His friend and nobody else's, John Palmer!
From A to B
Palmer) writes:
> In article <9bhhv!qj...@netcom.com> j...@netcom.com (Jef Poskanzer) blibbers:
> >This newsgroup is self-moderated. It should be marked moderated in the
> >active file, but with no moderator's address in the mailpaths file.
> >If you have some problem with this, please talk to me about it.
>
> You? - Who the FUCK are YOU? <snicker>
Oh dear. It seems that John Palmer has decided that he doesn't want the
newsgroup to be moderated. And we all know what THAT means, don't we?
> Eat shit you self-appointed wannabe know-nothing ass-licking dick-breath
> cocksucking net-cop motherfucker. And besides the obvious FUCK YOU.
I wonder if this is one of those "forgeries"?
I wonder if it's going to become one of those "forgeries"?
> I find ONE MORE of your forgeries in my control group and you can expect
> legal problems.
That should be good for a laugh.
> *******************
>
> CCCCCCC AAAAAAAAA TTTTTTTTTT
> CCC AAA AAA TTTT WELCOME TO THE CAT-TALK
> CCC AAA AAA TTTT NETWORK
> CCC AAA AAA TTTT
> CCC AAAAAAAAAAA TTTT 313-790-6426
> CCC AAA AAA TTTT 300/1200/2400/9600/14400/19200bps
> CCC AAA AAA TTTT HST/PEP
> CCCCCCC AAA AAA TTTT PC-PURSUIT CITY CODE
> "MIDET"
>
> TTTTTTTTTT AAAAAAAAAA LLLL KKKK KKK
> TTTT AAA AAA LLLL KKKK KKK
> TTTT AAA AAA LLLL KKKK KKK
> TTTT AAA AAA LLLL KKKK KKKKK
> TTTT AAAAAAAAAAAA LLLL KKKKKKKK
> TTTT AAA AAA LLLL KKK KKKKK
> TTTT AAA AAA LLLLLLLLLLL KKK KKK
> TTTT AAA AAA LLLLLLLLLLL KKK KKK
Awesome .signature, John. RADIKUL D00DZ!
> - We have SIX MACHINES dedicated to NEWS and EMAIL!!
> Our plans are to become the most highly connected site in the
> world.
Heeheehee. Watch out UUNET, here comes CAT-TALK!!!
mathew
--
Hail Eris! / "Our whole economy's based on fear and death; how long can we get
away with this?" --- Jello Biafra / Message for Kodak: Bring back Dan Bredy! /
PGP RSA public key available on request / Desperately seeking Negativland's U2
CD / Just another would-be Mac owner put off by Apple's monopolistic practices
d...@ctedge.com
> In <1992Feb22....@tygra.Michigan.COM> j...@tygra.Michigan.COM (John
> Palmer) writes:
> > In article <9bhhv!qj...@netcom.com> j...@netcom.com (Jef Poskanzer) blibbers:
> > >This newsgroup is self-moderated. It should be marked moderated in the
> > >active file, but with no moderator's address in the mailpaths file.
[loooooooooads of cussing and swearing and chestbeating deleted] ..
>
> Heeheehee. Watch out UUNET, here comes CAT-TALK!!!
>
>
> mathew
>
> --
> Hail Eris! / "Our whole economy's based on fear and death; how long can we ge
> away with this?" --- Jello Biafra / Message for Kodak: Bring back Dan Bredy!
> PGP RSA public key available on request / Desperately seeking Negativland's U
> CD / Just another would-be Mac owner put off by Apple's monopolistic practice
Better watch out Matt.. A user on my system crossposted this
to a.f.j-p and we were practically blamed for the forgery.......
.... If it is a forgery.. ;)
-djk
--- Daniel J. Karnes / WA6NDT -------------------------------------
---- NMS&Systems Engineering --------------------------------------
--- D...@CtEdge.COM / D...@Netcom.COM -------------------------------
- 'Innovative solutions for modern problems' ----------------------
NetPunk
>
> Awesome .signature, John. RADIKUL D00DZ!
>
> > - We have SIX MACHINES dedicated to NEWS and EMAIL!!
> > Our plans are to become the most highly connected site in the
> > world.
>
> Heeheehee. Watch out UUNET, here comes CAT-TALK!!!
>
Oh shit, yeah, right... I doubt he will ever have THAT much money...
*da Punk*
** Bogus -- Public Access Network Services (501) 525-1681 14400 HST/V.32 **
Kevin Darcy
>In <1992Feb22....@tygra.Michigan.COM> j...@tygra.Michigan.COM (John
>> In article <9bhhv!qj...@netcom.com> j...@netcom.com (Jef Poskanzer) blibbers:
>> >This newsgroup is self-moderated. It should be marked moderated in the
>> >active file, but with no moderator's address in the mailpaths file.
>> >If you have some problem with this, please talk to me about it.
>>
>> You? - Who the FUCK are YOU? <snicker>
>
>Oh dear. It seems that John Palmer has decided that he doesn't want the
>newsgroup to be moderated.
Or maybe not.
>> Eat shit you self-appointed wannabe know-nothing ass-licking dick-breath
>> cocksucking net-cop motherfucker. And besides the obvious FUCK YOU.
>
>I wonder if this is one of those "forgeries"?
>
>I wonder if it's going to become one of those "forgeries"?
Gee, mathew, I don't suppose the fact that the article was posted through the
infamous, untraceable, ucbvax mail-to-news gateway would make it any more
recognizable as a forgery than, say, a Message-ID: of <12...@haha.fooled.ya>,
eh???
Gee, mathew, I don't suppose the fact that the article was posted to alt.flame,
and *ONLY* alt.flame, along with the incredibly-exaggerated foul language and
almost-total lack of content, would alert anyone with HALF A BRAIN to the
possibility of a practical joke, eh???
Now, why don't you be a good boy, take your DAMNED OBVIOUS forgery with you,
and leave these nice folks in news.admin alone for once, eh, mathew?
- Kevin
Rick Kelly
>mat...@mantis.co.uk (From A to B) writes:
>> Awesome .signature, John. RADIKUL D00DZ!
>> > - We have SIX MACHINES dedicated to NEWS and EMAIL!!
>> > Our plans are to become the most highly connected site in the
>> > world.
>> Heeheehee. Watch out UUNET, here comes CAT-TALK!!!
>Oh shit, yeah, right... I doubt he will ever have THAT much money...
Yeah, but just imagine, a network of 6 Commodore 64's.
--
Rick Kelly r...@rmkhome.UUCP unixland!rmkhome!rmk r...@frog.UUCP
From A to B
ke...@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
> In article <48FPgB...@mantis.co.uk> mat...@mantis.co.uk (From A to B) wr
> >> cocksucking net-cop motherfucker. And besides the obvious FUCK YOU.
> >
> >I wonder if this is one of those "forgeries"?
> >
> >I wonder if it's going to become one of those "forgeries"?
>
> Gee, mathew, I don't suppose the fact that the article was posted through t
> recognizable as a forgery than, say, a Message-ID: of <12...@haha.fooled.ya>
Gosh, Kevin, I suppose you're right. I suppose it's inconceivable that
the ucbvax gateway could actually serve any purpose other than forging
articles. I suppose it's beyond possibility that someone might actually
use ucbvax to post an article under his real identity.
It's clearly completely ludicrous to suggest that maybe John Palmer might
post by mailing to ucbvax, and it would be utterly unreasonable to even
hint at the possibility that someone as incompetent as Palmer might stand
a good chance of having a news system so badly screwed that it can't be
used to post articles directly.
mathew
--
Hail Eris! / "Our whole economy's based on fear and death; how long can we get
away with this?" --- Jello Biafra / Message for Kodak: Bring back Dan Bredy! /
PGP RSA public key available on request / Desperately seeking Negativland's U2
CD / Just another would-be Mac owner put off by Apple's monopolistic practices
NetPunk
> Yeah, but just imagine, a network of 6 Commodore 64's.
I was thinking more along the lines of:
3 Atari 2600 systems,
2 VIC-20's,
and 1 solar calculator...
And, would have to have a 300 baud modem for that.
<Haa>
===
* pu...@Bogus.COM (NetPunk) * via CyberSpace Cafe
My opinions are my own. They may or may not be shared by the managment.
Lefty
Darcy) writes:
>
> In article <48FPgB...@mantis.co.uk> mat...@mantis.co.uk (From A to B)
writes:
> >In <1992Feb22....@tygra.Michigan.COM> j...@tygra.Michigan.COM (John
> >> Eat shit you self-appointed wannabe know-nothing ass-licking dick-breath
> >> cocksucking net-cop motherfucker. And besides the obvious FUCK YOU.
> >
> >I wonder if this is one of those "forgeries"?
> >
> >I wonder if it's going to become one of those "forgeries"?
>
> and leave these nice folks in news.admin alone for once, eh, mathew?
Why, Kevin, I'm surprised!
It seems that you're accusing mathew of posting a _forgery_!
I assume that you have some kind of proof in support of this accusation.
We all know that you support all the claims you make or retract them.
I'd like to see which it's going to be in this instance, Kevin.
--
Lefty (le...@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Kevin Darcy
>In article <1992Feb26.0...@rotag.mi.org>, ke...@rotag.mi.org (Kevin
>Darcy) writes:
>>
>> In article <48FPgB...@mantis.co.uk> mat...@mantis.co.uk (From A to B)
>writes:
>> >In <1992Feb22....@tygra.Michigan.COM> j...@tygra.Michigan.COM (John
>> >Palmer) writes:
>> >> Eat shit you self-appointed wannabe know-nothing ass-licking dick-breath
>> >> cocksucking net-cop motherfucker. And besides the obvious FUCK YOU.
>> >
>> >I wonder if this is one of those "forgeries"?
>> >
>> >I wonder if it's going to become one of those "forgeries"?
>>
>> Now, why don't you be a good boy, take your DAMNED OBVIOUS forgery with you,
>> and leave these nice folks in news.admin alone for once, eh, mathew?
>
>Why, Kevin, I'm surprised!
>
>It seems that you're accusing mathew of posting a _forgery_!
HAHA! Shooting yourself in the foot again, I see.
Just who was accusing WHOM of committing a forgery, Lefty? Read it again.
- Kevin
drieux, just drieux
] r...@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
]
] > Yeah, but just imagine, a network of 6 Commodore 64's.
]
] I was thinking more along the lines of:
]
] 3 Atari 2600 systems,
] 2 VIC-20's,
] and 1 solar calculator...
]
] And, would have to have a 300 baud modem for that.
NetPunk
you really should learn some respect for folks like
palmer who ae capable of getting a uucp site up with
such state of the art technology.
where will technoArcheologist go to actually see the
seminal beginnings of proto_networkecus were it not
for folks like john palmer!!!!
ciao
drieux
ps: I sure hope I did not put any big words
that would confuse anyone...
--
EOT
No More Written InPut
Why are you Looking Here?
Kevin Darcy
>ke...@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>> In article <21...@goofy.Apple.COM> le...@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
>> >In article <1992Feb26.0...@rotag.mi.org>, ke...@rotag.mi.org (Kevin
>> >Darcy) writes:
>> >> Now, why don't you be a good boy, take your DAMNED OBVIOUS forgery with yo
>> >
>> >Why, Kevin, I'm surprised!
>> >
>> >It seems that you're accusing mathew of posting a _forgery_!
>>
>> HAHA! Shooting yourself in the foot again, I see.
>>
>> Just who was accusing WHOM of committing a forgery, Lefty? Read it again.
>
>mentioned POSTING a forgery. You're certainly accusing me of POSTING a
>"damned obvious" (alleged) forgery...
Please point out the part where I claimed that you "posted" the article in
question, i.e. <1992Feb22....@tygra.Michigan.COM>.
- Kevin
From A to B
> In article <yTHDHB...@mantis.co.uk> mat...@mantis.co.uk (From A to B) wri
Kevin, the original article I posted to news.admin contained a copy of
<1992Feb22....@tygra.Michigan.COM>. You replied that I should take
my "damned obvious" forgery which I had found, and leave news.admin alone.
Now, are you claiming that I didn't post the article
<1992Feb22....@tygra.Michigan.COM> to news.admin as part of one of
*my* articles?
If so, then presumably your original claim (that what I was re-posting to
news.admin, <1992Feb22....@tygra.Michigan.COM>, was a "damn obvious"
forgery) is purely a mental abberation which we can pretend didn't happen.
It's quite true that I didn't *commit* the forgery of
<1992Feb22....@tygra.Michigan.COM>.
However, I did *post* that article which we refer to as
<1992Feb22....@tygra.Michigan.COM> as part of the body text of my
own article to news.admin.
You could quibble that I didn't post the forgery, that I just posted a
verbatim copy of the forgery; but if you do, I'll be forced to remind you
that you told me to take my "damned obvious forgery" elsewhere, not my
"damned obvious copy of a forgery". He who lives by the quibble, dies by the
quibble.
Oh, feel free to wait a week or two before replying, so that I no longer have
copies of the previous articles in the thread. After all, that's what you
usually do. You can then show your staggering hypocrisy by criticising Babs
Woods for responding to old articles.
Kevin Darcy
>ke...@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>> In article <yTHDHB...@mantis.co.uk> mat...@mantis.co.uk (From A to B) wri
>> >
>> >mentioned POSTING a forgery. You're certainly accusing me of POSTING a
>> >"damned obvious" (alleged) forgery...
>>
>> Please point out the part where I claimed that you "posted" the article in
>> question, i.e. <1992Feb22....@tygra.Michigan.COM>.
>
>Kevin, the original article I posted to news.admin contained a copy of
><1992Feb22....@tygra.Michigan.COM>. You replied that I should take
>my "damned obvious" forgery which I had found, and leave news.admin alone.
Yes. But "posting" != "containing a copy".
>Now, are you claiming that I didn't post the article
><1992Feb22....@tygra.Michigan.COM> to news.admin as part of one of
>*my* articles?
You included the text of the article. As far as I know, you didn't actually
post the original article. "Including text" != "posting".
>If so, then presumably your original claim (that what I was re-posting to
>news.admin, <1992Feb22....@tygra.Michigan.COM>, was a "damn obvious"
>forgery) is purely a mental abberation which we can pretend didn't happen.
Playing word games again? First it's "contained a copy"; now it's "re-posted";
and below it's "post ... as part of the body text". No dice, Mathew. Either
you DID post <1992Feb22....@tygra.Michigan.COM>, in which you are a
forger, so the point is moot, or you DIDN'T post it. Since I've never accused
you of "posting" the article, and "posting" is a necessary condition of article
forging, then logically it CANNOT be true that I falsely accused you of being
an article-forger.
>It's quite true that I didn't *commit* the forgery of
><1992Feb22....@tygra.Michigan.COM>.
>
>However, I did *post* that article which we refer to as
><1992Feb22....@tygra.Michigan.COM> as part of the body text of my
>own article to news.admin.
No, you included its text in the article you posted to news.admin.
>You could quibble that I didn't post the forgery, that I just posted a
>verbatim copy of the forgery; but if you do, I'll be forced to remind you
>that you told me to take my "damned obvious forgery" elsewhere, not my
>"damned obvious copy of a forgery".
Too wordy. I decline to clutter my prose just because the subject of a given
sentence may be paranoid about being called a forger, under some implausible
interpretation of my words.
>Oh, feel free to wait a week or two before replying, so that I no longer have
>copies of the previous articles in the thread.
Oh, get some real storage or stop whining. Your disk space problems aren't my
concern.
>You can then show your staggering hypocrisy by criticising Babs
>Woods for responding to old articles.
I never criticized Babs personally for this. If you will reread that so-called
"criticism", you should see that I questioned whether the newsfeed at
FUNHOUSE.COM was up to snuff or not. Apples and oranges.
---
Mathew, if you will be so kind, could you please indicate which of the
following statements are true, and which are false:
A) At the time you posted your article to news.admin, you didn't
believe that <1992Feb22....@tygra.Michigan.COM> was a
forgery.
B) After some painful education, you now acknowledge a high probability
that the article was in fact a forgery.
C) You intend on apologizing to John Palmer for your mistake, and any
incremental damage that you may have done to his reputation.
D) You intend on apologizing to the readership of news.admin for
wasting their bandwidth responding to a forgery as if it were the
real thing.
- Kevin
Barry Schwartz
ke...@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
]Too wordy.
Too everything, hotshot.
--
Barry Schwartz tras...@crud.mn.org
From A to B
> In article <wFNkHB...@mantis.co.uk> mat...@mantis.co.uk (From A to B) writ
> >> In article <yTHDHB...@mantis.co.uk> mat...@mantis.co.uk (From A to B)
> >> >mentioned POSTING a forgery. You're certainly accusing me of POSTING a
> >> >"damned obvious" (alleged) forgery...
> >> Please point out the part where I claimed that you "posted" the article in
> >> question, i.e. <1992Feb22....@tygra.Michigan.COM>.
> >Kevin, the original article I posted to news.admin contained a copy of
> ><1992Feb22....@tygra.Michigan.COM>. You replied that I should take
> >my "damned obvious" forgery which I had found, and leave news.admin alone.
>
> Yes. But "posting" != "containing a copy".
I see. So if I post an article containing a copy of, say, a poem by e.e.
cummings, then I am not posting a poem by e.e. cummings.
Well, like most arguments with Kevin Darcy this one has rapidly reached the
point where we discover that the language he speaks is only superficially
similar to English.
> >Now, are you claiming that I didn't post the article
> ><1992Feb22....@tygra.Michigan.COM> to news.admin as part of one of
> >*my* articles?
>
> You included the text of the article. As far as I know, you didn't actually
> post the original article. "Including text" != "posting".
So if I include the following piece of text:
# Kevin Darcy is obviously attempting to weasel out of being shown to be
# wrong again, by the usual method of rapidly re-defining words used in his
# earlier postings.
Then I'm not posting it? Obviously, then, I don't need to defend it.
> Mathew, if you will be so kind, could you please indicate which of the
> following statements are true, and which are false:
>
> A) At the time you posted your article to news.admin, you didn't
> believe that <1992Feb22....@tygra.Michigan.COM> was a
> forgery.
True.
> B) After some painful education, you now acknowledge a high probability
> that the article was in fact a forgery.
False.
> C) You intend on apologizing to John Palmer for your mistake, and any
> incremental damage that you may have done to his reputation.
False. I couldn't damage John Palmer's reputation if I attacked it with a
meat-cleaver.
> D) You intend on apologizing to the readership of news.admin for
> wasting their bandwidth responding to a forgery as if it were the
> real thing.
False. It hasn't been shown to be a forgery.
There are at least two pitfalls awaiting you in the answers above. Please go
ahead and fall into them, we could do with the amusement.
Kevin Darcy
>ke...@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>> In article <wFNkHB...@mantis.co.uk> mat...@mantis.co.uk (From A to B) writ
>> >ke...@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>> >> In article <yTHDHB...@mantis.co.uk> mat...@mantis.co.uk (From A to B)
>> >> >Nobody mentioned COMMITTING a forgery, Kevin. Not even Lefty. Lefty
>> >> >mentioned POSTING a forgery. You're certainly accusing me of POSTING a
>> >> >"damned obvious" (alleged) forgery...
>> >> Please point out the part where I claimed that you "posted" the article in
>> >> question, i.e. <1992Feb22....@tygra.Michigan.COM>.
>> >Kevin, the original article I posted to news.admin contained a copy of
>> ><1992Feb22....@tygra.Michigan.COM>. You replied that I should take
>> >my "damned obvious" forgery which I had found, and leave news.admin alone.
>>
>> Yes. But "posting" != "containing a copy".
>
>I see. So if I post an article containing a copy of, say, a poem by e.e.
>cummings, then I am not posting a poem by e.e. cummings.
That would be an imprecise use of language. Properly speaking, it can only
be said that the poem is CONTAINED in your post. If e.e. cummings HIMSELF
posted one of his poems, then that would be a different matter...
"Post" embodies both "active" and "passive" elements. The "passive" element
is just the body of the article, which gets shipped, verbatim, from news site
to news site. The "active" element is the header section of the article,
which contains not only inert DATA, but also INSTRUCTIONS, of a sort
(Newsgroups: to post to, or to Followup-to:), and IDENTIFICATION. To "post"
in the full sense means to generate BOTH elements. When including someone
else's text, EVEN IF THAT'S THE ENTIRE CONTENT OF THE ARTICLE BODY, the other
person's text only comprises -part- of the article. That's why it's better to
refer to that process as "including text" or somesuch, and to reserve the verb
"post" for the generation of BOTH elements.
>> >Now, are you claiming that I didn't post the article
>> ><1992Feb22....@tygra.Michigan.COM> to news.admin as part of one of
>> >*my* articles?
>>
>> You included the text of the article. As far as I know, you didn't actually
>> post the original article. "Including text" != "posting".
>
>So if I include the following piece of text:
>
># Kevin Darcy is obviously attempting to weasel out of being shown to be
># wrong again, by the usual method of rapidly re-defining words used in his
># earlier postings.
>
>Then I'm not posting it? Obviously, then, I don't need to defend it.
Is this original material, Mathew? If it is, then it forms part of your
post. It is not "included text", it is "part of Mathew's post". And it should
be defended accordingly.
>> Mathew, if you will be so kind, could you please indicate which of the
>> following statements are true, and which are false:
>>
>> A) At the time you posted your article to news.admin, you didn't
>> believe that <1992Feb22....@tygra.Michigan.COM> was a
>> forgery.
>
>True.
Wow! A trace of candor...
>> B) After some painful education, you now acknowledge a high probability
>> that the article was in fact a forgery.
>
>False.
Get a clue.
>> C) You intend on apologizing to John Palmer for your mistake, and any
>> incremental damage that you may have done to his reputation.
>
>False. I couldn't damage John Palmer's reputation if I attacked it with a
>meat-cleaver.
Then an apology won't HELP either, right? Why are you quibbling so?
>> D) You intend on apologizing to the readership of news.admin for
>> wasting their bandwidth responding to a forgery as if it were the
>> real thing.
>
>False. It hasn't been shown to be a forgery.
It hasn't been shown to be genuine, either, and if you ask the alleged author,
I predict he'll deny posting it. That's prima facie evidence of forgery.
>There are at least two pitfalls awaiting you in the answers above. Please go
>ahead and fall into them, we could do with the amusement.
Grow up.
- Kevin
John Henders
>
>Well, like most arguments with Kevin Darcy this one has rapidly reached the
>point where we discover that the language he speaks is only superficially
>similar to English.
>ke...@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:>
>
>> D) You intend on apologizing to the readership of news.admin for
>> wasting their bandwidth responding to a forgery as if it were the
>> real thing.
>
You mean you're hassling Matthew about _one_ posting to news.admin
that may have wasted some bandwidth. Hypocrisy and cluelessness at the
same time.
--
John Henders jhen...@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca
I think your "evolutionary scale" needs an adjustment. Either
that, or you've got your thumb on it. -> (le...@apple.com)
Kevin Darcy
>In <HN03HB...@mantis.co.uk>, From A to B writes:
>>ke...@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:>
>>
>>> D) You intend on apologizing to the readership of news.admin for
>>> wasting their bandwidth responding to a forgery as if it were the
>>> real thing.
>
> You mean you're hassling Matthew about _one_ posting to news.admin
>that may have wasted some bandwidth.
(I assume you mean "Mathew", rather than "Matthew", right? We're not talking
about weemba here...)
Yes, I am "hassling" Mathew about wasting news.admin bandwidth. He is a past
master of wasting news.admin bandwidth, from whining and complaining about
C News' error reporting (a set of HUGE threads which raged for weeks), to
whining and complaining about selling news on CD/ROM (a recent HUGE thread
which raged for weeks). Mathew runs the gamut of news.admin bandwidth-usage,
as they say, "From A to B".
Has he EVER apologized for ANY of the tens or hundreds of kilobytes of
news.admin bandwidth he has wasted with his impotent, fruitless complaining???
Not that I've seen.
Maybe this "forgery" fiasco would be a good start for Mathew. Get him to
start CONSIDERING the consequences of his stupid diatribes BEFORE he posts
them.
At least, it's worth a try...
- Kevin
John Henders
>In article <H.ZxSj...@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca> jhen...@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca writes:
>>>ke...@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:>
>>>
>>>> D) You intend on apologizing to the readership of news.admin for
>>>> wasting their bandwidth responding to a forgery as if it were the
>>>> real thing.
>>
>> You mean you're hassling Matthew about _one_ posting to news.admin
>>that may have wasted some bandwidth.
>
>about weemba here...)
Yes, as an aside, sorry Mathew, I usually remember you're missing a 't'.
>Yes, I am "hassling" Mathew about wasting news.admin bandwidth. He is a past
>master of wasting news.admin bandwidth, from whining and complaining about
>C News' error reporting (a set of HUGE threads which raged for weeks), to
>whining and complaining about selling news on CD/ROM (a recent HUGE thread
>which raged for weeks). Mathew runs the gamut of news.admin bandwidth-usage,
>as they say, "From A to B".
>
Umm, this was the point, Kevin. Complaining about Mathew posting one
article is like worry about your tap dripping during a flood.
>Has he EVER apologized for ANY of the tens or hundreds of kilobytes of
>news.admin bandwidth he has wasted with his impotent, fruitless complaining???
>Not that I've seen.
>
Have you apogized for the thread you inflicted on news.admin which
generated mostly replies like the following.
In article <rdippold.701121829@cancun>, rdippold@cancun (Ron Dippold) writes:
Both. Of. You. Get. Lost.
>Maybe this "forgery" fiasco would be a good start for Mathew. Get him to
>start CONSIDERING the consequences of his stupid diatribes BEFORE he posts
>them.
>
>At least, it's worth a try...
>
I'm sure many news.admin regulars appreciate your efforts on their
behalf.
James G Keegan Jr
-> In <HN03HB...@mantis.co.uk>, From A to B writes:
-> >Well, like most arguments with Kevin Darcy this one has
-> >rapidly reached the point where we discover that the language
-> >he speaks is only superficially similar to English.
->
-> >ke...@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:>
-> >
-> >> D) You intend on apologizing to the readership of
-> >> news.admin for wasting their bandwidth responding to a
-> >> forgery as if it were the real thing.
->
-> You mean you're hassling Matthew about _one_ posting to
-> news.admin that may have wasted some bandwidth. Hypocrisy and
-> cluelessness at the same time.
for kevin, that's an improvement.
--
----
charter member ... T.S.A.K.C.
Kevin Darcy
>In <1992Mar28.1...@rotag.mi.org>, Kevin Darcy writes:
>
>>news.admin bandwidth he has wasted with his impotent, fruitless complaining???
>>Not that I've seen.
>>
> Have you apogized for the thread you inflicted on news.admin which
>generated mostly replies like the following.
>
>In article <rdippold.701121829@cancun>, rdippold@cancun (Ron Dippold) writes:
>Both. Of. You. Get. Lost.
I did not "inflict" [sic] that thread on news.admin. Keegan did. Both of my
replies to Keegan in that thread consisted of terse attempts to redirect the
discussion back to alt.flame. In the same circumstances, what would _you_
have done differently, John?
- Kevin
John Henders
>
>I did not "inflict" [sic] that thread on news.admin. Keegan did. Both of my
>replies to Keegan in that thread consisted of terse attempts to redirect the
>discussion back to alt.flame. In the same circumstances, what would _you_
>have done differently, John?
Well, Kevin, I never would have been in the situation in the first
place, and, as a regular reader of news.admin, I distinctly recall you
responding to more than just Keegan's posts there, mostly with
justifications for why the thread was appropriate to news.admin. Isn't
the infamous "netcop" post that gets reposted here weekly your
justification for continuing the discussion on news.admin, due to your
interpretation of news.admin's charter?
And incidendently, why the (sic) after inflict? This, if I remember
an old Clay Bond posting correctly, is meant to denote that there is
some doubt that the word has been used or spelled correctly. However,
as the definition of the word with that spelling is " to impose, or to
afflict with something painful", I'd say the usage was correct, and the
spelling certainly is, though I know you woudn't stoop to spelling flames.
From A to B
> In article <HN03HB...@mantis.co.uk> mat...@mantis.co.uk (From A to B) writ
> >ke...@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
> >> In article <wFNkHB...@mantis.co.uk> mat...@mantis.co.uk (From A to B) w
> >> >ke...@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
> >> >> In article <yTHDHB...@mantis.co.uk> mat...@mantis.co.uk (From A to
> >> >> >mentioned POSTING a forgery. You're certainly accusing me of POSTING
[...]
> >> Yes. But "posting" != "containing a copy".
> >
> >I see. So if I post an article containing a copy of, say, a poem by e.e.
> >cummings, then I am not posting a poem by e.e. cummings.
>
> That would be an imprecise use of language. Properly speaking, it can only
> be said that the poem is CONTAINED in your post.
Right. So what evidence do you have that Lefty was trying to be pedantically
precise rather than just speaking normal everyday English?
> >So if I include the following piece of text:
> >
> ># Kevin Darcy is obviously attempting to weasel out of being shown to be
> ># wrong again, by the usual method of rapidly re-defining words used in his
> ># earlier postings.
> >
> >Then I'm not posting it? Obviously, then, I don't need to defend it.
>
> Is this original material, Mathew?
In what sense, Mr. Precise? It's not original in that it's stylistically
derivative of many postings I see in alt.flame.
And it was "included text", included from another file, so surely it was
CONTAINED rather than posted?
And even if it wasn't "contained" then, it's certainly "contained" now, since
it's now being quoted from an old article.
> >> B) After some painful education, you now acknowledge a high probability
> >> that the article was in fact a forgery.
> >
> >False.
>
> Get a clue.
Dearie me. Blithely assuming that it's the second clause which makes the
statement false, eh?
> >> D) You intend on apologizing to the readership of news.admin for
> >> wasting their bandwidth responding to a forgery as if it were the
> >> real thing.
> >
> >False. It hasn't been shown to be a forgery.
>
> It hasn't been shown to be genuine, either, and if you ask the alleged author
> I predict he'll deny posting it.
If you ask John Palmer about ANYTHING embarrassing found on Usenet he'll deny
posting it.
> >There are at least two pitfalls awaiting you in the answers above. Please g
> >ahead and fall into them, we could do with the amusement.
>
> Grow up.
Aww, do you only do the clown act when you're not warned about the banana
skins?
John Henders
>replies to Keegan in that thread consisted of terse attempts to redirect the
>discussion back to alt.flame. In the same circumstances, what would _you_
>have done differently, John?
>
> - Kevin
Well, the following posts have a different story to tell, it would
appear. First we see an article from Keegan, posted only to talk.abortion.
From keegan@acm (James G. Keegan Jr.) Mon Dec 16 20:04:55 1991
From: kee...@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Subject: open message to kebbin
Keywords: too dumb to learn from experience
Message-ID: <0c1q=h...@rpi.edu>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Date: 14 Dec 91 01:14:42 GMT
Organization: The Voice of Fate
Originator: kee...@acm.rpi.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: acm.acm.rpi.edu
Now in your followup, some how, not only has news.admin been added
to the Newgroups line, but so has alt.config, and alt.child-support. Now
the header only shows one reference, the previous article from Mr.Keegan.
So the big question in my mind is: Who added these groups?
Now in your article quoted above, <1992Mar29.0...@rotag.mi.org>
you write that you "did not "inflict" [sic](sic) that thread on news.admin
Keegan did. Somehow, from even a slight examination of the facts, it would
appear that you are lying.
From kevin@cfctech (Kevin Darcy) Tue Dec 17 19:24:44 1991
From: ke...@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,news.admin,alt.config,alt.child-support
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Subject: Re: open message to kebbin
Keywords: too dumb to learn from experience
Message-ID: <1991Dec15.2...@cfctech.cfc.com>
Date: 15 Dec 91 20:13:30 GMT
References: <0c1q=h...@rpi.edu>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Organization: Chrysler Financial Corp., Southfield, MI
In fact, a later article from JKeegan, replying to an enquiry as to
why the thread was on news.admin at all, he even requests discussion
about why the thread is there be taken to e-mail.
Article 14878 of news.admin:
Newsgroups: news.admin
Path: rpi!acm.rpi.edu!keegan
From: kee...@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: open message to kebbin
Message-ID: <7c9...@rpi.edu>
Keywords: too dumb to learn from experience -- NO KIDDING
Nntp-Posting-Host: acm.acm.rpi.edu
Organization: The Voice of Fate
References: <2...@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> <1991Dec19.0...@cfctech.cfc.com> <2...@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>
Date: 22 Dec 91 01:43:41 GMT
Lines: 32
t...@pitt.edu (Terry J. Wood) writes:
>Could you possibly summarize the "problem"? All I saw was a group of postings
>that appeared to be better oriented to alt.flame.
to which Mr. Keegan replied:
send email if you want more data on this. i don't think kevin's
oddities are a hot topic for news.admin.
So, in light of this evidence, would you like to clarify how it was
that you were dragged into news.admin, as well as a few other groups as
well, when in fact, the headers prove that you were the instigator of this
ridiculous crossposting?
Kevin Darcy
>In <1992Mar29.0...@rotag.mi.org>, Kevin Darcy writes:
>>
>>I did not "inflict" [sic] that thread on news.admin. Keegan did. Both of my
>>replies to Keegan in that thread consisted of terse attempts to redirect the
>>discussion back to alt.flame. In the same circumstances, what would _you_
>>have done differently, John?
>
> Well, Kevin, I never would have been in the situation in the first
Oh, really, how do you prevent malicious immature little brats like
Keegan from crossposting your inflammatory threads from alt.flame to
news.admin??? What's your secret? Does it involve Orbiting Mind Control
Lasers, by any chance??
>...and, as a regular reader of news.admin, I distinctly recall you
>responding to more than just Keegan's posts there, mostly with
>justifications for why the thread was appropriate to news.admin.
That was months ago, and about a totally different issue. If you wish to
dredge up ancient history, please demonstrate the relevance first.
> And incidendently, why the (sic) after inflict? This, if I remember
>an old Clay Bond posting correctly, is meant to denote that there is
>some doubt that the word has been used or spelled correctly.
Clay Bondage is full of shit, as usual. "Sic" serves the _general_ purpose of
highlighting a word, or sometimes a whole phrase, as being LITERALLY QUOTED.
It therefore has many uses; not just the one Clayhead ascribes to it. It CAN
be used to highlight the fact that the original was misspelled (in case there
is a doubt as to whether the person quoting made a transcription error). But,
it can also be used to, for example, clarify the meaning of double quotes.
In my sentence, it would not have been 100% clear whether I was using double
quotes as "scare quotes", or as literal quote indicators. The use of "[sic]"
forced the issue.
>However,
>as the definition of the word with that spelling is " to impose, or to
>afflict with something painful", I'd say the usage was correct, and the
>spelling certainly is, though I know you woudn't stoop to spelling flames.
"Stooping" is in the mind of the beholder, John. Spelling flames have their
place. Mostly I use them to deflate pretentious windbags, or, my favorite,
people who have recently launched a spelling flame of their own. But, most
of the time, spelling errors, like the one you just made (probably
intentionally), don't really bother me to the point of provoking flames.
- Kevin
John Henders
>In article <H.CpiV...@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca> jhen...@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca writes:
>>In <1992Mar29.0...@rotag.mi.org>, Kevin Darcy writes:
>
>Now you're starting to get on my nerves with your lies, you little shit. Let's
>examine the original claim, shall we?
>
Tsk, tsk Kevin. Let it go on the record that you are the first to be
reduced to scoolyard name calling.
>You queried:
>
>"Have you apogized for the thread you inflicted on news.admin which
> ^^^
> generated mostly replies like the following.
>
>"In article <rdippold.701121829@cancun>, rdippold@cancun (Ron Dippold) writes:
> Both. Of. You. Get. Lost."
> Date: 28 Mar 92 20:13:18 GMT
> Message-ID: <H.9AEv...@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca>
>
>I note your use of the definite article "the" indicating that ONE AND ONLY ONE
>THREAD was being discussed.
>
Now Kevin, if you're trying to claim that thread's don't mutate and
change Subject: lines, you must be reading a different net than I am.
Or are we arguing that only a " Strictly Literal " interpretation of the
one thread with a single subject lime can be called a thread?
>Date: 20 Mar 92 20:03:49 GMT
> ^^^^^^^^^
>Article-I.D.: cancun.rdippold.701121829
>Okay, so we're talking about some thread occurring in March of 1992, right?
>
>Now, let's continue with your article...
>
>>First we see an article from Keegan, posted only to talk.abortion.
>> From keegan@acm (James G. Keegan Jr.) Mon Dec 16 20:04:55 1991
>> From: kee...@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
>> Newsgroups: talk.abortion
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Subject: open message to kebbin
>> Keywords: too dumb to learn from experience
>> Message-ID: <0c1q=h...@rpi.edu>
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Date: 14 Dec 91 01:14:42 GMT
>
>WHOA! TIME OUT! Are you trying to tell me that THIS SAME DAMN THREAD RAN
>CONTINUOUSLY FROM MID-DECEMBER 1991 TO MID-MARCH 1992?!?!?!? Afraid not, dude.
>
What's so shocking about that, Kevin. You've been involved in threads
running well more than a mere three months, as any regular reader of
alt.flame could hardly fail to notice.
>Methinks you're referring to a -different- thread now, not "the thread" [sic]
>you referred to earlier. Is that true, John? Is this a NEW claim, and, if so,
>do you retract your earlier claim?
>
Well, first I notice you've left out the second article, clearly
following up this article, showing your addition of news.admin to the
newsgroups line. Now you also deny that this discussion, which annoyed
readers of news.admin for several months, wasn't the same thread because
it had a different subject line. More of your " Strict Literalism " in
action, I guess.
Oh yes, re: the "little shit" comment. I know you are, but what am I?
Lynn Alford
>In article <H.9KkG...@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca> jhen...@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca writes:
>>In <1992Mar29.0...@rotag.mi.org>, Kevin Darcy writes:
>>>
>>>I did not "inflict" [sic] that thread on news.admin. Keegan did. Both of my
>> And incidendently, why the (sic) after inflict? This, if I remember
>>an old Clay Bond posting correctly, is meant to denote that there is
>>some doubt that the word has been used or spelled correctly.
>Clay Bondage is full of shit, as usual. "Sic" serves the _general_ purpose of
>highlighting a word, or sometimes a whole phrase, as being LITERALLY QUOTED.
Half right and half wrong. Batting about normal, I'd say.
The correct use of the sic is to indicate a phrase is being literally
quoted. This much is correct. But the usage of it is normally (i.e., by
literate people and not KD) limited to times when, in the opinion of the
person doing the quoting, there is something questionable in the quote.
I have frequently seen it used to indicate a mispelling, or a misplaced
word or phrase in a literal quote. It is not used to highlight a word
or phrase.
>It therefore has many uses; not just the one Clayhead ascribes to it. It CAN
>be used to highlight the fact that the original was misspelled (in case there
>is a doubt as to whether the person quoting made a transcription error). But,
>it can also be used to, for example, clarify the meaning of double quotes.
Not in any writing guide that I have read. Nor does my Britannica
dictionary agree with you. Do you have any sources for this
information?
Lynn
T.S.A.K.C.
--
The screen of my Mac doesn't really resemble my desktop despite being designed
to support the desktop metaphor (1), and the windows on my terminal bear only
the slightest relation to the contraptions that lets drafts into my office.
Stroustrup. 1) I wouldn't be able to tolerate such a mess on my screen anyway.
Barry Schwartz
ke...@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
]Spelling flames have their
]place. Mostly I use them to deflate pretentious windbags ....
*POP*fwhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...
Susan Garvin
whshhhh.
Susan
TSAKC
Kevin Darcy
>In <1992Apr2.0...@rotag.mi.org>, Kevin Darcy writes:
>>In article <H.CpiV...@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca> jhen...@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca writes:
>>>In <1992Mar29.0...@rotag.mi.org>, Kevin Darcy writes:
>
>>"Have you apogized for the thread you inflicted on news.admin which
>> ^^^
>> generated mostly replies like the following.
>>
>>"In article <rdippold.701121829@cancun>, rdippold@cancun (Ron Dippold) writes:
>> Both. Of. You. Get. Lost."
>> Date: 28 Mar 92 20:13:18 GMT
>> Message-ID: <H.9AEv...@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca>
>>
>>I note your use of the definite article "the" indicating that ONE AND ONLY ONE
>>THREAD was being discussed.
>>
> Now Kevin, if you're trying to claim that thread's don't mutate and
>change Subject: lines, you must be reading a different net than I am.
(Mutation, piffle. The only mutant around here is YOU.)
I claim that *THIS* particular thread which you cited started on Mar 17, 1992.
The Message-ID: of the first article in the thread was
<1992Mar17.0...@rotag.mi.org>, if you want to look it up. In other
words, the "support" (and I use the term loosely) you provided for your claim,
i.e. a post of mine from Dec 16, 1991, SUBSTANTIALLY predated the thread in
question, and was therefore immaterial to your claim.
Support your claim or retract it, please. If you want to discuss the threads
from December/January, I'll be happy to oblige you. But those are clearly
DIFFERENT threads from the one on which you originally based your claim of
"infliction".
- Kevin
James G. Keegan Jr.
ke...@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> In article <H._HOg...@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca> jhen...@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca writes:
-> >In <1992Apr2.0...@rotag.mi.org>, Kevin Darcy writes:
-> >>In article <H.CpiV...@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca> jhen...@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca writes:
-> >>>In <1992Mar29.0...@rotag.mi.org>, Kevin Darcy writes:
-> >
-> >>"Have you apogized for the thread you inflicted on news.admin which
-> >> ^^^
-> >> generated mostly replies like the following.
-> >>
-> >>"In article <rdippold.701121829@cancun>, rdippold@cancun (Ron Dippold) writes:
-> >> Both. Of. You. Get. Lost."
-> >> Date: 28 Mar 92 20:13:18 GMT
-> >> Message-ID: <H.9AEv...@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca>
-> >>
-> >>I note your use of the definite article "the" indicating
-> >>that ONE AND ONLY ONE THREAD was being discussed.
-> >>
-> > Now Kevin, if you're trying to claim that thread's don't
-> >mutate and change Subject: lines, you must be reading a
-> >different net than I am.
->
-> (Mutation, piffle. The only mutant around here is YOU.)
->
-> Support your claim or retract it, please.
like you always do, eh kebbie? john is correct in his reasoning.
what are you trying to do anyway: claim that threads don't mutate
and change subject lines? please.
--
charter member ... T.S.A.K.C.
John Henders
>In article <H._HOg...@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca> jhen...@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca writes:
>>In <1992Apr2.0...@rotag.mi.org>, Kevin Darcy writes:
>>>
>>>I note your use of the definite article "the" indicating that ONE AND ONLY ONE
>>>THREAD was being discussed.
>>>
>> Now Kevin, if you're trying to claim that thread's don't mutate and
>>change Subject: lines, you must be reading a different net than I am.
>
>(Mutation, piffle. The only mutant around here is YOU.)
>
Well, how do you explain the following?
Subject: Re: GAY & LESBIAN DISCRIMINATION IS FUCKING HILARIOUS
Subject: Re: GAY & LESBIAN DISCRIMINATION...
Subject: Re: GAY & LESBIAN DISCRIMINATION...(What asshole started this thread anyway?)
These three subject lines were taken out of the current alt.flame topic
list. It would seem obvious that they all started from a common topic and
the Subject line was changed by various posters. That, to anyone not
obcessively literal minded, would be consided the mutation of a thread.
Now, on another topic, so far in this thread, to be specific, the one
running under the Subject line at the top of the present post, you have, at
various times, called me a " little shit" and a "mutant", while I have merely
pointed appearant contradictions in your postings out to you. So in light
of your statement, quoted below...
"I provide all of the necessary evidence for every claim
I make, or retract it."
Kevin Darcy
<1992Feb11.0...@rotag.mi.org>
I would appreciate either an apology, a retraction, or some proof
of your allegations.
Of course, having read other postings by you dealing with other
participants in this newsgroup, I actually expect none of the above, but
it does tend to further the appearant contradiction between what you
profess to do, and what you actually do.
Come to think of it, that's one of the definitions of hypocrite.
Kevin Darcy
>In <1992Apr10....@rotag.mi.org>, Kevin Darcy writes:
>>In article <H._HOg...@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca> jhen...@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca writes:
>>> Now Kevin, if you're trying to claim that thread's don't mutate and
>>>change Subject: lines, you must be reading a different net than I am.
>>
>>(Mutation, piffle. The only mutant around here is YOU.)
>>
> Well, how do you explain the following?
>
>Subject: Re: GAY & LESBIAN DISCRIMINATION IS FUCKING HILARIOUS
>Subject: Re: GAY & LESBIAN DISCRIMINATION...
>Subject: Re: GAY & LESBIAN DISCRIMINATION...(What asshole started this thread anyway?)
>
> These three subject lines were taken out of the current alt.flame topic
>list. It would seem obvious that they all started from a common topic and
>the Subject line was changed by various posters. That, to anyone not
>obcessively literal minded, would be consided the mutation of a thread.
Geez, what an imbecile ... I wasn't disputing that SOME threads mutate, I was
disputing the assertion that THE PARTICULAR THREAD ABOUT WHICH YOU LIED had
"mutated" as much as you claimed. The article you produced in support of your
claim was posted over THREE MONTHS before the first article of the thread in
question. This "mutation" tangent therefore appears to be nothing more than a
smokescreen to hide your lie.
>... you have, at
>various times, called me a " little shit" and a "mutant", while I have merely
>pointed appearant contradictions in your postings out to you.
Aw, poor ba-by! Mommie kiss it better...
You can shove you "appearant [sic] contradictions" firmly up your rectum,
John Boy. They don't impress me a bit.
>So in light
>of your statement, quoted below...
>
> "I provide all of the necessary evidence for every claim
> I make, or retract it."
> Kevin Darcy
> <1992Feb11.0...@rotag.mi.org>
>
> I would appreciate either an apology, a retraction, or some proof
>of your allegations.
"Appreciate" anything you want, John Boy, but no "proof" is necessary in this
case. "Little shit" and "mutant" are simply insulting epithets in common
usage; they're not "claims" or "allegations". Even a mutant little shit like
you should know that.
- Kevin
John Henders
>
>You can shove you "appearant [sic] contradictions" firmly up your rectum,
>John Boy. They don't impress me a bit.
>
ears apart is a hammer, Darcy. It's funny how anyone who disagrees
with your imagined [sick] understanding of events is branded a liar.
The only thing that keeps you from being boring is the amusement
derived by poking you with sticks.
James G Keegan Jr
misstatements, kebbie fires back ......
ke...@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> jhen...@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca writes:
-> You can shove you "appearant [sic] contradictions" firmly up
-> your rectum, John Boy. They don't impress me a bit.
->
-> >So in light
-> >of your statement, quoted below...
-> >
-> > "I provide all of the necessary evidence for every claim
-> > I make, or retract it."
-> > Kevin Darcy
-> > <1992Feb11.0...@rotag.mi.org>
-> >
-> > I would appreciate either an apology, a retraction, or
-> >some proof of your allegations.
->
-> "Appreciate" anything you want, John Boy, but no "proof" is
-> necessary in this case.
hmmmmm. this looks like kebbie doesn't want to support his claims
as he appears to claim the right to decide just what proof is
necessary. does this surprise anyone?
"Kevin, your own credibility may continue to decrease
with longevity, but that's not the case for everyone."
Jeff d'Arcy <jda...@encore.com>
<15...@encore.Encore.COM>
Kevin Darcy
>
>...It's funny how anyone who disagrees
No, I only brand LIARS as liars. You made a false statement about me allegedly
"inflicting" [sic] a thread on news.admin which I in fact never inflicted, and
which I conspicuously tried to redirect to alt.flame. Then, you attempted to
support that statement by dredging up an unrelated quote from over 3 months
prior to the thread in question. That not only compounded your lie, but made
you a "backpedaler" as well.
Now, if you would kindly retract the statement you HAVE NOT supported and
in fact CANNOT support, then we can discuss the December news.admin thread(s)
on an independent basis, and maybe something productive can be achieved here.
Otherwise, stock insults are all you're likely to get from me.
- Kevin
James G Keegan Jr
-> >with your imagined [sick] understanding of events is branded a liar.
->
-> No, I only brand LIARS as liars. You made a false statement
-> about me allegedly "inflicting" [sic] a thread on news.admin
-> which I in fact never inflicted, and which I conspicuously
-> tried to redirect to alt.flame.
kevin, john made a statement which he supported with hard
evidence. in doing so, he exposed you as both a liar and a
hypocrite. his exposure was no big deal. you've been exposed as
worse quite frequently. why are you beating this dead horse and
arguing a point you've publically lost.
-> Then, you attempted to support that statement by dredging up
-> an unrelated quote from over 3 months prior to the thread in
-> question. That not only compounded your lie, but made you a
-> "backpedaler" as well.
no. it demonstrated that john researched his case and presented
his evidence. as it happens, his evidence was quite strong. i
don't think many regular readers/posters will have much doubt
about who is to be believed; you or john.
Kevin Darcy
>ke...@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>-> jhen...@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca writes:
>-> >...It's funny how anyone who disagrees
>-> >with your imagined [sick] understanding of events is branded a liar.
>->
>-> No, I only brand LIARS as liars. You made a false statement
>-> about me allegedly "inflicting" [sic] a thread on news.admin
>-> which I in fact never inflicted, and which I conspicuously
>-> tried to redirect to alt.flame.
>
>kevin, john made a statement which he supported with hard
>evidence.
Hard evidence? "Hard to imagine something more flimsy" is more like it...
>-> Then, you attempted to support that statement by dredging up
>-> an unrelated quote from over 3 months prior to the thread in
>-> question. That not only compounded your lie, but made you a
>-> "backpedaler" as well.
>
>no. it demonstrated that john researched his case and presented
>his evidence. as it happens, his evidence was quite strong.
So is a skunk's odor, in approximately the same sense. Reread what I
said, Keegan: THE ARTICLE HE PRODUCED IN "SUPPORT" OF HIS CLAIM *PREDATED*
THE THREAD IN QUESTION BY MORE THAN 3 MONTHS. His "support" has been duly
flushed down the commode at this point.
By the way, don't you consider it a "conflict of interests" to be defending
John Boy here? After all, if what I am saying is true (and of course you
know it to be so), then it follows that the blame for the "heinous crime" of
which he is accusing me in actuality falls on *you*???
I suppose that such a fine, moral, upstanding pillar of the community like
you wouldn't let a little inconveeeeeenient thing like conflict of interests
slow down your vendetta, eh?
- Kevin
James G Keegan Jr
-> james g keegan jr <kee...@crd.ge.com> writes:
-> >ke...@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
-> >-> jhen...@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca writes:
-> >-> >...It's funny how anyone who disagrees
-> >-> >with your imagined [sick] understanding of events is branded a liar.
-> >->
-> >-> No, I only brand LIARS as liars. You made a false
-> >-> on news.admin which I in fact never inflicted, and which I
-> >-> conspicuously tried to redirect to alt.flame.
-> >
-> >kevin, john made a statement which he supported with hard
-> >evidence.
->
-> Hard evidence? "Hard to imagine something more flimsy" is more
-> like it...
john's statement, supported by posted evidence, proved that you
had lied, yet again. stop whining about it. you've simply been
exposed once more.
-> >-> Then, you attempted to support that statement by dredging
-> >-> up an unrelated quote from over 3 months prior to the
-> >-> thread in question. That not only compounded your lie, but
-> >-> made you a "backpedaler" as well.
-> >
-> >no. it demonstrated that john researched his case and
-> >presented his evidence. as it happens, his evidence was quite
-> >strong.
->
-> THE ARTICLE HE PRODUCED IN "SUPPORT" OF HIS CLAIM *PREDATED*
-> THE THREAD IN QUESTION BY MORE THAN 3 MONTHS.
so what. the articles he posted confirmed what he said and showed
you to be lying. what's your problem with that? it happens to you
all the time.
-> By the way, don't you consider it a "conflict of interests" to
-> be defending John Boy here?
no one is defending john, kevin. john simply demonstrated that
you don't mind making false accusations, but that you whine and
cry when those false accusations are exposed. john's evidence was
compelling and quite clear.
simply stated, you got caught, again.
"Mr. Darcy, your behaviour is that of a trained poodle.
Dangle a bone before your nose and you predictably jump
through the hoop. While this is entertaining for the
short term, it does become monotonous since it is
apparent your versatility is limited and your
obdurateness complete."
Linda Birmingham
<91176.1126...@Ryerson.CA>
Kevin Darcy
>ke...@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>-> james g keegan jr <kee...@crd.ge.com> writes:
>
>-> >-> Then, you attempted to support that statement by dredging
>-> >-> up an unrelated quote from over 3 months prior to the
>-> >-> thread in question. That not only compounded your lie, but
>-> >-> made you a "backpedaler" as well.
>-> >
>-> >no. it demonstrated that john researched his case and
>-> >presented his evidence. as it happens, his evidence was quite
>-> >strong.
>->
>-> THE ARTICLE HE PRODUCED IN "SUPPORT" OF HIS CLAIM *PREDATED*
>-> THE THREAD IN QUESTION BY MORE THAN 3 MONTHS.
>
John Boy made a statement _specifically_ about thread X. He then tried to
support his statement by reproducing an article from thread Y. Is this what
you call "support"?!?! I call it "attempted fraud". Hmmm... no _wonder_
you're defending him...
>-> By the way, don't you consider it a "conflict of interests" to
>-> be defending John Boy here?
>
>no one is defending john, kevin.
Uh, yeah, right. Whom do you think you're fooling...?
- Kevin
James G Keegan Jr
-> >-> james g keegan jr <kee...@crd.ge.com> writes:
-> >-> >ke...@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes [to John Boy]:
-> >
-> >-> >-> Then, you attempted to support that statement by dredging
-> >-> >-> up an unrelated quote from over 3 months prior to the
-> >-> >-> thread in question. That not only compounded your lie, but
-> >-> >-> made you a "backpedaler" as well.
-> >-> >
-> >-> >no. it demonstrated that john researched his case and
-> >-> >strong.
-> >->
-> >
-> >so what. the articles he posted confirmed what he said and
-> >showed you to be lying. what's your problem with that? it
-> >happens to you all the time.
-> John Boy made a statement ....
john's statement, supported by posted evidence, proved that you
had lied, yet again. stop whining about it. you've simply been
exposed once more.
-> >-> By the way, don't you consider it a "conflict of interests" to
-> >-> be defending John Boy here?
-> >no one is defending john, kevin. john simply demonstrated
-> >that you don't mind making false accusations, but that you
-> >whine and cry when those false accusations are exposed.
-> >john's evidence was compelling and quite clear.
-> >simply stated, you got caught, again.
->
-> Uh, yeah, right.
i'm glad you agree. then again, what choice did you have? after
all john supported his statements with facts.
"Kevin, your own credibility may continue to decrease
with longevity, but that's not the case for everyone."
Jeff d'Arcy <jda...@encore.com>
<15...@encore.Encore.COM>
Kevin Darcy
>>
>>I did not "inflict" [sic] that thread on news.admin. Keegan did. Both of my
>>replies to Keegan in that thread consisted of terse attempts to redirect the
>>discussion back to alt.flame. In the same circumstances, what would _you_
>>have done differently, John?
>>
>> - Kevin
>
> Well, the following posts have a different story to tell, it would
>appear.
Now you're starting to get on my nerves with your lies, you little shit. Let's
examine the original claim, shall we?
You queried:
"Have you apogized for the thread you inflicted on news.admin which
^^^
generated mostly replies like the following.
"In article <rdippold.701121829@cancun>, rdippold@cancun (Ron Dippold) writes:
Both. Of. You. Get. Lost."
Date: 28 Mar 92 20:13:18 GMT
Message-ID: <H.9AEv...@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca>
I note your use of the definite article "the" indicating that ONE AND ONLY ONE
THREAD was being discussed.
Now, let's look at the headers of Mr. Dippold's article, shall we?
---
Path: rotag!heifetz!yale.edu!spool.mu.edu!uunet!walter!qualcom.qualcomm.com!cancun!rdippold
From: rdip...@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: darcy replays one of his old lies (was Re: Another Keegan Lie from the File)
Message-ID: <rdippold.701121829@cancun>
Date: 20 Mar 92 20:03:49 GMT
^^^^^^^^^
Article-I.D.: cancun.rdippold.701121829
References: <1992Mar18.2...@cfctech.cfc.com> <28...@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> <1992Mar20....@rotag.mi.org> <1992Mar20....@sunhillo.uucp>
Sender: ne...@qualcomm.com
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Lines: 21
Nntp-Posting-Host: cancun.qualcomm.com
---
Okay, so we're talking about some thread occurring in March of 1992, right?
Now, let's continue with your article...
>First we see an article from Keegan, posted only to talk.abortion.
>
>
> From keegan@acm (James G. Keegan Jr.) Mon Dec 16 20:04:55 1991
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> From: kee...@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
> Newsgroups: talk.abortion
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Subject: open message to kebbin
> Keywords: too dumb to learn from experience
> Message-ID: <0c1q=h...@rpi.edu>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Date: 14 Dec 91 01:14:42 GMT
> Organization: The Voice of Fate
> Originator: kee...@acm.rpi.edu
> Nntp-Posting-Host: acm.acm.rpi.edu
WHOA! TIME OUT! Are you trying to tell me that THIS SAME DAMN THREAD RAN
CONTINUOUSLY FROM MID-DECEMBER 1991 TO MID-MARCH 1992?!?!?!? Afraid not, dude.
Methinks you're referring to a -different- thread now, not "the thread" [sic]
you referred to earlier. Is that true, John? Is this a NEW claim, and, if so,
do you retract your earlier claim?
- Kevin