Vote Now - Resolve The KLOB Issue

0 views
Skip to first unread message

haunte...@hotmail.com

unread,
Jun 6, 2005, 5:28:26 PM6/6/05
to
It strikes me that KLOB will keep putting his friends on the spot,
knowing that they dare not publicly express unflattering opinions.

So vote now and let's find out whether AHC think KLOB is a compulsive
liar:

http://pollmonster.freepolls.com/cgi-bin/polls/007/poll_center.htm

People can only vote once; all votes are anonymous and unlogged; any
comments that people wish to add are also anonymous.

haunte...@hotmail.com

unread,
Jun 6, 2005, 6:18:12 PM6/6/05
to
PS. Please note that you are NOT voting on KLOB's sanity, nor to evict
him from AHC, nor should you allow dislike / admiration for KLOB to
affect your decision.

This is purely about whether or not you think that KLOB tells lies.

kevi...@clare.ltd.new.net

unread,
Jun 6, 2005, 10:58:20 PM6/6/05
to
One of the comments made by a member who participated in the poll:

"HauntedRiver ASKED me via e-mail to vote against Kevin here, and I can
provide the list of addresses to which the e-mail was CC'd. Do people
want me to post the e-mail to ACH?"

People can verify that this is a real comment by going to

http://pollmonster.freepolls.com/cgi-bin/pollresults/007/comments.html

I for one would like to see that email, so yes please post it, but for
now leave out the addresses it was sent to; just post the message
itself.

Kevin L. O'Brien

haunte...@hotmail.com

unread,
Jun 7, 2005, 3:34:37 AM6/7/05
to

This is a lie. I have removed Kevin's comment. No doubt he is unhappy
at not being able to post multipe votes, or with the way that the
auction is going, hence this new lie.

I have emailed no one about this poll whatsoever. O'Brien is welcome to
publish any proof he has - complete with any alleged headers - and I
will then prove it to be yet another fraudulent O'Brien document.

Edward P. Berglund

unread,
Jun 7, 2005, 6:48:55 AM6/7/05
to

<haunte...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118093306.8...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Get a life!

epb


Compet...@gmail.com

unread,
Jun 7, 2005, 8:38:36 AM6/7/05
to
No you idiot. Kevin did not post that comment. I did to get a rise out
of both of you. I wish you'd both just shut the fuck up about each
other.

kevi...@clare.ltd.new.net

unread,
Jun 7, 2005, 9:04:42 AM6/7/05
to
haunte...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> This is a lie. I have removed Kevin's comment.
>

I did not make that comment and Barker has no proof that I did, so that
makes him the liar. Again.

Besides, common sense would argue against it. If I had created this
lie, I wouldn't publicly ask that the email be reproduced on AHC.

>
> No doubt he is unhappy at not being able to post multipe votes . . .
>

I haven't voted at all, nor do I plan to.

>
> . . . or with the way that the auction is going, hence this new lie.
>

I would be lying if I said I had no interest in the results or the
comments made, but being as this post will resolve nothing, except
prove yet again how pathetic Barker is and the lengths he will go to
denigrate a hated enemy, I have no reason to lie in this manner.
However, Barker has a vested interest in seeing the vote go against me,
so I readily believe he would in fact urge people to vote against me.

>
> I have emailed no one about this poll whatsoever.
>

I of course have no control over whether the person who really made the
comment lied, but now that Barker has shown both the ability and
eagerness to alter the results of the poll, it strengthens that
person's claim that he tried to influence the vote. And if Barker can
go in and erase comments, what's to stop him from going in and changing
other things as well, such as the actual voting results? Barker would
have been better off leaving the comment in place, because now he has
tainted the results with the suspicion that he is changing them to
create the outcome he wants.

>
> O'Brien is welcome to publish any proof he has. . . .
>

Since I did not make the comment I have no proof to publish, but
hopefully now the person who really made the comment will post the
email he received from Barker.

Kevin L. O'Brien

haunte...@hotmail.com

unread,
Jun 7, 2005, 10:03:21 AM6/7/05
to
And you are who precisely?

Fair enough if you want to disagree with me, I certainly don't mind
that. But I strongly object to your telling lies about my having
lobbied anyone to vote against KLOB, because I certainly did not.
Indeed, your lie was far worse an offence than any irritation I may
have caused you.

I wouldn't invent a lie against you just to stir up trouble - so what
gives you the right to invent a lie against me? It only served to
worsen the situation.

PS. In the absence of your real identity, you still might be KLOB
playing games. Sorry, but it has to be said.

kevi...@clare.ltd.new.net

unread,
Jun 7, 2005, 10:45:21 AM6/7/05
to
Compet...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> No you idiot. Kevin did not post that comment. I did to get a rise out
> of both of you. I wish you'd both just shut the fuck up about each
> other.
>

There is only one thing worse than two people having a flamewar, and
that is a third person fanning the flames. I only posted your comment
because you said you had proof that Barker tried to influence the vote.

Now that you have admitted this was a lie, I hereby publicly apologize
to Chris Barker of the Haunted River for having accused him of trying
to influence the vote against me. I also apologize for suggesting that
he would alter the results in his favor.

Kevin L. O'Brien

kevi...@clare.ltd.new.net

unread,
Jun 7, 2005, 12:48:17 PM6/7/05
to
haunte...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> PS. In the absence of your real identity, you still might be KLOB
> playing games.
>

The only problem with that suggestion is that I have never used a
sockpuppet, and I never will. Even when I use a non de plume like
"biochemborg" I always sign my real name to every post. I don't even
try to disguise my email address, despite the amount of spam I receive.

I do not play games, despite what a certain barking toad tries to
insinuate.

Kevin L. O'Brien

haunte...@hotmail.com

unread,
Jun 7, 2005, 2:19:48 PM6/7/05
to
Yes, but you do lie an awful lot, which is why most people would not
believe you.

Compet...@gmail.com

unread,
Jun 7, 2005, 6:25:52 PM6/7/05
to
Who am I? My name is Susan Talbot. I am an impartial observer. What
gives me the right to invent a lie against you? The same thing that
gives you the right to be a boorish homophobe. It's my internet
connection.

Compet...@gmail.com

unread,
Jun 7, 2005, 7:00:35 PM6/7/05
to
You know what? Frankie Baby is right. I am no longer responding to you,
Mr. Haunted River. You inquired of all, I responded to you. You
inquired of me personally, I responded to you. That response was/will
be the last. Goodbye troll, may you never again crease my lovely
forehead.

kevi...@clare.ltd.new.net

unread,
Jun 8, 2005, 12:29:44 AM6/8/05
to
haunte...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> Yes, but you do lie an awful lot, which is why most people would not
> believe you.
>

You are the only person who accuses me of this crap, so it is more
properly stated that YOU do not believe me. And based on the comments
people have posted, most of them do not care whether you believe me or
not.

Kevin L. O'Brien

C.S.Strowbridge

unread,
Jun 8, 2005, 3:10:10 AM6/8/05
to
kevi...@clare.ltd.new.net wrote:
> haunte...@hotmail.com wrote:

>>Yes, but you do lie an awful lot, which is why most people would not
>>believe you.
>
> You are the only person who accuses me of this crap,

Excuse me? Have I not called you a liar in the past? If not, then it was
an oversight on my part, one that I will correct immediately.

You are a liar. In fact, I'm quite sure you are lying about me not
calling you a liar previously.

C.S.Strowbridge

haunte...@hotmail.com

unread,
Jun 8, 2005, 5:47:35 AM6/8/05
to
Well, Susan, you are talking nonsense. You know very little about me,
yet even on the issue of sexual politics, you have misjudged me. I am
no more a homophobe than the Pope is a muslim.

An impartial observer would have carefully analysed the evidence that
Aaron Vanek and I posted in this newsgroup and concluded that KLOB has
been telling lies. Strangely, you ignore this issue, even though it is
the core one, and instead start making ludicrous conjectures about
unimportant peripheral issues.

Ergo, you are far from impartial.

CB

haunte...@hotmail.com

unread,
Jun 8, 2005, 5:58:08 AM6/8/05
to
No, as you admitted only last week in another newsgroup, a good half a
dozen people have accused you of lying. Furthermore, nearly 60% of the
people in this newsgroup believe you are a liar.

It's pretty obvious that not only are you a pathological liar, but that
you are entirely without honour. You would rather compel your very
tolerant friends to publicise their privately raised concerns about
your lying and your mental wellbeing than respect their right to remain
silent. Worse, you are using their silence in a horribly manipulative
way. Yes - you are using them as a human shield, to protect you from
proven allegations that you are a liar.

The fact that this newsgroup does not have a judge who can rule
conclusively on your serial lying and thus eject you is the only reason
why you exist here. Yet despite this apparent triumph, you have a very
sad and lonely prospect ahead of you. No one seriously believes your
duplicitous protestations, no one, not even your closest friends, but
you will no doubt go on for an eternity stupidly arguing your
innocence, until there will be nothing left of you but an empty,
embittered husk of a man.

I pity you, KLOB. You had the chance to apologise and no doubt many
people would have respected you for it, but you foolishly decided to
take the same wrong path that Nixon took before you. Your penalty will
be to stagger around the internet carrying a lie-shaped cross on your
back for eternity.

CB

montaguer...@hotmail.com

unread,
Jun 8, 2005, 11:06:05 AM6/8/05
to

haunte...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Well, Susan, you are talking nonsense. You know very little about me,
> yet even on the issue of sexual politics, you have misjudged me. I am
> no more a homophobe than the Pope is a muslim.
>
> CB

He's not???????

Next you'll be tellin' me Isherwood ain't Christ, eh?

kevi...@clare.ltd.new.net

unread,
Jun 8, 2005, 11:26:44 AM6/8/05
to
C.S.Strowbridge wrote:
>
> Excuse me? Have I not called you a liar in the past?
>

Try to improve your reading comprehension. I said "accuses"; that's
present tense. Yes, you and a few others have accused (past tense) me
of being a liar in the past, but presently none of you do it, hence
Barker is the only person who does it now.

And I suspect the rest of you stopped when you realized that, as with
Barker, no one cares what you two think of me.

>
> You are a liar.
>

You say that only because you are a netkook like Barker.

>
> In fact, I'm quite sure you are lying about me not calling you a liar
> previously.
>

Try to improve your reading comprehension. Nowhere did I say, "CS
Strowbridge never called me a liar," or even "No one else has ever
called me a liar." What I said was, "You [Barker] are the only one who
accuses [present tense] me of this crap."

Kevin L. O'Brien

kevi...@clare.ltd.new.net

unread,
Jun 8, 2005, 11:48:35 AM6/8/05
to
haunte...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> No, as you admitted only last week in another newsgroup, a good half a
> dozen people have accused you of lying.
>

Try to improve your reading comprehension. I said "You are the only
person who accuses [present tense] me of this crap." And that's true.
Of all the people who have accused [past tense] me of lying in the
past, none of them do it anymore, most likely because they learned what
you refuse to learn: no one cares. So, you are the only one who
accuses [present tense] me of this crap, as I said.

>
> Furthermore, nearly 60% of the
> people in this newsgroup believe you are a liar.
>

No, nearly 60% (25) of the 43 people who voted said I was a liar. The
membership of AHC is not limited to these 43 people but exceeds 100, so
you lie when you equate these 43 with the newsgroup as a whole. And
only in Barkerville could 25 out of a 100+ be considered nearly 60
percent; in the real world it isn't.

On top of that, your poll cannot distinguish between people who
genuinely believe I am a liar from those who call me that out of spite
or simply because they are angry that I defend myself and others
against your vitriol.

>
> It's pretty obvious that not only are you a pathological liar, but that
> you are entirely without honour. You would rather compel your very
> tolerant friends to publicise their privately raised concerns about
> your lying and your mental wellbeing than respect their right to remain
> silent. Worse, you are using their silence in a horribly manipulative
> way. Yes - you are using them as a human shield, to protect you from
> proven allegations that you are a liar.
>

And you are a despicable liar who takes advantage of the silence of my
friends to claim they agree with you when they do not. Only in
Barkerville is the fact that they will not contradict you in public
considered to be proof that they think I am a pathological liar and
mentally unhinged.

>
> No one seriously believes your duplicitous protestations, no one, not

> even your closest friends. . . .
>

Despicable, hate-filled liar.

>
> . . . Nixon . . .
>

Your constant reference to Nixon is ironic, considering that he too
appealed to a "silent majority" for support. You use the fact that my
friends will not stand up to you publicly in the same way.

Kevin L. O'Brien

Mike Tice

unread,
Jun 8, 2005, 12:38:07 PM6/8/05
to

> And I suspect the rest of you stopped when you realized that, as with
> Barker, no one cares what you two think of me.

Speaking for myself, it has become so well-established that Mr. O'Brien
has lied and compounded his lies on several occasions that it is no
longer an open topic of discussion. Moreover, his dishonorable nature
and failure to apologize for his baseless accusations against me have
set him so far outside the bounds of polite discourse that I shun him
as much as possible, replying (as now) with only the greatest
reluctance.

I confess I had harbored the vain hope that, like matter and
antimatter, Mr. O'Brien and Mr. Barker would touch each other and
simultaneously vanish in a brief, but very energetic, explosion.
Unfortunately, it has become painfully obvious that they are far too
similar to be polar opposites. Consequently, the problem has become at
least twice as bad.

--Mike

montaguer...@hotmail.com

unread,
Jun 8, 2005, 3:04:33 PM6/8/05
to
Waaaaaaayyyy toooo goooo Keeeeeev!!!!!!!!!!!

In my humble opinion your best starting point is a definition!!

What is a lie??????

Oh, yes, the truth in masquerade!!!!

Over half the people who voted thought you were a liar? Damn fools - I
didn't bloody think it old mate....I know!!!!

Like to see what I can post, old son?

Just give me the nod, an' every SOB will know exactly what's what.

Take a gentle stepback from it all, take your head out your ass, and
look around at the real world.

God, why can't you leave it? Why can't you leave people to post in the
groups they have an interest in?

You keep flaming abgf, why? - Do you know about the genre? If so who
wrote the ghost story "CROSSING THE LINE"?

Its a basic question - what the Hell's the answer?

Don't know?

What a bloody surprise!

Ghosts ain't your thing - but you'll tell us all the name of the kid
who sat next to Lovecraft at school?

Won't you?

Oh dear.....?

haunte...@hotmail.com

unread,
Jun 8, 2005, 3:15:19 PM6/8/05
to
I commend your first paragraph for its accuracy and succinctness, but
you have I fear lost the plot in your second.

I do not tell lies. I am not a liar. But I am tenacious and possibly
overly antagonistic. However, KLOB and John Pelan have both told lies
about me, and I'm afraid that that overrides any concern I may feel for
wider newsgroup issues. Having proved that they lied, I simply expect
them to behave with adult maturity, and either apologise, or else slink
away quietly, never to bother me again.

You must know that if you give in to a liar or a bully that they will
quickly reoffend. You can't just collectively ignore the KLOB problem,
or blame me for trying to obtain an apology, because he will do it
again...and again...and again. He's lied about you, he's lied about C S
Strowbridge, he's lied about Aaron Vanek, he's lied about me.....isn't
it about time that you all ganged-up on him and made him stop?

I've posted in many newsgroups without encountering problems. It's only
when I meet the likes of O'Brien and similar deluded 'unprofessionals'
that I encounter conflict - and it's invariably because I challenge
their hypocrisy or duplicity.

* Ramsey Campbell - hates me because I challenged the nepotism that
earns him so many genre awards, and dared to criticise his clumsy,
derivative prose style
* The Rodens and Pardoes - hate me because I query the
conflicts-of-interest in their 'ownership' of genre societies and
because I believe that M R James (their idol) fought sexual attraction
to adolescent men
* Pelan hates me because I've exposed him as a liar and a hypocrite, an
abuser of his postion at the HWA, and a malicious internet bully
* Jessica Salmonson - hates me because she fell for one of my hoaxes
and because I've exposed her as a horribly malicious coward who uses
sock puppets to post the vilest of allegations against her enemies

Spot a pattern here? Could it be that these people are all business
cronies whose careers and livelihoods depend on robustly rejecting any
percieved criticism? Hence the concerted 'Demonise Chris Barker'
campaign that you have been foolish enough to fall for.

In 2003 two outstanding collections of weird stories were authored by
new British writers on the scene. One was THE WHITE HANDS by Mark
Samuels, one was THE DREAMS OF CARDINAL VITTORINI by Reggie Oliver. The
British Fantasy Society - of which Ramsey Campbell is President -
completely ignored Reggie Oliver's book when it came to award
nominations for Best Collection of the year, and worse still, promptly
overlooked Mark Samuel's collection to hand the award to - yupp, you've
guessed it - their President Ramsey Campbell.

When I raised concern over this issue - citing nepotism and / or poor
award processes as the two chief failings of the awards process -
several people agreed with me. In response, RC and company promptly set
about demonising me in a blatant attempt to derail the discussion. And
it worked. People who would have liked to discuss these issues - along
with asking questions about the conflict of interest between the
Roden's ownership of The Ashtree Press and their unelected control over
the Ghost Story Society - were quickly and firmly deterred from doing
so. This is despite that fact that there has been very recent
discussion within the BFS about the failings of the awards process. But
in such a small genre, it would be unwise to offend those who control
the power. The Rodens, Pelan and Campbell know this, which is why they
succeed in surrounding themselves with obsequious courtiers and
lickspittles, and why they so ruthlessly attack anyone who dare rock
the boat.

But don't just take my word for it. Click below to access a post in
which the founder of the BFS expresses unequivocal disgust at the way
that the BFS is now being run:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/433448c864252c0b?hl=en

(I myself attended the very same convention and have been saying the
very same thing about the BFS for a few years now. However, Pelan,
Roden, Campbell et al kept fobbing me off for ages, trying to suggest
that I was an isolated voice, and that I was exaggerating the issues.
It was only by chance that I discovered the above post a year or two
ago, thus fully vindicating everything I had said. And although it is
now seven years on, the BFS has not changed, it has got worse, and the
same people are still there, all busily feathering their own nests.)

haunte...@hotmail.com

unread,
Jun 8, 2005, 3:46:15 PM6/8/05
to
Mr James, aren't you a bit late in once again gracing us with your
presence? A certain Mr Jackson was counting on you to appear as a
character witness in his trial, but I fear you have arrived a day or
two late.......

montaguer...@hotmail.com

unread,
Jun 8, 2005, 5:10:57 PM6/8/05
to
Perhaps, but I've always been a great believer in the concept of better
late than never!

And I have to say, if you have any awareness of my "creative" work, it
should read schools out, and not "two" late - but TOO LATE!!!!!

I would stress at this point, perhaps sadly, those Eaton Schooldays
always ensured a peaceful time, for me at any rate, a time when it was
possible to show off the Golden Carp in the ponds towards the rear of
the playing fields, and soak up the ivy creeping up the exterior walls
of the south wing.

It is and was wonderful to fill the role of avocatus diaboli -

a sort of KLOB without warning (if that makes any sense at all?)

C.S.Strowbridge

unread,
Jun 8, 2005, 5:49:35 PM6/8/05
to
kevi...@clare.ltd.new.net wrote:
> C.S.Strowbridge wrote:

>>Excuse me? Have I not called you a liar in the past?
>
> Try to improve your reading comprehension. I said "accuses"; that's
> present tense. Yes, you and a few others have accused (past tense) me
> of being a liar in the past, but presently none of you do it, hence
> Barker is the only person who does it now.
>
> And I suspect the rest of you stopped when you realized that, as with
> Barker, no one cares what you two think of me.

'You two?' Even if that's 'you two' plus Barker you are underestimating
the number of people that think you are a liar.

>>You are a liar.
>
> You say that only because you are a netkook like Barker.

No, I only say that because it has been reasonably proven that you lie.
At least as much as anything on Usenet can be proven.

>>In fact, I'm quite sure you are lying about me not calling you a liar
>>previously.
>
> Try to improve your reading comprehension. Nowhere did I say, "CS
> Strowbridge never called me a liar," or even "No one else has ever
> called me a liar."

That was the obvious implication. You were trying to convinence HR that
the problems between you two are somehow unique. Because you don't have
these problems with other people you must be the innocent victim in all
of this.

I know this because you tried the same line on me, just like you've used
it on others.

> What I said was, "You [Barker] are the only one who
> accuses [present tense] me of this crap."

That's because nearly everyone everyone else has given up on you. You
are being plonked by those who are technically your ally in your flame
war with HR. If that doesn't tell you that you're a wrong, or at the
very least going about this the wrong, nothing will.

C.S.Strowbridge

kevi...@clare.ltd.new.net

unread,
Jun 8, 2005, 6:06:22 PM6/8/05
to
Mike Tice wrote:
>
> Speaking for myself, it has become so well-established that Mr. O'Brien
> has lied and compounded his lies on several occasions that it is no
> longer an open topic of discussion.
>

Correction: People like you who, for whatever petty personal reason,
took an instant dislike to me and attacked me whenever you could, have
lived the lie that I am deceitful for so long you cannot recant without
serious loss of face, so you just perpetuate the lie.

>
> Moreover, his dishonorable nature
> and failure to apologize for his baseless accusations against me . . .
>

Liar. My only "accusations" were to point out that you lied about the
contents of an issue of *Nature* you claimed to have in your possession
and to point out that your lack of knowledge regarding scientific
literature and databases did not qualify you to state with any
authority whether biologists preferentially used "viri" instead of
"viruses". As I recall, at the time, you implied you had such
expertise, even though you never detailed your qualifications. Just
recently, though, we find out from John Pelan that you are actually the
coach of a professional ball team and thus have no scientific expertise
whatsoever. See

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.collecting.books/msg/7f75a22e05c67fa2?hl=en

So I stand by my "accusations" and will not apologize for speaking the
truth.

Kevin L. O'Brien

C.S.Strowbridge

unread,
Jun 8, 2005, 6:08:50 PM6/8/05
to
haunte...@hotmail.com wrote:

> But I am tenacious and possibly overly antagonistic.

Wow is that an understatement. Toning down your antagonism would really
help the overall tone of the NG. Plus, if people don't like your tone
they won't be receptive to your message.

C.S.Strowbridge

kevi...@clare.ltd.new.net

unread,
Jun 8, 2005, 6:19:30 PM6/8/05
to
C.S.Strowbridge wrote:
>
> 'You two?' Even if that's 'you two' plus Barker you are underestimating
> the number of people that think you are a liar.
>

Yet you do not deny the point I made and instead try to avoid it with
one of your characteristic red herrings.

>
> No, I only say that because it has been reasonably proven that you lie.
>

Deliberately conflating accusations with proof is a characteristic of a
netkook. As I've pointed out before, you've always done an excellent
imitation of of one, but I think that's because you are one.

>
> That was the obvious implication. You were trying to convinence HR that
> the problems between you two are somehow unique. Because you don't have
> these problems with other people you must be the innocent victim in all
> of this.
>

More red herrings. I meant nothing of the kind, as you well know. I
meant exactly what I said: Barker is the only person who accuses
[present tense] me of crap like being a liar, because he is the only
person who refuses to learn that people on AHC do not care whether I am
a liar or not.

>
> I know this because you tried the same line on me, just like you've used
> it on others.
>

And it was true. At the time you were the only person who called me a
liar, and you subsequently stopped when you got no support from the
group at large. Because they don't care.

>
> That's because nearly everyone everyone else has given up on you.
>

Liar.

>
> You
> are being plonked by those who are technically your ally in your flame
> war with HR.
>

Liar.

>
> If that doesn't tell you that you're a wrong, or at the
> very least going about this the wrong, nothing will.
>

Sorry if I do not take your word for anything you say.

Kevin L. O'Brien

Mike Tice

unread,
Jun 8, 2005, 6:58:34 PM6/8/05
to
haunte...@hotmail.com wrote:
> I commend your first paragraph for its accuracy and succinctness, but
> you have I fear lost the plot in your second.
>
> I do not tell lies. I am not a liar.

I did not mean to imply anything specific by calling you two 'similar'.

> Having proved that they lied, I simply expect
> them to behave with adult maturity, and either apologise, or else slink
> away quietly, never to bother me again.

Mr. O'Brien has already shown himself incapable of decent behavior,
notwithstanding the expectations of polite society.

> He's lied about you, he's lied about C S
> Strowbridge, he's lied about Aaron Vanek, he's lied about me.....isn't
> it about time that you all ganged-up on him and made him stop?

How, pray tell, could the actions of any individual or gang 'make him
stop' without resorting to physical violence?

He is manifestly immune to reason, etiquette and even the entreaties of
his friends. I'm not sure why you took the time to offer me a lengthy
biography of your byzantine internet squabblings, but the fact that
these squabblings continue to the present day amply demonstrates that
your ability to 'make people stop' is negligible.

My own solution is not perfect, but I encourage you to adopt it.
Imagine Mr. O'Brien as a small, ill-mannered cur at a cocktail party.
Yes, he's unpleasant, yappy, impolite, likely to soil the carpet or pee
on your leg (or hump it, if he thinks he can curry favor). Your
current solution is to grab a poker from beside the fireplace and chase
the cur around the room, upsetting drinks, bumping into people,
damaging the furniture and shouting down the scintillating
conversation. Such violent activity spoils the line of your evening
clothes and musses your hair into a lunatic tangle. It is in this
sense that you two are similar. Neither a despicable animal nor a
frothing madman is welcome at a cocktail party.
Rather, you should studiously ignore the contemptible brute unless he's
just sunk his teeth into your shin. In which case, a short sharp kick
to his fundament is sufficient to drive him off yapping, while the
other guests will eye you with grateful approbation.

--Mike

Mike Tice

unread,
Jun 8, 2005, 7:32:44 PM6/8/05
to

> > Moreover, his dishonorable nature
> > and failure to apologize for his baseless accusations against me . . .
> >
>
> Liar. My only "accusations" were to point out that you lied about the
> contents of an issue of *Nature* you claimed to have in your possession

Many of you will recall that I had a scanned image of that issue of
Nature online within hours of Mr. O'Brien's baseless lies about me.
You can see it here:
http://m.tice.home.comcast.net/images/raw.gif

It clearly shows that Nature uses viruses as the plural of virus,
contrary to both Mr. O'Brien's assertion and his 'testimony' of what he
says he saw with his own eyes. Later, editors at both Nature and
Science confirmed that Mr. O'Brien was lying.

See original posts here, or search alt.horror.cthulhu for
'flaviviruses':
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.horror.cthulhu/browse_frm/thread/df3d314bba6017e1/e3b321ca7efa03bf?hl=en#e3b321ca7efa03bf


> and to point out that your lack of knowledge regarding scientific
> literature and databases did not qualify you to state with any
> authority whether biologists preferentially used "viri" instead of
> "viruses". As I recall, at the time, you implied you had such
> expertise, even though you never detailed your qualifications. Just
> recently, though, we find out from John Pelan that you are actually the
> coach of a professional ball team and thus have no scientific expertise
> whatsoever. See
>
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.collecting.books/msg/7f75a22e05c67fa2?hl=en

I'm afraid Mr. O'Brien is once again in error. I doubt Mr. Pelan was
serious in advancing the theory that my namesake and I are one and the
same person. Only an ignoramus of the magnitude of Mr. O'Brien would
attempt to use that 'fact' to prove that I have no scientific
expertise.
As it happens I hold both a B.S. and M.S. in physics and am
consequently quite familiar with scientific literature and databases.

>So I stand by my "accusations" and will not apologize for speaking the
>truth.

Disinterested parties can see that I have demolished his accusations.
Whether an apology is forthcoming from Mr. O'Brien is entirely up to
him.

--Mike

Franklin Hummel

unread,
Jun 8, 2005, 10:10:59 PM6/8/05
to
kevi...@clare.ltd.new.net wrote:

> C.S.Strowbridge wrote:
> >
> > You
> > are being plonked by those who are technically your ally in your flame
> > war with HR.
>
> Liar.


No, Kevin. No. That is true, Kevin. VERY TRUE.

I happened to be just reading a.h.c on Google Groups, so saw this unplocked post of yours
there. You've been *plocked* in my newsreader, along with HR, so I would not have seen
it otherwise.

You've become as bad as HR, Kevin.

Don't bother to reply, either KOB or HR. I've *plonked* you both.

+++ A plague on both your houses. +++


> > If that doesn't tell you that you're a wrong, or at the
> > very least going about this the wrong, nothing will.
>
> Sorry if I do not take your word for anything you say.


Stop being clueless and wake up and smell the shit you're creating with HR, Kevin.
You've already have lost friends here; don't lose any more.

But, sadly, you won't listen.

-- Franklin Hummel in Boston, Massachusetts


kevi...@clare.ltd.new.net

unread,
Jun 8, 2005, 11:02:40 PM6/8/05
to
Mike Tice wrote:
>
> Many of you will recall that I had a scanned image of that issue of
> Nature online within hours of Mr. O'Brien's baseless lies about me.
> You can see it here:
> http://m.tice.home.comcast.net/images/raw.gif
>

Only an ignoramus would imply that because one article uses viruses
that no article has ever used viri. I made very clear at that time
that some biologists used viruses, but that most uses viri. So Tice
found one article that used viruses. Big fat hairy deal. In that same
month there were a dozen other articles published in a number of other
journals, including Nature, that used viri. Tice was a liar then and
he is still are a liar now.

>
> It clearly shows that Nature uses viruses as the plural of virus . . .
>

Tice is still lying. It clearly shows that one group of authors used
viruses; that doesn't prove Nature's editorial policy is to use viruses
over viri. In fact they have no such policy.

>
> . . . contrary to both Mr. O'Brien's assertion and his 'testimony' of what he


> says he saw with his own eyes.
>

Tice is still lying. He found one article out of hundreds over at
least a year and claims that contradicts my expertise as a biologist.
No scientist of my acquaitance would draw such a conclusion based one
one datum, but as I said Tice has no scientific expertise.

>
> Later, editors at both Nature and
> Science confirmed that Mr. O'Brien was lying.
>

I happen to know the people who were the editors at that time. I wrote
to them after Tice posted his "confirmation". They informed me they
never heard of him and sent him no emails. The emails he posted were
fraudulant.

>
> I'm afraid Mr. O'Brien is once again in error. I doubt Mr. Pelan was
> serious in advancing the theory that my namesake and I are one and the
> same person.
>

So John lied? Funny how everyone who contradicts Tice is a liar.

>
> Disinterested parties can see that I have demolished his accusations.
>

On the contrary; disinterested parties can see that you lie through
your teeth.

I've had enough of him. He and Barker can go play with each other;
their perfectly made for each other.

Kevin L. O'Brien

John Pelan

unread,
Jun 8, 2005, 11:25:36 PM6/8/05
to
On 8 Jun 2005 20:02:40 -0700, kevi...@clare.ltd.new.net wrote:
>> I'm afraid Mr. O'Brien is once again in error. I doubt Mr. Pelan was
>> serious in advancing the theory that my namesake and I are one and the
>> same person.
>>
>
>So John lied? Funny how everyone who contradicts Tice is a liar.

Uh, Kevin... It was a quip... There is a Mike Tice that *is* the head
coach of the Minnesota Vikings, I don't really think that he and the
Mike Tice of ahc are one and the same...

Cheers,

John

kevi...@clare.ltd.new.net

unread,
Jun 8, 2005, 11:32:37 PM6/8/05
to
John Pelan wrote:
>
> Uh, Kevin... It was a quip... There is a Mike Tice that *is* the head
> coach of the Minnesota Vikings, I don't really think that he and the
> Mike Tice of ahc are one and the same...
>

Very well, I will take your word for it. Thank you for setting the
record straight.

Kevin L. O'Brien

Mike Tice

unread,
Jun 9, 2005, 12:26:18 AM6/9/05
to
kevi...@clare.ltd.new.net stood on its hind legs and yapped,
grotesquely aping the human form:

>yapping snipped

As predicted, much yapping has ensued, displaying a typical mix of
moving the goalposts, unsubstantiated claims, contradicting earlier
statements, imaginary correspondence, libellous lies, putting words in
someone else's mouth and the inability to appreciate or understand
humor. It has proved it is not a man. It is not fit to be recognized
in polite discourse. I urge all and sundry to shun it.

--Mike

C.S.Strowbridge

unread,
Jun 9, 2005, 2:49:39 AM6/9/05
to
kevi...@clare.ltd.new.net wrote:
> Mike Tice wrote:

>>Many of you will recall that I had a scanned image of that issue of
>>Nature online within hours of Mr. O'Brien's baseless lies about me.
>>You can see it here:
>>http://m.tice.home.comcast.net/images/raw.gif
>
> Only an ignoramus would imply that because one article uses viruses
> that no article has ever used viri. I made very clear at that time
> that some biologists used viruses, but that most uses viri. So Tice
> found one article that used viruses. Big fat hairy deal. In that same
> month there were a dozen other articles published in a number of other
> journals, including Nature, that used viri.

<SNIP!>

Funny how you could never prove that. You make a lot of claims during
that debate that you could never prove. Everyone else's research
contracted your claims, but you either still believe you are right or
you are so committed to the lie that it's too late to give up.

>>I'm afraid Mr. O'Brien is once again in error. I doubt Mr. Pelan was
>>serious in advancing the theory that my namesake and I are one and the
>>same person.
>
> So John lied? Funny how everyone who contradicts Tice is a liar.

Wow. ... Just, wow.

You read, "I doubt Mr. Pelan was serious..." and come to the conclusion
that Mike Tice accused John Pelan of lying. It's fucking obvious that
Mike Tice assumed John Pelan of joking. Maybe John Pelan can step in and
confirm his intentions.

>>Disinterested parties can see that I have demolished his accusations.
>
> On the contrary; disinterested parties can see that you lie through
> your teeth.
>
> I've had enough of him. He and Barker can go play with each other;
> their perfectly made for each other.

What? I don't get a mention here?

Anyhoo, it's the AKMMS all over again. You actions drive someone to the
point of madness and you consider it proof that you are the victim of an
insane conspiracy.

C.S.Strowbridge

C.S.Strowbridge

unread,
Jun 9, 2005, 3:42:56 AM6/9/05
to
kevi...@clare.ltd.new.net wrote:
> Mike Tice wrote:

>>Speaking for myself, it has become so well-established that Mr. O'Brien
>>has lied and compounded his lies on several occasions that it is no
>>longer an open topic of discussion.
>
> Correction: People like you who, for whatever petty personal reason,
> took an instant dislike to me

<SNIP!>

Do you pay attention to your posts, or do you type them in a trance?

I ask this cause I have a hard time believing someone could act the way
you do and not expect to generate a certain level of hostility.

> Just
> recently, though, we find out from John Pelan that you are actually the
> coach of a professional ball team and thus have no scientific expertise
> whatsoever. See
>
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.collecting.books/msg/7f75a22e05c67fa2?hl=en
>
> So I stand by my "accusations" and will not apologize for speaking the
> truth.

Since John Pelan as even more recently explained he was joking, do you
stand by your claim that Mike Tice has no scientific background and
can't understand a simple database? Moreso, can you prove that he lied
about the copy of Nature he claimed to own?

C.S.Strowbridge

C.S.Strowbridge

unread,
Jun 9, 2005, 3:44:27 AM6/9/05
to
Mike Tice wrote:

> Many of you will recall that I had a scanned image of that issue of
> Nature online within hours of Mr. O'Brien's baseless lies about me.
> You can see it here:
> http://m.tice.home.comcast.net/images/raw.gif

Obviously that scan is a fake because I know for a fact that viruses,
(or to use the correct term, virii) are not made of of little arrows,
(arrii.)

C.S.Strowbridge

haunte...@hotmail.com

unread,
Jun 9, 2005, 4:55:09 AM6/9/05
to

montaguer...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Waaaaaaayyyy toooo goooo Keeeeeev!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> In my humble opinion your best starting point is a definition!!
>
> What is a lie??????
>
> Oh, yes, the truth in masquerade!!!!
>
> Over half the people who voted thought you were a liar? Damn fools - I
> didn't bloody think it old mate....I know!!!!
>
> Like to see what I can post, old son?
>
> Just give me the nod, an' every SOB will know exactly what's what.

Can I give you the nod?

Post it now, whatever it is, and let's have fireworks early this year.

kevi...@clare.ltd.new.net

unread,
Jun 9, 2005, 6:31:45 AM6/9/05
to
C.S.Strowbridge wrote:
>
> Funny how you could never prove that.
>

No, I did prove it; as usual, you refused to go to the library and read
the proof.

Kevin L. O'Brien

kevi...@clare.ltd.new.net

unread,
Jun 9, 2005, 6:43:24 AM6/9/05
to
C.S.Strowbridge wrote:
>
> . . . I have a hard time believing someone could act the way

> you do and not expect to generate a certain level of hostility.
>

You and Tice and Vanek and Norder, etc., reacted negatively to what I
said, not how I said it; you guys initiated the flamewars by attacking
me because you did not like what I said, not because I attacked you
first. My only fault was that I tried to reason with you guys instead
of simply ignored you, and thereby inadvertantly fueled the flames.

>
> Since John Pelan as even more recently explained he was joking, do you
> stand by your claim that Mike Tice has no scientific background and
> can't understand a simple database?
>

Yes. Tice demonstrated his lack of expertise and understanding when he
tried to argue that scientific databases work the same way that search
engibe databases do; they do not.

>
> Moreso, can you prove that he lied
> about the copy of Nature he claimed to own?
>

[sigh] You really need to work on your reading comprehension. As I
explained the lie was in his presentation of the article as being
representative of the dozen or so articles published at that same time
or the hundred plus articles published over the previous year, when in
fact it wasn't.

As usual, you are up to your old flaming tricks, but this time I refuse
to play. I won't let you sucker me into another of your manufactured
flamewars.

Kevin L O'Brien

C.S.Strowbridge

unread,
Jun 9, 2005, 4:55:02 PM6/9/05
to
kevi...@clare.ltd.new.net wrote:
> C.S.Strowbridge wrote:

No, as I recall you claimed to know of several places where 'virii' was
used. We asked for the names of the journals, the volume, issue, etc.
and the name of the article so we could confirm. You never provided this
information and without said information you don't have proof, you have
merely shifted the burden of responsibility.

As soon as you give this information I will head down to my local
library and look at your evidence. To make an educated guess, Mike Tice
would probably do the same, and possibly others.

<UNSNIP!>

>> You make a lot of claims during that debate that you could never
>> prove. Everyone else's research contracted your claims, but you
>> either still believe you are right or you are so committed to the lie
>> that it's too late to give up.

No comment?

<UNSNIP!>

>>>> I'm afraid Mr. O'Brien is once again in error. I doubt Mr. Pelan
>>>> was serious in advancing the theory that my namesake and I are one
>>>> and the same person.
>>>
>>> So John lied? Funny how everyone who contradicts Tice is a liar.
>>
>> Wow. ... Just, wow.
>>
>> You read, "I doubt Mr. Pelan was serious..." and come to the
>> conclusion that Mike Tice accused John Pelan of lying. It's fucking
>> obvious that Mike Tice assumed John Pelan of joking. Maybe John Pelan
>> can step in and confirm his intentions.

No comment? This is especially important since John Pelan has confirmed
Mike Tice's comment.

C.S.Strowbridge

C.S.Strowbridge

unread,
Jun 9, 2005, 5:05:48 PM6/9/05
to
kevi...@clare.ltd.new.net wrote:
> C.S.Strowbridge wrote:

>>. . . I have a hard time believing someone could act the way
>>you do and not expect to generate a certain level of hostility.
>
> You and Tice and Vanek and Norder, etc., reacted negatively to what I
> said, not how I said it;

Really? Cause I figured out you were a dickhead once you started Stealth
Snipping my posts and pretending what you snipped never existed. In
other words, it was your actions that caused this hostility.

> you guys initiated the flamewars by attacking
> me because you did not like what I said, not because I attacked you
> first. My only fault was that I tried to reason with you guys instead
> of simply ignored you, and thereby inadvertantly fueled the flames.

My god! That's a brilliant plan, ignore people you can't reason with. If
only there was a way to do that now with HR.

>>Since John Pelan as even more recently explained he was joking, do you
>>stand by your claim that Mike Tice has no scientific background and
>>can't understand a simple database?
>
> Yes. Tice demonstrated his lack of expertise and understanding when he
> tried to argue that scientific databases work the same way that search
> engibe databases do; they do not.

And how does it work. And how would the difference between a scientific
database and a search engine produce results that a diametrically
opposed to reality? We asked this in the past and never received a
satisfactory answer.

