Paterson bank records.
Clyde B
"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
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
> 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
"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.
> >>
> >>
> >> 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
<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
"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
Clyde B
"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
Clyde B
Not really; she hasn't produced a shred of proof to back up her claim.
Seven Nation Amy
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
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
>> >> >
>> >> > 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
> "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
> 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
> "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
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
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
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
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
>> >> 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
How sad.
I'll leave it at that and spare your blushes.
> Happy trolling.
>
Murchadh
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
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
Blush? You *seriously* overestimate the significance of this.
Clyde B
> "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
<silve...@tacoshells.com> writes
Comment can found at:
http://www.finhall.demon.co.uk/rasp.htm
>
--
Bryn Fraser
Bartlett for President!!!
suzieflame
>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:
>> 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
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
<br...@finhall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Comment can found at:
>
>http://www.finhall.demon.co.uk/rasp.htm
>>
>
I liked that!
Murchadh
Murchadh
<silve...@tacoshells.com> wrote:
Starshine Moonbeam
<silve...@tacoshells.com>
Just what this group needs - another psychopathic flit!
Murchadh
Bryn Fraser
Starshine Moonbeam
> 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
<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
Does that mean you will be in Stirling for June 11th?
Neb
suzieflame
>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
>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
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
<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
>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
> 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
"Starshine Moonbeam" <silve...@tacoshells.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ac99db8c...@news.alt.net...
When did you start making sense?
Starshine Moonbeam
B"(tehsa...@yahoo.com) dropped a +5 bundle of words...
Oh sure, *now* you start sucking up to me.
Clyde B
> > 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
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
"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
<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
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
Long enough to know that you are a complete knob.
Murchadh
wrote:
>
I wonder if it's tried Prozac. Such a useful medication when
desperately trying to get a grip on reality.
Murchadh
Morlock
> 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
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
"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
> 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
suzieflame <Suzie...@yachtmail.com> typed:
>> 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
It's in Google if you know where to look.
Starshine Moonbeam
>
> "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
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
Suzieflame was on line for as long as I can remember and was
considered one of the alt.flame oldies as of 1997.
--
Rebecca Ore
http://mysite.verizon.net/rebecca.ore
Clyde B
"Rebecca Ore" <ogoen...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:m3fzbxa...@pyrophore.ogo.invalid...
Then I guess it's just unfortunate that her talent doesn't match her
experience.
Clyde B
> > I'm implying that up until that point, you have never made sense.
>
> Why should I care what a little nothing like you thinks?
Because I'm being totally honest, honestly.
> You've obviously read enough to make a reply, and that's what's really
important.
It is? You need to sort out your priorities, you obtuse fuck.
> You dragging your idiot slave-self to the altar of starshine for
self-sacrafice.
St. Starfish: The Patron Saint of Dickheads.
The only thing I'll sacrafice [sic] is a steaming turd, which I'll place in
your chalice.
> Wow. I'm just in awe of your logic abilities.
You always look like you're in awe, what with your constant slack jawed,
blank expression.
> I may as well just cry plonk and run away.
You may as well.
> Well, maybe I shouldn't be so hasty.
That's pretty much impossible, dolt.
> 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.
LOL, erm, I mean *tremble*
> > 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.
So you were bullied at school? Wanna talk about it?
> Like I need reassurance.
You need more than just reassurance. It's a pity you can't be part of one of
those amusing body-swap comedies. Sadly, it looks like you're more suited to
"Dawn of the Dead".
> I could use a good laugh or two.
Proofread.
Murchadh
<Suzie...@yachtmail.com> wrote:
Never been in the place - didn't want the membership; didn't ever
visit it. I've been in the In and Out though, if that helps. My father
was a member.
Murchadh
suzieflame
>On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:40:52 +0100, suzieflame
><Suzie...@yachtmail.com> wrote:
>
>Never been in the place - didn't want the membership; didn't ever
>visit it.
>
>Murchadh
So how does that statement contrast with this one made not 24 hours
earlier:
"I've ben a member of the A&N since 1961. And ... if you really are a
member of the A&N, I shall cancel my membership."
murc...@shaw.ca (Michael Paterson) in Message-ID
<4061b5fe.1457015@news>
Hmm?
