TOTAL wilhelp FORGERY: What's the "T" in Bilbert T. Smellivan's name stand for anyway?

6 views
Skip to first unread message

wil...@ix.netcom.com

unread,
Feb 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/7/98
to

----------------------------------------------------------------------
In <34D943...@ix.netcom.com> Bill Palmer <wil...@ix.netcom.com>
writes: [This is a complete technical forgery --Bill Palmer]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

As I look with disgust at the complete forgery of my
screen name and address, I cannot help but remember how
a number of people thought the partial forgeries were so
cute. I remember how, when a number of misguided parties
tried to howl be down for protesting those "wilhelp" thefts,
the message was that people couldn't be bothered with
hearing about such things, and I was (spare me!) "wasting
bandwidth" for publicly objecting.

Well, compelled to steal like so many thieves are, the wilhelp
parasites did NOT rest content for long with merely partial
forgeries (such as wil...@wilhelp.com, etc.). Subsequently,
now we are back to full, technical forgeries again, just as
we were a few months ago. Those forgeries were never solved;
very regrettably, no one was ever arrested.

I don't want to be cynical, but could it be that since the
thieves and parasites involved noticed that certain grudge-
bearing parties thought the partial "wilhelp" forgeries were
so cute, the "wilhelp" thieves may have concluded that the
same people would find full, technical forgeries (rather
than "mere" forgeries in the moral and ethical sense,
like the others) funny? That is a most unhappy thought,
but I must say I have been given pause to wonder...

Forgery is not funny at all. Not when it is partial
and apparently legal, not when it is complete as with
this particular forgery I am posting notice of here.

I will appreciate it if you report any forgeries
(or possible forgeries) of <wil...@ix.netcom.com>
to me immediately. --Bill Palmer

The material below this line is a complete forgery.
I did not write one word of it. I did not post it.
--Bill Palmer

Begin Text of Forged article:

-------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>The 2-Belo, Power Meower wrote:
>>
>> This just in from James Kirk by direct wire:
>>
>> >In article <6b7j06$f...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
Nostr...@wilhelp.com
>> >says...
>> >>
>> >>On Tue, 03 Feb 1998 10:16:56 -0500, CJC <cat...@wilhelp.com>
wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>The 2-Belo, Power Meower wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> This just in from az...@shpxurnq.com (Azzy) by direct wire:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> >哧衆/\/女M...@ni66erlover.com (Bobby Tendinitis) wrote in article
>> >>>> ><6b6cao$e...@news.enter.net>:
>> >>>>>> Live from Los Angeles CA, it's
the2...@defl.bungmunch.edu.morph.morph.morph
>> >>>>(The 2-Belo, Power
>> >>>> >> Meower)!
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>>>> $ This just in from 哧衆/\/女M...@ni66erlover.com (Bobby
Tendinitis) by direct
>> >>>>wire:
>> >>>> >> $
>> >>>> >> $ >Live from Los Angeles CA, it's the Raoul Xemblinosky
Experience?
>> >>>> >> <rao...@mercury.bungmunch.edu>!
>> >>>> >> $ >
>> >>>> >> $ >$ The 2-Belo, Power Meower wrote:
>> >>>> >> $ >$ >
>> >>>>>> $ >$ > This just in from "usEless lAmer"
<derek....@bigfoot.com> by direct
>> >>>>wire:
>> >>>> >> $ >$ >
>> >>>> >> $ >$ > [cleaned up for your convenience]
>> >>>> >> $ >$ >
>> >>>> >> $ >$ > >'>> $ '>>> $ > > >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >> >> > > >>
>
>> >>>>>> $ >$ > >'>> $ '>>> $ > > >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >> >> > > >>
>1. TrailerTrash
>> >>>> >> $ >$ > >'>> $ '>>> $ > > >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >> >> > > >>
>2. TuxBoy
>> >>>> >> $ >$ > >'>> $ '>>> $ > > >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >> >> > > >>
>3. Turdwipe
>> >>>> >> $ >$ > >'>> $ '>>> $ > > >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >> >> > > >>
>4. Troll
>> >>>> >> $ >$ > >'>> $ '>>> $ > > >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >> >> > > >>
>5. Tedious
>> >>>> >> $ >$ > >'>> $ '>>> $ > > >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >> >> > > >>
6. Twinkie
>> >>>>>> $ >$ > >'>> $ '>>> $ > > >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >> >> > > >7.
>> >>>>TouretteSyndromE
>> >>>> >> $ >$ > >'>> $ '>>> $ > > >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >> >> > > 8.
Trivial
>> >>>> >> $ >$ > >'>> $ '>>> $ > > >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >> >> > 9.
TwatLeT
>> >>>> >> $ >$ > >'>> $ '>>> $ > > >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >> >> 10.
TinkeRbelL
>> >>>> >> $ >$ > >'>> $ '>>> $ > > >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >> >11.
ThoRaZinE
>> >>>> >> $ >$ > >'>> $ '>>> $ > > >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >> 12.
ToadLickeR
>> >>>> >> $ >$ > >'>> $ '>>> $ > > >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >13.
TesTiCles
>> >>>> >> $ >$ > >'>> $ '>>> $ > > >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> 14.
TickEateR
>> >>>> >> $ >$ > >'>> $ '>>> $ > > >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >15. TaMpoN
>> >>>> >> $ >$ > >'>> $ '>>> $ > > >> >> >> >>>> >> >> 16. TeatS
>> >>>>>> $ >$ > >'>> $ '>>> $ > > >> >> >> >>>> >> >17. TuBerCuLoSis
(ok, so im
>> >>>>starting to reach here...)
>> >>>>>> $ >$ > >'>> $ '>>> $ > > >> >> >> >>>> >> 18. ThrombuS [maybe
we're running
>> >>>>out of T's.]
>> >>>> >> $ >$ > >'>> $ '>>> $ > > >> >> >> >>>> >19. Twaddle
[never!!]
>> >>>>>> $ >$ > >'>> $ '>>> $ > > >> >> >> >>>> 20. TenderFooT
[where's my thesaurus?]
>> >>>> >> $ >$ > >'>> $ '>>> $ > > >> >> >> >>>21. TiPsY [accurate?]
>> >>>> >> $ >$ > >'>> $ '>>> $ > > >> >> >> >>22. TorcheD [more so?]
>> >>>> >> $ >$ > >'>> $ '>>> $ > > >> >> >> >23. Tuber
>> >>>> >> $ >$ > >'>> $ '>>> $ > > >> >> >> 24. Tapeworm.
>> >>>> >> $ >$ > >'>> $ '>>> $ > > >> >> >25. ThOiGuYeN.
>> >>>> >> $ >$ > >'>> $ '>>> $ > > >> >> 26. TunaTwaT.
>> >>>> >> $ >$ > >'>> $ '>>> $ > > >> >27. Tumor. [can we get to the
magic 100?]
>> >>>> >> $ >$ > >'>> $ '>>> $ > > >> 28. TailGunneR. [I'd be happy
with 50]
>> >>>> >> $ >$ > >'>> $ '>>> $ > > >29. ToileT. [We can do it! We can
do it!]
>> >>>> >> $ >$ > >'>> $ '>>> $ > > 30. Tammy.
>> >>>> >> $ >$ > >'>> $ '>>> $ > 31. Tigger.
>> >>>> >> $ >$ > >'>> $ '>>> $ 32. ThE.
>> >>>> >> $ >$ > >'>> $ '>>> 33. TrAnsVESTitE.
>> >>>> >> $ >$ > >'>> $ '>>34. TrAnSsExUaL.
>> >>>> >> $ >$ > >'>> $ '>35. TitS'N'DickS.
>> >>>> >> $ >$ > >'>> $ 36. TestVersioN.
>> >>>> >> $ >$ > >'>> 37. T.
>> >>>> >> $ >$ > >'>38. Tammy
>> >>>> >> $ >$ > >39.Thaa-aa-aa-aa-aa-aaT.
>> >>>> >> $ >$ > 40. TripleWhammY [10 more to go]
>> >>>> >> $ >$ 41. ToasT
>> >>>> >> $ >42. TiTTyFucK
>> >>>> >> $ 43. ToT
>> >>>> >> 44. TeRRiTiCklE (Just six more.....)
>> >>>> >45. TerMitE (clealy, sir, this shall be archived in the Hall
of Flame)
>> >>>> 46. TrS-80 (four more, dammit)
>> >>>47. TinKlE.
>> >>48. TwiT (I predict success)
>> >49. Tinker-Toys
>> 50. TheEnD!!!!!
>51. Turd-burglars? ('tis not the end)
>
>Bill Palmer
>wil...@ix.netcom.com


Screw you Bill Palmer

unread,
Feb 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/7/98
to

In article <6bgt8v$7...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>, wil...@ix.netcom.com
says...

>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> In <34D943...@ix.netcom.com> Bill Palmer <wil...@ix.netcom.com>
> writes: [This is a complete technical forgery --Bill Palmer]
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>

I thought it looked like a forgery thanks for confirming that. I will
forward this post to the real wilhelp.

< wasted bandwidth>

> Well, compelled to steal like so many thieves are, the wilhelp
> parasites did NOT rest content for long with merely partial
> forgeries (such as wil...@wilhelp.com, etc.). Subsequently,
> now we are back to full, technical forgeries again, just as
> we were a few months ago. Those forgeries were never solved;
> very regrettably, no one was ever arrested.
>

Arrested for what? Are you going to lock them in a Usenet Jail? Show us a
criminal statute that a Usenet forger violates?

<more waste of bandwidth>

Get real netkook. If you don't want to be forged then quit forging yourself.
Otherwise get PGP and sign your precious articles. I doubt if a forger
could defame you by his actions. It would be a rare talent who could do a
better job of that then you already do. I swear you are doing this for
attention.

[trimmed to the only group that can't object to this nonsense]

wil...@ix.netcom.com

unread,
Feb 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/7/98
to

With reference to the forgery notice I posted a short while
back under this subject line, I add this posting. Please
note that it is by one of the wilhelp parasites. The
attempt plainly involves demeaning my very reasonable
concerns over being the target of forgers again.

Yet, the ironic thing is, the poster himself is making a
near-forgery of my address, though not a technical one.
Now, as to whether this party is the actual forger, or
simply a pal of his trying to create a smoke screen,
I can't say with one-hundred percent certainty.

I DO consider this new post a very interesting coincidence,
however, with regard to the complete forgery I reported
earlier. The whole thrust of this post is that *I* am
somehow stupid to be victimized by the wilhelp forgers
in the case of the full technical forgery, which
(surprise!) this wilhelp "semi-forger" makes light of!

-----------------------------------------------------------------


In <MPG.f45cd0cd...@nntp.a001.sprintmail.com>


wil...@holtmail.com (Screw you Bill Palmer) writes:
>
>In article <6bgt8v$7...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
wil...@ix.netcom.com
>says...
>>
>>

----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> In <34D943...@ix.netcom.com> Bill Palmer <wil...@ix.netcom.com>
>> writes: [This is a complete technical forgery --Bill
Palmer]
>>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>

>I thought it looked like a forgery thanks for confirming that. I will
>forward this post to the real wilhelp.
>
>< wasted bandwidth>
>

>> Well, compelled to steal like so many thieves are, the wilhelp
>> parasites did NOT rest content for long with merely partial
>> forgeries (such as wil...@wilhelp.com, etc.). Subsequently,
>> now we are back to full, technical forgeries again, just as
>> we were a few months ago. Those forgeries were never solved;
>> very regrettably, no one was ever arrested.
>>
>

Goin' Nova

unread,
Feb 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/7/98
to

In article <6bgt8v$7...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>, wil...@ix.netcom.com ()
wrote:

<snip>


>
> The material below this line is a complete forgery.
> I did not write one word of it. I did not post it.
> --Bill Palmer

Agreed. It is far to succinct to belong to you.

<snicker>

But, as a point of order, I believe you meant to write:
'The material below the dotted line is a complete forgery.'

Otherwise you're accusing yourself of forgery. <snicker>

Fuckwit.

--
Bill has this pile of a lot of crap, some of it neat crap--but it would be
nice if he would do something more with it, rather than park it off on the
side of Usenet. Unprocessed crap smells, and no-one wants to have to sort
through it.

_Stan Kalisch III
<Pine.SUN.3.96L-rev3_1-10....@crl8.crl.com>

wi1he1p will be Trademarked

unread,
Feb 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/7/98
to

In article <6bh219$t...@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>, wil...@ix.netcom.com
wrote...

> With reference to the forgery notice I posted a short while
> back under this subject line, I add this posting. Please
> note that it is by one of the wilhelp parasites. The
> attempt plainly involves demeaning my very reasonable
> concerns over being the target of forgers again.
>

As I said so before you only defame yourself.

> Yet, the ironic thing is, the poster himself is making a
> near-forgery of my address, though not a technical one.
> Now, as to whether this party is the actual forger, or
> simply a pal of his trying to create a smoke screen,
> I can't say with one-hundred percent certainty.
>

Near forgery? I can put any thing I please in the from address including
wi1...@ix.netcom.com and it would not be a forgery. You seem to believe
that parody = forgery. If there is no intent to deceive there is no
forgery.

