Max Fink said about Pamela:
Natasha
"There was never a doubt in my mind that Pam was responsible for
Jim's death." (April 24, 1986)
I wonder if Butler ever mentioned this in her book.
Natasha
PButler111
I didn't quote it directly because I found absolutely nothing to support it. I
did make reference to that and Patricia Kennealy's claims of the same by
quoting Bill Siddons on the subject:
"No story seemed too far-fetched for anyone to believe (including the
scurrilous rumor that Pamela had murdered Jim, to which Siddons responded, 'To
me there was absolutely never one-thousandth of a percentage of a chance that
that was the case; she loved the man'), no conspiracy theory too tangled to be
assigned credibility."
You might want to read the book.
pb
Natasha
>"There was never a doubt in my mind that Pam was responsible for
>Jim's death." (April 24, 1986) I wonder if Butler ever mentioned
>this in her book.
>Natasha
PButler answered:
>I didn't quote it directly because I found absolutely nothing to
>support it. I did make reference to that and Patricia Kennealy's
>claims of the same by quoting Bill Siddons on the subject:
>
>"No story seemed too far-fetched for anyone to believe (including
>the scurrilous rumor that Pamela had murdered Jim, to which Siddons
>responded, 'To me there was absolutely never one-thousandth of a
>percentage of a chance that that was the case; she loved the man'),
>no conspiracy theory too tangled to be assigned credibility."
And why then, Mrs Butler, did Fink say the following nice things
about Pam which - of course you did not quote in your book?
Read this:
In the manuscript page 1 (after the preface) Fink says "... there was
never a doubt in my mind that Pamela was responsible for Jim's death."
(Recorded on April 24,1886)
Extract from page 8-12: I get a call one
day from Pam asking if she and Jim can come in later that afternoon
... she end up showing up by herself ... looking terrible with her
greasy hair and bare legs, which I couldn't stand.There was something
dirty looking about her. So she starts telling me that she thinks it
would be a good idea if before they leave she and Jim draw up their
wills. She wants to leave everything to Jim - all her possessions. She
had nothing, you know, aside from what Jim gave her. She was a very
expensive dame. She asked me if Jim had a will, because he would get
touchy when she would broach the subject ... Since, according to Pam,
they were in a common-law marriage ... I told her there was one
problem: California didn't recognize common-law ... any such
arrangement could be declared invalid. That seemed to upset her. In
any case, if Jim wanted to name her as beneficiary of his estate, he
was free to do so. But I couldn't draw up Jim's will wothout him being
present. She pleaded with me just to draft it and she would take it
home and have Jim sign it. I was losing patience with her at that
point ... You had to understand Pam. She was a very gutty broad. She
was always hounding Jim to marry her despite the free love bit.Then
she would start in on me: 'Max, you talk to him, he'll listen to you!'
Crap like that.Then I talked to him. I talked him out of such idea.
Frankly, I never thought she gave a hang for Jim aside from the money
and the glory ... (she was) an agressive, determined dame. She
attached herself to him and wouldn't let go. She had him brainwashed
for awhile, making him feel he couldn't get along without her ... she
knew how to handle him pretty good. And she could put on a good act of
being helpless and vulnerable."
Q: But in the end Pamela was declared
his common-law wife, right?
Max Fink: "Are you kidding? She declared
herself his legal wife, concocting a story of a marriage ceremony in
Colorado ... of course there was never any marriage ... she was no
more married to Jim than I was."
Mrs Butler, you were so proud to use Fink's manuscript for your
purposes - why then did you not talk about all those negative things
about Pam Fink reported. And why the fuck did you take all the
negative stories about Jim (f.e. the homosexual stuff) for your book?
Indeed, you just needed Morrison's name on the cover of your book to
sell it. No soul would have bought the book as it should have been
named: "The tragic and poor life of Pamela Courson".
Natasha
PButler111
>purposes - why then did you not talk about all those negative things
>about Pam Fink reported. And why the fuck did you take all the
>negative stories about Jim (f.e. the homosexual stuff) for your book?
>Indeed, you just needed Morrison's name on the cover of your book to
>sell it. No soul would have bought the book as it should have been
>named: "The tragic and poor life of Pamela Courson".
>Natasha
>
>
Dear Natasha:
First of all, I'm not married. Secondly, I talked about several negative
things about Pam in my book, as well as several positive things. In your
previous post you indicated that you had not read my book, so I renew my advice
to you to do so before you continue to comment about what is or isn't in it.
As for the story about Pam coming to Max about the will -- from which I noticed
you excised sections -- this story was actually referred to in my book (another
reason you should have read it before commenting). In part of what you left
out of your excerpt, Max indicated that he'd never made a will for Jim. Paul
Ferrara, however, witnessed that will in Max's office several years before Max
said that Pam came to him about a will. Again, this is addressed in my book.
Again, I suggest you read it.
As for needing Jim's name on the cover of the book in order to sell it, I hate
to tell you that Jim's name would have been on the cover of the book regardless
of whether the book was only about Pam or about both Pam and Jim, as it is.
The book was also turned down more times because of Jim than it was because of
Pam.
As I've said before, the book wasn't about Max Fink or the Doors or Genghis
Khan for that matter. There were many things in the Fink transcript that
aren't in the book because the book wasn't about Max or the band. Please read
the book before you comment on its contents further. I don't think that's an
unreasonable request.
pb
VARYKINA
reprint the manuscript here. Ms. Butler, I'm trying to see where Natasha asked
you if you were married - who cares. Let's face it - you took what you wanted
to suit your purpose from the manuscript - the glorification of Pam and the
vilification of Jim.
OK, now I'm taking the time to go dig out the manuscript. And for your
information, I have since read your book so please do not accuse me of that. A
lot of people have read your book - it's been passed around.
DLyte99720
>reprint the manuscript here. Ms. Butler, I'm trying to see where Natasha
>asked
>you if you were married - who cares.
Natasha addressed Butler as MRS Butler............
< Let's face it - you took what you wanted
>to suit your purpose from the manuscript - the glorification of Pam and the
>vilification of Jim.
As does Kennealy when she decides to bring up the questionability of the Fink
transcript regarding the "vilification of Jim" yet uses it to support her
"vilification of Pam"
People play with this transcript left and right to suit their purposes *yawn*
That's kind of a moot point, in my opinion.
Dee
VARYKINA
her picture. Too bad.
PButler111
>reprint the manuscript here. Ms. Butler, I'm trying to see where Natasha
>asked
>you if you were married - who cares.
She didn't ask me if I was married. She kept referring to me as "Mrs. Butler".
Mrs. Butler is my mother, who I don't believe is online.
Let's face it - you took what you wanted
>to suit your purpose from the manuscript
Yes, of course I did. My purpose was to write a book about Jim and Pam
Morrison. It would have been stupid to use information that served a different
purpose.
- the glorification of Pam and the
>vilification of Jim.
>
If you're determined to think that that's what was done, you're just going to
keep on thinking that. The reality of what was written obviously doesn't make
any difference to you. I haven't heard from anyone beyond Patricia Kennealy's
fans/friends who thinks the book has either vilified Jim or glorified Pam.