>>Moreso, can you prove that he lied
>>about the copy of Nature he claimed to own?
>
> [sigh] You really need to work on your reading comprehension. As I
> explained the lie was in his presentation of the article as being
> representative of the dozen or so articles published at that same time
> or the hundred plus articles published over the previous year, when in
> fact it wasn't.

"My only "accusations" were to point out that you lied about the


contents of an issue of *Nature* you claimed to have in your possession"

So by your own words this was not about the representative nature of the
article, but about the contents of said article. And by using, 'claimed'
you are attempting to cast doubt to whether he even owned the issue of
Nature as he said he did.

Hmmm, seems pretty clear to me.

> As usual, you are up to your old flaming tricks, but this time I refuse
> to play. I won't let you sucker me into another of your manufactured
> flamewars.

I don't have to sucker you into a flamewar, you *need* this flamewars to
exist.

C.S.Strowbridge

Franklin Hummel

unread,
Jun 9, 2005, 5:08:52 PM6/9/05
to

"C.S.Strowbridge" <csstro...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:QTRpe.1608626$6l.1264810@pd7tw2no...

> Franklin Hummel wrote:
>> kevi...@clare.ltd.new.net wrote:
>>>C.S.Strowbridge wrote:
>
>>>>You
>>>>are being plonked by those who are technically your ally in your flame
>>>>war with HR.
>>>
>>>Liar.
>>
>> No, Kevin. No. That is true, Kevin. VERY TRUE.
>>
>> I happened to be just reading a.h.c on Google Groups, so saw this unplocked post of
>> yours there. You've been *plocked* in my newsreader, along with HR, so I would not
>> have seen it otherwise.
>
> Thank you. Hopefully he will believe you.

>
>> You've become as bad as HR, Kevin.
>
> I respectively disagree with you here. I honestly believe he was always this bad, or at
> least he's been this bad for as long as I've been a regular poster. It's just that he
> never met an adversary willing to devote as much time and energy as HR is. It's a minor
> point, but one that KLOB thinks is important.

>
>> Stop being clueless and wake up and smell the shit you're creating with HR, Kevin.
>> You've already have lost friends here; don't lose any more.
>>
>> But, sadly, you won't listen.
>
> Nothing more needs to be said.
>
> C.S.Strowbridge


kevi...@clare.ltd.new.net

unread,
Jun 9, 2005, 5:58:01 PM6/9/05
to
I'm sorry, but I have no interest in getting sucked into another one of
your manufactured flamewars.

Kevin L. O'Brien

kevi...@clare.ltd.new.net

unread,
Jun 9, 2005, 6:03:12 PM6/9/05
to

Mike Tice

unread,
Jun 9, 2005, 6:30:22 PM6/9/05
to

C.S.Strowbridge wrote:
> Obviously that scan is a fake because I know for a fact that viruses,
> (or to use the correct term, virii) are not made of of little arrows,
> (arrii.)

Ha! Those are not arrows at all! Before I get into your malicious
verbiage any further, I wish to point out that several prominent (but
terribly shy) virologists precognitively emailed me their support of
anything I might happen to write in the rest of this post. They say it
is their final word, and they will make no further comment on this
matter. I, for one, shall respect their privacy. Furthermore, I note
that my row of stuffed animal friends unanimously concur with their
opinion.
Now to the case at hand. I never claimed that virii are made of
arrows. Indeed, I deny that those shapes are arrows. Although it is
true that I once wrote, "They are arrows," that sentence was written in
the present tense and was only operative during the instant of time
during which those words were being typed by me.
Those objects that you so ignorantly describe as arrows are, in fact,
scientific pointy thingii. A topic you couldn't possibly know anything
about. What sort of scientific training have your eyes had? You
suppose you can just look at a scientific paper and identify shapes?
Who are you going to believe, me or your own two eyes?

--Mike

Aaron Vanek

unread,
Jun 10, 2005, 5:02:51 AM6/10/05
to
Mike Tice wrote:

>Ha! Those are not arrows at all! Before I get into your malicious
>verbiage any further, I wish to point out that several prominent (but
>terribly shy) virologists precognitively emailed me their support of
>anything I might happen to write in the rest of this post. They say it
>is their final word, and they will make no further comment on this
>matter. I, for one, shall respect their privacy. Furthermore, I note
>that my row of stuffed animal friends unanimously concur with their
>opinion.
>Now to the case at hand. I never claimed that virii are made of
>arrows. Indeed, I deny that those shapes are arrows. Although it is
>true that I once wrote, "They are arrows," that sentence was written in
>the present tense and was only operative during the instant of time
>during which those words were being typed by me.
>Those objects that you so ignorantly describe as arrows are, in fact,
>scientific pointy thingii. A topic you couldn't possibly know anything
>about. What sort of scientific training have your eyes had? You
>suppose you can just look at a scientific paper and identify shapes?
>Who are you going to believe, me or your own two eyes?
>
> --Mike
>

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(ha ha ha)

--
Aaron Vanek

Buy my movies at: http://www.lurkerfilms.com

Reviews of my last movie:
http://www.flipsidemovies.com/yellowsign.html
http://www.filmthreat.com/Reviews.asp?Id=4472

"I always knew someone would be killed on our futon,
I just thought it would be you."
--my wife, talking about the futon I sold as set dressing


C.S.Strowbridge

unread,
Jun 10, 2005, 5:24:00 AM6/10/05
to
kevi...@clare.ltd.new.net wrote:

> I'm sorry, but I have no interest in getting sucked into another one of
> your manufactured flamewars.

And just when we are getting to the heart of the matter you pretend to
take the moral high ground and run away.

But I'll sum up all the arguments you snipped and are trying desperately
to ignore. *You are not the victim. Every bit of hostility you receive
in this NG is a direct result of your actions.*

C.S.Strowbridge

kevi...@clare.ltd.new.net

unread,
Jun 10, 2005, 9:05:24 AM6/10/05
to
I'm sorry, but I am not interested in getting sucked into another of
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages