Alex, she's a SLUT, whatcha gonna do tough guy?

2 views
Skip to first unread message

A Modern Caveman

unread,
Sep 6, 2002, 8:44:57 PM9/6/02
to
Men don't defend SLUTS, and sluts don't get real men to defend them....

You laid down the gauntlet.....you want the world to see you as a coward?

Is the SLUT reading this? Go ahead, show her......let her know the world can
call her one and her man doesn't give a SHIT.

But we already knew that about her, didn't we? The secret slut is no longer a
secret when her man is out posting lay reports about what a SLUT she is....

This is the HOURLY reminder of how some men are pathetic wussies who are all
mouth with absolutely nothing to back it up.


Everything you need to know about women
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html


A Modern Caveman

unread,
Sep 6, 2002, 11:51:55 PM9/6/02
to
>>But we already knew that about her, didn't we? The secret slut is no longer
>a
>>secret when her man is out posting lay reports about what a SLUT she is....
>>
>>This is the HOURLY reminder of how some men are pathetic wussies who are all
>>mouth with absolutely nothing to back it up.
>
>Give it a rest. We already know you're bitterly
>jealous, you don't have to tell us over and over
>again.

Oh, but he said I had a punch in the nose coming, the big tough he-man who
treats his women like SLUTS.

I stand him down, and he backs off, like any good COWARD would.

Alex

unread,
Sep 7, 2002, 3:10:08 AM9/7/02
to
in article 20020906204457...@mb-mg.aol.com, A Modern Caveman at
amodern...@aol.com wrote on 9/6/02 8:44 PM:

> Men don't defend SLUTS, and sluts don't get real men to defend them....
>
> You laid down the gauntlet.....you want the world to see you as a coward?
>
> Is the SLUT reading this? Go ahead, show her......let her know the world can
> call her one and her man doesn't give a SHIT.
>
> But we already knew that about her, didn't we? The secret slut is no longer a
> secret when her man is out posting lay reports about what a SLUT she is....
>
> This is the HOURLY reminder of how some men are pathetic wussies who are all
> mouth with absolutely nothing to back it up.
>

Someone just bought himself more than he will be able to handle.

Alex

unread,
Sep 7, 2002, 3:17:54 AM9/7/02
to
in article 20020906235155...@mb-mg.aol.com, A Modern Caveman at
amodern...@aol.com wrote on 9/6/02 11:51 PM:

>>> But we already knew that about her, didn't we? The secret slut is no longer
>> a
>>> secret when her man is out posting lay reports about what a SLUT she is....
>>>
>>> This is the HOURLY reminder of how some men are pathetic wussies who are all
>>> mouth with absolutely nothing to back it up.
>>
>> Give it a rest. We already know you're bitterly
>> jealous, you don't have to tell us over and over
>> again.
>
> Oh, but he said I had a punch in the nose coming, the big tough he-man who
> treats his women like SLUTS.

Incorrect. I said that statements like that can get you a punch in the nose.

At no time did I say *I* would be the one delivering it.

Sue me over it. I'd love to take everything you've got.

>
> I stand him down, and he backs off, like any good COWARD would.
>

We'll see who backs down.

A Modern Caveman

unread,
Sep 7, 2002, 8:07:58 AM9/7/02
to
>> This is the HOURLY reminder of how some men are pathetic wussies who are
>all
>> mouth with absolutely nothing to back it up.
>>
>
>Someone just bought himself more than he will be able to handle.

Losing it, little man?

psst: the cops aren't afraid of you.

Take a look, world, at the "alpha" male....

A Modern Caveman

unread,
Sep 7, 2002, 8:14:58 AM9/7/02
to
>> Oh, but he said I had a punch in the nose coming, the big tough he-man who
>> treats his women like SLUTS.
>
>Incorrect. I said that statements like that can get you a punch in the nose.
>
>At no time did I say *I* would be the one delivering it.
>
>Sue me over it. I'd love to take everything you've got.

Actually, there are othere posts which are more problematic for you than that,
but those threatening remarks just don't do well.

You see, no direct threats are required for it to be considered a threat. You
treat women like SLUTS, some men are going to CALL them that.

The point to her is that YOU DO NOT CARE IF THE WHOLE WORLD CALLS HER A SLUT.
You care about YOUR COCK and YOUR COCK ALONE. You FUCK OTHER WOMEN.

You don't respect women enough to see them as anything other than sex toys. If
someone happens to verbalize that, you have a problem? Too damn bad.

I show you up for the blowhard you are and you start talking about violence
like some stupid AFC would. It's really quite funny.

You box yourself into a corner with your views on women and your own reports of
how you treat them, and get mad when someone points out the obvious.

You're a laugh and a half.

James King

unread,
Sep 7, 2002, 9:12:36 AM9/7/02
to
In article <20020907081458...@mb-de.aol.com>,

amodern...@aol.com (A Modern Caveman) wrote:

> >> Oh, but he said I had a punch in the nose coming, the big tough he-man who
> >> treats his women like SLUTS.
> >
> >Incorrect. I said that statements like that can get you a punch in the nose.
> >
> >At no time did I say *I* would be the one delivering it.
> >
> >Sue me over it. I'd love to take everything you've got.
>
> Actually, there are othere posts which are more problematic for you than that,
> but those threatening remarks just don't do well.
>
> You see, no direct threats are required for it to be considered a threat. You
> treat women like SLUTS, some men are going to CALL them that.
>
> The point to her is that YOU DO NOT CARE IF THE WHOLE WORLD CALLS HER A SLUT.
> You care about YOUR COCK and YOUR COCK ALONE. You FUCK OTHER WOMEN.
>
> You don't respect women enough to see them as anything other than sex toys.

According to your posts, neither do you. You've posted before that women
exist solely to give you sexual pleasure.

> If
> someone happens to verbalize that, you have a problem? Too damn bad.

Yet if someone verbalizes what you post, you threaten them with a lawsuit.

>
> I show you up for the blowhard you are and you start talking about violence
> like some stupid AFC would. It's really quite funny.
>
> You box yourself into a corner with your views on women and your own reports
> of how you treat them, and get mad when someone points out the obvious.

This sounds suspiciously like yourself, Gordon.

James King

--
The Shadow Radio Theater -- http://www.shadowradio.org

A Modern Caveman

unread,
Sep 7, 2002, 9:26:42 AM9/7/02
to
>> You don't respect women enough to see them as anything other than sex toys.
>
>
>According to your posts, neither do you. You've posted before that women
>exist solely to give you sexual pleasure.

I'm not the one in an "MLTR," he is.

>> If
>> someone happens to verbalize that, you have a problem? Too damn bad.
>
>Yet if someone verbalizes what you post, you threaten them with a lawsuit.

