Monica -- Big Fat Self-Admitted Liar

1 view
Skip to first unread message

vp...@imap1.asu.edu

unread,
Jan 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/26/98
to


Let's see, whom should we believe: one of the smartest attorneys in the
country who just happens to be president, and who sure as hell knows
better than to ask explicitly that someone commit perjury for him; or some
brazen little chippy who freely and effortlessly asserts that she has lied
her whole life and that it's her intention to continue to do so.

And how about Goldberg, that rabid nutcase "literary" editor of Tripp's --
jeez! First she says that if the White House "went after" her the way she
thinks they did Tripp, she'd be on the South Lawn with a deer rifle!!!
(Why hasn't she been arrested?!) And then she freely admits that she's out
to "get" him. And THEN it turns up that she was one of the dirty tricks
sleaze crew for the arch-criminal Richard Nixon, posing as a reporter so
she could travel on McGovern's campaign plane.

Have you seen that video clip of Monica hugging Clinton the day after the
election? Her whole body language just screams "Needy!" The proprietary
air she immediately adopted right after as he shook hands over her
shoulder made you think that she momentarily imagined that she was First
Lady. Oookie!

This is the last attempt of the nut cases to get Clinton. This November's
elections are the last where he's really front and center. After that
it's Gore's ballgame. If they can't get him now, they never will, and
they know it.

Ellen Watts

unread,
Jan 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/26/98
to vp...@imap1.asu.edu


What does everyone think of the beret shot? It certinly seems as if she
is in with a group of people all dressed in similar group-member
tee-shirts, yet there she is in beret and black jacket. There have been
reports that she would arrive as many as 3 hours ahead of time to place
herself in his path.

Ellen
*not* believing all reports from either camp, just watching in horror as
the US ponders impeaching the leader of the free world for lying about
an extra-marital affair. I guess Newtie is hiding under the bed right
about now.

ka...@delphi.com

unread,
Jan 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/27/98
to

Ellen Watts <em...@columbia.edu> writes:

>
>What does everyone think of the beret shot? It certinly seems as if she
>is in with a group of people all dressed in similar group-member
>tee-shirts, yet there she is in beret and black jacket. There have been
>reports that she would arrive as many as 3 hours ahead of time to place
>herself in his path.
>

.
In that video, she sure has the look of the girl showing up to
the prom with the coolest date "He's ALL MINE!"

.

>Ellen
>*not* believing all reports from either camp, just watching in horror as
>the US ponders impeaching the leader of the free world for lying about
>an extra-marital affair. I guess Newtie is hiding under the bed right
>about now.

.
Again, any talk of impeachment is silly at this point. Talk of
resignation is not. Ask yourself this -- if the president of
any public corporation you can think of diddled some unpaid
intern, then EXPLICITLY lied about it to the board of directors
in a sworn statement, then was proven through whatever means
to have lied about it -- do you think that guy would still
be in his office, or would he be escorted to the curb with
the face-saving gesture of submitting his own resignation?
.
Well, maybe Bill Gates could get away with it :)
.
kassa

RoperII

unread,
Jan 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/27/98
to

> Ask yourself this -- if the president of
>any public corporation you can think of diddled some unpaid
>intern, then EXPLICITLY lied about it to the board of directors
>in a sworn statement, then was proven through whatever means
>to have lied about it -- do you think that guy would still

>be in his office, or would he be escorted to the curb with
>the face-saving gesture of submitting his own resignation?

Depends. If the company was doing well, they (the board), would applaud his
"performance." If the company was floundering, it would be a convenient excuse
to boot him out. We are not floundering in this country and I for one would be
most disapointed to see anything come of this unfortunate situation.

Except maybe the end of Tripp and her ilk.

RFScruggs

unread,
Jan 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/27/98
to

>Again, any talk of impeachment is silly at this point.
>Talk of resignation is not. Ask yourself this -- if the

> president of any public corporation you
>can think of diddled some unpaid
>intern, then EXPLICITLY lied about it to the
>board of directors in a sworn statement, then was
> proven through whatever means to have lied about it
> -- do you think that guy would still be in his
>office, or would he be escorted to the curb with
>the face-saving gesture of submitting his own
> resignation?
.
>Well, maybe Bill Gates could get away with it. :)
.
>kassa

He might, but I'm still trying to handle the
idea of anybody sleeping with Bill Gates,
wife included.