Let's face it -- saying so suits your purposes, so no matter how much
information people bring to your attention that negates your allegations,
you're simply going to ignore that and plow right ahead.
>OK, now I'm taking the time to go dig out the manuscript. And for your
>information, I have since read your book so please do not accuse me of that.
I didn't "accuse" anyone of anything. In her first post, Natasha herself
indicated she hadn't read the book. Vary, you really do go off quite a lot
without stopping to inform yourself. Again, you need to holster the hostility.
You're so determined to make everything a big conspiracy that it makes a real
dialogue impossible.
pb
PButler111
>>vilification of Jim.
>
>As does Kennealy when she decides to bring up the questionability of the Fink
>transcript regarding the "vilification of Jim" yet uses it to support her
>"vilification of Pam"
>
>People play with this transcript left and right to suit their purposes *yawn*
>
>That's kind of a moot point, in my opinion.
>
>Dee
Dee's right. Max's judgment is only questioned by these folks when he's saying
things they don't like, but if he's saying something the *do* like, then he's
the world's foremost authority. As I've said before, Max had a lot of things
to say about a lot of people, including some rather nasty things about
Kennealy. I don't see anyone kicking that I didn't play up that information.
Authors takes lots of things from lots of sources, published and unpublished.
You can't take it all -- that would just be plaigarism. You have to make
choices of inclusion and exclusion. I didn't invent that. That's just how
it's done.
pb
PButler111
>from
>her picture. Too bad.
Yes, she was very young. Her family still hasn't recovered.
Dylan West
joerossi.com The Official Joe Rossi Website.
j...@joerossi.com
On 28 Nov 1998, Zarahustra thus spoke:
Max Fink once wrote
I can't cope
sent carbon copies to his cousin
all his bills
were paid by Satan
& he sleeps now well
in a bunk in hell
& lives w/ lizards
& famous sons & souls
in a playground deep
where the dancers leap
and the horns will blow
when in Heaven' it doth snows.
whilst William Blake
Ascends from the Lake
And everyone parties
and patakes in the take.
ain't it great
ain't it great
ain't it great?
TerriRites
out of your excerpt, Max indicated that he'd never made a will for Jim. Paul
Ferrara, however, witnessed that will in Max's office several years before Max
said that Pam came to him about a will. >>
You've just illustrated my very problem with Fink's credibility! You've argued
with me time and again about this, but obviously, despite your claims now, you
consider Max to be an unreliable source as well.
Do you regret using that manuscript at all yet?
Terri
TerriRites
>>to suit your purpose from the manuscript - the glorification of Pam and the
>>vilification of Jim.
>
>As does Kennealy when she decides to bring up the questionability of the Fink
>transcript regarding the "vilification of Jim" yet uses it to support her
>"vilification of Pam"
>
>People play with this transcript left and right to suit their purposes *yawn*
>
>That's kind of a moot point, in my opinion.
>
>Dee
PButler writes:
<<Dee's right. Max's judgment is only questioned by these folks when he's
saying
things they don't like, but if he's saying something the *do* like, then he's
the world's foremost authority.>>
It seems you are *quite* guilty of this yourself, Patricia. And just a note,
you'd never be able to accuse me of this. I didn't think his manuscript should
have been used at all. You did... and you stood behind it completely.
I don't understand how you can accuse others of the very thing you've done and
still be so self-righteous.
<< As I've said before, Max had a lot of things to say about a lot of people,
including some rather nasty things about
Kennealy. I don't see anyone kicking that I didn't play up that information.>>
You made it very clear that you didn't want to use Kennealy in your book. If
you had chosen to include Kennealy, I'm sure you would have used anything you
could find. But you did write a book about Pam and you certainly didn't "play
up" that information either. Perhaps *you* didn't "like it". But you *did*
like the stories about Jim. You believe the stories about Jim... you've told me
so. All this from the same source... and Jim's story is the only one presented
as fact.
I don't believe you have anything against Jim as others claim. But I do believe
that this story was just too good to let go and you took advantage of it,
regardless of the source's reliability. I find that irresponsible.
<<Authors takes lots of things from lots of sources, published and unpublished.
You can't take it all -- that would just be plaigarism. You have to make
choices of inclusion and exclusion. I didn't invent that. That's just how
it's done. >>
Yes, but many authors also try to include material that is provided by a
reliable source. Why did you choose to let that slip in this case?
Terri
DLyte99720
>
>(For the record - I am not a Kennealy loyalist, and I have read the book ~)
*LOL*
ooo am I ever green with envy at your ability to knit such a variety of posts
together......
*wishing she had the patience for such impressive work*
Dee
PButler111
>
>
No, you don't digress. Your point was to be snotty and that's what you did.
Actually she died under mysterious circumstances that have still not been
resolved. I'm so happy you find amusement in that.
>On 10- 21 MojoRisenn wrote:
>
>>That rough draft of Max's Fink's story of Jim could of been all made up but
>you used that....just left out the part >where he
>claimed Pam kill Jim.
>
>You, Patricia, wrote:
>
>>And Max never "claimed Pam killed Jim". (1998/10/22 )
>
That's right. Max expressed an opinion based on nothing more than his general
dislike of her. That's not a claim that she did anything. That's just Max
expressing an opinion based on nothing.
>Today Natasha wrote:
>
>>Max Fink once said about Pamela Courson the following:"There was never a
>doubt in my mind that Pam was >responsible for Jim's
>death." (April 24, 1986) I wonder if Butler ever mentioned this in her book.
>>Natasha
>
>To which you, Patricia, responded:
>
>>I didn't quote it directly because I found absolutely nothing to support it.
>(1998/11/28)
>
>
>You're either mentally ill - or a compulsive liar - in either case, you
>should really try to keep track of your bs.
>
Let's see -- you're spending your time gathering, cutting, and pasting posts
and *I'm* mentally ill. Right. In none of your examples did I either lie or
misrepresent myself or my work. I'm not sure how you inferred otherwise, but
that's your own mistake, not mine.
>
>Thank you for taking the time to type out part of the manuscript , Natasha.
>She'd have continued to lie through her teeth about
>MF's opinions of Pamela.
>
No one asked me about Max's opinion of Pamela, so I was never given a chance to
lie or not lie about it. Thank you for your deep and sincere concern, though.
PButler111
><<Dee's right. Max's judgment is only questioned by these folks when he's
>saying
>things they don't like, but if he's saying something the *do* like, then he's
>the world's foremost authority.>>
><< As I've said before, Max had a lot of things to say about a lot of
>people,
>including some rather nasty things about
>Kennealy. I don't see anyone kicking that I didn't play up that
>information.>>
>
>You made it very clear that you didn't want to use Kennealy in your book. If
>you had chosen to include Kennealy, I'm sure you would have used anything you
>could find.
Yes, Terri, you're sure of a great many things that have no basis in fact.
Kennealy was mentioned in my book to the extent she was relevant, as you've
been told a thousand times. You can't seem to make up your mind whether to
attack me for knowing nasty things about Kennealy and not writing them, or for
simply knowing them.
But you did write a book about Pam and you certainly didn't "play
>up" that information either. Perhaps *you* didn't "like it". But you *did*
>like the stories about Jim. You believe the stories about Jim... you've told
>me
>so. All this from the same source... and Jim's story is the only one
>presented
>as fact.
