RUSH LIMBAUGH ON LSD - Rack Jite
Rack Jite
the greatest men in Americans History." Rush Limbaugh on LSD - 1/27/99
Boy are conservative grasping at straws hey? :)
Rush probably would have said the same of Joe McCarthy in 1954.
Hell, he probably says the same of Joe McCarthy today! :)
"I suppose I can understand the selfish callous disregard of
conservatives, it's their pride in it that passes me by." Rack Jite
--> The New Conservatively Incorrect at: http:\\rackjite.com <--
Crawdaddy
Rack Jite <rack...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<36b7dfac...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
> "History will show Henry Hyde up there with Abraham Lincoln as one of
> the greatest men in Americans History." Rush Limbaugh on LSD - 1/27/99
>
Well, actually if Mr. Limbaugh said THAT, then I'd have to agree with Mr.
Limbaugh.
If it comes down to the final vote of "conscious", I'm sure that many of
the wiser Democrats will be very "uneasy" about breaking party lines and
voting against Mr.Clinton. Could turn out that supporting Perjury is
something you might want to leave off of your resume. ;-)
BARD
jockstrap. Lincoln was the greatest, even greater than Ali.
BARD
Rack Jite wrote:
>
> "History will show Henry Hyde up there with Abraham Lincoln as one of
> the greatest men in Americans History." Rush Limbaugh on LSD - 1/27/99
>
Tommy Tillman
(But so was Nixon, but we Republicans forced him to leave.... maybe an
object lesson there for Democrats.... it can be done! It only takes
conviction to what is right and wrong.)
Tommy VRWC member
BARD wrote in message <36B016A2...@worldnet.att.net>...
Tommy Tillman
That is not a healthy thing for Liberals to do..... take an aspirin and call
the doctor in the morning.
Tommy VRWC member
Rack Jite wrote in message <36b7dfac...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
cw...@ret.cpo.usn
wrote:
>> "History will show Henry Hyde up there with Abraham Lincoln as one of
>> the greatest men in Americans History." Rush Limbaugh on LSD - 1/27/99
>>
>Limbaugh.
>If it comes down to the final vote of "conscious", I'm sure that many of
>the wiser Democrats will be very "uneasy" about breaking party lines and
>voting against Mr.Clinton. Could turn out that supporting Perjury is
>something you might want to leave off of your resume. ;-)
have stood by this sleaze bag. Those predicting that 2000 will be a
slaughter for Reps are in for a big surprise....
Regards,
average_...@my-dejanews.com
says...
> Yes, and he was Republican too!
>
> (But so was Nixon, but we Republicans forced him to leave....
Nixon was seen as bad for the country.
Clinton is seen as good for it.
> maybe an
> object lesson there for Democrats.... it can be done! It only takes
> conviction to what is right and wrong.)
A conviction they obviously lost by the time of Iran-Contra.
zepp, a weasel
<tmti...@geocities.com> wrote:
>Yes, and he was Republican too!
>
>(But so was Nixon, but we Republicans forced him to leave.... maybe an
>object lesson there for Democrats.... it can be done! It only takes
>conviction to what is right and wrong.)
Takes evidence, Tommy. With Nixon, we had plenty of evidence. With
Clinton, all we have is a cum stain and a bunch of smoke and mirrors.
>
>Tommy VRWC member
>
>BARD wrote in message <36B016A2...@worldnet.att.net>...
>>Agreed. Limbaugh's statement is obscene. Hyde couldn't hold Lincoon's
>>jockstrap. Lincoln was the greatest, even greater than Ali.
>>
>>BARD
>>
>>Rack Jite wrote:
>>>
>>> "History will show Henry Hyde up there with Abraham Lincoln as one of
>>> the greatest men in Americans History." Rush Limbaugh on LSD - 1/27/99
>>>
>>> Boy are conservative grasping at straws hey? :)
>>> Rush probably would have said the same of Joe McCarthy in 1954.
>>> Hell, he probably says the same of Joe McCarthy today! :)
>>>
>>> "I suppose I can understand the selfish callous disregard of
>>> conservatives, it's their pride in it that passes me by." Rack Jite
>>> --> The New Conservatively Incorrect at: http:\\rackjite.com <--
>
>
**********************************************************
Enjoying your Barrium enema, Republicans?
************************************************************
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
Tommy Tillman
<36e5bc68...@news.mindspring.com>...
>On Thu, 28 Jan 1999 10:20:19 -0500, "Tommy Tillman"
><tmti...@geocities.com> wrote:
>
>>Been listening to Rush again, huh?
>>
>>That is not a healthy thing for Liberals to do..... take an aspirin and
call
>>the doctor in the morning.
>
>
>Why do you think we laugh at you so much?
>
If you don't like Him (Rush), then why do you guys listen to him so much.
You know, you guys make a substantial portion of his listening audience.
Tommy VRWC member
> Jim
>
>>Rack Jite wrote in message <36b7dfac...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
>>>"History will show Henry Hyde up there with Abraham Lincoln as one of
>>>the greatest men in Americans History." Rush Limbaugh on LSD - 1/27/99
>>>
>>>Boy are conservative grasping at straws hey? :)
>>>Rush probably would have said the same of Joe McCarthy in 1954.
>>>Hell, he probably says the same of Joe McCarthy today! :)
>
>Ecrasons l'infame
>
>Join The War On Right Wing Ignorance:
>http://clusterone.home.mindspring.com/
>
>========================================================================
>"Dornan/Quayle: Because we're going to get our asses kicked anyway."
>
> -- Zepp's suggested slogan for the Democratic Party's dream GOP Ticket
>========================================================================
Tommy Tillman
Volt...@geocities.com wrote in message
<36e4bbca...@news.mindspring.com>...
>On 28 Jan 1999 04:19:15 GMT, "Crawdaddy" <Craw...@worldnet.att.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Rack Jite <rack...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
>>> "History will show Henry Hyde up there with Abraham Lincoln as one of
>>> the greatest men in Americans History." Rush Limbaugh on LSD - 1/27/99
>>>
>>Limbaugh.
>
>
> -- Stage announcement at Woodstock (69)
>
>>If it comes down to the final vote of "conscious", I'm sure that many of
>>the wiser Democrats will be very "uneasy" about breaking party lines and
>>voting against Mr.Clinton. Could turn out that supporting Perjury is
>>something you might want to leave off of your resume. ;-)
>
>in you Clintonphobes are just whacking off for the amusement of the
>GOP's right wing.
>
"It's not ove till it's over". We are just getting started.
And one Democrat has already voted against party lines even without
listening to the Witnesses.
Tommy VRWC member
Tommy Tillman
<36e6bcac...@news.mindspring.com>...
>On Thu, 28 Jan 1999 10:22:27 -0500, "Tommy Tillman"
><tmti...@geocities.com> wrote:
>
>>Yes, and he was Republican too!
>
>
You wish. Abe Lincoln, a supporter of Adultery, Perjury, and Obstruction
of Justice.
Somehow that doesn't seem real in this universe.
Even if he was, he would RESIGN in the Senate, and walk out, just to make
a point of how callous and hypocritcal the Democratic Party is. Everything
it has stood for, it has abandoned to hang on to Clinton, the very man who
has violated everything the Party stood for. Now your Senators stand with
him, against everything the party stands for.
>>(But so was Nixon, but we Republicans forced him to leave.... maybe an
>>object lesson there for Democrats.... it can be done! It only takes
>>conviction to what is right and wrong.)
>
>Did your Daddy tell you what a poor mistreated person Mr. Nixon was
>Tommy?
>
Nope, I was in college during that time. I felt sorry for Nixon and proud
that the Republicans walked to the WhiteHouse to send him packing.
Too bad the Democrats (except for 1), don't have the guts to cross the line
to do the decent thing.
Tommy VRWC member
> Jim
Tommy Tillman
>On Thu, 28 Jan 1999 10:22:27 -0500, "Tommy Tillman"
><tmti...@geocities.com> wrote:
>
>>Yes, and he was Republican too!
>>
>>object lesson there for Democrats.... it can be done! It only takes
>>conviction to what is right and wrong.)
>
>Clinton, all we have is a cum stain and a bunch of smoke and mirrors.
>>
The stain forced him to admit to the American People that he had lied to
EVERYONE (even under oath) for 7 months (40 Million Dollar waste which he
should pay back).
We have videotaped testimony. We have transcripted testimony. We have
witnesses. We have boxes of UNUSED evidence.
The only thing holding in office is a bunch of GUTLESS WONDERS in the Senate
whose morals are lower than Clintons for keeping him there.
Tommy VRWC member
>>Tommy VRWC member
>>
>>BARD wrote in message <36B016A2...@worldnet.att.net>...
>>>Agreed. Limbaugh's statement is obscene. Hyde couldn't hold Lincoon's
>>>jockstrap. Lincoln was the greatest, even greater than Ali.
>>>
>>>BARD
>>>
>>>Rack Jite wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "History will show Henry Hyde up there with Abraham Lincoln as one of
>>>> the greatest men in Americans History." Rush Limbaugh on LSD - 1/27/99
>>>>
>>>> Boy are conservative grasping at straws hey? :)
>>>> Rush probably would have said the same of Joe McCarthy in 1954.
>>>> Hell, he probably says the same of Joe McCarthy today! :)
>>>>
Rack Jite
<tmti...@geocities.com> wrote:
>If you don't like Him (Rush), then why do you guys listen to him so much.
>You know, you guys make a substantial portion of his listening audience.
>Tommy VRWC member
Its great listening, its kind of like watching the Titanic go down.
And I can't speak for everyone but I have never tasted Snapple Ice
Tea, drank a drop of Florida Orange Juice or bought even one Hooked on
Phonics booklet. :)
Rack Jite
Rochwarg) wrote:
>Limbaugh is such an inept shill for Republican Party, that it's amusing.
>The minute Congress reinstates the Fairness Doctrine, this fat slob's
>shameful career is over.
>Lisa
Never happen. These days fairness is defined as communism. :)
Patrick L. Humphrey
>On Thu, 28 Jan 1999 15:18:47 -0500, "Tommy Tillman"
><tmti...@geocities.com> wrote:
>>If you don't like Him (Rush), then why do you guys listen to him so much.
>>You know, you guys make a substantial portion of his listening audience.
>>Tommy VRWC member
>Its great listening, its kind of like watching the Titanic go down.
>And I can't speak for everyone but I have never tasted Snapple Ice
>Tea, drank a drop of Florida Orange Juice or bought even one Hooked on
>Phonics booklet. :)
Damn, Dave, we've something else in common: Neither have I!
Small world, ain't it? :-)
--PLH, still living well and having fun
Juan Liberale
Zepp
<tmti...@geocities.com> wrote:
>zepp, a weasel wrote in message <36b0c680...@news.snowcrest.net>...
>>On Thu, 28 Jan 1999 10:22:27 -0500, "Tommy Tillman"
>><tmti...@geocities.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Yes, and he was Republican too!
>>>
>>>(But so was Nixon, but we Republicans forced him to leave.... maybe an
>>>object lesson there for Democrats.... it can be done! It only takes
>>>conviction to what is right and wrong.)
>>
>>Takes evidence, Tommy. With Nixon, we had plenty of evidence. With
>>Clinton, all we have is a cum stain and a bunch of smoke and mirrors.
>>>
>
>
>The stain forced him to admit to the American People that he had lied to
>EVERYONE (even under oath) for 7 months (40 Million Dollar waste which he
>should pay back).
Well, no: he didn't lie under oath. And since the American people
didn't really give a rats' ass if he fucked Monica or not (and he
didn't) then they don't much mind that he denied fucking her.
>
>We have videotaped testimony. We have transcripted testimony. We have
>witnesses. We have boxes of UNUSED evidence.
How can it be evidence if it's unused, genius?
>
>The only thing holding in office is a bunch of GUTLESS WONDERS in the Senate
>whose morals are lower than Clintons for keeping him there.
>
I feel your pain. Whine a little louder, so I can feel it better.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Clinton buddy] Larry Flynt will be the guest of Hillary Rodham Clinton in
the gallery. They will be up there applauding. Anchors, news readers,
analysts, the criminal defense bar, Carlos Minnom (sp?), and Elizabeth Birch,
and virtually everybody in the D.C. Establishment will praise the speech to
the hilt."
Knickers, quoting Rush, and showing the editorial acumen
and good sense that made Knickers, Rush, and the sleazy
supermarket tabloids synonymous with one another.
Pay your taxes so the rich won't have to.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Zepp
Patrick L. Humphrey
>On 28 Jan 1999 17:40:03 -0600, pat...@io.com (Patrick L. Humphrey)
>wrote:
>>rack...@worldnet.att.net (Rack Jite) writes:
>>>On Thu, 28 Jan 1999 15:18:47 -0500, "Tommy Tillman"
>>><tmti...@geocities.com> wrote:
>>>>If you don't like Him (Rush), then why do you guys listen to him so much.
>>>>You know, you guys make a substantial portion of his listening audience.
>>>>Tommy VRWC member
>>>Its great listening, its kind of like watching the Titanic go down.
>>>And I can't speak for everyone but I have never tasted Snapple Ice
>>>Tea, drank a drop of Florida Orange Juice or bought even one Hooked on
>>>Phonics booklet. :)
>>Damn, Dave, we've something else in common: Neither have I!
>Do they counteract your medications, Patrick?
Beats me, since I'm not on any.
>>Small world, ain't it? :-)
>Like your intellect?
Nah, more like your purpose for participating in this newsgroup.
>>--PLH, still living well and having fun
>Still torturing small animals are you, Patrick?
Still laughing at you and Dave as you foam at the mouth at me, Jimbo.
You've done your job as Dave's attack flatworm, so I'm sure he'll give you a
treat, or whatever gets you by. (I don't want to know.)
--PLH, back to getting on with the day's business
Rack Jite
wrote:
>Volt...@geocities.com writes:
>>Still torturing small animals are you, Patrick?
>Still laughing at you and Dave as you foam at the mouth at me, Jimbo.
>You've done your job as Dave's attack flatworm, so I'm sure he'll give you a
>treat, or whatever gets you by. (I don't want to know.)
>--PLH, back to getting on with the day's business
Which is, making absolutely sure everyone in the world knows you are a
dim bulb Libertarian and the principle squealer and stalker of
liberals on Usenet. And who over the past 15 years have ALWAYS, EACH &
EVERY TIME, intitiated the contact in your flame game.
One wonders just how stupid a person can be?
Or is that just how stupid a person can think other persons can be? No
matter, yer just as stupid one way or the other. :)
Oh, yeah, stalking & squealing on liberals is the only way you can
make pals in or out of this medium. Pals like Giwer, Greenspan,
Bastida, Laverty, Gentile, Morton, Beck, and who was that ultimate
little shit from California, can't even remember the names there are
so many of you little netscab nimrods...
Dont forget to stick your nose into EVERY SINGLE THING I SAY with a
good squeal or two! It makes you look so good! Well, at least to
people like Giwer, Greenspan, Bastida, Laverty, Morton, Beck, and that
ultimate little shit from California...