As you know I challenged you to back that statement up. I asked:
>If you are a member, you will know 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 away 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.
And you failed to answer a single point, now claiming you "have never
been in the place" and that you "never wanted the membership; didn't
ever visit it".
This is an interesting response. I expect you hoped to put me off the
scent, but that statement reveals far more about your lies than you
realise.
becasecause, as any real member knows, you don't just get a membership
and keep it for 43 years (1961-2004), just like that. There's an
annual fee.
So it's pretty hard to see how you could have "ben a member since
1961" while you "didn't want the membership", because you would have
had to pay the Country Members fee for at least 43 years, in order to
be able to "cancel [your] membership".
Nice little trap you set yourself there, Paterson. Explain that you
lying, dishonourable fraud.
On second thoughts, don't bother. It's obvious to everyone reading
this that you've been caught in a lie again. Why don't you slink off
and beat up your current girlfriend to feel better about yourself?
>I've been in the In and Out though, if that helps.
So has half of London. They're not exactly selective at the
Piccadilly. I suppose this is tacit admission that you're not a member
of that club either?
>My father was a member.
Ah yes. Your RAF squadron leader father who knew Hitler personally and
who liked to lunch at the Savoy. Tell me about his raids on Germany
again Paterson - I am quite able to check his unit and operations, if
you like, along with his membership at the Naval and Military. I'm
sure you've posted his name somewhere, let me see....
Seven Nation Amy
Well who would have thought it possible for someone to have exactly zero
life for so long.
Starshine Moonbeam
>
> "Starshine Moonbeam" <silve...@tacoshells.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1acba1225...@news.alt.net...
>
> > > I'm implying that up until that point, you have never made sense.
> >
> > Why should I care what a little nothing like you thinks?
>
> Because I'm being totally honest, honestly.
Are you really being honestly honest? Maybe you're being dishonestly
honest. Anyway, it doesn't matter as to how sincerely you state it, it's
still ridiculous.
>
> > You've obviously read enough to make a reply, and that's what's really
> important.
>
> It is?
Of course it is. If you didn't reply, why this thread would be over.
Usenet thrives on communication.
> You need to sort out your priorities, you obtuse fuck.
Thanks for telling me advice, you utter buffoon with a newsreader. I need
suggestions from you like I need to shave my head with a cheese grater.
>
> > You dragging your idiot slave-self to the altar of starshine for
> self-sacrafice.
>
> St. Starfish: The Patron Saint of Dickheads.
Now see, *that's* kinda funny. Tee hee! Here's something even funnier.
You're still dragging your idiot self to the altar of starshine for self-
sacrifice like the good little slave. Ha Ha!
>
> The only thing I'll sacrafice [sic] is a steaming turd, which I'll place in
> your chalice.
Keep it.
>
> > Wow. I'm just in awe of your logic abilities.
>
> You always look like you're in awe, what with your constant slack jawed,
> blank expression.
You can see me? You peepin' in my windows or something?
>
> > I may as well just cry plonk and run away.
>
> You may as well.
Well, you won't mind if I don't take your word for it, I'm sure.
>
> > Well, maybe I shouldn't be so hasty.
>
> That's pretty much impossible, dolt.
Yeah, but I'm the one who's keeping my cool. Welcome to alt.flame,
victim. Hell, you should be glad. You bleated enough for attention and
now you found some. Well, I had some free time to play pattycake with the
lesser beings. What the heck, they'll never learn unless you show 'em,
right?
>
> > 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.
>
> LOL, erm, I mean *tremble*
Yeah, do that. I'm not one of the nice ones.
>
> > > 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.
>
> So you were bullied at school? Wanna talk about it?
I did. Hence the sentences that preceded your ridiculous question.
>
> > Like I need reassurance.
>
> You need more than just reassurance. It's a pity you can't be part of one of
> those amusing body-swap comedies. Sadly, it looks like you're more suited to
> "Dawn of the Dead".
Rahhhhhhhrrrrrr....
>
> > I could use a good laugh or two.
>
> Proofread.