>
There are also several funny and sweet stories about Jim for which Max was the
source. If you ever choose to read the *whole* book one day instead of just
using the index to pick out the naughty bits, Terri, perhaps you'll come across
those as well.
>I don't believe you have anything against Jim as others claim. But I do
>believe
>that this story was just too good to let go and you took advantage of it,
>regardless of the source's reliability. I find that irresponsible.
>
Right. You don't mind putting forth your personal opinions as facts or
incorrectly answering questions based on nothing more than your own opinions --
that's highly responsible. But if a biographer includes a story you don't like
-- oh, my!
><<Authors takes lots of things from lots of sources, published and
>unpublished.
>
>You can't take it all -- that would just be plaigarism. You have to make
>choices of inclusion and exclusion. I didn't invent that. That's just how
>it's done. >>
>
>Yes, but many authors also try to include material that is provided by a
>reliable source. Why did you choose to let that slip in this case?
>
>sigh< Asked and answered, asked and answered, asked and answered, asked and
answered....
PButler111
>argued
>with me time and again about this, but obviously, despite your claims now,
>you
>consider Max to be an unreliable source as well.
>
>Do you regret using that manuscript at all yet?
>
>Terri
No, I only regret that you have a computer and nothing better to do than use it
for this.
VARYKINA
>No, you don't digress. Your point was to be snotty and that's what you did.
>Actually she died under mysterious circumstances that have still not been
>resolved. I'm so happy you find amusement in that.
>
For ONCE, I agree. I feel bad for her family and for any family that has lost
a loved one.
Vary
VARYKINA
and let everyone read it for themselves!
PB - this was your First book. Sorry but I can't see you saying stuff like this
is what authors do. I had a friend (RIP) who was the only biographer of a
British Agent during WWl. He is always quoted as being the authority. The Agent
in question died during the 60's but my friend had interviewed him extensively
before he died. My friend, John, had told me a story about Russia. I said,
John, why didn't you put this story in your book? He said - because this agent
had a tendency to embellish and I didn't believe him. John was right because
since then the agent's story (which had appeared in other books) has been
proven to be totally not true. So I think one must decide what is true, what is
not true - just because someone says it does not make it true. OK, you believed
what you wrote but you didn't give the reader the chance to decide for
themselves.
VARYKINA
>If you're determined to think that that's what was done, you're just going to
>keep on thinking that. The reality of what was written obviously doesn't
>make
>any difference to you. I haven't heard from anyone beyond Patricia
>Kennealy's
>fans/friends who thinks the book has either vilified Jim or glorified Pam.
>Let's face it -- saying so suits your purposes, so no matter how much
>information people bring to your attention that negates your allegations,
>you're simply going to ignore that and plow right ahead.
>
are not going to answer me about how you got the manuscript. OK. I based my
opinion upon what was written in the manuscript, your book, other books, Alain
Ronay's article and other personal knowledge. Sorry, it is my opinion. And,
there are people here who are not pro-Kennealy who agree with me. Terri as well
as others do not know PKM. I had full knowledge of a lot of this before I ever
met PKM. So, like I said, my opinion.
TerriRites
But you did write a book about Pam and you certainly didn't "play
>up" that information either. Perhaps *you* didn't "like it". But you *did*
>like the stories about Jim. You believe the stories about Jim... you've told
>me
>so. All this from the same source... and Jim's story is the only one
>presented
>as fact.
>
<<There are also several funny and sweet stories about Jim for which Max was
the
source. >>
I'm sure there are. I never suggested that the Fink manuscript was all
vicious... just that much of it is probably untrue.
Butler wrote:
<< If you ever choose to read the *whole* book one day instead of just
using the index to pick out the naughty bits, Terri, perhaps you'll come across
those as well.>>
I read the book. If you must knock me for something... knock my retention of
the material if you need to. But don't accuse me of not reading the book. I
read every page.
I wrote:
>I don't believe you have anything against Jim as others claim. But I do
>believe
>that this story was just too good to let go and you took advantage of it,
>regardless of the source's reliability. I find that irresponsible.
>
Butler wrote:
<<Right. You don't mind putting forth your personal opinions as facts or
incorrectly answering questions based on nothing more than your own opinions --
that's highly responsible.>>
What? You keep saying this. Do I have to write a disclaimer on every post I
write here stating that it's based on my opinion? Everyone seems to know that
but you. What exactly in the above statement of mine that put forth as fact?
Terri
TerriRites
>You're either mentally ill - or a compulsive liar - in either case, you
>should really try to keep track of your bs.
Butler writes:
<<Let's see -- you're spending your time gathering, cutting, and pasting posts
and *I'm* mentally ill. Right. In none of your examples did I either lie or
misrepresent myself or my work. I'm not sure how you inferred otherwise, but
that's your own mistake, not mine.>>
Don't take that even with a grain of salt, Marisa. Butler has spent a great
deal more time cutting and pasting that you have. She's poured through messages
a month old to try to catch me in something (and failed to boot).
I thought your examples were excellent and proved a good point. Be careful
though, she'll go at you like a rabid dog if you give her the chance.
Terri
TerriRites
| In none of your examples did I either lie or
|misrepresent myself or my work. I'm not sure how you inferred otherwise,
Marisa:
I didn't infer anything - I quoted you. Nice try -
Someone who hadn't seen the manuscript claimed Max said he thought Pam killed
Jim, so you lied:
Butler:
>>"And Max never "claimed Pam killed Jim".
Marisa:
Until someone who had seen the manuscript quoted it , at which point you
acknowledged that he did say it, you just didn't want to
mention it:
Butler:
>>"I didn't quote it directly because I found absolutely nothing to support it.
" (1998/11/28)
Marisa:
Can't get much plainer...>>
Right Marisa! I guess she didn't have those numerous and reliable "anonymous"
sources to back Fink up on the Pam stuff like she did with the Jim/prostitute
story!
Terri
TerriRites
<<What reality. I had the manuscript way before you did. By the way, I guess
you
are not going to answer me about how you got the manuscript. OK. I based my
opinion upon what was written in the manuscript, your book, other books, Alain
Ronay's article and other personal knowledge. Sorry, it is my opinion. And,
there are people here who are not pro-Kennealy who agree with me. Terri as well
as others do not know PKM. I had full knowledge of a lot of this before I ever
met PKM. So, like I said, my opinion.
>>
Good Vary. Stick up for those opinions, but before you know it she'll tell
everyone you are trying to speak for her, her book, Jim, Pam, Max, everyone.
I don't know PKM, but maybe I should. Tell her she's starting to look better
and better to me! :)
Terri
Miz Scarlett
..and wouldn't PB be a hoot on the witness stand?
PB: [to the court reporter] "NO! NO! I didn't say that!! You're
delusional! You're out to get me!! Why else would you be writing down
everything I say?"
Heh (c)
-----------Scarlett
PButler111
>you
>are not going to answer me about how you got the manuscript. OK. I based my
>opinion upon what was written in the manuscript, your book, other books,
>Alain
>Ronay's article and other personal knowledge. Sorry, it is my opinion. And,
>there are people here who are not pro-Kennealy who agree with me. Terri as
>well
>as others do not know PKM. I had full knowledge of a lot of this before I
>ever
>met PKM. So, like I said, my opinion.
I honestly don't understand how your reply relates to what you quoted from
me???
NLbitch
NL, LMAO over n over..
PButler111
Vary, I appreciate what you say here, but again -- the example you give is not
exactly on point with my situation. You said your friend made a decision based
on nothing more than a feeling. According to what you've been saying to me
before of my own actions, what your friend did was wrong -- by your own
standards. But all authors make decisions on what to put in and what to leave
out, and there are often complicated reasons behind these decisions. You can
question and second-guess my decisions 'til the end of time, but you're never
going to be able to be in my position, with all the knowledge I had, at the
precise time the decisions were made, so you're not going to be able to
understand what was done and why. Frankly, you haven't really demonstrated
that much interest in understanding.
As for readers not having a chance to decide for themselves -- baloney. Every
reader *always* has the opportunity to decide things for themselves --
*always*. No conclusions were drawn for people, and enough questions were
built into the text to -- hopefully -- make folks think for themselves if they
choose to make that effort. Every reader has the opportunity to decide all
things for themselves. No writer can or should do it for them.
pb
PButler111
>But you did write a book about Pam and you certainly didn't "play
>>up" that information either. Perhaps *you* didn't "like it". But you *did*
>>like the stories about Jim. You believe the stories about Jim... you've told
>>me
>>so. All this from the same source... and Jim's story is the only one
>>presented
>>as fact.
>>
>Butler wrote:
><<There are also several funny and sweet stories about Jim for which Max was
>the
>source. >>
>
>I'm sure there are. I never suggested that the Fink manuscript was all
>vicious... just that much of it is probably untrue.
>
Then why don't you pick out some of those and start harping on them. At least
it would make for a change of pace.
>Butler wrote:
><< If you ever choose to read the *whole* book one day instead of just
>using the index to pick out the naughty bits, Terri, perhaps you'll come
>across
>those as well.>>
>
>I read the book. If you must knock me for something... knock my retention of
>the material if you need to. But don't accuse me of not reading the book. I
>read every page.
>
Yes, I've heard that before. Then heard you didn't. Then heard you did. And
you question *my* credibility?
>I wrote:
>>I don't believe you have anything against Jim as others claim. But I do
>>believe
>>that this story was just too good to let go and you took advantage of it,
>>regardless of the source's reliability. I find that irresponsible.
>>
>
>Butler wrote:
><<Right. You don't mind putting forth your personal opinions as facts or
>incorrectly answering questions based on nothing more than your own opinions
>--
>that's highly responsible.>>
>
>What? You keep saying this. Do I have to write a disclaimer on every post I
>write here stating that it's based on my opinion? Everyone seems to know
>that
>but you. What exactly in the above statement of mine that put forth as fact?
>
>Terri
Obviously what I wrote was not in response to "the above statement" of yours,
as the "above statement" had not yet been written. Obviously I was speaking of
many of your previous posts.
Yes, by all means start using a disclaimer.
PButler111
>deal more time cutting and pasting that you have. She's poured through
>messages
>a month old to try to catch me in something (and failed to boot).
>
Is this another example of something you "know" to be fact, Terri? Actually,
all I had to do was click on the "Terri" file, and there you were!
PButler111
>
>PButler:
>| In none of your examples did I either lie or
>|misrepresent myself or my work. I'm not sure how you inferred otherwise,
>
>
>
>
>Someone who hadn't seen the manuscript claimed Max said he thought Pam killed
>Jim, so you lied:
>
>
>
>
>acknowledged that he did say it, you just didn't want to
>mention it:
>
>
>it. " (1998/11/28)
>
>
>
>
Huh? Can you get any more confusing? I know what I said and I haven't changed
that. And you *did* infer something -- it's physically impossible for you to
not have drawn and inferrence. Max didn't claim that Pam killed Jim. He
expressed an opinion, which I *did* acknowledge, and I *did* address in my
book. I'm not sure why you're still confused about this.
PButler111
>sources to back Fink up on the Pam stuff like she did with the Jim/prostitute
>story!
>
>Terri
Actually, Terri, this was addressed in my book. Must have been one of those 17
or 18 chapters you missed.
Natasha
Fink's interview transcript.
The following shows how Ms Butler is manipulating that story:
1. Patricia Kennealy-Morrison makes clear in her book Strange Days
that she had flown out from New York in order to see Jim and
talk about her pregnancy.
2. Max Fink mentiones in his interview one dame who "flew out from
L.A. announcing she was pregnant." (page 79 of the transcript)
3. Ms Butler, of course, manipulates both info by telling us about a
woman who flew to Miami to announce she was pregnant.
Sure, Ms Butler is right. There was a woman coming to Miami
announcing she was pregnant. But where did she come from? Fink said
she came out from L.A. As far as we know, Fink had a good memory.
This woman coming in from L.A. could be somebody else, not
necessarily Kennealy. Ms Butler, on the other hand, makes us believe
it must have been Kennealy by simply changing "flew out from L.A."
(Fink) to "flew to Miami" (Butler). Ms Butler is clever, isn't she?
By the way, Butler copied word for word from the Fink transcripts and
just dropped in her little manipulations here and there, making us
believe she wrote the whole thing (and used the Fink transcript as a
source), but in fact it was, as far as the chapters mentioning Finks
transcript are concerned, copied from the Fink transcripts. What
about copyright, Ms Butler?
I apologize to you for calling you "Mrs" Butler. But you are right,
no man in the whole wide world would marry somebody like you. "Ms"
for lifetime.
Natasha
Fab521
>
>PB: [to the court reporter] "NO! NO! I didn't say that!! You're
>delusional! You're out to get me!! Why else would you be writing down
>everything I say?"
>
>Heh (c)
>
>-----------Scarlett
>
>
>
Scarlett takes some time from her day to make a funny funny.
fab just can't leave this one alone:
Butler to prosecuting attorney:
"Is that what I said? Is it? Sir, you seem so *anxious* to make everything a
fight...... stop trying to clarify everything I say!"
heh(c)
fab
PButler111
>Fink's interview transcript.
>The following shows how Ms Butler is manipulating that story:
>
>1. Patricia Kennealy-Morrison makes clear in her book Strange Days
>that she had flown out from New York in order to see Jim and
>talk about her pregnancy.
>2. Max Fink mentiones in his interview one dame who "flew out from
>L.A. announcing she was pregnant." (page 79 of the transcript)
>3. Ms Butler, of course, manipulates both info by telling us about a
>woman who flew to Miami to announce she was pregnant.
>
>Sure, Ms Butler is right. There was a woman coming to Miami
>announcing she was pregnant. But where did she come from? Fink said
>she came out from L.A. As far as we know, Fink had a good memory.
Funny how Max has a good memory when it suits you and a faulty memory when it
doesn't. Babe Hill was there. He confirmed Max's story. Since I doubt Max
asked to see Kennealy's plane ticket, he probably just made the assumption she
came from LA, as that's where Jim lived.
