For Wolk
Debunks
and unfortunely at the moment I pressed the send button, AOHELL cut me off. It
is truly unfortunate that these comments were cut off. Now I can only try to
recap the points I sought to make, while losting the entire flavor of the
original:
1. Rabbi Akkiba-was known for his fanatical antipathy toward Jewish
Christians, peaceful Jews who accepted Christ as the Messiah. Bar Kokba was
his enforcer. One may read accounts of this persecution from many authors and
historians, which I am prepared to post if necessary. Curiously, Akkiba
himself was destined to die a martyr's death.
2. The Roman Catholic Church and particularly the Popes have always spoken out
in defence of the Jewish people when they were unjustly attacked. One must,
however, draw a distinction between the edicts of certain Popes in response to
offences by the Jewish community during past ages and the writings of Luther
and Calvin, for they broke from the Church. However, in a theological sense
they all addressed issues in common between Jews and Christians.
3. Re Fathers Pranaitis, Feeney, Coughlin, Fahey, etc. These clergymen were
not racial antisemites in any sense of the word, so calling them by that name
is a slur. There is little doubt but that racial antisemites have and will
continue to use their writings as propaganda but that goes with the territory.
There is no doubt in my mind that all of Christianity's major critics of the
Tamud etc would have gladly accepted Jews as their brothers and sisters in
Christ, and would also have accepted with good grace any apology made on behalf
of the Jewish community re these offensive statements. If Jews today do not
think in similar terms then this should be reflected in the footnotes of all
new editions of the Talmud etc. True Christians are among the first to forgive
and forget. Shahak presents a very good case for the charge that these
opinions continue to be shared by many influential Jews in the religious
community. If this were not so, why does Israel punish Christians attempting
to proselytize in Israel with terms of imprisionment? Similarly, Mordecai
Vannunu is still rotting in a prison in Israel, not so much for the offence
with which he was charged, but because he converted to Christianity. This man
of conscience has been held in SOLITARY CONFINEMENT for years! It is high time
the man was released.
3. Mr Wolk called me an "ideologist." Another unfactual smear. I serve no
one's ideology, only the cause of higher truth. Re: Mr Bradbury: You have
incited against this man for ages. If you believe he is in error do you think
you will change his or any other critic's opinion by smearing, insulting,
taunting and ridiculing them? It will only be counter-productive, driving
pre-existing wounds deeper and causes more hurt and resentment, for whether you
like it or not, human nature is such that people are judged, rightly or
wrongly, by the individual members of their group. Collective punishment and
collective guilt are both anathema to my way fo thinking.
steve wolk
"Debunks" <deb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010623180539...@ng-mh1.aol.com...
> I had written out a very detailed response to Mr wolk's comments re
Christians,
> and unfortunely at the moment I pressed the send button, AOHELL cut me
off. It
> is truly unfortunate that these comments were cut off. Now I can only try
to
> recap the points I sought to make, while losting the entire flavor of the
> original:
>
> 1. Rabbi Akkiba-was known for his fanatical antipathy toward Jewish
> Christians, peaceful Jews who accepted Christ as the Messiah. Bar Kokba
was
> his enforcer. One may read accounts of this persecution from many authors
and
> historians, which I am prepared to post if necessary. Curiously, Akkiba
> himself was destined to die a martyr's death.
>
> 2. The Roman Catholic Church and particularly the Popes have always
spoken out
> in defence of the Jewish people when they were unjustly attacked.
A blatant lie.
All you do is talk the talk. You do not walk the walk. You are the biggest
phony I have ever encountered. The very fact that you 'think' people like
Bradbury can be reasoned with is proof of that. I have 'incited' against
Bradbury for ages? Bradbury was here spreading his poison for years before
I ever even heard of ar. But you condemn me without a word about his
behavior. Thank you for proving my point. You are welcome to your little
Neo-Nazi friend and he is welcome to you.
You and he might as well be identical twins for all the difference between
the two of you.
sw
---
JHJ Bellinger is the biggest phony on Usenet.
>
>
>
>
Debunks
>From: "steve wolk" s...@home.com
>Date: 6/23/2001 4:09 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <9h37g1$1gh$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>
>
>
>"Debunks" <deb...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20010623180539...@ng-mh1.aol.com...
>> I had written out a very detailed response to Mr wolk's comments re
>Christians,
>> and unfortunely at the moment I pressed the send button, AOHELL cut me
>off. It
>> is truly unfortunate that these comments were cut off. Now I can only try
>to
>> recap the points I sought to make, while losting the entire flavor of the
>> original:
>>
>> 1. Rabbi Akkiba-was known for his fanatical antipathy toward Jewish
>> Christians, peaceful Jews who accepted Christ as the Messiah. Bar Kokba
>was
>> his enforcer. One may read accounts of this persecution from many authors
>and
>> historians, which I am prepared to post if necessary. Curiously, Akkiba
>> himself was destined to die a martyr's death.
>>
>> 2. The Roman Catholic Church and particularly the Popes have always
>spoken out
>> in defence of the Jewish people when they were unjustly attacked.
>
>
>A blatant lie.
>
No? Your proof?
That comment is untrue, for you have never allowed me even the slightest
benefit of the doubt in this ng.
> You are the biggest
>phony I have ever encountered.
And you base this comment upon WHAT? You have never given me the benefit of
the doubt. In some cases I am probably partly to blame for not immediately
stating my motives as to why I post certain information in this group, so that
opens the door for people like you to imagine the worst and jump to
conclusions.
>The very fact that you 'think' people like
>Bradbury can be reasoned with is proof of that.
How would you know? You have never tried! I could suggest responses, but they
would be MINE and not yours. I would like to think most people can be reasoned
with if approached properly. OTOH, I have personally tried very hard to reason
with your clones, both here and in yahoo, and entered there at their invitation
and with the best intentions and was scurrilously attacked from day ONE, so it
was not something I was doing wrong.
>I have 'incited' against
>Bradbury for ages? Bradbury was here spreading his poison for years before
>I ever even heard of ar.
How long have you been posting here? And I was not really referring to you
alone, but to the others as well.
>But you condemn me without a word about his
>behavior.
I am not condeming you, but your methods. I have to inform you that I really do
not follow those threads, save on rare occasions, but I too, have felt the lash
of the smear whip in this group. My point is that responding in kind is
probably the instinctive way to react, and all who post here are guilty of this
to a greater or lesser extent, but I keep thinking there must be a better way.
I firmly believe that, and that is why I still have not given up in this group.
>Thank you for proving my point. You are welcome to your little
>Neo-Nazi friend and he is welcome to you.
No, Wolk, I did not "prove" your point, but my own. And I think in your
conscience, you know I am correct on this.
>You and he might as well be identical twins for all the difference between
>the two of you.
>
>sw
Whatever.
steve wolk
Let's face facts. You're as interested in reconciliation as a shark is
interested in the grapefruit diet, my little phony.
Debunks
>Message-id: <9h3bin$iue$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>
>
> No? Your proof?
Er...Did you miss that question above, Mr. Wolk? Where is the proof of your
claims?
>ry
>wrong.
>>
Your comments prove decisively that it is *you* who is uninterested in
reconciliation. Thanks for proving my point.
steve wolk
I would no more reconcile with you, or any of your denier friends, than I
would a rattlesnake. If that proves your point, I can live with it, little
phony.
sw
---
Joe Bellinger is NOT a Catholic
Debunks
>Message-id: <9h3dbb$qus$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>
My point has been effectively made. People like *you* are the real problem and
haters in this ng.
Buck Turgidson
Debunks wrote:
[...]
> >The very fact that you 'think' people like
> >Bradbury can be reasoned with is proof of that.
>
> How would you know? You have never tried!
Actually, Joe, Dr. Mathis tried. I'll let him tell the entire story, if he so
desires. But in general, back in 1998, he offered an olive branch to Bradshit and
suggested they meet and talk out their differences. His reward for that effort was
to be branded a homosexual, a pedophile, a chicken hawk, baseless charges which
Bradshit had no problems posting repeatedly over the next almost-three years. In
fact, Bradshit has posted MANY times this scurrilous accusation, heedless of its
utter falseness.
This is the person you are sharing a victory celebration with. He is also a
virulent hater of Jews, and has personally exulted over the death and suffering
of Jews in Nazi Germany. No wonder he's right up your alley.
-- Dep
"Always tell the truth. It's the § "Truth is just...truth. You can't
easiest thing to remember." § have opinions about truth."
--David Mamet --Peter Schickele
Joe Bellinger alters posts:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&th=ce84994e260d85fb,16&start=10&ic=1
Compare Msgs #12 and #13 for proof
Doc Tavish
Turgidson <deppi...@sickofspam.com> wrote:
>Debunks wrote:
>[...]
>
>> >The very fact that you 'think' people like
>> >Bradbury can be reasoned with is proof of that.
>> How would you know? You have never tried!
>Actually, Joe, Dr. Mathis tried. I'll let him tell the entire story, if he so
>desires. But in general, back in 1998, he offered an olive branch to Bradshit and
>suggested they meet and talk out their differences. His reward for that effort was
>to be branded a homosexual, a pedophile, a chicken hawk, baseless charges which
>Bradshit had no problems posting repeatedly over the next almost-three years. In
>fact, Bradshit has posted MANY times this scurrilous accusation, heedless of its
>utter falseness.
Here is what was posted and Andrew was NOT offering an olive branch and even a
nitwit such as you should be able to see it!
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&rnum=4&ic=1&selm=fk62ftskocin7nc9pvcq3obomv39tcqvj1%404ax.com
From: Thomas Tucker (thomas_tucker@cherry_plucker.net)
Subject: Andrew "Chickenhawk" Mathis Commits a Federal Crime! Trying To Pick Up
Underaged Boys over the Internet is a Crime! aka Re: Dear "Revisionist" Cancel
Victims...
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism, alt.law-enforcement
Date: 2001-05-03 01:45:02 PST
[...]
From: doc_t...@DELETEME.bigfoot.com (Doc Tavish)
Subject: ....Andrew Mathis Outs Himself For Sure! aka Re: AttentionDon
Ellis....
Date: 13 Sep 1998 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <35fb1a76....@news.tavish-central.net>
Organization: McTavish Informational Services Worldwide
X-NETCOM-Date: Sat Sep 12 5:58:52 PM PDT 1998
Reply-To: doc_t...@DELETEME.bigfoot.comNewsgroups:
alt.pedophiles-and-stalkers,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.revisionism,
alt.politics.white-power,alt.conspiracy
On Fri, 11 Sep 1998 22:34:30 GMT, aem...@is2.nyu.edu wrote:
>In article <LV8K1.50$JO2.1...@news14.ispnews.com>,
> "Dan Parker" <dpa...@intrstar.net> wrote:
>> aem...@is2.nyu.edu wrote in message <6ta4m1$ml$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>> >> >>> >> >Can we do this over a drink next weekend?
Andrew above trying to make a "date."
Dan Parker makes an honest observation:
>> >> Sounds like you've got something you're just dying to say.
Andrew acting typically feminine and reacting to a simple question as if it
is a threat
>> >That some kind of threat?
Dan Parker again makes an honest observation:
>> No. But you can't seem to understand why someone might have a
>>revulsion to meeting with a known homosexual.
Andrew Mathis making false implications:
>I don't. That's why I'm willing to meet with Scott Bradbury.
YOU are the one asking a male out to have drinks Andrew and I
declined. Now you are ACTing UP because I declined you. I don't
have dealings with homosexuals but yet you accuse me of being
one and then ask me to have a drink with you! Anyone reading this
will say that you are the one making advances to another male
and it is not me.
Dan Parker again with wisdom said:
>> And after several polite hints that meeting you would be
>> undesirable, you're unrelenting in your pursuit of the matter.
Andrew's female hormones fire his cravings for another male:
>Nah, just eager.
Here you are admitting that you are "eager" too! You are eager
to have a drink with another male that you have accused of being
homosexual. This speaks volumes of you Andrew! I mean it really
does! You have definitely outed yourself on this I guarantee! Is this
why you and Jeffrey G. Brown get along so well? Anyone doubting
Andrew Mathis being effeminate need only look at his mug shot at
his web site! http://pages.nyu.edu/~aem0608/
Doc Tavish Declining ACT UP & The Homosexual Community Daily
<snip>
>Andrew Mathis
BTW Here is Andrew again wanting to "date" me and he says it doesn't
matter that I'm under age either! Are you paying attention FBI? Does not
the agency have a distinct policy on pedophile Chicken Hawks seeking
under aged minors as prey?
From: aem...@is2.nyu.edu
Subject: Re: Jeffrey G. Brown Accuses BUT Can't Back His Charges With
Evidence! aka Re: Poor Ol' Gutless Scottie again shows us what's always
on his 'mind'
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 01:25:30 GMT
Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion
Message-ID: <6t9u6a$o7u$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
References: <35F5BC...@earthlink.net>
<199809091940...@nym.alias.net>
<jeff_brown-09...@38.27.216.25>
<35f846fc....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>
<snip>
Scott, your postured indignation impresses no one. With your
obvious penis fetish, you're quite obviously either:
a) a teenager who needs a girlfriend;
b) impotent; or my favorite,
c) both.
Andrew Mathis
P.S. If you *are* underaged, by the way, I'd be more than happy to
meet you in a coffee shop as opposed to a place that serves alcohol.
<end>
Definitely Andrew Mathis profiles as a chickenhawk internet stalker who should
be investigated by the FBI. How else should one take Andrew's words when he
says: "Can we do this over a drink next weekend? ...I'm willing to meet with
Scott Bradbury. With your obvious penis fetish you're a teenager who needs a
girlfriend.. If you *are* underaged, by the way, I'd be more than happy to meet
you in a coffee shop as opposed to a place that serves alcohol."
YOUR WORDS CHICKENHAWK! WANT TO DENY YOU WERE TRYING TO PICK UP A MALE MINOR
OVER THE INTERNET WHICH IS A FEDERAL CRIME?
>a.m.
>
>======
>
>Resolved: Scott Bradbury is a fifty-year-old virgin.
Naturally I am a virgin--- to homosexual acts and you're still miffed at me
because I would not meet you for a drink you dirty little fag!
Doc Tavish
~~End of GOOGLE Archival Retrieval~~
Did anyone see an olive branch being offered or did everyone see a big mouthed
little bastard trying to be funny with me? All I saw was insult and personal
attack by a pipsqueak!
BTW the KIKE bastard who started people calling me Bradshit is going to have a
tough row to hoe fairly soon. He engaged in much conduct unbecoming an Officer
of the Court and him being the Plaintiff's Attorney and calling me Bradshit (the
Defendant) in public forum is a definite NO-NO. Care to deny it? It's payback
time and I am doing my level best to repay each one of you vermin in kind!
>This is the person you are sharing a victory celebration with.
What a fine celebration it is too! Just look and weep!
Andrea E. Naugle
CLERK OF COURTS OF LEHIGH COUNTY - CIVIL DIVISION
Lehigh County Courthouse
455 W. Hamilton Street
Allentown, PA 18101-1614
RE: Edeiken Vs Bradbury 1999-C-2786
Partial text of letter from Judge Reibman:
<START>
Copies of this order were mailed to all counsel of record and pro se litigants.
CC: Counsel for Plaintiff (Yale F. Edeiken): Yale F. Edeiken Esq.
Counsel for Defendant (Scott Bradbury) : Daylin B. Leach Esq.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 12th day of June, 2001, upon consideration of Defendant's
Petition for Relief from Judgment, filed on September 22, 2000,
Plaintiff's response thereto, and argument thereon on February 7, 2001,
IT IS ORDERED said petition is GRANTED, and the case is DISMISSED.
[...]
BY THE COURT:
(Signed) Edward J. Reibman, J.
<STOP>
>He is also a virulent hater of Jews,
I don't hate my attorney and he's a Jew. I don't hate Dr. Laura, Jack Garbuz,
David Goldman (the Goldman who's being attacked by Laurence Shiff), or Israel
Shahak, or Benjamin Freedman, or David Horowitz. Any Jew who is not a left wing
kook like you or who isn't an anti-Christ or a pro-gay abortion loving monster-
I have no problems with. Seeing how most Jews are very left- I have problems
with them.
>and has personally exulted over the death and suffering
>of Jews in Nazi Germany.
Care to show an instance? See how much like the KIKES you are? You accuse BUT
you b=never show where I said such and this is why I despise little vermin like
you!
>No wonder he's right up your alley.
>
>
>-- Depshit
>
>"Always tell the truth.
Which is something you never do! Care to deny what my sig line says
Depshit?
The Victor
---
"We are not allowed to drink any wine or grape juice, or any drink containing
wine or grape juice, which has been touched by a non-Jew after the seal of the
bottle has been opened."
<http://www.kashrus.org/kosher/supervis.html> Information taken from:
Is it Kosher, Rabbi E. Eidlitz and Spice and Spirit, The Lubavitch
Women's Cookbook Publications (April 3, 2001)
Doc Tavish
Turgidson <deppi...@sickofspam.com> wrote:
>Debunks wrote:
>[...]
>
>> >The very fact that you 'think' people like
>> >Bradbury can be reasoned with is proof of that.
>> How would you know? You have never tried!
>Actually, Joe, Dr. Mathis tried. I'll let him tell the entire story, if he so
>desires. But in general, back in 1998, he offered an olive branch to Bradshit and
>suggested they meet and talk out their differences. His reward for that effort was
>to be branded a homosexual, a pedophile, a chicken hawk, baseless charges which
>Bradshit had no problems posting repeatedly over the next almost-three years. In
>fact, Bradshit has posted MANY times this scurrilous accusation, heedless of its
>utter falseness.
Here is what was posted and Andrew was NOT offering an olive branch and even a
[...]
Andrew Mathis
<end>
Doc Tavish
>This is the person you are sharing a victory celebration with.
What a fine celebration it is too! Just look and weep!
Andrea E. Naugle
CLERK OF COURTS OF LEHIGH COUNTY - CIVIL DIVISION
Lehigh County Courthouse
455 W. Hamilton Street
Allentown, PA 18101-1614
RE: Edeiken Vs Bradbury 1999-C-2786
Partial text of letter from Judge Reibman:
<START>
Copies of this order were mailed to all counsel of record and pro se litigants.
CC: Counsel for Plaintiff (Yale F. Edeiken): Yale F. Edeiken Esq.
Counsel for Defendant (Scott Bradbury) : Daylin B. Leach Esq.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 12th day of June, 2001, upon consideration of Defendant's
Petition for Relief from Judgment, filed on September 22, 2000,
Plaintiff's response thereto, and argument thereon on February 7, 2001,
IT IS ORDERED said petition is GRANTED, and the case is DISMISSED.
[...]
BY THE COURT:
(Signed) Edward J. Reibman, J.
<STOP>
>He is also a virulent hater of Jews,
I don't hate my attorney and he's a Jew. I don't hate Dr. Laura, Jack Garbuz,
David Goldman (the Goldman who's being attacked by Laurence Shiff), or Israel
Shahak, or Benjamin Freedman, or David Horowitz. Any Jew who is not a left wing
kook like you or who isn't an anti-Christ or a pro-gay abortion loving monster-
I have no problems with. Seeing how most Jews are very left- I have problems
with them.
>and has personally exulted over the death and suffering
>of Jews in Nazi Germany.
Care to show an instance? See how much like the KIKES you are? You accuse BUT
you never show where I said such and this is why I despise little vermin like
you!
>No wonder he's right up your alley.
>
>
Buck Turgidson
<a lot of ranting that all got snipped>
Hey, Joe. Want to read your buddy Bradshit's post and count the number of times he uses the word
"kike"? Or "chicken hawk"? This is the model of mental health you have been publicly supporting.
And now you're stuck with him.
Doc Tavish
Turgidson <deppi...@sickofspam.com> wrote:
>Doc Tavish wrote:
>
><a lot of ranting that all got snipped>
All fully documented and irrefutable!
>Hey, Joe. Want to read your buddy Bradshit's post and count the number of times he uses the word
>"kike"? Or "chicken hawk"?
I call them as I see them. A kike is a kike and a chickenhawk is a chickenhawk.
You deleted proof positive Andrew Mathis fits the profile of a chickenhawk. Here
is what you deleted:
<START>
[...]
Andrew Mathis
<end>
Doc Tavish
<START>
ORDER
[...]
<STOP>
<STOP>
>This is the model of mental health you have been publicly supporting.
As for a real model of mental health I present Peeping Tom Patrick L. Humphrey
who has engaged in stalking for years. Care to comment on Humphrey's mental
health Turdhead?
<START>
Here is a history of Patrick's stalking and notice how he shows he likes to
irritate people and invade their privacy!
<START>
From: Father Jite (Fathe...@worldnet.att.net)
Subject: PATRICK HUMPHREY - THE PROOF HE IS A STALKER
Date: 1998/01/10
Understand the purpose here. For 14 years this abject loser has been
following me around to every BBS and network I have been on doing
little else than squealing what my name may be and where I may live.
It is a probably the most classic case on the net of invasion of
privacy and cyberspace stalking, which has lead him to physically
stalk me at home.
Mr. Humphrey refuses to stop under any condition. Recently I
unilaterally stated that I would remove his name from my website, and
make no mention of him anywhere at all to see if he would reciprocate,
to stop this battle and prove to everyone he is not the stalker I
claim him to be. The day after I publicly posted that message, he was
replying to my issue oriented messages including what he presumes my
name and where I live, and has proceeded to do so over the entire two
week period. Probably the defining factor of a stalker is their
inability to stop it.
Though Rice University has sent me a letter of apology for the actions
of Mr. Humphrey and Rice Legal Department no longer allows him to use
his employee account as a base for his stalking, he now uses a paid
service to carry on his pyschotic obsession with me. As most anything
goes with ISPs, it leaves me few options to deal with this little
netscab. As literally thousands of liberals have been intimidated out
of the political newsgroups because of this onerous game, I am going
to fight it.
Note that these few quotes below are only about .01% of the totality
of the crap this Squealing little stalker has been so proudly posting
for what he so often brags has been fourteen years.
I know this is irritating to many of you, but it is the only way I
have of fighting back. This issue of privacy is the central issue of
the net, and as such a fair topic of debate anywhere.
All Humphrey has to do is stop the squealing and I will never address,
mention or think about him ever again.
A few direct quotes from Squealer and Loser Patrick Humphrey
confirming his threats and stalking:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&rnum=1&ic=1&selm=szkoh53wd3n.fsf_-_%40pentagon.io.com
--Patrick L. 'a grandfather to be -- and any congratulations from a
sick little asshole named Peter Nyikos will be returned with a grenade
with a pulled pin' Humphrey
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&rnum=1&ic=1&selm=szk4tecoqkk.fsf%40xanadu.io.com
--PLH, and people wonder why I occasionally pedal by Dahlman's house
to give him the one-finger salute...
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&rnum=1&ic=1&selm=szk4t9behbm.fsf_-_%40pentagon.io.com
Oh...and you need to trim the mustache...
--Patrick L. ‘El Lago, April 9, about 14:35 remember me?’ Humphrey"
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&rnum=1&ic=1&selm=szk4t9behbm.fsf_-_%40pentagon.io.com
You need to clean up the toys in your driveway...
--Patrick L. "Dave can't stand that I know where he lives" Humphrey
---------------
Here is real proof of stalking. Notice that Patrick intimidated he would return!
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&rnum=2&ic=1&selm=szk4t9behbm.fsf_-_%40pentagon.io.com
Re: Bobby Coyle, proof that too much exposure to X-rays is ...
home page just happen to bear an uncanny resemblance to the fellow out in front
of your listed address when I came down the street one afternoon three weeks ago
talk.politics.misc - 31 Jul 1997 by Patrick L. Humphrey
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&rnum=1&ic=1&selm=szkzpqqqhnl.fsf%40pentagon.io.com
Re: PATRICK HUMPHREY THE LIBERTARIAN STALKER
home page just happen to bear an uncanny resemblance to the fellow out in front
of your listed address when I came down the street one afternoon three weeks ago
houston.general - 10 Aug 1997 by Patrick L. Humphrey
I guess it's just an amazing coincidence, then, that the pictures on
your home page just happen to bear an uncanny resemblance to the
fellow out in front of your listed address when I came down the street
one afternoon three weeks ago...
--Patrick L. 'coming by again in two weeks' Humphrey
<<Doc Tavish comment: Does not the above prove that Patrick is a stalker and
that he tries to intimidate people? He likes identifying people, fomenting hate
towards them and then letting people know in general how to find said person!
Patrick needs to be taught a lesson he won't forget! Report his stalking to his
employer!>>
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&rnum=4&ic=1&selm=szk4t9behbm.fsf_-_%40pentagon.io.com
"I don't think so, because you don't resemble me at all...and that
much I know from personal experience, after two weekends ago.
--Patrick L. ‘it was a worthwhile 88 miles spent’ Humphrey
Be sure to understand this is about the sixth occasion this squealer
has been to what he presumes to be my home... Rack Jite
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&rnum=1&ic=1&selm=szk4t9behbm.fsf_-_%40pentagon.io.com
---Try *fourth* --Patrick L. 'bout time to put on the Spandex and
pedal over that way :-)’Humphrey"
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&rnum=1&ic=1&selm=szk4t9behbm.fsf_-_%40pentagon.io.com
The tire swing in front of your house...
--Patrick L. "still pedaling" Humphrey
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&rnum=1&ic=1&selm=szk4t9behbm.fsf_-_%40pentagon.io.com
Thanks to a gutless bastard in the Houston suburbs named David F.
Dahlman, you mean. And I never claimed there was a tire swing in your
front yard, liar. Your _neighbor's_ yard, yes -- and that was
something like three years ago, too. Are you going to state that your
yard is in the same state of being cluttered now as it was three years
ago?--Patrick L. "14 days, tick tick tick, heh heh" Humphrey
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&rnum=1&ic=1&selm=szk4t9behbm.fsf_-_%40pentagon.io.com
I've pedaled by his house three or four times, and one time, just by
dumb luck, he and his family happened to be outside.
--Patrick L. Humphrey
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&rnum=3&ic=1&selm=4i41r5%24obv%40pentagon.io.com
Re: @ Stalking Pat: Evidence
don't you, "Shawn"? I've pedaled by his house three or four times, and one time,
just by dumb luck, he and his family happened to be outside. It's fun to ...
talk.politics.misc - 12 Mar 1996 by Patrick L. Humphrey
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&rnum=1&ic=1&selm=szkra8oafah.fsf%40bermuda.io.com
Actually, I live on the other side of the Houston area from Dave...and
the shortest possible pedal between where I live and where he lives
would be something like 40 miles. That's one reason I've done it only
a couple of times. (Yes, Dave, the other times I've been by, I drove. :)
Hey, it's good exercise, and it gives Dave the chance to jerk his knee.
--Patrick L. better hide, 'Shawn' -- less than two months to my visit
to Austin :-) Humphrey
<<Doc Tavish comment: Definitely looks like stalking, intimidation, and
harassment to me!>>
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&rnum=1&ic=1&selm=szkractyaqy.fsf_-_%40xanadu.io.com
Hey, S. Shawn...now that you're in the DFW area, you'll have to hide
under your bed again, because we're going to be up there next weekend
--PLH, six days and rolling
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&rnum=4&ic=1&selm=50ht24%24l0g%40anarchy.io.com
---Sad, but true, but at least it'll be a bit easier than I thought to
encounter "Shawn" when I'm in Austin next month--if I'm out at night, just look
for anyone peeking into windows... Patrick L. Humphrey
<<Doc Tavish comment: Not only are you a stalker but you're a peeping TOM.>>
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&rnum=2&ic=1&selm=szk4t9behbm.fsf_-_%40pentagon.io.com
You lie like a rug, "Shawn". Pointing out that Dahlman lives across
town from me -- so what? ...I have NEVER posted the name on his
mailbox (another interesting claim, since you think his mailbox is on
the street, and it isn't -- no one's is, in that area, and in a LOT of
areas all over Houston), and I pointed out the appearance of his yard
*two years ago*, Get back to me when you can write something
original, "Shawn". Meanwhile, go cower under your bed, since I'm only
37 days away from being in the same city as you.
--Patrick L. "just thought I'd say that" Humphrey
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&rnum=1&ic=1&selm=szkendqxr88.fsf%40xanadu.io.com
--PLH, I'll deal with Shawn on the 30th, heh heh heh
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&rnum=1&ic=1&selm=szkiv2uvg9v.fsf%40pentagon.io.com
Better run and hide, S. Shawn. I may be in -your- neighborhood.
--PLH, I've got a Bat Attitude.
<<Doc Tavish comment: Looks like a threat of violence to me! Notice the mention
of a Bat!?>>
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&rnum=1&ic=1&selm=szk7meluy9l.fsf%40xanadu.io.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&rnum=2&ic=1&selm=szk4t9behbm.fsf_-_%40pentagon.io.com
It's funny, though, that at one time, Jimbo had FOUR phone lines
listed under his name at one address -- and then, all of a
sudden, he's down to ONE line at a different address that is actually
an apartment complex. Yeah, I know a LOT of people who move an entire
family from a house to a cracker-box apartment...--PLH
<<Doc Tavish comment: Sure looks like Patrick is overly concerned with other
people's private lives doesn't it? Aren't these the characteristics of a
stalker? He does this to many people- including me and I for one have reached my
limits with him!>>
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&rnum=5&ic=1&selm=szk4t9behbm.fsf_-_%40pentagon.io.com
From: Patrick L. Humphrey (pat...@io.com)
Subject: Re: Bobby Coyle, proof that too much exposure to X-rays is harmful
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Date: 1997/07/31
[...]
>: I guess it's just an amazing coincidence, then, that the pictures on
>: your home page just happen to bear an uncanny resemblance to the
>: fellow out in front of your listed address when I came down the street
>: one afternoon three weeks ago...
>: --Patrick L. 'coming by again in two weeks' Humphrey
>Must be forged. Patrick Humphrey has DENIED that he's a stalkmaster.
...because I don't stalk. (Then again, you regard anything I post from Rice
as a forgery, anyway, so you're not exactly knowledgeable.)
<<Doc Tavish comment: Notice Patrick admits he stalks from Rice? He did then and
still does!!>>
All of the above may be verified using as AUTHOR: <pat...@io.com>
at this link: <http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search>
---
<end>
LOOKS LIKE PATRICK LIKES TO HARASS PEOPLE!!
From: Patrick L. Humphrey (pat...@io.com)
Subject: Re: PATRICK L. HUMPHREY : RICE UNIVERSITY STALKER (so sez S. Shawn)
Date: 1998/04/13
nob...@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) writes:
>In article <szk4szx...@dillinger.io.com>
>Patrick L. Humphrey <pat...@io.com> wrote:
>>In article <1998041119...@basement.replay.com> nob...@REPLAY.COM
>>(Anonymous) writes:
>>>You asshole! You can't go five minutes without putting up the name of
>>>a liberal you hate. And he doesn't have anything to do with this,
>>>fuckwad.
>>I don't hate Dave, unfortunately for your fantasy. What's your problem with
>>my using his real name? It's damned common knowledge all over cyberspace by
>>now -- and he gave it to me himself! You're acting just like him, so get over
>>it and get on with whatever passes for your life. If Dahlman _was_ in danger
>>from my mere mention of his name, why would he _still_ be whining about this
>>issue fourteen years later?
>You've been putting up his name for 14 years. If you do it long enough
>you know something will happen.
Answer the question, S. Shawn. If he's in danger from the mere mention of his
name, why the bloody hell is he STILL screaming about it after all these
years? The pathetic old hippie has NEVER gone to the police! If he really
was concerned, would he or would he not have done something other than whine
at me about it?
Answer the question...or are you a gutless coward, S. Shawn?
<<Doc Tavish comments April 27, 2001: Looks like you didn't respect other
people's rights to privacy years ago Patrick! Looks like all you like to do is
harass and annoy people!>>
>AND THAT'S WHY YOU DO IT YOU FUCKING SHIT-EATING BASTARD.
Poor baby...you don't know what I think _or_ why. I'm not going to be
intimidated by a wimp like you.
>>>I've seen your pictures on your webpage, Patty. Snork.
>>Big bleeding deal. No one made you visit, did they?
>I wish I didn't.
Riiiight. You're so repulsed by my very existence that you _can't_ avoid me.
>>>>>This asshole has put up the supposed real name and address of liberals,
>>>>Really, S. Shawn? Why is it that you can't produce one single post in which
>>>>I've ever done that to _anyone_? Could it be because that I never did such a
>>>>thing? Your hero "Rack Jite" is named David Dahlman, in real life.Live with
>>>>that fact, even if Dave can't. I know where he lives -- so what? I don't
>>>>post it, because even human scum like Dahlman have rights, too.
>>>You fuckhead! Why the fuck are you harassing this poor guy when you're
>>>arguing with me? You're a real fucking bastard!
>>Go shove your sock puppet where it'll do some good, child. I'm not harassing
>>Dave - if I was, why couldn't he be bothered to go to _any_ authority for all
>>these years? He knows that if he complained about it, he might have to
>>actually back up his fairy tale with actual facts -- and there's way too much
>>chance of him being caught lying for him to risk it.
>You got your Rice account involved in this. And you're still harassing this
>guy by saying his name when he has asked you not to for 14 years.
You really like to be an idiot, don't you, S. Shawn? My Rice account HASN'T
been party to this derangement of Dave's since 1995, because I don't want
malicious bastards like him -- or you -- annoying people who have nothing to
do with this petty dispute of yours.
>Want to guess what comes next?
I already know what you're planning to do, schmuck. I also know that I may
know some things that _you_ don't.
>>>Answer this question, Patty : If some crazed gunloon puts that name into a
>>>web phone directory, is he going to get directions on how to find the
>>>guy's house?
>>Probably...so?
>SO WHY IN THE FUCK ARE YOU PUTTING UP A GUY'S NAME WHEN HE HAS BEEN
>ASKING YOU NOT TO FOR FOURTEEN YEARS, YOU FUCKING ASSHOLE!
Because it pisses YOU off, little high-school dropout.
<<Doc Tavish comment April 27, 2001: Thus Patrick L. Humphrey shows his real
agenda.>>
>>Anyone who uses their real name falls under that description,
>>and I've got my frigging address and home phone up on my web page...so why is
>>it that no one else seems to have the problems Dahlman keeps claiming he has
>>_because of me_?
>You are in bed with the Nazi gunloons. You aren't afraid because the
>guncrazed looneytarians you hope will kill this guy's Jewish kids are
>your friends.
You really need to quit doing so much crack, S. Shawn. I'm sure you're
_really_ going to impress people by expecting them to take such a claim
seriously -- particularly people with whom I deal on a personal basis.
>>>You know the goddamned answer, you fucking piece of shit, and you keep
>>>putting up the name BECAUSE YOU HOPE SOME CRAZED GUNLOON WILL GO FIND HIM.
>>Gee, you'd think if that were really the case, one would have found him in
>>less than fourteen years, wouldn't they?
>But you keep putting up the name, hoping it will happen.
You don't know what I'm hoping for, S. Shawn. As a matter of fact, you're
about as far away from it as you can be in this life.
>>>>Psst. S. Shawn. [name]'s kids are more or less grown up by now. He was
>>>>screaming this same excuse fourteen years ago, for crying out loud.
>>>So you've been a psychotic asshole putting up his name for 14 years!!
>>Nope. I've been giving him the finger for fourteen years -- and there's not a
>>damned thing he can do about it. Maybe he should try and learn something from
>>that fact.
>You've been putting up his name when he asks you not to for 14 yeears.
...and THAT'S ALL. (I wonder why you never seem to pick up on _that_ fact.)
Do you think he's the only Dave Dahlman in the world?
>What a shithead. What a fucking piece of shit scumbag.
Yeah, so much so that you just can't keep from frothing at me. (Gee, I wonder
who that was who was posting others' names _and addresses and home phone
numbers_ not too long ago in this very newsgroup? Why, it was the little
bastard S. Shawn Smith! How does it feel to be such a stinking hypocrite,
anyway?)
>You are it Patrick L. Humphrey. The lowest of the low.
Then killfile me...or don't you have enough balls to do that much? *snicker*
>>>I'm not Shawn, fool. And I can post a message so it looks like it comes
>>>from Rice, too. I will notify Rice that you are trashing their
>>>name to stalk people again.
>>You'd better be a veritable wizard, then...because you _will_ be found out,
>>and the consequences will not be pretty. We do have people working at the
>>University who know how to spot Usenet forgeries. If you want to be traced
>>back and possibly have the repercussions reach _your_ employers or ISP, that's
>>your choice. What happens if I forward a copy of this not-so-subtle threat of
>>yours to your possible ISP admins, I wonder? (I have a couple of possible
>>candidates.)
>I didn't say I was going to do this. I said I COULD just to show that
>posting with a rice.edu address doesn't prove Rice has allowed you to
>do this. I hope the people there are good at finding forgeries because I
>will tell them about your articles signed with the rice.edu address.
I'm sure you will, S. Shawn...and I can just as easily show them all the nice
examples of you forging quotes from people you don't like, too...and then
point out to them where they can spot the obvious signs of forging anything I
posted.
>If you forged you are busted. If you didn't you are busted for stalking
>from work again.
You don't decide that, Napoleon. Wiser heads than yours are in charge here.
>LOL at Patty the Stalker's stupidity.
It's about time for you to declare victory and run away again, S. Shawn.
--PLH, I've seen this movie before
<end>
Here is Patrick telling us all what his job is and where:
From: Patrick L Humphrey (pat...@is.rice.edu)
Subject: Re: Salvi is dead
Date: 1996/11/29
[...]
--
Patrick L Humphrey, Rice University IS Network Management staff
713-528-3626 at Rice 713-782-6992 at home 281-265-7465 at the Aerodrome
Grandpa's Home Page: http://is.rice.edu/~patrick. Come on down.
<end>
I wonder if Rice knows how he still spends hours harassing people in USENET on
Rice's time?
<STOP>
Speaking of mental health- do you still get titillated in USENET NECROPHILIA
newsgroups TURDHEAD?
>And now you're stuck with him.
>-- Depshit
>
>"Always tell the truth.
Which is something you never do Depshit!
Debunks
>From: Buck Turgidson deppi...@sickofspam.com
>Date: 6/23/01 7:30 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3B3550E8...@sickofspam.com>
>
>
>
>Debunks wrote:
>[...]
>
>> >The very fact that you 'think' people like
>> >Bradbury can be reasoned with is proof of that.
>>
>> How would you know? You have never tried!
>
>Actually, Joe, Dr. Mathis tried. I'll let him tell the entire story, if he so
>desires. But in general, back in 1998, he offered an olive branch to Bradshit
>and
>suggested they meet and talk out their differences. His reward for that
>effort was
>to be branded a homosexual, a pedophile, a chicken hawk, baseless charges
>which
>Bradshit had no problems posting repeatedly over the next almost-three years.
>In
>fact, Bradshit has posted MANY times this scurrilous accusation, heedless of
>its
>utter falseness.
>
>This is the person you are sharing a victory celebration with. He is also a
>virulent hater of Jews, and has personally exulted over the death and
>suffering
>of Jews in Nazi Germany. No wonder he's right up your alley.
>
>
>-- Dep
>
Cry me a river. You are known for your smears, quoting out of context,
misrepresenting, sneakiness etc, and you are a moral coward to boot.
Debunks
>From: Doc Tavish doc_t...@my-deja.comDELETE2MAIL-NO-SPAM
>Date: 6/23/01 7:50 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <v9kajt0qhifcvdjqj...@4ax.com>
snip
I have seen enough.
Andrew E. Mathis Ph.D.
[snip]
>Cry me a river. You are known for your smears, quoting out of context,
>misrepresenting, sneakiness etc, and you are a moral coward to boot.
That anything like deleting a comma and then responding to the then changed
meaning of the text?
a.m.
======
"You rely on your sword, you commit abominations . . . Should you then possess
the land?'''
Ezekiel 33:26
Andrew E. Mathis Ph.D.
I invited Scott Bradbury to meet me in a bar so that I could get him to say to
my face what he was saying to me in Usenet. There was nothing sexual in my
intent. My intent was to beat the fuck out of him if/when he opened his filthy
mouth.
Then, realizing he might have been under 21, I suggested meeting in an
alternate place.
Scott, being a closeted homosexual like yourself, took this as a sexual
advance. His penile tumescence was probably visible for several counties. No,
scratch that -- this would imply that he wasn't actually impotent.
Now, do you have any questions, Joe? Or do you need it explained again?
Bradbury is going to pay for what he's done to myself, Yale, Sara, and everyone
else. The wheels of justice may be slow, but they do turn.
a.m.
P.S. Prepare for a "Classic Doc Tavish" repost and charges of my being a
pedophile...
Debunks
>From: dctrm...@aol.com (Andrew E. Mathis Ph.D.)
>Date: 6/25/01 5:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20010625200752...@ng-xa1.aol.com>
>
>JHJ protests:
>
>[snip]
>
>>Cry me a river. You are known for your smears, quoting out of context,
>>misrepresenting, sneakiness etc, and you are a moral coward to boot.
>
>That anything like deleting a comma and then responding to the then changed
>meaning of the text?
>
>a.m.
>
No, nor is it anything accusing people of something which you suspect but
cannot prove.
Steve Wolk
JHJ, this is only the court of public opinion. Public opinion has found you
to be a cowardly little Nazoid, despite your protestations to the contrary.
You don't have to worry about doing time or paying a fine. All you must do
is deal with the perception of the people here that you are a Nazi apologist
and sympathizer, a rabid antisemite, a liar and a coward. For a piece of
filth as amoral as you, it should be as easy as falling off a log.
sw
---
Joe Bellinger is a little Nazoid liar.
Debunks2000
>From: dctrm...@aol.com (Andrew E. Mathis Ph.D.)
>Date: 6/25/01 5:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20010625200752...@ng-xa1.aol.com>
>
>
>[snip]
>
>>Cry me a river. You are known for your smears, quoting out of context,
>>misrepresenting, sneakiness etc, and you are a moral coward to boot.
>
>That anything like deleting a comma and then responding to the then changed
>meaning of the text?
>
>a.m.
>
Your distortion of the comma buisness has no relevance to Dep's offences in
this ng.
Buck Turgidson
Debunks wrote:
Then you agree that Bradbury is not a person worth your support?
Buck Turgidson
Debunks wrote:
I could be all of that (which I am not) and still not be the bawling Jew-hater
who boasted of a "Topf & Sons" barbecue in his backyard. That would be one
Snottie Bradshit, and you are the one who supports him.
Doc Tavish
newsmst01.news.prodigy.com!newscon04.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!
news.tele.dk!128.230.129.106!news.maxwell.syr.edu!howland.erols.net!
portc.blue.aol.com.MISMATCH!portc03.blue.aol.com!audrey05.news.aol.com!
not-for-mail
Lines: 29
X-Admin: ne...@aol.comNewsgroups: alt.revisionism
Date: 26 Jun 2001 00:12:22 GMT
References: <20010625195459...@ng-fh1.aol.com>
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Subject: Re: Scot Murphy's Misery- His Man LOST! BOO HOO! aka Re: For Wolk
Message-ID: <20010625201222...@ng-xa1.aol.com>
Xref: newsmst01.news.prodigy.com alt.revisionism:958897
On 26 Jun 2001 00:12:22 GMT, <20010625201222...@ng-xa1.aol.com>
dctrm...@aol.com (Andrew E. Mathis Ph.D.) wrote:
>Joe, do I need to explain this to you also?
>
>I invited Scott Bradbury to meet me in a bar so that I could get him to say to
>my face what he was saying to me in Usenet. There was nothing sexual in my
>intent.
>My intent was to beat the fuck out of him if/when he opened his filthy
>mouth.
Thanks for the public admission you were attempting to set me up to engage in
violence Andrew! Now does everyone see how it is my opposition who makes the
overt threats of violence!?
>Then, realizing he might have been under 21, I suggested meeting in an
>alternate place.
>
>Scott, being a closeted homosexual like yourself, took this as a sexual
>advance. His penile tumescence was probably visible for several counties. No,
>scratch that -- this would imply that he wasn't actually impotent.
Strange that you say all of that about me yet you wanted to meet me. Looks to me
like you've opened the door for a lot of legal problems for yourself
chickenhawk. You are already on record as trying to pick up under aged males as
this shows:
<START>
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&rnum=4&ic=1&selm=fk62ftskocin7nc9pvcq3obomv39tcqvj1%404ax.com
From: Thomas Tucker (thomas_tucker@cherry_plucker.net)
Subject: Andrew "Chickenhawk" Mathis Commits a Federal Crime! Trying To Pick Up
Under aged Boys over the Internet is a Crime! aka Re: Dear "Revisionist" Cancel
[...]
Andrew Mathis
<end>
Doc Tavish
<STOP>
>Now, do you have any questions, Joe? Or do you need it explained again?
>
>Bradbury is going to pay for what he's done to myself, Yale, Sara, and everyone
>else. The wheels of justice may be slow, but they do turn.
The wheels of justice have turned. Yale LOST his lawsuit and now he faces being
indicted on numerous criminal charges. BTW Yale likes to threaten violence in
public in the manner you did above and his fellow kooks hel,ped prove it too!
Examine this piece of testimony to be submitted against Edeiken:
<START>
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&rnum=1&ic=1&selm=9di21tofqj2b2torqtfshp3g1jqng7ml1a%404ax.com
From: Doc Tavish (doc_tavi...@scottsmail.com)
Subject: >>Patrick L. Humphrey And Fellow Edeiken Stooges "Admit" What Yale F.
Edeiken Said Was a Public Threat!<<
Date: 2000/11/14
http://x59.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=693057492
Sender: pat...@eris.io.com
Subject: Re: December 7th - A Date that Lives Again in History....
References: <catamont-7CD5DB...@news.concentric.net>
<ju9p0ts607cjkkmn1...@4ax.com>
<szkbsvl...@fnord.io.com>
<cvsu0t4nm6trkn9f9...@4ax.com>
From: pat...@io.com (Patrick L. Humphrey)
Message-ID: <szku29c...@eris.io.com>
Organization: Illuminati Online
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 07:25:28 CST
On Mon, 13 Nov 2000 13:25:28 GMT, pat...@io.com (Patrick L. Humphrey)
wrote:
>>>Doc Tavish <doc_tavi...@scottsmail.com> writes:
>>>>On 09 Nov 2000 18:14:00 GMT, Sara Salzman <cata...@concentric.net> wrote:
>>>>>Mr. Bradbury is due to make an appearance in PA, along with his
>>>>>attorney, on December 7th for depositions.
>>>>>
>>>>>Any bets on whether Mr. Bradbury will _again_ refuse to attend?
>>>>What concern is it of yours pig?
Patrick L. Humphrey had written:
>>>It'd help if *you'd* be more concerned about it, Scottie. True to form,
>>>though, you're jacking those damages to be awarded against you ever higher.
I, Doc Tavish, baited my mullets and replied with:
>>What would you think if I were to suggest that an associate of mine who's
>>read your replies to me said: "he wished to kick your balls so far up that
>>you'll have testicles for eyeballs."?
Notice all I did was raise a rhetorical question when I postulated above
with these words again: "What would you think if I were to suggest that an
associate of mine who's read your replies to me said: "he wished to kick
your balls so far up that you'll have testicles for eyeballs."?
I did NOT say an associate of mine said those words but merely I asked
Patrick L. Humphrey what he would think if an associate of mine would have
said those words-- very important! Notice how he answers below!
>I'd think your imaginary friend's about as much a threat to me as you are,
>Scottie. (Thanks for making your not so subtle threat in public, though, so
>that if you actually know someone that postal and something happens to me,
>guess who's going to be answering questions from the cops?)
Notice that Patrick L. Humphrey now says: "Thanks for making your not so
subtle threat in public" in reply to the words: "he wished to kick your
balls so far up that you'll have testicles for eyeballs."
Thank you Patrick for verifying that those words constitute a public
threat and as you said above "not so subtle threat in public."
Those exact words were said against me by your pal Yale F. Edeiken who you
now admit makes "not so subtle threat(s) in public."
Care to deny that these are his exact words-- sloppy spelling and all?
http://x35.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=606409114&fmt=text
From: "Yale F. Edeiken" <ya...@enter.net>
Subject: Re: Is Yale Edeiken in Jail? Who Knows What the Future Holds?
Date: 04 Apr 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <ZIeG4.2199$Oc2.1...@monger.newsread.com>
References: <235952045d8a0567...@anon.xg.nu>
<w_5G4.563$5e.5...@newshog.newsread.com> <8cbeh...@news1.newsguy.com>
X-Trace: monger.newsread.com 954824633 207.16.155.188 (Tue, 04 Apr 2000
01:03:53 EDT)
Organization: ENTER.net (enter.net)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 01:03:53 EDT
Defendant Bradbury <sonn...@flash.net> wrote in message n
[...]
> BTW I am going to make sure that your legal firm receives these latest
> attacks against me
Since your cohorts have criminally harassed yhem due to Lord Haw Haw's
efforts and, at least one of them, has stated he wished to kick your balls
so far up that you'll have tsticles for eyeballs -- good luck.
~~End of DejaCom Archival Excerpt~~
>--PLH, not that I expect Blubberbury to actually do anything he claims
I got you to "admit" that Yale F. Edeiken made a "not so subtle public
threat" against me.
Here are some other of Yale's fellows shooting themselves in their feet!
http://x75.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=693192858
From: Derek Bell <db...@salmon.maths.tcd.ie>
Subject: Re: December 7th - A Date that Lives Again in History....
Date: 13 Nov 2000 20:01:39 -0000
Organization: Dept. of Maths, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland.
Sender: db...@maths.tcd.ie
Message-ID: <8uphb3$1fk3$1...@salmon.maths.tcd.ie>
In alt.revisionism Doc Tavish <doc_tavi...@scottsmail.com> wrote:
: What would you think if I were to suggest that an associate of mine who's
: read your replies to me said: "he wished to kick your balls so far up that
: you'll have testicles for eyeballs."?
I'd say your associate really should know what the law on threats
is, or was your associate a sockpuppet?
Derek
<end>
http://x75.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=693133399
Message-ID: <3A10221D...@sympatico.ca>
From: Gord McFee <gord....@sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: December 7th - A Date that Lives Again in History...
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 17:17:11 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.209.183.99
Doc Tavish wrote:
[...]
> What would you think if I were to suggest that that an associate of mine
> who's read your replies to me said: " he would like to kick your balls so
> far up that you'll have testicles for eyeballs."?
I would think that you are talking tough again, but what's new?
--
Gord McFee (gord....@sympatico.ca)
<end>
Hey Gord! Hey Derek! I wasn't in the least bit talking tough- it was YOUR
pal Edeiken who made the threat! I merely asked a rhetorical question!
BTW Derek in reply to your: "I'd say your associate really should know
what the law on threats is..."-- I did NOT say that I had an associate who
said it BUT it's plainly seen Edeiken claimed to have an associate who did
say those words! I guess you shot yourself in the foot too!
Thank you Patrick, Derek, and Gord for being my witnesses that
Yale F. Edeiken has in fact made "not so subtle public threats" against
me. This post has been FWD to my attorney in Allentown!
Lurkers be especially sure to read the links in my sig line!
Doc Tavish
---
Concerning unethical attorneys and judges in the State of Pennsylvania:
<http://www.clr.org/pa.html> and <http://www.enter.net/walker.html>
Yale F. Edeiken --Attorney at Law - Supreme Court ID# 40290
http://www.mcall.com/cgi-bin/slwebsto.cgi?DBLIST=mc90&DOCNUM=39046
(Local Allentown news paper reported Edeiken's violent public outburst!)
~~End of EXACT GOOGLE Archive~~
<STOP>
>a.m.
>
>P.S. Prepare for a "Classic Doc Tavish" repost and charges of my being a
>pedophile...
I do not have to charge anything you chickenhawk- YOUR own words condemn you as
they did above!
BTW thanks for going on public record and admitting you were trying to set me up
to engage in assault and mayhem which is, in fact, a criminal act.
Everyone see how stupid my opposition is?
Everyone see how violent my opposition is!?
Need I say more other than to reminding Andrew this:
Andrea E. Naugle
CLERK OF COURTS OF LEHIGH COUNTY - CIVIL DIVISION
Lehigh County Courthouse
455 W. Hamilton Street
Allentown, PA 18101-1614
RE: Edeiken Vs Bradbury 1999-C-2786
Partial text of letter from Judge Reibman:
<START>
Copies of this order were mailed to all counsel of record and pro se litigants.
CC: Counsel for Plaintiff (Yale F. Edeiken): Yale F. Edeiken Esq.
Counsel for Defendant (Scott Bradbury) : Daylin B. Leach Esq.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 12th day of June, 2001, upon consideration of Defendant's
Petition for Relief from Judgment, filed on September 22, 2000,
Plaintiff's response thereto, and argument thereon on February 7, 2001,
IT IS ORDERED said petition is GRANTED, and the case is DISMISSED.
[...]
BY THE COURT:
(Signed) Edward J. Reibman, J.
<STOP>
The Victor
---
Concerning unethical attorneys and judges in the State of Pennsylvania:
<http://www.clr.org/pa.html> Yale F. Edeiken --Attorney at Law -
Supreme Court ID# 40290 -- See how Yale likes to push women around in this link:
http://www.mcall.com/cgi-bin/slwebsto.cgi?DBLIST=mc90&DOCNUM=39046
(This is a swine who sued me for being violent!!)
Debunks2000
>Thanks For The Admission You CHICKENHAWK!
>From: Doc Tavish doc_t...@my-deja.comDELETE2MAIL-NO-SPAM
>Date: 6/26/2001 9:40 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <dsdhjtgmkqfabuo7e...@4ax.com>
In this case, it was a covert threat of violence. It reads as an attempt to
lure you to a bar with intent to do you bodily harm.
Andrew E. Mathis, Ph.D.
[snip]
>>>Joe, do I need to explain this to you also?
>>>
>>>I invited Scott Bradbury to meet me in a bar so that I could get him to say
>>to
>>>my face what he was saying to me in Usenet. There was nothing sexual in my
>>>intent.
>>
>>>My intent was to beat the fuck out of him if/when he opened his filthy
>>>mouth.
>>
>>Thanks for the public admission you were attempting to set me up to engage
in
>>violence Andrew! Now does everyone see how it is my opposition who makes the
>>overt threats of violence!?
>
>In this case, it was a covert threat of violence. It reads as an attempt to
>lure you to a bar with intent to do you bodily harm.
I have Bradbury killfiled, but I can tell from the quotation and from the
subject heading that he started this thread.
I made no attempt to "lure" Bradbury to a bar. I made an attempt to have
Bradbury meet me face to face and let transpire what may. He chickened out.
It's interesting that (just as I predicted), Bradbury would still label me a
"chickenhawk," since it's obvious that the very last thing I'd ever do is
have
sex with him -- not to mention the fact that he's in his 50s. This is just
further proof of how demented a person Bradbury is. I would have liked
nothing
better than for him to call me some name and for me to smash a beer bottle
over his head. The night in jail would have been worth it.
Somehow, Bradbury reads this as a sexual advance.
Do you, Joe? Or do you read it as an invitation to make a man put up or shut
up? I'd like your opinion on this.
a.m.
------------------------------------------------------------
"Exuberance is beauty"
--William Blake (1757-1827)
Doc Tavish
Doc Tavish <doc_t...@my-deja.comDELETE2MAIL-NO-SPAM> wrote:
>Path: newssvr17.news.prodigy.com!newssvr04!newsmst02.news.prodigy.com!
>newsmst01.news.prodigy.com!newscon04.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!
>news.tele.dk!128.230.129.106!news.maxwell.syr.edu!howland.erols.net!
>portc.blue.aol.com.MISMATCH!portc03.blue.aol.com!audrey05.news.aol.com!
>not-for-mail
>Lines: 29
>X-Admin: ne...@aol.com
>From: dctrm...@aol.com (Andrew E. Mathis Ph.D.)
>Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
>Date: 26 Jun 2001 00:12:22 GMT
>References: <20010625195459...@ng-fh1.aol.com>
>Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
>Subject: Re: Scot Murphy's Misery- His Man LOST! BOO HOO! aka Re: For Wolk
>Message-ID: <20010625201222...@ng-xa1.aol.com>
>Xref: newsmst01.news.prodigy.com alt.revisionism:958897
>
>On 26 Jun 2001 00:12:22 GMT, <20010625201222...@ng-xa1.aol.com>
>dctrm...@aol.com (Andrew E. Mathis Ph.D.) wrote:
>
>>Joe, do I need to explain this to you also?
>>
>>I invited Scott Bradbury to meet me in a bar...
>>My intent was to beat the fuck out of him if/when he opened his filthy
>>mouth.
Thanks for the admission of a major crime Andrew. Care to deny it is criminal to
lure someone to a geographical location with the pre-meditated intention of
committing assault and mayhem?
Most states call that a hate crime. Why do I mention hate crime? Because you
said this in relation to the above:
>Scott, being a closeted homosexual like yourself...
Definitely a hate crime. You accuse me of being a homosexual and then you plot
to lure me to a setting where you would attempt to physically assault me.
Does Matthew Shephard come to mind? Law enforcement will see this latest
confession of yours as well as Edeiken's letter to Sara Salzman regarding
Laurence B. Shiff.
I am really amazed at all of the good fortune which is coming my way. I can see
future damages in seven figures now! I won't litigate without having criminal
prosecutions as a foundation BUT you make it easy.
From the bottom of my heart, Andrew, I thank you!
Andrew E. Mathis, Ph.D.
>>
>>>Joe, do I need to explain this to you also?
>>>
>>>I invited Scott Bradbury to meet me in a bar...
>>>My intent was to beat the fuck out of him if/when he opened his filthy
>>>mouth.
>
>Thanks for the admission of a major crime Andrew. Care to deny it is criminal
to
>lure someone to a geographical location with the pre-meditated intention of
>committing assault and mayhem?
I would only have assaulted you if you had shot your mouth off. Is that a
"major crime"? In most states, assault is a misdemeanor unless you do
serious
damage to that person.
>
>Most states call that a hate crime. Why do I mention hate crime? Because you
>said this in relation to the above:
>
>>Scott, being a closeted homosexual like yourself...
>
>Definitely a hate crime. You accuse me of being a homosexual and then you
plot
>to lure me to a setting where you would attempt to physically assault me.
So you admit now to behing homosexual? Interesting...
>Does Matthew Shephard come to mind? Law enforcement will see this latest
>confession of yours as well as Edeiken's letter to Sara Salzman regarding
>Laurence B. Shiff.
Please do show them. And when they contact me, they can see the reams of
libels that you've posted about me over the years, as well as your volumes
of
anti-Semitica.
No one takes you seriously, Scott. Do your worst to me. Besides, consider
two
points: (1) I made no overt threat and (2) Even if I had, the statute of
limitations has probably run out.
But do try to pursue me. That should be fun.
>
>I am really amazed at all of the good fortune which is coming my way. I can
see
>future damages in seven figures now! I won't litigate without having criminal
>prosecutions as a foundation BUT you make it easy.
You'll never get a criminal charge against me. Not in a billion years. And
if
you *try*, I'm going to hit you with a libel suit and make sure that it's
done
in Federal court and that I cover all the bases.
>
>From the bottom of my heart, Andrew, I thank you!
>
You're welcome, Scott.
Doc Tavish
Mathis, Ph.D." <andrew...@MailAndNews.com> wrote:
>>===== Original Message From doc_t...@my-deja.comDELETE2MAIL-NO-SPAM =====
>>>
>>>>Joe, do I need to explain this to you also?
>>>>
>>>>I invited Scott Bradbury to meet me in a bar...
>>>>My intent was to beat the fuck out of him if/when he opened his filthy
>>>>mouth.
>>Thanks for the admission of a major crime Andrew. Care to deny it is criminal
>>to lure someone to a geographical location with the pre-meditated intention of
>>committing assault and mayhem?
>I would only have assaulted you if you had shot your mouth off.
Thanks for admitting again that you wanted to lure me to a place and potentially
assault me if you did not like what I said.
>Is that a "major crime"? In most states, assault is a misdemeanor unless you do
>serious damage to that person.
You did it over the Internet and you demonstrated pre-mediation with intent. Ask
Shyster Edeiken what that may mean for you!
>>Most states call that a hate crime. Why do I mention hate crime? Because you
>>said this in relation to the above:
>>>Scott, being a closeted homosexual like yourself...
>>
>>Definitely a hate crime. You accuse me of being a homosexual and then you
>>plot to lure me to a setting where you would attempt to physically assault me.
>So you admit now to behing homosexual? Interesting...
NO, I did NOT admit being a homosexual. I showed what YOU accused this assumed
on YOUR behalf. Notice I said YOU accused me of being a homo which is not me
admitting to being one.
>>Does Matthew Shephard come to mind? Law enforcement will see this latest
>>confession of yours as well as Edeiken's letter to Sara Salzman regarding
>>Laurence B. Shiff.
>Please do show them. And when they contact me, they can see the reams of
>libels that you've posted about me over the years, as well as your volumes
>of anti-Semitica.
How have I libeled you? You made chickenhawk advances as the archives prove and
what you claim is anti-Semitism is not against the law.
>No one takes you seriously, Scott.
The judge who ruled against Edeiken took me seriously. The Federal Agent who
came to my house on account of Laurence B. Shiff posting a child porn ad and
giving my address and telephone number took me seriously as well as my Police
Chief Jerrold Johnson and his Sargent Donald Blakey. I had reported the incident
a day after it happened and my local law enforcement verified it. Many people
have taken me seriously.
>Do your worst to me. Besides, consider
>two points:
>(1) I made no overt threat and
You made one above and when did you do it? June 27, 2001
>(2) Even if I had, the statute of limitations has probably run out.
I'd hardly think that the statute of limitations would apply to a criminal
threat made on June 27, 2001!
>But do try to pursue me. That should be fun.
>>I am really amazed at all of the good fortune which is coming my way. I can
>>see uture damages in seven figures now! I won't litigate without having criminal
>>prosecutions as a foundation BUT you make it easy.
>You'll never get a criminal charge against me. Not in a billion years.
Sounds like what was being claimed about Edeiken Vs Bradbury and my chances of
coming out on top as the final winner!
>And if you *try*, I'm going to hit you with a libel suit
How have I libeled you? I've proved all that you whine about you little cry
baby.
> and make sure that it's done in Federal court and that I cover all the bases.
You sound as rabid and kooky as KIKE Edeiken. ROTFLMAO!
>>From the bottom of my heart, Andrew, I thank you!
>You're welcome, Scott.
At least you're gracious!
The Victor
>a.m.
Andrew E. Mathis, Ph.D.
>>>
>>>>Joe, do I need to explain this to you also?
>>>>
>>>>I invited Scott Bradbury to meet me in a bar...
>>>>My intent was to beat the fuck out of him if/when he opened his filthy
>>>>mouth.
>
>>>Thanks for the admission of a major crime Andrew. Care to deny it is
criminal
>>>to lure someone to a geographical location with the pre-meditated intention
of
>>>committing assault and mayhem?
>
>>I would only have assaulted you if you had shot your mouth off.
>
>Thanks for admitting again that you wanted to lure me to a place and
potentially
>assault me if you did not like what I said.
Yes. You see that word "potential"? That's the condition that makes what I
might have done not prosecutable. But you're welcome to try it. Please do.
>
>>Is that a "major crime"? In most states, assault is a misdemeanor unless you
do
>>serious damage to that person.
>
>You did it over the Internet and you demonstrated pre-mediation with intent.
So you intend to file federal charges then? Whoopie!
>Ask
>Shyster Edeiken what that may mean for you!
He's too busy prepping his appeal.
>
>>>Most states call that a hate crime. Why do I mention hate crime? Because
you
>>>said this in relation to the above:
>
>>>Scott, being a closeted homosexual like yourself...
>>>
>>>Definitely a hate crime. You accuse me of being a homosexual and then you
>>>plot to lure me to a setting where you would attempt to physically assault
me.
>
>>So you admit now to behing homosexual? Interesting...
>
>NO, I did NOT admit being a homosexual. I showed what YOU accused this
assumed
>on YOUR behalf. Notice I said YOU accused me of being a homo which is not me
>admitting to being one.
That was after your accusations of my being gay about a million times or so.
All on the record.
>
>>>Does Matthew Shephard come to mind? Law enforcement will see this latest
>>>confession of yours as well as Edeiken's letter to Sara Salzman regarding
>>>Laurence B. Shiff.
>
>>Please do show them. And when they contact me, they can see the reams of
>>libels that you've posted about me over the years, as well as your volumes
>>of anti-Semitica.
>
>How have I libeled you? You made chickenhawk advances as the archives prove
Are you aware of the term "cognitive dissonance," Scott? You can't believe
at
the same time that I (1) wanted to beat you up and (2) wanted to have sex
with
you. Short of my invitation to meet you in a bar in Texas, what other
"advances" have I made? None. And you just libeled me *again*.
>and
>what you claim is anti-Semitism is not against the law.
No, but it speaks to the character of the person making the allegations.
Scott, if you want to press charges, please do so. I live in Pennsylvania
now
and one of my father's friends is a criminal defense attorney who's never
lost
a case, and he'd defend me for the cost of dinner at La Bec Fin. So you want
to file criminal charges? Go right ahead.
>
>>No one takes you seriously, Scott.
>
>The judge who ruled against Edeiken took me seriously.
No, he finds you repugnant. He just found Yale's evidence lacking.
>The Federal Agent who
>came to my house on account of Laurence B. Shiff posting a child porn ad and
>giving my address and telephone number took me seriously as well as my Police
>Chief Jerrold Johnson and his Sargent Donald Blakey. I had reported the
incident
>a day after it happened and my local law enforcement verified it. Many people
>have taken me seriously.
Yes, I'm sure you have quite a following.
>
>>Do your worst to me. Besides, consider
>>two points:
>>(1) I made no overt threat and
>
>You made one above and when did you do it? June 27, 2001
There was no threat on June 27. It was a clarification of an earlier
statement
and does not constitute a threat in and of itself.
>
>>(2) Even if I had, the statute of limitations has probably run out.
>
>I'd hardly think that the statute of limitations would apply to a criminal
>threat made on June 27, 2001!
Then file your charges.
>
>>But do try to pursue me. That should be fun.
>
>>>I am really amazed at all of the good fortune which is coming my way. I can
>>>see uture damages in seven figures now! I won't litigate without having
criminal
>>>prosecutions as a foundation BUT you make it easy.
>
>>You'll never get a criminal charge against me. Not in a billion years.
>
>Sounds like what was being claimed about Edeiken Vs Bradbury and my chances
of
>coming out on top as the final winner!
Then file charges.
>
>>And if you *try*, I'm going to hit you with a libel suit
>
>How have I libeled you? I've proved all that you whine about you little cry
>baby.
You have labeled me a pedophile. That's libel, Scott.
>
>> and make sure that it's done in Federal court and that I cover all the
bases.
>
>You sound as rabid and kooky as KIKE Edeiken. ROTFLMAO!
>
>>>From the bottom of my heart, Andrew, I thank you!
>
>>You're welcome, Scott.
>
>At least you're gracious!
>
All further posts from you will be ignored. If you do not file charges
against
me in the next 30 days, I will assume you realize that you don't have a leg
to
stand on.
Debunks
>Violence!
>From: "Andrew E. Mathis, Ph.D." andrew...@MailAndNews.com
>Date: 6/27/2001 8:02 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3B3D...@MailAndNews.com>
>
>>===== Original Message From doc_t...@my-deja.comDELETE2MAIL-NO-SPAM =====
>>>
>>>>Joe, do I need to explain this to you also?
>>>>
>>>>I invited Scott Bradbury to meet me in a bar...
>>>>My intent was to beat the fuck out of him if/when he opened his filthy
>>>>mouth.
>>
>>Thanks for the admission of a major crime Andrew. Care to deny it is
>criminal
>to
>>lure someone to a geographical location with the pre-meditated intention of
>>committing assault and mayhem?
>
>I would only have assaulted you if you had shot your mouth off.
That is not what you wrote. You said you would attack him if he "opened his
filthy mouth." You also expressed glee at the idea that a Catholic priest was
murdered during the "Russian" revolution.
>Is that a
>"major crime"? In most states, assault is a misdemeanor unless you do
>serious
>damage to that person.
It appears to be luring an individual for the purpose of a physical attack of
unknown violent dimensions. That is usually referred to as a form of stalking.
>
>>Most states call that a hate crime. Why do I mention hate crime? Because you
>>said this in relation to the above:
>>
>>>Scott, being a closeted homosexual like yourself...
>>
>>Definitely a hate crime. You accuse me of being a homosexual and then you
>plot
>>to lure me to a setting where you would attempt to physically assault me.
Yes, referring to someone as a homosexual and then attempting to lure them in
order to violently accost them should qualify as a hate crime.
Back to the text:
>>Does Matthew Shephard come to mind? Law enforcement will see this latest
>>confession of yours as well as Edeiken's letter to Sara Salzman regarding
>>Laurence B. Shiff.
>
>Please do show them. And when they contact me, they can see the reams of
>libels that you've posted about me over the years, as well as your volumes
>of
>anti-Semitica.
They call also see the reams of hateful comments you have made to people,
Mathis.
>No one takes you seriously, Scott.
Perhaps you will, soon...
Joe Bruno
Joe Bruno
>
Debunks
>Violence!
>From: Doc Tavish doc_t...@my-deja.comDELETE2MAIL-NO-SPAM
>Date: 6/27/2001 9:42 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <hb2kjtgoeg8vp4oih...@4ax.com>
Mathis may lose that job yet--and it will all have been his own doing!
Doc Tavish
Mathis, Ph.D." <andrew...@MailAndNews.com> wrote:
>>===== Original Message From doc_t...@my-deja.comDELETE2MAIL-NO-SPAM =====
>>>
>>>>Joe, do I need to explain this to you also?
>>>>
>>>>I invited Scott Bradbury to meet me in a bar...
>>>>My intent was to beat the fuck out of him if/when he opened his filthy
>>>>mouth.
>>Thanks for the admission of a major crime Andrew. Care to deny it is criminal
>>to lure someone to a geographical location with the pre-meditated intention of
>>committing assault and mayhem?
>I would only have assaulted you if you had shot your mouth off.
Thanks for admitting again that you wanted to lure me to a place and potentially
assault me if you did not like what I said.
>Is that a "major crime"? In most states, assault is a misdemeanor unless you do
>serious damage to that person.
You did it over the Internet and you demonstrated pre-meditation with intent.
Ask Shyster Edeiken what that may mean for you!
>>Most states call that a hate crime. Why do I mention hate crime? Because you
>>said this in relation to the above:
>>>Scott, being a closeted homosexual like yourself...
>>
>>Definitely a hate crime. You accuse me of being a homosexual and then you
>>plot to lure me to a setting where you would attempt to physically assault me.
>So you admit now to behing homosexual? Interesting...
NO, I did NOT admit being a homosexual. I showed what YOU accused- this was
assumed on YOUR behalf.
>>Does Matthew Shephard come to mind? Law enforcement will see this latest
>>confession of yours as well as Edeiken's letter to Sara Salzman regarding
>>Laurence B. Shiff.
>Please do show them. And when they contact me, they can see the reams of
>libels that you've posted about me over the years, as well as your volumes
>of anti-Semitica.
How have I libeled you? You made chickenhawk advances as the archives prove and
what you claim is anti-Semitism is not against the law.
>No one takes you seriously, Scott.
The judge who ruled against Edeiken took me seriously. The Federal Agent who
came to my house on account of Laurence B. Shiff posting a child porn ad and
giving my address and telephone number took me seriously as well as my Police
Chief Jerrold Johnson and his Sargent Donald Blakey. I had reported the incident
a day after it happened and my local law enforcement verified it. Many people
have taken me seriously.
>Do your worst to me. Besides, consider
>two points:
>(1) I made no overt threat and
You made one above and when did you do it? June 27, 2001
>(2) Even if I had, the statute of limitations has probably run out.
I'd hardly think that the statute of limitations would apply to a criminal
threat made on June 27, 2001!
>But do try to pursue me. That should be fun.
>>I am really amazed at all of the good fortune which is coming my way. I can
>>see uture damages in seven figures now! I won't litigate without having criminal
>>prosecutions as a foundation BUT you make it easy.
>You'll never get a criminal charge against me. Not in a billion years.
Sounds like what was being claimed about Edeiken Vs Bradbury and my chances of
coming out on top as the final winner!
>And if you *try*, I'm going to hit you with a libel suit
How have I libeled you? I've proved all that you whine about you little cry
baby.
> and make sure that it's done in Federal court and that I cover all the bases.
You sound as rabid and kooky as KIKE Edeiken. ROTFLMAO!
>>From the bottom of my heart, Andrew, I thank you!
>You're welcome, Scott.
At least you're gracious!
The Victor
>a.m.
---
Andrew E. Mathis, Ph.D.
>>>
>>>>Joe, do I need to explain this to you also?
>>>>
>>>>I invited Scott Bradbury to meet me in a bar...
>>>>My intent was to beat the fuck out of him if/when he opened his filthy
>>>>mouth.
>>>
>>>Thanks for the admission of a major crime Andrew. Care to deny it is
>>criminal
>>to
>>>lure someone to a geographical location with the pre-meditated intention of
>>>committing assault and mayhem?
>>
>>I would only have assaulted you if you had shot your mouth off.
>
>filthy mouth."
Same thing.
>You also expressed glee at the idea that a Catholic priest was
>murdered during the "Russian" revolution.
Not *any* Catholic priest. Don't try to smear, Joey. You only smear the one
you fear, remember?
>
>>Is that a
>>"major crime"? In most states, assault is a misdemeanor unless you do
>>serious
>>damage to that person.
>
>It appears to be luring an individual for the purpose of a physical attack of
>unknown violent dimensions. That is usually referred to as a form of
stalking.
(Sigh) Everyone's a fucking lawyer in this forum. When Bradbury files his
charges, we'll see if he can make them stick.
>
>>>Most states call that a hate crime. Why do I mention hate crime? Because
you
>>>said this in relation to the above:
>>>
>>>Scott, being a closeted homosexual like yourself...
>
>>>
>>>Definitely a hate crime. You accuse me of being a homosexual and then you
>>plot
>>>to lure me to a setting where you would attempt to physically assault me.
>
>Yes, referring to someone as a homosexual and then attempting to lure them in
>order to violently accost them should qualify as a hate crime.
You have the order ass-backwards, for one thing. Second of all, there isn't
any hate-crime legislation in Texas.
>
>Back to the text:
>
>>>Does Matthew Shephard come to mind? Law enforcement will see this latest
>>>confession of yours as well as Edeiken's letter to Sara Salzman regarding
>>>Laurence B. Shiff.
>
>
>>
>
>>Please do show them. And when they contact me, they can see the reams of
>>libels that you've posted about me over the years, as well as your volumes
>>of
>>anti-Semitica.
>
>They call also see the reams of hateful comments you have made to people,
>Mathis.
They are all in response to hateful statements. Context is important, Joe.
You
know, like commas.
>
>>No one takes you seriously, Scott.
>
>Perhaps you will, soon...
I seriously doubt it.
Doc Tavish
deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
>>Subject: RE: Andrew Mathis Admits Wanting to Meet Me and Engaging in
>>Violence!
>>From: "Andrew E. Mathis, Ph.D." andrew...@MailAndNews.com
>>Date: 6/27/2001 8:02 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <3B3D...@MailAndNews.com>
>>
>>>===== Original Message From doc_t...@my-deja.comDELETE2MAIL-NO-SPAM =====
>>>>
>>>>>Joe, do I need to explain this to you also?
>>>>>
>>>>>I invited Scott Bradbury to meet me in a bar...
>>>>>My intent was to beat the fuck out of him if/when he opened his filthy
>>>>>mouth.
>>>Thanks for the admission of a major crime Andrew. Care to deny it is
>>>criminal to lure someone to a geographical location with the pre-meditated
>>>intention of committing assault and mayhem?
>>I would only have assaulted you if you had shot your mouth off.
>That is not what you wrote. You said you would attack him if he "opened his
>filthy mouth." You also expressed glee at the idea that a Catholic priest was
>murdered during the "Russian" revolution.
>>Is that a "major crime"? In most states, assault is a misdemeanor unless you do
>>serious damage to that person.
>It appears to be luring an individual for the purpose of a physical attack of
>unknown violent dimensions. That is usually referred to as a form of stalking.
He also demonstrated the act was pre-meditated which is not the same as a
spontaneous event or crime of passion (of the moment). He fully intended to set
me up to bushwhack me. Strange that his pal Scot Murphy aka Buck Turgidson
claimed Andrew only wanted to offer an olive branch!
Once again a review:
On Sat, 23 Jun 2001 21:30:59 -0500, <3B3550E8...@sickofspam.com> Buck
Turgidson <deppi...@sickofspam.com> wrote:
>Debunks wrote:
>[...]
>
>> >The very fact that you 'think' people like
>> >Bradbury can be reasoned with is proof of that.
>> How would you know? You have never tried!
>Actually, Joe, Dr. Mathis tried. I'll let him tell the entire story, if he so
>desires. But in general, back in 1998, he offered an olive branch to Bradshit and
>suggested they meet and talk out their differences. His reward for that effort was
>to be branded a homosexual, a pedophile, a chicken hawk, baseless charges which
>Bradshit had no problems posting repeatedly over the next almost-three years. In
>fact, Bradshit has posted MANY times this scurrilous accusation, heedless of its
>utter falseness.
Here is what was posted and Andrew was NOT offering an olive branch and even a
nitwit such as you should be able to see it!
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&rnum=4&ic=1&selm=fk62ftskocin7nc9pvcq3obomv39tcqvj1%404ax.com
From: Thomas Tucker (thomas_tucker@cherry_plucker.net)
Subject: Andrew "Chickenhawk" Mathis Commits a Federal Crime! Trying To Pick Up
Underaged Boys over the Internet is a Crime! aka Re: Dear "Revisionist" Cancel
[...]
Andrew Mathis
<end>
>a.m.
<END>
So now Andrew admits that he would have physically assaulted a minor male. How
many criminal acts did Andrew Mathis engage in? Above he tried to lure me out
for a drink and then he said on June 27, 2001 what his intentions were:
"I invited Scott Bradbury to meet me in a bar... My intent was to beat the fuck
out of him if/when he opened his filthy mouth."
-Subject: RE: Andrew Mathis Admits Wanting to Meet Me and Engaging in Violence!
-From: "Andrew E. Mathis, Ph.D." andrew...@MailAndNews.com
-Date: 6/27/2001 8:02 AM Pacific Daylight Time
-Message-id: <3B3D...@MailAndNews.com>
Jesus said: "By your words ye shall be judged."
>>>Most states call that a hate crime. Why do I mention hate crime? Because you
>>>said this in relation to the above:
>>>>Scott, being a closeted homosexual like yourself...
>>>Definitely a hate crime. You accuse me of being a homosexual and then you
>>plot to lure me to a setting where you would attempt to physically assault me.
>Yes, referring to someone as a homosexual and then attempting to lure them in
>order to violently accost them should qualify as a hate crime.
>
>Back to the text:
>
>>>Does Matthew Shephard come to mind? Law enforcement will see this latest
>>>confession of yours as well as Edeiken's letter to Sara Salzman regarding
>>>Laurence B. Shiff.
>>Please do show them. And when they contact me, they can see the reams of
>>libels that you've posted about me over the years, as well as your volumes
>>of anti-Semitica.
>They call also see the reams of hateful comments you have made to people,
>Mathis.
What Andrew has deemed as "anti-Semitica" (as if there was such a word) was/is
not illegal. Trying to lure someone to a location with the premeditation of
assaulting him is. Anyone care to deny Andrew Mathis is a CRIMINAL and has
committed criminal acts?
>>No one takes you seriously, Scott.
>Perhaps you will, soon...
Criminal Andrew is just like his Criminal brethren- they all belong in
protective custody.
Need I say more?
The Victor
Doc Tavish
Mathis, Ph.D." <andrew...@MailAndNews.com> wrote:
[...]
>That was after your accusations of my being gay about a million times or so.
>All on the record.
But Andrew as Jesus said: "By your own words Ye shall be judged."
Who else other than a HOMO would act in the way you did in your posts?
You claim that I am gay and I have a penis fetish but you were insistent
on having a drink with me. I do not know of any heteros who engage in such
bizarre antics! Once again Andrew- YOUR OWN WORDS!
[...]
<<Doc Tavish comment June 27, 2001: The link above is inactive but this link
shows the image which was pointed to by the old. Notice the Marxist sub tones
and the effeminate look of the self confessed socialist:
<http://www51.homepage.villanova.edu/andrew.mathis/whip.gif>
Here is a more recent mug show which would look good on a Wanted Poster seeing
how Andrew threatened me with violence:
<http://www51.homepage.villanova.edu/andrew.mathis/mathis.jpg>>>
Doc Tavish Declining ACT UP & The Homosexual Community Daily
<snip>
>Andrew Mathis
BTW Here is Andrew again wanting to "date" me and he says it doesn't
matter that I'm under age either! Are you paying attention FBI? Does not
the agency have a distinct policy on pedophile Chicken Hawks seeking
under aged minors as prey?
From: aem...@is2.nyu.edu
Subject: Re: Jeffrey G. Brown Accuses BUT Can't Back His Charges With
Evidence! aka Re: Poor Ol' Gutless Scottie again shows us what's always
on his 'mind'
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 01:25:30 GMT
Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion
Message-ID: <6t9u6a$o7u$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
References: <35F5BC...@earthlink.net>
<199809091940...@nym.alias.net>
<jeff_brown-09...@38.27.216.25>
<35f846fc....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>
<snip>
Scott, your postured indignation impresses no one. With your
obvious penis fetish, you're quite obviously either:
a) a teenager who needs a girlfriend;
b) impotent; or my favorite,
c) both.
<<Doc Tavish comment June 27, 2001: Andrew says the above yet he still wants to
meet me for a drink! What does this say of his sexual orientation? Would a
normal heterosexual male be posting such invites? Looks like Andrew has a sexual
identity problem and seeing how he says (just below): "If you *are* underaged,
by the way, I'd be more than happy to meet you in a coffee shop as opposed to a
place that serves alcohol." Definitely indicates a pedophile or chickenhawk
bent. How can it be denied?!>>
Andrew Mathis
P.S. If you *are* underaged, by the way, I'd be more than happy to
meet you in a coffee shop as opposed to a place that serves alcohol.
<end>
Definitely Andrew Mathis profiles as a chickenhawk internet stalker who should
be investigated by the FBI. How else should one take Andrew's words when he
says: "Can we do this over a drink next weekend? ...I'm willing to meet with
Scott Bradbury. With your obvious penis fetish you're a teenager who needs a
girlfriend.. If you *are* underaged, by the way, I'd be more than happy to meet
you in a coffee shop as opposed to a place that serves alcohol."
YOUR WORDS CHICKENHAWK! WANT TO DENY YOU WERE TRYING TO PICK UP A MALE MINOR
OVER THE INTERNET WHICH IS A FEDERAL CRIME?
>a.m.
<END>
Need I say more?
The Victor
---
>I ask-- why do we never see Jews criticize the communism
>which existed before Stalin took control?
"Because there was very little to criticize."
Susan Cohen - January 24, 2001
Brian Blank
wrote:
Nope. First of all, I read the original "correspondence between
Bradbury and Andrew when it was posted here.
Secondly, Andrew was responding to Bradbury's slime.
Thirdly, you are flying off the handle for no apparent reason.
Fourthly, I have been the object of your tirades.
And finally (and this is almost peripheral) you are of a mature age.
Andrew is a relative youngster. I would have hoped that by now you
would have learnt to slow down and not behave in that manner.
Sixthly, right now, you are not reacting, you are being rude and
boorish in a pro-active manner.
Regards,
Brian Blank
Andrew E. Mathis, Ph.D.
=====
[snip]
>Nope. First of all, I read the original "correspondence between
>Bradbury and Andrew when it was posted here.
And did I, at any point, threaten violence then or make a sexual advance,
Mr.
Blank?
>Secondly, Andrew was responding to Bradbury's slime.
This is true.
>Thirdly, you are flying off the handle for no apparent reason.
He's pissed about some supposed slight of his father.
>Fourthly, I have been the object of your tirades.
You and everyone else in the group but Bellinger, apparently.
>And finally (and this is almost peripheral) you are of a mature age.
>Andrew is a relative youngster. I would have hoped that by now you
>would have learnt to slow down and not behave in that manner.
So what are you trying to say, smart guy? ;-)
>Sixthly, right now, you are not reacting, you are being rude and
>boorish in a pro-active manner.
And this is different from his normal behavior...how?
Debunks
>Violence!
>Date: 6/27/01 10:54 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3B3F...@MailAndNews.com>
>
>>===== Original Message From deb...@aol.com (Debunks) =====
>>>>
>>>>>Joe, do I need to explain this to you also?
>>>>>
>>>>>I invited Scott Bradbury to meet me in a bar...
>>>>>My intent was to beat the fuck out of him if/when he opened his filthy
>>>>>mouth.
>>>>
>>>>Thanks for the admission of a major crime Andrew. Care to deny it is
>>>criminal
>>>to
>>>>lure someone to a geographical location with the pre-meditated intention
>of
>>>>committing assault and mayhem?
>>>
>>>I would only have assaulted you if you had shot your mouth off.
>>
>>That is not what you wrote. You said you would attack him if he "opened his
>>filthy mouth."
>
>Same thing.
>
Perhaps a court will soon decide on that.
>>You also expressed glee at the idea that a Catholic priest was
>>murdered during the "Russian" revolution.
>
>Not *any* Catholic priest. Don't try to smear, Joey. You only smear the one
>you fear, remember?
I am referring to your OWN words, Andy.
Are you repudiating them now, as you repudiated your former religion?
>>>Is that a
>>>"major crime"? In most states, assault is a misdemeanor unless you do
>>>serious
>>>damage to that person.
>>It appears to be luring an individual for the purpose of a physical attack
>of
>>unknown violent dimensions. That is usually referred to as a form of
>stalking.
>(Sigh) Everyone's a fucking lawyer in this forum. When Bradbury files his
>charges, we'll see if he can make them stick.
I can't wait!
>>>>Most states call that a hate crime. Why do I mention hate crime? Because
>you
>>>>said this in relation to the above:
>>>>
>>>>Scott, being a closeted homosexual like yourself...
>>>>Definitely a hate crime. You accuse me of being a homosexual and then you
>>>plot
>>>>to lure me to a setting where you would attempt to physically assault me.
>>
>>Yes, referring to someone as a homosexual and then attempting to lure them
>in
>>order to violently accost them should qualify as a hate crime.
>
>You have the order ass-backwards, for one thing. Second of all, there isn't
>any hate-crime legislation in Texas.
>>
>Back to the text:
>>
>>>>Does Matthew Shephard come to mind? Law enforcement will see this latest
>>>>confession of yours as well as Edeiken's letter to Sara Salzman regarding
>>>>Laurence B. Shiff.
>>Please do show them. And when they contact me, they can see the reams of
>>>libels that you've posted about me over the years, as well as your volumes
>>>of
>>>anti-Semitica.
>>They call also see the reams of hateful comments you have made to people,
>>Mathis.
>They are all in response to hateful statements
LOL! No, they are not, Mathis.
>Context is important, Joe.
>You
>know, like commas.
Not if they're missing....LOL!
>>No one takes you seriously, Scott.
>>
>>Perhaps you will, soon...
>
>I seriously doubt it.
>
>a.m.
Time will tell.
Debunks
>Violence!
>From: Doc Tavish doc_t...@my-deja.comDELETE2MAIL-NO-SPAM
>Date: 6/27/01 11:04 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <657kjtc912r4qqreo...@4ax.com>
An olive branch dipped in poison!
Andrew E. Mathis, Ph.D.
[snip]
>>>I would only have assaulted you if you had shot your mouth off.
>>>
>>>That is not what you wrote. You said you would attack him if he "opened
his
>>>filthy mouth."
>>
>>Same thing.
>
>Perhaps a court will soon decide on that.
I seriously doubt it.
>
>>>You also expressed glee at the idea that a Catholic priest was
>>>murdered during the "Russian" revolution.
>>
>>Not *any* Catholic priest. Don't try to smear, Joey. You only smear the one
>>you fear, remember?
>
>I am referring to your OWN words, Andy.
No, Joey, you are not.
>Are you repudiating them now, as you repudiated your former religion?
No, I am merely repudiating your straw man.
>
>>>Is that a
>>>"major crime"? In most states, assault is a misdemeanor unless you do
>>>serious
>>>damage to that person.
>
>>>It appears to be luring an individual for the purpose of a physical attack
>>of
>>>unknown violent dimensions. That is usually referred to as a form of
>>stalking.
>
>>(Sigh) Everyone's a fucking lawyer in this forum. When Bradbury files his
>>charges, we'll see if he can make them stick.
>
>I can't wait!
Me neither.
>
>>>>Most states call that a hate crime. Why do I mention hate crime? Because
>>you
>>>>said this in relation to the above:
>>>>
>>>>Scott, being a closeted homosexual like yourself...
>
>>>>Definitely a hate crime. You accuse me of being a homosexual and then you
>>>plot
>>>>to lure me to a setting where you would attempt to physically assault me.
>
>>>Yes, referring to someone as a homosexual and then attempting to lure them
>>in
>>>order to violently accost them should qualify as a hate crime.
>
>>You have the order ass-backwards, for one thing. Second of all, there isn't
>>any hate-crime legislation in Texas.
>>>
>
>>Back to the text:
>>>
>>>>Does Matthew Shephard come to mind? Law enforcement will see this latest
>>>>confession of yours as well as Edeiken's letter to Sara Salzman regarding
>>>>Laurence B. Shiff.
>
>>>Please do show them. And when they contact me, they can see the reams of
>>>libels that you've posted about me over the years, as well as your volumes
>>>of
>>>anti-Semitica.
>
>>>They call also see the reams of hateful comments you have made to people,
>>>Mathis.
>
>>They are all in response to hateful statements
>
>LOL! No, they are not, Mathis.
Yes they are, Joey.
>
>>Context is important, Joe.
>>You
>>know, like commas.
>
>Not if they're missing....LOL!
Yes, if they were purposefully deleted by a Jew-hating scumbag excuse for a
human being.
>
>>>No one takes you seriously, Scott.
>>>
>>>Perhaps you will, soon...
>>
>>I seriously doubt it.
>>
>Time will tell.
Neener.
Debunks
>Violence!
>From: "Andrew E. Mathis, Ph.D." andrew...@MailAndNews.com
>
>>===== Original Message From doc_t...@my-deja.comDELETE2MAIL-NO-SPAM =====
>>>>
>>>>>Joe, do I need to explain this to you also?
>>>>>
>>>>>I invited Scott Bradbury to meet me in a bar...
>>>>>My intent was to beat the fuck out of him if/when he opened his filthy
>>>>>mouth.
>>
>>>>Thanks for the admission of a major crime Andrew. Care to deny it is
>criminal
>>>>to lure someone to a geographical location with the pre-meditated
>intention
>of
>>>>committing assault and mayhem?
>>
>>>I would only have assaulted you if you had shot your mouth off.
>>
>>Thanks for admitting again that you wanted to lure me to a place and
>potentially
>>assault me if you did not like what I said.
>
>Yes. You see that word "potential"? That's the condition that makes what I
>might have done not prosecutable. But you're welcome to try it. Please do.
>>
>>>Is that a "major crime"? In most states, assault is a misdemeanor unless
>you
>do
>>>serious damage to that person.
>>
>>You did it over the Internet and you demonstrated pre-mediation with intent.
>
>So you intend to file federal charges then? Whoopie!
>
Why not? Federal agents were unjustly unleashed upon him...
>Ask
>>Shyster Edeiken what that may mean for you!
>
>He's too busy prepping his appeal.
>>
LOL@! If Schiff will send the moolah!
>>>>Most states call that a hate crime. Why do I mention hate crime? Because
>you
>>>>said this in relation to the above:
>>
>>>>Scott, being a closeted homosexual like yourself...
>>
>>>>Definitely a hate crime. You accuse me of being a homosexual and then you
>>>>plot to lure me to a setting where you would attempt to physically assault
>
>me.
>>
>>>So you admit now to behing homosexual? Interesting...
>>
>NO, I did NOT admit being a homosexual. I showed what YOU accused this
>assumed
>>on YOUR behalf. Notice I said YOU accused me of being a homo which is not me
>>admitting to being one.
>
>That was after your accusations of my being gay about a million times or so.
>All on the record.
>>Does Matthew Shephard come to mind? Law enforcement will see this latest
>>>>confession of yours as well as Edeiken's letter to Sara Salzman regarding
>>>>Laurence B. Shiff.
>>
>>Please do show them. And when they contact me, they can see the reams of
>>>libels that you've posted about me over the years, as well as your volumes
>>>of anti-Semitica.
>How have I libeled you? You made chickenhawk advances as the archives prove
Is that right, Mr. Bradbury? He was making advances to others?
Buck Turgidson
Debunks wrote:
BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!! The Feds came and broke down Snottie Bradshit's door?
Shhhhhhhyeahhhhhhh right!
> >Ask
> >>Shyster Edeiken what that may mean for you!
> >
> >He's too busy prepping his appeal.
> >>
>
> LOL@! If Schiff will send the moolah!
You've been told that the "Schiff letter from Yale" is a forgery. Why do you
persist in referring to it as if it were genuine? Why are you sustaining a
forgery? Don't you know that's dishonest?
> >>>>Most states call that a hate crime. Why do I mention hate crime? Because
> >you
> >>>>said this in relation to the above:
> >>
> >>>>Scott, being a closeted homosexual like yourself...
>
> >>
> >>>>Definitely a hate crime. You accuse me of being a homosexual and then you
> >>>>plot to lure me to a setting where you would attempt to physically assault
> >
> >me.
>
> >>
> >>>So you admit now to behing homosexual? Interesting...
> >>
>
> >NO, I did NOT admit being a homosexual. I showed what YOU accused this
> >assumed
> >>on YOUR behalf. Notice I said YOU accused me of being a homo which is not me
> >>admitting to being one.
>
> >
> >That was after your accusations of my being gay about a million times or so.
> >All on the record.
>
> >>Does Matthew Shephard come to mind? Law enforcement will see this latest
> >>>>confession of yours as well as Edeiken's letter to Sara Salzman regarding
> >>>>Laurence B. Shiff.
> >>
>
> >>Please do show them. And when they contact me, they can see the reams of
> >>>libels that you've posted about me over the years, as well as your volumes
> >>>of anti-Semitica.
>
> >How have I libeled you? You made chickenhawk advances as the archives prove
>
> Is that right, Mr. Bradbury? He was making advances to others?
Good Lord, Joe, just when I think you have fallen to your "lowest nadir," you
keep finding new depths to plumb. You're falling into the same patterns of
behavior as the Ellises and Blakelys that used to post here: threats against
one's employer, homosexual/pedophilic innuendo, forgeries, lies. Be careful, Joe,
this all doesn't bite you on the ass.
Buck Turgidson
Debunks wrote:
[...]
> >>>From the bottom of my heart, Andrew, I thank you!
> >
> >>You're welcome, Scott.
> >
> >At least you're gracious!
> >
> > The Victor
> >>a.m.
> >
>
> Mathis may lose that job yet--and it will all have been his own doing!
Joe Bellinger: Liar, Jew-hater, Jew-baiter, fanatic, schismatic, heretic--and now
thug.
Brian Blank
<andrew...@MailAndNews.com> wrote:
>>===== Original Message From Brian Blank <Iamnot...@home.spamblocker.com>
>=====
>
>[snip]
>
>>Nope. First of all, I read the original "correspondence between
>>Bradbury and Andrew when it was posted here.
>
>And did I, at any point, threaten violence then or make a sexual advance,
>Mr.
>Blank?
No, not as far as I could see.
>
>>Secondly, Andrew was responding to Bradbury's slime.
>
>This is true.
>
>>Thirdly, you are flying off the handle for no apparent reason.
>
>He's pissed about some supposed slight of his father.
>
>>Fourthly, I have been the object of your tirades.
>
>You and everyone else in the group but Bellinger, apparently.
>
>>And finally (and this is almost peripheral) you are of a mature age.
>>Andrew is a relative youngster. I would have hoped that by now you
>>would have learnt to slow down and not behave in that manner.
>
>So what are you trying to say, smart guy? ;-)
Well, youngster.....
>
>>Sixthly, right now, you are not reacting, you are being rude and
>>boorish in a pro-active manner.
>
>And this is different from his normal behavior...how?
Note, that this a screw up, it came after finally.I therefore
acknowledge that for one brief moment of time, I succumbed to a severe
case of "Bellinger Typo Syndrome." I understand that it is curable,
but I may never be able to be a blood donor again.
Oh, and the answer to the question was "not a lot!"
>
>a.m.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------
>"Exuberance is beauty"
>--William Blake (1757-1827)
Regards,
Brian Blank
Debunks
>Violence!
>From: Buck Turgidson deppi...@mindspring.com
>Date: 6/27/2001 3:31 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3B3A5EC9...@mindspring.com>
>
>
>
>Debunks wrote:
>[...]
>
>> >>>From the bottom of my heart, Andrew, I thank you!
>> >
>> >>You're welcome, Scott.
>> >
>> >At least you're gracious!
>> >
>> > The Victor
>> >>a.m.
>> >
>>
>> Mathis may lose that job yet--and it will all have been his own doing!
>
>Joe Bellinger: Liar, Jew-hater, Jew-baiter, fanatic, schismatic, heretic--and
>now
>thug.
>
>
>-- Dep
>
They only smear the ones they fear.
Debunks
>Violence!
>From: Buck Turgidson deppi...@mindspring.com
>Date: 6/27/2001 3:28 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3B3A5E1E...@mindspring.com>
I have no way of knowing whether it was or wasn't. I certainly do not take
your word for anything. It could be that it was. There are still many other
flagrant acts of which he is guilty, according to what has been posted here.
Since I have never behaved in that fashion I am not the least bit worried.
Sara
deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
Which explains the forged letter Mr. Bradbury has been posting all over
the place, doesn't it?
Sara
--
"It's always nice to see a prejudice overruled by a deeper prejudice."
John Sayles, _Lone Star_
Andrew E. Mathis, Ph.D.
=====
[snip]
>>>Sixthly, right now, you are not reacting, you are being rude and
>>>boorish in a pro-active manner.
>>
>>And this is different from his normal behavior...how?
>Note, that this a screw up, it came after finally.I therefore
>acknowledge that for one brief moment of time, I succumbed to a severe
>case of "Bellinger Typo Syndrome." I understand that it is curable,
>but I may never be able to be a blood donor again.
Have you traded a comma for sex since 1978? (Note: Unless you are a blood
donor in the U.S., that joke will fly right over your head.)
>Oh, and the answer to the question was "not a lot!"
Indeed.
Joe Bruno
> In article <20010628015712...@ng-ft1.aol.com>,
> deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
>
> > >Subject: Re: Andrew Mathis Admits Wanting to Meet Me and Engaging in
> > >Violence!
> > >From: Buck Turgidson deppi...@mindspring.com
> > >Date: 6/27/2001 3:31 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> > >Message-id: <3B3A5EC9...@mindspring.com>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Debunks wrote:
> > >[...]
> > >
> > >> >>>From the bottom of my heart, Andrew, I thank you!
>
> > >> >>You're welcome, Scott.
> > >> >
> > >> >At least you're gracious!
> > >> >
> > >> > The Victor
> > >> >>a.m.
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> Mathis may lose that job yet--and it will all have been his own doing!
> > >
> > >Joe Bellinger: Liar, Jew-hater, Jew-baiter, fanatic, schismatic,
> > >heretic--and
> > >now
> > >thug.
> > >
> > >
> > >-- Dep
> > >
> >
> > They only smear the ones they fear
>
> Which explains the forged letter Mr. Bradbury has been posting all over
> the place, doesn't it?
>
> Sara
>>Go back and hide behind your killfile, Sara. You might have to
suffer the consequences of your actions out here in the jungle. That
would be a new experience for you, wouldn't it?
Joe Bruno
Brian Blank
<andrew...@MailAndNews.com> wrote:
>>===== Original Message From Brian Blank <Iamnot...@home.spamblocker.com>
>=====
>
>[snip]
>
>>>>Sixthly, right now, you are not reacting, you are being rude and
>>>>boorish in a pro-active manner.
>>>
>>>And this is different from his normal behavior...how?
>
>>Note, that this a screw up, it came after finally.I therefore
>>acknowledge that for one brief moment of time, I succumbed to a severe
>>case of "Bellinger Typo Syndrome." I understand that it is curable,
>>but I may never be able to be a blood donor again.
>
>Have you traded a comma for sex since 1978? (Note: Unless you are a blood
>donor in the U.S., that joke will fly right over your head.)
I was a blood donor in the U.S, just as I was in the U.K. and Hong
Kong. Trouble is that now, because of new FDA rules about mad cow
disease, I am not allowed to donate blood. Moo.
Strange rule, Moo.
And I have never traded a comma for anything, Moo. I leave that to
JHJ, Moo.
>
>>Oh, and the answer to the question was "not a lot!"
>
>Indeed.
>
>a.m.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------
>"Exuberance is beauty"
>--William Blake (1757-1827)
Regards,
Brian Blank
Buck Turgidson
Debunks wrote:
Joe says his lies and then he flies.
Buck Turgidson
Brian Blank wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jun 2001 13:19:53 -0400, "Andrew E. Mathis, Ph.D."
> <andrew...@MailAndNews.com> wrote:
>
> >>===== Original Message From Brian Blank <Iamnot...@home.spamblocker.com>
> >=====
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >>>>Sixthly, right now, you are not reacting, you are being rude and
> >>>>boorish in a pro-active manner.
> >>>
> >>>And this is different from his normal behavior...how?
> >
> >>Note, that this a screw up, it came after finally.I therefore
> >>acknowledge that for one brief moment of time, I succumbed to a severe
> >>case of "Bellinger Typo Syndrome." I understand that it is curable,
> >>but I may never be able to be a blood donor again.
> >
> >Have you traded a comma for sex since 1978? (Note: Unless you are a blood
> >donor in the U.S., that joke will fly right over your head.)
>
> I was a blood donor in the U.S, just as I was in the U.K. and Hong
> Kong. Trouble is that now, because of new FDA rules about mad cow
> disease, I am not allowed to donate blood. Moo.
> Strange rule, Moo.
Reminds me of the gag from last night's Conan O'Brien show: Seems that Prince
Charles for the first time kissed Camilla Parker-Bowles in public. The next day
he came down with hoof and mouth disease.
Brian Blank
ROTFLMAO
>
>"Always tell the truth. It's the § "Truth is just...truth. You can't
> easiest thing to remember." § have opinions about truth."
> --David Mamet --Peter Schickele
>
>Joe Bellinger alters posts:
>http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&th=ce84994e260d85fb,16&start=10&ic=1
>
>Compare Msgs #12 and #13 for proof
>
Regards,
Brian Blank
Debunks
>Violence!
>From: Buck Turgidson deppi...@mindspring.com
>Message-id: <3B3C05B7...@mindspring.com>
>
>
>
>Debunks wrote:
>
>> >Subject: Re: Andrew Mathis Admits Wanting to Meet Me and Engaging in
>> >Violence!
>> >From: Buck Turgidson deppi...@mindspring.com
>> >Date: 6/27/2001 3:31 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>> >Message-id: <3B3A5EC9...@mindspring.com>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Debunks wrote:
>> >[...]
>> >
>> >> >>>From the bottom of my heart, Andrew, I thank you!
>> >> >
>> >> >>You're welcome, Scott.
>> >> >
>> >> >At least you're gracious!
>> >> >
>> >> > The Victor
>> >> >>a.m.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Mathis may lose that job yet--and it will all have been his own doing!
>> >
>> >Joe Bellinger: Liar, Jew-hater, Jew-baiter, fanatic, schismatic,
>heretic--and
>> >now
>> >thug.
>> >
>> >
>> >-- Dep
>> >
>>
>> They only smear the ones they fear.
>
>Joe says his lies and then he flies.
>
>
>-- Dep
>
Feeble
Debunks
>Violence!
>Date: 6/28/2001 4:52 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <catamont-76DADF...@news.concentric.net>
>
>In article <20010628015712...@ng-ft1.aol.com>,
>deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
>
>> >Subject: Re: Andrew Mathis Admits Wanting to Meet Me and Engaging in
>> >Violence!
>> >From: Buck Turgidson deppi...@mindspring.com
>> >Date: 6/27/2001 3:31 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>> >Message-id: <3B3A5EC9...@mindspring.com>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Debunks wrote:
>> >[...]
>> >
>> >> >>>From the bottom of my heart, Andrew, I thank you!
>> >> >
>> >> >>You're welcome, Scott.
>> >> >
>> >> >At least you're gracious!
>> >> >
>> >> > The Victor
>> >> >>a.m.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Mathis may lose that job yet--and it will all have been his own doing!
>> >
>> >Joe Bellinger: Liar, Jew-hater, Jew-baiter, fanatic, schismatic,
>> >heretic--and
>> >now
>> >thug.
>> >
>> >
>> >-- Dep
>> >
>>
>> They only smear the ones they fear
>
>Which explains the forged letter Mr. Bradbury has been posting all over
>the place, doesn't it?
>
>Sara
>
Another smear.
Buck Turgidson
Oh, come on. Is that really the best you can do? Don't you have some other
canned response to upchuck like a brave little fleeing pigeon?
-- --Dep
"Always tell the truth. It's the § "Truth is just...truth. You can't
easiest thing to remember." § have opinions about truth."
--David Mamet --Peter Schickele
Joe Bellinger...lead. One a primate, the other a metal.
Yet both equally dense. Coincidence?
Sara
deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
Really? You mean you have some inside track on this? Even Mr. Bradbury
has decided that the e-mail is a forgery, yes?
Yet YOU know better, eh, Mr. Bellinger?
Do tell: HOW do you know better?
Debunks
>Violence!
>From: Sara cata...@concentric.net
>Message-id: <catamont-3EE4E1...@news.concentric.net>
Time will reveal all.
Sara
deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
It certainly will. It will reveal that, regardless of facts, you have an
agenda of hate untouched by reality.
Derek Bell
: Really? You mean you have some inside track on this? Even Mr. Bradbury
: Yet YOU know better, eh, Mr. Bellinger?
: Do tell: HOW do you know better?
Knowing better than Bradbury is easy - on the other hand,
Bellinger seems to be claiming he knows *less*, which is no mean feat!!
Derek
--
Derek Bell db...@maths.tcd.ie |"Usenet is a strange place."
WWW: http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~dbell/index.html| - Dennis M Ritchie,
PGP: http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~dbell/key.asc | 29 July 1999.
|
Dobr...@webtv.net
Re: Andrew Mathis Admits Wanting to Meet Me and Engaging in Violence!
cata...@concentric.net (Sara)
you read tea leaves? Do you know an old gypsy woman who uses tarot
cards? You simply must let us in on this remarkable secret.
Joe Bruno
The Eleventh Commandment: Thou shalt obey Allan Matthews
Andy is a chronic liar
Hilary Ostrov
<7984-3B3...@storefull-177.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
Dobr...@webtv.net wrote:
[text reformatted and attributions restored -hro]
>On 30 Jun 2001 20:51:08 GMT, in <catamont-9A9AD9...@news.concentric.net>,
>Sara <cata...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
>>In article <20010630133814...@ng-fv1.aol.com>,
>>deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
>>
>>> >From: Sara cata...@concentric.net
>>> >Date: 6/30/2001 5:34 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>>> >Message-id: <catamont-3EE4E1...@news.concentric.net>
>>> >
>>> >In article <20010630022135...@ng-fu1.aol.com>,
>>> >deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
[snip previous]
>>> >> >> They only smear the ones they fear
>>> >> >
>>> >> >Which explains the forged letter Mr. Bradbury has been posting all
>>> >> >over the place, doesn't it?
>>> >> Another smear.
>>> >
>>> >Really? You mean you have some inside track on this? Even Mr. Bradbury
>>> >has decided that the e-mail is a forgery, yes?
>>> >
>>> >Yet YOU know better, eh, Mr. Bellinger?
>>> >
>>> >Do tell: HOW do you know better?
>>> Time will reveal all.
>>
>>It certainly will. It will reveal that, regardless of facts, you have an
>>agenda of hate untouched by reality.
>How do you predict the future, Sara? Do you have a crystal ball? Perhaps
>you read tea leaves? Do you know an old gypsy woman who uses tarot
>cards? You simply must let us in on this remarkable secret.
Mr. Bruno, allow me to enlighten you. Some matters are remarkably
easy to predict with a high degree of accuracy - and require
absolutely no special powers whatsoever. All that is required is the
simple ability to read with some degree of comprehension - and a
capacity to infer from, and articulate, past posting patterns. For
example, Bellinger's "agenda of hate untouched by reality" is readily
discernible from his posts here.
Some other examples:
1. A prediction that when Joe Bruno uses his webtv newsgroup
interface, he will continue to make execrably formatted - and
virtually unintelligible - posts.
2. A prediction that when shown to be a foolish and/or hate-filled
twit by his own childish taunts and other attention-seeking posting
behaviours, Joe Bruno will lash out with a torrent of name-calling
and/or other verbal abuse. Thereby justifiably earning himself a place
of honour in the kill-files of many.
3. A prediction that when it is clearly demonstrated that Joe Bruno
has projected onto another one of his own very obvious failings [*],
he will move into <not-see> mode - perhaps pretending to himself that
he has not shown himself to be a loud-mouthed ignorant boor - as
though the evidence proving him indisputably so had never been
presented.
[*] Subject: Joe Bruno's Irony Deficiency
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 11:07:39 -0700
Message-ID: <c0trct0b1u5ui5bq6...@4ax.com>
References: <24444-3A...@storefull-173.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
<quote>
The brilliant newsgroup wit, Joe Bruno, had (as is his wont) taken
extreme umbrage at an individual who had dared to comment on one of
his more egregious misreadings. Never one to silently bear a grudge,
during the course of one of his shoot from the lip follow-up rants,
Mr. Bruno postulated that this individual "must not get enough
attention outside of alt.revisionism." [Wed, 4 Apr 2001 15:08:27
-0400, Message-ID: <3ADB...@MailAndNews.com>]
Sample period: Mar. 27 - Apr. 6
Posts by Dobr...@webtv.net : 186
Posts by <Joe_...@MailAndNews.com> 65
Posts by the individual Joe Bruno was attacking: 20
</quote>
I do hope this helps, Mr. Bruno. Based on your past performances
here, I have a strong hunch that it might not. But today is Canada
Day; so, in celebration, I'm having a burst of optimism.
hro
=====================
Hilary Ostrov
E-mail: hos...@telus.net
WWW: http://www3.telus.net/myssiwyg/
The Nizkor Project http://www.nizkor.org/
Sara
hos...@telus.net wrote:
Hilary:
Of course, there is an equally simple answer:
The so-called e-mail from Yale is a forgery. I've already shown the
reasons why, including the fact that "Yale" gave a home address that is
NOT Yale's, but is used in the attacks upon him; the fact that his
wife's employer was spelled wrong, the fact that MY e-mail address was
spelled wrong, the fact that Laurence Schiff's name was spelled wrong,
and the very simple, overwhelming fact that neither Yale nor I have EVER
been in contact with Mr. Schiff, neither of us has EVER asked Mr. Schiff
for money, and neither of us has EVER been stupid enough to send an
e-mail to Scott Bradbury that was meant for someone else.
Hilary Ostrov
<catamont-47C19E...@news.concentric.net>, Sara
<cata...@concentric.net> wrote:
>In article <umnujtcsc84g2d4pf...@4ax.com>,
>hos...@telus.net wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 1 Jul 2001 06:22:02 -0700 (PDT), in
>> <7984-3B3...@storefull-177.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
>> Dobr...@webtv.net wrote:
[...]
>Hilary:
>
>Of course, there is an equally simple answer:
>
>The so-called e-mail from Yale is a forgery. I've already shown the
>reasons why, including the fact that "Yale" gave a home address that is
>NOT Yale's, but is used in the attacks upon him; the fact that his
>wife's employer was spelled wrong, the fact that MY e-mail address was
>spelled wrong, the fact that Laurence Schiff's name was spelled wrong,
>and the very simple, overwhelming fact that neither Yale nor I have EVER
>been in contact with Mr. Schiff, neither of us has EVER asked Mr. Schiff
>for money, and neither of us has EVER been stupid enough to send an
>e-mail to Scott Bradbury that was meant for someone else.
All of which is quite true, Sara - and glaringly obvious to anyone
with a modicum of reading comprehension skills. Perhaps a deficiency
in this regard is endemic to a particular subset of a.r. posters,
including - inter alia - those whose first name (or nym) is Joe and
last name (or nym) begins with B. ;>)
Nicegoy
>Violence!
>From: Sara cata...@concentric.net
>Message-id: <catamont-47C19E...@news.concentric.net>
>
>Hilary:
>
>Of course, there is an equally simple answer:
>
>The so-called e-mail from Yale is a forgery. I've already shown the
>reasons why, including the fact that "Yale" gave a home address that is
>NOT Yale's, but is used in the attacks upon him; the fact that his
>wife's employer was spelled wrong, the fact that MY e-mail address was
>spelled wrong, the fact that Laurence Schiff's name was spelled wrong,
>and the very simple, overwhelming fact that neither Yale nor I have EVER
>been in contact with Mr. Schiff, neither of us has EVER asked Mr. Schiff
>for money, and neither of us has EVER been stupid enough to send an
>e-mail to Scott Bradbury that was meant for someone else.
>
>Sara
>
All interesting stuff Sarah, but as you are now known to be an unreliable
witness and Yale is the apellant, the only one who can corroborate what you
have to say is Mr. Siff.
Do you think he will show his face in a country where he has comitted the
indictable offence of tampering with communications?
Nicegoy
>Violence!
>Date: 7/2/01 7:01 AM E. Australia Standard Time
>Message-id: <b63vjtkqj7261bshe...@4ax.com>
'Weal and woe, toil and trouble.
Fire glow and cauldron bubble'
The babble of you two harpies is like a witches sabbath.
Nicegoy
>I do hope this helps, Mr. Bruno. Based on your past performances
>here, I have a strong hunch that it might not. But today is Canada
>Day; so, in celebration, I'm having a burst of optimism.
>
>hro
Do us a favour Hillary and have a burst appendix instead.
KCOM
Actully Wossy:
I would think that the people in this group would rather to see you have
an appendix bursted.
Steve
------------------------------------------------------------
Get your FREE web-based e-mail and newsgroup access at:
http://MailAndNews.com
Create a new mailbox, or access your existing IMAP4 orPOP3 mailbox from anywhere with just a web browser.
------------------------------------------------------------
Sara
nic...@aol.com (Nicegoy) wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Andrew Mathis Admits Wanting to Meet Me and Engaging in
> >Violence!
> >From: Sara cata...@concentric.net
> >Date: 7/2/01 5:43 AM E. Australia Standard Time
> >Message-id: <catamont-47C19E...@news.concentric.net>
> >
>
> >Hilary:
> >
> >Of course, there is an equally simple answer:
> >
> >The so-called e-mail from Yale is a forgery. I've already shown the
> >reasons why, including the fact that "Yale" gave a home address that is
> >NOT Yale's, but is used in the attacks upon him; the fact that his
> >wife's employer was spelled wrong, the fact that MY e-mail address was
> >spelled wrong, the fact that Laurence Schiff's name was spelled wrong,
> >and the very simple, overwhelming fact that neither Yale nor I have EVER
> >been in contact with Mr. Schiff, neither of us has EVER asked Mr. Schiff
> >for money, and neither of us has EVER been stupid enough to send an
> >e-mail to Scott Bradbury that was meant for someone else.
> >
> >Sara
> >
>
> All interesting stuff Sarah, but as you are now known to be an unreliable
> witness and Yale is the apellant, the only one who can corroborate what
> you
> have to say is Mr. Siff.
First of all, my name is not Sarah.
Second, I don't know of anyone named "Mr. Siff."
>
> Do you think he will show his face in a country where he has comitted the
> indictable offence of tampering with communications?
I have no idea. Since I don't know any "Mr. Siff," I don't know who you
are talking about.
As far as Mr. SCHIFF is concerned, I also have no idea, since I've never
met the man. I do know that he has been publicly slandered by Scott
Bradbury, along with another professor who Mr. Bradbury "outed" as
Nazihunter before he glommed on to Mr. Schiff.
I am, by the way, not "known to be an unreliable witness." I am known to
be an honest person who wrote an honest affidavit. Were it not so, I
would be in jail on perjury charges.
But I'm not, am I? And all of Mr. Bradbury's bluster notwithstanding, I
never will be.
The truth is always "unreliable" to you, isn't it?
Nicegoy
>Violence!
>From: Sara cata...@concentric.net
>Message-id: <catamont-4AA234...@news.concentric.net>
>Were it not so, I
>would be in jail on perjury charges.
>
No doubt YOU would Sarah..... er I mean Sara.
However, let's take a look at an imaginary hypothesis.
Let's say a rather insecure and unpredictable woman, of questionable solvency
and dubious sexuality, with two children who had special needs, tells a few
blatantly obvious and clumsy 'porkies' in an affidavit for a civil case.
If I was the DA, I would weigh up the benefits to the taxpayer when considering
how to deal with the matter and say "leave her at home, jail would be a holiday
for her".
However if she persisted, her ample ass would be on the local jail dykes face
quicker than you could blink an eye.
Derek Bell
> Debunks wrote:
> > Why not? Federal agents were unjustly unleashed upon him...
>
> BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!! The Feds came and broke down Snottie Bradshit's door?
> Shhhhhhhyeahhhhhhh right!
I think JoeJoe needs to get out more...
Also, he needs to learn a bit more about law...
> > LOL@! If Schiff will send the moolah!
>
> You've been told that the "Schiff letter from Yale" is a forgery. Why do you
> persist in referring to it as if it were genuine? Why are you sustaining a
> forgery? Don't you know that's dishonest?
Even Bradbury has conceded it's a forgery!!
Derek
Derek Bell
> >From: Sara cata...@concentric.net
> >the place, doesn't it?
What - you deny that it was a forgery or you deny that Bradbury has been
posting it?
Derek
Derek Bell
> >From: Sara cata...@concentric.net
> >has decided that the e-mail is a forgery, yes?
> >
> >Yet YOU know better, eh, Mr. Bellinger?
> >
> >Do tell: HOW do you know better?
Wow, Time magazine is going to cover alt.revisionism? ;-)
Derek
Sara
nic...@aol.com (Nicegoy) wrote:
Let's say monkeys flew out of your ass, Mr. Cummins. It's as likely as
any of the statements you made in your "imaginary hypothesis."
Debunks
>Violence!
>Date: 7/2/2001 3:40 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <340ab0a3.0107...@posting.google.com>
Has he?
Buck Turgidson
Oh, good Lord, Joe. If you went to the Clue Bakery at clue o'clock in the morning
and the clue baker was handing out free clueseed-topped clues with cluebutter and
clueberry preserves, you STILL wouldn't walk away with a clue.
Dobr...@webtv.net
Re: Andrew Mathis Admits Wanting to Meet Me and Engaging in Violence!
hos...@telus.net Hilary Ostrov wrote:
Mr. Bruno, allow me to enlighten you. Some matters are remarkably easy
to predict with a high degree of accuracy - and require absolutely no
special powers whatsoever. All that is required is the simple ability to
read with some degree of comprehension - and a capacity to infer from,
and articulate, past posting patterns. For example, Bellinger's "agenda
of hate untouched by reality" is readily discernible from his posts
here.
Some other examples:
1. A prediction that when Joe Bruno uses his webtv newsgroup interface,
he will continue to make execrably formatted - and virtually
unintelligible - posts.
2. A prediction that when shown to be a foolish and/or hate-filled twit
by his own childish taunts and other attention-seeking posting
behaviours, Joe Bruno will lash out with a torrent of name-calling
and/or other verbal abuse. Thereby justifiably earning himself a place
of honour in the kill-files of many.
3. A prediction that when it is clearly demonstrated that Joe Bruno has
projected onto another one of his own very obvious failings [*], he will
move into <not-see> mode - perhaps pretending to himself that he has not
shown himself to be a loud-mouthed ignorant boor - as though the
evidence proving him indisputably so had never been presented.
I do hope this helps, Mr. Bruno. Based on your past performances here, I
have a strong hunch that it might not. But today is Canada Day; so, in
celebration, I'm having a burst of optimism.
hro
=====================
Hilary Ostrov
You are wasting your time, as usual, because you don't pay attention and
have a short memory. Any comment or advice coming from you will
automatically be disregarded by me because I cannot take someone like
you seriously. You babble about manners but yours are abominable since
you constantly insert yourself into situations which are none of your
business. Your manners are also abominable because of your arrogant
manner and irritating habit of barking orders at people over whom you
have absolutely no authority. I will listen to polite advice of the type
given by Jason James, Dr. Ewan Jackson, KCOM, Steve Wolk(sometimes),
Richard Phillips, Eugene Holman, Gord McFee, and Brian Blank.
The type of predictions whose accuracy you accept are unacceptable to me
because they are based on the dubious assumptions that (1)human beings
are incapable of modifying their behavior and learning from the past.
(2)The future will always be like the past.
Anyone with common sense over the age of 20 knows that neither of those
are true. You may be incapable of learning from your experience, MS
Ostrov. That does not mean that all of us have that problem. You may
consider that kind of rigid determinism to be optimistic. I prefer to
hold out hope that human beings are capable of learning and progressing.
You have complained about my formatting before and I will offer you the
same solution as I gave before-don't read my posts. That will spare you
the agonizing discomfort you appear to suffer every time you read them.
Why don't you take two aspirin and call your physician in the morning?
Since I am a U.S. Citizen, Canada Day means absolutely nothing to me, so
that remark is a big fat red herring. Do I even suggest that you
celebrate the 4th of July? One of these days, you might get it through
your lead-lined skull that you are not the center of the universe and
that other people in different circumstances do not share all of your
concerns.
Dobr...@webtv.net
Re: Andrew Mathis Admits Wanting to Meet Me and Engaging in Violence!
cata...@concentric.net (Sara)
nic...@aol.com (Nicegoy) wrote:
Subject: Re: Andrew Mathis Admits Wanting to Meet Me and Engaging in
Violence!
I am, by the way, not "known to be an unreliable witness." I am known to
be an honest person who wrote an honest affidavit. Were it not so, I
would be in jail on perjury charges.
But I'm not, am I? And all of Mr. Bradbury's bluster notwithstanding, I
never will be.
The truth is always "unreliable" to you, isn't it?
Sara
--
touching, but hardly realistic. People get away with perjury all the
time, both on the witness stand and in sworn affidavits.
A classic case is Roe vs Wade, the Supreme Court case touted by the
abortion butchers as justification for their bloody cause. The woman who
won the right to an abortion in that ruling appeared on American TV in
the 1980s and admitted that she had perjured herself(lied, that is) when
she claimed to have been raped. She knew the child was fathered by her
boyfriend.
I saw the interview myself. Since the statute of Limitations had run out
for perjury, she could not be prosecuted for what she did.
If someone can get away with perjury in a case that important before the
Supreme Court, it would appear your freedom does not necessarily mean
you always tell the truth. After what I have seen of you, I don't have
much faith in your integrity. People who hide behind sympathy and the
support of friends do not inspire my confidence. People who don't
practice what they preach don't, either. I wonder which one of your
loyal supplicants will attack me for saying this: My guess is it will be
the Canadian Condor, Hilary Ostrov. You know what a condor is? It is a
scavenger very similar to a vulture.
Debunks
>From: Dobr...@webtv.net
>Date: 7/2/2001 5:42 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <18374-3B4...@storefull-171.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
>
snip to:
Group: alt.revisionism Date: Sun, Jul 1, 2001, 6:39pm (PDT+7) From:
hos...@telus.net Hilary=A0Ostrov wrote:
>For example, Bellinger's "agenda
>of hate untouched by reality" is readily discernible from his posts
>here.
Another good example why Hilary Ostrov is referred to here as Mentela.
Debunks
>Violence!
>Date: 7/2/2001 5:04 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3B410BF8...@spamstinks.com>
I take it you have not seen Mr. Bradbury's most recent statement on this issue.
Dep supports the Nazi Nuremberg Laws of 1936.
Debunks
>Date: 7/2/2001 6:58 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <26342-3B4...@storefull-175.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
LOL!!!
Hilary Ostrov
<18374-3B4...@storefull-171.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
Dobr...@webtv.net wrote:
[...]
>I do hope this helps, Mr. Bruno. Based on your past performances here, I
>have a strong hunch that it might not. [...]
And my hunch was right on the mark. It didn't.
[Brunomatica deletia]
Buck Turgidson
Debunks wrote:
Of course I don't. Then again, Joe Bellinger has never condemned the murders of
women and children by the Einsatzgruppen, preferring to call those gunned-down
toddlers "partisans."
-- Dep
"Always tell the truth. It's the § "Truth is just...truth. You can't
easiest thing to remember." § have opinions about truth."
--David Mamet --Peter Schickele
Joe Bellinger alters posts:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&th=ce84994e260d85fb,16&start=10&ic=1
Compare Msgs #12 and #13 for proof
Dobr...@webtv.net
Re: Andrew Mathis Admits Wanting to Meet Me and Engaging in
deb...@aol.com (Debunks)
hos...@telus.net Hilary=A0Ostrov wrote:
For example, Bellinger's "agenda
of hate untouched by reality" is readily discernible from his posts
here.
Bellinger:Another good example why Hilary Ostrov is referred to here as
Mentela.
Bruno:I prefer a different name. I call her "Mother Superior" because
she likes to bark orders and assume she knows everything. She appears to
think we are all her children who must obey her every whim. I know she
isn't Catholic and I mean no offense to Catholics-it is just a joke.
Andrew E. Mathis, Ph.D.
[snip]
>Another good example why Hilary Ostrov is referred to here as Mentela.
Only by you. Not saying much.
a.m.
------------------------------------------------------------
"Exuberance is beauty"
--William Blake (1757-1827)
Joe Bruno
>>You want a medal? Nothing you say can "help" me, Hilary, because
your credibility in my eyes is a big fat ZERO. You consort with a
chronic liar like Andy, which makes you a liar, also. I will take
seriously the advice of people whose opinion I respect. You don't
qualify. Frankly, I not only have serious doubts about your integrity;
I also don't think you are playing with a full deck. That is American
slang for you are just plain nuts-nobody home upstairs-all your screws
are loose-you've lost all your marbles, etc,etc,etc. If your miniscule
intellect cannot grasp my meaning, just say so and I will simplify it
for you. Why don't you go back and play in the sandbox like a good
little girl?
Joe Bruno
Allan Matthews
anonymous coward that calls itself "Joe Bruno" (joeb...@indystart.com)
whined at Ms. Ostrov:
> You want a medal? Nothing you say can "help" me, Hilary,
Yes, "Joe," we all know you are beyond help. After all, you're the sort
who gleefully chides a father who lost a daughter to AIDS, threatens to
kill you detractors, and tries to blame everyone but yourself for your
obvious and numerous shortcomings.
> because your credibility in my eyes is a big fat ZERO.
Somehow I think Ms. Ostrov will take that as a complement. If she's
pissing you off she must be doing something right.
> You consort with a
> chronic liar like Andy, which makes you a liar, also.
Let's apply this 'logic' to you, shall we, "Joe"? Recently, you've been
"consorting" with the likes of Richard Philllllllips, Brandon Orr and
Joe Bellinger. I guess that makes you a liar, self-loathing Jew, shit
eater, anti-Semite, neo-Nazi, transvestite and pedophile.
ROTFL!!
[the rest of the BrunoBot's usual insults snipped as they the usual
baseless waste of bandwidth.]
allan
--
allan_matthews[at]bigfoot[dot]com
=========================================
Scotland is off the coast of Long Island
- another BrunoBot gem
=========================================
http://www2.shore.net/~matthews/
steve wolk
"Debunks" <deb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010702221740...@ng-fb1.aol.com...
Only by you, my little Nazoid. Which automatically qualifies her for
sainthood.
sw
---
JHJ - not smart, not funny, not honest, not all there, not Bill Jennings
Debunks
>Violence!
>Date: 7/3/2001 2:32 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3B41912A...@mindspring.com>
You do. According to your own words.
Buck Turgidson
No; according to your twisted interpretation of my words, which had nothing to do
with the Nuremberg Laws, perhaps. But let's not be pedantic here, Joe. We know
you're just tired of getting your butt kicked and having your own words and
actions used against you, and you'll create whatever tempest-in-a-teapot you can
to distract from your own Jew-hatred and dishonesty.
Speaking of that, I notice you snipped this: "Then again, Joe Bellinger has never
condemned the murders of women and children by the Einsatzgruppen, preferring to
call those gunned-down toddlers 'partisans.'"
I'm guessing that was a little embarassing for you. So let's hear it, Joe. We all
know the Einsatzgruppen rounded up the elderly, the infirm, mothers, children,
babes-in-arms and toddlers, and gunned them down for the simple crime of being
Jews. Let's hear you condemn them. We're all waiting.
-- --Dep
"Always tell the truth. It's the § "Truth is just...truth. You can't
easiest thing to remember." § have opinions about truth."
--David Mamet --Peter Schickele
Joe Bellinger...lead. One a primate, the other a metal.
Debunks
>Violence!
>From: Buck Turgidson deppi...@spamstinks.com
>Message-id: <3B42E37F...@spamstinks.com>
It has everything to do with them. Your comments re abortion, by logical
extension, incontestably prove that you support not only abortion on demand,
but also the Nuremberg Laws and subsequent discriminatory legislation by the
Nazis in regard to the Jews, but also the legalized discrimination of
Afro-Americans by certain Southern States. You personally created this image
for yourself and now you are stuck with it.
>But let's not be pedantic here, Joe. We know
>you're just tired of getting your butt kicked and having your own words and
>actions used against you, and you'll create whatever tempest-in-a-teapot you
>can
>to distract from your own Jew-hatred and dishonesty.
Your smears and lies are not going to extricate you from your self-created
morass.
>Speaking of that, I notice you snipped this: "Then again, Joe Bellinger has
>never
>condemned the murders of women and children by the Einsatzgruppen, preferring
>to
>call those gunned-down toddlers 'partisans.'"
Of course I have, and on numerous occasions, too. I simply expect you to prove
the cases in question. There is NO doubt whatsover concerning the fact that
infanticide has been legalized in this country.
>I'm guessing that was a little embarassing for you.
Not at all. You are the one under the spotlight here, Buck.
>So let's hear it, Joe. We all
>know the Einsatzgruppen rounded up the elderly, the infirm, mothers,
>children,
>babes-in-arms and toddlers, and gunned them down for the simple crime of
>being
>Jews.
If and when that can be proven, I unreservedly condemn it.
>Let's hear you condemn them. We're all waiting.
>
>
>-- --Dep
Why are you waiting for something which I have repeatedly said in this
newsgroup?
Buck Turgidson
>
[...]
>
>
> >Speaking of that, I notice you snipped this: "Then again, Joe Bellinger has
> >never
> >condemned the murders of women and children by the Einsatzgruppen, preferring
> >to
> >call those gunned-down toddlers 'partisans.'"
>
> Of course I have, and on numerous occasions, too. I simply expect you to prove
> the cases in question.
Been done, Joe. Eyewitness testimony, participant testimony, photos,
archaeological digs, documents. It's been proven over and over. You just can't
stand the idea that anyone would think what your beloved Nazis did was bad.
> There is NO doubt whatsover concerning the fact that
> infanticide has been legalized in this country.
>
> >I'm guessing that was a little embarassing for you.
>
> Not at all. You are the one under the spotlight here, Buck.
>
> >So let's hear it, Joe. We all
> >know the Einsatzgruppen rounded up the elderly, the infirm, mothers,
> >children,
> >babes-in-arms and toddlers, and gunned them down for the simple crime of
> >being
> >Jews.
>
> If and when that can be proven, I unreservedly condemn it.
>
> >Let's hear you condemn them. We're all waiting.
> >
> >
> >-- --Dep
>
> Why are you waiting for something which I have repeatedly said in this
> newsgroup?
No "ifs," Joe. It's been proven. If you don't believe me, go to this page:
http://www.netbistro.com/electriczen/
We all want to hear you condemn the Einsatzgruppen without reservation. No
qualification. No "if" this. The EG were created to do one thing, and that was to
round innocents up and shoot them. This is what they did. Cop a spine for once,
Joe, and admit that history is clear on the issue and that the EG were evil.
Dobr...@webtv.net
Re: Andrew Mathis Admits Wanting to Meet Me and Engaging in Violence!
[...]
I do hope this helps, Mr. Bruno. Based on your past performances here, I
have a strong hunch that it might not. [...]
And my hunch was right on the mark. It didn't.
[Brunomatica deletia]
hro
=====================
Hilary Ostrov
E-mail: hos...@telus.net
WWW: http://www3.telus.net/myssiwyg/
The Nizkor Project http://www.nizkor.org/
Yes, your hunch was "right on the mark", Ms Condor. What an
achievement! You had a 50% chance of being right, and one of those two
alternatives came to pass. Holy insight, Batman!
Be careful not to break your arm patting yourself on the back.
I'm going to speak to someone I know in Congress to try and get you the
Congressional Medal of Honor. If that doesn't work out, I will call
Queen Elizabeth II on the phone and try and get you the Victoria Cross
instead.
Perhaps the Russians will award you the Order of Lenin, too.
Hilary Ostrov
<17335-3B4...@storefull-172.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
Dobr...@webtv.net wrote:
[attributions restored -hro]
>>The Canadian Condor wrote:
>>[...]
>>I do hope this helps, Mr. Bruno. Based on your past performances here, I
>>have a strong hunch that it might not. [...]
>>And my hunch was right on the mark. It didn't.
>>[Brunomatica deletia]
>Yes, your hunch was "right on the mark", Ms Condor. What an
>achievement!
Not at all - in fact, you did all the work for me. As I had indicated
in an earlier post in this thread: "Some matters are remarkably easy
to predict with a high degree of accuracy." Your behaviour - much like
that of the other Clueless Joe in this newsgroup - is one such matter.
[bandwidth-wasting childish drivel snipped]
Nicegoy
>Violence!
>From: Hilary Ostrov hos...@telus.net
>Date: 7/5/01 12:36 PM E. Australia Standard Time
>Message-id: <ltj7ktcnfkfflasgu...@4ax.com>
>
>On Wed, 4 Jul 2001 18:06:21 -0700 (PDT), in
><17335-3B4...@storefull-172.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
>Dobr...@webtv.net wrote:
>
>[attributions restored -hro]
>
>>>The Canadian Condor wrote:
>>>[...]
>>>I do hope this helps, Mr. Bruno. Based on your past performances here, I
>>>have a strong hunch that it might not. [...]
>>>And my hunch was right on the mark. It didn't.
>>>[Brunomatica deletia]
>
>>Yes, your hunch was "right on the mark", Ms Condor. What an
>>achievement!
>
>Not at all - in fact, you did all the work for me. As I had indicated
>in an earlier post in this thread: "Some matters are remarkably easy
>to predict with a high degree of accuracy." Your behaviour - much like
>that of the other Clueless Joe in this newsgroup - is one such matter.
>
>[bandwidth-wasting childish drivel snipped]
>
>hro
Now now girls, your penis envy is becoming a little hysterical.
Take a hiatus, show some leg and armpit hair, burn a few bras.
Cut yours up and do them a bit at a time Hills, don't want to overtax the fire
department do we?
And don't forget to warn the neighbors.
steve wolk
Not gonna happen. Wouldn't be prudent. He's in too deep and he knows
it. He knows he'd be even a bigger laughingstock than he is now.
sw
--
Joe Bellinger is a little Nazoid liar.
KCOM
Practice what you preach wossy.
Steve
Dobr...@webtv.net
Re: Andrew Mathis Admits Wanting to Meet Me and Engaging in Violence!
nic...@aol.com (Nicegoy)
Violence!
, Dobr...@webtv.net wrote:
The Canadian Condor wrote:
[...]
I do hope this helps, Mr. Bruno. Based on your past performances here, I
have a strong hunch that it might not. [...] And my hunch was right on
the mark. It didn't. [Brunomatica deletia]
Yes, your hunch was "right on the mark", Ms Condor. What an
achievement!
Not at all - in fact, you did all the work for me. As I had indicated in
an earlier post in this thread: "Some matters are remarkably easy to
predict with a high degree of accuracy." Your behaviour - much like that
of the other Clueless Joe in this newsgroup - is one such matter.
[bandwidth-wasting childish drivel snipped]
hro
You're living in a dream world, Hillbilly: All your "snipping" in the
world here cannot erase what I posted to reveal your stupid , self
centered, overblown arrogance. You still made an ass of yourself and it
will be there for everybody to see for weeks. Correction:You did not
make an ass of yourself-Mother Nature beat you to it. Did you actually
BRAG about guessing right between TWO alternatives? What a bag of
useless hot are you are.
Dobr...@webtv.net
Re: Andrew Mathis Admits Wanting to Meet Me and Engaging in Violence!
Violence!
, Dobr...@webtv.net wrote:
The Canadian Condor wrote:
[...]
I do hope this helps, Mr. Bruno. Based on your past performances here, I
have a strong hunch that it might not. [...] And my hunch was right on
the mark. It didn't. [Brunomatica deletia]
Yes, your hunch was "right on the mark", Ms Condor. What an
achievement!
Not at all - in fact, you did all the work for me. As I had indicated in
an earlier post in this thread: "Some matters are remarkably easy to
predict with a high degree of accuracy." Your behaviour - much like that
of the other Clueless Joe in this newsgroup - is one such matter.
[bandwidth-wasting childish drivel snipped]
hro
Buck Turgidson
Then his only resort is to continue to be a liar, a hypocrite, a buffoon, a Jew-hater,
and a Nazi apologist. Not that I think he'll have a problem with that.
-- --Dep