Paterson bank records.

3 views
Skip to first unread message

Clyde B

unread,
Mar 19, 2004, 8:39:43 AM3/19/04
to

"suzieflame" <Suzie...@yachtmail.com> wrote in message
news:97bh5019lo02evc39...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 20:49:27 +0100,
> boudinman@(removethispart)operamail.com wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 17:15:40 -0000, "Glenallan"
> ><robert...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>"Duke of URL" <macbenahATkdsiDOTnet> wrote in message
> >>news:105gh3p...@corp.supernews.com...
> >>> In news:023g505ldbfi903q2...@4ax.com,
> >>> Suzieflame <suzie...@yachtmail.com> radiated into the WorldWideWait:
> >>>
> >>> > Soon available here. Watch this space.
> >>>
> >>> Suzie, I have to condemn any such practice. Posting people's private
> >>> information on the web is very wrong.
> >>> In fact, it is illegal in many jurisdictions, falling under the
> >>> Extortion & Terrorism Laws.
> >>> --
> >>> From the one-and-only Holy Moses®
> >>
> >>
> >>Apart from that, I find my own bank records boring as hell.
> >>I don't think his will be any more interesting.
> >>
> >>Nobody gives a shit.
> >>
> >>Glenallan
> >>---------
> >>
> >Seconded! This is Ed Zachery how I think.
> >At the end of my salary there is always a bit of a month left:-(
> >Give it a break Suzieflame dear. Maybe this man hurt you in some way I
> >dont know. But cant you just let it drop? This is too much
> >information. Please dont tell us of his love life or bank business.
> >Please now.
> >
> >Respectfully submitted.
> >
> >Peace,
> >
> >Jock
>
> Jock,
>
> You have asked in a polite and respectful manner, and I appreciate
> that.
>
> I cede to you request, but withold the right to reveal certain details
> regarding arrears if Paterson starts beating women again.

Again, it's "your" not "you". Fucksake.

What evidence do you have to suggest that this "Paterson" dude beats women?
He may very well beat women, and he deserves everything he gets if that's
the case. However, that doesn't mean that it's your business. And it
certainly doesn't mean that you have the right to post his fucking bank
records.

Out of curiosity, why are you privy to such information? Why do you insist
on using personal information to flame people? And more to the point, if you
are somehow by law granted access to information protected by The Data
Protection Act, you *must* be breaking the law by posting it all over
Usenet.

I'm not just referring to this thread, but to just about every thread you
get involved in. Have you no shame, you poisonous little harpy? It's only
Usenet, ffs.

> I fully intend to prosecute my war on wastrels thorugh other means
> however, and advise you to avail yourself of a decent killfile.

Comma before "however". Try and spell "through" properly, you moron.

> Respectfully,
> Suzie

My eyes! They're bleeding.

What a fucking horrific post.


suzieflame

unread,
Mar 20, 2004, 9:49:00 AM3/20/04
to
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 13:39:43 -0000, "Clyde B" <tehsa...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

How about a conviction for it, revealed by his former girlfriend and
admitted to by Paterson himself?

>He may very well beat women, and he deserves everything he gets if that's
>the case.

Indeed.

>Out of curiosity, why are you privy to such information?

It's public information, if you know were to look and how to ask.

>And more to the point, if you
>are somehow by law granted access to information protected by The Data
>Protection Act, you *must* be breaking the law by posting it all over
>Usenet.

LOL - how very insular.

>I'm not just referring to this thread, but to just about every thread you
>get involved in.

I would like you to condemn Micahel Paterson for his laughable threats
to denounce some anonymous Usenet entity as a child molester. If you
don't we'll all know your true colors.

>> I fully intend to prosecute my war on wastrels thorugh other means
>> however, and advise you to avail yourself of a decent killfile.
>
>Comma before "however". Try and spell "through" properly, you moron.

<snicker>

Like my .sig?

--
Suzieflame

"too bad your all illiterate fuckwits" - Philip Callan, noted
literacy expert and Microsoft Windows user.
"Think before hitting "Send", cuntlet; you will make a tit
of yourself less fequently" - Clyde B, fequent tit.

Clyde B

unread,
Mar 20, 2004, 10:09:35 AM3/20/04
to

"suzieflame" <Suzie...@yachtmail.com> wrote in message
news:55mo50dhbdkhv0n7p...@4ax.com...

> How about a conviction for it, revealed by his former girlfriend and
> admitted to by Paterson himself?

Like I said, he deserves everything he gets.

> >He may very well beat women, and he deserves everything he gets if that's
> >the case.
>
> Indeed.
>
> >Out of curiosity, why are you privy to such information?
>
> It's public information, if you know were to look and how to ask.

His bank records are "public information"?

Everyone else you've outed: was it all public information?

Again, why is it your business?

> >And more to the point, if you
> >are somehow by law granted access to information protected by The Data
> >Protection Act, you *must* be breaking the law by posting it all over
> >Usenet.
>
> LOL - how very insular.

It's legal to retrieve someones bank records and post them all over Usenet?
I have no idea where you live; therefore, I don't know which laws apply.

As far as I can see, however, neither of you possess any morals.

> >I'm not just referring to this thread, but to just about every thread you
> >get involved in.
>
> I would like you to condemn Micahel Paterson for his laughable threats
> to denounce some anonymous Usenet entity as a child molester. If you
> don't we'll all know your true colors.

I already did. I treat threats, empty or otherwise, with utter contempt. No
one can justify them.

This bullshit has no place on Usenet. And that's the last I'll say on the
subject.

You may continue tearing into each other.

> >> I fully intend to prosecute my war on wastrels thorugh other means
> >> however, and advise you to avail yourself of a decent killfile.
> >
> >Comma before "however". Try and spell "through" properly, you moron.
>
> <snicker>
>
> Like my .sig?

Yes, that's a nice typo you picked up on.

It smacks of desperation, though, don't you think?


Clyde B

unread,
Mar 20, 2004, 5:10:16 PM3/20/04
to

"JackieMulheron" <jackiem...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040320091827...@mb-m04.aol.com...
> In article <c3fndi$271cb3$1...@ID-183756.news.uni-berlin.de>, "Clyde B"
> <tehsa...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> >"JackieMulheron" <jackiem...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:20040319144126...@mb-m06.aol.com...
> >> In article <c3et75$26978b$1...@ID-183756.news.uni-berlin.de>, "Clyde B"

> >> <tehsa...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >>
> >> >And more to the point, if you are somehow by law granted access to
> >> >information protected by The Data Protection Act, you *must* be
breaking
> >> >the law by posting it all over Usenet.
> >>
> >> Geez, a barstool solicitor.
> >>
> >> You will explain how the DPA extends outside the UK? Is it now an
> >amendment to
> >> UN Resolution 1441?
> >
> >I don't know where Suzieflame resides
>
> Does anyone?
>
> > and I don't know where Mr Paterson resides.
>
> Canada.
>
> >Either way, it is morally wrong. You would dispute that? If so, give your
> >reasons.
>
> Reason? On usenet?