Wow, be sure to pounce on all the typos now, K? Pounce, pounce, pounce
because that's what all the alt.flamers did back in the old days.
Michele Dall'Agata
suzieflame <Suzie...@yachtmail.com> typed:
> On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 18:01:19 +0100, "Michele Dall'Agata"
> <luppolos...@virgilio.it-REMOVEME> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> It's in Google if you know where to look.
First, I would KNOW, since I was hitting at ANY poster that even vaguely
could make me think it was a woman, second I checked with Googles using
"suzieflame alt.flame 1992" and "suzieflame alt.flame 1993". You are not
there, while, instead, I am. What is this utter bullshit, darling? You might
have been here since 1997-98 if I remember correctly (I was not lurking a.f.
at that time but I think to remember some evidence of you at that time).
Pretending to belong to the Old Glories, huh?
Ciao,
Michele
bubbles
> In news:f5g360l2g2gd3k8kq...@4ax.com,
> suzieflame <Suzie...@yachtmail.com> typed:
> > On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 18:01:19 +0100, "Michele Dall'Agata"
> > <luppolos...@virgilio.it-REMOVEME> wrote:
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> > It's in Google if you know where to look.
>
> First, I would KNOW, since I was hitting at ANY poster that even vaguely
> could make me think it was a woman, second I checked with Googles using
> "suzieflame alt.flame 1992" and "suzieflame alt.flame 1993".
Perhaps he was posting under another nym.
--bubbles
suzieflame
wrote:
Perhaps I was.
Say - what happen to Patricia O Tauma and Kevin Darcy? Did they get
married in the end? And moronic Aussie, Andrew "DAC" Clayton? Keegan
is still around somewhere, and still a complete fuckhead.
Clyde B
> Are you really being honestly honest?
I thought I made that clear.
> Thanks for telling me advice
Thanks for listening me advice.
Now flame me, ponce.
> you utter buffoon with a newsreader.
I'll just wave the white flag now, shall I?
> I need suggestions from you like I need to shave my head with a cheese
grater.
Why do you need to shave your head with a cheese grater?
> > St. Starfish: The Patron Saint of Dickheads.
>
> Now see, *that's* kinda funny.
Of course it was; I said it.
> > The only thing I'll sacrafice [sic] is a steaming turd, which I'll
place in
> > your chalice.
>
> Keep it.
Ungrateful, girly cunt. Just take the steaming turd and I'll drop the
subject.
> You can see me?
Everyone can, target.
> You peepin' in my windows or something?
Is your cage fitted with double glazing? <throws some bait Suzie's way>
> Yeah, but I'm the one who's keeping my cool.
<Arnie> I sure iced that guy, cone of phrase <Arnie>
> Welcome to alt.flame, victim.
I've been here for years, Starfish.
> You bleated enough for attention and now you found some.
I got bored; wit is in short supply in this hole.
> Well, I had some free time
Why does that not surprise me, you bland, friendless prat?
>What the heck, they'll never learn unless you show 'em, right?
Quite.
And what do you suppose you can show me, besides the slapstick routine that
you've now perfected?
> > LOL, erm, I mean *tremble*
>
> Yeah, do that. I'm not one of the nice ones.
But you are harmless, despite your best efforts.
> > So you were bullied at school? Wanna talk about it?
>
> I did. Hence the sentences that preceded your ridiculous question.
You can construct sentences? Where?
> > > I could use a good laugh or two.
> >
> > Proofread.
>
> Wow, be sure to pounce on all the typos now, K? Pounce, pounce, pounce
> because that's what all the alt.flamers did back in the old days.
That's not a grammar flame. It's the contents of your posts that's funny,
not the grammar.
suzieflame
wrote:
In article <405dcfa3.6851742@news>, "Murchadh"(murc...@shaw.ca)
dropped
>a +5 bundle of words...
>> 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.
>
>Tell the truth, Micheal, or leave the topic alone. You did enough
>damage to Cailin without dragging that day up with this version.
>
>Stephen
Will he ever face up to the fact that nothing more than an impotent,
cowardly thug?
Soapy
So, Moronbeam got picked-on in high school. What a surprise.
--
__ __ __ __ O O O
/ / | / | / | / | O o o
(___ ( |(___|(___|(___| o _____________o
)| )| )| ) o.;-----------./|
__/ |__/ | / | __/ // S O A P Y // |
|'-----------'| /
jgs | | /
Smeeter #30-something '-------------'`
Starshine Moonbeam
>
> "Starshine Moonbeam" <silve...@tacoshells.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1acc6dfc2...@news.alt.net...
>
> > Are you really being honestly honest?
>
> I thought I made that clear.
Are you sure you're not being dishonestly honest?
>
> > Thanks for telling me advice
>
> Thanks for listening me advice.
Oh, I didn't listen to it. You're an idiot.
>
> Now flame me, ponce.
>
How about instead, I offer you hope.
When you're done being this week's fountain of suck, you can rest assured
that I won't really remember you because you were not unique or above
average in any way.
> > you utter buffoon with a newsreader.
>
> I'll just wave the white flag now, shall I?
Hey, it'll save me time. Go for it.
>
> > I need suggestions from you like I need to shave my head with a cheese
> grater.
>
> Why do you need to shave your head with a cheese grater?
Whoosh. Okay victim, re-read, grow a brain and come back when you've done
figgered it out.
(Snip - the rest of the post put on hold while Mr. Brainstorm here
struggles to keep up)
suzieflame
>On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 15:59:11 -0500, MacRobert <2...@mendment.Right!>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 19:56:03 +0100, suzieflame
>><Suzie...@yachtmail.com> paused to reflect but wrote anyway:
>>
>>>On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 12:46:34 -0500, MacRobert <2...@mendment.Right!>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>In article <405dcfa3.6851742@news>, "Murchadh"(murc...@shaw.ca)
>>>dropped
>>>>a +5 bundle of words...
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>Tell the truth, Micheal, or leave the topic alone. You did enough
>>>>damage to Cailin without dragging that day up with this version.
>>>>
>>>>Stephen
>>>
>>>Will he ever face up to the fact that nothing more than an impotent,
>>>cowardly thug?
>>
>>Look pal, I don't know you from Adam and I'm not supporting you.
>>
>>Stephen Hamilton
>>(just to make it easy for you)
>
>Thanks Stephen. I guess this is you getting your own back for being
>fired by me, even though I didn't sue you to get back Cailin's money
>that you pissed away on porn stores.
LOL
Paterson accusing someone else of pissing away his ex's money!
LOL
suzieflame
wrote:
>On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 01:05:30 GMT, murc...@shaw.ca (Murchadh) paused
>to reflect but wrote anyway:
>
>>On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 15:59:11 -0500, MacRobert <2...@mendment.Right!>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 19:56:03 +0100, suzieflame
>>><Suzie...@yachtmail.com> paused to reflect but wrote anyway:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 12:46:34 -0500, MacRobert <2...@mendment.Right!>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>In article <405dcfa3.6851742@news>, "Murchadh"(murc...@shaw.ca)
>>>>dropped
>>>>>a +5 bundle of words...
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>Tell the truth, Micheal, or leave the topic alone. You did enough
>>>>>damage to Cailin without dragging that day up with this version.
>>>>>
>>>>>Stephen
>>>>
>>>>Will he ever face up to the fact that nothing more than an impotent,
>>>>cowardly thug?
>>>
>>>Look pal, I don't know you from Adam and I'm not supporting you.
>>>
>>>Stephen Hamilton
>>>(just to make it easy for you)
>>
>>Thanks Stephen.
>
>I wasn't supporting you either.
>
>>I guess this is you getting your own back for being
>>fired by me, even though I didn't sue you to get back Cailin's money
>>that you pissed away on porn stores.
>
>For the life of me I can't figure out what you mean by that
>foolishness, so please check one of the following:
>
>a. __ You've been drinking again and thought it was clever.
>b. __ You haven't been drinking but still thought it was clever.
>c. __ You are trying to be serious, but are not very clever.
>d. __ You are simply trolling, but with the wrong bait.
>
>Stephen
Simple questions, Paterson - multiple choice. Which is it?
bubbles
> On 25 Mar 2004 07:50:01 -0800, bubbl...@hotmail.com (bubbles)
> wrote:
>
> >Perhaps he was posting under another nym.
>
Which one?
> Say - what happen to Patricia O Tauma and Kevin Darcy?
Both killed in Nam.
> And moronic Aussie, Andrew "DAC" Clayton?
Blown up in the Bali bombing.
> Keegan is still around somewhere, and still a complete fuckhead.
Keegan deserves to be blown up.
--bubbles
suzieflame
>On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 22:35:01 -0500, MacRobert <2...@mendment.Right!>
>wrote:
>
>>For the life of me I can't figure out what you mean by that
>>foolishness, so please check one of the following:
>>
>>a. __ You've been drinking again and thought it was clever.
>>b. __ You haven't been drinking but still thought it was clever.
>>c. __ You are trying to be serious, but are not very clever.
>>d. __ You are simply trolling, but with the wrong bait.
>>
>>Stephen
>
>I was referring to the fact that you blew away over $20,000 of my
>company's money and that part of the information which you were paid
>to collect for our freight customers consisted of porn suppliers...
>
>If the sheriff had thought I was to blame in any way, he would have
>arrested me on the spot. He had an opportunity a year later and didn't
>take it. So calling me a liar is simply another piece of
>misinformation on your part.
>
>To think that all this started because I took pity on you and
>suggested you hide out here for a while when you had to leave home
>after slapping your wife around... No good deed goes unpunished.
>
>I don't have your taste for washing dirty laundry in public and I
>certainly have no taste for you or the nasty little psychopath who is
>giggling at the help you have given her to destroy this group.
>
>Murchadh
Peter J Ross
> Clyde B 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?
>
> Long enough to know that you are a complete knob.
Please note that nobody in AUK gives a damn about your attempts to
gain alt.flame kudos by "flaming" your fellow jerkhead Clyde B.
Not that you'll ever stop. <sigh>
--
PJR :-)
(Remove NOSPAM to reply.)
Peter J Ross
And you're famous how, exactly?
Clyde B
"Peter J Ross" <gad...@NOSPAMmeow.org> wrote in message
news:c45dho.3...@nntp.petitmorte.net...
> >> 5 years on here hardly makes me a newbie, sweety. And you've
> >> been on here how long, exactly?
> >
> > Long enough to know that you are a complete knob.
>
> Please note that nobody in AUK gives a damn about your attempts to
> gain alt.flame kudos by "flaming" your fellow jerkhead Clyde B.
Did you ask everyone in AUK?
> Not that you'll ever stop. <sigh>
It's an obsession. What possessed you to stick your twisted beak into this
thread anyway, Ross?
Clyde B
"Checkmate" <Lunati...@The.Edge> wrote in message
news:MPG.1acfd3272...@news.alt.net...
>
> On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 03:03:53 +0100, Clyde B put forth the notion that...
But why?
He's a got smiley in his .sig for fuck sake. What does such a colossal
waste of bandwidth have to smile about? It's all so very creepy.
Soapy
news:c45bqa$2e2tf6$1...@ID-183756.news.uni-berlin.de
Pedey seems to think he owns AUK now.
Soapy
*This* is creepy:
http://www.pjr-online.co.uk/bio.html
Soapy
You speak for all of AUK now, Pedey?
suzieflame
>"Clyde B" <tehsa...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:c45bqa$2e2tf6$1...@ID-183756.news.uni-berlin.de
>
>>
>> "Peter J Ross" <gad...@NOSPAMmeow.org> wrote in message
>> news:c45dho.3...@nntp.petitmorte.net...
>>
>>> >> 5 years on here hardly makes me a newbie, sweety. And you've
>>> >> been on here how long, exactly?
>>> >
>>> > Long enough to know that you are a complete knob.
>>>
>>> Please note that nobody in AUK gives a damn about your attempts
>>> to gain alt.flame kudos by "flaming" your fellow jerkhead Clyde
>>> B.
>>
>> Did you ask everyone in AUK?
>>
>>> Not that you'll ever stop. <sigh>
>>
>> It's an obsession. What possessed you to stick your twisted beak
>> into this thread anyway, Ross?
>
>Pedey seems to think he owns AUK now.
Pretty kooky.
Michele Dall'Agata
Peter J Ross <gad...@NOSPAMmeow.org> typed:
Read the bloody alt.flame faq.
Ciao,
Michele
±
Do you ever stop speaking for others, n00bs?
> --
> PJR :-)
>
> (Remove NOSPAM to reply.)
--
http://www.geocities.com/snuhsite
-------
/ \
/ \ /-----\
| (@) | | SnuH |
| (O) | \_ ___/
| / | ||
| \ /_ / //
\ \____/ / /
\ /
\_____,
±
http://www.geocities.com/snuhsite/pedy.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/snuhsite/vjiking.jpg
>
> --
> __ __ __ __ O O O
> / / | / | / | / | O o o
> (___ ( |(___|(___|(___| o _____________o
> )| )| )| ) o.;-----------./|
> __/ |__/ | / | __/ // S O A P Y // |
> |'-----------'| /
> jgs | | /
> Smeeter #30-something '-------------'`
>
±
I use those pics to scare my nephew.
> --
> Tim Weaver /--\ |"I know you think you understand what you thought I said,|
> tmw1962666 \++/ | but I an not sure what you heard is not what I meant." |
> mhm #: nul |"Usenet is like Tetris for people who still remember how |
> smeeter #: nul | to read. So many newsfroups, so little time..." |
suzieflame
wrote:
Ross, you'll always be a newbie with that kind of attitude. Don't let
your FNVW status go to your pointy little head - you've still been
voted one of Usenet's most boring people, which is how you're famous,
exactly:
2003 Alt.flame Awards
---------------------
Mike Thacker Award for Most Boring Writer
1st place : Peter J. Ross 17
Worst Newbie
1st place : All Newbies 24
2nd place : Peter J. Ross 17
Clyde B
"Soapy" <yp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94BA110...@207.14.113.17...
> "Clyde B" <tehsa...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:c45bqa$2e2tf6$1...@ID-183756.news.uni-berlin.de
>
> >
> > "Peter J Ross" <gad...@NOSPAMmeow.org> wrote in message
> > news:c45dho.3...@nntp.petitmorte.net...
> >
> >> >> 5 years on here hardly makes me a newbie, sweety. And you've
> >> >> been on here how long, exactly?
> >> >
> >> > Long enough to know that you are a complete knob.
> >>
> >> Please note that nobody in AUK gives a damn about your attempts
> >> to gain alt.flame kudos by "flaming" your fellow jerkhead Clyde
> >> B.
> >
> > Did you ask everyone in AUK?
> >
> >> Not that you'll ever stop. <sigh>
> >
> > It's an obsession. What possessed you to stick your twisted beak
> > into this thread anyway, Ross?
>
> Pedey seems to think he owns AUK now.
That mangy poster boy for birth control doesn't even own a toothbrush.
Clyde B
Seven Nation Amy
> On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 21:00:17 +0100, Clyde B put forth the notion that...
Nah. His posts do that for him.
Michele Dall'Agata
suzieflame <Suzie...@yachtmail.com> typed:
> On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 01:42:42 GMT, Peter J Ross <gad...@NOSPAMmeow.org>
> wrote:
>>>> Since 1992, newbie.
>>>
>>> No fucking way. Never heard of you before.
>>
>> And you're famous how, exactly?
>
> Ross, you'll always be a newbie with that kind of attitude. Don't let
> your FNVW status go to your pointy little head - you've still been
> voted one of Usenet's most boring people, which is how you're famous,
> exactly:
>
> 2003 Alt.flame Awards
> ---------------------
>
> Mike Thacker Award for Most Boring Writer
> 1st place : Peter J. Ross 17
>
> Worst Newbie
> 1st place : All Newbies 24
> 2nd place : Peter J. Ross 17
And he IS creepy as well!
Ciao,
Michele
PS: SuzieDarling, but don't you feel like shooting the Red Cross flaming
this poor guy?
Michele Dall'Agata
Clyde B <tehsa...@yahoo.com> typed:
>> http://www.pjr-online.co.uk/bio.html
>
> What *is* that?
Your boyfriend, scotty. Don't you recognize him?
±
>
> On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 01:42:42 GMT, Peter J Ross <gad...@NOSPAMmeow.org>
> wrote:
>
> >On 24 Mar 2004, Michele Dall'Agata wrote in alt.usenet.kooks:
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> >And you're famous how, exactly?
>
> Ross, you'll always be a newbie with that kind of attitude. Don't let
> your FNVW status go to your pointy little head
n00bie hasn't any "FNVW status".
A few months ago, I brought up that most FNVW's just took over the
position, it was rarely *handed* down.
Pedey couldn't wrangle a vote if his life depended on it - if you feel
like being the new FNVW, go for it, I'm sure you'd have more than five
people voting for the KotM awards.
> - you've still been
> voted one of Usenet's most boring people, which is how you're famous,
> exactly:
>
> 2003 Alt.flame Awards
> ---------------------
>
> Mike Thacker Award for Most Boring Writer
> 1st place : Peter J. Ross 17
>
> Worst Newbie
> 1st place : All Newbies 24
> 2nd place : Peter J. Ross 17
>
> --
> 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
"Michele Dall'Agata" <luppolos...@virgilio.it-REMOVEME> wrote in
message news:c48u77$a7g$1...@lacerta.tiscalinet.it...
Are you trying to flame me now? Make up your mind, for fuck sake.
Thomas Hill
wrote in Message id: <MPG.1ad0d9d15...@news.alt.net>:
>
>On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 21:00:17 +0100, Clyde B put forth the notion that...
>PJR and his pet pipe... makes him look intelligent or something.
More or something than intelligent, AFAICS.
Thomas Hill
id: <Xns94BA110...@207.14.113.17>:
>"Clyde B" <tehsa...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:c45bqa$2e2tf6$1...@ID-183756.news.uni-berlin.de
>
>>
>> "Peter J Ross" <gad...@NOSPAMmeow.org> wrote in message
>> news:c45dho.3...@nntp.petitmorte.net...
>>
>>> >> 5 years on here hardly makes me a newbie, sweety. And you've
>>> >> been on here how long, exactly?
>>> >
>>> > Long enough to know that you are a complete knob.
>>>
>>> Please note that nobody in AUK gives a damn about your attempts
>>> to gain alt.flame kudos by "flaming" your fellow jerkhead Clyde
>>> B.
>>
>> Did you ask everyone in AUK?
>>
>>> Not that you'll ever stop. <sigh>
>>
>> It's an obsession. What possessed you to stick your twisted beak
>> into this thread anyway, Ross?
>
>Pedey seems to think he owns AUK now.
Nobody else wants it.
Michele Dall'Agata
Clyde B <tehsa...@yahoo.com> typed:
Ahhhh, fuck it!! It was just such a compulsive answer to your question!! It
came out naturally. C'mon, get slagged and shut up.
Ciao,
Michele
Peter J Ross
> On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 01:42:42 GMT, Peter J Ross <gad...@NOSPAMmeow.org>
> wrote:
>
>> On 24 Mar 2004, Michele Dall'Agata wrote in alt.usenet.kooks:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> And you're famous how, exactly?
>
> Ross, you'll always be a newbie with that kind of attitude.
Do you mind if I take notes?
<licks pencil>
"Insulting alt.flamers is proof of being a newbie."
Tnx for the helpful info!
> Don't let
> your FNVW status go to your pointy little head -
I'm not official yet, and Phoenix will still be the FNVW Emeritus.
> you've still been
> voted one of Usenet's most boring people,
ALL of Usenet voted, I'm sure.
> which is how you're famous, exactly:
>
> 2003 Alt.flame Awards
> ---------------------
>
> Mike Thacker Award for Most Boring Writer
> 1st place : Peter J. Ross 17
My thanks to the three very obscure people who helped me to defeat the
candidate that the other two very obscure people voted for.
I had it in my .sig for weeks, Suze. Didn't you get the message?
> Worst Newbie
> 1st place : All Newbies 24
> 2nd place : Peter J. Ross 17
I'll have to bribe Kopout or Dimmy to vote for me twice next time. I
dislike being second.