Re: Obsessive...
fluffybunnie
> Current stats....
[edited stats]
>
> 34 jennisu...@gmail.com
> 3 panga...@telus.net
>
Apparently you're so dangerous it takes Lardo posting at a ratio
greater than 11:1 in order to keep the world safe.
:)
--
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
Willow
> Apparently you're so dangerous it takes Lardo posting at a ratio
> greater than 11:1 in order to keep the world safe.
Amazing, isn't it?
Willow
Jennifer Usher
"Willow" <pang...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:e14b72aa-f026-42f8...@d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> Current stats....
>
> 34 jennisu...@gmail.com
> 30 futuregirl20...@yahoo.com
> 11 jflus...@imaman.org
> 7 fluffybun...@127.0.0.1
> 4 karmictara...@2die4.com
> 3 panga...@telus.net
> 2 whogivesast...@inyaface.com
> 2 x...@m.com
> 1 hauteb...@hotmail.com
> 1 clitte...@yahoo.com
A classic example of Willy Boy's trolling. He simply ignores the fact that
I have been carrying on very nice conversation with Helen, and another, and
tries to find something to make a fuss over. Oh, and typical for Willy Boy,
this is not even original. He copied the idea from Lask.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
> Amazing, isn't it?
What is amazing is the fact that the two idiot trolls come up with silliness
like this. I respond nicely to Helen, and they have to come up with
something. And between the two of them, they come up with this. Now. this
is a perfect example of why they are known as IDIOT TROLLS.
Really, too funny.
--
Jennifer Usher
Willow
>I respond nicely to Helen, and they have to come up with
> something.
Yes, it truly is....
W.
Jennifer Usher
> On Dec 8, 5:40 pm, "Jennifer Usher" <jennisu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>I respond nicely to Helen, and they have to come up with
>> something.
> Yes, it truly is....
ROTFL! Well, once again, Willy Boy shows he is the one who is obsessed.
--
Jennifer Usher
Some Just dont Learn
"Jennifer Usher" <jenni...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:009ad0db$0$26892$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
--
www.lightningnews.com Lightning fast anonymous usenet downloads for 5$ only !
Jennifer Usher
"Some Just dont Learn" <thetragi...@tryhard.com> wrote in message
news:4b1f6714$0$3100$892e...@news.lightningnews.com...
> How long you going to be nice to Helen for? One who cant be trusted....
I am nice to anyone who does not give me reason to be otherwise. And Helen
has given no reason to not be trusted.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
"Helen Detroit" <FutureG...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:s6cvh55oufu7h4is0...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 18:59:58 +1000, "Some Just dont Learn"
> <thetragi...@tryhard.com> wrote:
>
>>How long you going to be nice to Helen for? One who cant be trusted....
>
> whether you can be trusted, for that matter, or anyone else? One can
> still act civilized and show the manners one was taught as a child. One
> can display the same politeness online as one would display in 3D. As
> for Jennifer herself trusting me, well, there isn't much personal info
> on her that has not already been posted, and if I were a malicious
> person with a grudge, I would only need a few minutes on google to
> refresh my memory. Apart from her banking and credit information, there
> really isn't much left to trust me with, is there?
Actually..... Well, let's just say that I allow the fools who post here to
believe they know a lot more than they actually do.... Suffice to say that
the vast majority of what is said about me is false. Beyond that....well,
you get the idea.
> As far as "trusting" me goes, my posting history will show that I have
> never displayed any sort of treachery nor any gratuitous insulting or
> mudslinging, nor have I ever stalked anyone in 3D nor contacted anyone's
> ISP or nntp provider without very good reason, nor posted anyone's
> address or contact information or any other personal details. The only
> person I have any sort of personal beef with online is one who outed a
> CD who could not afford to be outed, and even that person, the last time
> I conversed with her, which was some years ago, I used the same tokens
> of politeness that I always use online.
I simply decline to allow nasty people, like quite a few of those who remain
here, to hide behind demands of "online courtesy." There are some very evil
and/or disturbed people here. To be honest, I would treat them the same way
in person. If they did make the mistake of going out of their way to cross
my path....well, I would stay within the law, but the results for them would
probably prove very unpleasant.
> Can you be trusted? I don't know who you are.
No, I doubt the person in question can be trusted.
--
Jennifer Usher
Willow
> What difference does it make whether I can be "trusted" or not? Or
> whether you can be trusted, for that matter, or anyone else? One can
> still act civilized and show the manners one was taught as a child. One
> can display the same politeness online as one would display in 3D.
Agreed. And therein lies the root of the problem...
Willow
Jennifer Usher
As I have said, I would treat Willy Boy the same in person. Quite frankly,
I have shown him as much courtesy as he deserves, possibly more...certainly
not less.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
> Well, I hate to be seen as beating a dead horse, but I still say it
> doesn't matter whether a person deserves courtesy or not. Being polite
> reflects on the speaker, or the writer, more than anyone else. It
> doesn't mean you like another person, or approve of them, or are kissing
> their heinie. It only means that there is a level below which you refuse
> to sink. Now, you and I may disagree on that point, but consider this: I
> can make my point and argue even to the point where it could be called
> verbal combat, and still not resort to name-calling, and you have proven
> that you can, also, when you wish and with whom you wish, be nice even
> in the face of complete disagreement on a point that you hold dear. I
> hope you will allow your thoughts to linger a moment on that.
>
> <apologizes for any perceived self-righteousness>
> <steps down from soapbox>
Some people behave in such a manner as to lose certain rights. For example,
people who commit felonies lose the right to their freedom for a period of
time, up to and including the rest of their life. They also lose the right
to participate in certain aspects of citizenship. In a similar manner, some
people act in such an outrageous manner as to lose the right to be treated
politely.
And I am sorry...I just don't recognize an absolute right to demand that
people pander to one's delusions that one is the opposite sex (or gender)
simply because one says they are. I generally try to be polite, but there
are cases where I just can't go along with their silliness.
And obvious example would be someone who approaches their alleged
"womanhood" in a very male way, basically demanding to be pandered to
regardless of how they behave, especially while exhibiting an attitude that
is extremely deprecating to actual women. Being a woman is not about being
a lesser human being. Of course, what else would you expect from someone's
who's desire to be a woman was triggered completely because of an alleged
traumatic (and effectively emasculating) experience.
--
Jennifer Usher
fluffybunnie
>
> "Helen Detroit" <FutureG...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ug61i55hb83a8rlvk...@4ax.com...
>
>> Well, I hate to be seen as beating a dead horse, but I still say it
>> doesn't matter whether a person deserves courtesy or not. Being polite
>> reflects on the speaker, or the writer, more than anyone else. It
>> doesn't mean you like another person, or approve of them, or are kissing
>> their heinie. It only means that there is a level below which you refuse
>> to sink. Now, you and I may disagree on that point, but consider this: I
>> can make my point and argue even to the point where it could be called
>> verbal combat, and still not resort to name-calling, and you have proven
>> that you can, also, when you wish and with whom you wish, be nice even
>> in the face of complete disagreement on a point that you hold dear. I
>> hope you will allow your thoughts to linger a moment on that.
>>
>> <apologizes for any perceived self-righteousness>
>> <steps down from soapbox>
>
> Some people behave in such a manner as to lose certain rights.
> For example
...[conflates his detractors with felons, yada yada yada]...
> And I am sorry...I just don't recognize an absolute right to demand that
> people pander to one's delusions that one is the opposite sex (or gender)
> simply because one says they are. I generally try to be polite, but there
> are cases where I just can't go along with their silliness.
>
> And obvious example would be someone who approaches their alleged
> "womanhood" in a very male way, basically demanding to be pandered to
> regardless of how they behave, especially while exhibiting an attitude that
> is extremely deprecating to actual women. Being a woman is not about being
> a lesser human being.
>
Wow. Just *wow*.
Is Lardo deliberately trying to parody himself now?
Such an absolute lack of self-awareness is truly breathtaking.
Of course, there is one thing he said with which I am in agreement:
Some people behave in such a manner as to lose certain rights.
If a big, smelly, unpassable, socially retarded TV shows up at a TS
support group, he is told gently that this is a *TS* support group and that
his TV fiction and silly, transparent lies are inappropriate.
If he keeps coming back with repeat performances, no-one should "be nice" to
him. He needs to be firmly shown the door. Unmodded usenet has no door, so
the best we can do is unmask and hope to discourage.
Willow
> Is Lardo deliberately trying to parody himself now? <snip>
Nope. That is just the way Usher is....
Imagine a support group with new people, many of whom speak as males
and look very much like males. USing Usher's "logic", one is able to
insutl these newbies directly. What about those TS who have very male
body structure? Like Usher, one might say. Do we only use the right
pronouns if someone passes our individual test of "womanhood". The
position Usher takes is simply stupid and guaranteed to cause hurt and
battles, as this lists coninues to demonstrate.
Without civil behaviour the gates are open to Usher like flames,
always.
Helen is right. Civil behaviour, even against those who might not fit
your concept of whatever, is the only way to carry on civil
discussions.
Willow
Jennifer Usher
On Dec 10, 8:58 am, fluffybunnie <fluffybun...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>> Is Lardo deliberately trying to parody himself now? <snip>
> Nope. That is just the way Usher is....
ROTFL! Let's see...
> Imagine a support group with new people, many of whom speak as males
> and look very much like males. USing Usher's "logic", one is able to
> insutl these newbies directly. What about those TS who have very male
> body structure? Like Usher, one might say. Do we only use the right
> pronouns if someone passes our individual test of "womanhood". The
> position Usher takes is simply stupid and guaranteed to cause hurt and
> battles, as this lists coninues to demonstrate.
A classic straw argument from the king of straw, Willy Boy. I have said
nothinb about appearances, or voice. I have said nothing about passing, or
body structure. First off, many of those things change with hormone
use...at least in most cases. And the voice can be trained.
No, I am talking about something that is completely lost on men like Willy
Boy and Goat Boy. Women tend to recognize other women. I've known people
who had not begun transition who were clearly women. And I have met some
who have been on hormones for year, were physically unclockable, and even
post-op who were clearly not really women. Granted, I would say in the
vast, overwhelming majority of cases I refer to people by the pronouns that
they prefer...even if I don't necessarily see them as women. I make
exceptions in cases where people are militantly obnoxious....like, well,
Willy Boy and Goat Boy.
> Without civil behaviour the gates are open to Usher like flames,
> always.
No, the gates are simply closed to the lies that people like Willy Boy
demand.
> Helen is right. Civil behaviour, even against those who might not fit
> your concept of whatever, is the only way to carry on civil
> discussions.
Ah, hypocrisy thy name is Willy Boy.
--
Jennifer Usher
JenniferFlusher
> On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 23:44:14 -0800, "Jennifer Usher"
> <jenni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Jennifer, it is not about another person's rights. It is about what sort
> of language you will allow to come out of your mouth, pen, or keyboard.
This is why trolls and crazies can exist on the internet.
It's not Usher's fault - he's a crazy - one could no more attribute
fault to him then they could to any developmentally disabled person.
He lives in a half way house for god's sake.
It's Helen's fault - or more properly the hugely significant percentage
of people who think like her. People like Helen believe that every
person can be reasoned with. People like Helen believe that there is
good in everybody. People like Helen believe that everyone deserves an
equal voice. In short people like Helen are incurably, impossibly
naive about other people.
This is why trolls, crazies and idiots can cause so much trouble in
forums. Because about a third of internet denizens, and I'm just
pulling a number out of my butt here based on experience, will refuse
to ignore them and actually engage them. That's all the audience and
then some that a nutter needs.
I'm not going to try to educate you Helen - I've learned that is
futile. I'm just ranting because I can... and because oddly enough ,
if Usher has done nothing else, he has caused me to see a side of both
Arune and Bunnie that I had not previously allowed myself to see - so I
suppose that I am writing to them in a sense.
Helen, I don't know how to try to even begin to dialog with you . I
have no idea on what level you can be engaged or even if it is
worthwhile to do so . I suppose I shall do what I always do in the
remains of this place; sit back and watch and see if anything new
happens. One new thing happened in that I no longer see Arune in quite
exactly the way I saw her earlier.
All sane people change and grow.
All sane people.
JenniferFlusher
> I am nice to anyone who does not give me reason to be otherwise. And
> Helen has given no reason to not be trusted.
TRANSLATION : I am nice to anyone who does not disagree with me or
point out the fact that I am a complete lunatic.
Willow
wrote:
> May I point out something?
Indeed. You are right.
Willow
JenniferFlusher
>
> Well, did you see the Saints/Redskins game? Who do you like next Sunday
> when they play the Falcons? I'm a Who Dat girl and I got Saints by 14.
I don't watch Sports at all.
Jennifer Usher
>
> earn or lose, deserve or not deserve. It is about a characteristic of
> the speaker or writer that reflects on him or her. What right does
> anyone have to courteous forms of address, anyway?
Well, now that is an interesting question...is there such a right? I think
there is in general, but I think that it becomes forfeit if someone acts
badly enough.
> Let's say I am discussing something with you and just hypothetically I
> find your views ridiculous, or offensive, whatever. Or again
> hypothetically, let's say I know you personally and utterly detest you
> either for your actions, words, or personal characteristics. Do you have
> a right to my respect or courtesy? No. Nor do you have a right to it
> even if we are bosom buddies, for that matter. But it just doens't
> matter what I think you deserve. Either way, I will write or speak
> according to personal standards of my own that have been instilled in me
> from childhood and are in constant revision and refinement. The reverse
> of course is also applicable. I have no right to demand courtesy of you.
> But I notice when I get it and when I don't, and others notice it as
> well, and it reflects on the author of the words that were either polite
> or not polite, considerate or inconsiderate.
Actually, my basic approach is not really different. It is just that my
personal standards are different. I treat people nicely by default.
Believe me, I am not as inclined to make exceptions as it might appear here.
> Nobody has a "right" to feminine forms of address, though it looks silly
> to see someone using the wrong ones. Certainly nobody has a right to
> judge whether another person has that right or not. What rights does
> anyone have? only those that the individual herself can defend, or have
> defended on her behalf by acknowledged power or authority. An
> indefensible right is de facto not a right at all.
Ah, but I am not using the "wrong ones." I am, quite the contrary, using
the ones that are most accurate. I do not accept the idea that one becomes
a "woman' simply by claiming to be one.
> Jennifer, it is not about another person's rights. It is about what sort
> of language you will allow to come out of your mouth, pen, or keyboard.
I quite agree. And under most circumstances, I am quite polite.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
"Helen Detroit" <FutureG...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:hj15i5tc6qj6fcuuq...@4ax.com...
> May I point out something? Using a person's last name without any sort
> of title or honorific COULD be seen as rude, or as masculine behavior;
> sort of like a bunch of guys in jail or in the army or gym class or
> something. One could of course say "Miss Usher" since she is not and has
> not been a wife. One could not be faulted with assuming the familiar,
> and addressing her by her chosen first name, either, since this is so
> common online and you know each other so well. If you do in fact agree
> with me about being civil, then maybe it is time to put it into
> practice, without regard to whether another person deserves such
> civility or not, or is willing to reply in kind or not. In fact, some
> might say that you would then sort of be taking the high moral ground,
> verbally, and in some people's views you might be seen as the "better"
> person. Better hurry, though, or she might beat you to it. I sense a bit
> of moderation coming from the other camp already. :o)
First off, I honestly don't care what he calls me. Second, this is not a
competition, though quite frankly, he sees it as one.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
"Willow" <pang...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:2d0c6395-2314-4f8f...@u8g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
ROTFL!
--
Jennifer Usher
JenniferFlusher
<FutureG...@invalid.invalid> said:
> Frankly I usually don't, either, but it's like mass hysteria here right
> now. They have never been undefeated this late in the season before and
> it looks like they have a shot at the big one. Everyone here in New
> Orleans is a fan this year, even those who are usually indifferent or
> even scornful. Fleur de Lis shirts and sweaters are everywhere and
> everything is on hold during a game.
>
> I was forced to play football as a child... it was felt that it would
> "butch me up" and it just made me detest sports in general. I didn't
> feel I needed to butch up... I felt that what I needed was a trip to the
> salon and a few nice blouses LOL. Oh, the crap people do to you for your
> own good! And the results are almost always different from what the
> well-meaning parents and teachers and relatives envision!
>
> But this year, yes, I am a member of the Who Dat Nation and we are going
> to the SuperBowl. Dat's Dat.
OK, see when I say "I don't watch Sports at all" , that's not your cue
to go into a 5 minute Sports related monologue to me because you see -
I just don't care. Now this is Usenet and you are free to do as you
please but I just thought I might give you insight as to why things may
not go as well as expected at cocktail parties and things.
I don't know the difference between "Who Dat Nation" and a Dittohead
(although I suspect they're much the same thing) and have never watched
a Superbowl in my life and probably never will.
Inconsequential
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 13:19:19 -0800, JenniferFlusher
> <jflu...@imaman.org> wrote:
>
>> I don't know the difference between "Who Dat Nation" and a Dittohead
>> (although I suspect they're much the same thing) and have never watched
>> a Superbowl in my life and probably never will.
>
>
>
Dittoheads
Faithful listeners to The Rush Limbaugh Show.[26] As Limbaugh often
explains in his books[27] and radio show, these are not necessarily
those who agree with his views. Rather, he believes they are people who
love the show and what he's doing, and hope he never stops doing it. The
term came into use because callers would frequently begin by stating
their line-item agreement with the points made by previous callers. One
caller simply said "ditto to what those guys said." Thereafter, callers
were encouraged to simply say, �Dittos,� and then get right to their
point. Thus, long-time listeners would begin their calls with �Dittos,
Rush,� leading to the term �dittoheads.� The term is also used
pejoratively by critics of Limbaugh, to mock listeners of his show.
Thrash Metal band Slayer also named a song Dittohead, with lyrics based
on the aforementioned criticisms of the term.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jargon_of_The_Rush_Limbaugh_Show
fluffybunnie
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 13:19:19 -0800, JenniferFlusher
><jflu...@imaman.org> wrote:
>
>>(although I suspect they're much the same thing) and have never watched
>>a Superbowl in my life and probably never will.
>
>
>
I'd never heard of either "who dat nation" or "dittohead" until I read
them here. You kids today and your crazy, mixed up jive...
:)
--
(\__/)
(=^.^=)
(")_(")
Jennifer Usher
"Helen Detroit" <FutureG...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:6a07i5druonb0386f...@4ax.com...
> Frankly I usually don't, either, but it's like mass hysteria here right
> now. They have never been undefeated this late in the season before and
> it looks like they have a shot at the big one. Everyone here in New
> Orleans is a fan this year, even those who are usually indifferent or
> even scornful. Fleur de Lis shirts and sweaters are everywhere and
> everything is on hold during a game.
Ah, that sounds like my college days. I went to the University of Alabama
and during home games the campus pretty much shuts down. If you don't want
to go to the game, you are pretty much out of luck. This year, Alabama is
doing well. I am happy that they beat Florida, and hopefully they will end
with a perfect season. But that is as far as my interest in sports go.
> I was forced to play football as a child... it was felt that it would
> "butch me up" and it just made me detest sports in general. I didn't
> feel I needed to butch up... I felt that what I needed was a trip to the
> salon and a few nice blouses LOL. Oh, the crap people do to you for your
> own good! And the results are almost always different from what the
> well-meaning parents and teachers and relatives envision!
My father tried to interest me in sports, but quickly gave up. He was
disappointed in me, but I could not even fake interest. I was bored
watching sports and even worse playing them. I can relate completely.
> But this year, yes, I am a member of the Who Dat Nation and we are going
> to the SuperBowl. Dat's Dat.
Dat's nice.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
"Helen Detroit" <FutureG...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:tf88i592lqghsq51i...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 13:19:19 -0800, JenniferFlusher
> <jflu...@imaman.org> wrote:
>
>>I don't know the difference between "Who Dat Nation" and a Dittohead
>>(although I suspect they're much the same thing) and have never watched
>>a Superbowl in my life and probably never will.
>
> Doesn't a "Dittohead" have something to do with Rush Limbaugh?
Yes, and I think it was meant as something of a silly insult.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
"Inconsequential" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:7oj4frF...@mid.individual.net...
> Dittoheads
> Faithful listeners to The Rush Limbaugh Show.[26] As Limbaugh often
> explains in his books[27] and radio show, these are not necessarily those
> who agree with his views. Rather, he believes they are people who love the
> show and what he's doing, and hope he never stops doing it. The term came
> into use because callers would frequently begin by stating their line-item
> agreement with the points made by previous callers. One caller simply said
> "ditto to what those guys said." Thereafter, callers were encouraged to
> simply say, �Dittos,� and then get right to their point. Thus, long-time
> listeners would begin their calls with �Dittos, Rush,� leading to the term
> �dittoheads.� The term is also used pejoratively by critics of Limbaugh,
> to mock listeners of his show. Thrash Metal band Slayer also named a song
> Dittohead, with lyrics based on the aforementioned criticisms of the term.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jargon_of_The_Rush_Limbaugh_Show
Interesting. That seems kind of contradictory since "Dittos" implies that
one agrees with Limbaugh.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
"Helen Detroit" <FutureG...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:ibq8i597bkfcgvuls...@4ax.com...
> I was not such an awful player, but it was very much a command
> performance, with priveleges based on how well I played. I was tried at
> QB but my depth perception was just not up to the task of throwing
> accurately at a running receiver, though I could throw pretty far. I
> played RB a lot, and I could run like a cheap pair of stockings when I
> had the ball and a bunch of guys twice my size were chasing me. I
> couldn't catch all that well, again due to depth perception
> difficulties. I was tried as a kicker and that didn't go over too badly
> but there was usually someone better. Defense? I really wasn't big
> enough. I could catch a runner but really all I could do sometimes was
> slow him down for the bigger guys to come assist in the tackle. I
> learned the game but I certainly never learned to love it. And there
> were occasional problems with my teammates like once when I plucked a
> bit too much arch in my eyebrows and someone noticed. I probably should
> have been shoved into boxing instead of football, since I had to learn
> how to fight anyway. Halfway through high school I managed to get myself
> disqualified from playing, and never looked back. OMG I can't believe
> all the memories that this is dredging up!
I was, of course, forced into physical education classes in high school.
Most of the time I was a target of abuse from the coaches. When it got to
be too much, I would stand up to them, and that just made things worse.
Finally, in my senior year I went a bit too far and the head coach told me I
was getting paddled. When I refused to "take my licks" I got taken to the
assistant principal's office, and in the end the coach actually had to back
down. After that, he mostly treated me was obvious disgust but didn't do
anything that would lead to more trouble. Fortunately, in high school they
did not waste time on football (I think we were considered unworthy). We
had to do some basketball, and softball, but mostly it was running and
exercise (not at all fun when you have a sadist for a coach).
I envied the girls who actually got to do relatively fun things like
archery.
--
Jennifer Usher