No, on a fucking postcard.

Of course on "usenet", you pleb.


Murchadh

unread,
Mar 21, 2004, 2:19:51 PM3/21/04
to
On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 15:49:00 +0100, suzieflame
<Suzie...@yachtmail.com> wrote:

>How about a conviction for it, revealed by his former girlfriend and
>admitted to by Paterson himself?

You're a pathological liar. I have never admitted such a thing because
it has never happened; something you're well aware of but are unable
to let go as it fulfills a desperate need inside you to punish and
destroy those whom you perceive as being happier than you are. You
need psychiatric treatment and you need it badly.

If you were to say that the lady attacked me from behind and hit me so
hard on the head with an blunt instrument that it disintegrated, I
would agree. Both the sheriff and a deputy sheriff expressed amazement
that I had not been knocked out. Thick Scottish skull.

She also hit me with a club and permanently damaged my right elbow. It
aches at this moment as I type.

She also sat with a loaded, cocked gun in her hand and told me how she
was debating about which part of my body to shoot me in. She was
finally dissuaded by my calming voice and my quiet reminder that she
would be executed if she killed me, given the surrounding evidence.

However, I think the most telling point is that she was arrested and
taken to jail once the police arrived. Her attempts to influence the
Sheriff by trying to ally him with her as a former policewoman in
Florida went nowhere after a phonecall for a reference resulted in
nothing I'd want on my record.

As far as knives were concerned, after questioning me and asking me to
prove my points, the Sheriff accepted that that no knife was involved.
He did take away the lady's loaded pistols at my request.

You are invited to produce proof that I have any convictions anywhere
in the world and that there are warrants of any kind anywhere in the
world for my arrest, with the exception of China (political stuff).

You will be unable to do so because you are a liar and a psychopath.
Indeed, the sheriff himself helped me pack and offered to drive me
wherever I needed to go. Hardly the treatment accorded to a woman
beater, murderer, contract killer, etc.

The US authorities asked me to return from Canada to give evidence
against the lady; a request repeated to me by her mother who wanted
her locked up before she killed someone. I declined because no mention
was made of treating her problems, only of hard time for up to 15
years. If she kills someone else, then she'll be lethally injected and
that will be the end of that.

A policewoman trained in dealing with psychopathic killers told me
that the next man she pulled this stunt on - she had at least one
other victim in her past according to her mother (Quote: "You weren't
the first") and she once told me a story of clubbing a man with a
rifle butt and pistol-whipping him - would almost certainly be
murdered. The sheriff told me the same thing, and said he thought I
should leave while I could as he'd sooner have a drink with me in a
year or two than identify me in the local morgue. He got no argument
from me opn that point.

I see the other thread you started here is entirely concerned with
your one-time friends slagging you. Looks like you've hit bottom.

>>Out of curiosity, why are you privy to such information?
>
>It's public information, if you know were to look and how to ask.

This is of course nonsense, other than looking up old posts.
Suzieflame has no more access to confidential information than any
other ordinary citizen, but she inflates her status to include all
sorts of secret contacts among people in privileged places, which most
ordinary people see through right away.

I feel sorry for her and grateful that I don't have her problems. She
accuses me of wanting to kill her, but I don't need her death to
validate myself as a human being. Nor indeed does any rational human.

She does, except that she doesn't kill physically, but with lies and
innuendo. It's clear that you are reasonably well-balanced as you are
neither fooled nor impresed by her wild claims and fantasy life.

>>And more to the point, if you
>>are somehow by law granted access to information protected by The Data
>>Protection Act, you *must* be breaking the law by posting it all over
>>Usenet.
>
>LOL - how very insular.

You're not insular - that's Suzieflame trying to regain her authority
over you - but like most people, unaware of how little protection is
actually available for anyting in real life unless you are lucky
enough to be in the right place at the right time.

Suzieflame's "edge" is that despite her inability to stop herself from
stalking and threatening people which of course are criminal acts, no
law enforcement agency is prepared to spend time and resources
tracking her down because the damage she actually causes is miniscule
compared to the cost of catching and prosecuting her, unless she
targets an undercover cop. Think of her as a form of pubic lice rather
than Ebola and you get the idea.

>>I'm not just referring to this thread, but to just about every thread you
>>get involved in.
>
>I would like you to condemn Micahel Paterson for his laughable threats
>to denounce some anonymous Usenet entity as a child molester. If you
>don't we'll all know your true colors.

She's quite right - she's an anonymous Usenet entity and that means
that you can libel her and destroy her reputation as much as you want
because in law she is not a real person whom people can point at and
say, "I despise her because of what Clyde B. wrote". She's a Marge
Simpson in law; a cartoon character. In this case, a rather sad joke.

I very much doubt that she would ever try to claim damages as her act
depends on anonymity. However she bluffs well; she libels you but you
are reluctant to libel her because she sems to have authoruity on her
side. She has none; she is a con artist; as dishonest and deceptive as
any politician or Enron employee.

Nothing she says can be trusted; anything you say about her is
undeniable, except by her, whom no one believes, and because she
cannot produce proof to the contrary without revealing her identity,
at which point the nearest former victim slits her throat.

I assume she's in her forties and getting a bit gross-looking as a
life of acid bitterness will have marked her face irreparably by now
unless she is genuinely insane, in which case she will have a haughty
imperious face and be someone who loses her temper in an instant for
no good reason.

Anyway, you have complete control over her as long as she responds to
your posts. That's easy to arrange; just tell her some dirt "in
confidence" about yourself and she'll be unable to let it go, like a
jackal tearing at an antelope fawn.

You can post anything you want about her; there's nothing she can do
except keep repeating the same old dreary lines that you fed her.

Her only strength was being backed by her pals in alt,flame, but that
sems to be waning as people tire of seeing the same old routine
repeated endlessly.

>>> I fully intend to prosecute my war on wastrels thorugh other means
>>> however, and advise you to avail yourself of a decent killfile.

As you can see, she's genuinely out of control and actually believes
that God/cocaine has given her a mission to reform the world, in this
case represented by Usenet. This is a standard delusion, usually
religious, but here based on the same instincts that made Anna Pauker,
former Prison Minister in Hungary, insert glass rods into prisoners'
penises and then smash them with a hammer.

Suzieflame's ace card is that most people will not descend to the
level of invective and venom that she habitually uses. The technique
is commonplace and much beloved of the secret police; to deafen you
with accusations of serious crimes you haven't committed so you'll
confess to the less serious crimes you have committed.

In my case, the information that she keeps trotting out has little
effect on me. To be bothered by such matters, it has to be true and
you have to care what other people think. With a few exceptions I
don't give a shit what anyone thinks, as in my career experience, most
people are cowardly liars who would betray their best friend to the
Gestapo if they believed it would save their own skin.

Murchadh

Clyde B

unread,
Mar 21, 2004, 3:05:01 PM3/21/04
to

"Murchadh" <murc...@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:405dcfa3.6851742@news...

Needless to say, no one in their right mind would believe a single word that
she says. To believe her absurd accusations would be folly.

She fails to understand the true concept of "flaming". Instead thinking of
it as a contest to see who can dig up the most dirt on their opponent. You
needn't worry about convincing anyone that she is wrong, as her credibility
is at an all time low.


Seven Nation Amy

unread,
Mar 21, 2004, 5:07:36 PM3/21/04
to
"Clyde B" <tehsa...@yahoo.com> wrote

No less, or more, believable than *this* entity.

Clyde B

unread,
Mar 21, 2004, 5:29:25 PM3/21/04
to

"Seven Nation Amy" <7...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:Xns94B3E0D83CFEAmizcheef@avin-a-larf...

I would say she is considerably less believable. That's just my opinion,
though.


Seven Nation Amy

unread,
Mar 21, 2004, 5:37:00 PM3/21/04
to
"Clyde B" <tehsa...@yahoo.com> wrote

And it's somewhat bias. That's just my opinion though.

Clyde B

unread,
Mar 21, 2004, 5:41:28 PM3/21/04
to

"Seven Nation Amy" <7...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:Xns94B3E5D406998mizcheef@avin-a-larf...

Not really; she hasn't produced a shred of proof to back up her claim.

Seven Nation Amy

unread,
Mar 21, 2004, 5:45:26 PM3/21/04
to

Neither has he.

It's a moot point, surely?

You could be trolling her off the back of an innocent. You could also be
trolling her off the back of a cunt. It was your call.

Clyde B

unread,
Mar 21, 2004, 5:50:19 PM3/21/04
to

"Seven Nation Amy" <7...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:Xns94B3E7418567Emizcheef@avin-a-larf...

It's not up to him to prove that he's not a wife beater. That's pretty much
impossible.

She made the accusation; therefore, she should provide the proof.

> You could be trolling her off the back of an innocent. You could also be
> trolling her off the back of a cunt. It was your call.

That's true. Innocent until proven guilty, though, wouldn't you say?


Seven Nation Amy

unread,
Mar 21, 2004, 5:55:40 PM3/21/04
to
"Clyde B" <tehsa...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> >> >> No less, or more, believable than *this* entity.
>> >> >
>> >> > I would say she is considerably less believable. That's just my
>> >> > opinion, though.
>> >>
>> >> And it's somewhat bias. That's just my opinion though.
>> >
>> > Not really; she hasn't produced a shred of proof to back up her
>> > claim. That's just my opinion, though.
>>
>> Neither has he.
>
> It's not up to him to prove that he's not a wife beater. That's pretty
> much impossible.
>
> She made the accusation; therefore, she should provide the proof.

You cross posted a thread with "history". What that history was or who
accused who first, you can't say. Nor can I. Which is why I woulda left
it hanging in cyberspace, which is more than it deserves.

>> You could be trolling her off the back of an innocent. You could
>> also be trolling her off the back of a cunt. It was your call.
>
> That's true. Innocent until proven guilty, though, wouldn't you say?

Quite.

Clyde B

unread,
Mar 21, 2004, 6:01:12 PM3/21/04
to

"Seven Nation Amy" <7...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:Xns94B3E8FF844A8mizcheef@avin-a-larf...

> "Clyde B" <tehsa...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >> >> >> No less, or more, believable than *this* entity.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I would say she is considerably less believable. That's just my
> >> >> > opinion, though.
> >> >>
> >> >> And it's somewhat bias. That's just my opinion though.
> >> >
> >> > Not really; she hasn't produced a shred of proof to back up her
> >> > claim. That's just my opinion, though.
> >>
> >> Neither has he.
> >
> > It's not up to him to prove that he's not a wife beater. That's pretty
> > much impossible.
> >
> > She made the accusation; therefore, she should provide the proof.
>
> You cross posted a thread with "history". What that history was or who
> accused who first, you can't say. Nor can I. Which is why I woulda left
> it hanging in cyberspace, which is more than it deserves.

She all but admitted that she had no proof. Her proof was that he "admitted"
being a wife beater -- which he denied.

Fact is, I would take Grant's word before I took Suzieflame's. She has
proven time and again that she has shit all morals.

Seven Nation Amy

unread,
Mar 21, 2004, 6:05:47 PM3/21/04
to
"Clyde B" <tehsa...@yahoo.com> wrote
> "Seven Nation Amy" <7...@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns94B3E8FF844A8mizcheef@avin-a-larf...
>> "Clyde B" <tehsa...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> >> >> >> No less, or more, believable than *this* entity.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I would say she is considerably less believable. That's just
>> >> >> > my opinion, though.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> And it's somewhat bias. That's just my opinion though.
>> >> >
>> >> > Not really; she hasn't produced a shred of proof to back up her
>> >> > claim. That's just my opinion, though.
>> >>
>> >> Neither has he.
>> >
>> > It's not up to him to prove that he's not a wife beater. That's
>> > pretty much impossible.
>> >
>> > She made the accusation; therefore, she should provide the proof.
>>
>> You cross posted a thread with "history". What that history was or
>> who accused who first, you can't say. Nor can I. Which is why I
>> woulda left it hanging in cyberspace, which is more than it deserves.
>
> She all but admitted that she had no proof. Her proof was that he
> "admitted" being a wife beater -- which he denied.

Have you googled all the history between them? My bad.

> Fact is, I would take Grant's word before I took Suzieflame's. She has
> proven time and again that she has shit all morals.

Does she threaten to out, or actually out? I've never bothered to check.

Which is precisely why I'd have left this thread well alone and also why
I'm guessing you have googled.

Again, my bad.

Clyde B

unread,
Mar 21, 2004, 6:09:29 PM3/21/04
to

"Seven Nation Amy" <7...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:Xns94B3EAB6211E2mizcheef@avin-a-larf...

> "Clyde B" <tehsa...@yahoo.com> wrote
> > "Seven Nation Amy" <7...@privacy.net> wrote in message
> > news:Xns94B3E8FF844A8mizcheef@avin-a-larf...
> >> "Clyde B" <tehsa...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >> >> >> >> No less, or more, believable than *this* entity.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > I would say she is considerably less believable. That's just
> >> >> >> > my opinion, though.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> And it's somewhat bias. That's just my opinion though.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Not really; she hasn't produced a shred of proof to back up her
> >> >> > claim. That's just my opinion, though.
> >> >>
> >> >> Neither has he.
> >> >
> >> > It's not up to him to prove that he's not a wife beater. That's
> >> > pretty much impossible.
> >> >
> >> > She made the accusation; therefore, she should provide the proof.
> >>
> >> You cross posted a thread with "history". What that history was or
> >> who accused who first, you can't say. Nor can I. Which is why I
> >> woulda left it hanging in cyberspace, which is more than it deserves.
> >
> > She all but admitted that she had no proof. Her proof was that he
> > "admitted" being a wife beater -- which he denied.
>
> Have you googled all the history between them? My bad.

No, he denied it in the above post.

> > Fact is, I would take Grant's word before I took Suzieflame's. She has
> > proven time and again that she has shit all morals.
>
> Does she threaten to out, or actually out? I've never bothered to check.

I've never checked either. She's outed many times while I've ben in a.f.

I'm sure you'll recall that whole "Jet" saga.

> Which is precisely why I'd have left this thread well alone and also why
> I'm guessing you have googled.

I haven't googled.


Seven Nation Amy

unread,
Mar 21, 2004, 6:28:02 PM3/21/04
to

So if you stumbled upon a murder scene where a man and woman were both
looking over a body, each holding a knife and accusing the other of
committing the crime - but one happened to be a bitch you really didn't
like, the other a stranger - are you telling me you'd automatically lock up
the bitch you didn't like?

Sounds fair.

But considering this is only Uselessnet and something that serious ain't
ever likely to happen, I'd walk away from the fucker.

Unless I was a big, bad troll.

>> > Fact is, I would take Grant's word before I took Suzieflame's. She
>> > has proven time and again that she has shit all morals.
>>
>> Does she threaten to out, or actually out? I've never bothered to
>> check.
>
> I've never checked either. She's outed many times while I've ben in
> a.f.
>
> I'm sure you'll recall that whole "Jet" saga.

Jet?

Clyde B

unread,
Mar 21, 2004, 6:40:56 PM3/21/04
to

"Seven Nation Amy" <7...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:Xns94B3EE7C36CFCmizcheef@avin-a-larf...

That analogy is flawed.

Suzie is trolling him, and she is the only one making the accusations. There
is no body, so to speak: there is no evidence to suggest any wrong doing. As
the accuser, it is her job to prove that he is a wife beater. As a proven
outer and all round poisonous little whore, I find it hard to believe
anything she says.

It's like me calling you a racist. I've produced no evidence to back up my
claim, but I'm calling you a racist anyway. What proof could you provide
that would suggest otherwise? You couldn't. Your proof is the fact that
there is no evidence to the contrary.

> Sounds fair.
>
> But considering this is only Uselessnet and something that serious ain't
> ever likely to happen, I'd walk away from the fucker.
>
> Unless I was a big, bad troll.

Which I am. I am not, however, going to back down if someone wishes to argue
the point.

> >> > Fact is, I would take Grant's word before I took Suzieflame's. She
> >> > has proven time and again that she has shit all morals.
> >>
> >> Does she threaten to out, or actually out? I've never bothered to
> >> check.
> >
> > I've never checked either. She's outed many times while I've ben in
> > a.f.
> >
> > I'm sure you'll recall that whole "Jet" saga.
>
> Jet?

You know who she is. It's been mentioned.


Seven Nation Amy

unread,
Mar 21, 2004, 6:51:20 PM3/21/04
to

But you have said you haven't googled yet you know "history" exists. Why
have you not come armed with all the facts?

> There is no body, so to speak: there is no evidence to suggest any
> wrong doing. As the accuser, it is her job to prove that he is a wife
> beater.

What I'm saying, albeit confusingly, is that all you have seen - is her
accusation. You don't know that he did not, previously, admit to what she
accused him of - *before* she took it upon herself to troll him.

You chose to take him at face value based upon this thread alone, but you
chose to doubt SF based on your history with her.

> As a proven outer and all round poisonous little whore, I find
> it hard to believe anything she says.
>
> It's like me calling you a racist. I've produced no evidence to back
> up my claim, but I'm calling you a racist anyway. What proof could you
> provide that would suggest otherwise? You couldn't. Your proof is the
> fact that there is no evidence to the contrary.
>
>> Sounds fair.
>>
>> But considering this is only Uselessnet and something that serious
>> ain't ever likely to happen, I'd walk away from the fucker.
>>
>> Unless I was a big, bad troll.
>
> Which I am. I am not, however, going to back down if someone wishes to
> argue the point.

I don't want you to back down, I doubt SF wants you to back down either.
But, by the same token, trolls and flamers alike - there is no shame in
walking away.

>> >> > Fact is, I would take Grant's word before I took Suzieflame's.
>> >> > She has proven time and again that she has shit all morals.
>> >>
>> >> Does she threaten to out, or actually out? I've never bothered to
>> >> check.
>> >
>> > I've never checked either. She's outed many times while I've ben in
>> > a.f.
>> >
>> > I'm sure you'll recall that whole "Jet" saga.
>>
>> Jet?
>
> You know who she is. It's been mentioned.

I've no idea who he is. Mentioned to/by whom?

Clyde B

unread,
Mar 21, 2004, 7:08:12 PM3/21/04
to

"Seven Nation Amy" <7...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:Xns94B3F26F0E5A2mizcheef@avin-a-larf...

Because the whole thing has been based around her accusation. That is the
whole point: she has accused him and, by her own admission, she has no
proof.

> > There is no body, so to speak: there is no evidence to suggest any
> > wrong doing. As the accuser, it is her job to prove that he is a wife
> > beater.
>
> What I'm saying, albeit confusingly, is that all you have seen - is her
accusation.

Which is all that matters. It wouldn't matter if, months ago, he accused
her of being a murderer. The argument is that she has accused him of being a
wife beater, yet she has no proof. Anything besides that accusation is a
totally separate point.

> You don't know that he did not, previously, admit to what she accused him
of - *before* she took it upon herself to troll him.

Why would he admit it and then deny it? That makes no sense.

> You chose to take him at face value based upon this thread alone, but you
> chose to doubt SF based on your history with her.

I doubt her because she has no proof and because she is known to be less
than honest. She has, by her own admission, nothing to base her accusation
on, besides a confession which no one else seems to have any knowledge of.

Everything points to her being in the wrong.

> I don't want you to back down, I doubt SF wants you to back down either.
> But, by the same token, trolls and flamers alike - there is no shame in
> walking away.

The above applies to you as well, you know.

> >> >> > Fact is, I would take Grant's word before I took Suzieflame's.
> >> >> > She has proven time and again that she has shit all morals.
> >> >>
> >> >> Does she threaten to out, or actually out? I've never bothered to
> >> >> check.
> >> >
> >> > I've never checked either. She's outed many times while I've ben in
> >> > a.f.
> >> >
> >> > I'm sure you'll recall that whole "Jet" saga.
> >>
> >> Jet?
> >
> > You know who she is. It's been mentioned.
>
> I've no idea who he is. Mentioned to/by whom?

To me. You mentioned how long it had dragged on for.


Seven Nation Amy

unread,
Mar 21, 2004, 7:35:25 PM3/21/04
to
"Clyde B" <tehsa...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> >> So if you stumbled upon a murder scene where a man and woman were
>> >> both looking over a body, each holding a knife and accusing the
>> >> other of committing the crime - but one happened to be a bitch you
>> >> really didn't like, the other a stranger - are you telling me
>> >> you'd automatically lock
>> > up
>> >> the bitch you didn't like?
>> >
>> > That analogy is flawed.
>> >
>> > Suzie is trolling him, and she is the only one making the
>> > accusations.
>>
>> But you have said you haven't googled yet you know "history" exists.
>> Why have you not come armed with all the facts?
>
> Because the whole thing has been based around her accusation.

Except your opinion.

> That is the whole point: she has accused him and, by her own
> admission, she has no proof.

She claimed to be in possession of a confession. Have you proof she isn't?

If you have not consulted google, the answer is no. Therefore, you have no
place believing one over the other.

This thread is tres dull not least because you couldn't have a kloo knocked
into you if it was wrapped around a fucking 2 by 4 plank of oak.

Happy trolling.

Clyde B

unread,
Mar 22, 2004, 1:23:37 AM3/22/04
to

"Seven Nation Amy" <7...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:Xns94B45C3C68E4mizcheef@avin-a-larf...

How sad.

I'll leave it at that and spare your blushes.

> Happy trolling.
>

Murchadh

unread,
Mar 22, 2004, 2:03:57 AM3/22/04
to
On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 20:05:01 -0000, "Clyde B" <tehsa...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>


>"Murchadh" <murc...@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:405dcfa3.6851742@news...
>> On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 15:49:00 +0100, suzieflame

>> In my case, the information that she keeps trotting out has little


>> effect on me. To be bothered by such matters, it has to be true and
>> you have to care what other people think. With a few exceptions I
>> don't give a shit what anyone thinks, as in my career experience, most
>> people are cowardly liars who would betray their best friend to the
>> Gestapo if they believed it would save their own skin.
>
>Needless to say, no one in their right mind would believe a single word that
>she says. To believe her absurd accusations would be folly.
>
>She fails to understand the true concept of "flaming". Instead thinking of
>it as a contest to see who can dig up the most dirt on their opponent. You
>needn't worry about convincing anyone that she is wrong, as her credibility
>is at an all time low.


I thought that would be the case by now. Her 'sell by' date must be
years overdue. She's probably well into menopause and a moustache
problem by now. Hacking jacket, sensible tweed skirt, two Jack Russell
terriers and hearty cries of "Hello theah, Bunty!"

Murchadh

Starshine Moonbeam

unread,
Mar 22, 2004, 3:31:12 AM3/22/04
to
In article <405dcfa3.6851742@news>, "Murchadh"(murc...@shaw.ca) dropped
a +5 bundle of words...

> On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 15:49:00 +0100, suzieflame
> <Suzie...@yachtmail.com> wrote:
>
> >How about a conviction for it, revealed by his former girlfriend and
> >admitted to by Paterson himself?
>
> You're a pathological liar. I have never admitted such a thing because
> it has never happened; something you're well aware of but are unable
> to let go as it fulfills a desperate need inside you to punish and
> destroy those whom you perceive as being happier than you are. You
> need psychiatric treatment and you need it badly.

Sure thing, stability boy:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-
8&threadm=MPG.15f66a98d2e792ba98a13c%40news.chorus.net&rnum=8&prev=/group
s%3Fq%3DMicheil%2Btrippy%2B%2Bgroup:soc.culture.scottish%26hl%3Den%26lr%3
D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-
8%26group%3Dsoc.culture.scottish%26scoring%3Dd%26start%3D0%26sa%3DN

>
> If you were to say that the lady attacked me from behind and hit me so
> hard on the head with an blunt instrument that it disintegrated, I
> would agree. Both the sheriff and a deputy sheriff expressed amazement
> that I had not been knocked out. Thick Scottish skull.

Yeah, you're a fucking knuckle-dragging goon. I remember you. What in the
big blue hell are you doing on alt.flame? What in the hell are you even
doing on usenet? You're a psychotic scottsman. Be gone, you utter dreg of
humanity. Be gone from alt.flame, be gone from usenet, shit, be gone from
life. You are a complete waste of oxygen.

>
> She also hit me with a club and permanently damaged my right elbow. It
> aches at this moment as I type.

Good.

Too bad she didn't split your fucking skull. She should have used a
mutton leg. Then she could have cooked it up and eaten the evidence. She
was probably defending herself. You aren't stable guy.

>
> She also sat with a loaded, cocked gun in her hand and told me how she
> was debating about which part of my body to shoot me in.

I would too if I was her. You're a waste of oxygen. There's some kid
that's gonna do something with his/her life that can't get enought oxygen
because you keep hogging it all.

> She was
> finally dissuaded by my calming voice and my quiet reminder that she
> would be executed if she killed me, given the surrounding evidence.

She should have done it anyway. God would understand.

>
> However, I think the most telling point is that she was arrested and
> taken to jail once the police arrived. Her attempts to influence the
> Sheriff by trying to ally him with her as a former policewoman in
> Florida went nowhere after a phonecall for a reference resulted in
> nothing I'd want on my record.
>
> As far as knives were concerned, after questioning me and asking me to
> prove my points, the Sheriff accepted that that no knife was involved.
> He did take away the lady's loaded pistols at my request.

Hey Mikey, what did you do to wig this chick out so bad? Don't even try
to say it's your fault because it is. You're a goon. So, whadja do?

>
> You are invited to produce proof that I have any convictions anywhere
> in the world and that there are warrants of any kind anywhere in the
> world for my arrest, with the exception of China (political stuff).

I'm really hoping that Suzie's as conncected as it's claimed she is. You
know what? If someone does provide proof, it wouldn't surprise me in the
slightest. Not. One. Bit.

{Snip -- WAAAAAAH!!!! GIRLS ARE MEAN TO ME!! SUZIE'S MEAN TO ME !!!}

Good.

Everyone should be mean to you. I will be. Be gone.

--
mhm 31x9
Smeeter #28, 29, or 30
WSD #30
Skep-ti-cult ID# 365-12149-907
Alcatroll Labs Inc. (Division of Incendiary Devices)
StArSHiNe_MoOnbEAm aT HoTMaIL DoT cOM
http://www.geocities.com/tobydog9

"Technology is getting better and that's fine but most of the time,
all you need is a stick of gum, a pocketknife, and a smile."
-- Robert Redford "Spy Game"

"You can run but you'll just die tired and buttered."
-- Ryannosaurus

Seven Nation Amy

unread,
Mar 22, 2004, 3:53:53 AM3/22/04
to
"Clyde B" <TehSa...@yahoo.com> wrote
> I'll leave it at that and spare your blushes.

Blush? You *seriously* overestimate the significance of this.

Clyde B

unread,
Mar 22, 2004, 4:36:06 AM3/22/04
to

"Seven Nation Amy" <7...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:Xns94B45A7177287mizcheef@avin-a-larf...

> "Clyde B" <TehSa...@yahoo.com> wrote
> > I'll leave it at that and spare your blushes.
>
> Blush? You *seriously* overestimate the significance of this.

A troll gone wrong? Hardly.


Bryn Fraser

unread,
Mar 22, 2004, 5:11:08 AM3/22/04
to
In message <MPG.1ac86030d...@news.alt.net>, Starshine Moonbeam
<silve...@tacoshells.com> writes

Comment can found at:

http://www.finhall.demon.co.uk/rasp.htm
>

--
Bryn Fraser

Bartlett for President!!!

http://www.finhall.demon.co.uk
http://www.thefrasers.com

suzieflame

unread,
Mar 22, 2004, 7:38:34 AM3/22/04
to

>It's not up to him to prove that he's not a wife beater. That's pretty much
>impossible.
>
>She made the accusation; therefore, she should provide the proof.

Uh, actually, no I didn't:

http://groups.google.de/groups?q=alecto+michael+paterson&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=tq2vq1ch3q9130%40corp.supernews.com&rnum=6


>> You could be trolling her off the back of an innocent. You could also be
>> trolling her off the back of a cunt. It was your call.
>
>That's true. Innocent until proven guilty, though, wouldn't you say?

Convictions are good enough for me to say "guilty".

--
Suzieflame

"too bad your all illiterate fuckwits" - Philip Callan, noted
literacy expert and Microsoft Windows user.
"Think before hitting "Send", cuntlet; you will make a tit
of yourself less fequently" - Clyde B, fequent tit.

suzieflame

unread,
Mar 22, 2004, 12:27:53 PM3/22/04
to

Not only do I have extra access, but there is access you never dreamed
of at the fingertips of those intersted in your histroy of violence
Mikey.

>I feel sorry for her and grateful that I don't have her problems. She
>accuses me of wanting to kill her, but I don't need her death to
>validate myself as a human being. Nor indeed does any rational human.
>
>She does, except that she doesn't kill physically, but with lies and
>innuendo. It's clear that you are reasonably well-balanced as you are
>neither fooled nor impresed by her wild claims and fantasy life.

Or the "wild claims" of your former wives who posted the original
messages that sent you running off Usenet...

>>>And more to the point, if you
>>>are somehow by law granted access to information protected by The Data
>>>Protection Act, you *must* be breaking the law by posting it all over
>>>Usenet.
>>
>>LOL - how very insular.
>
>You're not insular - that's Suzieflame trying to regain her authority
>over you - but like most people, unaware of how little protection is
>actually available for anyting in real life unless you are lucky
>enough to be in the right place at the right time.
>

>Nothing she says can be trusted; anything you say about her is
>undeniable, except by her, whom no one believes, and because she
>cannot produce proof to the contrary without revealing her identity,

>at which point the nearest former victim (me) slits her throat.

Nice one Mikey. In one post you claim to be a victim of violence then
go on to tell everyone you want to slit my throat **again**.

What does it take for the Scots to stand up and say enough is enough?

>I assume she's in her forties and getting a bit gross-looking as a
>life of acid bitterness will have marked her face irreparably by now
>unless she is genuinely insane, in which case she will have a haughty
>imperious face and be someone who loses her temper in an instant for
>no good reason.

LOL

Oh the irony!

>In my case, the information that she keeps trotting out has little
>effect on me. To be bothered by such matters, it has to be true and
>you have to care what other people think.

Sure, which is why I won Best Spank 2001 after you ran away form the
net.

LOL

Coward.

Murchadh

unread,
Mar 22, 2004, 1:03:33 PM3/22/04
to
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 10:11:08 +0000, Bryn Fraser
<br...@finhall.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>Comment can found at:
>
>http://www.finhall.demon.co.uk/rasp.htm
>>
>

I liked that!

Murchadh

Murchadh

unread,
Mar 22, 2004, 1:43:10 PM3/22/04
to
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 02:31:12 -0600, Starshine Moonbeam
<silve...@tacoshells.com> wrote:

Starshine Moonbeam
<silve...@tacoshells.com>

Just what this group needs - another psychopathic flit!

Murchadh

Bryn Fraser

unread,
Mar 22, 2004, 1:36:12 PM3/22/04
to
In message <405f2ae0.6909435@news>, Murchadh <murc...@shaw.ca> writes

Good ain't it?

Starshine Moonbeam

unread,
Mar 22, 2004, 7:59:04 PM3/22/04
to
In article <405f340a.9255168@news>, "Murchadh"(murc...@shaw.ca) dropped
a +5 bundle of words...

> On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 02:31:12 -0600, Starshine Moonbeam

What group? S.C.S. ? ( A misnomomer if there ever was one, BTW)

No, they really don't. They have plenty.

Murchadh

unread,
Mar 23, 2004, 1:49:26 AM3/23/04
to
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 18:27:53 +0100, suzieflame
<Suzie...@yachtmail.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 19:19:51 GMT, murc...@shaw.ca (Murchadh) wrote:
>>
>>Nothing she says can be trusted; anything you say about her is
>>undeniable, except by her, whom no one believes, and because she
>>cannot produce proof to the contrary without revealing her identity,
>>at which point the nearest former victim (me) slits her throat.

Oh Suzieflame, that really is a little crude. I actually wrote, as
anyone can confiorm by checking the large post I wrote above:

>Nothing she says can be trusted; anything you say about her is
>undeniable, except by her, whom no one believes, and because she
>cannot produce proof to the contrary without revealing her identity,

>at which point the nearest former victim slits her throat.

and you added (me)

>>at which point the nearest former victim (me) slits her throat.

^^^^
and then you try to cash in by writing:

>Nice one Mikey. In one post you claim to be a victim of violence then
>go on to tell everyone you want to slit my throat **again**.
>
>What does it take for the Scots to stand up and say enough is enough?

A lot more than you can offer, and that's for sure! I think most of
them have been pretty unimpressed by your blood-curdling threats,
followed by more bloodcurdling bleating and then mumbling. It just
doesn't have the smack of a firstclass operation, does it? The cude
l;ittle attempt at puttuing words in my miouth above doesn;t sound
like the Master Operator at work, does it? It sounds more like some
old tart on the gin desperatel;y scrabbling for a comeback.

You and I both know that you have no special access to any records
anywhere. There's definitely no way you're going to be able to run my
credit or bank records in front of this mob because, as you will find
out if you haven't already, I don't bank in the UK or North America
and I never use credit. So that threat has all the power and passion
of one of your elderly "friends" before the Viagra kicks in...

There's a chance I might be in London in June. I might even buy you a
drink and give you dinner if you don't try my patience with silly
games like asking Old Bill to feel my collar. I favour the Admiral
Codrington,17 Mossop Street, SW3. Saturday, June 5th from about 7:00
pm on. The barman will know who you're looking for.

Murchadh

Nebulous

unread,
Mar 23, 2004, 2:06:18 AM3/23/04
to

"Murchadh" <murc...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:405fd00f.19878153@news...

Does that mean you will be in Stirling for June 11th?

Neb


suzieflame

unread,
Mar 23, 2004, 6:11:03 AM3/23/04
to
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 06:49:26 GMT, murc...@shaw.ca (Murchadh) wrote:


>There's a chance I might be in London in June. I might even buy you a
>drink and give you dinner if you don't try my patience with silly
>games like asking Old Bill to feel my collar. I favour the Admiral
>Codrington,17 Mossop Street, SW3. Saturday, June 5th from about 7:00
>pm on. The barman will know who you're looking for.

I favour the Army and Navy Club, Pall Mall, SW1, where I am a full
member. I'm sure they'll let you in as a guest - if you can provide
evidence of your commissioned rank to the porter.

Alternative you could try the In and Out, in St. James Square, SW1,
which is very modern and so on, but just doesn't have the same
distinguished air or duty and service - probably more your scene.

LOL

suzieflame

unread,
Mar 23, 2004, 9:34:15 AM3/23/04
to
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 06:49:26 GMT, murc...@shaw.ca (Murchadh) wrote:

>The cude
>l;ittle attempt at puttuing words in my miouth above doesn;t sound
>like the Master Operator at work, does it?

Under pressure, Mikey?

Murchadh

unread,
Mar 23, 2004, 11:35:04 AM3/23/04
to

I wouldn't mind, but I'm more likely to be visiting relations if I get
to Scotland at all. I have no guarantee of even making it to London.


Murchadh

Murchadh

unread,
Mar 23, 2004, 11:48:45 AM3/23/04
to
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 12:11:03 +0100, suzieflame
<Suzie...@yachtmail.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 06:49:26 GMT, murc...@shaw.ca (Murchadh) wrote:
>
>
>>There's a chance I might be in London in June. I might even buy you a
>>drink and give you dinner if you don't try my patience with silly
>>games like asking Old Bill to feel my collar. I favour the Admiral
>>Codrington,17 Mossop Street, SW3. Saturday, June 5th from about 7:00
>>pm on. The barman will know who you're looking for.
>
>I favour the Army and Navy Club, Pall Mall, SW1, where I am a full
>member. I'm sure they'll let you in as a guest - if you can provide
>evidence of your commissioned rank to the porter.
>
>Alternative you could try the In and Out, in St. James Square, SW1,
>which is very modern and so on, but just doesn't have the same
>distinguished air or duty and service - probably more your scene.
>
>LOL
>
>--
>Suzieflame

I had not suggested a club as I thought you might be embarrassed - I
don't know how your table manners are and so on - but in any case I
have no interest in parading any acquantanceship with you in front of
my peers. I thought the Admiral Codrington would be better as nobody
cares who comes in as long as she doesn't look like a bag lady...


Murchadh

suzieflame

unread,
Mar 23, 2004, 11:55:07 AM3/23/04
to
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 16:48:45 GMT, murc...@shaw.ca (Murchadh) wrote:

>On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 12:11:03 +0100, suzieflame
><Suzie...@yachtmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 06:49:26 GMT, murc...@shaw.ca (Murchadh) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>There's a chance I might be in London in June. I might even buy you a
>>>drink and give you dinner if you don't try my patience with silly
>>>games like asking Old Bill to feel my collar. I favour the Admiral
>>>Codrington,17 Mossop Street, SW3. Saturday, June 5th from about 7:00
>>>pm on. The barman will know who you're looking for.
>>
>>I favour the Army and Navy Club, Pall Mall, SW1, where I am a full
>>member. I'm sure they'll let you in as a guest - if you can provide
>>evidence of your commissioned rank to the porter.
>>
>>Alternative you could try the In and Out, in St. James Square, SW1,
>>which is very modern and so on, but just doesn't have the same
>>distinguished air or duty and service - probably more your scene.
>>
>>LOL
>>
>>--
>>Suzieflame
>
>I had not suggested a club as I thought you might be embarrassed - I
>don't know how your table manners are and so on - but in any case I
>have no interest in parading any acquantanceship with you in front of
>my peers.

Once again Mikey shys away from his lack of military history. Has he
no shame pretending to be a soldier and yet unable to back up his
claims when pressed?

Starshine Moonbeam

unread,
Mar 23, 2004, 2:34:53 PM3/23/04
to
In article <405fd00f.19878153@news>, "Murchadh"(murc...@shaw.ca) dropped
a +5 bundle of words...

> On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 18:27:53 +0100, suzieflame

Yeah Suzie, wouldn't want to miss your chance to go out with a raving
l00n!

You are pathetic. Pathetic in a way that really doesn't do the word
justice but there's no other word for it.

Clyde B

unread,
Mar 23, 2004, 3:47:09 PM3/23/04
to

"Starshine Moonbeam" <silve...@tacoshells.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ac99db8c...@news.alt.net...

When did you start making sense?


Starshine Moonbeam

unread,
Mar 23, 2004, 10:01:28 PM3/23/04
to
In article <c3q7of$2b538s$1...@ID-183756.news.uni-berlin.de>, "Clyde
B"(tehsa...@yahoo.com) dropped a +5 bundle of words...

Oh sure, *now* you start sucking up to me.

Clyde B

unread,
Mar 24, 2004, 6:52:23 AM3/24/04
to

"Starshine Moonbeam" <silve...@tacoshells.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1aca9674a...@news.alt.net...

> > When did you start making sense?
>
> Oh sure, *now* you start sucking up to me.

I'm implying that up until that point, you have never made sense.

On which planet does that constitute a slurp, you bungling idiot?

I can just see you getting bullied at school: Some jock is making fun of the
vacant look on your grubby face, and you reply, "Durrr, stop, you'll make me
big headed".

Get it straight, moron, alt.flame isn't where you come for reassurance. You
will be told straight, and honestly that you are a slobbering idiot who
should steer clear of social interaction if he wishes to avoid having his
head flushed down the toilet.


suzieflame

unread,
Mar 24, 2004, 10:40:25 AM3/24/04
to
On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 11:52:23 -0000, "Clyde B" <tehsa...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Get it straight, moron, alt.flame isn't where you come for reassurance. You


>will be told straight, and honestly that you are a slobbering idiot who
>should steer clear of social interaction if he wishes to avoid having his
>head flushed down the toilet.

Thus spaketh the Voice of Experience.

Clyde B

unread,
Mar 24, 2004, 11:20:33 AM3/24/04
to

"suzieflame" <Suzie...@yachtmail.com> wrote in message
news:9ua360lch2jsudus5...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 11:52:23 -0000, "Clyde B" <tehsa...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Get it straight, moron, alt.flame isn't where you come for reassurance.
You
> >will be told straight, and honestly that you are a slobbering idiot who
> >should steer clear of social interaction if he wishes to avoid having his
> >head flushed down the toilet.
>
> Thus spaketh the Voice of Experience.

5 years on here hardly makes me a newbie, sweety. And you've been on here
how long, exactly?


Murchadh

unread,
Mar 24, 2004, 11:24:10 AM3/24/04
to
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 17:55:07 +0100, suzieflame
<Suzie...@yachtmail.com> wrote:

I've ben a member of the A&N since 1961. Why don't you check your
facts before posting and parading such nonsense - after all, YOU are
the one with the special contacts everywhere from Washington to
Widdlecombe.

And just between you and me, if you really are a member of the A&N, I
shall cancel my membership.

Murchadh

suzieflame

unread,
Mar 24, 2004, 11:25:08 AM3/24/04
to
On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 16:20:33 -0000, "Clyde B" <tehsa...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>
>"suzieflame" <Suzie...@yachtmail.com> wrote in message
>news:9ua360lch2jsudus5...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 11:52:23 -0000, "Clyde B" <tehsa...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Get it straight, moron, alt.flame isn't where you come for reassurance.
>You
>> >will be told straight, and honestly that you are a slobbering idiot who
>> >should steer clear of social interaction if he wishes to avoid having his
>> >head flushed down the toilet.
>>
>> Thus spaketh the Voice of Experience.
>
>5 years on here hardly makes me a newbie, sweety. And you've been on here
>how long, exactly?

Since 1992, newbie.

suzieflame

unread,
Mar 24, 2004, 11:27:46 AM3/24/04
to

Long enough to know that you are a complete knob.

Murchadh

unread,
Mar 24, 2004, 11:25:51 AM3/24/04
to
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 20:47:09 -0000, "Clyde B" <tehsa...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>

I wonder if it's tried Prozac. Such a useful medication when
desperately trying to get a grip on reality.


Murchadh

Morlock

unread,
Mar 24, 2004, 11:34:45 AM3/24/04
to
suzieflame wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 16:20:33 -0000, "Clyde B" <tehsa...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> "suzieflame" <Suzie...@yachtmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:9ua360lch2jsudus5...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 11:52:23 -0000, "Clyde B" <tehsa...@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Get it straight, moron, alt.flame isn't where you come for
>>>> reassurance. You will be told straight, and honestly that you are
>>>> a slobbering idiot who should steer clear of social interaction if
>>>> he wishes to avoid having his head flushed down the toilet.
>>>
>>> Thus spaketh the Voice of Experience.
>>
>> 5 years on here hardly makes me a newbie, sweety. And you've been on
>> here how long, exactly?
>
> Since 1992, newbie.

1992? My My, you really are a n00b.


suzieflame

unread,
Mar 24, 2004, 11:40:52 AM3/24/04
to


Indeed I am. And if you are a member, you will knwo the answer to
these three simple questions that all members will know.

1. The first name of the regular night porter.
2. The real name of the room referred to as the "Senior Gunroom".
3. The name of the other club about 50 meters sharing the same facade
as the Army and Navy in St James Square (not the In and Out).

If you can't answer these, you're a complete and utter fraud. Every
member knows these, and none of it is on a website anywhere.

Clyde B

unread,
Mar 24, 2004, 11:43:03 AM3/24/04
to

"suzieflame" <temPoraril...@coldmail.moc> wrote in message
news:mCi8c.23492$h44.3...@stones.force9.net...

Oh, long enough. Well that's, erm, vague.

And how long does it take one to come to the realisation that I'm a
"complete knob"? Approximately, of course.

Clyde B

unread,
Mar 24, 2004, 11:45:16 AM3/24/04
to

"suzieflame" <Suzie...@yachtmail.com> wrote in message
news:hid360hnolbu282f7...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 16:20:33 -0000, "Clyde B" <tehsa...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"suzieflame" <Suzie...@yachtmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:9ua360lch2jsudus5...@4ax.com...
> >> On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 11:52:23 -0000, "Clyde B" <tehsa...@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Get it straight, moron, alt.flame isn't where you come for
reassurance.
> >You
> >> >will be told straight, and honestly that you are a slobbering idiot
who
> >> >should steer clear of social interaction if he wishes to avoid having
his
> >> >head flushed down the toilet.
> >>
> >> Thus spaketh the Voice of Experience.
> >
> >5 years on here hardly makes me a newbie, sweety. And you've been on here
> >how long, exactly?
>
> Since 1992, newbie.

Mummy had a computer inserted in her womb?

The honest answer this time. 2 years? 3 maybe, at a push?


Michele Dall'Agata

unread,
Mar 24, 2004, 12:01:19 PM3/24/04
to
In news:hid360hnolbu282f7...@4ax.com,
suzieflame <Suzie...@yachtmail.com> typed:

> On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 16:20:33 -0000, "Clyde B" <tehsa...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:

>> 5 years on here hardly makes me a newbie, sweety. And you've been on here
>> how long, exactly?
>
> Since 1992, newbie.

No fucking way. Never heard of you before.


suzieflame

unread,
Mar 24, 2004, 12:09:22 PM3/24/04
to

It's in Google if you know where to look.

Starshine Moonbeam

unread,
Mar 24, 2004, 3:37:43 PM3/24/04
to
In article <c3rspp$2a534h$1...@ID-183756.news.uni-berlin.de>, "Clyde
B"(tehsa...@yahoo.com) dropped a +5 bundle of words...

>

> "Starshine Moonbeam" <silve...@tacoshells.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1aca9674a...@news.alt.net...
>
> > > When did you start making sense?
> >
> > Oh sure, *now* you start sucking up to me.
>
> I'm implying that up until that point, you have never made sense.

Why should I care what a little nothing like you thinks? You've obviously
read enough to make a reply, and that's what's really important. You
dragging your idiot slave-self to the altar of starshine for self-
sacrafice.

>
> On which planet does that constitute a slurp, you bungling idiot?
>

Wow. I'm just in awe of your logic abilities. I may as well just cry
plonk and run away. Well, maybe I shouldn't be so hasty. Especially when
I can just tell you that it doesn't matter whether you slurp me or not. I
won't give one more shit about you either way. I will cut you no break, I
will give you nothing but misery. Welcome to the soul swallowing siege of
your own making. Enjoy.

> I can just see you getting bullied at school: Some jock is making fun of the
> vacant look on your grubby face, and you reply, "Durrr, stop, you'll make me
> big headed".

uh huh. Like to see them try that bullshit now. I've run into some of
those meatheads since then. Some are still fuckin' meatheads. Some became
kinda cool. It's been 15 years now so spare me the high school fantasies
you have.

>
> Get it straight, moron, alt.flame isn't where you come for reassurance.

Like I need reassurance.

> You
> will be told straight, and honestly that you are a slobbering idiot who
> should steer clear of social interaction if he wishes to avoid having his
> head flushed down the toilet.

How cute. Motherfucker, I'm the end-all, be-all. The best thing since
sliced, buttered bread. Go ahead and try marshmallow man. I could use a
good laugh or two.

Starshine Moonbeam

unread,
Mar 24, 2004, 3:37:50 PM3/24/04
to
In article <4061b6df.1682629@news>, "Murchadh"(murc...@shaw.ca) dropped

Didn't I tell you to be gone? Yes, I did. You need to make up with the
chick you wigged out. That way she can finish the job. Look, just say
you're sorry and I'm sure she'll take you back. To the woods. While
heavily armed.

You could always just do the job yourself, you know. Cut out the
middleman as it were. Face it, God doesn't like you because you're the
biggest sack of shit on usenet. You are unholy and displeasing unto him,
and he's smiting you. May as well give him a hand. Hell, he might let you
sit in the big chair for saving him some time.

Rebecca Ore

unread,
Mar 24, 2004, 6:21:35 PM3/24/04