>By the way, Butler copied word for word from the Fink transcripts and
>just dropped in her little manipulations here and there, making us
>believe she wrote the whole thing (and used the Fink transcript as a
>source), but in fact it was, as far as the chapters mentioning Finks
>transcript are concerned, copied from the Fink transcripts. What
>about copyright, Ms Butler?
>
In fact, the transcript is not copied word for word. Since you obviously have
the transcript, you should know that. As far as copyright goes, the
information from the transcript was used with permission.
>I apologize to you for calling you "Mrs" Butler. But you are right,
>no man in the whole wide world would marry somebody like you. "Ms"
>for lifetime.
>Natasha
>
What a petty, pointless personal attack, based on nothing but your own
hostility. But I guess having actual facts to back up your accusations isn't
your style.
pb
>
Pfefferdog
delusional! You're out to get me!! Why else would you be writing down
everything I say?"
>>
You crack me up Scarlett...I ran through the house showing this to my
friends....Good one..
Pfeff
Pfefferdog
Butler to prosecuting attorney:
"Is that what I said? Is it? Sir, you seem so *anxious* to make everything a
fight...... stop trying to clarify everything I say!">>
And to you too. Very funny Fab, you guys are brightening my day. Pfeff
DLyte99720
So I think one must decide what is true, what is
not true - just because someone says it does not make it true. OK, you believed
what you wrote but you didn't give the reader the chance to decide for
themselves.
Actually I think it's a bit more fair to state that Butler *does* give the
reader the chance to decide for themselves............the point is that the
reader must be intelligent and wary enough to make the connection between where
the validity of a source is noted as being questionable in one section of the
book, and the use of other stories from that source in other sections of the
book.
The reader is able to make up their own minds...............it just seems to me
that Butler doesn't smack the reader in the face with that option, but it *is*
there.......the reader has to discover that for themself (especially if they're
accustomed to opening up any book and deeming it truth because someone else
wrote it and it appears before them in print)..........
Dee
DLyte99720
>no man in the whole wide world would marry somebody like you. "Ms"
>for lifetime.
>Natasha
>
I had complete respect for your insights until I read this........totally
unecessary and terribly nasty..........and this served what purpose?
Oh man.......and I was actually intruiged by your posts that quoted the Fink
transcript......
*sigh*
Dee
PButler111
So, Pfeff, I guess this is the kind of thing you're asking me to validate for
you, right? Right.
TerriRites
>>deal more time cutting and pasting that you have. She's poured through
>>messages
>>a month old to try to catch me in something (and failed to boot).
>>
Pbutler writes:
<<>Is this another example of something you "know" to be fact, Terri?
Actually,
>all I had to do was click on the "Terri" file, and there you were!>>
You have a "Terri" file? How twisted and pathetic is *that*!?! Scary... geez.
Terri
TerriRites
<<LOL.
Scarlett takes some time from her day to make a funny funny.
fab just can't leave this one alone:
Butler to prosecuting attorney:
"Is that what I said? Is it? Sir, you seem so *anxious* to make everything a
fight...... stop trying to clarify everything I say!"
heh(c)>>
Or Butler in defense, representing herself as her own counsel:
"Your Honor, I'd like to admit this into evidence. These are posts in which I
am personally attacked for absolutely no reason whatsoever. I can't tell you
who my sources are for this information as they wish to remain "anonymous"...
but it's true. I've been more than kind and courteous to all of these people.
Look at the thanks I get. I'm the vicitim here, Your Honor! It's true. It's all
true. I said so."
Terri
PButler111
>geez.
>
>Terri
Scary and pathetic. Hmm... Like latching on to one paranoid notion based on
little or no information and hammering away at it, day in and day out, without
ever getting anywhere? Yes, that would be scary and pathetic. Keeping files
on my online communications? That's simply common sense.
pb
TerriRites
>delusional! You're out to get me!! Why else would you be writing down
>everything I say?"
>>>
>
>
>You crack me up Scarlett...I ran through the house showing this to my
>friends....Good one..
>Pfeff
PButler writes:
<<So, Pfeff, I guess this is the kind of thing you're asking me to validate for
you, right? Right.
<<
LOL. No, I seriously doubt that she's asking you to validate this.
Terri
TerriRites
>sources to back Fink up on the Pam stuff like she did with the Jim/prostitute
>story!
>
>Terri
PButler:
<<Actually, Terri, this was addressed in my book. Must have been one of those
17
or 18 chapters you missed.
>>
Oh yeah. This is good. Once you're backed into a corner, just keep proclaiming
that I never read your book. Great defense. No one buys it.
Terri
TerriRites
<<Huh? Can you get any more confusing? I know what I said and I haven't
changed
that. And you *did* infer something -- it's physically impossible for you to
not have drawn and inferrence. Max didn't claim that Pam killed Jim. He
expressed an opinion, which I *did* acknowledge, and I *did* address in my
book. I'm not sure why you're still confused about this.>>
You did? You wrote that Max claimed that Pam killed Jim? Yeah... that must have
been hidden somewhere in all those pages you claim I didn't read. I don't
remember that, but anyone that does, I'd love to see the page number.
Understand that not everyone reads your book over and over everyday like
yourself.
Terri
TerriRites
<<As for readers not having a chance to decide for themselves -- baloney.
Every
reader *always* has the opportunity to decide things for themselves --
*always*. >>
Unless they run into you. If you'd had let me to my "decisions" we would have
nothing to argue about. I'm not the first you've done that to and I'm sure I
won't be the last.
Terri
Fab521
>Butler to prosecuting attorney:
>"Is that what I said? Is it? Sir, you seem so *anxious* to make everything
>a
>fight...... stop trying to clarify everything I say!"
>
>heh(c)>>
It's better than court tv when Terri says:
>"Your Honor, I'd like to admit this into evidence. These are posts in which I
>am personally attacked for absolutely no reason whatsoever. I can't tell you
>who my sources are for this information as they wish to remain "anonymous"...
>but it's true. I've been more than kind and courteous to all of these people.
>Look at the thanks I get. I'm the vicitim here, Your Honor! It's true. It's
>all
>true. I said so."
>
PB to prosecuting attorney:
Look, you moron.......I said I have it right here in my *Terri File*......
That's right. Oh, perhaps you've developed some sudden blindness to all the
times I've stated that I'm telling the truth......this is all just so UNFAIR!
Oh, right. And I suppose you're going to tell me that YOU know who this Miz
Scarlett is too, right?
Fine, if it keeps you warm.
Go play with yourself.
(*note.....the last 2 comments are in fact interchangeable)
Prosecuting attorney:
Miz Scarlett?
Of course I know who she is!!
Doesn't everyone in this courtroom know who Scarlett is?
TerriRites
"Every reader has the opportunity to decide all things for themselves. No
writer can or should do it for them.
"
Exactly. I agree. (depending on what's being written, of course) Now that we
know you believe in this statement so strongly, maybe it's time to act on it.
Terri
PButler111
TerriRites
me
that Butler doesn't smack the reader in the face with that option, but it *is*
there.......the reader has to discover that for themself>>
So it's like a puzzle? Not only a book, but a game too! LOL
Terri
PButler111
PButler111
that in a courtroom situation there'd actually be an intelligent and impartial
judge. Your posts on the subject have lacked both of those elements. Guess
that's what you call a moot court.
TerriRites
<< Ms Butler, on the other hand, makes us believe
it must have been Kennealy by simply changing "flew out from L.A."
(Fink) to "flew to Miami" (Butler). Ms Butler is clever, isn't she?>>
Yes. Clever. I've always given her that much. Did Ms. Butler have to be
concerned with a lawsuit from PKM if she alluded to who she really was? I've
always thought so. I also suspect that PKM would have sued Butler any chance
she got!
Terri
PButler111
>nothing to argue about. I'm not the first you've done that to and I'm sure I
>won't be the last.
>
>Terri
Unfortunately your "decision" was that you know everything about me and my book
when in fact you've repeatedly demonstrated you know little or nothing about
either. The quote you used was also taken out of context. Too bad you don't
hold yourself to the same high journalistic standards you demand of others.
PButler111
Right. I believe you also suspect I had something to do with the Kennedy
assassination. You've taken hysteria and paranoia to thrilling new levels with
this whole crusade of yours. I would love to see Patricia Kennealy file a
lawsuit against someone saying that she flew toMiami and caused problems for
Jim during the trial. Since she wrote about it in her own book,she'd certainly
have one challenging time making a case. In order to sue someone, you have to
actually have a case. Kennealy doesn't. Neither do you.
TerriRites
<<Scary and pathetic. Hmm... Like latching on to one paranoid notion based on
little or no information and hammering away at it, day in and day out, without
ever getting anywhere? Yes, that would be scary and pathetic. Keeping files
on my online communications? That's simply common sense.>>
If you require a file on me, I guess something I've said somewhere is
interesting or useful to you. If not, what's the point?
Terri
pb
TerriRites
<<PB to prosecuting attorney:
Look, you moron.......I said I have it right here in my *Terri File*......
That's right. Oh, perhaps you've developed some sudden blindness to all the
times I've stated that I'm telling the truth......this is all just so UNFAIR!
Oh, right. And I suppose you're going to tell me that YOU know who this Miz
Scarlett is too, right?
Fine, if it keeps you warm.
Go play with yourself.
(*note.....the last 2 comments are in fact interchangeable)
Prosecuting attorney:
Miz Scarlett?
Of course I know who she is!!
Doesn't everyone in this courtroom know who Scarlett is?>>
LOL. Oh my God Fab. I think I laughed up a lung! That was hillarious!
You have to get some kind of award for that Fab.
Terri
TerriRites
Come on, you must have been at least a little amused by Fab's post. It was as
funny as she intended it to be. Didn't you chuckle at least a little?
Terri
PButler111
>interesting or useful to you. If not, what's the point?
>
>Terri
Just so you -- and everyone else -- knows, I have files on all the... let's
say *overzealous*... folks I encounter online. I'm sure you'll recognize
yoursel and others when it's in print.
TerriRites
<<Unfortunately your "decision" was that you know everything about me and my
book
when in fact you've repeatedly demonstrated you know little or nothing about
either. >>
No. I thought I acted as if I *knew everything* about Fink??? Not you or your
book
Terri
TerriRites
<<The quote you used was also taken out of context. Too bad you don't
hold yourself to the same high journalistic standards you demand of others.>>
When I write professionally, I do. Certainly you can't say that either of us
are acting in a professional manner here, can you?
Terri
TerriRites
>interesting or useful to you. If not, what's the point?
>
>Terri
PButler writes:
<<Just so you -- and everyone else -- knows, I have files on all the... let's
say *overzealous*... folks I encounter online. I'm sure you'll recognize
yoursel and others when it's in print.>>
LOL. That's hillarious. Anything can be a book, huh? Okay, I can't wait to see
this. Got a title???
Terri
DLyte99720
Yes, but more of an excercise for one's analytical skills................
Dee
DLyte99720
>concerned with a lawsuit from PKM if she alluded to who she really was? I've
>always thought so. I also suspect that PKM would have sued Butler any chance
>she got!
>
>Terri
>
>
>
>
In Butler's book she *does* allude to who Patricia really was................I
believe in one of the two short sections she actually mentions her name, in the
second she does not, but it is quite obvious who she is speaking about.
I don't think there is anything to "sue" over in either
instance..............they both involve primarily quoting other
sources.........
Dee
Fab521
>
><<Of course what's missing in your incredibly clever "court" scenario is the
>fact
>that in a courtroom situation there'd actually be an intelligent and
>impartial
>judge. Your posts on the subject have lacked both of those elements. Guess
>that's what you call a moot court.
>>>
>
This is good.
Enter the Moot Courtroom:
(Dee has taken the stand)
Dee begs:
Puh-leeeeeeze! Stop the insanity!
Your honor......I simply can't take it any more! I'm losing my ability to
remain impartial and kind. I'm going to have to get ugly soon. This is
killing me.....and it's plainly killing the ng. I just can't continue to be
nice. I've been provoked long enough. I'm going to have to get mean.
(gasps are heard in the courtroom)
:::::judge, pounding mallot:::::
quiet in the courtroom!
Prosecuting attorney:
Dee, you are obviously very upset....
Are you the only one on the ng who feels this strongly?
fab
DLyte99720
>Puh-leeeeeeze! Stop the insanity!
>Your honor......I simply can't take it any more! I'm losing my ability to
>remain impartial and kind. I'm going to have to get ugly soon. This is
>killing me.....and it's plainly killing the ng. I just can't continue to be
>nice. I've been provoked long enough. I'm going to have to get mean.
>
>(gasps are heard in the courtroom)
>
>:::::judge, pounding mallot:::::
>quiet in the courtroom!
>fab
first let me start by saying, "ah so true" now for what really happened first:
*The Guffaw heard around the world*
buwaaaaaaaaaahahahhaahhaaaaaaaaaaa
oh my gawd Fab.......I ..........can't........breath...........
laughing........
too....
hard....
d......e.........eeeeeehahahahhahehehhehehe
Fab521
>first:
>
>*The Guffaw heard around the world*
>
>buwaaaaaaaaaahahahhaahhaaaaaaaaaaa
>
>oh my gawd Fab.......I ..........can't........breath...........
>
>laughing........
>
>too....
>
>hard....
>
>d......e.........eeeeeehahahahhahehehhehehe
>
>
It was necessary.
I had no choice.
Besides.....I thought you'd like the Moot Courtroom....it was PB's idea.
fab
VARYKINA
>PB: [to the court reporter] "NO! NO! I didn't say that!! You're
>delusional! You're out to get me!! Why else would you be writing down
>everything I say?"
>
>
>-----------Scarlett
>
>
>That was really funny. Actually in her case they would have to double tape the
proceedings! I can see I will have to dig out the manuscript and read the whole
thing AGAIN! Like I have nothing else to do - but I will.
Vary
>
>
>
>
>
VARYKINA
Judge Koch in NY. PB could bring all her files on each and every one of us.
PB: Judge Judy, these people did not like my book and didn't believe me and
were so mean to me.
Terri: well, the name of the newsgroup is alt.i'mabigmeanie
Vary: It's true your Honor. We have our files right here to support our
MEANNESS.
Pffef: Your Honor I am relatively new to the newsgroup and I find that Ms.
Butler is the big meanie, not us.
