A PROBLEM OF SELF IMAGE?
Al Walker
Could it be that the entire NO J, and PRO J viewpoints are
a direct reflection of our own self image?
Have we been so blind that the truth about how everyone
really sees themselves and the kind of lives they actually
live was right in front of us, and we never took notice?
Think about this.
What would it take to have you think yourself capable of
committing a double homicide, and killing their mother yards
away from where your minor children are asleep?
What would it take to imagine yourself as getting so
enraged by the loss of a girlfriend, that you would actually
kill the mother of your kids in a horrible and gruesome way,
forever destroying the life you and they have lived and would
live from then on?
Who could think of themselves as doing such a thing?
A well adjusted, and content individual happy with his life
and circumstances?
A person who has no need to degrade others and to bring
others down to his level of misery?
Would it be someone who is confident of the way he or she
has lived their life and who has the prospects of a wonderful
future?
No No, people. That person would never believe anyone able
to do the things simpson is accused of doing to his ex and
goldman! The person who actually did this was no decent or
ordinary person.
It becomes obvious PRO Js are just not able to imagine the
depth of despair and the circumstances of living a horrible
life that would allow you to do such a thing.
But then who would see themselves as able to commit the act
of murder?
Who would think themselves able to commit a double homicide
at the drop of a hat, and board a plane without so much as a
hiccup or stutter ?
What type of self image would have such little regard for
all the lives murder would effect, that he could do it and go
on with his life as if nothing had changed?
The person who could imagine anyone able to do that is so
unhappy and so unafraid of changing his own circumstances that
he would do anything to escape the misery and squalor he or
she lives in!
He or she is miserable wretch. They see themselves as
having all the negative self doubt and image and they so
despise their own life, that they would think nothing of
taking two lives and forever changing the circumstances of
their own life as well as the lives of any children involved!
ANYTHING WOULD BE BETTER THAN BEING WHO AND WHAT I REALLY
AM!
SAYS 99 percent of the NO J's!
All this time it was right in front of our nose. How could
anyone who has the good life and self image, think anyone else
could throw it all away in a rash moment?
My My My, keep up the vulgar attacks, continue telling us
what a terrible life and self image you have NO Js.
Thomas P. Jabine
In article <359276E9...@yahoo.com>,
So tell me, Al, do you believe Jeffrey Dahmer killed those
boys and ate their body parts?
Al Wallker
We have no choice but to believe it. There was all manner
of evidence gathered from his house and there was a chained
victim in his basement, and an escaped kidnap victim who
identified him.
Believe it? I could bet my entire life's work on it and not
worry that I could be wrong.
You guys might try to give us one example where anyone with
simpson's life, his projected future, and the potential for
even more happiness than he has had to this point, and then
they went out and destroyed it all with an irrational and
stupid thing like a double homicide?
The little bits of nothing that you all think are important
proof happen to all be circumstantial, and the chance that
they all add up to mean what you think they do, is forty to
one against you.
Al Wallker >
Ron
On Thu, 25 Jun 1998 Psychiatrist Hyeguy shrieked:
<all small hyeguy letters deleted>
Dam, Mike, you sure get around! A couple days ago you were a Medical
Doctor. Next, you were a Forensic Scientist. Today, you're a goddam
Psychiatrist! I still say that you are THE most versatile junk dealer on
the planet.
Anyway, thanks for sharing your innermost thoughts with us as you go through
this transformation.
>
> ANYTHING WOULD BE BETTER THAN BEING WHO AND WHAT I REALLY
>AM!
You really didn't have to tell us that Mike. There's not a soul around who
wasn't already aware that you felt this way.
Take it from me, Sunny old pal, nobody blames you one bit.
The General
Thomas P. Jabine wrote:
>
> In article <359276E9...@yahoo.com>,
> Al Walker <add, 7@after, waker, for, email> wrote:
> >AM!
> >
> > All this time it was right in front of our nose. How could
> >anyone who has the good life and self image, think anyone else
> >could throw it all away in a rash moment?
> > My My My, keep up the vulgar attacks, continue telling us
> >what a terrible life and self image you have NO Js.
>
> boys and ate their body parts?
Jeffrey Dahmer and also Ted Bundy attributed their
gruesome crimes to the effects of drinking. Alcoholism
frequently is a symptom of manic depression. I think
Jeffrey suffered from depression which was compounded by
alcoholism. Ted Bundy was a charismatic person who
had manic episodes and alcoholism made it worse.
Al Wallker >
By the way General, you are the exception to the
comparison's I made.
Bundy and dahmer are not questionable, they were both
identified and there is conclusive proof of their guilt.
Whatever it was that helped them go bonkers, they had nothing
but poor self appraisal and images.
If you say they were manic depressives that might have
contributed to their poor self image.
Thomas you haven't said if you will look up any killer with
simpson's lifestyle, wealth, and future prospects?
I would bet the farm it just does not exist! And no
whacko's, Dupont was just plain crazy!
Thomas P. Jabine
In article <6mua82$q7i$1...@samsara0.mindspring.com>,
OK, how about that woman who killed the Scarsdale diet doctor?
The General
He had been giving her diet pills that were like the
drug called "speed". Sorry I can't spell the real name
of this drug without looking it up. She did not realize
that she had been taking speed. Then he withdrew the pills
and she had a bad reaction of withdrawal which caused her
to go berserk.
Al Wallker >
She made no attempt to deny it and she was pissed at his
dumping her after how many years? Her life was over if he left
her, at least that's how she saw it.
Not even a close comparison thomas, her prospects were nil,
her future was non existent, and she had given up her whole
life and career on his behalf, so she felt used and deserted
by the old doc. And she pled guilty to diminished capacity
didn't she? She never denied it for a moment.
Where is it the same Thomas?
Simpson called Gretchen and said, "hey Baby, I am footloose
and fancy free, so get your buns in shape!" and that was when
he thought he was alone and was supposed to be so despondent
he flew into a rage and killed two people by slicing their
throats open?
Did you see Gretchen? Did you hear her as well?
Articulate, soft spoken and intelligent as well? No "dem
tings" and "deese tings" and "youse guys" like nicole and her
sister denise. And here is this lady calling him to say, "I
only want you to know I am here for you no matter what" you
think he was panic stricken to think he was alone with a lady
like Gretchen Stockdale waiting for him to become free?
Even Hartmans wife had no future, in her mind she was
losing her whole life and the financial rewards of his career.
She gave her career up for him when they married. So she took
the ultimate step to keep her man forever. But she made no
bones she did it!
Do you see what I mean when I say simpson had a future of
continued pleasure and contented living? There was nothing
negative for him to consider if nicole never saw him again!
Women are like street cars to men , and men are like trolley's
to women.
The big difference is who you are. If you are a scruffy,
bearded loser with nothing but some old war stories to tell
and a vulgar mouth, what future do you have to look forward
to? Who wants anything to do with you?
Do you see why some people just resented simpson anyway?
His life and his future were what some dream of, so how
tempting is it for a closet racist to have a chance to ruin it
for him? Especially if you are some low class complainer who
never had the first moment of pleasure from your so called
life. [Class over for today]
Please Thomas.
Thomas P. Jabine
In article <6mul0t$5d4$1...@camel29.mindspring.com>,
> Simpson called Gretchen and said, "hey Baby, I am footloose
>and fancy free, so get your buns in shape!" and that was when
Really? Where did you get that from? Is that a direct quote?
Nicole had snubbed him and Paula had dumped him to go to Vegas,
something that Cochran worked very hard to hide from the jury,
by the way.
>he thought he was alone and was supposed to be so despondent
>he flew into a rage and killed two people by slicing their
>throats open?
> Did you see Gretchen? Did you hear her as well?
>Articulate, soft spoken and intelligent as well? No "dem
>tings" and "deese tings" and "youse guys" like nicole and her
>sister denise. And here is this lady calling him to say, "I
Funny, she was good enough for Simpson to dump his first wife
for, apparently.
>only want you to know I am here for you no matter what" you
>think he was panic stricken to think he was alone with a lady
>like Gretchen Stockdale waiting for him to become free?
Tell me more about this call from Gretchen.
> Even Hartmans wife had no future, in her mind she was
>losing her whole life and the financial rewards of his career.
>She gave her career up for him when they married. So she took
>the ultimate step to keep her man forever. But she made no
Yes, Al, that makes sense.
>bones she did it!
> Do you see what I mean when I say simpson had a future of
>continued pleasure and contented living? There was nothing
>negative for him to consider if nicole never saw him again!
>Women are like street cars to men , and men are like trolley's
>to women.
You are a sad little man if you think that.
> The big difference is who you are. If you are a scruffy,
>bearded loser with nothing but some old war stories to tell
>and a vulgar mouth, what future do you have to look forward
>to? Who wants anything to do with you?
You'd be surprised.
> Do you see why some people just resented simpson anyway?
No, actually, I don't know a single person that resented
Simpson before Ron and Nicole were murdered, except maybe
Edwards, who had seen what Simpson could do to his wife
when he was mad.
>His life and his future were what some dream of, so how
>tempting is it for a closet racist to have a chance to ruin it
>for him? Especially if you are some low class complainer who
>never had the first moment of pleasure from your so called
>life. [Class over for today]
>
>Please Thomas.
You're welcome.
Al Wallker >
> drug called "speed". Sorry I can't spell the real name
> of this drug without looking it up. She did not realize
> that she had been taking speed. Then he withdrew the pills
> and she had a bad reaction of withdrawal which caused her
> to go berserk.
General,
I think you are referring to Methamphetamine, or the
sometimes used name methedrine. Speed in a very dangerous
form. It is like crack only it is stronger and also lasts 4 to
6 hours longer than crack. The withdrawal from it is
considered a serious episode of depression that some never
recover from. Bad, bad stuff.
No wonder she went off and whacked him. She needed help
not jail. And the doc should have been revived and sentenced
to life for peddling death. Now that is sentence I would
support happily.
Anyone caught with more than an ounce of any addictive drug
for black market sales in the U.S. Should be given 6 weeks to
say goodbye to his or her family, and then given an
intentional overdose of his own product!
That's it, no appeal, no ten years of nonsense sob sister
stuff, just do it.
Like Shanghai, or the Islamic states and countries. You
get caught stealing, whack off a hand, second time death, good
bye charlie!
Cable Guise
In article <6mu441$r3k$8...@camel21.mindspring.com>, add, 7@after, waker,
for, email wrote:
Why would Tommy Lee who had money, fame, a baby and a beautiful wife
(Pamela Lee) throw it all away on a moment of anger? Why did Mrs. Hartman
shoot Phil with the kids in the house? Why would Bobby Brown abuse his
wife Whitney Houston?
Just because you have money, fame and an attractive spouse doesn't mean
you can't be foolish, petty, abusive and violent.
That's not just my opinion. That's reality, unfortunately.
The General
She still had a future as a teacher or the head of a
girl's school. The main thing about him dumping her was
that he stopped supplying her with diet pills. She was
having withdrawal but didn't realize it.
Her case reminds me of another case that was on Court TV
about 6 years ago. They still show the condensed version
of the trial from time to time. The woman's name was Betty
(can't remember her last name right off the top of my head)
and she killed her husband because he left her for a younger
woman. She was very hurt because she had devoted the best
years of her life to him, put him through college, etc.
Then as soon as she reached 40 and put on 10 pounds, he
dumped her. She became enraged and killed him. However,
she did sort of a slow burn, just like O.J. She thought
about it for weeks, and her rage built up. You could say
that O.J. had somewhat the same feelings because he took
Nicole when she was barely 18, a waitress with no money,
and gave her a rich celebrity lifestyle. He molded her
into the sophisticated woman that she became. Then as
soon as he got a little older and started having problems
with arthritis, she dumped him and started having an
affair with O.J. version 2.0 - Marcus Allen. Of course,
he was angry enough to kill Nicole, just like Betty, the
woman who killed her husband because he dumped her. It
was not so much the dumping that hurt their feelings; it
was the fact that they had contributed so much to making
the victim successful in life, and then they were betrayed.
Al Wallker >
Thomas P. Jabine wrote:
>
> In article <6mul0t$5d4$1...@camel29.mindspring.com>,
>
> > Simpson called Gretchen and said, "hey Baby, I am footloose
> >and fancy free, so get your buns in shape!" and that was when
>
>
what I was trying to convey?
You don't recall simpson's call to gretchen that was on her
voice mail and she turned over to the defense? It went
something like, "This is orenthal J, and for the first time in
my life I am free to live my life. Just wanted to let you
know, I will be back in town monday night, call me baby" or
something to that effect!
You don't remember that call? Cochran used it to show how
ridiculous it was to think simpson was despondent over the
loss of nicole. Or even paula. They showed Nicole's letter
asking simpson to try their marriage again and simpson's
turning her down.
> Nicole had snubbed him and Paula had dumped him to go to Vegas,
> something that Cochran worked very hard to hide from the jury,
> by the way.
Whaaaat? do you call playing a tape where simpson tells
gretchen he is free at last and he will be available for her
when he gets back from chicago trying to hide it? You really
went for the media bull hook line and sinker didn't you?
Oh boy thomas, Now I see why you have such unsubstantiated
ideas.
Please tell me you were able to actually see the criminal
trial? I do recall the media trying to say cochran wanted to
hide simpson knowing he was free, but I just assumed most
people knew better.
> >he thought he was alone and was supposed to be so despondent
> >he flew into a rage and killed two people by slicing their
> >throats open?
> > Did you see Gretchen? Did you hear her as well?
> >Articulate, soft spoken and intelligent as well? No "dem
> >tings" and "deese tings" and "youse guys" like nicole and her
> >sister denise. And here is this lady calling him to say, "I
>
> Funny, she was good enough for Simpson to dump his first wife
> for, apparently.
That's right, she was also seventeen, brand new, almost
never used, a blonde and attractive white woman. You don't
know that was what almost every successful black athlete
thinks is the american dream for a successful man?
Everyone knows better now, but back then it was the in
thing.
> >only want you to know I am here for you no matter what"
you
> >think he was panic stricken to think he was alone with a lady
> >like Gretchen Stockdale waiting for him to become free?
>
> Tell me more about this call from Gretchen.
What is there to tell, it is in the trial notes, I do not
recall verbatim but it went something like, "I am here for you
and whatever you might need."
It was either read from a transcript or it was also on a
voice mail message that was played. But there was no mistake
that she was waiting for his call.
Sure, he was so despondent for nicole, this sad little girl
who was trying to make up for all the guys she never had in
her youth because she was married to simpson. her sister
denise admitted it.
Denise said nicole went `back to her youth doing all the
running around and tasting other men, because she never had
the chance during her youth!
What did you all think she sat around topless with
strangers for? because she was sunbathing? Or too hot to wear
a bathing suit top?
> > Even Hartmans wife had no future, in her mind she was
> >losing her whole life and the financial rewards of his career.
> >She gave her career up for him when they married. So she took
> >the ultimate step to keep her man forever. But she made no
> >bones she did it!
> Yes, Al, that makes sense.
Do you have another explanation?
> > Do you see what I mean when I say simpson had a future of
> >continued pleasure and contented living? There was nothing
> >negative for him to consider if nicole never saw him again!
> >Women are like street cars to men , and men are like trolley's
> >to women.
>
> You are a sad little man if you think that.
Really? you have a better way to explain the single's
scene? What is it to you? Every meeting is a heartfelt deep
connection to the other person's soul and inner psyche? Every
female you meet has the face of monalisa, the figure of
aphrodite, and the mind and mouth of Sarah Bernhardt? They
are each a wonderful enchanting and rewarding experience?
What are you about twenty one?
You are either just looking for anything to criticize in my
remarks or you haven't the faintest idea what has been going
on for the last ten fifteen years in the single's scene?
My kids have kept me aware of all that is going on. There
was a movie where travolta was a writer for rolling stone and
magazine, and he did a story on the singles scene at the local
gym. Our kids told us this is the way it is.
> > The big difference is who you are. If you are a scruffy,
> >bearded loser with nothing but some old war stories to tell
> >and a vulgar mouth, what future do you have to look forward
> >to? Who wants anything to do with you?
>
> You'd be surprised.
No I would not be surprised by anything today's women might
do. They have been left wondering what is right and wrong by
their mothers, who have never grown up and who want to be
their daughters girlfriends and not their mothers.
The N.A.G.s [national assoc. gay skunks] have told them
being a housewife and mother is not rewarding even though it
is what they are best equipped to do.
They wear their skirts up around their waist and they
bristle when a co-worker tells them they have great legs.
They deserve equal pay for equal work but they ask
consideration for the lack of stamina and the lack of upper
body strength.
GI Jane is a myth, but I would fight to give any woman the
chance to try and make it.
And young kids like you have a lot to learn yet, if you
think 99 percent of the females you meet will not be like the
ride you missed last week to somewhere, anywhere. Please grow
up thomas.
> > Do you see why some people just resented simpson anyway?
>
> No, actually, I don't know a single person that resented
> Simpson before Ron and Nicole were murdered, except maybe
> Edwards, who had seen what Simpson could do to his wife
> when he was mad.
Then you are naive and do not have the first idea how many
so called men would have seen the way simpson might write a
letter and said to each other, "did you see his grammar? Did
you see his sentence structure?" "How did that guy get into
college? what college would have accepted him?"
"This guy is a millionaire, and he is rubbing elbows with
movie stars and hollywood celebrities?" "What does he have
that I don't?"
I am truly beginning to see why you have such a difficult
time understanding human nature. Thomas you are just a young
fella aren't you? Maybe from the midwest and not very worldly
wise when it comes to women and how nasty the big city can be.
Thomas you sly devil you, how long have you been east here?
I won't tell anyone.
]
> >
Haven't you seen those subject headers here? You have little
idea just how envious many were of him. And you might as well
say there is no racism, than try to say he was not envied and
begrudged his success by many hard working white guys, who had
no idea about abuse or even cared about it.
Open your eyes thomas, or take the rose colored lens off,
you must have a bloody fingerprint on it!
> >His life and his future were what some dream of, so how
> >tempting is it for a closet racist to have a chance to ruin it
> >for him? Especially if you are some low class complainer who
> >never had the first moment of pleasure from your so called
> >life. [Class over for today
> >Please Thomas.
>
> You're welcome.
Really, you must begin to understand there are many who
dislike any black who becomes famous for his athletic talent,
then goes on to become even more successful at other things.
You haven't any idea just how widespread this hate is. I
wish it wasn't that way, but the fact's speak for
themselves
Al Wallker >
Thomas P. Jabine wrote:
>
> In article <6mul0t$5d4$1...@camel29.mindspring.com>,
>
> > Simpson called Gretchen and said, "hey Baby, I am footloose
> >and fancy free, so get your buns in shape!" and that was when
>
> >he thought he was alone and was supposed to be so despondent
> >he flew into a rage and killed two people by slicing their
> >throats open?
> > Did you see Gretchen? Did you hear her as well?
> >Articulate, soft spoken and intelligent as well? No "dem
> >tings" and "deese tings" and "youse guys" like nicole and her
> >sister denise. And here is this lady calling him to say, "I
>
> Funny, she was good enough for Simpson to dump his first wife
> for, apparently.
That's right, she was also seventeen, brand new, almost
never used, a blonde and attractive white woman. You don't
know that was what almost every successful black athlete
thinks is the american dream for a successful man?
Everyone knows better now, but back then it was the in
thing.
> >only want you to know I am here for you no matter what"
you
> >think he was panic stricken to think he was alone with a lady
> >like Gretchen Stockdale waiting for him to become free?
>
> Tell me more about this call from Gretchen.
What is there to tell, it is in the trial notes, I do not
recall verbatim but it went something like, "I am here for you
and whatever you might need."
It was either read from a transcript or it was also on a
voice mail message that was played. But there was no mistake
that she was waiting for his call.
Sure, he was so despondent for nicole, this sad little girl
who was trying to make up for all the guys she never had in
her youth because she was married to simpson. her sister
denise admitted it.
Denise said nicole went `back to her youth doing all the
running around and tasting other men, because she never had
the chance during her youth!
What did you all think she sat around topless with
strangers for? because she was sunbathing? Or too hot to wear
a bathing suit top?
> > Even Hartmans wife had no future, in her mind she was
> >losing her whole life and the financial rewards of his career.
> >She gave her career up for him when they married. So she took
> >the ultimate step to keep her man forever. But she made no
> >bones she did it!
> Yes, Al, that makes sense.
Do you have another explanation?
> > Do you see what I mean when I say simpson had a future of
> >continued pleasure and contented living? There was nothing
> >negative for him to consider if nicole never saw him again!
> >Women are like street cars to men , and men are like trolley's
> >to women.
>
> You are a sad little man if you think that.
Really? you have a better way to explain the single's
scene? What is it to you? Every meeting is a heartfelt deep
connection to the other person's soul and inner psyche? Every
female you meet has the face of monalisa, the figure of
aphrodite, and the mind and mouth of Sarah Bernhardt? They
are each a wonderful enchanting and rewarding experience?
What are you about twenty one?
You are either just looking for anything to criticize in my
remarks or you haven't the faintest idea what has been going
on for the last ten fifteen years in the single's scene?
My kids have kept me aware of all that is going on. There
was a movie where travolta was a writer for rolling stone and
magazine, and he did a story on the singles scene at the local
gym. Our kids told us this is the way it is.
> > The big difference is who you are. If you are a scruffy,
> >bearded loser with nothing but some old war stories to tell
> >and a vulgar mouth, what future do you have to look forward
> >to? Who wants anything to do with you?
>
> You'd be surprised.
No I would not be surprised by anything today's women might
do. They have been left wondering what is right and wrong by
their mothers, who have never grown up and who want to be
their daughters girlfriends and not their mothers.
The N.A.G.s [national assoc. gay skunks] have told them
being a housewife and mother is not rewarding even though it
is what they are best equipped to do.
They wear their skirts up around their waist and they
bristle when a co-worker tells them they have great legs.
They deserve equal pay for equal work but they ask
consideration for the lack of stamina and the lack of upper
body strength.
GI Jane is a myth, but I would fight to give any woman the
chance to try and make it.
And young kids like you have a lot to learn yet, if you
think 99 percent of the females you meet will not be like the
ride you missed last week to somewhere, anywhere. Please grow
up thomas.
> > Do you see why some people just resented simpson anyway?
>
> >His life and his future were what some dream of, so how
> >tempting is it for a closet racist to have a chance to ruin it
> >for him? Especially if you are some low class complainer who
> >never had the first moment of pleasure from your so called
> >life. [Class over for today
> >Please Thomas.
>
Al Wallker >
Cable Guise wrote:
>
> In article <6mu441$r3k$8...@camel21.mindspring.com>, add, 7@after, waker,
> (Pamela Lee) throw it all away on a moment of anger? Why did Mrs. Hartman
> shoot Phil with the kids in the house? Why would Bobby Brown abuse his
> wife Whitney Houston?
Excuse me, tommy lee has a drug and booze problem, no
relationship to this whatsoever, and he did not slice her
throat for leaving him!
Mrs Hartman did kill her husband, but she made no attempt
to hide it or deny it. It appears to me that she felt she was
losing her meal ticket, her career, her lover, and the person
she put her entire life's effort into.
She was not concerned with the kids and she was selfish.
But she was not wealthy, had no future that she could see
herself enjoying so she had no relationship to simpson at all.
he had money, career, no lack of companionship, and had every
reason to see his life getting better without nicole not
despondent!
Bobby Brown is another boozer. But he is no OJ Simpson. He
has not ruined his life and his songs will still sell with or
without whitney for a wife, if he abuses her or not he will
still be a boozer. Tommy lee and brown have nothing to do
with simpson and hartman had no similarity to simpson at all!
Have you a problem reading? it said similar to what simpson
is accused of doing. Double homicide, by slicing two throats
like a roast beef!
> Just because you have money, fame and an attractive spouse doesn't mean
> you can't be foolish, petty, abusive and violent.
>
> That's not just my opinion. That's reality, unfortunately.
That just happens to be 20 to 30 percent of relationships,
but they have nothing in common with simpson or his life!
Do you know we have a fifty percent divorce rate now in
america? 50 percent do not make it, Why?
And again you have said nothing that has any relationship
to what I asked for.
Show me one person with all simpson had, money,
personality, career, future, great kids that love him, and
even gretchen stockdale on his doorstep waiting to come in and
warm his bed!
And then he took and threw it all away by slicing a woman's
throat just because she no longer wanted him?
I say its Poppycock, pure bull!
Please show me one instance even close! Where the guy threw
it all away for one woman! Gee you might think at least one
other instance might have happened?
Three hundred million people in america and it is that
unique? Does that tell you anything?
[abuse or divorce or even drug or booze problems are not
anything close]
Thomas P. Jabine
In article <6mv315$kp2$1...@camel29.mindspring.com>,
Al Wallker <add, 7@after, waker, for, "emal>"> wrote:
>Thomas P. Jabine wrote:
>> >he thought he was alone and was supposed to be so despondent
>> >he flew into a rage and killed two people by slicing their
>> >throats open?
>> > Did you see Gretchen? Did you hear her as well?
>> >Articulate, soft spoken and intelligent as well? No "dem
>> >tings" and "deese tings" and "youse guys" like nicole and her
>> >sister denise. And here is this lady calling him to say, "I
>>
>> Funny, she was good enough for Simpson to dump his first wife
>> for, apparently.
>
> That's right, she was also seventeen, brand new, almost
>never used, a blonde and attractive white woman. You don't
>know that was what almost every successful black athlete
>thinks is the american dream for a successful man?
I'd be curious to hear what maguey, Bob, ojokay, C.W.,
etc. think of that remark.
Thomas P. Jabine
In article <6mv598$ite$2...@camel29.mindspring.com>,
Al Wallker <add, 7@after, waker, for, "emal>"> wrote:
>> Just because you have money, fame and an attractive spouse doesn't mean
>> you can't be foolish, petty, abusive and violent.
>>
>> That's not just my opinion. That's reality, unfortunately.
>
> That just happens to be 20 to 30 percent of relationships,
>but they have nothing in common with simpson or his life!
Except maybe foolishness, pettiness, abusiveness, and violence.
> Do you know we have a fifty percent divorce rate now in
>america? 50 percent do not make it, Why?
Do you know that Simpson's marriages had a 100 percent divorce
rate? According to your statistics, that's *twice* the national
average, Why?
anti-chilengarian
In article <6musnl$1fl$1...@camel0.mindspring.com>, "<alwalker7"@yahoo.com
says...
(really, really stupid Hyeguy stuff deleted)
> Anyone caught with more than an ounce of any addictive drug
>for black market sales in the U.S. Should be given 6 weeks to
>say goodbye to his or her family, and then given an
>intentional overdose of his own product!
Spoken like a true nazi.
thez...@msn.com
Thomas P. Jabine <tj...@loc.gov> wrote in article <6mv5d4$3p...@rs8.loc.gov>...
> In article <6mv315$kp2$1...@camel29.mindspring.com>,
>
> Al Wallker <add, 7@after, waker, for, "emal>"> wrote:
> >> >he thought he was alone and was supposed to be so despondent
> >> >he flew into a rage and killed two people by slicing their
> >> >throats open?
> >> > Did you see Gretchen? Did you hear her as well?
> >> >Articulate, soft spoken and intelligent as well? No "dem
> >> >tings" and "deese tings" and "youse guys" like nicole and her
> >> >sister denise. And here is this lady calling him to say, "I
> >>
> >> Funny, she was good enough for Simpson to dump his first wife
> >> for, apparently.
> >
> > That's right, she was also seventeen, brand new, almost
> >never used, a blonde and attractive white woman. You don't
> >know that was what almost every successful black athlete
> >thinks is the american dream for a successful man?
>
> etc. think of that remark.
Since it came from hyeguy they won't give a shit. And if they should
respond, they'll think up all sorts of cockamamie excuses to defend
the greasy, lying fartbag.
Cable Guise
In article <6mv598$ite$2...@camel29.mindspring.com>, add, 7@after, waker,
for, "emal>" wrote:
No, but he allegedly kicked her while she was holding a baby. If the baby
had dropped and hit its head we'd be talking about manslaughter.....unless
a certain lawyer got involved.....
Is booze and drugs an excuse for bad and/or criminal behavior? Was Timothy
McVeigh on drugs when he parked a bomb in Oklahoma?
> Mrs Hartman did kill her husband, but she made no attempt
> to hide it or deny it. It appears to me that she felt she was
> losing her meal ticket, her career, her lover, and the person
> she put her entire life's effort into.
She did not commit suicide right away, she delayed her attempt like
another celebrity's attempt was delayed....
> She was not concerned with the kids and she was selfish.
> But she was not wealthy, had no future that she could see
> herself enjoying so she had no relationship to simpson at all.
> he had money, career, no lack of companionship, and had every
> reason to see his life getting better without nicole not
> despondent!
But Mr. Simpson was obsessed over Nicole. He admits this. Rejection, real
or imagined, is hard for some people to deal with. I have a friend whose
husband tossed her out of the house and never wanted to see her again.
Guess who keeps calling her and sending her gifts years later?
> Bobby Brown is another boozer. But he is no OJ Simpson. He
> has not ruined his life and his songs will still sell with or
> without whitney for a wife, if he abuses her or not he will
> still be a boozer. Tommy lee and brown have nothing to do
> with simpson and hartman had no similarity to simpson at all!
> Have you a problem reading?
Have you a problem with manners? (sorry, just thought I'd mention that one).
> it said similar to what simpson
> is accused of doing. Double homicide, by slicing two throats
> like a roast beef!
So you're saying only give you another example where a famous African
American ex-athlete was possibly driven by jealousy and rage to commit
murder with a knife of his ex-wife and a bystander? Well of course I
cannot give you another carbon copy example, this case was unique! Could I
give you an example of a married American president who jeopardized his
career by possibly having sex with an intern? Does that mean if there is
no precidence it could not happen?
Will you at least admit that there are people with fame, love, power and
money who are still unhappy and do stupid things?
>
> > Just because you have money, fame and an attractive spouse doesn't mean
> > you can't be foolish, petty, abusive and violent.
> >
> > That's not just my opinion. That's reality, unfortunately.
>
> That just happens to be 20 to 30 percent of relationships,
> but they have nothing in common with simpson or his life!
> Do you know we have a fifty percent divorce rate now in
> america? 50 percent do not make it, Why?
> And again you have said nothing that has any relationship
> to what I asked for.
> Show me one person with all simpson had, money,
> personality, career, future, great kids that love him, and
> even gretchen stockdale on his doorstep waiting to come in and
> warm his bed!
> And then he took and threw it all away by slicing a woman's
> throat just because she no longer wanted him?
> I say its Poppycock, pure bull!
Or a form of criminal insanity.
> Please show me one instance even close! Where the guy threw
> it all away for one woman! Gee you might think at least one
> other instance might have happened?
Prince Charles? Didn't he throw away a lot for one woman, his mistress?
You know, the crown, public approval, etc.
> Three hundred million people in america and it is that
> unique? Does that tell you anything?
>
> [abuse or divorce or even drug or booze problems are not
> anything close]
That's why the Simpson case still entails debate 4 years later. It IS that
unique!
ma
The General wrote:
> Thomas P. Jabine wrote:
> >
> > In article <359276E9...@yahoo.com>,
> > So tell me, Al, do you believe Jeffrey Dahmer killed those
> > boys and ate their body parts?
>
> Jeffrey Dahmer and also Ted Bundy attributed their
> gruesome crimes to the effects of drinking. Alcoholism
> frequently is a symptom of manic depression. I think
> Jeffrey suffered from depression which was compounded by
> alcoholism. Ted Bundy was a charismatic person who
> had manic episodes and alcoholism made it worse.
THE GENERAL KNOWS "BEER",HEY .
M.A.OF HERE LIKE "NICOLE" .........................................!
Al Wallker >
Thomas P. Jabine wrote:
>
> In article <6mv598$ite$2...@camel29.mindspring.com>,
> Al Wallker <add, 7@after, waker, for, "emal>"> wrote:
> >Cable Guise wrote:
>
> >> you can't be foolish, petty, abusive and violent.
> >>
> >> That's not just my opinion. That's reality, unfortunately.
> >
> > That just happens to be 20 to 30 percent of relationships,
> >but they have nothing in common with simpson or his life!
>
And again all those would be present in the majority of the
marriages that fail for any number of reasons? What is your
point?
Liz taylor, Barbara Hutton both married over five times,
both had fights and petty incidents, [they admitted] and had
violent confrontations with several husbands, But no throats
were slashed that I or anyone else is aware of!
Please try to give us one example of anyone with simpson's
pre murder life situation, healthy happy children that love
him, plenty of money, great future prospects, charisma,
starlet's waiting for his call, lucrative endorsements, movie
roles.
Then they just threw it all away by cutting his ex wife's
throat, because the girl he was seeing broke their
relationship? [I will even accept a less gruesome method of
murder]
> > Do you know we have a fifty percent divorce rate now in
> >america? 50 percent do not make it, Why?
>
> Do you know that Simpson's marriages had a 100 percent divorce
> rate? According to your statistics, that's *twice* the national
> average, Why?
Because he traded the first one in on a model with much
lower mileage, and the second one began to have problems after
the warranty expired.[the honeymoon was over when she screwed
marcus allen]
You wanted examples of the smarmy answers you give? You
also asked for examples of how you ask a question without
answering the one you are asked?
This post does both, so this is a 100 percent complete
example of your shortcomings jabine!
Thomas P. Jabine
In article <6n5nvd$bsi$4...@samsara0.mindspring.com>,
Al Wallker <add, 7@after, waker, for, "emal>"> wrote:
Changing your name again, "Wallker?"
>Thomas P. Jabine wrote:
>> Do you know that Simpson's marriages had a 100 percent divorce
>> rate? According to your statistics, that's *twice* the national
>> average, Why?
>
> Because he traded the first one in on a model with much
>lower mileage, and the second one began to have problems after
>the warranty expired.
I suppose you think you are complementing Simpson when you
say that. What a classy guy!
>[the honeymoon was over when she screwed
>marcus allen]
How many dozen women did Simpson "screw" (commit adultery with)
before that happened?
Al Wallker >
Thomas P. Jabine wrote:
>
> In article <6n5nvd$bsi$4...@samsara0.mindspring.com>,
> Al Wallker <add, 7@after, waker, for, "emal>"> wrote:
>
> Changing your name again, "Wallker?"
>
> >Thomas P. Jabine wrote:
Cute, but my post's are being canceled, and I simply change
these things with each post to bust their wagon. Was it hard
for you to figure out it was me? Sorry, I will try to keep it
to your level of understanding.
You guys will say or do anything when you can not answer my
questions, won't you?
> >> Do you know that Simpson's marriages had a 100 percent divorce
> >> rate? According to your statistics, that's *twice* the national
> >> average, Why?
> >
> > Because he traded the first one in on a model with much
> >lower mileage, and the second one began to have problems after
> >the warranty expired.
>
> I suppose you think you are complementing Simpson when you
> say that. What a classy guy!
You once again try to change a statement of fact into some
kind of praise for his hollywood lifestyle. Are you never
ashamed of your obfuscation of the facts ?
> >[the honeymoon was over when she screwed
> >marcus allen]
>
> How many dozen women did Simpson "screw" (commit adultery with)
> before that happened?
Why don't you try answering one question before asking
several more?
Have you found even one example of anyone who had simpson's
prospect's for a future, that threw it all away for something,
anything?
And I have said many times simpson did not live a life i
would be proud of, nor would I want him held up as a role
model. But he is no different than anyone else in hollywood or
living its so called lifestyle!
I merely state the obvious which many of you seem to
intentionally avoid.
He was surrounded by plenty of available women and it is
ludicrous to think he would be despondent about losing any one
or two or half dozen of them. There was another within the
snap of his finger. [this is not to think it is neat to live
this way, just stating a fact]
And how many women he screwed was no more or less than
nicole screwed during her visit to her youth! It is a moot
point. Or do you think otherwise?
How about something meaningful instead of this moralizing
and crap?
Ron
On 28 Jun 1998 11:52:04 -0400, tj...@loc.gov (Thomas P. Jabine) wrote:
>In article <6n5nvd$bsi$4...@samsara0.mindspring.com>,
>Al Wallker <add, 7@after, waker, for, "emal>"> wrote:
>
>Changing your name again, "Wallker?"
Kind of makes you wonder, doesn't it? Why would an old goof like "Al" go
through the hassle of changing his email address every other post?
I'm sure he has a very good reason. Since you seem to currently be out of
the dreaded killfile, maybe you can get him to explain it to you.
>
>>Thomas P. Jabine wrote:
>
>>> Do you know that Simpson's marriages had a 100 percent divorce
>>> rate? According to your statistics, that's *twice* the national
>>> average, Why?
>>
>> Because he traded the first one in on a model with much
>>lower mileage, and the second one began to have problems after
>>the warranty expired.
>
>I suppose you think you are complementing Simpson when you
>say that. What a classy guy!
>
Thomas P. Jabine
In article <6n5tk5$h6c$1...@camel29.mindspring.com>,
Al Wallker <add, 7@after, waker, for, "emal>"> wrote:
>>
>> In article <6n5nvd$bsi$4...@samsara0.mindspring.com>,
>> Al Wallker <add, 7@after, waker, for, "emal>"> wrote:
>>
>> Changing your name again, "Wallker?"
>>
>
> Cute, but my post's are being canceled, and I simply change
>these things with each post to bust their wagon. Was it hard
>for you to figure out it was me? Sorry, I will try to keep it
>to your level of understanding.
> You guys will say or do anything when you can not answer my
>questions, won't you?
>
>
>
>> >> rate? According to your statistics, that's *twice* the national
>> >> average, Why?
>> >
>> > Because he traded the first one in on a model with much
>> >lower mileage, and the second one began to have problems after
>> >the warranty expired.
>>
>> I suppose you think you are complementing Simpson when you
>> say that. What a classy guy!
>
>kind of praise for his hollywood lifestyle. Are you never
>ashamed of your obfuscation of the facts ?
>
>
>> >marcus allen]
>>
>> How many dozen women did Simpson "screw" (commit adultery with)
>> before that happened?
>
>several more?
>
> Have you found even one example of anyone who had simpson's
>prospect's for a future, that threw it all away for something,
>anything?
>
> And I have said many times simpson did not live a life i
>would be proud of, nor would I want him held up as a role
>model. But he is no different than anyone else in hollywood or
>living its so called lifestyle!
> I merely state the obvious which many of you seem to
>intentionally avoid.
> He was surrounded by plenty of available women and it is
>ludicrous to think he would be despondent about losing any one
>or two or half dozen of them. There was another within the
>snap of his finger. [this is not to think it is neat to live
>this way, just stating a fact]
Are you saying Simpson was incapable of love?
Let me give you a recap. Simpson swears he loved (and still loves) Nicole.
But that night she snubbed him, at an affair he had blown off his new
girlfriend Paula to go to. So he calls Paula, (whose sex drive he has
apparently been having some trouble keeping up with), only to find that
she has gone off to Vegas with her latest romantic prospect. She has left
him a long message saying that things are through between them because he
can't seem to choose between her and Nicole. He calls some more women, but
he can't get through to anyone. He snaps his fingers again and again, but
half a dozen women don't come running, or two, or even one. In fact, the
two most likely prospects are running in the opposite direction, and
Nicole, the proclaimed love of his life, has a bath drawn and candles lit
and romantic music playing -- but not for him. Apparently they were for
someone with, as you put it, "a little less mileage." And after all the
time and money that he had put into the ungrateful [go ahead, Al, fill in
the blank]. But hey, what did he care if Nicole preferred a bankrupt young
waiter to his tired old self? Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander,
is probably what he was thinking, right Al?
> And how many women he screwed was no more or less than
>nicole screwed during her visit to her youth! It is a moot
>point. Or do you think otherwise?
You are quick to judge Nicole for the number of men she
"screwed" after the divorce. Why then the silence on the
number of women Simpson committed adultery with while
they were still married?
Thomas P. Jabine
In article <6n5tk5$h6c$1...@camel29.mindspring.com>,
Al Wallker <add, 7@after, waker, for, "emal>"> wrote:
>Thomas P. Jabine wrote:
>>
>> In article <6n5nvd$bsi$4...@samsara0.mindspring.com>,
>> Al Wallker <add, 7@after, waker, for, "emal>"> wrote:
>>
>> Changing your name again, "Wallker?"
>>
>> >Thomas P. Jabine wrote:
>
> Cute, but my post's are being canceled, and I simply change
>these things with each post to bust their wagon. Was it hard
>for you to figure out it was me? Sorry, I will try to keep it
>to your level of understanding.
Al, what makes you think your posts are being canceled? I've
been seeing them pretty regularly. When ojf was canceling posts,
his provider put a stop to it pretty quickly. Which ISP are the
cancellations coming from? All the ones I have seen on DejaNews
seem to be legitimate cancels coming from you. Could you post
the header from one that is not yours?
Al Wallker >
Thomas P. Jabine wrote:
>
> In article <6n5tk5$h6c$1...@camel29.mindspring.com>,
> Al Wallker <add, 7@after, waker, for, "emal>"> wrote:
> >Thomas P. Jabine wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <6n5nvd$bsi$4...@samsara0.mindspring.com>,
> >> Al Wallker <add, 7@after, waker, for, "emal>"> wrote:
> >>
> >> Changing your name again, "Wallker?"
> >>
> >> >Thomas P. Jabine wrote:
> >
> > Cute, but my post's are being canceled, and I simply change
> >these things with each post to bust their wagon. Was it hard
> >for you to figure out it was me? Sorry, I will try to keep it
> >to your level of understanding.
Who cares? If he was not able to love then why would you
get the idea that a woman he discarded might have instigated
his anger or rage? The idea is preposterous.
> Let me give you a recap. Simpson swears he loved (and still loves) Nicole.
> But that night she snubbed him, at an affair he had blown off his new
> girlfriend Paula to go to.
That is the effect of her death and the loss of the mother
to his children. They would always have the bond of the
children and the love that created them. Wait til you have
children you won't have to be told that when you have your
own.
And he told her he is angry at her and he snubbed her. The
video showed his in laws and everyone else pleasant and
friendly to him, where is the snub you speak off? In your
dreams? OR IS IT JUST THAT WITHOUT THIS THEORY YOUR RAGE
MURDER IDEA IS WORTHLESS?
Earth to dreamer, earth to dreamer, it was a recital for
the daughter, and it had nothing to do with his ex beyond the
common bond of the children. Not any where was there any
indication he was intending to be with anyone except to see
his daughter in her show.
Where did you get this notion that he did not take paula
because of nicole? He might have told paula that, but I would
bet It was because he went to see his daughter and the idea of
another woman with him would have diminished the daughters
feeling he only came to see her.
It is clear you do not have children and you do not have a
daughter. Little girls can even be jealous of her own mother
when it comes to the attention of daddy. Get some help from
adults on this.
He told Paula it was for Sydney, and paula chose not to
believe him and he did not give a darn what she or anyone said
or believed when it came to his kids.
Then you would try to tell us this wealthy and charismatic
movie star, would have a panic attack when he found himself
all alone for a couple of hours before going on a pre planned
trip?
Lets see he was going to chicago to be in celebrity golf
tournament, where he was going to be one of the featured
celebrities. He was facing a day of adoration and being fawned
over by women and men alike, but he had this urge to be with
someone the night before? On the telephone no less?
Like some coke snorting tramp he was unable to spend two
hours alone shaving, showering, taking a nap, chipping golf
balls, reading a bit?
is that what you want normal people to believe?
How often do you get ashamed of yourself? I mean what
reason is there for anyone to believe this nonsense that you
think possible or probable?
Anyone who has lived for more than than twenty years would
have the experience of having lived their life and the
personal knowledge from seeing friends and others in the same
boat as simpson to know what you propose as possible is all
daydreaming and garbage.
It is a bad soap opera script, no one has ever had this
happen. Who has ever seen such utter nonsense happen to
anyone?
So he calls Paula, (whose sex drive he has
> apparently been having some trouble keeping up with), only to find that
> she has gone off to Vegas with her latest romantic prospect. She has left
> him a long message saying that things are through between them because he
> can't seem to choose between her and Nicole. He calls some more women, but
> he can't get through to anyone. He snaps his fingers again and again, but
> half a dozen women don't come running, or two, or even one. In fact, the
> two most likely prospects are running in the opposite direction, and
> Nicole, the proclaimed love of his life, has a bath drawn and candles lit
> and romantic music playing -- but not for him. Apparently they were for
> someone with, as you put it, "a little less mileage." And after all the
> time and money that he had put into the ungrateful [go ahead, Al, fill in
> the blank]. But hey, what did he care if Nicole preferred a bankrupt young
> waiter to his tired old self? Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander,
> is probably what he was thinking, right Al?
Unlike a sanctimonious know it all like you, I do not know
what actually went on that night, and neither do you.
But unlike you I chose to think and surmise only normal
things could have happened, or were possible while simpson got
ready to go to chicago.
However you have had to leap into total voids of
unbelievable bull to come up with this nonsense that taking
two hours to relax before a trip is somehow unbelievable. That
this guy who was living the life of riley and had the world by
its tail was frantic because of two very ordinary women were
not available to him?
Oh and it somehow added to his frenzy because between 8 and
10 pm on a sunday night he was unable to reach anyone on the
phone?
Have you some experience with this kind of panic attack
that you can speak so knowledgeably about such a thing? Has
this particular panic attack been recorded or documented?
ever? By anyone? Anywhere? Anytime?
> > And how many women he screwed was no more or less than
> >nicole screwed during her visit to her youth! It is a moot
> >point. Or do you think otherwise?
>
> You are quick to judge Nicole for the number of men she
> "screwed" after the divorce. Why then the silence on the
> number of women Simpson committed adultery with while
> they were still married?
What the heck does that have to do the murders? When did
this become a
discussion about the moral implications of simpsons extra
marital affairs?
For the twenty ninth time, I will repeat it so you can
perhaps read it this time and it might sink in!, nowhere do I
hold her to any higher standard than him. They both did their
share of fooling around, and it had plenty to do with the
circles they traveled in and he worked in!
Except that he never was found or seen doing it in his
living room while the kids were able to walk in. Further more
the idea that she would bring home trash like zalomsawitch to
be around the kids was not only stupid it was kind of thing I
would have taken the kids away from her because of!
And I have said many times simpson did not live a life i
> >would be proud of, nor would I want him held up as a role
> >model. But he is no different than anyone else in hollywood or
> >living its so called lifestyle!
> > I merely state the obvious which many of you seem to
> >intentionally avoid.
> > He was surrounded by plenty of available women and it is
> >ludicrous to think he would be despondent about losing any one
> >or two or half dozen of them. There was another within the
> >snap of his finger. [this is not to think it is neat to live
> >this way, just stating a fact]
Why don't you try answering one question before asking
several more?
Have you found even one example of anyone who had simpson's
prospect's for a future, that threw it all away for something,
anything?
And this time Jabine you have reached my limit of
endurance, you will get no further replies till you give a
decent answer. not a one line disclaimer, and honest answer!
And please no more fairy tales about the rage he went into
because he was unable to get anyone on the phone, it does not
pass the smile much less the giggle test!
Al Wallker >
Thomas P. Jabine wrote:
>
> In article <6n5tk5$h6c$1...@camel29.mindspring.com>,
> Al Wallker <add, 7@after, waker, for, "emal>"> wrote:
> >Thomas P. Jabine wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <6n5nvd$bsi$4...@samsara0.mindspring.com>,
> >> Al Wallker <add, 7@after, waker, for, "emal>"> wrote:
> >>
> >> Changing your name again, "Wallker?"
> >>
> >> >Thomas P. Jabine wrote:
> >
> > Cute, but my post's are being canceled, and I simply change
> >these things with each post to bust their wagon. Was it hard
> >for you to figure out it was me? Sorry, I will try to keep it
> >to your level of understanding.
>
> been seeing them pretty regularly. When ojf was canceling posts,
> his provider put a stop to it pretty quickly. Which ISP are the
> cancellations coming from? All the ones I have seen on DejaNews
> seem to be legitimate cancels coming from you. Could you post
> the header from one that is not yours?
Thomas,
I have cancelled perhaps three or four messages since I
began to post over a year ago. Two three weeks ago maybe fifty
or sixty of my post's were cancelled! not one by me. Why would
I cancel the post's I made? To think I annoy anyone that much
is amusing as hell to me.
None of the long list were cancelled by me. I even reposted
twenty of them from my sent file. I havent checked lately, but
I will now.
Al Wallker >
Thomas P. Jabine wrote:
>
> In article <6n5tk5$h6c$1...@camel29.mindspring.com>,
> Al Wallker <add, 7@after, waker, for, "emal>"> wrote:
>
> Al, what makes you think your posts are being canceled? I've
> been seeing them pretty regularly. When ojf was canceling posts,
> his provider put a stop to it pretty quickly. Which ISP are the
> cancellations coming from? All the ones I have seen on DejaNews
> seem to be legitimate cancels coming from you. Could you post
> the header from one that is not yours?
Thomas, here is one of the cancels, but if you go to deja
and just search under alt fan OJ-simpson you will come up with
the last five or ten thousand posts.
Then do a search for Al Wal...@yahoo.com and they line up
like little ducks in a row.
Although it says interpow.net I don't think that is the isp
it comes from. That was harrington or little r if you remember
the insignificant jerk.
Subject: cancel <3581E436...@yahoo.com>
From: Al Walker <alwa...@yahoo.com>
Date: 1998/06/14
Message-ID: <35838C...@yahoo.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Control: cancel <3581E436...@yahoo.com>
References: <3581E436...@yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1998 04:41:11 EDT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: InterPow Internet Services
Newsgroups: alt.fan.oj-simpson
*****************************************************
Subject: cmsg cancel <358EBA94...@yahoo.com>
From: alwa...@yahoo.com (al walker )
Date: 1998/06/23
Message-ID: <358f8...@news.interpow.net>
Control: cancel <358EBA94...@yahoo.com>
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 08:12:19 EDT
Organization: InterPow Internet Services
Newsgroups: alt.fan.oj-simpson
************************************************
Thomas, This last one appears to be the latest
cancellation of a post of mine. I saw maybe seventy or more
lited as cancelled all with the interpow.net.
Subject: cmsg cancel <3591AECB...@yahoo.com>
From: alwa...@yahoo.com (Al Walker)
Date: 1998/06/25
Message-ID: <35921...@news.interpow.net>
Control: cancel <3591AECB...@yahoo.com>
Organization: InterPow Internet Services
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 06:44:09 EDT
Newsgroups: alt.fan.oj-simpson
Thomas P. Jabine
In article <6n6q4m$obe$1...@camel29.mindspring.com>,
Al Wallker <add, 7@after, waker, for, "emal>"> wrote:
> Why don't you try answering one question before asking
>several more?
> Have you found even one example of anyone who had simpson's
>prospect's for a future, that threw it all away for something,
>anything?
Nicole was a key part of Simpson's self-image. Tonight, however, she had
rejected him in favor of a younger man with neither status nor money. His
girlfriend Paula had gone off to look for romance in Vegas. You talk about
his prospects. Look here, you tell me, he could have had any woman he
wanted. But the woman he wanted had dumped him. Why? Because he couldn't
break his emotional ties with Nicole and because he didn't have the
stamina to keep up with her needs. This was a man who was used to being in
control, and now he was reaching the point in his life where he was
finding out that he too could be traded in for a "newer model" in better
shape. Consider this possibility: the chickens were coming home to roost
and he didn't like it a bit.
Ron
On 28 Jun 1998 18:00:00 -0400, tj...@loc.gov (Thomas P. Jabine) wrote:
>In article <6n5tk5$h6c$1...@camel29.mindspring.com>,
>Al Wallker <add, 7@after, waker, for, "emal>"> wrote:
>>Thomas P. Jabine wrote:
>>>
>>> In article <6n5nvd$bsi$4...@samsara0.mindspring.com>,
>>> Al Wallker <add, 7@after, waker, for, "emal>"> wrote:
>>>
>>> Changing your name again, "Wallker?"
>>>
>>> >Thomas P. Jabine wrote:
>>
>> Cute, but my post's are being canceled, and I simply change
>>these things with each post to bust their wagon. Was it hard
>>for you to figure out it was me? Sorry, I will try to keep it
>>to your level of understanding.
>
>Al, what makes you think your posts are being canceled? I've
>been seeing them pretty regularly. When ojf was canceling posts,
>his provider put a stop to it pretty quickly. Which ISP are the
>cancellations coming from? All the ones I have seen on DejaNews
>seem to be legitimate cancels coming from you. Could you post
>the header from one that is not yours?
Hyeguy is lying as usual. He's been changing his email address on a regular
basis for over a year that I know of. He apparently thinks it's cute,
tricky, or someother dumb-assed thing.
If someone was actually doing something that "Al" could whine to an ISP
about, the phone lines would be burning up and their mailbox overflowing
with his outraged bawling.
What a joke! Fatty has whined about me to every ISP I've ever had, and he's
never had anything close to a valid bitch. To think that he'd just keep
changing his address and passively accept ANYTHING he could make about 500
complaints about is laughable. Next to posting long-winded pointless
babling here, ISP complaining is his favorite pastime.
Geez, the Fat Man made about 50 long-distance calls to California crying a
river about Dan picking on him, and wrote newsguy dozens of times moaning
about Carrot and I. Now he just changes his address? Hahahaha! Suuuuure
he does.
That Hyeguy sure can spin the tall tales. Too bad they're so absurd that
nobody but fellow Simpson lickers could possibly swallow them.
anti-chilengarian
In article <6n6qjh$obe$2...@camel29.mindspring.com>, "<alwalker7"@yahoo.com
says...
>
(usual Hyeguy whining and lies deleted)
> Thomas,
> I have cancelled perhaps three or four messages since I
>began to post over a year ago.
A year ago? You've been posting in here well over three years now. And you
really need to keep track of your lies, Mike. Write them down! Remember!
You've got to write your lies down. You think you would have learned by now.
But then again, nazis are pretty stupid.
AC
NKC
On 28 Jun 1998 17:20:47 -0400, tj...@loc.gov (Thomas P. Jabine) wrote:
>Let me give you a recap. Simpson swears he loved (and still loves) Nicole.
>But that night she snubbed him, at an affair he had blown off his new
>girlfriend Paula to go to. So he calls Paula, (whose sex drive he has
>apparently been having some trouble keeping up with), only to find that
>she has gone off to Vegas with her latest romantic prospect. She has left
>him a long message saying that things are through between them because he
>can't seem to choose between her and Nicole. He calls some more women, but
>he can't get through to anyone. He snaps his fingers again and again, but
>half a dozen women don't come running, or two, or even one. In fact, the
>two most likely prospects are running in the opposite direction, and
>Nicole, the proclaimed love of his life, has a bath drawn and candles lit
>and romantic music playing -- but not for him. Apparently they were for
>someone with, as you put it, "a little less mileage." And after all the
>time and money that he had put into the ungrateful [go ahead, Al, fill in
>the blank].
Are you looking for a motive, Thomas? I believe you already know how
ludicrous this one is: "OJ couldn't get a date that June night.
Therefore, he killed two people."
Why don't you just settle with: "OJ flipped out because the
buzzer wasn't working. Therefore, he killed two people."
I think the jealous slighted hubby used car routine wasn't
used because it doesn't work. Can't you guys come up with something a
little more compelling?
...
Thomas P. Jabine
In article <6n6t9t$obe$4...@camel29.mindspring.com>,
Al Wallker <add, 7@after, waker, for, "emal>"> wrote:
>Thomas P. Jabine wrote:
>>
>> In article <6n5tk5$h6c$1...@camel29.mindspring.com>,
>> Al Wallker <add, 7@after, waker, for, "emal>"> wrote:
>
>>
>> Al, what makes you think your posts are being canceled? I've
>> been seeing them pretty regularly. When ojf was canceling posts,
>> his provider put a stop to it pretty quickly. Which ISP are the
>> cancellations coming from? All the ones I have seen on DejaNews
>> seem to be legitimate cancels coming from you. Could you post
>> the header from one that is not yours?
>
Have you tried complaining to InterPow?
Kristin VanAllen
> snipped:
> Are you looking for a motive, Thomas? I believe you already know how
> ludicrous this one is: "OJ couldn't get a date that June night.
> Therefore, he killed two people."
> Why don't you just settle with: "OJ flipped out because the
> buzzer wasn't working. Therefore, he killed two people."
> I think the jealous slighted hubby used car routine wasn't
> used because it doesn't work. Can't you guys come up with something a
>
> little more compelling?
>
Kris - just caught the last portion of some news story about a murder
case where the guy killed his wife. he was quoted as saying:
:I didn't mean to kill her - I loved her. I just wanted her to
understand...."
OJ: If I killed her it was because I loved her so much, right?
al walker
That's not exactly how it went kris, and it appears you are
getting desperate to make a point. Who was this killer and
what were his circumstances? But short of that,
Please show me one person who had simposn's future
prospects, his money, his lucrative endorsements, the
hollywood starlet's just waiting to hop in his bed, the movie
deals, the almost perfect life, the charisma and universal
love and respect of the public,etc.
Now please try to show me one person who was willing to
divorce his wife when she asked to try again, then he kills
her in some imaginary fit of rage for some imaginary slight or
snub that had no effect on him in the past?
It is all right from a weekday soap opera, who believes
such stuff? Then after the killings he manages to keep a
very tight and strict time schedule to avoid being seen and to
hide the murder weapon, as well as any evidence that he was
near the crime scene. [I speak of evidence not compromised by
loss of chain of custody or poor and non regulation record
keeping]
All this is while a scheduled airline has his reservation
for a trip to chicago, just so some more people can fawn over
him, adore him and ask for his autograph and girls can perhaps
press their motel or hotel keys in his palm!
You people are so delusioned into believing this scenario
that he is the killer, you have been willing to believe
anything just to make his being the killer fit.
Please take a serious look at what you propose actually
happened!
anti-chilengarian
In article <35984B7A...@mindspring.com>, "alwalker7"@mindspring.com
says...
>
(same stupid shit Hyeguy's been writing for over three years deleted)
> Please take a serious look at what you propose actually
>happened!
Yes, would you please do that, Hyeguy? For once, take your own fucking
advice, nazi. You'd be surprised at how much it applies to you. Man, your
life must be boring.
doughnuts anyone?
AC
"What care I if Hyeguy pretends he didn't read this? We know he did."
deepf...@hotmail.com
In article <6n732m$15...@rs8.loc.gov>,> In article <6n6q4m$obe$1...@camel29.mindspring.com>,
> Al Wallker <add, 7@after, waker, for, "emal>"> wrote:
> > Why don't you try answering one question before asking
> >several more?
> > Have you found even one example of anyone who had simpson's
> >prospect's for a future, that threw it all away for something,
> >anything?
>
> rejected him in favor of a younger man with neither status nor money. His
> girlfriend Paula had gone off to look for romance in Vegas. You talk about
> his prospects. Look here, you tell me, he could have had any woman he
> wanted. But the woman he wanted had dumped him. Why? Because he couldn't
> break his emotional ties with Nicole and because he didn't have the
> stamina to keep up with her needs. This was a man who was used to being in
> control, and now he was reaching the point in his life where he was
> finding out that he too could be traded in for a "newer model" in better
> shape. Consider this possibility: the chickens were coming home to roost
> and he didn't like it a bit.
>
> >endurance, you will get no further replies till you give a
> >decent answer. not a one line disclaimer, and honest answer!
> > And please no more fairy tales about the rage he went into
> >because he was unable to get anyone on the phone, it does not
> >pass the smile much less the giggle test!
> >
>
>
Thomas. Since Walker seems constitutionally incapable of understanding
anything more than a catalog list when it comes to Orenthal's motivations,
you might point out names such as the following :
Leopold and Loeb - young men of means and with great futures (arguably even
better than Orenthal's) who killed for the thrill of it.
Fatty Arbuckle - A man who rivalled Chaplin and Keaton as the most popular
film comedian of his age, threw it all away because of intemperate and ill
considered choices in his love life, which lead to the untimely death of a
partner... sound familiar?
Theodore Bundy - in some circles considered to be a future contender for the
Governorship of Washington, threw it all away due to a sociopathic fixation on
murder and sexual assault.
Colin Thatcher: Former cabinet minister in Saskatchewan, scion of a well
founded and well regarded Canadian political family. Homes in Saskatchewan
and Palm Springs California and Arizona. Much wealthier than Orenthal. Hired
men to kill his former wife. He was reportedly upset that she was no longer
answering to him, nor living her life according to his wishes. Sound
familiar?
Any perusal of the records of the pop press or books on famous cases will turn
up dozens of more examples.
Walker's attitude reminds me of that of one of my friends' mothers. She is
descended from minor aristocracy, Canadian Establishment, WASP, Established
church, all the right scholls and clubs. She was convinced tha Orenthal was
innocent because, after all, "He wouldn't do something like that after all we
have done for him... I mean, it isn't like he is one of THOSE KIND of negros."
Crypto-racist posturing if you ask me...
Deep Fish out of Korea
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
al walker
Thomas P. Jabine wrote:
>
> In article <6n6q4m$obe$1...@camel29.mindspring.com>,
> Al Wallker <add, 7@after, waker, for, "emal>"> wrote:
> > Why don't you try answering one question before asking
> >several more?
> > Have you found even one example of anyone who had simpson's
> >prospect's for a future, that threw it all away for something,
> >anything?
> Nicole was a key part of Simpson's self-image. Tonight, however, she had
> rejected him in favor of a younger man with neither status nor money.
How was this possible? Since he rejected her both publicly
and privately, and this after she admitted most of the
problems in their marriage was her fault and literally begged
him for a chance to try the marriage again? But his answer to
her was his continued relationship to paula?
HE REJECTED HER MONTHS AGO BUT HER IMAGINED REJECTION CAUSED
HIM TO KILL HER?
How can you make such a ridiculous and unsupported claim
that he cared about nicoles love life, when after seeing her
with a pimp and a drug dealer, he came back the next day to
say, "you were in plain sight of the front door window, and I
gave you half a mil so you could buy a decent place to live so
you could do that stuff behind closed doors" Does that sound
controlling to you? I think it is down right reasonable and
very understanding of him.
His
> girlfriend Paula had gone off to look for romance in Vegas. You talk about
> his prospects. Look here, you tell me, he could have had any woman he
> wanted.
So within two hours his whole life flashes in front of his
eyes and he sees that paula and nicole are the last girls in
the world so he goes bonkers and
But the woman he wanted had dumped him. Why? Because he
couldn't
> break his emotional ties with Nicole and because he didn't have the
> stamina to keep up with her needs.
Once more I say you haven't a shred of anything to base
that on except rumors, and this is pure desperation that your
side has to make something out of nothing or you have no basis
to even think he would be anywhere near nicole's that night.
He did not want paula to go to the recital because he was
going to see his daughter sydney, not to see nicole.
Paula simply wanted to show her influence and he showed her
she had none where his daughter was concerned. That indicates
he had no big thing for paula and he was on the phone to
gretchen within minutes when he could not reach her.
And if you heard gretchen's answer to his message when he
told her he was finally free and available? she said,
"anything OJ, anything, just give me a chance to be there for
you" Or did you miss that?
Yea sure he was heartbroken about nicole who he told to get
lost, no reconciliation, get lost, Oh and he said, "do not
tell anyone you live with me, it is not true and you better
pay your taxes, I will not lie for you!" Boy oh boy that is
sure some sign he was heartsick wasn't it?
and he waited how long? ten minutes to give paula a chance to
call him back?
And what evidence do you have of his inability to keep up
with her sexual appetite? Rumor? innuendo? or is there some
confirmation?
You will find out if you have children that daughters
at a certain age become jealous of your time and his
relationship with sydney was part time anyway because of the
divorce
This was a man who was used to being in
> control,
What is your proof of this? His generosity to his in laws?
His generosity to his ex wife, her sisters, his kids? What
moves did he make to give him any control over the lives of
these people?
How about the ten thousand a month he was giving nicole for
child support without fighting it? Is that your idea of
trying to control anyone?
Yet nicole claimed to be pissed that kato was no longer
going to give her a couple of hundred a month when he moved in
to simpson's? Was that the control you spoke of?
and now he was reaching the point in his life where he was
> finding out that he too could be traded in for a "newer model" in better
> shape.
That is laughable thomas, how does understanding you are
getting older make you want to control someone? He was quick
to mention his own arthritis and pain, did that mean he killed
to prove he was able to?
Ohhh, you mean he was unable to make love but he was able
to knife fight and kill this younger man? what was that, his
way of saying, "see I can do it?" You better understand I will
never get old? Make up your mind thomas!
Consider this possibility: the chickens were coming home to
roost
> and he didn't like it a bit.
Oh now I get it, he killed in a fit of pique to establish
he hasn't lost his manliness and to prove his macho image is
not just a myth any more?
Is that it thomas? Trouble is I would have thought having a
new girl like gretchen stockdale would have done that much
easier, wouldn't it thomas?
> > And this time Jabine you have reached my limit of
> >endurance, you will get no further replies till you give a
> >decent answer. not a one line disclaimer, and honest answer!
> > And please no more fairy tales about the rage he went into
> >because he was unable to get anyone on the phone, it does not
> >pass the smile much less the giggle test!
I asked you not to try and convince us that he turned
killer because he was denied the conversation of a women on
the phone.
But apparently you decided that without the probability of
some ridiculous series of events that all started with paula
getting angry because he would not take her to see his
daughter's recital, and it is what instigated his being unable
to get paula on the phone, and that made simpson remember he
could not control her, and then that convinced simpson of his
age, and his loss of virility, and he was no longer a young
stud, so when he called nicole and spoke to sydney, he somehow
found out a young man was going to bring the glasses his
mother in law lost when they went to dinner, so he wanted to
make sure that guy was not taking his place with nicole? Is
this your theory thomas?
Is this your way to establish some plausible relationship
between the killings and the imagined snub of a woman he
rejected some months before?
Thomas, have you ever heard of stretching credulity? You
have reached new levels of trying to pal! Ever consider a
career writing scripts for daytime soaps?
Thomas P. Jabine
In article <35993327...@mindspring.com>,
To do that, I'd have to be able to write lines like this:
"Let's say I committed this crime. Even if I did do this, it would
have to have been because I loved her very much, right?"
al walker
Okay, let us say that what he said was exactly what he
intended.
I interpreted it to mean something that is very much in his
favor.
If he had actually loved her so much that he could become
enraged enough or angry enough by anything she might do to
actually get nuts and kill her, then why would he have
rejected her when she wanted to get together and try their
marriage again?
Why would he do the things that pointed out his reasons for
not wanting to try their life together again?
Why would he even have his business lawyer write her a
letter putting her on notice that he will not even fib for her
and assume some tiny bit of responsibility for her?
Sorry thomas he was saying, "everything I did was to show
you I did not still have that kind of crazy love for her!" You
all have barked up the wrong tree with those remarks of his!
db...@uno.edu
In article <6nb1ke$3iu$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
deepf...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Fatty Arbuckle - A man who rivalled Chaplin and Keaton as the most popular
> film comedian of his age, threw it all away because of intemperate and ill
> considered choices in his love life, which lead to the untimely death of a
> partner... sound familiar?
No so....
It amazes me how a rumor that has repeatedly been
proved to be a falsehood can be foisted by the
uninformed as fact.
"Roscoe Arbuckle never harmed a fly"
-Charles Chaplin
David B. Pearson
"Arbucklemania"
http://www.uno.edu/~drcom/Arbuckle
John Griffin
>It amazes me how a rumor that has repeatedly been
>proved to be a falsehood can be foisted by the
>uninformed as fact.
>"Roscoe Arbuckle never harmed a fly"
>-Charles Chaplin
I've never heard that one before!
Why would there be rumors about Arbuckle being anti-fly?
Is that quote the proof that it was a falsehood?
anti-chilengarian
In article <35993327...@mindspring.com>, "alwalker7"@mindspring.com
says...
>
(long, long Hyeguy babble that no one read deleted)
> Thomas, have you ever heard of stretching credulity? You
>have reached new levels of trying to pal! Ever consider a
>career writing scripts for daytime soaps?
I have to stretch also, that is, to believe that your name is "Al Walker."
Mike Chilengarian is a nazi.
AC
"What care I if Mike Chilengarian's wife Faith is PA's biggest whore? And I
don't mean as in 'does it a lot.'"
deepf...@hotmail.com
In article <6negoh$d8v$1...@big.aa.net>,
Hmmm... ever tried to introduce a coke bottle into a fly? :-)
Avtually the guy has a point. There is some evidence to suggest that the
young lady in question succumbed to the after effects of a botched abortion,
and not - as legend has it- a showdown with Roscoe and his substitute
"Roscoe".
But the initial Fartbag-inspired thread topic was the assertion that no
famous- person-with-everything-to-live-for had ever committed heinous acts or
fallen afoul of the law... Roscoe certainly qualifies for the latter, and
probably for the former.
Deep Fish out of Korea
Robert C. Miller
NKC wrote:
>
> On 28 Jun 1998 17:20:47 -0400, tj...@loc.gov (Thomas P. Jabine) wrote:
>
> >Let me give you a recap. Simpson swears he loved (and still loves) Nicole.
> >But that night she snubbed him, at an affair he had blown off his new
> >girlfriend Paula to go to. So he calls Paula, (whose sex drive he has
> >apparently been having some trouble keeping up with), only to find that
> >she has gone off to Vegas with her latest romantic prospect. She has left
> >him a long message saying that things are through between them because he
> >can't seem to choose between her and Nicole. He calls some more women, but
> >he can't get through to anyone. He snaps his fingers again and again, but
> >half a dozen women don't come running, or two, or even one. In fact, the
> >two most likely prospects are running in the opposite direction, and
> >Nicole, the proclaimed love of his life, has a bath drawn and candles lit
> >and romantic music playing -- but not for him. Apparently they were for
> >someone with, as you put it, "a little less mileage." And after all the
> >time and money that he had put into the ungrateful [go ahead, Al, fill in
> >the blank].
>
> ludicrous this one is: "OJ couldn't get a date that June night.
> Therefore, he killed two people."
> Why don't you just settle with: "OJ flipped out because the
> buzzer wasn't working. Therefore, he killed two people."
> I think the jealous slighted hubby used car routine wasn't
> used because it doesn't work. Can't you guys come up with something a
> little more compelling?
>
[As if he had a lot of time for a date that night, NKC. I
think a more plausible explanation was that it was
cookie dough chocolate chip ice cream, and OJ, a traitor
to his race, only ate vanilla ice cream. Would this make
Ben and Jerry accomplices?]
Robert C. Miller
Kristin VanAllen wrote:
>
> > snipped:
>
> > Are you looking for a motive, Thomas? I believe you already know how
> > ludicrous this one is: "OJ couldn't get a date that June night.
> > Therefore, he killed two people."
> > Why don't you just settle with: "OJ flipped out because the
> > buzzer wasn't working. Therefore, he killed two people."
> > I think the jealous slighted hubby used car routine wasn't
> > used because it doesn't work. Can't you guys come up with something a
> >
> > little more compelling?
> >
>
> case where the guy killed his wife. he was quoted as saying:
>
> :I didn't mean to kill her - I loved her. I just wanted her to
> understand...."
>
> OJ: If I killed her it was because I loved her so much, right?
[Following your reason, I should never care whether or not
my wife understands me. Otherwise, out comes the carving
knife?]
tek...@my-dejanews.com
In article <6ngbq2$b...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
Just thought I would remind you - Barry Hypocrite still does not KNOW!! He is
covering his butt for the day banana boy gets another carving urge. You
should too - I am sure your wife never understands you. Who could - you are a
moron.
ojokay
Robert C. Miller wrote:
>
> NKC wrote:
> >
> > On 28 Jun 1998 17:20:47 -0400, tj...@loc.gov (Thomas P. Jabine) wrote:
> >
> > >Let me give you a recap. Simpson swears he loved (and still loves) Nicole.
> > >But that night she snubbed him, at an affair he had blown off his new
> > >girlfriend Paula to go to. So he calls Paula, (whose sex drive he has
> > >apparently been having some trouble keeping up with), only to find that
> > >she has gone off to Vegas with her latest romantic prospect. She has left
> > >him a long message saying that things are through between them because he
> > >can't seem to choose between her and Nicole. He calls some more women, but
> > >he can't get through to anyone. He snaps his fingers again and again, but
> > >half a dozen women don't come running, or two, or even one. In fact, the
> > >two most likely prospects are running in the opposite direction, and
> > >Nicole, the proclaimed love of his life, has a bath drawn and candles lit
> > >and romantic music playing -- but not for him. Apparently they were for
> > >someone with, as you put it, "a little less mileage." And after all the
> > >time and money that he had put into the ungrateful [go ahead, Al, fill in
> > >the blank].
> >
> > ludicrous this one is: "OJ couldn't get a date that June night.
> > Therefore, he killed two people."
> > Why don't you just settle with: "OJ flipped out because the
> > buzzer wasn't working. Therefore, he killed two people."
> > I think the jealous slighted hubby used car routine wasn't
> > used because it doesn't work. Can't you guys come up with something a
> > little more compelling?
> >
>
> [As if he had a lot of time for a date that night, NKC. I
> think a more plausible explanation was that it was
> cookie dough chocolate chip ice cream, and OJ, a traitor
> to his race, only ate vanilla ice cream. Would this make
> Ben and Jerry accomplices?]
A "Chunky Monkey" fan myself. There simply IS no
motive in this case. Another black hole, more
"missing evidence." The no-J's will fish for any
reason to believe Simpson guilty, ignore any problem
(of which there are dozens) in the prosecution/plaintiff
myth, and rationalize what they cannot understand and/or
are afraid of subconsciously. I think it boils down to...
A PROBLEM OF SELF IMAGE?
db...@uno.edu
In article <6ngeqg$82r$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
deepf...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> In article <6negoh$d8v$1...@big.aa.net>,
> hilb...@big.aa.net (John Griffin) wrote:
> >
> > In article <6ned3p$efv$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <db...@uno.edu> wrote:
> >
> > >It amazes me how a rumor that has repeatedly been
> > >proved to be a falsehood can be foisted by the
> > >uninformed as fact.
> >
> > >"Roscoe Arbuckle never harmed a fly"
> > >-Charles Chaplin
> >
> > I've never heard that one before!
> > Why would there be rumors about Arbuckle being anti-fly?
> > Is that quote the proof that it was a falsehood?
> >
> >
>
> Hmmm... ever tried to introduce a coke bottle into a fly? :-)
>
> young lady in question succumbed to the after effects of a botched abortion,
> and not - as legend has it- a showdown with Roscoe and his substitute
> "Roscoe".
>
> But the initial Fartbag-inspired thread topic was the assertion that no
> famous- person-with-everything-to-live-for had ever committed heinous acts or
> fallen afoul of the law... Roscoe certainly qualifies for the latter, and
> probably for the former.
>
Umm... no.
The "coke bottle-rape" (also known as the "milk
bottle-rape," "champagne bottle-rape," and "jagged
ice-rape," depending on which version one hears)
was a fiction made up in the press to sell
newspapers. Yellow journalism was very popular in
that day. William Randolph Hearst, whose papers
led the libelous attacks, later publicly bragged
about how many newspapers the story had sold.
The "coke-rape" story has ABSOLUTELY no evidence
to support it. The jury at the manslaughter trials
acquitted Arbuckle in six minutes, five of which
were spent writing the following statement:
"Acquittal is not enough for Roscoe Arbuckle. We
feel that a great injustice has been done him. We
feel also that it was only our plain duty to give him
this exoneration, under the evidence, for there was
not the slightest proof adduced to connect him in
any way with the commission of a crime. He was
manly throughout the case, and told a
straightforward story on the witness stand, which
we all believed. The happening at the hotel was an
unfortunate affair for which Arbuckle, so the
evidence shows, was in no way responsible. We
wish him success and hope that the American
people will take the judgement of fourteen men and
women who have sat listening for thirty-one days
to the evidence, that Roscoe Arbuckle is entirely
innocent and free of all blame."
Four detailed books have been written on this
subject. All throughly agree that Arbuckle was
completely innocent. A recent hour-long bio on A&E,
and even E!'s "Mysteries & Scandals" also present
overwhelming evidence that clear Arbuckle beyond
a reasonable doubt.
Fallen afoul of the law? Yes.
Committed heinous acts? I really don't think so.
If you don't believe me, go ask over in the
alt.movie.silent or alt.movie.chaplin newsgroups, or
ANY other group knowledgable about the twenties.
The topic is very much a cut and dry matter.
Arbuckle was innocent.
Next time, please be more careful about you say,
and don't rely on crap like "Hollywood Babylon,"
"The "National Enquiring Midnight Star Globe" or
other dubious sources.
Thank you,
David B. Pearson
"Arbucklemania"
http://www.uno.edu/~drcom/Arbuckle
PS: Sorry to rain on your case about this, but it's
time to start putting this lie to a rest, don't you
think?
NKC
>[As if he had a lot of time for a date that night, NKC. I
>think a more plausible explanation was that it was
>cookie dough chocolate chip ice cream, and OJ, a traitor
>to his race, only ate vanilla ice cream. Would this make
>Ben and Jerry accomplices?]
As any good detective knows, the devil's in the details Miller.
Anyway, whatevah happened to that ice cream vendor who sold Nicole the
ice cream between 9 and 10PM, and said she was with some white dude at
the parlor?
al walker
Oh that white guy with nicole? He did not fit the profile
of the killer as noted by furman, so the ice cream salesman
was called a biased witness and branded a liar like Rosa
lopez!
The General
Nicole went directly from the Mezzaluna restaurant to the
ice cream place, so how could she have gotten a date so
quickly? That was just some guy standing next to her in
line, and she may have flirted with him, leading the ice
cream salesman to think that they were together.
al walker
This is a re-post of an earlier post!
Al Walker wrote:
Could it be that the entire NO J, and PRO J viewpoints are
a direct reflection of our own self image?
Have we been so blind that the truth about how everyone
really sees themselves and the kind of lives they actually
live was right in front of us, and we never took notice?
Think about this.
What would it take to have you think yourself capable of
committing a double homicide, and killing their mother yards
away from where your minor children are asleep?
What would it take to imagine yourself as getting so
enraged by the loss of a girlfriend, that you would actually
kill the mother of your kids in a horrible and gruesome way,
forever destroying the life you and they have lived and would
live from then on?
Who could think of themselves as doing such a thing?
A well adjusted, and content individual happy with his
life
and circumstances?
A person who has no need to degrade others and to bring
others down to his level of misery?
Would it be someone who is confident of the way he or she
has lived their life and who has the prospects of a wonderful
future?
No No, people. That person would never believe anyone
able
to do the things simpson is accused of doing to his ex and
goldman! The person who actually did this was no decent or
ordinary person.
It becomes obvious PRO Js are just not able to imagine the
depth of despair and the circumstances of living a horrible
life that would allow you to do such a thing.
But then who would see themselves as able to commit the act
of murder?
Who would think themselves able to commit a double
homicide
at the drop of a hat, and board a plane without so much as a
hiccup or stutter ?
What type of self image would have such little regard for
all the lives murder would effect, that he could do it and go
on with his life as if nothing had changed?
The person who could imagine anyone able to do that is so
unhappy and so unafraid of changing his own circumstances
that
he would do anything to escape the misery and squalor he or
she lives in!
He or she is miserable wretch. They see themselves as
having all the negative self doubt and image and they so
despise their own life, that they would think nothing of
taking two lives and forever changing the circumstances of
their own life as well as the lives of any children involved!
ANYTHING WOULD BE BETTER THAN BEING WHO AND WHAT I REALLY
AM! SAYS 99 percent of the NO J's!
All this time it was right in front of our nose. How could
anyone who has the good life and self image, think anyone
else
could throw it all away in a rash moment?
My My My, keep up the vulgar attacks, continue telling us
what a terrible life and self image you have NO Js.
al walker
David B.Pearson
I could not agree with you more. You have pointed out the
ease with which the media has been able to manipulate facts in
the past, and I am still amazed at those who are not bright
enough to question what the media tries to shove down our
throats even today.
The lynch mob type of person has little reason to question
anything the media says, so long as it allows them to believe
the little fantasy they have created from the media position.
Then we have the ones like this person who tried to pass
off another lie as fact, by repeating what we all have known
was manufactured myth about Mr Arbuckle.
He then [this sad little media clone] compounds his
falsehood by misrepresenting the reason why he posted the big
lie to begin with! he says,"
" But the initial Fartbag-inspired thread topic was the
assertion that no
famous- person-with-everything-to-live-for had ever committed
heinous acts or fallen afoul of the law... Roscoe certainly
qualifies for the latter, and probably for the former."
His representation of my challenge is a bald faced lie. It
is not even close to the challenge I made to these sad little
folks who are so easily fooled by the media!
Here is my original challenge!
original quote from 6/25/98
You guys might try to give us one example where anyone with
simpson's life, his projected future, and the potential for
even more happiness than he has had to this point, and then
they went out and destroyed it all with an irrational and
stupid thing like a double homicide?
The little bits of nothing that you all think are important
proof happen to all be circumstantial, and the chance that
they all add up to mean what you think they do, is forty to
one against you.
end quote*************
So once again A big lie being told by the NO Js is exposed
to the world! How many times is this?
How many times do we have to show the pitiful little
cockroach's called NO Js scurrying back into their holes when
the light of honesty is turned on them?
Scurry away NO Js you might get stepped on.
Between you and me OJOK, how many bugger boy liars have we
exposed?
Thomas P. Jabine
Hold on, General, let's not be so quick to dismiss this
angle:
Nicole: "Say, are those Aris Lites you're wearing?"
Stranger: "Yup, extra large. Got 'em at Bloomingdales."
Nicole: "In New York? Hey, I used to live in New York."
Stranger: "That's the one. Got these Bruno Maglis there
too."
Nicole: "I got my ex a pair of those once, but he hated
them. Wore them once and gave them to the doorman in our
building. What are those, about a size twelve?"
Stranger: "Wow, that's spooky."
Nicole: "Want to come over to my place for a drink?"
ac
In article <359D124A...@mindspring.com>, "alwalker7"@mindspring.com
says...
>
>
(usual babble about lying from Mike Chilengarian writing as "Walker" deleted)
> Scurry away NO Js you might get stepped on.
>
> Between you and me OJOK, how many bugger boy liars have we
>exposed?
Uh, none.
Bugger boys unite!
The wynnewood march approaches! Mike chilengarian is shitting his pants!
Who wants to be the fatman will mysteriously be out of town that week!!!
AC
deepf...@hotmail.com
In article <6nhnak$u2q$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
Thank you for taking the time. Thank you for the correction. This in no way
weakens my argument to Al Walker (who has yet to respond) who started this all
by claiming that no other well off person ever faced the same outcome as
Orenthal.
Ironic that Arbuckle, who - as you say - was clearly innocent - was ruined by
all this unfounded innuendo, while Orenthal, clearly a double murderer,
continues to play golf to his heart's content, and is so unaffected by remorse
or public revulsion that he does the "Banana Dance".
> If you don't believe me, go ask over in the
> alt.movie.silent or alt.movie.chaplin newsgroups, or
> ANY other group knowledgable about the twenties.
> The topic is very much a cut and dry matter.
> Arbuckle was innocent.
>
> Next time, please be more careful about you say,
> and don't rely on crap like "Hollywood Babylon,"
> "The "National Enquiring Midnight Star Globe" or
> other dubious sources.
>
> Thank you,
>
No. thank you.
> David B. Pearson
> "Arbucklemania"
> http://www.uno.edu/~drcom/Arbuckle
>
> PS: Sorry to rain on your case about this, but it's
> time to start putting this lie to a rest, don't you
> think?
>
Indeed. I wonder when the lies promulgated by the defenders of the Brentwood
Sociopath will finally die down?
Deep Fish out of Korea
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
al walker
The General wrote:
>
> al walker wrote:
> >
> > NKC wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 02 Jul 1998 09:13:11 -0700, "Robert C. Miller"
> > > <robertcarlmi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > >[As if he had a lot of time for a date that night, NKC. I
> > > >think a more plausible explanation was that it was
> > > >cookie dough chocolate chip ice cream, and OJ, a traitor
> > > >to his race, only ate vanilla ice cream. Would this make
> > > >Ben and Jerry accomplices?]
> > >
> > > As any good detective knows, the devil's in the details Miller.
> > > Anyway, whatevah happened to that ice cream vendor who sold Nicole the
> > > ice cream between 9 and 10PM, and said she was with some white dude at
> > > the parlor?
> > >
> >
> > Oh that white guy with nicole? He did not fit the profile
> > of the killer as noted by furman, so the ice cream salesman
> > was called a biased witness and branded a liar like Rosa
> > lopez!
>
> Nicole went directly from the Mezzaluna restaurant to the
> ice cream place, so how could she have gotten a date so
> quickly? That was just some guy standing next to her in
> line, and she may have flirted with him, leading the ice
> cream salesman to think that they were together.
Really? And just who was it that testified to that?
I mean we have the candles and the bath, so who was it for?
Ron was going to meet his buddy, so it wasn't for him?
Why is it so far fetched that she picked someone up or met
someone at her house? There are those who have simpson
behaving like superman, with nothing of the kind being said by
anyone like the ice cream dipper. He did say there was a white
guy with her. Why is it so impossible?
Because it might be the killer?
al walker
deepf...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> In article <6nhnak$u2q$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> db...@uno.edu wrote:
> >
> > In article <6ngeqg$82r$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> > deepf...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <6negoh$d8v$1...@big.aa.net>,
> > > hilb...@big.aa.net (John Griffin) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <6ned3p$efv$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <db...@uno.edu> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >It amazes me how a rumor that has repeatedly been
> > > > >proved to be a falsehood can be foisted by the
> > > > >uninformed as fact.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Yes we all want to know when the liar's like deep dork will
act like a human and stop his fraudulent and self serving
prevarication's?
Posted below is my answer that was executed and sent in
last night, So the first lie I expose by this cretin is the
claim by him that I have yet to answer these allegations!
The Second lie I expose is how he has turned my challenge,
which said nothing about anyone running a foul of the law, and
his cowardly trying to imply that he is in any way correct.
This it seems is his excuse for the incorrect naming of
arbuckle, and he tries to wiggle like the snake he is by
saying he did it to show that arbuckle like simpson was
wealthy and ran afoul of the law!
That was not my challenge in any way shape or form!
However my reply made it clear in its implication that the
arbuckle case is exactly like simpson! because he too was
vilified and lynched by the Media [randolph hearst controlled
papers]!
Then the imbeciles who haven't the intelligence to discern
matters for themselves, simply took up the chant that simpson
was the killer! Much like the NO Js of this group!
Here is my post of last night, it speaks for itself and it
says in plain language what zero thinkers like deep dork hate
to see!
From:
al walker <"al
walker7"@mindspring.com>
Subject:
A PROBLEM OF SELF IMAGE, NO, just more lies by NO
Js
Date:
Fri, 03 Jul 1998 13:18:02 -0400
Organization:
Mindspring Internet
service
X-Server-Date:
3 Jul 1998 17:15:49 GMT
Snip the same begining comments about arbuckle by David B
Pearson!
David B.Pearson
I could not agree with you more. You have pointed out the
ease with which the media has been able to manipulate facts in
the past, and I am still amazed at those who are not bright
enough to question what the media tries to shove down our
throats even today.
The lynch mob type of person has little reason to question
anything the media says, so long as it allows them to believe
the little fantasy they have created from the media position.
Then we have the ones like this person who tried to pass
off another lie as fact, by repeating what we all have known
was manufactured myth about Mr Arbuckle.
He then [this sad little media clone] compounds his
falsehood by misrepresenting the reason why he posted the big
lie to begin with! he says,"
" But the initial Fartbag-inspired thread topic was the
assertion that no famous- person-with-everything-to-live-for
had ever committed heinous acts or fallen afoul of the law...
Roscoe certainly
qualifies for the latter, and probably for the former."
His representation of my challenge is a bald faced lie. It
is not even close to the challenge I made to these sad little
folks who are so easily fooled by the media!
Here is my original challenge!
original quote from 6/25/98
You guys might try to give us one example where anyone with
simpson's life, his projected future, and the potential for
even more happiness than he has had to this point, and then
they went out and destroyed it all with an irrational and
stupid thing like a double homicide?
The little bits of nothing that you all think are important
proof happen to all be circumstantial, and the chance that
they all add up to mean what you think they do, is forty to
one against you.
end quote*************
So once again A big lie being told by the NO Js is exposed
to the world! How many times is this?
But during this example of their stupidity, they did do one
thing, they showed the entire group how easily a lie can be
believed because the media says so!
Fatty Arbuckle was innocent totally and completely!
BUT THEY SMEARED HIM, THEY TRIED HIM MORE THAN ONCE, AND
THEY ALL SWORE HE WAS THE DEVIL INCARNATE WHEN HE HAD NEVER
DONE ANYTHING OF THE SORT! NOW THAT IS JUST LIKE MR SIMPSOM!
Isn't that a coincidence?
How many times do we have to show the pitiful little
cockroach's called NO Js scurrying back into their holes when
the light of honesty is turned on them?
Scurry away NO Js you might get stepped on.
Yea yea, you will go through your sophomoric routine and
think you are cute but you are standing out here with your fly
down, and guess what, you got nothing to hide, you couldn't
expose your manhood if you tried, you don't have any!
ojokay
ac wrote:
>
> In article <359D124A...@mindspring.com>, "alwalker7"@mindspring.com
> says...
> >
> >
>
> (usual babble about lying from Mike Chilengarian writing as "Walker" deleted)
>
> >
> > Between you and me OJOK, how many bugger boy liars have we
> >exposed?
>
>
> Bugger boys unite!
>
> The wynnewood march approaches! Mike chilengarian is shitting his pants!
>
> Who wants to be the fatman will mysteriously be out of town that week!!!
The FBI will be in town that week...
ojokay
Ron wrote:
>
> On Thu, 02 Jul 1998 15:23:49 -0500, ojokay <ojo...@mycomputer.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >A PROBLEM OF SELF IMAGE?
>
>
> >>If you must know, psycho, I took Sinequan for 10 months back
> >>in 1986, following a nervous breakdown. It works wonders on
> >>psychotic people out of touch with reality, which I fully
> >>admit to being at the time.
>
> Too bad you can't fully admit that you still are at this very moment.
Weak. You must dance better than this, or I'm going to get
quite bored with you soon, psycho.
ojokay
Ron wrote:
>
> Hey, this is great! I just realized that I can reply to fatty's bullshit
> without even opening and deleting it. What a deal.
Can you get me some Panama Red, Ron?
> Anyway, on the subject of lies, I'm still waiting to see the retraction of
> your cashmere sweatsuit lie, "Al." Is that coming up soon?
>
> Not to worry. If nothing else, I'll be seeing you soon over at
> Chilengarian's, right? We can talk about it then over a couple of brews.
Better gulp 'em down. No beer served in the Philly jails, sorry.
> How about getting Mike to invite your little pal ojo-kay too? He's feeling
> awful bold lately. Maybe he's ready to meet a "punk" face-to-face now.
You ready to meet the FBI, face-to-face?
> Haha! Just kidding. That big bad-ass is still afraid somebody will find out
> his address and send him a mean email, and the mere thought that his real
> name might become known makes the poor baby wet his panties. We wouldn't
> want him to have another breakdown over at Mike's would we?
You bringing your M-16? Or just your pathetic ego?
> Catch ya in a month or so, "Al."
You gonna buy Mulder and Scully a beer when you get there, psycho?
Ron
Ron
Hey, this is great! I just realized that I can reply to fatty's bullshit
without even opening and deleting it. What a deal.
Anyway, on the subject of lies, I'm still waiting to see the retraction of
your cashmere sweatsuit lie, "Al." Is that coming up soon?
Not to worry. If nothing else, I'll be seeing you soon over at
Chilengarian's, right? We can talk about it then over a couple of brews.
How about getting Mike to invite your little pal ojo-kay too? He's feeling
awful bold lately. Maybe he's ready to meet a "punk" face-to-face now.
Haha! Just kidding. That big bad-ass is still afraid somebody will find out
his address and send him a mean email, and the mere thought that his real
name might become known makes the poor baby wet his panties. We wouldn't
want him to have another breakdown over at Mike's would we?
Catch ya in a month or so, "Al."
Mitch Farmer
Hyeguy,
The first post was
enough.
Think
about this.
SAYS 99%.
much a
Lying scumbag Clinton and little children too!!!
about that also.
Mitch
deepf...@hotmail.com
In article <359D7B01...@mindspring.com>,
change, mindspring, to, yaho...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> deepf...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
SNIP
>
> Between you and me OJOK, how many bugger boy liars have we
> exposed?
>
Hmmm... I would put that number at roughly around... 0, with an fioangle
factor of roughly - 0.
Gee, Al, afetr all this time you finally reply to one of my posts and this is
all you have to offer?
What happened to your replies to my offer to mediate the "Mike Chilengarian is
an Ersatz Yid" controversy? Found a Rebbe yet?
While I have your attention - could you try answering a few questions? Like -
are you 49 or 70?
Where exactly did you serve as a Pathfinder in Korea? Unit and a short precis
of your involvement would be nice. I have a personal interest that goes
beyond the fact that I find your claims pretty incredible. If you were a
Pathfinder, then you must find this easy to answer... Hanguk-mal
charashinayo? Chilengarian sekkye imnikka?
Could you also try to explain your glove and fibre theory?
Also - how is it that you could read and reply to my post, when (and I might
be mistaken on this) I am killfiled?
Could you list and detail what your killfile consists of, and what the
criteria for inclusion is?
Doesd "killfiled" mean something different to you then it does to the rest of
us?
Do you still "cool off" after a shower? Does Faith still do the "sexy nightie"
thing?
There are a number of outstanding issues, but I suppose that will do,
considering your known and exhibited short term attention problem...
Oh yeah - one more - why is Faith so fat?
Deep Fish out of Korea (while Mike Chilengarian goes looking for a
Korean-English translation web page)
kattail
<35928CDC...@yahoo.com>...
> Thomas P. Jabine wrote:
> >
> > In article <359276E9...@yahoo.com>,
How can you be this perverse and LIVE?
> > >
> > > All this time it was right in front of our nose. How could
> > >anyone who has the good life and self image, think anyone else
> > >could throw it all away in a rash moment?
> > > My My My, keep up the vulgar attacks, continue telling us
> > >what a terrible life and self image you have NO Js.
> >
> > So tell me, Al, do you believe Jeffrey Dahmer killed those
> > boys and ate their body parts?
>
> The cut up body part's were found in his freezer, as well
> as the chained girl in the basement.
EXCUSE ME!!
As a former Milwaukeean, I happen to know that there was NO "chained
girl in the basement" of Jeff Dahmer's apartment building when his
crimes were discovered (crimes to which he confessed, BTW, which
shows more courage than that arrogant, lying, narcissistic, butcher
simp has shown)!
Yet another example, folks, of the mis-information blithering Al
Walker blithely offers us, hoping the uninformed will fall for it.
Doubt everything he writes!
There was no need to say
> these two fingers "could" have come from this particular hand!
Huh?
> There was no maybe about dahmer, or john wayne gacy, or
> many others.
> What relationship do they have to simpson?
Dahmer confessed, was remorseful and went to prison. (no relation
to simpson)
Gacy denied he had anything to do with the variety of rotting young
male bodies in his basement...just a victim of co-incidence, I
guess. Like your hero, da joooos.
>
> Show me a killer as independantly wealthy, who apparently
> cares about and is chased by the girls, and had a marvelous
> and great future to look forward to, before the vultures tried
> to destroy him?
> Really, try to find a similar killer? And then try to find
> as brutal and disgusting a killing connected with it.
> You will not find it, I tried.
> But since you have access to the Library of congress from
> within the system, you should be able to find anything that
> exists. Care to try?
> Let us know.
Al, you are too perverse to contemplate! Have you ever talked to
simpson? What a "meeting of the minds" that would be! HAHAHAHAHA
kattail
* * *
Q1: What happened to OJ's Bronco?
A1: Property of Hertz, returned to Hertz.
Q2: What happened to OJ's socks?
A2: He got them back after the trial.
Q3: What happened to OJ's gloves?
Q3: Destroyed, since OJ claimed they were not his.
* * *
kattail
Al Wallker <alwa...@yahoo.com> wrote in article
<3592904B...@yahoo.com>...
> Thomas P. Jabine wrote:
> >
> > In article <359276E9...@yahoo.com>,
> > Al Walker <add, 7@after, waker, for, email> wrote:
(al's wishful thinking snipped>
> >
> > So tell me, Al, do you believe Jeffrey Dahmer killed those
> > boys and ate their body parts?
>
>
> We have no choice but to believe it. There was all manner
> of evidence gathered from his house and there was a chained
> victim in his basement,
STOP POSTING THIS LIE !! THERE WAS *NO* CHAINED VICTIM, DEAD OR
ALIVE, IN JEFF DAHMER'S APARTMENT BUILDING!
and an escaped kidnap victim who
> identified him.
> Believe it? I could bet my entire life's work on it and not
> worry that I could be wrong.
Your "entire life's work" is worth about as much as a fart in the
wind if you are going to bet it on a girl being found chained in
Jeff Dahmer's apt. building.
No, you don't worry that you could be wrong. That's why you remain
here on the group. You are CONSISTENTLY wrong. That's why a few
here have to ride your a** to point out to other people how wrong
you are. It's even wrong for you to breathe...go fall into a canyon
somewhere!
>
> You guys might try to give us one example where anyone with
> simpson's life, his projected future, and the potential for
> even more happiness than he has had to this point, and then
> they went out and destroyed it all with an irrational and
> stupid thing like a double homicide?
>
> The little bits of nothing that you all think are important
> proof happen to all be circumstantial, and the chance that
> they all add up to mean what you think they do, is forty to
> one against you.
And I suppose there wouldn't have been any need for circumstantial
evidence to be submitted at the trial if *you* had actually
eye-witnessed the killings and testified in your truthful, rational,
objective way, telling the world what *akshooly and troooly"
happened!
You are such a liar!
kattail
Janis72
flimsy, however it is not. Circumstantial evidence is simply evidence that was
not witnessed by another person. Direct evidence is evidence that is or was
witnessed by one or more other people. As most criminals make sure not to let
their crimes be witnessed, most cases are built on circumstantial evidence,
which is not the least bit flimsy.All the blood, fiber, footprint, fingerprint,
etc. against Simpson was circumstantial, however not in the least flimsy as it
led police directly to the one and only killer and no one else.
Janis72
al walker
Janis72,
There is no way to just explain how wrong you are about the
difference between circumstantial and direct evidence.
You are so wrong that to just say you are wrong is not
enough.
Try court TV and see if they will help you understand the
meaning of circumstantial and direct evidence.
[Hint, it has nothing to do with having been witnessed by
anyone]
al walker
> > > >on with his life as if nothing had changed?
> > > >
> > > > The person who could imagine anyone able to do that is so
> > > >unhappy and so unafraid of changing his own circumstances that
> > > >he would do anything to escape the misery and squalor he or
> > > >
> > > > He or she is miserable wretch. They see themselves as
> > > >having all the negative self doubt and image and they so
> > > >despise their own life, that they would think nothing of
> > > >taking two lives and forever changing the circumstances of
> > > >their own life as well as the lives of any children involved!
> > > >
> > > > ANYTHING WOULD BE BETTER THAN BEING WHO AND WHAT I REALLY
> > > >AM!
> > > > SAYS 99 percent of the NO J's!
>
> How can you be this perverse and LIVE?
>
harsh about. If you find it easy to imagine anyone could kill
and go on about life with little or no concern for the
children, then you must be in the depths of despair and
seriously in denial about how happy you really are.
> > > >
> > > > All this time it was right in front of our nose. How could
> > > >anyone who has the good life and self image, think anyone else
> > > >could throw it all away in a rash moment?
> > > > My My My, keep up the vulgar attacks, continue telling us
> > > >what a terrible life and self image you have NO Js.
> > >
> > > So tell me, Al, do you believe Jeffrey Dahmer killed those
> > > boys and ate their body parts?
Dahmer did not say he was innocent and he was not proven
not guilty in a court of criminal law.
And he would keep young boys and men as sex slaves, you are
thinking of another guy from phila named gary Heidnick who
chained up women as slaves then chopped them up froze some and
cooked and ate the other body parts.
Both of these guys never claimed to be innocent, and they
both signed long confessions.
These were sick guys who [like NO Js] would have no problem
thinking another normal human could do what was so simple for
them to do.
Remember they [Dahmer and Heidnick] must have thought
killing and so forth was just like we take brandy and a cigar
after a good meal.
But it makes sense that only sensible and decent people
would find it impossible for others to do such things, doesn't
it?
After all if you think it is normal and very simple to kill
on a whim, you have to be a little whacko, don't you? Or don't
you?
> > The cut up body part's were found in his freezer, as well
> > as the chained girl in the basement.
>
> EXCUSE ME!!
>
> As a former Milwaukeean, I happen to know that there was NO "chained
> girl in the basement" of Jeff Dahmer's apartment building when his
> crimes were discovered (crimes to which he confessed, BTW, which
> shows more courage than that arrogant, lying, narcissistic, butcher
> simp has shown)!
>
> Yet another example, folks, of the mis-information blithering Al
> Walker blithely offers us, hoping the uninformed will fall for it.
> Doubt everything he writes!
You really should learn how to read who posted what, you
have made an ass out yourself more often than any ten other
asses combined! oh brilliant kats tail!
I did not make the original incorrect post about dahmer or
gacy. But I did correct the mistake by posting the person who
was keeping girls chained up in his basement, it was gary
heidnick.
>
> > There was no maybe about dahmer, or john wayne gacy, or
> > many others.
> > What relationship do they have to simpson?
>
> Dahmer confessed, was remorseful and went to prison. (no relation
> to simpson)
>
> Gacy denied he had anything to do with the variety of rotting young
> male bodies in his basement...just a victim of co-incidence, I
> guess. Like your hero, da joooos.
Gacy also confessed after first denying his involvement.
Neither could deny the crimes as the bodies were found under
their roof and in their control.
And for the last time simpson is not anyone's hero, but
lonely little nothings like you are sure jealous of him?
aren't you?
But tell us, how is it you find it was so easy for anyone
to give up a great life for a whim and just kill at the drop
of a hat?
> > Show me a killer as independantly wealthy, who apparently
> > cares about and is chased by the girls, and had a marvelous
> > and great future to look forward to, before the vultures tried
> > to destroy him?
> > Really, try to find a similar killer? And then try to find
> > as brutal and disgusting a killing connected with it.
> > You will not find it, I tried.
> > But since you have access to the Library of congress from
> > within the system, you should be able to find anything that
> > exists. Care to try?
> > Let us know.
>
> Al, you are too perverse to contemplate! Have you ever talked to
> simpson? What a "meeting of the minds" that would be! HAHAHAHAHA
> kattail
I find it mildly offensive that a child-like polymorphous
perverse, simpleton like kats tail thinks he, she, or it is
qualified to make any judgment about me, much less to try and
brand me as contrary.
You have based your opinion of me on several weeks of
occasional posts on a single subject, a subject by the way
which you have limited understanding or knowledge of. After
you combine that with all the obvious deficiencies that you
also exhibit no one pays much attention to you, much less
takes what you say as important.
Lets just agree that you have shown yourself to be a
complete moron and let it go at that.
thez...@msn.com
> > How can you be this perverse and LIVE?
> >
> The truth is often hardest to swallow for those it is most
> harsh about.
Which is why you pretend to ignore everyone.
> If you find it easy to imagine anyone could kill
> and go on about life with little or no concern for the
> children, then you must be in the depths of despair and
> seriously in denial about how happy you really are.
Yet another recycled fartbag rant: If you believe it's possible for
someone to commit murder, then you have a problem and probably
are likely to be a potential murderer.
Since we know murders are committed, unfortunately, we also
know the fartbag is full of shit. Just because we're aware bad
things do happen does not mean we desire to commit them.
It's almost as bad as his constant scream about how nobody
who stands to lose ANYTHING ever commits murder. I'm sure
we'll see that somewhere below.
> > > > So tell me, Al, do you believe Jeffrey Dahmer killed those
> > > > boys and ate their body parts?
>
> Dahmer did not say he was innocent and he was not proven
> not guilty in a court of criminal law.
So according to the fartbag the trick is to lie consistently from the
start and never drop your pretense no matter how many times it's
disproved.
> And he would keep young boys and men as sex slaves,
He never kept any slaves. You're just making crap up once again.
you are
> thinking of another guy from phila named gary Heidnick who
> chained up women as slaves then chopped them up froze some and
> cooked and ate the other body parts.
You people in Philadelphia are really a bunch of fruitcakes, aren't you?
> Both of these guys never claimed to be innocent, and they
> both signed long confessions.
Here's another fartbag-patented gimmick: as long as someone keeps
insisting they're innocent, there's absolutely no reason to disbelieve
them. The prisons are full of guys who got convicted anyway,
even though they all insist they're innocent, but the fartbag still
thinks only the murderers who confess are ever guilty.
> These were sick guys who [like NO Js] would have no problem
> thinking another normal human could do what was so simple for
> them to do.
You see? Here it is again: "If you believe murder is possible it
can only be because you're a potential murderer yourself."
The fartbag has admitted to becoming violent in his arguments
with his wife. But he continues to insist nevertheless that
Simpson never really beat Nicole, even though he's confessed
to similar reactions. Hypocrisy, once more.
> Remember they [Dahmer and Heidnick] must have thought
> killing and so forth was just like we take brandy and a cigar
> after a good meal.
So what? Are you now saying that all murderers relish killing
and compare it to after dinner imbibements? That there's no
such thing as a spur-of-the-moment rage killing?
> But it makes sense that only sensible and decent people
> would find it impossible for others to do such things, doesn't
> it?
The facts say that murders are committed all the time by
jealous, abusive ex-husbands. And recognizing that these
facts do exist does not in any way, shape, or form signify
an agreement with the rationale for these murders.
But you have a real problem with facts, fartbag. You can't
seem to make friends with ANY of them!
> After all if you think it is normal and very simple to kill
> on a whim, you have to be a little whacko, don't you? Or don't
> you?
How many times this week will you recycle this puke, fartbag?
I'd just like to know now so I can prepare my autoposter to
handle an equal number of responses showing why you're full
of shit. Is it gonna be a hundred? TWO hundred? An exact
figure, please.
> > Yet another example, folks, of the mis-information blithering Al
> > Walker blithely offers us, hoping the uninformed will fall for it.
> > Doubt everything he writes!
>
> You really should learn how to read who posted what, you
> have made an ass out yourself more often than any ten other
> asses combined! oh brilliant kats tail!
> I did not make the original incorrect post about dahmer or
> gacy.
But you contributed to some of the distortions being said by
claiming that Dahmer "would keep young boys and men as sex
slaves." Therefore, you are indeed spouting misinformation,
"hoping the uninformed will fall for it," (as you always do) and Kattail's
statement still applies. And we certainly must doubt everything you
write, particularly after some deliberate lies about how Simpson
never denied owning Bruno Magli shoes, and that they found
a fingerprint on the back gate at Bundy, tested it, and found
it didn't belong to Simpson.
>But I did correct the mistake by posting the person who
> was keeping girls chained up in his basement, it was gary
> heidnick.
I'm sure you're very well versed in the methodology of serial
killers. Or perhaps it's just that local "Phillie" pride shining
through, fartbag. ;-)
> > Gacy denied he had anything to do with the variety of rotting young
> > male bodies in his basement...just a victim of co-incidence, I
> > guess. Like your hero, da joooos.
>
> Gacy also confessed after first denying his involvement.
> Neither could deny the crimes as the bodies were found under
> their roof and in their control.
And so neither could Simpson deny the crimes after the blood
evidence was collected, forcing he and his attorneys to resort
to their last chance: crying "racism!"
> And for the last time simpson is not anyone's hero,
Is that why you spend what's left of your dwindling life seeking
to honor and glorify him?
>but
> lonely little nothings like you are sure jealous of him?
> aren't you?
None of us would be in his position for all the tea in China.
We are able to live our lives without being called "murderer."
We can go out in public without being spat upon and cursed
at (unlike both you AND Simpson). We have jobs, earn
money, and have a future. What is there to be jealous of,
fartbag?
Money? He doesn't have any! That shitty little pension is
being blown on his legal fees! His lawyers are still demanding
money!
Fame? Who would want to be worldly renowned as a double
murderer?
I just can't think of anything else we're supposed to envy. Are
you gonna say something REALLY stupid, like he's getting chicks
based on his "Bad Boy" image and we're supposed to be jealous
of him for that; for screwing braindead, mindless bimbos out to
thrillfuck a murderer? Please don't even bother with that one.
> But tell us, how is it you find it was so easy for anyone
> to give up a great life for a whim and just kill at the drop
> of a hat?
What did I tell you? "Nobody with anything to lose ever
commits murder. Ever."
Give it a rest, fartbag. Murder is committed every day in
America for any number of reasons. Rich, poor, black, white,
you name it. The Menendez brothers were willing to "give up
a great life" in order to shotgun their parents to death. According
to you, I guess, that didn't happen.
Bad stuff occurs for no reason, with no rationale, and is performed
by people who don't think about their actions or the consequences.
Realizing that this is so means dealing with reality, something you
never have and never will manage.
> I find it mildly offensive that a child-like polymorphous
> perverse, simpleton like kats tail thinks he, she, or it is
> qualified to make any judgment about me, much less to try and
> brand me as contrary.
Cut the bullshit. You make all sorts of judgments about all sorts of
people and see nothing wrong with it, of course. She is certainly
more qualified to judge you, and your years worth of ranting and
raving - all easily accessible through Deja News - than you are in
return.
> You have based your opinion of me on several weeks of
> occasional posts on a single subject, a subject by the way
> which you have limited understanding or knowledge of.
You post on anything that suits you, so long as it gives you the
chance to weave lies and demonstrate your hypocrisy. And as
I said, archives with megabytes full of your stupid crap are readily
available online, and we're all well-versed in perusing them.
After
> you combine that with all the obvious deficiencies that you
> also exhibit no one pays much attention to you,
There he goes, folks! Back to sniveling "I'm IGNORING YOU!"
as he types a lengthy reply back to the original poster explaining
just why he's "punishing" them so. :-)
Yes, he did the same thing with me, and then got so flustered
trying to actually stick to his claim that he was "ignoring me" that
he had to run off on a "canyon fishing" expedition. Or so he said. Them
canyons in eastern Pennsy shore are steep, ain't they, fartbag?
>much less
> takes what you say as important.
It must have been important; you used a couple of your favorite
fartbag-themes ("if you think murder is possible then you're a murderer,"
and "nobody with anything to lose ever commits murder") in replying.
> Lets just agree that you have shown yourself to be a
> complete moron and let it go at that.
So much for the fartbag line about how he won't resort to insults.
We've only see him blow that on a few dozen times this month.
You will undoubtedly dedicate the next five posts to Kattail
as you whine to other Pro-J's how you're gonna ignore her until
the cows come home. ;-)
You know, fartbag, I can't remember the last post you wrote that
didn't have something hypocritical in it. It's your trademark, like
how they keep knocking Kenny off on "South Park," how they
never reveal the true location of the town of Springfield in
"The Simpsons," and how Michael Jackson wore that one glove.
Anti-Chilengarian
says...
>
(long stupid Hyeguy bullshit that no one read deleted)
> Lets just agree that you have shown yourself to be a
>complete moron and let it go at that.
Yeah, he's not "edducated" like you, Mike. You should tell him how "dum" he
is, Hyeguy. Maybe if he was as old as you, 49/70, he would acquire the
knowledge you have and could kill three people with his bare hands.
Anti-Chilengarian
Anti-Chilengarian
says...
>,
> There is no way to just explain how wrong you are about the
>difference between circumstantial and direct evidence.
> You are so wrong that to just say you are wrong is not
>enough.
> Try court TV and see if they will help you understand the
>meaning of circumstantial and direct evidence.
> [Hint, it has nothing to do with having been witnessed by
>anyone]
Or, use movies as your point of reference to everything, you know, like
Hyeguy "Al WAlker" Chilengarian does. Starship Troopers (one of the worst
movies of last year) is his reference to everything.
Mike Chilengarian is a nazi.
AC
al walker
germinated a single independent idea or thought of his own
since coming here? He uses the same childish pet names for
people twenty five times a post, he hasn't the intellectual
honesty to make any rebuttal based on his own ideas [he never
has any] so he is forever trying to use others ideas and
comments as a basis for his own lame put down's.
Kind of like , "yaaah you too" or "the same to you" that
would be hollered by those too dumb or too slow and with
little imagination to have their own ideas and theories.
Looks like the little boy will continue his rants and raves
with little regard for the fool he makes of himself by doing
it!
I remember three or four people who would email me to ask
if I read the long winded cogan reports he would write after
getting the nickname from someone else. They would all say how
sad it must be to be this guy who writes and has nothing
original to say!
And walter if you are reading this, I forgot all about it,
but if you will recall the post where this little varmint
wrote about petrocelli and his boston visit to sell his book
and the little talk he gave? You complimented him on it?
Well guess what I was told by a lurker who is from boston?
Two or three days later I received e-mail telling me this
liar and plagiarizer, stole the article from a magazine or
newspaper, and he even copied the part about taking his girl
friend there to hear the comments with him! This little punk
who has never displayed the ability to be spontaneous and
witty was suddenly a gifted writer? We should have known
immediately there was a big rat in this twerp's woodpile
This guy is the perfect example of a three dollar bill.
