An Open Letter To Leesa
Caliban
your medical condition, the hard breaks life has thrown at you and
your repeated proclamations at being a healer. I don't believe that
I've ever flamed you, attacked you or broke a confidence of yours.
Would you agree?
Having said all of that, Leesa, and I hope your memory is good enough
to acknowledge that I've spoken the truth, your actions over the past
month or so have forced me to speak out.
You appear to have completely gone over the edge of sanity. Adopting
the name "Earth Mother" is simply ludicrous, as if you could even
begin to approach all of the ramifications contained within that
sacred name. You insult Her every time you use it, particularly in
your current ego-maniacal state.
You claim to be a High Priestess, and then ask the Wiccans on this
newsgroup for a book that contains an Initiation ritual for a High
Priestess? Are you mad? How can you not know that such an Initiation
is not something obtained in a book? It's ludicrous on it's face. Even
if you were asking for background research, or on behalf of someone
else, it's paints you in an extremely unfavorable light. The Leesa of
a year ago would never have done that.
Finally, regarding your using Peaceful Haven as a collection point for
personal information, there aren't enough apologies to compensate for
a breach of faith. And enough good people have complained about it, in
private emails, that it's not even a question of whether it happened
or not. It's only a question of how you're going to make amends. How
are you going to restore trust? How are you going to HEAL the harm
you've done?
And FOTTY? Don't make the mistake of thinking that this letter to
Leesa means that you're justified in ANY way for all the fucked up
ways you're playing this little game of yours out. You're an out and
out reprobate without even one redeeming virtue. So fuck you and the
hot dog you rode in on.
Caliban
Earth Mother
news:ac9bg05png1h8qlfr...@4ax.com...
> Leesa, I've always treated you kindly, with some consideration for
> your medical condition, the hard breaks life has thrown at you and
> your repeated proclamations at being a healer. I don't believe that
> I've ever flamed you, attacked you or broke a confidence of yours.
> Would you agree?
Yes.
> Having said all of that, Leesa, and I hope your memory is good enough
> to acknowledge that I've spoken the truth, your actions over the past
> month or so have forced me to speak out.
>
> You appear to have completely gone over the edge of sanity. Adopting
> the name "Earth Mother" is simply ludicrous, as if you could even
> begin to approach all of the ramifications contained within that
> sacred name. You insult Her every time you use it, particularly in
> your current ego-maniacal state.
Okay, I'm not entirely sure of what I am being accused of, outside of
posting a link someone gave to me. I acknowledged it as a mistake, and
apologized. If you don't feel comfortable posting here, by all means, email
me.
> You claim to be a High Priestess, and then ask the Wiccans on this
> newsgroup for a book that contains an Initiation ritual for a High
> Priestess? Are you mad? How can you not know that such an Initiation
> is not something obtained in a book? It's ludicrous on it's face. Even
> if you were asking for background research, or on behalf of someone
> else, it's paints you in an extremely unfavorable light. The Leesa of
> a year ago would never have done that.
I asked because someone mentioned it, and in all the years I've been
studying, I don't recall such a ritual. It certainly isn't in any books
that I am aware of, and I've never witnessed one, though I've been in two
covens.
> Finally, regarding your using Peaceful Haven as a collection point for
> personal information, there aren't enough apologies to compensate for
> a breach of faith. And enough good people have complained about it, in
> private emails, that it's not even a question of whether it happened
> or not. It's only a question of how you're going to make amends. How
> are you going to restore trust? How are you going to HEAL the harm
> you've done?
I don't use Peacefulhaven as a "collection point for personal information"
and I really do not know why it is perceived that way - and I'd REALLY like
to know, so again, if you don't feel comfortable posting, by all means,
email me.
The IRC network doesn't collect PI any more than any other IRC network. The
same goes for the site. If anything, the mechanics of the software collect
LESS PI than other compareable networks or websites.
Perhaps that's what you, and others, don't understand - the mechanics of the
software, why certain things, like IP addresses, are recorded. Do you
realize the IP address you operate under is your "passport" to the rest of
the Internet, and that it is noted *everywhere* you go - whether that's to
an IRC or another chat network, a website, etc. In the case of most ISPs,
this IP address is directly translatable to an alphanumeric hostmask.
If people feel that the site or the network has gone beyond that, by all
means, feel free to let me know, and I will have the owner of the domain
name contact you.
See, I don't even own the domain name.
>
> And FOTTY? Don't make the mistake of thinking that this letter to
> Leesa means that you're justified in ANY way for all the fucked up
> ways you're playing this little game of yours out. You're an out and
> out reprobate without even one redeeming virtue. So fuck you and the
> hot dog you rode in on.
>
> Caliban
Caliban, to be truthful, I do not know where all these allegations are
coming from, with the exception of what happened to Jules, over 2 years ago,
with an inexperienced IRC operator.
And I wanna know.
Leesa
Bum
I don't really understand why you're going off like this, considering
you're just branding yourself as a greater hypocrite.
Bum
> "Caliban" <shu...@once.com> wrote in message
> news:ac9bg05png1h8qlfr...@4ax.com...
>
>
>>Having said all of that, Leesa, and I hope your memory is good enough
>>to acknowledge that I've spoken the truth, your actions over the past
>>month or so have forced me to speak out.
>>
>>You appear to have completely gone over the edge of sanity. Adopting
>>the name "Earth Mother" is simply ludicrous, as if you could even
>>begin to approach all of the ramifications contained within that
>>sacred name. You insult Her every time you use it, particularly in
>>your current ego-maniacal state.
>
> Okay, I'm not entirely sure of what I am being accused of, outside of
> posting a link someone gave to me. I acknowledged it as a mistake, and
> apologized. If you don't feel comfortable posting here, by all means, email
> me.
I'm sure many of us would be grateful if he stopped posting here too.
>>You claim to be a High Priestess, and then ask the Wiccans on this
>>newsgroup for a book that contains an Initiation ritual for a High
>>Priestess? Are you mad? How can you not know that such an Initiation
>>is not something obtained in a book? It's ludicrous on it's face. Even
>>if you were asking for background research, or on behalf of someone
>>else, it's paints you in an extremely unfavorable light. The Leesa of
>>a year ago would never have done that.
>
> I asked because someone mentioned it, and in all the years I've been
> studying, I don't recall such a ritual. It certainly isn't in any books
> that I am aware of, and I've never witnessed one, though I've been in two
> covens.
He doesn't understand that paganism != Wicca. And that someone can be a
High Priestess without necessarily being a Wiccan High Priestess.
>>Finally, regarding your using Peaceful Haven as a collection point for
>>personal information, there aren't enough apologies to compensate for
>>a breach of faith. And enough good people have complained about it, in
>>private emails, that it's not even a question of whether it happened
>>or not. It's only a question of how you're going to make amends. How
>>are you going to restore trust? How are you going to HEAL the harm
>>you've done?
>
> I don't use Peacefulhaven as a "collection point for personal information"
> and I really do not know why it is perceived that way - and I'd REALLY like
> to know, so again, if you don't feel comfortable posting, by all means,
> email me.
It's likely that he won't post anything of the sort, or email you, but
instead point to this as evidence that you have these tendencies.
> The IRC network doesn't collect PI any more than any other IRC network. The
> same goes for the site. If anything, the mechanics of the software collect
> LESS PI than other compareable networks or websites.
I'd just like to chime in that I've never had any privacy problems with PH.
> Perhaps that's what you, and others, don't understand - the mechanics of the
> software, why certain things, like IP addresses, are recorded. Do you
> realize the IP address you operate under is your "passport" to the rest of
> the Internet, and that it is noted *everywhere* you go - whether that's to
> an IRC or another chat network, a website, etc. In the case of most ISPs,
> this IP address is directly translatable to an alphanumeric hostmask.
IP addresses are not PI, and people who do not want them known should
not use the internet.
Caliban
wrote:
You don't need to understand it. You're irrelevant.
Caliban
Caliban
<jas...@invalid.peacefulhaven.net> wrote:
>"Caliban" <shu...@once.com> wrote in message
>news:ac9bg05png1h8qlfr...@4ax.com...
>> Leesa, I've always treated you kindly, with some consideration for
>> your medical condition, the hard breaks life has thrown at you and
>> your repeated proclamations at being a healer. I don't believe that
>> I've ever flamed you, attacked you or broke a confidence of yours.
>> Would you agree?
>
>Yes.
>
>> Having said all of that, Leesa, and I hope your memory is good enough
>> to acknowledge that I've spoken the truth, your actions over the past
>> month or so have forced me to speak out.
>>
>> You appear to have completely gone over the edge of sanity. Adopting
>> the name "Earth Mother" is simply ludicrous, as if you could even
>> begin to approach all of the ramifications contained within that
>> sacred name. You insult Her every time you use it, particularly in
>> your current ego-maniacal state.
>
>Okay, I'm not entirely sure of what I am being accused of, outside of
>posting a link someone gave to me. I acknowledged it as a mistake, and
>apologized. If you don't feel comfortable posting here, by all means, email
>me.
Then you're being purposefully obtuse.
Jules, Flase and FOT have made it crystal clear, and there are at
least as many other people that are not speaking up for reasons of
their own.
Do you use an oracle, Leesa? If you do, you might want to consult it
on this issue and see what you get.
And that's it for me on this topic. I wanted to have my say because
Jules is a close friend and I'm very unhappy about how she's been
batted around for speaking up.
Caliban
The Cunning Linguist :Ş
"Bum" <acc...@domain.extension> wrote in message
news:1CjNc.20578424$Of.34...@news.easynews.com...
No, he's right this time. I don't recall Calibunny ever divulging
information. I especially agree with his assessment of her new name. I don't
even practice Wicca any longer and I was offended by its arrogance.
--
Talesin- The Bad Boy of Witchcraft (tm)
"It's time for the human race to enter the solar system."
- George W. Bush
http://home.kc.rr.com/pendragonsloft
© 2004 by Talesin- The Bad Boy of Witchcraft. All rights reserved
naismith
> "Bum"< vario...@socks.extension> wrote:
>
> >I don't really understand ...
>
> You don't need to understand it. You're irrelevant.
> Caliban
The irrelevant parsetroll probably suspects "his"
own irrelevancy, here and offline.
morrigaisgh
Caliban,
We know F0T has been after Peacefulhaven for a long time and it's basically
because he's not welcome there. He's just as bad on IRC as he is, here. I
can assure you that all his allegations are patently false and are meant
only to slander the good name of an IRC network that operates very
independent of this newsgroup.