Marisa: Your Honor: I am in total agreement
Fab: Your Honor, PB called your court a moot court!
Judge Judy: MOOT COURT? Just a minute here - OK, I sentence PB to be banished
forever from alt.I'mabigmeanie newsgroup so that the newsgroup can be renamed
alt.music.the-doors (etc.). I also sentence her to 5 years of community service
and I am going to garnish her salary so that the Pamela Courson Film Fund can
get some money into it.
Terri, Vary, Pfeff, Marisa, Fab: Thank you your Honor, justice has been served.
VARYKINA
>reader the chance to decide for themselves............the point is that the
>reader must be intelligent and wary enough to make the connection between
>where
>the validity of a source is noted as being questionable in one section of the
>book, and the use of other stories from that source in other sections of the
>book.
>
>The reader is able to make up their own minds...............it just seems to
>me
>that Butler doesn't smack the reader in the face with that option, but it
>*is*
>they're
>accustomed to opening up any book and deeming it truth because someone else
>wrote it and it appears before them in print)..........
>
>Dee
>
>Then why does she constantly fight with people who honestly hate her book, and
think it is total fiction?
>
>
>
>
PButler111
>and
>think it is total fiction?
>>
I think the personally insulting tone of that comment answers your own
facetious question.
DLyte99720
>forever from alt.I'mabigmeanie newsgroup so that the newsgroup can be renamed
>alt.music.the-doors (etc.). I also sentence her to 5 years of community
>service
>and I am going to garnish her salary so that the Pamela Courson Film Fund can
>get some money into it.
>
this is totally ridiculous......
I find it tad bit hard to believe that Patricia is the *only* one responsible
for this tortuous prolonged thread...........
geesh
Dee
DLyte99720
>and
>think it is total fiction?
Well, I've read her book and I think *that* is a totally outrageous
claim.........her book is *total fiction*?
and I know some people think there are questionable/arguable points in her
book......that seems fair.........I haven't come across anyone who said they
either *hate* or *loathe* her book..............
but as far as why she replies? *I* have no idea.......
Dee
VARYKINA
>information from the transcript was used with permission.
>
Permission from whom?
VARYKINA
>was................I
>believe in one of the two short sections she actually mentions her name, in
>the
>second she does not, but it is quite obvious who she is speaking about.
>
Of course everyone knew who she was speaking about and we know she read SD
since she wrote such a beautiful unbiased review of the book!
VARYKINA
>facetious question.
>
>
Dee- you have a degree in what? Learn your words, girl, learn your words. BTW -
that was a perfectly logical question. Just because you are pals with PB
doesn't mean we all have to be.
PButler111
How did Dee get involved with this exchange??
DLyte99720
What do those two measly sections in Butler's book have to do with the review
of strange days?
I'm sorry, I'm not following you here........
what does that have to do with the review of Strange Days? or did you just feel
like throwing that in there?
I really don't see if Butler was unbiased or not when she wrote that review,
but she certainly wrote it with an argument in mind and with general support -
she questioned the veracity of strange days.
Like I've said before, Kirkus wrote a negative review about Kennealy's book as
well, does that mean that reviewer was obviously *not* unbiased just because
the review was not positive?
I truly don't see any evidenced of this possible bias on Butler's part in
regard to the book review she wrote ............if you could point me in
towards something that would note that, it'd be appreciated.
Dee
DLyte99720
>>facetious question.
>>
>>
>
>Dee- you have a degree in what? Learn your words, girl, learn your words. BTW
>-
>that was a perfectly logical question. Just because you are pals with PB
>doesn't mean we all have to be.
Vary, this is *not* my comment.....
First of all, do not start pulling this self-righteous and obnoxious bullshit
with me.
Have I reacted this way to you ever? I never throw around my own intelligence
to try to blatantly belittle someone else, but thank you for doing so here
Vary, I really appreciate it.
Says a hell of a lot about you.
I don't even know what question you are responding to...........and all I see
here is this comment which is not mine.
I am not *pals* with Butler and I think it's amusing that you would construe it
as that..........I try to give her the respect that I would give anyone else
here...........that is something I would hope to see from everyone else, but it
obviously just does not happen.
Wow Vary, I'm really impressed............is this suppossed to be a display of
*your* superior intelligence? What educational degree is this post suppossed to
reflect?
Well let me back out of this conversation, as I can see it is far over my head
and I obviously am unable to carry on at such a level for intellectuals, unlike
myself.
Dee
Elvire Joanez
> guess you are not going to answer me about how you got the
> manuscript. OK.
This is a very boring discussion here. I think for most of the
members of this group. Nobody knows this manuscript. I can not check
if all this is true and who is lying. What is this manuscript? I do
not find it on the web. Why is it so secret and why has everybody it
here and nobody else? And how did they got it? All please tell me and
how I can have it. If not, please stop this fight and use email. Not
many different people are fighting here, so.......
Elvire Joanez
DLyte99720
reply.......maybe you should read a bit more carefully before you start
throwing around haughty insults that are directed at the wrong person:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Author: PButler111
Email: pbutl...@aol.com
Date: 1998/11/30
>Then why does she constantly fight with people who honestly hate her book,
>and
>think it is total fiction?
>>
I think the personally insulting tone of that comment answers your own
facetious question.
Author: DLyte99720
Email: dlyte...@aol.com
Date: 1998/11/30
Natasha
from the Fink manuscript:
Fink: "She asked Jim if he would have the barber sweep up the
combings from his hair so she could take it home with her as a
souvenir."
Butler (sorry to quote from your book): "... and she asked Jim if he
would have the barber sweep up the clippings from his hair so she
could take it home with her as a souvenir."
Do you guys outta there wanna more? I really don't want to reread the
squalid little shabby Butler book again and compare it to the Fink
manuscript and other sources she copied from word for word but if
anyone requests I will do.
This will take some time, because I have a full-time job.
I did not know Butler was in bed with Rothchild. I was surprised to
read that. So she's nothing but a groupie, isn't she?
I didn't know Rothchild was into fat women.
Natasha
Pfefferdog
Natasha- This is so not cool. We are trying to get some sembalence of
kindness...When you slag PN as a"FAT" woman do you stop to think who else you
might be going after????? This is just like hyperview's cancer comment..While I
don't agree with most of what PB has to say some things are off
limits.......Have some heart woman..This is strike two..Personally I think you
make alot of sense, but still this is over the lilne..You are free to think
what you want, but lets be a little tactful if possible...Also what is your
defination of fat???Since most of the world is not considered to be thin???
grrr Pfeff
Pfefferdog
Uh that's PB...
PButler111
>from the Fink manuscript:
>
>Fink: "She asked Jim if he would have the barber sweep up the
>combings from his hair so she could take it home with her as a
>souvenir."
>
>Butler (sorry to quote from your book): "... and she asked Jim if he
>would have the barber sweep up the clippings from his hair so she
>could take it home with her as a souvenir."
Gosh, I'm impressed that you could find the time to make this comparison, what
with holding down a full time job and all. Must have been really taxing for
you.
Of course there are several quotes from the manuscript. How stupid would it
have been to rewrite something like that that said pretty much what it needed
to say? Most of the information from the manuscript is paraphrased, some of it
is quoted directly. Lord, if you have so much time to devote to such a
non-issue, maybe you'd better find yourself a second full-time job.
DLyte99720
>Do you guys outta there wanna more? I really don't want to reread the
>squalid little shabby Butler book again and compare it to the Fink
>manuscript and other sources she copied from word for word but if
>anyone requests I will do.
Um I thought writing a biography involves the rehashing of stories from other
sources.........
I didn't buy the book to hear Butler's interpretation of the stories that were
told to her.........I bought it to hear about the stories she got from her
research.
To hear she copied her sources word for word sounds more like a plus than a
negative as far as biographies go..............................
>I was surprised to
>read that. So she's nothing but a groupie, isn't she?
>I didn't know Rothchild was into fat women.
>
Gee......and I thought you actually had something worthwhile to say........
What purpose does this serve.....calling someone else fat and a groupie?
Are you trying to discredit Butler? If so, it seems to say much more about
you...........
You may consider laying off the insults........sounds like your just digging
your own hole a little bit deeper.
I know I'm not going to be sitting on the edge of my seat waiting for posts
that involve nothing more than insults.........how boring and pointless.
Dee
Bean Chick
What?
>>> I really don't want to reread the
>squalid little shabby Butler book again and compare it to the Fink
>manuscript and other sources she copied from word for word but if
>anyone requests I will do.>>>
What? What??
>I did not know Butler was in bed with Rothchild. I was surprised to
>read that. So she's nothing but a groupie, isn't she?
>I didn't know Rothchild was into fat women.
Fuck you, Natasha, you addle-english-ed dipshit, and fuck your dog, your
in-laws, and your entire patriarchal line.
If your only objective is to offend, hire someone to do it right. Your
attempts are not only incomprehensible but laughable.
And eat shit. Fat is beautiful.
Bean Chick
-----------Scarlett
Get your own, Scarlett.
heh (c)
Bean Chick
From: fab...@aol.com (Fab521)
Date: Sun, Nov 29, 1998 22:25 EST
Message-id: <19981129222552...@ng-ft1.aol.com>
fab just had to write:
>Butler to prosecuting attorney:
>"Is that what I said? Is it? Sir, you seem so *anxious* to make everything
>a
>fight...... stop trying to clarify everything I say!"
>
>heh(c)>>
It's better than court tv when Terri says:
>"Your Honor, I'd like to admit this into evidence. These are posts in which I
>am personally attacked for absolutely no reason whatsoever. I can't tell you
>who my sources are for this information as they wish to remain "anonymous"...
>but it's true. I've been more than kind and courteous to all of these people.
>Look at the thanks I get. I'm the vicitim here, Your Honor! It's true. It's
>all
>true. I said so."
>
PB to prosecuting attorney:
Look, you moron.......I said I have it right here in my *Terri File*......
That's right. Oh, perhaps you've developed some sudden blindness to all the
times I've stated that I'm telling the truth......this is all just so UNFAIR!
Oh, right. And I suppose you're going to tell me that YOU know who this Miz
Scarlett is too, right?
Fine, if it keeps you warm.
Go play with yourself.
(*note.....the last 2 comments are in fact interchangeable)
Prosecuting attorney:
Miz Scarlett?
Of course I know who she is!!
Doesn't everyone in this courtroom know who Scarlett is?
*LMAO*
:) :) :)
How did I miss *these*?!
Bean Chick
>fact
>that in a courtroom situation there'd actually be an intelligent and
>impartial
>judge. Your posts on the subject have lacked both of those elements. Guess
>that's what you call a moot court.
Bailiff, get her out of here.
Bean Chick
>not have drawn and inferrence.
Physically, huh?
Bean Chick
>Scary and pathetic. Hmm... Like latching on to one paranoid notion based on
>little or no information and hammering away at it, day in and day out,
>without
>ever getting anywhere? Yes, that would be scary and pathetic.
*L!*
Is this an actual and real intended-to-be-taken-seriously post?
>>>Keeping files
>on my online communications? That's simply common sense.
?
Common to WHOM?
PButler111
>> And you *did* infer something -- it's physically impossible for you to
>>not have drawn and inferrence.
>
>
>Physically, huh?
Yes, Bean. Physically. You can't read/hear something without drawing an
inferrence, even if the inferrence is, "I don't understand what I just read."
PButler111
>>on my online communications? That's simply common sense.
>
>
>?
> Common to WHOM?
>
>
Common to anyone who sends and receives a lot of information via the internet,
especially from strangers. There's also been talk of me doing a book about
doing this book, and it wouldn't be complete without rantings from a lot of
rabid fans (and some really great and funny things from some really great and
funny fans as well). So yes, keeping files of these things is common sense.
pb
Bean Chick
Butler".
Mrs. Butler is my mother, who I don't believe is online.>>>
*LOL*
This "Max Fink & Pamela" thing is great.
I can't believe I missed practically this entire thread until today.
:)
Bean Chick
And you *did* infer something -- it's physically impossible for you to
>>not have drawn and inferrence.
>Physically, huh?
Butler:
<<<Yes, Bean. Physically. You can't read/hear something without drawing an
inferrence, even if the inferrence is, "I don't understand what I just
read.">>>
Physical proximity won't help or hinder *interpretation*, no matter how you rub
up against any little puzzle.
It's entirely possible to not participate mentally in any moment. That does
not mean you've MISUNDERSTOOD anything. Understanding, and misunderstanding,
are direct effects of interpretation, or attempted interpretation.
Comprehension isn't physical activity the way fisticuffs is physical. It's
mental exercise. No sense ensures -- by mere existence -- that the data it can
deliver will be cognitively processed. Think coma. There may be nothing wrong
with your comatose eyes, but what's wrong with your sight then?
If you stand with "physical" because the nature of the senses is ultimately
organic and therefore "physical", well, that's an oversimplification which I
find disappointing, but harmless and essentially right. I'll concede that, but
you've been more discriminating elsewhere on the ng, and I know you could have
chosen a word with a finer point of meaning. Like, "receptively". Or perhaps
"interactively". Or a phrase, say, "the ACT of reading by nature disallows..."
&c, &c.
Please don't *misinfer* that my issue is over the word "physical", or the point
being made by it; rather, I've seized upon an opportunity to fence with
precisions! This I like better than insults!! ! En garde!! ::::swish::::::
::::::clink::::: ::::::swishity::::::: :::::::clink clink:::::::
Whether the brain and the mind are equivalent and potentially the proof/
disproof of the immoral soul is the next step in this argument. Your serve.
(((And you fair-weather posters say there is no intelligent life in the ng
Bicker Olympics.)))
Bean Chick
especially from strangers. There's also been talk of me doing a book about
doing this book, and it wouldn't be complete without rantings from a lot of
rabid fans (and some really great and funny things from some really great and
funny fans as well). So yes, keeping files of these things is common sense.
pb
Sounds sensible for your purposes, but by no means does that mean "common".
PButler111
As I said...
>
>Common to anyone who sends and receives a lot of information via the
>internet,
>especially from strangers.
pb
PButler111
Brain activity is physical activity. Any doctor will tell you so. Without
that activity, there is no comprehension.
Isn't this a silly thing to be debating?