What intersection is important to these days? Where you riding yer
bike? How far to I live from Voltaire? How many klicks is it from
where you are to my house? Had a beer with any computer people? Keep
us all posted!
Bye now Squealer...
Patrick L. Humphrey
>On 29 Jan 1999 09:13:22 -0600, pat...@io.com (Patrick L. Humphrey)
>wrote:
>>Volt...@geocities.com writes:
>>>Still torturing small animals are you, Patrick?
>>Still laughing at you and Dave as you foam at the mouth at me, Jimbo.
>>You've done your job as Dave's attack flatworm, so I'm sure he'll give you a
>>treat, or whatever gets you by. (I don't want to know.)
>>--PLH, back to getting on with the day's business
>Which is, making absolutely sure everyone in the world knows you are a
>dim bulb Libertarian and the principle squealer and stalker of
>liberals on Usenet. And who over the past 15 years have ALWAYS, EACH &
>EVERY TIME, intitiated the contact in your flame game.
Still obsessed with repeating your script, eh, Dave? If you keep bleating it,
that'll make it true?
>One wonders just how stupid a person can be?
All they have to do is look at your 15-year obsession with me, Dave, if they
want an answer to that question.
>Or is that just how stupid a person can think other persons can be? No
>matter, yer just as stupid one way or the other. :)
Gee, Dave Dahlman says I'm stupid. How will I sleep tonight?
>Oh, yeah, stalking & squealing on liberals is the only way you can
>make pals in or out of this medium. Pals like Giwer, Greenspan,
>Bastida, Laverty, Gentile, Morton, Beck, and who was that ultimate
>little shit from California, can't even remember the names there are
>so many of you little netscab nimrods...
Gee, Dave, whose board were you on _with_ Bastida, again -- when you were
posting as none other than Dave Dahlman? Thanks for admitting that you've
lied about that for all these years.
>Dont forget to stick your nose into EVERY SINGLE THING I SAY with a
>good squeal or two! It makes you look so good! Well, at least to
>people like Giwer, Greenspan, Bastida, Laverty, Morton, Beck, and that
>ultimate little shit from California...
Yeah, Dave, I know that in your fertile little imagination, I'm conspiring
with all of them, but you've been repeating the same tired crap for a decade
and a half now, and no one listens to you any more, but you still keep
reacting like Pavlov's dog. 53 years old, and you still don't know any better
-- now that's what I call sad.
>What intersection is important to these days? Where you riding yer
>bike? How far to I live from Voltaire? How many klicks is it from
>where you are to my house? Had a beer with any computer people? Keep
>us all posted!
I got a better idea, Dave -- how about you tell everyone about how you're
spreading the word about the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy on your little radio
soapbox on KPFT, eh? Or how your snot rag is carried by all those public
libraries? Or how you got me thrown off all of my accounts at Rice? (Better
not finger pat...@is.rice.edu, though, because you won't like what finger
reports back.)
Come on, Dave, it's time to put up, or keep lying as usual. I can guess which
choice you'll make.
--PLH, after all, he's only been doing it for fifteen years by now, the facts
be damned
John Doh!
> If you find pig boy on anything, you will find him mounting Russert!!!!
"stop the hate" you say - "vote democrat" you say?
look in a mirror hypocrite and find the hatemonger... YOU!
--
Opinions Belong to Author Only
Eagle Eye
Rack Jite <rack...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>"History will show Henry Hyde up there with Abraham Lincoln as one of
>the greatest men in Americans History." Rush Limbaugh on LSD - 1/27/99
>
>Boy are conservative grasping at straws hey? :)
So, Mr. Jite, you sure hate Henry Hyde, huh?
And it shows.
"Why was I with her? She reminds me of you. In fact,
she reminds me more of you than you do!"
-- Groucho Marx
Eagle Eye
>>dim bulb Libertarian and the principle squealer and stalker of
>>liberals on Usenet. And who over the past 15 years have ALWAYS, EACH &
>>EVERY TIME, intitiated the contact in your flame game.
15 YEARS!!!!!!!!!! Aye carumba! Why don't you change your nick, or ignore him,
or sell your computer and move to Tibet? Is there some reason why thousands of
people must listen to your high-pitched squealing and whining?
Mr. Jite, is that why you've posted NEW THREADS whining about Mr. Humphrey?
If you're going to lie, you should lie about things people can't look up on
Deja News.
Every time you post your spandex stalker post, squealing and crying like a little
schoolgirl who had her ice cream cone knocked in the dirt, you look even more
foolish. I thought your "polite and honest" comments about neonazis was idiotic
enough. This is beyond the pale.
>Still obsessed with repeating your script, eh, Dave? If you keep bleating it,
>that'll make it true?
Apparently someone thinks so.
>>One wonders just how stupid a person can be?
>All they have to do is look at your 15-year obsession with me, Dave, if they
>want an answer to that question.
1 year is bad.
2 is just stupid.
3 is bizarre.
5 is disturbing.
10 is a major component of his life.
15 is something for a special on Investigative Reports.
>>Dont forget to stick your nose into EVERY SINGLE THING I SAY with a
>>good squeal or two! It makes you look so good! Well, at least to
>>people like Giwer, Greenspan, Bastida, Laverty, Morton, Beck, and that
>>ultimate little shit from California...
>Yeah, Dave, I know that in your fertile little imagination, I'm conspiring
>with all of them, but you've been repeating the same tired crap for a decade
>and a half now, and no one listens to you any more, but you still keep
>reacting like Pavlov's dog. 53 years old, and you still don't know any better
>-- now that's what I call sad.
It's beyond sad.
>>What intersection is important to these days? Where you riding yer
>>bike? How far to I live from Voltaire? How many klicks is it from
>>where you are to my house? Had a beer with any computer people? Keep
>>us all posted!
>I got a better idea, Dave -- how about you tell everyone about how you're
>spreading the word about the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy on your little radio
>soapbox on KPFT, eh? Or how your snot rag is carried by all those public
>libraries?
He has a radio show!!!???? Please tell me you're kidding.
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read."
-- Groucho Marx
Rack Jite
>In article <szklnil...@dillinger.io.com>
>Patrick L. Humphrey <pat...@io.com> wrote:
>>rack...@worldnet.att.net (Rack Jite) writes:
>>>Which is, making absolutely sure everyone in the world knows you are a
>>>dim bulb Libertarian and the principle squealer and stalker of
>>>liberals on Usenet. And who over the past 15 years have ALWAYS, EACH &
>>>EVERY TIME, intitiated the contact in your flame game.
>
>15 YEARS!!!!!!!!!! Aye carumba! Why don't you change your nick, or ignore him,
>or sell your computer and move to Tibet? Is there some reason why thousands of
>people must listen to your high-pitched squealing and whining?
>
>Mr. Jite, is that why you've posted NEW THREADS whining about Mr. Humphrey?
>If you're going to lie, you should lie about things people can't look up on
>Deja News.
MY GOD ARE YOU FUCKED UP! :)
But this is just what I was saying. Humphrey's 15 years of squealing
and stalking gain him only one thing. REALLY FUCKED UP PALS! :)
Case in point...
ADAF
Rack Jite
wrote:
>>"History will show Henry Hyde up there with Abraham Lincoln as one of
>>the greatest men in Americans History." Rush Limbaugh on LSD - 1/27/99
>>Boy are conservative grasping at straws hey? :)
>So, Mr. Jite, you sure hate Henry Hyde, huh?
>And it shows.
Classic example of the base problem you right-wing nitwits are
suffering, the abject hypocrisy in all of this, which yall just don't
have the intellectual capacity to understand.
Why in Heaven's Name, would you accuse me of perhaps hating Hyde
because of maybe two messages in my life about him, when for 7 years,
about all the conservatives have done, is hate Clinton with such a
passion that yall blame rape, mass murder, baby killing, selling
secrets to the enemy, CONSTANTLY. ALL THE TIME FOR 7 DAMN YEARS. And
last week we had Fat Henry put the deaths of every American who fought
in every war we ever had on Clinton's back. ANd then says he has no
antimosity toward Clinton. MY GOD MAN! THAT IS SUCH A WHOPPER LIE HE
SHOULD RESIGN, BE IMPEACHED, JAILED AND CANED!
The joy I hop around with these days concerns this very issue. That
conservatives are so consumed by the hatred, that they can't grasp
what they are doing to themselves. Its the height of ego, of elitism,
and a sign of black hearts and sour bile.
Patrick L. Humphrey
>In article <szklnil...@dillinger.io.com>
>Patrick L. Humphrey <pat...@io.com> wrote:
>>rack...@worldnet.att.net (Rack Jite) writes:
>>>Which is, making absolutely sure everyone in the world knows you are a
>>>dim bulb Libertarian and the principle squealer and stalker of
>>>liberals on Usenet. And who over the past 15 years have ALWAYS, EACH &
>>>EVERY TIME, intitiated the contact in your flame game.
>15 YEARS!!!!!!!! Aye carumba! Why don't you change your nick, or ignore him,
>or sell your computer and move to Tibet? Is there some reason why thousands of
>people must listen to your high-pitched squealing and whining?
Hey, people can ignore Dave all they want -- most of 'em already do. I do,
most of the time, but occasionally I feel like pushing a button or two and
watching his scripted Pavlovian reflex kick in. The difference between us is,
I don't threaten people who ignore me, or throw a tantrum and call them names
because their politics aren't the same as mine. As you've noticed, Dave and
his one consistent follower -- Kennemur -- rely on that tactic often.
>Mr. Jite, is that why you've posted NEW THREADS whining about Mr. Humphrey?
>If you're going to lie, you should lie about things people can't look up on
>Deja News.
After 15 years, you expect him to remember the inconvenient little details
like that? :-)
>Every time you post your spandex stalker post, squealing and crying like a
>little schoolgirl who had her ice cream cone knocked in the dirt, you look
>even more foolish. I thought your "polite and honest" comments about
>neonazis was idiotic enough. This is beyond the pale.
De gustibus non est disputandum, I say -- but I have to credit Dave with
giving me the inspiration to add my Squealin' SPANDEX BIKER! Report page to my
collection of web pages at http://is.rice.edu/~patrick. :-)
>>Still obsessed with repeating your script, eh, Dave? If you keep bleating it,
>>that'll make it true?
>Apparently someone thinks so.
Yeah, and he's afraid of learning that no one else thinks much of his quest.
>>>One wonders just how stupid a person can be?
>>All they have to do is look at your 15-year obsession with me, Dave, if they
>>want an answer to that question.
>1 year is bad.
>2 is just stupid.
>3 is bizarre.
>5 is disturbing.
>10 is a major component of his life.
>15 is something for a special on Investigative Reports.
Nah. He's just a one-trick pony, for practical purposes, nowhere interesting
enough to rate that much treatment.
>>>Dont forget to stick your nose into EVERY SINGLE THING I SAY with a
>>>good squeal or two! It makes you look so good! Well, at least to
>>>people like Giwer, Greenspan, Bastida, Laverty, Morton, Beck, and that
>>>ultimate little shit from California...
>>Yeah, Dave, I know that in your fertile little imagination, I'm conspiring
>>with all of them, but you've been repeating the same tired crap for a decade
>>and a half now, and no one listens to you any more, but you still keep
>>reacting like Pavlov's dog. 53 years old, and you still don't know any better
>>-- now that's what I call sad.
>It's beyond sad.
It's pretty pathetic, but I'm not particularly bothered by it -- hey, he tried
to get me fired four years ago, but my employers were only misled so far.
They're not listening much to him thse days, because I make sure he can't get
at me through them.
>>>What intersection is important to these days? Where you riding yer
>>>bike? How far to I live from Voltaire? How many klicks is it from
>>>where you are to my house? Had a beer with any computer people? Keep
>>>us all posted!
>>I got a better idea, Dave -- how about you tell everyone about how you're
>>spreading the word about the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy on your little radio
>>soapbox on KPFT, eh? Or how your snot rag is carried by all those public
>>libraries?
>He has a radio show!!!???? Please tell me you're kidding.
He had a few friends of his at the aforementioned KPFT who had a show called
"Us The Folks", which was actually pretty good listening at times, and every
few weeks they'd include Dave for his views...unfortunately, the show got
canned last summer, so I guess no one in the Houston media wants to give Dave
another soapbox. Maybe they read his alleged newsletter and pegged him
quickly, who knows?
--PLH, wondering how Dave can claim he knows so much about who I am without
being what he accuses me of...go figure.
Eagle Eye
Rack Jite <rack...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>On 30 Jan 1999 21:00:56 -0000, Eagle Eye <eagl...@nym.alias.net>
>wrote:
>>>"History will show Henry Hyde up there with Abraham Lincoln as one of
>>>the greatest men in Americans History." Rush Limbaugh on LSD - 1/27/99
>>>Boy are conservative grasping at straws hey? :)
>>So, Mr. Jite, you sure hate Henry Hyde, huh?
>>And it shows.
Classic example of your small-mindedness, Mr. Jite. Not everyone who
criticizes you is "right-wing."
>Why in Heaven's Name, would you accuse me of perhaps hating Hyde
>because of maybe two messages in my life about him,
Because of the irrational and vitriolic nature of those two messages.
Any more questions?
>when for 7 years,
>about all the conservatives have done, [ ... ]
[ classic "they did it first" whining ]
Mr. Jite, two wrongs don't make a right.
>[ ... ] Its the height of ego, of elitism,
>and a sign of black hearts and sour bile.
<chuckle>
Ever look in the mirror, pal? :)
"From the moment I picked your book up until I laid it
down convulsed with laughter. Someday I intend reading it."
-- Groucho Marx
Eagle Eye
Rack Jite <rack...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>On 30 Jan 1999 21:12:36 -0000, in alt.society.liberalism you wrote:
>>Patrick L. Humphrey <pat...@io.com> wrote:
>>>rack...@worldnet.att.net (Rack Jite) writes:
>>>>Which is, making absolutely sure everyone in the world knows you are a
>>>>dim bulb Libertarian and the principle squealer and stalker of
>>>>liberals on Usenet. And who over the past 15 years have ALWAYS, EACH &
>>>>EVERY TIME, intitiated the contact in your flame game.
>>or sell your computer and move to Tibet? Is there some reason why thousands of
>>people must listen to your high-pitched squealing and whining?
>>If you're going to lie, you should lie about things people can't look up on
>>Deja News.
Your imaginary deity is drunk?
>But this is just what I was saying. Humphrey's 15 years of squealing
>and stalking gain him only one thing. REALLY FUCKED UP PALS! :)
>Case in point...
Your rant is nothing but an attempt to distract.
Now, about your claim that you never initiated the contact in your flame
game with Mr. Humphrey. Explain why I find NEW THREADS posted by you,
ranting on and on about Mr. Humphrey. Why do you lie?
>ADAF
ADAF = Angolian Democracy Air Force? All Doofuses Are Funny?
A Democrat Arsehole Fumes?
"Remember men, we're fighting for this woman's honour;
which is probably more than she ever did."
-- Groucho Marx
Eagle Eye
>>15 YEARS!!!!!!!! Aye carumba! Why don't you change your nick, or ignore him,
>>or sell your computer and move to Tibet? Is there some reason why thousands of
>>people must listen to your high-pitched squealing and whining?
>most of the time, but occasionally I feel like pushing a button or two and
>watching his scripted Pavlovian reflex kick in. The difference between us is,
>I don't threaten people who ignore me, or throw a tantrum and call them names
>because their politics aren't the same as mine. As you've noticed, Dave and
>his one consistent follower -- Kennemur -- rely on that tactic often.
The Kennemur child is the quintessential example of that tactic, apparently.
After I killfiled him, I chuckled when I saw his childish tantrums directed
at me cited in other peoples' articles. :)
>>Mr. Jite, is that why you've posted NEW THREADS whining about Mr. Humphrey?
>>If you're going to lie, you should lie about things people can't look up on
>>Deja News.
>After 15 years, you expect him to remember the inconvenient little details
>like that? :-)
That statement got me a spit-filled, crimson-faced rant, from Mr. Jite. :)
He lied, and I just pointed it out. Apparently, that makes me "fucked up."
>It's pretty pathetic, but I'm not particularly bothered by it -- hey, he tried
>to get me fired four years ago, but my employers were only misled so far.
>They're not listening much to him thse days, because I make sure he can't get
>at me through them.
Some people have no sense of proportion. That's a sure sign of an
unstable personality.
Reminds me of something my wife saw. She was on some chatroom discussing
antiques and a frequent visitor was absent for awhile. It turns out her
husband saw that some man gave her a "hug" on the chatroom, and her husband
freaked out, threatening to go find the guy and "kick his ass." After
that point, people were afraid to give any personal information, or to
even be more friendly than a "hi." Some asshole always has to screw
things up for everyone.
>>>I got a better idea, Dave -- how about you tell everyone about how you're
>>>spreading the word about the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy on your little radio
>>>soapbox on KPFT, eh? Or how your snot rag is carried by all those public
>>>libraries?
>>He has a radio show!!!???? Please tell me you're kidding.
>He had a few friends of his at the aforementioned KPFT who had a show called
>"Us The Folks", which was actually pretty good listening at times, and every
>few weeks they'd include Dave for his views...unfortunately, the show got
>canned last summer, so I guess no one in the Houston media wants to give Dave
>another soapbox. Maybe they read his alleged newsletter and pegged him
>quickly, who knows?
Awww. Tell me, does he have a high-pitched, whiney voice? Or does he have
a drunken southern drawl?
"I must say that I find television very educational. The minute
somebody turns it on, I go to the library and read a book."
-- Groucho Marx
Patrick L. Humphrey
>In article <36b5e472...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>
>Rack Jite <rack...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
[cut to the chase]
>>ADAF
>ADAF = Angolian Democracy Air Force? All Doofuses Are Funny?
>A Democrat Arsehole Fumes?
"An' Dat's A FACT!" -- a bit odd, since no other Wisconsin expatriate I've
ever encountered has approached the English language like that. It's another
one of Dave's little things that he throws in as an indication that what he
says should be taken as fact, and don't bother asking him to actually back it
up, because then you're doubting him.
--PLH, can't have _that_ amont the faithful followers, you betcha!
Patrick L. Humphrey
>In article <szku2x6...@dillinger.io.com>
>Patrick L. Humphrey <pat...@io.com> wrote:
>>Eagle Eye <eagl...@nym.alias.net> writes:
>>>15 YEARS!!!!!!!! Aye carumba! Why don't you change your nick, or ignore
>>>him, or sell your computer and move to Tibet? Is there some reason why
>>>thousands of people must listen to your high-pitched squealing and whining?
>>Hey, people can ignore Dave all they want -- most of 'em already do. I do,
>>most of the time, but occasionally I feel like pushing a button or two and
>>watching his scripted Pavlovian reflex kick in. The difference between us is,
>>I don't threaten people who ignore me, or throw a tantrum and call them names
>>because their politics aren't the same as mine. As you've noticed, Dave and
>>his one consistent follower -- Kennemur -- rely on that tactic often.
>The Kennemur child is the quintessential example of that tactic, apparently.
>After I killfiled him, I chuckled when I saw his childish tantrums directed
>at me cited in other peoples' articles. :)
Yeah, Kennemur can usually be counted on to do something infantile like that
when he's been outclassed in an argument -- which, these days, happens an
awful lot, it would seem. He's one who will claim he's ignoring you, but
proceed to whine about you to anyone else who'll listen.
>>>Mr. Jite, is that why you've posted NEW THREADS whining about Mr. Humphrey?
>>>If you're going to lie, you should lie about things people can't look up on
>>>Deja News.
>>After 15 years, you expect him to remember the inconvenient little details
>>like that? :-)
>That statement got me a spit-filled, crimson-faced rant, from Mr. Jite. :)
>He lied, and I just pointed it out. Apparently, that makes me "fucked up."
Obviously -- after all, you dared to disagree with Dave Dahlman! Just ask
him. :-)
>>It's pretty pathetic, but I'm not particularly bothered by it -- hey, he
>>tried to get me fired four years ago, but my employers were only misled so
>>far. They're not listening much to him thse days, because I make sure he
>>can't get at me through them.
>Some people have no sense of proportion. That's a sure sign of an
>unstable personality.
Dunno if I'd call him _that_ unstable, as he seems to have managed to live in
a fairly decent neighborhood for as long as I've known of him. Personally, I
think at least part of his act is just that -- an act. Still, he does seem to
have a loose screw or two, considering the length of time he's spent on this
charade of his.
>Reminds me of something my wife saw. She was on some chatroom discussing
>antiques and a frequent visitor was absent for awhile. It turns out her
>husband saw that some man gave her a "hug" on the chatroom, and her husband
>freaked out, threatening to go find the guy and "kick his ass." After
>that point, people were afraid to give any personal information, or to
>even be more friendly than a "hi." Some asshole always has to screw
>things up for everyone.
Yep...sad, but true. I guess Dave got tired of being pounded in FidoNet, so
he wandered into Usenet and decided to try his luck there.
>>>>I got a better idea, Dave -- how about you tell everyone about how you're
>>>>spreading the word about the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy on your little
>>>>radio soapbox on KPFT, eh? Or how your snot rag is carried by all those
>>>>public libraries?
>>>He has a radio show!!!???? Please tell me you're kidding.
>>He had a few friends of his at the aforementioned KPFT who had a show called
>>"Us The Folks", which was actually pretty good listening at times, and every
>>few weeks they'd include Dave for his views...unfortunately, the show got
>>canned last summer, so I guess no one in the Houston media wants to give Dave
>>another soapbox. Maybe they read his alleged newsletter and pegged him
>>quickly, who knows?
>Awww. Tell me, does he have a high-pitched, whiney voice? Or does he have
>a drunken southern drawl?
Neither -- he's from Wisconsin or Minnesota, by his accent (which isn't all
that pronounced, but it _is_ there, from what I remember). There was a time a
few years ago, though, when he was still annoying several FidoNet message
bases, and got into it hot and heavy with some woman who lived up in the
Ft. Worth-Dallas part of the state -- and then one night, she got a call from
someone claiming to be me, but with (as she put it) a Minnesota accent. That
amused me at the time, considering that up until I'd known my wife, I'd never
been within about 600 miles of Minnesota...but the first time I heard Dave
whining about me on KPFT, I figured he was a likely suspect. If only
Caller-ID had been more widely spread back in those days...
He just likes to go after people who either dispute him in any way, or dare to
hold political opinions he doesn't approve of. All you have to do is
demonstrate his duplicity, and the rest is inevitable. Have fun watching him
dance.
--PLH, he's just another act in the sideshow
Eagle Eye
>>Rack Jite <rack...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>ADAF
>>ADAF = Angolian Democracy Air Force? All Doofuses Are Funny?
>>A Democrat Arsehole Fumes?
>"An' Dat's A FACT!" -- a bit odd, since no other Wisconsin expatriate I've
>ever encountered has approached the English language like that. It's another
>one of Dave's little things that he throws in as an indication that what he
>says should be taken as fact, and don't bother asking him to actually back it
>up, because then you're doubting him.
Sounds like a line from a Bill Murray movie. :)
You're right about his debate techniques. Very similar to Mr. G.D.Y.'s.
I noticed that when he does address the issue of backing up his claims
his standard line is (paraphrased) : You'll just ____ when I back
up my statements, so I won't bother to anyway.
The blank may be filled with a variety of imagined outcomes. It's
rather convenient for him that he can predict the future and use that
ability to make excuses for providing evidence for anything he says.
But, as you point out, most of the time he uses the same technique as
G.D.Y. : proof by vigorous assertion. And prodigious ad hominems if
you dare question him.
>--PLH, can't have _that_ amont the faithful followers, you betcha!
Ever wonder if he puts his right hand inside his shirt?
"You've got the brain of a four-year-old boy, and
I'll bet he was glad to get rid of it."
-- Groucho Marx
Eagle Eye
>>After I killfiled him, I chuckled when I saw his childish tantrums directed
>>at me cited in other peoples' articles. :)
>Yeah, Kennemur can usually be counted on to do something infantile like that
>when he's been outclassed in an argument -- which, these days, happens an
>awful lot, it would seem.
My 6 year old could out-class him on a bad day. Putting the moniker of
"Voltaire" on his tripe is akin to the Spice Girls going by the name Mozart.
[...]
>>>It's pretty pathetic, but I'm not particularly bothered by it -- hey, he
>>>tried to get me fired four years ago, but my employers were only misled so
>>>far. They're not listening much to him thse days, because I make sure he
>>>can't get at me through them.
>>Some people have no sense of proportion. That's a sure sign of an
>>unstable personality.
>Dunno if I'd call him _that_ unstable, as he seems to have managed to live in
>a fairly decent neighborhood for as long as I've known of him. Personally, I
>think at least part of his act is just that -- an act. Still, he does seem to
>have a loose screw or two, considering the length of time he's spent on this
>charade of his.
Still, taking an online disagreement to an attempt to get you fired is more
than just a kooky act.
Sure, there's the troll element, but if what you say is true, he seems pretty
damned unstable to me.
>>Awww. Tell me, does he have a high-pitched, whiney voice? Or does he have
>>a drunken southern drawl?
>Neither -- he's from Wisconsin or Minnesota, by his accent (which isn't all
>that pronounced, but it _is_ there, from what I remember).
And he moved to Houston? No offense, but this northerner can't see moving
to such a hot, muggy place.
>There was a time a
>few years ago, though, when he was still annoying several FidoNet message
>bases, and got into it hot and heavy with some woman who lived up in the
>Ft. Worth-Dallas part of the state -- and then one night, she got a call from
>someone claiming to be me, but with (as she put it) a Minnesota accent. That
>amused me at the time, considering that up until I'd known my wife, I'd never
>been within about 600 miles of Minnesota...but the first time I heard Dave
>whining about me on KPFT, I figured he was a likely suspect. If only
>Caller-ID had been more widely spread back in those days...
One day my wife received an obscene phone call. The caller-id box
recorded the name and phone number. I was tempted to call him, but
decided it was better for the cops to handle it. I told them I didn't
want to press charges if they could just call him and talk to him about it.
Love that box! : )
>He just likes to go after people who either dispute him in any way, or dare to
>hold political opinions he doesn't approve of. All you have to do is
>demonstrate his duplicity, and the rest is inevitable. Have fun watching him
>dance.
>--PLH, he's just another act in the sideshow
A psychotherapist's mother lode. :)
"Time Flies like an arrow. Fruit Flies like a banana"
-- Groucho Marx
sini...@hotmail.com
Ya know, I just can't help but note that you to make an adorable couple :)
--Sinistral--
"Watch your step, there are deep thoughts all over my floor!" :)
http://members.xoom.com/librealm/
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Eagle Eye
<sini...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Ya know, I just can't help but note that you to make an adorable couple :)
>
>--Sinistral--
It's the old accuse someone of being gay as if it were dirty ploy.
Swine bigot!
"Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?"
-- Groucho Marx
Patrick L. Humphrey
>On 01 Feb 1999 12:40:47 -0600, pat...@io.com (Patrick L. Humphrey)
>wrote:
>>Eagle Eye <eagl...@nym.alias.net> writes:
[having fun with Rack Jite on LSD]
>>>The Kennemur child is the quintessential example of that tactic, apparently.
>>>After I killfiled him, I chuckled when I saw his childish tantrums directed
>>>at me cited in other peoples' articles. :)
>>Yeah, Kennemur can usually be counted on to do something infantile like that
>>when he's been outclassed in an argument -- which, these days, happens an
>>awful lot, it would seem. He's one who will claim he's ignoring you, but
>>proceed to whine about you to anyone else who'll listen.
>When you loons finish jacking each other off you can explain what all
>this BS has to do with Rush Limbaugh.
Maybe you can explain what _your_ whining has to do with it, Jim. Are you
going to play Subject Line NetCop?
>See that Subject Header above?
Yes...and you couldn't care less about it, so what's your problem?
[Eagle stings Kennemur, Kennemur throws fit -- what a surprise, no?]
>>>That statement got me a spit-filled, crimson-faced rant, from Mr. Jite. :)
>>>He lied, and I just pointed it out. Apparently, that makes me "fucked up."
>>Obviously -- after all, you dared to disagree with Dave Dahlman! Just ask
>>him. :-)
>Like you try to drop little bits of personal information about him
>every time you post?
I hope Dave's paying you by the letter when you attack me for him.
>Shall we discuss the Spandex Biker, Patrick?
Why don't you, Jim? It's been a while since the last time you showed everyone
why you're here. Might as well show the newcomers that you're not interested
in actually discussing anything.
[Dave tries to get me fired, and fails *yawn*]
>>>Some people have no sense of proportion. That's a sure sign of an
>>>unstable personality.
>>Dunno if I'd call him _that_ unstable, as he seems to have managed to live in
>>a fairly decent neighborhood for as long as I've known of him. Personally, I
>>think at least part of his act is just that - an act. Still, he does seem to
>>have a loose screw or two, considering the length of time he's spent on this
>>charade of his.
>Let's ask the legal department at Rice about your stalking, Patrick.
Why don't you, Jim? Then they can quote you the Texas law on it, and you can
run away from them like you did from me the last time I posted it.
>>>Reminds me of something my wife saw. She was on some chatroom discussing
>>>antiques and a frequent visitor was absent for awhile. It turns out her
>>>husband saw that some man gave her a "hug" on the chatroom, and her husband
>>>freaked out, threatening to go find the guy and "kick his ass." After
>>>that point, people were afraid to give any personal information, or to
>>>even be more friendly than a "hi." Some asshole always has to screw
>>>things up for everyone.
>>Yep...sad, but true. I guess Dave got tired of being pounded in FidoNet, so
>>he wandered into Usenet and decided to try his luck there.
>FidoNet where you stalked him years ago, Patrick?
No, FidoNet where he got invited to leave a few echos because of his
behavior. (He never was thrown off any of them that I remember, but left of
his own free will and then went to other echos whining about how he'd been
thrown off. It didn't fool anyone then, and it's still not working now.)
[Dave's radio soapbox gets 86ed, awww]
>>>Awww. Tell me, does he have a high-pitched, whiney voice? Or does he have
>>>a drunken southern drawl?
>>Neither -- he's from Wisconsin or Minnesota, by his accent (which isn't all
>>that pronounced, but it _is_ there, from what I remember). There was a time a
>>few years ago, though, when he was still annoying several FidoNet message
>>bases, and got into it hot and heavy with some woman who lived up in the
>>Ft. Worth-Dallas part of the state -- and then one night, she got a call from
>>someone claiming to be me, but with (as she put it) a Minnesota accent. That
>>amused me at the time, considering that up until I'd known my wife, I'd never
>>been within about 600 miles of Minnesota...but the first time I heard Dave
>>whining about me on KPFT, I figured he was a likely suspect. If only
>>Caller-ID had been more widely spread back in those days...
>>He just likes to go after people who either dispute him in any way, or dare
>>to hold political opinions he doesn't approve of. All you have to do is
>>demonstrate his duplicity, and the rest is inevitable. Have fun watching him
>>dance.
>>--PLH, he's just another act in the sideshow
>And you are what the elephants leave behind when the parade is over,
>Patrick.
Projection will get you nowhere, Jim.
>I think the Spandex Biker story will liven things up around here.
Why? It's just another repeat of your fantasy -- well, actually, Dave's
fantasy, since you _are_ acting as his attack slug, after all -- that hasn't
become one bit more true, no matter how much you repeat it. What's the
matter, is Dave upset because he gave me the inspiration to put up a page
making fun of him, and there's nothing he can do about it?
>Then we will discuss your problems at Rice.
What problems? Last time I looked, if I had any problems where I work, they
had nothing to do with anything Dave did four years ago. Looks like your
"discussion" isn't going to go very far, if you're the only one participating.
>Do you want to play?
I have better things to do with my time, Jim...but if you want to embarrass
yourself yet again, you'll do so regardless of what I want. I just get to
watch.
--PLH, so, you might as well get it over with and run away until next time
Patrick L. Humphrey
>In article <szkbtje...@dillinger.io.com>
>Patrick L. Humphrey <pat...@io.com> wrote:
>>Eagle Eye <eagl...@nym.alias.net> writes:
>>>In article <36b5e472...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>
>>>Rack Jite <rack...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>>ADAF
>>>ADAF = Angolian Democracy Air Force? All Doofuses Are Funny?
>>>A Democrat Arsehole Fumes?
>>"An' Dat's A FACT!" -- a bit odd, since no other Wisconsin expatriate I've
>>ever encountered has approached the English language like that. It's another
>>one of Dave's little things that he throws in as an indication that what he
>>says should be taken as fact, and don't bother asking him to actually back it
>>up, because then you're doubting him.
>Sounds like a line from a Bill Murray movie. :)
>You're right about his debate techniques. Very similar to Mr. G.D.Y.'s.
>I noticed that when he does address the issue of backing up his claims
>his standard line is (paraphrased) : You'll just ____ when I back
>up my statements, so I won't bother to anyway.
That's right: lots of assertions, very little actual evidence.
>The blank may be filled with a variety of imagined outcomes. It's
>rather convenient for him that he can predict the future and use that
>ability to make excuses for providing evidence for anything he says.
>But, as you point out, most of the time he uses the same technique as
>G.D.Y. : proof by vigorous assertion. And prodigious ad hominems if
>you dare question him.
...and even more prodigious ad hominems if you make fun of him. Such a deal.
(I wonder what Dave's going to do when the annual Causeway Classic bike ride
takes place this summer? Because of construction, the ride's been changed to
a Willowbrook-Kemah route, which means I'm going to be that >< far from Dave's
humble little abode at one point along the route. The things I do for the
Leukemia Society...:-)
>>--PLH, can't have _that_ amont the faithful followers, you betcha!
>Ever wonder if he puts his right hand inside his shirt?
Not in public, I hope. (He's a bit tall for the Napoleon act, anyway, but
then, who isn't?)
--PLH, no threat to crash the NBA at 1.84 meters :)
Patrick L. Humphrey
>In article <szkaeyy...@dillinger.io.com>
>Patrick L. Humphrey <pat...@io.com> wrote:
>>Eagle Eye <eagl...@nym.alias.net> writes:
>[...]
>>>After I killfiled him, I chuckled when I saw his childish tantrums directed
>>>at me cited in other peoples' articles. :)
>>Yeah, Kennemur can usually be counted on to do something infantile like that
>>when he's been outclassed in an argument -- which, these days, happens an
>>awful lot, it would seem.
>My 6 year old could out-class him on a bad day. Putting the moniker of
>"Voltaire" on his tripe is akin to the Spice Girls going by the name Mozart.
Amen to that...and my two-year-old grandson up in South Dakota can outclass
him on increasingly frequent occasions. (Ditto for our granddaughter, but
then, she's two years older, so she's already left Kennemur in the lurch. ;-)
>[...]
>>>>It's pretty pathetic, but I'm not particularly bothered by it -- hey, he
>>>>tried to get me fired four years ago, but my employers were only misled so
>>>>far. They're not listening much to him thse days, because I make sure he
>>>>can't get at me through them.
>>>Some people have no sense of proportion. That's a sure sign of an
>>>unstable personality.
>>Dunno if I'd call him _that_ unstable, as he seems to have managed to live in
>>a fairly decent neighborhood for as long as I've known of him. Personally, I
>>think at least part of his act is just that - an act. Still, he does seem to
>>have a loose screw or two, considering the length of time he's spent on this
>>charade of his.
>Still, taking an online disagreement to an attempt to get you fired is more
>than just a kooky act.
It's definitely evidence that Dave's taking this more seriously than he
should, but I'm not worried, because he doesn't have enough sense to actually
be a threat to my job. It's interesting to note that he's tried the same
tactic on four or five other people in this newsgroup (t.p.m is where I read
this) in the five years he's been wandering about Usenet -- with similar
success -- but _no one_ has ever tried getting at him through his employer,
which says something about Dave that he probably doesn't want people thinking
about him.
>Sure, there's the troll element, but if what you say is true, he seems pretty
>damned unstable to me.
It's possible, but given what I've seen of him over the years, I'd peg him as
minor-league unstable.
>>>Awww. Tell me, does he have a high-pitched, whiney voice? Or does he have
>>>a drunken southern drawl?
>>Neither -- he's from Wisconsin or Minnesota, by his accent (which isn't all
>>that pronounced, but it _is_ there, from what I remember).
>And he moved to Houston? No offense, but this northerner can't see moving
>to such a hot, muggy place.
He was part of the great migration from the Rust Belt states in the late 1970s
and early 1980s, apparently. I can't blame him for that decision, given the
mess the economy up there was in at that time. (I'm not a native, eitherm but
I got here fifteen years before Dave did, so I've spent 33 of my 43 years here
in Baghdad on the Bayou. I _like_ not having seasons, and all that humidity
keeps us looking young. :-)
>>There was a time a
>>few years ago, though, when he was still annoying several FidoNet message
>>bases, and got into it hot and heavy with some woman who lived up in the
>>Ft. Worth-Dallas part of the state -- and then one night, she got a call from
>>someone claiming to be me, but with (as she put it) a Minnesota accent. That
>>amused me at the time, considering that up until I'd known my wife, I'd never
>>been within about 600 miles of Minnesota...but the first time I heard Dave
>>whining about me on KPFT, I figured he was a likely suspect. If only
>>Caller-ID had been more widely spread back in those days...
>One day my wife received an obscene phone call. The caller-id box
>recorded the name and phone number. I was tempted to call him, but
>decided it was better for the cops to handle it. I told them I didn't
>want to press charges if they could just call him and talk to him about it.
>Love that box! : )
It's definitely useful, I agree -- now, if they could just incorporate ANI
into it instead of just CLID, and then Dale and I could *really* have fun with
the telescummers...
>>He just likes to go after people who either dispute him in any way, or dare
>>to hold political opinions he doesn't approve of. All you have to do is
>>demonstrate his duplicity, and the rest is inevitable. Have fun watching him
>>dance.
>>--PLH, he's just another act in the sideshow
>A psychotherapist's mother lode. :)
Is that where all that traffic around his part of town is coming from? And I
thought it was just all the *&^%$#@! street construction...:-)
--PLH, who _can_ get there from here, and does so twice a year
sini...@hotmail.com
> >Ya know, I just can't help but note that you to make an adorable couple :)
> >
> >--Sinistral--
>
> It's the old accuse someone of being gay as if it were dirty ploy.
>
> Swine bigot!
>
> Eagle Eye
Who said anything about being gay as dirty? I said you were ADORABLE ya dork!
Since when are "dirty ploys" adorable? You're seeing words that aren't there
buddy! Perhaps you should see a psychiatrist, or at least an optomitrist! :)
Presumptuous Twad!
eflo...@my-dejanews.com
rack...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> On 30 Jan 1999 21:00:56 -0000, Eagle Eye <eagl...@nym.alias.net>
> wrote:
>
> >>"History will show Henry Hyde up there with Abraham Lincoln as one of
> >>the greatest men in Americans History." Rush Limbaugh on LSD - 1/27/99
> >>Boy are conservative grasping at straws hey? :)
>
> >So, Mr. Jite, you sure hate Henry Hyde, huh?
> >And it shows.
>
> suffering, the abject hypocrisy in all of this, which yall just don't
> have the intellectual capacity to understand.
The capacity to understand you, and your ramblings? I suppose one would need
a degree in head shrinking to even begin to understand that... assuming one
would want to. After many long years of putting up with you on three
different networks prior to some nitwit actually allowing you to ramble on
the web, I can speak with some degree of authority, here. You're beyond help.
>
> Why in Heaven's Name, would you accuse me of perhaps hating Hyde
> because of maybe two messages in my life about him, when for 7 years,
> about all the conservatives have done, is hate Clinton with such a
> passion that yall blame rape, mass murder, baby killing, selling
> secrets to the enemy, CONSTANTLY. ALL THE TIME FOR 7 DAMN YEARS.
Perhaps... just perhaps, because it's true? I understand that concept may be
too large for your brain to comprehend. Perhaps I can print up some cue cards
for you?
To the rest of you:If this nut is an example of liberalism, no wonder your
party is both financially and morally bankrupt.
eflo...@my-dejanews.com
Eagle Eye
<sini...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >Ya know, I just can't help but note that you to make an adorable couple :)
>> >
>> >--Sinistral--
>> It's the old accuse someone of being gay as if it were dirty ploy.
>>
>> Swine bigot!
>>
>> Eagle Eye
>Who said anything about being gay as dirty?
It was implied. If you have political or other differences with someone,
and out of left field just accuse them of being gay, it's intended to
insult them. I learned that in elementary school hearing kids call
each other "fags." When you get to be an adult and get to know some
gay people, and see that there's nothing inherently bad or dirty, you
realize such accusations are childish and only work to stigmatize
homosexuals.
>I said you were ADORABLE ya dork!
Effeminate characteristic intended to emphasize the stereotype
of people in a male-male relationship. Your apparently hostility
belies your protests of benign intent.
>Since when are "dirty ploys" adorable?
Learn to parse. You used the ploy of accusing us of being gay, as if
being gay were dirty.
Rack Jite
>> Why in Heaven's Name, would you accuse me of perhaps hating Hyde
>> because of maybe two messages in my life about him, when for 7 years,
>> about all the conservatives have done, is hate Clinton with such a
>> passion that yall blame rape, mass murder, baby killing, selling
>> secrets to the enemy, CONSTANTLY. ALL THE TIME FOR 7 DAMN YEARS.
>
>Perhaps... just perhaps, because it's true? I understand that concept may be
>too large for your brain to comprehend. Perhaps I can print up some cue cards
>for you?
Still running your Christian White Supremacy BBS Eric? :)
>To the rest of you:If this nut is an example of liberalism, no wonder your
>party is both financially and morally bankrupt.
Gosh, Taking in double the money, more than ever, and double the
positiave ratings of the GOP. You may be a nice intolerant little
Christian racist and bigot, but smart is not your long suit. :)
Friend of Humphrey and Eagle I presume? :) So Sharp!
sini...@hotmail.com
Eagle Eye <eagl...@nym.alias.net> wrote:
> >> >Ya know, I just can't help but note that you two make an adorable couple
:)
> >> >
> >> It's the old accuse someone of being gay as if it were dirty ploy.
> >>
> >> Swine bigot!
> >>
> >> Eagle Eye
> >Who said anything about being gay as dirty?
>
> It was implied. If you have political or other differences with someone,
> and out of left field just accuse them of being gay, it's intended to
> insult them.
BZZZZZT! Wrongo! Oooh sorry, negative score for that one; you may have to
settle for the take home edition. You're reading words that aren't there
again.
> I learned that in elementary school hearing kids call
> each other "fags." When you get to be an adult and get to know some
> gay people, and see that there's nothing inherently bad or dirty, you
> realize such accusations are childish and only work to stigmatize
> homosexuals.
Well gee whiz Eagle, I looked over both of my posts, then I double-checked
them, then I triple-checked them and just to make extra-sure I quadruple
checked them and I don't see the word "fag" in there! Just to make sure let
me quintuple check them... NOPE! I know plenty of gay people and they
wouldn't have been insulted by that, you're really just graspin' at straws my
friend. All I dared say was that you and Pattie over there really really
like each other.
Is that really all that false?
>> >I said you were ADORABLE ya dork!
>
> Effeminate characteristic intended to emphasize the stereotype
> of people in a male-male relationship. Your apparently hostility
> belies your protests of benign intent.
I had no idea it was stereotypical for male-male relationships to be
adorable! Hell, most of the anti-gay stereotypes I've heard involve filth and
evil and all that other crap.
Of course, somehow you got the idea that because I said something that
sounded to you to be somehow an inference that you and Pattie over there were
in some sort of gay relationship, that I was suggeting that there was
something wrong with that. That's what I find odd. Though I wouldn't quite
say bigotted. I'd say something more like a sign of nothing more than a lack
of ability as far as comprehensive reading is concerned.
Don't worry, I love you anyway! :)
> >Since when are "dirty ploys" adorable?
>
> Learn to parse. You used the ploy of accusing us of being gay, as if
> being gay were dirty.
I love gay people! You don't understand -- I'm HAPPY for you and Pattie! You
make an adorable couple, whether you're gay or hetero or whatever. Man, you
sure are insecure. Loosen and lighten up dude!
--Sinistral--
"Watch your step, there are deep thoughts all over my floor!" :)
http://members.xoom.com/librealm/
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Eagle Eye
<sini...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>In article <1999020221350...@nym.alias.net>,
> Eagle Eye <eagl...@nym.alias.net> wrote:
>> >> >Ya know, I just can't help but note that you two make an adorable couple
>:)
>> >> It's the old accuse someone of being gay as if it were dirty ploy.
>> >>
>> >> Swine bigot!
>> >>
>> >> Eagle Eye
>> >Who said anything about being gay as dirty?
>> It was implied. If you have political or other differences with someone,
>> and out of left field just accuse them of being gay, it's intended to
>> insult them.
Learn what "implied" means.
>> I learned that in elementary school hearing kids call
>> each other "fags." When you get to be an adult and get to know some
>> gay people, and see that there's nothing inherently bad or dirty, you
>> realize such accusations are childish and only work to stigmatize
>> homosexuals.
>[...] I don't see the word "fag" in there!
Reread what I wrote. Then we'll just forget you made that strawman.
>[...] I know plenty of gay people and they
>wouldn't have been insulted by that,
Some of your best friends are gay, right? Whether gay friends of yours
would take it as complimentary is a moot point.
You're not on friendly terms with me or Mr. Humphrey (to my knowledge.)
You don't know our sexual orientation, unless you've read our articles
closely enough to see we're heterosexual.
Why on earth would you want to "compliment" either of us for something
you invented out of whole cloth?
Your excuses don't stand up to reason.
[...]
>All I dared say was that you and Pattie over there really really like each other.
Sure. Backpedal now.
>>> >I said you were ADORABLE ya dork!
>> Effeminate characteristic intended to emphasize the stereotype
>> of people in a male-male relationship. Your apparently hostility
>> belies your protests of benign intent.
>I had no idea it was stereotypical for male-male relationships to be
>adorable!
"Adorable" in this context has an effiminate connotation. Your intention
was clearly to try to insult, and not to praise.
[...]
>> >Since when are "dirty ploys" adorable?
>> Learn to parse. You used the ploy of accusing us of being gay, as if
>> being gay were dirty.
>I love gay people!
Sure you do. To their face. Behind their back, I'll be you're one of the
types who makes bigotted jokes. I've seen plenty of your kind before.
>[...] Man, you sure are insecure.
Don't confuse my distaste for homophobes with insecurity.
>Loosen and lighten up dude!
I listened to jerks tell AIDS jokes while my cousin whithered down to
a skeleton, so pardon me if I just don't find homophobic "humor" funny.
If you really care about gays and their rights, you'll stop using
the accusation that someone you perhaps don't like is gay as a way
to try to insult them. Accuse them of eating their boogers, not
washing properly, or anything else which doesn't serve to propagate
negative stereotypes.
"I don't care to belong to a club that accepts people like
me as members."
-- Groucho Marx
Eagle Eye
Rack Jite <rack...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
[...]
>Still running your Christian White Supremacy BBS Eric? :)
>You may be a nice intolerant little
>Christian racist and bigot, but smart is not your long suit. :)
>
>Friend of Humphrey and Eagle I presume? :) So Sharp!
Mr. Jite, if you said 2+2=5 and Timothy McVeigh said 2+2=4, I'd say
he was right. And you'd use that as "proof" that I'm friends with
a mass murderer.
Got any NEW propaganda techniques, Mr. Limba... uh, I mean... Jite?
Patrick L. Humphrey
>On 02 Feb 1999 09:38:21 -0600, pat...@io.com (Patrick L. Humphrey)
>wrote:
>>Volt...@geocities.com writes:
>>>When you loons finish jacking each other off you can explain what all
>>>this BS has to do with Rush Limbaugh.
>>Maybe you can explain what _your_ whining has to do with it, Jim. Are you
>>going to play Subject Line NetCop?
>Does it say "Patrick and Eagle Eye Lay Hands on Each Other?"
No, since you keep changing it to spread your latest ad hominem of the day.
>>>See that Subject Header above?
>>Yes...and you couldn't care less about it, so what's your problem?
>Your spamming and stalking, Patrick. As always.
You have a problem with something I don't do, eh? Maybe you should find
something more important to worry about.
>>[Eagle stings Kennemur, Kennemur throws fit -- what a surprise, no?]
>So why don't you quote it?
Why don't you find someone other than you or Dahlman who cares?
>Your strawman has the same brains you do, Patrick.
Projection will still get you nowhere, Jim.
>>>>>That statement got me a spit-filled, crimson-faced rant, from Mr. Jite. :)
>>>>>He lied, and I just pointed it out. Apparently, that makes me "fucked up."
>>>>Obviously -- after all, you dared to disagree with Dave Dahlman! Just ask
>>>>him. :-)
>>>Like you try to drop little bits of personal information about him
>>>every time you post?
>>I hope Dave's paying you by the letter when you attack me for him.
>Are you paid to stalk liberals on the net, Patrick?
No, since I don't do it in the first place.
>>>Shall we discuss the Spandex Biker, Patrick?
>>Why don't you, Jim? It's been a while since the last time you showed everyone
>>why you're here. Might as well show the newcomers that you're not interested
>>in actually discussing anything.
>I heard you like to ride down bumpy roads with your bike seat off.
You should get help in dealing with those voices in your head, then, shouldn't you?
>>[Dave tries to get me fired, and fails *yawn*]
>Snipped the mention of your feeling the wrath of the Rice University
>Legal Department did you Patrick?
Kind of hard to snip something that doesn't exist except in your imagination,
wouldn't you say?
>>>>>Some people have no sense of proportion. That's a sure sign of an
>>>>>unstable personality.
>>>>Dunno if I'd call him _that_ unstable, as he seems to have managed to live in
>>>>a fairly decent neighborhood for as long as I've known of him. Personally, I
>>>>think at least part of his act is just that - an act. Still, he does seem to
>>>>have a loose screw or two, considering the length of time he's spent on this
>>>>charade of his.
>>
>>>Let's ask the legal department at Rice about your stalking, Patrick.
>>Why don't you, Jim? Then they can quote you the Texas law on it, and you can
>>run away from them like you did from me the last time I posted it.
>Run away?
Yes, like the last time you suddenly dropped your participation in the
discussion...and the time before that, and so on.
>I like what the police told Rack to do the last time you peddled by
>his house to stalk.
Correction: you like what Dahlman *says* the poilce supposedly told him. Too
bad he can't even get the basic details right -- what police officer in his
right mind would openly advise action that _is_ covered by state laws on
murder?
>You have got to love small town Texas cops.
Not as much as I like Dave's imagination, and your eagerness to use his
delusions to attack me. Why do I need to do any work to demonstrate what a
malicious moron you are, when you do it yourself?
>>>>>Reminds me of something my wife saw. She was on some chatroom discussing
>>>>>antiques and a frequent visitor was absent for awhile. It turns out her
>>>>>husband saw that some man gave her a "hug" on the chatroom, and her husband
>>>>>freaked out, threatening to go find the guy and "kick his ass." After
>>>>>that point, people were afraid to give any personal information, or to
>>>>>even be more friendly than a "hi." Some asshole always has to screw
>>>>>things up for everyone.
>>>>Yep...sad, but true. I guess Dave got tired of being pounded in FidoNet, so
>>>>he wandered into Usenet and decided to try his luck there.
>>>FidoNet where you stalked him years ago, Patrick?
>>No, FidoNet where he got invited to leave a few echos because of his
>>behavior. (He never was thrown off any of them that I remember, but left of
>>his own free will and then went to other echos whining about how he'd been
>>thrown off. It didn't fool anyone then, and it's still not working now.)
>Those echoes where you and your Looneytarian buddies forged messages
>under his name and then squealed when he protested that he didn't post
>them?
Are you accusing me of forgery, Jim? I'd hope you have _some_ sort of actual
evidence behind your accusation (not that I expect it, though), since I've
never done such a thing.
>Are you proud of that Patrick?
Since I've never done anything of the sort, your question is meaningless, as
usual. Is this the best you can do?
>>[Dave's radio soapbox gets 86ed, awww]
>So you listened to him expose you and the air and were too cowardly to
>call in and answer him?
Maybe you should ask Dave why he's too cowardly to actually encounter any of
the people he so assiduously tries to libel while he's online.
>>>>>Awww. Tell me, does he have a high-pitched, whiney voice? Or does he have
>>>>>a drunken southern drawl?
>>
>>>>Neither -- he's from Wisconsin or Minnesota, by his accent (which isn't all
>>>>that pronounced, but it _is_ there, from what I remember). There was a time a
>>>>few years ago, though, when he was still annoying several FidoNet message
>>>>bases, and got into it hot and heavy with some woman who lived up in the
>>>>Ft. Worth-Dallas part of the state -- and then one night, she got a call from
>>>>someone claiming to be me, but with (as she put it) a Minnesota accent. That
>>>>amused me at the time, considering that up until I'd known my wife, I'd never
>>>>been within about 600 miles of Minnesota...but the first time I heard Dave
>>>>whining about me on KPFT, I figured he was a likely suspect. If only
>>>>Caller-ID had been more widely spread back in those days...
>>>>He just likes to go after people who either dispute him in any way, or dare
>>>>to hold political opinions he doesn't approve of. All you have to do is
>>>>demonstrate his duplicity, and the rest is inevitable. Have fun watching him
>>>>dance.
>>>>--PLH, he's just another act in the sideshow
>>>And you are what the elephants leave behind when the parade is over,
>>>Patrick.
>>Projection will get you nowhere, Jim.
>A pitchfork will scoop you right up and put you in the compost pile,
>Patrick.
I'm not interested in your little wet dream about what you'd like to do to me,
Jim.
>>>I think the Spandex Biker story will liven things up around here.
>>Why? It's just another repeat of your fantasy -- well, actually, Dave's
>>fantasy, since you _are_ acting as his attack slug, after all -- that hasn't
>>become one bit more true, no matter how much you repeat it. What's the
>>matter, is Dave upset because he gave me the inspiration to put up a page
>>making fun of him, and there's nothing he can do about it?
>I am always amazed that you are proud of your stalking and gun
>loonery, Patrick.
I'm bored by your repeated trolling, Jim. How come no one else seems to get
that impression from my web pages?
>>>Then we will discuss your problems at Rice.
>>What problems? Last time I looked, if I had any problems where I work, they
>>had nothing to do with anything Dave did four years ago. Looks like your
>>"discussion" isn't going to go very far, if you're the only one
>>participating.
>We have the letter from their legal department. You can not post on
>the net from your work account.
Really, Jim? You've seen me post from there many a time since Dave tried to
get me silenced. Maybe you should lay off the bottle.
>Lets discuss your abusive stalking, Patrick.
Do you like discussing what doesn't exist? I have better things to do with my time.
>>>Do you want to play?
>>I have better things to do with my time, Jim...but if you want to embarrass
>>yourself yet again, you'll do so regardless of what I want. I just get to
>>watch.
>Like with your wife and your neighbor?
*yawn* I feel sorry for your parents...I'm sure they hope you'll eventually
grow up, too.
>You must have come home early again, Patrick.
Why don't you tell me when I come home, Jim? You're the one pretending you
know all about me, after all.
>Better hope that grandbaby doesn't pick up any of your bad habits. He
>already has genetics going against him.
He's already more mature than you are, Jim. I guess you lose, as usual.
While you're on your little jihad, though, would you have a picture of
yourself I can grace my Spandex Biker web page with? :-)
--PLH, might as well poke the loon some more
Patrick L Humphrey
>Volt...@geocities.com writes:
[a lot snipped, to get to this little gem that Jim is apparently unwilling to
let go of in his quest to anger me]
>>We have the letter from their legal department. You can not post on
>>the net from your work account.
>Really, Jim? You've seen me post from there many a time since Dave tried to
>get me silenced. Maybe you should lay off the bottle.
...and since he seems to think he knows something about me or my employment
that I don't, I figured I'd just follow up my post to him with a reminder from
this account that Jim claims I'm not allowed to use for posting purposes.
(Free clue, Jim: if I were forbidden to post from this account, you wouldn't
be seeing this. Isn't it time for you to declare victory and killfile me
again?)
--PLH, making fun of folks like Kennemur and Dahlman is a hobby
Rack Jite
>On 02 Feb 1999 09:38:21 -0600, pat...@io.com (Patrick L. Humphrey)
>wrote:
>
>>Volt...@geocities.com writes:
>>Why don't you, Jim? It's been a while since the last time you showed everyone
>>why you're here. Might as well show the newcomers that you're not interested
>>in actually discussing anything.
>I heard you like to ride down bumpy roads with your bike seat off.
Gosh, I couldn't let that one pass. Anyone in any of these newsgroups
can see for themselves that you and I discuss issues most everyday, we
even begin threads on issues most everyday. Anyone can pick a message
from Patrick Humphrey and find EVERYONE, EVERY SINGLE ONE is
initiating and sustaining a flame war with a few liberals who he
delights in passing out as much personal information about them as he
can get away with. "NO LAW AGAINST IT! BWA HAHAHAHA!"
GO LOOK! ITS RIGHT HERE TO SEE LIT UP IN HALOGEN.
>>[Dave tries to get me fired, and fails *yawn*]
>Snipped the mention of your feeling the wrath of the Rice University
>Legal Department did you Patrick?
And I must comment on this. After Humphrey had complained to my
server, I complained to his. Because some use employee accounts should
not make them any more or less suseptable to complaints than anyone
else. Right?
Humphrey claims his flame war, with the squealing and stalking is
because of this false accusation of his that I tried to get him fired.
Let's take that at face value just for the argument.
That complaint was about 3 years ago, so what has been his reason for
his flame war with all the squealing in stalking for the 12 years
prior to that!?
Gosh... LOOK AT THIS GUY! Go, right now and -get all- in this group,
sort by author and read every Patrick Humphrey message. See? :)
Now, rememember that he has been posting basically the same messages
not only today, but most every day for 15 years. He even proudly
admits to snooping around my home on at least four occasions.
An obsessive stalker, consumed squealer and above all, A LOSER.
Base stock for the LP! :)
NOTE: This is my second message concerning Humphrey in response to 23
from him. GO LOOK! :)
In fact I am going to make this a political issue.
Just like the GOP is self destructing because they cannot control how
much they hate Bill Clinton, so too Patrick Humphrey here. Instead of
quiting digging that hole he has dug for himself, he's pissing so far
down all can do is piss on the walls.
sini...@hotmail.com
Oh Eagle. (Sigh)
In article <199902030537...@nym.alias.net>,
Eagle Eye <eagl...@nym.alias.net> wrote:
> >> >> >Ya know, I just can't help but note that you two make an adorable
couple
> >:)
> >> >> It's the old accuse someone of being gay as if it were dirty ploy.
> >> >>
> >> >> Swine bigot!
> >> >>
> >> >> Eagle Eye
> >> >Who said anything about being gay as dirty?
> >> It was implied. If you have political or other differences with someone,
> >> and out of left field just accuse them of being gay, it's intended to
> >> insult them.
> >[...] You're reading words that aren't there again.
>
> Learn what "implied" means.
I know what implied means. I didn't imply that being gay was dirty,
especially since I used the word "ADORABLE" see it? Got it? You're the one
that picked up somehow that I thought being gay was dirty. You're
mind-reading crystal ball is broken I'd wager.
> >> I learned that in elementary school hearing kids call
> >> each other "fags." When you get to be an adult and get to know some
> >> gay people, and see that there's nothing inherently bad or dirty, you
> >> realize such accusations are childish and only work to stigmatize
> >> homosexuals.
> >[...] I don't see the word "fag" in there!
>
> Reread what I wrote. Then we'll just forget you made that strawman.
I'll reread it right now. Mmmmmhmmmm. Looks like you're saying calling
people "fags" only works to stigmatize homosexuals. Guess what! I agree
with you! You're constant whining about my daring to suggest that you and Pat
really like each other is rather sickening though. I can't help it if you
consider that an insult.
> >[...] I know plenty of gay people and they
> >wouldn't have been insulted by that,
>
> Some of your best friends are gay, right? Whether gay friends of yours
> would take it as complimentary is a moot point.
Why not? It's perfectly relevent. Just as relevant as your story about your
cousin later. For somebody you claim to be a bigot I sure have quite a few
openly gay friends.
> You're not on friendly terms with me or Mr. Humphrey (to my knowledge.)
> You don't know our sexual orientation, unless you've read our articles
> closely enough to see we're heterosexual.
You're damn right I don't know your sexual orientation. All I know is that
you really really like each other and therefore make a rather adorable
couple. That's the innocent little comment that you're blowing out of
proportion.
> [...]
> >All I dared say was that you and Pattie over there really really like each
other.
>
> Sure. Backpedal now.
Reread my original comment ya wanker :)
"Ya know, I just can't help but note that you two make an adorable
couple."
I don't see anything about being gay. Hell, for all I knew you were a woman.
Hell, for all I knew, Pattie could have been a woman under a false name --
the internet works like that. Maybe you were two women! I don't know and I
don't care. The point that I was infering that quite frankly parted your
hair (Assuming you have any) was actually this:
You and Pat do an excellent job of kissing each others' asses.
No gayness involved. You two just reminded me of a pair of gossipy
dingleberries sipping tea and giggling over a coffee table about all the dirty
little tidbits floating around.
> Sure you do. To their face. Behind their back, I'll be you're one of the
> types who makes bigotted jokes. I've seen plenty of your kind before.
Not really. I tend to avoid stereotypes. I hate bigoted peices of trash
that make fun of gays. I have no problem however with making fun of people
due to the content of their character. After the story you told, I suppose I
can see why you might be a tad jumpy and pressumptuous about such a thing, I
imagine the death of your family member left some vivid and unpleasent
pictures in your mind.
But the FACT of the matter is that I don't know if you're gay, I don't care if
you're gay, and I never infered that you were gay. Just a gossipy little
giggler, and I found that amusing.
And that pretty damn accurate too, I'd have to say. :)
Patrick L. Humphrey
>On Wed, 03 Feb 1999 01:36:13 GMT, Volt...@geocities.com wrote:
>>On 02 Feb 1999 09:38:21 -0600, pat...@io.com (Patrick L. Humphrey)
>>wrote:
>>>Volt...@geocities.com writes:
>>>Why don't you, Jim? It's been a while since the last time you showed
>>>everyone why you're here. Might as well show the newcomers that you're not
>>>interested in actually discussing anything.
>>I heard you like to ride down bumpy roads with your bike seat off.
>Gosh, I couldn't let that one pass. Anyone in any of these newsgroups
>can see for themselves that you and I discuss issues most everyday, we
>even begin threads on issues most everyday. Anyone can pick a message
>from Patrick Humphrey and find EVERYONE, EVERY SINGLE ONE is
>initiating and sustaining a flame war with a few liberals who he
>delights in passing out as much personal information about them as he
>can get away with. "NO LAW AGAINST IT! BWA HAHAHAHA!"
>GO LOOK! ITS RIGHT HERE TO SEE LIT UP IN HALOGEN.
Gee, Dave, I don't have time to monitor _your_ posting habits, what with
having a job, and a real life, and all those responsibilities that go with
them, but you claim you know what I'm all about? Now _that_ is to laugh at.
I guess you only see what you want to see, and ignore anything that might not
fit with your assertions -- too inconvenient, right?
>>>[Dave tries to get me fired, and fails *yawn*]
>>Snipped the mention of your feeling the wrath of the Rice University
>>Legal Department did you Patrick?
>And I must comment on this. After Humphrey had complained to my
>server, I complained to his. Because some use employee accounts should
>not make them any more or less suseptable to complaints than anyone
>else. Right?
Right...which has nothing to do with why _you_ went to my employers, so why
bring it up?
>Humphrey claims his flame war, with the squealing and stalking is
>because of this false accusation of his that I tried to get him fired.
Bullshit, Dave. You've had your little obsession with me for a hell of a lot
longer than four years, remember?
>Let's take that at face value just for the argument.
That's about all you know how to do.
>That complaint was about 3 years ago, so what has been his reason for
>his flame war with all the squealing in stalking for the 12 years
>prior to that!?
The spring of 1995 was three years ago? I never made such a claim, so you can
put your little strawman away, Dave. No one's being fooled by this latest
iteration of your canned response.
>Gosh... LOOK AT THIS GUY! Go, right now and -get all- in this group,
>sort by author and read every Patrick Humphrey message. See? :)
So? What does that prove? If you're stupid enough to believe that I only
post to one newsgroup, you'll fall for anything.
>Now, rememember that he has been posting basically the same messages
>not only today, but most every day for 15 years. He even proudly
>admits to snooping around my home on at least four occasions.
Pedaling by != snooping, Dave.
>An obsessive stalker, consumed squealer and above all, A LOSER.
Sounds like a description of you and your half-witted pals, Dave...funny how
you can't post a single bit of actual evidence to support any of your
assertions, but rely on the "make a lot of noise now, and often" tactic and
hope people will fall for it. If you really _had_ any evidence, you'd have
been trumpeting it to the four corners of the net by now.
>Base stock for the LP! :)
Too bad I've never bothered joining.
>NOTE: This is my second message concerning Humphrey in response to 23
>from him. GO LOOK! :)
Why? You don't have anything better to do than display your frustration at me
laughing at your efforts?
>In fact I am going to make this a political issue.
Good. That means it'll never be heard of again.
>Just like the GOP is self destructing because they cannot control how
>much they hate Bill Clinton, so too Patrick Humphrey here. Instead of
>quiting digging that hole he has dug for himself, he's pissing so far
>down all can do is piss on the walls.
Hey, Dave -- since when have I ever been a Republican?
While we're on that tack, though, you seem to think you're pro-choice -- so,
where were you *or* your attack slug Kennemur when the Republicans came to
town back in 1992 and brought the Operation Rescue creeps along with them?
I was working nights that summer, then heading out to spend most of the day
defending one or another of the local clinics the OR cowards were annoying
here in town. What did _you_ do, besides rant on your little keyboard?
If you're such a great pro-choice activist, why aren't you listed on Neal
Horsley's hateful little Nuremberg Files web site?
--PLH, probably because Dave's all for causes that don't require him to
actually *do* anything
Patrick L. Humphrey
>Oh Eagle. (Sigh)
>In article <199902030537...@nym.alias.net>,
> Eagle Eye <eagl...@nym.alias.net> wrote:
[cut to get to the one thing I want to comment on]
>> You're not on friendly terms with me or Mr. Humphrey (to my knowledge.)
>> You don't know our sexual orientation, unless you've read our articles
>> closely enough to see we're heterosexual.
>You're damn right I don't know your sexual orientation. All I know is that
>you really really like each other and therefore make a rather adorable
>couple. That's the innocent little comment that you're blowing out of
>proportion.
You obviously don't know anywhere near as much as you think you know, then --
just because Eagle and I happen to agree on our opinions of a couple of
t.p.m's more bozotic posters, we "really really like each other"? Mighty long
jump to a conclusion there, don't you think? (Particularly since you don't
know either one of us from Adam, either online _or_ in person.)
>> [...]
>> >All I dared say was that you and Pattie over there really really like each
>other.
>> Sure. Backpedal now.
>Reread my original comment ya wanker :)
>"Ya know, I just can't help but note that you two make an adorable
>couple."
You can't help but think that, anyway. Unfortunately for you, me and the
wife make the real-life adorable couple.
>I don't see anything about being gay. Hell, for all I knew you were a woman.
>Hell, for all I knew, Pattie could have been a woman under a false name --
>the internet works like that. Maybe you were two women! I don't know and I
>don't care. The point that I was infering that quite frankly parted your
>hair (Assuming you have any) was actually this:
>You and Pat do an excellent job of kissing each others' asses.
All because we happen to agree on a couple of opinions?
Let's see -- one of my frequent targets, Dave Dahlman (the cretin posing as
"Rack Jite"), happens to share an opinion or two with me on the abortion
issue: we're both pro-choice. Guess the logic process gets a little too
complex for you there, eh?
>No gayness involved. You two just reminded me of a pair of gossipy
>dingleberries sipping tea and giggling over a coffee table about all the dirty
>little tidbits floating around.
The things people get when they combine their imaginations with a collection
of pixels on a CRT screen...
--PLH, after fifteen years, they sure ain't makin' em any smarter in
cyberspace
Eagle Eye
<sini...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>In article <199902030537...@nym.alias.net>,
> Eagle Eye <eagl...@nym.alias.net> wrote:
>> >> and out of left field just accuse them of being gay, it's intended to
>> >> insult them.
[...]
>> >> each other "fags." When you get to be an adult and get to know some
>> >> gay people, and see that there's nothing inherently bad or dirty, you
>> >> realize such accusations are childish and only work to stigmatize
>> >> homosexuals.
>> >[...] I don't see the word "fag" in there!
>> Reread what I wrote. Then we'll just forget you made that strawman.
>people "fags" only works to stigmatize homosexuals.
Read it again. I said I learned in elementary school that calling
someone gay in an unfriendly context is intended to insult them. The
way I learned about it in elementary school was hearing kids call each
other "fags" and seeing the result. Calling someone that name is not
the only way to accuse or imply that someone is gay. I didn't say you
used that term. That was merely an example of how I learned about how
people use homophobia to insult one another. Yours is another.
[...]
>For somebody you claim to be a bigot I sure have quite a few
>openly gay friends.
Having black friends doesn't give someone "permission" to tell racist jokes.
Why should having gay friends give you "permission" to attack people by
implying they're gay?
>> You're not on friendly terms with me or Mr. Humphrey (to my knowledge.)
>> You don't know our sexual orientation, unless you've read our articles
>> closely enough to see we're heterosexual.
>You're damn right I don't know your sexual orientation.
So, why would you suggest to us that we are gay? We're not your friends.
You weren't complementing us.
Your own statements show your intent was to insult. I refer
you to your own words below about "kissing ... asses."
[...]
>The point that I was infering that quite frankly parted your
>hair (Assuming you have any) was actually this:
>
>You and Pat do an excellent job of kissing each others' asses.
My point exactly. You intended to insult, so your defense that
you used the word "adorable" as a compliment was a lie.
BTW, I don't think you were "infering[sic]" anything. Implying, maybe.
[...]
>> Sure you do. To their face. Behind their back, I'll be you're one of the
>> types who makes bigotted jokes. I've seen plenty of your kind before.
>Not really. I tend to avoid stereotypes.
Except when you want to insult someone?
>I hate bigoted peices of trash that make fun of gays.
Do you?
[ remainder of troll flushed ]
Get to class, Mr. "sinistral." Spend your time hitting the books
rather than playing games on the net. You'll thank me later. :)
Eagle Eye
>
>Let's see -- one of my frequent targets, Dave Dahlman (the cretin posing as
>"Rack Jite"), happens to share an opinion or two with me on the abortion
>issue: we're both pro-choice. Guess the logic process gets a little too
>complex for you there, eh?
Don't you know that we're now best buddies with an alleged white
supremacist, because this person responded to Mr. Jite in the same
thread we did? Rack said so, so it must be true.
I never imagined I had THAT many intimate friends! ;)
sini...@hotmail.com
Pattie!
In article <szk4sp3...@dillinger.io.com>,
pat...@io.com (Patrick L. Humphrey) wrote:
> sini...@hotmail.com writes:
> >You're damn right I don't know your sexual orientation. All I know is that
> >you really really like each other and therefore make a rather adorable
> >couple. That's the innocent little comment that you're blowing out of
> >proportion.
>
> You obviously don't know anywhere near as much as you think you know, then --
> just because Eagle and I happen to agree on our opinions of a couple of
> t.p.m's more bozotic posters, we "really really like each other"? Mighty long
> jump to a conclusion there, don't you think? (Particularly since you don't
> know either one of us from Adam, either online _or_ in person.)
I've been lurkin' for a while, actually. Your recent conversation reminded
me, as I said in my other recent post, of two giggly little gossipers. That
was the inference that I was really making that Eagle didn't get. Judging
from the personal story he told me, I'm going to have to go the way of
liberal open-mindedness and understand how that can happen though. I'd
probably be touchy too about that kind of thing if a close relative died of
AIDS.
> You can't help but think that, anyway. Unfortunately for you, me and the
> wife make the real-life adorable couple.
I'm sure you two would put Dennis Rodman and Carmen Electra to SHAME! ;D
> >You and Pat do an excellent job of kissing each others' asses.
>
> All because we happen to agree on a couple of opinions?
No, because of your gossipy behavior.
> The things people get when they combine their imaginations with a collection
> of pixels on a CRT screen...
>
> --PLH, after fifteen years, they sure ain't makin' em any smarter in
> cyberspace
And who would know better about not makin' things any smarter after fifteen
years than you, Pattie? :)
Patrick L. Humphrey
>In article <szk4sp3...@dillinger.io.com>
>Patrick L. Humphrey <pat...@io.com> wrote:
>>sini...@hotmail.com writes:
>>>You and Pat do an excellent job of kissing each others' asses.
>>All because we happen to agree on a couple of opinions?
>>Let's see -- one of my frequent targets, Dave Dahlman (the cretin posing as
>>"Rack Jite"), happens to share an opinion or two with me on the abortion
>>issue: we're both pro-choice. Guess the logic process gets a little too
>>complex for you there, eh?
>Don't you know that we're now best buddies with an alleged white
>supremacist, because this person responded to Mr. Jite in the same
>thread we did? Rack said so, so it must be true.
Fortunately, people in the real world have a bit higher standard of proof than
Dave does.
>I never imagined I had THAT many intimate friends! ;)
If I had a fraction of a percent as many intimate friends as Dave has
proclaimed I've had in his five-year reign of error in Usenet, I wouldn't have
time to post anything...I'd be worn out. :-)
--PLH, then again, I'm married to one woman, and she does almost that much to
me, as it is...
Patrick L. Humphrey
>Pattie!
You're talking to Patrick.
>In article <szk4sp3...@dillinger.io.com>,
> pat...@io.com (Patrick L. Humphrey) wrote:
>> sini...@hotmail.com writes:
>> >You're damn right I don't know your sexual orientation. All I know is that
>> >you really really like each other and therefore make a rather adorable
>> >couple. That's the innocent little comment that you're blowing out of
>> >proportion.
>>You obviously don't know anywhere near as much as you think you know, then --
>>just because Eagle and I happen to agree on our opinions of a couple of
>>t.p.m's more bozotic posters, we "really really like each other"? Mighty long
>> jump to a conclusion there, don't you think? (Particularly since you don't
>> know either one of us from Adam, either online _or_ in person.)
>I've been lurkin' for a while, actually. Your recent conversation reminded
>me, as I said in my other recent post, of two giggly little gossipers. That
>was the inference that I was really making that Eagle didn't get. Judging
>from the personal story he told me, I'm going to have to go the way of
>liberal open-mindedness and understand how that can happen though. I'd
>probably be touchy too about that kind of thing if a close relative died of
>AIDS.
Your perception is your problem.
>> You can't help but think that, anyway. Unfortunately for you, me and the
>> wife make the real-life adorable couple.
>I'm sure you two would put Dennis Rodman and Carmen Electra to SHAME! ;D
Hardly -- Dale and I got married pretty much the regular way, though not with
a big church ceremony. We didn't just do it on the spur of the moment when
visiting Las Vegas -- we'd been married nearly seven years by the time we made
our first trip out there.
>> >You and Pat do an excellent job of kissing each others' asses.
>> All because we happen to agree on a couple of opinions?
>No, because of your gossipy behavior.
As I said above: your perception == your problem.
>> The things people get when they combine their imaginations with a collection
>> of pixels on a CRT screen...
>> --PLH, after fifteen years, they sure ain't makin' em any smarter in
>> cyberspace
>And who would know better about not makin' things any smarter after fifteen
>years than you, Pattie? :)
Though it's not immediately obvious, I was referring more to the newcomers who
have managed to infest Usenet with their ignorance and are doing their best to
make it unusable with their adolescent attitude. Case in point: one newbie
hiding behind his hotmail account, but posting from edinboro.edu.
*plonk*
--PLH, oh, well...
sini...@hotmail.com
Eagle Eye <eagl...@nym.alias.net> wrote:
> Read it again. I said I learned in elementary school that calling
> someone gay in an unfriendly context is intended to insult them. The
> way I learned about it in elementary school was hearing kids call each
> other "fags" and seeing the result. Calling someone that name is not
> the only way to accuse or imply that someone is gay. I didn't say you
> used that term. That was merely an example of how I learned about how
> people use homophobia to insult one another. Yours is another.
Unfortunately for you Eagle, though you may not have realized it, we all
graduated from Elementary School long long ago. At least I think so, to be
sure, let me ask now, are you or Pattie still in Elementary School? I don't
want to botch up and make a mistake again like the one about how you might
have been a female. If I'm gonna say you're not in Elementary School, I'm
wanna be sure of it!
> Having black friends doesn't give someone "permission" to tell racist jokes.
> Why should having gay friends give you "permission" to attack people by
> implying they're gay?
Because I DIDN'T. How many times do I have to tell you this?
> So, why would you suggest to us that we are gay? We're not your friends.
> You weren't complementing us.
>
> Your own statements show your intent was to insult. I refer
> you to your own words below about "kissing ... asses."
It was absolutely an insult. You just picked up the wrong wind of it and
threw a hissy fit. Which I'm rather enjoying, actually. :)
> My point exactly. You intended to insult, so your defense that
> you used the word "adorable" as a compliment was a lie.
>
> BTW, I don't think you were "infering[sic]" anything. Implying, maybe.
Then you got the wrong implication, as you appear to be implying that you
finally understand here. My guess is that your problem is something similar
to many other situations in the world; you have a deep desire to whine about
something, just for the sake of having something to complain about. So you
whine about "Being insulted by a homophobic bigot that disgraces you, Pattie
and reminds you of a horrible family incident." Which unfortunately for you,
rings of untruth, as there was no gay implications or inferences or anything
in my post!
And all I said was that you and Pattie make an adorable couple, which was
done *sarcasticly* (I obviously have to tell you, I thought it was obvious),
because the truth of the matter is you were behaving like grimey little
gossips!
And you know what, if you had just grinned, made a half-assed joke back at me,
and shrugged it off, we wouldn't be having this conversation now.
Looks like you have a very deep need to whine to me. :)
See you on the dark side,
sini...@hotmail.com
pat...@io.com (Patrick L. Humphrey) wrote:
> sini...@hotmail.com writes:
>
> >Pattie!
>
> You're talking to Patrick.
Nah, I like "Pattie!" Better. And you know what's even more satisfying than
that, is that my little test worked:
> Though it's not immediately obvious, I was referring more to the newcomers who
> have managed to infest Usenet with their ignorance and are doing their best to
> make it unusable with their adolescent attitude. Case in point: one newbie
> hiding behind his hotmail account, but posting from edinboro.edu.
It's so nice to see a reputation ring true! You really are the slime I've
heard so much about Pattie! :)
As Eagle might quote:
"One day I shot an elephant in my pajamas, how it got into my pajamas I'll
never know."--Groucho Marx
--Sinistral--
Hope you're comfy. I plan to go back into lurker mode soon. :)
Eagle Eye
<sini...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>In article <1999020400051...@nym.alias.net>,
> Eagle Eye <eagl...@nym.alias.net> wrote:
>> Having black friends doesn't give someone "permission" to tell racist jokes.
>> Why should having gay friends give you "permission" to attack people by
>> implying they're gay?
>Because I DIDN'T.
You did, and now you're lying about it either because you're embarrassed
once you realized what you did, or you're just being contentious for the
fun of it.
I can't think of anyone stupid enough to buy your explanations.
>> So, why would you suggest to us that we are gay? We're not your friends.
>> You weren't complementing us.
>>
>> Your own statements show your intent was to insult. I refer
>> you to your own words below about "kissing ... asses."
>It was absolutely an insult. You just picked up the wrong wind of it and
>threw a hissy fit. Which I'm rather enjoying, actually. :)
Ahhh, so you are a troll. I see.
Go hit the books, schoolboy/schoolgirl. Spend your time learning and
having fun, not playing pranks on us old geezers. :)
sini...@hotmail.com
Eagle Eye <eagl...@nym.alias.net> wrote:
> > Eagle Eye <eagl...@nym.alias.net> wrote:
> >> Having black friends doesn't give someone "permission" to tell racist
jokes.
> >> Why should having gay friends give you "permission" to attack people by
> >> implying they're gay?
> >Because I DIDN'T.
>
> You did, and now you're lying about it either because you're embarrassed
> once you realized what you did, or you're just being contentious for the
> fun of it.
>
> I can't think of anyone stupid enough to buy your explanations.
Face it Eagle, my explanations fit! There is no inference about being gay.
Plain and simple.
> >> Your own statements show your intent was to insult. I refer
> >> you to your own words below about "kissing ... asses."
> >It was absolutely an insult. You just picked up the wrong wind of it and
> >threw a hissy fit. Which I'm rather enjoying, actually. :)
>
> Ahhh, so you are a troll. I see.
No, not really, Don't get me wrong, it was an insult, but the huge uproar
that came out of you was a total surprise. I simply can't deny in all
honesty that I got a tad of sadistic pleasure. My commentary was based on
you two gossiping gleefully, in a manner which I saw to be rather silly, and
you, as I said clearly but you ignored got a wind of it by far unintentioned.
And as I stated and you ignored, we would not be talking to each other now
if you'd just reacted smartly.
And never forget, Eagle... I love you... And Pattie too!
((((((((((((((((Group hug!!!))))))))))))))))))
--Sinistral--
"Watch your step, there are deep thoughts all over my floor!" :)
http://members.xoom.com/librealm/
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Eagle Eye
<sini...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>In article <1999020421505...@nym.alias.net>,
> Eagle Eye <eagl...@nym.alias.net> wrote:
>> > Eagle Eye <eagl...@nym.alias.net> wrote:
>> >> Having black friends doesn't give someone "permission" to tell racist jokes.
>> >> Why should having gay friends give you "permission" to attack people by
>> >> implying they're gay?
>> >Because I DIDN'T.
>> You did, and now you're lying about it either because you're embarrassed
>> once you realized what you did, or you're just being contentious for the
>> fun of it.
>>
>> I can't think of anyone stupid enough to buy your explanations.
If you really believe that, then I've found one person stupid enough.
Thing is, I'd bet money you don't. The search goes on.
>> Ahhh, so you are a troll. I see.
>No, not really, Don't get me wrong, it was an insult, but the huge uproar
>that came out of you was a total surprise. I simply can't deny in all
>honesty that I got a tad of sadistic pleasure.
I.e., you're a troll.
Go study and stop pissing away your college years trying to see how you
can get others to react to your stupidity. Learn something useful for a
change.
As Mr. Humphrey so eloquently said : *plonk*
(Since you're a newbie, that's your name going in my newsreader's killfile.)
"From the moment I picked your book up until I laid it
down convulsed with laughter. Someday I intend reading it."
-- Groucho Marx
sini...@hotmail.com
Eagle Eye <eagl...@nym.alias.net> wrote:
> >> I can't think of anyone stupid enough to buy your explanations.
> >Face it Eagle, my explanations fit! [...]
>
> If you really believe that, then I've found one person stupid enough.
> Thing is, I'd bet money you don't. The search goes on.
Geez, and to think you were getty pissy about me using insulting inplications!
Wow, you sure are dim, or dense at least. :)
> >> Ahhh, so you are a troll. I see.
> >No, not really, Don't get me wrong, it was an insult, but the huge uproar
> >that came out of you was a total surprise. I simply can't deny in all
> >honesty that I got a tad of sadistic pleasure.
>
> I.e., you're a troll.
No, a troll would aim for getting that uproar. My original comment was more
of a random musing than an intentional whine-maker. You kinda built that up
yourself. As I said repeatedly, you could've made yourself at least look
like you had some degree of class by not throwing the fit you did.
> Go study and stop pissing away your college years trying to see how you
> can get others to react to your stupidity. Learn something useful for a
> change.
I bet you must feel nice, talking down to someone you don't know because of
what someone else posted to be a suggestion about me. From someone that
would normally be from rice.edu no less! Heh!
> As Mr. Humphrey so eloquently said : *plonk*
> (Since you're a newbie, that's your name going in my newsreader's killfile.)
Don't really care, if you talk to me I have a nasty habit of responding. I
don't care where your head is, be it in my posts or up your ass. :)
Patrick L. Humphrey
>In article <79cn95$tt4$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
> <sini...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>In article <1999020400051...@nym.alias.net>,
>> Eagle Eye <eagl...@nym.alias.net> wrote:
>>>Having black friends doesn't give someone "permission" to tell racist jokes.
>>>Why should having gay friends give you "permission" to attack people by
>>>implying they're gay?
>>Because I DIDN'T.
>You did, and now you're lying about it either because you're embarrassed
>once you realized what you did, or you're just being contentious for the
>fun of it.
>I can't think of anyone stupid enough to buy your explanations.
Dave Dahlman would qualify, but he's already got his obsession at the moment.
>>> So, why would you suggest to us that we are gay? We're not your friends.
>>> You weren't complementing us.
>>> Your own statements show your intent was to insult. I refer
>>> you to your own words below about "kissing ... asses."
>>It was absolutely an insult. You just picked up the wrong wind of it and
>>threw a hissy fit. Which I'm rather enjoying, actually. :)
>Ahhh, so you are a troll. I see.
>Go hit the books, schoolboy/schoolgirl. Spend your time learning and
>having fun, not playing pranks on us old geezers. :)
Keep in mind an aphorism that has its uses: Old age and treachery will trump
youth and skill.
--PLH, in which case, the little troll is right out of luck
sini...@hotmail.com
> youth and skill.
Killfiled or not, I have to love the appropriate nature of that statement. :)
Wickedness and numb brains for every one! The Humphrey way of the world!
Patrick L. Humphrey
>On Sat, 06 Feb 1999 02:42:00 GMT, sini...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>In article <szkvhhg...@dillinger.io.com>,
>> pat...@io.com (Patrick L. Humphrey) wrote:
>>>Keep in mind an aphorism that has its uses: Old age and treachery will trump
>>>youth and skill.
>>Killfiled or not, I have to love the appropriate nature of that statement. :)
>>Wickedness and numb brains for every one! The Humphrey way of the world!
>The Spandex Biker is famous for his threats and witless mumbling.
Well, that's what a couple of hapless folks on the other side of the Houston
conglomeration from me want people to believe...too bad you and Dave have no
talent at actually getting significant numbers of people to react to your
fantasies about me the way you decree they should.
>You know him well.
Now _that_ is pretty funny, coming from someone who wouldn't know me if I was
walking down his street. (I _was_ over that way three months ago, but you'd
never have noticed. :-)
--PLH, who was busy trying to keep up with the other 600+ people involved in
the event
Cajun
"are you still sodomizing your sister"? Joke's on you.
Volt...@geocities.com wrote in message
<36f6a45d...@news.mindspring.com>...
>On 02 Feb 1999 09:38:21 -0600, pat...@io.com (Patrick L. Humphrey)
>wrote:
>
>>Volt...@geocities.com writes:
>
>>>When you loons finish jacking each other off you can explain what all
>>>this BS has to do with Rush Limbaugh.
>>
>>Maybe you can explain what _your_ whining has to do with it, Jim. Are you
>>going to play Subject Line NetCop?
>
>Does it say "Patrick and Eagle Eye Lay Hands on Each Other?"
>
>>
>>Yes...and you couldn't care less about it, so what's your problem?
>
>Your spamming and stalking, Patrick. As always.
>
>
>So why don't you quote it?
>
>
:)
>>>>>He lied, and I just pointed it out. Apparently, that makes me "fucked
up."
>>
>>>>Obviously -- after all, you dared to disagree with Dave Dahlman! Just
ask
>>>>him. :-)
>
>>>Like you try to drop little bits of personal information about him
>>>every time you post?
>
>>I hope Dave's paying you by the letter when you attack me for him.
>
>Are you paid to stalk liberals on the net, Patrick?
>
>>
everyone
>>why you're here. Might as well show the newcomers that you're not
interested
>>in actually discussing anything.
>
>I heard you like to ride down bumpy roads with your bike seat off.
>
>
>Snipped the mention of your feeling the wrath of the Rice University
>Legal Department did you Patrick?
>
>>>>>unstable personality.
>>
>>>>Dunno if I'd call him _that_ unstable, as he seems to have managed to
live in
>>>>a fairly decent neighborhood for as long as I've known of him.
Personally, I
>>>>think at least part of his act is just that - an act. Still, he does
seem to
>>>>have a loose screw or two, considering the length of time he's spent on
this
>>>>charade of his.
>>
>>>Let's ask the legal department at Rice about your stalking, Patrick.
>
>>Why don't you, Jim? Then they can quote you the Texas law on it, and you
can
>>run away from them like you did from me the last time I posted it.
>
>Run away?
>
>his house to stalk.
>
>
discussing
>>>>>antiques and a frequent visitor was absent for awhile. It turns out
her
>>>>>husband saw that some man gave her a "hug" on the chatroom, and her
husband
>>>>>freaked out, threatening to go find the guy and "kick his ass." After
>>>>>that point, people were afraid to give any personal information, or to
>>>>>even be more friendly than a "hi." Some asshole always has to screw
>>>>>things up for everyone.
>>
>>>>Yep...sad, but true. I guess Dave got tired of being pounded in
FidoNet, so
>>>>he wandered into Usenet and decided to try his luck there.
>>
>>>FidoNet where you stalked him years ago, Patrick?
>>
>>No, FidoNet where he got invited to leave a few echos because of his
>>behavior. (He never was thrown off any of them that I remember, but left
of
>>his own free will and then went to other echos whining about how he'd been
>>thrown off. It didn't fool anyone then, and it's still not working now.)
>
>Those echoes where you and your Looneytarian buddies forged messages
>under his name and then squealed when he protested that he didn't post
>them?
>
>
>>[Dave's radio soapbox gets 86ed, awww]
>
>So you listened to him expose you and the air and were too cowardly to
>call in and answer him?
>
>>
>>Why? It's just another repeat of your fantasy -- well, actually, Dave's
>>fantasy, since you _are_ acting as his attack slug, after all -- that
hasn't
>>become one bit more true, no matter how much you repeat it. What's the
>>matter, is Dave upset because he gave me the inspiration to put up a page
>>making fun of him, and there's nothing he can do about it?
>
>I am always amazed that you are proud of your stalking and gun
>loonery, Patrick.
>
>>
>>What problems? Last time I looked, if I had any problems where I work,
they
>>had nothing to do with anything Dave did four years ago. Looks like your
>>"discussion" isn't going to go very far, if you're the only one
participating.
>
>the net from your work account.
>
>
>>
>>I have better things to do with my time, Jim...but if you want to
embarrass
>>yourself yet again, you'll do so regardless of what I want. I just get to
>>watch.
>
>Like with your wife and your neighbor?
>
>
>already has genetics going against him.
>
>
>Ecrasons l'infame
>
>Join The War On Right Wing Ignorance:
>http://clusterone.home.mindspring.com/
>
>Vote For "The Mr. Sam Memorial Blithering Idiot Of The Month Award."
>http://prairie.lakes.com/~gdy52150/award.html
>
>========================================================================
>"Can anyone remember seeing such a pathetic collection of bad losers
gathered in
>one setting before? I am writing of the sad-faced, pouty bunch of Clinton
haters
>seated in the House during the amazing performance by Bill Clinton ..
>[Republicans were] pouting, belligerent and defeated zealots with my nephew
...
>Dick Armey, one of the regrettable examples."
>
> -- Uncle Joe Armey, The Seattle Times Union
>========================================================================
Lee Harrison
<caj...@pyramid.net> wrote:
> Your're a half wit Voltai! Dont you know that "Ecrasons l'infame" translates
> "are you still sodomizing your sister"? Joke's on you.
That aint the way I heerd it.
Way I heerd it, "Ecrasons l'infame" means "We must crush this vile
thing."
Something like that. Maybe Voltaire will respond to your ignorant
post in his own way.
Like you, sonny, I don't know any French.
But I can look it up.
Lee Harrison | Vide et crede
Cajun
Canada ait foutu dehors!
Volt...@geocities.com wrote in message
<36da8543...@news.mindspring.com>...
>On Sun, 7 Feb 1999 18:50:57 -0800, "Cajun" <caj...@pyramid.net> wrote:
>
>>Your're a half wit Voltai! Dont you know that "Ecrasons l'infame"
translates
>>"are you still sodomizing your sister"? Joke's on you.
>
>
>I hate it when the Louisiana public schools let out a week for
>Carnival!
>
> Jim
>
>
>Ecrasons l'infame
>
>Join The War On Right Wing Ignorance:
>http://clusterone.home.mindspring.com/
>
>Vote For "The Mr. Sam Memorial Blithering Idiot Of The Month Award."
>http://prairie.lakes.com/~gdy52150/award.html
>
>"If you want to get together in any exclusive situation and have people
love you,
>fine -- but to hang all this desperate sociology on the idea of The
Cloud-Guy who
>has The Big Book, who knows if you've been bad or good -- and CARES about
any of it
>-- to hang it all on that, folks, is the chimpanzee part of the brain
working."
>
> -- Frank Zappa
>===========================================================================
>
Cajun
Canada ait foutu dehors!
Volt...@geocities.com wrote in message
<36da8543...@news.mindspring.com>...
>On Sun, 7 Feb 1999 18:50:57 -0800, "Cajun" <caj...@pyramid.net> wrote:
>
translates
>>"are you still sodomizing your sister"? Joke's on you.
>
>
>I hate it when the Louisiana public schools let out a week for
>Carnival!
>
>
>
>Ecrasons l'infame
>
>Join The War On Right Wing Ignorance:
>http://clusterone.home.mindspring.com/
>
>Vote For "The Mr. Sam Memorial Blithering Idiot Of The Month Award."
>http://prairie.lakes.com/~gdy52150/award.html
>
Christopher Morton
wrote:
>On 30 Jan 1999 21:12:36 -0000, in alt.society.liberalism you wrote:
>
>>In article <szklnil...@dillinger.io.com>
>>Patrick L. Humphrey <pat...@io.com> wrote:
>>>rack...@worldnet.att.net (Rack Jite) writes:
>>>>Which is, making absolutely sure everyone in the world knows you are a
>>>>dim bulb Libertarian and the principle squealer and stalker of
>>>>liberals on Usenet. And who over the past 15 years have ALWAYS, EACH &
>>>>EVERY TIME, intitiated the contact in your flame game.
>>
>>15 YEARS!!!!!!!!!! Aye carumba! Why don't you change your nick, or ignore him,
>>or sell your computer and move to Tibet? Is there some reason why thousands of
>>people must listen to your high-pitched squealing and whining?
>>
>>Mr. Jite, is that why you've posted NEW THREADS whining about Mr. Humphrey?
>>If you're going to lie, you should lie about things people can't look up on
>>Deja News.
>
>MY GOD ARE YOU FUCKED UP! :)
In order for David Dahlman of Seabrook, Texas (Rack Jite) to call him
"polite and honest", he has to deny the Holocaust and call for
genocide against the Jews.
---
Gun control, the theory that Black people will be
better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
Check out:
http://extra.newsguy.com/~cmorton
http://www.firstnethou.com/gunsite/moore.html
Christopher Morton
wrote:
>He had a few friends of his at the aforementioned KPFT who had a show called
>"Us The Folks", which was actually pretty good listening at times, and every
>few weeks they'd include Dave for his views...unfortunately, the show got
>canned last summer, so I guess no one in the Houston media wants to give Dave
>another soapbox. Maybe they read his alleged newsletter and pegged him
>quickly, who knows?
A source in Friendswood tells me that on night he accused every caller
of being me.
I guess if he's going to be a paranoid, he should be a raving
paranoid.
Christopher Morton
wrote:
>On Tue, 02 Feb 1999 21:25:11 GMT, eflo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
>
>>> Why in Heaven's Name, would you accuse me of perhaps hating Hyde
>>> because of maybe two messages in my life about him, when for 7 years,
>>> about all the conservatives have done, is hate Clinton with such a
>>> passion that yall blame rape, mass murder, baby killing, selling
>>> secrets to the enemy, CONSTANTLY. ALL THE TIME FOR 7 DAMN YEARS.
>>
>>Perhaps... just perhaps, because it's true? I understand that concept may be
>>too large for your brain to comprehend. Perhaps I can print up some cue cards
>>for you?
>
>Still running your Christian White Supremacy BBS Eric? :)
If so, will you call him "polite and honest" too?
Christopher Morton
>When you loons finish jacking each other off you can explain what all
>this BS has to do with Rush Limbaugh.
Is the neo-Nazi National Alliance still your IDEOLOGICAL SOURCE?
Christopher Morton
wrote:
>Got any NEW propaganda techniques, Mr. Limba... uh, I mean... Jite?
He sure sounds just like Limbaugh, doesn't he?
Same mental laziness....
Christopher Morton
wrote:
>My 6 year old could out-class him on a bad day. Putting the moniker of
>"Voltaire" on his tripe is akin to the Spice Girls going by the name Mozart.
Not really. The Spice Girls really do make music, even if it is
shitty music.
KKKennemur on the other hand is no more capable of actual thought than
the brake drum on a '73 Plymouth.
>Still, taking an online disagreement to an attempt to get you fired is more
>than just a kooky act.
>
>Sure, there's the troll element, but if what you say is true, he seems pretty
>damned unstable to me.
I believe the technical term is "creepy".
Doc Tavish
Christopher Morton <cm...@nwonline.net> wrote in article
<36df472a...@enews.newsguy.com>...
> On 3 Feb 1999 08:24:50 -0000, Eagle Eye <eagl...@nym.alias.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Got any NEW propaganda techniques, Mr. Limba... uh, I mean... Jite?
>
> He sure sounds just like Limbaugh, doesn't he?
>
> Same mental laziness....
The primary ones that dislike Limbaugh are mainly left wing socialist big
government types! Is this some sort of a confession that you are allied
with the likes of the Clintonistas such as James Carville and Larry Flynt?
No wonder you are unwittingly allied with the real anti-gun forces in
America!
Doc Tavish
Christopher Morton
<ahall-...@world.std.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Doc Tavish writes:
>
> Doc> Christopher Morton <cm...@nwonline.net> wrote in article
> >> 36df472a...@enews.newsguy.com>...
> >> On 3 Feb 1999 08:24:50 -0000, Eagle Eye <eagl...@nym.alias.net>
> wrote>
> >>
> >> >Got any NEW propaganda techniques, Mr. Limba... uh, I mean... Jite?
> >>
> >> He sure sounds just like Limbaugh, doesn't he?
> >>
> >> Same mental laziness....
>
> Doc> The primary ones that dislike Limbaugh are mainly left wing socialist big
> Doc> government types! Is this some sort of a confession that you are allied
>
>I think anybody that thinks does not think much of Limbaugh.
In the words of Janeane Garofalo, "Hey, he's funny."
Patrick L. Humphrey
>On 01 Feb 1999 00:18:26 -0600, pat...@io.com (Patrick L. Humphrey)
>wrote:
>>He had a few friends of his at the aforementioned KPFT who had a show called
>>"Us The Folks", which was actually pretty good listening at times, and every
>>few weeks they'd include Dave for his views...unfortunately, the show got
>>canned last summer, so I guess no one in the Houston media wants to give Dave
>>another soapbox. Maybe they read his alleged newsletter and pegged him
>>quickly, who knows?
>A source in Friendswood tells me that one night he accused every caller
>of being me.
Just my luck, I'd have to miss that one...what a time to call in.
>I guess if he's going to be a paranoid, he should be a raving
>paranoid.
Well, he's got at least fifteen years' experience in that...
--PLH, I guess I won't mention the Leukemia Society bike ride that'll be just
about next door to him in late May :)
Patrick L. Humphrey
>Christopher Morton <cm...@nwonline.net> wrote in article
><36df472a...@enews.newsguy.com>...
>> On 3 Feb 1999 08:24:50 -0000, Eagle Eye <eagl...@nym.alias.net>
>> wrote:
>> >Got any NEW propaganda techniques, Mr. Limba... uh, I mean... Jite?
>> He sure sounds just like Limbaugh, doesn't he?
>> Same mental laziness....
>The primary ones that dislike Limbaugh are mainly left wing socialist big
>government types! Is this some sort of a confession that you are allied
>with the likes of the Clintonistas such as James Carville and Larry Flynt?
>No wonder you are unwittingly allied with the real anti-gun forces in
>America!
Well, looky here...it's Scott Bradbury the Gutless Wonder, still hiding behind
his little alias, foaming at the mouth at anyone who dares to question his
hero. Free clue, Scotty: Limbaugh occasionally gets things right, but on the
whole, he's about as conservative as Sheila Jackson Lee, the Houston
Congressmouth. He'd have been laughed out of the GOP back before the idiot
theocrat wanna-bes tried to hijack it.
So, are you still lurking in Meyerland, looking for "Aryan" women to pounce
on?
--PLH, who hasn't seen Scotty on any of my travels through his part of Houston
-- no one sleeping under bridges along the Brays Bayou trails...
Patrick L. Humphrey
>On 31 Jan 1999 05:06:12 GMT, rack...@worldnet.att.net (Rack Jite)
>wrote:
>>On 30 Jan 1999 21:12:36 -0000, in alt.society.liberalism you wrote:
[actually, the three-chevron lines belong to Eagle Eye, IIRC]
>>>15 YEARS!!!!!!!!!! Aye carumba! Why don't you change your nick, or ignore
>>>him, or sell your computer and move to Tibet? Is there some reason why
>>>thousands of people must listen to your high-pitched squealing and whining?
>>>Mr. Jite, is that why you've posted NEW THREADS whining about Mr. Humphrey?
>>>If you're going to lie, you should lie about things people can't look up on
>>>Deja News.
>>MY GOD ARE YOU FUCKED UP! :)
>In order for David Dahlman of Seabrook, Texas (Rack Jite) to call him
>"polite and honest", he has to deny the Holocaust and call for
>genocide against the Jews.
Wait until he finds out that one of his old adversaries in his BBS days here
in Houston -- remember Rory Olsen, Dave? <wave wave> -- was elected in
November, and is now a probate judge in Harris County...as a Republican.
(Dale and I voted for him -- he was one of the few non-LP candidates on the
ballot who got my vote.)
--PLH, if that's not an incentive for Dave to live long and healthy, nothing
is :-)
Christopher Morton
wrote:
>So, are you still lurking in Meyerland, looking for "Aryan" women to pounce
>on?
WOMEN? I kind of doubt it.
Wasn't he the one who posted the picture of the Black pre-op
transsexual here?
I tend to think his interests lie in other directions....
Patrick L. Humphrey
>On 15 Feb 1999 19:23:54 -0600, pat...@io.com (Patrick L. Humphrey)
>wrote:
>>So, are you still lurking in Meyerland, looking for "Aryan" women to pounce
>>on?
>WOMEN? I kind of doubt it.
Scotty's not exactly picky, judging from his raving in the white-power
newsgroups. I pity the squirrels along the Brays parkway.
>Wasn't he the one who posted the picture of the Black pre-op
>transsexual here?
>I tend to think his interests lie in other directions....
One of them would seem to be demonstrating the disadvantages of untreated
psychosis, now that you mention it...
--PLH, not even Dave Dahlman is defending Scotty...that's a pretty bad sign
Christopher Morton
wrote:
>--PLH, not even Dave Dahlman is defending Scotty...that's a pretty bad sign
That's probably only due to his not having specifically noticed him.
He still thinks that the Nazis are "honest" when they deny the
Holocaust.