For David Kendrick. After his attacks upon my wife. Its a great opportunity for him! <<SNICKER>>
andy
After seeing your rants about blond , blue eyed sex goddesses, and
how I
could never get them , I made a concerted search to find a bunch of
circle jerks who have similar thinking. This may point you in the
right direction!
<<<<< S N I C K E R >>>>. If you want to be a white supremacist,
why do
you not go all the way ?
Andy
Begin what I found just for you .. Perfect for you! Come out of the
closet, David ! Why in half a day you will be talking about"mud
people"
next! << S N I C K E R >>. And, I am a 'mud' person, being half
British,
quarter Jewish and quarter Chinese. So, I am a natural target for your
like thinking compatriots! <<SNICKER>>
From the website.
http://www.stormfront.org/
DukeR...@davidduke.com - Message from David Duke
N...@lists.stormfront.org - Nationalist News Agency: Information for
people of European descent worldwide.
Panzerfaus...@panzerfaust.com - Ezine from Panzerfaust Records
Stormf...@lists.stormfront.org - Pro-White moderated discussion:
High volume. Digest delivery.recommended.
Stormfront...@lists.stormfront.org - White Nationalist
religious discussion. Digest delivery recommended.
Storm...@lists.stormfront.org - Occasionally published newsletter
containing Stormfront updates.
Update...@crusader.net - Updates from the American Friends of the
British National Party
Vinland-Re...@nordland.net - Music & Movement news via Vinland
Records
WebB...@stormfront.org -
David Kendrick
news:7b4d50db.02112...@posting.google.com...
> Dear David Kendrick,
>
> After seeing your rants about blond , blue eyed sex goddesses, and
> how I
> could never get them , I made a concerted search to find a bunch of
> circle jerks who have similar thinking. This may point you in the
> right direction!
Godwin invoked. Game over. Thanks for playing.
David Kendrick
> British,
> quarter Jewish and quarter Chinese. So, I am a natural target for your
> like thinking compatriots! <<SNICKER>>
Andy...
In America we don't judge people by their ethnicity, only by their
character, and by that standard, you're a fuckhead. I love the way that,
despite your having killfiled me (twice), I seem to be the only person you
notice on Usenet these days other than Brad Jesness. What'd I do to
deserve THAT fucking honor?
andy
No way you are going to get off so easily, Kendrick. I will not let
you off the hook. You implied that I supported pedophillia, which I
do not, and I am going to take you to task for your racist attacks
on my wife. And, they were racist. Tough if you do not like it.
Andy
Hawkeye-X
[snip white supermacist crap]
Dude, you just set yourself up for libel AND slander lawsuit!
Way to go, Andy!
Hwkeye-X
FJ
> On 20 Nov 2002 21:30:20 -0800, rwil...@hotmail.com (andy) wrote:
>
> [snip white supermacist crap]
>
> Dude, you just set yourself up for libel AND slander lawsuit!
Considering the attacks on Beckwith's wife -- a non-combattant, who's not here
to defend herself -- I think it's only fair that Andy responds by accusing his
opponents of racism, certainly given the tone of some of the remarks about her.
Besides, libel and slander lawsuits are for pussies.
--
FJ "Es ist 'supremacist', du Nazi Schwein".
David Kendrick
"andy" <rwil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7b4d50db.02112...@posting.google.com...
> "David Kendrick" <d...@kendrick.org> wrote in message
news:<arijl...@enews1.newsguy.com>...
> > "andy" <rwil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:7b4d50db.02112...@posting.google.com...
> > > Dear David Kendrick,
> > >
> > > After seeing your rants about blond , blue eyed sex goddesses, and
> > > how I
> > > could never get them , I made a concerted search to find a bunch of
> > > circle jerks who have similar thinking. This may point you in the
> > > right direction!
> >
> > Godwin invoked. Game over. Thanks for playing.
>
> No way you are going to get off so easily, Kendrick. I will not let
> you off the hook.
I don't need your permission, Andrew Walcott Beckwith-Xi.
Hawkeye-X
Real nice title, considering that I'm Jewish.
I think I'll consult my lawyer.
Hawkeye-X
FJ
> On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 21:41:55 +0100, "FJ"
> <colonel_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hawkeye-X <use...@morphman.com> wrote in alt.flame:
>>
>>> On 20 Nov 2002 21:30:20 -0800, rwil...@hotmail.com (andy) wrote:
>>>
>>> [snip white supermacist crap]
>>>
>>> Dude, you just set yourself up for libel AND slander lawsuit!
>>
>> Considering the attacks on Beckwith's wife -- a non-combattant, who's
>> not here to defend herself -- I think it's only fair that Andy responds
>> by accusing his opponents of racism, certainly given the tone of some of
>> the remarks about her. Besides, libel and slander lawsuits are for
>> pussies.
>
> Real nice title, considering that I'm Jewish.
To me, you're just another fuckhead...
> I think I'll consult my lawyer.
...and a *typical* auk lamer.
--
FJ
andy
> "andy" <rwil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7b4d50db.02112...@posting.google.com...
> > "David Kendrick" <d...@kendrick.org> wrote in message
> news:<arijl...@enews1.newsguy.com>...
> > > "andy" <rwil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:7b4d50db.02112...@posting.google.com...
> > > > Dear David Kendrick,
> > > >
> > > > After seeing your rants about blond , blue eyed sex goddesses, and
> > > > how I
> > > > could never get them , I made a concerted search to find a bunch of
> > > > circle jerks who have similar thinking. This may point you in the
> > > > right direction!
> > >
> > > Godwin invoked. Game over. Thanks for playing.
> >
> > No way you are going to get off so easily, Kendrick. I will not let
> > you off the hook.
>
> I don't need your permission, Andrew Walcott Beckwith-Xi.
I do what the hell I want. Tough if you do not like it
Avoid normal situations.
[..]
> Andy...
> In America we don't judge people by their ethnicity
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
--
alt.flame Special Forces
"Passion is for dumbasses."
-- Ari Asikainen, <3dd7e446$0$85686$df06...@news.sexzilla.net>
David Kendrick
news:7b4d50db.02112...@posting.google.com...
> I do what the hell I want.
"What the hell you want" consists mainly of making a royal ass of
yourself, dancing on my command, picking on pretend lunatics, defending
pedophiles, and giving your snotty, self-important mail-order bride a
soapbox from which to emit elitist, racist blather of her own, while all the
time deriding others for being twice as good at tearing up your arguments
than you are at ranting at them.
> Tough if you do not like it
Like it? It's fuckin' hilarious!
03:15:38 GMT
>>> Dude, you just set yourself up for libel AND slander lawsuit!
>>
>>Considering the attacks on Beckwith's wife -- a non-combattant,
>>who's not here to defend herself -- I think it's only fair that Andy
>>responds by accusing his opponents of racism, certainly given the
>>tone of some of the remarks about her. Besides, libel and slander
>>lawsuits are for pussies.
>
> Real nice title, considering that I'm Jewish.
>
> I think I'll consult my lawyer.
Consulting one's lawyer over a flame is the act of a syphilitic,
three-legged wiener doggy. When you look in the mirror, do you see a
syphilitic, three-legged wiener doggy? Or is your view obscured by
your vast collection of Nazi paraphernalia?
--
Ari <fun...@all.at>
03:15:38 GMT
>>> Considering the attacks on Beckwith's wife -- a non-combattant, who's
>>> not here to defend herself -- I think it's only fair that Andy responds
>>> by accusing his opponents of racism, certainly given the tone of some of
>>> the remarks about her. Besides, libel and slander lawsuits are for
>>> pussies.
>>
>> Real nice title, considering that I'm Jewish.
>
> To me, you're just another fuckhead...
>
>> I think I'll consult my lawyer.
>
> ...and a *typical* auk lamer.
Watch out, FJ, or Herr Hawkeye-Xicklgruber'll sic the Gestapo on you.
--
Ari <fun...@all.at>
andy
> "andy" <rwil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7b4d50db.02112...@posting.google.com...
>
> > I do what the hell I want.
>
> "What the hell you want" consists mainly of making a royal ass of
> yourself, dancing on my command, picking on pretend lunatics, defending
> pedophiles, and giving your snotty, self-important mail-order bride
Ditto, what are you ? A dumb blonde white supremacist Georgia cracker?
> a
> soapbox from which to emit elitist, racist blather of her own
Fucking hilarious. Mr. Aryan nations man. You are a joke.
>, while all the
> time deriding others for being twice as good at tearing up your arguments
> than you are at ranting at them.
She is better than that, Mr. Aryan nations man!Maybe 100 times better
than a poor white trash dumb Georgia cracker fancying his blonde,blue eyed
fixation is de rigour for the planet.
>
> > Tough if you do not like it
>
> Like it? It's fuckin' hilarious!
I like it when you step on your dick, Kendrick. Keep it up.
Who was the chicken shit who made references to blonde blue eyed
American sex goddesses worshipped all over the world?Who was the one
who put out the racist questions to my wife? You did, KENDRICK!
You put that out. I thought that was racist. Bite me if you do
not want to face up to your racism, Kendrick.
Andrew Beckwith
andy
> "andy" <rwil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7b4d50db.02112...@posting.google.com...
>
> > I do what the hell I want.
>
> "What the hell you want" consists mainly of making a royal ass of
> yourself, dancing on my command, picking on pretend lunatics, defending
> pedophiles, and giving your snotty, self-important mail-order bride a
> soapbox from which to emit elitist, racist blather of her own
She hit you back right in the balls, Kendrick,after you made some of
the most racist steriotypes I could ever think a person could make. If
you cannot take the punishment, then don't start the racist attacks in
the first place.
And it would be worse if you met her face to face. She can hit back
very hard, especially against self important white supremacists like you.
>, while all the
> time deriding others for being twice as good at tearing up your arguments
> than you are at ranting at them.
>
> > Tough if you do not like it
>
> Like it? It's fuckin' hilarious!
You are a dumb white supremacist Georgia cracker. You gave it all away
with that rant about the non existent in the worlds eyes superiority of
blonde, blue eyed American sex goddesses. Sorry, but you will have to
live with that racist remark indeligibly implanted in Google for the rest
of your life.
Andy
andy
> "andy" <rwil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7b4d50db.02112...@posting.google.com...
>
> > I do what the hell I want.
>
> "What the hell you want" consists mainly of making a royal ass of
> yourself, dancing on my command, picking on pretend lunatics, defending
> pedophiles, and giving your snotty, self-important mail-order bride a
> soapbox from which to emit elitist, racist blather of her own
Hey, Kendrick. Quit crying. You think that you as Mr. Aryan Nations
man have the right to cry about your loss of face just because my wife
nailed you in public ? Tough, Mr. White supremacist baby!
Who was the geek who started raving about the superiority of blonde
blue eyed American sex goddesses alledgedly worshiped all over the world?
Who was the one who derided a PhD from another country who works in an
advanced lab as a mail order bride? YOU DID!
You reap what you sow, Mr. Aryan Nations man!
>, while all the
> time deriding others for being twice as good at tearing up your arguments
> than you are at ranting at them.
>
> > Tough if you do not like it
>
> Like it? It's fuckin' hilarious!
And, Kendrick,when you stop bawling because there are people just as good
or better than you who do not think that blonde blue eyed women are sex
goddesses.... maybe you can confront your racism and get your head straight
in the process.Maybe you can fix,soon, the giant blind spot you are showing
which would make you the internet road kill of the century if people paid
more attention to it.
Andy
David Kendrick
news:7b4d50db.02112...@posting.google.com...
> "David Kendrick" <d...@kendrick.org> wrote in message
news:<arl9k...@enews1.newsguy.com>...
> > "andy" <rwil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:7b4d50db.02112...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > > I do what the hell I want.
> >
> > "What the hell you want" consists mainly of making a royal ass of
> > yourself, dancing on my command, picking on pretend lunatics, defending
> > pedophiles, and giving your snotty, self-important mail-order bride a
> > soapbox from which to emit elitist, racist blather of her own
>
> Hey, Kendrick. Quit crying.
"Crying?" Calling you out for a pretty blatant pot-kettle-black is hardly
crying. And you can quit with the Aryan Nations blather -- I'm Jewish and I
have the penile scar to prove it. So again -- SIT down, SHUT up, and stop
your whining. If calling you out is "crying," then that's probably your
most inventive if least effective smoke screen, and it doesn't negate the
fact that your mail-order, INS-bothered wife is doing the same things you're
walking around calling me a Nazi over. If either of the Beckwith-Xi couple
can't stand the heat, they need to get out of the kitchen.
David Kendrick
> than a poor white trash dumb Georgia cracker fancying his blonde,blue eyed
> fixation is de rigour for the planet.
Oh, OK... and who was the elitist racist again?
David Kendrick
news:7b4d50db.02112...@posting.google.com...
> "David Kendrick" <d...@kendrick.org> wrote in message
news:<arl9k...@enews1.newsguy.com>...
> > "andy" <rwil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:7b4d50db.02112...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > > I do what the hell I want.
> >
> > "What the hell you want" consists mainly of making a royal ass of
> > yourself, dancing on my command, picking on pretend lunatics, defending
> > pedophiles, and giving your snotty, self-important mail-order bride a
> > soapbox from which to emit elitist, racist blather of her own
>
> She hit you back right in the balls, Kendrick,after you made some of
> the most racist steriotypes I could ever think a person could make. If
> you cannot take the punishment, then don't start the racist attacks in
> the first place.
>
> And it would be worse if you met her face to face. She can hit back
> very hard, especially against self important white supremacists like you.
I wouldn't hit even a questionable lady, Beckwith-Xi. I seriously doubt
she's as tough and street savvy as you say, because you're a dork, and
tough, street savvy girls don't flock to dorks. Of course, putting the
green card into the equation probably made you more appealing, than, say,
your harelip might have. And consider this -- I didn't care about your
opinion, so what makes you think I'd care about the opinion of that woman
you sponsored into this country in exchange for a couple years' worth of
fuckee-suckee?
Suzieflame
:
>And you can quit with the Aryan Nations blather -- I'm Jewish and I
>have the penile scar to prove it.
Oh. That's a "scar"? I heard it was the full extent of the equipment.
Sorry for your loss.
Suzie
--
Suzieflame
Don't forget to VOTE on rec.skiing.alpine.moderated - find the CFV in
news.announce.newgroups and VOTE on the return of ski chat to Usenet.
REMEMBER : YOUR VOTE - YES, YOUR VOTE - COUNTS.
"Yes, I emailed Martin Hannigan's former employer to try and get him
in trouble. And yes, I did it because he made me look stupid online."
Henrietta Kook Thomas
David Kendrick
"Suzieflame" <Suzie...@suzieflame.com> wrote in message
news:36qvtukjj098m6gb2...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 23 Nov 2002 13:11:10 -0500, "David Kendrick" <d...@kendrick.org>,
wrote
> :
>
> >And you can quit with the Aryan Nations blather -- I'm Jewish and I
> >have the penile scar to prove it.
>
> Oh. That's a "scar"? I heard it was the full extent of the equipment.
>
> Sorry for your loss.
My loss also appears to be my gain, where you're concerned.
andy
> :
>
> >And you can quit with the Aryan Nations blather -- I'm Jewish and I
> >have the penile scar to prove it.
I am partly Jewish myself. If you are Jewish, then why in the hell
did you refer to blonde,blue eyed American sex goddesses? That sort of
talk is Aryan Nations shit.Really, Kendrick. Think about it.
My mother was half Chinese and half Jewish. She had a Jewish mother.
Strange world, Kendrick, so by traditional Jewish considerations that
makes me Jewish. I also saw the death camp that killed the most Jews in
Poland, Kendrick. And, I know those people would kill me without blinking
an eye if I were an inmate in that camp 50 years ago.
At least you may be coming to your senses. I hope so. Whenever you start
to blather about blonde, blue eyed goddesses, think of that death camp, and
try to pull back frome the brink.Slam on the brakes, Kendrick.
>
> Oh. That's a "scar"? I heard it was the full extent of the equipment.
>
> Sorry for your loss.
>
> Suzie
> --
> Suzieflame
>
> Don't forget to VOTE on rec.skiing.alpine.moderated - find the CFV in
> news.announce.newgroups and VOTE on the return of ski chat to Usenet.
>
> REMEMBER : YOUR VOTE - YES, YOUR VOTE - COUNTS.
>
> "Yes, I emailed Martin Hannigan's former employer to try and get him
> in trouble. And yes, I did it because he made me look stupid online."
> Henrietta Kook Thomas
Andrew Beckwith
Avoid normal situations.
> Hawkeye-X <use...@morphman.com> did this:
[ desperate attempts to make The Andrew Beckwith Dance (2002 remix) threads
entertaining, largely deleted ]
> Consulting one's lawyer over a flame is the act of a syphilitic,
> three-legged wiener doggy. When you look in the mirror, do you see a
> syphilitic, three-legged wiener doggy? Or is your view obscured by
> your vast collection of Nazi
BZZZT.
*thread plonk*
s127
posted this to alt.usenet.kooks:
> did you refer to blonde,blue eyed American sex goddesses? That
> sort of talk is Aryan Nations shit.Really, Kendrick. Think about
> it.
Since I am Kendrick, I'll think about it. About shit, not ****.
Hmmmm...
OK. Sounds more like a personal preference than a group thing to me.
I'll bet dollars to donuts that if I asked 12 people on the street if
they preferred blond women, at least 1/4 would say yes (or at least
1/4 of those that would answer without thinking me stark-raving mad),
and none of them would be "nazis." But what do I know? I'm someone
thinking logically rather than kookily.
TrollatUofS
>sieg heiled some pussy crap about libel a
>From: "Avoid normal situations." by...@NOSPAM.eskimo.com
>Date: 11/24/02 2:30 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <3de08024$1...@news.teranews.com>
>
>In alt.flame 03:15:38 GMT <as...@mail.gr> wrote:
>> Hawkeye-X <use...@morphman.com> did this:
>
> [ desperate attempts to make The Andrew Beckwith Dance (2002 remix) threads
>entertaining, largely deleted ]
>
>> Consulting one's lawyer over a flame is the act of a syphilitic,
>> three-legged wiener doggy. When you look in the mirror, do you see a
>> syphilitic, three-legged wiener doggy? Or is your view obscured by
>> your vast collection of Nazi
>
> BZZZT.
>
> *thread plonk*
What took you so long?
03:15:38 GMT
> 03:15:38 GMT <as...@mail.gr> wrote:
[...] (I hope everyone got the implication "_wiener_ doggy" had in
this context.)
>> Nazi
>
> BZZZT.
>
> *thread plonk*
Oh, for goodness' sake. The word was already mentioned a few posts
upthread. The first post in the thread contained many suggestions
which amounted to the same. The words "Waffen-SS" and "Grupenführer"
are mentioned in the Subject. I must conclude that, were you serious
about plonking threads because of such "transgressions", you'd have
sent this one to the killfile shortly after Beckwith started it.
--
Ari <fun...@all.at>
Avoid normal situations.
> Avoid normal situations. <by...@NOSPAM.eskimo.com> did this:
Re Subject line: Hmmm. We're both WASPs, both teetotalers, both wildly
charismatic, both courageous, and both big fans of real art. Hopefully, the
resemblance ends there... unless you count that we're both not Chinese or
something...
>>> Nazi
>>
>> BZZZT.
>>
>> *thread plonk*
> Oh, for goodness' sake. The word was already mentioned a few posts
> upthread. The first post in the thread contained many suggestions
> which amounted to the same. The words "Waffen-SS" and "Grupenführer"
> are mentioned in the Subject. I must conclude that, were you serious
> about plonking threads because of such "transgressions", you'd have
> sent this one to the killfile shortly after Beckwith started it.
I would have, but I also noticed you and FJ teasing the AUKlettes farther
up the thread. I decided to threadplonk on your post because you have less
excuse for Godwinating just when things are starting to get interesting.
03:15:38 GMT
> In alt.flame 03:15:38 GMT <as...@mail.gr> wrote:
> Re Subject line: Hmmm. We're both WASPs, both teetotalers, both wildly
> charismatic, both courageous, and both big fans of real art. Hopefully, the
> resemblance ends there... unless you count that we're both not Chinese or
> something...
I can see it now: Stain is delivering an impassioned speech to a
smallish crowd; he's standing on a balcony, wagging his index finger.
"Historische Tijuana ist Volkermeinig von San Diego!" The audience
looks bewildered. "Und Santa Ana ist die letzte Fühlung das wir haben
in Kalivornia!"
>> Oh, for goodness' sake. The word was already mentioned a few posts
>> upthread. The first post in the thread contained many suggestions
>> which amounted to the same. The words "Waffen-SS" and "Grupenführer"
>> are mentioned in the Subject. I must conclude that, were you serious
>> about plonking threads because of such "transgressions", you'd have
>> sent this one to the killfile shortly after Beckwith started it.
>
> I would have, but I also noticed you and FJ teasing the AUKlettes farther
> up the thread. I decided to threadplonk on your post because you have less
> excuse for Godwinating just when things are starting to get interesting.
You can't Godwinate something that was already Godwinated. Besides,
the chances of your average AUKite sticking around after he notices
that the other guy isn't a pushover and his buddies are not going to
join in are rather slim.
--
Ari <fun...@all.at>
FJ
Avoid normal situations.
> Avoid normal situations. <by...@NOSPAM.eskimo.com> did this:
[..]
>> Re Subject line: Hmmm. We're both WASPs, both teetotalers, both wildly
>> charismatic, both courageous, and both big fans of real art. Hopefully, the
>> resemblance ends there... unless you count that we're both not Chinese or
>> something...
> I can see it now: Stain is delivering an impassioned speech to a
> smallish crowd; he's standing on a balcony, wagging his index finger.
> "Historische Tijuana ist Volkermeinig von San Diego!" The audience
> looks bewildered. "Und Santa Ana ist die letzte Fühlung das wir haben
> in Kalivornia!"
We're both natural orators, too. Getting an A in Speech class was like
falling off a log. Of course, the entire class (including the prof) thought
I was really weird, but I guess that's a feature rather than a bug in an
entertainment culture...
>>> Oh, for goodness' sake. The word was already mentioned a few posts
>>> upthread. The first post in the thread contained many suggestions
>>> which amounted to the same. The words "Waffen-SS" and "Grupenführer"
>>> are mentioned in the Subject. I must conclude that, were you serious
>>> about plonking threads because of such "transgressions", you'd have
>>> sent this one to the killfile shortly after Beckwith started it.
>>
>> I would have, but I also noticed you and FJ teasing the AUKlettes farther
>> up the thread. I decided to threadplonk on your post because you have less
>> excuse for Godwinating just when things are starting to get interesting.
> You can't Godwinate something that was already Godwinated. Besides,
> the chances of your average AUKite sticking around after he notices
> that the other guy isn't a pushover and his buddies are not going to
> join in are rather slim.
I sorta figured that was the reason you were intervening in the Beckwith
threads... not because you give a mad-ass fuck about him, but as an experiment
to see if a.u.k. would dare tangle with anyone who could put a noun and verb
together more competently than the average kook. (I think we both know what
the answer is.) I was tempted to ask you about that, but I also figured such a
query might spoil whatever troll you might have had in mind.
BTW, did you know that Kent Paul Dolan is in the now-ancient "net.legends
FAQ"? He's one of those folks who's been around Usenet forever, which makes
his return to a.f. only to repeatedly spell-flame all the sadder.
--
alt.flame "a few freshly carved turkeys just in time for Thanksgiving" Special
FJ
> In alt.flame 03:15:38 GMT <as...@mail.gr> wrote:
>> Avoid normal situations. <by...@NOSPAM.eskimo.com> did this:
[...]
>>>> Oh, for goodness' sake. The word was already mentioned a few posts
>>>> upthread. The first post in the thread contained many suggestions
>>>> which amounted to the same. The words "Waffen-SS" and "Grupenführer"
>>>> are mentioned in the Subject. I must conclude that, were you serious
>>>> about plonking threads because of such "transgressions", you'd have
>>>> sent this one to the killfile shortly after Beckwith started it.
>>>
>>> I would have, but I also noticed you and FJ teasing the AUKlettes
>>> farther up the thread. I decided to threadplonk on your post because
>>> you have less excuse for Godwinating just when things are starting to
>>> get interesting.
>
>> You can't Godwinate something that was already Godwinated. Besides,
>> the chances of your average AUKite sticking around after he notices
>> that the other guy isn't a pushover and his buddies are not going to
>> join in are rather slim.
>
> I sorta figured that was the reason you were intervening in the Beckwith
> threads... not because you give a mad-ass fuck about him, but as an
> experiment to see if a.u.k. would dare tangle with anyone who could put a
> noun and verb together more competently than the average kook. (I think
> we both know what the answer is.) I was tempted to ask you about that,
> but I also figured such a query might spoil whatever troll you might have
> had in mind.
Let's just say Beckwith is the archetypical unarmed civilian, we're the MI and
the auk trash are civilians with hunting rifles pretending to be soldiers. I do
not like militia (or Einsatzgrupe to remain within the scope of the subject
line) very much; they're cruel when there's no need for it, they don't know a
thing about tactics or soldiering, and they run at the first sign of trouble.
QED.
> BTW, did you know that Kent Paul Dolan is in the now-ancient
> "net.legends FAQ"? He's one of those folks who's been around Usenet
> forever, which makes his return to a.f. only to repeatedly spell-flame
> all the sadder.
Kent Paul Dolan? What nick is he using now?
--
FJ
03:15:38 GMT
> 03:15:38 GMT <as...@mail.gr> wrote:
>> FJ <colonel_...@hotmail.com> did this:
>>> Hawkeye-X <use...@morphman.com> wrote in alt.flame:
[...]
>>> To me, you're just another fuckhead...
>>>
>>>> I think I'll consult my lawyer.
>>>
>>> ...and a *typical* auk lamer.
>>
>> Watch out, FJ, or Herr Hawkeye-Xicklgruber'll sic the Gestapo on you.
>
> I fucking hate Nazis.
The fucker's probably from Illinois, too.
--
Ari <fun...@all.at>
03:15:38 GMT
> Avoid normal situations. <by...@NOSPAM.eskimo.com> wrote:
>> In alt.flame 03:15:38 GMT <as...@mail.gr> wrote:
>>> You can't Godwinate something that was already Godwinated. Besides,
>>> the chances of your average AUKite sticking around after he notices
>>> that the other guy isn't a pushover and his buddies are not going to
>>> join in are rather slim.
>>
>> I sorta figured that was the reason you were intervening in the Beckwith
>> threads... not because you give a mad-ass fuck about him, but as an
>> experiment to see if a.u.k. would dare tangle with anyone who could put a
>> noun and verb together more competently than the average kook. (I think
>> we both know what the answer is.) I was tempted to ask you about that,
>> but I also figured such a query might spoil whatever troll you might have
>> had in mind.
Beckwith's occasionally (inadvertently) funny which puts him one up on
the people I flamed, but a large part of my motivation was to stir up
trouble rather than to help him. Alas, trouble saw me coming and hid.
I suppose we're victims of our own success when it comes to finding
new victims. alt.bigfoot got done in, the alt.nuke.the.USA people
scattered to the winds, alt.flamenet still glows in dark, alt.peeves
never returns our calls and the only thing that reminds us of the HFW
are the email addresses that so irk you. Luckily we still have each
other to beat up, 'cause no one's stepping up to be the next target.
> Let's just say Beckwith is the archetypical unarmed civilian, we're
> the MI and the auk trash are civilians with hunting rifles
> pretending to be soldiers. I do not like militia (or Einsatzgrupe to
> remain within the scope of the subject line) very much; they're
> cruel when there's no need for it, they don't know a thing about
> tactics or soldiering, and they run at the first sign of trouble.
> QED.
There's only so much of this "we R all laffin @ U" neenering -
completely humorless, of course - one can take. A person who only
plays against midgets shouldn't act like he's the second coming of
Julius Irving.
>> BTW, did you know that Kent Paul Dolan is in the now-ancient
>> "net.legends FAQ"? He's one of those folks who's been around Usenet
>> forever, which makes his return to a.f. only to repeatedly spell-flame
>> all the sadder.
I recognized the name. Apparently he used to post to alt.flame before
the dawn of time, but nowadays mostly hangs out in talk.bizarre. Their
loss.
> Kent Paul Dolan? What nick is he using now?
"Kent Paul Dolan". He posted a long article where he spell checked one
of Dr. Beckwith's missives. His own post contained several spelling
mistakes, which I took delight in pointing out.
--
Ari <fun...@all.at>
FJ
> FJ <colonel_...@hotmail.com> did this:
>> 03:15:38 GMT <as...@mail.gr> wrote:
>>> FJ <colonel_...@hotmail.com> did this:
>>>> Hawkeye-X <use...@morphman.com> wrote in alt.flame:
>
> [...]
>
>>>> To me, you're just another fuckhead...
>>>>
>>>>> I think I'll consult my lawyer.
>>>>
>>>> ...and a *typical* auk lamer.
>>>
>>> Watch out, FJ, or Herr Hawkeye-Xicklgruber'll sic the Gestapo on you.
>>
>> I fucking hate Nazis.
>
> The fucker's probably from Illinois, too.
I hate Illinois Nazis.
--
FJ
TrollatUofS
>From: as...@mail.gr (03:15:38 GMT)
>Date: 11/24/02 10:52 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <3de0f5d1$0$85686$df06...@news.sexzilla.net>
>
>FJ <colonel_...@hotmail.com> did this:
>> Avoid normal situations. <by...@NOSPAM.eskimo.com> wrote:
>>> In alt.flame 03:15:38 GMT <as...@mail.gr> wrote:
[...]
>I suppose we're victims of our own success when it comes to finding
>new victims. alt.bigfoot got done in, the alt.nuke.the.USA people
>scattered to the winds, alt.flamenet still glows in dark, alt.peeves
>never returns our calls and the only thing that reminds us of the HFW
>are the email addresses that so irk you. Luckily we still have each
>other to beat up,
How touching but sometimes we're not even busy doing that:
Message-ID: <20021103200945...@mb-fu.aol.com>
Message-ID: <38a9f81c.02110...@posting.google.com>
<snicker>
Avoid normal situations.
> Avoid normal situations. <by...@NOSPAM.eskimo.com> wrote:
[ Ari starts a flamewar, and nobody comes. ]
> Let's just say Beckwith is the archetypical unarmed civilian, we're the MI and
> the auk trash are civilians with hunting rifles pretending to be soldiers. I do
> not like militia (or Einsatzgrupe to remain within the scope of the subject
> line) very much; they're cruel when there's no need for it, they don't know a
> thing about tactics or soldiering, and they run at the first sign of trouble.
> QED.
Another prop knocked out from under the "the flaming is soooooo much better
on other newsgroups than it is on alt.flame" hypothesis so often posited by
tourists.
--
alt.flame Special Forces
Avoid normal situations.
[..]
Aside: also, Hitler was never a Pookie.
> Beckwith's occasionally (inadvertently) funny which puts him one up on
> the people I flamed, but a large part of my motivation was to stir up
> trouble rather than to help him. Alas, trouble saw me coming and hid.
I haven't a problem with declaring you the winner by default. Shortest
internewsgroup flamewar in a long time.
> I suppose we're victims of our own success when it comes to finding
> new victims. alt.bigfoot got done in, the alt.nuke.the.USA people
> scattered to the winds, alt.flamenet still glows in dark, alt.peeves
> never returns our calls and the only thing that reminds us of the HFW
> are the email addresses that so irk you. Luckily we still have each
> other to beat up, 'cause no one's stepping up to be the next target.
We'll always have fresh victims. New and exciting developments have a way
of cropping up around here on the least expected occasions. Long shots come
in like relatives ((tm) Walter Bernstein, 1976).
>> Let's just say Beckwith is the archetypical unarmed civilian, we're
>> the MI and the auk trash are civilians with hunting rifles
>> pretending to be soldiers. I do not like militia (or Einsatzgrupe to
>> remain within the scope of the subject line) very much; they're
>> cruel when there's no need for it, they don't know a thing about
>> tactics or soldiering, and they run at the first sign of trouble.
>> QED.
> There's only so much of this "we R all laffin @ U" neenering -
> completely humorless, of course - one can take.
I hear that. Sometimes sheer disgust can get the better of you.
> A person who only
> plays against midgets shouldn't act like he's the second coming of
> Julius Irving.
*coughcoughhogarthcough*
>>> BTW, did you know that Kent Paul Dolan is in the now-ancient
>>> "net.legends FAQ"? He's one of those folks who's been around Usenet
>>> forever, which makes his return to a.f. only to repeatedly spell-flame
>>> all the sadder.
> I recognized the name. Apparently he used to post to alt.flame before
> the dawn of time, but nowadays mostly hangs out in talk.bizarre. Their
> loss.
Amidst a long, long series of losses.
We used to have group-to-groups with t.b almost annually. I don't miss them
a bit.
>> Kent Paul Dolan? What nick is he using now?
> "Kent Paul Dolan". He posted a long article where he spell checked one
> of Dr. Beckwith's missives. His own post contained several spelling
> mistakes, which I took delight in pointing out.
I believe he's a San Diegan too. If ever he and I are attending the same
screening of a non-English-language film and he starts spell-flaming the
subtitles, I'm going to beat the shit out of him.
--
alt.flame Special Forces
Avoid normal situations.
> FJ <colonel_...@hotmail.com> did this:
>> 03:15:38 GMT <as...@mail.gr> wrote:
>>> FJ <colonel_...@hotmail.com> did this:
>>>> Hawkeye-X <use...@morphman.com> wrote in alt.flame:
> [...]
>>>> To me, you're just another fuckhead...
>>>>
>>>>> I think I'll consult my lawyer.
>>>>
>>>> ...and a *typical* auk lamer.
>>>
>>> Watch out, FJ, or Herr Hawkeye-Xicklgruber'll sic the Gestapo on you.
>>
>> I fucking hate Nazis.
> The fucker's probably from Illinois, too.
They can't stop us. We're on a mission from God.
Suzieflame
:
>Kent Paul Dolan? What nick is he using now?
Still Kent Paul Dolan. In talk.bizarre.
Send him a t-shirt.
Suzieflame
<by...@NOSPAM.eskimo.com>, wrote :
> Another prop knocked out from under the "the flaming is soooooo much better
>on other newsgroups than it is on alt.flame" hypothesis so often posited by
>tourists.
There'd be another prop knocked away if you stopped posting here...
Suzieflame
<by...@NOSPAM.eskimo.com>, wrote :
> I believe he's a San Diegan too. If ever he and I are attending the same
>screening of a non-English-language film and he starts spell-flaming the
>subtitles, I'm going to beat the shit out of him.
You need to get out more - he's now homeless and wandering the campus of a
university, occasionally wearing a t-shirt I sent him.
Talk.bizarre for details.
Oh, and I hope you watch movies better than you write them.
Suzieflame
<by...@NOSPAM.eskimo.com>, wrote :
>In alt.flame 03:15:38 GMT <as...@mail.gr> wrote:
>> FJ <colonel_...@hotmail.com> did this:
>>> 03:15:38 GMT <as...@mail.gr> wrote:
>>>> FJ <colonel_...@hotmail.com> did this:
>>>>> Hawkeye-X <use...@morphman.com> wrote in alt.flame:
>
>> [...]
>
>>>>> To me, you're just another fuckhead...
>>>>>
>>>>>> I think I'll consult my lawyer.
>>>>>
>>>>> ...and a *typical* auk lamer.
>>>>
>>>> Watch out, FJ, or Herr Hawkeye-Xicklgruber'll sic the Gestapo on you.
>>>
>>> I fucking hate Nazis.
>
>> The fucker's probably from Illinois, too.
>
> They can't stop us.
Well they should - you're part of the John Goodman version....
Avoid normal situations.
> 03:15:38 GMT <as...@mail.gr> wrote:
>> FJ <colonel_...@hotmail.com> did this:
>>> 03:15:38 GMT <as...@mail.gr> wrote:
>>>> FJ <colonel_...@hotmail.com> did this:
>>>>> Hawkeye-X <use...@morphman.com> wrote in alt.flame:
[..]
>>>>> To me, you're just another fuckhead...
>>>>>
>>>>>> I think I'll consult my lawyer.
>>>>>
>>>>> ...and a *typical* auk lamer.
>>>>
>>>> Watch out, FJ, or Herr Hawkeye-Xicklgruber'll sic the Gestapo on you.
>>>
>>> I fucking hate Nazis.
>>
>> The fucker's probably from Illinois, too.
> I hate Illinois Nazis.
Baby clothes!
Marilyn
He must be gettin' oooold and tiiired.
Brian Kelly
For David Kendrick. After his attacks upon my wife. Its a great
opportunity for him! ‹‹SNICKER››
Group: alt.flame Date: Wed, Nov 20, 2002, 9:30pm From:
rwil...@hotmail.com (andy)
Dear David Kendrick,
After seeing your rants about blond , blue eyed sex
goddesses, and how I
could never get them , I made a concerted search to find a bunch of
circle jerks who have similar thinking. This may point you in the right
direction!
<<<<< S N I C K E R >>>>. If you want to be a white
supremacist,
why do
you not go all the way ?
Andy
Begin what I found just for you .. Perfect for you! Come out of the
closet, David ! Why in half a day you will be talking about"mud people"
next! << S N I C K E R >>. And, I am a 'mud' person, being half
British,
quarter Jewish and quarter Chinese. So, I am a natural target for your
like thinking compatriots! <<SNICKER>>
From the website.
http://www.stormfront.org/
DukeR...@davidduke.com - Message from David Duke
N...@lists.stormfront.org - Nationalist News Agency: Information for
people of European descent worldwide.
Panzerfaus...@panzerfaust.com - Ezine from Panzerfaust Records
Stormf...@lists.stormfront.org - Pro-White moderated discussion: High
volume. Digest delivery.recommended.
Stormfront...@lists.stormfront.org - White Nationalist religious
discussion. Digest delivery recommended. Storm...@lists.stormfront.org
- Occasionally published newsletter containing Stormfront updates.
Update...@crusader.net - Updates from the American Friends of the
British National Party
Vinland-Re...@nordland.net - Music & Movement news via Vinland
Records
WebB...@stormfront.org -
andy
No you are not logical. You think you can attack my wife and deride
her due to not being a platium blonde with blue eyes. I pointed out
what the implications of this are.
Andy
andy
Kendrick,
Your preference for blonde, blue eyed women is your privilige. If you
like that, so be it. But, do not look down upon women who do not fit that
mode!
Secondly, you implied such women are the salt of the Earth. A minority
of peopple in the world would agree with you. And, please do not think that
just because that is YOUR preference, that others have to agree with you!
Andrew Beckwith
David Kendrick
news:7b4d50db.02112...@posting.google.com...
> No you are not logical. You think you can attack my wife and deride
> her due to not being a platium blonde with blue eyes. I pointed out
> what the implications of this are.
Who derided her for not being a giant-breasted American blonde with blue
eyes? I derided YOU for not liking top-heavy blondes, you friggin' moron.
Your reading comprehension skills are as lacking as your social skills,
which are in turn as Mrs. Beckwith-Xi's appreciation of American culture
(and the fact that she's an elitist racist, which apparently is just A-OK
with you since she controls 100% of your personal supply of sexual abuse).
andy
> "andy" <rwil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7b4d50db.02112...@posting.google.com...
>
> > No you are not logical. You think you can attack my wife and deride
> > her due to not being a platium blonde with blue eyes. I pointed out
> > what the implications of this are.
>
> Who derided her for not being a giant-breasted American blonde with blue
> eyes? I derided YOU for not liking top-heavy blondes, you friggin' moron.
And, I do not. Tough.I cannot stand them. I happen to be a Eurasian. I
grew up in a different background, KENDRICK. You think that I must worship
blondes just because I am an American citizen? Kendrick, I like Asian beauty
standards. And, by the standards of her country, my wife is very good looking.
Just tall. Other than that , what do I have to say to a person who thinks that
if a man does not salivitate when he sees a blonde that he is defective ?
<<BWWWWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH>>
> Your reading comprehension skills are as lacking as your social skills,
Hey, if you knew how comical this is ??? My social skills ? Who put out
that racist lame on my wife ? YOU. Social skills ? <<SNICKER>>
> which are in turn as Mrs. Beckwith-Xi's appreciation of American culture
Her name is Yang Xi. She never called herself Mrs. Beckwith! Are you
competing with RTS in tersm of stupidity ? In fact, if you called her
Mrs. Beckwith, she would think you are even more retarded than you actually
are.
In America, it is an OPTIONAL choice that women change their names to be
the same as their husbands. More and more, women are not doing this.
Kendrick, its time to take your head out of the ground. Women are not mens
property any more !
> (and the fact that she's an elitist racist
YOU are just that. Pot calling the kettle black, Kendrick. You are the
racist. You think that if a woman is not a top heavy blonde that she is
inferior. Here it comes. You are a Jew, but you think that blonde ,blue
eyed women are the salt of the earth.
I will not repeat the monikor which set you off last time, but it kills
me that a Jewish person is worshiping the SAME beauty standards as the
Nazi murderers who massacred six million Jews. Isn't that strange ? And,
you got all hot and heavy about that monikor, Kendrick! Remember ? Who
lost it ?
>, which apparently is just A-OK
> with you since she controls 100% of your personal supply of sexual abuse)
Really funny.Are you talking about yourself ? We do not have a problem
with sexual abuse. Hey, who was the freak talking about putting handcuffs on
your girlfriend ? Are you into S&M ? << S N I C K E R >>.
Andy
03:15:38 GMT
> From: as...@mail.gr (03:15:38 GMT)
>>Luckily we still have each other to beat up,
>
> How touching but sometimes we're not even busy doing that:
>
> Message-ID: <20021103200945...@mb-fu.aol.com>
> Message-ID: <38a9f81c.02110...@posting.google.com>
(A few hours later I answered both articles.)
> <snicker>
Tee hee.
You held out longer than I thought - I almost posted my followups last
weekend - but I knew you wouldn't be able to resist. You're petty and
moronic, and you don't have much to show for yourself. You couldn't
help but to bring the matter up. For once you could crow about
something. For once, ol' Jimmy Kneepads would rise!
So you ignored all the negatives: You've flamed me for being a "last
worder", yet here you are trying to lord that you got the last word -
so you thought - over me like the hypocrite you are. You've dropped
countless threads in the past, yet here you are trying to flame me for
dropping threads like the desperate dimbulb you are.
Fat chance, Marilyn. You're way, way too bad at this to ever win. You
won't even break even, as long as you're _this_ easy to troll.
--
Ari <fun...@all.at>
John Kimball
not a good idea; on 25 Nov 2002 09:59:44 -0800 rwil...@hotmail.com
(andy) blew their wad in Message id:
<7b4d50db.02112...@posting.google.com>:
>it kills
>me that a Jewish person is worshiping the SAME beauty standards as the
>Nazi murderers who massacred six million Jews.
You're *really* reaching here, Beckwith
--
Peeve: That line women draw around their lips. It's your
fricken' mouth, lady. If I ever forget where it is, I'll just
listen for the noise source.
-Steve Daniels-
TrollatUofS
>Message-id: <3de33db0$0$85682$df06...@news.sexzilla.net>
>
>TrollatUofS <troll...@aol.com> did this:
>> From: as...@mail.gr (03:15:38 GMT)
>
>>>Luckily we still have each other to beat up,
>>
>> How touching but sometimes we're not even busy doing that:
>>
>> Message-ID: <20021103200945...@mb-fu.aol.com>
>> Message-ID: <38a9f81c.02110...@posting.google.com>
>
>(A few hours later I answered both articles.)
(Make sure everyone knows, lastworder.)
>> <snicker>
>
>Tee hee.
Silly schoolgirl.
>You held out longer than I thought - I almost posted my followups last
>weekend - but I knew you wouldn't be able to resist. You're petty and
>moronic, and you don't have much to show for yourself. You couldn't
>help but to bring the matter up.
Asikainen --selling sloth as strategy.
Yes Asikainen, and often when my chess opponents sit staring blankly at the
board for three weeks I give them a polite nudge and a "Planning to move this
century?" Silly how turn-based games are that way, isn't it?
For once you could crow about
>something. For once, ol' Jimmy Kneepads would rise!
Crow? Are you off your fucking rocker Asikainen? I gave you a teensy poke and
two message IDs there.
They were nothing compared to the three page, color ads that I took out in key
cities all over Europe and Nepal.
**EXTRA EXTRA, CRUMBLING CUNT ARI ASIKAINEN FINALLY DROPS THREAD!!!** etc.,
etc.
I was getting ready to celebrate VU (Victory Usenet) Day and everything. Now
what am I stuck with? I have to shell out more quid for retractions in papers
in key cities all over Europe and Nepal. Hours spent drafting my victory speech
were wasted. The kids in the marching band will be crushed. I can't get my
deposit back from the caterers and I'm stuck with twenty-five pounds of hot
dogs in my fridge.
Curse you!
Really Ari, I wouldn't crow if you dropped a thread. I wouldn't bring up the
subject unless you did first. I'd be happy for you and mark it as a sign of
your personal growth.
>So you ignored all the negatives: You've flamed me for being a "last
>worder",
And you went and proved me right! What a fucking flame tactician nonpareil!
<applause>
You could've let those threads drop and what could I have said about you being
a last worder after that?
> yet here you are trying to lord
Lord? What in that teensy sentence sounded so LORDLY that it lit this fire in
your ice addled brain and prompted you to go on this rant of crazytalk?
I sounded lordly. Woohoo!
You were hooked by the <snicker> weren't you, pompous pissant?
that you got the last word -
>so you thought - over me like the hypocrite you are.
I thought nothing of the sort since I know you too well in that respect. I
figured you were remiss in your followups and that was all.
Calm down snapperhead. Take a breath or two.
You've dropped
>countless threads in the past,
There is nothing wrong with dropping a thread IMO. You're the one that has a
problem with it, Foppy Final Answer Boi.
yet here you are trying to flame me for
>dropping threads like the desperate dimbulb you are.
Yeah sure. Thank goodness you dodged that roaster!
> Fat chance, Marilyn. You're way, way too bad at this to ever win. You
>won't even break even, as long as you're _this_ easy to troll.
Oooh, a YHBT claim for icing on the "I forgot to post my followups and now I'm
gonna snap out 'cause James laughed at me." cake.
From: as...@mail.gr (03:15:38 GMT)
Message-ID: <3d299c4a$0$85685$df06...@news.sexzilla.net>
"Oh dear. "YHBT" in the first response cycle. [...] 'You Have Been Trolled' is
the last refuge of the failed flamer. "
DeeLicious!
P.S. Note that my original message did not accuse you of thread dropping
anywhere in its text before you followup and stop stretching before you hurt
yourself.
Your Friend,
James
Optional Identity
stuff in alt.flame:
Fuck you are tedious cunt, larry.
Not that I agree with whoever it is you are trying to flame, but
still, fuck you carry on.
03:15:38 GMT
[...] (Marilyn gets trolled, goes apeshit - business as usual, in
other words.)
> You could've let those threads drop and what could I have said about
> you being a last worder after that?
About the same as you can say now without getting trashed in the
process. You thought you had gotten the last word, and acted like it
made a difference. Further flameage on the issue will only be seen as
a confirmation of your rampant hypocrisy. (Not that it really needs
confirmation.)
[...] (Further ranting.)
If you could write a bit, these voluminous outbursts might inspire
something else than pity. But as things stand... Don't feel bad,
Marilyn. I'm sure you're good at _something_ else.
> P.S. Note that my original message did not accuse you of thread
> dropping anywhere in its text before you followup and stop
> stretching before you hurt yourself.
At least have the courage of conviction to stand behind your posts.
This is shameful behavior, even for you.
--
Ari <fun...@all.at>
03:15:38 GMT
[...] (Marilyn is saved from a hurtful pratfall only by that he's
already at the bottom, on his knees.)
> Fuck you are tedious cunt, larry.
Oh my. Such full-bore flameage. (No pun intended.)
> Not that I agree with whoever it is you are trying to flame, but
> still, fuck you carry on.
Memories of Christmases past are obviously fucking with your fragile
psyche, and driving you to take out your ill feelings on your fellow
Usenetizens. Fight the bad thoughts, Opie; put on the clown paint, but
leave out the tear.
--
Ari <fun...@all.at>
TrollatUofS
>Message-id: <3de49084$0$85684$df06...@news.sexzilla.net>
>
>TrollatUofS <troll...@aol.com> did this:
>
> [...] (Marilyn gets trolled, goes apeshit - business as usual, in
> other words.)
You know Santa can see you lying like this. That's one less sugar coated
rutabaga under your tree.
>> You could've let those threads drop and what could I have said about
>> you being a last worder after that?
>
>About the same as you can say now without getting trashed in the
>process.
Dude, I leave all the Stoly drinkin' to you during our romps.
> You thought you had gotten the last word,
Better slash the price on that another 20% since no one is buying it.
BTW: What part of 'I know you better than that.' were you unclear on?
> and acted like it made a difference.
As evidenced by what, Mother Goose?
Further flameage on the issue will only be seen as a confirmation of your
rampant hypocrisy. (Not that it really needs
>confirmation.)
Try this one on again stupid:
"Yes Asikainen, and often when my chess opponents sit staring blankly at the
board for three weeks I give them a polite nudge and a "Planning to move this
century?" Silly how turn-based games are that way, isn't it?"
Well? (Oh dear Ghod I love it!)
> [...] (Further ranting.)
>If you could write a bit, these voluminous outburs<SLAP!>
For the few readers who follow our exchanges that may be deceived, I posted a
teensy four line poke (two lines of which were message ids) and the iceman here
went apeshit with a near continuous fourteen line hypocrisy fag fit.
might inspire
>something else than pity. But as things stand... Don't feel bad,
>Marilyn. I'm sure you're good at _something_ else.
Momma always said I had a knack for kickin' Finns' heads in while wearing steel
toed boots. Momma said, "Kickin' Finn noggins in is like kickin' chunks of
frozen sewage. Without steel toed boots, you never know what kind of toe
fracture you're gonna get."
>> P.S. Note that my original message did not accuse you of thread
>> dropping anywhere in its text before you followup and stop
>> stretching before you hurt yourself.
>At least have the courage of conviction to stand behind your posts.
That would be a lovely statement if your interpretation regarding the purpose
of my post was valid, wouldn't it?
Don't be such a whining bitch the next time I have to remind you that it's your
turn to move and that's a direct order.
--Troll
03:15:38 GMT
[...] (Marilyn whines about being trolled.)
> a near continuous fourteen line hypocrisy fag fit.
Did you feel ridiculous writing that? 'Cause you should have. The
phrase "fag fit" is stupid. The phrase "hypocrisy fag fit" is very
stupid. The phrase "fourteen line hypocrisy fag fit" is very stupid
and more than a bit sad. But it takes an utter fucking imbecile to
come up with "a near continuous fourteen line hypocrisy fag fit". You,
Marilyn, are an utter fucking imbecile.
> Momma always said I had a knack for kickin' Finns' heads in while
> wearing steel toed boots. Momma said, "Kickin' Finn noggins in is
> like kickin' chunks of frozen sewage. Without steel toed boots, you
> never know what kind of toe fracture you're gonna get."
You certainly don't have a knack for humor.
--
Ari <fun...@all.at>
TrollatUofS
MY YOU ARE BITCHY IN THE MORNING.
Oooh, sorry --shouting and you just got up.
It's off to bed for me now but I just sent you another present to play with.
It won't be threaded properly (there's a surprise, eh?) but I put your name in
the subject line as usual. Enjoy and we'll catch up later.
James
TrollatUofS
>Message-id: <3de5c5bc$0$85687$df06...@news.sexzilla.net>
Keep mumbling that and the ceilings in your cell may believe it someday.
>> a near continuous fourteen line hypocrisy fag fit.
>
>Did you feel ridiculous writing that?
Absolutely not. Called it like I saw it and it was dead on.
> 'Cause you should have. The
>phrase "fag fit" is stupid. The phrase "hypocrisy fag fit" is very
>stupid. The phrase "fourteen line hypocrisy fag fit" is very stupid
>and more than a bit sad. But it takes an utter fucking imbecile to
>come up with "a near continuous fourteen line hypocrisy fag fit". You,
>Marilyn, are an utter fucking imbecile.
I liked this little rant but I would've liked it more if this were changed:
"The phrase "fourteen line hypocrisy fag fit" is very [very] stupid and more
than a bit sad." The added emphasis with an additional "very" would've been
killer.
>> Momma always said I had a knack for kickin' Finns' heads in while
>> wearing steel toed boots. Momma said, "Kickin' Finn noggins in is
>> like kickin' chunks of frozen sewage. Without steel toed boots, you
>> never know what kind of toe fracture you're gonna get."
>
>You certainly don't have a knack for humor.
*shrugs*
I wasn't happy with that part either but it filled the space.
So, seeing as this followup dodge is severely off topic, can I take it that
you're letting your latest hypocrisy fantasy drop?
Anyway I'll not have your dodge today. So ummm, when you wrote the following,
did you have today today in mind? I mean did you ever consider the future?
From: as...@mail.gr (03:15:38 GMT)
Message-ID: <slrnab158...@ID-12638.user.dfncis.de>
"Today we will be looking at all the different ways a substandard flamer can
avoid rational debate,
When other diversions don't work, a substandard flamer can always snip
the whole exchange out of his followup. For example. here is a bit of
text Mr. Monkey elided from his response:"
Not only are you not a shining wit by your own admission, Asikainen, but you
are now a substandard flamer? <snicker>
Well? (in advance.)
[much of the whole snipped exchange restored]
>>You thought you had gotten the last word,
>Better slash the price on that another 20% since no one is buying it.
>BTW: What part of 'I know you better than that.' were you unclear on?
Well?
>> and acted like it made a difference.
>As evidenced by what, Mother Goose?
Well?
>>Further flameage on the issue will only be seen as a confirmation of your
rampant hypocrisy. (Not that it really needs
>>confirmation.)
>Try this one on again stupid:
>"Yes Asikainen, and often when my chess opponents sit staring blankly at the
board for three weeks I give them a polite nudge and a >"Planning to move this
century?" Silly how turn-based games are that way, isn't it?"
>Well? (Oh dear Ghod I love it!)
WELL?
You know Asikainen, this is a poor showing for you. It's a shame so many of
your cronies have me plonked and can't enjoy it. It's rather amusing how you
edit these things out, snipperboy, and I'll wager that it's so they can't see
you getting a drubbing. What would Jack think? Poor Kimball would be crushed
to see his hero getting a beating.
I'll have to go a little Rob Roy (hope that's right) on you and remind you that
a man is only as good as his word and that I really can't accept these dodges
after:
as...@mail.gr (03:15:38 GMT) wrote in message
news:<3d457b78$0$85681$df06...@news.sexzilla.net>...
"There's not a single thing you can post [that] I couldn't counter."
For clarification, is a snip and dodge considered "countering" in Duh Asikainen
Big Book Of Flame Stragety?
From: as...@mail.gr (03:15:38 GMT)
Message-id: <3d70cdac$0$85685$df06...@news.sexzilla.net>
"If you have reasonable questions about something I've said, I'll try my best
to answer them."
I dunno, they seemed like reasonable questions before they were whisked away to
limbo. Poor things. Are the questions "unreasonable" if the answers look bad
for you?
From: as...@mail.gr (03:15:38 GMT)
Message-ID: <3d21b680$0$85687$df06...@news.sexzilla.net>
>Now since it is established that snipping is one of YOUR tactics,
"No, it isn't."
(PSSST, yes it is.)
Now please stop the snipping. I had intended the cowardly snipping topic to be
Arilie installment two in my "Asikainen's a BIG FAT LIAR AND HYPOCRITE" Series.
--James
03:15:38 GMT
>>> a near continuous fourteen line hypocrisy fag fit.
>>
>>Did you feel ridiculous writing that?
>
> Absolutely not.
That's too bad. The lack of style and grace in your writing is quite
astonishing. If you don't recognize the problem, as exhibited by your
use of phrases such as "a near continuous fourteen line hypocrisy fag
fit" and "snapperhead" (whatever _that_ is supposed to mean), you
can't do a single thing to correct it.
[...] (100+ lines of incoherence over a rather simple troll that
tricked an exceedingly simple troll.)
Settle down, Marilyn. You were trolled to committing a hypocritical
and self-contradictory act. So what? It's not such a big deal; you
commit hypocritical and self-contradictory acts all the time.
--
Ari <fun...@all.at>
TrollatUofS
>Message-id: <3de67021$0$85681$df06...@news.sexzilla.net>
>
>TrollatUofS <troll...@aol.com> did this:
>> From: as...@mail.gr (03:15:38 GMT)
>>>TrollatUofS <troll...@aol.com> did this:
[...]
>Settle down, Marilyn. You were trolled to committing a hypocritical
>and self-contradictory act. So what?
From: as...@mail.gr (03:15:38 GMT)
Message-ID: <slrn9vev1...@tutor.cc.tut.fi>
"If you want to ask me questions, you need to answer the ones I ask you. Here's
the offending paragraph you saw fit to snip without comment:"
>Anyway I'll not have your dodge today. So ummm, when you wrote the
>following,
>did you have today today in mind? I mean did you ever consider the future?
Well?
>From: as...@mail.gr (03:15:38 GMT)
>Message-ID: <slrnab158...@ID-12638.user.dfncis.de>
>"Today we will be looking at all the different ways a substandard flamer can
>avoid rational debate,
>When other diversions don't work, a substandard flamer can always snip
>the whole exchange out of his followup. For example. here is a bit of
>text Mr. Monkey elided from his response:"
>
>Not only are you not a shining wit by your own admission, Asikainen, but you
>are now a substandard flamer? <snicker>
>
>Well? (in advance.)
Well?
>[much of the whole snipped exchange restored]
>
>>>You thought you had gotten the last word,
>
>>Better slash the price on that another 20% since no one is buying it.
>
>>BTW: What part of 'I know you better than that.' were you unclear on?
>
>Well?
Well?
>>> and acted like it made a difference.
>
>>As evidenced by what, Mother Goose?
>
>Well?
Well?
>>>Further flameage on the issue will only be seen as a confirmation of your
>rampant hypocrisy. (Not that it really needs
>>>confirmation.)
>
>>Try this one on again stupid:
>
>>"Yes Asikainen, and often when my chess opponents sit staring blankly at the
>board for three weeks I give them a polite nudge and a >"Planning to move
>this
>century?" Silly how turn-based games are that way, isn't it?"
>
>>Well? (Oh dear Ghod I love it!)
>
>
>WELL?
Well?
>You know Asikainen, this is a poor showing for you. It's a shame so many of
>your cronies have me plonked and can't enjoy it. It's rather amusing how you
>edit these things out, snipperboy, and I'll wager that it's so they can't see
>you getting a drubbing. What would Jack think? Poor Kimball would be
>crushed
>to see his hero getting a beating.
>
>I'll have to go a little Rob Roy (hope that's right) on you and remind you
>that
>a man is only as good as his word and that I really can't accept these dodges
>after:
>
>as...@mail.gr (03:15:38 GMT) wrote in message
>news:<3d457b78$0$85681$df06...@news.sexzilla.net>...
>"There's not a single thing you can post [that] I couldn't counter."
>
>For clarification, is a snip and dodge considered "countering" in Duh
>Asikainen
>Big Book Of Flame Stragety?
Well?
>From: as...@mail.gr (03:15:38 GMT)
>Message-id: <3d70cdac$0$85685$df06...@news.sexzilla.net>
>"If you have reasonable questions about something I've said, I'll try my best
>to answer them."
>
>I dunno, they seemed like reasonable questions before they were whisked away
>to limbo. Poor things. Are the questions "unreasonable" if the answers look
>bad for you?
Well?
>From: as...@mail.gr (03:15:38 GMT)
>Message-ID: <3d21b680$0$85687$df06...@news.sexzilla.net>
>
>>Now since it is established that snipping is one of YOUR tactics,
>
>"No, it isn't."
>
>(PSSST, yes it is.)
And how.
From: as...@mail.gr (03:15:38 GMT)
Message-ID: <b38a981b.02062...@posting.google.com>
" 'Well' can be used to express insistence. In this particular occasion it
referred to the question that immediately preceded it - you know, the one you
had failed to answer. Flamenetters have been able to
figure out this much in the past. Why couldn't you?"
So you're not a shining wit. You are a snipping substandard flamer. Now
you're dumber than a flamenetter?
Well?
03:15:38 GMT
>| If you want to ask me questions, you need to answer the ones I ask
>| you.
Wise words. Do you now see how you abdicated your right to demand
answers from me a long time ago?
[...] (Marilyn's _still_ frothing over my little troll.)
> Now you're dumber than a flamenetter?
Aww. I'll tell you what we'll do. Because I'm such a thoroughly nice
chap, I'll allow you to bring up one of your grievances here and I
promise to address it.
While I haven't bothered to read through all of the vomit with which
you insist on covering your side of these threads, it's easy to see
you're upset about something. Since this is a limited offer, be sure
to pick the issue that you consider the most important.
Oh, and a word of advice: Be brief. If I see more than two badly
formatted quotes from groups.google.com, I will stop reading.
--
Ari <fun...@all.at>
"I feel something ranging from sadness to outrage."
-- James 'Marilyn' Benzeleski on being called 'Marilyn'.
TrollatUofS
>Message-id: <3de7837e$0$85682$df06...@news.sexzilla.net>
>
>TrollatUofS <troll...@aol.com> quoted his better:
>
>>| If you want to ask me questions, you need to answer the ones I ask
>>| you.
>
>Wise words. Do you now see how you abdicated your right to demand
>answers from me a long time ago?
I think the old, 'there's not a single thing you can post that I can't counter'
supersedes that sentiment nicely. I guess that was just another one of your
lies, huh?
> [...] (Marilyn's _still_ frothing over my little troll.)
Frothing? I'm elated over this fine cockup of yours.
>> Now you're dumber than a flamenetter?
>
>Aww. I'll tell you what we'll do. Because I'm such a thoroughly nice
>chap, I'll allow you to bring up one of your grievances here and I
>promise to address it.
What other choice do you have after saying you could counter anything I can
post? We know that isn't true by your snipping and dodging yesterday, don't
we?
>While I haven't bothered to read through all of the vomit with which
>you insist on covering your side of these threads, it's easy to see
>you're upset about something. Since this is a limited offer, be sure
>to pick the issue that you consider the most important.
Do not attempt to set the pace of our discussions. If I choose to post things
embarassing to you and you choose to just sit there and take a beating then so
be it, out of breath boy.
>Oh, and a word of advice: Be brief. If I see more than two badly
>formatted quotes from groups.google.com, I will stop reading.
"James, my patience for dealing with you runs thin after you whooped the tar
out of me in two seperate threads yesterday but I'm far too proud just to STFU
and let it drop."
Here's brief: Blow me.
03:15:38 GMT
> 'there's not a single thing you can post that I can't counter'
Ain't that the truth. You hem and you haw. You rant and you rave. You
slurp and you slaver. But one thing you will never, ever do is post a
flame I can't rip to shreds as I please.
This thread illustrates it nicely. I gave you the opportunity to take
your "best shot" (a somewhat inaccurate phrase when none of them are
any good). This is what you came up with:
> Blow me.
"Blow me." Here was your opportunity to show that you can post
something I can't counter. For once you could have shown that you're
not here to serve as a spittoon; for once you could have stood up to a
challenge. And what did you do?
"Blow me." Oh dear. You folded like a thin blanket. You're an
embarrassment, Marilyn. You're a no-good nitwit. When it comes to
serving as a welcome mat for strangers, you're never too busy. When it
comes to flaming, you're nowhere to be seen. Fuck, but are you ever an
useless shitnipple.
However, since I'm such a thoroughly nice chap, I'll give you a second
chance. If there's any single thing you think I can't counter, now is
your big opportunity to test that in practice. Summarize your
grievance in a reasonably brief manner, and I'll in turn take your
case apart. Promise.
--
Ari <fun...@all.at>
Optional Identity
stuff in alt.flame:
>TrollatUofS <troll...@aol.com> quoted the focus of his net.life:
I was reading this post, because sometimes I am *that* bored that I
read the occasional post of larry's...
I wondered, quietly to myself, who exactly is larry trying to impress?
I mean to say, he must be trying to impress *someone* there is no
other reason to write 3 paragraphs to endeavour to demonstrate that he
can refute *anything* even a rhetorical "blow me"...
I thought, 'is it the girls?" Then I thought "no it's not the girls he
is trying to impress". "Maybe it's the boys?" "No, no..." Then it
dawned on me, "it's himself!" "Of course."
Did it work? Did you impress yourself with this post, larry? Did you
read it over a few times after it turned up on your server? Did you
punctuate your enjoyment of you own post by surreptitious and sexually
provocative glances at your own reflection? I bet you did.
TrollatUofS
>From: as...@mail.gr (03:15:38 GMT)
>Date: 11/30/02 4:21 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <3de8830a$0$85681$df06...@news.sexzilla.net>
>
>TrollatUofS <troll...@aol.com> quoted the focus of his net.life:
>
>> 'there's not a single thing you can post that I can't counter'
>
>Ain't that the truth. You hem and you haw. You rant and you rave. You
>slurp and you slaver. But one thing you will never, ever do is post a
>flame I can't rip to shreds as I please.
Should read: "But one thing you will never, ever do is post a flame I can't
*snip* to shreds as I please."
>This thread illustrates it nicely.
Yes, it illustrates *snipping* nicely indeed. :)
Aside: Hey gather 'round everyone. Asikainen's demonstrating how to be a lying
cunt today and doing a fine job too!
Next he's gonna claim he can eat fire and prove it by drinking three liters of
water!
(Oh, what's that Ari? Okay, I'll tell them.)
And he could run backwards from Lieksa to Luzon if he only wanted to!
I gave you the opportunity to take
>your "best shot" (a somewhat inaccurate phrase when none of them are
>any good). This is what you came up with:
I don't give fuck all about this opportunity you are presenting. You'll get
what I give you when I give it to you and you will hopefully not like it.
Hopefully too, it won't just vanish because you don't like it. This tearful
clamoring for a topic change when you got a damn proper gut stomping is
unseemly even for you.
>> Blow me.
>
>"Blow me." Here was your opportunity to show that you can post
>something I can't counter. For once you could have shown that you're
>not here to serve as a spittoon; for once you could have stood up to a
>challenge.
(The rare interested or simply curious reader may feel free to trace this
thread and count how many lines of my text disappeared in the Sidestepping
Srongman of Suomi's followups. Thankyou.)
And what did you do?
>
>"Blow me." Oh dear. You folded like a thin blanket. You're an
>embarrassment, Marilyn. You're a no-good nitwit. When it comes to
>serving as a welcome mat for strangers, you're never too busy. When it
>comes to flaming, you're nowhere to be seen.
That's such a lie! Everyone knows most of my fabulous flame shows can be seen
daily at 03:15:38 GMT. <snicker>
Fuck, but are you ever an
>useless shitnipple.
>
>However, since I'm such a thoroughly nice chap, I'll give you a second
>chance.
If there's any single thing you think I can't counter, now is
>your big opportunity to test that in practice.
"Please change the topic, kind sir."
Summarize your
>grievance in a reasonably brief manner, and I'll in turn take your
>case apart. Promise.
Your word is worth nothing to me, snipper. Take this beating like a man and you
will get the next when I'm ready. Promise.
James "on top of the world and it's all your fault" Benzeleski
P.S. Blow me.
Porky Dullwit Asikainen (as...@mail.gr)oinked this lulu out to earn his very
first A++ autoflame grade in Message-ID:
<3dc59243$0$85688$df06...@news.sexzilla.net>
"If a person is several standard deviations above the rest of the alt.flame
field, he or she won't stick around here. If you're a
brilliant writer and a shining wit, you can get paid for your writing. You can
win the respect of your peers. You can obtain a readership in the millions.
You're not going to waste time and inspiration bantering
with a bunch of mediocre swine who heap scorn on your pearls every chance they
get."
03:15:38 GMT
[...] ("Here's Marilyn's head." KERSPLAT. "And here's a wet spot.")
> I was reading this post, because sometimes I am *that* bored that I
> read the occasional post of larry's...
Opie, you have the time to post 50 times a day, thus increasing the
boredom of others. It's pretty much a given that you read everything I
post.
> Did you impress yourself with this post, larry? Did you read it over
> a few times after it turned up on your server?
Yes. Of course. Damn, I'm _good_. Take the expression "Fuck, but are
you ever an useless shitnipple," for example. I have no idea what a
"shitnipple" is, but Benzeleski is clearly one.
> Did you punctuate your enjoyment of you own post by surreptitious
> and sexually provocative glances at your own reflection?
Note to self: Get a mirror.
I admit that talking to the hapless hunchback who was on the receiving
end of my little riposte is an easy way to look good in comparison.
However, the real point is to drive the obnoxious pissant up the wall
by making him realize that the only thing that keeps his precious
arguments alive is my laziness.
--
Ari <fun...@all.at>
03:15:38 GMT
[...] (I give Marilyn the opportunity to show that he can post
something I can't counter. Alas, the Scranton Screecher chooses
not to even try.)
> "Please change the topic, kind sir."
That's a poor excuse for your gutless behavior, you dreadfully boring
little man. The beauty of my offer is that you could have picked any
topic you wished. If you think that you can sum up your current gripe
in a manner I can't counter, then you can easily pick it and force me
to address it. But you didn't pick it. You didn't pick anything at
all.
It's easy to see why you're so loathe to put your arguments up to a
test. To put it bluntly, you're a coward. You have no guts, no
fighting spirit. You'd rather rant for weeks in your incoherent manner
than put your views up for scrutiny. You poor, useless, stupid person,
how it must rankle to know that the only way you can present your
claims without them immediately being shown to be foolishness is by
hiding them under piles of verbal vomit.
Now, since I'm such a thoroughly nice, patient fellow, I'll give you a
_third_ chance to _finally_ come up with something I can't counter.
I'll even promise to quote your grievance in full if you can put it in
30 lines or less. Go ahead.
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ this space reserved for Marilyn ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
--
Ari <fun...@all.at>
Optional Identity
stuff in alt.flame:
>Optional Identity <Troll4U...@meow.org> did this:
>
> [...] ("Here's Marilyn's head." KERSPLAT. "And here's a wet spot.")
>
>> I was reading this post, because sometimes I am *that* bored that I
>> read the occasional post of larry's...
>
>Opie, you have the time to post 50 times a day, thus increasing the
>boredom of others. It's pretty much a given that you read everything I
>post.
THAT, SIR, IS A SLANDEROUS LIE! I have time to post far more often
than that. The operative word here is *post*. I also have other things
to do, like earn a living, and various personal matters I won't breach
modesty or good taste by mentioning in this forum. I haven't got
enough time to read all of your posts as well. In fact I only read
this one because War and Peace, my usual soporific, was not back at
the local library.
>> Did you impress yourself with this post, larry? Did you read it over
>> a few times after it turned up on your server?
>
>Yes. Of course. Damn, I'm _good_. Take the expression "Fuck, but are
>you ever an useless shitnipple," for example. I have no idea what a
>"shitnipple" is, but Benzeleski is clearly one.
I have to admit that I wondered what a "shitnipple" might be myself,
but I decided, in the end, not to bother asking since the knowledge
would do me no good, and, as you say, Benezeleski clearly is one.
>
>> Did you punctuate your enjoyment of you own post by surreptitious
>> and sexually provocative glances at your own reflection?
>
>Note to self: Get a mirror.
Note to self: No way does he need more mirrors.
>I admit that talking to the hapless hunchback who was on the receiving
>end of my little riposte is an easy way to look good in comparison.
The difficulty here, of course, is that endeavouring to look good in
this way, does make you seem a little vain. And some, less kind than
I, might suggest incompetent. I suppose such churlish and unkind
individuals might also expect you to have more overweening confidence
in your capacity to shine in less dull surrounds. I don't know, as I
said I am not they.
>However, the real point is to drive the obnoxious pissant up the wall
>by making him realize that the only thing that keeps his precious
>arguments alive is my laziness.
A laudable ambition, I must say. However, I feel the phrase "make him
realise" may be too ambitious even for one as convinced of his own
divinity as you.
TrollatUofS
>From: as...@mail.gr (03:15:38 GMT)
>Date: 12/1/02 4:54 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <3de9dc57$0$85680$df06...@news.sexzilla.net>
>
>TrollatUofS <troll...@aol.com> did this:
>
> [...] (I give Marilyn the opportunity to show that he can post
> something I can't counter. Alas, the Scranton Screecher chooses
> not to even try.)
>
>> "Please change the topic, kind sir."
>
>That's a poor excuse for your gutless behavior, you dreadfully boring
>little man. The beauty of my offer is that you could have picked any
>topic you wished. If you think that you can sum up your current gripe
>in a manner I can't counter, then you can easily pick it and force me
>to address it. But you didn't pick it. You didn't pick anything at
>all.
>
>It's easy to see why you're so loathe to put your arguments up to a
>test. To put it bluntly, you're a coward. You have no guts, no
>fighting spirit. You'd rather rant for weeks in your incoherent manner
>than put your views up for scrutiny. You poor, useless, stupid person,
>how it must rankle to know that the only way you can present your
>claims without them immediately being shown to be foolishness is by
>hiding them under piles of verbal vomit.
Now that is sore losership at it's finest folks! And now a word from Dr. Seuss
to steer the easily fooled back to what is really going on in this thread:
At the top of snow covered alp called Mt. Snippem
hurtful words were received and Ari decided to clip'em.
Yes Finland had an answer to old Seuss' grinch.
They made a cheap knock-off called Ari the Bintch.
Who'd snip but he'd brag that he'd not give an inch!
One day James made him step in his own poo:
as...@mail.gr (03:15:38 GMT) wrote in message
news:<3d457b78$0$85681$df06...@news.sexzilla.net>...
"There's not a single thing you can post [that] I couldn't counter."
but the Bintch knew, yes he knew, just what he'd do.
He'd try to trick James with a catch twenty-two!
He'd call James coward and stamp and he'd pout.
He'd rant and he'd rave and call James a lout.
He'd do anything, ~anything~ just to call that James out.
Adult Version: This is a nice catch twenty-two you've concocted but I'm not
buying it. You got your hypocrisy fantasy kicked up your ass (Awww didn't work
as well as it did the first time round) along with that silly quote above once
you went heavy handed with the scissors and now your puttin' on the brave face
and trying to distract the public from what happened by calling me coward after
a slew of your own cowardly snip and dodges. Sucks to be you but it always
has.
>Now, since I'm such a thoroughly nice, patient fellow, I'll give you a
>_third_ chance to _finally_ come up with something I can't counter.
>I'll even promise to quote your grievance in full if you can put it in
>30 lines or less. Go ahead.
Really Asikainen, your like a crying child that just discovered the HORROR of
water balloon fights (yes, I know they're frozen in your neck of the woods but
pretend you live somewhere climatically sensible):
"I'm wet!!! I'm WET!!! *boo hoo* I'll get you James, but only if I can wear a
slicker. Also, mom says I'm gonna need to wear a helmet. Oh, and by the way,
I'm gonna toss the balloons down at you from the fourth story of this here
building. And ummmm, if it wouldn't be too much trouble, could you stand still
and out in the open? One last thing, I'm gonna attach some surplus
air-to-ground missile warhead seekers to my balloons. Yes, that should do it!
Okay, let's fight!"
[room for thirty more "blow me"s was here.]
Now re: your offer. This is a no holds barred competition and you are not
dictating any terms or conditions to me. I have the concept for a nice
argument you will no doubt dislike and it will be longer than thirty lines but
you will not get it until I've had time to work on it. I am in the Christmas
spirit so I'm going to do it with a holiday theme. I bet you can't wait.
--James "still not falling for it" B.
03:15:38 GMT
[...] (Marilyn tries to rationalize his shameful behavior.)
> Now re: your offer. This is a no holds barred competition and you
> are not dictating any terms or conditions to me.
That's another bad excuse. Taking up my gracious offer wouldn't limit
you in any way. You could still cover your future posts with as much
verbal vomit as you like; you could bitch, whine and stamp your foot
over any gripe you think warrants attention; and, naturally, everyone
else could still send your tripe into /dev/null unread.
All the exercise would show that you can't post a single thing I can't
counter. Since that is quickly becoming obvious in any case,
considering the ridiculous excuses you've given for turning down my
offers, you really should try to overcome your natural yellowness and
for once stand up for yourself.
Because I'm such a beneficent guy, I'll give you a _fourth_
opportunity to come up with the goods. All the stipulations I've
outlined in my previous offers still apply. C'mon, Marilyn, here's
your big chance to post something I can't counter, prove me wrong and
win the respect of your peers at one fell swoop. Show the world you're
not the spineless toady you appear to be.
--
Ari <fun...@all.at>
He won't do anything of the sort. Just watch.
TrollatUofS
>Message-id: <3def9fa8$0$85687$df06...@news.sexzilla.net>
A beaten Asikainen shows he can fester more than a gangrenous wound splashed
with peroxide.
Now so this is bright and sparkly clear for you: You snipped out text you
couldn't counter in this thread. Some of it I restored up to three times and
you still didn't counter it. You've already been shown to be a liar. What you
are asking for is already a done deal.
03:15:38 GMT
>>Opie, you have the time to post 50 times a day, thus increasing the
>>boredom of others. It's pretty much a given that you read everything I
>>post.
>
> THAT, SIR, IS A SLANDEROUS LIE! I have time to post far more often
> than that. The operative word here is *post*. I also have other things
> to do, like earn a living, and various personal matters I won't breach
> modesty or good taste by mentioning in this forum. I haven't got
> enough time to read all of your posts as well. In fact I only read
> this one because War and Peace, my usual soporific, was not back at
> the local library.
You averaged 58 posts a day to the Flonk last week. If we use the
conservative estimates of five minutes per post (this includes reading
the groups to find posts to respond to) and only two posts per day
that weren't crossposted to the Flonk, you're still spending _five
hours_ every day on Usenet. I suspect these "various personal matters"
mainly consist of occasionally flossing while you wait for the latest
batch of message bodies to download.
(Not that am I criticizing. Dental hygiene is important.)
>>Damn, I'm _good_. Take the expression "Fuck, but are you ever an
>>useless shitnipple," for example. I have no idea what a "shitnipple"
>>is, but Benzeleski is clearly one.
>
> I have to admit that I wondered what a "shitnipple" might be myself,
> but I decided, in the end, not to bother asking since the knowledge
> would do me no good, and, as you say, Benezeleski clearly is one.
The man oozes shitnipplitude. Whatever that is.
[...]
>>I admit that talking to the hapless hunchback who was on the receiving
>>end of my little riposte is an easy way to look good in comparison.
>
> The difficulty here, of course, is that endeavouring to look good in
> this way, does make you seem a little vain. And some, less kind than
> I, might suggest incompetent.
And here I am talking to you, thereby supporting their theory.
> I suppose such churlish and unkind individuals might also expect you
> to have more overweening confidence in your capacity to shine in
> less dull surrounds. I don't know, as I said I am not they.
I can take these barbs in my stride because I know how much worse
things could be. Instead of picking on the dregs of the flame groups
like I do these days, I could be one of those remarkably sad people
who specialize in dragging in inexperienced outsiders.
Don't get me wrong; I have no room to lambaste trolling. It's just
that some people get so gosh-darn _serious_ about the exercise. When
you're not attempting to prolong the conflict but rather trying to
drive away all who dare to disagree with you, you're scouring the
bottom.
>>However, the real point is to drive the obnoxious pissant up the wall
>>by making him realize that the only thing that keeps his precious
>>arguments alive is my laziness.
>
> A laudable ambition, I must say.
Quite. On the laudability scale, it's up there with curing cancer,
eradicating war and making Kirk fuck off.
> However, I feel the phrase "make him realise" may be too ambitious
> even for one as convinced of his own divinity as you.
I'll either do it or enjoy trying.
--
Ari <fun...@all.at>
03:15:38 GMT
> You snipped out text you couldn't counter in this thread.
I did no such thing, you terminally stupid person. Even you don't
believe this poppycock; if you really did, you'd have taken up my
benevolent offer and made your points - the ones you assert I can't
counter - in a concise manner, thus forcing me to either prove you
wrong or break my word. Because you realize I can do the former with
ease, you instead choose to treat alt.flame to this spectacle in which
you desperately try to escape from the hole you've dug for yourself,
offering one laughable excuse after another for your yellow-bellied
behavior.
Since this is the holiday season, and I'm generous to a fault, I'll
give you a _fifth_ chance to show your arguments' worth. I suggest you
take it, for it is better to try and have your dreams of adequacy
crushed before a global audience than to show you're a gutless, boring
screecher who makes claims only to run for weeks when asked to back
them up. Also, it'll save you the bother of having to make up even
more senseless "reasons" for why you won't put your assertions to a
test.
You useless shitnipple.
--
Ari <fun...@all.at>
TrollatUofS
>From: as...@mail.gr (03:15:38 GMT)
>Date: 12/8/02 4:26 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <3df3b8f5$0$85688$df06...@news.sexzilla.net>
>
>TrollatUofS <troll...@aol.com> did this:
>
>> You snipped out text you couldn't counter in this thread.
>
>I did no such thing, you terminally stupid person.
You've butchered text out of most if not every followup in this thread. You
might assert that it was counterable but who's to know since you didn't counter
it?
> Even you don't believe this poppycock;
Sure I do. You were given the chance to answer some things up to three times
and declined. That's sad in anyone's book, Asikainen. It's almost as sad as
this piss poor excuse that it wasn't concise enough for you after giving me
five rabid rants begging for a showdown. Poor baby.
[frustrated, rabid rant/challenge #5.]
All right, the TOPIC is SNIPPING TEXT. This is something you don't like when
your opponents do it:
Message-ID: <b38a981b.02062...@posting.google.com>
> || "Well" can be used to express insistence. In this particular occasion
> || it referred to the question that immediately preceded it - you know,
> || the one you had failed to answer. Flamenetters have been able to
> || figure out this much in the past. Why couldn't you?
>
> Well?
*Here we have the infamous Asikainen "Well?", a veritable trademark.
Message-ID: <slrn9vev1...@tutor.cc.tut.fi>
If you want to ask me questions, you need to answer the ones I ask
you. Here's the offending paragraph you saw fit to snip without
comment:
| You're getting softer as time goes by, too. Last year you were able to
| occasionally keep a thread going for more than four response
| cycles. Now you drop them at a drop of a hat. How do you ever expect
| people to mistake you for a big, bad flamer d00d if you keep running
| away like that?
Message-ID: <3de7837e$0$85682$df06...@news.sexzilla.net>
>| If you want to ask me questions, you need to answer the ones I ask
>| you.
Wise words. Do you now see how you abdicated your right to demand
answers from me a long time ago?
*Here we've got a bit of mild chiding over snipping and a "but you did it first
defense".
Message-ID: <a0877n$jl4kv$1...@ID-12638.news.dfncis.de>
[Some text was here, but Lou excised it. Smart move, Lou.]
*A tiny dig at poor Lou.
Message-ID: <acgbog$mm3$1...@paradoxa.ogoense.net>
Here, then, is the third debating tactic of our mini-course. Observe
the Snip & Charge:
>We now cut some of Ari's half-baked deconstructivist drivel therebye saving
>much wasted bandwidth.
In it, the protagonist simply ignores everything he doesn't wish to
address. The protagonist will also do well to give some label to the
thing he is dismissing out of hand. Snipping without comment can be
seen as sneaky. While this may seem like a blatant cop-out to many, it
can be justified - not properly, but enough to create plausible
deniability should accusations of running away ever come up. The
positive side is that often it's honestly beneficial to coldly ignore
unnecessary branches of a discussion, and the slower members in the
audience may not have the understanding required to decide what's
really an evasion.
*A lovely dressing down for snipping.
Message-ID: <va8i9tslj50v3sg76...@nntp.newsnet>
><bullshit snip>
>
>Back pedal all you like, it makes no difference thread dropper.
This "ignore what was said, repeat the original claim" tactic of yours
is just about as effective as beating your head against your keyboard
until you bleed and then using your blood to scribble the word 'HOMO'
on your screen.
*You seemed upset that what you said was ignored.
Message-ID: <slrnab158...@ID-12638.user.dfncis.de>
Today we will be looking at all the different ways a substandard
flamer can avoid rational debate,
When other diversions don't work, a substandard flamer can always snip
the whole exchange out of his followup. For example. here is a bit of
text Mr. Monkey elided from his response:
*That's pure gravy.
Message-ID: <slrna4l4i...@ID-12638.user.dfncis.de>
Oh, this is fun. First Shteve snips out all the offending text...
[offending text was here]
...then he backpedals for all he's worth...
*Very nice.
Message-ID: <eRxd7.120$yX2....@read2.inet.fi>
[About 100 lines of my article were omitted from Jackie's follow-up. Let's
see the part the useless lump of wrinkled skin felt he could answer.]
*Lovely.
Message-ID: <slrna5nft...@ID-12638.user.dfncis.de>
[...] (Mistaken frothing elided so it won't embarrass Mr. Tanner any
further.)
The funny thing is how you snipped almost every paragraph of my
article that dealt with something other than Google and newsreaders -
you're so in love with the scalpel, one'd think you were a Surgeon's
Girl friend or something.
*There's a beauty!
My QUESTION is:
Message-ID: <3d21b680$0$85687$df06...@news.sexzilla.net>
"...whether you think the things you've said about the practice before apply
when you use it[?]"
Yes, that's my question. That is the answer to your challenge. I've kept it
reasonably concise. No need to window dress when hypocrisy that good sells
itself.
Your Pal,
--James
P.S. Don't forget:
03:15:38 GMT
> You've butchered text out of most if not every followup in this
> thread.
Your text desperately needs butchering. You've posted little more than
alphabet vomit, hundreds of lines of it, to make points you could have
made in a paragraph or two. I'm doing you a big favor by following up
at all; as you may have noticed, not many others bother to read your
detritus at this point.
> You might assert that it was counterable but who's to know since you
> didn't counter it?
Everyone who has read our previous discussion and is in possession of
a functional brain. You're so much worse than me at this that it isn't
even funny. The idea that you could win an argument with me _is_ quite
ridiculous, though.
[...]
> All right, the TOPIC is SNIPPING TEXT.
Due to your apparent reading comprehension problems, I could easily
snip everything below. After all, I previously wrote...
"Oh, and a word of advice: Be brief. If I see more than two badly
formatted quotes from groups.google.com, I will stop reading."
...and...
"I'll even promise to quote your grievance in full if you can put it in
30 lines or less. Go ahead."
And here you use over 100 lines to make a five line point, and most of
the length is taken up by quotes you haven't bothered to indicate
clearly. However, since I'm a nice chap (and I have some time to
waste), I'll do as promised and take apart your case. You can thank me
later.
[...] (But I won't quote the Google vomit.)
> Here we've got a bit of mild chiding over snipping and a "but you
> did it first defense".
You're quite dense, Marilyn. Since there's nothing wrong with
dismissing your screeching out of hand, it's distinct from instances
where a person does something he knows to be wrong and then tries to
excuse his wrongdoing by asserting that others have done the same
thing in the past, which in turn is distinct from showing a person who
insists that there's nothing wrong with what he's doing the error of
his ways by giving him a taste of his own medicine. Therefore there is
also no need to defend ignoring your spew. That was merely an
explanation.
[...]
> A lovely dressing down for snipping.
The last part was especially appropriate: "the slower members in the
audience may not have the understanding required to decide what's
really an evasion." Here I am talking with the slowest member in the
audience, and he clearly doesn't understand the difference. I like it
when you prove me right, Marilyn.
[...]
> My QUESTION is:
>
> Message-ID: <3d21b680$0$85687$df06...@news.sexzilla.net>
> "...whether you think the things you've said about the practice before apply
> when you use it[?]"
Of course they do. My position in this issue can be summed up thusly:
1.) There's nothing wrong with snipping for brevity.
2.) Trying to use snipping to ignore valid points doesn't work. One
can't make the original article disappear and the poster can just
restate the issue. This presupposes that the other poster has valid
points to make.
3.) When you've failed to respond in the past, responses to you are no
longer required - not that they ever were, really, but I like to pay
people the same level of courtesy they pay me.
My posts, including all your quotes, and actions, including this
thread, are consistent with that. As usual, you have no case.
> I've kept it reasonably concise.
No, you haven't. Over 100 lines of badly formatted quotes can be
called a lot of things, but "concise" is not one of them.
--
Ari <fun...@all.at>
TrollatUofS
>Message-id: <3df73a48$0$85680$df06...@news.sexzilla.net>
>
>TrollatUofS <troll...@aol.com> did this:
>
>> You've butchered text out of most if not every followup in this
>> thread.
>
>Your text desperately needs butchering.
Hey, it's the fat that gives my deliciously meaty works their flavor.
> You've posted little more than
>alphabet vomit, hundreds of lines of it, to make points you could have
>made in a paragraph or two. I'm doing you a big favor by following up
>at all; as you may have noticed, not many others bother to read your
>detritus at this point.
That's unsurprising since I mostly argue with you. I told you long ago that
our arguments likely got poor coverage.
>> You might assert that it was counterable but who's to know since you
>> didn't counter it?
>
>Everyone who has read our previous discussion and is in possession of
>a functional brain.
A mythical beast.
>You're so much worse than me at this that it isn't
>even funny. The idea that you could win an argument with me _is_ quite
>ridiculous, though.
It's already a done deal, snipper. Your sidestep show and string of denials
won't change that.
> [...]
>
>> All right, the TOPIC is SNIPPING TEXT.
>
>Due to your apparent reading comprehension problems, I could easily
>snip everything below. After all, I previously wrote...
>
>"Oh, and a word of advice: Be brief. If I see more than two badly
>formatted quotes from groups.google.com, I will stop reading."
>
>...and...
>
>"I'll even promise to quote your grievance in full if you can put it in
>30 lines or less. Go ahead."
And you were told that I would follow no such format. It isn't like you
could've resisted answering anyway, vainglorious vittu.
>And here you use over 100 lines to make a five line point, and most of
>the length is taken up by quotes
They would be called "proof" in this case. Unlike you (as of late), I like to
support my claims with some proof.
>you haven't bothered to indicate
>clearly. However, since I'm a nice chap (and I have some time to
>waste), I'll do as promised and take apart your case. You can thank me
>later.
Well soar onward, Icarus.
> [...] (But I won't quote the Google vomit.)
(Already the proof has disappeared and your wings are melting. Tsk, tsk.)
>> Here we've got a bit of mild chiding over snipping and a "but you
>> did it first defense".
>
>You're quite dense, Marilyn. Since there's nothing wrong with
>dismissing your screeching out of hand, it's distinct from instances
>where a person does something he knows to be wrong
It doesn't matter who you are arguing with. You snipped. You knew it was
wrong and your conveniently snipped quotes proved it.
> and then tries to excuse his wrongdoing by asserting that others have done
the same
> thing in the past,
"When you've failed to respond in the past, responses to you are no longer
required...." I guess your distinction is now blurred since you've seen fit
to use the preceding line of crap. So sad.
> which in turn is distinct from showing a person who
>insists that there's nothing wrong with what he's doing the error of
>his ways by giving him a taste of his own medicine. Therefore there is
>also no need to defend ignoring your spew.
For clarification, are you talking in general or are you asserting that you
snipped my text to give me a taste of my own medicine?
> That was merely an explanation.
And a poor one at that. I'll give you a correct explanation below.
> [...]
>
>> A lovely dressing down for snipping.
>
>The last part was especially appropriate: "the slower members in the
>audience may not have the understanding required to decide what's
>really an evasion." Here I am talking with the slowest member in the
>audience, and he clearly doesn't understand the difference. I like it
>when you prove me right, Marilyn.
What a silly lie. You were evasive. When you dodge the same point three times
that's evasion writ large.
> [...]
>
>> My QUESTION is:
>>
>> Message-ID: <3d21b680$0$85687$df06...@news.sexzilla.net>
>> "...whether you think the things you've said about the practice before
>apply
>> when you use it[?]"
>
>Of course they do. My position in this issue can be summed up thusly:
>
>1.) There's nothing wrong with snipping for brevity.
Funny how that changed from 'I snip previously quoted text.'
>2.) Trying to use snipping to ignore valid points doesn't work. One
>can't make the original article disappear and the poster can just
>restate the issue. This presupposes that the other poster has valid
>points to make.
Yes and the point which you dismissed three times because you couldn't answer
it was a wonderfully eloquent disarmament of your hypocrisy troll. Must've
soured your whole day to see me say that.
ARI: You couldn't resist pointing out that I dropped a thread James! You drop
threads all the time you hypocrite!
JAMES: I never called you a thread dropper and it was your turn to move.
Funny how turn based games are that way, isn't it?
Well? (Time #4)
>3.) When you've failed to respond in the past, responses to you are no
>longer required
Don't be silly Asikainen. You hope for an opponent not to respond as that
constitutes a win for you in your mind.
Anyway, you are required to respond since 'there's nothing I can post that you
can't counter'. I'm in the Xmas spirit so I'll give you the chance to take it
back and I'll make no further issue out of it. I mean, you already proved it
false by snipping throughout this thread. Why not cut future losses with this
most excellent and benevolent offer?
- not that they ever were, really, but I like to pay
>people the same level of courtesy they pay me.
So you cut down x number of persons for snipping as my quotes showed. You
plainly thought it was wrong then. Suddenly, your long held beliefs about the
practice flew out the window when faced by my recent hurtful words and thoughts
that I haven't answered every frivolous droning of yours. That's sad. What's
next? Maybe you can be a staunch anti-abortion protester and change your mind
when you knock up your girlfriend. (purely hypothetical for reasons well known
to you. *wink*) Before you cry: "But James, I didn't flame you about it." OR
"That was old.", I'll remind you that so much of my handiwork you like to
quote is ten years old as well.
>My posts, including all your quotes, and actions, including this
>thread, are consistent with that. As usual, you have no case.
My case is solid hypocrite. You have done something which you have a proven
history of flaming others for. Too bad you can't win'em all little guy.
Your Pal,
--James
Optional Identity
stuff in alt.flame:
>Optional Identity <Troll4U...@meow.org> did this:
>> as...@mail.gr (03:15:38 GMT) wrote:
>
>>>Opie, you have the time to post 50 times a day, thus increasing the
>>>boredom of others. It's pretty much a given that you read everything I
>>>post.
>>
>> THAT, SIR, IS A SLANDEROUS LIE! I have time to post far more often
>> than that. The operative word here is *post*. I also have other things
>> to do, like earn a living, and various personal matters I won't breach
>> modesty or good taste by mentioning in this forum. I haven't got
>> enough time to read all of your posts as well. In fact I only read
>> this one because War and Peace, my usual soporific, was not back at
>> the local library.
>
>You averaged 58 posts a day to the Flonk last week. If we use the
>conservative estimates of five minutes per post (this includes reading
>the groups to find posts to respond to) and only two posts per day
>that weren't crossposted to the Flonk, you're still spending _five
>hours_ every day on Usenet. I suspect these "various personal matters"
>mainly consist of occasionally flossing while you wait for the latest
>batch of message bodies to download.
>
>(Not that am I criticizing. Dental hygiene is important.)
Your calculations fail to take into consideration my many socks, but
even so you are right, I have plenty of time to read your posts. I
must have some other reason for ignoring most of them.
>>>Damn, I'm _good_. Take the expression "Fuck, but are you ever an
>>>useless shitnipple," for example. I have no idea what a "shitnipple"
>>>is, but Benzeleski is clearly one.
>>
>> I have to admit that I wondered what a "shitnipple" might be myself,
>> but I decided, in the end, not to bother asking since the knowledge
>> would do me no good, and, as you say, Benezeleski clearly is one.
>
>The man oozes shitnipplitude. Whatever that is.
An aura of shitnipplentity surrounds him. Whomsoever that may be.
> [...]
>
>>>I admit that talking to the hapless hunchback who was on the receiving
>>>end of my little riposte is an easy way to look good in comparison.
>>
>> The difficulty here, of course, is that endeavouring to look good in
>> this way, does make you seem a little vain. And some, less kind than
>> I, might suggest incompetent.
>
>And here I am talking to you, thereby supporting their theory.
Personally I don't subscribe to the more anal view of written self
expression that insists a sentence must never be started with "and".
>> I suppose such churlish and unkind individuals might also expect you
>> to have more overweening confidence in your capacity to shine in
>> less dull surrounds. I don't know, as I said I am not they.
>
>I can take these barbs in my stride because I know how much worse
>things could be. Instead of picking on the dregs of the flame groups
>like I do these days, I could be one of those remarkably sad people
>who specialize in dragging in inexperienced outsiders.
I see, so you are the one dragging in the experienced outsiders? Well
done that man!
>Don't get me wrong; I have no room to lambaste trolling. It's just
>that some people get so gosh-darn _serious_ about the exercise. When
>you're not attempting to prolong the conflict but rather trying to
>drive away all who dare to disagree with you, you're scouring the
>bottom.
Is that how you see the noble art?
>>>However, the real point is to drive the obnoxious pissant up the wall
>>>by making him realize that the only thing that keeps his precious
>>>arguments alive is my laziness.
>>
>> A laudable ambition, I must say.
>
>Quite. On the laudability scale, it's up there with curing cancer,
>eradicating war and making Kirk fuck off.
Curing cancer, and eradicating war are attainable, but yes I agree.
>> However, I feel the phrase "make him realise" may be too ambitious
>> even for one as convinced of his own divinity as you.
>
>I'll either do it or enjoy trying.
That's the spirit. Never put shit on what another person finds
enjoyable, even if it would make *you* take your own life in a
particularly slow and painful fashion, that's my motto.
Tolerance is a wonderful thing.
03:15:38 GMT
>From: as...@mail.gr (03:15:38 GMT)
>>Your text desperately needs butchering.
>
>Hey, it's the fat that gives my deliciously meaty works their flavor.
Your bloated prose has the flavour of a dead rat.
[...] (A bunch of dead rats in a tub.)
>So you cut down x number of persons for snipping as my quotes showed. You
>plainly thought it was wrong then.
Here's where your case fell down, as I already explained in my
previous article. I'll make the point again, more forcefully this
time, as the first attempt apparently flew over your head at great
speed.
Here's what I want you to do: find a brick and a baseball bat. Hold
the brick in your left hand - _brick_, Marilyn, not a prick - and the
bat in your right one. The bat represents running away from an
argument, and the brick represents snipping text. Got that?
Now hit yourself on the head with the bat. Swing properly... [*clonk*]
...and now hit yourself on the head with the brick. [*ding*] Good. Did
you notice the difference? They are two distinct sensations, just like
snipping text and running away from an argument are not the same
bloody thing.
(That, ladies and gentlemen, is what they call beating some sense into
a person.)
--
Ari <fun...@all.at>
"*ding*"?
TrollatUofS
>Message-id: <3e05ee9e$0$85687$df06...@news.sexzilla.net>
>
>troll...@aol.com (TrollatUofS) did this:
>>From: as...@mail.gr (03:15:38 GMT)
>
>>>Your text desperately needs butchering.
>>
>>Hey, it's the fat that gives my deliciously meaty works their flavor.
>
>Your bloated prose has the flavour of a dead rat.
Then I'm one up one five star Finnish cuisine already.
[an attempt at a cute srory flame I didn't run away from was here.]
(That was easy.)
"snipping text and running away from an argument are not the same bloody
thing."
Archived. Thanx.
as...@mail.gr (03:15:38 GMT) wrote in message
news:<3d457b78$0$85681$df06...@news.sexzilla.net>...
"There's not a single thing you can post [that] I couldn't counter."
From: as...@mail.gr (03:15:38 GMT)
Message-id: <3e05ee9e$0$85687$df06...@news.sexzilla.net>
"...snipping text and running away from an argument are not the same bloody
thing."
The contradictory nature of those two statements would truly be shocking if you
weren't such an obvious and truly contradictory, shocking hypocrite.
James "six stars yummy" B.
03:15:38 GMT
> [an attempt at a cute srory flame I didn't run away from was here.]
You can't read, can you?
--
Ari <fun...@all.at>
TrollatUofS
>From: "03:15:38 GMT" as...@mail.gr
>Date: 12/23/02 5:05 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <3e078837$0$85686$df06...@news.sexzilla.net>
>
>troll...@aol.com (TrollatUofS) did this:
>
>> [an attempt at a cute srory flame I didn't run away from was here.]
>
>You can't read, can you?
I've been reading plenty of funny things about you just fine today, Germ221.
03:15:38 GMT
>>
>>> [an attempt at a cute srory flame I didn't run away from was here.]
>>
>>You can't read, can you?
>
> I've been reading plenty of funny things about you just fine today,
What was that story flame nonsense, you subliterate fuck-up? There was
no story flame there, cute or otherwise.
> Germ221.
In many ways, that guy was superior to you. Yes, he lost our little
exchange by a wide margin, just like you, but he _noticed_ it. He had
enough intelligence to stop embarrassing himself. You, by contrast, keep
piling idiocy on top of idiocy, lameness on top of more lameness, hoping
that somehow, if only you can hang in there long enough, it'll all come
good. Germ404, being a bit more astute than you, knew when to leave.
--
Ari <fun...@all.at>
"he was the scaredest in the real world, he knew i would win, he knew
we would be friends."
-- Sabu424 (Sabu424@NOMAILTHANKS)