Only other fools will think he is the genuine article! One
guess who this is.
kattail
al walker <"al walker7"@mindspring.com> wrote in article
<35BFCE8C...@mindspring.com>...
Al, you have exposed yourself as the liar you are! I certainly do
know how to read a post. Who here doubts that *you* wrote the
comment above? Your improper use of the apostrophe in "part's" is
so typically YOU. (Not to mention your 2 space paragraph
indentation)
Trash me all you want, but you have lied once again and have proven
it by leaving telling clues. Tsk, tsk...careless, just like your
idol.
You're pretty good at fixing up a post, though, before tearing into
me. You've done that before. You're becoming known for doctoring
posts and then appearing to be outraged by something. The post you
responded with isn't the one I commented on.
>
> >
> > > There was no maybe about dahmer, or john wayne gacy, or
> > > many others.
> > > What relationship do they have to simpson?
> >
> > Dahmer confessed, was remorseful and went to prison. (no
relation
> > to simpson)
> >
> > Gacy denied he had anything to do with the variety of rotting
young
> > male bodies in his basement...just a victim of co-incidence, I
> > guess. Like your hero, da joooos.
>
> Gacy also confessed after first denying his involvement.
> Neither could deny the crimes as the bodies were found under
> their roof and in their control.
> And for the last time simpson is not anyone's hero, but
> lonely little nothings like you are sure jealous of him?
> aren't you?
ME?? JEALOUS OF SIMPSON???
BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAAAA! Gack!
>
But tell us, how is it you find it was so easy for anyone
> to give up a great life for a whim and just kill at the drop
> of a hat?
Yeah, he dropped the hat and then he killed....
>
>
> > > Show me a killer as independantly wealthy, who apparently
> > > cares about and is chased by the girls, and had a marvelous
> > > and great future to look forward to, before the vultures tried
> > > to destroy him?
> > > Really, try to find a similar killer? And then try to find
> > > as brutal and disgusting a killing connected with it.
> > > You will not find it, I tried.
> > > But since you have access to the Library of congress from
> > > within the system, you should be able to find anything that
> > > exists. Care to try?
> > > Let us know.
> >
> > Al, you are too perverse to contemplate! Have you ever talked
to
> > simpson? What a "meeting of the minds" that would be!
HAHAHAHAHA
> > kattail
>
>
> I find it mildly offensive that a child-like polymorphous
> perverse, simpleton like kats tail
It's kattail, al......got it??? kattail
thinks he, she, or it is
> qualified to make any judgment about me, much less to try and
> brand me as contrary.
I have every right to make a judgment of you...are you the only one
here entitled to form an opinion? My opinion of you is that you are
disgusting and you lie in ways normal people couldn't even think of.
> You have based your opinion of me on several weeks of
> occasional posts on a single subject, a subject by the way
> which you have limited understanding or knowledge of.
Maaybee, but I do know the difference between truth and fairy tales.
You don't.
After
> you combine that with all the obvious deficiencies that you
> also exhibit no one pays much attention to you, much less
> takes what you say as important.
I'm not here on an ego trip, but for laughs. And you'd be surprised
who pays attention to me.
> Lets just agree that you have shown yourself to be a
> complete moron and let it go at that.
A moron who slips up and leaves a misplaced apostrophe as a clue to
yet another major set-up and lie??
Oh, BTW...tell us how your "canyon fishing" went? Did you catch any
canyons? I have been waiting for your vacation report. You did
have a good time, didn't you? Tell us...
kattail
kattail
al walker <"al walker7"@mindspring.com> wrote in article
<35BFF852...@mindspring.com>...
I know who you are referring to, but why don't you name names, AL?
I mean real names, not "jerk, little boy, fool, little varmint,
liar, plagiarizer, little punk, twerp."
Just yesterday this same person was called "Gramps" by someone else.
What will you be addressing him as when you meet in court (or have
you dropped the lawsuit?)
You are a Nazi Jew!
kattail
thez...@msn.com
Ah, the fartbag is continuing to "ignore" me with all that classic fartbag
skill he's perfected so well:
> Who is this brilliant and repetitive jerk has not
> germinated a single independent idea or thought of his own
> since coming here?
I think the fartbag is trying to talk about me, but is too scared to mention
my name or even my e-mail address.
>He uses the same childish pet names for
> people twenty five times a post,
What - "fartbag?" That's not a name, fartbag. That's a descriptive term
based on one's prominent characteristics. Like how I refer to Simpson
as the "proven murderer" and Bob Seigler as "Liarman," since that's all
he's ever done on this group. How I sometimes refer to Bob Miller as
"nutsack," in addition.
>he hasn't the intellectual
> honesty to make any rebuttal based on his own ideas [he never
> has any] so he is forever trying to use others ideas and
> comments as a basis for his own lame put down's.
I have LOTS of ideas. You just don't have the balls to respond to
any of them except via a third-party whine to the group in general.
> Kind of like , "yaaah you too" or "the same to you" that
> would be hollered by those too dumb or too slow and with
> little imagination to have their own ideas and theories.
At least my ideas are truthful, fartbag, and are firmly founded in
reality. Yours get pulled straight from whatever black hole
resides in your head. Lying about Bruno Magli shoes and fingerprints,
for instance.
> Looks like the little boy will continue his rants and raves
> with little regard for the fool he makes of himself by doing
> it!
And it looks like the greasy, lying fartbag is acknowledging he
has absolutely no hope whatsoever of squaring off with me
face to face, but has to continue to pretend he's "ignoring" me.
How was that fishing trip, BTW, fartbag? Catch anything? ;-)
> I remember three or four people who would email me to ask
> if I read the long winded cogan reports he would write after
> getting the nickname from someone else. They would all say how
> sad it must be to be this guy who writes and has nothing
> original to say!
Why would they contact you when Cogo was the target of
those reports?
Man, you're STILL squirming and bitching about the clown
reports months after Cogo was chased out of the group. You
really just shat yourself whenever you saw them. Perhaps
it's time to start reposting them for public amusement.
> And walter if you are reading this, I forgot all about it,
> but if you will recall the post where this little varmint
> wrote about petrocelli and his boston visit to sell his book
> and the little talk he gave? You complimented him on it?
> Well guess what I was told by a lurker who is from boston?
> Two or three days later I received e-mail telling me this
> liar and plagiarizer, stole the article from a magazine or
> newspaper, and he even copied the part about taking his girl
> friend there to hear the comments with him!
Oh, a lurker e-mailed you exclusively, eh? Why didn't he post
to the group? Why did he pick you, fartbag? You weren't
mentioned in my article.
This is a complete and total lie. Ask your "friend" what "magazine
or newspaper" I allegedly stole this article from. If he - or you -
can provide the article source I will personally pay you $5000.
You have my solemn word of honor, or else I will leave this
newsgroup forever.
I want that article name and the publication it appeared in, fartbag.
Put up or shut up. Five thousand bucks is on the table. A chance
for you to move out of that rat-infested shithole into a double-wide.
This is why you're called the greasy, lying fartbag, BTW.
This little punk
> who has never displayed the ability to be spontaneous and
> witty was suddenly a gifted writer
Glad you found my article "gifted."
? We should have known
> immediately there was a big rat in this twerp's woodpile
> This guy is the perfect example of a three dollar bill.
> Only other fools will think he is the genuine article! One
> guess who this is.
The guy who's had you squealing like a stuck, shitting pig,
fartbag. ;-) So badly that you had to run away for a few
days and collect yourself.
And it's not going to stop, either. Running away and telling
lies isn't going to save you. Now go get me that reference
on the article I supposedly "plagiarized" because I'm not
letting you tell this lie and then back away from it. I'm rubbing
your fat little face in your own shit once more, fartbag.
Ron
wrote:
> This guy is the perfect example of a three dollar bill.
>Only other fools will think he is the genuine article! One
>guess who this is.
Mike Chilengarian?
Shit Storm
>
> Who is this brilliant and repetitive jerk has not
> germinated a single independent idea or thought of his own
> people twenty five times a post, he hasn't the intellectual
> honesty to make any rebuttal based on his own ideas [he never
> has any] so he is forever trying to use others ideas and
> comments as a basis for his own lame put down's.
> would be hollered by those too dumb or too slow and with
> little imagination to have their own ideas and theories.
> with little regard for the fool he makes of himself by doing
> it!
> if I read the long winded cogan reports he would write after
> getting the nickname from someone else. They would all say how
> sad it must be to be this guy who writes and has nothing
> original to say!
>
> but if you will recall the post where this little varmint
> wrote about petrocelli and his boston visit to sell his book
> and the little talk he gave? You complimented him on it?
> Well guess what I was told by a lurker who is from boston?
> Two or three days later I received e-mail telling me this
> liar and plagiarizer, stole the article from a magazine or
> newspaper, and he even copied the part about taking his girl
> who has never displayed the ability to be spontaneous and
> immediately there was a big rat in this twerp's woodpile
> Only other fools will think he is the genuine article! One
> guess who this is.
Awwwwwww, izum wuzim pee pee widow panties?
BWAHAHAHYAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!!
Anti-Chilengarian
says...
>
(long stupid Hyeguy bullshit he's written at least 80 times deleted)
> This guy is the perfect example of a three dollar bill.
>Only other fools will think he is the genuine article! One
>guess who this is.
Glad to see someone like yourself writing clear and original articles,
Hyeguy. I guess you are the only one here who doesn't repeat the same thing
over and over.
Oh wait. You do. Every fucking post. "he's so unoriginal and he never
contributes anything and I heard through the grapevine some bullshit that I
couldn't possibly know for real but if I say someone told me maybe some idiot
would be dumb enough to believe it's true blah blah blah..."
Don't you ever get tired of it? For someone who's 70, you sure act 13.
Anti-Chilengarian
Janis72
>There is no way to just explain how wrong you are about the
>>difference between circumstantial and direct evidence.
>> You are so wrong that to just say you are wrong is not
>>enough.
>> Try court TV and see if they will help you understand the meaning of
circumstantial and direct evidence.
>> [Hint, it has nothing to do with having been witnessed by
>>anyone]
Well, I posted the definition of
circumstantial evidence in an earlier post for you, quoted from Black's Law
dictionary. If this is not good enough for you, perhaps you would like to
enlighten us all on your definition? Perhaps YOU should watch Court TV, I learn
alot there every day, hell I even watch Cockroach and Co.! It's funny that with
all I have posted the only thing you can comment on is the definition of
circumstantial evidence. Hmmmm Why don't you really look it up and get back to
me. Get a law dictionary!
Janis
Anti-Chilengarian
says...
>
>Well, I posted the definition of
>circumstantial evidence in an earlier post for you, quoted from Black's Law
>dictionary. If this is not good enough for you, perhaps you would like to
>enlighten us all on your definition? Perhaps YOU should watch Court TV, I
learn
>alot there every day, hell I even watch Cockroach and Co.! It's funny that
with
>all I have posted the only thing you can comment on is the definition of
>circumstantial evidence. Hmmmm Why don't you really look it up and get back
to
>me. Get a law dictionary!
> Janis
This dumb shit "Al Walker" (whose real name is Mike Chilengarian) will never
follow up to this post becuase you've proven him to be wrong. Whenever that
happens (which is just about every post), he some how "skips" over the rest
of this thread and you'll find yourself in his magical "killfile." Even
though you're "killfiled," he'll still somehow be able to make references to
your posts.
AC
al walker
>
> Al Walker writes:
>
> >There is no way to just explain how wrong you are about the
> >>difference between circumstantial and direct evidence.
> >> You are so wrong that to just say you are wrong is not
> >>enough.
> >> Try court TV and see if they will help you understand the meaning of
> circumstantial and direct evidence.
> >> [Hint, it has nothing to do with having been witnessed by
> >>anyone]
>
> circumstantial evidence in an earlier post for you, quoted from Black's Law
> dictionary. If this is not good enough for you, perhaps you would like to
> enlighten us all on your definition? Perhaps YOU should watch Court TV, I learn
> alot there every day, hell I even watch Cockroach and Co.! It's funny that with
> all I have posted the only thing you can comment on is the definition of
> circumstantial evidence. Hmmmm Why don't you really look it up and get back to
> me. Get a law dictionary!
> Janis
Kats ass, kats tail,
I posted the correct definition's including the URL's to
Black's dict as well as two others on line, which you chose to
ignore. Its either that or else you have little or no skills
at reading the posts in the order which they are posted.
This is my last post to you since my time is limited and I
do not wish to waste it on you.
So you win, you are whatever you claim and the earth is
flat, OK?
Anti-Chilengarian
says...
>
>
> Kats ass, kats tail,
> I posted the correct definition's including the URL's to
>Black's dict as well as two others on line, which you chose to
>ignore. Its either that or else you have little or no skills
>at reading the posts in the order which they are posted.
> This is my last post to you since my time is limited and I
>do not wish to waste it on you.
> So you win, you are whatever you claim and the earth is
>flat, OK?
This is your response, Mike? She shows you up and what do you do? Insults.
Your usual response to everything.
When are you going to tell her how Goldman should have went for Federal
prosecution?
Come on "Al," tell it.
AC
Ron
> This is my last post to you since my time is limited and I
>do not wish to waste it on you.
Killfiled after only proving you wrong once Mike? A female? You NEVER give
up on attempting to push around a female for at least a week or so.
How come. Fatty? You keep saying you're short on time? Why is that Stevie?
Expecting guests you'd like to avoid? Already making up your excuses about
why you "weren't home?"
Be a little mor obvious, OK Alvin?
thez...@msn.com
> This is my last post to you since my time is limited and I
> do not wish to waste it on you.
Yes, the "farm" or "ranch" or whatever sanctuary you've concocted
this time is calling, fartbag.
Pretending you're about to retire won't stop the Wynnewood Avenue
march. Any fool can see you intend to duck down right before August 14th
and then pop up again when you feel it's safe to emerge from your hole.
> So you win, you are whatever you claim and the earth is
> flat, OK?
Nice to see you admit the other side takes the win. Better start
getting used to it. ;-)
Janis72
> Kats ass, kats tail,
> I posted the correct definition's including the URL's to
>Black's dict as well as two others on line, which you chose to
>ignore. Its either that or else you have little or no skills
>at reading the posts in the order which they are posted.
I choose to believe my own Law dictionary and not what you type on this screen.
If you are saying I did not quote from Black's Law Dictionary, you are the liar
everyone in here says you are.I do not live in here and I do not read every
post espicially not yours, they are such a futile waste of time. I was going to
give you the respect to sit down and honestly and seriously answer all 65 of
your innane questions as I had the time, but Ron was totally right when he said
you are a liar and a hopeless waste of time. I could not have an adult
discussion with you, you just get mad and throw insults as you did here, then
you want to run and hide, as predicted.
> This is my last post to you since my time is limited and I
>do not wish to waste it on you.
> So you win, you are whatever you claim and the earth is
>flat, OK?
Oh good, I hope this is your last post to me, as I do not wish to waste my
time on you.Question 43:" How did the Bundy glove wind up beneath the bush?" I
don't know, you think perhaps there was a struggle and as the glove slipped off
Simpson's hand it landed there? How much common sense does that take? Just an
example of the idiotic questions you think I should answer. I see by your
retreat you know when you are outmatched. Good bye you mindless jerk. By the
way, your hero is as guilty as the earth is round.
Janis
Janis72
>This is your response, Mike? She shows you up and what do you do? Insults.
>Your usual response to everything.
Yes, his only defense of himself and Simpson too is to insult others,yup,
there's some good hard evidence for you all! His retreat just shows he knows he
has already been beaten.And I only had to answer 15 of his 65 no brain
questions to send him running, what a joke.
>When are you going to tell her how Goldman should have went for Federal
>prosecution?
>
>Come on "Al," tell it.
>
>
>AC
I would nor read or reply to much of anything this pompus ass has to say much
less anything about Fred Goldman. Thanks alot for the support AC, maybe this
jerk will really leave, his time is so short, I sure wouldn't want to hold him
up.
Janis
kattail
Janis72 <jan...@aol.com> wrote in article
<199808040517...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> Al Walker wrote:
>
> > Kats ass, kats tail,
These are the names which al uses to refer to me (kattail). Here he
seems to be addressing *you* all mixed-up and using *my* names
(according to the lying fartbag).
He always accuses me of being unable to read a post, yet he's
addressing *me* and referring to a subject I had nothing to do
with...it seems to be you he is trying to answer.
Yet another indication of his intelligence and credibility.