the same rights granted any other person. Innocent until proven
guilty, means, if not proven; means innocent forever. :)
BLP
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
> You pro-Js are so entertaining because you're so stupid. This is a man who
> charged you $30 (or whatever it was) to hear his side of the story, yet you're
> all here wasting hours and hours of your time defending him and telling us how
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
I wouldn't consider this a waste of time. It is evident that those of us
here, derive some pleasure (sadistic or otherwise) by taking part here,
its like an orgasm, we'll know when its over. By the way, are you old
enough to say orgasm??
BLP
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
BLP
> wonderful he is. At best, he'd probably give you an autograph - that is, if he
> wasn't wearing a fake cast like he has in the past so he'd have a good excuse
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
If Jeffery Tobin, Lawrence Schiller, Vincent Bugliosi, Donald Freed and
others can get rich by merely speculating, who better than O.J. can say
that he didn't do it ? I bought his book "I Want to Tell You", only
$17.00.
BLP
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
> NOT to waste his time giving autographs to fools like you. Do the words
> "unrequited love" mean anything to you?
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Is that the opposite of hate? for no reason? Can you justify the hatred
you have for someone whom you have never met? Love is not what I
personally have expressed for O.J. If you were unjustly accused, and
being railroaded with phony evidence, I would defend you also.
BLP
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
> Talk about a sad group.
>
> --
> For e-mail replies, replace the utx$v$ in my address with utxsvs
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
How about honesty, are you allowed to partake in discussions from your
work/school? Could this be considered cheating? Is that why you have been
given access? Kind of like lying. huh?
Wouldn't know much about honesty huh?
I forgot you believed Mark Fuhrman (did you).
BLP
BL P
Ron,
What a testiment to your utter stupidity,
you stay up trying to get me?????
Did you get exited while you waited? or
are you a fuzzy little girl trying to sound macho. Sorry I'm not AC/DC.
BLP
M.A.
>
--
HALLIAN IS A "NO GOOD CRACKER"!
M.A.ON THE SIMPSON VICTORY TRAIN............................!
__________________________________________________________________________
The above ideas are ours only and not Cranston Software or the Cranston
Organisation.
copyright 1997@ M.A.
http://www.noi.org
__________________________________________________________________________
Robert C. Miller
NKC wrote:
>
> On Sun, 14 Sep 1997 03:25:27 GMT, Bas...@spamhell.com (aka Ritch Š)
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Como?
> >
> >This is real LAME!....all languages "skin" from each other...much of our
> >scientific and legal "jargon" came from other languages..I.E.
> >"pro-bono".."Voire dire" (sp?)....and from the French inventor of the
> >multi-cell battery (Voltaire) comes the terms "volts" and "voltage" ..The
> >'espanol language "skins" from Italian and French and many
> >others...etc...etc...and there are even major variations in the spanish
> >language...so much so that a visitor from Mexico might have a hard time
> >communicating in certain parts of Spain and it even varies some in South
> >America...and what about Portuguese?
>
> skinning. If you're interested, I'll explain it to you.
>
> >from American English)
>
> "standard english," that language gleans from ebonics.
> >
>
> >
> ...............................................
[I don't think the term "volt" came from Voltaire. I've
never heard that before. -bob]
Ron
On Tue, 16 Sep 1997 01:01:28 -0600, Bet...@WebTv.Net wrote:
>In article <5vfs6o$r7s$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>,
> sikkid@utx$v$.cc.utexas.edu wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 13 Sep 1997 23:27:23 -0400, BET...@webtv.net wrote:
In a futile attempt at using Dejanews, Big Butt said
<GIGANTIC SNIP>
>BLP
What the hell was that gibberish? It was like a Hyeguy imitation,
line after line of wasted space and incomprehensible nonsense.
You are a fucking idiot.
RE
Ron
On Tue, 16 Sep 1997 02:31:10 -0400, BET...@webtv.net (BL P) wrote:
>Ron,
>
>What a testiment to your utter stupidity,
>you stay up trying to get me?????
Oh, Christ, a "testiment" to MY supidity?
>
>Did you get exited
Where was I supposed to have exited ?
>while you waited? or
>are you a fuzzy little girl trying to sound macho. Sorry I'm not AC/DC.
>
>
>BLP
What the fuck are you talking about, idiot?
If I had at least a vague idea, I'd be glad to assist you in making a
complete ass of yourself. But, that's OK. You do a grand job of it on
your own.
RE
The General
BL P wrote:
>
> 666 Baby???,
>
> If you have no problem believing that Mark Fuhrman didn't plant
> evidence,
There is nothing whatsoever to support the accusation that
Fuhrman planted evidence.
>Thano Parati only drew 6.5 cc's of blood,
Thano didn't know how much blood he drew. He
was just guessing.
> Vannatter didn't suspect O.J was the killer at the very beginning,
Of course, he suspected O.J. The husband or ex-husband is
always a suspect. Vannatter was a veteran of 500 homicide
cases. Of course, he suspected him.
> Nicole was abused
> while trying her best to keep a relationship;
She was abused on the first date (raped), but she went
back because the sex was good. Same reason she stayed
in the relationship even with all the abuse.
>that the glove fit well;
The glove never fit well, as was shown in all the
pictures of O.J. wearing the gloves before the murders.
> that there was blood on the socks in the beginning;
Yes the blood was there in the beginning.
> that in less than an
> hour and a half, O.J. acting alone , killed Ron and
> Nicole ,
An hour and a half is plenty of time to kill 2 people.
>went home dressed in five minutes and made his flight:
Five minutes is plenty of time to dress.
>
> Why not beleieve me, you obviously believe anything else. Trust me. :)
>
>
>
> BLP
BL P
666 Baby???,
If you have no problem believing that Mark Fuhrman didn't plant
evidence, Thano Parati only drew 6.5 cc's of blood,
Vannatter didn't suspect O.J was the killer at the very beginning,
Nicole was abused
while trying her best to keep a relationship; that the glove fit well;
that there was blood on the socks in the beginning; that in less than an
hour and a half, O.J. acting alone , killed Ron and
Nicole , went home dressed in five minutes and made his flight:
BL P
General,
Were you always this gullible? I like the part about the rape , good sex
huh? so good that she stayed around for seventeen years? I guess there
is a role for O.J., right here , teaching you jerk-offs HOW TO PLEASE A
WOMAN , bigtime :)
BLP
carrot
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------673A336B544A
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Alex wrote:
>
> Lines 57 Re: Flea Bailey trashes Terri Baker on LKLRespno 1 of 29
> sikkid@utx$v$.cc.utexas.edu The University of Texas at Austin
>
> On Sat, 13 Sep 1997 23:27:23 -0400, BET...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> :>To all no's , you spell well, you make no errors, you are always
> :>grammatically
> :>correct, one problem. You are the dumbest inhabitants on the face of
> :>this earth. You want laws and rights for only a select group and you are
> :>blinded by your prejudices. Knowing how to spell don't mean a damn thing
> :>if you have nothing to say.
>
> :It also doesn't mean much if you don't realize that the "don't" in your last
> :sentence would be "doesn't" if you'd successfully completed elementary school.
>
> Spelling isn't everything. You should try to correctly construct your
> sentences as well.
>
> :Interesting theory...wrong, a bit pathetic, but interesting.
>
> That should be:
>
> "Interesting theory. Wrong and a bit pathetic, but interesting."
>
> :First of all, most newsreaders don't have spell checkers. The one I'm using
> :doesn't, and I can only think of one that does.
>
> Actually, I think that it is gramatically incorrect to use the words "or"
> and "and" after a comma. (I must confess that I've done so myself in the
> past, but as we're correcting eachother now...)
>
> :If we make a mistake, you see it.
> :Second, spell checkers can only tell you when you've used a word
> :that doesn't exist -
>
> Secondly, not second.
>
> Also, that should be "_if_ you've used a word", not _when_.
>
> Spell checkers don't give you the time at which you've actually made a
> spelling mistake (say, 16.45 or 4.45 pm), but _if_ you've made one or not.
>
> I would also say that "a word which" is more esthaetically pleasing than
> "a word that", but I don't know if it's actually incorrect.
>
> :-)
>
> (This smiley is included solely and only for the benefit of those in need
> of a hint.)
>
> :My own personal theory is this: people learn how to spell by picking out what
> :isn't correct and doesn't fit and vice-versa, a skill that is also important in
> :watching a trial like Simpson's, where most of what the defense presented
> :wasn't correct and didn't fit.
>
> The Simpson trial wasn't a spelling competition. The ability to understand the
> charge and the instructions, which elude most no-jays, helps an awful lot.
>
> :It's no surprise that people who can't pick out
> :words that don't belong in their own spelling aren't able to pick out testimony
> :and facts that don't fit in the testimony.
>
> How many No-Jays were totally taken in by Mark Fuhrman's testimony?
> How many badly spelling Pro-Jays were? The ability to place a comma doesn't
> also give you the ability to use common sense; which doesn't also give
> you the ability to actually believe what you see, when presented with
> odd or shocking evidence.
> How many No-Jays often site the fact that there was a photo taken of
> one of OJ's bloodviles with blood on the outside of it? Or that some of the
> blood _was_ missing? Whether that was Phil Vannatter (which is also
> misspelled, by the way) going around spraying blood everywhere, or
> Colin Yamaguchi having a case of butterfingers, it all very easily adds
> up to contamination of crime scene evidence. Which does not make for a
> very strong case.
>
> The point is that to some extend we all write or type the way we speak in
> every day life, including your good self and that this does not necessarily
> mean that we can't put one and one together or that we can.
>
> Feeling facetious,
>
> Alex van Deelen
Cretin, your misspellings of esthetically, blood vials, cite, and extent
prove that you're not "Deelen" from a full deck. Your *logic* is most
amusing.
rotfl
bm.
--------------673A336B544A
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; name="B.txt"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="B.txt"
=1A
--------------673A336B544A--
Alex
BL P
BM,
ROTFLMAO:):)
BLP
BL P
RITCH,
I'm beginning to kinda like you, yuu have been humanized. ROTFL.
BLP
Alex
carrot (dsi...@pacbell.net) wrote:
: Cretin, your misspellings of esthetically, blood vials, cite, and extent
: prove that you're not "Deelen" from a full deck. Your *logic* is most
: amusing.
I never said I don't make mistakes spelling. I only say that if you're
going to correct anyone for doing so, you'd better not make any yourself.
The smiley's for you, Carrot. :-)
Alex van Deelen
: =1A
: --------------673A336B544A--
--
Alex
carrot (dsi...@pacbell.net) wrote:
: Cretin, your misspellings of esthetically, blood vials, cite, and extent
: prove that you're not "Deelen" from a full deck. Your *logic* is most
: amusing.
You were trying to say: "Your logic is _the_ most amusing".
And of course, that's Carrot with a capital C (as you're using the
word for a vegetable as a personal name).
Nor do I come from Crete (whatever gave you that impression?).
dsi...@pacbell.net
In article <601p9m$ssc$1...@newsd-3.alma.webtv.net>,
BET...@webtv.net (BL P) wrote:
>
> BM,
>
> ROTFLMAO:):)
>
> BLP
Don't you mean rotflmfao?
rotfl
bm.
Carrot
Keep your come away from me, cretin.
rotfl
bm.
BL P
BM , I said what I mean't and mean't
what I said. Maybe you mean ROTFLYFAO :0:):)
BLP
your-name-here
In article <5vvo1s$drf$2...@news0.xs4all.nl>, avde...@xs2.xs4all.nl writes:
[majority of grammatical nit-picking deleted]
>I would also say that "a word which" is more esthaetically pleasing than
>"a word that", but I don't know if it's actually incorrect.
Two points: a) who cares? I pay attention to grammar when I'm writing a paper;
I couldn't care less whether anything is grammatically correct in Usenet
postings. As long as it makes sense, I'm content.
b) spelling and grammar flames are considered to be in poor taste
on Usenet. It's a waste of everyone's time to post them, unless you happen to
be in a newsgroup dedicated to the usage of English.
Even Heather Aston wasn't this anal-retentive.
sik...@utx$v$.cc.utexas.edu
On 20 Sep 1997 05:47:40 GMT, avde...@xs2.xs4all.nl (Alex) wrote:
>:Interesting theory...wrong, a bit pathetic, but interesting.
>
>That should be:
>
>"Interesting theory. Wrong and a bit pathetic, but interesting."
No, it should be "Interesting theory...wrong, a bit pathetic, but
interesting."
I'm not sure you understand how Usenet works. It's like a giant
discussion - and I doubt even you, despite being incredibly
anal-retentive, worry too much about your grammar when you're talking
to friends or even someone you don't know. I even stoop so low as to
use words like "y'all" or "shit," which I'm sure you know wouldn't be
found in a thesis. I also wouldn't stick "..." in a thesis either,
unless I was quoting something, but hey, this AIN'T a thesis so what
difference does it make?
I intentionally wrote the line above the way it was written because
that's the way I wanted it to sound. It's called style. It may be
bad style, but it's my style, so c'est la vie.
>:First of all, most newsreaders don't have spell checkers. The one I'm using
>:doesn't, and I can only think of one that does.
>
>Actually, I think that it is gramatically incorrect to use the words "or"
>and "and" after a comma. (I must confess that I've done so myself in the
>past, but as we're correcting eachother now...)
I'm sure that'll come as a shock to journalists and English professors
all over the world who commit that grave error on a daily basis.
>:If we make a mistake, you see it.
>:Second, spell checkers can only tell you when you've used a word
>:that doesn't exist -
>
>Secondly, not second.
>
>Also, that should be "_if_ you've used a word", not _when_.
>
>Spell checkers don't give you the time at which you've actually made a
>spelling mistake (say, 16.45 or 4.45 pm), but _if_ you've made one or not.
*snork*
Could you find something more idiotic to complain about? I could very
easily explain how "when" could be the correct word, but it's not that
important to me. Think about it for a while...I'm sure you'll figure
it out.
>I would also say that "a word which" is more esthaetically pleasing than
^^^^^^^^^^
>"a word that", but I don't know if it's actually incorrect.
Apparently your spell checker can't tell you IF you've made an error.
>How many No-Jays were totally taken in by Mark Fuhrman's testimony?
>How many badly spelling Pro-Jays were? The ability to place a comma doesn't
How many badly spelling pro-Js were taken in by OJ Simpson's
testimony? Oops, I forgot, he was too chickenshit (I hope that
doesn't traumatize you too much) to testify. They believed him
anyway, despite the fact that everything he said (in his books,
videos, etc.) was orchestrated and filtered by his attorneys.
>also give you the ability to use common sense; which doesn't also give
>you the ability to actually believe what you see, when presented with
>odd or shocking evidence.
Odd or shocking evidence? What the hell is that? Even if something
is odd or shocking, it doesn't mean it isn't true. Personally, I find
the fact (I'm sorry, the allegation) that Marv Albert likes to dress
up like a woman and have other men watch him have sex odd AND
shocking, but I still consider it to be true.
>How many No-Jays often site the fact that there was a photo taken of
^^^
oops.
>one of OJ's bloodviles with blood on the outside of it? Or that some of the
^^^^^^^^
ouch.
>blood _was_ missing? Whether that was Phil Vannatter (which is also
It was never demonstrated that blood _was_ missing. It was
demonstrated that it _might_ have been missing, but it wasn't
demonstrated that it _was_ missing. Considering how many mistakes I
make in daily life, I found the prosecution's explanation for the
alleged missing blood far more believable than the defense's planting
nonsense.
Besides, if you don't like the blood evidence, throw it out. There's
more than enough left to come to the obvious conclusion that he's
guilty.
>misspelled, by the way) going around spraying blood everywhere, or
Spraying? Spraying??? I realize exaggeration is a key part of the
pro-J strategy, but c'mon.
>Colin Yamaguchi having a case of butterfingers, it all very easily adds
>up to contamination of crime scene evidence. Which does not make for a
>very strong case.
Has Colin changed his name since the trial? During the trial his name
was YAMAUCHI.
>The point is that to some extend we all write or type the way we speak in
>every day life, including your good self and that this does not necessarily
>mean that we can't put one and one together or that we can.
>
>Feeling facetious,
Obviously.