Cockroach Rog's Latest 75k "Libel Fizzler" Toss
Bill Palmer
In <5mio6j$h...@news-central.tiac.net> rog...@tiac.net (Roger Williams)
writes:
[... An oft-reposted 75 k snipped right off the bat
as a public service!]
Even though Cockraoch Roger "Williams" reposted his massive
75k "libel fizzler" in alt.genius.bill-palmer again this
week, our pseudonymous posting Cockroach seems to have
slightly reduced the frequency of his tossing his 75k
"libel fizzler" (so called because of its resemblance to
a huge, dud firecracker) into alt.genius.bill.palmer.
The reason for his reducing the number of 75k repostings
is plain. After I noticed that Cockroach Rog had taken to
whining about what he saw as the "crosspost trangressions"
of others, I remarked upon the irony of a net abuser of
record like Rog crying floods of crocodile tears about
someone crossposting to seven relevant newsgroups after
Roach Rog had decreed the person should only post to five.
Always in character, Rog drooled some sorry, ludicrous excuses
for his flagrant net abuse, but he DID slow down his 75k reposts
immediately.
These facts will remain, despite Roach Rog's repeated
effort to cloud the real issues: Roach Roger has dumped
his 75k "libel fizzler" into alt.genius.bill-palmer
again and again and again and again. By reposting
the same material over and over, he has shown his
utter disregard for Usnet policy, for netiquette, and
for the alt.genius.bill-palmer newsgroup readers.
Now, since I recently pointed out all this--and lots
more!--about Rog Rog's continuing net abuse (in my
recent "Cockroach Garners 'Gall' Award") I won't
repeat it all here. (Don't miss my article of last
week, though, if you desire to hear about the blatent
hypocrisy of the famous Usenet cockroach. All who
have encountered him agree that Roger is certainly
the LAST ONE who should EVER complain about the
posting preferences of others: THAT point I made
very clear, due to all the "75k mountains" of
bandwidth busting evidence against our pseudonymous,
net-abusing fraud and repost-maniac "Williams.")
However, I might add that being exposed as a pseudonymous
libelist and a net abuser in no way slowed Roach Rog down
in other ways:
Last week Rog made a pretense of "reposting" material of
mine, and he actually ADDED GRAMMER ERRORS in MY text to
support his utterly false and ironic contention that a
drooler of fourth-rate "flames" like Rog had something to
say worth listening to about MY writing! (All details are
readily available in my "New Cockoach Rog Repost Con
Exposed" which I posted on 22 May.)
Of course, Roach Rog proves very big on "repost
cons" (which he claims "don't exist," since they
represent his speciality as libel artist). This
is ironic, because no one has actually offered
more introvertible proof of the existence of "repost
cons" than Rog himself, in his ordinary posting
(and repost) behavior.
For new readers, I will sum up the techniques used
in Roach Rog's 75k Repost Con "Libel Fizzler" that
he desperately reposts again and again in a futile
attempt to get his long since mired-down libel
bandwagon rolling again:
The Pseudonymous Roger "Williams" employs the
following tricks in his 75k "libel fizzler"
1.) Material that he deviously removed from articles of
mine and represented out of context. This text appeared
mostly in well-known lampoons that I have posted last
year. Rog misrepresents my satires as "racist,"
and "proves" his case with a dishonest "yardstick"
that would make Monty Python movies, Norman Mailer
essays, and the works of most famous and prolific
writers--in Usenet or in the print world--equally
"racist."
2.) While most of the material of mine that Roach Rog
reposts is taken out of article context, a couple
of items are removed by Rog from their entire thread
context and misrepresented. The dishonest effect
stays the same, despite "Williams" devious whines
to the contrary.
3.) At times Roach Rog will actually alter quotes of mine,
adding or subtracting words here and there, to furnish
further "evidence" for his falsehoods and dissimulations.
4.) Roach Rog "Williams," the pseudonymous libel artist,
also "bolsters" his "case" with third party testimony.
As it turns out, however, all the "third parties" are
members of Roach Rog's defamation team--and all are
well-toasted flame war losers with big axes to grind
(To that end, we hear from such "sterling accociates"
of Rog as "Pus Bag" John Davis, and the "witness list"
actually goes downhill from there!)
5.) Roach Rog does not depend solely on "third parties" to
"support" his defamatory contentions: He adds plenty of
untrue commentary of his own in a vain attempt to
successfully glue together his libel concoction
with scads of "Williams" own prevarication-filled
blather.
6.) Plenty of "headers," employed in a clumsy and soporific
attempt by Rog to add a veneer of authenticity to his
transparently dishonest and libelous 75k document.
Of course, one of Roach Rog's objectives in posting such
a massive (and massively defamatory) tissue is that he
knows that my going through it point by point and refuting
it in its entirety would necessitate my frequently reposting
a 350k article (at least!) showing carefully how each line
of the "libel fizzler" falls neatly into one or more of
the above six techniques Rog employed. His "overpower
'em with sheer size" strategy proves a key element in
Rog's massive reposts.
Wasting such vast amounts of Usenet storage space would
not be fair to to Usenet or to my many readers, and I
refuse to let Roach Roger force me into emulating his
net-abusing, bandwidth-busting behavior.
That is not necessary. Any neutral party who can wade
through the mess Roach Rog created, and who will take
time to correlate what Rog reposted with the non-racist
entirety of my Dejanews archive will easily be able to
spot Rog's complete dependence upon the six libel-techniques
(explained above).
I might add that since I never post under a pseudonym
(unlike Roach Rog "Williams" who carries out libel
campaigns under false names) and since I never use
the Dejanews "X-No-Archive--Yes" function, my personal
archive gives the TRUE story of my Usenet posting--
which of course is wholly non-racist and the
exact opposite of what is to be found in the
cobbled-together "libel concoctions" of sore
losers and pseudonymous frauds like "Williams."
>
Wotan
In article <5mngol$c...@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>,
wil...@ix.netcom.com bleated:
The drivel from this idiot is as bad as ever. Lets spice it up a bit
with chef; and see if becomes worth reading.
>[... Un oofft-repusted 75 k sneepped reeght ooffff zee bet es a
>poobleec serfeece-a!]
>
>Ifee thuoogh Cuckreuch Ruger "Veelliems" repusted hees messeefe-a 75k
>"leebel feezzler" in elt.geneeoos.beell-pelmer egeeen thees veek, oooor
>pseoodunymuoos pusteeng Cuckruech seems tu hefe-a sleeghtly redooced
>zee freqooency ooff hees tusseeng hees 75k "leebel feezzler" (su celled
>becoose-a ooff its resemblunce-a tu a hooge-a, dood furecrecker) intu
>elt.geneeoos.beell.pelmer. Bork Bork Bork!
>
>Zee reesun fur hees redooceeng zee noomber ooff 75k repusteengs is
>pleeen. Effter I nuteeced thet Cuckruech Rug hed tekee tu vheening
>ebuoot vhet he-a sev es zee "crusspust trungresseeuns" ooff oozeers,
>I remerked upun zee iruny ooff a net ebooser ooff recurd leeke-a Rug
>cryeeng fluuds ooff crucudeele-a teers ebuoot sumeune-a crusspusteeng
>tu sefee relefunt noosgruoops effter Ruech Rug hed decreed zee persun
>shuoold oonly pust tu feefe-a.
>
>Elveys in cherecter, Rug druuled sume-a surry, loodeecruoos ixcooses
>fur hees flegrunt net eboose-a, boot he-a DID sloo doon hees 75k
>repusts immedeeetely. Bork Bork Bork!
>
>Zeese-a fects veell remeeen, despeete-a Ruech Rug's repeeted iffffurt
>tu cluood zee reel issooes: Ruech Ruger hes doomped hees 75k "leebel
>feezzler" intu elt.geneeoos.beell-pelmer egeeen und egeeen und egeeen
>und egeeen. By repusteeng zee seme-a metereeel oofer und oofer, he-a
>hes shoon hees utter deesregerd fur Usnet puleecy, fur neteeqooette-a,
>und fur zee elt.geneeoos.beell-pelmer noosgruoop reeders. Bork Bork
>Bork!
>
>Noo, seence-a I recently pueented oooot ell thees--und luts
>mure-a!--ebuoot Rug Rug's cunteenooing net eboose-a (in my recent
>"Cuckruech Gerners 'Gell' Everd") I vun't repeet it ell here-a. (Dun't
>meess my erteecle-a ooff lest veek, thuoogh, iff yuoo desure-a tu
>heer ebuoot zee bletent hypucreesy ooff zee femuoos Usenet cuckruech.
>Ell vhu hefe-a incuoontered heem egree-a thet Ruger is certeeenly zee
>LEST OoNE vhu shuoold IFER cumpleeen ebuoot zee pusteeng prefferences
>ooff oozeers: THET pueent I mede-a fery cleer, dooe-a tu ell zee "75k
>muoonteeens" ooff bundveedt boosteeng ifeedence-a egeeenst oooor
>pseoodunymuoos, net-ebooseeng frood und repust-muneeec "Veelliems.")
>
>Hooefer, I meeght edd thet beeeng ixpused es a pseoodunymuoos leebelist
>und a net ebooser in nu vey slooed Ruech Rug doon in oozeer veys:
>
>Lest veek Rug mede-a a pretense-a ooff "repusteeng" metereeel ooff
>meene-a, und he-a ectooelly EDDED GREMMER IRRORS in MY text tu
>sooppurt hees utterly felse-a und iruneec cuntenshun thet a druuler
>ooff fuoort-rete-a "flemes" leeke-a Rug hed sumetheeng tu sey vurt
>leestening tu ebuoot MY vreeting! (Ell deteeels ere-a reedeely
>efeeeleble-a in my "Noo Cuckuech Rug Repust Cun Ixpused" vheech I
>pusted oon 22 Mey.)
>
>Ooff cuoorse-a, Ruech Rug prufes fery beeg oon "repust cuns" (vheech
>he-a cleeems "dun't ixeest," seence-a zeey represent hees speceeelity
>es leebel erteest). Thees is iruneec, becoose-a nu oone-a hes ectooelly
>ooffffered mure-a intruferteeble-a pruuff ooff zee ixeestence-a ooff
>"repust cuns" thun Rug heemselff, in hees oordeenery pusteeng (und
>repust) behefeeur. Bork Bork Bork!
>
>Fur noo reeders, I veell soom up zee techneeqooes used in Ruech Rug's
>75k Repust Cun "Leebel Feezzler" thet he-a desperetely repusts egeeen
>und egeeen in a footeele-a ettempt tu get hees lung seence-a mured-doon
>leebel bundvegun rulleeng egeeen:
>
>Zee Pseoodunymuoos Ruger "Veelliems" impluys zee fullooeeng treecks in
>hees 75k "leebel feezzler"
>
>1.) Metereeel thet he-a defeeuoosly remufed frum erteecles ooff meene-a
>und represented oooot ooff cuntext. Thees text eppeered mustly in
>vell-knoon lempuuns thet I hefe-a pusted lest yeer. Rug meesrepresents
>my setures es "receest," und "prufes" hees cese-a veet a deeshunest
>"yerdsteeck" thet vuoold meke-a Munty Pythun mufeees, Nurmun Meeeler
>isseys, und zee vurks ooff must femuoos und pruleeffic vreeters--in
>Usenet oor in zee preent vurld--iqooelly "receest."
>
>2.) Vheele-a must ooff zee metereeel ooff meene-a thet Ruech Rug
>repusts is tekee oooot ooff erteecle-a cuntext, a cuoople-a ooff
>items ere-a remufed by Rug frum zeeur inture-a threed cuntext und
>meesrepresented. Zee deeshunest iffffect steys zee seme-a, despeete-a
>"Veelliems" defeeuoos vheenes tu zee cuntrery. Bork Bork Bork!
>
>3.) Et teemes Ruech Rug veell ectooelly elter qooutes ooff meene-a,
>eddeeng oor soobtrecteeng vurds here-a und zeere-a, tu foorneesh
>foorzeer "ifeedence-a" fur hees felsehuuds und deessimooleshuns. Bork
>Bork Bork!
>
>4.) Ruech Rug "Veelliems," zee pseoodunymuoos leebel erteest, elsu
>"bulsters" hees "cese-a" veet thurd perty testeemuny. Bork Bork Bork!
>Es it toorns oooot, hooefer, ell zee "thurd perteees" ere-a members
>ooff Ruech Rug's deffemeshun teem--und ell ere-a vell-tuested fleme-a
>ver lusers veet beeg exes tu greend (Tu thet ind, ve-a heer frum sooch
>"sterleeng eccuceeetes" ooff Rug es "Poos Beg" Juhn Defees, und zee
>"veetness leest" ectooelly gues doonheell frum zeere-a!)
>
>5.) Ruech Rug dues nut depend sulely oon "thurd perteees" tu "sooppurt"
>hees deffemetury cuntenshuns: He-a edds plenty ooff untrooe-a
>cummentery ooff hees oovn in a feeen ettempt tu sooccessffoolly glooe-a
>tugezeer hees leebel cuncucshun veet sceds ooff "Veelliems" oovn
>prefereeceshun-feelled blezeer. Bork Bork Bork!
>
>6.) Plenty ooff "heeders," impluyed in a cloomsy und supureeffic
>ettempt by Rug tu edd a feneer ooff oozeenteecity tu hees trunsperently
>deeshunest und leebeluoos 75k ducooment. Bork Bork Bork!
>
>Ooff cuoorse-a, oone-a ooff Ruech Rug's oobjecteefes in pusteeng sooch
>a messeefe-a (und messeefely deffemetury) teessooe-a is thet he-a
>knoos thet my gueeng thruoogh it pueent by pueent und reffooteeng it
>in its inturety vuoold necesseetete-a my freqooently repusteeng a 350k
>erteecle-a (et leest!) shooeeng cereffoolly hoo iech leene-a ooff
>zee "leebel feezzler" fells neetly intu oone-a oor mure-a ooff zee
>ebufe-a seex techneeqooes Rug impluyed. Hees "ooferpooer 'em veet sheer
>seeze-a" stretegy prufes a key ilement in Rug's messeefe-a repusts.
>Bork Bork Bork!
>
>Vesteeng sooch fest emuoonts ooff Usenet sturege-a spece-a vuoold
>nut be-a feur tu tu Usenet oor tu my muny reeders, und I reffoose-a
>tu let Ruech Ruger furce-a me-a intu imooleteeng hees net-ebooseeng,
>bundveedt-boosteeng behefeeur. Bork Bork Bork!
>
>Thet is nut necessery. Uny neootrel perty vhu cun vede-a thruoogh zee
>mess Ruech Rug creeted, und vhu veell teke-a teeme-a tu currelete-a
>vhet Rug repusted veet zee nun-receest inturety ooff my Dejunoos
>ercheefe-a veell ieseely be-a eble-a tu sput Rug's cumplete-a
>dependence-a upun zee seex leebel-techneeqooes (ixpleeened ebufe-a).
>Bork Bork Bork!
>
>I meeght edd thet seence-a I nefer pust under a pseoodunym (unleeke-a
>Ruech Rug "Veelliems" vhu cerreees oooot leebel cempeeegns
>under felse-a nemes) und seence-a I nefer use-a zee Dejunoos
>"X-Nu-Ercheefe-a--Yes" fooncshun, my persunel ercheefe-a geefes zee
>TROoE stury ooff my Usenet pusteeng-- vheech ooff cuoorse-a is vhully
>nun-receest und zee ixect ooppuseete-a ooff vhet is tu be-a fuoond
>in zee cubbled-tugezeer "leebel cuncucshuns" ooff sure-a lusers und
>pseoodunymuoos froods leeke-a "Veelliems."
>
>
>
--
Always remember that you are unique. Just like everyone else.
Roger Williams
Bill Palmer (wil...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In <5mio6j$h...@news-central.tiac.net> rog...@tiac.net (Roger Williams)
: writes:
:
: [... An oft-reposted 75 k snipped right off the bat
: as a public service!]
:
: Even though Cockraoch Roger "Williams" reposted his massive
: 75k "libel fizzler" in alt.genius.bill-palmer again this
: week, our pseudonymous posting Cockroach seems to have
: slightly reduced the frequency of his tossing his 75k
: "libel fizzler" (so called because of its resemblance to
: a huge, dud firecracker) into alt.genius.bill.palmer.
Welcome back, Patsy! I didn't think it would be this easy to troll you
out back into the open, but wild unpredictable behavior is hardly your
forte.
: The reason for his reducing the number of 75k repostings
: is plain. After I noticed that Cockroach Rog had taken to
: whining about what he saw as the "crosspost trangressions"
: of others, I remarked upon the irony of a net abuser of
: record like Rog crying floods of crocodile tears about
: someone crossposting to seven relevant newsgroups after
: Roach Rog had decreed the person should only post to five.
I post the FAQ once per month you mouthbreathing imbecile. Why in fact,
June 1st is Sunday... repost, anyone?
: Always in character, Rog drooled some sorry, ludicrous excuses
: for his flagrant net abuse, but he DID slow down his 75k reposts
: immediately.
Which "excuse" is that, Palmjob? Care to breathe some life into your
dull witted lie?
: These facts will remain, despite Roach Rog's repeated
: effort to cloud the real issues: Roach Roger has dumped
: his 75k "libel fizzler" into alt.genius.bill-palmer
: again and again and again and again. By reposting
: the same material over and over, he has shown his
: utter disregard for Usnet policy, for netiquette, and
: for the alt.genius.bill-palmer newsgroup readers.
You don't even know what a libel fizzler is, Palmjob. In fact, Dave
Kendrick was kind enough to post the recipe to alt.flame:
1 part gin
1 part vermouth
1 dash bitters *
* representing Palmjob's bitterness at his alienation
Drink 100 of them and wait for Palmjob's posts to make sense.
: Now, since I recently pointed out all this--and lots
: more!--about Rog Rog's continuing net abuse (in my
: recent "Cockroach Garners 'Gall' Award") I won't
: repeat it all here. (Don't miss my article of last
: week, though, if you desire to hear about the blatent
: hypocrisy of the famous Usenet cockroach. All who
: have encountered him agree that Roger is certainly
: the LAST ONE who should EVER complain about the
: posting preferences of others: THAT point I made
: very clear, due to all the "75k mountains" of
: bandwidth busting evidence against our pseudonymous,
: net-abusing fraud and repost-maniac "Williams.")
Yawn. If this is Friday, it must be Palmjob. Thanks for expressing your
desire to have me repost your famous racist articles again... I forgot you
wilt if you aren't attended to every day.
: However, I might add that being exposed as a pseudonymous
: libelist and a net abuser in no way slowed Roach Rog down
: in other ways:
:
: Last week Rog made a pretense of "reposting" material of
: mine, and he actually ADDED GRAMMER ERRORS in MY text to
Oh dear God... as a spelling auto-flame, this is TOO perfect. It
hearkens back to the days of RAOCH ROG and "clealy, sir".
: support his utterly false and ironic contention that a
: drooler of fourth-rate "flames" like Rog had something to
: say worth listening to about MY writing! (All details are
: readily available in my "New Cockoach Rog Repost Con
: Exposed" which I posted on 22 May.)
You put the wrong word in quotes; I think you should have said
"writing".
: Of course, Roach Rog proves very big on "repost
: cons" (which he claims "don't exist," since they
: represent his speciality as libel artist). This
: is ironic, because no one has actually offered
: more introvertible proof of the existence of "repost
: cons" than Rog himself, in his ordinary posting
: (and repost) behavior.
Palmjob, you invented the phrase "repost con" (usually screamed in
melodramatic capitals as in "CLEALY, GREASY RAOUL'S REPOST CON IS AN
INSECT!", etc.) and change the definition weekly. It's nice to see you
come out and scream repost con everytime someone uses something you said
that makes you look like an idiot, which is excruciatingly often.
: For new readers, I will sum up the techniques used
: in Roach Rog's 75k Repost Con "Libel Fizzler" that
: he desperately reposts again and again in a futile
: attempt to get his long since mired-down libel
: bandwagon rolling again:
:
: The Pseudonymous Roger "Williams" employs the
: following tricks in his 75k "libel fizzler"
:
: 1.) Material that he deviously removed from articles of
: mine and represented out of context. This text appeared
: mostly in well-known lampoons that I have posted last
: year. Rog misrepresents my satires as "racist,"
: and "proves" his case with a dishonest "yardstick"
: that would make Monty Python movies, Norman Mailer
: essays, and the works of most famous and prolific
: writers--in Usenet or in the print world--equally
: "racist."
Hmm, you rolled out the same wearisome lie after I reposted your
"coolie" and "greasy" articles in their entirety. Can I have "Predictable
Palmjobisms" for $100, Alex?
: 2.) While most of the material of mine that Roach Rog
: reposts is taken out of article context, a couple
: of items are removed by Rog from their entire thread
: context and misrepresented. The dishonest effect
: stays the same, despite "Williams" devious whines
: to the contrary.
Palmy, the remedy to your affliction is to choose your words more
carefully before posting them.
: 3.) At times Roach Rog will actually alter quotes of mine,
: adding or subtracting words here and there, to furnish
: further "evidence" for his falsehoods and dissimulations.
:
: 4.) Roach Rog "Williams," the pseudonymous libel artist,
: also "bolsters" his "case" with third party testimony.
: As it turns out, however, all the "third parties" are
: members of Roach Rog's defamation team--and all are
: well-toasted flame war losers with big axes to grind
: (To that end, we hear from such "sterling accociates"
: of Rog as "Pus Bag" John Davis, and the "witness list"
: actually goes downhill from there!)
Bullshit, now you've actually made something up to garner sympathy.
Why don't you go ahead and find a quote of yours I have added my own words
to, Palmjob?
...
Whoops, because you can't. Forgot who I was asking to back up the whine
du jour.
: 5.) Roach Rog does not depend solely on "third parties" to
: "support" his defamatory contentions: He adds plenty of
: untrue commentary of his own in a vain attempt to
: successfully glue together his libel concoction
: with scads of "Williams" own prevarication-filled
: blather.
It's called my opinion, Palmjob. See, in the real world, people are
free to go ahead and offer commentary about people they don't like. Isn't
this post of yours your hamfisted attempt to do just that? The difference
between you and I, however, is that I don't shoot myself in the foot with
racist quotes, long winded blowhard tirades, etc.
: 6.) Plenty of "headers," employed in a clumsy and soporific
: attempt by Rog to add a veneer of authenticity to his
: transparently dishonest and libelous 75k document.
I expected you to whine about reposting complete headers. What's the
matter, Palmjob, all this "internet" stuff making your head hurt? Headers
are posted to show that what I repost actually came from you, no matter
how shocking or how stupid it is.
: Of course, one of Roach Rog's objectives in posting such
: a massive (and massively defamatory) tissue is that he
: knows that my going through it point by point and refuting
: it in its entirety would necessitate my frequently reposting
: a 350k article (at least!) showing carefully how each line
: of the "libel fizzler" falls neatly into one or more of
: the above six techniques Rog employed. His "overpower
: 'em with sheer size" strategy proves a key element in
: Rog's massive reposts.
You could also try and refute any of it intelligently point by point,
but you refuse to do that either. All of your faults combine to make you
the easiest sitting duck on usenet when it comes to crucifying you for
being a fuckhead. You can't think I'd let John Davis have all the fun
himself, do you Patsy?
: Wasting such vast amounts of Usenet storage space would
: not be fair to to Usenet or to my many readers, and I
: refuse to let Roach Roger force me into emulating his
: net-abusing, bandwidth-busting behavior.
Heh, Palmjob complaining about wasted bandwidth on usenet. Could I have
"Unintended Irony From Idiots" for $200, Alex?
: That is not necessary. Any neutral party who can wade
: through the mess Roach Rog created, and who will take
: time to correlate what Rog reposted with the non-racist
: entirety of my Dejanews archive will easily be able to
: spot Rog's complete dependence upon the six libel-techniques
: (explained above).
It's all available in once place:
http://www.parrot.net/pfaq.htm
I know you've visited before Palmjob, so as they say, "y'all come back
now, heah?".
: I might add that since I never post under a pseudonym
: (unlike Roach Rog "Williams" who carries out libel
: campaigns under false names) and since I never use
: the Dejanews "X-No-Archive--Yes" function, my personal
: archive gives the TRUE story of my Usenet posting--
: which of course is wholly non-racist and the
: exact opposite of what is to be found in the
: cobbled-together "libel concoctions" of sore
: losers and pseudonymous frauds like "Williams."
All my posts are archived too, Patsy- and your anti-semitic homophobic
buddies Boursy and Grubor put me on the "netscum" page for my efforts. In
fact, more than half my entry is devoted to my flaming you. See, you
finally have a role in life beyond being the bitch of alt.flame! You're
also Boursy's new teddy bear.
How, er, nice for both of you. Forgive me if I fail to get weepy about
it.
:
: >
:
--
{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{} Lutefisk!
{} Roger W. The Internet Access Co. {} \|/ /
{} (617) 932-2000 rog...@parrot.net {} 0<
{} Only Boursy could say my opinion = TIAC's {} ^^^^(*)^^^^
{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{} ^^ / \ ^^
"It is YOU "Raoch Rog" who clearly have a head full of "enemies." "
- Biil Palmjob mangling English in <5lt970$h...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>
Bill Palmer
In <5mnqjt$e...@news-central.tiac.net> rog...@tiac.net (Roger Williams)
writes:
As usual, the pseudonymous Cockroach Roger "Williams" has
conned himself into believing that his sudden flood of blather
will refute all the points I made about his libelous dishonesty
earlier today.
[And, as usual, our libelous Roach Rog has insulted all having
the name Palmer.]
>
>Bill Palmer (wil...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: In <5mio6j$h...@news-central.tiac.net> rog...@tiac.net (Roger
Williams)
>: writes:
>:
>: [... An oft-reposted 75 k snipped right off the bat
>: as a public service!]
>:
>: Even though Cockroach Roger "Williams" reposted his massive
>: 75k "libel fizzler" in alt.genius.bill-palmer again this
>: week, our pseudonymous posting Cockroach seems to have
>: slightly reduced the frequency of his tossing his 75k
>: "libel fizzler" (so called because of its resemblance to
>: a huge, dud firecracker) into alt.genius.bill.palmer.
>
> Welcome back, Patsy! I didn't think it would be this easy to troll
you
>out back into the open, but wild unpredictable behavior is hardly your
>forte.
As usual, Roach Rog calls his libelous attacks
"trolling." What they actually represent are a
frantic Usenet Cockroach's addiction to having
me recognize his miserable, parasitical existence.
He knows that I would totally ignore his feeble
attempts at "flaming" if he didn't include plenty
of libels in his posts for me to refute.
>
>: The reason for his reducing the number of 75k repostings
>: is plain. After I noticed that Cockroach Rog had taken to
>: whining about what he saw as the "crosspost trangressions"
>: of others, I remarked upon the irony of a net abuser of
>: record like Rog crying floods of crocodile tears about
>: someone crossposting to seven relevant newsgroups after
>: Roach Rog had decreed the person should only post to five.
>
> I post the FAQ once per month
In the first place, your libel concoction is no more a
"Bill Palmer" FAQ than is the Eddie Bauer Catalogue. Your
clinging to the self-serving fantasies you invent only
demonstrates your cowardly dishonesty, Roach Rog.
Further, the idea that somehow you would be avoiding
being a net abuser if in fact you only reposted your 75k
libel fizzler once a month is cockroach swill, Roach Rog.
On top of all that, you have in fact reposted your 75k
drivel far more frequently than that anyway, so your
dishonest whines are only Roach Rog's usual smelly red
herrings.
you mouthbreathing imbecile. Why in fact,
>June 1st is Sunday... repost, anyone?
In other words, Roach Rog, you think that if you make
stupid jokes about your net abuse, it becomes other
than what it is.
>
>: Always in character, Rog drooled some sorry, ludicrous excuses
>: for his flagrant net abuse, but he DID slow down his 75k reposts
>: immediately.
>
> Which "excuse" is that, Palmjob? Care to breathe some life into
your
>dull witted lie?
Nonsense. Your ll k tissue of fabrications of today was--
in its entirety--naught but a soggy, failed excuse for your
frequent reposting of your 75k libel fizzler, Roach Rog.
>
>: These facts will remain, despite Roach Rog's repeated
>: effort to cloud the real issues: Roach Roger has dumped
>: his 75k "libel fizzler" into alt.genius.bill-palmer
>: again and again and again and again. By reposting
>: the same material over and over, he has shown his
>: utter disregard for Usnet policy, for netiquette, and
>: for the alt.genius.bill-palmer newsgroup readers.
>
> You don't even know what a libel fizzler
YOU certainly do. You have reposted a ***75k***
version of one many times during a very short period
in alt.genius.bill-palmer.
is, Palmjob. In fact, Dave
>Kendrick was kind enough to post the recipe to alt.flame:
The Gristy Bloodsucker's view of things may have
some importance to YOU, but to everyone else it
is but a foul turd passing over a dam on the great
river of Usenet history.
>
>1 part gin
>1 part vermouth
>1 dash bitters *
>
> * representing Palmjob's bitterness at his alienation
>
> Drink 100 of them and wait for Palmjob's posts to make sense.
>
>: Now, since I recently pointed out all this--and lots
>: more!--about Rog Rog's continuing net abuse (in my
>: recent "Cockroach Garners 'Gall' Award") I won't
>: repeat it all here. (Don't miss my article of last
>: week, though, if you desire to hear about the blatent
>: hypocrisy of the famous Usenet cockroach. All who
>: have encountered him agree that Roger is certainly
>: the LAST ONE who should EVER complain about the
>: posting preferences of others: THAT point I made
>: very clear, due to all the "75k mountains" of
>: bandwidth busting evidence against our pseudonymous,
>: net-abusing fraud and repost-maniac "Williams.")
True.
But sad.
>
> Yawn. If this is Friday, it must be Palmjob. Thanks for expressing
your
>desire to have me repost your famous racist
Rog the Roach would not be libel artist he is if he didn't
try to get in a few plugs for his baseless and long-discredited
defamation operation, which he has conducted for seven months
while cowering like a poltroon under a pseudonym.
articles again... I forgot you
>wilt if you aren't attended to every day.
>
>: However, I might add that being exposed as a pseudonymous
>: libelist and a net abuser in no way slowed Roach Rog down
>: in other ways:
>:
>: Last week Rog made a pretense of "reposting" material of
>: mine, and he actually ADDED GRAMMER ERRORS in MY text to
>
> Oh dear God... as a spelling auto-flame, this is TOO perfect. It
>hearkens back to the days of RAOCH ROG and "clealy, sir".
My, my. I have posted over 1.25 million words, which if
my estimate is correct, would include a typo or two every
few hundred words. Roach Rog mentions TWO of those typos
and apparantly I am supposed to feel "put down"! The
important fact, of course, is that despite his many
pretensions, Roach Rog has yet to post ONE memorable
satire or any other kind of article, typos or no
(and he ALSO makes typos, though they are the least
of his faults as a "writer").
Roach Rog proves utterly devoid of any style, creativity,
or originality in his own "writing." Of course, we
should expect that such a dishonest, envious jackanapes
WOULD fancy he could fool someone by blathering about MY
typos (or, as he did last week, actually creating errors
in MY text).
>
>: support his utterly false and ironic contention that a
>: drooler of fourth-rate "flames" like Rog had something to
>: say worth listening to about MY writing! (All details are
>: readily available in my "New Cockoach Rog Repost Con
>: Exposed" which I posted on 22 May.)
>
> You put the wrong word in quotes; I think you should have said
>"writing".
>
>: Of course, Roach Rog proves very big on "repost
>: cons" (which he claims "don't exist," since they
>: represent his speciality as libel artist). This
>: is ironic, because no one has actually offered
>: more introvertible proof of the existence of "repost
>: cons" than Rog himself, in his ordinary posting
>: (and repost) behavior.
>
> Palmjob, you invented the phrase "repost con"
*I* coined a very helpful term to aptly describe your
favorite tactic as libel artist, Roach Rog, if that
is what you are whining about. But don't let the
fact that I invented the term confuse anyone about
the fact the phrase well-describes your favorite ploy.
(usually screamed in
>melodramatic capitals as in "CLEALY,
My, my. Can it be that Roach Rog is bucking for a nobel
prize with all his great typo finds? Or can it be that he
seeks to divert from the truth about his foul, libelous
actions?
GREASY RAOUL'S REPOST CON IS AN
>INSECT!", etc.) and change the definition weekly. It's nice to see you
>come out and scream repost con everytime someone uses something you
said
>that makes you look like an idiot, which is excruciatingly often.
>
>: For new readers, I will sum up the techniques used
>: in Roach Rog's 75k Repost Con "Libel Fizzler" that
>: he desperately reposts again and again in a futile
>: attempt to get his long since mired-down libel
>: bandwagon rolling again:
>:
>: The Pseudonymous Roger "Williams" employs the
>: following tricks in his 75k "libel fizzler"
>:
>: 1.) Material that he deviously removed from articles of
>: mine and represented out of context. This text appeared
>: mostly in well-known lampoons that I have posted last
>: year. Rog misrepresents my satires as "racist,"
>: and "proves" his case with a dishonest "yardstick"
>: that would make Monty Python movies, Norman Mailer
>: essays, and the works of most famous and prolific
>: writers--in Usenet or in the print world--equally
>: "racist."
>
> Hmm, you rolled out the same wearisome lie after I reposted your
>"coolie" and "greasy" articles in their entirety.
No lie at all. Simply put, you misrepresented a famous
satire about a pinheaded loser lampooned as a six foot
beetle, and you twisted the most famous flame advisory
in Usenet, and you misused them both in a well-documented,
utterly baseless libel operation of longstanding, Roach
Rog. You did all that under a pseudonym, too--which just
happens to make you a libelous fraud, Mr. "Williams."
Can I have "Predictable
>Palmjobisms" for $100, Alex?