As for flase, Doc has a better memory of the incident and said he'd post it.
I wasn't the one who revealed his email address and the party that did is
not a part of the network. This happened over a year and a half ago and I
am not personally responsible for it.
I am not being purposefully obtuse, Caliban. I'm trying to get to the
bottom of this.
Jules' incident happened over *2 YEARS AGO* and it wasn't me who revealed
where she was logging in from and, besides, the origin is a very large
place. I highly doubt anyone got any useful information out of RevDisk's
slip.
Her allegations that I've been doing this for *years* and *using it to ruin
other people's lives* are patently false, and I challenge her to prove me
otherwise. I know my nose is clean.
morrigaisgh
Caliban
wrote:
>Caliban <shu...@once.com> wrote in
>news:l8obg0d7oq26c4ug9...@4ax.com:
>
>>>Okay, I'm not entirely sure of what I am being accused of, outside of
>>>posting a link someone gave to me. I acknowledged it as a mistake,
>>>and apologized. If you don't feel comfortable posting here, by all
>>>means, email me.
>>
>> Then you're being purposefully obtuse.
>
>Or she's just trying to understand why you folks are deliberately (and with
>a bloody herd mentality) are demonising her.
>
>> Jules, Flase and FOT have made it crystal clear, and there are at
>> least as many other people that are not speaking up for reasons of
>> their own.
>
>The issue with Jules was explained. And RevDisk has zero input on
>Peacefulhaven now so it's a dead issue.
>
>Flase is wrong in that Leesa posted that information ... it was one of the
>channel ops in the #9412 channel who did it. We don't have control over
>what those folks do - it's their place to do as they wish.
>
>Anyone who believes anything David says about Peacefulhaven hasn't been
>there to judge for themselves - but that's the way things are here now,
>isn't it...
>
>> And that's it for me on this topic. I wanted to have my say because
>> Jules is a close friend and I'm very unhappy about how she's been
>> batted around for speaking up.
>
>And you're looking for a certain amount of attention. Let's not forget
>that.
How often do I post here anymore, Doc Jeff? How much attention could I
possibly want by posting here as infrequently as I do?
C
Caliban
Hi Trev!
What's new?
>
Caliban
wrote:
>Caliban <shu...@once.com> wrote in
>news:ac9bg05png1h8qlfr...@4ax.com:
>
>> Having said all of that, Leesa, and I hope your memory is good enough
>> to acknowledge that I've spoken the truth, your actions over the past
>> month or so have forced me to speak out.
>
>One person's actions do not "force" another person to do or not do
>something. You made the choice to speak out. Her action or inaction didn't
>make that choice for you, you did. You could just as easily have chosen to
>remain silent or take this to e-mail. The choice was yours. Note that I'm
>not faulting your choice.
>
>> You appear to have completely gone over the edge of sanity. Adopting
>> the name "Earth Mother" is simply ludicrous, as if you could even
>> begin to approach all of the ramifications contained within that
>> sacred name. You insult Her every time you use it, particularly in
>> your current ego-maniacal state.
>
>Seeing as how that is subjective in nature rather than objective, it counts
>as little more than personal opinion. You're entitled to your opinion. My
>opinion, to which I, too, am entitled, is that you're wrong.
>
>You misunderstood her reasoning for choosing that name. That's okay, nobody
>understands every decision someone makes.
>
>> You claim to be a High Priestess, and then ask the Wiccans on this
>> newsgroup for a book that contains an Initiation ritual for a High
>> Priestess? Are you mad? How can you not know that such an Initiation
>> is not something obtained in a book? It's ludicrous on it's face. Even
>> if you were asking for background research, or on behalf of someone
>> else, it's paints you in an extremely unfavorable light. The Leesa of
>> a year ago would never have done that.
>
>She asked a legitimate, and may I say an actual on topic, question. Her
>reasons for doing so are her own business. Your choice to ridicule the
>reasoning behind her question is just wrong. But, sadly, it's what I've
>come to expect out of certain ARW denizens of late.
I'm not responding to your commentary above because you were simply
being argumentative. Your reply to this point, however, is interesting
to me. Leesa knows what I'm talking about in this question because
she's actually been involved in coven work. You, obviously, have not.
So unless you enjoy painting yourself as ignorant and inexperienced in
matters of this nature, you might want to consider thinking before you
ramble.
Or, simply carry on.
>
>> Finally, regarding your using Peaceful Haven as a collection point for
>> personal information, there aren't enough apologies to compensate for
>> a breach of faith.
>
>Until viable proof of such allegations is provided, such commentary is to
>be taken only as gossip and nothing more. It STILL amazes me that people
>who haven't even visited Peacefulhaven believe they can comment on what
>goes on there based only on secondhand and, often, thirdhand information
>provided to them by trolls like David and Chive. Where's the integrity in
>that? Hmm?
No one's going to post proof publicly because they would be revealing
the very information that they want to protect. The thing that adds
credibility to their claim is who they are. These are not Usenet
trolls or people with an axe to grind. They're good people. And the
very fact that a significant number have these privacy issues with
Peaceful Haven is something you and Leesa should be paying attention
to, and trying to fix.
>
>> And enough good people have complained about it, in
>> private emails, that it's not even a question of whether it happened
>> or not.
>
>There's that "They support me in e-mail" crappola again. Doesn't ever work
>for David - why should it work for you?
Because I'm not David. Neither are the other people making the claims.
I'm not Leesa's enemy. I've been very civil to her over the years,
both here and in email.
>
>> It's only a question of how you're going to make amends.
>
>One can only make amends for things they've actually done, not for the
>psychotic ramblings and half-assed allegations of people who have no idea
>of what goes on...
You have no interest in making amends to anyone for anything. Quit
pretending behind this passive-aggressive mask of yours. It fools no
one.
C
morrigaisgh
viruses, bad emails, etc.
morrigaisgh
"Caliban" <shu...@once.com> wrote in message
news:hlrcg0hkmvlrashme...@4ax.com...
Lilly
wrote:
<snip>
>And you're looking for a certain amount of attention. Let's not forget
>that.
You couldn't be more wrong. Cheap shot, not to mention dead wrong. My
husband is big enough to ignore this comment for the petty deluded
shit it is, but I am not, Doc.
~Lilly
The Cunning Linguist :Ş
I have as well
| Do you use an oracle, Leesa? If you do, you might want to consult it
| on this issue and see what you get.
|
I already read the cards for her
| And that's it for me on this topic. I wanted to have my say because
| Jules is a close friend and I'm very unhappy about how she's been
| batted around for speaking up.
Gee, I have been "speaking up"for a year. Too bad you don't have the balls
to acknowledge that
The Cunning Linguist :Ş
"[ Doc Jeff ]" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9532E9E...@127.0.0.1...
| Caliban <shu...@once.com> wrote in
| news:l8obg0d7oq26c4ug9...@4ax.com:
|
| >>Okay, I'm not entirely sure of what I am being accused of, outside of
| >>posting a link someone gave to me. I acknowledged it as a mistake,
| >>and apologized. If you don't feel comfortable posting here, by all
| >>means, email me.
| >
| > Then you're being purposefully obtuse.
|
with
| a bloody herd mentality) are demonising her.
We KNOW what is going on, Jeff. This feigned innocence shit is not going to
work. She is a psychotic energy vampire and she hurts people. She has been
doing it for years
|
| > Jules, Flase and FOT have made it crystal clear, and there are at
| > least as many other people that are not speaking up for reasons of
| > their own.
|
| The issue with Jules was explained. And RevDisk has zero input on
| Peacefulhaven now so it's a dead issue.
No, it is not because it is only one of a long series of incidents
|
| Flase is wrong in that Leesa posted that information ... it was one of the
| channel ops in the #9412 channel who did it. We don't have control over
| what those folks do - it's their place to do as they wish
As long as they don't say "pussy" or disagree about GPS.
| Anyone who believes anything David says about Peacefulhaven hasn't been
| there to judge for themselves - but that's the way things are here now,
| isn't it...
|
It is not a matter of beleiving me. Quit trying to play some people's
dislike of me. That's how you got into this shit
| > And that's it for me on this topic. I wanted to have my say because
| > Jules is a close friend and I'm very unhappy about how she's been
| > batted around for speaking up.
|
| And you're looking for a certain amount of attention. Let's not forget
| that.
Gee, that must be why he was one of the last of many to speak up
The Cunning Linguist :Ş
"morrigaisgh" <jas...@invalid.peacefulhaven.net> wrote in message
news:2mma04F...@uni-berlin.de...
Oh look, they have called for reinforcements.
Listen, Rev, everyone knows what is going on. Trying to pawn it off on "the
evil of Talesin" is not going to work
And I am welcome there. I have been there almost every night since this shit
broke out
The Cunning Linguist :Ş
"[ Doc Jeff ]" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9532E9E...@127.0.0.1...
| Caliban <shu...@once.com> wrote in
|
| > Having said all of that, Leesa, and I hope your memory is good enough
| > to acknowledge that I've spoken the truth, your actions over the past
| > month or so have forced me to speak out.
|
| something. You made the choice to speak out. Her action or inaction didn't
| make that choice for you, you did. You could just as easily have chosen to
| remain silent or take this to e-mail. The choice was yours. Note that I'm
| not faulting your choice.
There is such a thing as principle, although it is a foreign concept to you.
You see, some people feel it is their duty to speak out against wrongdoing
publicly
|
| > You appear to have completely gone over the edge of sanity. Adopting
| > the name "Earth Mother" is simply ludicrous, as if you could even
| > begin to approach all of the ramifications contained within that
| > sacred name. You insult Her every time you use it, particularly in
| > your current ego-maniacal state.
|
| Seeing as how that is subjective in nature rather than objective, it
counts
| as little more than personal opinion. You're entitled to your opinion. My
| opinion, to which I, too, am entitled, is that you're wrong.
|
| You misunderstood her reasoning for choosing that name. That's okay,
nobody
| understands every decision someone make.
