DIANE RICHARDSON - ENOUGH

[FauxReal59]

Look. Diane is clearly deluded. Clinically. I'm sure that this has been
realized and posted plenty, but hear my plea:

STOP GIVING HER INK ON HERE. SHE DOES NOT DESERVE THE AIR TIME. WHAT SHE
DESERVES IS BED-REST and MEDICATION.

Be sympathetic to her pathology. That is all.

[Peter McDermott]

In article <78b79abe47%cl...@holsoft.demon.co.uk>,
Sister Clara <cl...@holsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>> >Of course the poster has not noticed the tiny 1 watt bulb light up within
>> >what passes as a brain, warning hier that the post above has both wasted
>> >further "ink" and granted more "air time".
>>
>> 4 is a guest celeb on ars, Sis.
>
>I could not give a toss who he is. Being a guest celeb does not prevent the
>posting of tripe. We've all done it at one time or another Dennis and it is
>not unreasonable for it to be called.

Curiously enough, it was a post of a session where fauxskin was
chatting to a scieno on IRC titled 'ClamSex' posted here a few
weeks ago that clued me in to the fact that the behaviour of
some of the critics here had dropped *way*, *way* below the
standards of most of any of the active scienos that I'd seen
posting.

It was the first time I'd *ever* felt instinctive sympathy for
the scieno and revulsion at the critic's tactics. Sadly, it was
far from the last.

[FauxReal59]

Sister Clara?

What are you wearing?

[Bernie]

har...@erols.com (Rebecca Hartong) wrote in article
<5tpafl$1...@snews1.zippo.com>:

>This is sad. Like many people, I find myself foolishly expecting published
>writers to somehow be wiser or smarter than the rest of the pack.
>
>Here's a vivid example of how wrong that expectation is.

Yes. Such an author tells much more of himself in this small
post than he does in many carefully thought out books. Isn't
Usenet wonderful?

Bernie