Regina


Martha DeHart

unread,
Jan 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/28/98
to

ka...@delphi.com wrote:

Ask yourself this -- if the president of
> any public corporation you can think of diddled some unpaid
> intern, then EXPLICITLY lied about it to the board of directors
> in a sworn statement, then was proven through whatever means
> to have lied about it -- do you think that guy would still
> be in his office, or would he be escorted to the curb with
> the face-saving gesture of submitting his own resignation?

IMO, this is not a valid parallel for several reasons.

For a Board of Directors to call a CEO on the carpet for allegedly
diddling an intern, they'd a) had to have heard about it, and b) have to
think that the situation presented some real danger to the corporation's
business/profitability. The most obvious such threat would be if said
intern got a lawyer and made sexual harassment noises... not, as far as
I'm aware, the case with Lewinsky and the White House.

For a Board to actually require the CEO to swear under oath, and then go
so far as to seek evidence to disprove his/her sworn statement, would be
pretty unusual; it would publically signify that the corporation in some
major disarray (not good for business or stockholders; they'd likely be
much more tightlipped than the players in this situation!). For sure, if
such events did come to light, what you *would* be seeing is evidence of
a major, and ugly, power struggle going on within the organization.

Peace,

Marty (who think's it's likely that *everyone* involved may well shade
the truth in this absurd affair)

CynW514

unread,
Jan 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/29/98
to

>But what if word of the intern and CEO got out and was making the
>rounds of watercooler talk? It could cause a great deal of resentment
>among employees who are working hard -- and not on their knees,
>developing TMJ. They could accuse the CEO of treating the intern
>differently and giving her special perks, as "payment for services
>rendered."
>
Jeezle Petes. In my 17 years working for the Federal government, this sort of
thing was as routine as hayfever and as pandemic. The talk raged on among the
underlings. The GS-17s never gave a shit. Rank had its privilege, again and
again and again. Everyone knew the doers and the do-ees. The Prez's situation
is so trite it would be a yawner, if not for Brenda, oops, Ken Starr on the
case with a swinging ax. That ax should IMHO be turned on Starr for failure to
produce a damn thing of value--
if he had turned up anything of substance he could have actually indicted the
Prez on, friends, wouldn't he have done it the first chance he got? And with
his legs crossed to hide his hard-on?

Cynthia Walker (Cyn...@aol.com) Just because Moses was found in the reeds
didn't mean he could play clarinet.

MLYoung

unread,
Jan 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/29/98
to

>But what if word of the intern and CEO got out and
> was making the rounds of watercooler talk?
>It could cause a great deal of resentment
>among employees who are working hard --
>and not on their knees,
>developing TMJ. They could accuse the
>CEO of treating the intern
>differently and giving her special perks, as "payment for services
>rendered."

Wow, where do you work that employees have
that kind of clout? Or are not busy resenting other more
immediate things? I want to work there.

--margaret (who's actually kind of touched by
the idealism that's showing up in ASG)
>

>
>----------------------------------
>
>"What I'm trying to do is contain my natural impulses and get back to work,"
>Bill Clinton, 1/21/98
>
>Praying for Patrick Ewing & Red Holzman to have a rapid recovery!!!
>
>FAC Erica, BABE on the BUSS!, Anti-Santi, ILJC, NoHo!, Co-Founder NYC RATSA
>Cabal, yadda yadda yadda
>
>ASGTPR #297
>http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/1995/ (Russell Crowe Web Site)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

MLYoung

unread,
Jan 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/29/98
to

>>Wow, where do you work that employees have
>>that kind of clout? Or are not busy resenting other more
>>immediate things? I want to work there.
>>
>>--margaret (who's actually kind of touched by
>>the idealism that's showing up in ASG)
>
>Well, I don't work there any longer, Margaret. I repeatedly turned
>down the "opportunity" to fuck and suck the boss, yet still managed to
>get ahead (sorry for the bad pun). However, he did get his own Monica
>and it was painfully obvious that he was getting some from her. In
>fact, I called him on it and in the middle of a screaming match with
>him one day, I actually blurted out: "Just because you're fucking
>******** doesn't mean that she's supposed to get special treatment
>here! I don't care if that c**t (yes, I actually used the "c" word)
>is spreading her legs for you, I'm not going to be treated
>unfairly!!!"
>
>And wouldn't you know it -- he quickly shut up and gave me what I
>wanted (to be treated fairly).

I'm curious, how high up was the guy and how big was
the company? Frankly, I can't see your technique working
with Larry Ellison.

--margaret

mjdev

unread,
Jan 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/29/98
to

Leslie wrote:
>
<snipped for space>

>
>
> But what if word of the intern and CEO got out and was making the
> rounds of watercooler talk? It could cause a great deal of resentment
> among employees who are working hard -- and not on their knees,
> developing TMJ. They could accuse the CEO of treating the intern
> differently and giving her special perks, as "payment for services
> rendered."
>

Hey, this did happen at a place I worked. My friend was having an
affair with the married VP of Sales. She got whatever she wanted,
didn't have to work much or show much for it, and took an enormous
amount of paid time off. (Yeah, I resented it.) When it got too hot
around the office, word came filtering down from the top that SHE would
be the one to get fired, not HIM. Made sense to me. Good ole boys
stick together. She didn't last too much longer. And, of course, the
company gave her glowing references to keep her happy and quiet. The VP
is now the CEO of this pretty well known baking company. As far as I'm
concern, this stuff is pretty common in Corporate America.

Marcie

James Jorden

unread,
Jan 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/30/98
to

Leslie wrote:
> I truly resented doing more than my fair share of stuff
> (and then some), only to have this lazy, stupid cow do little more
> than spread her legs, only to get treated better than I did....
> This happened because when the boss asked me for sex, I turned him
> down and asked if he was nuts, or had just had an aneurism. When I'd
> catch him staring at my chest, I suggested that he speak to my face,
> not my breasts.

And besides, he didn't appreciate your gift of tact.


> I'll work harder than anyone to get ahead, but I'm
> not going to sacrifice my dignity for it

Uh, too late.

=====

"Mister Johnson, si chiede spesso la man...per avere il braccio!"

James Jorden

unread,
Jan 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/30/98
to

Leslie wrote:

> When someone treats me disrespectfully, I no longer find the need to
> remain tactful.

There's the difference between us, madame. What better opportunity to
demonstrate one's moral superiority and impeccable breeding than to
remain cool and dignified in the face of crude insult?

Rather the way our President and his First Lady have conducted
themselves during the recent unpleantness, don't you think?

James Jorden

unread,
Jan 31, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/31/98
to

Leslie wrote:

> Well, sir, unlike our First Lady, I do not screech on and on about my
> detractors being part of some lunatic-fringe conspiracy.

Excuse me, I missed that. Would you mind screeching it again?

DCO Martha

unread,
Jan 31, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/31/98
to

Leslie said:

>>> Well, sir, unlike our First Lady, I do not screech on and on about my
detractors being part of some lunatic-fringe conspiracy.<<<

>>Excuse me, I missed that. Would you mind screeching it again?<<

>Sorry, but if ya snooze, ya lose! ; ><

In other words, you can't.

She said it -- once -- in the TODAY SHOW interview on Tuesday. In context, I
understand her to be using the word in a conversational, not a precise manner.
In other words, there seem to her to be a lot of people out to get her husband.
I don't think she meant they meet for secret meetings in some basement.

Martha Thomases
Fondly Remembering Abbie Hoffman -- "Conspiracy? We Couldn't Agree On Lunch!"


David Migicovsky

unread,
Jan 31, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/31/98
to

DCO Martha wrote in message
<19980131192...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...

>
>She said it -- once -- in the TODAY SHOW interview on Tuesday. In context,
I
>understand her to be using the word in a conversational, not a precise
manner.
>In other words, there seem to her to be a lot of people out to get her
husband.
> I don't think she meant they meet for secret meetings in some basement.


Of course not. Republicans can afford penthouses.

--

David Migicovsky, d m i g i c o v at a r a c n e t dot n e t


James Jorden

unread,
Feb 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/1/98
to

Leslie wrote:
> Wouldn't
> it be funny if there really were people meeting in basements and
> exchanging secret handshakes and stuff?

Tuesdays at 8 pm sharp chez Leslie. BYO Velveeta.

James Jorden

unread,
Feb 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/1/98
to

Leslie wrote:

> Oh, James, your jello mold was a big hit at the last meeting!

Hope you enjoyed the miniature marshmallows!

James Jorden

unread,
Feb 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/1/98
to

Leslie wrote:

> Yes, everyone from Rush Limbaugh to John McLaughlin and Laura Ingraham
> were raving about them -- not to mention the little carrot chunks in
> there, too! They want to know if you'll bring your tuna casserole to
> the next meeting. ; >

I'll ship it Fedex if you don't mind. I just don't relish the prospect
of having to shake hands with your lovely friends.

Now, let's see. Do you want the tuna casserole with Velveeta or the one
that uses Kraft macaroni and cheese and Campbell's cream of mushroom
soup?

MLYoung

unread,
Feb 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/1/98
to

>
>Yes, everyone from Rush Limbaugh to John McLaughlin and Laura Ingraham
>were raving about them -- not to mention the little carrot chunks in
>there, too! They want to know if you'll bring your tuna casserole to
>the next meeting. ; >

Now, come on guys, no less than of an authority than
James Carville says the Republicans have better food
than the demos--well, at least at barbeques.

--margaret

JLasz

unread,
Feb 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/1/98
to

Leslie said:

>>> Well, sir, unlike our First Lady, I do not screech on and on about my
detractors being part of some lunatic-fringe conspiracy.<<<

>>Excuse me, I missed that. Would you mind screeching it again?<<

>Sorry, but if ya snooze, ya lose! ; ><

In other words, you can't.

She said it -- once -- in the TODAY SHOW interview on Tuesday. In context, I


understand her to be using the word in a conversational, not a precise manner.
In other words, there seem to her to be a lot of people out to get her husband.
I don't think she meant they meet for secret meetings in some basement.

Martha Thomases


Fondly Remembering Abbie Hoffman -- "Conspiracy? We Couldn't Agree On Lunch!"

oh how i disagree - she wasn't using a conversational tone at all about the
right wing conspirators.

btw, ironic isn't it that when hilary worked for the prosecutor during nixon's
impeachment hearings, she herself was then accused of being a left wing
conspirator. pot calling the kettle black?

she sounds like she is in deep denial and should go home and slap the shit out
of her husband.

jlasz


David Migicovsky

unread,
Feb 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/1/98
to

JLasz wrote in message <19980201155...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...

>
>she sounds like she is in deep denial and should go home and slap the shit
out
>of her husband.
>
>jlasz
>


You believe adultery justifies assault and battery? Well then, while I think
that's pretty gross, unfortunately you'll fit right in with some of the most
respected ASG regulars. Right, Dez?

Jesse Garon

unread,
Feb 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/1/98
to

"David Migicovsky" <dmig...@see.sig> writes:

>JLasz wrote in message <19980201155...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
>>she sounds like she is in deep denial and should go home and slap the shit
>>out of her husband.

>You believe adultery justifies assault and battery? Well then, while I think


>that's pretty gross, unfortunately you'll fit right in with some of the most
>respected ASG regulars. Right, Dez?

Now, now, David, if you're going to chide ME for accuracy, you have
to be accurate yourself. Desiree didn't say that adultery JUSTIFIES
assault and battery; she merely implied that it could under certain
circumstances LEAD TO assault and battery.

"Jesse Garon": the God damnedest mass of tact known to the human race
---------------------------------------------------------------------
gri...@primenet.com http://www.primenet.com/~grifter/jesse.html


David Migicovsky

unread,
Feb 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/1/98
to

'Jesse Garon' wrote in message <6b2k81$i...@nntp02.primenet.com>...

>
>Now, now, David, if you're going to chide ME for accuracy, you have
>to be accurate yourself. Desiree didn't say that adultery JUSTIFIES
>assault and battery; she merely implied that it could under certain
>circumstances LEAD TO assault and battery.
>


Perhaps you're right -- it's been a long time since I've seen that post,
although at the time a number of us in ACF discussed whether or not to
shroud her over there because of our utter disgust with her. Eventually we
decided that we couldn't hold her misbehaviour in ASG against her, and in
any event, fortunately she has left of her own volition.

Seems to me though, that since everyone is aware of how men may react
dangerously to revelations of adultery -- the husband of an adulterous ASGer
being an excellent case in point -- that anyone who would use a newsgroup to
willingly -- gleefully even -- expose a woman to that danger is just about
the lowest form of pond scum around, as I warned Dez before she joined in
the fight against you, as soon as she gave me full details of the party and
Judith's behaviour there and subsequently. I laughed my ass off at her
stories of how people there were repulsed by her, especially JAne. The
purple ribbon story was pretty funny too. Not to mention how she told me
that she was afraid to send the party-goers copies of the pictures she took,
because she didn't trust them. Of course, *I* still have a picture of Dez,
so I'm sure no one in ASG would object if I put it up on a web page for 8 or
9 months, along with some of her more outrageous Usenet and email
scribblings. Since Dez herself sent it to me, for posting on the web, she'd
have no cause to object, right ASG, since you didn't mind Judith doing it to
me, with a picture that conversely, was allowed to be taken only on the
proviso that it not be posted on the web and Alexandra had no business ever
giving her.

Did you know, by the way, that Dez talked about (I'm not sure if she
followed up on it) changing her locks out of fear that you were going to
travel down to southern California and attack her?

While I'm sure you wouldn't do anything of the sort, just in case anyone
would like to send her a package of dog turds, perhaps I should post her
complete home address in ASG. After all, no one had a word to say when Terry
Hicks did that to you, least of all Dez.

We all remember this one, don't we?

Subject: Re: Mary Lou Lord
From: T.-and-...@worldnet.att.net
Date: 1997/04/04
Message-ID: <33453F...@worldnet.att.net>
Newsgroups: alt.showbiz.gossip
[More Headers]


Michael Ritchie wrote (to Alexandra and about Ron Hogan, a/k/a 'Jesse
Garon':

> --M., sending big sloppy hugs to you and throwing hard dog turds at J****

Throw them in this direction:

********* Apartments
**** ************** Street
SF., CA., 94109
(415) ***-****

Guess what ASG? ANY tactic used by Terry, Judith, et al. and not condemned
is fair game for me to use against you. If you find that disgusting or
frightening, that's not very surprising, is it, but I'm not the one who
decided the rules of this flame war, you did. Too bad you let them get away
with it as long as you did, and still do.

If I were Dez, I'd be speaking to my good friend Alexandra and letting her
know she'd better start reigning in her beast. Saying "I can't control what
Judith does" just isn't going to cut it anymore. She acts with the tacit
approval of ASG and if ASG doesn't want the kharma that's coming back on her
in spades to spill over onto them, they're going to have to wake up and let
her know her little game is over.

Judith, you started an extremely dangerous game and you lost. The smartest
thing you could do is never show your sorry face in ASG again -- by now
there aren't many who'd miss you. However, a public statement that you will
never directly or indirectly mention Ron, Miriam, or myself anywhere on the
Internet, contact us, or interfere in our lives in any way will do nicely
too, coupled with an apology to LCM, who did nothing whatsoever to earn your
two-faced enmity.

Think it over Judith, but don't think too long. One way or another, your
game is over -- a year too late.

Jesse Garon

unread,
Feb 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/1/98
to

"David Migicovsky" <dmig...@see.sig> writes:

>'Jesse Garon' wrote in message <6b2k81$i...@nntp02.primenet.com>...
>>Now, now, David, if you're going to chide ME for accuracy, you have
>>to be accurate yourself. Desiree didn't say that adultery JUSTIFIES
>>assault and battery; she merely implied that it could under certain
>>circumstances LEAD TO assault and battery.

>Perhaps you're right -- it's been a long time since I've seen that post,

Well, I'm certainly not going to be the one to repost it for you.

<snip secondhand accounts of ASG's disgust with Judith>

>Did you know, by the way, that Dez talked about (I'm not sure if she
>followed up on it) changing her locks out of fear that you were going to
>travel down to southern California and attack her?

I hadn't heard that one, actually, although it wouldn't surprise me,
seeing as how Desiree has a tendency to overplay the melodramas her
fevered (and quite possibly unbalanced) mind conjures up.

>While I'm sure you wouldn't do anything of the sort, just in case anyone
>would like to send her a package of dog turds, perhaps I should post her
>complete home address in ASG.

Perhaps you should. I certainly have no objections to you doing so,
and I gather that Judith cares even less for Desiree than I do.

Just remember, you didn't get her address from me.

MLYoung

unread,
Feb 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/2/98
to

David writes:

<usual victim stuff about how horrible various people
are and that, therefore, they deserve whatever longwinded
self-righteous, spiteful diatribe he can muster.>

Just out of curiosity, has anyone in the past six months
shown any sign of being convinced by one of your posts
that you're in the right and everybody else is in the
wrong?

--margaret

Kim

unread,
Feb 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/2/98
to

Does anyone see how fat Monica was in high school. She looks anerexic
now compared to then, and shes' still chunkie now.

Heheheeheeehhe

Yes, and she said she has lied all her life. So what can we believe.

Hi, {smile}
Kim

Precious Moments, that's me!

David Migicovsky

unread,
Feb 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/2/98
to

'Jesse Garon' wrote in message <6b367l$q...@nntp02.primenet.com>...

>
>>While I'm sure you wouldn't do anything of the sort, just in case anyone
>>would like to send her a package of dog turds, perhaps I should post her
>>complete home address in ASG.
>
>Perhaps you should. I certainly have no objections to you doing so,
>and I gather that Judith cares even less for Desiree than I do.
>
>Just remember, you didn't get her address from me.
>


Of course not. I got it from her.

David Migicovsky

unread,
Feb 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/2/98
to

MLYoung wrote in message <19980202050...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...

>David writes:
>
><usual victim stuff about how horrible various people
>are and that, therefore, they deserve whatever longwinded
>self-righteous, spiteful diatribe he can muster.>
>

Same victim stuff that you and other ASGers have consistently refused to
address. Why is it Margaret, that my points are never argued, just
dismissed? Could it be that EVERYTHING I say is verifiable fact? Let's hear
it Margaret -- what have I said about Judith that isn't verifiable in her
own words and actions?

You don't want to keep hearing these self-righteous diatribes, then do
something about what's causing them. You have stupidly tried to intervene in
this war on the side of the aggressor who has consistenly, persistently
demonstrated that she wants to continue it.

>Just out of curiosity, has anyone in the past six months
>shown any sign of being convinced by one of your posts
>that you're in the right and everybody else is in the
>wrong?
>


What makes you think I'm in this to convince people of anything? I am in
this to stop it, one way or another. I'd much rather do it like a civilized
human being, and the record backs me up on that -- I spend fruitless months
trying, all documented.

If it can't be accomplished that way, then we'll play by ASG rules --
ruthless, vicious attacks causing as much hurt and damage as possible. I'm
only being a good ASGer, after all -- or are you conceding that this type of
behaviour is intolerable and can't be justified? If that's the case, address
yourself to the people who've done it, and use your (guffaw) persuasive
powers on them.

I still haven't noticed a response to my suggestion that you write Judith
and ask her what her terms are. Are you that afraid that what I'm saying
about her is completely true -- that under no circumstances will she
consider ending her stalking? Or are you going to pretend all of a sudden
that you think this is none of your business, in which case just about every
one here would welcome you staying out of it.

Except Judith of course -- now that she's lost almost all her allies, you're
the one keeping her dream alive, of an Internet where she controls other
people's lives.

William D. Branan

unread,
Feb 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/2/98
to

David Migicovsky wrote:

> MLYoung wrote in message
> <19980202050...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
> >David writes:
> >
>

[snip]

...trying to find anything that could remotely be considered gossip in
here, or that remotely deals with the header......

Bill

MLYoung

unread,
Feb 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/2/98
to

David writes:

> Why is it Margaret, that my points are never argued, just
>dismissed?

Because no one cares. You've already had your day
with the people who were involved. The rest of us
couldn't care less who's in the right. If Judith ranted
in the same way you do, she'd probably arouse the
same reaction. She doesn't however.


--margaret


David Migicovsky

unread,
Feb 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/2/98
to

William D. Branan wrote in message <34D60757...@pobox.upenn.edu>...


You must be new here. Thread drift is an accepted, even cherished, part of
ASG. And flame wars based on the private lives of the participants is a
practice instituted just over a year ago by Judith Rogow, that the regulars
enjoyed very much until her victims started fighting back.

David Migicovsky

unread,
Feb 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/2/98
to

MLYoung wrote in message <19980202212...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>David writes:
>


In that case, Margaret, since you don't care, why don't you shut the fuck
up? Over the past few months you have done more to keep this fight alive
than anyone, and spent countless hours trying to "prove" Ron is wrong.

Since you supposedly don't care, prove it by not posting about it, as you
seem to expect me to do. You're certainly not accomplishing anything except
proving that you're Judith's witting or unwitting puppet.

As for arousing the same reaction, quite a number of people have already
demonstrated that they are sick to death of both her and you.

I've made it perfectly clear that the only thing that will stop this is
Judith agreeing to stop it, which, as you'll notice, she has absolutely no
intention of doing. And every time she opens her cakehole and spews her shit
in ASG, I'm going to react. There is absolutely *nothing* you can do to
bring about an end to this situation by addressing me and Ron.

But then, if this situation ended, you really wouldn't have much of anything
to say in ASG, would you?

Jesse Garon

unread,
Feb 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/2/98
to

"David Migicovsky" <dmig...@see.sig> writes:
>'Jesse Garon' wrote in message <6b367l$q...@nntp02.primenet.com>...

>>>While I'm sure you wouldn't do anything of the sort, just in case anyone
>>>would like to send her a package of dog turds, perhaps I should post her
>>>complete home address in ASG.

>>Just remember, you didn't get her address from me.

>Of course not. I got it from her.

Well, you know how Desiree gets with her paranoid little fantasies.
It's never just one person who's out to get her, after all. But if
you're really interested in bothering her, you needn't resort to a
full address. Apparently using her last name is enough to wind the
poor gal up like, well, a wind-up doll.

MLYoung

unread,
Feb 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/3/98
to

>In that case, Margaret, since you don't care, why don't you shut the fuck
>up? Over the past few months you have done more to keep this fight alive

Blah, blah, blah . . . just how did I force you to write
this latest spate of bitchfests? Do I even mention
you in passing? Do I flame you
or even comment on your occasional on-topic post?

Are you trying to say that you are so lacking in
backbone that I'm somehow compelling you to post?

David, I only pay attention to you when you're being
a nuisance. I feel sorry for you, but your big
dust-up in ASG is only tangentially important to me.
It's important the way a two-year-old tantrum's important--
the noise is annoying, but the cause besides the point.

--margaret (where's the damn pacifier?)

Jesse Garon

unread,
Feb 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/3/98
to

mly...@aol.com (MLYoung) writes:

>>In that case, Margaret, since you don't care, why don't you shut the fuck
>>up? Over the past few months you have done more to keep this fight alive

>Blah, blah, blah . . . just how did I force you to write
>this latest spate of bitchfests? Do I even mention you in passing?

You don't have to mention David to rile David. Apparently he's so
concerned over the injustices he perceives Judith as having tried
so hard to perpetrate on me that he'll comment on them as soon as
you try to reiterate them. I probably ought to be touched.

Lulu

unread,
Feb 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/3/98
to

GOOD Lord!!

Is my server coughing up ancient posts or is this kooky crazy ass crap
going down again?!?!?!?!?!


!!!!!

LL, "there is a comfort in the familiar, I suppose."

David Migicovsky

unread,
Feb 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/3/98
to

MLYoung wrote in message <19980203094...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...

>>In that case, Margaret, since you don't care, why don't you shut the fuck
>>up? Over the past few months you have done more to keep this fight alive
>
>Blah, blah, blah . . . just how did I force you to write
>this latest spate of bitchfests? Do I even mention
>you in passing? Do I flame you
>or even comment on your occasional on-topic post?

Did I say you force me to do anything Margaret? I asked YOU why, if you
don't care about this, you follow up to every post Ron or I make on the
subject. It's interesting that you're falling right into the usual ASG trap
of putting words in my mouth and then replying to them, rather than to what
I actually said. Not very honest or honourable, but neither seem to be
values you have much use for anyway.

Here's how one answers questions Margaret:
No, you didn't force me to write, nor did I say anything that implied you
did.
Yes, you continued to mention me in passing after I stopped responding to
you.
No, you don't flame me, by and large (I am not going to research every post
you've made about me to make a definitive answer).

My question is simple: If you don't care about this, why do you post about
it more than anyone else?
And of course you don't comment on my many on-topic posts. In general, only
the wittier people of ASG do -- you know, people like kassa and Matt Lupo.
As far as I can tell, your only function here is to argue, whatever the
subject. Providing witty commentary that people might enjoy reading, is
quite beyond you.

>
>Are you trying to say that you are so lacking in
>backbone that I'm somehow compelling you to post?
>
>David, I only pay attention to you when you're being
>a nuisance. I feel sorry for you, but your big
>dust-up in ASG is only tangentially important to me.
>It's important the way a two-year-old tantrum's important--
>the noise is annoying, but the cause besides the point.
>
>--margaret (where's the damn pacifier?)

Again Margaret, while I appreciate that -- it's certainly a nice change from
the obsessive stalking Judith specializes in, regardless of what the other
people do -- if it's only tangentially important to you, why are you the one
most devoted to keeping it alive? There was a short period recently where
you weren't posting about it and, oddly enough, neither was Ron. Try
shutting up, and see how fast this disappears from ASG.

No one is forcing you to reply, and even you can't still be so deluded as to
think you're accomplishing anything but keeping this alive.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages