Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. (Name changes)
Bill Palmer
Na...@gekkografx.com (Nancy) wrote:
[...]
Well, I found it interesting that though
you prattled on at great length, you left
out what for an aspiring writer SHOULD have
been the most important consideration of
all--the matter of your readership.
Of course, from some of the comments you have
made, I have concluded that you don't give a
hoot for your net readership anyway, and you
are just taking up a space as part of an
informal coffee-clatch of maybe one dozen
"cat-peed-on-the-carpet-cocoa-and-cereal"
think-alikes of yours.
"Company cafeteria" my b--- well, LEFT TOE!
But since some of our readers DO take the
net seriously as a place for building a
readership, I will say my piece anyway.
For anyone who is the least bit proud of what
he or she posts to Usenet--and who desires
to build a readership for possible later
website sales of works--then slouching
around under a variety of fake names makes
no sense.
Now, the main counter-argument I get when
I make such assertions is that "all the right
people" know who the fake-named party is.
(That is, it is the main argument after
the "Spineless' Chorus" simpers, "NOBODY
posts his or her good work in Usenet.")
Well, if you--like Nancy--do most or all
of your posting for a dozen or so slice-
of-boring-life clones, you may be right.
Clones always seem to know one another,
even under an umbrella of phony names.
Even "dog peed on the carpet today"
clones and artsy-fartsy drudges like
Nancy.
However, if you are actually taking the
net seriously as a place for posting your
best writing (certainly in terms of
originality, if understandably not in
terms of editorial polish) then you are
writing for everybody in any newsgroup
you post in, the newbies, the occasionally-
reading "oldbies" and everyone else.
If you fall into that category (and I
am still hoping to meet someone besides
myself who does!) then the last thing
you want is to confuse your readers with
repeated, childish "guess who's REALLY
under the shell?" cutesy games.
From a marketing standpoint, you weaken
your image with the readership. YOU may
think everyone knows who you are, but you
fool yourself if you think that.
Of course, if you take no pride in your
writing, if you don't respect the Usenet
audience, if you don't see the net as a
place to BUILD a readership, none of what
I am saying will matter.
It won't matter to Nancy. She proudly wears
her shallowness on her sleeve. And she wants
YOU to be as shallow as possible too.
Go ahead, then. Be James Smith this week,
Jamie Smith week, and Scaramouche the Seven-
hundredth the week after that.
But don't expect me to play those games. As
a serious writer, I approach every post I
make with idea of increasing my readership
and positioning my products--you might say--
on a gigantic billboard high above the
global internet where my message cannot
be missed.
Why be coy with you? There's already a
razor-horned.black.bull-faced.sky.sign
over.YOUR.house and I don't see it
skittering off anyplace soon...
Trying to build readers in an honest fashion
doesn't have to mean trying to be another
cheerful little ZERO. It does not have to
mean kissing everyone's fanny to convince
them what a warm, wonderful person you are.
For me, it means, by hook or crook, trying to
keep newsgroup readers ENTERTAINED enough so
they will come back and read my next article--
which sits there proud as punch on wordscreens
of the world under my own name so the folks
can find it faster.
(And also so that a few spineless individuals can
crawl away from me easier too. Good riddance
to dog-peed-on-the-carpet, slice-of-life rubbish!)
It's funny. Since I often expose my opponents'
lies, they try to impugn MY integrity.
Yet, consider what I have said above. Do
you really think a writer could possibly
make a more honest statement about his
aims and intentions?
Well, till next time, fans...Love ya'
Bill Palmer yesterday, Bill Palmer today, Bill Palmer tomorrow
>
Frank S
"Brill Palrner" <wil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:957hte$h5b$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
It slices, it dices, it cures pimples on the dick. Only $19.95.
Another bad 40-minute infomercial. No kidding, Blip, if what you are
dishing out is so intrinsically valuable, why do you feel you must
oversell it with such enthusiasm and regularity?
Could it be that, like the purveyors of the thighmaster and the salad
shooter, you know your product is inferior and you are only interested
in recouping your investment in such shoddy merchandise?
Well, other than the satisfaction of ripping-off someone. And the
reluctance to abandon a stupid commitment.
>
> Well, till next time, fans...Love ya'
>
Speak up, fan. Just one, for credibility.
>
> Bilp Alimer yesterday, Bilip Lamer today, Bill Lamest tomorrow
>
>
Bill Palmer
"Goddess" <hl-go...@home.com> wrote:
>
>"Nancy" <Na...@gekkografx.com> wrote in message
>news:Xns90398E86E...@136.182.15.25...
>
>[snipped much with which I agree]
>
>> Get ready. This is your notice. "gekko" is coming
>> back to stay.
>
>Great!!! I just want to add that I think what a poster says has a lot more
>to do with their *validity* than any name that is used. My *real* name
>doesn't appear on this address.
I can go along with someone taking one pseudonym
and staying with it all the way, for security or just
for trying to take on a colorful image lacking in one's
writing. But when someone like Nancy or anyone else
starts flitting around under a lot of phony names,
I know that the person a) is just posting for a few
people and should take the tedious drivel and small
talk to email or a chatroom, b) has no interest in
building a net readership, c) has no pride in their
Usenet work, d) is just frittering away time.
Bill Palmer yesterday. Bill Palmer today. Bill Palmer tomorrow.
I'm still the same person I was when it
>did. And although "Marg" isn't the name on my birth certificate, it IS the
>first name I go by. (Real name is Marguerite but it's way too long and
>doesn't *fit* me.)
>
>> --
>> N, aka "gekko"
>>
>Welcome back!!!!
>
>Marg
>
>>
>>
>>
>> No, I'm not really here. This is just a drive-by post, as I'm
>> incredibly busy busy busy these days and just absolutely LIVE at my
>> desk doing all kinds of important work and I can't be bothered with
>> newsgroups; you know how it is, but hugs and happy waves to all you who
>> know who you are!
>
>
Jabelson1
>From: Bill Palmer
>Bill Palmer yesterday. Bill Palmer today. Bill Palmer tomorrow.
Always a liar and always a coward: I asked you a question yesterday... Still
no reply! What a shock...
Helen Dudley Bates
>I know that the person a) is just posting for a few
>people and should take the tedious drivel and small
>talk to email or a chatroom,
Usenet is "a chatroom on a stick." I personally don't believe there is any
difference other than it being larger.
b) has no interest in
>building a net readership
Few real "people" if not real "writers" do. Usenet is nothing but
entertainment. I.e., it pays nothing.
c) has no pride in their
>Usenet work,
Usenet is **not**work.** Ever. No one gets paid to write for Usenet. Usenet
is where people go to relax, write for relaxation, read for relaxation, or
both. You have some weird idea that posting on Usenet makes you a writer.
What it makes you is a guy with way too much time to waste and an inflated idea
of self.
d) is just frittering away time.
Gosh. Imagine that. Someone frittering away time in Usenet.
- Helen
no cute sig. deal with it.
Bill Palmer
sisdudl...@aol.combine (Helen Dudley Bates) wrote:
>Bill Palmer wrote:
>>I know that the person a) is just posting for a few
>>people and should take the tedious drivel and small
>>talk to email or a chatroom,
>
>Usenet is "a chatroom on a stick." I personally don't believe
Well, you can "personally don't believe" anything you
like, but I have to wonder, exactly what is the difference
in meaning between, "I don't believe," and, as you prefer,
"I personally don't believe,"?
>there is any
>difference other than it being larger.
>
> b) has no interest in
>>building a net readership
>
>Few real "people" if not real "writers" do. Usenet is nothing but
>entertainment. I.e., it pays nothing.
So what's that got to do with the price of eggs in
China? I look at it like this: Writing is a matter
of words and readers. If you can put words together
in a way that readers find entertaining, you are a
writer.
Further, money has nothing to do with any serious
artistic attempt. If you are going to paint a picture,
do you want to do a sloppy or uninspired job because
you are not painting with the idea of selling the
picture?
Of course not. Something is there inside you that
wants you to do your best.
Now, why should writing be any different?
If it is worth doing, it is worth doing your
best. Now, that is not to suggest that my
Usenet literary words are my POLISHED best,
but they are centainly my best efforts as far
as originality. Therefore, pay is irrelevant.
It would be impossible for me to produce a
more original effort than, say, "HOW I STOLE
THE BILL PALMER NAME!" if someone were paying
me one-million dollars. It was simply the
best I could do at the particular time and
place when I sat down and typed it.
>
>c) has no pride in their
>>Usenet work,
>
>Usenet is **not**work.** Ever.
You are full of brussel sprouts up to your ears!
I got here around 1995, and many people had already
posted plenty of work in groups like rec.arts.prose
and rec.arts.poems.
>No one gets paid to write for Usenet.
So? Few people get paid to compose a tune for
the piano. Does that mean that those so inspired
should do a shitty job since the odds are greatly
against their ever being able to sell their effort?
Usenet
>is where people go to relax, write for relaxation, read for relaxation, or
>both.
You are generalizing. Hang out in rec.arts.poems
for a while, and you will see some people who put
their hearts and souls into their posted work.
> You have some weird idea that posting on Usenet makes you a writer.
Now you are back to you membership in the Usenet Levellers
Society! Posting work in Usenet means nothing. Writing
original work and successfully entertaining thousands of
Usenet readers with it means a great deal to me.
>What it makes you is a guy with way too much time to waste and an inflated idea
>of self.
Nonsense. There is a spontaneous thrill to this wordscreen
writing that I would not trade for a whole heap o' literary
awards banquets. All you are is another tedious print-world
nag without clue one as to the potential of the net for writers.
If you will forgive my blunt language, your, well, backside
is planted in Usenet while your head is stuck in the traditional
print world. That's why you refuse to consider a word I say.
"Harumphh! Wordscreen man indeed!" (I can just hear your little
stuck-in-the-mud mind trying to get in gear--and failing.)
>
>d) is just frittering away time.
>
>Gosh. Imagine that. Someone frittering away time in Usenet.
Well, the sign of it would that they have been posting
a lot and not one person would be able to name a single
original thing they have written.
>
>- Helen
--Another solid print world type trying to save
the wordscreen man from his delusions about the net!
Twinkles, the alt.genius dwarf
Jabelson1
>From: sisdudl...@aol.combine
>Usenet is "a chatroom on a stick." I personally don't believe there is any
>difference other than it being larger.
Usenet predates chat - though the concepts are similar...
Jabelson1
>Writing is a matter
>of words and readers. If you can put words together
>in a way that readers find entertaining, you are a
>writer.
Bullshit, as usual - why does the reader even come into play? If you put words
down and call yourself a writer you are - thus Bill Palmer...
You're just not a good writer...
>
>Further, money has nothing to do with any serious
>artistic attempt.
If you set an arbitrary parameter - such as READER ENJOYMENT - to decide the
meaning of writer - than money is a valid yard stick as well.
Bill Palmer
jabe...@aol.com (Jabelson1) wrote:
>>From: Bill Palmer wil...@ix.netcom.com
>
>>Writing is a matter
>>of words and readers. If you can put words together
>>in a way that readers find entertaining, you are a
>>writer.
>
>Bullshit, as usual - why does the reader even come into play?
That is the problem with you and cheapshot artists
of your lowly ilk, "jabelson." For you, the reader
never comes into play at all, expect for the one
person you seeking to annoy with your shop-worn
drivel.
>If you put words
>down and call yourself a writer you are - thus Bill Palmer...
>
>You're just not a good writer...
Take that as coming from the "writer" jabelson, eh?
Well, don't worry, I ALWAYS consider the source
of a remark like that. And in this case, the
"source" is a habitual driveller with a peashooter
and NO STYLE, who rarely posts proof of being able
to put together a decent paragraph!
>
>>
>>Further, money has nothing to do with any serious
>>artistic attempt.
>
>If you set an arbitrary parameter - such as READER ENJOYMENT -
Yes, I certainly do. How sad that you have
been hanging around Usenet for years with no
thought to reader enjoyment at all, "jabelson."
to decide the
>meaning of writer - than money is a valid yard stick as well.
Nobody said it was not a "valid yardstick." Had you
but the ability to read (which apparently you don't)
you would have seen that the other person was insisting
a) that money is the ONLY "yardstick" b) and that it
is impossible for a writer to place his or her work
in a newsgroup since no one gets paid in Usenet.
Of course, YOU don't have to worry, since no one
has every accused YOU of posting anyting resembling
a writer's work...
alt.genius.bill-palmer.upstairs.office
>
Bill Palmer
jabe...@aol.com (Jabelson1) wrote:
You are simply wasting your poorly-written words.
She's just another ninny who, having declared that
Usenet is nothing more than a big chat room, acts
accordingly. The biggest favor both of you could
do this newsgroup would be to go find a "writer's
chatroom" someplace and leave the rest of us alone.
Twinkles, the alt.genius dwarf
Jabelson1
>That is the problem with you and cheapshot artists
>of your lowly ilk, "jabelson." For you, the reader
>never comes into play at all, expect for the one
>person you seeking to annoy with your shop-worn
>drivel.
And for you Bill? Hundreds of lines that are universally condemned as the
worst prose on Usenet? Not one post stating that your work has any value?
Post after post labeling you as a myopic ass?
>Take that as coming from the "writer" jabelson, eh?
>Well, don't worry, I ALWAYS consider the source
>of a remark like that.
You should - I'm educated in English Lit. - have worked as a professional
editor and have sold fiction and non-fiction alike - and I'm telling you,
you're writing is by far the worst posted in alt.writing. Now you have no
credentials to speak of, save for your posts - so I don't consider the source
when i read your material - I consider the material: You show no structure -
no ability to create plot or character (mainly because there is no plot and you
are the only character in all of your work). You shine no light on any subject
worth exploring - in fact - you've never written on any subject at all - save
for the spew from your "twisted genius." Bill, you're zero out here, buddy -
heaping praise on yourself because no one else will. I've asked you to prove
me wrong - post a good piece of fiction - maybe a solid piece of non-fiction -
BUT YOU CAN'T. We had a poster here who once challenged 1000 words on a theme
he proposed. I spent the time and did the work and posted a story praised by
those here who read it. You OTOH, only post nonsense and defensive posturing
heralding your self-proclaimed popularity. Consider the source, Billy -
because if you ever focused on the actual substance of my posts - regarding
your bad writing - instead of trying to shoot me down; you might take a long
look at what you're doing and feel equal parts shame and revulsion...
>>If you set an arbitrary parameter - such as READER ENJOYMENT -
>
>Yes, I certainly do. How sad that you have
>been hanging around Usenet for years with no
>thought to reader enjoyment at all, "jabelson."
Bill, just last week I received a note thanking me for the convulsions I sent
you into when you thought I'd sold your garbage on a web site (as if...) In
fact, I received several emails begging me to continue with the flames - one
emailer stating that mine was the best Bill Palmer irritant he'd ever seen. My
flames are usenet classics, Bill - highly regarded and sought after by more
discriminating usenet readership than any asswipe claiming himself a fan of
YOURS! Bill, you're so obvious in your mental instability, so clear cut in your
desperation behind the keyboard (to create ANYTHING of worth) that this is
almost like picking on the retard as he boards the fofo bus...
But no one ever said I was a nice guy...
>Of course, YOU don't have to worry, since no one
>has every accused YOU of posting anyting resembling
>a writer's work...
Actually, Bill, if you were to challenge me to refute that with a quick deja
search you know I could - unlike you, I've posted work - IN THIS NG - that has
garnered true praise. You, OTOH, may make a ripple in alt.skunks - or whatever
- but when it comes to real writers - or those who care about writing -in real
writing NGs- everyone laughs at the funny little wilhelp man. Do you rise to
the challenge? Do you want to see who can find more posts - from writing NGs -
praising their prose? I don't think you do, Bill. ANd we both know why...
