Who is this piece of shit (mox.fulder@fib.gob)
Rick
simple question, most of you have been great, but there are still idiots
out there, re: my subject heading.
This person thinks he is the almighty X-File fanatic, ya right. I
noticed he never starts a post, just replies to people. Not intelligent
replies, but replies anyway. People like him are all over the net
everywhere, idiots. This seems like a good group to be part of, but now
this person has wrecked it for me and I suppose others as well, anyway
to the nice people who answered my question, thanks you. I hope others
don't get as discouraged with this group as I did, ( just a couple of
people), not the majority, bye now Rick.
Lulu
>This seems like a good group to be part of, but now
>this person has wrecked it for me
I see you didn't listen to my "he is only one guy", argument. This is your
loss, I'm afraid.
>, bye now Rick.
>
Er, bye.
--------
Lulu,
"mwagok!"--Mulder, TGV
Darius
home. He's just a low life loser who hasn't any social grace or charm so he
comes here to exact any revenge he can onto the society that has shunned
him. He, and a few select others, patrol this board in the purpose finding
something to say that he thinks is witty and cute. He promotes himself to
be a bastard and will flame anyone he can, especially those who aren't to
his liking. Read that to mean practically everyone.
He and others like him are known as "trolls" on the Internet. They will
provoke, say, do, gesture towards anyone in hopes of a response. This
response is what they feed on, hoping to spark a flame war where they can
get on their soap box, promote their opinions and feelings on everyone, and
generally try to make people feel bad about themselves.
The goal is to develop a reputation with which they feel will gain them some
kind of reputation or pseudo celebrity status to otherwise make up for
something severely lacking in their own personal lives. If you'll notice by
their posting history, they generally like to take up refuge in one
particular board and try to stake out their territory, pouncing on anyone
that dares to infringe on what they think is their personal property. You
will also see by their history that they post at all times of the day or
night multiple times a day trying to maintain this 'property' of theirs.
Most people would see this and call them lonely people who have no lives,
but in contrast, the posting and posts they feed on have become their life.
The typical anti-social behavior that they project onto others might also be
mis-interpreted by people as vigilante Internet "terrorists." In reality it
is usually an escape from the reality that blinds them into seeking the
refuge. As most people see, the hackers or posers thereof are typically
small and personality diminutive individuals in real life. They seek the
anarchy of the public domain to subjugate their id consciousness into
believing that what is lacking in one area of their lives is easily made up
for the existence that they've created in a typical setting such as a
computer bulletin board, newsgroups, or chat room.
Now I'm sure you're bored to tears and are curious on how to combat these
vile creatures that have no moral decency. This is truly the best part.
Two words. Ignore them. Do not post to them, about them, or in response to
them. Now as surely as I've broken one of the cardinal rules, I must do so
in order to make the point that once you realize this fundamental Usenet
fact and until others do as well, people (if you want to call them that)
will always populate the boards they frequent. Just as sadly, others will
continue to deliver the resources with which they thrive on.
Thus the saying, "Don't feed the trolls."
Darios
mox.f...@fib.gob
> Ahh.... I see you've found the resident asshole of Usenet, calling ATXF his
You must be an expert on a$$holes, being such a fine example yourself.
[...]
> him. He, and a few select others, patrol this board in the purpose finding
> something to say that he thinks is witty and cute. He promotes himself to
Others find it witty and cute, too.
> be a bastard and will flame anyone he can, especially those who aren't to
> his liking. Read that to mean practically everyone.
Ah, where to begin? 1. I don't promote myself as anything in particular,
other than a phile. 2. You're too ignorant to understand what "flaming"
means. It is certainly not what you are implying. 3. Yeah, people "flame"
the people they like. What an idiot. 4. Wrong again; I do like a lot of
people in this group, and they know it.
> He and others like him are known as "trolls" on the Internet. They will
Wrong again, but keep displaying your flaming ignorance. We have a few
reruns ahead, and you are rather entertaining, in a sick way.
[...]
> get on their soap box, promote their opinions and feelings on everyone, and
You should get some kind of prize for this one. "Promote their opinions
and feelings on everyone"? That's cute.
> generally try to make people feel bad about themselves.
I'll tell you a secret: They do that all by themselves. No help needed.
> The goal is to develop a reputation with which they feel will gain them some
> kind of reputation or pseudo celebrity status to otherwise make up for
A reputation to gain a reputation? Another prize for this genius, please.
> something severely lacking in their own personal lives. If you'll notice by
> their posting history, they generally like to take up refuge in one
> particular board and try to stake out their territory, pouncing on anyone
> that dares to infringe on what they think is their personal property. You
Well, I can't argue with you there; I do own this group.
> will also see by their history that they post at all times of the day or
> night multiple times a day trying to maintain this 'property' of theirs.
Maybe you can convince morons such as yourself of this, but anyone who
know anything about Usenet, knows that time stamps are not to be trusted.
[...]
> refuge. As most people see, the hackers or posers thereof are typically
> small and personality diminutive individuals in real life. They seek the
> anarchy of the public domain to subjugate their id consciousness into
> believing that what is lacking in one area of their lives is easily made up
> for the existence that they've created in a typical setting such as a
> computer bulletin board, newsgroups, or chat room.
Did you copy this from a book? I doubt (given your own writing, not just
a guess) you can actually handle all those complicated words, much less
put them together.
> Now I'm sure you're bored to tears and are curious on how to combat these
> vile creatures that have no moral decency. This is truly the best part.
> Two words. Ignore them. Do not post to them, about them, or in response to
Just like you are doing now.
> them. Now as surely as I've broken one of the cardinal rules, I must do so
> in order to make the point that once you realize this fundamental Usenet
Come on now, this is the old "rules for everyone else and exceptions for
myself" routine. You don't fool me. If you really wanted to educate this
other moron, you would have used e-mail. Nope, you posted to the group,
obviously to prove how self-righteous you are.
> fact and until others do as well, people (if you want to call them that)
> will always populate the boards they frequent. Just as sadly, others will
> continue to deliver the resources with which they thrive on.
You are sad, indeed.
> Thus the saying, "Don't feed the trolls."
But...then, you'd starve to death!
Which is not such a bad thing, after all.
--------------------------------------------------------
Al Ruffinelli <alv...@accesscom.com>
http://www.turning-pages.com/xf/ X-Files
http://www.turning-pages.com/xf101/ X-Files 101
--------------------------------------------------------
Catalyst
>
> just replies to people. Not intelligent
> replies, but replies anyway.
He just says what I'm thinking.
--Catalyst
NJP
friends outta here......
NJP
Deborah
What a mean and rude thread. Gee I wonder why no one is begging these guys
to stop "for the sake of the ng." Haven't stepped on the right toes I guess.
--
Deborah
"If I quit now, they win."
--Mulder, FTF
StalkerChick
Deborah wrote in message <83mmb4$9hf4$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>...
>
>What a mean and rude thread. Gee I wonder why no one is begging these guys
>to stop "for the sake of the ng." Haven't stepped on the right toes I
guess.
Perhaps it's because the thread is aptly enough named that people who don't
thrive on conflict can avoid it like the plague? Unlike certain other
threads that I wouldn't mention, except that I just did, however
obliquely...
Sincerely,
********************************
StalkerChick
(thrivesonconflictandproud)
********************************
Deborah
Scullycat2 <scull...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991220195600...@ng-cr1.aol.com...
> Some people just aren't up to handling Al's own peculiar brand of Tough
Love.
> At the risk of being slapped down, I'll say it once more: I enjoy Al's
posts,
> in some sick and twisted way. Oops, now there's the risk of being slapped
down
> by Al himself for sucking up, but I can take it. I think.
>
> Cathi K
I think there's room on this ng for all types. Al can really tickle my funny
bone sometimes as does Jon. I don't read Dex or Tara, but I wouldn't want
either to stop posting. It's a big world with lots of different folks who
bring their own special qualities here.
I guess I'm sucking up to the spirit of Christmas.
Deborah
StalkerChick
Deborah wrote in message <83mmvg$7sru$1@newssvr03-
>I guess I'm sucking
Don't be so hard on yourself, Deb. I rather appreciate your spunk.
Sincerely,
********************************
StalkerChick
(allingoodfunyourealize)
********************************
mox.f...@fib.gob
> What a mean and rude thread. Gee I wonder why no one is begging these guys
> to stop "for the sake of the ng." Haven't stepped on the right toes I guess.
If the losers who start these threads were capable of stopping, they
wouldn't start them in the first place.
mox.f...@fib.gob
> On 21 Dec 1999 00:56:00 GMT, scull...@aol.com (Scullycat2) wrote:
>>Some people just aren't up to handling Al's own peculiar brand of Tough Love.
>>At the risk of being slapped down, I'll say it once more: I enjoy Al's posts,
>>in some sick and twisted way.
> It's not that. mox.f...@fib.gob is doing people, who have questions,
> a favour by answering their posts. Instead of jumping right at him
> they should look at his sig. Why is that so difficult to comprehend?
It's not difficult, but it's even easier for those self-righteous morons
to lecture about how rude and evil I am.
mox.f...@fib.gob
> Some people just aren't up to handling Al's own peculiar brand of Tough Love.
> At the risk of being slapped down, I'll say it once more: I enjoy Al's posts,
> by Al himself for sucking up, but I can take it. I think.
No, worshipping The Al is fine. After all, I have a lot of personalities
to feed.
StalkerChick
Rick wrote in message <385F0347...@idirect.com>...
>You are a moron, you think your shit don't stink, well it does like all us
mortals,
>you asinine piece of trailer trash.
Brilliant, brilliant. I think it would "flow" better though if broken up
into its obvious, nearly perfect, haikuesque phrasing, like so:
"all us mortals"
by rick
you are a moron
you think your shit don't stink
well it does
like all us mortals
you asinine piece
of trailer trash
Sincerely,
********************************
StalkerChick
(eecummingshadnothin'onu)
********************************
Fox's Vixen
> simple question, most of you have been great, but there are still idiots
> out there, re: my subject heading.
> This person thinks he is the almighty X-File fanatic, ya right. I
> noticed he never starts a post, just replies to people. Not intelligent
> replies, but replies anyway. People like him are all over the net
> everywhere, idiots. This seems like a good group to be part of, but now
> this person has wrecked it for me and I suppose others as well, anyway
> to the nice people who answered my question, thanks you. I hope others
> don't get as discouraged with this group as I did, ( just a couple of
> people), not the majority, bye now Rick.
Yes, unfortunately there are idiots out there. This is a good group to be
part of, so please go away. Bye now, Rick.
FV.
Scullycat2
At the risk of being slapped down, I'll say it once more: I enjoy Al's posts,
in some sick and twisted way. Oops, now there's the risk of being slapped down
by Al himself for sucking up, but I can take it. I think.
Cathi K
http://scullycat2.tsx.org
***************************
"I believe in the faith that grows
and the four right chords can make me cry
When I'm with you I feel like I could die
and that would be all right."
- Third Eye Blind
Tamarisk
>Some people just aren't up to handling Al's own peculiar brand of Tough Love.
>At the risk of being slapped down, I'll say it once more: I enjoy Al's posts,
>in some sick and twisted way.
It's not that. mox.f...@fib.gob is doing people, who have questions,
a favour by answering their posts. Instead of jumping right at him
they should look at his sig. Why is that so difficult to comprehend?
~~~~~~~~~
Tamarisk
XFW/W LLL
~~~~~~~~~
Rick
you asinine piece of trailer trash.
mox.f...@fib.gob wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Dec 1999 02:27:00 +0100, Tamarisk <jnl.f...@JubiiPost.dk> wrote:
> It's not difficult, but it's even easier for those self-righteous morons
> to lecture about how rude and evil I am.
>
Tamarisk
>mox.f...@fib.gob wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 21 Dec 1999 02:27:00 +0100, Tamarisk <jnl.f...@JubiiPost.dk> wrote:
>> > On 21 Dec 1999 00:56:00 GMT, scull...@aol.com (Scullycat2) wrote:
>>
>> >>Some people just aren't up to handling Al's own peculiar brand of Tough Love.
>> >>At the risk of being slapped down, I'll say it once more: I enjoy Al's posts,
>> >>in some sick and twisted way.
>>
>> > It's not that. mox.f...@fib.gob is doing people, who have questions,
>> > a favour by answering their posts. Instead of jumping right at him
>> > they should look at his sig. Why is that so difficult to comprehend?
>>
>> It's not difficult, but it's even easier for those self-righteous morons
>> to lecture about how rude and evil I am.
>
>You are a moron, you think your shit don't stink, well it does like all us mortals,
>you asinine piece of trailer trash.
Your words have absolutely no effect whatsoever. He's immune to
whatever you throw at him, and your "crusade" against him will not
change his position on this ng. So why don't you spare us all and GO
AWAY!
Deborah
StalkerChick <Stalke...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:83mn3l$b5f$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net...
snip
> Don't be so hard on yourself, Deb. I rather appreciate your spunk.
How thoughtful, amusing and mature. What really impresses me is your wit.
Delightful.
Deborah
Deborah
guys
> >to stop "for the sake of the ng." Haven't stepped on the right toes I
> guess.
>
>
don't
> thrive on conflict can avoid it like the plague?
On the other hand they don't even have to open it to get the full impact.
How long DOES it take you to catch on that you have no interest in a thread?
Do you have to read the whole thing? Do you read everyone? Quite the little
masochist I see.
> Unlike certain other threads that I wouldn't mention, except that I just
did, however
> obliquely...
Well, well Stalky I see you are becoming a real fan. I'm flattered. Can't
wait for your next witty comment. Your little zingers are too too amusing.
Deborah
mox.f...@fib.gob
[...]
> Your words have absolutely no effect whatsoever. He's immune to
> whatever you throw at him, and your "crusade" against him will not
> change his position on this ng. So why don't you spare us all and GO
> AWAY!
Well, I could try other positions if you ask nicely.
mox.f...@fib.gob
> You are a moron, you think your shit don't stink, well it does like all us mortals,
> you asinine piece of trailer trash.
Keep making my point, so I don't have to.
Scullycat2
I'm betting Al's favorite position is on top.
Lulu
>What a mean and rude thread. Gee I wonder why no one is begging these guys
>to stop "for the sake of the ng." Haven't stepped on the right toes I guess.
>
Well, Deb, I know you probably meant this as a rhetorical question, but I am
feeling chatty, so I'm gonna give you my opinion on the matter. Not to
mention, you may be a lot of things, but at least you are not trying to be
Garth Brooks.
So here is how I see it:
A) This is the kind of thing we expect from Al. There is another thread going
where you said the same thing to Kim. And, I repeat, Kim's response is not at
all out of character for her. Same with ad. Same with Tara. You, however,
can be more of a quandary. You have a tendency to oscillate between very kind
and passionate(i.e.the whole racism thread from way back when) to quite snarky.
My two bit analysis of why, is because of the whole "game" element that you
have been know to talk about. You say what you have to in order to win the
game. Unfortunately in the heat of the moment, it can be difficult to figure
out what you really mean and what you are saying just to get someone's goat.
This leads me to...
B) Often when you are being snarky or sarcastic, it is directed at large
portions of the ng or at least a generalized group of people. This is
significantly different from Al and Kim et al. Their snark is directed toward
specific people. For example, you have been know to say (paraphrasing here)
"there are so many people on this ng who care about grammar and they are darn
rude about it" when in fact there are, what, 1/2 dozen "grammar girrls"? More
specifically, during the latest unpleasantness, you started to put me in a
"pack" of just "one of the girls". Now of course, you are mostly doing this
for dramatic effect, but, again, in the heat of the argument, it can be
frustrating. Through out that thread you talked about "us" as one big group,
just because we had similar things to say. I, in fact, did not contribute all
that much, really it was just one or two post (not including my slide into
one-liner sarcasm) but yet, every time I read about the "pack" I took it
personally none the less. Plus, after awhile it didn't feel like you were
addressing our individual concerns, even if you had told us all, individually,
to take a flying leap. Finally..
C) There is the whole hypocrisy issue. For example, (again, please forgive the
paraphrasing) from my personal contribution to the resent unpleasantness: You
said way back when "certain people on this ng will take the first opportunity
to jump down your throat". "Well goodness!" thought I, "she just took the
first opportunity to jump down that Lee guys throat How can she say that
about people on this ng when she does it herself?". So it was not that you
were being snarky or mean, it was more that you slammed much of the ng for
doing something that you had just done yourself. Certainly it was a very minor
snark, as far as snarks are concerned, but (sorry I keep using this phrase) in
the heat of the moment is just seemed so darn hypocritical.
Well, that is my take on all this. Of course, I'm sure you will have your
opinions one way or another. And there will be a number of people rolling
there eyes wondering why I am encouraging more posts on this subject. But that
is fine by me. You may be wordy, but at least, AT LEAST, you haven't decided
you are multiple persons. That, my dear, it *true* weirdness.
BethLynn
>On Tue, 21 Dec 1999 06:41:34 +0100, Tamarisk ><jnl.f...@JubiiPost.dk>
>wrote:
>[...]
>> Your words have absolutely no effect whatsoever. He's immune to
>> whatever you throw at him, and your "crusade" against him will not
>> change his position on this ng.
[snip]
>Well, I could try other positions if you ask nicely.
<falls over laughing>
Fine. I'm here to wish everyone a wonderful season, and find myself gifted with
images of Kama Sutra by Al. Thanks. ;-D
I just wanted to share with those of you who know me, or know of me, that I
very much appreciated being a part of this newsgroup, and I miss being involved
with all of you.
Take care and have a safe and wonderful season and new year.
BethLynn
"To the world you may be no one, but to someone, you may be the world."
"Tell me the story about the first two people... what were their names? Eve 'n
Odd?" - Na'ysha
mox.f...@fib.gob
[...]
> A) This is the kind of thing we expect from Al. There is another thread going
What kind of thing, exactly?
mox.f...@fib.gob
[...]
> I'm betting Al's favorite position is on top.
How are you going to know if you win or lose that bet?
Lulu
>Date: Tue, 21 December 1999 04:09 wrote:
><soph...@aol.com> wrote:
>[...]
>> A) This is the kind of thing we expect from Al. There is another thread
>going
>[...]
>
>What kind of thing, exactly?
There are many ways to tell people what one perceives as the truth. One can say
"you are a moron" or one can say "I think you are wrong". You often choose the
former. Some people think it is mean. <shrug>
obsidian
>
> You are a moron, you think your shit don't stink, well it does like all us mortals,
> you asinine piece of trailer trash.
Come on, Rick, tell us how you really feel.
--
<*><*><*>obsidian<*><*><*>
Women’s Liberation is just a lot of foolishness.
It’s the men who are discriminated against.
They can’t bear children.
And no one’s likely to do
anything about that.
Golda Meir
<*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*>
obsidian
>
> >Well, I could try other positions if you ask nicely.
>
I think he likes the woman on top, so he can keep an eye on her.
Adora
> Scullycat2 <scull...@aol.com> wrote:
> [...]
> > I'm betting Al's favorite position is on top.
>
This is where an over-active imagination comes in handy ;->
--
Adora
Cherry Sundae
FEB
"Screw you guys. I'm goin' home."
Adhokk7
>Rick wrote:
>>
>> You are a moron, you think your shit don't stink, well it does like all us
mortals,
>> you asinine piece of trailer trash.
>
>Come on, Rick, tell us how you really feel.
But next time, could you please leave how your shit smells out of the picture?
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
NRMTPB *yang* I Wooly Mammoth Boy
I'm not just a member. I CASH
I'm the president. I Good-bye FOX.
Jon Osborn
> >Well, I could try other positions if you ask nicely.
> I'm betting Al's favorite position is on top.
It's on the bottom.
Trust me.
Deborah
Fox's Vixen <wwis...@mail.syd.auracom.com> wrote in message
news:83mtqd$agh$1...@news.auracom.net...
snip
>>I hope others don't get as discouraged with this group as I did, ( just a
couple of people), not the majority, bye now Rick.
> Yes, unfortunately there are idiots out there. This is a good group to be
part of, so please go away. Bye now, Rick.
> FV.
I agree FV. If you aren't enjoying yourself on some level, for heaven's
sakes DO SOMETHING ELSE. I assume no one is holding a gun to anyone's head
to post here. The ng has its ups and downs, its periods of unremitting
snarkiness (which some folks like), but I don't feel I need defend ATXF. If
you don't like the kind of stuff you are reading, start some new threads you
do like or only read the threads that interest you. I always find a way to
enjoy myself here and when I can't, I'll be gone with no fanfare or acrimony
that this ng just somehow let me down. It is what it is and we're all part
of it.
Deborah
Scullycat2
You'll tell me? No, that's too easy.
Adhokk7
<snip>
>I always find a way to
>enjoy myself here and when I can't, I'll be gone with no fanfare or acrimony
>that this ng just somehow let me down.
Not me, Jack. I'm gonna write several long and rambling attacks on the
newsgroup in general and accuse you all of being mean to me. I plan to
repeatedly say that I'm not coming back, but I will come back repeatedly and
remind you all of why I think you all suck.
Man, it got cold in Alabama overnight. I had to put socks on immediately after
my shower this morning.
-ad-o-matic
spookycc
>On Tue, 21 Dec 1999 06:41:34 +0100,
> Tamarisk <jnl.f...@JubiiPost.dk> wrote:
>[...]
>Your words have absolutely no effect
> whatsoever. He's immune to whatever you
> throw at him, and your "crusade" against him
> will not change his position on this ng. So why
> don't you spare us all and GO AWAY!
>Well, I could try other positions if you ask
> nicely.
Naw, you sound too *eager*, Al.
spookycc
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Scully: "You OK Mulder?"
Mulder: "Yeah, it's all right, my ass broke
the fall."
~The Goldberg Variation~
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Spooky2u2
>Garth Brooks.
>
>
>you are multiple persons. That, my dear, it *true* weirdness.
>
>
Forgive me, for getting off topic, but GB has not decided to be multiple
persons. He is playing the character of Chris Gaines in a movie and this is
part of the promotion/gimmick of the movie. Just letting you know ;) OK, back
to x-files.
-------------------------------------------
"I was just here. Where did I go?"~ Mulder
Jon Osborn
mox.f...@fib.gob wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Dec 1999 02:27:00 +0100, Tamarisk <jnl.f...@JubiiPost.dk>
> wrote:
> > On 21 Dec 1999 00:56:00 GMT, scull...@aol.com (Scullycat2) wrote:
> >>Some people just aren't up to handling Al's own peculiar brand of Tough
> >>Love.
> >>At the risk of being slapped down, I'll say it once more: I enjoy Al's
> >>posts,
> >>in some sick and twisted way.
> > It's not that. mox.f...@fib.gob is doing people, who have questions,
> > a favour by answering their posts. Instead of jumping right at him
> > they should look at his sig. Why is that so difficult to comprehend?
> It's not difficult, but it's even easier for those self-righteous morons
> to lecture about how rude and evil I am.
Then that makes them pots calling the kettle black, doesn't it?
Jon Osborn
> mox.f...@fib.gob wrote:
<snip>
> You are a moron, you think your shit don't stink, well it does like all
> us mortals,
> you asinine piece of trailer trash.
If Al's shit didn't stink, he'd never get any enjoyment out of his used
toilet paper.
Jon Osborn
mox.f...@fib.gob wrote:
> On 20 Dec 1999 00:53:58 EST, Darius
> <trustno1%qwestint...@pop3.qwestinternet.net> wrote:
> > Ahh.... I see you've found the resident asshole of Usenet, calling ATXF
> > his
> You must be an expert on a$$holes, being such a fine example yourself.
> > him. He, and a few select others, patrol this board in the purpose
> > finding
> > something to say that he thinks is witty and cute. He promotes himself
> > to
> Others find it witty and cute, too.
The dead don't count.
> > be a bastard and will flame anyone he can, especially those who aren't
> > to
> > his liking. Read that to mean practically everyone.
> Ah, where to begin? 1. I don't promote myself as anything in particular,
> other than a phile. 2. You're too ignorant to understand what "flaming"
> means. It is certainly not what you are implying. 3. Yeah, people "flame"
> the people they like. What an idiot. 4. Wrong again; I do like a lot of
> people in this group, and they know it.
Pity them.
> > He and others like him are known as "trolls" on the Internet. They
> > will
> Wrong again, but keep displaying your flaming ignorance. We have a few
> reruns ahead, and you are rather entertaining, in a sick way.
Keep displaying your just-plain ignorance.
> [...]
> > get on their soap box, promote their opinions and feelings on everyone,
> > and
> You should get some kind of prize for this one. "Promote their opinions
> and feelings on everyone"? That's cute.
As close to cute as you're ever gonna get.
<snip rest of Al's bogus blather>
Deborah
Lulu <soph...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991221114911...@ng-da1.aol.com...
> >"Deborah" tins...@prodigy.net wrote:
> >What a mean and rude thread. Gee I wonder why no one is begging these
guys
> >to stop "for the sake of the ng." Haven't stepped on the right toes I
guess.
> Well, Deb, I know you probably meant this as a rhetorical question,
No, it was an ironic joke. You see I'm not the one begging for peace and
good will on the ng. It just strikes me as queer that y'all let contentious
threads such as this go, but come after me for--what was it exactly?
Double standards.
snip
> A) This is the kind of thing we expect from Al. There is another thread
going where you said the same thing to Kim. And, I repeat, Kim's response
is not at all out of character for her. Same with ad. Same with Tara.
You, however, can be more of a quandary. You have a tendency to oscillate
between very kind and passionate(i.e.the whole racism thread from way back
when) to quite snarky.<
I don't attack people out of the blue for one thing. I don't say the kinds
of things Al, Kim and Tara do. If I get sarcastic and snarky, 95% of the
time it's because of the tone or accusations made by someone who replied to
me. Check the record. VerlindaH, kind, decent soul that she is, was pretty
snotty to me about the original post. When I stood up for christina and the
person who asked the shipper question, I was accused of being a hypocrite.
Then the fun ensued.
The difference between the crew you mention above and me is, they'll attack
over the most benign, out of the blue stuff. I don't do that. The only time
I'm "mean" is when someone has insulted me, twisted what I said to make
their arguments look better or has engaged in some condescending armchair
psychology to tell me exactly what's wrong with me.
> My two bit analysis of why, is because of the whole "game" element that
you
> have been know to talk about. You say what you have to in order to win
the game.
I only play the game when someone ups the ante into hostility and insults.
It becomes a game when someone takes something realtively harmless and blows
it up into some big deal.
I stand by everything I said in the racism thread.
snip
> B) Often when you are being snarky or sarcastic, it is directed at large
> portions of the ng or at least a generalized group of people.
That's a generalization. It isn't directed at large portions of the ng
because large portions of the ng are not involved in the discussions. That's
what I mean about blowing it out of proportion. It's typically the same ten
or so folks who try to dominate this ng. I only direct it at the pack when
the pack attacks. People include themselves in the discussions. I don't
force them. I specifically answered individuals, but was chided several
times with - the majority is against you. Who is generalizing here?
When you make such broad sweeping statements, in a sense you are doing
exactly what you are accusing me of? Can you see that? And I'm asking
politely--not trying to get your goat at all. If you want to make this
argument, and I can't imagine why you'd want to spend time doing that--you
must have better things to do, you'll have to give direct examples.
This is
> significantly different from Al and Kim et al. Their snark is directed
toward
> specific people. For example, you have been know to say (paraphrasing
here)
> "there are so many people on this ng who care about grammar and they are
darn
> rude about it" when in fact there are, what, 1/2 dozen "grammar girrls"?
There is a grammar, spelling mafia on this group (I never quantified a
number), and it is their game to derail folks questions with their
"corrections". Some of it is gentle and funny and some of it is not. The
rest that you've written above I never said. That's your erroneous
perception.
>More specifically, during the latest unpleasantness, you started to put me
in a
> "pack" of just "one of the girls". Now of course, you are mostly doing
this
> for dramatic effect, but, again, in the heat of the argument, it can be
frustrating.
Because the attackers were pretty much all saying the same things, and the
posts came one on top of the other, and there were a lot of them. If you
wanted to distinguish your post from the pack for some reason (and frankly I
never understood why you and others found it necessary to "correct" me in
the first place), perhaps if you'd changed the subject head or contacted me
by email, or even used a more concilliatory or polite tone. There was a lot
to wade through and I don't remember your post being that much different
than anyone else's. I think it was the "yadda stinkin' yadda" that made me
toss you into the pack.
You also wrote (in the shipper thread --different but the same battle was
being fought there):
"But, but...you just had a whole thread scolding someone who didn't answer
the right question! "
I didn't "have" a thread. I replied to all the people who thought I was too
hard on Lee--very little which was about Lee.
AND
"But, but... you yelled at them because they *asked* that so-called stupid
question! "
Both statements were distortions of what happened. I only said a few
sarcastic things to Lee in that very first post--nothing as rude as what
Tara and Ad wrote (and you thought Ad's stuff was funny. I suppose in the
context of your little group, maybe it is, but to a few of us, it just looks
like the clique enjoying themselves at the expense of others, making fun of
the "geeks" who aren't a part of their group--read you post to Ad-- "the
reason for the season". Okay, for your little group maybe that's hysterical,
but some of us don't find it all that amusing). I used humor when I
admonished Lee, but you don't like my jokes. I can only think that's because
I'm not part of your clique.
> Through out that thread you talked about "us" as one big group, just
because we had similar things to say. I, in fact, did not contribute
allthat much, really it was just one or two post (not including my slide
into
> one-liner sarcasm) but yet, every time I read about the "pack" I took it
personally none the less.
I called you a pack--hardly "one big group". The pack is made up of about 10
or 12.
Try to look at it objectively or at least from my point of view. You did
participate in the little mean quips to folks, you didn't make any effort to
answer the actual points I made, and you did join the pack--making cute
remarks about isolated phrases from my posts. You had a lot of posts to this
thread--no, not all directed at me, but supporting your buddies.
Did you think Tara's reply to Christina was amusing? I admit. I don't find
Tara's snarkiness funny, and this particular combination, going after
someone with a physical disability, annoyed me. I didn't see any of the pack
chiding her for her meanness and insensitivity. You all complain about the
effect I have on the ng with my tone, what about Tara. Does she get a free
pass because you are used to it? Several of the pack really seem to like her
posts. She sets the tone on this ng much more than I do here.
Adhokk is often very funny, but sometimes he's just mean and proud of
it--and you, and a bunch of the other girls never make a distinction. No,
that would upset the clique. It's clear from the outside. If you are inside
it, you just want to do what ever it takes to not spoil your fun. Telling Ad
he might have gone too far would have been "uncool". Telling Tara she went
to far--well I don't know why no one else said anything to her? I guess
everyone has just given up.
It just seems like you all only go after certain people, and leave others
alone. It seems selective and frankly, I thought the whole thread was
completely blown out of proportion because "the pack" responded as a group,
keying off each other's posts, distorting what I had actually said in order
to whip up the emotion--and then POW!! when I didn't back down, they cry
foul.
snip
> C) There is the whole hypocrisy issue.
Yes, I agree there was a lot of hypocrisy from you guys.
For example, (again, please forgive the
> paraphrasing) from my personal contribution to the resent unpleasantness:
You said way back when "certain people on this ng will take the first
opportunity to jump down your throat". "Well goodness!" thought I, "she
just took the first opportunity to jump down that Lee guys throat How can
she say that about people on this ng when she does it herself?". So it was
not that you were being snarky or mean, it was more that you slammed much of
the ng for doing something that you had just done yourself. Certainly it
was a very minor
> snark, as far as snarks are concerned, but (sorry I keep using this
phrase) inthe heat of the moment is just seemed so darn hypocritical.
Read what you wrote above. It is full of generalizations and inaccuracies
even though you probably believe it's true. Some people on this ng will take
any opportunity to jump down someone's throat -- i.e. Tara, Adhokk, Al, Kim,
etc. Yes, I was snide with Lee, but doing it one time is not the same as
doing it 10 times a day like the folks you mentioned. I did it once, out of
frustration, so that makes me as bad as the rest?
When I was sarcastic to Lee (and come on, there is no comparison between
what I wrote and what Tara or Ad wrote to Christina-- or half a dozen other
folks on this ng who pretty much tell people to FOAD, call them morons,
describe their genetilia) it was because he replied in an off topic way to
my post, diverting it from the intended point. And I even bothered to answer
his question after I chided him. The rest of the post was not directed at
Lee, but I used the opportunity to say what I was looking for. How in the
hell is that just being mean? Did you read what I wrote to Lee? Oh yeah,
isn't that when you posted, "yadda stinkin yadda"?
You know, you say you want to get to the bottom of this, and I guess I'll
take you at your word, but I've explained all of this numerous times before
in my responses to this thread. That leads me to believe you either didn't
bother to read what I wrote or really only care about making your point
regardless of the facts. Am I wrong? Everything I've said here has been said
before.
> Well, that is my take on all this. Of course, I'm sure you will have your
> opinions one way or another.
Does that mean you aren't going to read what I've written?
And there will be a number of people rolling
> there eyes wondering why I am encouraging more posts on this subject.
They don't have to read it.
> But that is fine by me. You may be wordy, but at least, AT LEAST, you
haven't decided
> you are multiple persons. That, my dear, it *true* weirdness.
No, I'm just your usual, run of the mill, complex human being. You know this
can just be a discussion. It doesn't have to enter the flame war zone. I'm
willing to listen to any points you have to make as long as you try to be
fair to me and don't resort to name calling or insults. As soon as that
begins, it becomes a game to me and I cannot take it seriously--because it
isn't meant seriously, it's just one upsmanship.
Deborah
Deborah
Adhokk7 <adh...@aol.coma> wrote in message
news:19991221181238...@ng-fd1.aol.com...
"Deborah" <tins...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> >I always find a way to enjoy myself here and when I can't, I'll be gone
with no fanfare or acrimony that this ng just somehow let me down.
> Not me, Jack. I'm gonna write several long and rambling attacks on the
newsgroup in general and accuse you all of being mean to me. I plan to
repeatedly say that I'm not coming back, but I will come back repeatedly and
remind you all of why I think you all suck.
> Man, it got cold in Alabama overnight. I had to put socks on immediately
aftermy shower this morning.
> -ad-o-matic
Well gee, your way sounds like more fun than my plan. I think I'll do that
too. Why not go out with a flourish?
Deborah
Deborah
Lulu wrote:
> <snip>>AT LEAST, you haven't decided you are multiple persons. That, my
dear, it *true* weirdness.
When I read this, I hadn't read any of the Stalker/R./Rebekah stuff--so I
didn't get it. I love this ng. You just never know what'll happen next.
Deborah
Jewlz!
>Not me, Jack. I'm gonna write several long and rambling attacks on the
>newsgroup in general and accuse you all of being mean to me. I plan to
>repeatedly say that I'm not coming back, but I will come back repeatedly
and
>remind you all of why I think you all suck.
>Man, it got cold in Alabama overnight. I had to put socks on immediately
after
>my shower this morning.
If you wear your socks *in the shower you won't have to put them on *after
your shower...
HTH
--
Jewlz! *yin*
"I think it would be nice. Whether it's in a last season episode or in one
of the movies, it's like 'Enough already'"--GA when asked what did she think
about Mulder and Scully finally getting cozy.
*Wife of Robbie, Hobbs, and Kool Kristen* *I*
XFW # 7! WotF division
Samurai SMUTster # 1 x 7! Bring it on:::::::
SMUTsters OS:: http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~gavaska/smu/
--
mox.f...@fib.gob
mox.f...@fib.gob
mox.f...@fib.gob
mox.f...@fib.gob
mox.f...@fib.gob
> "you are a moron" or one can say "I think you are wrong". You often choose the
> former. Some people think it is mean. <shrug>
Being wrong and being a moron are not synonymous. Morons are often wrong,
but being wrong does not make you a moron.
Binah
> Lulu <soph...@aol.com> wrote ...
We've seen evidence to the contrary.
>> B) Often when you are being snarky or sarcastic, it
>> is directed at large portions of the ng or at least a
>> generalized group of people.
>
> That's a generalization.
Pack, mafia, clique...hmm, I don't know. I think I see a theme here.
> There is a grammar, spelling mafia on this group (I never quantified a
> number), and it is their game to derail folks questions with their
> "corrections".
I'm glad we've cleared up that issue. :-P
There are worse things to stand up for than good grammar.
I guess I could change to "Viva the lowest common denominator!"
> Because the attackers were pretty much all saying the same things, and the
> posts came one on top of the other, and there were a lot of them. If you
> wanted to distinguish your post from the pack for some reason (and frankly
I
> never understood why you and others found it necessary to "correct" me in
> the first place),
That's been painfully obvious.
> perhaps if you'd changed the subject head or contacted me
> by email, or even used a more concilliatory or polite tone.
What a bunch of horse hocky. I did email you and you're still acting like a
tiresome poopyhead. Every single person in the ng could have emailed you
and you still wouldn't catch a clue if it was handed to you.
>I used humor when I admonished Lee, but you don't like
>my jokes. I can only think that's because
> I'm not part of your clique.
<arched eyebrow> Maybe you're not as funny as perhaps you think you are.
Your retort to Lee seemed full of frustration, not humor. And again with
this clique. So is the Girlie Mafia a separate identity from the "pack" or
"clique"? Enquiring minds want to know.
>...what about Tara. Does she get a free
> pass because you are used to it?
Say what you want about Tara, but at least she doesn't whine. That's a
refreshing quality right there.
> It just seems like you all only go after certain people,
> and leave others alone. It seems selective and frankly,
I suspect only because you were selected.
> > C) There is the whole hypocrisy issue.
> Yes, I agree there was a lot of hypocrisy from you guys.
O sweet irony!
> You know, you say you want to get to the bottom of this, and I guess I'll
> take you at your word, but I've explained all of this numerous times
before
> in my responses to this thread.
Your explanation was that everybody was wrong, cliquish, and out to get you.
> That leads me to believe you either didn't
> bother to read what I wrote
We did ad naseum. Repeat it 'till you're blue in the face, it still won't
wash.
> Does that mean you aren't going to read what I've written?
It depends, are you actually going to say something different?
--
Binah
XFW#1013 ggg
SMUTster#1013
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I have had a wonderful evening. This wasn't it." --Groucho Marx
Deborah
Dear Binah--
Why are you continuing to reply to me? I can only assume you enjoy it. So no
complaining if I reply. Okay. You decided to open the can of worms.
Binah <v...@pdq.net> wrote in message
news:4xW74.1014$Ji1....@tw11.nn.bcandid.com...
> > > >"Deborah" tins...@prodigy.net wrote:
> > I don't attack people out of the blue for one thing.
>
> We've seen evidence to the contrary.
I don't believe you can back that up except for the occasional sarcastic
remark. Most of my replies are to people who choose to go after me, this
being a prime example.
Lulu wrote:
> >> B) Often when you are being snarky or sarcastic, it is directed at
large portions of the ng or at least a generalized group of people.
> > That's a generalization.
> Pack, mafia, clique...hmm, I don't know. I think I see a theme here.
How would anyone know? You've snipped all the relevant information. I'm sure
this was your attempt to strengthen your campaign against me.
> > There is a grammar, spelling mafia on this group (I never quantified a
number), and it is their game to derail folks questions with their
> > "corrections".
> I'm glad we've cleared up that issue. :-P
> There are worse things to stand up for than good grammar.
> I guess I could change to "Viva the lowest common denominator!"
But you've purposefully obscured the issue by snipping relevant parts of my
post. There are ways to remind people about spelling and grammar without
trying to humiliate them. And the part you snipped is where I said often
this was done with good humore. Not everyone who corrects a post is rude,
but many are.
Again, another attempt to make it look like I've said something I haven't.
Perhaps you are hoping to lure in the rest of the pack to support you or
perhaps you are simply biased and unfair.
snip (and notice Binah, I show that I've snipped material. I believe that's
ng netiquette.)
> I
> > never understood why you and others found it necessary to "correct" me
in
> > the first place),
> That's been painfully obvious.
Only to those of you have made up your minds without looking at all the
evidence. A lot of it is stirred up by posts like yours. You snipped a lot
of stuff hoping to piss me off and try to make me look bad (I hardly see why
you think you need to do this since everythins to you is so "painfully
obvious"--perhaps because it's not?). At the end of my reply to Lulu I said
this didn't need to degenerate into flaming, but could be a real discussion,
but you've just demonstrated why that isn't possible. Still mad I guess.
snip
> What a bunch of horse hocky.
See, it's stuff like this and the later terribly cool and rationsal
"poopyhead" comment.
>I did email you and you're still acting like a
> tiresome poopyhead.
Well I'll spare everyone your insulting, childish email (because to post it
would violate ng etiquette and who the hell really cares about this thread
anymore but folks like you who can't manage their anger. I mean really--are
you still so ticked off?). Your email basically said you were sick of me.
Very nice. Very concilliatory. Just the thing to make me feel warm all over.
If you are just going to continue to insult me and tell me just how awful
you think I am, please, don't email me.
> Every single person in the ng could have emailed you and you still
wouldn't catch a clue if it was handed to you.
Well certainly not if they were like yours Binah. You basically just bitched
me out in private. The thing is, I don't imagine more than a handful of
folks read what I write here.
> >I used humor when I admonished Lee, but you don't like
> >my jokes. I can only think that's because
> > I'm not part of your clique.
> <arched eyebrow> Maybe you're not as funny as perhaps you think you are.
Well I have my fans, but fair enough. I think I'm terribly funny but I guess
it doesn't play well on the ng. Then again I don't get a lot of what passes
for humor here. I think you have to be part of the cirlce to get some of
humor in saying mean things to people on a regular basis. Oh, it just
occurred to me one of the reasons you're doing this. You want everyone to
see how you aren't afraid of me. It's like counting coup.
> Your retort to Lee seemed full of frustration, not humor. And again with
> this clique.
Well I was frustrated and humorous at the same time. What a concept huh. You
know a lot of humor comes out of pain. Maybe that's why mine fell flat. I
wasn't unhappy enough. If only I'd been as frustrated as some of the
humorists you admire on this ng.
So is the Girlie Mafia a separate identity from the "pack" or
> "clique"? Enquiring minds want to know.
Isn't that inquiring? Well the Girlie Mafia was meant to insult you all. I
was trying to get you all stirred up thinking maybe you'd see how ridiculous
this all is. It half worked.
snip Tara stuff so I won't be accused once again about hounding her. Tara is
delightful. I'm gaining a new appreciation for her--in my imagination since
I only read her when she's quoted.
snip nonsensical baiting
> Your explanation was that everybody was wrong, cliquish, and out to get
you.
Why I believe that's YOUR explanation. See, you can't tell the difference
between what I actually say and what you want me to say. If you let reality
intrude it might take the wind out of your sails.
> > That leads me to believe you either didn't bother to read what I wrote
> We did ad naseum. Repeat it 'till you're blue in the face, it still won't
wash.
This is something I do not understand. If I'm so infuriating and boring, why
are you still reading me? Admit it. You enjoy it. You are having the time of
your life trashing me. Hmmm, who is the frustrated, bitter one Binah?
And BTW--before you write once more how long winded I am, and how I keep
repeating myself, etc., etc., take a moment to consider-- you are the one
posting to me. My discussion was in direct reply to Lulu. You chose to
engage me once more. You just can't get enough. And you ask why I won't
stop. How can I with such a faithful and attentive audience. Really, you
flatter me.
> > Does that mean you aren't going to read what I've written?
> It depends, are you actually going to say something different?
> Binah
Ah but darlin', you read every word didn't you. You may have even reread it.
Do you think about it when you're off line? Lord I hope not. I wouldn't want
you becoming obssessed with me (though I admit, I am darned fascinating).
No, no, no matter how you protest, actions speak louder than words.
Deborah
P.S. And for those of you without a clue, I'm being sarcastic. What gives
sarcasm its bite is when there's truth in it.
Deborah
Sean Carroll <se...@kua.net> wrote in message
news:38603a55...@news.kua.net...
> >"Deborah" <tins...@prodigy.net> ...
>> That's a generalization.
> All generalisations are bad.
> --Sean
Including this one :o).
Deborah
Deborah
> >Deborah" tins...@prodigy.net wrote:
> <bunch of snips>
More snipping just because Prodigy doesn't like too much quoting and I get
tired of editing out the quotemarks.
> This is what I was thinking about. You wrote:
> "Ah go ahead. Post any question you want. There's so much OT, so many
cliques with their little flirting games, folks who post just to correct
grammar and admonish people to use their shift keys, why not ask any
question you want?">
Now I don't think that sounds terribly harsh and it is factually true, but
I'll accept your judgement that it read more harshly than it was meant. I
confess, I was tweakin' noses here. It's a bad habit, but I don't think a
comment like that deserves all the hostility I received over the whole
affair. You didn't do this, but if you read some of the things written to me
(everything from persecution complex, to not knowing what I was doing, to
psycho) about this thread you might understand why I went on the offense. It
was hard to keep straight who was accusing me of what.
> However, to your credit you also wrote:
> "Not everyone takes every opportunity to scold and ridicule here--of
course for some that's their idea of fun. It
> makes their day if they can make you cry. Don't let the bullies push you
off the group. If Dex can talk about his dick"
> (I kept that part about Dex only because it is funny)
Thank you Lulu for being fair. You don't know how welcome that is. You know,
we seem to get into it every once in awhile, but to your credit, you go the
extra distance. I'll try not to lump you in with any groups from now on, and
feel I must offer you an apology for any unfairness or discourteousness I
may have shown you during this whole thing.
snip
snip
> By that time, I had given up trying to be reasonable, and was just having
some silly fun.
I do that too sometimes and that's often what gets thrown up in my face. I
am far from perfect and I do get sarcastic at times, but I don't think I'm
any worse or nearly as excessive as many others on this ng. I just seem to
get tagged for it.
> Yes, you have said this all before, but I thought I would give you my POV
for better or worse.
Thanks. I do appreciate it.
> >Does that mean you aren't going to read what I've written?
> Nope. I wouldn't have written it had I not intended to read the reply.
You are a woman of your word and have impressed the hell out of me with you
fairness, patience and good humor. See, something good did come of all of
this--at least for me. Thanks Lulu.
Deborah
Rudy Sutanto Tan
C'mon people, can't we just get along?
There are lots of other more important things to get hot and bothered
about (e.g., 3rd world poverty, religious right bigotry,
gun nuts vs gun control, ethnic wars in fYugo, Rwanda,
log structured filesystems vs clustered filesystems, etc.)
Can't we just chill out?
Rudy S. Tan
(paX-phile)
Jen (is not a potato)
<no.ad...@this.time> opined pensively:
>If Al irritates you, drop him in your killfile. Don't bother sending us
>thesis-length posts concerning how mean Al is and why you think he's the
>source of all usenet evil. We've read them all many times before.
Don't even send sentence-length posts.
>Al's been in here far longer than most of the current posters. Nothing
>anyone says to him or about him is going to change his posting style.
>Except this and move on with your life.
You might even want to accept it. ;-)
Please consider this a "me, too" post. Yes, I do know how irritating
such posts are, but there you have it.
Jen
--
XFW1 FEB ggg
www.geocities.com/Wellesley/Atrium/2116
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
One never really learns how the witch
became wicked or whether it was the right
choice for her-- is it ever the right
choice? ~Gregory Maguire~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Scullycat2
paper.
Ah c'mon, there's no finesse in this insult!
Sean Carroll
>
>>> B) Often when you are being snarky or sarcastic, it
>>> is directed at large portions of the ng or at least a
>>> generalized group of people.
>>
>> That's a generalization.
All generalisations are bad.
--Sean
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shuttle/9613/
‘The ends may justify the means, as long as there is something which justifies the ends.’ --Leon Trotsky
-----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----
Katrina
<snip>
>All generalisations are bad.
Hey, Sean? You spelled generalization wrong.
Katrina, always happy to help
^..^
"We now return you to FX's Secret Barret Malathon"
-- Dean Haglund <--fuckin' up
Doug Herzog Y1 -- or maybe not.
Sean Carroll
wrote:
>Sean said:
>
>>All generalisations are bad.
>
>Hey, Sean? You spelled generalization wrong.
>
>Katrina, always happy to help
Help someone else. ;P
Lulu
<bunch of snips>
>I stand by everything I said in the racism thread.
>
I have no doubt. I would never question your convictions on that issue.
>And I'm asking
>politely--not trying to get your goat at all. If you want to make this
>argument, and I can't imagine why you'd want to spend time doing that--you
>must have better things to do, you'll have to give direct examples.
>
No,no, I am the one who brought this up, the least I can do is follow up. I am
just going to go with the one post that started much of it because that is easy
for me to find (God knows I don't have time to do a deja search!)
This is what I was thinking about. You wrote:
"Ah go ahead. Post any question you want. There's so much OT, so many cliques
with their little flirting games, folks who post just to correct grammar and
admonish people to use their shift keys, why not ask any question you want?"
However, to your credit you also wrote:
"Not everyone takes every opportunity
to scold and ridicule here--of course for some that's their idea of fun. It
makes their day if they can make you cry.
Don't let the bullies push you off the group. If Dex can talk about his dick"
(I kept that part about Dex only because it is funny)
So you are right, it was not as large of part of the group although I still
think it was a bit condeming. Also, since I have this quote right in front of
me, I *will* say it was the "not everyone takes the opportunity to scold and
ridicule" part that is what got my goat in the first place, *only* because that
is what you had just done to Lee (rather mildly, mind you). Or at least it
seemed like scolding to me. I do not think, of course that you were trying to
make him cry.
> I think it was the "yadda stinkin' yadda" that made me
>toss you into the pack.
Ah, yes, well that is also the point at which *I* decided to give up, too.
>You also wrote (in the shipper thread --different but the same battle was
>being fought there):
>
>"But, but...you just had a whole thread scolding someone who didn't answer
>the right question! "
Yes, this is true. I was thinking "that one first response" but said "a whole
thread"
>AND
>
>"But, but... you yelled at them because they *asked* that so-called stupid
>question! "
I stand by this one.
> I used humor when I
>admonished Lee, but you don't like my jokes. I can only think that's because
>I'm not part of your clique.
I am part of no clique. Really.
>You did
>participate in the little mean quips to folks, you didn't make any effort to
>answer the actual points I made, and you did join the pack--making cute
>remarks about isolated phrases from my posts.
This is true. By that time, I had given up trying to be reasonable, and was
just having some silly fun.
>It just seems like you all only go after certain people, and leave others
>alone.
Oh, goodness, I don't think I go after anybody. Was my original post really
that bad?
>You know, you say you want to get to the bottom of this, and I guess I'll
>take you at your word, but I've explained all of this numerous times before
>in my responses to this thread. That leads me to believe you either didn't
>bother to read what I wrote or really only care about making your point
>regardless of the facts.
Yes, you have said this all before, but I thought I would give you my POV for
better or worse.
>Does that mean you aren't going to read what I've written?
>
Nope. I wouldn't have written it had I not intended to read the reply.
--------
Lulu,
KKGB, Proud new Protector of S.R. 819
"mwagok!"--Mulder, TGV
Adhokk7
>I only said a few
>sarcastic things to Lee in that very first post--nothing as rude as what
>Tara and Ad wrote (and you thought Ad's stuff was funny. I suppose in the
>context of your little group, maybe it is, but to a few of us, it just looks
>like the clique enjoying themselves at the expense of others, making fun of
>the "geeks" who aren't a part of their group--read you post to Ad-- "the
>reason for the season".
<snip>
>Adhokk is often very funny, but sometimes he's just mean and proud of
>it--and you, and a bunch of the other girls never make a distinction.
Because I'm quite happy draw out the most tedious of threads, I'd like to butt
in at this point. <g>
I must ask, is your contention, Deborah (formality from e-mail address rather
than attempting to take a tone), that I am operating within and therefore as
part of the pack, or do you contend that my behavior may be independent of the
pack yet fully tolerated and perhaps encouraged by the pack?
Also, do you find that in those times when I am making mean posts, that I cease
to be funny? I don't really mean in specific cases, but, you know, is there a
pattern?
Have you been keeping up with the Rebekah/StalkerChick thing?
-ad, "Ho! Ho! Ho! Headbangers!" - Kevin from Quiet Riot
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
NRMTPB *yang* I Wooly Mammoth Boy
I'm not just a member. I CASH
I'm the president. I Good-bye FOX.
Bill k.
Tan) wrote:
>Eh? this caught me by surprise
>C'mon people, can't we just get along?
>
>There are lots of other more important things to get hot and bothered
>about (e.g., 3rd world poverty, religious right bigotry,
>gun nuts vs gun control, ethnic wars in fYugo, Rwanda,
>log structured filesystems vs clustered filesystems, etc.)
>
And don't forget about the plight of the noble Canadian burrowing
pigmy-moose,
whose natural habitat is rapidly being destroyed by the vicious
Norwegian hummingbird.
>Can't we just chill out?
Not while *one single moose yet suffers.
Bill k.
FEB
>
>Rudy S. Tan
>(paX-phile)
Deborah
Tom <no.ad...@this.time> wrote in message
news:hsk06ssl8f9osfh9s...@news.raven.edu...
> It's rumored that on Mon, 20 Dec 1999 21:03:58 -0500, "StalkerChick"
> <Stalke...@worldnet.att.net> shared the following:
>
> >Deborah wrote in message <83mmvg$7sru$1@newssvr03-
> >
> >>I guess I'm sucking
> >
> >Don't be so hard on yourself, Deb. I rather appreciate your spunk.
>
> Did you swallow?
>
> Tom
Well Tom, one of my most ardent admirers (and maybe more so now). No, I
don't swallow. Do you know how many calories are in semen? And there's that
icky after taste. You know what I mean don't you. All things considered, if
I'm going to ingest that many calories, I'd rather have scotch.
Deborah
Deborah
Adhokk7 <adh...@aol.coma> wrote in message
> "Deborah" <tins...@prodigy.net> wrote:
snip
> >Adhokk is often very funny, but sometimes he's just mean and proud of
> >it--and you, and a bunch of the other girls never make a distinction.
>
butt
> in at this point. <g>
> I must ask, is your contention, Deborah (formality from e-mail address
rather
> than attempting to take a tone), that I am operating within and therefore
as
> part of the pack, or do you contend that my behavior may be independent of
the
> pack yet fully tolerated and perhaps encouraged by the pack?
Oh heavens Ad (you can call me Deb), I haven't really given it much thought,
and I only know the bare rudiments of pack behavior. Let me see. No I
actually don't count you as part of the pack and seriously, I personally
don't object to what you have to say. I was using your post (please pardon
me) to make the point that you can get away with murder and the gals just
think you're the cutest thing. I, on the other hand, write a rather mild
sarcastic remark to Lee and get (well I was going to say crucified, but
that's a bit much) called on the carpet when I defended Christina and
whoever that guy was that asked the shipper question.
By no means would I ever suggest you should change your style. But your post
was just too perfect to make my point that the gals were just mad at me and
their complaints had little to do with what I actually wrote. I think they
have a crush on you :o).
> Also, do you find that in those times when I am making mean posts, that I
cease
> to be funny? I don't really mean in specific cases, but, you know, is
there a
> pattern?
To tell you the truth, the post to Christina was the only one that hit my
radar--and that was brought to my attention by the way I was attacked for
being bitchy to Lee--which was incredibly mild compared to you and What's
Her Name. I do think you're funny most of the time, but the post to
Christina wasn't very funny to me. Apparently some of your fan club thought
it was hilarious--so what do I know?
> Have you been keeping up with the Rebekah/StalkerChick thing?
I hate to admit this, but I'm confused. Maybe I didn't read enough of them.
Is SC/Rebekah & R all the same person?
You know I think for me what happens is some of the edgy sarcasm and snarky
comments are funny-- timing, word choice, etc., but then some of the time I
think folks think just being rude is funny--and it's not. SC got in a few
amusing lines, but then it was just mean crap--taking no thought.
Of course the reason I think I'm so funny (apparently a majority of one) is
that I mix in references, use the attacker's own words and puncture their
faulty logic, etc. When I was snarking at Lee I thought the part where I
replied to his question about DF's mortality was amusing. What some folks
read as mean and bitter lots of time is sort of tongue in cheek for me. I do
like to tweak noses, especially when someone launches into hyperbole--bad
habit. It surprises me when people take this stuff so seriously. With the
Racism thread last summer, it was different. I took that seriously, but this
stuff about being too mean -- or I don't know, did you read all the things I
was charged with - persecution complex, bitterness, delusions, psychosis,
just so screwed up I can't help myself-- all over my complaining about Lee
asking a stupid question. Too much. All I could do was laugh, and, as I've
said so often I'm sure no one wants to read it again, I enjoy a good fight.
I can't help it (mostly because I don't want to). I enjoy it. So sue me.
Just think though. I'm giving you a free ride. No matter what you write,
you'll never be meaner than I'm supposed to be in the hearts of that little
circle.
Deborah
Sean Carroll
wrote:
>No, I
>don't swallow. Do you know how many calories are in semen?
<blinks>
<gazes downward>
Is it more than the half-calorie that they promise is in the glue on
the back of a postage stamp?
Deborah
Rudy Sutanto Tan <ta...@leland.Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
news:83psod$1...@tree1.Stanford.EDU...
> Eh? this caught me by surprise
> C'mon people, can't we just get along?
Really. This kind of crap goes on all the time here.
> There are lots of other more important things to get hot and bothered
about (e.g., 3rd world poverty, religious right bigotry,
> gun nuts vs gun control, ethnic wars in fYugo, Rwanda, log structured
filesystems vs clustered filesystems, etc.)
Yeah, but when are any of those things ever discussed here? Maybe you should
try alt.filesystems.
This is a playground Rudy and some kids play rough. Just leave the hard
hitting dodge ball game and go over to the jump rope/hopscotch area of the
playground (I loved jump rope and hopscotch).
> Can't we just chill out?
Apparently not and simply asking will have no effect, but surely you know
that? The best way to kill a thread is to not post to it, and now you know
how snarky this one is, you can avoid it if you choose.
Deborah
Tamarisk
wrote:
>I hate to admit this, but I'm confused. Maybe I didn't read enough of them.
>Is SC/Rebekah & R all the same person?
Yes.
~~~~~~~~~
Tamarisk
XFW/W LLL
~~~~~~~~~
Deborah
Tom <no.ad...@this.time> wrote in message
> It's rumored that on Tue, 21 Dec 1999 18:06:10 -0600, "Deborah"
> <tins...@prodigy.net> shared the following:
> >The pack is made up of about 10 or 12.
>
> Name them.
> Tom
No. You can't tell me what to do! (harumph) :o)
Tom darlin' are you trying to restart the feud? Tell you what. If you care
so much, you do the leg work and I'll let you know if you're right. Frankly,
I've forgotten most of it already, but my oh my some of you are just
obsessed with this thread or is it me? (blushes demurely) Perhaps I hit a
nerve?
Don't get me wrong. I appreciate your continued interest in everything I
write. (well actually, it's getting a little creepy)
Deborah
Deborah
Tamarisk <jnl.f...@JubiiPost.dk> wrote in message
news:p7216sguafec9fpac...@4ax.com...
> >I hate to admit this, but I'm confused. Maybe I didn't read enough of
them. Is SC/Rebekah & R all the same person?
> Yes.
> Tamarisk
Crikey! I guess I read it but just didn't believe it. How'd y'all find out?
Did SC/Reb/R fess up or was she outed by some clever ATXFer? Is it just a
prank? Surely it is.
Deborah
Adhokk7
>I guess I read it but just didn't believe it. How'd y'all find out?
>Did SC/Reb/R fess up or was she outed by some clever ATXFer? Is it just a
>prank? Surely it is.
My newsreader says there are about 35 posts from the last few days that it
hasn't received yet, so I may have missed part of the story, but here's what I
can gather:
-R was posting to someone and goofed up and kept SC's sig. Within
milliseconds, Tara and I posted regarding the incident. Tara completely blew
her cover, while I posted a hesitant "Um...".
So, since then, SC has been getting into scrapes and demanding to be killfiled
while at the same time lashing out at -R. Now, -R, you see, has begun to act
more clingy and likeable, but SC is getting more heinous in her attacks on -R.
I'm predicting full meltdown, I mean full China Syndrome meltdown, soon. It's
starting to get really interesting.
mox.f...@fib.gob
[...]
> That sums up OJ's posting style rather nicely.
Can you call it a "style"?
Rudy Sutanto Tan
>Rudy S. Tan <ta...@leland.Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
>news:83psod$1...@tree1.Stanford.EDU...
>> There are lots of other more important things to get hot and bothered
>about (e.g., 3rd world poverty, religious right bigotry,
>> gun nuts vs gun control, ethnic wars in fYugo, Rwanda, log structured
>filesystems vs clustered filesystems, etc.)
>Yeah, but when are any of those things ever discussed here?
nope, that's why we shouldn't get all hot and bothered right?
>This is a playground Rudy and some kids play rough. Just leave the hard
>hitting dodge ball game and go over to the jump rope/hopscotch area of the
>playground (I loved jump rope and hopscotch).
Ah, I used to love playing rough too when i was young and foolish and into all
that Thai kickboxing stuff, nowadays i try to win people over with my
kindness and compassion instead of leg kicks.
>> Can't we just chill out?
>Apparently not and simply asking will have no effect, but surely you know
>that?
Heh heh, you got me there
> The best way to kill a thread is to not post to it, and now you know
>how snarky this one is, you can avoid it if you choose.
i will try
>Deborah
Rudy S. Tan
Tamarisk
wrote:
>Tamarisk <jnl.f...@JubiiPost.dk> wrote in message
>news:p7216sguafec9fpac...@4ax.com...
>
>>On Wed, 22 Dec 1999 01:51:29 -0600, "Deborah" <tins...@prodigy.net>
>>wrote:
>
>>>I hate to admit this, but I'm confused. Maybe I didn't read enough of
>>>them. Is SC/Rebekah & R all the same person?
>
>>Yes.
>
>Crikey! I guess I read it but just didn't believe it. How'd y'all find out?
>Did SC/Reb/R fess up or was she outed by some clever ATXFer? Is it just a
>prank? Surely it is.
Shamelessly quoting Ad: "Somebody in the control room goofed." The
more crowded it gets in there the more fun we will have. Prank? No.
Bill k.
It's
>starting to get really interesting.
You misspelled 'silly'.
Bill k.
FEB
KennyBob Teller
wrote:
Och Lassie, NOW your talking ! I'll be over straight away an'ye ken
have a wee nip from my bonnie lad 'neath me kilt !
Deborah
KennyBob Teller <kete...@pilot.infi.net> wrote
snip
> Och Lassie, NOW your talking ! I'll be over straight away an'ye ken have a
wee nip from my bonnie lad 'neath me kilt !
Well I prefer mine smokey and at least 25 years old, but hell if you can
ejaculate scotch, it's worth a try. The alcohol would kill any nasty STDs I
suppose. Doesn't it burn when you spurt though or has all feeling been
deadened by this point?
Deborah
Adhokk7
<snip>
>No I
>actually don't count you as part of the pack and seriously, I personally
>don't object to what you have to say.
No, I trust that if you object to something I post, you'll address it directly.
>I was using your post (please pardon
>me)
Fair use. Doesn't bother me a bit.
>to make the point that you can get away with murder and the gals just
>think you're the cutest thing. I, on the other hand, write a rather mild
>sarcastic remark to Lee and get (well I was going to say crucified, but
>that's a bit much) called on the carpet when I defended Christina and
>whoever that guy was that asked the shipper question.
Assuming that's consistently true, what do you think makes the difference for
the gals? Btw, that's "christina" with a lower case "c". :-)
<snip>
>I think they
>have a crush on you :o).
Liiiiiiiike you don't.
<snip>
>To tell you the truth, the post to Christina was the only one that hit my
>radar--and that was brought to my attention by the way I was attacked for
>being bitchy to Lee--which was incredibly mild compared to you and What's
>Her Name. I do think you're funny most of the time, but the post to
>Christina wasn't very funny to me.
I don't think you can level a criticism at that post of mine that I won't agree
with or at least accept as personally valid. That said, and again just for
clarity, you did catch the target of my post didn't you? I mean, I'd hate for
it to be judged in an inappropriate context. Fwiw, although it fell in a
scuffle about CTS and grammar, my post was related to and solely directed
toward a "U all sUK so i am LEAVNIG ok bye" post, which does deserve great
amounts of ridicule heaped on it regardless of who posts it. Making fun of
people for physical reasons like CST or whatever doesn't really offend me,
since I think everyone deserves to be made fun of, but it's not something I
normally participate in.
<snip>
>You know I think for me what happens is some of the edgy sarcasm and >snarky
>comments are funny-- timing, word choice, etc., but then some of the time I
>think folks think just being rude is funny--and it's not.
Oh, but you're wrong. Sometimes being thoughtlessly rude is damn funny.
<snip>
>It surprises me when people take this stuff so seriously.
*snort* Oh, really? C'mon Deb, we're squattin' down by the whiskey barrel
here. You should leave that stuff for the people who don't know any better.
>No matter what you write,
>you'll never be meaner than I'm supposed to be in the hearts of that little
>circle.
Oh Deb, you have such little faith. I've barely begun to tap my inner well of
cruelty.
obsidian
> Sean Carroll wrote in message
> > All generalisations are bad.
> Including this one :o).
I think that was his point. :)
--
<*><*><*>obsidian<*><*><*>
Women’s Liberation is just a lot of foolishness.
It’s the men who are discriminated against.
They can’t bear children.
And no one’s likely to do
anything about that.
Golda Meir
<*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*>
Deborah
Adhokk7 <adh...@aol.coma> wrote in message
> "Deborah" <tins...@prodigy.net> wrote:
Well Ad, I'm beginning to understand why the ladies are so charmed by you.
This is fun.
snipping stuff
> >to make the point that you can get away with murder and the gals just
> >think you're the cutest thing. I, on the other hand, write a rather mild
> >sarcastic remark to Lee and get (well I was going to say crucified, but
> >that's a bit much) called on the carpet when I defended Christina and
> >whoever that guy was that asked the shipper question.
>
> Assuming that's consistently true, what do you think makes the difference
for
> the gals?
I'd say a lot of it has to do with past history-- the racism and then the
ATXFA threads late last summer, but I'm just guessing. Maybe my sarcasm is
just too sharp? (Doubt that, but I really don't know). Maybe because I don't
play any reindeer games?
Btw, that's "christina" with a lower case "c". :-)
I stand corrected
snip
> >I think they have a crush on you :o).
> Liiiiiiiike you don't.
Well I'm not there yet, but I must say, you could charm the fleas off a dog.
> <snip>
> I don't think you can level a criticism at that post of mine that I won't
agree
> with or at least accept as personally valid. That said, and again just
for
> clarity, you did catch the target of my post didn't you? I mean, I'd hate
for
> it to be judged in an inappropriate context. Fwiw, although it fell in a
> scuffle about CTS and grammar, my post was related to and solely directed
> toward a "U all sUK so i am LEAVNIG ok bye" post, which does deserve great
> amounts of ridicule heaped on it regardless of who posts it. Making fun
of
> people for physical reasons like CST or whatever doesn't really offend me,
> since I think everyone deserves to be made fun of, but it's not something
I
> normally participate in.
I missed the context but I assumed you had planted your tongue firmly in
your cheek when you wrote it. As I did when I chastised Lee, but it didn't
pass muster. Every word I said was taken deadly seriously. Got to sharpen
those comedy skills, but until then I suppose I could rely on the old
emoticon. Sigh. I just don't have your talent.
snip
> >It surprises me when people take this stuff so seriously.
> *snort* Oh, really? C'mon Deb, we're squattin' down by the whiskey barrel
> here. You should leave that stuff for the people who don't know any
better.
But I do get surprised at times. I'm not talking about the first retorts,
but the way some folks take it and run with it and start trying to label me
as a psycho or bitter, unhappy woman. Of course I am a closet psycho, and a
bitter, unhappy woman, but that's beside the point.
snip
>>I've barely begun to tap my inner well of cruelty.
Well I won't challenge you to prove it.
Deborah
Deborah
obsidian <obsi...@mc.net> wrote in message news:3861564B...@mc.net...
> Deborah wrote:>
> > Sean Carroll wrote in message
> > > All generalisations are bad.
>
> > Including this one :o).
>
> I think that was his point. :)
That's an old philosophy "joke"? Whatever. When they are teaching about
generalizations this is used to demonstrate them. I thought some one would
get it, but guess not.
Deborah
Deborah
The Prophet Adhokk spake:
> You should be broken of the capacity to be surprised by that anymore. In
fact,
> you should use this very evening to reflect on the fact that you're going
to
> always get that response in one form or another. The sooner you accept
this,
> the sooner you can focus on your growing feelings for me.
Yes Master. I shall contemplate the tao of ATXF. It's just that I thought my
ability to still be surprised was the wondrous awe of my inner child. Damn.
> >Of course I am a closet psycho, and a bitter, unhappy woman, but that's
beside the point.
> Me too.
That's your inner woman aye?
Deborah
Teddi Litman
Donna wrote:
> Sorry I started this thread, now everyone go back to what you all do well, write
> about the X-Files, ciao Rick.
>
>
Oh cool, more sock puppets!
Teddi Litman
address from you, I now see; different e-mail address from Rick ... who posted
a duplicate of this message.
This newsgroup is getting weirder by the minute.
Teddi
Donna wrote:
> *perk*
>
> Hey! Where was I when I said this?
>
> Donna
mox.f...@fib.gob
> *perk*
> Hey! Where was I when I said this?
[...]
You have multiple personalities, too?
Adhokk7
>Well Ad, I'm beginning to understand why the ladies are so charmed by you.
>This is fun.
Having fun is all I do here. :-)
>I'd say a lot of it (gals' responses to Deb vs. to ad) has to do with past
history-- the racism and then the
>ATXFA threads late last summer, but I'm just guessing. Maybe my sarcasm is
>just too sharp? (Doubt that, but I really don't know). Maybe because I don't
>play any reindeer games?
I don't think the sharpness of sarcasm is a problem. Maybe something from the
ATXFA and racism threads. Shit, I give up.
I do know that at any given time, anyone who approves/tolerates/encourages me
when I'm being bad has probably been pissed at me before and likely has taken
me to task in the ng.
<snip>
>I missed the context but I assumed you had planted your tongue firmly in
>your cheek when you wrote it (ad's "no joy" post). As I did when I chastised
Lee, but it didn't
>pass muster. Every word I said was taken deadly seriously. Got to sharpen
>those comedy skills, but until then I suppose I could rely on the old
>emoticon. Sigh. I just don't have your talent.
See, the thing is, when someone whips out the "u r alll mEAn" posts, especially
if they have only seen snide or bitchy posts from one or two people, I think
it's fair to push it to as mean as you can make it, just to prove a point. I
have no idea what that point is, really, but it's there to be made. In the
case of christina, she not only didn't buckle and run crying, she hung around
and turned it all into something that was kinda fun for her. One might argue,
if one were inclined, that she actually benefitted from my cruelty to her.
I left the emoticons out in case anyone was naive and tender enough to be hurt
by my post. I didn't want deprive them of an enlightening experience.
>But I do get surprised at times. I'm not talking about the first retorts,
>but the way some folks take it and run with it and start trying to label me
>as a psycho or bitter, unhappy woman.
You should be broken of the capacity to be surprised by that anymore. In fact,
you should use this very evening to reflect on the fact that you're going to
always get that response in one form or another. The sooner you accept this,
the sooner you can focus on your growing feelings for me.
>Of course I am a closet psycho, and a
>bitter, unhappy woman, but that's beside the point.
Me too.
Rick
X-Files, ciao Rick.
Adhokk7 wrote:
> "Deborah" <tins...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >I always find a way to
> >enjoy myself here and when I can't, I'll be gone with no fanfare or acrimony
> >that this ng just somehow let me down.
>
> Not me, Jack. I'm gonna write several long and rambling attacks on the
> newsgroup in general and accuse you all of being mean to me. I plan to
> repeatedly say that I'm not coming back, but I will come back repeatedly and
> remind you all of why I think you all suck.
> Man, it got cold in Alabama overnight. I had to put socks on immediately after
> my shower this morning.
>
> -ad-o-matic
Katrina
<snip>
> was using your post (please pardon
>me) to make the point that you can get away with murder and the gals just
>think you're the cutest thing
It's true. We do.
ad, here's a $20.
Katrina <--thinks ad is just the cutest thing
^..^
"We now return you to FX's Secret Barret Malathon"
-- Dean Haglund <--fuckin' up
Doug Herzog Y1 -- or maybe not.
Adhokk7
>On 22 Dec 1999 09:01:33 GMT, adh...@aol.coma (Adhokk7) wrote:
>
>
>>-R was posting to someone and goofed up and kept SC's sig. Within
>>milliseconds, Tara and I posted regarding the incident. Tara completely blew
>>her cover,
>
>Less blowing and more calling attention to the painfully obvious. It's
>like someone was standing there with a sign, and I said, "Hey, look
>everyone, there's someone over here with a sign."
True. I just didn't want to appear as though I was equating my two letter
little post with your far superior effort.
Givin' credit where it's due,
-ad
Spooky2u2
>>me) to make the point that you can get away with murder and the gals just
>>think you're the cutest thing
>
>It's true. We do.
>
Yes, I must agree ;) I've only been posting for a couple of months, but I too
am fond of Ad. He doesn't take himself or certain posts too seriously, but will
participate in a good discussion and contribute an intelligent, thought out
opinion. He also has a good sense of humor and makes me laugh. Hi Ad!
::waves to Ad::
-------------------------------------------
"I was just here. Where did I go?"~ Mulder
Adhokk7
>Donna wrote:
>
>> Sorry I started this thread, now everyone go back to what you all do well,
write
>> about the X-Files, ciao Rick.
>>
>>
>
>Oh cool, more sock puppets!
And these are sorry for starting a ruckus.
Adhokk7
>Sorry I started this thread, go back to what you all do well, write about the
>X-Files, ciao Rick.
I started this thread.
Donna
Hey! Where was I when I said this?
Donna
Teddi Litman wrote:
>
>
>
> Donna wrote:
>
> > Sorry I started this thread, now everyone go back to what you all do well, write
> > about the X-Files, ciao Rick.
> >
> >
>
Sean Carroll
>*perk*
Fuckity-fuck-fuck-fuck?
--Sean
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shuttle/9613/
‘The ends may justify the means, as long as there is something which justifies the ends.’
--Leon Trotsky
-----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----
Secret Squirrel
>Rick <isi...@idirect.com> wrote:
>
>>Sorry I started this thread, go back to what you all do well, write about
>the
>>X-Files, ciao Rick.
>
>I started this thread.
>
>_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Oooooo! Something NEW to bicker about !!!! Yippeee!!!!!
Skwerly-Won-Kenobi
"Aren't YOU the Secret Squirrel ?"
"Yes, that was me in 'Field Trip'.'"
"Betcha can't guess how much toilet paper I can stuff in my cheeks!"
Katrina
>Donna <dave...@home.com> wrote:
>
>>*perk*
>
>Fuckity-fuck-fuck-fuck?
<*big* smile>
Just for that, you can punish me some more!
Katrina
Adhokk7
>I've only been posting for a couple of months, but I too
>am fond of Ad. He doesn't take himself or certain posts too seriously, but
will
>participate in a good discussion and contribute an intelligent, thought out
>opinion. He also has a good sense of humor and makes me laugh. Hi Ad!
>::waves to Ad::
cmsg: alt.fan.adhokk
Now more than ever. Hell, let's go on over to alt.config and make this dream a
reality.
-ad, ad's #1 fan
Sean Carroll
wrote:
>Sean said:
>
>>Donna <dave...@home.com> wrote:
>>
>>>*perk*
>>
>>Fuckity-fuck-fuck-fuck?
>
><*big* smile>
>
>Just for that, you can punish me some more!
<rubs hands together with a grin of unrestrained glee>
Sean Carroll
<dayb...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Someone who posted under the name Donna did. Different e-mail
>address from you, I now see; different e-mail address from Rick ... who posted
>a duplicate of this message.
>
>This newsgroup is getting weirder by the minute.
Tune in next time for 'As the NG Turns'.