Depends on the light they portray me in.


>> I show you up for the blowhard you are and you start talking about violence
>> like some stupid AFC would. It's really quite funny.
>>
>> You box yourself into a corner with your views on women and your own
>reports
>> of how you treat them, and get mad when someone points out the obvious.
>
>This sounds suspiciously like yourself, Gordon.

Remember the "mistake" you made regarding one of my books?

You're starting to sound like the OTHER JimmyKing! during his retirement.

Alex

unread,
Sep 7, 2002, 12:01:13 PM9/7/02
to
in article 20020907081458...@mb-de.aol.com, A Modern Caveman at
amodern...@aol.com wrote on 9/7/02 8:14 AM:

>>> Oh, but he said I had a punch in the nose coming, the big tough he-man who
>>> treats his women like SLUTS.
>>
>> Incorrect. I said that statements like that can get you a punch in the nose.
>>
>> At no time did I say *I* would be the one delivering it.
>>
>> Sue me over it. I'd love to take everything you've got.
>
> Actually, there are othere posts which are more problematic for you than that,
> but those threatening remarks just don't do well.

We'll see what a court thinks.

James King

unread,
Sep 7, 2002, 2:57:09 PM9/7/02
to
In article <20020907092642...@mb-de.aol.com>,

amodern...@aol.com (A Modern Caveman) wrote:

> >> You don't respect women enough to see them as anything other than sex toys.
> >
> >According to your posts, neither do you. You've posted before that women
> >exist solely to give you sexual pleasure.
>
> I'm not the one in an "MLTR," he is.

Are you trying to argue that your belief that women exist solely to give
you sexual pleasure does not mean that you see them as anything other than
sex toys, simply because you're not in a MLTR?

I don't think a jury of peers could see that comment in any other way.

It's very clear from your posting history that you have no respect for women.

> >> If
> >> someone happens to verbalize that, you have a problem? Too damn bad.
> >
> >Yet if someone verbalizes what you post, you threaten them with a lawsuit.
>
> Depends on the light they portray me in.

It appears to me that you seem to think that unless you are being
worshipped, the light is the worst possible.

Realistically speaking, your words place you in an extremely bad light.
The very fact that you continue to find excuses and justifications for
your aberrant behavior can be considered one proof that you yourself
realize the hot water in which your words have placed you.

> >> I show you up for the blowhard you are and you start talking about violence
> >> like some stupid AFC would. It's really quite funny.
> >>
> >> You box yourself into a corner with your views on women and your own

> >> report of how you treat them, and get mad when someone points out the


> >> obvious.
> >
> >This sounds suspiciously like yourself, Gordon.
>
> Remember the "mistake" you made regarding one of my books?

What mistake? I reported the truth at all times: The book was not showing
up in the Library of Congress' database -- the only one accessible to the
general public. Therefore, the logical conclusion was that the book was
not registered.

Besides, the statute of limitations is far gone on that, and I believe you
didn't file because you knew you would lose if you filed a suit against
me.

However, I did notice that rather than address the present issue, which
was how you get mad when someone points out the obvious regarding your
views on women, you changed the subject. This is a typical tactic of
yours.

> You're starting to sound like the OTHER JimmyKing! during his retirement.

Hmmm ... another Jimmy King reference. Careful, or I might file a RICO
lawsuit against those of you who are conspiring against me.

A Modern Caveman

unread,
Sep 7, 2002, 3:40:34 PM9/7/02
to
>> Actually, there are othere posts which are more problematic for you than
>that,
>> but those threatening remarks just don't do well.
>
>We'll see what a court thinks.

That we will.......

A Modern Caveman

unread,
Sep 7, 2002, 4:43:38 PM9/7/02
to
>It's very clear from your posting history that you have no respect for women.
>
>> >> If
>> >> someone happens to verbalize that, you have a problem? Too damn bad.
>> >
>> >Yet if someone verbalizes what you post, you threaten them with a lawsuit.
>>
>> Depends on the light they portray me in.
>
>It appears to me that you seem to think that unless you are being
>worshipped, the light is the worst possible.
>
>Realistically speaking, your words place you in an extremely bad light.

But people who lie about me and my family, threaten us, or otherwise defame me
are in a GOOD light?

Surely you don't think I'm a child molester like Odious called me, do you?
Surely you don't think I ever called my mother a prostitute, do you?

Are you polarity-responding again?


>The very fact that you continue to find excuses and justifications for
>your aberrant behavior

What aberrant behavior? This is USENET you idiot.

>can be considered one proof that you yourself
>realize the hot water in which your words have placed you.

I'm in no hot water, you freak.

Think more of Winterpuke's threats against me if you want the definition of
that.


>> >> I show you up for the blowhard you are and you start talking about
>violence
>> >> like some stupid AFC would. It's really quite funny.
>> >>
>> >> You box yourself into a corner with your views on women and your own
>> >> report of how you treat them, and get mad when someone points out the
>> >> obvious.
>> >
>> >This sounds suspiciously like yourself, Gordon.
>>
>> Remember the "mistake" you made regarding one of my books?
>
>What mistake? I reported the truth at all times: The book was not showing
>up in the Library of Congress' database -- the only one accessible to the
>general public. Therefore, the logical conclusion was that the book was
>not registered.

Yet it was a false statement which you of course retracted (not that this
matter legally speaking).

You seem to have a selective newsreader, JimmyKing!!


>Besides, the statute of limitations is far gone on that,

Actually not as part of a RICO......


>and I believe you
>didn't file because you knew you would lose if you filed a suit against
>me.

More like you're in SC and others were telling greater lies about me.


>However, I did notice that rather than address the present issue, which
>was how you get mad when someone points out the obvious regarding your
>views on women, you changed the subject. This is a typical tactic of
>yours.

I'm not the one saying women would defend ASF methods. My views are therefore
not relevant to that point.


>> You're starting to sound like the OTHER JimmyKing! during his retirement.
>
>Hmmm ... another Jimmy King reference. Careful, or I might file a RICO
>lawsuit against those of you who are conspiring against me.

Yeah, conspiracy to parody!

Do it, JIMMYKING!!!!!

Nomen Nescio

unread,
Sep 7, 2002, 7:10:04 PM9/7/02
to
James King wrote:
]
] > Realistically speaking, your words place you in an extremely
] > bad light.
]
Reading-comprehension boy wrote:
]
] Surely you don't think I'm a child molester like Odious called
] me, do you?

Odious pointed out what the definition of "molest" was, and
you are the one who believed he was calling you one. If it
walks like a quack, and ducks like a quack, then it must be
a quack. Like you. You did harass, annoy, and attempt to
intimidate plenty of youngsters in the gymnastics community,
and we have a very long memory. We also have documentation.
Unwanted contact = Molestation.

Q.E.D.

] Surely you don't think I ever called my mother a prostitute,
] do you?

Um, actually you *did* call your mother a prostitute.

_____________________________________________________________________
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 04:26:51 -0400
Subject: Re: Ray's Libel Case - Update - Mark your Calendars
Message-ID: <20000518.042652.-
438883.6.Le__Sed...@juno.com>
From: The Seduction Library <le__seductio...@juno.com>

> Oh, how are you going to prove in court that my mom's not a
prostitute?
_____________________________________________________________________

Hoist on your own herpes-ridden petard, Genius...

<snicker>

] This is USENET you idiot.

Therefore, anyone can say anything, and it has no weight.
Including all your bombast, and anything anyone else has said.
You cannot have it both ways.

Moron.

] I'm in no hot water, you freak.

Do you not bathe?

--
The OFFICIAL Ray Gordon FAQ: http://www.Ray-Gordon.com
Freedom of Speech is WORTHLESS without Social Responsibility.
.


James King

unread,
Sep 7, 2002, 7:19:56 PM9/7/02
to
In article <20020907164338...@mb-de.aol.com>,

amodern...@aol.com (A Modern Caveman) wrote:

> >It's very clear from your posting history that you have no respect for women.
> >
> >> >> If
> >> >> someone happens to verbalize that, you have a problem? Too damn bad.
> >> >
> >> >Yet if someone verbalizes what you post, you threaten them with a lawsuit.
> >>
> >> Depends on the light they portray me in.
> >
> >It appears to me that you seem to think that unless you are being
> >worshipped, the light is the worst possible.
> >
> >Realistically speaking, your words place you in an extremely bad light.
>
> But people who lie about me and my family, threaten us, or otherwise defame me
> are in a GOOD light?
>
> Surely you don't think I'm a child molester like Odious called me, do you?

I believe that you stated at one time that most female office workers were
at one time former gymnasts, Hooters girls, strippers, or other sexual
performers. I believe that it is logical to conclude that you may consider
gymnasts to be sexual performers, given the context of the message.

I also believe you have stated that you found an underage girl, a gymnast
(Jamie Danscher -- forgive me if the spelling is wrong.) "HOT!" (your
emphasis, which was repeated throughout the post, if I remember correctly,
and repeated in other posts.)

You've claimed that it would have been legal for you to have sex with her
(by specifically claiming she was not underage when you made those
comments), but that's only the case if her parents gave their explicit
permission for you to marry her or have sex with her.

Did Jamie's parents give you permission to marry her or have sex with her?

In either case, whether having sex with her would have been legal or
illegal, your statement gave me the opinion that you have a tendency to
sexually objectify underage girls, specifically gymnasts.

> Surely you don't think I ever called my mother a prostitute, do you?

I believe that you posted a statement that could easily be construed as
you calling your mother a prostitute, although I do not believe that was
your intent. I do not remember a post where you clarified your statement,
however. That doesn't mean that you didn't clarify your statement. I try
to avoid conversations about your mother.

> Are you polarity-responding again?

I don't know. Are you claiming to be an expert on polarity-responding?

> >The very fact that you continue to find excuses and justifications for
> >your aberrant behavior
>
> What aberrant behavior? This is USENET you idiot.

So then we agree that all behavior is acceptable here? Or is the behavior
selective and dependent upon whether you are the one who exhibits the
behavior or if someone else exhibits the behavior? I suspect you believe
the latter, and that you believe you can act and speak with complete
impunity, while holding everyone else to a higher standard of conduct.

Fortunately, such duplicity is rarely rewarded.

> >can be considered one proof that you yourself
> >realize the hot water in which your words have placed you.
>
> I'm in no hot water, you freak.

It appears you have been for quite some time.

> Think more of Winterpuke's threats against me if you want the definition of
> that.

And how did law enforcement respond when you reported those threats? How
is your lawsuit against Wintermute progressing?

> >> >> I show you up for the blowhard you are and you start talking about
> >> >> violence like some stupid AFC would. It's really quite funny.
> >> >>
> >> >> You box yourself into a corner with your views on women and your own
> >> >> report of how you treat them, and get mad when someone points out the
> >> >> obvious.
> >> >
> >> >This sounds suspiciously like yourself, Gordon.
> >>
> >> Remember the "mistake" you made regarding one of my books?
> >
> >What mistake? I reported the truth at all times: The book was not showing
> >up in the Library of Congress' database -- the only one accessible to the
> >general public. Therefore, the logical conclusion was that the book was
> >not registered.
>
> Yet it was a false statement which you of course retracted (not that this
> matter legally speaking).

No, it was not false. The book was not showing up in the Library of
Congress' database. You claimed it was in the database (by saying "look it
up"), and of course you were lying. It was not in any database accessible
by the general public. Nor was it in the database for weeks even after the
issue regarding the status of your registration was settled.

The conclusions I made were conclusions that any reasonable person would
have made, and you are aware of that, and you are aware that a jury would
almost certainly agree. I believe that's why you never filed a lawsuit.

> You seem to have a selective newsreader, JimmyKing!!

I occasionally see responses to threads where I am unable to get the
original post in the thread. That is a problem with my ISP, and they do
not seem concerned with fixing problems with Usenet access.

> >Besides, the statute of limitations is far gone on that,
>
> Actually not as part of a RICO......

I find it fascinating that you are implicitly claiming that I'm a member
of an organized crime syndicate.

> >and I believe you didn't file because you knew you would lose if you filed
> >a suit against me.
>
> More like you're in SC and others were telling greater lies about me.

So then we agree that your threat of litigation was meant simply to harass
and extort me?

> >However, I did notice that rather than address the present issue, which
> >was how you get mad when someone points out the obvious regarding your
> >views on women, you changed the subject. This is a typical tactic of
> >yours.
>
> I'm not the one saying women would defend ASF methods. My views are therefore
> not relevant to that point.

Yet when someone points out the obvious regarding your views on women, you
change the subject. That was the issue, not our copyright registration
debate.

> >> You're starting to sound like the OTHER JimmyKing! during his retirement.
> >
> >Hmmm ... another Jimmy King reference. Careful, or I might file a RICO
> >lawsuit against those of you who are conspiring against me.
>
> Yeah, conspiracy to parody!
>
> Do it, JIMMYKING!!!!!

I'm glad that you believe that it is parody. Given the context, I could
easily claim that you are trying to defame me.

I am not a public figure and have never claimed to my knowledge to be one,
unlike yourself.

A Modern Caveman

unread,
Sep 7, 2002, 8:10:03 PM9/7/02
to
>> Surely you don't think I'm a child molester like Odious called me, do you?
>
>I believe that you stated at one time that most female office workers were
>at one time former gymnasts, Hooters girls, strippers, or other sexual
>performers. I believe that it is logical to conclude that you may consider
>gymnasts to be sexual performers, given the context of the message.

No. I was referring to hooter girls and strppers as being "sexual performers."
The gymnasts are just another mold the bosses like.

I've clarified that many times.

But that doesn't make me a child molester, now does it? People win $100
million judgments for defamation like that; it's considered to be among the
worst things you can call someone.


>I also believe you have stated that you found an underage girl, a gymnast
>(Jamie Danscher -- forgive me if the spelling is wrong.) "HOT!" (your
>emphasis, which was repeated throughout the post, if I remember correctly,
>and repeated in other posts.)

She was of age in my state, and the same age as Britney Spears. Should we lock
up 3/4 of America now?

That's not the same thing as "pedophile" (which would involve kids under 13 or
so), or "child molester" (which would involve actual molestation etc.).


>You've claimed that it would have been legal for you to have sex with her
>(by specifically claiming she was not underage when you made those
>comments), but that's only the case if her parents gave their explicit
>permission for you to marry her or have sex with her.

The age of consent in PA is 16, with no parental consent required.


>Did Jamie's parents give you permission to marry her or have sex with her?

Did I ever say I wanted to have sex with her? I said in my state a girl her
age is legal.


>In either case, whether having sex with her would have been legal or
>illegal, your statement gave me the opinion that you have a tendency to
>sexually objectify underage girls, specifically gymnasts.

Why do you think "hot" equates to sex?

Still not the same thing as "child molester" even given all your crap.


>> Surely you don't think I ever called my mother a prostitute, do you?
>
>I believe that you posted a statement that could easily be construed as
>you calling your mother a prostitute,
although I do not believe that was
>your intent. I do not remember a post where you clarified your statement,
>however. That doesn't mean that you didn't clarify your statement. I try
>to avoid conversations about your mother.

No I never posted that. I said someone impersonated her online as if she were
one, posting our contact info (another example of what the other side forgets).


>> Are you polarity-responding again?
>
>I don't know. Are you claiming to be an expert on polarity-responding?

You seem to be one....


>> >The very fact that you continue to find excuses and justifications for
>> >your aberrant behavior
>>
>> What aberrant behavior? This is USENET you idiot.
>
>So then we agree that all behavior is acceptable here? >Or is the behavior
>selective and dependent upon whether you are the one who exhibits the
>behavior or if someone else exhibits the behavior? I suspect you believe
>the latter, and that you believe you can act and speak with complete
>impunity, while holding everyone else to a higher standard of conduct.
>
>Fortunately, such duplicity is rarely rewarded.

If the behavior is LEGAL, it's "acceptable" by society's definitions. People
defaming me is not legal.


>> >can be considered one proof that you yourself
>> >realize the hot water in which your words have placed you.
>>
>> I'm in no hot water, you freak.
>
>It appears you have been for quite some time.

Case #?

Still waiting on the FTC.....

>> Think more of Winterpuke's threats against me if you want the definition of
>> that.
>
>And how did law enforcement respond when you reported those threats?

They said to file a private criminal complaint to get his name. They took it
rather seriously, actually.

>How
>is your lawsuit against Wintermute progressing?

What lawsuit? Haven't filed anything yet.


>> >What mistake? I reported the truth at all times: The book was not showing
>> >up in the Library of Congress' database -- the only one accessible to the
>> >general public. Therefore, the logical conclusion was that the book was
>> >not registered.
>>
>> Yet it was a false statement which you of course retracted (not that this
>> matter legally speaking).
>
>No, it was not false. The book was not showing up in the Library of
>Congress' database.

But you didn't stop there...should I post links?

>You claimed it was in the database (by saying "look it
>up"), and of course you were lying.

Wasn't lying at all. I had registered the book.

>It was not in any database accessible
>by the general public. Nor was it in the database for weeks even after the
>issue regarding the status of your registration was settled.

How did all the solicitors find it?


>The conclusions I made were conclusions that any reasonable person would
>have made, and you are aware of that, and you are aware that a jury would
>almost certainly agree. I believe that's why you never filed a lawsuit.

Expense is another issue, as is jurisdiction. You did look a bit of a fool
anyway. It just shows you jumped the gun pretty badly.


>> You seem to have a selective newsreader, JimmyKing!!
>
>I occasionally see responses to threads where I am unable to get the
>original post in the thread. That is a problem with my ISP, and they do
>not seem concerned with fixing problems with Usenet access.

Fix it, JIMMYKING!!


>> >Besides, the statute of limitations is far gone on that,
>>
>> Actually not as part of a RICO......
>
>I find it fascinating that you are implicitly claiming that I'm a member
>of an organized crime syndicate.

Not at all. RICO applies to all kinds of things.

If a court were to rule you had in fact defamed me, and were part of a group
that did, the statute would not have expired.

For the record, I'm not naming you as part of any conspiracy. You're just a
snit.


>> >and I believe you didn't file because you knew you would lose if you filed
>> >a suit against me.
>>
>> More like you're in SC and others were telling greater lies about me.
>
>So then we agree that your threat of litigation was meant simply to harass
>and extort me?

Not at all. "Resources permitting." With unlimited resources I'd have
probably sued. I can't predict the future and priorities change.

I believe the underlying case would have been solid, but as you say, the time
limits are gone.


>> >However, I did notice that rather than address the present issue, which
>> >was how you get mad when someone points out the obvious regarding your
>> >views on women, you changed the subject. This is a typical tactic of
>> >yours.
>>
>> I'm not the one saying women would defend ASF methods. My views are
>therefore
>> not relevant to that point.
>
>Yet when someone points out the obvious regarding your views on women, you
>change the subject. That was the issue, not our copyright registration
>debate.

The issue I raise is how women would react to ASF.


>> >> You're starting to sound like the OTHER JimmyKing! during his
>retirement.
>> >
>> >Hmmm ... another Jimmy King reference. Careful, or I might file a RICO
>> >lawsuit against those of you who are conspiring against me.
>>
>> Yeah, conspiracy to parody!
>>
>> Do it, JIMMYKING!!!!!
>
>I'm glad that you believe that it is parody. Given the context, I could
>easily claim that you are trying to defame me.

You have the same name as a well known movie character. Addressing you the way
that character was addressed is hardly meant as defamatory. I'm still
addressing YOU, just making a reference. Like if your name were Adrienne and I
said "Yo, Adrienne!"

But call your lawyer if you must...


>I am not a public figure and have never claimed to my knowledge to be one,
>unlike yourself.

Go call that lawyer if you must...

Odious

unread,
Sep 8, 2002, 1:41:36 AM9/8/02
to

A Modern Caveman wrote:
> ?
>
> Is the SLUT reading this? Go ahead, show her......let her know the world

Ray, since when is one sad pathetic little loser, the world?

You must know how insignificant and meaningless your opinions are, or you
wouldn't feel the need to try and act as if you speak for the world.

Odious

unread,
Sep 8, 2002, 1:45:22 AM9/8/02
to

Adolf Torvalds wrote:
>
> On 07 Sep 2002 00:44:57 GMT, in
> alt.seduction.fast,
> (amodern...@aol.com (A Modern Caveman))


> wrote:
>
> >Men don't defend SLUTS, and sluts don't get real men to defend them....
> >
> >You laid down the gauntlet.....you want the world to see you as a coward?
> >
> >Is the SLUT reading this? Go ahead, show her......let her know the world can
> >call her one and her man doesn't give a SHIT.
> >
> >But we already knew that about her, didn't we? The secret slut is no longer a
> >secret when her man is out posting lay reports about what a SLUT she is....
> >
> >This is the HOURLY reminder of how some men are pathetic wussies who are all
> >mouth with absolutely nothing to back it up.
>

> Give it a rest. We already know you're bitterly
> jealous, you don't have to tell us over and over
> again.


He is winding up again... I think the UPENN case is not going well.

Odious

unread,
Sep 8, 2002, 1:50:12 AM9/8/02
to

A Modern Caveman wrote:
>
>
> I stand him down, and he backs off, like any good COWARD would.

You mean like when Ross challenged you to sue him and you backed down...
like when I challenged you to sue me, and you made up some sad excuse at
the last minute?

Odious

unread,
Sep 8, 2002, 1:52:29 AM9/8/02
to

Alex wrote:
>
> in article 20020906235155...@mb-mg.aol.com, A Modern Caveman at
> amodern...@aol.com wrote on 9/6/02 11:51 PM:
>
> >>> But we already knew that about her, didn't we? The secret slut is no longer
> >> a
> >>> secret when her man is out posting lay reports about what a SLUT she is....
> >>>
> >>> This is the HOURLY reminder of how some men are pathetic wussies who are all
> >>> mouth with absolutely nothing to back it up.
> >>
> >> Give it a rest. We already know you're bitterly
> >> jealous, you don't have to tell us over and over
> >> again.
> >
> > Oh, but he said I had a punch in the nose coming, the big tough he-man who
> > treats his women like SLUTS.
>
> Incorrect. I said that statements like that can get you a punch in the nose.
>

I once told ray he was dead inside, and he claimed that was also a
threat.

He wants to believe that people want to kill him, because it makes him
feel important.

Odious

unread,
Sep 8, 2002, 2:01:27 AM9/8/02
to

A Modern Caveman wrote:
>
>
> You see, no direct threats are required for it to be considered a threat.

CYouIn2000: Bitch
CYouIn2000: If it were legal, I'd set you on fire with Gasoline and
strike
a match
CYouIn2000: But fortunately for you that's not legal

Odious

unread,
Sep 8, 2002, 2:10:41 AM9/8/02
to

Nomen Nescio wrote:
>
> James King wrote:
> ]
> ] > Realistically speaking, your words place you in an extremely
> ] > bad light.
> ]
> Reading-comprehension boy wrote:
> ]
> ] Surely you don't think I'm a child molester like Odious called
> ] me, do you?
>
> Odious pointed out what the definition of "molest" was, and
> you are the one who believed he was calling you one. If it
> walks like a quack, and ducks like a quack, then it must be
> a quack. Like you. You did harass, annoy, and attempt to
> intimidate plenty of youngsters in the gymnastics community,
> and we have a very long memory. We also have documentation.
> Unwanted contact = Molestation.
>

And in fact his contact was very sexually charged, well past the point
that would constitute sexual harassment or if said in person to an under
aged girl, lewd conduct with a minor.

I mean the perv publicly stated that he considers gymnasts girls to be
sexual performers like strippers.

> Q.E.D.
>
> ] Surely you don't think I ever called my mother a prostitute,
> ] do you?
>
> Um, actually you *did* call your mother a prostitute.
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
> Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 04:26:51 -0400
> Subject: Re: Ray's Libel Case - Update - Mark your Calendars
> Message-ID: <20000518.042652.-
> 438883.6.Le__Sed...@juno.com>
> From: The Seduction Library <le__seductio...@juno.com>
>
> > Oh, how are you going to prove in court that my mom's not a
> prostitute?
> _____________________________________________________________________
>
> Hoist on your own herpes-ridden petard, Genius...
>
> <snicker>
>
> ] This is USENET you idiot.
>
> Therefore, anyone can say anything, and it has no weight.
> Including all your bombast, and anything anyone else has said.
> You cannot have it both ways.
>
> Moron.
>

You gotta love how someone says ray deserves a smack upside the head, and
he screams like a stuck pig that it is a threat and he'll sue fr rico
conspiracy etc. Yet when he says the law is the only thing keeping hi
from giving young girls HIV, it isn't a threat because this is usenet.

> ] I'm in no hot water, you freak.
>
> Do you not bathe?
>

Apparently mommy didn't suck enough dick to pay the heating bill.

Odious

unread,
Sep 8, 2002, 2:20:41 AM9/8/02
to

A Modern Caveman wrote:
>
> >> Surely you don't think I'm a child molester like Odious called me, do you?
> >
> >I believe that you stated at one time that most female office workers were
> >at one time former gymnasts, Hooters girls, strippers, or other sexual
> >performers. I believe that it is logical to conclude that you may consider
> >gymnasts to be sexual performers, given the context of the message.
>
> No. I was referring to hooter girls and strppers as being "sexual performers."
> The gymnasts are just another mold the bosses like.
>
> I've clarified that many times.
>

Funny ray... a simple google search turns up all kinds of quotes from you
on the subject, which do in fact clarify EXACTLY what you meant when you
said...

"Many legal secretaries were once gymnasts, dominatrixes, strippers,
dancers, Hooter Girls, and other female sexual performers."

You've also said...

"<----------A surprising number of former American gymnasts also become
strippers or secretaries, hooters' girls, etc."


Then you again posted about the sexuality of these under aged girls...

"Gymnasts often convert their sexuality into great amounts of money
after gymnastics, either through office jobs (like you pointed out,
where they are hired to do little more than look good), marrying rich
men, or as strippers, Hooters Girls or in some other line of work
where a great body is the major job requirement."

Now go on ray, tell us how you never said anything that would show that
you see these under aged gymnasts in a sexual way.

The Tennessee Tick

unread,
Sep 8, 2002, 11:11:09 AM9/8/02
to
>amodern...@aol.com (A Modern Caveman) posted:

>
>Depends on the light they portray me in.
>

I really haven't had much luck getting any answers from you, Ray. Even tho my
questions have been fair and logical, and never asked in a negative way. A lot
of messages say you don't answer questions when the answers will prove a
negative about your arguments. Is that true? Is that why you won't answer my
questions about foxhunting and show us the benefits you get from using your own
system? I get the impression you're inclined to attack or ignore anyone who
asks a question that you know the answer to would force you to put your own
self in a bad light. Is that true? All this talk about courts and suing people.
Isn't that what defense attorneys do? Ask questions about the light you've put
yourself in? There's a difference between a bad light and a false light.
Here's a few more questions for you. Questions I'd think would come up in a
court case.
1. What light do you want to be portrayed in?
2. What image do you have of yourself and believe to be the truth?
3. What light do you think your own actions and messages have portrayed you in?
4. Where exactly do you think the impression new people like me are getting
about you is wrong and why?
5. Is it possible new people get a bad impression of you from reading your own
messages (not quoted ones)?
6. If so, whose fault is that?
7. If so, what steps beyond threatening people who repeat what you've said have
you taken to correct the bad impressions people get from reading your messages?
All of this is tied to the image you present while you're trying to recommend
your seduction system to men. So far I've started to get a fairly negative
impression of you based on some things that I saw almost immediately. But this
is only my opinion as a new person. As a soon to be former possible customer of
your system.
1. Your own messages use crude and derogatory words about women. It sounds like
you hate women in general. This is not a good recommendation for a seduction
system. I'd hope to learn some art or fine mechanics of seduction from a system
I invest time or money in. Not how to curse women and treat them like dirt. Any
half ass idiot can do that after a 12 pack.
2. You drop a line of messages and refuse to answer when new people like me are
waiting for the reply. If some guy asks you a question that sounds like the
answer will be embarrassing or uncomfortable, you don't reply or drop it and
change the subject. What this means to me as a possible customer is that you'd
probably treat your customers the same way. If we came to you with embarrassing
questions about your system, you'd get offended and attack us or ignore us. Am
I wrong?
3. If a potential customer like me was to spend one afternoon going through
your old messages, what they would see wouldn't warm them up to your product.
Your overall image is not a good one. I've read that you've had some messages
removed from searching. Why? If it's messages from you, and not something
reposted by somebody else, what's the deal? Some of the messages I've already
read from you are pretty bad. Not reposted messages. Ones from you. Bad enough
to make me question the quality of your system. Still, I wanted to try and be
fair and give you the chance to answer some objective questions about your
system to balance the scales between all those bad messages and some good ones.
Something about what foxhunting really is and what it's done for you. But you
dropped it. That's not a good marketing attitude. I doubt if any salesman can
sell anything doing that.
4. When all is said and done, all this false light talk really boils down to is
the impression an average new potential customer gets from you and your
product. And where they get that impression. I put little credit in what other
people say about a product. They might just have a problem following directions
or they might be impatient and not want to wait for a product that takes time
to work. I put more faith in the quality of the documentation, the terms of the
deal and the interaction of the manufacturer (author) and the public. 25% of my
impression of foxhunting has come from other people talking about it. 75% has
come from you. The attitude you show you have about women, the way you don't
answer questions and change the subject, and a short look at your old messages.
If you really think there are potential customers in this group, then why don't
you start addressing some of these things? Why be lazy and just trade smart
remarks and threats with people? How does this sell anything?

TheTennesseeTick

A Modern Caveman

unread,
Sep 8, 2002, 11:22:34 AM9/8/02
to
>>amodern...@aol.com (A Modern Caveman) posted:
>>
>>Depends on the light they portray me in.
>>
>
>I really haven't had much luck getting any answers from you, Ray. Even tho my
>questions have been fair and logical, and never asked in a negative way. A
>lot
>of messages say you don't answer questions when the answers will prove a
>negative about your arguments. Is that true? Is that why you won't answer my
>questions about foxhunting and show us the benefits you get from using your
>own
>system?

What specific questions do you have?


>I get the impression you're inclined to attack or ignore anyone who
>asks a question that you know the answer to would force you to put your own
>self in a bad light. Is that true? All this talk about courts and suing
>people.
>Isn't that what defense attorneys do? Ask questions about the light you've
>put
>yourself in? There's a difference between a bad light and a false light.

There's also a difference between someone criticizing me and someone telling
outright lies.

If you have any questions, ask them in my Yahoo! group and they tend to get
answered, or post them here where I can see them clearly.

What benefits do I get from using my system? Better women, less approaches,
more women approaching me, higher success rate, and less time and money wasted
in pursuit.

My readers find that without having to change much about their life, except how
they respond to women, they can improve their results a great deal.

My group currently has 192 members and discussions are starting to perk up
there.

Odious

unread,
Sep 8, 2002, 5:22:06 PM9/8/02
to

A Modern Caveman wrote:
>
> >>amodern...@aol.com (A Modern Caveman) posted:
> >>
> >>Depends on the light they portray me in.
> >>
> >
> >I really haven't had much luck getting any answers from you, Ray. Even tho my
> >questions have been fair and logical, and never asked in a negative way. A
> >lot
> >of messages say you don't answer questions when the answers will prove a
> >negative about your arguments. Is that true? Is that why you won't answer my
> >questions about foxhunting and show us the benefits you get from using your
> >own
> >system?
>
> What specific questions do you have?
>

The ones he just posted, and you deleted.


> >I get the impression you're inclined to attack or ignore anyone who
> >asks a question that you know the answer to would force you to put your own
> >self in a bad light. Is that true? All this talk about courts and suing
> >people.
> >Isn't that what defense attorneys do? Ask questions about the light you've
> >put
> >yourself in? There's a difference between a bad light and a false light.
>
> There's also a difference between someone criticizing me and someone telling
> outright lies.
>
> If you have any questions, ask them in my Yahoo! group and they tend to get
> answered, or post them here where I can see them clearly.
>


He just did... and you deleted them, here let me repost them for you.

come from you. The attitude you show you have about women, the way you
don't

James King

unread,
Sep 9, 2002, 1:19:30 AM9/9/02
to
I've been having trouble posting the reply ... sorry for it being split
up into several parts. The server keeps timing out on me.

In article <20020907201003...@mb-bh.aol.com>, A Modern
Caveman <amodern...@aol.com> wrote:

> No. I was referring to hooter girls and strppers as being "sexual
> performers." The gymnasts are just another mold the bosses like.

> I've clarified that many times. But that doesn't make me a child
> molester, now does it? People win $100 million judgments for
> defamation like that; it's considered to be among the worst things you
> can call someone.

Well, it depends on whether you engaged in sexual acts or variations of
sexual acts with underage gymnasts. Legally, I'm not sure whether
cybersex is considered a variation of a sexual act, but I believe that
it is, even if case history shows otherwise. There are screen names
attributed to you that strongly imply that you engaged in cybersex with
gymnasts who may have been underage at the time.

I personally found your fixation on gymnasts back in the late 1990's to
be strange and a little unnerving. If I recall, most Olympic class
gymnasts haven't gone through puberty yet. The strenuous physical
activity may delay the onset of puberty, and generally, as I remember
some commentary at the 1984 games, once puberty sets in, the body
changes in such a way that it's difficult to maintain Olympic caliber
performance.

So ... what seems to be love letters to one Olympic class gymnast,
referring to another one as "HOT!" repeatedly, combined with the
commonly held belief that most Olympic-level female gymnasts haven't
started puberty ... well, I found all of that information disturbing.

> > I also believe you have stated that you found an underage girl, a
> > gymnast (Jamie Danscher -- forgive me if the spelling is wrong.)
> > "HOT!" (your emphasis, which was repeated throughout the post, if I
> > remember correctly, and repeated in other posts.)

> She was of age in my state, and the same age as Britney Spears.

My resources confict on this, but I stand amended.

According to sex offense laws, the age of consent is 16, but can be as
young as 13 if less than 4 years seperate the two parties. However, the
marriage laws (which was what I was previously using for age of
consent, as the ages are usually the same in most states) say 18
without parental approval, 16 with, under 16 with court approval.

The specifc laws are quoted below.

> Should we lock up 3/4 of America now?

> That's not the same thing as "pedophile" (which would involve kids
> under 13 or so), or "child molester" (which would involve actual
> molestation etc.).

From law.com's dictionary:

molestation

n. the crime of sexual acts with children up to the age of 18,
including touching of private parts, exposure of genitalia, taking of
pornographic pictures, rape, inducement of sexual acts with the
molester or with other children and variations of these acts by
pedophiles. Molestation also applies to incest by a relative with a
minor family member and any unwanted sexual acts with adults short of
rape.

pedophilia

n. an obsession with children as sex objects. Overt acts, including
taking sexually explicit photographs, molesting children and exposing
one's genitalia to children, are all crimes. The problem with these
crimes is that pedophilia is also treated as a mental illness, and the
pedophile is often released only to repeat the crimes or escalate the
activity to the level of murder.

Perhaps it's not the same thing, but I'm not a jury, either. If there
is a tendency towards obsession, that could lead one to an opinion that
pedophilia may be involved.

> > You've claimed that it would have been legal for you to have sex
> > with her (by specifically claiming she was not underage when you
> > made those comments), but that's only the case if her parents gave
> > their explicit permission for you to marry her or have sex with her.

> The age of consent in PA is 16, with no parental consent required.

I stand amended. Both statutes are posted below:

No marriage license may be issued if either of the applicants is under
18 years of age unless the consent of the custodial parent or guardian
of the applicant is personally given before the person issuing the
license or is certified under the hand of the custodial parent or
guardian attested by two adult witnesses and, in the latter case, the
signature of the custodial parent or guardian is acknowledged before an
officer authorized by law to take acknowledgments. When the minor has
no guardian and a judge of the court is absent or not accessible for
any reason, the office issuing the license may appoint a guardian pro
hac vice for the minor.

Except as provided in section 3121 (relating to rape), a person commits
a felony of the second degree when that person engages in sexual
intercourse with a complainant under the age of 16 years and that
person is four or more years older than the complainant and the
complainant and the person are not married to each other.

James King

Other parts to follow ...

James King

unread,
Sep 9, 2002, 1:24:35 AM9/9/02
to
Here's the second part of my reply. Sorry again for having to split it
into parts.

In article <20020907201003...@mb-bh.aol.com>, A Modern
Caveman <amodern...@aol.com> wrote:

> Did I ever say I wanted to have sex with [Jamie]? I said in my state a


> girl her age is legal.

You said she was "HOT!" That word does implies sexual attraction in my
mind -- I never hear anyone talking about an infant or toddler as
"HOT!" It's only when someone is considered sexually attractive that
the word "HOT is commonly used as a descriptive adjective. You
repeatedly said "HOT" and emphasized the word. This implies obsession.

> > In either case, whether having sex with her would have been legal or
> > illegal, your statement gave me the opinion that you have a tendency
> > to sexually objectify underage girls, specifically gymnasts.

> Why do you think "hot" equates to sex?

I believe "HOT!" implies a degree of sexual attraction. I think a jury
would agree.

> Still not the same thing as "child molester" even given all your crap.

Molestation also applies to any unwanted sexual acts short of rape. As
long as any sexual acts were wanted, and the parties involved were of
legal age, no molestation in the legal sense occured.

However, the dictionary definition is more broadly written.

> > > Surely you don't think I ever called my mother a prostitute, do
> > > you?

> > I believe that you posted a statement that could easily be construed
> > as you calling your mother a prostitute, although I do not believe
> > that was your intent. I do not remember a post where you clarified
> > your statement, however. That doesn't mean that you didn't clarify
> > your statement. I try to avoid conversations about your mother.

> No I never posted that. I said someone impersonated her online as if
> she were one, posting our contact info (another example of what the
> other side forgets).

At this time, I believe you on this point.

> > > Are you polarity-responding again?

> > I don't know. Are you claiming to be an expert on
> > polarity-responding?

> You seem to be one....

I don't have any certification from a polarity-responding school, so
you would say I'm not qualified to give an answer.

> > > > The very fact that you continue to find excuses and
> > > > justifications for your aberrant behavior

[snip]

> If the behavior is LEGAL, it's "acceptable" by society's definitions.
> People defaming me is not legal.

I would debate your first point. Stating that no one of significance
died in the WTC attacks is not a generally accepted statement by
society.

> > > > can be considered one proof that you yourself realize the hot
> > > > water in which your words have placed you.

> > > I'm in no hot water, you freak.

> > It appears you have been for quite some time.

> Case #?

Um, I don't remember saying you were in legal hot water ...

> Still waiting on the FTC ...

Same here.

> > > Think more of Winterpuke's threats against me if you want the
> > > definition of that.

> > And how did law enforcement respond when you reported those threats?

> They said to file a private criminal complaint to get his name. They
> took it rather seriously, actually.

And when you filed the private criminal complaint, what was the result?

> > How is your lawsuit against Wintermute progressing?

> What lawsuit? Haven't filed anything yet.

So I would suspect the threat must not have been serious for you to not
have even filed yet.

James King

unread,
Sep 9, 2002, 1:54:13 AM9/9/02
to
Here's the third part to my reply. My apologies again for having to
split the reply up.

In article <20020907201003...@mb-bh.aol.com>, A Modern
Caveman <amodern...@aol.com> wrote:

> > > [James King wrote:]

> > No, [my statement] was not false. The book was not showing up in the
> > Library of Congress' database.

> But you didn't stop there...should I post links?

I can't stop you from doing so.

> > You claimed it was in the database (by saying "look it up"), and of
> > course you were lying.

> Wasn't lying at all. I had registered the book.

You claimed it was in the public database. It wasn't.

> > It was not in any database accessible by the general public. Nor was
> > it in the database for weeks even after the issue regarding the
> > status of your registration was settled.

> How did all the solicitors find it?

I was told by the lady who verified your registration that they have
access to databases that the LOC does not make available to the general
public.

> > The conclusions I made were conclusions that any reasonable person
> > would have made, and you are aware of that, and you are aware that a
> > jury would almost certainly agree. I believe that's why you never
> > filed a lawsuit.

> Expense is another issue, as is jurisdiction. You did look a bit of a
> fool anyway. It just shows you jumped the gun pretty badly.

You said look it up. I did. It wasn't there. You jumped the gun by
claiming it was in the public database (by telling us to "look it up")
when in fact, it wasn't.

> > > You seem to have a selective newsreader, JimmyKing!!

> > I occasionally see responses to threads where I am unable to get the
> > original post in the thread. That is a problem with my ISP, and they
> > do not seem concerned with fixing problems with Usenet access.

> Fix it, JIMMYKING!!

Mindspring/Earthlink seems to care little about Usenet. I've been
unable to download old time radio binary files. I have neither the
access nor the knowledge to fix a defective server. Perhaps you know
someone who would be able to fix it.

> > > > Besides, the statute of limitations is far gone on that,

> > > Actually not as part of a RICO......

> > I find it fascinating that you are implicitly claiming that I'm a
> > member of an organized crime syndicate.

> Not at all.

Thank you.

> RICO applies to all kinds of things.

> If a court were to rule you had in fact defamed me, and were part of a
> group that did, the statute would not have expired.

> For the record, I'm not naming you as part of any conspiracy. You're
> just a snit.

Thank you for the information.

[snip]

> The issue I raise is how women would react to ASF.

Then why the deflection to our copyright registration debate?

> > > Do it, JIMMYKING!!!!!

> > I'm glad that you believe that it is parody. Given the context, I
> > could easily claim that you are trying to defame me.

> You have the same name as a well known movie character.

The last movie I saw in the cinemas was Fantasia 2000 -- because a good
friend and a college buddy of mine was one of the assistant animators
(Pines of Rome sequence). Cinema is not my cup of tea.

> Addressing you the way that character was addressed is hardly meant as
> defamatory. I'm still addressing YOU, just making a reference. Like if
> your name were Adrienne and I said "Yo, Adrienne!"

Tell me more about this movie character who has the name James King.

James King

Heero Yuy

unread,
Sep 9, 2002, 1:18:11 PM9/9/02
to

"A Modern Caveman" <amodern...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020907080758...@mb-de.aol.com...

> >> This is the HOURLY reminder of how some men are pathetic wussies who
are
> >all
> >> mouth with absolutely nothing to back it up.
> >>
> >
> >Someone just bought himself more than he will be able to handle.
>
> Losing it, little man?

Yes, you've lost it a long time ago. Why are you talking to yourself?

>
> psst: the cops aren't afraid of you.

They also don't give a shit, otherwise something would have been done by
now.

>
> Take a look, world, at the "alpha" male....

The only male I saw making the dumb post that I'm currently replying to is
"omega" (last letter in the Greek alphabet, BTW)

>
>
> Everything you need to know about being as pathetic as this loon
> http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
>
>


Aaron Kulkis

unread,
Sep 9, 2002, 11:10:11 PM9/9/02
to
amodern...@aol.com (A Modern Caveman) wrote in message news:<20020906204457...@mb-mg.aol.com>...

> Men don't defend SLUTS, and sluts don't get real men to defend them....

Real men LOVE sluts...we just aren't stupid enough to marry them.

John C. Randolph

unread,
Sep 19, 2002, 2:12:44 PM9/19/02
to

A Modern Caveman wrote:
>
> >>But we already knew that about her, didn't we? The secret slut is no longer
> >a
> >>secret when her man is out posting lay reports about what a SLUT she is....
> >>

> >>This is the HOURLY reminder of how some men are pathetic wussies who are all
> >>mouth with absolutely nothing to back it up.
> >

> >Give it a rest. We already know you're bitterly
> >jealous, you don't have to tell us over and over
> >again.
>
> Oh, but he said I had a punch in the nose coming, the big tough he-man who
> treats his women like SLUTS.

I'm sure you have a least one ass-kicking coming, grp, but people don't
always get what they have coming. Tell you what: why don't you hop on a
train to NYC, go to the WTC site, and try telling anyone there what you
wrote in this newsgroup on september 11. That should nicely expedite
you getting the treatment you so richly deserve.

> I stand him down, and he backs off, like any good COWARD would.

Funny, I didn't see him back off. It must be your deRAYnged imagination again.

-jcr

John C. Randolph

unread,
Sep 19, 2002, 2:13:41 PM9/19/02
to

Alex wrote:
>
> in article 20020906235155...@mb-mg.aol.com, A Modern Caveman at
> amodern...@aol.com wrote on 9/6/02 11:51 PM:
>

> >>> But we already knew that about her, didn't we? The secret slut is no longer
> >> a
> >>> secret when her man is out posting lay reports about what a SLUT she is....
> >>>
> >>> This is the HOURLY reminder of how some men are pathetic wussies who are all
> >>> mouth with absolutely nothing to back it up.
> >>
> >> Give it a rest. We already know you're bitterly
> >> jealous, you don't have to tell us over and over
> >> again.
> >
> > Oh, but he said I had a punch in the nose coming, the big tough he-man who
> > treats his women like SLUTS.
>

> Incorrect. I said that statements like that can get you a punch in the nose.
>

> At no time did I say *I* would be the one delivering it.
>
> Sue me over it. I'd love to take everything you've got.

Why, what would you do with 37 cents and tinfoil hat?

-jcr

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages