"it was not 'me' who was responsible" says Craig
ghosts...@my-deja.com
[ST_rn=fs]/threadmsg_if.xp?
thitnum=0&mhitnum=0&CONTEXT=974165392.1336737820, here is another gem
by Craig Young
> > > From: Craig young <lavenda...@yahoo.com>
> > > To: Philippa <phil...@abortionconcern.org>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 9:03 PM
> > > Subject: An apology and explanation for my actions.
> > > Yes, I admit it. I do apologise for that behaviour.
> > > I did not intend to intimidate you. I do suffer from
> > > a psychological condition that causes me to
> > > dissociate from time to time as part of a childhood
> > > trauma. I was sexually abused at six years of
> > > age by a friend of my fathers. As a defensive
> > > mechanism, an alternate personality developed to
> > > blot out that trauma. It was that personality that
> > > sent the offensive email to you, not me personally.
> > > When that personality surfaces, I have no
> > > recollection of my actions during that period,
> > > unless it leaves traces. This time it did.
> > >
> > > Further information about multiple personalities
> > > is available at the Astraea multiple personality
> > > site.
> > >
> > > You are correct, it was pathetic. I hope this
> > > clarifies matters. All I can say is that I
> > > started a new round of medication for my condition,
> > > and it took some time to get used to. I am
> > > sorry for what happened, but in a sense, it
> > > was not "me" who was responsible. My medication
> > > renders my situation under control.
> > >
> > > This email is in the strictest confidence, and I
> > > hope you will not disclose its contents.
> > >
> > > Yours sincerely
> > >
> > > Craig Young
> > >
> > > =====
> > > Craig Young (noun): Doctoral candidate, Massey University
> > > School of Sociology and Women's Studies.
> > >
> > > __________________________________________________
> > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
> > > <http://mail.yahoo.com/>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
brie...@my-deja.com
I swear I had nothing to do with this being posted though.
Who are you ghostspotter and how did you get this?
Brielle
In article <8uq4lh$u69$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Dwayne Carnachan
>This was the doozy I was talking about swakwsta...
>
>I swear I had nothing to do with this being posted though.
>
>Who are you ghostspotter and how did you get this?
>
>Brielle
>
>
if this is true - i find it in particular poor taste that someone
would post someone's medical history to a public newsgroup -
especially if it was sent in confidence...
if something is posted publically then so be it for open season -
however someone's personal email to somebody - especially something
that is extremely personal to someone (like medical conditions!) -
that is pretty terrible - and no matter what the person may have done
- i would feel equally the same about personal information posted
about anyone on this group - even Patrick Dunford! :-)
-----------------------------
DC
Patrick Dunford
said:
>This was the doozy I was talking about swakwsta...
>
>I swear I had nothing to do with this being posted though.
>
>Who are you ghostspotter and how did you get this?
Whoever "ghostspotter" is, you can be traced through your message headers. I
know you are on a Clear Net account, and Clear Net will have records
enabling them to trace you, if requested.
snip
--
======================================================================
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ - http://pdunford.godzone.net.nz/
Support the Right To Life - http://www.right-to-life.org/
All these people were still living by faith when they died. They
did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and
welcomed them from a distance. And they admitted that they were
aliens and strangers on earth.
-- Hebrews 11:13
http://www.heartlight.org/cgi-shl/todaysverse.cgi?day=20001113
======================================================================
Patrick Dunford
said:
Yes I agree with you. I just want to warn people posting here that a Deja
account is not sufficent for anonymity - you can be traced through the
headers on each message.
ghosts...@my-deja.com
dwa...@waikato.ac.nz wrote:
> if this is true - i find it in particular poor taste that someone
> would post someone's medical history to a public newsgroup -
> especially if it was sent in confidence...
>
> if something is posted publically then so be it for open season -
> however someone's personal email to somebody - especially something
> that is extremely personal to someone (like medical conditions!) -
> that is pretty terrible - and no matter what the person may have done
> - i would feel equally the same about personal information posted
> about anyone on this group - even Patrick Dunford! :-)
>
> -----------------------------
> DC
>
The guy was running a hate campaign.
He's targetted her as research for his thesis. The information he has
gathered from her ... including information about her abortion ... to
discredit her (this is afterall his life's work). His thesis will go in
the university library.
Go talk to Craig about that.
Craig does not have a personality disorder. This message just proves
that he will do anything ... and I mean ANYTHING ... to get himself out
of trouble.
Squirrel
<47...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 14 Nov 2000 01:40:31 GMT AD in nz.soc.queer, brie...@my-deja.com
>said:
>
>>This was the doozy I was talking about swakwsta...
>>
>>I swear I had nothing to do with this being posted though.
>>
>>Who are you ghostspotter and how did you get this?
>
>Whoever "ghostspotter" is, you can be traced through your message headers. I
>know you are on a Clear Net account, and Clear Net will have records
>enabling them to trace you, if requested.
>
hello Patrick, still dying to know how you deal with your early
morning hard ons?????
Squirrel
GOD HATES HOMOS but he loves tabouli
graffiti
JohnM
Carnachan <dwa...@waikato.ac.nz> writes
>
>if this is true - i find it in particular poor taste that someone
>would post someone's medical history to a public newsgroup -
>especially if it was sent in confidence...
I don't believe anything I read any more. But what
I can see is that the rampant hysteria is not coming
from Craig who has all my sympathy.
And to the so-called Christians who persecute Craig: if the email
is genuine, it shows someone who is sorry for whatever
he did and is rather remorseful in its attempt to beg for
forgiveness. Now I am not a Christian, but I do
believe in Crime, Punishment and also, Redemption, which
can only come about from forgiveness. I find it is totally
graceless and pathetic - to say the least - to throw someone's
apology back to his face in a public forum and to refuse
him what your Almighty has preached and even an atheist
believes in. Now get hold of yourselves, stop
hating for a change and start giving human beings the benefit
of the doubt.
--
JohnM What's written on Insurance Claims #7
"I was taking my canary to the vet. It got loose in the
car and flew out of the window. Next thing I saw was his
rear end and there was this almighty crash"
Web site http://www.scroll.demon.co.uk/spaver.htm
Brazil 500 travelogue http://www.scroll.demon.co.uk/brazil/index.htm
Dwayne Carnachan
>In article <tq711tgcekkbtggkg...@4ax.com>,
> dwa...@waikato.ac.nz wrote:
>
>The guy was running a hate campaign.
so - and his personal email to this organisation in what way relates
to us...?
i noticed you posted the public stuff which is of course fine - like i
said if its in the public arena then you have to take responsibility
to for your posts...
>He's targetted her as research for his thesis. The information he has
>gathered from her ... including information about her abortion ... to
>discredit her (this is afterall his life's work). His thesis will go in
>the university library.
>
>Go talk to Craig about that.
why! its none of my business - nor my interest - if he has done
something to this group i'm sure they've already done something about
it...
>Craig does not have a personality disorder. This message just proves
>that he will do anything ... and I mean ANYTHING ... to get himself out
>of trouble.
you could of quite easily paraphased the email - or even alluded to
the fact that you had information - i believe that people still have
the right to some basic privacy (or at least restricted to the parties
involved) - how about we find out who you are - and post your privare
correspondance to this newsgroup since you seem to find the practice
acceptable...
-----------------------------
DC
brazen
"Dwayne Carnachan" <dwa...@waikato.ac.nz> wrote in message
news:tq711tgcekkbtggkg...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 14 Nov 2000 01:40:31 GMT, brie...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >This was the doozy I was talking about swakwsta...
> >
> >I swear I had nothing to do with this being posted though.
> >
> >Who are you ghostspotter and how did you get this?
> >
> >Brielle
> >
> >
>
> if this is true - i find it in particular poor taste that someone
> would post someone's medical history to a public newsgroup -
> especially if it was sent in confidence...
Hear hear, that truly is very low. Shame on ghostspotter & all those who
seem to be reveling in it. You are very, very sad indeed.
Gay
ghosts...@my-deja.com
John M <jo...@scroll.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <tq711tgcekkbtggkg...@4ax.com>, Dwayne
> Carnachan <dwa...@waikato.ac.nz> writes
>
> >
> >if this is true - i find it in particular poor taste that someone
> >would post someone's medical history to a public newsgroup -
> >especially if it was sent in confidence...
>
> I can see is that the rampant hysteria is not coming
> from Craig who has all my sympathy.
Apart from the fact that I think you're Craig ... in which case your
comment is understandable ... the fact remains that Craig's ghost
identites article which brielle posted describes the multiple
personality phenomenon as a political tool, not a mental illness. what
this means is that everything else is a scam ... including the apology.
Regan Andrew
<ghosts...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8ut0v0$9vg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Apart from the fact that I think you're Craig ... in which case your
> comment is understandable ... the fact remains that Craig's ghost
> identites article which brielle posted describes the multiple
> personality phenomenon as a political tool, not a mental illness. what
> this means is that everything else is a scam ... including the apology.
Obviously you have not been reading this group for very long. Craig and
John are definitely not the same person. I agree with John. You should not
have posted that message - regardless of whether you think it is true or
not. It was childish and disgusting.
Regan
fredi...@my-deja.com
You know what is pathetic and un-christian? your concern and sympathy
for the perpetrator at the expense of the victims. None of you will
acknowledge the nasty harm this guy inflicted on others you are all
worried about his breach of privacy conveniently ignoring the fact he
breached other peoples privacy first attempting to solicit private
information and to harrass.
Maybe the confession should not have been posted, maybe it should have.
Personally I do not think there has been some gross misconduct on the
part of the victim I think the gross misconduct is on the other foot.
What are the stream of victims supposed to do, take this crap, and let
it go when some pathetic bullshit lame excuse of "I had a bad
childhood," "I am psycho" "I couldn't help it" then off he goes to the
next victim.
True friends and christians wouldn't be all understanding, and
all "shut the fuck up you whingy victims" the poor, poor perpetrator
needs our support. True friends and christians do not enable, they
lovingly point out the error and let the person know that they are
there for them but that the actions have to stop, and most importantly
they have compassion for the victims, sending a strong message to their
friend the perpetrator that reinforces the wrongness of the action and
their disaproval.
Unless I have it wrong and you all think his carryon and treatment of
women is acceptable? What would gay men and male fundameltalists give a
shit about women for anyway.
You lot who sit idly by and do nothing to support the victim and
protect and defend Craig are pathetic human beings. Especially when I
suspect that most of you have yourselves experiences personal abuse and
attacks (as queers and fundies) yet despite your experiences you will
take the side of a perpetrator. You all make me sick, especially the
christians.
Brian Logan
>You know what is pathetic and un-christian? your concern and sympathy
>for the perpetrator at the expense of the victims. None of you will
>acknowledge the nasty harm this guy inflicted on others you are all
>worried about his breach of privacy conveniently ignoring the fact he
>breached other peoples privacy first attempting to solicit private
>information and to harrass.
>
>Maybe the confession should not have been posted, maybe it should have.
>Personally I do not think there has been some gross misconduct on the
>part of the victim I think the gross misconduct is on the other foot.
>What are the stream of victims supposed to do, take this crap, and let
>it go when some pathetic bullshit lame excuse of "I had a bad
>childhood," "I am psycho" "I couldn't help it" then off he goes to the
>next victim.
Nevertheless, two wrongs do not make a right.
B.
ghosts...@my-deja.com
Patrick Dunford <47...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Nov 2000 15:25:26 +1300 AD in nz.soc.queer, Dwayne
Carnachan
> said:
> >if this is true - i find it in particular poor taste that someone
> >would post someone's medical history to a public newsgroup -
> >especially if it was sent in confidence...
> >
> >if something is posted publically then so be it for open season -
> >however someone's personal email to somebody - especially something
> >that is extremely personal to someone (like medical conditions!) -
> >that is pretty terrible - and no matter what the person may have done
> >- i would feel equally the same about personal information posted
> >about anyone on this group - even Patrick Dunford! :-)
>
> Yes I agree with you.
I disagree.
What is clear from the other emails in this interaction is that
Craig's "apology" wasn't forthcoming until he was threatened. Before
that he was harrassing her, calling her names etc. Apologies offered
under these circumstances are rarely genuine.
In addition, Craig's ghost identity article (see <http://x56.deja.com/
[>ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?
AN=692915196.1&CONTEXT=974319013.1982660650&hitnum=1) clearly shows
that he uses the "multiple personality" thing as a political tool from
which he gets a (cheap) "thrill". It is unlikely that this could be
used as a tool if it it only occured when he dissociated from reality
and was unable to remember what he did, as he suggests in his "apology"
(see <http://x66.deja.com/[>ST_rn=ps]/threadmsg_if.xp?
thitnum=4&AN=693275336.1&mhitnum=0&CONTEXT=974319220.1115291702). And
besides, who do you suppose he thought he was when he sent himself an
email calling himself a "filthy faggot baby killer" and "AIDS ridden
scum"? >wink<
Considering Craig's reputation, I'm surprised everyone is so gullible.
What Craig describes in his ghost identity article is previous abuse
of, and future intention to abuse people.
Anyone who knows how abuse occurs ... whether it is paedophilia, wife-
bashing, or systematic harrassment like Craig's ... knows that it is
utterly dependent on secrecy. When there is the possibility of
exposure, the abuser resorts to emotional begging or threats.
Craig has demonstrated both of these traits. In his email to this
woman, he tries to buy her silence through a fictional emotional
appeal. When his abusive behaviour was alluded to in other posts here,
he threatened legal action.
Did you see the 20/20 program exposing Dr Morgan Fahey, who has been
convicted of sexually abusing his female patients? One of his victims
wore a hidden camera and confronted him, threatening to expose him. He
made the same kind of emotional plea, shedding plenty of crocodile
tears. His abuse would have continued had someone not exposed him.
The same is true for Craig.
What motivated me to post these emails was the possibility that Craig,
knowing full well that he had done these things, was threatening
someone ... you, I think ... with the possibility of legal action. The
thought that Craig could indirectly use his bad behaviour as an excuse
to justify further abuse by legal action ... and given the
circumstances, that is what it would be ... lead me to believe that
stopping the abuse might be a higher principle than respecting
his "privacy." It will be more difficult for him to continue
deceiving/abusing those who know about him, now, and the possibilty
that he could take legal action against you(?) for defamation has been
completely undermined.
Craig's emails have been referred to here as "private" correspondence.
The other emails that I have received from this interaction show that
this was not an ordinary dialogue, but abuse targetting a woman who
initially didn't even know who he was (although he seemed to think that
she should). I don't believe anyone behaving that way can assume any
sort of right to "confidentiality" under those circumstances.
It is worth noting that workplaces and other institutions are required
to uphold the same principle ... stopping abuse at the expense of
privacy. Emailers are entitled to privacy until abuse is reported. Then
the institution is required to invade the persons privacy ... eg,
monitor their emails ... to curb their behaviour. If they don't they
can be held to account for failing to provide adequate protection for
staff, visitors, customers, etc..
Craig's article demonstrates that he is a self-confessed abuser who
intends to continue his abuse. (Quote: "I noted earlier that details of
conservative Christian tactics, political strategies and discursive
origins may be uncovered through the use of one's dead self as a
political resource on a *permanent* basis.") He is dependent on secrecy
to continue. He is known to resort to crocodile tears and threats to
conceal his actions.
I have made no wild accusations about Craig. I only held up a mirror.
There was always the risk of exposure. If he doesn't like what he and
others see, then he should change his behaviour.
His "privacy" has not been invaded as his "apology" is a hoax. The fact
that he has turned up as JohnM offering himself emotional support
reveals the extent of his "sincerity".
To fail to expose this guy is to enable this abuse. I make no apology
for posting his emails.
brie...@my-deja.com
Hear, hear ...well argued ghostspotter...
To the rest of you going on about 2 wrongs not making a right, why is
it that you are most concerned with the second wrong? The so
called 'wrong' of a victim exposing an attacker. Why aren't you more
concerned about the first wrong, the attacker attacking the victim?
Briellef
Dwayne Carnachan
wrote:
>fredi...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>Nevertheless, two wrongs do not make a right.
>
>B.
i'll say - like i said there was plenty of *public* stuff available -
what we object is the blatant invasion of privacy - we should do the
same for ghostspotter one day...
-----------------------------
DC
Patrick Dunford
said:
>On Wed, 15 Nov 2000 23:13:36 +1300, Brian Logan <ul...@bigfoot.com>
Aren't you then engaging in the same behaviour i.e. 2 wrongs etc?
--
======================================================================
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ - http://pdunford.godzone.net.nz/
Support the Right To Life - http://www.right-to-life.org/
And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of
light.
-- 2 Corinthians 11:14
http://www.heartlight.org/cgi-shl/todaysverse.cgi?day=20001114
======================================================================
brazen
intent to harm them, this is hardly the forum for abortion either pro or
anti, so if you must play silly games take it where it belongs.
I am not defending Craig for anything he has done in this forum as he has
done nothing except have a nudge at christian fundamentalists. If you have
a beef with him on another issue then challenge him there.
Gay
Dwayne Carnachan
<47...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>i'll say - like i said there was plenty of *public* stuff available -
>>what we object is the blatant invasion of privacy - we should do the
>>same for ghostspotter one day...
>
>Aren't you then engaging in the same behaviour i.e. 2 wrongs etc?
actually your quite right patrick - much to my horror :-)
-----------------------------
DC
Dwayne Carnachan
wrote:
indeed Gay - i think GS should be just another person on my ignore
list...
-----------------------------
DC
Dwayne Carnachan
>Hear, hear ...well argued ghostspotter...
>
>To the rest of you going on about 2 wrongs not making a right, why is
>it that you are most concerned with the second wrong? The so
>called 'wrong' of a victim exposing an attacker. Why aren't you more
>concerned about the first wrong, the attacker attacking the victim?
>
>Briellef
>
because none of that happened here - and no one here has actually
stated that they agree with what Graig did - what we all universely
disagree with is someone posting someone's private email to a public
newsgroup who are no way involved in the situation (and posting it to
only invoke the usual *mob* mentality response - and as a purely
hurtful gesture) - that was *not* posted in order to "help" the victim
in *any* way...
-----------------------------
DC
Regan Andrew
<ghosts...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8uusj2$q9q$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
<snip>
> His "privacy" has not been invaded as his "apology" is a hoax. The fact
> that he has turned up as JohnM offering himself emotional support
> reveals the extent of his "sincerity".
>
> To fail to expose this guy is to enable this abuse. I make no apology
> for posting his emails.
They are not the same person - they're not even in the same country.
Although I have never met either of these people - other people on this
newsgroup have. JohnM has been on this group for a long time and we have
all heard about his trip to Brazil - and seen the photos. He lives in
England. As you are well aware, Craig lives in Palmerston Nth. I assure
you that they are not the same person.
Regan
Dwayne Carnachan
<o...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>> His "privacy" has not been invaded as his "apology" is a hoax. The fact
>> that he has turned up as JohnM offering himself emotional support
>> reveals the extent of his "sincerity".
>>
>> To fail to expose this guy is to enable this abuse. I make no apology
>> for posting his emails.
>
>They are not the same person - they're not even in the same country.
>Although I have never met either of these people - other people on this
>newsgroup have. JohnM has been on this group for a long time and we have
>all heard about his trip to Brazil - and seen the photos. He lives in
>England. As you are well aware, Craig lives in Palmerston Nth. I assure
>you that they are not the same person.
>
>Regan
i'll say GS - has just proved whoever they are to be an idiot...
-----------------------------
DC
Patrick Dunford
deja.com said:
What you fail to appreciate is that from my perspective, all of what you are
saying is essentially hearsay based on various e-mails supposedly received
from various people.
For a third party like me, whilst not necessarily doubting the sincerity of
some of those involved, I know that it is difficult to absolutely
authenticate the origin of e-mails supposedly sent by various people.
Also, it is quite difficult for the various people to authenticate their
claims that Craig is using various Deja aliases (far from conclusive unless
he admits to it). For these various reasons you should be wary of making
such absolutist statements as have generally been made.
snip
--
======================================================================
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ - http://pdunford.godzone.net.nz/
Support the Right To Life - http://www.right-to-life.org/
And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of
Patrick Dunford
said:
>On Wed, 15 Nov 2000 20:55:43 GMT, brie...@my-deja.com wrote:
Absolutely.
I don't doubt the sincerity of some people involved in this discussion but I
would point out that unless the e-mail's origin can be authenticated in some
way then I would question how sure anyone can be of the truthfulness of it.
--
======================================================================
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ - http://pdunford.godzone.net.nz/
Support the Right To Life - http://www.right-to-life.org/
And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of
brazen
Mmm, but its getting so full!
GS will be accusing *us* of being Craig's aliases next! If they cant even
verify whether or not JohnM is Craig before jumping in with both feet
accusing him (pretty fundamental (scuse the pun) in the argument), then it
certainly casts doubt on anything else they say.
Gay
Dwayne Carnachan
wrote:
>Mmm, but its getting so full!
yes - it may just be the proverbial straw :-)
>GS will be accusing *us* of being Craig's aliases next! If they cant even
>verify whether or not JohnM is Craig before jumping in with both feet
>accusing him (pretty fundamental (scuse the pun) in the argument), then it
>certainly casts doubt on anything else they say.
thats exactly what i thought - perhaps we're all figments of Graig's
imagination in GS's mind :-)
-----------------------------
DC
brazen
Hang on.... how do I *know* you're Dwayne from Hamilton? I guess Squirrel
can vouch for you. But who is Squrrel??? Does *she* exist?
Gay
Dwayne Carnachan
wrote:
>
>Hang on.... how do I *know* you're Dwayne from Hamilton? I guess Squirrel
>can vouch for you. But who is Squrrel??? Does *she* exist?
>
>Gay
heh :-) - you know i really hate existentialism (boy did it take a
spellchecker for that one!) ;-)
-----------------------------
DC
Deborah Gordon
wrote:
>Hang on.... how do I *know* you're Dwayne from Hamilton? I guess Squirrel
>can vouch for you. But who is Squrrel??? Does *she* exist?
Well, she was staying at our place a couple of weekends back, but then
I guess we could have been dreaming.
Deborah
ann-marie stapp
Deborah Gordon wrote in message <3a1356cf...@news.iconz.co.nz>...
yeah but I saw her too - so it might have been a synchronised dream
Ann-Marie Stapp
T A R T
brazen
"ann-marie stapp" <ams...@clear.net.nz> wrote in message
news:3a13...@clear.net.nz...
Careful AMS, they'd have a field-day in nz general with that statement! ;)
Gay
Rosie Salas
<o...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
Listen. I have travelled half way round the world and met John M in
the flesh. there are photos of him on the web- that is what he looks
like. I am also not Craig - you can find me in Wellington anytime,
teaching at home or two schools. I have now met David H, Hugh,
Squirrel, TART, Ashley, Calum, Brian Logan, Regan, Lin, Ann-Marie,
Michael Wilson ,Bird, and have talked to several others of this group
on the phone. Deborah is my partner. None of these are the same
person - and none of them is Craig.
You are getting paranoiac.
Brian Logan
>It is worth noting that workplaces and other institutions are required
>to uphold the same principle ... stopping abuse at the expense of
>privacy. Emailers are entitled to privacy until abuse is reported. Then
>the institution is required to invade the persons privacy ... eg,
>monitor their emails ... to curb their behaviour. If they don't they
>can be held to account for failing to provide adequate protection for
>staff, visitors, customers, etc..
But why are you reporting it to *us*?
>I have made no wild accusations about Craig.
Yes you did.
>I only held up a mirror.
>There was always the risk of exposure. If he doesn't like what he and
>others see, then he should change his behaviour.
I like Craig more than I like you invaders.
>His "privacy" has not been invaded as his "apology" is a hoax. The fact
>that he has turned up as JohnM offering himself emotional support
>reveals the extent of his "sincerity".
Hah! You can't even look at headers to see JohnM is on the other side
of the world, and that a few have met him.
>To fail to expose this guy is to enable this abuse. I make no apology
>for posting his emails.
So for your continued net abuse, for that is what posting private
emails is, it would be okay for someone to post personal details
purporting to be about you? Anyone could post some hearsay about you
and we could not tell if it is reliable or not.
B. (Obviously just another sock puppet)
Calum Bennachie
And here I thought you were just all figments of *my* imagination
Calum
(who sometimes finds dreams more real than reality)
Calum Bennachie
But there again, I could have dreamed Squirrel meeting Rosie and Deborah and
dreamed that Rosie and Deborah as real as well. In this post modern,
recontextualised, (post/re)existentialist, reconceptualised world, you are
*all* just figments of my imagination. It's just some days I have bad
dreams (as in Matrix)
;-)
Calum
(who could possibly be the imaginings of some"other")
pink...@my-deja.com
tri...@netsource.co.nz wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Nov 2000 17:42:42 +1300, Patrick Dunford
> <47...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 14 Nov 2000 01:40:31 GMT AD in nz.soc.queer,
brie...@my-deja.com
> >said:
> >
> >>This was the doozy I was talking about swakwsta...
> >>
> >>I swear I had nothing to do with this being posted though.
> >>
> >>Who are you ghostspotter and how did you get this?
> >
> >Whoever "ghostspotter" is, you can be traced through your message
headers. I
> >know you are on a Clear Net account, and Clear Net will have records
> >enabling them to trace you, if requested.
> >
> hello Patrick, still dying to know how you deal with your early
> morning hard ons?????
>
> How interesting. Excuse me, I'm sure that Craig will be quite
interested to learn about this...
Pinky.
Brian Logan
>But there again, I could have dreamed Squirrel meeting Rosie and Deborah and
>dreamed that Rosie and Deborah as real as well. In this post modern,
>recontextualised, (post/re)existentialist, reconceptualised world, you are
>*all* just figments of my imagination. It's just some days I have bad
>dreams (as in Matrix)
>
>;-)
>
>Calum
>(who could possibly be the imaginings of some"other")
It is possible that I've dreamed of meeting Calum.
B.
Dwayne Carnachan
wrote:
>It is possible that I've dreamed of meeting Calum.
>
>B.
haw haw :-) - what a compliment B :-)
-----------------------------
DC
Calum Bennachie
"Brian Logan" <ul...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:jv981t84us951cl78...@4ax.com...
Could be :-)
Or did I dream it?
Or did Rosie dream it?
Calum ;-)
Squirrel
wrote:
>
I have spent delightful time in the company of Dwayne so we can both
vouch for each other, I have also met a variety of people in Auckland
from NG and had a wonderful time staying with Rosie and Deborah, how
much more vouching must a rodent get :)
Squirrel
GOD HATES HOMOS but he loves tabouli
graffiti
Squirrel
Yes but I saw you all as well, what sort of dream would that make it
or is it just a mass hallucination???
Calum Bennachie
"Squirrel" <tri...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:36g91t0f16dcbeo3r...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 16 Nov 2000 16:56:56 +1300, "ann-marie stapp"
> <ams...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>
> >
> >Deborah Gordon wrote in message <3a1356cf...@news.iconz.co.nz>...
> >>On Thu, 16 Nov 2000 16:02:41 +1300, "brazen" <g...@remove.brazen.co.nz>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>>Hang on.... how do I *know* you're Dwayne from Hamilton? I guess
Squirrel
> >>>can vouch for you. But who is Squrrel??? Does *she* exist?
> >>
> >>Well, she was staying at our place a couple of weekends back, but then
> >>I guess we could have been dreaming.
> >>
> >
> >yeah but I saw her too - so it might have been a synchronised dream
> >
> >Ann-Marie Stapp
> >
>
> Yes but I saw you all as well,
Yes
> what sort of dream
Yes
> would that make it
> or is it just a mass hallucination???
Yes
> Squirrel
>
>
> GOD HATES HOMOS but he loves tabouli
>
> graffiti
Three yes's there Squirrel. Yes you "saw" Rosie and Deborah. Or you could
have dreamt it. Or I could have dreamt it and you are all independently
functioning units of my imagination ;-)
Calum
Ashley Campbell
"Calum Bennachie" <benn...@DELETETHISparadise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:97444197...@shelley.paradise.net.nz...
>
>
> Three yes's there Squirrel. Yes you "saw" Rosie and Deborah. Or you
could
> have dreamt it. Or I could have dreamt it and you are all independently
> functioning units of my imagination ;-)
>
I wonder what belief system that comes under? ;-)
Ashley Campbell
> Could be :-)
> Or did I dream it?
> Or did Rosie dream it?
Bloody pagans!!
Bird!
This is getting a bit like the authorship of "Puckoon".
You couldn't imagine me in a really nice house in the country or
peripheral of a Sth Island town with some chickens could you Calum? :)
Ta very much.
Bird! (who is now waiting for surroundings to go all wavy and watery
and become somewhere else)
Calum Bennachie
"Bird!" <zcg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:3a15002a...@news.xtra.co.nz...
> On Fri, 17 Nov 2000 19:20:56 +1300, "Calum Bennachie"
> <benn...@DELETETHISparadise.net.nz> wrote:
>
> >
>
> You couldn't imagine me in a really nice house in the country or
> peripheral of a Sth Island town with some chickens could you Calum? :)
> Ta very much.
>
> Bird! (who is now waiting for surroundings to go all wavy and watery
> and become somewhere else)
>
I will try very hard. Just for you.
But there again, I could just be dreaming that I'm doing this. Or someone
could be dreaming that I am dreaming all this and I am a mere function of
their imagination ...
And thus it goes, in ever increasing circles.
Calum
(who wishes he could dream away the paper cut on the tip of his finger so he
type properly again)
ann-marie stapp
Squirrel wrote in message <36g91t0f16dcbeo3r...@4ax.com>...
AMS
ann-marie stapp
Ashley Campbell wrote in message ...>news:97444197...@shelley.paradise.net.nz...
>>
>
>>
>> Three yes's there Squirrel. Yes you "saw" Rosie and Deborah. Or you
>could
>> have dreamt it. Or I could have dreamt it and you are all independently
>> functioning units of my imagination ;-)
>>
>
AMS
>
>
swakwsta...@cotse.com
wrote in Message-ID: <8v1dr0$t2n$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
(Squirrel said...)
>>hello Patrick, still dying to know how you
>>deal with your early morning hard ons?????
Young Replied:
>>How interesting. Excuse me, I'm sure that
>Craig will be quite interested to learn about
>this...
Who is "Craig," and where do you know him from?
And why will he be interested in hearing about
Mr. Dunford's implied masturbation habits (or
lack thereof)? Does Mr. Young have some kind
of sexual interest in Mr. Dunford? That would
explain a lot.
--
On Fri, 1 Sep 2000, Andrew Wilson described gay "rights"
in Message-ID: <8ooto8$dmr$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>
>partial victory does not equal partial equality, it
>equals equality for part of the population.
swakwsta...@cotse.com
Message-ID: <3a1366f0...@news.clear.net.nz>
>I have travelled half way round the world
>and met John M
So? That was easy - Squirrel just packed you into
her suitcase with all of her other socks.
>I am also not Craig
It's hard to tell - Mr. Young has been a lot of
different "people" lately.
>you can find me in Wellington anytime,
You sure get around Craig, I mean "Rosie."
>teaching at home or two schools.
Aha. You just gave yourself away - Young
participates in school, too.
>I have now met David H, Hugh, Squirrel, TART,
>Ashley, Calum, Brian Logan, Regan, Lin, Ann-Marie,
>Michael Wilson ,Bird,
You met them all inside Patrick Dunford's sock drawer?
>and have talked to several others of this group
>on the phone.
Odd how they all had the same voice, isn't it?
>Deborah is my partner.
Surrrre she is... And you're also going to claim that
you never noticed that M*i*s*t*y H*y*m*e*n's mouth
moves whenever "Deborah" speaks.
>None of these are the same person - and none of
>them is Craig.
No, Mr. Young has plenty of sockpuppets of his own
to play with. Although sometimes he gets desperate,
as self-obsessed types often do, and tries to play
with other people, who are *not* impressed.
>You are getting paranoiac.
Young is one of those nuts who has a potentially
bad influence on other people, including those
who realise how full of it he is. I think he
*wants* to spread his neurosis around, in order
to validate it.
(BTW, for some reason, I feel a need to provide a
disclaimer that *some* of the above was intended to
as sarcasm, in case some people have a little
"difficulty" recognising it.)
swakwsta...@cotse.com
Message-ID: <cmo11tclts40gro53...@4ax.com>
>hello Patrick, still dying to know how you deal
>with your early morning hard ons?????
It wouldn't suprise me if he *doesn't* get any
morning wood, for medical reasons. I'm *not*
kidding, and I'm *not* invading his privacy -
he mentions it every time he posts (for *some*
odd reason...) I'm *not* making fun of him -
just pointing out that your question probably
doesn't apply.
swakwsta...@cotse.com
Message-ID: <tq711tgcekkbtggkg...@4ax.com>
>if this is true
Do you *really* think that Young's "alternate personality"
excuse is true?
BTW, notice how he has *not* made *any* attempt to
deny any of the allegations against him? And how,
when the whole issue of him lying with sockpuppets
was raised, he immediately proceeded to attempt to
"defend" himself by lying to everyone here with his
obvious sockpuppet "zenpagan"?
>i find it in particular poor taste that
>someone would post someone's medical history
>to a public newsgroup -
You mean like when Mr. Young mentioned someone's
miscarriage here, which he apparantly found out
about by lying to her with one of his sockpuppets?
>especially if it was sent in confidence...
>if something is posted publically then so be it
>for open season -
Poor, poor Mr. Young. </sarcasm>
>however someone's personal email to somebody
The mail that was posted here was from Mr. Young
to an activist *organisation* that he had been
harassing. He also apparantly used the Massey
University network to send it. Anyone who expects
that kind of thing to remain "private," just
because he is embarrased about getting caught,
is an idiot.
>- especially something that is extremely personal
>to someone (like medical conditions!) - that is
>pretty terrible
Yes, it *was* reprehensible for Mr. Young to do that.
swakwsta...@cotse.com
Message-ID: <v2331t04lsfilnuk4...@4ax.com>
>so - and his personal email to this organisation
>in what way relates to us...?
I haven't seen anyone challenging the relevance to
this newsgroup of Mr. Young's personal "fundie"
fixation.
I think it is a really good thing that Mr. Young's
true nature has been revealed in an environment
where some people had been decieved into thinking
he was somehow "cool."
>i noticed you posted the public stuff which is
>of course fine - like i said if its in the public
>arena then you have to take responsibility to for
>your posts...
You mean like the way Mr. Young directly lied to
everyone here, claiming that "zenpagan" wasn't
really him?
>why! its none of my business - nor my interest
> - if he has done something to this group i'm
>sure they've already done something about it...
What might he do in the future, especially when his
silly little thesis doesn't work out, due to some
combination of his neurosis and the apparant
disciplinary action at Massey University? I wonder
if the recent deletion of his material from their
web site had anything to do with that?
And you might become a bit more "interested" if
these people who feel wronged by him decide to
seek some publicity, and it ends up in, say, the
mainstream newpapers...
"Dangerous Gay Man 'FundieKiller' Charged With
Harassing, Abusing, And Threatening Poor, Innocent
Fundamentalist Christians And Anti-Abortion
Activists, Who Feared For Their Safety."
Oh, well, at least he will be attracting lots of
public attention to the gay/lesbian "community's"
social concerns. That's what he allegedly wants,
isn't it?
swakwsta...@cotse.com
Message-ID: <9742670...@shelley.paradise.net.nz>
>You should not have posted that message -
>regardless of whether you think it is true or
>not. It was childish and disgusting.
Yes, Mr. Young's lying little email definitely
*was* childish and disgusting.
swakwsta...@cotse.com
Message-ID: <3a12...@clear.net.nz>
>Apart from the fact that someones personal email
>was posted with deliberate intent to harm them,
>this is hardly the forum for abortion either pro
>or anti, so if you must play silly games take it
>where it belongs.
Is this a forum for discussing religious fixations?
Is this where Mr. Young's stupid sockpuppet games
belong?
>I am not defending Craig for anything he has
>done in this forum as he has done nothing except
>have a nudge at christian fundamentalists.
He directly lied to and insulted everyone here
(his alleged "friends" and "allies") with his
stupid sockpuppet "zenpagan." Who was he abusing
then?
On Thu, 16 Nov 2000 brazen wrote in
Message-ID: <3a13...@clear.net.nz>
>GS will be accusing *us* of being Craig's aliases
>next! If they cant even verify whether or not
>JohnM is Craig before jumping in with both feet
>accusing him (pretty fundamental (scuse the pun)
>in the argument), then it certainly casts doubt
>on anything else they say.
How does Mr. Young's lying sockpuppet "zenpagan"
reflect upon *his* credibility?
Patrick Dunford
sp...@cotse.com said:
>On Tue, 14 Nov 2000 Squirrel wrote in
>Message-ID: <cmo11tclts40gro53...@4ax.com>
>
>>hello Patrick, still dying to know how you deal
>>with your early morning hard ons?????
>
>
>It wouldn't suprise me if he *doesn't* get any
>morning wood, for medical reasons.
I'm getting testosterone shots every 2 weeks now.
--
======================================================================
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ - http://pdunford.godzone.net.nz/
Support the Right To Life - http://www.right-to-life.org/
"Woe to the worthless shepherd, who deserts the flock! May the
sword strike his arm and his right eye! May his arm be completely
withered, his right eye totally blinded!"
-- Zechariah 11:17
http://www.heartlight.org/cgi-shl/todaysverse.cgi?day=20001117
======================================================================
Ashley Campbell
>
> Ashley Campbell wrote in message ...
> >
> >I wonder what belief system that comes under? ;-)
> I dont think that exists either
>
That's OK. I'm a Unitarian Universalist. You can believe what you like :-)
ann-marie stapp
Ashley Campbell wrote in message ...
>
>> >
>
>> I dont think that exists either
>>
>
Now Im having an existenial crisis !~
>
>
Squirrel
<ams...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>
>Squirrel wrote in message <36g91t0f16dcbeo3r...@4ax.com>...
>>On Thu, 16 Nov 2000 16:56:56 +1300, "ann-marie stapp"
>><ams...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Deborah Gordon wrote in message <3a1356cf...@news.iconz.co.nz>...
>>>>On Thu, 16 Nov 2000 16:02:41 +1300, "brazen" <g...@remove.brazen.co.nz>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Hang on.... how do I *know* you're Dwayne from Hamilton? I guess
>Squirrel
>>>>>can vouch for you. But who is Squrrel??? Does *she* exist?
>>>>
>>>>Well, she was staying at our place a couple of weekends back, but then
>>>>I guess we could have been dreaming.
>>>>
>>>
>>>yeah but I saw her too - so it might have been a synchronised dream
>>>
>>>Ann-Marie Stapp
>>>
>>
>>Yes but I saw you all as well, what sort of dream would that make it
>>or is it just a mass hallucination???
>>
>>Squirrel
>>
>or mass deluded, hallucinogenic, synchronised manic episode. <g>
>AMS
>
Oooooh, I do like the sound of that, can I have one too???
Squirrel
wrote:
>On Tue, 14 Nov 2000 Squirrel wrote in
>Message-ID: <cmo11tclts40gro53...@4ax.com>
>
>>hello Patrick, still dying to know how you deal
>>with your early morning hard ons?????
>
>
>It wouldn't suprise me if he *doesn't* get any
>morning wood, for medical reasons. I'm *not*
>kidding, and I'm *not* invading his privacy -
>he mentions it every time he posts (for *some*
>odd reason...) I'm *not* making fun of him -
>just pointing out that your question probably
>doesn't apply.
he claims masturbation is a sin, and as I have been told by various
reliable sources, most men wake up with early morning hard ons at some
stage or another (thank christ I have never had the pleasure of seeing
one!) I simply want to know how Patrick deals with his or dose his
sinnless existance preclude him from such delights??/
Squirrel
<47...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 18 Nov 2000 01:15:39 -0500 AD in nz.soc.queer, swakwsta-no-
>sp...@cotse.com said:
>
>>On Tue, 14 Nov 2000 Squirrel wrote in
>>Message-ID: <cmo11tclts40gro53...@4ax.com>
>>
>>>hello Patrick, still dying to know how you deal
>>>with your early morning hard ons?????
>>
>>
>>It wouldn't suprise me if he *doesn't* get any
>>morning wood, for medical reasons.
>
>I'm getting testosterone shots every 2 weeks now.
enlighten us Patrick, what does this cause or not cause as the case
may be???
JohnM
<rosie...@clear.net.nz> writes
>Listen. I have travelled half way round the world and met John M in
>the flesh. there are photos of him on the web- that is what he looks
>like.
I have to say, I find all this mildly amusing, but I hope
Craig is a stunner of a looker :-)
--
JohnM What's written on Insurance Claims #8
"The insured claimed he was not at the wheel when
his service truck crashed. He said: I always trade
places with my dog Booger when I have to operate the car lift".
Web site http://www.scroll.demon.co.uk/spaver.htm
Brazil 500 travelogue http://www.scroll.demon.co.uk/brazil/index.htm
ann-marie stapp
Squirrel wrote in message ...
>On Sat, 18 Nov 2000 18:42:44 +1300, "ann-marie stapp"
><ams...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>
>>Squirrel wrote in message <36g91t0f16dcbeo3r...@4ax.com>...
>>>On Thu, 16 Nov 2000 16:56:56 +1300, "ann-marie stapp"
>>><ams...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Deborah Gordon wrote in message <3a1356cf...@news.iconz.co.nz>...
>>>>>On Thu, 16 Nov 2000 16:02:41 +1300, "brazen" <g...@remove.brazen.co.nz>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Hang on.... how do I *know* you're Dwayne from Hamilton? I guess
>>Squirrel
>>>>>>can vouch for you. But who is Squrrel??? Does *she* exist?
>>>>>
>>>>>Well, she was staying at our place a couple of weekends back, but then
>>>>>I guess we could have been dreaming.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>yeah but I saw her too - so it might have been a synchronised dream
>>>>
>>>>Ann-Marie Stapp
>>>>
>>>
>>>Yes but I saw you all as well, what sort of dream would that make it
>>>or is it just a mass hallucination???
>>>
>>>Squirrel
>>>
>>or mass deluded, hallucinogenic, synchronised manic episode. <g>
>>AMS
>>
>
>
>
yeah - they are synchronised - anyone else you can think of that might want
one? We could enter it as an Olympic sport even.
AMS
Hugh Young
<benn...@DELETETHISparadise.net.nz> said:
>
>"ann-marie stapp" <ams...@clear.net.nz> wrote in message
>news:3a13...@clear.net.nz...
>>
>> Deborah Gordon wrote in message <3a1356cf...@news.iconz.co.nz>...
>> >On Thu, 16 Nov 2000 16:02:41 +1300, "brazen" <g...@remove.brazen.co.nz>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>Hang on.... how do I *know* you're Dwayne from Hamilton? I guess
>Squirrel
>> >>can vouch for you. But who is Squrrel??? Does *she* exist?
>> >
>> >Well, she was staying at our place a couple of weekends back, but then
>> >I guess we could have been dreaming.
>> >
>>
>> yeah but I saw her too - so it might have been a synchronised dream
>>
>> Ann-Marie Stapp
>
>But there again, I could have dreamed Squirrel meeting Rosie and Deborah and
>dreamed that Rosie and Deborah as real as well. In this post modern,
>recontextualised, (post/re)existentialist, reconceptualised world, you are
>*all* just figments of my imagination. It's just some days I have bad
>dreams (as in Matrix)
>
>;-)
>
>Calum
>(who could possibly be the imaginings of some"other")
I was greeted (greeten? grote?) at choir practice by BOTH Rosie and
Deborah with "Are you Craig?" Aaaaauuuggghhhhh!
Hugh Young, Pukerua Bay, Nuclear-free Aotearoa / New Zealand
http://www.Geocities.com/WestHollywood/Park/7712/
"Usenet is like letters to the editor, without the editor."
Dwayne Carnachan
wrote:
>I have spent delightful time in the company of Dwayne so we can both
>vouch for each other, I have also met a variety of people in Auckland
>from NG and had a wonderful time staying with Rosie and Deborah, how
>much more vouching must a rodent get :)
>
>
>Squirrel
>
indeedy do squir :-) - hell you even got to see my unmentionables :-)
-----------------------------
DC
brazen
<swakwsta...@cotse.com> wrote in message
news:974529112.3...@webmail.cotse.com...
> On Thu, 16 Nov 2000 brazen wrote in
> Message-ID: <3a12...@clear.net.nz>
>
> >Apart from the fact that someones personal email
> >was posted with deliberate intent to harm them,
> >this is hardly the forum for abortion either pro
> >or anti, so if you must play silly games take it
> >where it belongs.
>
>
> Is this a forum for discussing religious fixations?
Religion affects all of our lives, whether or not we believe in it. Many
here do hold religious beliefs.
Fundies are particularly homophobic and their attitudes and condemnation can
damage those that are not as strong as others.
I personally am not overly interested in religious posts, and skip them, but
many here are.
>
> >I am not defending Craig for anything he has
> >done in this forum as he has done nothing except
> >have a nudge at christian fundamentalists.
>
>
> He directly lied to and insulted everyone here
> (his alleged "friends" and "allies") with his
> stupid sockpuppet "zenpagan." Who was he abusing
> then?
Lied? Insulted? Bit over the top I think - he just played the silly games
his silly friends (NOT!) were playing. I wasnt interested in either so
ignored most of them, as I do with many of your tedious repetitive posts.
There are many people here that use aliases, but most also publish (or have
published) their full names, so there is very little secrecy. You are one
of the exceptions, and you also use a re-mailer. You could be a pimply 10
year old boy from Vladivostock for all I know (and for all I care). So I
guess that makes you less than a sock-puppet, maybe a sock puppets shadow.
Either way it doesnt do much for your credibility.
Gay
pink...@my-deja.com
"brazen" <g...@remove.brazen.co.nz> wrote:
>
> <swakwsta...@cotse.com> wrote in message
> news:974529112.3...@webmail.cotse.com...
> > On Thu, 16 Nov 2000 brazen wrote in
> > Message-ID: <3a12...@clear.net.nz>
> >
> > >Apart from the fact that someones personal email
> > >was posted with deliberate intent to harm them,
> > >this is hardly the forum for abortion either pro
> > >or anti, so if you must play silly games take it
> > >where it belongs.
> >
> >
> >
> > >done in this forum as he has done nothing except
> > >have a nudge at christian fundamentalists.
> >
> >
> >
games
> his silly friends (NOT!) were playing. I wasnt interested in either
so
> ignored most of them, as I do with many of your tedious repetitive
posts.
>
> There are many people here that use aliases, but most also publish
(or have
> published) their full names, so there is very little secrecy. You are
one
> of the exceptions, and you also use a re-mailer. You could be a
pimply 10
> year old boy from Vladivostock for all I know (and for all I care).
So I
> guess that makes you less than a sock-puppet, maybe a sock puppets
shadow.
> Either way it doesnt do much for your credibility.
>
> Gay
>
hir. Yeah, I know. I thought Shiva's little games suggested that s/he
would have a hard time getting accepted into any reassignment
programme. Several tranny friends and lurkers have said to me that
hir Ayn Randesque political views do not gell with their own
transgender experiences. It is therefore possible that our dear
anonymous Shiva is a "sockpuppet" hirself, and is here as a watchdog
and panderer for the barbarian invasion that we recently experienced.
Too many things about hir just don't add up, even for a committed
postmodernist like myself...
You're right, Gay, why else is s/he so fixated on me, and apparently
ranting and raving? Nice thing about a killfile, I can't actually
see anything as I put a block on hir name and messages.
If the rest of the ng sent hir to Coventry, then s/he would stop
behaving like the serial killer in the updated Postman Only Rings
Twice and go annoy someone. To anyone who hasn't already done so,
killfile hir.
Craig/Pinky
Craig.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
pink...@my-deja.com
> news:974529112.3...@webmail.cotse.com...
> > On Thu, 16 Nov 2000 brazen wrote in
> > Message-ID: <3a12...@clear.net.nz>
> >
> > >Apart from the fact that someones personal email
> > >was posted with deliberate intent to harm them,
> > >this is hardly the forum for abortion either pro
> > >or anti, so if you must play silly games take it
> > >where it belongs.
> >
> >
> >
> > >done in this forum as he has done nothing except
> > >have a nudge at christian fundamentalists.
> >
> >
> >
games
> his silly friends (NOT!) were playing. I wasnt interested in either
so
> ignored most of them, as I do with many of your tedious repetitive
posts.
>
> There are many people here that use aliases, but most also publish
(or have
> published) their full names, so there is very little secrecy. You are
one
> of the exceptions, and you also use a re-mailer. You could be a
pimply 10
> year old boy from Vladivostock for all I know (and for all I care).
So I
> guess that makes you less than a sock-puppet, maybe a sock puppets
shadow.
> Either way it doesnt do much for your credibility.
>
> Gay
>
hir. Yeah, I know. I thought Shiva's little games suggested that s/he
would have a hard time getting accepted into any reassignment
programme. Several tranny friends and lurkers have said to me that
hir Ayn Randesque political views do not gell with their own
transgender experiences. It is therefore possible that our dear
anonymous Shiva is a "sockpuppet" hirself, and is here as a watchdog
and panderer for the barbarian invasion that we recently experienced.
Too many things about hir just don't add up, even for a committed
postmodernist like myself...
You're right, Gay, why else is s/he so fixated on me, and apparently
ranting and raving? Nice thing about a killfile, I can't actually
see anything as I put a block on hir name and messages.
If the rest of the ng sent hir to Coventry, then s/he would stop
behaving like the serial killer in the updated Postman Only Rings
Twice and go annoy someone. To anyone who hasn't already done so,
killfile hir.
Craig/Pinky
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Rosie Salas
(Hugh Young) wrote:
>
>
>I was greeted (greeten? grote?) at choir practice by BOTH Rosie and
>Deborah with "Are you Craig?" Aaaaauuuggghhhhh!
>
No Hugh it was "Hi Craig!"
ann-marie stapp
Rosie Salas wrote in message <3a18a336...@news.clear.net.nz>...
and it was in unison in triplicate
AMS
T A R T
<pink...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8va451$df2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > I suspect that you're talking to Shivalingam, as I prefer to think of
> hir. Yeah, I know. I thought Shiva's little games suggested that s/he
> would have a hard time getting accepted into any reassignment
> programme. Several tranny friends and lurkers have said to me that
> hir Ayn Randesque political views do not gell with their own
> transgender experiences. It is therefore possible that our dear
> anonymous Shiva is a "sockpuppet" hirself, and is here as a watchdog
> and panderer for the barbarian invasion that we recently experienced.
> Too many things about hir just don't add up, even for a committed
> postmodernist like myself...
No- I think she's TS. She's not like any TS I know- but transsexuals (like
everyone else) come in all flavours- so I can't dismiss that (her
transsexualism) based on what she posts here.
briell...@my-deja.com
pink...@my-deja.com wrote:
[snip]
> > How interesting. Excuse me, I'm sure that Craig will be quite
> interested to learn about this...
So your personalities talk in the third person. I thought you didn't
know when your personalities manifested yet in later posts you clearly
think you are Craig.
So full of crap.
Multiple Personality Disorder indeed.
So why didn't you make good and top yourself, or was that just one of
your sockpuppets talking?
pink...@my-deja.com
see what you've written, nor do I particularly care a great deal.
Go back to whatever theonomist hole you crawled out of, and keep
formulating ever more arcane interpretations of "reformed moral
epistemology" -no-one is listening to you anymore, you pathetic
little fundament-alist creep.
And incidentally, you aren't the only ones who can play tag with
an ng name.
Craig.
mflan...@my-deja.com
pink...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Excuse me, I and everyone else have killfiled you, so I can't actually
> see what you've written, nor do I particularly care a great deal.
> Go back to whatever theonomist hole you crawled out of,
Ad hominem.
> and keep
> formulating ever more arcane interpretations of "reformed moral
> epistemology"
Ad hominem.
> -no-one is listening to you anymore, you pathetic
> little fundament-alist creep.
Ad hominem and strawman - I didn't write the thing you "aren't
listening to anymore" - I am not briele.
By the way, how can someone be both a theonomist and a fundamentalist?
(or while you are at it, how can someone be both a theonomist and a neo-
Aristotelian or a Thomist?) I suggest you do some research.
(Theomomists are Post-Millenial ANTI-Dispensationalists, whilst,
fundamentalists are Pre-Millenial Dispensationalists)
> And incidentally, you aren't the only ones who can play tag with
> an ng name.
I think that is what Brielle, Ghostspotter, Tell_Tale, Fredisdead,
Swakwsta, etc have been pointing out all along. Tell us something we
don't already know.
I have only ever posted on this site under my own name which is my
style as your intelligence reporters at Waikato should have told you if
they were any good (which I doubt).
Once again, the 'scholarly critic' of Christianity demonstrates:
a) He is ignorant of the teachings of the very theological groups he
attempts to attack;
b) He has no arguments for any of his ideas apart from offering;
i)Ad hominem fallacies
ii) Strawman fallacies
iii) Stereotyping and projections
Of course he accuses Christians of being irrational.
Matt