Not only does she in no way deserve the title of "mother"- a giver of life-
this name is just patently offensive. It would be like someone in
alt.catholic calling himself "jesus".
|
| > You claim to be a High Priestess, and then ask the Wiccans on this
| > newsgroup for a book that contains an Initiation ritual for a High
| > Priestess? Are you mad? How can you not know that such an Initiation
| > is not something obtained in a book? It's ludicrous on it's face. Even
| > if you were asking for background research, or on behalf of someone
| > else, it's paints you in an extremely unfavorable light. The Leesa of
| > a year ago would never have done that.
|
| She asked a legitimate, and may I say an actual on topic, question. Her
| reasons for doing so are her own business. Your choice to ridicule the
| reasoning behind her question is just wrong. But, sadly, it's what I've
| come to expect out of certain ARW denizens of late.
|
No, she was merely implying that she was somehow superior to HPS. Again,
this is patently offensive to people who practice the Wiccan religion. She
is a psychotic megalomaniac
| > Finally, regarding your using Peaceful Haven as a collection point for
| > personal information, there aren't enough apologies to compensate for
| > a breach of faith.
|
| Until viable proof of such allegations is provided, such commentary is to
| be taken only as gossip and nothing more. It STILL amazes me that people
| who haven't even visited Peacefulhaven believe they can comment on what
| goes on there based only on secondhand and, often, thirdhand information
| provided to them by trolls like David and Chive. Where's the integrity in
| that? Hmm?
What about all of the people who HAVE been on there and have been outed?
Everytime I show up you fall allyth over dickheaded self to make sure
everyone knows what you think is my real name. You outed several people when
your puppet Wintershard posted a private chat log. You gave everyone
juliet's employment information. I used to post warnings about your "ARW
Chat" because of this shit.
|
| > And enough good people have complained about it, in
| > private emails, that it's not even a question of whether it happened
| > or not.
|
| There's that "They support me in e-mail" crappola again. Doesn't ever work
| for David - why should it work for you?
It's true. People are keeping quiet about it because they fear you stepping
up your hacker attacks in your attempts to garner PI from their computers. A
few are doing it on the advice of their attorneys.
|
| > It's only a question of how you're going to make amends.
|
| One can only make amends for things they've actually done, not for the
| psychotic ramblings and half-assed allegations of people who have no idea
| of what goes on...
You have just insulted most of the RP's on this group
The Cunning Linguist :Ş
| Please see the serious discussion thread we have on the subject of DoS,
| viruses, bad emails, etc.
| morrigaisgh
For those of you who are unaware, this is the moron that posted juliet's
employment info in PRoP
Lilly
You see, Humpty, this is what happens when you've lost ALL
CREDIBILITY. Even when you're right, you're wrong.
And you have only yourself to blame for that.
Caliban
Bum
He's threatened to bring Usenet shit into 'real life' many times. It's
all in the same package.
> I especially agree with his assessment of her new name. I don't
> even practice Wicca any longer and I was offended by its arrogance.
Oh poop.
Bum
> Caliban <shu...@once.com> wrote in
> news:ac9bg05png1h8qlfr...@4ax.com:
>
>
>>Having said all of that, Leesa, and I hope your memory is good enough
>>to acknowledge that I've spoken the truth, your actions over the past
>>month or so have forced me to speak out.
>
>
> One person's actions do not "force" another person to do or not do
> something. You made the choice to speak out. Her action or inaction didn't
> make that choice for you, you did. You could just as easily have chosen to
> remain silent or take this to e-mail. The choice was yours. Note that I'm
> not faulting your choice.
It's the same as with people who are 'forced' to post PI or try to bring
things to real life because of someone elses behaviour.
>>You appear to have completely gone over the edge of sanity. Adopting
>>the name "Earth Mother" is simply ludicrous, as if you could even
>>begin to approach all of the ramifications contained within that
>>sacred name. You insult Her every time you use it, particularly in
>>your current ego-maniacal state.
>
> Seeing as how that is subjective in nature rather than objective, it counts
> as little more than personal opinion. You're entitled to your opinion. My
> opinion, to which I, too, am entitled, is that you're wrong.
My opinion is that it really doesn't matter, and if someone is so easily
offended then they really shouldn't be on ARW.
> You misunderstood her reasoning for choosing that name. That's okay, nobody
> understands every decision someone makes.
I should call myself Earth Mother out of spite.
>>And enough good people have complained about it, in
>>private emails, that it's not even a question of whether it happened
>>or not.
>
>
> There's that "They support me in e-mail" crappola again. Doesn't ever work
> for David - why should it work for you?
Because he's 'special'.
Bum
> Caliban <shu...@once.com> wrote in
> news:l8obg0d7oq26c4ug9...@4ax.com:
>
>>And that's it for me on this topic. I wanted to have my say because
>>Jules is a close friend and I'm very unhappy about how she's been
>>batted around for speaking up.
>
>
> And you're looking for a certain amount of attention. Let's not forget
> that.
I'm amused at the term 'batted around', since she's generally been
treated with a great deal of respect over this.
Bum
> Caliban <shu...@once.com> wrote in
> news:b7obg05cv7fg7kega...@4ax.com:
>
>>>I don't really understand why you're going off like this, considering
>>>you're just branding yourself as a greater hypocrite.
>>
>>You don't need to understand it. You're irrelevant.
>
>
> Because Bum doesn't agree with you or understand your point of view, Bum is
> irrelevant? That makes about as much sense as washing your potatos in a
> toilet.
This big post was quite typical of Caliban. He'll make this big long
post trying to act like he's some impartial adjudicator, but all the
text is actually couched in very slanted terminology.
> *note I specifically avoided gender-specific pronouns here because I don't
> know if Bum is male or female. Wouldn't want to be accused of posting PI
> now...
Heeheehee. I'm not male or female, I'm a butt.
naismith
>
> Hi Trev!
Howdy.
>
> What's new?
Everything is, given a different perspective than before. ;-]
Bum
It's a fallacy to think that you garner more attention by posting more.
Look at Gargoyle.
Bum
> On 27 Jul 2004 06:00:24 GMT, "[ Doc Jeff ]" <m...@privacy.net>
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>And you're looking for a certain amount of attention. Let's not forget
>>that.
>
> You couldn't be more wrong.
He could be if he said that Caliban wasn't a hypocrite, and that he
didn't desire attention for this.
> Cheap shot, not to mention dead wrong.
Your word is worth less than water.
> My
> husband is big enough to ignore this comment for the petty deluded
> shit it is, but I am not, Doc.
You don't really have the mental faculty to respond to any of these
things in an intelligent manner, so it's likely that Doc will recognize
your talk as bravado.
Bum
> this name is just patently offensive. It would be like someone in
> alt.catholic calling himself "jesus".
That's a good idea.
naismith
>
> Your word is worth less than water.
While that of (p)arsehole sock has no intrinsic value whatsoever.
.
Gargoyle
Yeah, and you're waiting for a thong to be up it. hehehe
Gargoyle - The Evil Mr. Peanut. ]>;)-~~~~~~~
The biggest conspiracy of all is that there
is no conspiracy. hehehe
Gargoyle
Grand Maul
"Bum" <acc...@domain.extension> wrote in message
Look at Hy.
Grand Maul
"Bum" <acc...@domain.extension> wrote in message
> Lilly wrote:
>
> > On 27 Jul 2004 06:00:24 GMT, "[ Doc Jeff ]" <m...@privacy.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >>And you're looking for a certain amount of attention. Let's not forget
> >>that.
> >
> > You couldn't be more wrong.
>
> He could be if he said that Caliban wasn't a hypocrite, and that he
> didn't desire attention for this.
>
> > Cheap shot, not to mention dead wrong.
>
> Your word is worth less than water.
Course, some of us live on Arrakis, you're not.
GM
Grand Maul
> Lilly <shu...@once.com> wrote in
> news:402dg0t5jm3j8i546...@4ax.com:
>
> >>And you're looking for a certain amount of attention. Let's not forget
> >>that.
> >
>
> It's not a cheap shot. It's an accurate observation. He could've taken his
> message private - direct to Leesa. Her e-mail isn't exactly hidden. He
> chose to post his comments in public *for attention*...otherwise they
> would've been made private.
And then he'd get an email back from her, right? That way, they could
network together! Sounds pretty reasonable to me, but maybe I commented here
simply to get some attention.
GM
>
> > My husband is big enough to ignore this comment for the petty deluded
> > shit it is, but I am not, Doc.
>
> I expected you to back him up on that. No problem there at all. I would've
> been shocked if you hadn't.
>
>
> --
>
> Doc - a really nice guy that looks like a Harley-riding axe murderer
> Member of the Cabal
>
> Dealing with life, one hug and one virtual sister at a time
>
> irc2.peacefulhaven.net -or- http://www.peacefulhaven.net
>
> http://www.cotse.net - Use it, you know you want to.
> If you're too scared to go look for yourself, ask me
Lilly
wrote:
>Caliban <shu...@once.com> wrote in
>news:jvqcg01677id1mj1i...@4ax.com:
>
>>>And you're looking for a certain amount of attention. Let's not forget
>>>that.
>>
>> How often do I post here anymore, Doc Jeff? How much attention could I
>> possibly want by posting here as infrequently as I do?
>
>Enough to satisfy yourself. I think that's pretty well the same for
>everyone here actually (yes, including me). And I don't fault you for it.
>But the facts are really fairly easy to see:
>
>1. Both Leesa and I made an error in judgment and posted a link to a url
>that we shouldn't have.
>
>2. We both apologised for it.
>
>3. You lot can't seem to move beyond that and are now making some of
>the damnedest ad hominem attacks to a) satisfy whatever need for attention
>you have [not necessarily a bad thing] and b) to show that you have, in
>fact, taken a side.
>
>The people who have spoken up (on either side) have fallen about where I've
>expected they would. The ones who haven't spoken out, for whatever reason,
>are the ones I'm truly interested in.
>
>On a personal note, there was a time when I actually respected you (and
>some others) here. I truly enjoyed hearing that you and Lilly wrote a book.
>But this rabid wolverine act y'all have been pulling has certainly changed
>my mind. You could've taken your message to Leesa private but you chose not
>to do so. This proves to me that you didn't really want an answer from her
>but rather wanted to show that you weren't on her side [which is entirely
>your business]. I'm sorry you can't see how remarkable a woman she is.
This problem was made public quite a few posts before I said anything
at all. When it involves friends of mine, and in a public way, my
response will be public.
Caliban
Caliban
wrote:
>Lilly wrote:
>
>> On 27 Jul 2004 06:00:24 GMT, "[ Doc Jeff ]" <m...@privacy.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>And you're looking for a certain amount of attention. Let's not forget
>>>that.
>>
>> You couldn't be more wrong.
>
>He could be if he said that Caliban wasn't a hypocrite, and that he
>didn't desire attention for this.
Attention from whom? And for what?
In your own way, you're as desperate as Humpty.
>
>> Cheap shot, not to mention dead wrong.
>
>Your word is worth less than water.
>
>> My
>> husband is big enough to ignore this comment for the petty deluded
>> shit it is, but I am not, Doc.
>
>You don't really have the mental faculty to respond to any of these
>things in an intelligent manner, so it's likely that Doc will recognize
>your talk as bravado.
It's funny to see your hatred of women come through, particularly when
you're posting to Lilly. We're both laughing at you.
Caliban
Caliban
wrote:
>Caliban <shu...@once.com> wrote in
>news:hlrcg0hkmvlrashme...@4ax.com:
>
>>>She asked a legitimate, and may I say an actual on topic, question.
>>>Her reasons for doing so are her own business. Your choice to ridicule
>>>the reasoning behind her question is just wrong. But, sadly, it's what
>>>I've come to expect out of certain ARW denizens of late.
>>
>> I'm not responding to your commentary above because you were simply
>> being argumentative.
>
>That's fair.
>
>> Your reply to this point, however, is interesting
>> to me. Leesa knows what I'm talking about in this question because
>> she's actually been involved in coven work. You, obviously, have not.
>> So unless you enjoy painting yourself as ignorant and inexperienced in
>> matters of this nature, you might want to consider thinking before you
>> ramble.
>
>I admit that I have no clue about the topic and certainly don't know the
>answer to the question she posed. But I do know that she actually told me
>why she asked the question and I do know where the question comes from and
>why as a result of that conversation with her.
>
>>>Until viable proof of such allegations is provided, such commentary is
>>>to be taken only as gossip and nothing more. It STILL amazes me that
>>>people who haven't even visited Peacefulhaven believe they can comment
>>>on what goes on there based only on secondhand and, often, thirdhand
>>>information provided to them by trolls like David and Chive. Where's
>>>the integrity in that? Hmm?
>>
>> No one's going to post proof publicly because they would be revealing
>> the very information that they want to protect.
>
>Tis rather convenient that is... One could put X's in place of the actual
>information. There would be other telltale signs such as timestamps and
>other parties in the same channel(s) who would have witnessed things.
>
>> The thing that adds credibility to their claim is who they are.
>> These are not Usenet trolls or people with an axe to grind.
>
>You really don't think David and Chive are trolls? And Flase who has right
>here in this group admitted to trolling? C'mon, man, you can't be serious.
I wasn't talking about David and Chive, however if PI was released on
those two, even though no one likes them, that doesn't justify the
act, does it?
I was referring to Jules, Aunty K. and flase, as well as anyone else
who it has happened to who doesn't want to come forward for their own
reasons.
>
>> very fact that a significant number have these privacy issues with
>> Peaceful Haven is something you and Leesa should be paying attention
>> to, and trying to fix.
>
>Why? They don't visit so it's not an issue. The fact that there is no data
>gathering at Peacefulhaven, contrary to popular belief, is still just an
>unproven allegation. So there's nothing to fix.
Then Peaceful Haven will continue to have the reputation of leaking
like a sieve.
>
>>>> And enough good people have complained about it, in
>>>> private emails, that it's not even a question of whether it happened
>>>> or not.
>>>
>>>There's that "They support me in e-mail" crappola again. Doesn't ever
>>>work for David - why should it work for you?
>>
>> Because I'm not David. Neither are the other people making the claims.
>> I'm not Leesa's enemy. I've been very civil to her over the years,
>> both here and in email.
>
>And yet you couldn't wait to jump on the bandwagon and question her sanity.
>Curious...
I was defending Jules, and hoping that the other people who were
speaking of their concerns in email would speak up here in public.
As for my remarks to Leesa, she knows what I'm talking about. You,
apparently, do not.
>
>>>> It's only a question of how you're going to make amends.
>>>
>>>One can only make amends for things they've actually done, not for the
>>>psychotic ramblings and half-assed allegations of people who have no
>>>idea of what goes on...
>>
>> You have no interest in making amends to anyone for anything. Quit
>> pretending behind this passive-aggressive mask of yours. It fools no
>> one.
>
>Passive-agressive mask? Um, Caliban, personally I could give less than a
>flying fuck what anyone thinks of me. I did one wrong thing, I apologised
>for it. Now you have the choice of moving on or fucking off. I don't really
>care which.
Yes, passive-aggressive. Your apology wasn't a real apology at all. It
was filled with sarcasm. Here's what happens when a person does
something wrong, like you did, and truly apologizes. They don't try to
justify what they did. They don't turn their apology into an attack.
They seek to make things right.
My "moving along" is not a problem. You don't see me in any other
threads. I'm actually looking forward to being done with this
cluster-fuck, to tell you the truth.
Caliban
Lilly
wrote:
>On a personal note, there was a time when I actually respected you (and
>some others) here.
And?
> I truly enjoyed hearing that you and Lilly wrote a book.
I can assure you Doc, neither one of us gives a fuck what you think of
us or our book.
>But this rabid wolverine act y'all have been pulling has certainly changed
>my mind.
Neither one of us have been "rabid." We've stated our opinions. That's
what a ng is for. You're just upset our opinions are not to your
personal liking. Tough shit. As for some of the other folks? You can
call them "rabid," I'd call them something else. Many people take
privacy and betrayal very seriously, so you can name-call all you want
and it doesn't change things at all.
>You could've taken your message to Leesa private but you chose not
>to do so.
No, many people have chosen to do this publicly. Perhaps they want to
warn unsuspecting ProP folks of their (potential) danger. Also, email
is personal, not everyone wants to have a private discussion with you
or leesa. It's their right to choose. Get over it.
>This proves to me that you didn't really want an answer from her
This proves to me that you don't need much evidence to have things
proven to you.
>but rather wanted to show that you weren't on her side [which is entirely
>your business].
Ya, it ~IS~ his business. Also, "sides?" How old are you?
>I'm sorry you can't see how remarkable a woman she is.
How do you know he doesn't? You know, out of all of us, ~YOU'RE~ the
one here, who seems to ignore evidence and be picking sides in your
blind affection for someone. Fine, so be it, but don't try to drag
others along with you and get petty and attack them personally is they
decide to take a pass.
~Lilly
morrigaisgh
And, actually, many latin american Catholic men DO call themselves Jesus.
morrigaisgh
Lilly
wrote:
>Lilly <shu...@once.com> wrote in
>news:402dg0t5jm3j8i546...@4ax.com:
>
>>>And you're looking for a certain amount of attention. Let's not forget
>>>that.
>>
>> You couldn't be more wrong. Cheap shot, not to mention dead wrong.
>
>It's not a cheap shot.
Ya, it is.
> It's an accurate observation.
Your blind devotion rules you out as an impartial observer, Doc.
>He could've taken his
>message private - direct to Leesa. Her e-mail isn't exactly hidden.
Of course he could. He chose not to. Like many here have chosen not
to. Do we ~ALL~ have some desperate need for attention? Hrm, suddenly
that sounds like someone else, btw, creating all this usenet and chat
drama with real people's information and real people's lives.
>He
>chose to post his comments in public *for attention*...otherwise they
>would've been made private.
No, he chose to do it to support those of our friends who have been
crucified for daring to speak up. he also did it to warn newbies who
don't know any better.
>> My husband is big enough to ignore this comment for the petty deluded
>> shit it is, but I am not, Doc.
>
>I expected you to back him up on that. No problem there at all. I would've
>been shocked if you hadn't.
Do as you like, Doc. Bed, Made. Lie.
~Lilly
Lilly
>
>"[ Doc Jeff ]" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>news:Xns9533D17...@127.0.0.1...
>> Lilly <shu...@once.com> wrote in
>> news:402dg0t5jm3j8i546...@4ax.com:
>>
>> >>And you're looking for a certain amount of attention. Let's not forget
>> >>that.
>> >
>> > You couldn't be more wrong. Cheap shot, not to mention dead wrong.
>>
>> It's not a cheap shot. It's an accurate observation. He could've taken his
>> message private - direct to Leesa. Her e-mail isn't exactly hidden. He
>> chose to post his comments in public *for attention*...otherwise they
>> would've been made private.
>
>And then he'd get an email back from her, right? That way, they could
>network together! Sounds pretty reasonable to me, but maybe I commented here
>simply to get some attention.
>GM
Well, you have ~MY~ attention. =)
Now let's see, who's attention can I get?
~Lilly
The Cunning Linguist :Ş
"Lilly" <shu...@once.com> wrote in message
news:euddg0drfsm4t6jot...@4ax.com...
| On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 18:37:23 GMT, "The Cunning Linguist :Ş"
| <the_wi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
|
| >
| >"Caliban" <shu...@once.com> wrote in message
| >news:l8obg0d7oq26c4ug9...@4ax.com...
| >| On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 21:24:50 -0500, "Earth Mother"
| >| <jas...@invalid.peacefulhaven.net> wrote:
| >|
| >| >"Caliban" <shu...@once.com> wrote in message
| >| >news:ac9bg05png1h8qlfr...@4ax.com...
| >| >> Leesa, I've always treated you kindly, with some consideration for
| >| >> your medical condition, the hard breaks life has thrown at you and
| >| >> your repeated proclamations at being a healer. I don't believe that
| >| >> I've ever flamed you, attacked you or broke a confidence of yours.
| >| >> Would you agree?
| >| >
| >| >Yes.
| >| >
| >| >> Having said all of that, Leesa, and I hope your memory is good
enough
| >| >> to acknowledge that I've spoken the truth, your actions over the
past
| >| >> month or so have forced me to speak out.
| >| >>
| >| >> You appear to have completely gone over the edge of sanity. Adopting
| >| >> the name "Earth Mother" is simply ludicrous, as if you could even
| >| >> begin to approach all of the ramifications contained within that
| >| >> sacred name. You insult Her every time you use it, particularly in
| >| >> your current ego-maniacal state.
| >| >
| >| >Okay, I'm not entirely sure of what I am being accused of, outside of
| >| >posting a link someone gave to me. I acknowledged it as a mistake,
and
| >| >apologized. If you don't feel comfortable posting here, by all means,
| >| >me.
| >|
| >| Then you're being purposefully obtuse.
| >|
| >| least as many other people that are not speaking up for reasons of
| >| their own.
| >|
| >
| >
| >| Do you use an oracle, Leesa? If you do, you might want to consult it
| >| on this issue and see what you get.
| >|
| >
| >I already read the cards for her
| >
| >| And that's it for me on this topic. I wanted to have my say because
| >| Jules is a close friend and I'm very unhappy about how she's been
| >| batted around for speaking up.
| >
balls
| >to acknowledge that
|
| You see, Humpty, this is what happens when you've lost ALL
| CREDIBILITY. Even when you're right, you're wrong.
|
| And you have only yourself to blame for that.
Blame myself for what? For, once again, demonstrating the power of actual
Witchcraft by seeing things months before they happen?
I am always right.
--
Talesin- The Bad Boy of Witchcraft (tm)
"It's time for the human race to enter the solar system."
- George W. Bush
http://home.kc.rr.com/pendragonsloft
© 2004 by Talesin- The Bad Boy of Witchcraft. All rights reserved
The Cunning Linguist :Ş
"Bum" <acc...@domain.extension> wrote in message
| Caliban wrote:
| > How often do I post here anymore, Doc Jeff? How much attention could I
| > possibly want by posting here as infrequently as I do?
|
| It's a fallacy to think that you garner more attention by posting more.
|
| Look at Gargoyle.
Who?
The Cunning Linguist :Ş
"Bum" <acc...@domain.extension> wrote in message
Oh for chirst's sake
The Cunning Linguist :Ş
"morrigaisgh" <jas...@invalid.peacefulhaven.net> wrote in message
news:2mp07lF...@uni-berlin.de...
You are too ugly to qualify as a Latin American man
The Cunning Linguist :Ş
| news:jvqcg01677id1mj1i...@4ax.com:
|
| >>And you're looking for a certain amount of attention. Let's not forget
| >>that.
| >
| > possibly want by posting here as infrequently as I do?
|
| everyone here actually (yes, including me). And I don't fault you for it.
| But the facts are really fairly easy to see:
|
| 1. Both Leesa and I made an error in judgment and posted a link to a url
| that we shouldn't have.
Just one of many, many offenses committed by you
|
| 2. We both apologised for it.
Which was both convenient for you and worthless to us
|
| 3. You lot can't seem to move beyond that and are now making some of
| the damnedest ad hominem attacks to a) satisfy whatever need for attention
| you have [not necessarily a bad thing] and b) to show that you have, in
| fact, taken a side.
|
| The people who have spoken up (on either side) have fallen about where
I've
| expected they would. The ones who haven't spoken out, for whatever reason,
| are the ones I'm truly interested in.
|
You better be, They are the ones who are really gunning for you
| On a personal note, there was a time when I actually respected you (and
| some others) here. I truly enjoyed hearing that you and Lilly wrote a
book.
| But this rabid wolverine act y'all have been pulling has certainly changed
| my mind. You could've taken your message to Leesa private but you chose
not
| to do so. This proves to me that you didn't really want an answer from her
| but rather wanted to show that you weren't on her side [which is entirely
| your business]. I'm sorry you can't see how remarkable a woman she is.
Oh look, you've lost the respect of a malicious hacker and child abuser. Try
to get over it.
The Cunning Linguist :Ş
| >>that.
| >
|
| It's not a cheap shot. It's an accurate observation. He could've taken his
| message private - direct to Leesa. Her e-mail isn't exactly hidden. He
| chose to post his comments in public *for attention*...otherwise they
| would've been made private.
Not all of us are sneaky backstabbing snakes like you and Plague Dog
The Cunning Linguist :Ş
"Grand Maul" <sl...@slif.org> wrote in message
news:tpGNc.172663$%_6.2022@attbi_s01...
|
| "[ Doc Jeff ]" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
| news:Xns9533D17...@127.0.0.1...
| > Lilly <shu...@once.com> wrote in
| > news:402dg0t5jm3j8i546...@4ax.com:
| >
| > >>And you're looking for a certain amount of attention. Let's not forget
| > >>that.
| > >
| > > You couldn't be more wrong. Cheap shot, not to mention dead wrong.
| >
| > It's not a cheap shot. It's an accurate observation. He could've taken
his
| > message private - direct to Leesa. Her e-mail isn't exactly hidden. He
| > chose to post his comments in public *for attention*...otherwise they
| > would've been made private.
|
| And then he'd get an email back from her, right? That way, they could
| network together! Sounds pretty reasonable to me, but maybe I commented
here
| simply to get some attention.
And Leesa would have a set of headers to forge and to facilitate hacker
attacks
How convenient
The Cunning Linguist :Ş
| news:DhxNc.3959$ju6....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com:
|
| > We KNOW what is going on, Jeff. This feigned innocence shit is not
| > going to work. She is a psychotic energy vampire and she hurts people.
| > She has been doing it for years
|
| You are entitled to your opinion, David, no matter how wrong it is...
I am entitled to my opinion however this is a fact. Do you REALLY think we
al hate each other so much that we don't talk offline?
|
| >| Flase is wrong in that Leesa posted that information ... it was one
| >| of the channel ops in the #9412 channel who did it. We don't have
| >| control over what those folks do - it's their place to do as they
| >| wish
| >
| > As long as they don't say "pussy" or disagree about GPS.
|
| The "pussy" thing was directed at you after we'd already set the flag
| denoting it was a G-rated channel. You were told this and you ignored it.
| Deal with it. I'm not going to comment on the GPS thing again.
You are a repressive fascist. You and your GF Plague Dog demand that
everyone bow to your will and your morals. You tried to extend your little
cyber cult to this group and now you are going to lose it all
|
| > It is not a matter of beleiving me. Quit trying to play some people's
| > dislike of me. That's how you got into this shit
|
| Got into what shit? I have a clear conscience.
Then you are a sociopath
|
| >| And you're looking for a certain amount of attention. Let's not
| >| forget that.
| >
| > Gee, that must be why he was one of the last of many to speak up
|
| It's the ones who aren't speaking up that interest me.
Oh they are speaking- to people you would be afraid of
The Cunning Linguist :Ş
|
| > There is such a thing as principle, although it is a foreign concept
| > to you. You see, some people feel it is their duty to speak out
| > against wrongdoing publicly
|
| Seeing you speaking about principle is funny.
Oh really? Even though I have accomplished so much more in very facet of
life than you have, you don't think I have principles? Well I do, and people
who hurt children violate the most basic of them
|
| > Not only does she in no way deserve the title of "mother"- a giver of
| > life- this name is just patently offensive. It would be like someone
| > in alt.catholic calling himself "jesus".
|
| Even if his name was actually Jesus Hernandez? Need a better analogy
there,
| David.
Racist fuck
|
| > You gave everyone juliet's employment information.
|
| Did I now? Are you confusing me with RevDisk?
PRoP. You share collective guilt
And absolutely no one believes it was not done at Leesa's order. She hates
attractive, successful, strong willed women.
|
| >| One can only make amends for things they've actually done, not for
| >| the psychotic ramblings and half-assed allegations of people who have
| >| no idea of what goes on...
| >
| > You have just insulted most of the RP's on this group
|
| Turnabout is fair play. This whole rabid attack is insulting to me...
You should have thought more carefully before you got mixed up with Gordon
and Leesa
The Cunning Linguist :Ş
Rhyanon
"naismith" <t_nai...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2molclF...@uni-berlin.de...
morrigaisgh
"The Cunning Linguist :Ş" <the_wi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:tqNNc.49374$6t1....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> | some others) here. I truly enjoyed hearing that you and Lilly wrote a
> book.
> | But this rabid wolverine act y'all have been pulling has certainly
changed
> | my mind. You could've taken your message to Leesa private but you chose
> not
> | to do so. This proves to me that you didn't really want an answer from
her
> | but rather wanted to show that you weren't on her side [which is
entirely
> | your business]. I'm sorry you can't see how remarkable a woman she is.
>
> Oh look, you've lost the respect of a malicious hacker and child abuser.
Try
> to get over it.
>
> --
> Talesin- The Bad Boy of Witchcraft (tm)
CHILD ABUSER? Boy, you are just ANGLING for the lawsuits, aren't you?
morrigaisgh
"Ayauhteotl" <nonam...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:nonamespae-066F5...@individual.net...
>
> Excellent points. As an FYI, "Earth Mother" is her 'net radio personna.
No, it's not. If you are going to "out" more PI on me, get it right.
I'm disappointed in you.
morrigaisgh
Caliban
<t_nai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Caliban" wrote:
>>
>> Hi Trev!
>
>Howdy.
>>
>> What's new?
>
>Everything is, given a different perspective than before. ;-]
"purloined" - huh?
C
>
>
>
>
>
naismith
"Rhyanon" wrote:
> Water is a *precious* commodity.
>
>
naismith
> "naismith" wrote:
> >"Caliban" wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Trev!
> >
> >Howdy.
> >>
> >> What's new?
> >
> >Everything is, given a different perspective than before. ;-]
>
> "purloined" - huh?
>
> C
A triple-entendre, if you will; 'purloined', as in out in the open and
a way to change the subject title without losing the thread. The
third part of the entendre was that anything is new if perspective
can be shifted.
TN
morrigaisgh
you deal with, know absolutely nothing about basic computer security nor the
current "climate" on the Internet in general. Neither do those you claim
are making these allegations but NOT speaking up.
I think I did a pretty good job of explaining it in the serious thread and I
certainly hope the lurkers read it. Since I've said it already, I'm not
reposting it, here. Aunty sure has read it and she's not pointing fingers
at us.
Please endeavor to educate yourself before continuing. Thank you.
morrigaisgh
"Caliban" <shu...@once.com> wrote in message
news:30feg0dvkv3302pan...@4ax.com...
Caliban
Ah, a triple entendre. You're a sneaky bastard, ain't ya!
C
>
>TN
>
naismith
> >> "naismith" wrote:
> >> >"Caliban" wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Hi Trev!
> >> >
> >> >Howdy.
> >> >>
> >> >> What's new?
> >> >
> >> >Everything is, given a different perspective than before. ;-]
> >>
> >> "purloined" - huh?
> >
> >a way to change the subject title without losing the thread. The
> >third part of the entendre was that anything is new if perspective
> >can be shifted.
>
> Ah, a triple entendre. You're a sneaky bastard, ain't ya!
Nah, it's just that the triples are rarer than the doubles and
hitting the occasional three-pointer allows for some of those
perspective-shiftings. ;)
>
> C
> >TN
Caliban
<jas...@invalid.peacefulhaven.net> wrote:
>You know something, Caliban - this entire thread shows that you, and those
>you deal with, know absolutely nothing about basic computer security nor the
>current "climate" on the Internet in general. Neither do those you claim
>are making these allegations but NOT speaking up.
>
>I think I did a pretty good job of explaining it in the serious thread and I
>certainly hope the lurkers read it. Since I've said it already, I'm not
>reposting it, here. Aunty sure has read it and she's not pointing fingers
>at us.
>
>Please endeavor to educate yourself before continuing. Thank you.
I've never said I did know anything about computer security. On the
other hand, I know that no one has a 100 percent handle on it, as
evidenced by the ongoing computer security problems that exist in the
world. Certainly you and Doc Jeff know more about computer security
than I do, but no one has all the answers.
Actually, Leesa, I've only asked that you, Doc Jeff and whoever else
is involved, acknowledge that problems exist and take responsibility
for them. No one seems to want to acknowledge that, not even Gordon,
who claims to own Peacefulhaven.
And, in spite of your request, I'll retain my right to speak out about
whatever issue interests me here and/or defend my friends whenever I
see fit. You don't have a problem with that, do you Leesa?
Caliban
morrigaisgh
be proven that Peacefulhaven is to blame. It is far more likely that it has
nothing to do with Peacefulhaven - but to listen to you and a few others,
it's a foregone conclusion that it does.
That is where assumptions are being made and THAT is where language is being
used that could land people in court for a lawsuit.
If I had examples, I could likely show that they had nothing whatsoever to
do with Peacefulhaven, nor anyone involved in running it, so until I see
such examples - or, a court, or other competent authority, does - kindly
keep your mouth shut.
There is more to "keeping silent" than keeping PI to yourself. It also
means you should likely listen instead of flapping your jaws, especially in
an area you know so little about.
morrigaisgh
"Caliban" <shu...@once.com> wrote in message
news:m49gg0hlikc4b60hm...@4ax.com...
Bum
> Caliban <shu...@once.com> wrote in
> news:jvqcg01677id1mj1i...@4ax.com:
>
>
>>>And you're looking for a certain amount of attention. Let's not forget
>>>that.
>>
>>How often do I post here anymore, Doc Jeff? How much attention could I
>>possibly want by posting here as infrequently as I do?
>
>
> Enough to satisfy yourself. I think that's pretty well the same for
> everyone here actually (yes, including me). And I don't fault you for it.
I hope you also took note of the fact that posting to get attention is
pretty much his MO. What about that whole 'secret book' thing?
> But the facts are really fairly easy to see:
>
> 1. Both Leesa and I made an error in judgment and posted a link to a url
> that we shouldn't have.
>
> 2. We both apologised for it.
>
> 3. You lot can't seem to move beyond that and are now making some of
> the damnedest ad hominem attacks to a) satisfy whatever need for attention
> you have [not necessarily a bad thing] and b) to show that you have, in
> fact, taken a side.
>
> The people who have spoken up (on either side) have fallen about where I've
> expected they would. The ones who haven't spoken out, for whatever reason,
> are the ones I'm truly interested in.
What side am I on?
Bum
> Caliban <shu...@once.com> wrote in
> news:hlrcg0hkmvlrashme...@4ax.com:
>
>
>>>She asked a legitimate, and may I say an actual on topic, question.
>>>Her reasons for doing so are her own business. Your choice to ridicule
>>>the reasoning behind her question is just wrong. But, sadly, it's what
>>>I've come to expect out of certain ARW denizens of late.
>>
>>I'm not responding to your commentary above because you were simply
>>being argumentative.
>
> That's fair.
Not really. His comment was argumentative as well.
>>Your reply to this point, however, is interesting
>>to me. Leesa knows what I'm talking about in this question because
>>she's actually been involved in coven work. You, obviously, have not.
>>So unless you enjoy painting yourself as ignorant and inexperienced in
>>matters of this nature, you might want to consider thinking before you
>>ramble.
>
> I admit that I have no clue about the topic and certainly don't know the
> answer to the question she posed. But I do know that she actually told me
> why she asked the question and I do know where the question comes from and
> why as a result of that conversation with her.
It's typical ARW stuff. The less concrete stuff you mention, the more
knowledge you're supposed to have.
That's why Caliban puts so much effort in those longwinded spiels that
have no semantic content, and are entirely meaningless. It's very
impressive that he can throw together 1000 words to say absolutely
nothing (excluding the cases where he's using it to insult someone else,
but then, that's all the content that exists in those cases, too).
>>>Until viable proof of such allegations is provided, such commentary is
>>>to be taken only as gossip and nothing more. It STILL amazes me that
>>>people who haven't even visited Peacefulhaven believe they can comment
>>>on what goes on there based only on secondhand and, often, thirdhand
>>>information provided to them by trolls like David and Chive. Where's
>>>the integrity in that? Hmm?
>>
>>No one's going to post proof publicly because they would be revealing
>>the very information that they want to protect.
>
> Tis rather convenient that is... One could put X's in place of the actual
> information. There would be other telltale signs such as timestamps and
> other parties in the same channel(s) who would have witnessed things.
It's ironic because it's the very thing that many on here were ragging
on about, just recently. Trying to effect things in RL. Ie. they're
trying to hurt PH by pretending that they have some secret information
that reveals your duplicity.
>>You have no interest in making amends to anyone for anything. Quit
>>pretending behind this passive-aggressive mask of yours. It fools no
>>one.
>
> Passive-agressive mask?
I call projection on that
> Um, Caliban, personally I could give less than a
> flying fuck what anyone thinks of me. I did one wrong thing, I apologised
> for it. Now you have the choice of moving on or fucking off. I don't really
> care which.
Here's hoping he leaves.
> As to making amends, I fucking well apologised for posting that url. When
> there is ANY proof that I did anything else, I will be more than happy to
> apologise and make amends. And by proof, I mean more than just "he/she said
> x did y" which is all these allegations against Peacefulhaven amount to.
But that's all Caliban is to begin with. As soon as we stop believing in
him, he'll puff out of existence.
Bum
> "Bum" <acc...@domain.extension> wrote in message
> news:cSENc.20642644$Of.34...@news.easynews.com...
>
>>Caliban wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 27 Jul 2004 06:00:24 GMT, "[ Doc Jeff ]" <m...@privacy.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Caliban <shu...@once.com> wrote in
>>>>news:l8obg0d7oq26c4ug9...@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Okay, I'm not entirely sure of what I am being accused of, outside of
>>>>>>posting a link someone gave to me. I acknowledged it as a mistake,
>>>>>>and apologized. If you don't feel comfortable posting here, by all
>>>>>>means, email me.
>>>>>
>>>>>Then you're being purposefully obtuse.
>>>>
>>>>Or she's just trying to understand why you folks are deliberately (and
>
> with
>
>>>>a bloody herd mentality) are demonising her.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Jules, Flase and FOT have made it crystal clear, and there are at
>>>>>least as many other people that are not speaking up for reasons of
>>>>>their own.
>>>>
>>>>The issue with Jules was explained. And RevDisk has zero input on
>>>>Peacefulhaven now so it's a dead issue.
>>>>
>>>>Flase is wrong in that Leesa posted that information ... it was one of
>
> the
>
>>>>channel ops in the #9412 channel who did it. We don't have control over
>>>>what those folks do - it's their place to do as they wish.
>>>>
>>>>Anyone who believes anything David says about Peacefulhaven hasn't been
>>>>there to judge for themselves - but that's the way things are here now,
>>>>isn't it...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>And that's it for me on this topic. I wanted to have my say because
>>>>>Jules is a close friend and I'm very unhappy about how she's been
>>>>>batted around for speaking up.
>>>>
>>>>And you're looking for a certain amount of attention. Let's not forget
>>>>that.
>>>
>>>
>>>How often do I post here anymore, Doc Jeff? How much attention could I
>>>possibly want by posting here as infrequently as I do?
>>
>>It's a fallacy to think that you garner more attention by posting more.
>>
>>Look at Gargoyle.
>
> Look at Hy.
Another good example. Gargoyle posts a lot and is ignored. Hy posts
little, and attention is showered upon her.
Bum
> "Bum" <acc...@domain.extension> wrote in message
> news:U0FNc.20643244$Of.34...@news.easynews.com...
>
>>Lilly wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 27 Jul 2004 06:00:24 GMT, "[ Doc Jeff ]" <m...@privacy.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>And you're looking for a certain amount of attention. Let's not forget
>>>>that.
>>>
>>>You couldn't be more wrong.
>>
>>He could be if he said that Caliban wasn't a hypocrite, and that he
>>didn't desire attention for this.
>>
>>
>>>Cheap shot, not to mention dead wrong.
>>
>>Your word is worth less than water.
>
> Course, some of us live on Arrakis, you're not.
I'd rather have spice.
Bum
> On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 03:25:40 GMT, Bum <acc...@domain.extension>
> wrote:
>>Lilly wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 27 Jul 2004 06:00:24 GMT, "[ Doc Jeff ]" <m...@privacy.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>And you're looking for a certain amount of attention. Let's not forget
>>>>that.
>>>
>>>You couldn't be more wrong.
>>
>>He could be if he said that Caliban wasn't a hypocrite, and that he
>>didn't desire attention for this.
>
From the posters on ARW.
> And for what?
For 'taking a stand', even though it was well after the fact, full of
unsupported nonsense, and thinly veiled insults.
> In your own way, you're as desperate as Humpty.
In your own way, you're fat. See, I can spew some random insult that
has no basis in fact, too.
>>>Cheap shot, not to mention dead wrong.
>>
>>Your word is worth less than water.
>>
>>
>>>My
>>>husband is big enough to ignore this comment for the petty deluded
>>>shit it is, but I am not, Doc.
>>
>>You don't really have the mental faculty to respond to any of these
>>things in an intelligent manner, so it's likely that Doc will recognize
>>your talk as bravado.
>
> It's funny to see your hatred of women come through, particularly when
> you're posting to Lilly.
That's a pretty retarded thing to laugh at, considering I don't respond
any differently to women than I do men. Unless you've had a sex change,
or I'm actually posting to Lilly, now.
> We're both laughing at you.
I'm not even convinced that there are actually two of you.
Bum
> On 28 Jul 2004 03:36:17 GMT, "[ Doc Jeff ]" <m...@privacy.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>On a personal note, there was a time when I actually respected you (and
>>some others) here.
>
> And?
You're stupid.
>>I truly enjoyed hearing that you and Lilly wrote a book.
>
>
> I can assure you Doc, neither one of us gives a fuck what you think of
> us or our book.
Hahahaha. Here comes the book shit, again.
You should mention that you wrote a book in your sig, and then make all
of your posts arrows that point directly to it.
>>But this rabid wolverine act y'all have been pulling has certainly changed
>>my mind.
>
>
> Neither one of us have been "rabid." We've stated our opinions. That's
> what a ng is for. You're just upset our opinions are not to your
> personal liking.
How hypocritical. It's my opinion that you don't have anything
worthwhile to say, so you should say nothing at all.
> Tough shit. As for some of the other folks? You can
> call them "rabid," I'd call them something else. Many people take
> privacy and betrayal very seriously, so you can name-call all you want
> and it doesn't change things at all.
No, people pretend to take privacy seriously. The number that actually
do is quite small, considering the number of posters that have posted
their own PI, and the number that have made such info available on the web.
They may not like it when their PI is posted, but pretending that they
view it in a very serious light is a bit ridiculous, given the past.
>>You could've taken your message to Leesa private but you chose not
>>to do so.
>
> No, many people have chosen to do this publicly. Perhaps they want to
> warn unsuspecting ProP folks of their (potential) danger. Also, email
> is personal, not everyone wants to have a private discussion with you
> or leesa. It's their right to choose. Get over it.
Numerous people have emailed me to tell me that you're a fat sack of shit.
>>This proves to me that you didn't really want an answer from her
>
> This proves to me that you don't need much evidence to have things
> proven to you.
That's funny, considering you haven't provided any evidence.
>>I'm sorry you can't see how remarkable a woman she is.
>
> How do you know he doesn't? You know, out of all of us, ~YOU'RE~ the
> one here, who seems to ignore evidence and be picking sides in your
> blind affection for someone. Fine, so be it, but don't try to drag
> others along with you and get petty and attack them personally is they
> decide to take a pass.
Ironic considering the original post in this thread came about because
of Puddin' supposedly being attacked.
Bum
> "Bum" <acc...@domain.extension> wrote in message
> news:cSENc.20642644$Of.34...@news.easynews.com...
> | Caliban wrote:
>
> | > How often do I post here anymore, Doc Jeff? How much attention could I
> | > possibly want by posting here as infrequently as I do?
> |
> | It's a fallacy to think that you garner more attention by posting more.
> |
> | Look at Gargoyle.
>
> Who?
Yeah, I don't read him either, and I woulnd't have noticed he was here
if someone hadn't responded to him.
Caliban
wrote:
<snipped>
>>
>> It's funny to see your hatred of women come through, particularly when
>> you're posting to Lilly.
>
>That's a pretty retarded thing to laugh at, considering I don't respond
>any differently to women than I do men. Unless you've had a sex change,
>or I'm actually posting to Lilly, now.
Actually, you do. It's so obvious I'm surprised that you can deny it.
>
> > We're both laughing at you.
>
>I'm not even convinced that there are actually two of you.
Well, you are kinda dumb.
C
Caliban
wrote:
>Lilly wrote:
>
>
>>>I truly enjoyed hearing that you and Lilly wrote a book.
>>
>>
>> I can assure you Doc, neither one of us gives a fuck what you think of
>> us or our book.
>
>Hahahaha. Here comes the book shit, again.
You can thank Doc Jeff for bringing it up.
>>>You could've taken your message to Leesa private but you chose not
>>>to do so.
>>
>> No, many people have chosen to do this publicly. Perhaps they want to
>> warn unsuspecting ProP folks of their (potential) danger. Also, email
>> is personal, not everyone wants to have a private discussion with you
>> or leesa. It's their right to choose. Get over it.
>
>Numerous people have emailed me to tell me that you're a fat sack of shit.
Another random insult which has both no bearing in truth or in
relevancy. Did I already tell you that you're irrelevant, by the way?
C
Bum
> On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 16:35:42 -0500, "morrigaisgh"
> <jas...@invalid.peacefulhaven.net> wrote:
>
>
>>You know something, Caliban - this entire thread shows that you, and those
>>you deal with, know absolutely nothing about basic computer security nor the
>>current "climate" on the Internet in general. Neither do those you claim
>>are making these allegations but NOT speaking up.
>>
>>I think I did a pretty good job of explaining it in the serious thread and I
>>certainly hope the lurkers read it. Since I've said it already, I'm not
>>reposting it, here. Aunty sure has read it and she's not pointing fingers
>>at us.
>>
>>Please endeavor to educate yourself before continuing. Thank you.
>
>
> I've never said I did know anything about computer security. On the
> other hand, I know that no one has a 100 percent handle on it, as
> evidenced by the ongoing computer security problems that exist in the
> world.
You're mistaken. That only shows that there are people that don't have a
100 percent handle on it, which is pretty obvious.
Bum
> On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 23:41:50 GMT, Bum <acc...@domain.extension>
> wrote:
>
> <snipped>
>
>>>It's funny to see your hatred of women come through, particularly when
>>>you're posting to Lilly.
>>
>>That's a pretty retarded thing to laugh at, considering I don't respond
>>any differently to women than I do men. Unless you've had a sex change,
>>or I'm actually posting to Lilly, now.
>
> Actually, you do. It's so obvious I'm surprised that you can deny it.
What nonsense. People have claimed as such, and provided no evidence to
support it.
It's just the typical ad hominem that people spew when someone verbally
attacks a female in some way. It usually relates to their own sexist
attitudes, as well.
Bum
> On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 23:50:45 GMT, Bum <acc...@domain.extension>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Lilly wrote:
>>
>
>
>
>
>>>>I truly enjoyed hearing that you and Lilly wrote a book.
>>>
>>>
>>>I can assure you Doc, neither one of us gives a fuck what you think of
>>>us or our book.
>>
>>Hahahaha. Here comes the book shit, again.
>
> You can thank Doc Jeff for bringing it up.
And you for continuing it. And me for continuing it even more, but then,
I don't claim to not like the attention.
>>>>You could've taken your message to Leesa private but you chose not
>>>>to do so.
>>>
>>>No, many people have chosen to do this publicly. Perhaps they want to
>>>warn unsuspecting ProP folks of their (potential) danger. Also, email
>>>is personal, not everyone wants to have a private discussion with you
>>>or leesa. It's their right to choose. Get over it.
>>
>>Numerous people have emailed me to tell me that you're a fat sack of shit.
>
>
> Another random insult which has both no bearing in truth or in
> relevancy. Did I already tell you that you're irrelevant, by the way?
Actually, it was a reductio ad absurdum. I used your logic to
demonstrate something that is 'ridiculous' in order to demonstrate your
faulty reasoning.
Gargoyle
between them and Doc. Not you. So, stop twisting things into what they are
not, and well.....fuck off. hehehe
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 07:12:29 -0500, "The Cunning Linguist :Ş"
<the_wi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"[ Doc Jeff ]" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>news:Xns9533D17...@127.0.0.1...
>| Caliban <shu...@once.com> wrote in
>| news:jvqcg01677id1mj1i...@4ax.com:
>|
>| >>And you're looking for a certain amount of attention. Let's not forget
>| >>that.
>| >
>| > How often do I post here anymore, Doc Jeff? How much attention could I
>| > possibly want by posting here as infrequently as I do?
>|
>| Enough to satisfy yourself. I think that's pretty well the same for
>| everyone here actually (yes, including me). And I don't fault you for it.
>| But the facts are really fairly easy to see:
>|
>| 1. Both Leesa and I made an error in judgment and posted a link to a url
>| that we shouldn't have.
>
>Just one of many, many offenses committed by you
>
>|
>| 2. We both apologised for it.
>
>Which was both convenient for you and worthless to us
>
>|
>| 3. You lot can't seem to move beyond that and are now making some of
>| the damnedest ad hominem attacks to a) satisfy whatever need for attention
>| you have [not necessarily a bad thing] and b) to show that you have, in
>| fact, taken a side.
>|
>| The people who have spoken up (on either side) have fallen about where
>I've
>| expected they would. The ones who haven't spoken out, for whatever reason,
>| are the ones I'm truly interested in.
>|
>
>You better be, They are the ones who are really gunning for you
>
>| On a personal note, there was a time when I actually respected you (and
>| some others) here. I truly enjoyed hearing that you and Lilly wrote a
>book.
>| But this rabid wolverine act y'all have been pulling has certainly changed
>| my mind. You could've taken your message to Leesa private but you chose
>not
>| to do so. This proves to me that you didn't really want an answer from her
>| but rather wanted to show that you weren't on her side [which is entirely
>| your business]. I'm sorry you can't see how remarkable a woman she is.
>
>Oh look, you've lost the respect of a malicious hacker and child abuser. Try
>to get over it.
Gargoyle - The Evil Mr. Peanut. ]>;)-~~~~~~~
The biggest conspiracy of all is that there
is no conspiracy. hehehe
Gargoyle
See, I would never accuse you or Doc of such a thing other than in usenet
flame-mode, but certainly not in reference to RL mode. But, guess you still
prefer to see me as another fOt. Oh, well. hehehe
Gargoyle
>Lilly <shu...@once.com> wrote in
>news:402dg0t5jm3j8i546...@4ax.com:
>
>>>And you're looking for a certain amount of attention. Let's not forget
>>>that.
>>
>> You couldn't be more wrong. Cheap shot, not to mention dead wrong.
>
>It's not a cheap shot. It's an accurate observation. He could've taken his
>message private - direct to Leesa. Her e-mail isn't exactly hidden. He
>chose to post his comments in public *for attention*...otherwise they
>would've been made private.
No, you're wrong on your assumption, Doc. First, as stated previously by
Lily and Caliban, this issue was made public long before Caliban's post in
reference. It was already a public issue. It needs to be dealt with in
public forum. Namely, here in ARW. To have done otherwise, by email as you
suggest, would have done two things: 1) it would have deprived Caliban his
voice and opinion, which he has a right to, here in ARW. 2) His lack of
reply, as well as any others who chose to reply via email would then have
to remain secret as to contents thereby giving the illusion that few people
didn't even bother to reply here in ARW, furthering the illusion that no
one really cared one way or another.
>
>> My husband is big enough to ignore this comment for the petty deluded
>> shit it is, but I am not, Doc.
>
>I expected you to back him up on that. No problem there at all. I would've
>been shocked if you hadn't.
And, yet, you keep baiting the hook. I have to wonder why, Doc. I have my
thoughts on the matter, but I still have to wonder why. Is this all just a
game of cat and mouse to you? You know what I mean. hehehe
Gargoyle
>
>"[ Doc Jeff ]" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>news:Xns9533D17...@127.0.0.1...
>> Lilly <shu...@once.com> wrote in
>> news:402dg0t5jm3j8i546...@4ax.com:
>>
>> >>And you're looking for a certain amount of attention. Let's not forget
>> >>that.
>> >
>> > You couldn't be more wrong. Cheap shot, not to mention dead wrong.