Put that in your peashooter...
Jabelson1
>From: Bill Palmer
>>Usenet predates chat - though the concepts are similar...
>
>
>You are simply wasting your poorly-written words.
Thanks for your concern... I think, though, you're scared that real prose will
just make your look all the worst...
>The biggest favor both of you could
>do this newsgroup would be to go find a "writer's
>chatroom" someplace and leave the rest of us alone.
>
Bill - everyone in this NG treats you like shit - they laugh at you - they
ridicule your "work" and they spit at you... Maybe you should do yourself a
favor...
Alan Hope
had done four already but now we're steady and then they went:
>Now you are back to you membership in the Usenet Levellers
>Society! Posting work in Usenet means nothing. Writing
>original work and successfully entertaining thousands of
>Usenet readers with it means a great deal to me.
I hope one day you achieve your aim.
--
AH
Bill Palmer
jabe...@aol.com (Jabelson1) wrote:
>>From: Bill Palmer wil...@ix.netcom.com
>
>>That is the problem with you and cheapshot artists
>>of your lowly ilk, "jabelson." For you, the reader
>>never comes into play at all, expect for the one
>>person you seeking to annoy with your shop-worn
>>drivel.
>
>And for you Bill? Hundreds of lines that are universally condemned as the
>worst prose on Usenet? Not one post stating that your work has any value?
>Post after post labeling you as a myopic ass?
>
>>Take that as coming from the "writer" jabelson, eh?
>>Well, don't worry, I ALWAYS consider the source
>>of a remark like that.
>
>You should - I'm educated in English Lit. - have worked as a professional
>editor and have sold fiction and non-fiction alike -
Ha! So much the worse for you. Now you have demonstated
that you KNOW your writing is so poor you can only resort
the desperate tactic of "My writing can't be as bad as
Palmer alleges because I'm 'educated in English lit.'
(a rather vague boast, now that I think of it). And
of course, since Palmer does NOT boast of being "educated
in English lit." we all know he has a third grade education
and we vow never to read another of his posts. THAT how
you see it, "jabelson"? Well, I've got some bad news
for you: I have yet to see ANYTHING in your posts that
proved other than--like many thousands of other posters--
you write essentially grammatical English. Is THAT
meant to be your claim to fame as a writer?
> and I'm telling you,
>you're writing is by far the worst posted in alt.writing.
As I said, I always consider the SOURCE. And YOU--despite
your wildly irrelevant boasts--have a claim to fame as a
writer that your writing is basically grammatical.
> Now you have no
>credentials to speak of,
I think it would be safer to say that I have no credentials
I want to boast of. When a Usenet reader is choosing whether
to read my post or someone else's, claims of credentials
have nothing to do with the decision, I assure you.
save for your posts - so I don't consider the source
>when i read your material - I consider the material: You show no structure -
>no ability to create plot or character (mainly because there is no plot and you
>are the only character in all of your work).
I learned long ago that people who want to make specious
criticisms usually take refuge in vague charges. I have
regularly posted work in alt.writing. You did not venture
one syllable of text-based criticism. Now, like the intellectual
coward you are, you make scattershot charges since they are
generally impossible to refute, where text-based criticism--
if unwarranted--is not.
sYou shine no light on any subject
>worth exploring - in fact - you've never written on any subject at all - save
>for the spew from your "twisted genius." Bill, you're zero out here, buddy -
Take it from a peashooter who would seem to be a writer
of nothing in particular and nothing worth remembering!
>heaping praise on yourself because no one else will. I've asked you to prove
>me wrong - post a good piece of fiction - maybe a solid piece of non-fiction -
>BUT YOU CAN'T.
Nonsense. I have posted a grat deal of original work
here and you have ignored it all, knowing that if
your criticism was text-based and dishonest too, I
would pin your ears back for you fast.
We had a poster here who once challenged 1000 words on a theme
>he proposed. I spent the time and did the work and posted a story praised by
>those here who read it. You OTOH, only post nonsense and defensive posturing
>heralding your self-proclaimed popularity. Consider the source, Billy -
>because if you ever focused on the actual substance of my posts - regarding
>your bad writing -
I have: their was no substance and your own writing
was incredibly feeble at that. If you have no style
of your own, the last thing you should be doing is
making dishonest and envious attacts on the style of
a writer.
instead of trying to shoot me down;
You shoot yourself down. The only way you will taken
seriously is when you prove you are a better writer
than I am. Not being Norman Mailer or Thomas Pynchon,
plainly enough, exactly how is it that you flatter
yourself I should be all ears for your blatherous
putdowns of a writer you plainly envy?
you might take a long
>look at what you're doing and feel equal parts shame and revulsion...
>
>
>>>If you set an arbitrary parameter - such as READER ENJOYMENT -
>>
>>Yes, I certainly do. How sad that you have
>>been hanging around Usenet for years with no
>>thought to reader enjoyment at all, "jabelson."
>
>Bill, just last week I received a note
Please. Now we get the old "email" con!
thanking me for the convulsions I sent
>you into when you thought I'd sold your garbage on a web site (as if...)
Yes, your envy was plain enough in your "jest." (Not
everything Dr. Freud said about people giving themselves
away with their jokes was incorrect.)
In
>fact, I received several emails begging me to continue with the flames - one
>emailer stating that mine was the best Bill Palmer irritant he'd ever seen. My
>flames are usenet classics, Bill -
No, they are not. You have no name in flaming at all.
None. You are simply another pretentious wimp who does
his flaming in non-flaming groups but wisely steers clear
of the only place authentic flaming reputations can be
made: flame forums like alt.flame.
highly regarded and sought after by more
>discriminating usenet readership than any asswipe claiming himself a fan of
>YOURS! Bill, you're so obvious in your mental instability,
There you go again with your "'HOW I STOLE THE BILL PALMER
NAME!' is plainly the work of a madman," stuff.
so clear cut in your
>desperation behind the keyboard (to create ANYTHING of worth) that this is
>almost like picking on the retard as he boards the fofo bus...
>
>But no one ever said I was a nice guy...
>
>>Of course, YOU don't have to worry, since no one
>>has every accused YOU of posting anyting resembling
>>a writer's work...
>
>
>Actually, Bill, if you were to challenge me to refute that with a quick deja
>search you know I could - unlike you, I've posted work - IN THIS NG - that has
>garnered true praise.
Never saw hide nor hair of it!
You, OTOH, may make a ripple in alt.skunks - or whatever
>- but when it comes to real writers - or those who care about writing -in real
>writing NGs- everyone laughs at the funny little wilhelp man. Do you rise to
>the challenge? Do you want to see who can find more posts - from writing NGs -
>praising their prose? I don't think you do, Bill. ANd we both know why...
Another pathetic challenge. I have said before, I am not
interested in turning myself into a posting billboard
featuring other people's writing, even when it is in praise
of me, as is often the case. It all boils down to who has
the most readers, and I think deep down inside you are
beginning to grasp that.
alt.genius.bill-palmer.upstairs.office
Jabelson1
>Ha! So much the worse for you. Now you have demonstated
>that you KNOW your writing is so poor you can only resort
>the desperate tactic of "My writing can't be as bad as
>Palmer alleges because I'm 'educated in English lit.'
Actually, Bill, my writing can't be as bad as your because I know how to write
and I'm not a retard like you. SImilar to your Hitler retort, you evade the
truth by shifting gears - it won't work. YOU said consider the source, i
posted my credentails - you, OTOH, are too much of a coward to post your (plus,
it's obvious, they don't exist...)
My claim of a study in Eng. Lit, BTW - was not to show off my writing ability -
I do that with every post - it was merely to back up my contention that, unlike
you, I've done some reading and, looking at your "work" can identify shit from
shinola...
>And
>of course, since Palmer does NOT boast of being "educated
>in English lit." we all know he has a third grade education
>and we vow never to read another of his posts. THAT how
>you see it, "jabelson"?
No Bill, like every other retard who can't cut it on campus, that's how YOU see
it. Don't you realize that you feeble attempts at flaming are mirrors to your
own self image...
> Well, I've got some bad news
>for you: I have yet to see ANYTHING in your posts that
>proved other than--like many thousands of other posters--
>you write essentially grammatical English.
And yet, that still is better than your so-called literary posts...
>As I said, I always consider the SOURCE. And YOU--despite
>your wildly irrelevant boasts--have a claim to fame as a
>writer that your writing is basically grammatical.
>
Bill, your limited writing experience (limited only to Usenet) views this stuff
as writing. Most of us view it a mere banter. You may take it seriously, but
that's just further proof of your a: delusion; b: weak self image.
>> Now you have no
>>credentials to speak of,
>
>I think it would be safer to say that I have no credentials
>I want to boast of.
I'm not surprised...
>When a Usenet reader is choosing whether
>to read my post or someone else's, claims of credentials
>have nothing to do with the decision, I assure you.
No Bill - skipping down through a Usenet client pretty much does the job...
>>no ability to create plot or character (mainly because there is no plot and
>you
>>are the only character in all of your work).
>
>I learned long ago that people who want to make specious
>criticisms usually take refuge in vague charges
Vague? I made specific charges: no structure, no plot, no character
development. What's YOUR definition of vague?
>Now, like the intellectual
>coward you are, you make scattershot charges since they are
>generally impossible to refute, where text-based criticism--
>if unwarranted--is not.
Not it's not: I say you lack structure and plot: prove me worng. I say you
don't have the skills to develop character - prove me wrong. I say you
couldn't chart a drama curve if you tried. Prove me wrong...
> Bill, you're zero out here, buddy -
>
>Take it from a peashooter who would seem to be a writer
>of nothing in particular and nothing worth remembering!
You seem to zero in on every post I post...
>Nonsense. I have posted a grat deal of original work
>here and you have ignored it all,
I've not ignored it at all - I read the first tow or three lines and, like
everyone else, stop because it's so bad.
>knowing that if
>your criticism was text-based and dishonest too, I
>would pin your ears back for you fast.
Pin my ears back? You can't even spell pin OR ears...
>I have: their was no substance and your own writing
>was incredibly feeble at that. If you have no style
>of your own, the last thing you should be doing is
>making dishonest and envious attacts on the style of
>a writer.
Why Bill? Even if I can't write - what makes you think I can't read...
>You shoot yourself down. The only way you will taken
>seriously is when you prove you are a better writer
>than I am.
Bill, I fart and it reads better than your posts...
>Not being Norman Mailer or Thomas Pynchon,
>plainly enough, exactly how is it that you flatter
>yourself I should be all ears for your blatherous
>putdowns of a writer you plainly envy?
The cry of envy - you see how far it takes Jervis...
>>Bill, just last week I received a note
>
>Please. Now we get the old "email" con!
Want me to post (minus the header) - dare me to...
>My
>>flames are usenet classics, Bill -
>
>No, they are not. You have no name in flaming at all.
Sure I do. Check deja under fejjie. Check under Jabelson1. Classics Bill.
Not like your tripe!
>You are simply another pretentious wimp who does
>his flaming in non-flaming groups but wisely steers clear
>of the only place authentic flaming reputations can be
>made: flame forums like alt.flame.
I don't flame to flame - I flame to rip up assholes like you...
>>YOURS! Bill, you're so obvious in your mental instability,
>
>There you go again with your "'HOW I STOLE THE BILL PALMER
>NAME!' is plainly the work of a madman," stuff.
>
No Bill -- everything you do points to the fact that you're a mental midget...
>I've posted work - IN THIS NG - that has
>>garnered true praise.
>
>Never saw hide nor hair of it!
Ever heard of Deja? give it a shot.. Don't know how? Just ask...
>Another pathetic challenge. I have said before, I am not
>interested in turning myself into a posting billboard
>featuring other people's writing, even when it is in praise
>of me, as is often the case.
Heard it Bill - it was bullshit the first time and it will be bullshit when you
repeat it the 90th Time. No One Praises your work...ever...
>It all boils down to who has
>the most readers, and I think deep down inside you are
>beginning to grasp that.
No Bill - it all boils down to the fact that you make up your readership
because you don't know how to write...
Keep trying though. That's how you get better...
wil...@ix.netcom.com
jabe...@aol.com (Jabelson1) wrote:
>>From: Bill Palmer wil...@ix.netcom.com
>
>>Ha! So much the worse for you. Now you have demonstrated
>>that you KNOW your writing is so poor you can only resort
>>the desperate tactic of "My writing can't be as bad as
>>Palmer alleges because I'm 'educated in English lit.'
>
>Actually, Bill, my writing can't be as bad as your because I know how to write
>and I'm not a retard like you.
Of course your writing is terrible. You are just another
of those losers who thinks he has learned everything
he needed once he learns to write essentially grammatical
English. It shows in you utter lack of style.
>SImilar to your Hitler retort, you evade the
>truth by shifting gears - it won't work.
I said you showed what a flame war loser you were
when you lost it and compared me to Hitler. I
think mine was about the same sort of "retort"
anyone else here would make under the same
circumstance. What now? In accordance with
your "tough challenges" do you expect me to
"post proof" I am not "like Hitler"?!!! What
amazes me is that last time you were stupidly
boasting of your flame prowess, though you
are an utter alt.flame non-entity. That's
your notion of a "devastating flame": Calling
another writing group poster, "Hitler"! How
pitiful.
YOU said consider the source, i
>posted my credentails
In other words, though your style is feeble (to the
extent it exists at all) *I* am supposed to give
your absurd pronouncements on MY writing an iota
of credence because you have "studied literature"!
You know, I must be getting terribly old-fashioned,
but I always thought that it was impossible to
an educated person--CERTAINLY not one claiming to
be a writer--without being able truthfully to
mention that you have studied (at least SOME)
literature.
>you, OTOH, are too much of a coward to post your (plus,
>it's obvious, they don't exist...)
Conclude what you will. However, I see it like this.
Let's say (only for the sake of argument) I have a degree
or degrees, and I mention that. Well, the next question
is, "Liar, WHERE did you earn your degrees?" Okay, let's
just say that I had several of them and I said where they
were from. If that happened, it would be very easy for
interested parties to get my address and telephone number
from an alumni association. Okay, there goes a big chunk
of my privacy right out the window.
Just go on claiming that I have a third grade education,
then. I have learned long ago not to get sucked into
confirming or denying that sort of personal stuff.
Of course, YOU don't say where you got your degrees
and your claim is meaningless. I saw an ad in the
newspaper offering what I call "Crackerjack Box"
degrees to anyone fool enough to blow a paltry few-
hundred dollars on them. The mere claim of having a
degree--when unaccompanied by mention of where it
is from--means nothing to educated people.
Most important of all, any degrees a writer claims,
truthfully or otherwise, have NOTHING to do with
whether or not net readers decide to read his next
post.
>My claim of a study in Eng. Lit, BTW - was not to show off my writing ability -
Well that speaks well of your sanity, since I have yet to
see sign of any "ability" other than what I granted to
you: the ability to write essentially grammatical
English.
[...]
These posts are getting to long for most of our
readers. I haven't read the rest your whiny
drivel yet, "jabelson," but if there is anything
else I need to pin your ears back for, I will
do it in a "Part 2".
the-funny-little-wilhelp-man
>
gekko
>>
>> you are not really worth the effort to put
>> straight.
>
> If I'm the dumbass you seem to think I am, I wouldn't think
> it would
>*take* much effort. Are you getting tired already? Well, I
>wouldn't want you to strain yourself.
>
> Doc is tired. Him huffed and puffed till him got all tuckered
> out.
>
> Well you sit yourself down and have you a little rest Doc.
> I'd hate to
>see you hurt yourself.
> Try breathing into a paper sack, or putting your head between
> your legs
>and ... uh ...
> :-)
okay, mug. ummmm. just WHAT the hell WAS that?
cuz it sure as hell wasn't a flame.
tell ya what, pookie buns, i'm doing you a favor.
I'm sending you over to alt.writing. as of now.
they'll treat you with gentle tender kindness, trust
me they will, and teach you a LOT about composing
a decent, entertaining flame.
you'll love 'em, you really will, and mugs? they're
gonna *love* you. over and over again.
[xposted, followups set]
--
gekko, formerly known as nancy
Mugwump
gekko wrote:
> Mugwump <jand...@postoffice.swbell.net> scribebat:
>
> >>
> >> you are not really worth the effort to put
> >> straight.
> >
> > If I'm the dumbass you seem to think I am, I wouldn't think
> > it would
> >*take* much effort. Are you getting tired already? Well, I
> >wouldn't want you to strain yourself.
> >
> > Doc is tired. Him huffed and puffed till him got all tuckered
> > out.
> >
> > Well you sit yourself down and have you a little rest Doc.
> > I'd hate to
> >see you hurt yourself.
> > Try breathing into a paper sack, or putting your head between
> > your legs
> >and ... uh ...
> > :-)
>
> okay, mug. ummmm. just WHAT the hell WAS that?
>
> cuz it sure as hell wasn't a flame.
>
> tell ya what, pookie buns, i'm doing you a favor.
> I'm sending you over to alt.writing. as of now.
> they'll treat you with gentle tender kindness, trust
> me they will, and teach you a LOT about composing
> a decent, entertaining flame.
I'm not really interested in learning how to flame better. I see
flames as a pain in the ass and uneccessary most of the time. I would
much rather be in a group who are friendly with one another.
I mean think about it, would any of us want go to a party where
people were doing nothing but bitching and insulting each other all of
the time? It would ruin the party.
Would we want to hang out with friends who do nothing but bitch a
every possible opening? Not me. I see flames as a distraction.
Yeah, you're right, I guess that was a really bad one, but I was just
trying to say that Doc seemed to take the easy way out. I wasn't mad
enough to get any fire into it I guess.
But in general I think flames suck. I wish people would be more civil
to one another. I guess that makes me a hypocrite because I flame back
every now and then, even if I'm not very good at it. But I really would
rather be in a group where conversation was a little friendlier.
I like to laugh, feel good and have fun, not be pissed off all the
time and fighting.
Sometimes I wish people would learn to put as much effort into tact
and restraint as they put into flaming. Those used to be considered
virtues. Not on usenet though. It has a way of turning everything upside
down.
I realize that this medium almost guarantees that flames will occur,
and I know it's unrealistic to expect otherwise, but I think people in
general are way too anxious to get into flame exchanges.
Do you realize how rediculous people would look it they were this
bitchy in public?
All this flaming just keeps everyone mad all of the time. It gives
people practice with the kind of talk that would only get them into a
fight in the real world.
jabelson
<wil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:95crt7$k1t$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
> In article <20010201141907...@ng-fi1.aol.com>,
> jabe...@aol.com (Jabelson1) wrote:
>
> >>From: Bill Palmer wil...@ix.netcom.com
> >
> >>Ha! So much the worse for you. Now you have demonstrated
> >>that you KNOW your writing is so poor you can only resort
> >>the desperate tactic of "My writing can't be as bad as
> >>Palmer alleges because I'm 'educated in English lit.'
> >
> >Actually, Bill, my writing can't be as bad as your because I know how to
write
> >and I'm not a retard like you.
>
> Of course your writing is terrible. You are just another
> of those losers who thinks he has learned everything
> he needed once he learns to write essentially grammatical
> English. It shows in you utter lack of style.
>
> >SImilar to your Hitler retort, you evade the
> >truth by shifting gears - it won't work.
>
> I said you showed what a flame war loser you were
> when you lost it and compared me to Hitler.
You are a retard - aren't you? I mean you called In Cold Blood pop
psycyhology and now you dream that I called you Hitler...
Which of course I didn't. You "fan" called you a twisted genius. You
called it a compliment - I said they call Hitler a twisted genius as well...
Bill - stop bullshitting your readers - most of them can read better than
you...
I
> think mine was about the same sort of "retort"
> anyone else here would make under the same
> circumstance. What now? In accordance with
> your "tough challenges" do you expect me to
> "post proof" I am not "like Hitler"?!!! What
> amazes me is that last time you were stupidly
> boasting of your flame prowess, though you
> are an utter alt.flame non-entity. That's
> your notion of a "devastating flame": Calling
> another writing group poster, "Hitler"! How
> pitiful.
One of your problems is your inability to grasp simple prose - I wouldn't
call you Hitler - you'll never see that in one of my posts - but blah, blah
blah - you're too easy...(Hitler would stick you in a camp for retards and
send your ashes to the sky...)
>
> YOU said consider the source, i
> >posted my credentails
>
> In other words, though your style is feeble (to the
> extent it exists at all) *I* am supposed to give
> your absurd pronouncements on MY writing an iota
> of credence because you have "studied literature"!
You don't have to do anything - Bill - your thoughts on my thoughts
regarding your writing mean nothing to me. I'm a mere usenet scribe - a
usenet experiement that acts as commentary for those not familiar with your
work. I add notation to your text - sorting through the nonsense and the
lies - my readers depend upon this. I don't expect you to read my
commentary and say, "damn, but he's right..." Bill, psychotics can't see
the error of their ways. And those with lower intelligence - such as yours,
presents a billigerence demanding indifference. My call on your writing
bugs you so much because you know its true. If it were not you'd pass my
words right on by. But you can't: your conscious digs and digs because you
know your inferior - not even as a writer, which you happen to be; but as a
person...
> You know, I must be getting terribly old-fashioned,
> but I always thought that it was impossible to
> an educated person--CERTAINLY not one claiming to
> be a writer--without being able truthfully to
> mention that you have studied (at least SOME)
> literature.
>
I don't know what this means. I know that you've read nothing - except
maybe EC comics - while I always have a book or two opened around me. In the
last few months I've dug through Wolfe and Barnes and I just finished a
short by Alice Munroe (Carried Away, brilliance)- whom I reccomend to
everyone in the group. I'm also still reading Virgil. You write about EC
comics and root beer stands. The world needs that too, I suppose. But just
don't call it literature or good writing...
>
> >you, OTOH, are too much of a coward to post your (plus,
> >it's obvious, they don't exist...)
>
> Conclude what you will. However, I see it like this.
> Let's say (only for the sake of argument) I have a degree
> or degrees, and I mention that. Well, the next question
> is, "Liar, WHERE did you earn your degrees?"
Stop projecting: I got my degree in English Lit. from Binghamton University
(Harpur College) in Western New York. Do you doubt it? Who cares... Where
did you go to school... (as if...0
Okay, let's
> just say that I had several of them and I said where they
> were from. If that happened, it would be very easy for
> interested parties to get my address and telephone number
> from an alumni association. Okay, there goes a big chunk
> of my privacy right out the window.
Almuni associates do not hand out addresses - you must submit in writing,
and so on - please...Who are you hiding from? That's a bullshit answer
meant to mask your lack of education...
>
> Just go on claiming that I have a third grade education,
> then. I have learned long ago not to get sucked into
> confirming or denying that sort of personal stuff.
Bill, you need not confirm or deny - I said you appeared to be uneducated.
You've not even denied it... If you do, I'll believe you. If you say I got
a degree from a top school, I'll believe that too...
Why wouldn't I?
>
> Of course, YOU don't say where you got your degrees
> and your claim is meaningless. I saw an ad in the
> newspaper offering what I call "Crackerjack Box"
> degrees to anyone fool enough to blow a paltry few-
> hundred dollars on them. The mere claim of having a
> degree--when unaccompanied by mention of where it
> is from--means nothing to educated people.
>
> Most important of all, any degrees a writer claims,
> truthfully or otherwise, have NOTHING to do with
> whether or not net readers decide to read his next
> post.
Of course, as I stated, I only mentioned my studies in Eng. Lit to let you
know that when I slag your shit I know of what I speak...
>
> >My claim of a study in Eng. Lit, BTW - was not to show off my writing
ability -
>
> Well that speaks well of your sanity, since I have yet to
> see sign of any "ability" other than what I granted to
> you: the ability to write essentially grammatical
> English.
> the-funny-little-dicked-wilhelp-man
> >
Bill Palmer
"jabelson" <jabe...@aol.com> wrote:
[...]
>>
>> I said you showed what a flame war loser you were
>> when you lost it and compared me to Hitler.
>
>You are a retard - aren't you? I mean you called In Cold Blood pop
>psycyhology and now you dream that I called you Hitler...
>
>Which of course I didn't. You "fan" called you a twisted genius. You
>called it a compliment - I said they call Hitler a twisted genius as well...
It's funny, since I have been honest about my handicap
(see "Retard," "Short Bus Man," and "Prosthetic Extension")
in the hope of inspiring others. Yet, since I have posted
about how unconscionably cruel it is to call people
"retard" as an insult in a public forum, you continually
harp on the word, "jabelson."
That should tell everyone how base you are. In order to
cause me discomfort, you have no compunctions about adding
to the difficulties that retarded people face.
Yes, I know the pain of being the idiot boy among the
human cattle. If nothing else, my own pain has given
me a profund concern for all people who are lumped in
the category of "retarded."
Fortunately, I was able to find a "prosthetic extension"
that is helping me deal with that handicap. I can
tell you in all modesty it is quite a thrill to go from
the idiot boy to the most famous writer in Usenet.
Sure, I could play it smart and keep all that to myself,
but I believe that by speaking out I can help others--
so I guess I will just have to put up with the vicious
insults of envious, vindictive boors like "jabelson."
Anyway, the funny thing is that despite whatever you
call me to suggest stupidity, I can see through your
shallow ploy aimed at smearing me.
No, you don't have to say "You are a Hitler." But you
deviously put my name in juxtaposition with that of Hitler,
in a particularly vile maner aimed at associating me with
Hitler in the minds of the readers. That was incredibly
unscrupulous of you, "jabelson."
In other words, you were using a primitive form of
a propaganda device sometimes called "conflation"--
that is, the deliberate blending of two images,
that of the target (me) with that of someone
else, in this case, of an extreme negative,
Hitler.
And I've got to tell you, "jabelson" by your
attempting to smear people like me in such a
fashion you do a real wrong to the Hitler's
victims.
By--on no rational basis whatsoever--calling someone
who has bested you in a fair argument a "Hitler,"
you do a disservice to people and groups far too
numerous to mention here.
I suspect you KNOW that, but--just as we have all
seen with your callous use of "retard"--your
character is such that you will stop and nothing
when you feel humiliated. Just remember, *I*
did not humiliate you: You humiliated yourself
by posting those transparent fabrications.
alt.genius.bill-palmer.retard.jommy.cross.sky-sign
>
>
Jabelson1
<wil...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>No, you don't have to say "You are a Hitler." But you
>deviously put my name in juxtaposition with that of Hitler,
>in a particularly vile maner aimed at associating me with
>Hitler in the minds of the readers. That was incredibly
>unscrupulous of you, "jabelson."
I hear a wittle violin. Disclaimer, folks - Bill doesn't even know Hitler...
Jabelson1
>It's funny, since I have been honest about my handicap
>(see "Retard," "Short Bus Man," and "Prosthetic Extension")
>in the hope of inspiring others. Yet, since I have posted
>about how unconscionably cruel it is to call people
>"retard" as an insult in a public forum, you continually
>harp on the word, "jabelson."
If the shoe, fits, Bill. It's funny that you project that image and I pick
right up on it... Lord knows I've not read your retard work...
Jabelson1
>I suspect you KNOW that, but--just as we have all
>seen with your callous use of "retard"--your
>character is such that you will stop and nothing
>when you feel humiliated. Just remember, *I*
>did not humiliate you: You humiliated yourself
>by posting those transparent fabrications.
Reatrd, retard, retard.. Fuck you, Bill. You act socially retarded. You post
things to anger folks. You want to be despised.
You got what you want.
Alan Hope
<jand...@postoffice.swbell.net> had done four already but now we're
steady and then they went:
> I mean think about it, would any of us want go to a party where
>people were doing nothing but bitching and insulting each other all of
>the time?
Give me a date and time and I'll let you know. I can't promise
anything, but I'll try my best.
Would that be BYOB?
--
AH
gekko
realize what "followups" meant]
On 01 Feb 2001, Mugwump <jand...@postoffice.swbell.net> cracked
knuckles, set fingers to keyboard and thought, "the denizens of
alt.writing will REALLY be impressed when they read this!"
>
>
>gekko wrote:
<...>
>> cuz it sure as hell wasn't a flame.
>
> I'm not really interested in learning how to flame better. I
> see
>flames as a pain in the ass and uneccessary most of the time. I
>would much rather be in a group who are friendly with one
>another.
I suggest, then, that you stay away from it. It'll suck
you in, otherwise. You'll get upset over it all.
> Yeah, you're right, I guess that was a really bad one, but I
> was just
>trying to say that Doc seemed to take the easy way out. I wasn't
>mad enough to get any fire into it I guess.
No, he did it right.
> I like to laugh, feel good and have fun, not be pissed off
> all the
>time and fighting.
Odd, since you seem to be fully engaged in insulting,
fighting, and being pissed off with Dr Zen.
> Sometimes I wish people would learn to put as much effort
> into tact
>and restraint as they put into flaming. Those used to be
>considered virtues. Not on usenet though. It has a way of
>turning everything upside down.
Pay attention to the above, Mug. Get out now, while you
still can.
Dr Zen
na...@gekkografx.com (gekko) wrote:
> [posted and mailed, because I don't think you
> realize what "followups" meant]
>
> On 01 Feb 2001, Mugwump <jand...@postoffice.swbell.net> cracked
> knuckles, set fingers to keyboard and thought, "the denizens of
> alt.writing will REALLY be impressed when they read this!"
>
> >
> >
> >gekko wrote:
>
> <...>
> >> cuz it sure as hell wasn't a flame.
>
> >
> > I'm not really interested in learning how to flame better. I
> > see
> >flames as a pain in the ass and uneccessary most of the time. I
> >would much rather be in a group who are friendly with one
> >another.
>
> I suggest, then, that you stay away from it. It'll suck
> you in, otherwise. You'll get upset over it all.
She started it, after all. I'm just giving her what she wants.
> > I like to laugh, feel good and have fun, not be pissed off
> > all the
> >time and fighting.
>
> Odd, since you seem to be fully engaged in insulting,
> fighting, and being pissed off with Dr Zen.
Innit. She could just leave it alone, couldn't she? She could laugh
and have fun.
> > Sometimes I wish people would learn to put as much effort
> > into tact
> >and restraint as they put into flaming. Those used to be
> >considered virtues. Not on usenet though. It has a way of
> >turning everything upside down.
>
> Pay attention to the above, Mug. Get out now, while you
> still can.
I haven't been untactful or unrestrained. That's the amusing thing.
Mugwump is the one calling me an asshole, a fucking idiot etc etc. And
I'm not putting any effort into it. She shouldn't flatter herself.
She's not requiring an ounce of it.
Zen
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Mugwump
gekko wrote:
> [posted and mailed, because I don't think you
> realize what "followups" meant]
>
> On 01 Feb 2001, Mugwump <jand...@postoffice.swbell.net> cracked
> knuckles, set fingers to keyboard and thought, "the denizens of
> alt.writing will REALLY be impressed when they read this!"
>
> >
> >
> >gekko wrote:
>
> <...>
> >> cuz it sure as hell wasn't a flame.
>
> >
> > I'm not really interested in learning how to flame better. I
> > see
> >flames as a pain in the ass and uneccessary most of the time. I
> >would much rather be in a group who are friendly with one
> >another.
>
> I suggest, then, that you stay away from it. It'll suck
> you in, otherwise. You'll get upset over it all.
You are "assuming", nancy.
I have been in flame wars before I came here. That doesn't mean i am
good at it, but I have been there.
>
>
> > Yeah, you're right, I guess that was a really bad one, but I
> > was just
> >trying to say that Doc seemed to take the easy way out. I wasn't
> >mad enough to get any fire into it I guess.
>
> No, he did it right.
Fine then, he knows how to insult total strangers in the proper way.
>
>
> > I like to laugh, feel good and have fun, not be pissed off
> > all the
> >time and fighting.
>
> Odd, since you seem to be fully engaged in insulting,
> fighting, and being pissed off with Dr Zen.
I didn't jump on him. he jumped on me. You may know a lot about
usenet fighting, but you don't seem to know much about street fighting.
>
>
> > Sometimes I wish people would learn to put as much effort
> > into tact
> >and restraint as they put into flaming. Those used to be
> >considered virtues. Not on usenet though. It has a way of
> >turning everything upside down.
>
> Pay attention to the above, Mug. Get out now, while you
> still can.
I resent the implication. I have had a fine time on usenet between
flaming and itching and bitching. I prefer the times between all of the
flames.
>
>
> --
> gekko, formerly known as nancy
The worst tricks of trolls have nothing to do with intellegence, or
eloquence, or skill with flames, or anything else. It all has to do with
just how low and dirty a person is willing to fight. The worst trolls
just subscribe to a server who won't discontinue their service* for any
reason*. Then they start attacking a specific newsgroup with a vengence
and changing their names frequently to avoid killfiles. Then they start
crossposting to all of their troll buddies on lots of different
newsgroups.
You can ignore them, sure, but it's not easy. I really don't see much
difference between a lot of those trolls' behavior and some of the
regular posters who have nasty attitudes. To me it's just a matter of
degree.
Mugwump
> I haven't been untactful or unrestrained. That's the amusing thing.
> Mugwump is the one calling me an asshole, a fucking idiot etc etc. And
> I'm not putting any effort into it. She shouldn't flatter herself.
> She's not requiring an ounce of it.
Not according to usenet standards, no.
And the only ounce I've got to expend in your direction is that spoon
that spoon that spoonful ...
Alan Hope
what all, but I do remember this:
> The worst tricks of trolls have nothing to do with intellegence, or
>eloquence, or skill with flames, or anything else. It all has to do with
>just how low and dirty a person is willing to fight. The worst trolls
>just subscribe to a server who won't discontinue their service* for any
>reason*. Then they start attacking a specific newsgroup with a vengence
>and changing their names frequently to avoid killfiles. Then they start
>crossposting to all of their troll buddies on lots of different
>newsgroups.
> You can ignore them, sure, but it's not easy. I really don't see much
>difference between a lot of those trolls' behavior and some of the
>regular posters who have nasty attitudes.
Apart from the lack of name-changes, the absence of attacks on other
newsgroups and the crossposting to troll buddies, you mean?
You need to get your terms straight.
>To me it's just a matter of
>degree.
I don't think anyone's doing a degree in the subject yet. But if they
are, you flunked.
--
AH
gekko
author, Alan Hope <ah...@skynet.be>, and the date, 03 Feb 2001,
and even the newsgroup in which i read this,
alt.writing. There. You happy?
Yeah, um, Mugs, get a grip here. People with nasty attitudes
are, well, people with nasty attitudes. They may cause one
or two people some discomfort, and a LOT of amusement to most
others who quietly shake their heads and say "what a sad fuck
that is!" but they don't really disrupt much.
Zennie's pissed you off. Deal with it, move on. Don't
do a nancy and overanalyze the sitch.
--
gekko, formerly known as nancy
No, I'm not really here. This is just a drive-by post, as I'm
The Obnox
Bill Palmer <wil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:95av3q$k2l$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
> Writing
> original work and successfully entertaining thousands of
> Usenet readers with it means a great deal to me.
How unfortunate for you that you will never reach that goal.
The Obnox
> The biggest favor both of you could
> do this newsgroup would be to go find a "writer's
> chatroom" someplace and leave the rest of us alone.
The rest of us?!?!?! You're standing in the corner by yourself, Palmjob. No
one (sane or otherwise) wants anything to do with you. In fact, "the rest of
us" pray almost daily that you will be hit by a runaway truck full of the
distilled essence of a thousand porta-potties. Pray, do not pretend that you
can claim membership in any sort of group-simpatico, unless you are
acknowledging your rightful place with the mental defectives and the dweebs.
Obnox
Bill Palmer
"The Obnox" <scr...@multipro.com> wrote:
>
>Bill Palmer <wil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>news:95c4si$ugn$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
>
>> The biggest favor both of you could
>> do this newsgroup would be to go find a "writer's
>> chatroom" someplace and leave the rest of us alone.
>
>The rest of us?!?!?! You're standing in the corner by yoursel
[...] Our fake-named cretin's epithet insulting
everyone named Palmer snipped out of decency.
No
>one (sane or otherwise) wants anything to do with you.
Is it your contention that you have been appointed fake-named
spokes-nothing for a pack of phony-monikered non-entities
nowadays, "The Obnox"?
In fact, "the rest of
>us"
"us"?!!! Oh, the rest of the fake-named peashooting
nobodies on the sidelines of writing group life, eh?
Well, don't worry. As I often say, I consider the
source. In YOUR case the "source" is a phony-
named nitwit and author of nothing in particular
and nothing worth remembering, just another feeble,
trollish net-pest who crawls out of the woodwork
and fixates on the most famous writer he can find
in order to try and raise "The Obnox"'s FAR-below-
the-radar profile among Usenet readers!
>pray almost daily that you will be hit by a runaway truck
Tsk, tsk. It's rather sad what bitter sentiments
envy can produce in a nobody like "The Obnox,"
isn't it?
>full of the
>distilled essence of a thousand porta-potties. Pray, do not pretend that you
>can claim membership in any sort of group-simpatico, unless you are
>acknowledging your rightful place with the mental defectives and the dweebs.
Get some help, man. That envy of yours is eating
you alive, "The Obnox." Maybe you can get into
"Envy Counseling" with Witchdoctor Jim Vandewalker
of alt.slack...
Twinkles, the alt.genius dwarf
>
>Obnox
>
>
The Obnox
> In article <t7pieq3...@corp.supernews.com>,
> "The Obnox" <scr...@multipro.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Bill Palmer <wil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> >news:95c4si$ugn$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
> >
> >> The biggest favor both of you could
> >> do this newsgroup would be to go find a "writer's
> >> chatroom" someplace and leave the rest of us alone.
> >
> >The rest of us?!?!?! You're standing in the corner by yoursel
>
> [...] Our fake-named cretin's epithet insulting
> everyone named Palmer snipped out of decency.
Pathetic reply, Palmjob. Ask my name. Just once. My bet is, you really don't
want to know. Unlike you, I'm not scared of some big hairy bongo (as you
claim to be) stalking me. Ask my address while you're at it. I'll show you a
real good time. You're a 5' 4" dweeb with acne scars who has yet to get laid
in this life. And your mother wants to know when you're going to get a job.
> No
> >one (sane or otherwise) wants anything to do with you.
>
> Is it your contention that you have been appointed fake-named
> spokes-nothing for a pack of phony-monikered non-entities
> nowadays, "The Obnox"?
It's my contention that you cannot come up with a single post expressing a
favorable opinion of you or your ouvre. Now let's hear your lame excuse, you
dickless wonder.
Obnox
jabelson
> In article <t7pieq3...@corp.supernews.com>,
> "The Obnox" <scr...@multipro.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Bill Palmer <wil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> >news:95c4si$ugn$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
> >
> >> The biggest favor both of you could
> >> do this newsgroup would be to go find a "writer's
> >> chatroom" someplace and leave the rest of us alone.
> >
> >The rest of us?!?!?! You're standing in the corner by yoursel
I told you Bill...
>
> [...] Our fake-named cretin's epithet insulting
> everyone named Palmer snipped out of decency.
>
> No
> >one (sane or otherwise) wants anything to do with you.
>
> Is it your contention that you have been appointed fake-named
> spokes-nothing for a pack of phony-monikered non-entities
> nowadays, "The Obnox"?
>
> In fact, "the rest of
> >us"
>
> "us"?!!! Oh, the rest of the fake-named peashooting
> nobodies on the sidelines of writing group life, eh?
> Well, don't worry. As I often say, I consider the
> source. In YOUR case the "source" is a phony-
> named nitwit and author of nothing in particular
> and nothing worth remembering, just another feeble,
> trollish net-pest who crawls out of the woodwork
> and fixates on the most famous writer he can find
> in order to try and raise "The Obnox"'s FAR-below-
> the-radar profile among Usenet readers!
Bill, where are all the authentic, smarties rising to your defense. How
come, you're always on the attack but never have the chance to say, "Hey
thanks for the kind words..."
I wonder why>
jabelson
"The Obnox" <scr...@multipro.com> wrote in message
news:t7pp574...@corp.supernews.com...
He won't because he can't... Any praise garnered on our friend is always
spiced with a hint of distaste...
Mugwump
Alan Hope wrote:
> In alt.writing, Mugwump posted and went yadda yadda I mean who knows
> what all, but I do remember this:
>
> > The worst tricks of trolls have nothing to do with intellegence, or
> >eloquence, or skill with flames, or anything else. It all has to do with
> >just how low and dirty a person is willing to fight. The worst trolls
> >just subscribe to a server who won't discontinue their service* for any
> >reason*. Then they start attacking a specific newsgroup with a vengence
> >and changing their names frequently to avoid killfiles. Then they start
> >crossposting to all of their troll buddies on lots of different
> >newsgroups.
>
> > You can ignore them, sure, but it's not easy. I really don't see much
> >difference between a lot of those trolls' behavior and some of the
> >regular posters who have nasty attitudes.
>
> Apart from the lack of name-changes, the absence of attacks on other
> newsgroups and the crossposting to troll buddies, you mean?
What I was trying to say is that both types seem to have nasty
dispositions in common.
Bill Palmer
"The Obnox" <scr...@multipro.com> wrote:
[...] [Snip of usual lame b.s. from this fake-named
ninny.] Why don't you do everyone in alt.writing
a big favor? Take your rubbish to alt.fan.karl-malden
nose where it belongs, ya' sorry cretin.
You are the lowest form of writing group
low-life: a flamer-wannabe who lacks the
decency for trying to make his name in the
only forum where authentic names in flaming
CAN be made--groups like alt.flame. So
instead, you disgust everyone trying to
be the "baddest" flamer in alt.writing,
which sort of analogous in couth to
trying to be the baddest dude in the
library or the toughest cat in the
bookstore. What a crude wimp you are!
the-funny-little-wilhelp-man
gekko
Alan Hope was talking about trolls:
>> Apart from the lack of name-changes, the absence of attacks on
>> other newsgroups and the crossposting to troll buddies, you
>> mean?
>
>
> What I was trying to say is that both types seem to have
> nasty dispositions in common.
Hmmm. My 92 year old grandmother must be a troll, then. Y'think?
Oh, and over on misc.writing, there's a woman who prides herself
on being a netcop and who claims to *hate* trolls and frauds. I
think you know what I mean. I'll bet she'd hate to hear the
news that her nasty disposition is awarding her the label of
"troll." Then there's PButler ... but we won't go there.
And Gilbert ... he was most decidedly a troll. But he seemed
so very cheerful all the time. Rarely displayed what I would
consider a nasty disposition.
Hmmmmmm. This bears a bit of thought.
--
gekko, formerly known as nancy
No, I'm not really here. This is just a drive-by post, as I'm
Bill Palmer
"jabelson" <jabe...@aol.com> wrote:
"The Obnox" had the stupidity to remark:
>> In fact, "the rest of
>> >us"
>>
>> "us"?!!! Oh, the rest of the fake-named peashooting
>> nobodies on the sidelines of writing group life, eh?
>> Well, don't worry. As I often say, I consider the
>> source. In YOUR case the "source" is a phony-
>> named nitwit and author of nothing in particular
>> and nothing worth remembering, just another feeble,
>> trollish net-pest who crawls out of the woodwork
>> and fixates on the most famous writer he can find
>> in order to try and raise "The Obnox"'s FAR-below-
>> the-radar profile among Usenet readers!
>
>Bill, where are all the authentic, smarties rising to your defense. How
>come, you're always on the attack but never have the chance to say, "Hey
>thanks for the kind words..."
Fiddlesticks. I OFTEN thank people for their
interesting in-put on a thread discussion. But
as far as folks having to "defend" ME from a pack
of ninnies, why, the notion itself is a howler!
Since it is very clear to all readers that I
am putting newsgroup loiterers in their places
when said lowlifes and lamebrains attack me,
why on earth would anyone feel compelled to
defend the winner? Also, there is the factor
that I am not some cheap newsgroup politio
frantically emailing behind the scenes and
trying to line people up on my side. Instead,
I AM THE SHOW, while you and yours are merely
the envious peashooters in the peanut gallery
OF the show! My fans and readers know very
well that you don't "defend" the show, you
sit back and enjoy it.
>
>I wonder why>
Well, NOW you don't have to overwork that peanut
you call your "brain," do you, jabelson?
Bill Palmer
Mugwump <jand...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>Alan Hope wrote:
>
>> In alt.writing, Mugwump posted and went yadda yadda I mean who knows
>> what all, but I do remember this:
>>
>> > The worst tricks of trolls have nothing to do with intellegence, or
>> >eloquence, or skill with flames, or anything else. It all has to do with
>> >just how low and dirty a person is willing to fight. The worst trolls
>> >just subscribe to a server who won't discontinue their service* for any
>> >reason*. Then they start attacking a specific newsgroup with a vengence
>> >and changing their names frequently to avoid killfiles. Then they start
>> >crossposting to all of their troll buddies on lots of different
>> >newsgroups.
>>
>> > You can ignore them, sure, but it's not easy. I really don't see much
>> >difference between a lot of those trolls' behavior and some of the
>> >regular posters who have nasty attitudes.
>>
>> Apart from the lack of name-changes, the absence of attacks on other
>> newsgroups and the crossposting to troll buddies, you mean?
>
> What I was trying to say is that both types seem to have nasty
>dispositions in common.
Your are becoming a bore by with your fetting
about other poster's "bad attitudes" and
"dispositions".
For one thing, your terms are highly subjective.
For instance, *I* feel that someone who uses a
writing group to do nothing but post stupid little
quips all the time has a VERY bad attitude toward
this WRITING group, and I could care less how
cheerful those trite little zingers are intended
to sound.
On the other hand, someone like Mr. Jervis
often does not sound the least cheerful to
me, but he is a big plus in these writing
groups because he has something that used
to be called "writer's spine," which means
he is not afraid to express himself. The
intellectual runts and habitual non-conributors
taking the potshots at him can go to hell for
all he cares, at least I get that distinct
impression when I am enjoying his spirited
articles...
I think a phrase like "bad attitude" is best left
for sixth-grade teachers who are trying to reach
for safe terms to express why they don't like little
Johnny.
Anyway, I have tried to wise you up before, "Mugwump."
In Usenet, if you don't like a newsgroup situation,
you only have a few basic and sensible options: either
make posts of the sort YOU feel are good examples,
or take your marbles and go home. Whining about
matters won't help, and doing so does not speak
well of YOUR "attitude" and "disposition," either.
alt.genius.bill-palmer.upstairs.office
Frank S
"Never give a sucker an even break, or smarten up a chump." —Dubya Cee
Fields
Anncrispin
So far as I know, there isn't any money in writing for Usenet. Am I wrong?
-Ann C. Crispin
Fundoc
"Anncrispin" <anncr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010204143451...@ng-ci1.aol.com...
Disability. Duh.
Bill Palmer
anncr...@aol.com (Anncrispin) wrote:
You know, Ann, you asked a thought-provoking question
and it certainly merits a response that is brief and
to the point.
Of course, we all know that no one makes a living
in Usenet. To the philistines among us, that means
that "good writing produced for Usenet newsgroups"
is an oxymoron. THEIR theory holds that it is
impossible to do good work if you are not getting
paid for it.
Of course, I totally disagree. In fact, just the
other day I used the example of someone with a
love of art who finds himself or herself doing
some oil painting.
Of course, since it is even harder to make a living
by doing oil paintings than by writing, the chances
are the ordinary person doing an oil paintings will
never be able to sell them. As a result, they paint
mainly for themselves, though of course they like
to have others see their work and respond to it.
Yet, does knowing that they will probably not be
able to sell their paintings mean they want to do
a lousy job? Not at all. In fact, I would guess
that a typical person doing an oil painting will
put as much (or possibly even more) effort into
it than will the rare artist who can make a
living by selling his or her paintings.
In other words, there exists something in
human nature that encourages people to do
their best, whether they are getting paid
or not.
Do you think I could have spontaneously
written a more original article than "HOW
I STOLE THE BILL PALMER NAME?" if someone
had said to me, "Bill, I want you to sit
down, take a half hour and write a unique
article for me, and if your effort is in
fact as original as anything ever written
in the history of the world I will pay you
one-million dollars."
Do you think the result would be any more
original than "HOW I STOLE THE BILL PALMER
NAME"? Now, I am certainly not declaring
that narrative a literary success, since
that is for others besides myself to judge.
But I am saying that narrative was absolutely
the most original article I could produce at
the time I wrote it, and I DO consider it
a great success as far as the originality
of content part.
Looking at the thing a different way,
Anne, you have read my satire, "The Usenet
Levellers Society." What I do there is
poke fun at those who illogically insist,
"Well, since no one gets paid for Usenet
writing, we are all the same and we all
post crap."
I certainly do not agree. While we are
all the same in Usenet as far as having to
respect the reasonable customs and traditions
of our newsgroups, we are certainly not
all the same regarding matters like talent,
ambition, and size of readership.
Now, Anne, I hope this has given you your
answer, if not to your direct query, then
to what I took to be the larger and more
interesting questions underlying the
literal content of your interrogative
posting.
alt.genius.bill-palmer.upstairs.office
Anopheles
"Anncrispin" wrote:
> Just a question: how does a Usenet writer make a living?
>
> So far as I know, there isn't any money in writing for Usenet. Am I
wrong?
>
You're not going to let one small problem put you off, are you?
A.
Frank S
"Bill Parner" <wil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:95kf0r$ri0$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
> In article <20010204143451...@ng-ci1.aol.com>,
> anncr...@aol.com (Anncrispin) wrote:
>
> >Just a question: how does a Usenet writer make a living?
> >
> >So far as I know, there isn't any money in writing for Usenet. Am I
wrong?
> >
> >-Ann C. Crispin
>
> You know, Ann, you asked a thought-provoking question
> and it certainly merits a response that is brief and
> to the point.
<snip a dozen or so paragraphs of the usual self-abusive nonsense>
> Now, Anne, I hope this has given you your
> answer, if not to your direct query, then
> to what I took to be the larger and more
> interesting questions underlying the
> literal content of your interrogative
> posting.
>
>
> alt.genius.bill-palrner.upstairs.office
>
Mr Bohtwinkles tapdrivels his galumphing way around the point, its
significance, and any possible edifying adjuncts thereto.
Face it, BilIy Boy: you do have a significant effect on everyone willing
to speak up after reading your effluent, but it's not what you say. It's
disdain, mild amusement if not outright laughter, nausea, boredom,
disgust. If that is what you consider income, you are beyond prosperous.
There must be a payoff in it for you, or you would have stopped long
ago. Shine a little Frood on that, and check in to a program. You need
it.
Yo, BilI Palmer Fan: Speak up. Once, that's all I ask.
PButler111
>Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. (Name changes)
>From: Bill Palmer wil...@ix.netcom.com
>Date: 2/4/2001 2:42 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <95kf0r$ri0$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>
>
>In article <20010204143451...@ng-ci1.aol.com>,
> anncr...@aol.com (Anncrispin) wrote:
>
>>Just a question: how does a Usenet writer make a living?
>>
>>So far as I know, there isn't any money in writing for Usenet. Am I wrong?
>
>>
>>-Ann C. Crispin
>
>You know, Ann, you asked a thought-provoking question
>and it certainly merits a response that is brief and
>to the point.
Did anyone else experience a sudden, smothering sense of panic upon reading
these words?
Anncrispin
articles. I wouldn't have the faintest idea where to find them, since you said
you don't have a webpage.
And my name is spelled without an "e." Sorry to be anal about it, but a scam
agent named Kelly O'Donnell/Martha Ivery has been posting messages under the SN
"Annec...@aol.com" and sending abusive and obscene emails to my publishers
pretending to be me. Victoria and I have cost her some business, and she's
madder than a wet hen.
So I have to be careful to make the distinction these days. :-)
-Ann C. Crispin
jabelson
> In article <Sdcf6.6715$5H.11...@typhoon2.ba-dsg.net>,
> "jabelson" <jabe...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> "The Obnox" had the stupidity to remark:
>
> >> In fact, "the rest of
> >> >us"
> >>
> >> "us"?!!! Oh, the rest of the fake-named peashooting
> >> nobodies on the sidelines of writing group life, eh?
> >> Well, don't worry. As I often say, I consider the
> >> source. In YOUR case the "source" is a phony-
> >> named nitwit and author of nothing in particular
> >> and nothing worth remembering, just another feeble,
> >> trollish net-pest who crawls out of the woodwork
> >> and fixates on the most famous writer he can find
> >> in order to try and raise "The Obnox"'s FAR-below-
> >> the-radar profile among Usenet readers!
> >
> >Bill, where are all the authentic, smarties rising to your defense. How
> >come, you're always on the attack but never have the chance to say, "Hey
> >thanks for the kind words..."
>
> Fiddlesticks. I OFTEN thank people for their
> interesting in-put on a thread discussion.
But not for praising anything you post...
But
> as far as folks having to "defend" ME from a pack
> of ninnies, why, the notion itself is a howler!
I see it happen all the time - even Jervis has his defenders. You?
Everyone thinks you're a retard...
> Since it is very clear to all readers that I
> am putting newsgroup loiterers in their places
> when said lowlifes and lamebrains attack me,
> why on earth would anyone feel compelled to
> defend the winner? Also, there is the factor
> that I am not some cheap newsgroup politio
> frantically emailing behind the scenes and
> trying to line people up on my side. Instead,
> I AM THE SHOW, while you and yours are merely
> the envious peashooters in the peanut gallery
> OF the show! My fans and readers know very
> well that you don't "defend" the show, you
> sit back and enjoy it.
>
> >
> >I wonder why>
>
> Well, NOW you don't have to overwork that peanut
> you call your "brain," do you, jabelson?
Good one, Bill...
jabelson
> In article <20010204143451...@ng-ci1.aol.com>,
> anncr...@aol.com (Anncrispin) wrote:
>
> >Just a question: how does a Usenet writer make a living?
> >
> >So far as I know, there isn't any money in writing for Usenet. Am I
wrong?
> >
> >-Ann C. Crispin
>
> You know, Ann, you asked a thought-provoking question
> and it certainly merits a response that is brief and
> to the point.
>
> Of course, we all know that no one makes a living
> in Usenet.
I think a lot of people make money on Usenet...
Mugwump
Bill Palmer wrote:
What you are calling whining, I just consider to be an observation. It may be
acurate or it may be way off base, but it's just an observation.
The Naz
jabelson <jabe...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:cfcf6.6721$5H.11...@typhoon2.ba-dsg.net...
>
> "The Obnox" <scr...@multipro.com> wrote in message
> news:t7pp574...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > Bill Palmer <wil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > news:95ilqt$3s9$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net...
> > > In article <t7pieq3...@corp.supernews.com>,
> > > "The Obnox" <scr...@multipro.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
>
> >
> > It's my contention that you cannot come up with a single post expressing
a
> > favorable opinion of you or your ouvre. Now let's hear your lame excuse,
> you
> > dickless wonder.
And it read thusly:
[...] [Snip of usual lame b.s. from this fake-named
ninny.]
Like I said, numbnuts, my name and address are available on request. Your
tired old comebacks have less energy than Garrison Keillor on quaaludes.
Why don't you do everyone in alt.writing
a big favor? Take your rubbish to alt.fan.karl-malden
nose where it belongs, ya' sorry cretin.
You are the lowest form of writing group
low-life: a flamer-wannabe who lacks the
decency for trying to make his name in the
only forum where authentic names in flaming
CAN be made--groups like alt.flame. So
instead, you disgust everyone trying to
be the "baddest" flamer in alt.writing,
which sort of analogous in couth to
trying to be the baddest dude in the
library or the toughest cat in the
bookstore. What a crude wimp you are!
Hey, you forgot to slip in the title of one of your posts for the popularity
polls.
And your mommy STILL wants to know when you're gonna get a job.
Bill Palmer
"The Naz" <scr...@multipro.com> wrote:
>
>[...] [Snip of usual lame b.s. from this fake-named
> ninny.]
>
>Like I said, numbnuts, my name and address are available on request.
But of course no one would want to request
anything so trivial, so what is your point?
Your
>tired old comebacks have less energy than Garrison Keillor on quaaludes.
>
> Why don't you do everyone in alt.writing
> a big favor, "The Obnox"? Take your rubbish
to alt.fan.karl-malden.nose or some other
> "forum" where it belongs, ya' sorry cretin.
> You are the lowest form of writing group
> low-life: a flamer-wannabe who lacks the
> decency for trying to make his name in the
> only forum where authentic names in flaming
> CAN be made--groups like alt.flame. So
> instead, you disgust everyone trying to
> be the "baddest" flamer in alt.writing,
> which sort of analogous in couth to
> trying to be the baddest dude in the
> library or the toughest cat in the
> bookstore. What a crude wimp you are!
I said it. I proudly stand by it one-hundred
percent as a factual depiction of reality.
Twinkles, the alt.genius dwarf
[...]
>
Bill Palmer
You know, Ann, you asked a thought-provoking question
and it certainly merits a response that is brief and
to the point.
Unfortunately, I am congenitally incapable of being brief. In fact, some
people around here will no doubt tell you that I have never had a concise
moment in my life, but this is patently untrue. The one time I had a real
live woman, I made my point very quickly, and you can bet she appreciated me
for it! Yes, another Bill Palmer fan was born that day. Unfortunately, she
had to move to Guam the very next week, but I still send her letters,
because I am, after all, quite a thoughtful man. I still think of her often.
(Apparently the postal system on Guam is painfully inefficient, for I have
never heard from her.) She didn't mind my disfunction and was rather
thrilled to learn firsthand what a famous Usenet writer can do once the
various prosthetics are strapped on properly. I simply wore the girl out.
She kept crying out, "No more!" and trying to climb out through the window
(after I locked the door), but my virility knew no bounds, and I ravished
her repeatedly until we both fell into a deep, blissful slumber.
You can imagine my alarm, then, when I woke to find her severed, bloody arm
pinned under my back, and no trace of her to be found. Needless to say,
after overcoming my considerable shock, I examined the grisly limb closely,
but I could not make sense of the apparent tooth impressions I found on it.
It turned out (as she told me later), that her family is vulnerable to a
peculiar genetic disorder not unlike that which enables the common lizard to
drop its tail during moments of high stress. It seems that, in my rampant
ardor, I caused her frail physique to go into shock. Well, just imagine *my*
shock when I learned this! I felt compelled to refrain from any further
sexual escapades, lest I traumatize any other innocent young women. I have
had to fight some of them off, god knows, but my resolve is firm, and I will
not waver. No, sir! No more sex for Bill Palmer! I am far too aware now of
my own virility and will never again engage in intercourse with a woman.
But getting back to my intention to be brief, I should also point out that I
have on occasion been quite brief in my essays here, as in my original
story, "I Was a Teenage Bill Palmer," wherein I detailed how a runaway truck
struck me as I was walking across the street one day, and the resultant
brain damage and delusions, and how I can no longer refrain from lengthy
discourses on the most insignificant subjects, such as my original story,
"Are Blind Pickups Passé?" But getting back to your point, of course, we all
know that no one makes a living
in Usenet. To the philistines among us, that means
that "good writing produced for Usenet newsgroups"
is an oxymoron. THEIR theory holds that it is
impossible to do good work if you are writing original Bill Palmer stories.
Of course, I totally disagree. In fact, just the
other day I used the example of someone with a
love of art who nevertheless finds himself or herself doing a Palmjob.
Of course, since it is even harder to make a living
by doing oil paintings than by writing, the chances
are the ordinary person doing an oil paintings will
never be able to sell them. And of course it goes without saying that I
will never be able to sell any of my Usenet posts, however - are you still
there, Anne? - as a result, they paint
mainly for themselves, though of course they like
to have others see their work and respond to it. Just as I like to see all
the many kind responses my own work generates. I have almost 900 emails from
genuine fans. I won't bore you with their names, as I regard their anonymity
too highly to compromise it, but suffice it to say, those foul-mouthed
anonymous would-be flamers who lash out at me will never have 900 Usenet
fans. It warms my heart to know I am having a positive effect on so many
people, though of course numbers are unimportant. If I can enrich the life
of even one lonely Usenet soul, I will consider it all worthwhile.
There exists something in
human nature that encourages people to do
their best, whether they are getting paid
or not, though that certainly can't explain what the hell I'm doing here.
Do you think the result would be any more
original than "HOW I STOLE THE BILL PALMER
NAME"? Now, I am certainly not declaring
that narrative a literary success, since
that is for others besides myself to judge. But, then again, I have already
declared it a smashing success (as well as the most popular Usenet post of
January), so perhaps it really is for me to judge. After all, if I start
letting others critique my work, they might actually come to think that it
is their place to...criticize me, and we can't have that, now can we?
Now, Anne, I hope this has given you your
answer, if not to your direct query, then
to what I took to be the larger and more
interesting questions underlying the
literal content of your interrogative
posting. Umm...what was your question again?
alt.genius.bill-palmer.upstairs.office
Alan Hope
what all, but I do remember this:
> What I was trying to say is that both types seem to have nasty
>dispositions in common.
Oh, brother. So football players are just like deep-sea divers,
because of the boots thing.
--
AH
Alan Hope
knows what all, but I do remember this:
>Of course, I totally disagree. In fact, just the
>other day I used the example of someone with a
>love of art who finds himself or herself doing
>some oil painting.
>Of course, since it is even harder to make a living
>by doing oil paintings than by writing, the chances
>are the ordinary person doing an oil paintings will
>never be able to sell them. As a result, they paint
>mainly for themselves, though of course they like
>to have others see their work and respond to it.
They don't go around claiming to be the Best Painter Whose Works are
Exhibited on the Stairs and in the Spare Room, though, do they?
--
AH
Bill Palmer
satire posted here earlier would enjoy
reading my introduction to it for several
other groups.]
-------------------------------------------------
In article <95ljg5$2u3$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>,
Bill Palmer <wil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
I did not write the following. Someone else wrote
it for alt.writing, using my name enclosed in
quotation marks. Even so, while I could do without
the borrowing of my name--which does not add anything
to the satire anyway--I do respect this poster's
right to express himself under Usenet free speech
principles, even if I am his target. Make of
this satire what you will, dear reader. (As
Bill Palmer satire's run, I would give it a
B-.)
----------------------------------------------------------
In article <t7sjff7...@corp.supernews.com>,
"Bill Palmer" <scr...@multipro.com> wrote:
[...] Snip of Bill Palmer satire since
it was just posted in alt.writing.
Twinkles, the alt.genius dwarf
>
Frank S
> [I thought the writer of the "Bill Palmer"
> satire posted here earlier would enjoy
> reading my introduction to it for several
> other groups.]
>
> -------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> In article <95ljg5$2u3$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>,
> Bill Palmer <wil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> I did not write the following. Someone else wrote
> it for alt.writing, using my name enclosed in
> quotation marks. Even so, while I could do without
> the borrowing of my name--which does not add anything
> to the satire anyway--I do respect this poster's
> right to express himself under Usenet free speech
> principles, even if I am his target. Make of
> this satire what you will, dear reader. (As
> Bill Palmer satire's run, I would give it a
> B-.)
>
Me and Ol' BilI are of a mind on this one: the language was too lively
and there were too few mistake's.
Bill Palmer
joec...@SPAMBLOCKmindspring.com (Joe Cosby) wrote:
>Bill Palmer <wil...@ix.netcom.com> hunched over a computer, typing
>feverishly;
>thunder crashed, Bill Palmer <wil...@ix.netcom.com> laughed madly,
>then wrote:
>
>
>>Still smartin' over your spanking, eh, Joe?
>>Well, I know YOU thought people would buy
>>into your "Bill Palmer is the only writer
>>on the net who does not dazzle readers with
>>every sentence,"
>
>You never 'spanked' anybody, billy.
>
>This is the fourth thread in which you've thrown this claim, that my
>criticism was based on the idea that 'you don't dazzle readers with
>every sentence'. I never said that, and I never said anything like
>that.
>
>I don't think it's necessary to 'dazzle a reader with every sentence'.
>I never claimed that I did.
Of course you never said it. When semi-intellectual
charlatans like you try to pawn off an assertion that
is both stupid and dishonest, they try to cover their
cowardly asses by INSINUATING it, rather than stating it
directly. After all, any idiot knows it is far easier
to deny something that you have slyly insinuated rather
than expressed in a forthright manner as if you had even
a nubbin of spine.
>
>Tell you what, billy. Why don't you emerge from your self-delusional
>stupor long enough to find for all of us the place where I claimed
>'billy is a bad writer because he doesn't dazzle readers with every
>sentence'. That should be no problem, right? You've referred to it
>now in four separate threads, so it's obviously on your mind, all you
>have to do is find the article, copy the relavant material, and paste
>it into a response to this article.
OF COURSE that was your INSINUATION. For instance, you did not
pick the most original sentences in my narrative, you picked
on a few of the more common "workhorse" variety that most
writers rely on for simply advancing their story lines.
Further, you took it upon yourself to declare that sentences
which were perfectly grammatically correct, though ordinary,
were "horrible." Now, if this sylistic pronouncement had
been coming from Thomas Pynchon or Joan Didion or Norman
Mailer, it might have carried some weight. But coming from
someone like you whose claim to fame as a writer is that he
writes essentially grammatical sentences, it immediately
raises the question of, "Just who the hell are YOU are to
be pronouncing a perfectly-correct sentence of mine to be
'horrible'?"
So, in other words, your critical charade carried with it
the rather transparent INSINUATION that as long as we can
remove a writer's rather ordinary but perfectly-correct
sentences from their "workhorse" context and hold them up
and declare them to be "horrible" (though somehow strangely
fully correct in grammar and syntax) we have made a
"devastating critique" of our intended VICTIM'S story--
and of course of our intended-victim's writing talents too.
While attempting that, Joe, you further made a wholly
unwarranted assumption that your audience was far too
ignorant and ill-read to comprehend that all, or certainly
most all, prolific writers rely on thousands of sentences
that fall far short of being awesome as far as style and
originality.
[Not to mention the fact that, if I wanted to concern
myself with trivia, I could EASILY take one-thousand
words to ridicule and devastate ANY sentence you have
ever posted. And I would not employ the lazy simpleton's
method of merely quoting the sentence and saying "This is
horrible," either. *I* would do the job right.]
In other words, Joe, you used incredibly weak logic, and
the fact that you did that through insinuation, rather than
with a forthright statement, only makes you look far worse.
You got yourself spanked, boy.
Stop whining and live with it.
>
[...] I have not read the rest of Joe's
"I did not either get spanked" whines,
but if I find anything down there that
merits comment, I will make a "Part 2."
alt.genius.bill-palmer.upstairs.office
Bill Palmer
>Bill Palmer <wil...@ix.netcom.com> hunched over a computer, typing
>feverishly;
>thunder crashed, Bill Palmer <wil...@ix.netcom.com> laughed madly,
>then wrote:
>What I did do was tell you that your story was such a piece of shit
>that I didn't have the stomach to critique it thoroughly.
So instead you took a few rather ordinary
(though perfectly correct in grammar and syntax)
sentences in "HOW I STOLE THE BILL PALMER NAME!"
and you held them up as "horrible" examples!
Yours was the cheap trick of a charlatan, since your
insinuation was a) that I somehow fancied that my
every sentence was a gem of brilliant prose, and
b) that most writers, including famous writers
in the print world, do NOT often rely on less
than scintillating sentences to move their
stories along, Cosby.
It's too
>depressing.
In other words, you prove to be an intellectual coward who
could not deal with my narrative's content, so you wriggled
away from the story on your belly and came crawling back with
a lot of transparently ridiculous INSINUATIONS about my style.
Of course, you behavior in doing that was egregiously
dishonest. After all, did I EVER say ANYTHING to suggest
I felt readers of my plain-spoken, true narration were
going to be "dazzled by every scintillating sentence"?
Of course not. The great pride I have in that story lies
in its originality. I certainly have never believed
it would immediately get me hailed as another Thomas
Pynchon regarding style.
I pointed out a half-dozen -examples- of what I thought
>was just absolutely terrible.
Yes, you DID take some rather ordinary sentences which
did fine at their job--advancing my story in a plain
fashion--and you DID hold them up as "horrible," though
in fact they were correct in all respects, including
syntax, punctuation, etc.
The particular sentence which you are
>claiming was 'the sentence (implicitly, the only sentence) which
>failed to dazzle' was one example of dozens of agonizingly confusing
>construction.
Not at all. Those sentences were perfectly grammatical
and in fact did their job well in advancing my story line.
>
>So, if I point out individual sentences, I'm 'unfairly singling out
>one bad example', would you rather I genarelize?
Sure you are. You did not post ONE SYLLABLE claiming
they were incorrect in any way, grammar, punctuation
or anything else. Your entire schtick involved your
clumisily trying to pose yourself as a master prose
stylist who was qualified to make absurd and rather
vicious insinuations about the perfectly correct
sentences of writers.
>
>The real overriding thing though, is it just isn't worth it. Your
>response pattern is clear. The speed with which you take refuge in
>self-deception is amazing.
Nonsense. You used incredibly weak and dishonest
logic in a spurious critique and you got yourself a
spanking. Live with it.
If you would have had a better mind, Cosby, and you still
wanted to challenge me, you might have picked up on the
fact that what I feel is so remarkable about my narrative
lies in its originality. You would have tried to mount
an attack there, instead of taking the untenable position
that I had somehow posted that work to dazzle readers with
an array of awesomely-styled sentences. Essentially, of
course, it is a plain story but a highly-original story too.
>
>Because you're begging so desparately, I will, eventually, critique
>the whole thing thoroughly, and continue responding until you give up.
Good. That should guarantee me plenty of what I call
"grist for the colossal mill."
>What stops me is just that you aren't worth the time.
So instead you tried to wriggle along the intellectual
coward's lazy, slimy path with a critical charade that
I have already exposed in full!
I'll get around
>to it. Maybe. I can think of better things to do. Loonie whack jobs
>like you will go on responding over and over again long past the time
>where their logic has failed and fled.
YOU of all dishonest, semi-intellectual charlatans
have the gall to mention "logic"?!!!
>
>As far as an overarching genarality though, I would just say, "if you
>expect people to read what you write, give them something to read."
Funny, the last time I looked in Deja, I found
plenty of hard quantitative evidence that "HOW I
STOLE THE BILL PALMER NAME!" was indeed the most
popular original Usenet literary effort for
January, 2001 (and in fact it is holding its
own into February too).
alt.genius.bill-palmer.upstairs.office
>
>
>--
>Joe Cosby
>http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
>
>"Because you can't cotton to evil. No sir. You have to smack evil on
>the nose with the rolled-up newspaper of justice and say, 'Bad evil.
> Bad, BAD evil.'"
>- The Tick
>
>
>Sig by Kookie Jar 5.98d http://go.to/generalfrenetics/
Bill Palmer
joec...@SPAMBLOCKmindspring.com (Joe Cosby) wrote:
>joec...@SPAMBLOCKmindspring.com (Joe Cosby) hunched over a computer,
>typing feverishly;
>thunder crashed, joec...@SPAMBLOCKmindspring.com (Joe Cosby) laughed
>madly, then wrote:
>
>>jim...@gate.net wrote:
>>
>>> to remark on Bill's tin ear and turgid prose.
>>
>>'Tin ear'. That summarizes it beautifully.
>
>Jesus, he just posted his third separate response to your one article.
>
>This is a man in need of help. Or a lobotomy or whatever.
Just when I can think my estimate of your intelligence
could not get any lower, you come up with something like
this and I have to take it down a peg or two, Cosby.
Experience has taught me that more Usenet readers
favor relatively short posts over relatively long
ones.
As a result, when I am responding to a fairly long
post, and I know that when I add my own follow-up,
the next post might well be longer, I try to
remember to respond in parts, answering a
few points in one posting and then going back
and responding to the rest (of the post that I
am following up) in one or two additional posts.
In no way is that "following myself up" (as you
falsely alleged, not in this post, but in an
earlier post).
In fact this common sort of "follow-up
serialization" is greatly preferred by most
readers. There are some readers who simply
won't bother with the longer posts at all.
Ideally, I would like to keep my discussion
thread posts at fewer than one-hundred lines,
but I don't always remember to do that.
Even so, it is a worthy goal.
Your notion that someone is a nutcase for
serializing his follow-ups out of respect
for readers' desire for post brevity is even
more ludicrous than your pal "CmarkB"'s notion
that my literary articles are seriously flawed
by my not choosing the option of letter-space
paragraph indentation.
Or, your notion is as crazy as Witch Doc Jim's
insistance that my using common colloquial
expressions like "pawn off" or "cheapshooting"
in a Usenet post is bad. (I still can't believe
Jim tried to pawn those two off on readers!)
Gee, how long have you been in Usenet, Joe?
You seem to have missed a few things
regarding standard posting customs...
alt.genius.bill-palmer.upstairs.office
>
>I can just see him there, rocking back and forth in his chair.
>--
>Joe Cosby
>http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
>
>Summoning his cosmic powers
>and blowing slightly from his toes
>the psychic emanations flow
>- Syd Barret
Bill Palmer
jim...@gate.net (Jim Vandewalker) wrote:
>( Joe Cosby wrote:
>In article <95n76j$1l5$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net>, Bill Palmer
><wil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> Still smartin' over your spanking, eh, Joe?
>{ >>Well, I know YOU thought people would buy
>{ >>into your "Bill Palmer is the only writer
>{ >>on the net who does not dazzle readers with
>{ >>every sentence,"
>
>{ >I don't think it's necessary to 'dazzle a reader with every sentence'.
>{ >I never claimed that I did.
>{
>{ Of course you never said it, Cosbyg. When semi-intellectual
>{ charlatans like you try to pawn off an assertion that
> ^^^^
> This should be "palm"; the confusion with the
> near-homonymous "pawn" is a common error. The
> usage "to palm off" refers to a prestidigitator's
> trick of making a small article appear by first
> concealing it in the hand and then producing it
> as if by magic. A moment's thought will show
> that "pawn off" has no logical meaning in this
> connection.
Well, Witch Doc Jim is back to his old tricks again!
How many times have I exposed THAT one for the readers,
James?
Your basic trick is sometimes called the "Formal English
Only" ploy. Only an idiot would fall for it after reading
thousands of Usenet posts, few or none which are correct
by the strictures of formal English
Vandewalker's con involves his taking a Usenet post and
"correcting it" from the absurd standpoint that only formal
English is allowable in Usenet posts. You know, that's
the sort of English that is called for if you are addressing
the United Nations or a meeting of the Modern English
Association. No, I agree that it would not be proper
to get up before the M. L. A. and talk about somebody
trying to "pawn something off."
What Witch Doc Jim would have gullible readers forget,
though, that Usenet posting does not call for formal
English. In fact, sticking exclusively or even mainly
with formal English is a great way to bore your readers.
"Pawn off" is a perfectly common and acceptable
colloquial expression. That it may originate in a
misunderstanding has little significance. You hear it
all the time and your readers know what it means.
[I often throw in an "ain't" for color, too--my
Pedant in a Dunce Cap must have missed that.]
Now, I don't like to play Jim's game, because if I do
I am going to spend considerable writing time tearing
posts by pretentious, half-educated pedants like Witch
Doc Jim to shreds. That is so because, if we judge
Jim by the same "Formal English Only rule" he seeks to
apply to others--he falls far, far short of his own
silly standards. His own departures from formal English
are egregious and many. Almost everybody who posts
falls into the same category. Happily, too.
For instance, if Jim was consistent about his
"formal English rule," he would be nattering
about many of my other departures from a
strictly formal English usage too. Of course,
there is no frequent poster on the net who
stays with formal English all the time. If
there were somebody like that, nobody would
read him since he would be far too boring.
So, Jim, why don't you put on your thinking
cap before you try to PAWN OFF anything as
stupid as a "formal English only in Usenet
posts," rule?
You must know deep down inside that a genius
would never buy into anything so transparently
wrong-headed.
My discussion posts (and quite a few of my
stand alones too) make rich use of not only
informal English, colloquial English and
slang, too. Live with it, or stop clicking
on wilhelp.
(If you want a contrast, I would say that my
"Ghoul Zone" is about as close to formal
English as I ever let myself get.)
[...] Well this one is long enough so I
will stop here and let people focus.
In accordance with my enduring
custom, I have not read the rest
Witch Doc Jim's post, but if it
contains any OTHER amusing
fallacies, I will be sure to
comment.
Twinkles, the alt.genius dwarf
Bill Palmer
>In article <95n76j$1l5$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net>, Bill Palmer
><wil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>{ OF COURSE that was your INSINUATION.
>
> This is entirely typical of Bill: that is, for him to
> to respond with great indignation to something he
> CLAIMS another writer said. I've never seen him
> quite so openly admit it before, though.
Nonsense. In order to defend a sly form of dishonest
rhetoric, you are asking everyone to throw logic out
the window. Jim. I set out an irrefutable case by
presenting a thorough, deductive demonstration for the
readers' benefit--an indictment, in fact, which made
it clear that Joe Cosby was indeed guilty of the
insinuation that I alleged.
> [...]
>{
>{ So, in other words, your critical charade carried with it
>{ the rather transparent INSINUATION
>
> Here, of course, is the same again. Bill tells the
> reader what joe MEANT, in BILL's words, rather than
> in joe's own (as joe invited him to do).
Fiddlefaddle. Only a poorly-educated seventh-grader
would buy that. What you are asking readers to do is
pretend that there is no such process as INSINUATION.
You imply that if someone does not state something in
an honest fashion, it is then somehow unfair or
unreasonable to identify things suggested sneakily
and indirectly. In other words, you are trying to
cover your pal's butt and insult our readers
intelligence at the same time, Witch Doc Jim!
>
>[...]
>
> And again below. Notice that Bill ALWAYS ignores any substantive
> criticism of his "writing" as throughout the present post where
> he focusses on the ludicrous non-issue of "grammatical correctness"
> and completely ignores the fact that joe is only the lst in a
> VERY long line to remark on Bill's tin ear and turgid prose.
No Joe didn't. He simply called a perfectly grammatical
sentence a lot of bad names. Now, maybe if he were
Thomas Pynchon, he would not come off as so ridiculously
dishonest. Yet, we have to ask, exactly who is Joe Cosby
that he should be assailing perfectly correct sentences
that are no better or no worse than a type of "workhorse"
sentence that you can find advancing story lines in the
printed publications of most, if not all, prose writers.
>{
>{ In other words, Joe, you used incredibly weak logic, and
>{ the fact that you did that through insinuation, rather than
>{ with a forthright statement, only makes you look far worse.
>{
>{ You got yourself spanked.
>{
>{ Stop whining and live with it.
>{
>{ >
>{ [...] I have not read the rest of Joe's
>{ "I did not either get spanked" whines,
>{ but if I find anything down there that
>{ merits comment, I will make a "Part 2."
>
> For my money, though, this is the best part. Bill cranks out
> 98 lines BEFORE HE'S EVEN READ THE WHOLE POST to which he is
> "replying".
Habit of mine, Witch Doc Jim, one I intend to stick with
since it makes sense in Usenet thread discussions.
You see, a discussion thread post is not a unified
whole like a correctly done essay. Mostly it is a
collection of remarks, some related, some not. As
a result, I simply reply when I see something that
I feel merits comment. I certainly don't see my
follow-up as any sort of unified work--and I don't
approach the task of writing follow-up to a thread
discussion in such a manner.
When responding to a stand-alone (all by one writer)
I will in fact read the whole thing before replying,
however. But a typical thread discussion, not at
all, unless maybe it only has one screen's worth
of text and I "chunk" the whole thing at once by
habit.
>
> Never fear, joe. There is NO CHANCE that Bill is ever going to
> respond directly to the sort of request you made of him. The major
> reason is that his delusional state won't let him, but I think
> the fact that he has NO IDEA of how to use Usenet is also a
> contributing factor.
How is it that an obscure sort like Witchdoctor Jim
Vandewalker comes to be telling ME that I don't know
how to use Usenet? Oh, yeah, that's right. YOU are
the famous net entity they named the legendary
newsgroup alt.genius.witch-doc.vandewalker after.
Sorry, I didn't realize I was talking to the most
famous writer in Usenet.
>
> Don't you think it's interesting that someone
> who is as obsessed with "archive" as Bill is ("archiveless" is
> the worst thing he can call someone), has no website where his
> marvelous prose is enshrined? Especially since DejaNews has turned so
> unreliable. The reason is of course that Bill doesn't have the vaguest
> idea of how to make even an all-text web page.
[I'll save that last one for a separate post.]
alt.genius.bill-palmer.upstairs.office
>
>--
>Jim the Dead Guy
Bill Palmer
[...]
> Don't you think it's interesting that someone
> who is as obsessed with "archive" as Bill is ("archiveless" is
> the worst thing he can call someone), has no website where his
> marvelous prose is enshrined? Especially since DejaNews has turned so
> unreliable. The reason is of course that Bill doesn't have the vaguest
> idea of how to make even an all-text web page.
>
You are not half the Bill Palmer expert you pose yourself
as, Witchdoctor Jim.
Like some other shallow types, whenever you notice me doing
something different from the way lots of others do things
around these woods, you conclude (or, more likely, PRETEND
to conclude) that I am far too stupid to follow the herd.
Is it possible you could have missed what I have said on
so many occasions?
That is, I consider myself a writing experiment for purposes
of discovering how popular a writer can get while posting
topical articles in Usenet newsgroups.
That's a rather gigantic aim, if you think about it.
It means writing topical articles on a good many
different subjects for diverse appropriate forums.
Anyway, I am not at all convinced that I have concluded
my experiment, so I wish to continue focusing on Usenet
newsgroups.
Also, as a famous net writer, when I move into the web,
I want to do things right.
Some chintzy (er, Jim, spare me the usual lecture
on my colloquial usage; yes, I KNOW the precise
meaning of "chintz"--but I PREFER to use "chintzy"
in the colorful colloquial sense; does THAT tax
your noggin too much?) little website would not
be sufficient.
Further, I don't want to invite readers to a website
only to have them come back to the newsgroups and report
that the site essentially featured my Usenet work.
I have seen that same sort of report about others, in
fact. No matter how good their Usenet work is, there
is an inevitable feeling of disappointment among visitors
if the site does not feature something exciting and not
available in Deja.
So, when I do decide that my Usenet experiment is
essentially complete, and I feel it is time to focus
on my website, it will feature some new work. That
might, for instance, be a novel, one that has never
been mentioned by me at all by name in Usenet, let
alone posted in a newsgroup.
The point is, that website is not something I want to
focus on currently while I am having so much fun with
my Usenet experiment.
Lesson for Witch Doctor Jim: Simply because I am doing
something at variance with the common net practice, don't
stupidly conclude I am too dumb to emulate everyone else.
You may end up making a ass of yourself. Again.
The Obnox
Four in the god-blessed ayem, and a terrible bout of insomnia has ruined my
night's sleep. No Nyquil in the house. Nothing stronger than valerian root,
alas. But suddenly, there is hope: 5 posts from Palmjob. Could it be? Can I
find salvation in the slovenly sludge of that sad saprophyte, that
sententious scribbler of soporific soliloquies...(*yawn*)...I'm getting
drowsy already...(*snore*)....
The Obnox
>
> Anyway, I am not at all convinced that I have concluded
> my experiment, so I wish to continue focusing on Usenet
> newsgroups.
More's the pity. Can we pay you to go away? We can take up a collection
right away.
Dr Zen
Mugwump <jand...@swbell.net> wrote:
> What you are calling whining, I just consider to be an
observation. It may be
> acurate or it may be way off base, but it's just an observation.
It sure sounds like whining.
Hey, at last count you've called me about sixty-four different names,
including asshole and fucking idiot. And *I* have a bad disposition?
You are a bad case, mugwump. I've gone no lower than you, been no
nastier, started nothing, done nothing but give you back a little of
what you've thrown out. And you don't like it. You think I should
be 'nice' to you. It's not my fault you try to play games you're no
good at. You are incapable of letting it be, it seems, though. It
certainly doesn't make me a troll - a contemptible suggestion, which
when made often smacks of sore loserdom. Indeed, you have trolled me,
by most definitions of "troll", and I have done you the honour of
biting.
HAND
Zen
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
grizzellda
> In article <rO2g6.386895$U46.11...@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com>,
> "grizzellda" <grizz...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Bill Palmer" <wil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> alt.genius.bill-palmer.upstairs.office
> >>
> >
> >
> >alt.sex.masturbation.bill-palmer
> >alt.stupid-ass.bill-palmer
> >misc.idiot.bill-palmer
> >sci.mongoloid.bill-palmer
> >soc.dumbfuck.bill-palmer
> >talk.gibberish.bill-palmer
> >
> >You've inspired a lot of news group names, I see. ;)
>
> I feel slighted. You have failed to find the dozen
> or more OTHER bogus "Bill Palmer" groups that spankards
> (sore losers in flame wars) have started at one time or
> another. There have been up to fifty "anti-Bill Palmer
> websites at various times too; they seem to come and
> go.
>
Don't feel slighted by my failure to find all of the anti-palmer groups. My
news-server doesn't even keep posts for longer than five days. Shitty
service, if you ask me.
> Actually, the only legitimate Bill Palmer newsgroup
> is alt.genius.bill-palmer. Speaking to you now *AS*
> Bill Palmer (I love to say that!) I never read or post
> to those phony groups.
Most of them are dead empty. One has some porn ads on it, though.
> All they do is clutter up Usenet
> storage space. I have certainly never tried to censor
> them either--they simply mean nothing to me other than
> the price of net fame.
The National Enquirer of Usenet, eh?
>You become popular enough, and
> the people like the ones starting those phony Palmer
> groups begin crawling out of the woodwork after you,
> hell bent on a lot of things...
>
Curiouser and curiouser...
Just *who* created the palmer group anyway?
grizzellda
--
"This ass talk had sort of a gut frequency...Well this talking hit you right
down there, a bubbly, thick stagnant sound, a sound you could smell."
from "Did I Ever tell you about the man who taught his asshole to talk?"
by William S. Burroughs
>
> alt.genius.bill-palmer.upstairs.office
> >
> >grizzellda
> >--
> >"If you pretend to be good, the world takes you very seriously. If you
> >pretend to be bad, it doesn't. Such is the astounding stupidity of
> >optimism." (Oscar Wilde)
> >
> >
>
>
Xifer
Dear John,
Whoe the fuck made you judge you self-righteous,
opinionated, dog-hating motherfucker?
>
> Bill Palmer <wil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:95ppcj$btt$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
> > In article <t80o7pq...@corp.supernews.com>,
> > "The Obnox" <scr...@multipro.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >Ejucaided Redneck <briarh...@yall.com> wrote in message
> > >news:3A7FF118...@yall.com...
> > >> The Obnox wrote:
> > >> >
> > (It's the responses to him that usually pull me in.) But
> > >I'm torn between a desire to have him go away and an even stronger desire
> to
> > >watch him have his nervous breakdown before he goes away.
>
> Wants him to "go away". That's what you might call "The Warthog Mentality".
> He wants to be the only, or leastways the biggest pig at the trough. He
> imagines that it's his place to dictate who is to stay, who is to go away.
>
> But, what is that to him? That's none of his business who stays. Who the
> fuck does he think he is?
>
> Through it all, his motives are clear. He's looking for a victim. He sees
> a man who through his beady little pig's eyes appears to him as the runt of
> the litter. His primitive, animalistic nature that has yet to develop a
> super-ego to govern him throws him right into the predictable, primordial
> ritual of pecking order blood sacrifice. How low can man sink?
>
> I used to lay awake in my sleeping bag in the foothills of the California
> Mother Lode in the back-reaches of Calaveras County to hear the wild,
> bestial music of the coyotes, as I would try to understand some of the
> godawful sounds that would carry through the night up through the ravines
> and gulches. There was, on occasion, almost as if by clockwork during the
> Dark of the Moon, something in it that was fearsome, something too terrible
> for the mind of civilized man to fully comprehend or desire to contemplate.
>
> Then, I read the account of a Gold Rush miner who spoke of why the coyote
> was generally held in such low esteem as meat for other predators to eat,
> let alone man. According to this account, it was common knowledge amongst
> the Digger Indians of the area that coyotes were cannibals. As to why that
> would have an effect on the taste of their flesh, I cannot recall a reason,
> except that it was a simple case of putting two and two together, to wit:
> "They eat each other: no wonder. That is why the meat is no good."
>
> In possesion of that bit of lore, listening to those sounds at night during
> the course of the New Moon, I felt I could most decidedly now identify what
> my mind formerly was too nice to recognize in the searing screams of anguish
> that were not the sounds of an animal victorious in the hunt, but the sound
> of the hunted and the vanquished, especially as we heard those screams come
> in contrast with the others, a majority that were expressed in rapacious
> shrieking snarls of rabid hostility, tearing and careening through the misty
> air of that mountain midnight, in this music of that very bestial liturgy
> of Gold Rush lore, in progress.
>
> In this newsgroup, I often hear the same soul-chilling thing, God damn
> you--and I do despise the very eyes of those who bring this awful night
> music to my ears, here. Yes, because it indicates the actions of people who
> "know not what they do".
>
> This primitive human coyote is 'drawn in'. His motives do not proceed from
> reason or morality, but from pure animal instinct. And that is why I *hate*
> his eyes. They are the eyes of the beast, the same beast that has always
> plagued humanity from the beginning. Usually, these beasts, by means of
> submitting to their bestial motives do manage to bully their way into
> ascendancy--and that is the way of the square, bestial, lowest common
> denominator of existence. This man is Orwell's *Animal Farm* Pig. The
> fact that others are loath to recognize him, is a sad commentary on the
> state of intellectual enlightenment here. That anyone who goes around,
> outwardly raising the image of a "redneck" to a status of acceptability,
> and by his effort receives it, that speaks volumes about the rest of you, as
> to the consciousness of you who do in blindness so receive it. It is not
> unlike the rise of every tyrant who ever came to power in the world.
>
> You people are such pitiable and pernicious fools to be the fools of your
> own most primitive and basest instincts.
>
> --
Dr Zen
na...@gekkografx.com (gekko) wrote:
> After swearing Ejucaided Redneck <briarh...@yall.com> to
> secrecy, I told about a disturbing experience I had three years
> earlier when I was abducted by aliens. And here's what they said:.
>
> >I do understand how you and Hope and Zen et al enjoy pounding
> >on this lunatic
>
> zennie's not pounding on him, bob.
>
You know when you've been wanking all evening (jerking, I believe you
chaps call it)? You've come off about five times and you're arm's sorer
than your dingaling. You with me so far, redneckio? You must know the
feeling. Anyhow, you don't "pound" on your cock in that situation, do
you? You caress it. Y'all have a nice day now.
Jabelson1
<wil...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>Yup. You got it. That's the way he perceives ME, as
>the runt of litter, simply because being the most
>controversial writer around, I draw the most fire
You draw the most fire because you spam the worst shit and then act indignant
when called for it...
If you were ignored you'd be gone in a week...
Jabelson1
>Of course. The whole nasty herd of 'em are like that.
>Anyone who takes Usenet writing groups as places
>for serious writing is a rebuke to these envious do-
>nothings, including "educated redneck," "The Obnox,"
>Alan Hope, and "jabelson."
Bill, when you do some serious writing, give me a shout. I tried to treat
HISTNBP as a serious piece - I offered critique, I read and re-read the piece.
I guess in your sick mind Usenet is all cooks and no diners - though I'm not
sure who your "content" is aimed at: content providers? - "do-nothings" just on
usenet to read what's been posted? It's a shame you don't understand what
Usenet is all about and are only here to spam your facile spewings and try to
"build readership." This is an interactive artform, Billy - and your work is
mine - remember. Now post more garbarbage so I can fulfill my part of the
deal...
Long Gone Daddy
Xifer <a...@im.net> wrote in message news:3A8137BB...@im.net...
> Long Gone Daddy wrote:
>
> Dear John,
>
> Whoe the fuck made you judge you self-righteous,
> opinionated, dog-hating motherfucker?
> >
Feeling "judged" eh?
Good!
That was the whole point. Now...
Grow a conscience.
--
Dear John http://daddio45.tripod.com/index-1.html
"We'll meet again, don't know where, don't know when,
But I know we'll meet again some sunny day."
--Ross Parker, Hughie Charles
Xifer
>
> Xifer <a...@im.net> wrote in message news:3A8137BB...@im.net...
> > Long Gone Daddy wrote:
> >
> > Dear John,
> >
> > Whoe the fuck made you judge you self-righteous,
> > opinionated, dog-hating motherfucker?
> > >
>
> Feeling "judged" eh?
>
No. Wrong again. Check my posting history for
confirmation. I just can't stand folk pooping up
and expressing their opinion about their superiority.
> Good!
>
> That was the whole point. Now...
>
> Grow a conscience.
Likewise, asshole.
Long Gone Daddy
Xifer <a...@im.net> wrote in message news:3A8179DE...@im.net...
> Long Gone Daddy wrote:
> >
> > Xifer <a...@im.net> wrote in message news:3A8137BB...@im.net...
> > > Long Gone Daddy wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear John,
> > >
> > > Whoe the fuck made you judge you self-righteous,
> > > opinionated, dog-hating motherfucker?
> > > >
> >
> > Feeling "judged" eh?
> >
>
> No. Wrong again. Check my posting history for
> confirmation.
Piss on your posting history.
> I just can't stand folk pooping up
> and expressing their opinion about their superiority.
Then you should *love* reading "Notes on Smoke and Blood". By all means do
not miss it. It will confirm your hatred better than anything I can offer.
>
>
> > Good!
> >
> > That was the whole point. Now...
> >
> > Grow a conscience.
>
> Likewise, asshole.
You got it right, I am an *asshole*, totally. But unlike most everyone
else, I pride myself in being able to admit it and almost sort of glory in
it as the inextricable state of the human condition. Why fight it? When I
meet the first human being that I do not regard as an *asshole*, I will know
that I have seen God.
Alan Hope
knows what all, but I do remember this:
>Er, what did you say the title of your
>one well-known stand alone was? I seem to have
>missed it? Let's see: *I* am the best known writer
>and whom many thousands of newsgroup readers could
>name at least several net classics. You are an
>ignoramus who rarely shows signs of being able to
>handle the paragragh form--and yet YOU ironically
>make a slur about MY intelligence?! Oh, wait,
>now I remember, you are that well-known net
>writer, aren't you? Sure, they named that
>popular newsgroup, alt.genius.joe-syko after
>you. Gee, I'm sorry...here I was addressing a
>famous writer and didn't even realize it...
I reckon this is a sign of approaching melt-down. The increasing
reliance on the template, see? Check any Palmer post currently on your
server and you'll see those same elements repeated there -- list of
stand-alones, paragraph form or typo-rate, popular newsgroup named
after, net classics. As the internal head-pressure rises, the tendency
to vary the response diminishes.
But it could be months, or it could be a matter of weeks. It's just
too difficult to say.
--
AH
grizzellda
"Jabelson1" <jabe...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010207085416...@nso-fi.aol.com...
I missed you guys.
grizzellda
wil...@ix.netcom.com
jabe...@aol.com (Jabelson1) wrote:
>In article <95q0i1$1o2$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net>, Bill Palmer
><wil...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
>>Of course. The whole nasty herd of 'em are like that.
>>Anyone who takes Usenet writing groups as places
>>for serious writing is a rebuke to these envious do-
>>nothings, including "educated redneck," "The Obnox,"
>>Alan Hope, and "jabelson."
>
>Bill, when you do some serious writing, give me a shout. I tried to treat
>HISTNBP as a serious piece - I offered critique, I read and re-read the piece.
Nonsense, you pompous, stinkin' hypocrite. After flaming me for
months (and doing that by following me up on posts having NOTHING
whatsoever to do with you) you crossed over the line and started
throwing your buckets of ill-inspired, pestilential muck over my
serious literary works, a form of vandalism that most people in
these groups don't indulge in, even against people they flame.
And of course most people who have been flaming someone for a
long time don't suddenly turn into objective critics, and you
are certainly no exception. Further, the situation proves
especially ironic since YOU would seem to lack the mind, heart,
and spine for doing any serious writing, so you content yourself
with being a envious do-nothing on the sidelines clutching a
hyperactive peashooter and plinking at those you envy most,
"jabelson." As I said, you are simply a foul hypocrite. You
don't even have the guts to call the malodorous slime you toss
by its real name.
alt.genius.bill-palmer.upstairs.office
Joe Sykes
<wil...@ix.netcom.com> writes
>Er, what did you say the title of your one well-known stand alone was?
'Shaddap Cunt'
Syko.
Anopheles
Oh, Stinky Girl, that's the sadest thing I've heard all year.
Anopheles
grizzellda
"Anopheles" <hi...@jeack.com.au> wrote in message
news:95scni$i59f5$1...@ID-34438.news.dfncis.de...
Oh? Really? You do mean saddest, don't you? I don't get it...
grizzellda
--
"I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've
always worked for me." (Hunter S. Thompson)
Anopheles
Just a typo. (Actually, It's a metaphor for my life, dammit. )
Anopheles
grizzellda
Whew. I thought perhaps it was some word I hadn't heard of. (I don't own a
dictionary, you know. Nyuck.)
grizzellda
gekko
deja.com>, who was all, "You go girl," and then went:
>five times
<perk>
--
gekko
Everybody is somebody else's weirdo. - Dykstra
jabelson
> In article <95pb1i$co1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> tyle...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
When you
> meet someone loitering around a WRITING group, of
> ALL places, who insists he or she doesn't do any
> writing in Usenet, you know you have met a lout
> (or lout-ess).
Usenet is not a means unto itself: the writers here "meet" to discuss their
writing -not to write for each other. Palmer, you may define this as a
place to write - most people are here to communicate (and I think get away
from real writing. Usenet is a beautiful diversion...)
>
> Twinkles, the alt.genius dwarf
> >--
> >Tyler
> >
> >It's the Second Law of Thermodynamics: sooner or later everything turns
> >to shit. That's my phrasing, not the Encyclopedia Britannica.
> >
> >From "Husbands and Wives"
gekko
Mister Palmer did this:
>> a lout
>> (or lout-ess).
>
I was unaware that "lout" was a word with a gender.
You lrean something new on this newsgroup every day,
I tell ya!
--
gekko
Some editors are failed writers, but so are most writers. - T. S.
Eliot (1888-1965)
Alan Hope
knows what all, but I do remember this:
>In article <j3118t46drjhtr9mn...@4ax.com>,
> Alan Hope <ah...@skynet.be> wrote:
>>In alt.writing, Bill Palmer posted and went yadda yadda I mean who
>>knows what all, but I do remember this:
>>>Or, your notion is as crazy as Witch Doc Jim's
>>>insistance that my using common colloquial
>>>expressions like "pawn off" or "cheapshooting"
>>>in a Usenet post is bad. (I still can't believe
>>>Jim tried to pawn those two off on readers!)
>>Those are not common expressions. They're malapropisms.
>Not at all, you ninny. Those are common
>colorful expressions, at least in some
>regions of the U. S.
The fact that it's spoken by idiots in certain regions does not make
it a regionalism.
>"Pawn off" is the
>more common of the two and you hear it
>on television all the time.
How erudite of you to blind-side me with such a highbrow cite.
Highbrow but vague, I might say. Was this on Full House or CrossFire?
>"Cheap-
>shooting" has sort of an old-west
>ring, like "owlhoot." I like it.
Your liking is of no consequence in matters of usage, Palmer. Your
home-spun definition of "popular" proves that.
>MANY common expressions--not just pawn
>off--have their roots in misunderstandings,
>I might add.
Until they are co-opted into the mainstream, when it might be said
they become correct. Let's face it, Palmer. You got it wrong because
you misheard. You get your information from TV, apparently. That can
happen.
>Further, I certainly know a malapropism
>when I use one for whatever effect.
What a dreadful sentence that is. Did it move your story along? Are
you going to find an instance of Harlan Ellison using such a moronic
construction?
>For instance, a favorte of mine is
>the one about LEPERS never changing
>their spots. And, Alan, as our notorious
>"moral leper" I see you haven't been
>about to change YOURS. (We might
>imagine that each telltale spot
>represents an ususually large fib.)
I may be morally reprehensible, but it was you who posted a suggestion
that a 15-year-old girl contact you by email off-group to throw her
parents off the scent.
>Twinkles, the alt.genius dwarf
Do children tend to like that handle better than the wilhelp one?
--
AH
Long Gone Daddy
grizzellda <grizz...@home.com> wrote in message
news:NMjg6.390068$U46.11...@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com...
>
> "Anopheles" <hi...@jeack.com.au> wrote in message
> news:95sfg4$ik8lg$1...@ID-34438.news.dfncis.de...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Oh, Stinky Girl, that's the sadest thing I've heard all year.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Anopheles
Do you suppose she knows that "Stinky Girl" is an endearment? I hope she
likes it. It's really rather special. It's only appropriate that a
knock-you-dead pretty little Redhead like this should wind up with a handle
like "Stinky Girl", it will make her all the more beautiful as it works on
her humility--a thing most pretty girls really are a bit shy of, usually.
Not that I say this is necessarily the case here with *our* Stinky Girl, but
as preventitive medicine, I daresay one could find no finer elixir.
So anyway...
Hi Stinky Girl!
Nice to see you back. :-x (smiley of a guy eating his bowtie)
Have you seen my new MP3 Com site? You can listen by streaming audio
now....
http://www.mp3.com/JPMcSmokestack
Got an email today from some Scandinavian dude who surfed in and said the
song on there makes him "feel good". I think his words were something like,
"I have to admit..." oh hell! I'll just quote it...wait a sec...
Okay. Here it is....
__
Hello!
I have to say I feel good when I listen to your music, you have good taste!
:) I`ll download it!
--
I am now working on an arrangement of Hoagy Carmichael's *Stardust* which
will make Coltrane's "My Favorite Things" sound like Julie Andrews and Puff
Daddy during a duet of "My Baby Does The Hanky Panky". Don't lose that
link!
"Sometimes I wonder why I spend the lonely nights,
Dreaming of a..."
...green-eyed blonde?
Anopheles
"Long Gone Daddy" wrote:
>
> grizzellda <grizz...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:NMjg6.390068$U46.11...@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com...
> >
> > "Anopheles" <hi...@jeack.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:95sfg4$ik8lg$1...@ID-34438.news.dfncis.de...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I missed you guys.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh, Stinky Girl, that's the sadest thing I've heard all year.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Anopheles
>
> Do you suppose she knows that "Stinky Girl" is an endearment?
I have no doubts you mean it affectionately, as do I. Only a beauty like
Grizzelda could wear it with such panache.
>I hope she
> likes it. It's really rather special.
Ah, yes, tres special. I call my wife "Chook". She's not so happy about
that but if I substituted Stinky Girl, she may adjust. Ya think?
>It's only appropriate that a
> knock-you-dead pretty little Redhead like this should wind up with a
handle
> like "Stinky Girl", it will make her all the more beautiful as it works on
> her humility--a thing most pretty girls really are a bit shy of, usually.
> Not that I say this is necessarily the case here with *our* Stinky Girl,
but
> as preventitive medicine, I daresay one could find no finer elixir.
Not sure your right there. Most drop dead gorgeous gals have an attitude. No
Stinky Girl though.
Hanasakajiisan
Bill Palmer
"jabelson" <jabe...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>"Bill Palmer" <wil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>news:95pehn$v4i$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
>> In article <95pb1i$co1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>> tyle...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>When you
>> meet someone loitering around a WRITING group, of
>> ALL places, who insists he or she doesn't do any
>> writing in Usenet, you know you have met a lout
>> (or lout-ess).
>
>Usenet is not a means unto itself: the writers here "meet" to discuss their
>writing -not to write for each other.
Horseradish! You are just trying to push your view
of writing and prose groups off on others. Of
course, you posted in two different groups, so
we have to qualify. In rec.arts.prose you are
off by miles. Sharing writing efforts has always
been the central and the best purpose of that group.
Further, regarding alt.writing, there has long been
a tradition of posting work, too, along with the chat
about writing and writers and so on.
>Palmer, you may define this as a
>place to write - most people are here to communicate (and I think get away
>from real writing.
You are as full of bullcrap as usual. In the first
place, ALL writing (at least that which anyone other
than the writer is supposed to read) involves
communication. Secondly, I am suspicious of the
notion that "most people are here to get away
from writing." Usenet is a universe of words,
written words at that. People like you should
remove your drivel to a chatroom--there you
find almost no reader expectations, so your
poorly-written twaddle won't be held against
you, "jabelson."
Usenet is a beautiful diversion...)
For you, the diversion seems to be one of being
a loitering newsgroup do-nothing and a drooling,
envious human parasite, "jabelson."
Dr Zen
Xifer <a...@im.net> wrote:
> Long Gone Daddy wrote:
>
> Dear John,
>
> Whoe the fuck made you judge you self-righteous,
> opinionated, dog-hating motherfucker?
I did. So fuck off, will you, Chris, cos court's in session.
Zen
Alan Hope
what all, but I do remember this:
>Oh, Stinky Girl, that's the sadest thing I've heard all year.
Imagine.
--
AH
Alan Hope
knows what all, but I do remember this:
>I missed you guys.
Who the fuck are you?
Oh yeah.
--
AH
Alan Hope
what all, but I do remember this:
>In article <95pod1$f2h$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>, Bill Palmer
><wil...@ix.netcom.com> writes
>'Shaddap Cunt'
Classic.
--
AH
Xifer
>
> In article <3A8137BB...@im.net>,
> Xifer <a...@im.net> wrote:
> > Long Gone Daddy wrote:
> >
> > Dear John,
> >
> > Whoe the fuck made you judge you self-righteous,
> > opinionated, dog-hating motherfucker?
>
> I did. So fuck off, will you, Chris, cos court's in session.
>
Ah, zen - you must be so gratful for an opportunity
to tell someone what to do. Note that I don't do
that. You make me smile - you have _such_ a fixation.
Perhaps you might try to get over it?
Xifer
>
> Xifer <a...@im.net> wrote in message news:3A8179DE...@im.net...
> > Long Gone Daddy wrote:
> > >
> > > Xifer <a...@im.net> wrote in message news:3A8137BB...@im.net...
> > > > Long Gone Daddy wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Dear John,
> > > >
> > > > Whoe the fuck made you judge you self-righteous,
> > > > opinionated, dog-hating motherfucker?
> > > > >
> > >
> > > Feeling "judged" eh?
> > >
> >
> > No. Wrong again. Check my posting history for
> > confirmation.
>
> Piss on your posting history.
Fine - now I see the level of debate you
work at - I can safely disregard all
that you say as unconsidered prejudice.
> Then you should *love* reading "Notes on Smoke and Blood". By all means do
> not miss it. It will confirm your hatred better than anything I can offer.
Oh.
> You got it right, I am an *asshole*, totally. But unlike most everyone
> else, I pride myself in being able to admit it and almost sort of glory in
> it as the inextricable state of the human condition. Why fight it? When I
> meet the first human being that I do not regard as an *asshole*, I will know
> that I have seen God.
Must be a very depressing view of humanity - coloured
as it is by your preconceptions - that you have. Glad
it's not my problem. Is it lonely up there on perfection
plateau?
Maybe you'll redeem yourself in my eyes - but I doubt it;
lets see if you can try to stop dictating behaviour.
Others are obviously free to behave as they see fit - they
really don't need lectures. Maybe I'm wrong and some
of those you criticised will say how much they
enjoyed it - right?
Jabelson1
writes:
>you crossed over the line and started
>throwing your buckets of ill-inspired, pestilential muck over my
>serious literary works, a form of vandalism that most people in
>these groups don't indulge in, even against people they flame.
I guess it's all perception: you see yourself as a serious literary writer. I
see you as a retard crying out for help...
Jabelson1
>Nonsense, you pompous, stinkin' hypocrite. After flaming me for
>months (and doing that by following me up on posts having NOTHING
>whatsoever to do with you)
This is why you're an idiot: any post in a public forum includes all members
subscribed to that forum. You set it up, ass - I knock it down... PS - I did
not flame you until you started with your vicious insults. I can prove it.
Dare me too?
Jabelson1
<wil...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>For you, the diversion seems to be one of being
>a loitering newsgroup do-nothing and a drooling,
>envious human parasite, "jabelson."
Even your flames are incohesive - the parasite holds no envy for the host - you
fool - it's life blood. But to expect an uneducated bufoon like you to grasp
the meaning of your own words...