> I DO consider this new post a very interesting coincidence,
> however, with regard to the complete forgery I reported
> earlier. The whole thrust of this post is that *I* am
> somehow stupid to be victimized by the wilhelp forgers
> in the case of the full technical forgery, which
> (surprise!) this wilhelp "semi-forger" makes light of!
>

What the hell is a "semi-forger"? Did I say anything about trucks?

Oh and by the way I have applied for a trademark on wile. When approved
I will require you to stop using my name. Consider this a warning.


<snip>


Fuck head.

wil...@ix.netcom.com

unread,
Feb 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/8/98
to

In <6bimol$k...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> lousem...@wilhelp.com
("Louse-monkey John" Hausmann, recently smoked out of the wooods

again, this time as "Goin' Nova") writes:
>
>In article <6bgt8v$7...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
wil...@ix.netcom.com ()
>wrote:
>
><snip>
>>
>> The material below this line is a complete forgery.
>> I did not write one word of it. I did not post it.
>> --Bill Palmer
>
>Agreed. It is far to succinct to belong to you.
>
><snicker> [...]

But of course, Louise-monkey, to a singed sore lose
turned "wilhelp" parasite like you, out-and-out
technical forgery is as much a joke as a the quasi-
forgeries you pull regularly.

Your post gets back to a point I have made all
along: With a certain lowly class of gutless sore
loser--generally a "flame-badass wannabe" such as
yourself, Hausmann, lacking all writing and flaming
talent--ANY cowards' trick is a big jest, be it
false ISP complaining a la Human Leech Kendrick;
massive defamation operations, such as the very
ugly, racist ones YOU favor; general screen name
parasitism; or as in this case, the full, very
blatant name and address forgery you support
as a "joke"!

Of course, you and a few other sore losers popped
up in these same groups right on cue to make light
of my reasonable concerns about the quasi-forgeries
of my screen-name, so why would you not do the same
now that the culprits, very likely including YOU,
Hausmann, have turned to COMPLETE forgeries?

[...]

The rest of Louse-monkey John Hausmann's "forgery is
all a big joke" drivel snipped. Nothing the least
bit funny about forgery, despite these attempts by
sore loser Hausmann and few of his pals to laugh
off their habitual net mischiefmaking and parasitism.

Bill Palmer
alt.genius.bill-palmer
>


WILHELP Ratings

unread,
Feb 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/8/98
to

wil...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

[...]

> Yet, the ironic thing is, the poster himself is making a
> near-forgery of my address, though not a technical one.

Exactly. Now shut up.
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-M i k e M a c L e n n a n -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

mmaclenn[SHIFT+2]ix.netcom.com defame[SHIFT+2]wilhelp.com

Want fame? Say something stupid to reserve your space below.

Don't bother asking me to "post proof" for my "suspicians";
THAT is the sort of unreasonable request favored by the
"Louse-monkeys" and the "Lousy MacLemons" (providing
they are indeed different crude entities) of the net.

Biil Palmer chiding others for daring to ask him to back up
his arguments in <65acb7$d...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>

Mike MacLennan

unread,
Feb 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/8/98
to

Screw you Bill Palmer wrote:

[...]

> [trimmed to the only group that can't object to this nonsense]

Bet me.

Lionel Lauer

unread,
Feb 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/8/98
to

Quoth wotan...@netcom.com (Wotan) :

>In article <6bgt8v$7...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
> <wil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote while drinking:
>
>
>Hey Palmjob, if it offends you so much, then you will send a copy of the
>forged posting to postm...@merit.net and ab...@merit.net.
>
>Make sure you include all headers of the post.
>
>And don't go ranting about screen name leeches and the like. Just that
>you don't appreciate the forging of your address.
>
>everybody calling themselves wilhelp is one thing. But there is only one
>wil...@ix.netcom.com, and you should not tolerate others using this
>particularl ID.

That's right dammit!

Lionel.
--
W Lionel Lauer - longword@*fnord*.super.zippo.com McQ
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

the Raoul ® Xemblinosky Experience

unread,
Feb 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/8/98
to

WILHELP Ratings wrote:
>
> wil...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > Yet, the ironic thing is, the poster himself is making a
> > near-forgery of my address, though not a technical one.
>
> Exactly. Now shut up.

Clealy, sir, is an invention on the order of "de-facto racist."


- the Raoul Xemblinosky Experience -=-=-=- -- . --- .-- =-=-=-=-=-=-=
a.f.k-m.n "So Raoul, get ready to pack your bags and
alt.flame leave the nose." -- BiiLberT, 1 May 1997
mhm 15x12 "Your days as an UseNet performance artist
FOA/KoB(h) are at a close." -- BiiLberT, 5 Dec 1997
- http://extra.newsguy.com/~shpxurnq/ =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Goin' Nova

unread,
Feb 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/8/98
to

In article <6bjrn1$g...@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>, wil...@ix.netcom.com
() wrote:

> In <6bimol$k...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> lousem...@wilhelp.com
> ("Louse-monkey John" Hausmann, recently smoked out of the wooods
> again, this time as "Goin' Nova") writes:
> >

> >In article <6bgt8v$7...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
> wil...@ix.netcom.com ()
> >wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> >>
> >> The material below this line is a complete forgery.
> >> I did not write one word of it. I did not post it.
> >> --Bill Palmer
> >
> >Agreed. It is far to succinct to belong to you.
> >

> ><snicker> [...]
>
> But of course, Louise-monkey, to a singed sore lose
> turned "wilhelp" parasite like you, out-and-out
> technical forgery is as much a joke as a the quasi-
> forgeries you pull regularly.
>
> Your post gets back to a point I have made all
> along: With a certain lowly class of gutless sore
> loser--generally a "flame-badass wannabe" such as
> yourself, Hausmann, lacking all writing and flaming
> talent--ANY cowards' trick is a big jest, be it
> false ISP complaining a la Human Leech Kendrick;
> massive defamation operations, such as the very
> ugly, racist ones YOU favor; general screen name
> parasitism; or as in this case, the full, very
> blatant name and address forgery you support
> as a "joke"!
>

No. I agreed it was a forgery, ya fucking moron. But, as you
failed to complain against Gareth's forgeries of Raoul, WHY
THE FUCK SHOULD ANYONE GIVE A FUCK WHEN YOU get forged?
You've already made it quite clear there are rules for you that do
not apply to others. You wanna protest forgeries, and have others
join you? Then protest forgeries of people you don't like. It will
at least soften the impression of your hypocrisy.


> Of course, you and a few other sore losers popped
> up in these same groups right on cue to make light
> of my reasonable concerns about the quasi-forgeries
> of my screen-name, so why would you not do the same
> now that the culprits, very likely including YOU,
> Hausmann, have turned to COMPLETE forgeries?
>

Dangerous words, Palmshit. Shall we enter into discussions with
ab...@netcom.com over your accusations ? I have never forged
anyone nor intend to. Whether or not you believe that is
of little concern to me. After all, you believe you're a "Flame Giant".

> [...]
>
> The rest of Louse-monkey John Hausmann's "forgery is
> all a big joke" drivel snipped. Nothing the least
> bit funny about forgery, despite these attempts by
> sore loser Hausmann and few of his pals to laugh
> off their habitual net mischiefmaking and parasitism.

God. Someone hand me a Kleenex. Palmjob's lament
brings tears to my eyes. <snicker> Poor widdle fuckhead's been
forged. Here's a free clue, Einstein. You're not the first, nor will
you be the last to be forged. Even I have been forged. So wipe
the tear stained clown goop from your face and move on, "moran".

wil...@ix.netcom.com

unread,
Feb 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/8/98
to

In <6bkvs8$6...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> lousem...@wilhelp.com
("Louse-monkey John" Hausmann, recently smoked out of the woods
after cowering under "Goin' Nova") grunts:

>In article <6bjrn1$g...@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>,
wil...@ix.netcom.com
>() wrote:
>
>> In <6bimol$k...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> lousem...@wilhelp.com
>> ("Louse-monkey John" Hausmann, recently smoked out of the wooods
>> again, this time as "Goin' Nova") writes:
>> >

>> >In article <6bgt8v$7...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
>> wil...@ix.netcom.com ()
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> ><snip>
>> >>
>> >> The material below this line is a complete forgery.
>> >> I did not write one word of it. I did not post it.
>> >> --Bill Palmer
>> >
>> >Agreed. It is far to succinct to belong to you.
>> >

I'm not the least bluffed by your threats, Louse-monkey
libel artist. Your mischievous, abusive net-history is well
documented, including your role in any number of net dirty
tricks. I consider you a suspect for very good reasons, and
I make no apology for that.

> I have never forged
>anyone nor intend to.

In other words, you draw a very big line between a
quasi forgery aimed at confusing readers (which is
in itself moral and ethical forgery) and a technical
forgery. Yet, Hausmann, I don't get the impression
that even the technical forgery bothers you at all.
You pop up on this thread to demean my concerns, rather
than to denounce the forgery that led to my posting
the alert.

Therefore, as to my suspicians about you, Hausmann, let's
imagine for a moment that someone's garage has been
burglarized. When the owner is reporting the theft,
a shifty, cowardly individual with a long history of
moral turpitude pops up to ridicule the victim and his
concerns about the theft. Also, this party is known
to have a grudge against the victim. Does it strain
the imagination too much to understand that many people
would consider the spiteful "humorist" a prime suspect?

[By the way, it is interesting to note that in history, forgery
has often been considered one of the worst possible crimes.
In England, for hundreds of years up into the mid-nineteenth
century, forgery would get a felon hanged faster than would
murder or burglary! There seems to be something about the
sneaky, cowardly nature of forgery that makes it especially
contemptible to human beings of normal sensibilities.]

Fact is, if you noticed, Louse-monkey, even a number of my
dedicated flame opponents have registered disgust with this
forgery. Whether they like me or not, at least give
them credit for having the intelligence to understand
that if forging Bill Palmer is a big joke, then forging
everyone else on the net is a big joke too. You,
Hausmann, and a very few others, seem the lack the
brain power and/or the character to make such important
connections.

So far, the only people who have popped up to make light
of the forgeries are you, your "clone" MacLennan, and
Cockroach Roger Williams. How interesting that all
three parties were ALSO key components of the very ugly,
year-long defamation operation against me!

Whether or not you believe that is
>of little concern to me. After all, you believe you're a "Flame
Giant".

That's my "flame arena" name, and winning flame wars
is MY game, Hausman. But, as readers know, I win them
fair and square by writing and posting satires and
parodies in proper flame venues, NOT by sneaking around
behind the newsgroup screens and dirty-tricking my
opponents the way YOU and your sore losing pals
like Kendrick, Cockroach Roger Wemyss, and Pus Bag
Davis favor, Louse-monkey and a few others do. NONE
of you are real flamers; you are simply pretentious,
cowardly dirty-tricks artists giving flaming a
bad name.


>
>> [...]
>>
>> The rest of Louse-monkey John Hausmann's "forgery is
>> all a big joke" drivel snipped. Nothing the least
>> bit funny about forgery, despite these attempts by
>> sore loser Hausmann and few of his pals to laugh
>> off their habitual net mischiefmaking and parasitism.
>
>God. Someone hand me a Kleenex.

And of course, a sore-losing forgery suspect like
John Hausmann WOULD insult everyone named Palmer
on the planet!

Palmjob's lament
>brings tears to my eyes. <snicker> Poor widdle fuckhead's been
>forged.

Big joke isn't it, Louse-monkey? Fact is, your latest
REAL beef is my satirical quiz, "Hausmann or Haussmann"!

But that provides an excellent example of the difference
between an honest flame champion like me and a sore
loser like YOU: *I* WIN by writing and flaming, YOU
seek revenge through net dirty tricks, and when you
don't personally perpetrate the tricks (as you may or
may not have done in the case at hand) you applaud and
make light of the cowardly abuse, thereby creating a
climate where forgery is just dandy, Hausmann. That's
what you are doing here.

Here's a free clue, Einstein. You're not the first, nor will
>you be the last to be forged. Even I have been forged.

The point is, Hausmann, your only complaint against ME is
that I rewarded your attempts at being a "flame-badass" with
toasting after toasting, through some of the most notable
stand-alone articles in flaming history, such as the
original, thread-starting, "The Spankiest Spank Ever
Spanked" and "Hausmann or Haussmann" to name only a
couple of very recent ones.

YOUR response, however, has always involved the same
pattern (almost to a "Pavlovian dog" extent!): After
a particularly painful toasting, you take a belly flop
in the net sewer of cowardly tricks, Hausmann.

Further, when you don't lend a personal hand to those
losers pulling the tricks, you publicly applaud those who
acually commit them, be it Human Leech David Kendrick's
false complaining, or this particular forgery (which,
I hasten to add, is only slightly worse--in the moral
and ethical sense--than the "wilhelp" quasi-forgeries
that you regularly engage in to confuse as many readers
as you possibly can).

Bill Palmer
alt.genius.bill-palmer

wil...@ix.netcom.com

unread,
Feb 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/8/98
to

In <34DD89...@netcom.com> WILHELP Ratings <wil...@netcom.com>
writes:

This is just exactly the sort of thing I have been
complaining of. A malicious misfit makes light of
a full, technical forgery by creating a quasi-forgery
posting that is almost as egregious (Note that he left
out the "ix"!) as the actual forgery I was objecting
to. Great joke.

The point is, of course, that many readers will be fooled
into thinking that this parasite's quasi-forgery was made
by me, and that's been my point all along about the "wilhelp"
quasi-forgeries. Further, it is interesting to note that
so far, the only people who have seen fit to make light
of my concerns about the recent complete forgeries of my
screen name and address are the "wilhelp" quasi-forgers and
parasites, like MacLennan here.

I'll say it again, forgery--complete or quasi--is no joke.

Bill Palmer
alt.genius.bill-palmer


>
>wil...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>> Yet, the ironic thing is, the poster himself is making a
>> near-forgery of my address, though not a technical one.
>
>Exactly. Now shut up.

Commander Sheraton

unread,
Feb 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/8/98
to

On Sun, 08 Feb 1998 10:37:01 -0600, the Raoul ® Xemblinosky Experience
<rao...@mercury.bungmunch.edu> gave a rousing speech that won
independence for a tiny island nation in the South Pacific. Just
minutes later, this very same person logged into Usenet and wrote:

;WILHELP Ratings wrote:
;>

;> wil...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
;>
;> [...]
;>
;> > Yet, the ironic thing is, the poster himself is making a
;> > near-forgery of my address, though not a technical one.
;>
;> Exactly. Now shut up.

;
;Clealy, sir, is an invention on the order of "de-facto racist."

Is that the same as a "de-facto fuKKKhead?"

-D

|-------------Commander Wendell B. Sheraton, Meow Meow Navy------------|
| (aka David Rosenfield) |
| PhD - Usenet Military Tactics, MA - Usenet Performance Art, |
| DD - Meowology |
| "Sempre Meow ad infinitum" -Raoul X |
| "Nietzsche is dead" -God http://www.itol.com/~slforbes/david |
|--------------Take out the "beer" in e-mail to reach me---------------|

Gilbert T. Sullivan

unread,
Feb 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/8/98
to

Commander Sheraton wrote:
>
> On Sun, 08 Feb 1998 10:37:01 -0600, the Raoul ® Xemblinosky Experience
> <rao...@mercury.bungmunch.edu> gave a rousing speech that won
> independence for a tiny island nation in the South Pacific. Just
> minutes later, this very same person logged into Usenet and wrote:
>
> ;WILHELP Ratings wrote:
> ;>
> ;> wil...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> ;>
> ;> [...]
> ;>
> ;> > Yet, the ironic thing is, the poster himself is making a
> ;> > near-forgery of my address, though not a technical one.
> ;>
> ;> Exactly. Now shut up.
> ;
> ;Clealy, sir, is an invention on the order of "de-facto racist."
>
> Is that the same as a "de-facto fuKKKhead?"

Why are you flooding news groups?

--
Reuben King says in:
Message-Id: <MPG.e56cb589...@news.texas.net>

In the words of Ministry: "I don't have a life, I don't even know what
life is! Do you have a life? Every day is my life."
--
In keeping with his drug addiction
Reuben King admits in:Message-ID:
<MPG.ea85e6aa...@news.texas.net
I much prefer a good stiff joint anyday!

<MPG.ee63869e...@news.texas.net>
Nah, I'm a rabid junkie --I'm a menace to
society. I need to be locked up for a very long time.
--
News article:<MPG.f3ad9602...@news.alt.net>
Jan 30, 1998
Reuben said: Yes, I sure am a pussy.
--
Reuben King said in typical KKK fashion:
<MPG.f3c1840f...@news.alt.net>
We're going to shove those pointy white hats up your fat pasty asses..
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!
--
Reuben King proves his racism by posting "word up, nigga"
In <MPG.f3535b7b...@news.alt.net>

Goin' Nova

unread,
Feb 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/8/98
to

In article <6bl7h5$c...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>, wil...@ix.netcom.com ()
wrote:

And you are a lying sack-o-shit. You accuse, not by proof,
by insinuation.

> > I have never forged
> >anyone nor intend to.
>
> In other words, you draw a very big line between a
> quasi forgery aimed at confusing readers (which is
> in itself moral and ethical forgery) and a technical
> forgery. Yet, Hausmann, I don't get the impression
> that even the technical forgery bothers you at all.
> You pop up on this thread to demean my concerns, rather
> than to denounce the forgery that led to my posting
> the alert.
>
> Therefore, as to my suspicians about you, Hausmann, let's
> imagine for a moment that someone's garage has been
> burglarized. When the owner is reporting the theft,
> a shifty, cowardly individual with a long history of
> moral turpitude pops up to ridicule the victim and his
> concerns about the theft. Also, this party is known
> to have a grudge against the victim. Does it strain
> the imagination too much to understand that many people
> would consider the spiteful "humorist" a prime suspect?

Fuck you, dickweed. You wanna accuse me of forging you,
knock yourself out. It, much like your usual rants, will get
you nowhere. It will, however, further your position as an
obsessed kook.


>
> [By the way, it is interesting to note that in history, forgery
> has often been considered one of the worst possible crimes.
> In England, for hundreds of years up into the mid-nineteenth
> century, forgery would get a felon hanged faster than would
> murder or burglary! There seems to be something about the
> sneaky, cowardly nature of forgery that makes it especially
> contemptible to human beings of normal sensibilities.]
>
> Fact is, if you noticed, Louse-monkey, even a number of my
> dedicated flame opponents have registered disgust with this
> forgery. Whether they like me or not, at least give
> them credit for having the intelligence to understand
> that if forging Bill Palmer is a big joke, then forging
> everyone else on the net is a big joke too. You,
> Hausmann, and a very few others, seem the lack the
> brain power and/or the character to make such important
> connections.
>
> So far, the only people who have popped up to make light
> of the forgeries are you, your "clone" MacLennan, and
> Cockroach Roger Williams. How interesting that all
> three parties were ALSO key components of the very ugly,
> year-long defamation operation against me!
>

And I say your tears are of crocodile origin. You want me to feel
sorry for your pompous ass being forged? SHow some compassion
for others who have been.

ONE question, WHERE was your outrage when raoul was forged?

You will not answer because, as the Dejanews Archive you're
so proud of will show, you said nothing. And in doing so, gave tacit
approval. FUCK YOU, hypocrite.


<rest of Palmer's shit flushed>

Goin' Nova

unread,
Feb 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/8/98
to

In article <6blq08$h...@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>, wil...@ix.netcom.com () wrote:

> In <6blmji$k...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> Wil...@trix.netcom.com (Biil
> Palmer) writes:

> >
> >On 8 Feb 1998 23:27:09 GMT, wil...@ix.netcom.com () wrote:
> >
> >>I'll say it again, forgery--complete or quasi--is no joke.
> >>
> >>Bill Palmer
> >>alt.genius.bill-palmer
> >

> >Is this a complete, or a quasi?
>
> Keeping in mind that--morally and ethically speaking--
> the difference is inconsequential, let's let our readers
> decide.

Translation:

I, Bimbo Biil, have no fucking clue. I haven't yet defined that to suit
my needs.

end translation.

Johnny Reb Hausmann

unread,
Feb 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/9/98
to

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

NANA* removed, as I will not continue a flame war there and nobody there is
interested in reading PalmerPiles(tm) anyway.


wil...@ix.netcom.com (Some Nameless Poltroon) wrote:

>In <6bkvs8$6...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> lousem...@wilhelp.com
>("Louse-monkey John" Hausmann, recently smoked out of the woods
>after cowering under "Goin' Nova")

Smoked out of the woods...how? Because he told you he was Hausmann? Because I
told you he was Hausmann? Because the WHOLE DAMN ALT.FLAME CROWD told you he
was Hausmann?

John Hausmann has been using "Goin' Nova" since well before you started
stinking up the flame groups. It does you no credit that you couldn't figure
it out.


>>No. I agreed it was a forgery, ya fucking moron. But, as you
>>failed to complain against Gareth's forgeries of Raoul, WHY
>>THE FUCK SHOULD ANYONE GIVE A FUCK WHEN YOU get forged?
>>You've already made it quite clear there are rules for you that do
>>not apply to others. You wanna protest forgeries, and have others
>>join you? Then protest forgeries of people you don't like. It will
>>at least soften the impression of your hypocrisy.

And on this point Palmjob was uncharacteristically silent.


>In other words, you draw a very big line between a
>quasi forgery aimed at confusing readers (which is
>in itself moral and ethical forgery) and a technical
>forgery.

Palmjob, I've told you this dozens of times. Others have told you dozens more.
But you seem to have reading comprehension problems, so I'll try to make this
simple.

Palmjob, we do not use "wilhelp" to confuse anyone. We use "wilhelp" to piss
you off. And it is sooooooooo effective!


>Therefore, as to my suspicians about you, Hausmann, let's
>imagine for a moment that someone's garage has been
>burglarized. When the owner is reporting the theft,
>a shifty, cowardly individual with a long history of
>moral turpitude pops up to ridicule the victim and his
>concerns about the theft. Also, this party is known
>to have a grudge against the victim. Does it strain
>the imagination too much to understand that many people
>would consider the spiteful "humorist" a prime suspect?

Maybe not, but to a court of law it would be irrelevant.


>So far, the only people who have popped up to make light
>of the forgeries are you, your "clone" MacLennan, and
>Cockroach Roger Williams.

I'm making light of it too, Palmjob.


>That's my "flame arena" name, and winning flame wars
>is MY game, Hausman.

Palmjob, you've never even *participated* in a flame war, let alone won one.
All you do is whine, whine, whine. You may win whine wars, but you don't stand
a Klansman's chance in Harlem in a flame war.


>NONE
>of you are real flamers; you are simply pretentious,
>cowardly dirty-tricks artists giving flaming a
>bad name.

Dear Pot,

You are black.

Signed, The Kettle.


>And of course, a sore-losing forgery suspect like
>John Hausmann WOULD insult everyone named Palmer
>on the planet!

Palmjob, your very *existence* insults everyone named Palmer.


>Big joke isn't it, Louse-monkey?

Yup.


>The point is, Hausmann, your only complaint against ME is
>that I rewarded your attempts at being a "flame-badass" with
>toasting after toasting,

Too bad you only toast yourself.


>Biil Palmjob
>alt.wanker.biil-palmjob


- --
-----------============<[ Lee Jackson Beauregard ]>============-----------
PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
Sanford Wallace is a Yankee. YOU figure out my email address.
Delenda est Windoze!

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQB1AwUBNN4RBdI2qWwNrtyxAQEEQgMAnkOB70BTx07j/qheXfSzaaSgqrmeqtiA
Tpbw7mzfK4rFmw6qKWcVGh3M0x31mqnNGAtlKZAR3PLUeZDPnnxzQKCuoHkzRRyo
1N7lGyr9f5lY9T4kLQRuVXN4olgOWlUx
=I+EM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Biil Palmer

unread,
Feb 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/9/98
to

On 8 Feb 1998 23:27:09 GMT, wil...@ix.netcom.com () wrote:

>I'll say it again, forgery--complete or quasi--is no joke.
>
>Bill Palmer
>alt.genius.bill-palmer

Is this a complete, or a quasi?

Biil Palmjob
alt.hopeless.biil-palmer

wil...@ix.netcom.com

unread,
Feb 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/9/98
to

In <6bll63$igg$0...@dosa.alt.net>
wilh...@southland.smart.net.yankee.go.home (Johnny Reb Hausmann)
writes:
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>NANA* removed, as I will not continue a flame war there and nobody
there is
>interested in reading PalmerPiles(tm) anyway.
>
>
>wil...@ix.netcom.com (Some Nameless Poltroon) wrote:
>
>>In <6bkvs8$6...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> lousem...@wilhelp.com
>>("Louse-monkey John" Hausmann, recently smoked out of the woods
>>after cowering under "Goin' Nova")
>
>Smoked out of the woods...how? Because he told you he was Hausmann?
Because I
>told you he was Hausmann? Because the WHOLE DAMN ALT.FLAME CROWD told
you he
>was Hausmann?
>
>John Hausmann has been using "Goin' Nova" since well before you
started
>stinking up the flame groups. It does you no credit that you couldn't
figure
>it out.
>
>
>>>No. I agreed it was a forgery, ya fucking moron. But, as you
>>>failed to complain against Gareth's forgeries of Raoul, WHY
>>>THE FUCK SHOULD ANYONE GIVE A FUCK WHEN YOU get forged?
>>>You've already made it quite clear there are rules for you that do
>>>not apply to others. You wanna protest forgeries, and have others
>>>join you? Then protest forgeries of people you don't like. It will
>>>at least soften the impression of your hypocrisy.
>
>And on this point Palmjob was uncharacteristically silent.

How absurd. On the basis of some accusations that Person A
has forged Person B (a situation I know nothing of besides
a few allegations I have seen bandied about by notorious
liars) *I* am supposed to refrain from protesting the
out-and-out, complete forgery of ny screen-name and
address! Makes no sense to me.
>
>>In other words, Hausmann, you draw a very big line between
>>a quasi-forgery aimed at confusing readers (which is


>>in itself moral and ethical forgery) and a technical

>>forgery like I protest here. There is no such line to
>>be drawn. Sorry to destroy some smug illusions.


>
>Palmjob, I've told you this dozens of times. Others have told you
dozens more.
>But you seem to have reading comprehension problems, so I'll try to
make this
>simple.
>
>Palmjob, we do not use "wilhelp" to confuse anyone. We use "wilhelp"
to piss
>you off. And it is sooooooooo effective!

Nonsense. FLAMERS use their writing and flaming talents
to "piss people off". Like other talentless "flame-badass
wannabes" you support cowardly tricks like forgery and
you yourself engage in quasi-forgery regularly,
"Beauregard the Vindictive Fake."


>
>
>>Therefore, as to my suspicians about you, Hausmann, let's
>>imagine for a moment that someone's garage has been
>>burglarized. When the owner is reporting the theft,
>>a shifty, cowardly individual with a long history of
>>moral turpitude pops up to ridicule the victim and his
>>concerns about the theft. Also, this party is known
>>to have a grudge against the victim. Does it strain
>>the imagination too much to understand that many people
>>would consider the spiteful "humorist" a prime suspect?
>

>Maybe not, but to a court of law it would be irrelevant.
>
>

>>So far, the only people who have popped up to make light
>>of the forgeries are you, your "clone" MacLennan, and
>>Cockroach Roger Williams.
>

>I'm making light of it too,

Iin which our fake-named phony insults everyone with
the real name Palmer.

>Palmjob.

Of course, "Beauregard the Pseudo". After all, your
resentment for your many toastings finally caused you to
jump on the very ugly racial defamation bandwagon of the
above-named parties. Why then would you not join them
in trying to demean my reasonable concerns over the full
forgery of my screen name and address? After all, your
behavior is perfectly in harmony with your past track-
record as a flame war loser who finally turns to dirty
tricks to try and do what he can't do with writing and
flaming skills, which he totally lacks.

Also, since you are a "wilhelp" quasi-forger yourself,
it is not surprising that you would drool a few lines
to the effect that net-forgery is a big joke. That's
totally self-serving of you, since you are already
up to your ass in net parasitism and quasi-forgery,
"Beauregard the Fraud".

[...]

Bill Palmer
alt.genius.bill-palmer


wil...@ix.netcom.com

unread,
Feb 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/9/98
to

In <6blmji$k...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> Wil...@trix.netcom.com (Biil
Palmer) writes:
>
>On 8 Feb 1998 23:27:09 GMT, wil...@ix.netcom.com () wrote:
>
>>I'll say it again, forgery--complete or quasi--is no joke.
>>
>>Bill Palmer
>>alt.genius.bill-palmer
>
>Is this a complete, or a quasi?

Keeping in mind that--morally and ethically speaking--

John Davis

unread,
Feb 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/9/98
to

wil...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
: In <6blmji$k...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> Wil...@trix.netcom.com (Biil

Palmjob, it is obvious you are trolling for attention. Woton told you
exatly how to handle the matter. Did you send a copy of the forgery
including complete headers to abuse at the site the forgery origiated
from? No? Well, to bad, no on else can or will do it for you. If you
won't take the normal steps to defind yourself then you'll just have to
live with it. It has also been pointed out to you that you are not the
first this has happened to. I would venture to say that all of the
regulars in the flame groups, including me, have been forged. We all
handle that sort of thing as a matter of course. If that is beyond your
ability then try and learn something about the medium you polute on a daily
basis. Until you do expect to be harrassed by anyone having a bad hair day.


--
A_A
John Davis (o o) Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 BC) observed:
----------oOO-(^)-OOo----------------------------------------------------
~ Democritus maintains that there can be no great poet
without a spite of madness.

Lionel Lauer

unread,
Feb 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/9/98
to

Quoth bl...@azzy.blah (Azzy) :

>Wotan wrote in article <wotanEo...@netcom.com>:
>> In article <6blf0d$k...@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com>,
>> <wil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote while drinking:
>>

>> > Further, it is interesting to note that
>> >so far, the only people who have seen fit to make light
>> >of my concerns about the recent complete forgeries of my
>> >screen name and address are the "wilhelp" quasi-forgers and
>> >parasites, like MacLennan here.
>>

>> Fuck You Palmjob.
>>
>> BTW, wil...@netcom.com is a valid address that anyone can get if YOU do
>> not already have it.
>
>Same with wil...@every-other-isp-in-the-universe.com
>
>I really really hope this whole 'wilhelp' thing is just a joke for
>Palmjob... a longwinded and dumb troll... I really want to think that
>this is what it is.. Anything to keep from accepting the horrid truth
>that there is a living breathing 'human' (arguable) out there who is
>actually this obsessed over something SO outrageous and SO frivilous...
>I want to believe that this isn't possible. I really do.

Sorry, you're out of luck on that on.
He really *does* care about that trivia like that.

Mike MacLennan

unread,
Feb 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/9/98
to

wil...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> In <6bll63$igg$0...@dosa.alt.net>
> wilh...@southland.smart.net.yankee.go.home (Johnny Reb Hausmann)
> writes:
> >
> >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >
> >NANA* removed, as I will not continue a flame war there and nobody
> there is
> >interested in reading PalmerPiles(tm) anyway.
> >
> >
> >wil...@ix.netcom.com (Some Nameless Poltroon) wrote:
> >
> >>In <6bkvs8$6...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> lousem...@wilhelp.com
> >>("Louse-monkey John" Hausmann, recently smoked out of the woods
> >>after cowering under "Goin' Nova")
> >
> >Smoked out of the woods...how? Because he told you he was Hausmann?
> Because I
> >told you he was Hausmann? Because the WHOLE DAMN ALT.FLAME CROWD told
> you he
> >was Hausmann?
> >
> >John Hausmann has been using "Goin' Nova" since well before you
> started
> >stinking up the flame groups. It does you no credit that you couldn't
> figure
> >it out.
> >
> >
> >>>No. I agreed it was a forgery, ya fucking moron. But, as you
> >>>failed to complain against Gareth's forgeries of Raoul, WHY
> >>>THE FUCK SHOULD ANYONE GIVE A FUCK WHEN YOU get forged?
> >>>You've already made it quite clear there are rules for you that do
> >>>not apply to others. You wanna protest forgeries, and have others
> >>>join you? Then protest forgeries of people you don't like. It will
> >>>at least soften the impression of your hypocrisy.
> >
> >And on this point Palmjob was uncharacteristically silent.
>
> How absurd. On the basis of some accusations that Person A
> has forged Person B (a situation I know nothing of besides
> a few allegations I have seen bandied about by notorious
> liars) *I* am supposed to refrain from protesting the
> out-and-out, complete forgery of ny screen-name and
> address! Makes no sense to me.

No, you just aren't supposed to be a hypocrite.

P.S. http://www.dejanews.com

Search for rao...@usa.net

Mike MacLennan

unread,
Feb 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/9/98
to

wil...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> In <34DD89...@netcom.com> WILHELP Ratings <wil...@netcom.com>
> writes:
>
> This is just exactly the sort of thing I have been
> complaining of. A malicious misfit makes light of
> a full, technical forgery by creating a quasi-forgery
> posting that is almost as egregious (Note that he left
> out the "ix"!) as the actual forgery I was objecting
> to. Great joke.

Biil, you miss the point.

The forgery was no joke, and Wotan told you which addresses to complain
to to stop them from occurring in the future. (I hope by the way that
you *did* send copies of those posts to ab...@merit.net). The problem
is you and your endless 'cry wolf' syndrome.

You call satire forgery, you call post edits forgery, you call any post
where the word wilhelp is used forgery. Since none of it is forgery,
nobody comes rushing to your aid, festooned in a shining suit of armor,
atop a white horse.

Poor Billy, alone in the cold.


Now when you have a legitimate complaint, you're likely not to get the
sympathy or attention it deserves. Why? Because you have cried wolf a
little too often. Hell, you should be grateful that Wotan even bothered
to help you at all. I didn't notice you come rushing to his defense
when he was being forged.

Goin' Nova

unread,
Feb 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/9/98
to

In article <6boa11$e...@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com>, wil...@ix.netcom.com () wrote:

> In <6bns2j$h...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> Mike MacLennan
> <defame@wilhelp.*expunge.these.fields*.com> writes:

<snip>

> >I didn't notice you come rushing to his defense
> >when he was being forged.
>

> That's an odd idea, because forging Wotan would likely
> result in most posters getting far FEWER readers than
> they usually have! Most people don't try to attract
> readers by pretending that they are a semi-literate
> mischief maker, after, so your allusion is not very
> appropriate.
>

Oh, so according to Palmjob, their are circumstances where forgery is
acceptable. <snicker> And you wonder why no one rushes to your aid?

> Further, if someone was dirty-trickin' Dumpie, it was
> probably someone HE had dirty-tricked the week before.
> Not that two wrongs make a right. Let me assure
> you, I don't keep tabs on The Dumpster Rodent. When
> he's not in my hair, I am more than happy to forget
> about the little misfit and so--I suspect--is just
> about everyone else.
>
> I have neither used Wotan's name, nor applauded anyone
> else who has. I can think of little that sound worse
> than having something I wrote confused with something
> of Dumpie's. That's the key issue. YOU, conversely,
> are a wilhelp quasi-forger and a parasite who has
> attached yourself to me for quite a while now,
> "MacLennan". Of course, then, you WOULD have a
> lot to say on this thread!

Funny, he was forged right here, in your own little shithole. As was
Raoul. And while you didn't applaud the action, you failed to
condemn it, which, according to the latest Palmjob blather on the
subject, is almost tantamount to being a net criminal.

Most interesting. You might as well visit a tattoo artist and have him
stencil your fucking forehead with "hypocrite" so that those who don't
know you, know you.

CJC

unread,
Feb 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/9/98
to

wil...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> In <6bns2j$h...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> Mike MacLennan
> <defame@wilhelp.*expunge.these.fields*.com> writes:
>
> Where did you find the "wilhelp", MacLemon?

> >
> >wil...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> >>
> >> In <34DD89...@netcom.com> WILHELP Ratings <wil...@netcom.com>
> >> writes:
> >>
> >> This is just exactly the sort of thing I have been
> >> complaining of. A malicious misfit makes light of
> >> a full, technical forgery by creating a quasi-forgery
> >> posting that is almost as egregious (Note that he left
> >> out the "ix"!) as the actual forgery I was objecting
> >> to. Great joke.
> >
> >Biil, you miss the point.
>
> Not at all. Fact is, you try to obfuscate the point as
> usual with your devious blather, Lousy.

> >
> >The forgery was no joke, and Wotan told you which addresses to
> complain
> >to to stop them from occurring in the future. (I hope by the way that
> >you *did* send copies of those posts to ab...@merit.net). The problem
> >is you and your endless 'cry wolf' syndrome.
>
> Nope, I haven't been "crying wolf" at all. I have in
> fact posted irrefutable evidence that readers are being
> deceived by "wilhelp" quasi-forgeries into thinking I
> worte things I didn't.

No, Biil.

If an article written by a "wilhelp" does not want to make one slash
his wrists, you did not write it. If a post written by a "wilhelp"
does not make someone do an Ian Curtis, you did not write it. We
are crystal clear on that issue.

[biilshit flushed]

--
FLAMING already has too many prattling non-entities trying to tell US--
and the wired world in general--what's going on in flaming when they
themselves haven't the foggiest notion. - Biil Palmjob accurately
describing himself in <69r0cl$5...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>

wil...@ix.netcom.com

unread,
Feb 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/9/98
to
> <wil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>Further, it is interesting to note that
>>so far, the only people who have seen fit to make light
>>of my concerns about the recent complete forgeries of my
>>screen name and address are the "wilhelp" quasi-forgers
>>and parasites, like MacLennan here.
>
>Fuck You

And of course, the famous Dumpster Rodent insults
everyone named Palmer:

Palmjob.
>
>BTW, wil...@netcom.com is a valid address that anyone can get if YOU
do
>not already have it.

Listen, Wotan, you malicious little liar. The forgery that
I was complianing about as a "full forgery" was "wilhelp@ix.
netcom.com". The others I carefully pointed out as being
quasi-forgeries, and they certainly are that, even if YOU
need to look up the meaning of "quasi". "Quasi-forgery"
is the precise term for something like "wil...@netcom.com"
and that is EXACTLY what I will continue to denounce it as.

Further, I'm of no mind to sit around and split hairs with
lowly, dishonest sorts such as yourself, Dumpie. Oh, you
made some squeaks suggesting that you were upset about the
forgeries, but I suspected you weren't sincere. In fact,
you are by nature INCAPABLE of sincerity, Wotan. It would
be easier for a cat to learn ice skating than for you to be
sincere.

Anyway, whether YOU like it or not, *I* will continue to consider
any use of "wilhelp" (that plainly aims at confusing the readers)
to be parasitical and a moral and ethical forgery, at least. I
scarcely need advice from The Dumpster Rodent on that.
>
>--
>Love is sentimental measles.

Bill Palmer
Creator and proprietor of wilhelp
alt.genius.bill-palmer


wil...@ix.netcom.com

unread,
Feb 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/10/98
to

In <6bns2j$h...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> Mike MacLennan
<defame@wilhelp.*expunge.these.fields*.com> writes:

Where did you find the "wilhelp", MacLemon?
>
>wil...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>>
>> In <34DD89...@netcom.com> WILHELP Ratings <wil...@netcom.com>
>> writes:
>>
>> This is just exactly the sort of thing I have been
>> complaining of. A malicious misfit makes light of
>> a full, technical forgery by creating a quasi-forgery
>> posting that is almost as egregious (Note that he left
>> out the "ix"!) as the actual forgery I was objecting
>> to. Great joke.
>
>Biil, you miss the point.

Not at all. Fact is, you try to obfuscate the point as
usual with your devious blather, Lousy.
>
>The forgery was no joke, and Wotan told you which addresses to
complain
>to to stop them from occurring in the future. (I hope by the way that
>you *did* send copies of those posts to ab...@merit.net). The problem
>is you and your endless 'cry wolf' syndrome.

Nope, I haven't been "crying wolf" at all. I have in
fact posted irrefutable evidence that readers are being
deceived by "wilhelp" quasi-forgeries into thinking I

worte things I didn't. My reasonable objections are
scarcely "crying wolf", either. But then, as one of
my personal "wilhelp" parasites, YOU are not exactly
neutral here, "MacLennan."

>
>You call satire forgery, you call post edits forgery,

I certainly don't call "post edits" per se, forgery.
I myself advocate the correction of typos and other
things that will needlessly distract the reader (in
our OWN text ONLY, of course. However, I do hold
that is wrong to make alterations in the text of
OTHERS when we are quoting them. I think most
readers agree with me.

you call any post
>where the word wilhelp is used forgery.

Hold on, you are getting carried off with your self-serving
blather, "MacLennan". Your message here would seem to be
that every sort of quasi-forgery is dandy, EXCEPT the full,
technical forgery of my screen name and address right down
to the "ix".

I disagree, of course, as the victim of both full and quasi-
forgeries.

For one thing, I have already posted evidence of what many
people know all along: That many readers are deceived by
the quasi-forgeries into thinking I wrote articles I did
not write.

In the protest article I posted a couple of weeks back for
instance, I showed how a longtime Usenet poster was tricked
by a quasi-forgery into thinking I wrote something that
looked nothing like something I would in fact write.

Now, if an old Usenet hand who has read many of my posts is
so deceived, how many newbies (and "old-bies") are likely
also fooled?

All along, Human Leech David Kendrick's little ploy
has been to insist, "Well, only an idiot would be
deceived into thinking one of the fake 'wilhelp'
posts was written by Bill Palmer." Of course, that
is merely the self-serving drool of a parasite.

How many people can argue with a straight face that
a great many readers would not be deceived into thinking
that an article bearing the screen name <wilhelp@netcom.
com> was written by me? (My screen name is, of course,
wil...@ix.netcom.com.) OF COURSE many intelligent
people would be fooled by the quasi-forgery.

And as to your "satire" drivel, that does not wash
either, Lousy. That is as self-serving and illogical
as the rest of your blather.

If someone used "wilhelp" once or twice in articles where
the person was trying to do one of the many imitations of
my style that have been posted, that's one thing.

But that is not the case at all. Parasites such
as yourself are simply using "wilhelp" to make a
connection with me in the minds of the readers,
Lousy. That's all.

You are a leech, and all the other "wilhelp" imitators
are leeches too. Hell, I have seen them use "wilhelp"
in groups where I don't post, and in articles having
nothing at all to do with me.

It is simply a case of some human leeches without a
lick of talent or pride trying to get reader attention
by associating themselves with a famous net writer.
You know it, and just about everyone else knows it too,
"MacLennan".

Admit it, Lousy. Just look in your mirror and
come to grips with the truth that you are looking
at a human leech who has been wasting a lot
time trying to ridicule his unwilling "host"
while attempting to justify his own parasitism.


Since none of it is forgery,
>nobody comes rushing to your aid, festooned in a shining suit of
armor,
>atop a white horse.
>
>Poor Billy, alone in the cold.
>
>
>Now when you have a legitimate complaint, you're likely not to get the
>sympathy or attention it deserves. Why? Because you have cried wolf
a
>little too often.

Take that as coming from a famous "Bill Palmer's parasite"
and a "wilhelp" quasi-forger! MacLemon's scarcely a
disinterested party in the matter, I must say.

In other words, to Lousy MacLennan, here, I am crying "wolf"
when I object to a quasi-forgery like the "wil...@netcom.com"!

Hell, you should be grateful that Wotan even bothered
>to help you at all.

Dumpie made a few show-offy squeaks on the matter, true.
But like, you, he holds that quasi-forgeries such as
"wil...@netcom.com" are just dandy. As the victim
of the quasi-forgeries--who has seen massive and
irrefutable evidence that readers are in fact being
fooled--I can tell you I was not much impressed with
to see Wotan's dumpster-abode begin filling up with
crocodile tears.

>I didn't notice you come rushing to his defense
>when he was being forged.

That's an odd idea, because forging Wotan would likely
result in most posters getting far FEWER readers than
they usually have! Most people don't try to attract
readers by pretending that they are a semi-literate
mischief maker, after, so your allusion is not very
appropriate.

Further, if someone was dirty-trickin' Dumpie, it was

probably someone HE had dirty-tricked the week before.
Not that two wrongs make a right. Let me assure
you, I don't keep tabs on The Dumpster Rodent. When
he's not in my hair, I am more than happy to forget
about the little misfit and so--I suspect--is just
about everyone else.

I have neither used Wotan's name, nor applauded anyone
else who has. I can think of little that sound worse
than having something I wrote confused with something
of Dumpie's. That's the key issue. YOU, conversely,
are a wilhelp quasi-forger and a parasite who has
attached yourself to me for quite a while now,
"MacLennan". Of course, then, you WOULD have a
lot to say on this thread!

On the other hand, nobody has ever accused ME of using
anyone's name for a satire, let alone of taking the name
of a prominent writer and using it regularly in order to
associate myself with the person and deceive readers
on a regular basis. Quasi-forgeries practiced
habitually and aimed at deceiving readers are
every bit as reprehensible as complete forgeries.

wilhelp
alt.genius.bill-palmer


The 2-Belo (May the Meow Be With You)

unread,
Feb 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/10/98
to

This just in from wil...@ix.netcom.com () by direct wire:

>In <6bns2j$h...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> Mike MacLennan
><defame@wilhelp.*expunge.these.fields*.com> writes:
>
>Where did you find the "wilhelp

Biil, PLEASE... give it a REST.

[Followups set.]


--


MEOWMEOWMEOWMEOWMEOWMEOWMEOWMEOWMEOWMEOWMEOWMEOWMEOWMEOW
EOWM The 2-Belo EOWM
OWME the2belo@wilhelp!com OWME
WMEO http://www2s.biglobe.ne.jp/~the2belo/ WMEO
MEOWMEOWALTFLAMEALTFANKARLMALDENNOSEALTLIFESUCKSMEOWMEOW
CASHP #32-97

"Why don't you tell everybody why you're not allowed
in the Untied States [sic]?"

- Gilbert T. Sullivan, in
<6bliq2$9...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>:
God Bless Ameriericjdnckjq!


wil...@ix.netcom.com

unread,
Feb 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/10/98
to

In <34DFCA...@wilhelp.com> CJC <cat...@wilhelp.com> writes:
>No, Biil.
>
>If an article written by a "wilhelp" does not want to make one slash
>his wrists, you did not write it. If a post written by a "wilhelp"
>does not make someone do an Ian Curtis, you did not write it. We
>are crystal clear on that issue.

Wait, let me get this straight. YOU are a good writer,
I am not. That's why YOU have parasitically attached yourself
to ME by appropriating the screen name that Human Leech David
Kendrick registered as a domain name (in imitation of the
"wilhelp" creation that I had made famous with my writing
efforts long before Human Leech Kendrick showed up and began
his quasi-forgeries which led to YOUR quasi-forgeries).

Great writers like you and Human Leech Kendrick ALWAYS make
a point of parasitically attaching yourselves to "bad writers"
like me, right? And no doubt you are hiding behind the
pseudonym "Catfish" because you are really Norman Mailer
pretending to be a lousy writer and a leech for obscure
reasons of his own. Right?

Bill Palmer
alt.genius.bill-palmer


wil...@ix.netcom.com

unread,
Feb 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/10/98
to

In <6bodd5$2...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> lousem...@wilhelp.com
("Louse-monkey John" Hausmann, Quasi-forger and parasite, recently
smoked out of the woods as "Goin' Nova") grunts:

Where did you get the "wilhelp" Louse-monkey? I mean,
who created it and made it famous for a couple of years
before Human Leech Kendrick--and then YOU--began the
quasi-forgeries to attach yourselves to me?


>
>In article <6boa11$e...@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com>, wil...@ix.netcom.com
() wrote:
>

>> In <6bns2j$h...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> Mike MacLennan
>> <defame@wilhelp.*expunge.these.fields*.com> writes:
>

><snip>


>
>> >I didn't notice you come rushing to his defense
>> >when he was being forged.
>>
>> That's an odd idea, because forging Wotan would likely
>> result in most posters getting far FEWER readers than
>> they usually have! Most people don't try to attract
>> readers by pretending that they are a semi-literate
>> mischief maker, after, so your allusion is not very
>> appropriate.
>>
>

>Oh, so according to Palmjob, their are circumstances where forgery is
>acceptable. <snicker> And you wonder why no one rushes to your aid?
>

>> Further, if someone was dirty-trickin' Dumpie, it was
>> probably someone HE had dirty-tricked the week before.
>> Not that two wrongs make a right. Let me assure
>> you, I don't keep tabs on The Dumpster Rodent. When
>> he's not in my hair, I am more than happy to forget
>> about the little misfit and so--I suspect--is just
>> about everyone else.
>>
>> I have neither used Wotan's name, nor applauded anyone
>> else who has. I can think of little that sound worse
>> than having something I wrote confused with something
>> of Dumpie's. That's the key issue. YOU, conversely,
>> are a wilhelp quasi-forger and a parasite who has
>> attached yourself to me for quite a while now,
>> "MacLennan". Of course, then, you WOULD have a
>> lot to say on this thread!

My, my, how the quasi-forging Louse-monkey can spew
the red herrings! He continues to suggest that *I*
should not object to being forged and quasi-forged
by leeches such as himself, because, after all, in
a totally different case Person A forged Person B
and the "all-knowing, all-powerful" Bill Palmer
did nothing to stop it! It makes no sense, and
Louse-monkey is famous for not making sense in a
an accusing fashion to throw an opponent off guard.


>
>Funny, he was forged right here, in your own little shithole.

What the hell are you jabbering about now, Louse-monkey?
Are you suggestion that because I am a regular in a
newsgroup, I am supposed to know when someone other than
myself is being forged by unknown parties?

As was
>Raoul. And while you didn't applaud the action,

No, I didn't. But when *I* was forged YOU certainly applauded
the action, you foul leech. Further, there is one other very
big issue you are trying to shuck and jive your way around.

I had no association with this forgery, since I have NEVER
taken anything morally and ethically belonging to Wotan
or Xemblinosky. I never used their names nor quasi-forged
them or anyone else.

On the other hand, YOU are one of MY leading parasites,
Louse-monkey, and that makes all the difference. You think
that because you can't be arrested, that your parasitism
will go unnoticed. It won't, you drooling bloodsucker.

I created "wilhelp" and made it famous for two and one
half years before human leech David Kendrick began
stealing it (several months before he claims to have
registered "wilhelp" as a domain name). You, in
imitation of Kendrick, also began to use "wilhelp"
to tighten your leech-like connection to me, your
unwilling host, Louse-monkey.

you failed to
>condemn it, which, according to the latest Palmjob blather on the
>subject, is almost tantamount to being a net criminal.

Nonsense. YOU are one of MY biggest and foulest parasites,
Louse-monkey Hausmann.

the Raoul Xemblinosky Experience

unread,
Feb 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/10/98
to
> >No, Biil.
> >
> >If an article written by a "wilhelp" does not want to make one slash
> >his wrists, you did not write it. If a post written by a "wilhelp"
> >does not make someone do an Ian Curtis, you did not write it. We
> >are crystal clear on that issue.
>
> Wait, let me get this straight. YOU are a good writer,
> I am not. That's why YOU have parasitically attached yourself
> to ME by appropriating the screen name that Human Leech David
> Kendrick registered as a domain name (in imitation of the
> "wilhelp" creation that I had made famous with my writing
> efforts long before Human Leech Kendrick showed up and began
> his quasi-forgeries which led to YOUR quasi-forgeries).
>
> Great writers like you and Human Leech Kendrick ALWAYS make
> a point of parasitically attaching yourselves to "bad writers"
> like me, right? And no doubt you are hiding behind the
> pseudonym "Catfish" because you are really Norman Mailer
> pretending to be a lousy writer and a leech for obscure
> reasons of his own. Right?

Norman Mailer already is a leech and a lousy writer. Whereas
"Catfish" is actually Chris Carrell, UseNet Performance Artist.

HTH HAND FOAD M.


- the Raoul Xemblinosky Experience -=-=-=- -- . --- .-- =-=-=-=-=-=-=

a.f.k-m.n "They (people?) have a right to have you removed
alt.flame from their drives. You don't own them."
mhm 15x12 - Stan Kalisch III, UDP Artist
FOA/KoB(h) 13 February 1997
- http://extra.newsguy.com/~shpxurnq/ =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Lionel Lauer

unread,
Feb 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/10/98
to

Quoth wil...@ix.netcom.com () :

>In <6bns2j$h...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> Mike MacLennan
><defame@wilhelp.*expunge.these.fields*.com> writes:
>
>Where did you find the "wilhelp", MacLemon?
>>
>>wil...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

The same place that I found mine, HTH.
[min-boggleing amount of stuff snipped]

Mike MacLennan

unread,
Feb 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/10/98
to

wil...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

> Wait, let me get this straight. YOU are a good writer,
> I am not.

And they said you couldn't be taught.

Mike MacLennan

unread,
Feb 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/10/98
to

wil...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> In <6bns2j$h...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> Mike MacLennan
> <defame@wilhelp.*expunge.these.fields*.com> writes:
>
> Where did you find the "wilhelp", MacLemon?

From its registered owner, David Kendrick.


> >
> >wil...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> >>
> >> In <34DD89...@netcom.com> WILHELP Ratings <wil...@netcom.com>
> >> writes:
> >>
> >> This is just exactly the sort of thing I have been
> >> complaining of. A malicious misfit makes light of
> >> a full, technical forgery by creating a quasi-forgery
> >> posting that is almost as egregious (Note that he left
> >> out the "ix"!) as the actual forgery I was objecting
> >> to. Great joke.
> >
> >Biil, you miss the point.
>
> Not at all. Fact is, you try to obfuscate the point as
> usual with your devious blather, Lousy.

Really? How so?


> >
> >The forgery was no joke, and Wotan told you which addresses to
> complain
> >to to stop them from occurring in the future. (I hope by the way that
> >you *did* send copies of those posts to ab...@merit.net). The problem
> >is you and your endless 'cry wolf' syndrome.
>
> Nope, I haven't been "crying wolf" at all.

Biil, the first time someone used wilhelp@* (not ix.netcom.com) you ran
to these groups, as well as alt.journalism and alt.wired to complain
about.........


[drum roll]

Forgery.


When you were told that it wasn't forgery, you started with your "moral
and ethical theivery" argument, and since nobody was buying into that,
you have since tried your hand at the (semi/pseudo/quasi) forgery angle,
hoping that you can find someone to muster up the same righteous
indignation as yourself.


Sounds a bit like crying wolf to me.

> I have in
> fact posted irrefutable evidence that readers are being
> deceived by "wilhelp" quasi-forgeries into thinking I
> worte things I didn't.

You've shown that Legion was decieved. That's reader, singular. And he
seems to have learned from his error. If there is still any confusion,
he is more than welcome to check dejanews, search for wilhelp@* and
quickly learn the difference between David Kendrick and Bill Palmer.


If any confusion remains I can gladly show Legion, or anyone else you
may dredge up, the threads where Kendrick announced his intention to buy
wilhelp.com, where he bought wilhelp.com, and of course to
http://www.wilhelp.com.


> My reasonable objections are
> scarcely "crying wolf", either. But then, as one of
> my personal "wilhelp" parasites, YOU are not exactly
> neutral here, "MacLennan."

It is crying wolf when you claim non-forgeries to be forgeries.
Period. From here on out you have reduced the impact of your
accusations, even if true. How many people who may have once helped you
are going to either plonk you entirely, or simply skip any thread with
your name and the word "forgery" in it?

Quite a few.

They've seen you screaming about this before, they've politely explained
what real forgery is and what can be done about it, and why nothing is
going to be done about someone posting as wil...@someisp.com. Since
you obstinately refuse to listen to anyone (believe it or not NANA* has
dealt with these cases before, they know what they're talking about
regarding forgery) and flame anyone who tells you that it's not forgery.


> >
> >You call satire forgery, you call post edits forgery,
>
> I certainly don't call "post edits" per se, forgery.
> I myself advocate the correction of typos and other
> things that will needlessly distract the reader (in
> our OWN text ONLY, of course. However, I do hold
> that is wrong to make alterations in the text of
> OTHERS when we are quoting them. I think most
> readers agree with me.

I don't. This is why we have dejanews, reference.com, and the
references line in our headers.


>
> you call any post
> >where the word wilhelp is used forgery.
>
> Hold on, you are getting carried off with your self-serving
> blather, "MacLennan". Your message here would seem to be
> that every sort of quasi-forgery is dandy, EXCEPT the full,
> technical forgery of my screen name and address right down
> to the "ix".

I have no feelings for it regarding its dandiness or lack thereof. I do
know that it's not forgery, nor criminal impersonation. Spare me the
argument about moral and/or ethical thievery, too please. Morals and
ethics are subjective. You have a strict, albeit glass house ensconced,
moral code. I have none.


>
> I disagree, of course, as the victim of both full and quasi-
> forgeries.

I agree with you as far as full forgeries go, Biil. Cancel 'em and fire
off a nastygram to the offending ISP. As far as your "quasi-forgery"
complaint goes, I imagine that you know quite well where I'm going to
tell you to stick it.


>
> For one thing, I have already posted evidence of what many
> people know all along: That many readers are deceived by
> the quasi-forgeries into thinking I wrote articles I did
> not write.

Again one poster, who had not posted in alt.flame for the better part of
a year was confused once. Please provide examples of someone else being
confused about who Biil Palmer is.


>
> In the protest article I posted a couple of weeks back for
> instance, I showed how a longtime Usenet poster was tricked
> by a quasi-forgery into thinking I wrote something that
> looked nothing like something I would in fact write.

There's one. Who else Biil?


>
> Now, if an old Usenet hand who has read many of my posts is
> so deceived, how many newbies (and "old-bies") are likely
> also fooled?

So far......one. Unless you can repost someone else saying "which
wilhelp is Bill Palmer", or saying "shut up, Palmjob" to Kendrick, or
something similar.


>
> All along, Human Leech David Kendrick's little ploy
> has been to insist, "Well, only an idiot would be
> deceived into thinking one of the fake 'wilhelp'
> posts was written by Bill Palmer." Of course, that
> is merely the self-serving drool of a parasite.

Or perhaps Legion is a)a bit careless when reading b)one of these
aforemnetioned idiots c) all of the above.


>
> How many people can argue with a straight face that
> a great many readers would not be deceived into thinking
> that an article bearing the screen name <wilhelp@netcom.
> com> was written by me?

Well, let's see. I didn't alter my reply to line, my organization line,
my .sig and I used the Denver dial-up number rather than the LA one.
Couple that with the fact that anyone who's read you knows that you
wouldn't be able to fire out post one from a shell account, and I'd say
that I fooled oh.... roughly nobody.


>
>(My screen name is, of course,
> wil...@ix.netcom.com.) OF COURSE many intelligent
> people would be fooled by the quasi-forgery.

Odd then that I haven't seen anyone claim to be confused. Again, post
proof that 1. Someone thought that I was you, and 2. That he/she is
intelligent.


>
> And as to your "satire" drivel, that does not wash
> either, Lousy. That is as self-serving and illogical
> as the rest of your blather.

Then arrest the cast of Saturday Night Live at once! Many intelligent
peolple will think that Will Farell is Janet Reno. Why there'll be
rioting in the streets I tell ya!


>
> If someone used "wilhelp" once or twice in articles where
> the person was trying to do one of the many imitations of
> my style that have been posted, that's one thing.
>
> But that is not the case at all. Parasites such
> as yourself are simply using "wilhelp" to make a
> connection with me in the minds of the readers,
> Lousy. That's all.

Biil, for the 1,222,794th time: THERE ARE NO READERS. The only people
who read 99% of my interactions with you are alt.flame regulars, and
they've already made up their minds about me.


>
> You are a leech, and all the other "wilhelp" imitators
> are leeches too. Hell, I have seen them use "wilhelp"
> in groups where I don't post, and in articles having
> nothing at all to do with me.

Because it is a valid domain, with valid accounts. Biil, I really can
recieve e-mail sent to def...@wilhelp.com. It's existance is designed
to irk you, it's use merely secondary.


>
> It is simply a case of some human leeches without a
> lick of talent or pride trying to get reader attention
> by associating themselves with a famous net writer.
> You know it, and just about everyone else knows it too,
> "MacLennan".

Really? Who?

>
> Admit it, Lousy. Just look in your mirror and
> come to grips with the truth that you are looking
> at a human leech who has been wasting a lot
> time trying to ridicule his unwilling "host"
> while attempting to justify his own parasitism.

No, I waste a lot of time ridiculing a stubborn, long-winded no-talent
hack who prefers style over substance, innuendo over facts, and
sensationalistic, alarmist panic over rational thought.


I'm okay with this however.


>
> Since none of it is forgery,
> >nobody comes rushing to your aid, festooned in a shining suit of
> armor,
> >atop a white horse.
> >
> >Poor Billy, alone in the cold.
> >
> >
> >Now when you have a legitimate complaint, you're likely not to get the
> >sympathy or attention it deserves. Why? Because you have cried wolf
> a
> >little too often.
>
> Take that as coming from a famous "Bill Palmer's parasite"
> and a "wilhelp" quasi-forger! MacLemon's scarcely a
> disinterested party in the matter, I must say.

No, if I were disinterested, I would ignore this thread. I'm interested
because I like to see a fairly on-topic NANA hierarchy.


>
> In other words, to Lousy MacLennan, here, I am crying "wolf"
> when I object to a quasi-forgery like the "wil...@netcom.com"!
>

Yes.

> Hell, you should be grateful that Wotan even bothered
> >to help you at all.
>
> Dumpie made a few show-offy squeaks on the matter, true.
> But like, you, he holds that quasi-forgeries such as

> "wil...@netcom.com" are just dandy.....


Bill, I'm cutting the rest because you just repeat yourself. If you
can't find any post besides Legion's where someone was confused as to
who Bill Palmer was, stop talking as though wilhelp.com has altered
space and time.

Mike MacLennan

unread,
Feb 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/10/98
to

wil...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> In <6bqgba$g...@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com> Mike MacLennan
> I every sound reason to be upset by the actual forgeries,
> AND by the quasi-forgeries which plainy are deceiving
> readers as much as the full forgeries, leech "MacLennan".

You not!

> >
> >Biil, the first time someone used wilhelp@* (not ix.netcom.com) you
> ran
> >to these groups, as well as alt.journalism and alt.wired to complain
> >about.........
> >
> >
> >[drum roll]
> >
> >Forgery.
> >
> >
> >When you were told that it wasn't forgery, you started with your
> "moral
> >and ethical theivery" argument, and since nobody was buying into that,
> >you have since tried your hand at the (semi/pseudo/quasi) forgery
> angle,
> >hoping that you can find someone to muster up the same righteous
> >indignation as yourself.
> >
> >
> >Sounds a bit like crying wolf to me.
> >
> >> I have in
> >> fact posted irrefutable evidence that readers are being
> >> deceived by "wilhelp" quasi-forgeries into thinking I
> >> worte things I didn't.
> >
> >You've shown that Legion was decieved. That's reader, singular. And
> he
> >seems to have learned from his error. If there is still any
> confusion,
> >he is more than welcome to check dejanews, search for wilhelp@* and
> >quickly learn the difference between David Kendrick and Bill Palmer.
>

> You've just proven my point, parasite. If an old net-hand
> like "Legion" has to check Dejanews to find out whether I
> wrote something or not, then common sense suggests plenty
> of people are in fact being fooled.

Again....how so? Legion was away from Usenet for a year, and was fooled
but once. I asked you to show the bajillions of confused readers out
there. Where are they?


> Not only "newbies",
> either; most of us are not inclined--while reading
> newsgroup messages--to run to Dejanews to see if a
> poster is authentic.


Then use your "cute little GUI newsreader" to click on the references
then. Hell, all three of my newsreaders can do it, and two of them are
Netscrape and Micro$oft products. What's your excuse?

> That's hardly a part of the
> normal "newgroup reading pattern, MacLemon,

Really? Are you sure that you read the flame groups toi which you post
Biil?

> so your
> self-serving "quasi-forgery is okay, since I, "Wilhelp"
> parasite MacLennan, enjoy it" arguement falls flat.


Please read any thread involving TJ MIller and Roger Wiseman or INVICTUS
from 12/96 to 8/97.


> >
> >
> >If any confusion remains I can gladly show Legion, or anyone else you
> >may dredge up, the threads where Kendrick announced his intention to
> buy
> >wilhelp.com, where he bought wilhelp.com,
>

> When you buy a domain name you get a domain name. That's all.


You asked where I got the 'wilhelp'. I answered. Now kindly go fuck
yourself.

> It is debatable whether he could even keep THAT if I challenged
> Kendrick legally down the road,

No.

> since I have plenty of record
> of his publicly stated mischievious motives for his parasitical
> imitation of my famous creation. The courts tend to take a dim
> view of things that are done for purely malicious purposes,
> most ESPECIALLY when the harmful intentions are stated in
> writing many times in a public forum.

And your proof of owning 'wilhelp' resides exactly where?


>
> and of course to
> >http://www.wilhelp.com.
>

> That means nothing at all, other than making Human Leech
> Kendrick's "wilhelp" parasitism certifiable.


Proof please.

> Dejanews
> records make it very clear that Human Leech David Kendrick
> appeared on many threads with me LONG before he started
> stealing my "wilhelp."

I used wilhelp from 1995-1997 in X-no-archive:yes posts. Prove me
wrong.


You can't. Dejanews is not going to be admitted in a court of law.


> Further, Dejanews also shows that
> our quasi-forger used "wilhelp" for several months before
> he claims to have registered it as his domain name in
> imitation of my creation, so I am not the least shy about
> calling him a leech and parasite.


Again, I used wilhelp in x-no-archive:yes posts from 1995-97. Prove me
wrong.

You seem to not understand the concept of "burden of proof" (since you
snipped every other arguemnet I've made, I'll assume that this is still
the one you think can win). If you sue David R. Kendrick, you must, via
a preponderance of the evidence, prove that you own wilhelp. If all you
have is Usenet, you lose. Period. You have no Tax ID, you have no
governmental verification, you have nothing.


You can scream about Dejanews all you like, but there is one little
character string that is going to leave you defending yourself from a
countersuit. That character string?

X-no-archive:yes


Have a nice day.

wil...@ix.netcom.com

unread,
Feb 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/11/98
to

In <6bqgba$g...@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com> Mike MacLennan
<defame@wilhelp.*expunge.these.fields*.com> writes:
>

I every sound reason to be upset by the actual forgeries,

AND by the quasi-forgeries which plainy are deceiving
readers as much as the full forgeries, leech "MacLennan".
>

>Biil, the first time someone used wilhelp@* (not ix.netcom.com) you
ran
>to these groups, as well as alt.journalism and alt.wired to complain
>about.........
>
>
>[drum roll]
>
>Forgery.
>
>
>When you were told that it wasn't forgery, you started with your
"moral
>and ethical theivery" argument, and since nobody was buying into that,
>you have since tried your hand at the (semi/pseudo/quasi) forgery
angle,
>hoping that you can find someone to muster up the same righteous
>indignation as yourself.
>
>
>Sounds a bit like crying wolf to me.
>
>> I have in
>> fact posted irrefutable evidence that readers are being
>> deceived by "wilhelp" quasi-forgeries into thinking I
>> worte things I didn't.
>
>You've shown that Legion was decieved. That's reader, singular. And
he
>seems to have learned from his error. If there is still any
confusion,
>he is more than welcome to check dejanews, search for wilhelp@* and
>quickly learn the difference between David Kendrick and Bill Palmer.

You've just proven my point, parasite. If an old net-hand


like "Legion" has to check Dejanews to find out whether I
wrote something or not, then common sense suggests plenty

of people are in fact being fooled. Not only "newbies",


either; most of us are not inclined--while reading
newsgroup messages--to run to Dejanews to see if a

poster is authentic. That's hardly a part of the
normal "newgroup reading pattern, MacLemon, so your


self-serving "quasi-forgery is okay, since I, "Wilhelp"
parasite MacLennan, enjoy it" arguement falls flat.
>
>

>If any confusion remains I can gladly show Legion, or anyone else you
>may dredge up, the threads where Kendrick announced his intention to
buy
>wilhelp.com, where he bought wilhelp.com,

When you buy a domain name you get a domain name. That's all.

It is debatable whether he could even keep THAT if I challenged

Kendrick legally down the road, since I have plenty of record


of his publicly stated mischievious motives for his parasitical
imitation of my famous creation. The courts tend to take a dim
view of things that are done for purely malicious purposes,
most ESPECIALLY when the harmful intentions are stated in
writing many times in a public forum.

and of course to
>http://www.wilhelp.com.

That means nothing at all, other than making Human Leech
Kendrick's "wilhelp" parasitism certifiable. Dejanews


records make it very clear that Human Leech David Kendrick
appeared on many threads with me LONG before he started

stealing my "wilhelp." Further, Dejanews also shows that


our quasi-forger used "wilhelp" for several months before
he claims to have registered it as his domain name in
imitation of my creation, so I am not the least shy about

calling him a leech and parasite. It's not like anyone
had any illusions about kendrick's coincidentially coming
up with "wilhelp" on his own!

As to your blather about the typical newsgroup reader having
to do Dejanews searches, though that's more more drivel!
Doing that is fine for the Stan Kalishes of the world, but
to the average reader, it's a waste of time. It's certainly
not part of their normal habits when they are reading newsgroup
postings for their own amusement.

It happens like this: Readers see "wilhelp" and begin to read
an article thinking I wrote it. It's my "wilhelp" which attracts
them, and you parasites are well-aware of that, "MacLennan".

Of course, since it it your own lack of talent and accomplishment
that has caused you to turn parasite in the first place, "Mike",
many of those readers will soon realize they are reading a crude
fake.

Even so, there will other people, not very familiar with my
writing but who want to read something by Bill Palmer, whom
they identify with "wilhelp". This category of readers will
think I wrote the parasite's drivel. They will simply not read
any more "wilhelps". THAT'S what upsets me the most about the
thing.

Before Human Leech David Kendrick started the "wilhelp"
parastism epidemic, "wilhelp" was always synonymous with
amusing writing. That's how I made my creation the-or
certainly ONE of the--most recognizeable names on the net.
But then, leech "MacLennan", who would know that better
than you?

(Of course, the "wilhelp" parasites will deny that;
it's a rare human leech who does not try to wriggle out
of responsibility for his actions--even though the fake
"wilhelp" may be visible at the top of his post as he
blathers his dishonest and illogical defense!)

[The rest of leech "MacLennan"'s feeble and dishonest attempt
to rationalize his parasitism and quasi-forgery snipped as
merel representing additional repetitious, self-serving
blather drooled by one of my famous "wilhelp" leeches.]

[...]

--------------------------------------------------------

Keep clickin' on the AUTHENTIC 'wilhelp', folks!
Avoid shabby imitations.

----------------------------------------------------------


Bill Palmer
alt.genius.bill-palmer


Franz Schwarz

unread,
Feb 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/11/98
to

Who are those people who have stolen the Wilhelp name, my good sir?

wil...@ix.netcom.com

unread,
Feb 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/11/98
to

In <6brg1p$b...@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com> Parasite Mike MacLennan
<defame@wilhelp.*expunge.these.fields*.com> writes: [...]

Fruther illogical drivel from "wilhelp" parasite and
quasi-forger "MacLennan" trying hard to justify his
leech-like behavior.

Forgery isn't a joke; neither is any quasi-forgery
aimed at deceiving readers.


>
>> >> Where did you find the "wilhelp", MacLemon?

[...]

>> >> >> This is just exactly the sort of thing I have been
>> >> >> complaining of. A malicious misfit makes light of
>> >> >> a full, technical forgery by creating a quasi-forgery
>> >> >> posting that is almost as egregious (Note that he left
>> >> >> out the "ix"!) as the actual forgery I was objecting

>> >> >> to. Great joke, MacLennan.

>> I every sound reason to be upset by the actual forgeries,
>> AND by the quasi-forgeries which plainy are deceiving
>> readers as much as the full forgeries, leech "MacLennan".
> >

>> >> I have in
>> >> fact posted irrefutable evidence that readers are being
>> >> deceived by "wilhelp" quasi-forgeries into thinking I

>> >> wrote things I didn't.

[...]

>> >You've shown that Legion was decieved. That's reader, singular.

Not at all. Many readers are fooled, at lewast to the point
of starting to read the drivel of you and your fellow parasites.
That of course has been your intentions all along. You can sit
here and argue that lots of people would not mistake an address
of <wil...@netcom.com> for me, for instance, but I know better.

And
>> he
>> >seems to have learned from his error. If there is still any
>> confusion,
>> >he is more than welcome to check dejanews, search for wilhelp@* and
>> >quickly learn the difference between David Kendrick and Bill
Palmer.
>>

>> You've just proven my point, parasite Mike. If an old net-hand


>> like "Legion" has to check Dejanews to find out whether I
>> wrote something or not, then common sense suggests plenty
>> of people are in fact being fooled.

>> Not only "newbies",


>> either; most of us are not inclined--while reading
>> newsgroup messages--to run to Dejanews to see if a
>> poster is authentic.
> >

>> >If any confusion remains I can gladly show Legion, or anyone else
you
>> >may dredge up, the threads where Kendrick announced his intention

>> When you buy a domain name you get a domain name. That's all.
>
>
>You asked where I got the 'wilhelp'. I answered.

You got it from Human Leech Kendrick who claims to have
registered it with the malicious intent of depriving me
of some of my rights and privileges of ownership of my
creation. He's a parasite and so are you, MacLennan.

>Now kindly go fuck
>yourself.

Gosh, it almost sounds like *I* have be following YOU
around as YOUR parasite, imitating YOUR famous screen
name and so on, Leech MacLennan. Wouldn't be jumbling
the situation up in your mind, would you?


>
>> It is debatable whether he could even keep THAT if I challenged

>> Kendrick legally down the road, since I have plenty of record


>> of his publicly stated mischievious motives for his parasitical
>> imitation of my famous creation. The courts tend to take a dim
>> view of things that are done for purely malicious purposes,
>> most ESPECIALLY when the harmful intentions are stated in
>> writing many times in a public forum.
>
>And your proof of owning 'wilhelp' resides exactly where?

Of course, proof rests in the fact that I was the first one in
Usenet to use wilhelp in all the newsgroups where I made it
famous. Further, simply the fact that I made my wilhelp
creation famous (as documented by the thousands of follow-ups
by others to my wilhelp articles) demonstrates my ownership
of my creation for several years running. After all,
in all the time I was using "wilhelp" in my copyrighted
expressions, such as "Keep clickin' on wilhelp, folks!"
not one person challenged my ownership of my famous
creation. Another way of saying it, wilhelp is part
of my copyrighted persona as a writer, and the courts
have ruled that personas are in fact copyrightable.


>>
>> and of course to
>> >http://www.wilhelp.com.
>>
>> That means nothing at all, other than making Human Leech
>> Kendrick's "wilhelp" parasitism certifiable.

>Proof please.
>
>> Dejanews
>> records make it very clear that Human Leech David Kendrick
>> appeared on many threads with me LONG before he started
>> stealing my "wilhelp."
>
>I used wilhelp from 1995-1997 in X-no-archive:yes posts. Prove me
>wrong.
>You can't. Dejanews is not going to be admitted in a court of law.

Stupidist arugment in the world! The net is full of
potential witnesses, people who might not even be fans
of mine but who would, if subpeoned, tell the truth
to get you behind bars as a perjurer--IF you EVER went
into court with such a baldfaced lie, Parasite MacLennan.

Dejanews is only ONE means of verifying my claim on
my "wilhelp" creation. There are a good many others.

>> Further, Dejanews also shows that David Kendrick,
>> our quasi-forger, used "wilhelp" for several months BEFORE


>> he claims to have registered it as his domain name in
>> imitation of my creation, so I am not the least shy about
>> calling him a leech and parasite.

{snip....More drivel from Parasite "MacLennan" trying to argue
that his perjured testimony would get him other than a stiff
prison sentence--if he actually went into a court of law
with the same fibs about my famous "wilhelp" creation
that he has blathered here. And "MacLennan", I would
be sure to be there personally to applaud as they
dragged you away; I don't like parasites and quasi-
forgers like you any better than full forgers.
That you play around with the idea of perjury publicly
here tells me you might someday commit it; if you haven't
already.]

kjetil miasmusson

unread,
Feb 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/12/98
to

Lionel Lauer wrote:
>
> Quoth bl...@azzy.blah (Azzy) :
>
> >Wotan wrote in article <wotanEo...@netcom.com>:
> >> In article <6blf0d$k...@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com>,
> >> <wil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote while drinking:

> >>
> >> > Further, it is interesting to note that
> >> >so far, the only people who have seen fit to make light
> >> >of my concerns about the recent complete forgeries of my
> >> >screen name and address are the "wilhelp" quasi-forgers and
> >> >parasites, like MacLennan here.
> >>
> >> Fuck You Palmjob.

> >>
> >> BTW, wil...@netcom.com is a valid address that anyone can get if YOU do
> >> not already have it.
> >
> >Same with wil...@every-other-isp-in-the-universe.com
> >
> >I really really hope this whole 'wilhelp' thing is just a joke for
> >Palmjob... a longwinded and dumb troll... I really want to think that
> >this is what it is.. Anything to keep from accepting the horrid truth
> >that there is a living breathing 'human' (arguable) out there who is
> >actually this obsessed over something SO outrageous and SO frivilous...
> >I want to believe that this isn't possible. I really do.
>
> Sorry, you're out of luck on that on.
> He really *does* care about that trivia like that.
>

Who is this wilhelp person we are taliking about?

-----kjetil


Lionel Lauer

unread,
Feb 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/12/98
to

Quoth wil...@ix.netcom.com () :

>Even so, there will other people, not very familiar with my
>writing but who want to read something by Bill Palmer, whom

*blink*

Name one person on Usenet who *wants* to read your stuff.

Lionel.
--
W Lionel Lauer - Now demunged for your emailing pleasure.

Roger Williams

unread,
Feb 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/12/98
to

Lionel Lauer <nos...@sexzilla.net> wrote:
> Quoth wil...@ix.netcom.com () :

> >Even so, there will other people, not very familiar with my
> >writing but who want to read something by Bill Palmer, whom

> *blink*

> Name one person on Usenet who *wants* to read your stuff.

Steve Boursy. And vice versa.

--
"On top of that, there are a great many people who
enjoy reading Steve Boursy's articles. I am but
one of them."

Biil Palmjob getting his knees dirty in msg ID
<68flmo$i...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>

Lionel Lauer

unread,
Feb 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/12/98
to

Quoth kjetil miasmusson <mia...@wanax.se> :

*Shhhhhhh!* If you're very lucky, he won't tell you.

<tiptoes quietly away from the thread...>

wil...@penis.com

unread,
Feb 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/12/98
to

In article <3501c14e...@news.bungmunch.edu>,

the2belo@wilhelp!com wrote:
>
> This just in from wil...@ix.netcom.com () by direct wire:
>
> >In <6bns2j$h...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> Mike MacLennan
> ><defame@wilhelp.*expunge.these.fields*.com> writes:
> >
> >Where did you find the "wilhelp
>
> Biil, PLEASE... give it a REST.
>

Listen you crespucular cretin, I demand to know where you found
that wilhelp ov mine. Its my intellectual property, not to be
abused by parasites unfit to be vomited upon by roaches, unlike
yours truly. *SMAK*SMAK*SMEK*

--->no footer<--->lsl labs<--->no footer<--->lsl labs<---

-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet

wil...@ix.netcom.com

unread,
Feb 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/12/98
to

In <34e84215...@enews.newsguy.com> nos...@sexzilla.net (Lionel
Lauer) writes:
>
>Quoth wil...@ix.netcom.com () :

>
>>Even so, there will other people, not very familiar with my
>>writing but who want to read something by Bill Palmer, whom
>
>*blink*
>
>Name one person on Usenet who *wants* to read your stuff.

Bitterness, Lionel, it will eat your heart out sooner
or later. Fact is, I don't need to "name" anyone who
"wants to read my stuff". If you will start checking
through Dejanews, you will find irrefutable evidence of
literally several thousand people who not only have
"read my stuff" but have followed me up.

Based on conventional means of estimating ratios for
"readers-to-followers-up", that indicates many, many
thousands of people read my articles regularly. On
the other hand, if you want to think that people would
pass up a twenty new "wilhelps" to read one "genuine
Lionel", you are welcome to your own illusions.

By the way, the fact that I never heard of YOU until
YOU followed ME up on this thread says something too.
Only please spare me the weasly, "I don't read you, I
just follow you up." I know better. It's an excuse
of the feeble and it insults the intelligence. I mean,
hey, let's ALL start following up people we don't read,
just to "improve the newsgroup chaos"! Right, Lionel?

Lional Lauer
Under wilhelp power,
Can't help but lookin'
Just to see what's cookin'...

wil...@ix.netcom.com

unread,
Feb 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/12/98
to

In <6bu0td$f...@enews1.newsguy.com> Cockroach Roger Wemyss

<rog...@shell1.tiac.net> aka "Cockroach Roger Williams" writes:
>
>Lionel Lauer <nos...@sexzilla.net> wrote:
>> Quoth wil...@ix.netcom.com () :
>
>> >Even so, there will other people, not very familiar with my
>> >writing but who want to read something by Bill Palmer, whom
>
>> *blink*
>
>> Name one person on Usenet who *wants* to read your stuff.
>
> Steve Boursy. And vice versa.

Cockroach Roger Wemyss (aka Cockroach Roger Wemyss) certainly
gives every indication of being a big reader of mine. He has
followed up my original articles on countless occasions, and
he often posts on threads that *I* start. Further, he has
frequently boasted of having a website dedicated to me.

Conversely, it is rarely, if ever, that I have followed up an
original "thread-starter" by Roach Rog. Rog currently ranks
as one of the top five "Bill Palmer's parasites". It is
unlikely that he EVER misses a post by me, despite his
whines.

Bill Palmer
alt.genius.bill-palmer

wil...@ix.netcom.com

unread,
Feb 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/12/98
to

In <34E26F...@wanax.se> kjetil miasmusson <mia...@wanax.se>
writes:

See Dejanews for "Facts in the Case of Bill Palmer".
>
>-----kjetil

wilhelp
alt.genius.bill-palmer


wil...@ix.netcom.com

unread,
Feb 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/12/98
to

In <34ed9420...@enews.newsguy.com> nos...@sexzilla.net (Lionel
Lauer) writes:
>
>Quoth kjetil miasmusson <mia...@wanax.se> :

>
>>Lionel Lauer wrote:
>>>
>>> Quoth bl...@azzy.blah (Azzy) :
>>>
>>> >Wotan wrote in article <wotanEo...@netcom.com>:
>>> >> In article <6blf0d$k...@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com>,
>>> >> <wil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote while drinking:
>>> >>
>>> >> > Further, it is interesting to note that
>>> >> >so far, the only people who have seen fit to make light
>>> >> >of my concerns about the recent complete forgeries of my
>>> >> >screen name and address are the "wilhelp" quasi-forgers and
>>> >> >parasites, like MacLennan here.

>>> >> BTW, wil...@netcom.com is a valid address that anyone can get


if YOU do
>>> >> not already have it.
>>> >
>>> >Same with wil...@every-other-isp-in-the-universe.com
>>> >
>>> >I really really hope this whole 'wilhelp' thing is just a joke for

So why do you have to emulate guttersnipes in insulting
thousands of people named Palmer?

>>> >Palmjob... a longwinded and dumb troll... I really want to think
that
>>> >this is what it is..

There's nothing funny at all about the wilhelp thievery.
I created wilhelp. I worked hard at my craft to make it
the or one of the most recognizeable names on the net.
I made wilhelp synonymous with entertaining writing,
and that is the ONLY reason the wilhelp forgers and
quasi-forgers steal it.

Go back about three years to when I first posted. I was
an unknown just like you. Now, do you REALLY think that
if I would have would have been the writer you enviously
conjure up, a "follow-up failure" who could not interest
readers--that the parasites would have started forging and
quasi-forging "wilhelp"?

Fact is, I can show you posts from the early wilhelp
days where people would tell me my name was ridiculous.
I have record of one saying, "Why don't your get a REAL
screen name?" (I guess the poster thought I should use
"CincMars" or "Scaramouche", something euphonic or
romantic.)

Yet, once my popularity as net writer took me far beyond
what any of us had expected, suddenly everyone wanted to
steal "wilhelp."

Now, I've already made it clear why I object, but I will
repeat, in case you missed that: Up to the point when
Human Leech David Kendrick started to steal my wilhelp
creation, the name had been synonymous with entertaining
writing. Having a few-dozen utterly talentless net
parasites using "wilhelp" cannot help but confuse readers.

The "wilhelp" parasites deny this, but I have seen ample
proof already, and I have in fact posted some of it.
People ARE confused by the quasi forgeries. Many
thousands of net readers associate Bill Palmer and
"wilhelp"; some of them will inevitably read posts
by the parasites, think I worte them, and they will
very likely not read my posts in the future.

That of course, is fine with the parasites. I have
already had occasion to know that the bigger a
parasite of mine gets, the more willingness he
shows toward harming his unwilling "host".

The reason the parasites are not universally condemned
at this time is that they work together to ridicule
my objections to their parasitism. For instance,
just read what "MacLennan" has already posted on
this thread. He is one of my biggest and ugliest
parasites.

"MacLennan" has no talent but for lying, as you have
seen. He has no real net-life for himself outside of
me. The same is true of "Goin Nova", or Louse-monkey
Hausmann. (He and "McLennan write enough alike to be
twins; they may be the same outsized parasite, in fact.)
Hausmann has been one of my biggest leeches for a
couple of years now.

The biggest "Bill Palmer's parasite" is Human Leech
David Kendrick. He is dirty tricks personified;
he is as low as it is possible to get in cyberspace.
Anyway, don't be fooled when these bloodsuckers
tell you it's all good fun. It isn't.

To understand the parasitism of the above, understand
that they have followed up hundreds of my original
articles. I have followed up almost none of theirs
for the obvious reason that they have no talent and
nothing of interest to say, outside of "Bill Palmer".


Anything to keep from accepting the horrid truth
>>> >that there is a living breathing 'human' (arguable) out there who
is
>>> >actually this obsessed over something SO outrageous and SO
frivilous...

Nothing "frivilous" about working hard to become the
most popular writer in the net and having your name-
creation stolen by a bunch of no-talent parasites, who
were almost totally obscure until they attached
themselves to me with their "wilhelp" thievery
and other bloodsucking behaviors.

>>> >I want to believe that this isn't possible. I really do.

Sure, because a few-dozen wilhelp parasites convinced
you--against all logic--that their thievery is all
a big joke. Far from it.


>>>
>>> Sorry, you're out of luck on that on.
>>> He really *does* care about that trivia like that.

When a "wilhelp" parasite such as yourself steals the
most famous screen name on the net in order to confuse
and then calls the name he steals "triva" I am reminded
of the sentenced car thief who wails to his fellow
jail bird, "Damn, man, the judge gave me three years
for stealing that piece of shit car--can you believe
it?" Fact is, you and the other "wilhelp" parasites
are an unsually low breed. IF you had anything at
all going for yourselves, you wouldn't be forced to
do quasi-forgeries of my creations in order to
deceive my readers.


>>>
>>
>>Who is this wilhelp person we are taliking about?
>

>*Shhhhhhh!* If you're very lucky, he won't tell you.
>
><tiptoes quietly away from the thread...>
>
>Lionel.

wilhelp
alt.genius.bill-palmer

Roger Williams

unread,
Feb 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/12/98
to

wil...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> In <6bu0td$f...@enews1.newsguy.com> Cockroach Roger Wemyss
> <rog...@shell1.tiac.net> aka "Cockroach Roger Williams" writes:
> >
> >Lionel Lauer <nos...@sexzilla.net> wrote:
> >> Quoth wil...@ix.netcom.com () :
> >
> >> >Even so, there will other people, not very familiar with my
> >> >writing but who want to read something by Bill Palmer, whom
> >
> >> *blink*
> >
> >> Name one person on Usenet who *wants* to read your stuff.
> >
> > Steve Boursy. And vice versa.

> Cockroach Roger Wemyss (aka Cockroach Roger Wemyss) certainly
> gives every indication of being a big reader of mine. He has
> followed up my original articles on countless occasions, and
> he often posts on threads that *I* start. Further, he has
> frequently boasted of having a website dedicated to me.

Ayup. Recognized by Yahoo! as *the* authoritative site for information
about you, Spunky. http://www.parrot.net/pfaq.htm

Funny; I don't see your lumbering FAQ anywhere in there, Binky.
Now why do you suppose that is, beyond the obvious FAQ that your
status as a "writer" goes no further than the tiny confines of your
mollusc-like mind?

<space reserved for Palmjism's whimpering and sour grapes>

>
> Conversely, it is rarely, if ever, that I have followed up an
> original "thread-starter" by Roach Rog. Rog currently ranks
> as one of the top five "Bill Palmer's parasites". It is
> unlikely that he EVER misses a post by me, despite his
> whines.

Yup. Where else can you find free manure produced by the megaton?
Christ, you've made a career on spewing out ton after ton of horseshit,
and let's face it, some farmers pay a premium price for it. They're even
willing to overlook that fact that some sheep were... "harmed" ... in the
manufacture of it.

> Bill Palmer
> alt.genius.bill-palmer
> >
> >--
> >"On top of that, there are a great many people who
> >enjoy reading Steve Boursy's articles. I am but
> >one of them."
> >
> >Biil Palmjob getting his knees dirty in msg ID
> >
> <68flmo$i...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>
> >
> >


--
As Marquez knows very well, I have for one year been the
target of a massive Unenet defamation operation carried
out by Joe Sexton, Roger Wemyss (who runs libel campaigns
under the fake name "Roger Wemyss")

-Biil Palmjob, usenet's biggest retard, gibbering incomprehensibly in
message-ID: <66uoqi$6...@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>