>>
>> It's not a cheap shot. It's an accurate observation. He could've taken his
>> message private - direct to Leesa. Her e-mail isn't exactly hidden. He
>> chose to post his comments in public *for attention*...otherwise they
>> would've been made private.
>
>And then he'd get an email back from her, right? That way, they could
>network together! Sounds pretty reasonable to me, but maybe I commented here
>simply to get some attention.
>GM
Yep! It amazes me just how people merely post to get attention and for no
other reason! hehehe
>
>
>>
>> > My husband is big enough to ignore this comment for the petty deluded
>> > shit it is, but I am not, Doc.
>>
>> I expected you to back him up on that. No problem there at all. I would've
>> been shocked if you hadn't.
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Doc - a really nice guy that looks like a Harley-riding axe murderer
>> Member of the Cabal
>>
>> Dealing with life, one hug and one virtual sister at a time
>>
>> irc2.peacefulhaven.net -or- http://www.peacefulhaven.net
>>
>> http://www.cotse.net - Use it, you know you want to.
>> If you're too scared to go look for yourself, ask me
Gargoyle
>On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 05:00:09 GMT, "Grand Maul" <sl...@slif.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>"[ Doc Jeff ]" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>>news:Xns9533D17...@127.0.0.1...
>>> Lilly <shu...@once.com> wrote in
>>> news:402dg0t5jm3j8i546...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>> >>And you're looking for a certain amount of attention. Let's not forget
>>> >>that.
>>> >
>>> > You couldn't be more wrong. Cheap shot, not to mention dead wrong.
>>>
>>> It's not a cheap shot. It's an accurate observation. He could've taken his
>>> message private - direct to Leesa. Her e-mail isn't exactly hidden. He
>>> chose to post his comments in public *for attention*...otherwise they
>>> would've been made private.
>>
>>And then he'd get an email back from her, right? That way, they could
>>network together! Sounds pretty reasonable to me, but maybe I commented here
>>simply to get some attention.
>>GM
>
>Well, you have ~MY~ attention. =)
>
>Now let's see, who's attention can I get?
Well..... that's simple enough..... I'm easy. hehehe
>
>~Lilly
Gargoyle
>On 28 Jul 2004 03:36:18 GMT, "[ Doc Jeff ]" <m...@privacy.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Lilly <shu...@once.com> wrote in
>>news:402dg0t5jm3j8i546...@4ax.com:
>>
>>>>And you're looking for a certain amount of attention. Let's not forget
>>>>that.
>>>
>>> You couldn't be more wrong. Cheap shot, not to mention dead wrong.
>>
>>It's not a cheap shot.
>
>Ya, it is.
>
>> It's an accurate observation.
>
>Your blind devotion rules you out as an impartial observer, Doc.
Now, that has been an unspoken truth, here. Love is blind, ya know.
Especially, new love and obsessive unrequitted love. Sometimes, the latter
becomes hate and volatile. hehehe
>
>>He could've taken his
>>message private - direct to Leesa. Her e-mail isn't exactly hidden.
>
>Of course he could. He chose not to. Like many here have chosen not
>to. Do we ~ALL~ have some desperate need for attention? Hrm, suddenly
>that sounds like someone else, btw, creating all this usenet and chat
>drama with real people's information and real people's lives.
>
>>He
>>chose to post his comments in public *for attention*...otherwise they
>>would've been made private.
>
>No, he chose to do it to support those of our friends who have been
>crucified for daring to speak up. he also did it to warn newbies who
>don't know any better.
>
>>> My husband is big enough to ignore this comment for the petty deluded
>>> shit it is, but I am not, Doc.
>>
>>I expected you to back him up on that. No problem there at all. I would've
>>been shocked if you hadn't.
>
>Do as you like, Doc. Bed, Made. Lie.
Gargoyle
the bed, instead. Unfortunately, we do know why. hehehe
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 07:16:50 -0500, "The Cunning Linguist :Ş"
<the_wi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"Lilly" <shu...@once.com> wrote in message
>news:2gieg09bv5qh82iru...@4ax.com...
>| On 28 Jul 2004 03:36:18 GMT, "[ Doc Jeff ]" <m...@privacy.net>
>| wrote:
>|
>| >Lilly <shu...@once.com> wrote in
>| >news:402dg0t5jm3j8i546...@4ax.com:
>| >
>| >>>And you're looking for a certain amount of attention. Let's not forget
>| >>>that.
>| >>
>| >> You couldn't be more wrong. Cheap shot, not to mention dead wrong.
>| >
>| >It's not a cheap shot.
>|
>| Ya, it is.
>|
>| > It's an accurate observation.
>|
>| Your blind devotion rules you out as an impartial observer, Doc.
>|
>| >He could've taken his
>| >message private - direct to Leesa. Her e-mail isn't exactly hidden.
>|
>| Of course he could. He chose not to. Like many here have chosen not
>| to. Do we ~ALL~ have some desperate need for attention? Hrm, suddenly
>| that sounds like someone else, btw, creating all this usenet and chat
>| drama with real people's information and real people's lives.
>|
>| >He
>| >chose to post his comments in public *for attention*...otherwise they
>| >would've been made private.
>|
>| No, he chose to do it to support those of our friends who have been
>| crucified for daring to speak up. he also did it to warn newbies who
>| don't know any better.
>|
>| >> My husband is big enough to ignore this comment for the petty deluded
>| >> shit it is, but I am not, Doc.
>| >
>| >I expected you to back him up on that. No problem there at all. I
>would've
>| >been shocked if you hadn't.
>|
>| Do as you like, Doc. Bed, Made. Lie.
>
>Wet spot
Gargoyle
any free advertising???? hehehe
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 09:03:10 -0400, Ayauhteotl <nonam...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
snipped for brevity and I'm tired of this shit... okay, I'm not. hehehe
>!
>!And FOTTY? Don't make the mistake of thinking that this letter to
>!Leesa means that you're justified in ANY way for all the fucked up
>!ways you're playing this little game of yours out. You're an out and
>!out reprobate without even one redeeming virtue. So fuck you and the
>!hot dog you rode in on.
>
>Eris doesn't want him....
>
>Excellent points. As an FYI, "Earth Mother" is her 'net radio personna.
>
>!
>!Caliban
Gargoyle
<jas...@invalid.peacefulhaven.net> wrote:
>
>"Ayauhteotl" <nonam...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:nonamespae-066F5...@individual.net...
>>
>> Excellent points. As an FYI, "Earth Mother" is her 'net radio personna.
>
>No, it's not. If you are going to "out" more PI on me, get it right.
Don't complain. You just got free advertising! I didn't even know you had a
radio show or whatever. Good for you. I think. hehehe
>
>I'm disappointed in you.
Why? Did you forget this is not a moderated group? No real PI was given
here so don't make a bigger deal out of it than necessary. hehehe
>
>morrigaisgh
Rhyanon
this shit. This wee rant also support's Xan's assertion that she has
'control problems'.....
"Gargoyle" <gargoy...@invalid.net> wrote in message
news:nn8hg054n5ir3pi3m...@4ax.com...
Gargoyle
On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 08:10:00 -0500, "Rhyanon" <pis...@uberbitch.com>
wrote:
Gargoyle
like to bandy about... lawsuit and peacefulhaven would be shut down. And,
you know that. So, you can argue "proof" all you want. Fact is, if you were
to sue Caliban or myself, or anyone else for that matter, the larger
percentage is you'd lose due to "circumstantial evidence". That is, IF
those who claimed to have been harmed by you or peacefulhaven in some way
were willing to testify to the fact. Even circumstantial evidence carries
weight. In court, you'd also have to prove your innocence. Something, you
say, can't really be done. Chew on that fat, leesa. Yep, I said that
horrible word......fat. Oh, woe is me. hehehe
Gargoyle
>In article <g3ahg09kvg0upf037...@4ax.com>,
> Gargoyle <gargoy...@invalid.net> wrote:
>
>!She has a radio show? Interesting. Hmmmm.... hey, how comes I don't get
>!any free advertising???? hehehe
>
>Don't you know that there is no such thing as bad publicity? unless
>you're michael jackson?
Thank the powers that be I ain't him! hehehe
>
>!
>!
>!On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 09:03:10 -0400, Ayauhteotl <nonam...@yahoo.com>
>!wrote:
>!
>!snipped for brevity and I'm tired of this shit... okay, I'm not. hehehe
>!>!
>!>!And FOTTY? Don't make the mistake of thinking that this letter to
>!>!Leesa means that you're justified in ANY way for all the fucked up
>!>!ways you're playing this little game of yours out. You're an out and
>!>!out reprobate without even one redeeming virtue. So fuck you and the
>!>!hot dog you rode in on.
>!>
>!>Eris doesn't want him....
>!>
>!>Excellent points. As an FYI, "Earth Mother" is her 'net radio personna.
>!>
>!>!
>!>!Caliban
>!
>!
>!Gargoyle - The Evil Mr. Peanut. ]>;)-~~~~~~~
>!
>!The biggest conspiracy of all is that there
>!is no conspiracy. hehehe
The Cunning Linguist :Ş
"morrigaisgh" <jas...@invalid.peacefulhaven.net> wrote in message
news:2mqa0oF...@uni-berlin.de...
|
| "The Cunning Linguist :Ş" <the_wi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| news:tqNNc.49374$6t1....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
| >
| > "[ Doc Jeff ]" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
| > news:Xns9533D17...@127.0.0.1...
| > | On a personal note, there was a time when I actually respected you
(and
| > | some others) here. I truly enjoyed hearing that you and Lilly wrote a
| > book.
| > | But this rabid wolverine act y'all have been pulling has certainly
| changed
| > | my mind. You could've taken your message to Leesa private but you
chose
| > not
| > | to do so. This proves to me that you didn't really want an answer from
| her
| > | but rather wanted to show that you weren't on her side [which is
| entirely
is.
| >
| > Oh look, you've lost the respect of a malicious hacker and child abuser.
| Try
| > to get over it.
| >
| > --
| > Talesin- The Bad Boy of Witchcraft (tm)
|
| CHILD ABUSER? Boy, you are just ANGLING for the lawsuits, aren't you?
Bring it, bitch. I have four friends who are lawyers. I will keep you tied
up in court for years and it won't cost me a cent
--
Talesin- The Bad Boy of Witchcraft (tm)
"It's time for the human race to enter the solar system."
- George W. Bush
http://home.kc.rr.com/pendragonsloft
© 2004 by Talesin- The Bad Boy of Witchcraft. All rights reserved