>
>: 2.) While most of the material of mine that Roach Rog
>: reposts is taken out of article context, a couple
>: of items are removed by Rog from their entire thread
>: context and misrepresented. The dishonest effect
>: stays the same, despite "Williams" devious whines
>: to the contrary.
>
> Palmy, the remedy to your affliction is to choose your words more
>carefully before posting them.
As Usenet satirist, I hardly intend to alter my writing
habits to avoid any and all words that might be lifted
out of a lampoon context and misrepresented by libelous
frauds such as yourself, Roach Rog. That's one of the
reasons *I* am known as a Usenet writer and you are not--
you lack the necessary spine (as well as the talent).
But please, pounce typos to your heart's content...
>
>: 3.) At times Roach Rog will actually alter quotes of mine,
>: adding or subtracting words here and there, to furnish
>: further "evidence" for his falsehoods and dissimulations.
In fact, he was caught doing this again last week.
>:
>: 4.) Roach Rog "Williams," the pseudonymous libel artist,
>: also "bolsters" his "case" with third party testimony.
>: As it turns out, however, all the "third parties" are
>: members of Roach Rog's defamation team--and all are
>: well-toasted flame war losers with big axes to grind
>: (To that end, we hear from such "sterling accociates"
>: of Rog as "Pus Bag" John Davis, and the "witness list"
>: actually goes downhill from there!)
>
> Bullshit, now you've actually made something up to garner sympathy.
>Why don't you go ahead and find a quote of yours I have added my own
words
>to, Palmjob?
>
> ...
>
> Whoops, because you can't.
Nonsense. Your 75k tissue abounds with such instances
and you know it. Your entire ploy, as I have already
pointed out, involves using dishonest tactics on such
a massive scale that it would be impossible to note
all of them without posting at leat a 350 k rebuttal.
I don't plan to do that, and you knew very well before
you cobbled the thing together than no one in his right
mind would waste time trying to refute such a vastly
dishonest and libelous document point by point, Roach Rog.
Forgot who I was asking to back up the whine
>du jour.
>
>: 5.) Roach Rog does not depend solely on "third parties" to
>: "support" his defamatory contentions: He adds plenty of
>: untrue commentary of his own in a vain attempt to
>: successfully glue together his libel concoction
>: with scads of "Williams" own prevarication-filled
>: blather.
>
> It's called my opinion, Palmjob.
No, it is called prevaricating, Roach Rog. Most of
what you say involves you desperately trying to make
a case that I am a "racist." THAT takes a whole lot
of lying, since the entirety of my Dejanews archive,
from my first post to this one, proves the exact
opposite.
See, in the real world, people are
>free to go ahead and offer commentary about people they don't like.
Rather an odd way to describe a seven-month libel
campaign conducted while hiding behind a pseudonym trying
to convince readers in a great many newsgruops that a
dedicated non-racist is a "racist," Roach Rog--merely
because the non-racist party toasted your devious,
cowardly hide more times than you could handle. Just
Roach Rog "commentary" eh? That I am a Klansman, a Nazi,
etc., etc.?
Isn't
>this post of yours your hamfisted attempt to do just that? The
difference
>between you and I, however, is that I don't shoot myself in the foot
with
>racist quotes, long winded blowhard tirades, etc.
What do you is run libel campaigns while hiding behind
pseudonyms, Roach Roger "Williams." That's all.
>
>: 6.) Plenty of "headers," employed in a clumsy and soporific
>: attempt by Rog to add a veneer of authenticity to his
>: transparently dishonest and libelous 75k document.
>
> I expected you to whine about reposting complete headers. What's
the
>matter, Palmjob, all this "internet" stuff making your head hurt?
Headers
>are posted to show that what I repost actually came from you, no
matter
>how shocking or how stupid it is.
Nonsense. Just who on earth do you fancy your 'headers"
will blind to your libelous dissimulations, your fabrications,
your text-alterations, and your other transparent ploys,
Roach Rog? Pus Bag Davis? Louse-monkey?
This gets down to the "Rog Rog 75k nitty-gritty":
>: Of course, one of Roach Rog's objectives in posting such
>: a massive (and massively defamatory) tissue is that he
>: knows that my going through it point by point and refuting
>: it in its entirety would necessitate my frequently reposting
>: a 350k article (at least!) showing carefully how each line
>: of the "libel fizzler" falls neatly into one or more of
>: the above six techniques Rog employed. His "overpower
>: 'em with sheer size" strategy proves a key element in
>: Rog's massive reposts.
>
> You could also try and refute any of it intelligently point by
point,
>but you refuse to do that either.
Cockroach "Williams" apparently thinks readers have missed
my point about it taking at least 350 K to refute his
lies and libels point by point. I have summed up the
gist of his "libel fizzer," and what I say here can be
verified very easily in the non-racist entirety of
my Dejanews archive, especially when THAT is compared with
Roach Rog's pitiful, but malicious, 75k "libel fizzler."
Frankly, I see no need to repost my 1.25 million word
Dejanews archive to show that I am no racist by any
stretch of an honest imagination. That information
can easily be located in my "Deja-mountain."
>of your faults combine to make you
>the easiest sitting duck on usenet when it comes to crucifying you for
>being a fuckhead. You can't think I'd let John Davis
Of course, you couldn't get far without mention of your
"sterling associate," John "Pus Bag" Davis, Roach Rog.
have all the fun
>himself, do you Patsy?
Most of the time, Davis seems to have "great fun" inflicting
his perverted fantasies on Usenet. That seems to be what
so endears your libelous accessory to you, Roach Roger.
>
>: Wasting such vast amounts of Usenet storage space would
>: not be fair to to Usenet or to my many readers, and I
>: refuse to let Roach Roger force me into emulating his
>: net-abusing, bandwidth-busting behavior.
>
> Heh, Palmjob complaining about wasted bandwidth on usenet.
Please show me one case where I* have posted a 75k
article, Roach Rog. I never have posted ANYTHING
even close to that bandwidth-busting, net abusing
size, and I certainly never have REPOSTED anything
like that. YOU have, again and again and again...
[...]
>"Unintended Irony From Idiots" for $200, Alex?
>
>: That is not necessary. Any neutral party who can wade
>: through the mess Roach Rog created, and who will take
>: time to correlate what Rog reposted with the non-racist
>: entirety of my Dejanews archive will easily be able to
>: spot Rog's complete dependence upon the six libel-techniques
>: (explained above).
>
> It's all available in once place:
~~~~~~~~~~~
Now if I were Roach Rog, I would make a big deal
about the "bad grammar" of the above sentence. I
would in fact mention it in my next fifty posts
to Roach Roger. On the other hand, his drool
proves so trite and uninspired (except with reference
to his habitual prevaricating) that I scarcely need
to cling to his many typos and other solecisms to
prove him a lousy excuse for a writer.
Now Roach Rog circles back to his, "Get the truth
about Bill Palmer's Usenet writing from the libel
site of a pseudonymous cockroach," ploy. The fact
will remain, there is only ONE place where the truth
about my Usenet work can be found: my personal
Dejanews archive.
>
>http://www.parrot.net/pfaq.htm
>
> I know you've visited before Palmjob,
Never had, Roach Roger. We have already talked about
your attempting to make it look like I had. That reminds
me, too, of your lies that I called up your boss to have
a chat. You got caught red-handed on that one--I think
it finally ocurred to you that I have NEVER talked to
ANYONE (friend or foe) in connection with my Usenet
posting. I just don't do it as a matter of personal
choice.
It has been said before, Cockroach Roger "Williams" lies
big and he lies small. But whether telling minor fibs
or major whoppers, Rog lies fast and he lies often.
On the other hand, with a major liar like Rog, whether or not
his fabrications are in character with the past behavior of
the person he is libeling is not a big concern. After all,
Rog proved the same thing about himself (that he doesn't care
if his libels have anything to do with his target's past
behavior, that is) with his baseless "racist" defamation
of me, so I should hardly be surprised by little lies of
his like my supposedly trying to make his BOSS (of ALL
people!) my very first Usenet "telephone pal."
>: I might add that since I never post under a pseudonym
>: (unlike Roach Rog "Williams" who carries out libel
>: campaigns under false names) and since I never use
>: the Dejanews "X-No-Archive--Yes" function, my personal
>: archive gives the TRUE story of my Usenet posting--
>: which of course is wholly non-racist and the
>: exact opposite of what is to be found in the
>: cobbled-together "libel concoctions" of sore
>: losers and pseudonymous frauds like "Williams."
>
> All my posts are archived too, Patsy-
Anothor phony diversion, my pseudonyus fraud! When
that is NOT linked with the other key fact (that I
NEVER post under a pseudonym) it means next to
nothing. In other words, you say you don't "X-
no archive--Yes" but since you have already been
busted for libeling from under (at very least) one
pseudonym, a reasonable person would have to
wonder how many different names and addresses
one would have to look under to see all you have
posted.
Don't bother to try to lie your way out of it, Rog.
After all, you have already told thousands of Usenet
posters your last name was "Williams," and since when
are fake-named, libelous drivelers accorded the respect
of being believed? (Not overlooking the fact
that even before it came out you were hiding your
libels behind a pseudonym, you already had earned
a reputation for being able to pack more lies
into a line of text than anyone one the net!)
and your anti-semitic homophobic
>buddies Boursy and Grubor put me on the "netscum" page for my efforts.
Our famous "conspiracy cockroach" would have readers
forget that even a dedicated libel artist such as
himself could not find ONE syllable in my 1.25 million
word archive to misrepresent as "anti-semitic"!
Roach Rog ends with a slur about my "mangling English."
That was certainly an ironic closing for someone who
was busted last week for creating punctuation errors
in MY text (that he was supposedly "reposting as I
posted it").
Stephen Boursy
Bill Palmer <wil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>rog...@tiac.net (Roger Williams) writes:
>
Roger Williams real name of course
is Roger Wemyss--seems he's ashamed of his
Christian Scientist heritage which is rather
sad I would think. You can find further
information about Mr. Wemyss as well as his
lover Rich Sena at:
>As usual, the pseudonymous Cockroach Roger "Williams" has
>conned himself into believing that his sudden flood of blather
>will refute all the points I made about his libelous dishonesty
>earlier today.
>
He does go on without saying a word--but he's in
morning about Sena--the one who makes rather extreme threats
of violence.
I still tend to ignore him Bill--he's
more than a bit nuts and his obsession with you
is over the edge.
>>
>>: The reason for his reducing the number of 75k repostings
>>: is plain. After I noticed that Cockroach Rog had taken to
>>: whining about what he saw as the "crosspost trangressions"
>>: of others, I remarked upon the irony of a net abuser of
>>: record like Rog crying floods of crocodile tears about
>>: someone crossposting to seven relevant newsgroups after
>>: Roach Rog had decreed the person should only post to five.
>>
>> I post the FAQ once per month
>
>In the first place, your libel concoction is no more a
>"Bill Palmer" FAQ than is the Eddie Bauer Catalogue. Your
>clinging to the self-serving fantasies you invent only
>demonstrates your cowardly dishonesty, Roach Rog.
>
Reminds me of that Hannigan creature at shore.net--
'Stalkers r Us'. At least Hannigan doesn't pretend he's
someone else--this Wemyss fucker is a real coward.
>Further, the idea that somehow you would be avoiding
>being a net abuser if in fact you only reposted your 75k
>libel fizzler once a month is cockroach swill, Roach Rog.
>On top of all that, you have in fact reposted your 75k
>drivel far more frequently than that anyway, so your
>dishonest whines are only Roach Rog's usual smelly red
>herrings.
Well the only reason I'm not editing this huge
post is out of respect for Roger Wemyss--that is his
way--he'll throw in a cheap shot one liner and then quote
the entire post without comment, crosspost it to hell and
back, and think he's done his good dead for the day. He
is a bit limited though--one must make allowancs for that.
>you mouthbreathing imbecile. Why in fact,
>>June 1st is Sunday... repost, anyone?
>
>In other words, Roach Rog, you think that if you make
>stupid jokes about your net abuse, it becomes other
>than what it is.
That line is actually quite good given it's
source. Remember he is rather limited. You need to
find a more worthy opponant Mr. Palmer--your talents
are considerable and Mr. Wemyss (Williams) is way out
of his league--you'll get rusty.
Steve
news.admin.censorship
Mike MacLennan
Roger Williams wrote:
> Hmm, you rolled out the same wearisome lie after I reposted your
> "coolie" and "greasy" articles in their entirety. Can I have "Predictable
> Palmjobisms" for $100, Alex?
This Palmjobism occurs when he, whilst delusional, compares himself to
this great satirical writer.
Craig Sherwood
In newsgroup news.admin.censorship, post
<5mq57o$a03$2...@news.thecia.net>,bou...@shell.thecia.net (Stephen daBump
Boursy) wrote:
550 lines of quoted text; I'm sure you meant to trim your quotes,
Speedbump, so I'm emailing this post back to you for another try.
Quotes trimmed in this followup, newsgroups snecked, and all 550 lines
emailed back to four bump-accounts.
--
acs (at) inetrex.com [Craig Sherwood from Toronto, Canada]
Remember to remove UCEBlock from the Reply To: header
Bill Palmer
In <5mr27a$f...@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com> Mike MacLennan
<mmaclenn@ix?netcom.com> writes:
[Louse-monkey's mangled version of my newsgroup line
corrected--our guttersnipe continues to insult all
having the last name Palmer.]
In which Louse-monkey pulls one of his usual stunts: He
ignores my rebuttal and goes back to the article I was
responding to and posts a reply AS IF I had not already
refuted the material Hausmann ("MacLannen") repeats.
>
>Roger Williams wrote:
>
>> Hmm, you rolled out the same wearisome lie after I reposted your
>> "coolie" and "greasy" articles in their entirety.
As I seem to recall, my reply was, "No lie by me at all.
Simply put, Rog, you misrepresented my well-known satire in
which a notorious pinheaded loser was lampooned as a six
foot beetle, and you twisted the most famous flame advisory
Usenet (about my metaphorically stepping on Usenet pests
and leaving them as grease spots on the info highway).
You misused both those famous lampoons in a well-documented
and utterly baseless libel operation, Roach Rog.
"You did all that under a pseudonym, too--which just happens
to make you a libelous fraud, Mr. 'Williams.'"
Something like anyway, Louse-monkey. Further, due to the
fact that you have of late revived your little "ignore
Palmer's rebuttal and pretend he never made it" tactic,
I promise readers that *I* will be more conscientious about
repeating those little comments of mine you love to overlook
about you and your accessories to libel, Hausmann ("MacLennan").
copyright FLAME GIANT
On Wordscreens of the World
Eric Joslin
Mike MacLennan (mmaclenn@ix?netcom.com) wrote:
: Roger Williams wrote:
: > Hmm, you rolled out the same wearisome lie after I reposted your
: > "coolie" and "greasy" articles in their entirety. Can I have "Predictable
: > Palmjobisms" for $100, Alex?
: This Palmjobism occurs when he, whilst delusional, compares himself to
: this great satirical writer.
What is "the same could be said about Norman Mailer's _The White Nigger_?"
I'll take predictable Palmjobisms for $200.
eric
Roger Williams
Eric Joslin (er...@ops.tiac.net) wrote:: : > Hmm, you rolled out the same wearisome lie after I reposted your
: : > "coolie" and "greasy" articles in their entirety. Can I have "Predictable
: : > Palmjobisms" for $100, Alex?
:
: : This Palmjobism occurs when he, whilst delusional, compares himself to
: : this great satirical writer.
:
:
: What is "the same could be said about Norman Mailer's _The White Nigger_?"
:
: I'll take predictable Palmjobisms for $200.
:
: eric
This Biilbonics language phrase is shouted when something is reposted to
alt.genius.bill-palmer...
Bill Palmer
In <5mskuq$a...@news-central.tiac.net> er...@ops.tiac.net (Eric Joslin)
writes:
[was "Cockroach Rog's Latest 75k "Libel Fizzler" Toss"]
My, my. After Libel Toady Eric Joslin noticed Louse-monkey
John's little ploy (of ignoring my refutation to Cockroach
Rog Wemyss' fabrication and repeating Rog's whoppers as if
they stood unrebutted) Joslin thought he would attempt the same
stratagem. Forget it, Eric. It might work if you your drivel
in some newsgroup I don't read, but you certainly won't get
away with it in alt.genius.bill-palmer, any more than the
Louse-monkey did.
>
>"Louse-monkey" Mike MacLennan (mmaclenn@ix?netcom.com) wrote:
--and spewed well-refuted Roach Rog blather.
>: Roger Williams wrote:
>
>: > Hmm, you rolled out the same wearisome lie after I reposted
your
>: > "coolie" and "greasy" articles in their entirety.
--And was refuted thusly, by words to this effect:
"No lie at all. Simply put, Wemyss, you misrepresented
a famous satire about a pinheaded loser lampooned as a
six-foot beetle, and you twisted the most famous flame
advisory in Usenet (about my trouncing fourth-rate
lamesters such as yourself into gease spots on the
info. highway). You misused both items, employing
them in a well-documented, utterly baseless libel
operation." [...]
[I could have added that the pseudonymous "Williams"--
Wemyss--was assisted in that libel campaign by
Louse-monkey John AND Libel Toady Joslin, both of
whom have very recently seen fit to pop up out of
the woodwork, echoing Roach Rog's well-refuted
premise and ignoring my incontrovertible
rebuttal to it!]
Can I have "Predictable
>: > Palmjobisms" for $100, Alex?
>
>
>: This Palmjobism occurs when he, whilst delusional, compares himself
to
>: this great satirical writer.
>
>
>What is "the same could be said about Norman Mailer's _The White
Nigger_?"
I made an excellent point by analogy that the "snip-and-
misrepresent" libel trick you and your defamatory pals
played on me could be practiced upon nearly any prolific
writer (on or off the net), Joslin. Does your cloudy
memory now tell you that my "Mailer" analogy was not a
valid one in every respect?
(You have tried to challenge that "Mailer analogy" more
than once--as have your "sterling associates" such as
Louse-monkey Hausmann, Cockroach Wemyss, and Pus Bag
Davis--and none of you could touch it, though you fell
on your dishonest mugs trying. The analogy remains
both relevant and valid. It still stands, despite
the selective recollection of your feeble, dishonest
"brain," Joslin.)
>
>I'll take predictable Palmjobisms for $200.
>
>eric
Of course Eric the Guttersnipe continues to insult everyone
named Palmer. What proves really ironic, though, are his words:
"I'll take (words of Palmer's)..." Take "words by Palmer"
our envious little thief did!
Need I remind Thief Joslin that he boasted on several
occasions that he had stolen my copyrighted property and
sold it. Of course, like many thieves, Eric manifested
a psychological need to denigrate what he had stolen.
Nevertheless, his clumsy, self-serving attempt at levity
over his own flagrant thefts fooled no one but himself.
(For details of Eric's thievery, visit Dejanews for my
"Hanged for Stealing," which I reposted several times
as a grim warning--and which I may need to repost again
soon, for the moral instruction of our friend with the
short, highly-selective memory.)
Anyway, it was Thief Joslin's false contention that my
Usenet writing was NOT copyrighted, so he had the right
to steal it with impunity. Readers may also remember Brad
Templeton's very helpful FAQ on plagiarism and copyright
laws, which made it very clear that Thief Eric Joslin, by
his own boastful words, had committed both a crime and
a civil law tort and had hanged himself with his own
testimony right here in alt.genius.bill-palmer.
Anyway, apparently Joslin thinks his stealing lies
so far in the past (it happened a couple of months
back) that he can once more safely jump on the libel
bandwagon of his pal, Wemyss (who himself was recently
busted for carrying on a long-standing libel campaign
under a pseudonym, "Williams").
Eric can expect to hear much more about his thievery
in future postings. In fact, he has about as much chance
for living it down as Weymss (aka Libelist "Williams") has
of living down his cowardliness and malicious dishonesty
in running a libel operation for several months while
hiding behind a phony name.
John Hausmann
Roger Williams (rog...@tiac.net) wrote:
: Eric Joslin (er...@ops.tiac.net) wrote:
: : Mike MacLennan (mmaclenn@ix?netcom.com) wrote:
: : : Roger Williams wrote:
: :
: : : > "coolie" and "greasy" articles in their entirety. Can I have "Predictable
: : : > Palmjobisms" for $100, Alex?
: :
: : : This Palmjobism occurs when he, whilst delusional, compares himself to
: : : this great satirical writer.
: :
: :
: : What is "the same could be said about Norman Mailer's _The White Nigger_?"
: :
: :
: : eric
: This Biilbonics language phrase is shouted when something is reposted to
: alt.genius.bill-palmer...
What is "Re-post Con" ? I'll take Non-ethnic slurs for $500, Alex.
John Hausmann
Bill Palmer (wil...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In <5mskuq$a...@news-central.tiac.net> er...@ops.tiac.net (Eric Joslin)
: writes:
: [was "Cockroach Rog's Latest 75k "Libel Fizzler" Toss"]
: My, my. After Libel Toady Eric Joslin noticed Louse-monkey
: John's little ploy (of ignoring my refutation to Cockroach
: Rog Wemyss' fabrication and repeating Rog's whoppers as if
: they stood unrebutted) Joslin thought he would attempt the same
: stratagem. Forget it, Eric. It might work if you your drivel
: in some newsgroup I don't read, but you certainly won't get
: away with it in alt.genius.bill-palmer, any more than the
: Louse-monkey did.
: >
: >"Louse-monkey" Mike MacLennan (mmaclenn@ix?netcom.com) wrote:
: --and spewed well-refuted Roach Rog blather.
: >: Roger Williams wrote:
: >
: >: > Hmm, you rolled out the same wearisome lie after I reposted
: your
: >: > "coolie" and "greasy" articles in their entirety.
: --And was refuted thusly, by words to this effect:
: "No lie at all. Simply put, Wemyss, you misrepresented
: a famous satire about a pinheaded loser lampooned as a
: six-foot beetle, and you twisted the most famous flame
: advisory in Usenet (about my trouncing fourth-rate
: lamesters such as yourself into gease spots on the
: info. highway). You misused both items, employing
: them in a well-documented, utterly baseless libel
: operation." [...]
: [I could have added that the pseudonymous "Williams"--
: Wemyss--was assisted in that libel campaign by
: Louse-monkey John AND Libel Toady Joslin, both of
: whom have very recently seen fit to pop up out of
: the woodwork, echoing Roach Rog's well-refuted
: premise and ignoring my incontrovertible
: rebuttal to it!]
: Can I have "Predictable
: >: > Palmjobisms" for $100, Alex?
: >
: >
: >: This Palmjobism occurs when he, whilst delusional, compares himself
: to
: >: this great satirical writer.
: >
: >
: >What is "the same could be said about Norman Mailer's _The White
: Nigger_?"
: I made an excellent point by analogy that the "snip-and-
: misrepresent" libel trick you and your defamatory pals
: played on me could be practiced upon nearly any prolific
: writer (on or off the net), Joslin. Does your cloudy
: memory now tell you that my "Mailer" analogy was not a
: valid one in every respect?
: (You have tried to challenge that "Mailer analogy" more
: than once--as have your "sterling associates" such as
: Louse-monkey Hausmann, Cockroach Wemyss, and Pus Bag
: Davis--and none of you could touch it, though you fell
: on your dishonest mugs trying. The analogy remains
: both relevant and valid. It still stands, despite
: the selective recollection of your feeble, dishonest
: "brain," Joslin.)
: >
: >I'll take predictable Palmjobisms for $200.
: >
: >eric
: Of course Eric the Guttersnipe continues to insult everyone
: named Palmer. What proves really ironic, though, are his words:
: "I'll take (words of Palmer's)..." Take "words by Palmer"
: our envious little thief did!
[36 lines deleted]
Say, 'bump can you define "content forgery" and explain why Biil
isn't, now, guilty of it?
Bill Palmer
In <5mt694$p...@news-central.tiac.net> rog...@tiac.net (Roger
Williams) writes:
Having been recently busted for carrying on a libel campaign
while cowering behind a pseudonym, the famous posting cockroach
of Usenet actually seems to have flipped his lid. Roger Wemyss
has been flooding alt.genius.bill-palmer and other newsgroups
with the same libelous rubbish over and over, such as his
notorious 75k "libel fizzler."
Also, his loopy allegations and foul insinuations grow wilder
and wilder with each post. Roger's latest spate of off-the-wall
libelousness involves one of his nutty "they are out to get
me" posts. According to him, I have launched into some
sort of plot to "get Cockroach 'Williams.'" Wemyss can't
face reality: I don't have to team with anyone to "get him"--
all I have to is set back and record his own paraniod,
bizarre behavior and rub his nose in it.
[I have changed the subject line, because Roach Rog
Weymss used his post's name to insult everyone named Palmer,
and I don't want to be a party to that, obviously.]
In addition, Roger filled that post with a crazy
diatribe about "anti-semitism." He is doing that
more and more lately, indicating he is getting as
loony as he is desperate and dishonest.
Why Roach Rog sticks to that one, I can't fathom. He has
no basis at all for trying to smear me in that regard.
After all, in my entire 1.25 million word archive, Roach
Rog was unable to come up with one syllable to mischaracterize
as "anti semitic."
Weirdly, though, Williams has used the term "anti semitic" at
least fifty times now in postingsabout me. With a smear artist
like Roach Rog Weymss, apparently, the ploy is to keep trying to
plant the same untrue notion, in the hope it will take in
someone's mind even though the libel has no connection with
reality.
Anyway, I say quite seriously that I think Cockroach
Roger Wemyss has blown a fuse or two since he was busted
for running a massive libel campaign under a fake name
(Our hero has stalwartly made himself known to thousands
of readers as "Roger Williams.") He now stands exposed,
revealed to be a pseudonymous, defamatory fraud on Usenet.
Wemyss cringes before us as a human cockroach wearing a
barrel with two shoulder straps, and trying to do a lot
of mighty fast "explaining."
Rog's libelous behavior and his crazed reposting of
the same borrowed, misrepresented material (with HEADERS,
mind you!) over and over definitely suggests a mind that
has become unhinged by its own paranoia and hatred.
Oddest of all, Roger seems to fairly brim with "important
messages" about what is and is not in the best interests
of Usenet, regarding "netiquette" and just about everything
else! We're all ears, Wemyss. Tell us where it's at
again...
>
>In <5mo6sq$2...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> wil...@ix.netcom.com (Bill
>Palmer) writes:
>>
>>In <5mnqjt$e...@news-central.tiac.net> rog...@tiac.net (Roger
Williams)
>>writes:
>
>[Roger "Williams" has recently been exposed as having run
>a Usenet defamation for several months under his pseudonym.
>The real name of the exposed libel artist is, as far as
>can now be determined, Roger Weymess. Looking into his
>Usenet activities will provide some interesting insights
>on the continuing problem of Usenet libel, especially
>that which is carried out under pseudonyms.]
>
>>
>>As usual, the pseudonymous Roger "Williams" has
>>conned himself into believing that his sudden flood of blather
>>will refute all the points I made about his libelous dishonesty
>>earlier today.
>>
>>[And, as usual, our libelous Wemyss has insulted all having
>>the name Palmer.]
>>>
>>>Bill Palmer (wil...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>>>: In <5mio6j$h...@news-central.tiac.net> rog...@tiac.net (Roger
>>Williams)
>>>: writes:
>>>:
>>>: [... An oft-reposted 75 k snipped right off the bat
>>>: as a public service!]
>>>:
>>>: Even though Roger "Williams" (Wemyss) reposted his massive
>>>: 75k "libel fizzler" in alt.genius.bill-palmer again this
>>>: week, our pseudonymous libel artist seems to have
>>>: slightly reduced the frequency of his tossing his 75k
>>>: "libel fizzler" (so called because of its resemblance to
>>>: a huge, dud firecracker) into alt.genius.bill.palmer.
>>>
>>> Welcome back, Patsy! I didn't think it would be this easy to
troll
>>you
>>>out back into the open, but wild unpredictable behavior is hardly
>your
>>>forte.
>>
>>As usual, Roger Wemyss calls his libelous attacks
>>"trolling." What they actually represent are a
>>frantic Usenet libel artist's addiction to having
>>me recognize his miserable, parasitical existence.
>>He knows that I would totally ignore his feeble
>>attempts at "flaming" if he didn't include plenty
>>of libels in his posts for me to refute. Now, at
>>the very least, I intend to make the correct name
>>of libelist Rog Known.
>
>>>: The reason for Rog's reducing the number of 75k repostings
>>>: is plain. After I noticed that Roger Wemyss had taken to
>>>: whining about what he saw as the "crosspost trangressions"
>>>: of others, I remarked upon the irony of a net abuser of
>>>: record like Rog crying floods of crocodile tears about
>>>: someone crossposting to seven relevant newsgroups after
>>>: Wemyss had decreed the person should only post to five.
>>>
>>> I post the FAQ once per month
>>
>>In the first place, your libel concoction is no more a
>>"Bill Palmer" FAQ than is the Eddie Bauer Catalogue. Your
>>clinging to the self-serving fantasies you invent only
>>demonstrates your cowardly dishonesty, Roach Rog. On top
>>of that, it has very recently transpired that you have
>>been reposting your libel concoction under a false name.
>>
>>Further, Wemyss, the idea that somehow you would be avoiding
>>being a net abuser if in fact you only reposted your 75k
>>libel fizzler once a month is merely eyewash.
>>The truth is, you have in fact reposted your 75k's worth
>>of drivel far more frequently than that anyway, so your
>>dishonest whines are only Rog Wemyss' usual smelly red
>>herrings.
>>
>>
>>you mouthbreathing imbecile. Why in fact,
>>>June 1st is Sunday... repost, anyone?
>>
>>In other words, Roger Wemyss, you think that if you make
>>stupid jokes about your net abuse, it becomes other
>>than what it is.
>>>
>>>: Always in character, Rog drooled some sorry, ludicrous excuses
>>>: for his flagrant net abuse, but he DID slow down his 75k reposts
>>>: immediately.
>>>
>>> Which "excuse" is that, Palmjob? Care to breathe some life into
>>your
>>>dull witted lie?
>>
>>Nonsense. Your ll k tissue of fabrications of today was--
>>in its entirety--naught but a soggy, failed excuse for your
>>frequent reposting of your 75k libel fizzler, Wemyss.
>>>
>>>: These facts will remain, despite Roger Wemyss repeated
>>>: effort to cloud the real issues: This net abuser has
>>>: dumped his 75k "libel fizzler" into alt.genius.bill-palmer
>>>: again and again and again and again. By reposting
>>>: the same material over and over, he has shown his
>>>: utter disregard for Usnet policy, for netiquette, and
>>>: for the alt.genius.bill-palmer newsgroup readers.
>>>
>>> You don't even know what a libel fizzler
>>
>>YOU certainly do. You have reposted a ***75k***
>>version of one many times during a very short period
>>in alt.genius.bill-palmer.
>>
>>is, Palmjob. In fact, Dave
>>>Kendrick was kind enough to post the recipe to alt.flame:
>>
>>The Gristy Bloodsucker's (Kendrick's) view of things may
>>hold some importance to YOU, but to everyone else it
>>is but a foul turd passing over a dam on the great
>>river of Usenet history.
>>>
>>>1 part gin
>>>1 part vermouth
>>>1 dash bitters *
>>>
>>> * representing Palmjob's bitterness at his alienation
>>>
>>> Drink 100 of them and wait for Palmjob's posts to make sense.
>>>
>>>: Now, since I recently pointed out all this--and lots
>>>: more!--about Rog Rog's continuing net abuse (in my
>>>: recent "Cockroach Garners 'Gall' Award") I won't
>>>: repeat it all here. (Don't miss my article of last
>>>: week, though, if you desire to hear about the blatent
>>>: hypocrisy of the famous Usenet libel artist. All who
>>>: have encountered him agree that Roger is certainly
>>>: the LAST ONE who should EVER complain about the
>>>: posting preferences of others: THAT point I made
>>>: very clear, due to all the "75k mountains" of
>>>: bandwidth busting evidence against our pseudonymous,
>>>: net-abusing fraud and repost-maniac Wemyss.)
>>
>>True.
>>
>>But sad.
>>>
>>> Yawn. If this is Friday, it must be Palmjob. Thanks for
expressing
>>your
>>>desire to have me repost your famous racist
>>
>>Roger Wemyss would not be libel artist he is if he didn't
>>try to get in a few plugs for his baseless and long-discredited
>>defamation operation, which he has conducted for seven months
>>while cowering like a poltroon under a pseudonym.
>>
>> articles again... I forgot you
>>>wilt if you aren't attended to every day.
>>>
>>>: However, I might add that being exposed as a pseudonymous
>>>: libelist and a net abuser in no way slowed Wemyss down
>>>: in other ways:
>>>:
>>>: Last week Wemyss made a pretense of "reposting" material of
>>>: mine, and he actually ADDED GRAMMER ERRORS in MY text!
>>>
>>> Oh dear God... as a spelling auto-flame, this is TOO perfect. It
>>>hearkens back to the days of RAOCH ROG and "clealy, sir".
>>
>>My, my. I have posted over 1.25 million words, which if
>>my estimate is correct, would include a typo or two every
>>few hundred words. Fraud Wemyss mentions TWO of those typos
>>and apparantly I am supposed to feel "put down"! The
>>important fact, of course, is that despite his many
>>pretensions, "Williams" (Wemyss) has yet to post ONE
>>notable satire or any other kind of article, typos or no
>>(and he ALSO makes typos, though they are the least
>>of his faults as a "writer").
>>
>>
>>Roger Wemyss proves utterly devoid of any style, creativity,
>>or originality in his own "writing." Of course, we
>>should expect that such a dishonest, envious jackanapes
>>WOULD fancy he could fool someone by blathering about MY
>>typos (or, as he did last week, actually creating errors
>>in MY text).
>>>
>>>: support his utterly false and ironic contention that a
>>>: drooler of fourth-rate "flames" like Rog had something to
>>>: say worth listening to about MY writing! (All details are
>>>: readily available in my "New Cockoach Rog Repost Con
>>>: Exposed" which I posted on 22 May.)
>>>
>>> You put the wrong word in quotes; I think you should have said
>>>"writing".
>>>
>>>: Of course, Wemyss proves very big on "repost
>>>: cons" (which he claims "don't exist," since they
>>>: represent his speciality as libel artist). This
>>>: is ironic, because no one has actually offered
>>>: more introvertible proof of the existence of "repost
>>>: cons" than Rog himself, in his ordinary posting
>>>: (and repost) behavior.
>>>
>>> Palmjob, you invented the phrase "repost con"
>>
>>*I* coined a very helpful term to aptly describe your
>>favorite tactic as libel artist, Roger Wemyss, if that
>>is what you are whining about. But don't let the
>>reality that I invented the TERM confuse anyone about
>>the fact that the phrase well-describes your favorite ploy.
>>
>>(usually screamed in
>>>melodramatic capitals as in "CLEALY,
>>
>>My, my. Can it be that Wemyss is bucking for a nobel
>>prize with all his great typo finds? Or can it be that he
>>seeks to divert from the truth about his foul, libelous
>>actions?
>>
>> GREASY RAOUL'S REPOST CON IS AN
>>>INSECT!", etc.) and change the definition weekly. It's nice to see
>you
>>>come out and scream repost con everytime someone uses something you
>>said
>>>that makes you look like an idiot, which is excruciatingly often.
>>>
>>>: For new readers, I will sum up the techniques used
>>>: in Weymss ("Williams") 75k Repost Con "Libel Fizzler"
>>>: that he desperately reposts again and again in a futile
>>>: attempt to get his long since mired-down libel
>>>: bandwagon rolling again:
>>>:
>>>: The Pseudonymous Roger Weymss ("Williams") employs the
>>>: following tricks in his 75k "libel fizzler"
>>>:
>>>: 1.) Material that Wemyss deviously removed from articles of
>>>: mine and represented out of context. This text appeared
>>>: mostly in well-known lampoons that I have posted last
>>>: year. Rog misrepresents my satires as "racist,"
>>>: and "proves" his case with a dishonest "yardstick"
>>>: that would make Monty Python movies, Norman Mailer
>>>: essays, and the works of most famous and prolific
>>>: writers--in Usenet or in the print world--equally
>>>: "racist."
>>>
>>> Hmm, you rolled out the same wearisome lie after I reposted your
>>>"coolie" and "greasy" articles in their entirety.
>>
>>No lie at all. Simply put, you misrepresented a famous
>>satire about a pinheaded loser lampooned as a six foot
>>beetle, and you twisted the most famous flame advisory
>>in Usenet, and you misused them both in a well-documented,
>>utterly baseless libel operation of longstanding, Roger.
>>Further, you did all that under a pseudonym, too--which just
>>happens to make you a libelous fraud, Mr. Weymss ("Williams").
>>
>> Can I have "Predictable
>>>Palmjobisms" for $100, Alex?
>>>
>>>: 2.) While most of the material of mine that Wemyss
>>>: reposts is taken out of article context, a couple
>>>: of items are removed by Rog from their entire thread
>>>: context and misrepresented. The dishonest effect
>>>: stays the same, despite Weymss' devious whines
>>>: to the contrary.
>>>
>>> Palmy, the remedy to your affliction is to choose your words more
>>>carefully before posting them.
>>
>>As Usenet satirist, I scarcely intend to alter my writing
>>habits to avoid any and all words that might be lifted
>>out of a lampoon context and misrepresented by libelous
>>frauds such as yourself, Wemyss. That's one of the
>>reasons *I* am known as a Usenet writer and you are not--
>>you lack the necessary spine (as well as the talent).
>>But please, pounce typos to your heart's content; just
>>don't interfere with my right to defand myself against
>>your malicious, pseudonymous libels.
>
>>>: 3.) At times Roger Wemyss will actually alter quotes of mine,
>>>: adding or subtracting words here and there, to furnish
>>>: further "evidence" for his falsehoods and dissimulations.
>>
>>In fact, he was caught doing this again last week.
>>>:
>>>: 4.) Roger "Williams," the pseudonymous libel artist,
>>>: also "bolsters" his "case" with third party testimony.
>>>: As it turns out, however, all the "third parties" are
>>>: members of Weymss' defamation team--and all are
>>>: well-toasted flame war losers with big axes to grind
>>>: (To that end, we hear from such "sterling associates"
>>>: of Rog as "Pus Bag" John Davis, and the "witness list"
>>>: actually goes downhill from there!)
>>>
>>> Bullshit, now you've actually made something up to garner
>sympathy.
>>>Why don't you go ahead and find a quote of yours I have added my own
>>words
>>>to, Palmjob?
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> Whoops, because you can't.
>>
>>Nonsense. Your 75k tissue abounds with such instances
>>and you know it. Your entire ploy, as I have already
>>pointed out, involves using dishonest tactics on such
>>a massive scale that it would be impossible to note
>>all of them without posting at leat a 350 k rebuttal.
>>I don't plan to do that, and you knew very well before
>>you cobbled the thing together than no one in his right
>>mind would waste time trying to refute such a vastly
>>dishonest and libelous document point by point, Weymss.
>>
>>Forgot who I was asking to back up the whine
>>>du jour.
>>>
>>>: 5.) Roger Wemyss does not depend solely on "third parties" to
>>>: "support" his defamatory contentions: He adds plenty of
>>>: untrue commentary of his own in a vain attempt to
>>>: successfully glue together his libel concoction
>>>: with scads of pseudo "Williams" own prevarication-filled
>>>: blather.
>>>
>>> It's called my opinion, Palmjob.
>>
>>No, it is called prevaricating, Wemyss. Most of
>>what you say involves you desperately trying to make
>>a case that I am a "racist." THAT takes a whole lot
>>of lying, since the entirety of my Dejanews archive,
>>from my first post to this one, proves the exact
>>opposite.
>>
>> See, in the real world, people are
>>>free to go ahead and offer commentary about people they don't like.
>>
>>Rather an odd way to describe a seven-month libel
>>campaign conducted while hiding behind a pseudonym trying
>>to convince readers in a great many newsgruops that a
>>dedicated non-racist is a "racist," Mr. Pseudo--merely
>>because the non-racist party toasted your devious,
>>cowardly hide more times than you could handle. Just
>>Rog Wemyss' "commentary" eh? That I am a Klansman, a Nazi,
>>etc., etc.?
>>
>> Isn't
>>>this post of yours your hamfisted attempt to do just that? The
>>difference
>>>between you and I, however, is that I don't shoot myself in the foot
>>with
>>>racist quotes, long winded blowhard tirades, etc.
>>
>>What do you is run libel campaigns while hiding behind
>>pseudonyms, Libelist Roger Wemyss "Williams." That's all.
>>>
>>>: 6.) Plenty of "headers," employed in a clumsy and soporific
>>>: attempt by Rog to add a veneer of authenticity to his
>>>: transparently dishonest and libelous 75k document.
>>>
>>> I expected you to whine about reposting complete headers. What's
>>the
>>>matter, Palmjob, all this "internet" stuff making your head hurt?
>>Headers
>>>are posted to show that what I repost actually came from you, no
>>matter
>>>how shocking or how stupid it is.
>>
>>Nonsense. Just who on earth do you fancy your 'headers"
>>will blind to your libelous dissimulations, your fabrications,
>>your text-alterations, and your other transparent ploys,
>>Roach Rog? Pus Bag Davis? Louse-monkey?
>>
>>This gets down to the "Rog Rog 75k nitty-gritty":
>>
>>>: Of course, one of Roach Rog's objectives in posting such
>>>: a massive (and massively defamatory) tissue is that he
>>>: knows that my going through it point by point and refuting
>>>: it in its entirety would necessitate my frequently reposting
>>>: a 350k article (at least!) showing carefully how each line
>>>: of Wemyss' "libel fizzler" falls neatly into one or more of
>>>: the above six techniques Rog employed. His "overpower
>>>: 'em with sheer size" strategy proves a key element in
>>>: Rog's massive reposts.
>>>
>>> You could also try and refute any of it intelligently point by
>>point,
>>>but you refuse to do that either.
>>
>>Roger Weymss "Williams" apparently thinks readers missed
>>my point about it taking at least 350 K to refute his
>>lies and libels point by point. I have summed up the
>>gist of his "libel fizzer," and what I say here can be
>>verified very easily in the non-racist entirety of
>>my Dejanews archive, especially when THAT is compared with
>>Roger's pitiful, but malicious, 75k "libel fizzler."
>>
>>Frankly, I see no need to repost my 1.25 million word
>>Dejanews archive to show that I am no racist by any
>>stretch of an honest imagination. That information
>>can easily be located in my "Deja-mountain."
>>
>>>of your faults combine to make you
>>>the easiest sitting duck on usenet when it comes to crucifying you
>for
>>>being a fuckhead. You can't think I'd let John Davis
>>
>>Of course, you couldn't get far without mention of your
>>"sterling associate," John "Pus Bag" Davis, Wemyss.
>>
>> have all the fun
>>>himself, do you Patsy?
>>
>>Most of the time, Davis seems to have "great fun" inflicting
>>his perverted fantasies on Usenet. That seems to be what
>>so endears your libelous accessory to you, Roger.
>>>
>>>: Wasting such vast amounts of Usenet storage space would
>>>: not be fair to to Usenet or to my many readers, and I
>>>: refuse to let a fake-named liar, Wemyss, force me into
>>>: emulating his net-abusing, bandwidth-busting behavior.
>>>
>>> Heh, Palmjob complaining about wasted bandwidth on usenet.
>>
>>Please show me one case where I* have posted a 75k
>>article, Wemyss. I never have posted ANYTHING
>>even close to that bandwidth-busting, net abusing
>>size, and I certainly never have REPOSTED anything
>>like that. YOU have, again and again and again,
>>and in a large number of newsgroups...
>>
>>
>>[...]
>>>"Unintended Irony From Idiots" for $200, Alex?
>>>
>>>: That is not necessary. Any neutral party who can wade
>>>: through the mess Roger Wemyss created--and who will take
>>>: time to measure what Rog reposted against the non-racist
>>>: entirety of my Dejanews archive--will easily be able to
>>>: spot Rog's complete dependence upon the six libel-
>>>: techniques (explained above).
>>>
>>> It's all available in once place:
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>>Now if I were Roach Rog, I would make a big deal
>>about the "bad grammar" of the above sentence. I
>>would in fact mention it in my next fifty posts
>>to Roach Roger. On the other hand, his drool
>>proves so trite and uninspired (except with reference
>>to his habitual prevaricating) that I scarcely need
>>to cling to his many typos and other solecisms to
>>prove him a lousy excuse for a writer.
>>
>>Now Roach Rog circles back to his, "Get the truth
>>about Bill Palmer's Usenet writing from the libel
>>site of a pseudonymous cockroach," ploy. The fact
>>will remain, there is only ONE place where the truth
>>about my Usenet work can be found: my personal
>>Dejanews archive, and certainly NOT at Rog's libel
>>site:
>
>>>http://www.parrot.net/pfaq.htm
>>>
>>> I know you've visited before Palmjob,
>>
>>Never had, Roach Roger. We have already talked about
>>your attempting to make it look like I had. That reminds
>>me, too, of your lies that I called up your boss to have
>>a chat. You got caught red-handed on that one--I think
>>it finally ocurred to you that I have NEVER talked to
>>ANYONE (friend or foe) by phone in connection with my
>>Usenet posting. I just don't do it as a matter of personal
>>choice.
>>
>>It has been said before, Roger Wemyss "Williams" lies
>>big and he lies small. But whether telling minor fibs
>>or major whoppers, Rog lies fast and he lies often.
>>
>>On the other hand, with a major liar like Rog, whether or not
>>his fabrications are in character with the past behavior of
>>the person he is libeling is not a big concern. After all,
>>Wemyss proved the same thing about himself (that he doesn't
>>care if his libels have anything to do with his target's past
>>behavior, that is) with Weymss' baseless "racist" defamation
>>of me, so I should hardly be surprised by little lies of
>>his like my supposedly trying to make his BOSS (of ALL
>>people!) my very first Usenet "telephone pal."
>>
>>>: I might add that since I never post under a pseudonym
>>>: (unlike Roach Rog "Williams" who carries out libel
>>>: campaigns under false names) and since I never use
>>>: the Dejanews "X-No-Archive--Yes" function, my personal
>>>: archive gives the TRUE story of my Usenet posting--
>>>: which of course is wholly non-racist and the
>>>: exact opposite of what is to be found in the
>>>: cobbled-together "libel concoctions" of sore
>>>: losers and pseudonymous frauds like "Williams."
>>>
>>> All my posts are archived too, Patsy-
>>
>>Anothor phony diversion, my pseudonyus fraud! When
>>full archiving is NOT linked with the other key fact
>>(that I NEVER post under a pseudonym) it means next to
>>nothing. In other words, "Williams," you say you don't
>>"X-no archive--Yes" but since you have already been
>>busted for libeling while hiding behind (at very least)
>>one pseudonym, a reasonable person will be forced to
>>wonder how many different names and addresses
>>an investigator would have to look under to find
>>all you have posted, Weymss.
>>
>>Don't bother to try to lie your way out of it, Rog.
>>After all, you have already told thousands of Usenet
>>posters your last name was "Williams," and since when
>>are fake-named, libelous drivelers accorded the respect
>>of being believed? (Not overlooking the fact, Weymss,
>>that even BEFORE it transpired that you were hiding your
>>libels behind a pseudonym, you already had earned
>>a reputation for being able to pack more lies
>>into a line of text than anyone one the net!)
>>
>>and your anti-semitic homophobic
>>>buddies Boursy and Grubor put me on the "netscum" page for my
>efforts.
>>
>>Our famous "conspiracy cockroach" Weymss would have
>>readers forget that even a dedicated libel artist such as
>>himself could not find ONE syllable in my 1.25 million
>>word archive to misrepresent as "anti-semitic"!
>
>[...]
>>
>>Roger Wemyss ends with a slur about MY "mangling English."
>>That certainly proved an ironic closing for someone who
ISP_Ratings
Mike MacLennan <mmaclenn@ix?netcom.com> wrote...
:
:Roger Williams wrote:
Minor correction sir--his user name is Roger
Williams--his real name is Roger Wemyss and his
story is told in detail at:
Steve
news.admin.censorship
Roger Williams
Distribution:
Reply-to: ad...@parrot.net
Organization: Parrot Networks- America's Feathered ISP
John Hausmann (haus...@netcom.com) wrote:
: Roger Williams (rog...@tiac.net) wrote:
: : Eric Joslin (er...@ops.tiac.net) wrote:
: : : Mike MacLennan (mmaclenn@ix?netcom.com) wrote:
: : : : Roger Williams wrote:
: : :
: : : : > Hmm, you rolled out the same wearisome lie after I reposted your
: : : : > "coolie" and "greasy" articles in their entirety. Can I have "Predictable
: : : : > Palmjobisms" for $100, Alex?
: : :
: : :
: : : : This Palmjobism occurs when he, whilst delusional, compares himself to
: : : : this great satirical writer.
: : :
: : :
: : : What is "the same could be said about Norman Mailer's _The White Nigger_?"
: : :
: : : I'll take predictable Palmjobisms for $200.
: : :
: : : eric
:
: : This Biilbonics language phrase is shouted when something is reposted to
: : alt.genius.bill-palmer...
:
: What is "Re-post Con" ? I'll take Non-ethnic slurs for $500, Alex.
Biil used this slur claiming it merely represented Pinhead as a beetle...
Roger Williams
Bill Palmer (wil...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In <5mt694$p...@news-central.tiac.net> rog...@tiac.net (Roger
: Williams) writes:
:
: Having been recently busted for carrying on a libel campaign
: while cowering behind a pseudonym, the famous posting cockroach
: of Usenet actually seems to have flipped his lid. Roger Wemyss
: has been flooding alt.genius.bill-palmer and other newsgroups
: with the same libelous rubbish over and over, such as his
: notorious 75k "libel fizzler."
Hmmm, it's June 2! Could be time for a repost of the Biil Palmjob FAQ!
: Also, his loopy allegations and foul insinuations grow wilder
: and wilder with each post. Roger's latest spate of off-the-wall
: libelousness involves one of his nutty "they are out to get
: me" posts. According to him, I have launched into some
: sort of plot to "get Cockroach 'Williams.'" Wemyss can't
: face reality: I don't have to team with anyone to "get him"--
: all I have to is set back and record his own paraniod,
: bizarre behavior and rub his nose in it.
ObSnicker: <snicker>
: [I have changed the subject line, because Roach Rog
: Weymss used his post's name to insult everyone named Palmer,
: and I don't want to be a party to that, obviously.]
TRANSLATION TO BIILBONICS: "Being called Palmjob hurts my feelings! Bad
Raoch! Bad Raoch!"
: In addition, Roger filled that post with a crazy
: diatribe about "anti-semitism." He is doing that
: more and more lately, indicating he is getting as
: loony as he is desperate and dishonest.
Idiot. Here's a quote from the "netscum" page that Boursy would have
you believe tells the stories of all the people "out to libel" you, Biil.
Read carefully and tell me who's doing the libelling:
---------------begin repost from http://www.netscum.net/kamensj0.html --
Jonathan Kamens, j...@annex-1-slip-jik.cam.ov.com, j...@cam.ov.com,
j...@datsrv.co.il, j...@jik.israel.net, Zionist Internet censor and bully
Jon hates the Christian spelling of his name, John. The 4 feet 8 inches
tall Kamens's most famous quote is "Don't say anything in E-mail to me
that you wouldn't want posted in news.admin.net-abuse.misc." The company
for which Kamen works, OpenVison Technologies, Inc. is an Oracle wanna be
and fronts for foreign agents in the US from Israel, that is, the secret
service there known as Mosad, and completely approves of what Kamens does.
Kamens is best known as the self-annointed moderator of the unmoderated
Usenet groups such as soc.culture.israel and com.security.misc where he
spends hours sending false, obnoxious e-mail complaints to the ISP's of
posters whose content he considers offensive. Tried to moderate
soc.culture.israel, but couldn't get any votes. Moderates various
*.answers newsgroups. Claims to be the principal contributor to GNU and
FSF, who deny knowing him. Being a Jew, Kamens believes he is a god.
----------------------------end repost----------------------------------
Ok, Biil- you just stuck your foot in your mouth about the anit-semitic
qualities of your new pals- now go ahead like a predictable little Patsy
and rail off a 3 gigabyte denial... don't forget to say the word
"poltroon" 10,000 times as well.
: Why Roach Rog sticks to that one, I can't fathom. He has
: no basis at all for trying to smear me in that regard.
: After all, in my entire 1.25 million word archive, Roach
: Rog was unable to come up with one syllable to mischaracterize
: as "anti semitic."
I have never called you an anti-semite, Palmjob, but you sure as hell
are snuggling up close to some. Since you seem to be feeling chatty today,
mind telling me why you're feeling so close to Steve Boursy these days,
Palmy?
: Weirdly, though, Williams has used the term "anti semitic" at
: least fifty times now in postingsabout me. With a smear artist
: like Roach Rog Weymss, apparently, the ploy is to keep trying to
: plant the same untrue notion, in the hope it will take in
: someone's mind even though the libel has no connection with
: reality.
I'll tell you what- stop cozying up with such flaming anti-semites, and
I'll stop reminding you about it. It's not what you're saying Biil, it's
what you're doing. Something about "actions speaking louder than words" is
escaping you here...
: Anyway, I say quite seriously that I think Cockroach
: Roger Wemyss has blown a fuse or two since he was busted
: for running a massive libel campaign under a fake name
: (Our hero has stalwartly made himself known to thousands
: of readers as "Roger Williams.") He now stands exposed,
: revealed to be a pseudonymous, defamatory fraud on Usenet.
: Wemyss cringes before us as a human cockroach wearing a
: barrel with two shoulder straps, and trying to do a lot
: of mighty fast "explaining."
Idiot, "Wemyss" is pronounced virutally the same as "Williams" to non
native speakers of Scots-Gaelic, and seeing the how Grubor, etc.
frequently fail to spell it right (I've seen Weymess, Wmyess, etc.),
consider Williams a favor. However, given your inability to actually speak
ENGLISH.....
: Rog's libelous behavior and his crazed reposting of
: the same borrowed, misrepresented material (with HEADERS,
: mind you!) over and over definitely suggests a mind that
: has become unhinged by its own paranoia and hatred.
Which one of us was so fond of using the slurs again Biil? Oh, that was
you. Which one of us had a nervous breakdown when his slurs were reposted
with headers again? Oh, that was you. Which one of us will NEVER post any
kind of proof when making an allegation? Damn, Palmjob again. Here's a
hint Patsy- when making another uberwhine, try to bitch about things that
make someone look bad. "Accusing" someone of accurately including headers
in a usenet repost is idiotic since it's hardly honest to repost them
without them. Idiot. Like Boursy, all this "internet" stuff seems to make
your head hurt.
: Oddest of all, Roger seems to fairly brim with "important
: messages" about what is and is not in the best interests
: of Usenet, regarding "netiquette" and just about everything
: else! We're all ears, Wemyss. Tell us where it's at
: again...
Ok. Posting to more than 5 newsgroups violates Netcom's acceptable use
policy. You had typically blundered into another followup to something
Boursy posted to about 12 newsgroups (only half of them existing enough to
be propagated beyond his little fantasy world). When I reminded you about
Netcom's policy, you had another typical bedwetting episode launching into
yet another long winded phillipic about how devious and wicked etc. I am.
Boo fucking hoo hoo.
<over 400 lines of original repost deleted>
Damn Patsy, you're too lazy to do any editing either. No wonder you're
still the bitch of alt.flame
<snicker>
Eric Joslin
Bill Palmer (wil...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In <5mskuq$a...@news-central.tiac.net> er...@ops.tiac.net (Eric Joslin)
: writes:
: [was "Cockroach Rog's Latest 75k "Libel Fizzler" Toss"]
: My, my. After Libel Toady Eric Joslin noticed Louse-monkey
: John's little ploy (of ignoring my refutation to Cockroach
: Rog Wemyss' fabrication and repeating Rog's whoppers as if
: they stood unrebutted) Joslin thought he would attempt the same
: stratagem.
Actually, Palmer, despite your delusions to the contrary, noone "fears" you.
Beating you up again and again began to bore me, so I sought enteratainment
elsewhere.
<snip>
: Can I have "Predictable
: >: > Palmjobisms" for $100, Alex?
: >
: >: This Palmjobism occurs when he, whilst delusional, compares himself
: to
: >: this great satirical writer.
: >
: >What is "the same could be said about Norman Mailer's _The White
: Nigger_?"
: I made an excellent point by analogy that the "snip-and-
: misrepresent" libel trick you and your defamatory pals
: played on me could be practiced upon nearly any prolific
: writer (on or off the net), Joslin. Does your cloudy
: memory now tell you that my "Mailer" analogy was not a
: valid one in every respect?
Uh, no, Palmer, your memory appears clouded as to what people think of your
analogies. Your comparison *might* hold water if, in fact, only "satirical
snippets" were taken, but Roger has reposted your racist slurs in their
entirety before, and I'm sure he will again.
The main difference between Mailer and yourself (I mean, beyond writing ability,
fame and fans) is that while Mailer used racist words in a satirical way
to send up racism, you used racist words as an insult.
: >I'll take predictable Palmjobisms for $200.
: >
: >eric
: Of course Eric the Guttersnipe continues to insult everyone
: named Palmer.
Actually, Dickmunch, that's the first time I've used the phrase "Palmjob".
And I challenge you to prove me wrong.
<snip, again>
: Need I remind Thief Joslin that he boasted on several
: occasions that he had stolen my copyrighted property and
: sold it.
No, I didn't. I *did*, on the other hand, sell copies of your usenet posts
and buy tacos with the profits.
<snip>
: Anyway, it was Theif Joslin's contention that my
: Usenet writing was NOT copyrighted,
Mine and any other Usenet reader/poster's with a clue.
<snip- someone should do a study one whether or not "snip" is the word
most often used in follow ups to Palmer's posts>
: Readers may also remember Brad
: Templeton's very helpful FAQ on plagiarism and copyright
: laws, which made it very clear that Thief Eric Joslin, by
: his own boastful words, had committed both a crime and
: a civil law tort and had hanged himself with his own
: testimony right here in alt.genius.bill-palmer.
Readers may also remember asking who Brad Templeton is, and for the
sources of information for his FAQ. Readers may also remember that
Palmer is an Idiot for accepting unverified information.
<snip, one last time>
eric
Bill Palmer
In <5mua3v$q...@news-central.tiac.net> rog...@tiac.net (Roger Williams)
writes:
In which the dishonest Usenet cockroach Wemyss gives us
further insight into how he works.
Now we are getting very close to an excellent example
of how a smear artist like Roger Wemyss works. Watch
carefully:
>
> Idiot. Here's a quote from the "netscum" page that Boursy would
have
>you believe tells the stories of all the people "out to libel" you,
Here libel artist Wemyss would have us forget that
I have nothing at all to do with any "netscum" pages.
Further, if he is blthering that someone is using
quotes of mine, how can Roger Wemyss have the gall to
complain about that?
After all, Roach Rog himself has long--according to his
boasts--operated a "libel site" where he posts my material
out of context, viciously misrepresenting it in order to
vilify me, while at the same time attracting readers by
using the powerful magnet of Bill Palmer/Flame Giant name
for his commercial purposes (since Wemyss says he also
promotes his own ventures with the same site).
Biil.
>Read carefully and tell me who's doing the libelling:
You are the libelist, Wemyss, of course. (As you peruse
the following "Roger repost," readers, remember that I had
NOTHING at all to do with writing it. It is not about me,
it does not contain material about me in any way, shape or
form. It represents, simply put, another of Cockroach Rog's
"repost cons."
Wemyss smears me as anti-semitic, though he cannot find
ONE SYLLABLE in my entire 1.35 Dejanews archive to support
his malicious, untrue insinuation. Yet, he keeps bringing
up the subject of "anti-semitism" in connection with
my name again and again. Further, as if to prove his point,
he posts matierial that is neither written by me or is about
me in any way. Such is the "proof" of the notorious Usenet
libel-cockroach Wemyss!
>
>---------------begin repost from http://www.netscum.net/kamensj0.html
AND
***Begin the material that has nothing to do with Bill Palmer***
-------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------
AND
***End the material that has nothing to do with Bill Palmer.***
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
Now let's see what our repost con practitioner Wemyss has
to drool about the irrelevant text he has just reposted:
>
> Ok, Biil- you just stuck your foot in your mouth
In other words, according to Roach Rog, *I* have somehow
stuck "my foot in my mouth" because he posts something
that has nothing to do with me!
about the anit-semitic
>qualities of your new pals-
Nonsense, Cockroach Wemyss. My pooint was, and I state
it again, that in my entire Dejanews archive of over 1.25
million words, even a dedicated libel artist such as
yourself was unable to find ONE SYLLABE of mine to
viciously misrepresent as being anti-semitic. Running
irrelevant text by and about others will in no way
allow you crawl around the fact that you are a smear
artist and a cowardly phony whose speciality is
conducting libel campaigns while hiding behind fake
names, Roger.
now go ahead like a predictable little Patsy
>and rail off a 3 gigabyte denial...
How typical of Roach Rog! Our repost con artist runs a
block of text that is neither by me or about me. He posts
it AS IF it proves something about me. His post is an
exercise in blatant dishonesty showing a callous disregard
for his readers' intelligence. That isn't the half of it,
though: To hear Wemyss drool about it, my "denials" that
his red-herring repost has anything to do with me are now
supposed to somehow prove me "guilty"!
don't forget to say the word
>"poltroon" 10,000 times as well.
>
>: Why Roach Rog sticks to that one, I can't fathom. He has
>: no basis at all for trying to smear me in that regard.
>: After all, in my entire 1.25 million word archive, Roach
>: Rog was unable to come up with one syllable to
>: mischaracterize as "anti semitic."
>
> I have never called you an anti-semite, Palmjob,
Let me be specific. What you have done again and again
and again is to bring up the term "anti-semitic" in
connection with my name. That is a very common tactic
of smear artists such as yourself, Wemyss. The fact
that you keep trying to plant a suggestion that I
am "anti-semitic" after you could not find one word
in my 1.25 million word Dejanews archive to misrepresent
as anti-Jeswish in any way merely shows how foully
determined you are as a libel artist.
Once you choose your method of defaming someone, Roach
Rog, reality has no bearing at all on how you proceed
with your defamations, be they overt (like your defaming
me as a "racist") or sly (like your "anti-semitic" smears).
but you sure as hell
>are snuggling up close to some. Since you seem to be feeling chatty
today,
>mind telling me why you're feeling so close to Steve Boursy these
days,
>Palmy?
>
>: Weirdly, though, Wemyss has used the term "anti semitic" at
>: least fifty times now in postingsabout me. With a smear artist
>: like Roach Rog Wemyss, apparently, the ploy is to keep trying to
>: plant the same untrue notion, in the hope it will take in
>: someone's mind even though the libel has no connection with
>: reality.
And, the funny thing is, Roach Rog has again proved how
true my above words are, by his pretending that irrelevant
text "proves" something, and then by blathering along as
though he has made his case.
>
> I'll tell you what- stop cozying up with such flaming anti-semites,
Now *I* am "cozying up to anti-semites" according to this
habitual liar and libel artist who cites totally irrelvant
text to make his point. I guess the idea in Wemyss'
paranoid, demented brain is that if I show any agreement
with another Usenet poster in any area, then somehow I
become in effect responsible for every word the party may
have ever written!
and
>I'll stop reminding you about it.
In other words, if I let the famous Usenet cockroach
Libel Artist Wemyss dictate my posting habits, he will
stop with the crude smear attempts.
It's not what you're saying Biil, it's
>what you're doing.
I am far more concerned with what YOU are doing, Roach
Roach Roger. Let me sum up a few things about you
that leap to mind: Your defaming me for months as a
"racist" based on your misrepresentation of three or
four non-racist, satirical uses of "coolie" and my
flame advisory about leaving pests like Rog Wemyss
"grease spots" on the info. highway; your conducting
massive libel operations under phony names; your
engaging in hate campaigns which in fact seem to be
your only purpose on the net at all; your endless
use of dishonest tactics, such as you employed here,
when you pretended that your dragging in irrelvant text
not written by me "proved" something about me, in
order to justify your past smears. Fact is, Wemyss,
I could go on and on about what "you're doing."
>Something about "actions speaking louder than words" is
>escaping you here...
>
>: Anyway, I say quite seriously that I think Cockroach
>: Roger Wemyss has blown a fuse or two since he was busted
>: for running a massive libel campaign under a fake name
>: (Our hero has stalwartly made himself known to thousands
>: of readers as "Roger Williams.") He now stands exposed,
>: revealed to be a pseudonymous, defamatory fraud on Usenet.
>: Wemyss cringes before us as a human cockroach wearing a
>: barrel with two shoulder straps, and trying to do a lot
>: of mighty fast "explaining."
True.
>
> Idiot, "Wemyss" is pronounced virutally the same as "Williams" to
non
>native speakers of Scots-Gaelic,
I am not particularly interested in your rationale for
conducting a baseless defamation campaign while cowering
under a pseudonym, "Williams." That you would have plenty
of weak excuses up your sleeve for so doing does not surprise
me in the least.
and seeing the how Grubor, etc.
>frequently fail to spell it right (I've seen Weymess, Wmyess, etc.),
So? Since when does having a not-so-common family name give
a person an exuse for conducting defamation campaigns under
a pseudonym? As usual, you are getting carried away with
your own lies, Roach Rog. (I might add that I think it
is especially reprehensible that you have been mangling
MY last name in a puerile fashion and all the while
hiding your own family name under a pseudonym as if
your were ashamed of it.)
After all, "Williams," we are not talking about
your being a movie star or a tv newsperson who changes
his or her name for commercial purposes. In your case,
you merely try to use the fact that people sometimes spell
your name wrong as a feeble excuse for carrying out libelous
actions in Usenet from the under your convenient umbrella
of false names. Now that you have been busted, your
self-serving blather merely makes you sound EVEN more
dishonest.
>consider Williams a favor. However, given your inability to actually
speak
>ENGLISH.....
Sure Rog. Let's hear all about my inability to write
English. After all, you yourself have often decreed that
I am neither a writer nor a satirist, so why not make the
jump to claiming that I am illiterate as well? (Must have
been those four typos in my last 900 word article...)
>
>: Rog's libelous behavior and his crazed reposting of
>: the same borrowed, misrepresented material (with HEADERS,
>: mind you!) over and over definitely suggests a mind that
>: has become unhinged by its own paranoia and hatred.
>
> Which one of us was so fond of using the slurs again Biil?
"Slurs?" Rog seem sto be blathering about my three or four
non-racist uses of "coolie" in my lampoon series about the
pinheaded untortunate. Or, maybe he is drooling about my
famous flame advisory about grease spots on the info. highway.
Whetever sore-loser Wemyss blubbers about, we can be sure it is
part and parcel of his vindictive, baseless and long-running
defamations of me.
Oh, that was
>you. Which one of us had a nervous breakdown when his slurs were
reposted
>with headers again? Oh, that was you. Which one of us will NEVER post
any
>kind of proof when making an allegation?
Let me repeat my main points about that. In the first place,
you pretend that when something is reposted with headers,
it "proves" anything the reposter wants to claim about it.
You ignore the fact that you have been recently been caught
altering text, and you rely on the fact that most readers
will not bother to research matters, Roach Rog.
Furthermore, Wemyss, you pretend that your "headers" will
get you around the fact that when you do use someone's
actual text without alteration, you have a habit of
viciously misrepresenting the person's meaning. (Such
as your creating a "racist" out of a satirical writer,
based on three or four non-racist "coolies" and a "grease
spot on the info. highway," out of the author's 1.25
million posted and archived words!)
Damn, Palmjob again. Here's a
>hint Patsy- when making another uberwhine, try to bitch about things
that
>make someone look bad. "Accusing" someone of accurately including
headers
>in a usenet repost is idiotic since it's hardly honest to repost them
>without them.
Nonsesense. A little over one week ago, I demonstrated
very carefully how you had created a "punctuation error"
in MY text, to dishonestly support your ironic contentions
on the subject of my writing. But this brings us to another
point about you, Wemyss: You are so utterly dishonest
that you will deny something you did last week and whine
"Post proof, post proof"--even about your most transparent
and oft-repeated lies and dissimulations.
As I have said before, you lie big and you lie often,
Wemyss, so if you had your way I would be doing little
more than reposting your dishonest drivel, much to the
disgust of my readers.
I have also observed before, Roger, that one reason you
keep making your great "Post proof" challenges about the
obvious is that when YOU repost my words, the quality of
your post goes up considerably. On the other hand, when
I repost YOUR rubbish, I do nothing but degrade the quality
of my articles.
Idiot. Like Boursy, all this "internet" stuff seems to make
>your head hurt.
>
>: Oddest of all, Roger seems to fairly brim with "important
>: messages" about what is and is not in the best interests
>: of Usenet, regarding "netiquette" and just about everything
>: else! We're all ears, Wemyss. Tell us where it's at
>: again...
>
> Ok. Posting to more than 5 newsgroups violates Netcom's acceptable
use
>policy.
Now the famous net abuser Rog gets back to his concern
with other poople's ISP'S! Now, that is very ironic
for a net abuser of record like Roach Rogf Wemyss who
has no concern at all for readers or for netiquette.
One instance that comes to mind is Roach Rog's habitual
reposting of his ***75k*** libel fizzler again and again
and again and again.
In other words, few posters I can think of have
shown such lack of concern for bandwidth or for
netiquette as you have, Wemyss. (That Roach Rog tries
to justify his abusive incursions into alt.genius.bill-
palmer as the posting of a FAQ is totally absurd:
I have pointed out before that Rog's libelous concoction
is as much a "Bill Palmer FAQ" as the Eddie Bauer
catalogue!)
You had typically blundered into another followup to something
>Boursy posted to about 12 newsgroups (only half of them existing
enough to
>be propagated beyond his little fantasy world). When I reminded you
about
>Netcom's policy, you had another typical bedwetting episode launching
into
>yet another long winded phillipic about how devious and wicked etc. I
am.
Nonsense. I didn't say you were "wicked," Rog. I certainly
said you were "devious," and your own words prove that again
and again. In fact, we need go no farther than your last
post, where you present text by someone else in order to
"prove" your many baseless smears of ME. TTHAT is very
"devious," as a matter of fact, Cockroach Wemyss.
My main point here, though, is that a net abuser such as
yourself, Wemyss, is the last person in Usenet who should
be keeping tabs on the crossposting of someone else. My
Dejanews archive makes it crystal that the large majority
of my over 4,000 posts are on newsgroupo topic, and on
those rare occasions where they were not due to honest
error, I have apologized.
That's a lot more than we can say about YOUR repeated
deliberate, and easily verifiable net abuse, Roach Roger--
or are you now of the opinion that everyone on the net should
start flooding other newsgroups with bandwidth-busting 75k
tissues of tripe the way you habitually do?
>
> Boo fucking hoo hoo.
>
><over 400 lines of original repost deleted>
In other words, there were about 400 lines of text
about Wemyss' dishonest behavior that he felt
incapable of safely lying his way around!
>
> Damn Patsy, you're too lazy to do any editing either. No wonder
you're
>still the bitch of alt.flame
Now, if we trust our pseudonymous liar Wemyss, the
Usenet Flame Giant has "become the bitch of alt.flame."
I remind you, Roach Rog, that YOU embody a total non-
entity when it comes to flaming. After all, your libel
campaign targeting me came about as a result of
your foolishing attacking me when you saw the odds
were thirty to one in your favor. As a result of your
egregious miscalculation, you were subsequently forced to
crawl out of the flame arenas of the net with your tail
afire!
Then, since you have no talent at all as either writer
or flamer, you took to libel to try and get revenge for
your horrific toasting. And now, according to sore loser
and flame non-entity Libel Artist Wemyss, *I* am the "bitch"
of alt.flame! Ironic...
John Hausmann
ISP_Ratings (bou...@earthlink.net) wrote:
: Mike MacLennan <mmaclenn@ix?netcom.com> wrote...
: :
: :Roger Williams wrote:
: Minor correction sir--his user name is Roger
: Williams--his real name is Roger Wemyss and his
: story is told in detail at:
Minor correction sir -- when one attributes a reader with saying
(or writing) something, one usually includes some of those words.
John Hausmann
Roger Williams (rog...@tiac.net) wrote:
: Distribution:
: Organization: Parrot Networks- America's Feathered ISP
: John Hausmann (haus...@netcom.com) wrote:
: : Roger Williams (rog...@tiac.net) wrote:
: : : Eric Joslin (er...@ops.tiac.net) wrote:
: : : : Mike MacLennan (mmaclenn@ix?netcom.com) wrote:
: : : : : Roger Williams wrote:
: : : :
: : : : : > Hmm, you rolled out the same wearisome lie after I reposted your
: : : : : > "coolie" and "greasy" articles in their entirety. Can I have "Predictable
: : : : : > Palmjobisms" for $100, Alex?
: : : :
: : : :
: : : : : This Palmjobism occurs when he, whilst delusional, compares himself to
: : : : : this great satirical writer.
: : : :
: : : :
: : : : What is "the same could be said about Norman Mailer's _The White Nigger_?"
: : : :
: : : : I'll take predictable Palmjobisms for $200.
: : : :
: : : : eric
: :
: : : This Biilbonics language phrase is shouted when something is reposted to
: : : alt.genius.bill-palmer...
: :
: : What is "Re-post Con" ? I'll take Non-ethnic slurs for $500, Alex.
: Biil used this slur claiming it merely represented Pinhead as a beetle...
What is "rickshaw-pulling, low-bowing coolie"?
I'll take Rent-control for $100.
Eric Joslin
Bill Palmer (wil...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In <5muo9r$g...@news-central.tiac.net> er...@ops.tiac.net (Eric Joslin)
: writes:
: >
: >Bill Palmer (wil...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: >: In <5mskuq$a...@news-central.tiac.net> er...@ops.tiac.net (Eric
: Joslin)
: >: writes:
<snip>
: >Actually, Palmer, despite your delusions to the contrary, noone
: "fears" you.
: >Beating you up again and again began to bore me, so I sought
: enteratainment
: >elsewhere.
: In other words, Joslin, that's why you never even tried to
: rebut my "Hanged for Stealing," which foucused on your
: contention that it is fine to steal the copyrighted Usenet
: articles of others. ["Hanged for Stealing," which is about
: Thief Joslin can be found in my Dejanews archive.]
Well, frankly, yes, Idiot. You hit the nail on the head. See, I wasn't
even *reading* the group, and therefore didn't even see the post that you
are reffering to. I congratulate you on your deductive reasoning skills.
<snip>
: >: Does your cloudy
: >: memory now tell you that my "Mailer" analogy was not a
: >: valid one in every respect?
: >
: >Uh, no, Palmer, your memory appears clouded as to what people think of
: your
: >analogies. Your comparison *might* hold water if,
: My analogy DOES "hold water." That is why you have unable
: to touch it, Thief Eric.
I see, you mean *except* for the points I make below:
: in fact, only "satirical
: >snippets" were taken,
: Of course only "satirical snippets" were taken
Roger has reposted your full articles many times. What else would
you like to make it not a "snippet"? How much more in context does it
need to be?
You really need to just face what you said. Your continuing denial that
the usage comes off as racist is what *really* makes you look like a
full-blown racist.
<snip>
: Further, Joslin, Cockroach Wemyss, with your libelous
: assistance, carried out his months long, totally baseless
: defamation campaign under a fake name, "Williams." THAT is
: the type of phony, defamatory loser you support, Thief Joslin.
Use of psuedonyms is hardly a big deal on Usenet, Palmer. Your
constant histrionics over that fact only make you look even more like a
clueless newbie than your inability/unwillingness to understand headers.
And you never have explained what "wilhelp" is derived from.
: The reaon you were unable to touch my Mailer analogy, Eric.
: was that it is highly valid.
Except for the above points- that Mailer wrote an essay sending up racism,
while you used the offending remarks as insults directed at specific
people.
And, as I've pointed out both earlier in this post and many times before,
you insufferable moron, the use of the offending phrases pales in comparison
to your dogged insistence that there is nothing wrong with them. It is
that fact, which you have spent *considerable* amounts of your "million plus
words", which *truly* highlights your racism.
: In fact, you gave the distinct
: impression that you believed that my fifteen article
: series about the six-foot beetle
Which you referred to as a "coolie", and also described as wearing a straw
hat;
: who endlessly pulls
: the two-wheeled conveyance
A rickshaw, if I recall correctly;
: through cyberspace was
: a serious article for THE SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN!
Um, no. I did say that it hardly qualified as satire (or even funny). I did
also say that it was poorly written and conceived, and that only a racist would
have come up with it.
<snip>
: In other words, you still boast of having stolen and
: sold my copyrighted property, even though--like many
: thieves--you feel a compulsion to denigrate what you
: steal, Eric Joslin.
I'm not aware of any material to which you hold a copyright, Palmer, so I
could hardly be accused of stealing it.
<snip>
: >: Readers may also remember Brad
: >: Templeton's very helpful FAQ on plagiarism and copyright
: >: laws,
: >
: >Readers may also remember asking who Brad Templeton is,
: I have already reposted Mr. Templeton's FAQ for
: everyone's convenience, Thief Eric.
Is this meant as a response to my questioning Mr. Templton's qualifications?
You have never been able to provide any credentials for Mr. Templeton, nor
where you dredged this FAQ up from.
: Remember how
: you "challenged it" before? You gave a brief
: quote of questionable relevance from someone you
: described as a motion picture lawyer. THAT was
: your way of "challenging" Brad's FAQ in its
: entirety!
I see. So my arguments, which I stated clearly are based on statements made
by qualified people in the field of copyright law, are rebuffed in your mind
by this FAQ, written by someone for whom you have no credentials.
: The difference is, Mr. Templeton gives us a very well
: put together presentation of a great deal of relevant
: material about copyright law and Usenet.
I see. So, you will beleive *anything*, so long as it says "FAQ" at the top
and is written in question and answer format.
So you are basically admitting to being an even bigger Idiot than even I
gave you credit for.
eric
Bill Palmer
In <hausmannE...@netcom.com> haus...@netcom.com (John Hausmann)
writes:
As usual, the "brain" of "Louse-monkey John" Hausmann has
gotten everything jumbled up. It is sad, but in order
to clear up our imbecile's noxious clutter, one needs a
sort of verbal "doggie scoop"...
>
>Roger Williams (rog...@tiac.net) wrote:
>: Distribution:
>: Reply-to: ad...@parrot.net
>: Organization: Parrot Networks- America's Feathered ISP
>
>: "Louse-monkey John" Hausmann (haus...@netcom.com) wrote:
>: : Cockroach Roger Wemyss (rog...@tiac.net) wrote:
>: : : Thief Eric Joslin (er...@ops.tiac.net) wrote:
>: : : : The Pseudonymous Mike MacLennan (mmaclenn@ix?netcom.com)
wrote:
>: : : : : Cockroach Roger Wemyss wrote:
>: : : :
>: : : : : > Hmm, you rolled out the same wearisome lie after I
reposted your
>: : : : : > "coolie" and "greasy" articles in their entirety.
Roach Rog, your basic ploy as a libel artist consisted of taking
less than one dozen, satirically-used, non-racist words our of
a fifteen-article lampoon series about the Pinheaded loser,
and misrepresenting those snippets as evidence of "racism."
The same dirty trick could be used to "prove" Mailer was a
"racist" for the title of his famous essay, or that Monty
Python movies are "racist" for using "taboo words." Anyone
who launches a massive libel campaign on the basis of finding
less than a dozen "taboo words" in a Usenet satirist's 1.25
million word archive is a major libel artist, and I certainly
include the pitiful "Louse-monkey John" Hausmann and Cockroach
Roger Wemyss, who in fact conducted his defamation operation for
several months while cowering under a phony name like the fetid
mound of keyboarding chickenshit Wemyss actually embodies.
Can I have "Predictable
>: : : : : > Palmjobisms" for $100, Alex?
>: : : :
>: : : :
>: : : : : This Palmjobism occurs when he, whilst delusional, compares
himself to
>: : : : : this great satirical writer.
>: : : :
>: : : :
>: : : : What is "the same could be said about Norman Mailer's _The
White Nigger_?"
Of course your foul trick could be played on any writer,
on or off line, Louse-monkey. You find the "taboo words"
and you abuse them out of context (be it article context or
THREAD context) to mischaracterize the artist's intentions.
It is an old trick, and has been employed against writers
probably since the dawn of written communication.
>: : : :
>: : : : I'll take predictable Palmjobisms for $200.
>: : : :
>: : : : eric
>: :
>: : : This Biilbonics language phrase is shouted when something is
reposted to
>: : : alt.genius.bill-palmer...
>: :
>: : What is "Re-post Con" ?
Louse-monkey's silliness can't get him around the basic
facts regarding repost cons. After all, the only ones
who claim that repost cons don't exist are those who
practice them regularly. Simply put, a repost con exists
when posters deviously use text (altered or out of context)
to "prove" some dishonest point the "reposter" strives to
make.
In these newsgroups, the number one repost con practitioner
is Cockroach Roger "Williams" Wemyss, the pseudonymous
fraud. Of course, one reason the human cockroach
favors repost cons stems from the fact that Rog has
no talent for writing or flaming, so his using "borrowed"
and/or Cockroach-altered text written by his betters greatly
improves the quality of Rog's "articles" (which normally
are dismal exercises in malicious triteness) and makes
them far more appealing to all readers.
"Louse-monkey John" Hausmann, Libel goblin Joe Sexton,
John "Pus Bag" Davis and "Sad Andrew Peanut" Beckwith
also are regular practitioners of Usenet repost cons.
They are all bred-in-the-bone losers and their dishonest
methods deserve everyone's contempt and ridicule.
I'll take Non-ethnic slurs for $500, Alex.
>
>: Biil used this slur claiming it merely represented Pinhead as a
beetle...
Now our repost con artist/libelist Hausmann pretends that
the fifteen-article lampoon series in question (the satires
the libelists played "snip-and-misrepresent" with,
that is) did not center upon the comic notion of the
notorious Usenet pest Pinhead the Cenobite (aka Pinhead
the Beetledick) skewered--to his and his pals chagrin--
as a six foot Coleoptera endlessly pulling a two-wheeled
conveyance through cyberspace. The facts, readily
abailable in my Dejanews archive, show otherwise.
>
>What is "rickshaw-pulling, low-bowing coolie"?
Well, repost the entire fifteen-article lampoon series
and let the readers see what was said in context, as
far as the intentions of the satirist, Louse-monkey.
But you won't do that, because it would show what
libelous shitasses you and your accessories in fact
are.
>I'll take Rent-control for $100.
No doubt you think "rent control" might ensure
that you can remain in your shed for a few more
months without being bounced onto the pavement,
Louse-monkey. Dream on. Your jabbering on the
subject will not help you if you continue to be a
two-dollars short and three days late with your
thirty-five buck a month rental, Hausmann.
Bill Palmer
In <5n1d6s$1...@news-central.tiac.net> er...@ops.tiac.net (Eric Joslin)
writes:
In which Thief PENDU Eric Joslin swings by to drip a few more
lies into these newsgroups:
>
>Bill Palmer (wil...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: In <5muo9r$g...@news-central.tiac.net> er...@ops.tiac.net (Eric
Joslin)
>: writes:
>: >
>: >Bill Palmer (wil...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: >: In <5mskuq$a...@news-central.tiac.net> er...@ops.tiac.net (Eric
>: Joslin)
>: >: writes:
>
><snip>
>
>: >Actually, Palmer, despite your delusions to the contrary, noone
>: "fears" you.
>: >Beating you up again and again began to bore me, so I sought
>: enteratainment
>: >elsewhere.
>
>: In other words, Joslin, that's why you never even tried to
>: rebut my "Hanged for Stealing," which focused on your
>: contention that it is fine to steal the copyrighted Usenet
>: articles of others. ["Hanged for Stealing," which is about
>: Thief Joslin can be found in my Dejanews archive.]
>
>Well, frankly, yes, Idiot. You hit the nail on the head. See, I
wasn't
>even *reading* the group, and therefore didn't even see the post that
you
>are reffering to. I congratulate you on your deductive reasoning
skills.
Nonsense. Thief Eric. That article about your dishonest
proclivities appeared in a number of newsgroups, and was
reposted several times in alt.genius.bill-palmer as a
grim warning about thieves such as you. It is almost
impossible that you did not see it, but IF that is
the case, keep your eyes open because it is almost
time to post it again anyway.
>
><snip>
>
>: >: Does your cloudy
>: >: memory now tell you that my "Mailer" analogy was not a
>: >: valid one in every respect?
>: >
>: >Uh, no, Palmer, your memory appears clouded as to what people think
of
>: your
>: >analogies. Your comparison *might* hold water if,
>
>: My analogy DOES "hold water." That is why you have unable
>: to touch it, Thief Eric.
>
>I see, you mean *except* for the points I make below:
If you make any "points" they will be "firsts" for you;
since you certainly have done nothing other than repeat
your dishonest premises so far, Joslin.
>
>: in fact, only "satirical
>: >snippets" were taken,
>
>: Of course only "satirical snippets" were taken
>
>Roger has reposted your full articles many times.
Balderdash! Apparently you missed my "Cockroach Tosses
"Libel Fizzler (Again)". In that article I made it
clear that Roger "Williams" (Wemyss), the pseudonymous
repost con artist you defend, relies on certain specific
techniques, which I pinpointed for everyone. Roach Rog's
favorite "repost cons" involve his:
1) Reposting part of an article
while misrepresenting the writer's intentention (such
as falsely calling a famous Usenet satire a "rasict slur."
2) On occasion reposting an entire article but lifting
the article out of its THREAD context and misrepresenting
it. (This is fully as dishonest as Technique #1 , above).
3) Actually making alterations in the text that Rog
is supposedly reposting just as the writer posted it
(I caught Wemyss doing this last week, and I pointed out
precisely what he was doing in my "New Cockroach Rog
Repost Con Exposed!" which our recently-busted fraud
did not have the nerve to challenge, since he know what
I said was true.
4) Giving dishonest "third-party" testimony from "neutral
parties" who just happen to be embittered flame war losers
with big axes to grind.
5) Adding plenty of dishonest Roach Rog's own blather
to tie the libelous mess together.
6) Using plenty of "headers" as if to pretend that any or
all of the dishonest ploys listed in Points l through 5
above could possibly exist if the repost con is preceded
by "headers."
What else would
>you like to make it not a "snippet"? How much more in context does it
>need to be?
Raoch Rog uses methods in both Points 1 and 2 above to
choose the snippets from my vast archive that he
misrepresents. Usually he merely takes material out of
article context, but on occasion he will repost an entire
article and misrepresent it out of its THREAD context, to
show he is "honest." In fact, the latter ploy is equally
DISHONEST.
>
>You really need to just face what you said.
I did, and in fact I repeated what I said last time,
since you snipped what you felt incapable of refuting.
(Points 1-6 above.)
Your continuing denial that
>the usage comes off as racist is what *really* makes you look like a
>full-blown racist.
Basically, the libel campaign you are a part of, Thief
Eric, involved taking less than one-dozen satirically
used words from the 1.25 million word archive of one of
Usenet's best known satirists, and misusing those less
than one-dozen "taboo words" to make them the cornerstone
of one the most massive and baseless defamation campaigns
in the history of Usenet. What you and the other libelists
expect readers to overlook is the non-racist reality
of my entire 4,000 post Dejanews archive, from the
first article I ever posted to this one, Joslin.
>
><snip>
>
>: Further, Joslin, Cockroach Wemyss, with your libelous
>: assistance, carried out his months long, totally baseless
>: defamation campaign under a fake name, "Williams." THAT is
>: the type of phony, defamatory loser you support, Thief Joslin.
>
>Use of psuedonyms is hardly a big deal on Usenet, Palmer.
You distort the point, Thief Joslin. I never said that
using a pseudonym is inherently wrong or should be
disallowed. My point has been all along that it is
cowardly to conduct a defamation operation while
hiding behind a phony name. I stand fast in maintianing
that, despite your diversionary drivel on behalf of your
pseudonymous libel artist pal, "Williams" (Wemyss).
Your
>constant histrionics over that fact only make you look even more like
a
>clueless newbie than your inability/unwillingness to understand
headers.
Not at all. Roach Roger Wemyss tried to con thousands of
Usenet readers into thinking his name was "Williams," because
he wanted to avoid the contempt that he was earning
for himself as a big-time Usenet libel artist.
>
>And you never have explained what "wilhelp" is derived from.
The relevant point is, my real name has gone on every
single posting I have made in Usenet. I scarcely find
it necessary to go into the etymology of my address to
suit you, Joslin.
>
>: The reaon you were unable to touch my Mailer analogy, Eric.
>: was that it is highly valid.
>
>Except for the above points- that Mailer wrote an essay sending up
racism,
>while you used the offending remarks as insults directed at specific
>people.
Poppycock, Thief Eric. Mailer was using a loaded term
in order effectively to make a point. I was doing the
same thing, except to a lesser extent since the OFFENSIVE
word I used in a FLAME NEWSGROUP has its origins in class
and occpation more than in race. I used the word three or
four times last year to emphasize a comic notion and insult
a whining flame opponent.
I might add, Joslin, that lately you seem to have taken to
proclaiming to all and sundry that *I* am not a writer or
a satirist, and hence could not use the words you have
decreed to be "taboo" to make my satirical points.
>
>And, as I've pointed out both earlier in this post and many times
before,
>you insufferable moron, the use of the offending phrases pales in
comparison
>to your dogged insistence that there is nothing wrong with them.
Thief Eric distorts again. Of course I have said that the
word in question was "offensive"--I didn't get to be the
Usenet Flame Giant by picking and choosing my words so as
not to insult anyone.
WHAT I have also said all along, however, is that there was
no racist intent on my part when I used "cooolie," any more
than there was "racist intent" on Mailer's part when he chose
the title of his essay for its shock value. This is what
you and your pathetic team of flame war losers-turned-
libelists have tried to distort all along, Joslin.
It is
>that fact, which you have spent *considerable* amounts of your
"million plus
>words", which *truly* highlights your racism.
More upside-down cake "thinking" from Thief Eric Joslin!
To hear him fabricate, somehow the fact that less than
one-dozen words in my 1.25 million word archive could be
viciously distorted--even by a dedicated libel gang--
as racist, somehow "highlights" my "racism." Makes sense?
Of course not. Libel artists like Joslin and his cohorts
never trouble themselves with "little things" like facts,
reason, and logic.
>
>: In fact, you gave the distinct
>: impression that you believed that my fifteen article
>: series about the six-foot beetle
>
>Which you referred to as a "coolie", and also described as wearing a
straw
>hat;
Here we go again. Now it is time once more for Joslin to
try and distort a few satirical snippets from a fifteen-
article lampoon series last year on the "serious subject"
of a notorious pinheaded pest who is also a six-foot beetle
wearing a straw hat.
>
>: who endlessly pulls
>: the two-wheeled conveyance
>
>A rickshaw, if I recall correctly;
>
>: through cyberspace was
>: a serious article for THE SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN!
>
>Um, no. I did say that it hardly qualified as satire (or even funny).
Yes, that WAS your worthlessly dishonest pronouncement,
Thief Eric. In the first place, who are YOU to rule that
my lampoon about the Usenet pest as six-foot beetle was
NOT a "satire"? After all, I have written some of the
best known satires in recent Usenet history (many about
your pals) and you have written NONE. Zip, zero, zilch.
Yet YOU tell ME that my famous lampoon series somehow does
not "qualify" in your ignorant, feeble, resentful, dishonest
little noggin as satire!
I did
>also say that it was poorly written and conceived, and that only a
racist would
>have come up with it.
Yes, you have repeated that lie over and over, Thief
Joslin. In fact, it has become a key element of your
groundless "racist" libel of me--which has been
disproved by all honest persons (a number of whom
have testified in alt.genius.bill-palmer and
elsewhere) having accepted my invitation to visit
my Dejanews archive.
>
><snip>
>
>: In other words, you still boast of having stolen and
>: sold my copyrighted property, even though--like many
>: thieves--you feel a compulsion to denigrate what you
>: steal, Eric Joslin.
>
>I'm not aware of any material to which you hold a copyright, Palmer,
so I
>could hardly be accused of stealing it.
I have said it many times, Thief Joslin. EVERY WORD I HAVE
EVER POSTED TO USENET IS COPYRIGHTED. Beyond that, I scarcely
intend to share private details of my legal affairs with the
the dishonest like of you.
In a general sense, though, Joslin, Templeton's FAQ puts
the matter very clearly. You continue to ignore that FAQ
(which merely does a fine job of presenting information
known to most informed Usenet writers) and blather the old
canard "Everything posted to Usenet goes into the public
domain," though it has been disproved thousands of times.
You cling to your criminal dreams, however, because you
see in them a license to steal with impunity. Too bad,
Eric, but your worn out fantasy cannot protect you from
the consequences of your thievery.
>
><snip>
>
>: >: Readers may also remember Brad
>: >: Templeton's very helpful FAQ on plagiarism and copyright
>: >: laws,
>: >
>: >Readers may also remember asking who Brad Templeton is,
>
>: I have already reposted Mr. Templeton's FAQ for
>: everyone's convenience, Thief Eric.
>
>Is this meant as a response to my questioning Mr. Templton's
qualifications?
>You have never been able to provide any credentials for Mr. Templeton,
nor
>where you dredged this FAQ up from.
More Thief Joslin red herrings. I have never been particulary
interested in Mr. Templetons because I immediately saw that
his FAQ did a fine job of presenting plenty of key copyright
material I had already picked up from a wide variety of
sources, on and off the net. Whether Mr. Templeton is a
college sophomore or a practicing attorney, he can
still be proud of his research and his very helpful
presentation directly relating to a very important Usenet
issue.
Further, Eric, you have not challenged ONE line of that
FAQ. Instead, you merely keep dropping your red-herrings
about Brad's "qualifications." After all, I have just
reposted that FAQ in alt.genius.bill-palmer. Go ahead,
Joslin: Take it apart line by line. Show us what you
can do, instead of just drooling on the subject.
>
>: Remember how
>: you "challenged it" before? You gave a brief
>: quote of questionable relevance from someone you
>: described as a motion picture lawyer. THAT was
>: your way of "challenging" Brad's FAQ in its
>: entirety!
>
>I see. So my arguments, which I stated clearly
By no means was your cobbled claptrap (supposedly
on the subject at hand) "stated clearly," Thief Eric.
are based on statements made
>by qualified people in the field of copyright law, are rebuffed in
your mind
>by this FAQ, written by someone for whom you have no credentials.
Again, you gave a sentence or two from someone you
identifed to readers a motion picture attorney. THAT
was suppposed to awe everyone. THAT--in your ignorant,
dishonest mind--was supposed to nullify everything found
in Mr. Templetons thoughtful, up-to-date, well-presented FAQ.
Futhermore, I stress that there is a motive to your
madness, Joslin, since you find in it a license to pilfer
with impunity. Thieves OFTEN think they have such
a "license"--that's why so many of them wind up
in jail. Their deliusions lead to brazen behavior,
such as your boasting of stealing and selling my
copyrighted Usenet postings.
>
>: The difference is, Mr. Templeton gives us a very well
>: put together presentation of a great deal of relevant
>: material about copyright law and Usenet.
>
>I see. So, you will beleive *anything*, so long as it says "FAQ" at
the top
>and is written in question and answer format.
More Thief Eric balderdash! My point all along has been
that Templeton's FAQ did a good job of presenting any
number of key facts and issues I had already learned
about elsewhere, just by reading and remembering. I
hardly see it as a Supreme Court ruling, after all--
but it DOES in fact contain results and practical
applications of quite a few key rulings (although
the last judicial word on the subject of electronic
communication/reproduction and copyrights remains a
long way in the future).
On the other hand, Eric, you expect ME to discount all
that in favor the words of a thief who steals my property
and sees a refuge for himself in the old canard that
"Everything posted to Usenet goes into the public domain."
>
>So you are basically admitting to being an even bigger Idiot than even
I
>gave you credit for.
Hardly. On the other hand, with your having publicy
admitted to being a thief on several occasions, it is to
be expected that you will continue to seek dishonest refuge
in ancient, ignorant canards, while ridiculing "little
things" like the Berne convention which you seem to know
nothing of, Joslin.
>
>eric
Stephen Boursy
haus...@netcom.com (John Hausmann) wrote:
-
-ISP_Ratings (bou...@earthlink.net) wrote:
-
-: Mike MacLennan <mmaclenn@ix?netcom.com> wrote...
-: :
-: :Roger Williams wrote:
-
-: Minor correction sir--his user name is Roger
-: Williams--his real name is Roger Wemyss and his
-: story is told in detail at:
-
-: http://www.netscum.net/
-
-Minor correction sir -- when one attributes a reader with saying
-(or writing) something, one usually includes some of those words.
Well 'usually' that is the case yes--so what? There was
not need to include Mike's words--I wasn't commenting
on them--only pointing out that he was addressing a phony;
i.e. that Roger Williams is in fact Roger Wemyss. Just
been opositional huh?
Steve
news.admin.censorship
John Hausmann
Bill Palmer (wil...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In <hausmannE...@netcom.com> haus...@netcom.com (John Hausmann)
: writes:
: As usual, the "brain" of "Louse-monkey John" Hausmann has
: gotten everything jumbled up. It is sad, but in order
: to clear up our imbecile's noxious clutter, one needs a
: sort of verbal "doggie scoop"...
Do tell. At least I can tell who's said what, fuckwit.
: >
Wasn't me. That was whom?
: >: : : :
: >: : : : I'll take predictable Palmjobisms for $200.
: >: : : :
: >: : : : eric
: >: :
: >: : : This Biilbonics language phrase is shouted when something is
: reposted to
: >: : : alt.genius.bill-palmer...
: >: :
: >: : What is "Re-post Con" ?
: Louse-monkey's silliness can't get him around the basic
: facts regarding repost cons. After all, the only ones
: who claim that repost cons don't exist are those who
: practice them regularly. Simply put, a repost con exists
: when posters deviously use text (altered or out of context)
: to "prove" some dishonest point the "reposter" strives to
: make.
Sort of like Palmer did just recently? Oh my, did Erice really
say "I'll take (Palmer's words)..." or did Palmer alter his text to
make some obscure point?
:
: In these newsgroups, the number one repost con practitioner
: is Cockroach Roger "Williams" Wemyss, the pseudonymous
: fraud. Of course, one reason the human cockroach
: favors repost cons stems from the fact that Rog has
: no talent for writing or flaming, so his using "borrowed"
: and/or Cockroach-altered text written by his betters greatly
: improves the quality of Rog's "articles" (which normally
: are dismal exercises in malicious triteness) and makes
: them far more appealing to all readers.
: "Louse-monkey John" Hausmann, Libel goblin Joe Sexton,
: John "Pus Bag" Davis and "Sad Andrew Peanut" Beckwith
: also are regular practitioners of Usenet repost cons.
: They are all bred-in-the-bone losers and their dishonest
: methods deserve everyone's contempt and ridicule.
And now, sadly, we must add Biil Plamer to the list. <sniff>, <sniff>
: I'll take Non-ethnic slurs for $500, Alex.
: >
: >: Biil used this slur claiming it merely represented Pinhead as a
: beetle...
: Now our repost con artist/libelist Hausmann pretends that
: the fifteen-article lampoon series in question (the satires
: the libelists played "snip-and-misrepresent" with,
: that is) did not center upon the comic notion of the
: notorious Usenet pest Pinhead the Cenobite (aka Pinhead
: the Beetledick) skewered--to his and his pals chagrin--
: as a six foot Coleoptera endlessly pulling a two-wheeled
: conveyance through cyberspace. The facts, readily
: abailable in my Dejanews archive, show otherwise.
Why doncha fix your spelling errors in a followup post? There's a
good lad.
: >
: >What is "rickshaw-pulling, low-bowing coolie"?
: Well, repost the entire fifteen-article lampoon series
: and let the readers see what was said in context, as
: far as the intentions of the satirist, Louse-monkey.
: But you won't do that, because it would show what
: libelous shitasses you and your accessories in fact
: are.
Why repost it? The readers can hit Dejanews just like you can
and they can make up their own minds about you. It seems plain
to me.
: >I'll take Rent-control for $100.
: No doubt you think "rent control" might ensure
: that you can remain in your shed for a few more
: months without being bounced onto the pavement,
: Louse-monkey. Dream on. Your jabbering on the
: subject will not help you if you continue to be a
: two-dollars short and three days late with your
: thirty-five buck a month rental, Hausmann.
I'll take "Has no clue" for $500. Ask your new buddy,
da 'bump aka booger, about rent-control. And stand back
when you do.
: copyright FLAME GIANT
: >
John Hausmann
Stephen Boursy (bou...@alt.net) wrote:
No. One does have to wonder why the man who feels so strongly
about reposting another's words would feel compelled to remove them.
And who might you be to decide their worth, Mr Censor?