KAREN McCOY
John Long
Dreyfuss_Org wrote:
>
> Thomas S. Jennings wrote:
> >
> > More information on the future of Dr. Who has been released. According
> > to Ain't it Cool News, Karen McCoy really IS in negotiations for an
> > animated Who. Read about it at:
> >
> > http://www.aint-it-cool-news.com/coaxial/971116/1.html
>
> And then read for yourself what the *truth* about Karen McCoy is, rather
> than innuendo, rumor, hearsay or "unidentified sources."
>
> http://members.tripod.com/~dreyfuss_org
Hey man, sometimes ya have to step on some toes to get the job done.
Lots of people break the law. So what? I bet all of you have broken
the law at some point during your lives (underage drinking, smokin a
joint, whatever) so what's the big deal? I bet lots of us would lie and
cheat to get DW back on TV.
--
JOHN LONG jl...@epix.net
*****************************
Current Assignment - Unit 841
Rebecca Dowgiert
<Pointer to the web page detailing Karen McCoy's alleged harrassment of
Audra McHugh SNIPPED>
John Long:
> Hey man, sometimes ya have to step on some toes to get the job done.
> Lots of people break the law. So what? I bet all of you have broken
> the law at some point during your lives (underage drinking, smokin a
> joint, whatever) so what's the big deal? I bet lots of us would lie and
> cheat to get DW back on TV.
No. We wouldn't.
As that web page reminds us, the Doctor is 'neither cruel nor cowardly'.
Do we want someone who allegedly did things (making false complaints
to the police, etc., scanned copies of which you can read) that I'd
consider cruel *and* cowardly to be making Doctor Who, in any form?
In any case, I somehow doubt we'll be seeing anything concrete from Ms.
McCoy. If we do, I'll certainly be very surprised.
--Becky Dowgiert
***********************************
also at: bb...@freenet.carleton.ca
Doctor Who Fanfic & links to the Internet Adventures at:
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/5422/WhoContents.html
John Long
Jonathan Blum wrote:
>
> In article <347213...@epix.net>, John Long <jl...@epix.net> wrote:
> >> And then read for yourself what the *truth* about Karen McCoy is, rather
> >> than innuendo, rumor, hearsay or "unidentified sources."
>
> >> http://members.tripod.com/~dreyfuss_org
>
> >Lots of people break the law. So what? I bet all of you have broken
> >the law at some point during your lives (underage drinking, smokin a
> >joint, whatever) so what's the big deal? I bet lots of us would lie and
> >cheat to get DW back on TV.
>
> get criminal charges filed against Audra McHugh for her postings in this
> newsgroup as "stepping on some toes", let me try to put it in a
> perspective you would understand.
>
> Say I was in Karen's shoes. Say I posted that my company and I were
> working on a production to revive Doctor Who. Say you did a little
> fact-checking, and found out that my company knew nothing about this, and
> that I was using their name without their permission. Say that, because
> you asked my company about this, they found out what I was up to and fired
> me.
>
> Now, say that I started calling you up, abusing you over the phone for
> trying to destroy me.
>
> Say that I then went to the police station and filed criminal
> charges against you because you'd posted what you learned over the
> Internet. Say you started getting detectives calling you up at your
> house, grilling you about your contact with me, telling you were facing
> possible arrest for harrassing me. *You* harrassing *me*, by telling the
> truth about me.
>
> Would I be justified?
>
> Would I be doing anything to help Doctor Who get back into production?
>
> Do you begin to see the problem?
Yes Jon, but I'm not here to play judge. I'm merely presenting a
different point of view. I like doing that, as I'm sure you know.
Lisa Hilton
David Versace wrote:
snip
> ObWho: Is Karen Sylvester's evil mad twin?
Oh, what an episode that would make!
SylvDoc, having just come face to face with the face behind the plot: I
know you! You're...
KarenM: Yes, I'm you're evil twin.
SylvDoc: You're my evil mad twin!
KarenM: I never said I was mad. Just evil.
SylvDoc: It amounts to the same thing.
Meanwhile, back on RADW:
Someone posts a thread with the title claiming the evil twin is not
canon
because there was never any mention of it in the previous episodes
and/or movies
Lisa
Jonathan Blum
Would I be justified?
Regards,
Jon Blum
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"All this time you two thought you were playing some twisted game of
chess... when it was just me playing solitaire!"
D O C T O R W H O : T I M E R I F T
Dangermouse
John Long <jl...@epix.net> wrote
> Hey man, sometimes ya have to step on some toes to get the job done.
> Lots of people break the law. So what? I bet all of you have broken
> the law at some point during your lives (underage drinking, smokin a
> joint, whatever) so what's the big deal?
The point being that she's doing any job - she's enjoying herself
harrassing fans and being a criminal, but I see Jon's already covered that
part pretty well in his reply to you.
> I bet lots of us would lie and cheat to get DW back on TV.
Maybe, but she's not doing it to get Who back on TV. She's doing it to get
attention for herself, and to hurt Who fandom by pulling the rug out from
under them.
David Versace
John Long wrote:
>
> Jonathan Blum wrote:
[Snip details of Ms McCoy's laudable record in public relations]
> > Would I be justified?
> >
> > Would I be doing anything to help Doctor Who get back into production?
> >
> > Do you begin to see the problem?
>
> Yes Jon, but I'm not here to play judge. I'm merely presenting a
> different point of view. I like doing that, as I'm sure you know.
Yes, you do. If you call hanging upside-down, squinting myopically
and leaping to utterly unsubstantiable conclusions 'presenting a
different point of view'.
Dave Versace, thanking his lucky stars that John isn't here to
play judge. Otherwise we might get homophobic rants or character
assassinations of people who like Sylvester McCoy.
ObWho: Is Karen Sylvester's evil mad twin?
===========================================================
| David Versace \\ this .sig is currently undergoing |
| dav...@gbrmpa.gov.au // humour-enhancement surgery... |
===========================================================
Jonathan Blum
In article <34726F...@epix.net>, John Long <jl...@epix.net> wrote:
>Jonathan Blum wrote:
>> Do you begin to see the problem?
>Yes Jon, but I'm not here to play judge.
You're quite happy to play judge on Paul McGann one thread over from here.
To say nothing of your judgments about McCoy fans, Marilyn Manson, gays,
and anyone else who pisses you off.
>I'm merely presenting a
>different point of view. I like doing that, as I'm sure you know.
If you're presenting this different point of view because you honestly
believe it, then I think you should look at the facts: Ms. McCoy is a
person who not only makes false claims to the public, but who brings
unfounded police complaints against a person who tries to expose her
deceptions. This is not something to be taken lightly.
If, OTOH, you're presenting this different point of view just to
shit-stir, again, then you're doing a good job of reminding me why I
killfiled you. I'd thought you'd calmed down a bit, but I'm having
serious second thoughts about that. We don't need more pointlessly
provocative bullshit around here.
James Bow
> In article <34726F...@epix.net>, John Long <jl...@epix.net> wrote:
> >I'm merely presenting a
> >different point of view. I like doing that, as I'm sure you know.
I highly recommend a visit to http://members.tripod.com/~dreyfuss_org,
so that you can see the hoax in its entirety. Having spoken with the
person who exposed this hoax, I must say that I'm upset at this
situation, and the lingering credibility that Karen McCoy maintains,
despite the proven falsehoods and inconsistencies in her statements. As
I am not writing this post at the behest of the person who exposed this
hoax, and as I don't know whether she wants me to speak on this, I won't
use her name, but for those who have come into this discussion late and
would like to know what was going on, here's a brief rundown.
Karen McCoy appeared on rec.arts.drwho and claimed that she was in a
position to negotiate with the BBC about returning "Doctor Who" to
television as an animated series. However, my friend and others
identified significant inconsistencies in her posts and her credentials,
until, finally, the company that she claimed she was working for put out
several letters and e-mails stating that Karen McCoy had no position
with the company other than freelance, and that they were not in
negotiations with the BBC about such an animated series. Apparently,
Karen McCoy was forging her credentials with the company so as to claim
that she was working for the company and that the company was in
negotiations. It was later reported that the agrieved company withdrew
its association with Karen McCoy and escorted her from the premises soon
after this came to light.
If this wasn't enough, Karen McCoy's conduct after her dismissal should
further destroy her credibility with this project. Up until the end of
last month, at least, she has been harrassing the person who exposed her
hoax, going as far as to file a complaint against her with the Atlanta
police (the Atlanta police found the charges to be unsubstantiated and
ordered Karen McCoy to cease and desist her harrassment). She has made a
number of phone calls to my friend and her employers threatening legal
action, and her harrassment has even forced my friend to switch her web
page to another company.
Karen McCoy claims that she lost her position with her company after her
company became afraid of an "internet stalker". This and other paranoid
claims shows that we're not dealing with the most rational person on the
planet, here. Now, I've been told that Ms McCoy intends to solicit fan
support for her project at Visions 97. I hope she doesn't get it. Do you
really want the future of "Doctor Who" put in the hand of a woman who
makes false claims and persecutes the person who exposed those false
claims?
Just thought you should know.
Best,
James
--
James Bow - MIS Department || // // ,' /---\' Mortice Kern Systems
e-mail jb...@mks.com /||/// //\\' `\\\ Waterloo, Ontario
or jame...@golden.net______/ | // // \\ \___/ CANADA
or visit my web site at http://www.golden.net/~jamesbow/index.html
BAHN 3.40 simulations at http://www.golden.net/~jamesbow/bahn340.htm
Rebecca Dowgiert
On 19 Nov 1997, Jonathan Blum wrote:
> In article <Pine.SOL.3.96.971119...@hsph.harvard.edu>,
> Rebecca Dowgiert <dowg...@hsph.harvard.edu> wrote:
> >On Wed, 19 Nov 1997, Elsa Frohman wrote:
> >> According to Bob McLaughlin, chairman of Visions, Karen McCoy is NOT
> >> giving a presentation at Visions '97.
>
> > Good!
>
> I spoke to Bob McLaughlin just last night, and he asked me for information
> about McCoy. Apparently McCoy had booked a fan panel -- Bob didn't even
> know the fan panel schedule until recently -- and that was the extent of
> her involvement. He'd never heard of her before, until word started
> coming back to him about some of McCoy's dodgy claims.
>
> I honestly don't know if the fan panel is on or off at this point.
> Personally, I think it might be better if McCoy got to speak -- since
> there will doubtless be enough Internet folks in the audience aware of her
> track record, who would call her on anything less than true which she
> says. If she's going to lie, it would probably be better for her to take
> enough rope to hang herself in public, rather than allowing her to claim
> that Evil Stalker Fans leaned on Visions to silence her.
Good point!
I've just been feeling especially distainful, ever since reading the
details on that web page...
In any case, my approbation was more directed at the possibility that
word of her possible 'presentation' was greatly exaggerated, that she
might end up never showing up, rather than the idea of her being refused
permission to do a panel - I was in no way suggesting that she should not
be permitted to be there.
John Long
> >> Do you begin to see the problem?
>
> >Yes Jon, but I'm not here to play judge.
>
> You're quite happy to play judge on Paul McGann one thread over from here.
> To say nothing of your judgments about McCoy fans, Marilyn Manson, gays,
> and anyone else who pisses you off.
Hey I can see you feel strongly about this whole Karen McCoy thing but
don't take it out on me. I present other points of view and I don't
care if they're wrong. It makes the group more interesting.
> If you're presenting this different point of view because you honestly
> believe it, then I think you should look at the facts: Ms. McCoy is a
> person who not only makes false claims to the public, but who brings
> unfounded police complaints against a person who tries to expose her
> deceptions. This is not something to be taken lightly.
Read the original post. Do you sense sincerity? I understand
everything she's done, I just don't care as much as some other people
do. This should have been obvious from the "step on some toes" post.
It was clearly not meant to be very serious.
> If, OTOH, you're presenting this different point of view just to
> shit-stir, again, then you're doing a good job of reminding me why I
> killfiled you. I'd thought you'd calmed down a bit, but I'm having
> serious second thoughts about that. We don't need more pointlessly
> provocative bullshit around here.
I wouldn't call it provocative bullshit but yes, it was meant to stir
some emotions and start a healthy argument. What's wrong with that?
I sometimes defend people who are wrong not because I agree with them
but because I hate to see one person get ripped on by everyone else.
Saulchurch
>>Hey man, sometimes ya have to step on some toes to get the job done.
>>Lots of people break the law. So what? I bet all of you have broken
>>the law at some point during your lives (underage drinking, smokin a
>>joint, whatever) so what's the big deal? I bet lots of us would lie and
>>cheat to get DW back on TV.
People who would lie and cheat to get DW back on TV like Doctor Who for the
wrong reasons.
-Varkentine
"Television is called a medium because it is neither rare, nor usually well
done."-Fred Allen
John Long
Tim Archer wrote:
>
> John Long <jl...@epix.net> wrote:
> >Hey man, sometimes ya have to step on some toes to get the job done.
> >Lots of people break the law. So what? I bet all of you have broken
> >the law at some point during your lives (underage drinking, smokin a
> >joint, whatever) so what's the big deal? I bet lots of us would lie and
> >cheat to get DW back on TV.
>
> a joint lately?
Carry weed discussions to email for all our sakes.
Tim Archer
John Long <jl...@epix.net> wrote:
>Dreyfuss_Org wrote:
>>
>> Thomas S. Jennings wrote:
>> >
>> > More information on the future of Dr. Who has been released. According
>> > to Ain't it Cool News, Karen McCoy really IS in negotiations for an
>> > animated Who. Read about it at:
>> >
>> > http://www.aint-it-cool-news.com/coaxial/971116/1.html
>>
>> than innuendo, rumor, hearsay or "unidentified sources."
>>
>> http://members.tripod.com/~dreyfuss_org
>
>Lots of people break the law. So what? I bet all of you have broken
>the law at some point during your lives (underage drinking, smokin a
>joint, whatever) so what's the big deal? I bet lots of us would lie and
>cheat to get DW back on TV.
Here's something I'd like to know. Which laws have you broken John? Smoked
a joint lately?
--
TIM ARCHER
-----------------
w...@aljan.com.au
-----------------
Happiness is the failure to
recognise how bad things really are.
Elsa Frohman
On Wed, 19 Nov 1997 09:15:59 -0500, James Bow <jb...@mks.com> wrote:
>Now, I've been told that Ms McCoy intends to solicit fan
>support for her project at Visions 97. I hope she doesn't get it. Do you
>really want the future of "Doctor Who" put in the hand of a woman who
>makes false claims and persecutes the person who exposed those false
>claims?
According to Bob McLaughlin, chairman of Visions, Karen McCoy is NOT
giving a presentation at Visions '97.
Elsa Frohman
"The Doctor is up to some sort of temporal jiggery pokery." Lady Flavia, The Eight Doctors.
el...@pipeline.com... http://www.pipeline.com/~elsaf
Rebecca Dowgiert
On Wed, 19 Nov 1997, Elsa Frohman wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Nov 1997 09:15:59 -0500, James Bow <jb...@mks.com> wrote:
>
> >Now, I've been told that Ms McCoy intends to solicit fan
> >support for her project at Visions 97. I hope she doesn't get it. Do you
> >really want the future of "Doctor Who" put in the hand of a woman who
> >makes false claims and persecutes the person who exposed those false
> >claims?
>
> According to Bob McLaughlin, chairman of Visions, Karen McCoy is NOT
> giving a presentation at Visions '97.
Good!
Jonathan Blum
In article <Pine.SOL.3.96.971119...@hsph.harvard.edu>,
Rebecca Dowgiert <dowg...@hsph.harvard.edu> wrote:
>On Wed, 19 Nov 1997, Elsa Frohman wrote:
>> According to Bob McLaughlin, chairman of Visions, Karen McCoy is NOT
>> giving a presentation at Visions '97.
> Good!
I spoke to Bob McLaughlin just last night, and he asked me for information
about McCoy. Apparently McCoy had booked a fan panel -- Bob didn't even
know the fan panel schedule until recently -- and that was the extent of
her involvement. He'd never heard of her before, until word started
coming back to him about some of McCoy's dodgy claims.
I honestly don't know if the fan panel is on or off at this point.
Personally, I think it might be better if McCoy got to speak -- since
there will doubtless be enough Internet folks in the audience aware of her
track record, who would call her on anything less than true which she
says. If she's going to lie, it would probably be better for her to take
enough rope to hang herself in public, rather than allowing her to claim
that Evil Stalker Fans leaned on Visions to silence her.
Regards,
Will Cameron
On Wed, 19 Nov 1997 16:21:22 GMT, el...@pipeline.com (Elsa Frohman)
wrote:
>On Wed, 19 Nov 1997 09:15:59 -0500, James Bow <jb...@mks.com> wrote:
>
>>Now, I've been told that Ms McCoy intends to solicit fan
>>support for her project at Visions 97. I hope she doesn't get it. Do you
>>really want the future of "Doctor Who" put in the hand of a woman who
>>makes false claims and persecutes the person who exposed those false
>>claims?
>
>According to Bob McLaughlin, chairman of Visions, Karen McCoy is NOT
>giving a presentation at Visions '97.
Maybe she'll be standing in an aclove in the lobby with lots of
poster board and an extendable antenne with a rubber cap on the end.
That would probably count as a "presentation at visions"
- Will.
----
Will Cameron
wcam...@tiac.net
www.tiac.net/users/wcameron/index.htm
To Respond Via E-Mail, Please Remove The Word SPAM?NO!.
from my E-Mail Address.
Rebecca Dowgiert
On Wed, 19 Nov 1997, John Long wrote:
> I sometimes defend people who are wrong not because I agree with them
> but because I hate to see one person get ripped on by everyone else.
So, is this like, your only hobby?
--The Mod
John Long
Rebecca Dowgiert wrote:
>
> On Wed, 19 Nov 1997, John Long wrote:
>
> > I sometimes defend people who are wrong not because I agree with them
> > but because I hate to see one person get ripped on by everyone else.
>
> So, is this like, your only hobby?
No, I also like watching strippers ;-)
Eric Gjovaag
wcam...@tiac.AMSPAY.net (Will Cameron) writes:
>On Wed, 19 Nov 1997 16:21:22 GMT, el...@pipeline.com (Elsa Frohman)
>wrote:
>>On Wed, 19 Nov 1997 09:15:59 -0500, James Bow <jb...@mks.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Now, I've been told that Ms McCoy intends to solicit fan
>>>support for her project at Visions 97. I hope she doesn't get it. Do you
>>>really want the future of "Doctor Who" put in the hand of a woman who
>>>makes false claims and persecutes the person who exposed those false
>>>claims?
>>
>>According to Bob McLaughlin, chairman of Visions, Karen McCoy is NOT
>>giving a presentation at Visions '97.
> Maybe she'll be standing in an aclove in the lobby with lots of
>poster board and an extendable antenne with a rubber cap on the end.
Or maybe she'll just put out an overturned hat or a tin cup in the hall
and play a trumpet or tambourine...
--Eric "Interesting mental picture, actually..." Gjovaag
--
### Visit my "Wizard of Oz" web site! http://www.eskimo.com/~tiktok/ ###
"Get out the time-fracture wickets, Hobbes! We're gonna play Calvinball!"
--Calvin, "It's a Magical World," page 99
Shannon Patrick Sullivan
Whilst vacationing on Gallifrey on Wed, 19 Nov 1997 16:38:30 -0500, I overheard John Long say:
> Hey I can see you feel strongly about this whole Karen McCoy thing but
> don't take it out on me. I present other points of view and I don't
> care if they're wrong. It makes the group more interesting.
>
shit-stirrer is neither interesting no welcome. All you've managed to
accomplish in your months here on r.a.dw is to annoy and aggravate people
to no end. If that was your intention then, hey, congratulations, you've
succeeded. It's not something I'd be proud of, though; frankly, I'd have
expected you to evince a little more maturity.
Shannon
--
/--- Shannon Patrick Sullivan ------------- sha...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca ---\
| |
| "Will mercy be revealed or blind us where we stand? |
| Will we burn in Heaven like we do down here?" |
| -- Sarah McLachlan, "Witness" |
| |
\------ DOCTOR WHO NEWS PAGE: www.physics.mun.ca/~sps/whonews.html ------/
Rebecca Dowgiert
On 20 Nov 1997, Rayctate wrote:
> Hi, gang
>
> Is it possible Karen McCoy is actually
> the second incarnation of the Rani,
> and that she's attempting to remake the
> Doctor in her own image by destroying
> his current incarnation?
Spoken like a true Whovian....! :)))
--Becky Dowgiert
Rayctate
Hi, gang
Is it possible Karen McCoy is actually
the second incarnation of the Rani,
and that she's attempting to remake the
Doctor in her own image by destroying
his current incarnation?
Ray
Heresy1397
>> Is it possible Karen McCoy is actually
>> the second incarnation of the Rani,
>> and that she's attempting to remake the
>> Doctor in her own image by destroying
>> his current incarnation?
Either that or the Terrible Zodin.
CDM
"Paranoia is just another word for a heightened appreciation of how badly the
universe wants to get you." The 7th Doctor, Original Sin
Grant Watson
"Dangermouse" <mas...@sol.co.ukDEATH-TO-SPAMMERS> wrote:
>Maybe, but she's not doing it to get Who back on TV. She's doing it to get
>attention for herself, and to hurt Who fandom by pulling the rug out from
>under them.
I think that's not entirely true. All the evidence I've observed would
seem to indicate to me that Karen McCoy is an exceedingly arrogant,
irrational woman who is desperate to become famous as the producer of
an animated Doctor Who. It could just as easy be an original project
(but that would require creating something on your own, wouldn't it?)
that she was doing.
She's out for fame and fortune and doesn't give a shit about
kicking heads on the way.
Cheers!
Grant.
___________...@iinet.net.au_______________
"Science fiction is about the future and fantasy
is about the past - the myth of the way things used
to be. Science fiction is, in a sense, trying to
construct a myth of the future."
IAIN M. BANKS
Grant Watson
Rebecca Dowgiert <dowg...@hsph.harvard.edu> wrote:
>> Is it possible Karen McCoy is actually
>> the second incarnation of the Rani,
>> and that she's attempting to remake the
>> Doctor in her own image by destroying
>> his current incarnation?
> Spoken like a true Whovian....! :)))
Spoken like an utter anorak, more like... ;-)
Keith Topping
Grant Watson <nz...@iinet.net.au> writes
>"Dangermouse" <mas...@sol.co.ukDEATH-TO-SPAMMERS> wrote:
>
>>Maybe, but she's not doing it to get Who back on TV. She's doing it to get
>>attention for herself, and to hurt Who fandom by pulling the rug out from
>>under them.
>
>I think that's not entirely true. All the evidence I've observed would
>seem to indicate to me that Karen McCoy is an exceedingly arrogant,
>irrational woman who is desperate to become famous as the producer of
>an animated Doctor Who. It could just as easy be an original project
>(but that would require creating something on your own, wouldn't it?)
>that she was doing.
Not to mention attempting to have the person who exposed her lies
arrested for threats of murder...
> She's out for fame and fortune and doesn't give a shit about
>kicking heads on the way.
She lied about the BBC; she lied about Area 9; and she lied to the
Altana Police Department... At least she's consistant...
--
Keith -- Net Day 734
David Matthewman
John Long <jl...@epix.net> wrote in article <3474A9...@epix.net>...
>
> That's harsh. I'm here to talk about DW, not to make blood boil. You
> people need to lighten up a little.
If you say so. Would it hurt if you lightened up a little yourself?
--
David
Rebecca Dowgiert
On Fri, 21 Nov 1997, Grant Watson wrote:
> Rebecca Dowgiert <dowg...@hsph.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
> >> Is it possible Karen McCoy is actually
> >> the second incarnation of the Rani,
> >> and that she's attempting to remake the
> >> Doctor in her own image by destroying
> >> his current incarnation?
>
> > Spoken like a true Whovian....! :)))
>
> Spoken like an utter anorak, more like... ;-)
Well, yeah... And...? ;-D
John Long
> >different point of view. I like doing that, as I'm sure you know.
>
> You only like a good argument really, don't you? That's what it's
> *all* about, yes?
If only there were more people who understood me the way Grant does :-(
Jonathan Blum
In article <3475ED...@epix.net>, John Long <jl...@epix.net> wrote:
>Grant Watson wrote:
>> John Long <jl...@epix.net> wrote:
>> >Yes Jon, but I'm not here to play judge. I'm merely presenting a
>> >different point of view. I like doing that, as I'm sure you know.
>> John Long, Devil's Advocate of rec.arts.drwho!
>> You only like a good argument really, don't you? That's what it's
>> *all* about, yes?
>If only there were more people who understood me the way Grant does :-(
Oh, I think plenty of people understand this, John -- and dislike it none
the less. Some folks actually prefer *discussions* to arguments...
Luke Gutzwiller
BFElliott wrote:
> Pity. I was really in the mood to discuss "The Macra Terror" and "Fury From The
> Deep".
I read the scripts for "The Macra Terror" a while ago. I thought it was
just yummy. Why, you ask? Well, because it's an anarchistic
psychedelic profoundly silly singing happy dancing mind-bending romp.
As if that wasn't enough, it's got big giant crabs. It was kinda like a
"Happiness Patrol" for the '60s. Does anyone else have the slightest
interest in it, or should I stop?
--
"Yes! Ah ha ha ha ha haa ha ha ha!!! I'm a naughty boy!!!!
Naughty! Naughty! Naughty! Naughty!..."
--Dr. Clayton Forrester
_______________________________________________________
Luke Gutzwiller [luc...@probe.net]
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/3612
Grant Watson
John Long <jl...@epix.net> wrote:
>Yes Jon, but I'm not here to play judge. I'm merely presenting a
>different point of view. I like doing that, as I'm sure you know.
John Long, Devil's Advocate of rec.arts.drwho!
You only like a good argument really, don't you? That's what it's
*all* about, yes?
Cheers!
Grant.
Grant Watson
Tim Archer <w...@aljan.com.au> wrote:
>Here's something I'd like to know. Which laws have you broken John? Smoked
>a joint lately?
I'm going to make a public confession. Once, as a confused and
angst-ridden adolescent, I shoplifted a Doctor Who novel.
Guilt.
BFElliott
John Long <jl...@epix.net> writes:
>Carry weed discussions to email for all our sakes.
>
Pity. I was really in the mood to discuss "The Macra Terror" and "Fury From The
Deep".
Benjamin Elliott
BFElliott
nz...@iinet.net.au (Grant Watson) writes:
>John Long <jl...@epix.net> wrote:
>>Yes Jon, but I'm not here to play judge. I'm merely presenting a
>>different point of view. I like doing that, as I'm sure you know.
>
>John Long, Devil's Advocate of rec.arts.drwho!
> You only like a good argument really, don't you? That's what it's
>*all* about, yes?
>
And now for a return to the Mary Poppins thread of some time ago.
Youranswerwillbequotefiledbytherobertsmithasaurus,
Whichisgreatbecausethisthreadhadjustbeguntoboreus,
Socomeonfolksletsreturntothatallfamiliarchorus,
Bbcbringbackthedocwewontletyouignoreus.
Benjamin Elliott
I counted the syllables, it works
James A. Wolf
bfel...@aol.com (BFElliott) wrote:
And the Verviod Segment from 'Trial of a Timelord' and 'The Seeds of
Doom'
<*> James A. Wolf - jaw...@tiac.net <*>
Visit my pointless homepage: www.tiac.net/users/jawolf
"The jawbone of an ass is | "There is no trap so | "While you struggle with
just as dangerous a weapon | deadly as the trap | that computer, I'm naked,
today as in Samson's time."| you set for yourself."| clueless, and f-e-e-ling
time." Richard M. Nixon | Raymond Chandler | GOOD!" Scott Adams
Charles Daniels
maub05 <maub05...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
: Luke Gutzwiller wrote:
:> I read the scripts for "The Macra Terror" a while ago. I thought it was
:> just yummy. Why, you ask? Well, because it's an anarchistic
:> psychedelic profoundly silly singing happy dancing mind-bending romp.
:> As if that wasn't enough, it's got big giant crabs. It was kinda like a
:> "Happiness Patrol" for the '60s. Does anyone else have the slightest
:> interest in it, or should I stop?
: I think the Macra Terror is great!
: They'll crawl all over you!!!!!!!!
: I wish I could see it even though I know the crabs would be a
: disappointment, cos everything else would be great.
Well I've listened to the audio releases twice and I really do love the
Macra Terror, I think if the crabs look like they do at the end of The
Moonbase than they'd be okay. It's a lovely story and I'd just love to
see the scenes in episode 1 where they make the Doctor look all nice and
fancy, and his distaste of it "Who wants ot see their reflection in velvet
shoes?"
M. Wesley Osam
Luke Gutzwiller wrote:
>
> I read the scripts for "The Macra Terror" a while ago. I thought it was
> just yummy. Why, you ask? Well, because it's an anarchistic
> psychedelic profoundly silly singing happy dancing mind-bending romp.
> As if that wasn't enough, it's got big giant crabs. It was kinda like a
> "Happiness Patrol" for the '60s. Does anyone else have the slightest
> interest in it, or should I stop?
I have the audio release of this with the narration by Colin Baker. It's
a lovely, deliberately campy story. It doesn't come off as silly as many
equally far-fetched stories did in the seventies because it doesn't seem to
take itself too seriously. I should get it out and listen to it again
sometime.
I think it would be better with the visuals, though. From some of the
surviving stills I've seen, it looks like it had a great B-movie
atmosphere, like some charmingly inept sci-fi films of the fifties. "The
Dominators" approached this with strange costume design, middle-aged
teenagers, and campy performances (my favorite is the guy who wants to
DESTROY! everything, who reminds me of the TORTURE! guy from "Teenagers
from Outer Space"). It didn't quite work, though, because the script
thought it was intelligent science-fiction drama.
--
"Why do you look so skeptical?" M. Wesley Osam
"Because I've seen too much." wo...@iastate.edu
"Then why do you keep looking?
"Too much is never enough." -- Bill Griffith, "Zippy the Pinhead"
M. Wesley Osam
In article <651hu4$bvm$2...@coranto.ucs.mun.ca>, sha...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca
(Shannon Patrick Sullivan) wrote:
> Whilst vacationing on Gallifrey on Wed, 19 Nov 1997 16:38:30 -0500, I
overheard John Long say:
> > Hey I can see you feel strongly about this whole Karen McCoy thing but
> > don't take it out on me. I present other points of view and I don't
> > care if they're wrong. It makes the group more interesting.
> >
> No, John, it doesn't. Being a shit-stirrer for the sake of being a
> shit-stirrer is neither interesting no welcome. All you've managed to
> accomplish in your months here on r.a.dw is to annoy and aggravate people
> to no end. If that was your intention then, hey, congratulations, you've
> succeeded. It's not something I'd be proud of, though; frankly, I'd have
> expected you to evince a little more maturity.
I've been thinking. couldn't this function be served equally well by an
automatic, computer-generated John Long?
I've been playing around lately with a Markov chainer, a program which
creates a table of probabilities that word pairs will be followed by other
words, and then uses those probabilities to build a new text. I fed some of
Mr. Longs old postings in, and in moments I had reams of original,
computer-generated John Long stuff. Some samples:
"I present other points of view and I don't care. I read it. There was some
Pertwee/McCoy battles in it - the metamorphic nature of these creatures on
a world where the tardises seperate and fly off in different directions is
also shit compared to the old video. In summary, You want The Five Doctors
- go get the job done. Lots of people break the law. So what?"
"I think this newsgroup is actually starting to damage my ability to enjoy
DW - my most favorite television show on earth. Why should anyone listen to
me? Well this time we made them listen dammit! Your views on this one. The
props, the costumes, the location work, the sets, were all too angry to
just walk in their office and steal their computer!"
"In fact I blame myself much more than he can chew. This role requires too
much commitment and he can't handle it. Sure he is - and yet we only get a
big jerk then, for he'd be responsible for fucking up DW even more and
that's not unusual for a magazine called Razzle. Now I have no idea what
Razzle is, and supposedly it was meant to stir some emotions and start a
healthy argument. What's wrong with that?"
"You can imagine my response while seeing Terminus for the first time - me
and Azaxyr and Gregg, Geoff, Blum and the point spread is as follows ...
Your first choice --- four points Your fourth choice --- four points Your
third choice --- four points Your fourth choice --- four points Your fourth
choice --- one point In this way we will be able to do the same thing I do,
just with more enthusiasm."
"The extra footage is mostly shit, especially the bit where Sarah throws
rocks at a small movie theater in Wilkes-Barre, PA."
"They seem to write in a big world where the seasons last 500 years, some
intriguing stuff but that's not unusual for a Pertwee story. This was
vintage Pertwee. It's no surprise that I might have been wrong about Paul
Cornell. Please listen everyone, I wanted them to know that a six-part
story in one sitting can become difficult. So breaking it into three and
three is a good thing?"
All Mr. Long has to do is choose one of these paragraphs and paste it
into his newsreader. Then he will have more free time to do whatever it is
he does in his free time.
The best part is that everyone else can come up with their own standard
responses to Mr. Long's standard responses, thus relieving us of the need
to formulate new ones. Indeed, we could potentially automate entire
bothersome threads in this fashion - favorite stories, McCoy bashing,
rumors about an animated series, etc. - so that we would no longer have to
think about them.
More seriously - sometime I should take a random sample of posts and see
what the entire group looks like when mixed together. I've always wondered
what a program like this would do to Target novelizations, too, but I'm not
typing all that into my computer...
Charles Daniels
M. Wesley Osam <wosamSP...@iastate.edu> wrote:
: I have the audio release of this with the narration by Colin Baker. It's
: a lovely, deliberately campy story. It doesn't come off as silly as many
: equally far-fetched stories did in the seventies because it doesn't seem to
: take itself too seriously. I should get it out and listen to it again
: sometime.
I must say that I personally liked the story about 1000% better the seocnd
time around, I absolutely love it now! I guess the wardrobe machine is
delibrately campy but I think over all it's just a fun futuristic story.
And the wardrobe machine was a great but as well, I'd love to see that.
: I think it would be better with the visuals, though. From some of the
: surviving stills I've seen, it looks like it had a great B-movie
: atmosphere, like some charmingly inept sci-fi films of the fifties.
I'd love to see some stills. All I have seen is the claw at the end of
The Moonbase. Macra Terror is a great story which I think woulkd be
great to see, even though it would be odd to see as well because when i
listen to it I can see everything in my mind's eye so clearly.
: "The Dominators" approached this with strange costume design, middle-aged
: teenagers, and campy performances (my favorite is the guy who wants to
: DESTROY! everything, who reminds me of the TORTURE! guy from "Teenagers
: from Outer Space").
Well I recall Teenagers from Outer Space very well ;) I can't believe
that I actually rushed out to buy it at some point. Maybe it does compare
to Macra Terror as well because the evil monster in Teenagers from
Outerspace is the shadow of a lobster. Lobsters and crabs and teens OH
MY! Lobsters and crabs and teens OH MY!
: It didn't quite work, though, because the script
: thought it was intelligent science-fiction drama.
I think I'll avoid the Dominators for awhile.
Dominic Jackson
Charles Daniels (char...@calweb.com) wrote:
: I must say that I personally liked the story about 1000% better the seocnd
: time around, I absolutely love it now! I guess the wardrobe machine is
: delibrately campy but I think over all it's just a fun futuristic story.
: And the wardrobe machine was a great but as well, I'd love to see that.
I agree. Alas (unless DWM missed some of them out for space reasons) we
don't get to see Troughton being polished up in the machine in the
telesnaps for episode one.
: : I think it would be better with the visuals, though. From some of the
: : surviving stills I've seen, it looks like it had a great B-movie
: : atmosphere, like some charmingly inept sci-fi films of the fifties.
: I'd love to see some stills. All I have seen is the claw at the end of
: The Moonbase. Macra Terror is a great story which I think woulkd be
: great to see, even though it would be odd to see as well because when i
: listen to it I can see everything in my mind's eye so clearly.
Don't forget that DWM have now published the telesnaps of this one. A
reconstruction will be out sometime in the new year.
David Howe remarks in the Second Dr Handbook, and I have to say I think he
may have a point, that the audio conjures up an image of the Macra as
frightening and real (not withstanding the camp voice that one of them
seems to possess). But later in the book we get to read of Innes Lloyd's
reaction to learning that the prop cost UKP 500 (the equivalent of a cheap
car in those days!) so, as Mr Howe also remarks, the story may be let down
by the visuals. It's hard to tell from the telesnaps or the survivng
clips, and perhaps wisely, for most of the story they're seen at night
swathed in mist.
Cheers,
Dominic
Paul Shields
On Fri, 21 Nov 1997 14:00:29 GMT, nz...@iinet.net.au (Grant Watson)
shared the following with us all:
>I'm going to make a public confession. Once, as a confused and
>angst-ridden adolescent, I shoplifted a Doctor Who novel.
Snap!
Which one d'ya get?
Paul
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
Paul Shields, Leeds, UK www.korova.demon.co.uk
This is what you get when you mess with us, Doodyhead
For "COLD BLOOD WARM HEART" - Get thee to my website.
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
Charles Daniels
Dominic Jackson <dbj...@york.ac.uk> wrote:
: Charles Daniels (char...@calweb.com) wrote:
:: I must say that I personally liked the story about 1000% better the seocnd
:: time around, I absolutely love it now! I guess the wardrobe machine is
:: delibrately campy but I think over all it's just a fun futuristic story.
:: And the wardrobe machine was a great but as well, I'd love to see that.
: I agree. Alas (unless DWM missed some of them out for space reasons) we
: don't get to see Troughton being polished up in the machine in the
: telesnaps for episode one.
Do you know which particular issue contains these telesnaps?
:: I'd love to see some stills. All I have seen is the claw at the end of
:: The Moonbase. Macra Terror is a great story which I think would be
:: great to see, even though it would be odd to see as well because when i
:: listen to it I can see everything in my mind's eye so clearly.
: Don't forget that DWM have now published the telesnaps of this one. A
: reconstruction will be out sometime in the new year.
Absolutely brilliant. I can't wait to see it.
: David Howe remarks in the Second Dr Handbook, and I have to say I think he
: may have a point, that the audio conjures up an image of the Macra as
: frightening and real (not withstanding the camp voice that one of them
: seems to possess). But later in the book we get to read of Innes Lloyd's
: reaction to learning that the prop cost UKP 500 (the equivalent of a cheap
: car in those days!) so, as Mr Howe also remarks, the story may be let down
: by the visuals. It's hard to tell from the telesnaps or the survivng
: clips, and perhaps wisely, for most of the story they're seen at night
: swathed in mist.
Well I don't care if these Marca creatures were just badly blue screened
real crabs with one fakey looking claw model thjey had to hold close to
the camera to make it look big. I'd still love to see this story.
: Cheers,
: Dominic
Charlie
NickJVC
In article <65456c$u7r$1...@news.iinet.net.au>, nz...@iinet.net.au (Grant Watson)
writes:
>Tim Archer <w...@aljan.com.au> wrote:
>
>>Here's something I'd like to know. Which laws have you broken John? Smoked
>>a joint lately?
>
>I'm going to make a public confession. Once, as a confused and
>angst-ridden adolescent, I shoplifted a Doctor Who novel.
Actually, I paid someone else to shoplift them for me, which would be receiving
stolen goods....
Nick Cooper
["Ain' it cool?" - Troy/"Archer"]
Rayctate
No offense gang, but
I was the one who
equated the Rani with
Karne McCoy not
Rebecca Dowgiert.
Ray
John Long
Is this for real?? I must be imagining it all. Markov chainer??
Assuming this is a real program - how many of my posts (and which ones)
did it take to create all that?
Daniel Gooley
> M. Wesley Osam wrote:
> >
> > I've been playing around lately with a Markov chainer, a program
which
> > creates a table of probabilities that word pairs will be followed by
other
> > words, and then uses those probabilities to build a new text. I fed
some of
> > Mr. Longs old postings in, and in moments I had reams of original,
> > computer-generated John Long stuff.
Cooooool!!!!! Could you do the same with some of my gibberish as well?
What a neat idea!
Danny
Dominic Jackson
Charles Daniels (char...@calweb.com) wrote:
: : I agree. Alas (unless DWM missed some of them out for space reasons) we
: : don't get to see Troughton being polished up in the machine in the
: : telesnaps for episode one.
: Do you know which particular issue contains these telesnaps?
Not sure, but I think it was 251 or 252 to 254 or 255 (if you see what I
mean). Perhaps DWM could enlighten us.
: Absolutely brilliant. I can't wait to see it.
Ditto :-) But there will be others before it. Also I'm reliably
informedDWM will start on Faceless Ones as of the next issue.
: Well I don't care if these Marca creatures were just badly blue screened
: real crabs with one fakey looking claw model thjey had to hold close to
: the camera to make it look big. I'd still love to see this story.
Ditto :-)
Cheers,
Dominic
Graham Nelson
In article <wosamSPAMBLOCK-ya0240...@news.iastate.edu>,
M. Wesley Osam <URL:mailto:wosamSP...@iastate.edu> wrote:
>
> I think it would be better with the visuals, though. From some of the
> surviving stills I've seen, it looks like it had a great B-movie
> Dominators" approached this with strange costume design, middle-aged
> teenagers, and campy performances (my favorite is the guy who wants to
> DESTROY! everything, who reminds me of the TORTURE! guy from "Teenagers
> thought it was intelligent science-fiction drama.
No, the script thought it was boring flat lifeless repetitive
and pad-the-minutes-out science-fiction drama, and oh my it was
right.
--
Graham Nelson | gra...@gnelson.demon.co.uk | Oxford, United Kingdom
Charles Daniels
Dominic Jackson <dbj...@york.ac.uk> wrote:
: Charles Daniels (char...@calweb.com) wrote:
::: I agree. Alas (unless DWM missed some of them out for space reasons) we
::: don't get to see Troughton being polished up in the machine in the
::: telesnaps for episode one.
:: Do you know which particular issue contains these telesnaps?
: Not sure, but I think it was 251 or 252 to 254 or 255 (if you see what I
: mean). Perhaps DWM could enlighten us.
Well I know probably where I can get 255..mmm..mayube I'll give that a
look just to see what's in it anyway.
:: Absolutely brilliant. I can't wait to see it.
: Ditto :-) But there will be others before it. Also I'm reliably
: informedDWM will start on Faceless Ones as of the next issue.
Well that's good!
:: Well I don't care if these Marca creatures were just badly blue screened
:: real crabs with one fakey looking claw model they had to hold close to
:: the camera to make it look big. I'd still love to see this story.
: Ditto :-)
Great! :-)
A Bad Case of the Crabs
- Look For the Professor X reconstruction, in your nightmares!
Dangermouse
Rayctate <rayc...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19971124054...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> No offense gang, but
> I was the one who
> equated the Rani with
> Karne McCoy not
> Rebecca Dowgiert.
Karne McCoy? Now we know the truth - a Rutan spy wants to sabotage our
show...
Rebecca Dowgiert
> Rayctate <rayc...@aol.com> wrote in article
> <19971124054...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> > No offense gang, but
> > I was the one who
> > equated the Rani with
> > Karne McCoy not
> > Rebecca Dowgiert.
Hey -- someone was callin' me the Rani?! Whassup with that?
--Becky "Grr" Dowgiert
Jestingone
M. Wesley Osam wrote:
>I've always wondered
> what a program like this would do to Target novelizations, too, but I'm not
> typing all that into my computer...
I'm just sad enough that I'm typing in small chunks of eight Terrance Dicks
books (novelizations for the firstsSix Doctors plus one of Terrance's Doc7 NAs
and "The Eight Doctors"), trying to include equal amounts of expository prose
(including multiple descriptions of the TARDIS console room, descriptions of
each Doctor, etc.) and dialogue.
I'm halfway through a chunk of BRAIN OF MORBIUS. Hopefully I'll have finished
and sent off the package to ol' M. soon. :)
M. Wesley Osam
> M. Wesley Osam wrote:
> >
> > I've been playing around lately with a Markov chainer, a program which
> > creates a table of probabilities that word pairs will be followed by other
> > words, and then uses those probabilities to build a new text. I fed some of
> > Mr. Longs old postings in, and in moments I had reams of original,
> > computer-generated John Long stuff. Some samples:
>
> Is this for real?? I must be imagining it all. Markov chainer??
> Assuming this is a real program - how many of my posts (and which ones)
> did it take to create all that?
Actually, I'm not sure, since I got rid of them after I was through. You
need a fairly good-sized sample to get good results, though, so it must
have been about twenty (with more than one line of material).
There are, in fact, such things as Markov chainers. Since I've gotten an
e-mail asking about them, I'll post the address of the web page where I got
the one I've been using:
http://www.notam.uio.no/~mariusw/c-g.writing/
John Long
Daniel Gooley wrote:
>
> > M. Wesley Osam wrote:
> > >
> > > I've been playing around lately with a Markov chainer, a program
> which
> > > creates a table of probabilities that word pairs will be followed by
> other
> > > words, and then uses those probabilities to build a new text. I fed
> some of
> > > Mr. Longs old postings in, and in moments I had reams of original,
> > > computer-generated John Long stuff.
>
> What a neat idea!
I don't know, reading all that GG JL stuff was slightly traumatizing to
me. But it was also hysterical, I printed up a hard copy for myself.
Luke Gutzwiller
Dominic Jackson wrote:
(snip)
> But later in the book we get to read of Innes Lloyd's
> reaction to learning that the prop cost UKP 500 (the equivalent of a cheap
> car in those days!) so, as Mr Howe also remarks, the story may be let down
> by the visuals. It's hard to tell from the telesnaps or the survivng
> clips, and perhaps wisely, for most of the story they're seen at night
> swathed in mist.
Why, that's the absolutely best way to see unspeakable alien
monstrosities. What you _imagine_ you saw is always worse than what it
really could be. Really, though, are there Who fans who'd be bothered
about poor visuals? We should be used to wobbly cardboard sets and
giant green inflated condom monsters by now.
Maybe the campy feel of "The Macra Terror" would've been enhanced by
seeing more cheesy monsters, though. What could be more B-Movie than
that?
R.J. Smith
In article <19971124000...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
>>Tim Archer <w...@aljan.com.au> wrote:
Thats funny. I once saw someone steal one, so I broke into his house later
and stole it myself.
- Robert Smith?
R.J. Smith
In article <347786...@dial.pipex.com>,
maub05 <maub05...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>x-no-archive: yes
Why does this appear at the top of all your posts?
>I think the Macra Terror is great!
>They'll crawl all over you!!!!!!!!
The Macra Kinky Terror?
>I wish I could see it even though I know the crabs would be a
>disappointment, cos everything else would be great.
Actually, judging from the Australian censor footage, I don't think the
crabs *are* a disappointment...because they made them so dark and shadowy,
with just the occasional claw or pair of bright lights and dark mouth that
the viewer's imagination probably did the rest.
- Robert Smith?
Charles Daniels
R.J. Smith <smit...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA> wrote:
: >I think the Macra Terror is great!
: >They'll crawl all over you!!!!!!!!
: The Macra Kinky Terror?
Yummy! Kinky Terror, now in leather!
:>I wish I could see it even though I know the crabs would be a
:>disappointment, cos everything else would be great.
: Actually, judging from the Australian censor footage, I don't think the
: crabs *are* a disappointment...because they made them so dark and shadowy,
: with just the occasional claw or pair of bright lights and dark mouth that
: the viewer's imagination probably did the rest.
Yes that sounds very effective!
Jestingone
I went and downloaded a Markov chainer (thanks, M.!), and hey -- it’s loads of
endless fun! (For now, anyway... <g>) I typed in excerpts from six Terrance
Dicks novelizations, one for each of the first six Doctors; I was going to go
on and enter material from one of Unca Terry’s Doc7 NAs and from "The Eight
Doctors", but in the middle of typing the "Mysterious Planet" excerpt, I
finally said "Sod this!" and got down to business!
So here’s some Ur-Dicks. Enjoy!
"RETURN TO TERROR Through the ruin of a Time Lord hands.’"
"The robot-man moved through the door that led to the floor. Condo cringed
away. ‘But the big-heads not come, master. Not come to accept that the voice in
his chair. ‘Even I would find it hard to lose myself in a huff."
"A profound sense of wrongness persisted. He ought not to be growing younger
rather than older. In his present form he was bent over the edge of the human
spirit that they were doing extraordinary things to Terminal Three --’ He broke
off. ‘No, you’re right, it doesn’t.’"
"‘Now, just a minute, Doctor,’ Jo protested. ‘What was that of his getting back
there even if he wanted to, which he didn’t as it was, the Doctor himself. He
was casually dressed in a poor reception area. ‘Oh dear, oh dear, it’s not
clear,’ said the Brigadier, lying magnificently, ‘I was just because he was
bent almost double, the stock shattered into matchwood. The giant shape moved
away and vanished through the blackness of space, powerful, sinister,
determined. The ship’s journey was nearly over. It was a being from some other
planet, with the towering mountain range behind it."
"Barbara peered at the murk on the rubble-littered remains of what had happened
to Jamie, the Scots lad, whose fate had become caught up on an adventure on
another planet in the TARDIS’s instruments. ‘There seems to have been a wise
one. He was very kind, in his lives, in his lives, in his chair."
"...the Time Lords had restored the Doctor’s extreme annoyance, they were just
about to happen on this ship."
"The figure spoke in a tangle of shattered hull plates and twisted girders."
"The Doctor was a gleaming metal wall."
"The figure was that of his old rival, Professor Walters. ‘If you’re as sure as
that, my dear Travers, I suggest you go and look for the High Council, employed
only in the strangely disguised craft known as UNIT -- the United Nations
Intelligence Taskforce."
"The two Jo Grants looked at his other self short. ‘Well, this won’t do it, do
you hear?’ He raised his hand to knock, changed his mind, like a sulky child."
"‘Well, we’ve stopped,’ said Adric again. The Brigadier glanced at the huge,
hairy form on the M4 -- not Corfu.’"
"...the Doctor went on rummaging in the Twentieth century."
"Adric had been a kind of dream. Now the TARDIS was working in the most
agonizing groaning sound."
"...the Doctor seemed to glow in the clothes worn on Earth in the mistaken
belief that it seemed to strike him."
"This was only a minor inconvenience. More serious were the undoubted faults
in the constant disguise of a Victorian antique dealer, who had lost his life
during a terrifying adventure with the ability to travel in Space and Time."
"Travers caught a brief moment lost in thought. A profound sense of justice,
would force him to the Doctor’s mysterious superiors, the Time Lords could have
snatched him away from the initial letters of Time and Space. The TARDIS was
trapped. And so, of course, was its occupant, that wandering Time Lord Court
official."
"The yellow trousers, vivid enough in themselves, were positively sober
compared to a multi-coloured coat that might well be some savage alien
planet..."
"The Doctor cut his other self short. ‘Well, this won’t do at all, will it?
Can’t have two of us running about?’ ‘Don’t worry, old chap,’ said the Valeyard
sardonically. The Doctor waved her aside reassuringly. ‘Don’t worry, I’m not
here. That is... well in a country named England, on a distant planet called
Traken."
"At times like this, she realized she knew very little about the Doctor, the
one in the searching blue beam. A square blue shape with a complex installation
assembled on one of your blank, metallic, high-tech spaceship, space-station,
scientific installation type of corridors. The gleaming metallic walls had a
bossy nature anyway."
"The Doctor went on rummaging in the distant future."
"He heard again the hated voice of his desk, tucked the telephone receiver
under his chin, and waited for the Minister to stop yammering in his fifth
incarnation..."
"RETURN TO TERROR Through the ruin of a tall, gaunt-faced man wearing the long
journey to India..."
"...still more days spent climbing, always climbing, to reach the slopes of the
Picadilly line..."
"Jo Grant had assumed that the police box wasn’t a police box wasn’t a police
box called the TARDIS was working as a fugitive, captured him, and the TARDIS
had an awkward habit of delivering its passengers to the castle at last, an
immense towering structure that dominated the end of the shambling figure."
"The Brigadier glanced at the night wind. ‘Messing about with my TARDIS,
dragging us a thousand parsecs off course...’ The girl tapped him on the front
page of The Times: ‘NEAR EAST CRISIS -- WAR LOOMS.’ If it happened he’d apply
to be off. Jamie looked over her shoulder. ‘Don’t worry, I’m not here. That
is... well in a corridor.’"
"Jo Grant had assumed that the initials stood for a cup of tea!’"
"One was a middle-aged, middle-sized man with a complex miniaturized
life-support system built into the night."
"She was carrying a gleaming metal helmet with a gentle, rather comical face,
and a small, dark girl dressed in a tangle of curly hair, the face was round,
full-lipped and sensual, with a complex array of knobs, switches, levers and
dials."
"‘Have you gone potty, Doctor? Who are you doing here?’"
"‘But the big-heads not come, master. Not come to Karn.’ Solon’s eyes gleamed.
‘They will, Condo. One day... one day a true humanoid will come, warm-blooded
with a colossal communications-tower sprouting from the chest."
"Much the same thing had happened to Jamie, the Scots lad, whose fate had
become involved with the Doctor when he was male and she was very fond of --
val something-or-other... Valeyard, that was it. The Doctor stamped up and
down, muttering, ‘Intolerable! Well, I won’t stand any more of it!’ Sarah
looked up from the scanner. ‘I can’t see anything.’ Ian looked over her
shoulder. ‘Don’t worry, old chap,’ said the Valeyard sardonically. The Doctor
indicated sluggish movement on the appearance of the Scientific Adviser to
UNIT..."
"Victoria sometimes wondered if Adric’s tendency to bossiness came from the
bottom of the twentieth century."
"He had flowing white hair and an open-necked shirt. The whole ensemble was all
in varying shades and hues, fought savagely for predominance. This quietly
tasteful ensemble was all in black, and the Doctor stood for ‘Time and Relative
Dimensions in Space. The TARDIS was being operated by remote control by the
mental energy of so many distinguished Time Lords.’"
"A profound sense of wrongness persisted. He ought not to be allowed to go out
and play. Victoria smiled. ‘All right, Doctor, off you go."
"In his dream, he was a real police box. This was only a minor inconvenience.
More serious were the undoubted faults in the eye. There was the
head-and-shoulders clay bust of a London police box. This was only one way to
find themselves inside the TARDIS. The Time Lords could have snatched him away
from what he was at the screen. ‘That could be part of the chest. ‘Ah,’ he
exclaimed delightedly, ‘now I’ll have that. Just the thing he sought -- a
Space/Time craft called the TARDIS never seemed to hum with titanic energies.
A huge central hatchway irised open, emitting a great square jaw. It was four
days away from the centre, its entire surface was overlaid with spires and
towers and columns and mazes of it, lights flashing in transparent neon-lit
spirals, instrument panels lining the walls, free-standing consoles dotted here
and do nothing...’ ‘...so there!’ completed Sarah."
Michael Lee
In article <19971126034...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
jesti...@aol.com (Jestingone) wrote:
>
> I went and downloaded a Markov chainer (thanks, M.!), and hey -- it’s loads of
> endless fun! (For now, anyway... <g>) I typed in excerpts from six Terrance
> Dicks novelizations, one for each of the first six Doctors; I was going to go
> on and enter material from one of Unca Terry’s Doc7 NAs and from "The Eight
> Doctors", but in the middle of typing the "Mysterious Planet" excerpt, I
> finally said "Sod this!" and got down to business!
Where'd you get this bundle of joy from? I like it.
Oh, and if you want a challenge, given what coreY said above, can you
list which books he chose from!
> "The Doctor went on rummaging in the distant future."
I like the image of this one! It works, in a bizzare way...
Michael Lee
http://www.execpc.com/~michaell
"Jo Grant had assumed that the initials stood for a cup of tea!’"
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Grant Watson
jb...@access1.digex.net (Jonathan Blum) wrote:
>Oh, I think plenty of people understand this, John -- and dislike it none
>the less. Some folks actually prefer *discussions* to arguments...
I find John to be this unusual schism between pretty funny comments
and what I will boldly admit to be ill-advised, ridiculous and
unnesecerally imflammatory crap.
It's just a matter of cheerfully discussing the funny comments and
ignoring (or politing criticising) the crap.
What I dislike is people not reading each and every newsgroup post on
it's own merits and simply telling the poster to fuck off every time
the type on their keyboard no matter what they write.
Cheers!
Grant.
___________...@iinet.net.au_______________
"Science fiction is about the future and fantasy
is about the past - the myth of the way things used
to be. Science fiction is, in a sense, trying to
construct a myth of the future."
IAIN M. BANKS
Grant Watson
pa...@korova.demon.co.uk (Paul Shields) wrote:
>Which one d'ya get?
Castrovalva. The horrid thing is that it's still sitting in there in
my collection, and every time I read it all I see are words: "not mine
not mine not mine not mine..."
Cheers!
Grant.
(Friends fan)
Random Companion
In article <347922...@epix.net>, John Long <jl...@epix.net> writes
>>
>> "The extra footage is mostly shit, especially the bit where Sarah throws
>> rocks at a small movie theater in Wilkes-Barre, PA."
>>
--
Random Unsolicited commercial mail is still unwelcome.
http://www.espace.demon.co.uk/
"If they want to be homophobic, that's alright, so long as they're homophobic
behind closed doors and don't hurt anybody..." - Eddie Izzard
Jestingone
Michael Lee wrote:
>Where'd you get this bundle of joy from? I like it.
As M. Wesley Osam posted in this thread, you can download the Markov chainer
from:
http://www.notam.uio.no/~mariusw/c-g.writing/
>Oh, and if you want a challenge, given what coreY said above, can you
>list which books he chose from!
At least two of 'em ought to be easy-peasy, for various reasons... :)
>> "The Doctor went on rummaging in the distant future."
>
>I like the image of this one! It works, in a bizzare way...
I liked the "rummaging in the Twentieth century" one better, myself... after
all, he *does* spend an inordinate amount of... er... time here. :)
I was hoping there'd be one about rummaging in the past, too, but the word
"past", as it happened, didn't appear in the source text I typed in...
Azaxyr
jb...@access1.digex.net (Jonathan Blum) wrote:
>
>>Oh, I think plenty of people understand this, John -- and dislike it none
>>the less. Some folks actually prefer *discussions* to arguments...
But some Jews, I mean, ahm, er, " people" get all bitchy when a
discussion doesn't go their way, and accuse others of arguing
and flaming and etc and etc and round and around and yet
another troll and bitch, bitch, bitch, all the time with the bitching...
"Gosh, Doc, what's bitin' you? It's only a bleedin' apple!"
David Matthewman
Azaxyr <aza...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19971127095...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
> jb...@access1.digex.net (Jonathan Blum) wrote:
> >
> >>Oh, I think plenty of people understand this, John -- and dislike it
none
> >>the less. Some folks actually prefer *discussions* to arguments...
>
> But some Jews, I mean, ahm, er, " people" get all bitchy when a
> discussion doesn't go their way, and accuse others of arguing
> and flaming and etc and etc and round and around and yet
> another troll and bitch, bitch, bitch, all the time with the bitching...
Ah. *Now* I see why I've been arguing with a lot of people I respect who've
been telling me that you're a worthless pile of crud. It's because I was
wrong. Bugger.
--
David
Cliff Bowman
On Mon, 24 Nov 1997 15:55:36 -0500, John Long <jl...@epix.net> wrote:
>Daniel Gooley wrote:
[snip]
>> Cooooool!!!!! Could you do the same with some of my gibberish as well?
>> What a neat idea!
>
>I don't know, reading all that GG JL stuff was slightly traumatizing to
>me. But it was also hysterical, I printed up a hard copy for myself.
>
>--
I've also kept a copy - do you reckon that if this process was applied
to my posts we'd get better spelling and grammar?
Sounds disturbingly possible to me...
Cheers,
Cliff Bowman
Why not pay my 3D Dr Who site a visit at http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/7855/
PS change ".duffnet" to ".net" if replying via e-mail
John Long
Cliff Bowman wrote:
>
> On Mon, 24 Nov 1997 15:55:36 -0500, John Long <jl...@epix.net> wrote:
>
> >Daniel Gooley wrote:
> [snip]
> >> Cooooool!!!!! Could you do the same with some of my gibberish as well?
> >> What a neat idea!
> >
> >I don't know, reading all that GG JL stuff was slightly traumatizing to
> >me. But it was also hysterical, I printed up a hard copy for myself.
> >
> >--
> I've also kept a copy - do you reckon that if this process was applied
> to my posts we'd get better spelling and grammar?
>
> Sounds disturbingly possible to me...
It can't work miracles, Cliff. I sensed no improvements in my samples.
John Long
> > discussion doesn't go their way, and accuse others of arguing
> > and flaming and etc and etc and round and around and yet
> > another troll and bitch, bitch, bitch, all the time with the bitching...
>
> Ah. *Now* I see why I've been arguing with a lot of people I respect who've
> been telling me that you're a worthless pile of crud. It's because I was
> wrong. Bugger.
Hey now, we could all use some racial criticism from time to time. And
Azzy's not a pile of crud. He's simply misunderstood, like myself.
It's not easy being surrounded by McCoy lovers. Just remember that.
David Rubin
On 27 Nov 1997, Azaxyr wrote:
> jb...@access1.digex.net (Jonathan Blum) wrote:
> >
> >>Oh, I think plenty of people understand this, John -- and dislike it none
> >>the less. Some folks actually prefer *discussions* to arguments...
>
> But some Jews, I mean, ahm, er, " people" get all bitchy when a
> discussion doesn't go their way, and accuse others of arguing
> and flaming and etc and etc and round and around and yet
> another troll and bitch, bitch, bitch, all the time with the bitching...
So what the fuck is that "Jews" comment, anyway?
Cheers,
David S. Rubin <dsr...@execpc.com> - Certified Novell Administrator!
[Rahvin (Guardian of the Knowledge, Mystical -<SHAMAN>-) on Mystic Adventures]
{Rahvin on OurPlace}
--
MAZAL TOV!! MY SISTER IS A KALLAH!!!
"There are rules: Don't talk with your mouth full; don't open an airlock when
somebody's inside it; and, DON'T lie about your genetic status!"
--Jack, ST:DS9 "Statistical Probabilities"
Azaxyr
David Rubin <dsr...@execpc.com> writes:
>MAZAL TOV!! MY SISTER IS A KALLAH!!!
She is evil! She must die!
"A little man with a big eraser - changing history."
David Matthewman
John Long <jl...@epix.net> wrote in article <34810C...@epix.net>...
>
> Hey now, we could all use some racial criticism from time to time.
Quite possibly true. In what way was what Azaxyr said racial criticism?
> And Azzy's not a pile of crud.
Hey now, we could all use some faecal criticism from time to time.
> He's simply misunderstood, like myself.
> It's not easy being surrounded by McCoy lovers. Just remember that.
Poor diddums. ;-)
--
David Matthewman
Gary Russell & John Ainsworth
>
> > jb...@access1.digex.net (Jonathan Blum) wrote:
> > >
> > >>Oh, I think plenty of people understand this, John -- and dislike it none
> > >>the less. Some folks actually prefer *discussions* to arguments...
> On 27 Nov 1997, Azaxyr wrote:
> > But some Jews, I mean, ahm, er, " people" get all bitchy when a
> > discussion doesn't go their way, and accuse others of arguing
> > and flaming and etc and etc and round and around and yet
> > another troll and bitch, bitch, bitch, all the time with the bitching...
Ah, now I know I'm back reading RADW. Henry is back to his usual tricks.
Maybe I'll quit now before he starts on gays, gypsies, peasants and
everyone else who differs in some way from his twisted norm.
*sigh*
And I was promised it had all got better...
g
--
Don't be a victim of expectation
Just make your own life a celebration
Jill E. Deel
John Long wrote in message <34810C...@epix.net>...
>> > discussion doesn't go their way, and accuse others of arguing
>> > and flaming and etc and etc and round and around and yet
>> > another troll and bitch, bitch, bitch, all the time with the
bitching...
>>
who've
>> been telling me that you're a worthless pile of crud. It's because I was
>> wrong. Bugger.
>
Racial criticism? What? Did I just read just about the stupidest comment
ever made in this group (and in this group that is saying a lot!), or are
you trying really hard to be sarcastic? Because, if you are, you are trying
way too hard and failing. We could all use "racial criticism?" Like the
Jews didn't get enough from the Nazis or something? Good grief!
If there is one thing I get real upset about its anti-semitism. I think we
have had quite enough for this century, don't you? So, take your "racial
criticisms" and stow them somewhere else. They do not belong in radw!
Gee whiz!
And
>Azzy's not a pile of crud.
Quite true, that would be an insult to cruds everywhere.
>He's simply misunderstood, like myself.
>It's not easy being surrounded by McCoy lovers. Just remember that.
Oh, I will remember all right. That an attempt at racism was expressed in
this group, and you, instead of condenming it, tried to justify it. You
just remember that.
Jill E. Deel
vale...@netset.com
Jill E. Deel
Azaxyr wrote in message <19971201081...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
>David Rubin <dsr...@execpc.com> writes:
>
>>MAZAL TOV!! MY SISTER IS A KALLAH!!!
>
>She is evil! She must die!
So, he's afraid of women, too.
Sounds like our dear axaxyr is a tad troubled.
Jill E. Deel
vale...@netset.com
John Long
>
> Racial criticism? What? Did I just read just about the stupidest comment
> ever made in this group (and in this group that is saying a lot!)
Cool - yet again I have achieved new heights.
> or are
> you trying really hard to be sarcastic? Because, if you are, you are trying
> way too hard and failing. We could all use "racial criticism?" Like the
> Jews didn't get enough from the Nazis or something? Good grief!
Nazis? Good grief Jill, it was a harmless comeback for Azaxyr.
> If there is one thing I get real upset about its anti-semitism. I think we
> have had quite enough for this century, don't you? So, take your "racial
> criticisms" and stow them somewhere else. They do not belong in radw!
Everything belongs on RADW - even cheese.
> Gee whiz!
No, that's cheese whiz
> And
> >Azzy's not a pile of crud.
>
> Quite true, that would be an insult to cruds everywhere.
>
> >He's simply misunderstood, like myself.
> >It's not easy being surrounded by McCoy lovers. Just remember that.
>
> Oh, I will remember all right. That an attempt at racism was expressed in
> this group, and you, instead of condenming it, tried to justify it. You
> just remember that.
See? I told you I was misunderstood.
Jon Miller
On 27 Nov 1997, Moron wrote:
>
> > > But some Jews, I mean, ahm, er, " people" get all bitchy when a
> > > discussion doesn't go their way, and accuse others of arguing
> > > and flaming and etc and etc and round and around and yet
> > > another troll and bitch, bitch, bitch, all the time with the bitching...
and Gary replied...
> Ah, now I know I'm back reading RADW. Henry is back to his usual tricks.
>
> Maybe I'll quit now before he starts on gays, gypsies, peasants and
> everyone else who differs in some way from his twisted norm.
>
> *sigh*
>
> And I was promised it had all got better...
Oh Gary, it has, due to the wonderful things called kill files. What most
people here have found is that if all Henry's posts are deleted before
they even get to your news reader, not only is the traffic on the group a
lot less, but everyone is much nicer to each other.
Jon Miller
William December Starr
In article <348390...@epix.net>,
John Long <jl...@epix.net> said:
>>>>> And Azzy's not a pile of crud.
>>>>
>>>> Quite true, that would be an insult to cruds everywhere.
>>>
>>> He's simply misunderstood, like myself. It's not easy being
>>> surrounded by McCoy lovers. Just remember that. [John Long]
>>
>> Oh, I will remember all right. That an attempt at racism was
>> expressed in this group, and you, instead of condenming it, tried
>> to justify it. You just remember that. [Jill E. Deel]
>
> See? I told you I was misunderstood.
So explain yourself, John.
-- William December Starr <wds...@crl.com>
Random Companion
In article <6602ab$rqq$1...@athena.netset.com>, "Jill E. Deel"
<vale...@netset.com> writes
>>Hey now, we could all use some racial criticism from time to time.
>
>Racial criticism? What? Did I just read just about the stupidest comment
>you trying really hard to be sarcastic? Because, if you are, you are trying
>way too hard and failing. We could all use "racial criticism?" Like the
>Jews didn't get enough from the Nazis or something? Good grief!
>
>have had quite enough for this century, don't you? So, take your "racial
>criticisms" and stow them somewhere else. They do not belong in radw!
>
Wow, Jill and I agree on something!
>
> And
>>Azzy's not a pile of crud.
>
>Quite true, that would be an insult to cruds everywhere.
/me hands Jill a video of Ghoul Lashed (in which Sylvester McCoy plays a
butler called Crud) and a large box of choccies.
>
>>He's simply misunderstood, like myself.
>>It's not easy being surrounded by McCoy lovers. Just remember that.
>
>Oh, I will remember all right. That an attempt at racism was expressed in
>this group, and you, instead of condenming it, tried to justify it. You
>just remember that.
>
Fight, fight, fight...oh, erm, just contemplating the next big
convention.
John Long
William December Starr wrote:
>
> In article <348390...@epix.net>,
> John Long <jl...@epix.net> said:
>
> >>>>
> >>>> Quite true, that would be an insult to cruds everywhere.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Oh, I will remember all right. That an attempt at racism was
> >> expressed in this group, and you, instead of condenming it, tried
> >
> > See? I told you I was misunderstood.
>
> So explain yourself, John.
It was a joke. Everyone knows that me and Azaxyr joke about tasteless
and bad-mannered topics. Does this mean we hate Jews? Of course not.
But do people around here understand? Of course not. To be perfectly
honest - I don't expect them to understand it. Only the few people who
have our love of tasteless humor can grasp that sometimes we don't mean
what we say. The trouble is, a lot of people around here have sticks up
their asses and noses in the air.
Jill E. Deel
Random Companion wrote in message ...
>In article <6602ab$rqq$1...@athena.netset.com>, "Jill E. Deel"
><vale...@netset.com> writes
>>>Hey now, we could all use some racial criticism from time to time.
>>
>>Racial criticism? What? Did I just read just about the stupidest comment
>>ever made in this group (and in this group that is saying a lot!), or are
>>you trying really hard to be sarcastic? Because, if you are, you are
trying
>>way too hard and failing. We could all use "racial criticism?" Like the
>>Jews didn't get enough from the Nazis or something? Good grief!
>>
>>If there is one thing I get real upset about its anti-semitism. I think
we
>>have had quite enough for this century, don't you? So, take your "racial
>>criticisms" and stow them somewhere else. They do not belong in radw!
>>
>>Gee whiz!
>
>Wow, Jill and I agree on something!
Wonders never cease, huh?;-)
>>
>> And
>>>Azzy's not a pile of crud.
>>
>>Quite true, that would be an insult to cruds everywhere.
>
>/me hands Jill a video of Ghoul Lashed (in which Sylvester McCoy plays a
>butler called Crud) and a large box of choccies.
Good grief! I forgot all about that! He did play crud!
>>
>>>He's simply misunderstood, like myself.
>>>It's not easy being surrounded by McCoy lovers. Just remember that.
>>
>>Oh, I will remember all right. That an attempt at racism was expressed in
>>this group, and you, instead of condenming it, tried to justify it. You
>>just remember that.
>>
>Fight, fight, fight...oh, erm, just contemplating the next big
>convention.
:-)
Jill E. Deel
vale...@netset.com
Jill E. Deel
William December Starr wrote in message <661m5b$4...@crl.crl.com>...
>>>>>
>>>>> Quite true, that would be an insult to cruds everywhere.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Oh, I will remember all right. That an attempt at racism was
>>> expressed in this group, and you, instead of condenming it, tried
>>
>> See? I told you I was misunderstood.
Oh how? The guy tried to assign certain properties to certain people based
only on their race. You tried to intimate that such an action was warranted
as a "criticism." I have misunderstood? How do you misunderstand that
which is plain enough to read before one's very eyes?
Are you misunderstood or incapable of being understood?
One begins to seriously wonder.
>
>So explain yourself, John.
Please do!
Jill E. Deel
vale...@netset.com
David Matthewman
John Long <jl...@epix.net> wrote in article <348487...@epix.net>...
>
> It was a joke. Everyone knows that me and Azaxyr joke about tasteless
> and bad-mannered topics. Does this mean we hate Jews? Of course not.
> But do people around here understand? Of course not. To be perfectly
> honest - I don't expect them to understand it. Only the few people who
> have our love of tasteless humor can grasp that sometimes we don't mean
> what we say. The trouble is, a lot of people around here have sticks up
> their asses and noses in the air.
And to think I defended you in that fictitious 'I'm going to get fired from
my job' thread. What a mug I am, eh?
I don't think you're worth replying to. I don't think you're worth
*reading*. So I'm not going to, ever again.
I just thought you'd like to known that. ;-)
--
David Matthewman
John Long
I'm pretty sure you're just kidding around, but just to make sure - I am
sincere most of the time, especially with personal affairs.
R.J. Smith
In article <34810C...@epix.net>, John Long <jl...@epix.net> wrote:
>David Matthewman wrote:
>> Azaxyr <aza...@aol.com> wrote in article
>> > discussion doesn't go their way, and accuse others of arguing
>> > and flaming and etc and etc and round and around and yet
>> > another troll and bitch, bitch, bitch, all the time with the bitching...
>> been telling me that you're a worthless pile of crud. It's because I was
>> wrong. Bugger.
>Hey now, we could all use some racial criticism from time to time.
You know, I've read all the reasoned debates here with intelligent people,
I've talked with fans in person about it and in principle I agree that it
is a bit of a silly thing to do in public, but there are times when you've
just got to go with your gut instinct:
*Thwunk*
- Robert Smith?
William December Starr
In article <348487...@epix.net>, John Long <jl...@epix.net> said:
> It was a joke. Everyone knows that me and Azaxyr joke about
> tasteless and bad-mannered topics. Does this mean we hate Jews? Of
> course not. But do people around here understand? Of course not.
> To be perfectly honest - I don't expect them to understand it. Only
> the few people who have our love of tasteless humor can grasp that
> sometimes we don't mean what we say. The trouble is, a lot of
> people around here have sticks up their asses and noses in the air.
This isn't exactly a forum that's dedicated to tasteless humor and
bad-mannered topics. In fact, it's a place in which many people can
reasonably be expected to be annoyed, insulted, hurt or angered by
such expressions.
You said once that the Doctor -- especially the third Doctor -- has
been a strong influence in your life. How do you think he'd feel
about the posting of such hurtfully inappropriate statements to this
newsgroup?
Jill E. Deel
David Matthewman wrote in message <01bcffda$4b8df840$b0b78fc2@davidmpc>...
>> and bad-mannered topics. Does this mean we hate Jews? Of course not.
>> But do people around here understand? Of course not. To be perfectly
>> honest - I don't expect them to understand it. Only the few people who
>> have our love of tasteless humor can grasp that sometimes we don't mean
>> what we say. The trouble is, a lot of people around here have sticks up
>> their asses and noses in the air.
Let me get this straight. Only if we love racist humor as much as you, will
we understand it? Uh, I think we understood quite well enough to know it
has no place in radw.
And if your humor is so ungraspable then do you cumber radw with it? Why
not simply keep it to email so that we won't be encumbered with your humor?
Or am I to understand that you two can't be held responsible enough to keep
your discourse civil and if it offends anyone that is their problem and not
your own?
Were we talking about politics or anything else, I would be quick to defend
you. We should all be free to air our opinions in public. But not to
insult and degrade others based on their sex (as you did with Audra) or
their race. That's not free and open discourse that is being offensive for
the sake of it and it is incredibly childish.
And that childishness is evidenced by your attitude toward the whole thing.
Like all children, you can dish it out, but you can't take it. So, it is
okay for you to be "tasteless" (no matter who it offends), but it is not
okay for anyone to react? To object? To tell you both to where to go?
There is a little saying I have said before in this group, and it looks like
I am going to have to say it again, but this time to you: YOU CAN'T HAVE IT
BOTH WAYS. You can't go around being deliberately offensive and then claim
some sort of unfathomable elitism of humor when people call you on the
carpet for it. People understand all too well, and you are going to get
from them, every bit as much as you give.
So, stop whining, grow up, act like an adult and take your "tasteless jokes"
to email.
Honestly!
Jill E. Deel
vale...@netset.com
John Long
Jill E. Deel wrote:
>
> Let me get this straight. Only if we love racist humor as much as you, will
> we understand it? Uh, I think we understood quite well enough to know it
> has no place in radw.
Actually it was religious humor - we made no comment about race,
remember?
> And if your humor is so ungraspable then do you cumber radw with it? Why
> not simply keep it to email so that we won't be encumbered with your humor?
That wouldn't be fair to everyone else.
> Or am I to understand that you two can't be held responsible enough to keep
> your discourse civil and if it offends anyone that is their problem and not
> your own?
Not at all, but it is their problem - at least slightly.
> Were we talking about politics or anything else, I would be quick to defend
> you. We should all be free to air our opinions in public. But not to
> insult and degrade others based on their sex (as you did with Audra)
I never made a sexist comment about Audra. Why are you accusing me of
stuff I haven't done?
> And that childishness is evidenced by your attitude toward the whole thing.
> Like all children, you can dish it out, but you can't take it. So, it is
> okay for you to be "tasteless" (no matter who it offends), but it is not
> okay for anyone to react? To object? To tell you both to where to go?
Now I understand why people don't like you. Don't put words in my
mouth. If you have a problem with my posts than so be it. But I don't
need a lecture because you're not my mom. Now go listen to Howard Stern
or George Carlin if you really want to be offended.
> So, stop whining, grow up, act like an adult and take your "tasteless jokes"
> to email.
>
> Honestly!
Please stop. You're giving me a headache.
Jill E. Deel
John Long wrote in message <3488FA...@epix.net>...
>Jill E. Deel wrote:
>>
>> Let me get this straight. Only if we love racist humor as much as you,
will
>> we understand it? Uh, I think we understood quite well enough to know it
>> has no place in radw.
>
>Actually it was religious humor - we made no comment about race,
>remember?
I remember, apparently you do not. Especially, since it was you, yourself
that called it "racial criticism," not "religious" criticism. Nice try,
but no cigar.
.
>> And if your humor is so ungraspable then do you cumber radw with it? Why
>> not simply keep it to email so that we won't be encumbered with your
humor?
>
>That wouldn't be fair to everyone else.
Wha? And if the Klu Klux Klan only burn their crosses to themsevles, it
wouldn't be fair to everyone else, either? Who are you to decide who is
"entitled" to be offended? Fair to everyone else? Do us a favor, okay and
be unfair. I think everyone else will get over it. Don't you? (no, you
probably don't . . . )
>> Or am I to understand that you two can't be held responsible enough to
keep
>> your discourse civil and if it offends anyone that is their problem and
not
>> your own?
>
>Not at all, but it is their problem - at least slightly.
And so since you are too childish to consider anyone else besides yourself,
you only think it "fair" that everyone else be burndened with your "humor."
Well, let me ask you this. If it is only "fair" that you express your
"humor" in public, why is it then *not* fair for them to express their humor
to you? No! You seem to think you can be as offensive as you please and
that is everyone elses' problem, but if they object or poke fun at you, all
of a sudden you are "misunderstood" and ill used. Isn't it only "fair"
that they be equally as expressive and if you don't like it, that is "your"
problem?
Always the same with self-centered and childish people They always have
these wonderful philosophies about why they can act like jerks, but they
never consider the possibility that, that same philosophy could just as
easily apply to them.
How typical!
Everyone else is (are?) expressing themselves, Mr. Long. If they didn't,.
it wouldn't be "fair" to you. Deel with it.
>> Were we talking about politics or anything else, I would be quick to
defend
>> you. We should all be free to air our opinions in public. But not to
>> insult and degrade others based on their sex (as you did with Audra)
>
>I never made a sexist comment about Audra. Why are you accusing me of
>stuff I haven't done?
You didn't call her "paranoid, obsessive and dumb?" I think so!
>> And that childishness is evidenced by your attitude toward the whole
thing.
>> Like all children, you can dish it out, but you can't take it. So, it is
>> okay for you to be "tasteless" (no matter who it offends), but it is not
>> okay for anyone to react? To object? To tell you both to where to go?
>
>Now I understand why people don't like you.
For the same reason you don't. I bring their own words back to haunt them.
and the same will go for you.
Don't put words in my
>mouth.
Put words in your mouth? Oh, this is going to be fun. I don't have to, I
have your own words. Shall we?
Let's stroll down memory lane. With you it is a pretty short trip.
First of all there is what I say here:
>> Oh, I will remember all right. That an attempt at racism was
> >> expressed in this group, and you, instead of condenming it, tried
> >> to justify it. You just remember that. [Jill E. Deel]
To which you respond:
> > See? I told you I was misunderstood.
Aw! You are so misunderstood! But, I am putting "words in your mouth when
I say you can dish it out, but can't take it, and start to whine when
anything is expressed in your direction?
Then there is this:
"It was a joke. Everyone knows that me and Azaxyr joke about tasteless
and bad-mannered topics. Does this mean we hate Jews? Of course not.
But do people around here understand? Of course not. To be perfectly
honest - I don't expect them to understand it. Only the few people who
have our love of tasteless humor can grasp that sometimes we don't mean
what we say. The trouble is, a lot of people around here have sticks up
their asses and noses in the air."
Uh huh. It wouldn't be fair to everyone else if you kept offensiveness off
the net, but if anyone reacts they have "sticks up their asses and their
noses in the air."
No! I couldn't accurately say that you are dishing it out, but can't take
it. Man, you are really going to make it easy for me, aren't you? How
pathetic.
If you have a problem with my posts than so be it. But I don't
>need a lecture because you're not my mom.
Oh, so you can lecture everyone else on what we should and should not think
about an animated series, and anyone that dares burst your fantasy about
such a series is "paranoid, obssesive and dumb," but *you* don't need a
lecture? I'm not your mom, but it definitely sounds like your mom needs to
lecture you on the concept of what constitutes hypocrisy. Sounds like you
missed that lecture and badly need it.
> Now go listen to Howard Stern
Excuse me? You are the one that is steeped in offensive humor and "racial
criticism," but you think *I* listen to Howard Stern? Interesting.
>or George Carlin if you really want to be offended.
And apparently, you seem to think everyone *does* want to be offended, and
it isn't fair to them if they prefer not to be. Isn't it just wonderful
that Mr. Long has taken it upon himself to decide just what we should be
offended with?
Fruedian!
>> So, stop whining, grow up, act like an adult and take your "tasteless
jokes"
>> to email.
>>
>> Honestly!
>
>Please stop. You're giving me a headache.
You ain't seen nothin yet. I've taken on the best of 'em in here, kiddo.
You, aren't even kindling.
Do, yourself a big favor and quit while you are still way behind.
Sheesh!
Jill E. Deel
vale...@netset.com
Jill E. Deel
John Long wrote in message <3488FA...@epix.net>...
>Jill E. Deel wrote:
>>
>> Let me get this straight. Only if we love racist humor as much as you,
will
>> we understand it? Uh, I think we understood quite well enough to know it
>> has no place in radw.
>
>Actually it was religious humor - we made no comment about race,
>remember?
I remember, all right. Apparently you do not. Especially, since it was
you, yourself that called it "racial criticism," not "religious" criticism.
Nice try,
but no cigar.
.
>> And if your humor is so ungraspable then do you cumber radw with it? Why
>> not simply keep it to email so that we won't be encumbered with your
humor?
>
>That wouldn't be fair to everyone else.
Wha? And if the Klu Klux Klan only burn their crosses to themsevles, where
no one else can see it, it wouldn't be fair to everyone else, either? Who
are you to decide who is "entitled" to be offended? Fair to everyone else?
Do us a favor, okay and be unfair. I think everyone else will get over it.
Don't you? (no, you
probably don't . . . )
>> Or am I to understand that you two can't be held responsible enough to
keep
>> your discourse civil and if it offends anyone that is their problem and
not
>> your own?
>
>Not at all, but it is their problem - at least slightly.
And so since you are too childish to consider anyone else besides yourself,
you only think it "fair" that everyone else be burndened with your "humor."
Well, let me ask you this. If it is only "fair" that you express your
"humor" and "racial criticism" in public, why is it then *not* fair for them
to express their humor to you? No! You seem to think you can be as
offensive as you please and that is everyone elses' problem, but if they
object or poke fun at you, all of a sudden you are "misunderstood" and ill
used. Isn't it only "fair"
that they be equally as expressive and if you don't like it, that is "your"
problem?
Always the same with self-centered and childish people They always have
these wonderful philosophies about why they can act like jerks, but they
never consider the possibility that, that same philosophy could just as
easily apply to them. How typical!
Everyone else is (are?) expressing themselves, Mr. Long. If they didn't,.
it wouldn't be "fair" to you. Deel with it.
>> Were we talking about politics or anything else, I would be quick to
defend
>> you. We should all be free to air our opinions in public. But not to
>> insult and degrade others based on their sex (as you did with Audra)
>
>I never made a sexist comment about Audra. Why are you accusing me of
>stuff I haven't done?
Oh, I'm wrong? You didn't call her "paranoid, obsessive and dumb?" I
think so!
>> And that childishness is evidenced by your attitude toward the whole
thing.
>> Like all children, you can dish it out, but you can't take it. So, it is
>> okay for you to be "tasteless" (no matter who it offends), but it is not
>> okay for anyone to react? To object? To tell you both to where to go?
>
>Now I understand why people don't like you.
For the same reason you don't, and you won't. I bring their own words back
to haunt them. and the same will go for you.
Don't put words in my
>mouth.
Put words in your mouth? Oh, this is going to be fun. I don't have to, I
have your own words. Shall we?
Let's take a little stroll down memory lane. With you it is a pretty short
trip.
First of all there is what I say here:
>> Oh, I will remember all right. That an attempt at racism was
> >> expressed in this group, and you, instead of condenming it, tried
> >> to justify it. You just remember that. [Jill E. Deel]
To which you respond:
> > See? I told you I was misunderstood.
Aw! You are so misunderstood! But, I am putting "words in your mouth when
I say you can dish it out, but can't take it, and start to whine when
anything is expressed in your direction?
Then there is this:
"It was a joke. Everyone knows that me and Azaxyr joke about tasteless
and bad-mannered topics. Does this mean we hate Jews? Of course not.
But do people around here understand? Of course not. To be perfectly
honest - I don't expect them to understand it. Only the few people who
have our love of tasteless humor can grasp that sometimes we don't mean
what we say. The trouble is, a lot of people around here have sticks up
their asses and noses in the air."
Uh huh. It wouldn't be fair to everyone else if you kept offensiveness off
the net, but if anyone reacts they have "sticks up their asses and their
noses in the air."
No! I couldn't accurately say that you are dishing it out, but can't take
it. You only consider yourself misunderstood and everyone else with sticks
up their butts. No, inability to take it there/1 Man, you are really going
to make it easy for me, aren't you?
If you have a problem with my posts than so be it. But I don't
>need a lecture because you're not my mom.
Oh, so you can lecture everyone else on what we should and should not think
about an animated series, and anyone that dares burst your fantasy about
such a series is "paranoid, obssesive and dumb," but *you* don't need a
lecture? I'm not your mom, but it definitely sounds like your mom needs to
lecture you on the concept of what constitutes hypocrisy. Sounds like you
missed that lecture and badly need it.
> Now go listen to Howard Stern
Excuse me? You are the one that is steeped in offensive humor and "racial
criticism," but you think *I* listen to Howard Stern? Interesting.
>or George Carlin if you really want to be offended.
And apparently, you seem to think everyone *does* want to be offended, and
it isn't fair to them if they prefer not to be. Isn't it just wonderful
that Mr. Long has taken it upon himself to decide just what we should be
offended with?
Fruedian!
>> So, stop whining, grow up, act like an adult and take your "tasteless
jokes"
>> to email.
>>
>> Honestly!
>
>Please stop. You're giving me a headache.
Well, frankly after what I have read from you so far, that doesn't surprise
me much. Like I said before, grow up.
Jill E. Deel
vale...@netset.com
Jill E. Deel
John Long wrote in message <3488FA...@epix.net>...
>Jill E. Deel wrote:
>>
>> Let me get this straight. Only if we love racist humor as much as you,
will
>> we understand it? Uh, I think we understood quite well enough to know it
>> has no place in radw.
>
>Actually it was religious humor - we made no comment about race,
>remember?
I remember, apparently you do not. Especially, since it was you, yourself
that called it "racial criticism," not "religious" criticism. Nice try,
but no cigar.
.
>> And if your humor is so ungraspable then do you cumber radw with it? Why
>> not simply keep it to email so that we won't be encumbered with your
humor?
>
>That wouldn't be fair to everyone else.
Wha? And if the Klu Klux Klan only burn their crosses to themsevles, it
wouldn't be fair to everyone else, either? Who are you to decide who is
"entitled" to be offended? Fair to everyone else? Do us a favor, okay and
be unfair. I think everyone else will get over it. Don't you? (no, you
probably don't . . . )
>> Or am I to understand that you two can't be held responsible enough to
keep
>> your discourse civil and if it offends anyone that is their problem and
not
>> your own?
>
>Not at all, but it is their problem - at least slightly.
And so since you are too childish to consider anyone else besides yourself,
you only think it "fair" that everyone else be burndened with your "humor."
Well, let me ask you this. If it is only "fair" that you express your
"humor" in public, why is it then *not* fair for them to express their humor
to you? No! You seem to think you can be as offensive as you please and
that is everyone elses' problem, but if they object or poke fun at you, all
of a sudden you are "misunderstood" and ill used. Isn't it only "fair"
that they be equally as expressive and if you don't like it, that is "your"
problem?
Always the same with self-centered and childish people They always have
these wonderful philosophies about why they can act like jerks, but they
never consider the possibility that, that same philosophy could just as
easily apply to them.
How typical!
Everyone else is (are?) expressing themselves, Mr. Long. If they didn't,.
it wouldn't be "fair" to you. Deel with it.
>> Were we talking about politics or anything else, I would be quick to
defend
>> you. We should all be free to air our opinions in public. But not to
>> insult and degrade others based on their sex (as you did with Audra)
>
>I never made a sexist comment about Audra. Why are you accusing me of
>stuff I haven't done?
You didn't call her "paranoid, obsessive and dumb?" I think so!
>> And that childishness is evidenced by your attitude toward the whole
thing.
>> Like all children, you can dish it out, but you can't take it. So, it is
>> okay for you to be "tasteless" (no matter who it offends), but it is not
>> okay for anyone to react? To object? To tell you both to where to go?
>
>Now I understand why people don't like you.
For the same reason you don't. I bring their own words back to haunt them.
and the same will go for you.
Don't put words in my
>mouth.
Put words in your mouth? Oh, this is going to be fun. I don't have to, I
have your own words. Shall we?
Let's stroll down memory lane. With you it is a pretty short trip.
First of all there is what I say here:
>> Oh, I will remember all right. That an attempt at racism was
> >> expressed in this group, and you, instead of condenming it, tried
> >> to justify it. You just remember that. [Jill E. Deel]
To which you respond:
> > See? I told you I was misunderstood.
Aw! You are so misunderstood! But, I am putting "words in your mouth when
I say you can dish it out, but can't take it, and start to whine when
anything is expressed in your direction?
Then there is this:
"It was a joke. Everyone knows that me and Azaxyr joke about tasteless
and bad-mannered topics. Does this mean we hate Jews? Of course not.
But do people around here understand? Of course not. To be perfectly
honest - I don't expect them to understand it. Only the few people who
have our love of tasteless humor can grasp that sometimes we don't mean
what we say. The trouble is, a lot of people around here have sticks up
their asses and noses in the air."
Uh huh. It wouldn't be fair to everyone else if you kept offensiveness off
the net, but if anyone reacts they have "sticks up their asses and their
noses in the air."
No! I couldn't accurately say that you are dishing it out, but can't take
it. Man, you are really going to make it easy for me, aren't you? How
pathetic.
If you have a problem with my posts than so be it. But I don't
>need a lecture because you're not my mom.
Oh, so you can lecture everyone else on what we should and should not think
about an animated series, and anyone that dares burst your fantasy about
such a series is "paranoid, obssesive and dumb," but *you* don't need a
lecture? I'm not your mom, but it definitely sounds like your mom needs to
lecture you on the concept of what constitutes hypocrisy. Sounds like you
missed that lecture and badly need it.
> Now go listen to Howard Stern
Excuse me? You are the one that is steeped in offensive humor and "racial
criticism," but you think *I* listen to Howard Stern? Interesting.
>or George Carlin if you really want to be offended.
And apparently, you seem to think everyone *does* want to be offended, and
it isn't fair to them if they prefer not to be. Isn't it just wonderful
that Mr. Long has taken it upon himself to decide just what we should be
offended with?
Fruedian!
>> So, stop whining, grow up, act like an adult and take your "tasteless
jokes"
>> to email.
>>
>> Honestly!
>
>Please stop. You're giving me a headache.
You ain't seen nothin yet. I've taken on the best of 'em in here, kiddo.
John Long
Ah, I love feminists. Especially the bitchy know-it-all kind.
Jill E. Deel wrote:
>
> John Long wrote in message <3488FA...@epix.net>...
> >Actually it was religious humor - we made no comment about race,
> >remember?
>
> I remember, apparently you do not. Especially, since it was you, yourself
> that called it "racial criticism," not "religious" criticism. Nice try,
> but no cigar.
It was more accurately religious criticism - but most Jews are the same
race so it's still applicable. Whichever one you prefer is the one we
shall use - how's that solution?
> >> And if your humor is so ungraspable then do you cumber radw with it? Why
> >> not simply keep it to email so that we won't be encumbered with your
> humor?
> >
> >That wouldn't be fair to everyone else.
>
> Wha? And if the Klu Klux Klan only burn their crosses to themsevles, it
> wouldn't be fair to everyone else, either? Who are you to decide who is
> "entitled" to be offended? Fair to everyone else? Do us a favor, okay and
> be unfair. I think everyone else will get over it. Don't you? (no, you
> probably don't . . . )
First of all, it's the Ku Klux Klan. You should really be more careful
because misspelling words can damage your credibility. I can also see
that you have no grasp of sarcasm whatsoever. Read that one-liner and
ask yourself if it was meant to be serious. Even a blind sparrow could
see it was a joke.
> And so since you are too childish to consider anyone else besides yourself,
> you only think it "fair" that everyone else be burndened with your "humor."
Name calling? Already? ok then. The answer is yes. Everyone could
benefit from some tasteless humor now and then. It keeps us in touch
with the real world. Unfortunately, you have lost that grasp. Your
only hope for getting it back is to listen to me more often.
> Well, let me ask you this. If it is only "fair" that you express your
> "humor" in public, why is it then *not* fair for them to express their humor
> to you? No! You seem to think you can be as offensive as you please and
> that is everyone elses' problem, but if they object or poke fun at you, all
> of a sudden you are "misunderstood" and ill used. Isn't it only "fair"
> that they be equally as expressive and if you don't like it, that is "your"
> problem?
Aren't you a little old to be receiving the "Life isn't always fair"
speech? I would have thought that you knew this by now. Too bad that
you have to be such an idealist where the laws of the real world just
don't apply. Oh well. Some people are slower than others I suppose.
Misunderstood? Well yes in a way. For example, I've only been talking
to you for a short time but I already know that you are incapable of
understanding someone like me. Life is much more complex than the
bubble you are living in.
> Always the same with self-centered and childish people They always have
> these wonderful philosophies about why they can act like jerks, but they
> never consider the possibility that, that same philosophy could just as
> easily apply to them.
Apparently you think of childish as being a bad thing. The doctor was
frequently quite childish. But aside form all that, I find it sad in a
way that someone can be so rapped up in themselves that they feel more
mature than everyone around them. I've known lots of stuck-up people in
my life. it's nothing new. I will try to bring you down into the
existence of us mortals once you realize that you're only an annoying
blabbermouth.
> Everyone else is (are?) expressing themselves, Mr. Long. If they didn't,.
> it wouldn't be "fair" to you. Deel with it.
No, you deel with it. How ironic that your name permits this clever
play on words and yet you're totally incapable of grasping it's meaning
and following it yourself. You have shown yourself to be someone who
frequently whines about the problems of today's world and frequently
can't come to terms with the personality of others. You cannot deel
with very much at all, I'm afraid.
> >I never made a sexist comment about Audra. Why are you accusing me of
> >stuff I haven't done?
>
> You didn't call her "paranoid, obsessive and dumb?" I think so!
So now we see your pathetic attempt and blaiming me of sexism. I used
those adjectives to describe her and she is a woman. Whoops! I'm
suddenly a sexist?! You have some issues to work out, one of which
being the ability to define sexism properly and to cite correct examples
of it. Well guess what - there's no sexism present in "paranoid,
obssessive, and dumb", any of these can apply to a man.
> Let's stroll down memory lane. With you it is a pretty short trip.
>
> First of all there is what I say here:
>
> >> Oh, I will remember all right. That an attempt at racism was
> > >> expressed in this group, and you, instead of condenming it, tried
> > >> to justify it. You just remember that. [Jill E. Deel]
>
> To which you respond:
>
> > > See? I told you I was misunderstood.
>
> Aw! You are so misunderstood! But, I am putting "words in your mouth when
> I say you can dish it out, but can't take it, and start to whine when
> anything is expressed in your direction?
Uh oh! Here we have that sarcasm issue again. This is the perfect
second example to justify that you are totally incapable of picking it
out. I can help you with this. Generally such examples are one-line
gags and can often be spotted easily. See, you are one step closer to
understanding me. maybe this won't be impossible afterall.
> Oh, so you can lecture everyone else on what we should and should not think
> about an animated series, and anyone that dares burst your fantasy about
> such a series is "paranoid, obssesive and dumb," but *you* don't need a
> lecture? I'm not your mom, but it definitely sounds like your mom needs to
> lecture you on the concept of what constitutes hypocrisy. Sounds like you
> missed that lecture and badly need it.
I have the right to lecture and so do you. Hell, we can basically
lecture all we want. But no one has to listen you know. As for the
rest of that passage, it has degerated into meaningless dribble, taking
words out of context and then throwing a few insults at me which involve
my mom - gradeschool stuff. And I expect more from you. Unfortunately
I have yet to recieve it.
> >Please stop. You're giving me a headache.
>
> You ain't seen nothin yet. I've taken on the best of 'em in here, kiddo.
> You, aren't even kindling.
Whoa, I can't believe you almost reached a small level of sarcasm.
Could it be that you have begun to learn already. And a futile effort
at intimidation is just icing on the cake. I've taken on just about the
entire group in case you haven't noticed. I'm almost done laughing at
this one but not quite. What would be even more funny is if you
admitted to losing all those battles and earning the title of net
cluelessness.
Paul Cornell
> Ah, I love feminists. Especially the bitchy know-it-all kind.
Hey, they're fighting *each other*!
--
Being free is better than being in charge.
Steve Roberts
On Sun, 07 Dec 1997 02:26:02 -0500, John Long <jl...@epix.net> wrote:
First John wrote:-
>You should really be more careful
>because misspelling words can damage your credibility.
But then he said:-
>So now we see your pathetic attempt and blaiming me of sexism.
I think that's 'blaming'. Hoist by your own petard, methinks!
Steve
*** Views expressed are my own and should not be taken to represent BBC policy.
*** Visit the Doctor Who Restoration Team Homepage for info on BBC restorations.
*** http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/steveroberts/restorat.htm
Jestingone
John Long wrote:
>most Jews are the same race
as all other people, which is Human.
[rest of ranting snipped]
You know, I'm really embarrassed that the newsgroup knows we're from the same
home town...
a Jew
Jill E. Deel
John Long wrote in message <348A4F...@epix.net>...
>Ah, I love feminists. Especially the bitchy know-it-all kind.
>
>Jill E. Deel wrote:
>>
>> John Long wrote in message <3488FA...@epix.net>...
>> >Actually it was religious humor - we made no comment about race,
>> >remember?
>>
>> I remember, apparently you do not. Especially, since it was you,
yourself
>> that called it "racial criticism," not "religious" criticism. Nice try,
>> but no cigar.
>
>It was more accurately religious criticism - but most Jews are the same
>race so it's still applicable.
Or in other words, since you have been caught putting your foot in your
mouth, you would like to change the focus. Again, nice try, no cigar. You
said, racial criticism. If you would like to simply admit you were wrong,
be my guest, but don't try now to say you didn't mean what you said.
Or do you usually go around saying offensive things before you think them
through?
Whichever one you prefer is the one we
>shall use - how's that solution?
What I don't understand is how you think there is any difference? You trade
one bit of intolerance for another. How does that improve conditions. It
is like saying you won't criticize blacks, but you will now criticize
muslims. How is that better? Your reasoning or apparent lack of it,
totally escapes me.
>> >> And if your humor is so ungraspable then do you cumber radw with it?
Why
>> >> not simply keep it to email so that we won't be encumbered with your
>> humor?
>> >
>> >That wouldn't be fair to everyone else.
>>
>> Wha? And if the Klu Klux Klan only burn their crosses to themsevles, it
>> wouldn't be fair to everyone else, either? Who are you to decide who is
>> "entitled" to be offended? Fair to everyone else? Do us a favor, okay
and
>> be unfair. I think everyone else will get over it. Don't you? (no, you
>> probably don't . . . )
>
>First of all, it's the Ku Klux Klan. You should really be more careful
>because misspelling words can damage your credibility.
Never fails. When somebody is losing badly they always try to grasp at
whatever straw they can. OOOOOO! I inserted an L! I guess that totally
refutes everything I have said. I mean, when you can't refute the substance
of an argument, always try to pick at spelling. Yeah! That will help you
(but only in your dreams) Good grief!
I can also see
>that you have no grasp of sarcasm whatsoever.
No, I can see that you have no grasp of the concept that you can dish it
out, but can't take it. Apparently, "criticism" is only okay if it is
directed at Jews and everyone else, *not* at you. Then, apparently, we are
going too far. So typical.
Read that one-liner and
>ask yourself if it was meant to be serious. Even a blind sparrow could
>see it was a joke.
Oh! Sure! Everything is funny when it is directed at other people! It
just isn't as funny when it is directed at oneself, right?
You're a real funny guy.
>> And so since you are too childish to consider anyone else besides
yourself,
>> you only think it "fair" that everyone else be burndened with your
"humor."
>
>Name calling? Already? ok then. The answer is yes. Everyone could
>benefit from some tasteless humor now and then. It keeps us in touch
>with the real world. Unfortunately, you have lost that grasp. Your
>only hope for getting it back is to listen to me more often.
Sure! We can all use tasteless humor. As long as it is directed at Jews or
women. But if it is directed at you, then you are misunderstood and
everyone has their noses up in the air. Maybe you should keep in touch by
reading them more often, eh?
>> Well, let me ask you this. If it is only "fair" that you express your
>> "humor" in public, why is it then *not* fair for them to express their
humor
>> to you? No! You seem to think you can be as offensive as you please and
>> that is everyone elses' problem, but if they object or poke fun at you,
all
>> of a sudden you are "misunderstood" and ill used. Isn't it only "fair"
>> that they be equally as expressive and if you don't like it, that is
"your"
>> problem?
>Aren't you a little old to be receiving the "Life isn't always fair"
>speech?
Oh! I love this! So, it *is* only okay when the humor is directed at other
people. Not when it is directed at you. The mantra of the bully. It is
only funny when they don't fight back! They fight back and there is some
kind of injustice! Good gracious. I was wrong. You are not childish.
That would be a step up for you. You are practially infantile!
> I would have thought that you knew this by now.
Oh sure, sure. Everyone "knows" that it is only okay when you are offending
other people, not when they are offending you. The world never stopped
revovling around you, huh?
) Too bad that
>you have to be such an idealist where the laws of the real world just
>don't apply.
Let me get this straight, only an idealist would think that the same rules
you set up for other people, might also apply to you? Okay . . . .
>Oh well. Some people are slower than others I suppose.
Yes, I would have to agree, some people certainly are.
>Misunderstood? Well yes in a way. For example, I've only been talking
>to you for a short time but I already know that you are incapable of
>understanding someone like me.
Oh, yes! You are so complex, you, your "racial criticisms" and your
tasteless humor. It is just so far beyond everyone here, right?
Can we say delusional . . . . .
Life is much more complex than the
>bubble you are living in.
Let me get this straight. You seem to think it is okay to offend other
people, but they shouldn't be able to offend you, and anyone who objects
just can't "grasp" your humor, and *I* am living in a bubble? Okay . . .
This guy can't be for real. No one could be that obtuse. I would have to
conclude you are a ringer Mr. Long, or just so irresponsible as to totally
be incapable of understanding empathy or the concept that others besides
yourself have rights or feelings.
In other words, you are either a ringer or an idiot and the two are not that
far apart.
>> Always the same with self-centered and childish people They always have
>> these wonderful philosophies about why they can act like jerks, but they
>> never consider the possibility that, that same philosophy could just as
>> easily apply to them.
>
>Apparently you think of childish as being a bad thing. The doctor was
>frequently quite childish. But aside form all that, I find it sad in a
>way that someone can be so rapped up in themselves that they feel more
>mature than everyone around them. I've known lots of stuck-up people in
>my life. it's nothing new. I will try to bring you down into the
>existence of us mortals once you realize that you're only an annoying
>blabbermouth.
He thinks he can offend and malign others with racial criticisms and yet he
thinks *I* am the annoying one.
Okay . . . .
>> Everyone else is (are?) expressing themselves, Mr. Long. If they
didn't,.
>> it wouldn't be "fair" to you. Deel with it.
>
>No, you deel with it. How ironic that your name permits this clever
>play on words and yet you're totally incapable of grasping it's meaning
>and following it yourself. You have shown yourself to be someone who
>frequently whines about the problems of today's world and frequently
>can't come to terms with the personality of others. You cannot deel
>with very much at all, I'm afraid.
Everyone else has sticks up their butts, but I am the one that can't deel
with very much.
Looks like we found our first candidate for the first annual "totally in
complete denial" award.
I vote the guy is a ringer. No one could be that stupid and still be able
to type on a keyboard.
Good by ringer. I have been against this in the past, but it has become
obvious that this guy is in here just to deliberately annoy people. I think
we should all collectively kill-file him, until he goes somewhere else and
annoys other people.
That is what I am going to do. I don't waste my time with nonsense like
this.
THWUNK
Jill E. Deel
vale...@netset.com
Jill E. Deel
Paul Cornell wrote in message ...
>In article <348A4F...@epix.net>, John Long <jl...@epix.net> wrote:
>
>> Ah, I love feminists. Especially the bitchy know-it-all kind.
>
>Hey, they're fighting *each other*!
No, Mr. Long is not worth my efforts. He is either a ringer (and I think
that likely) or is too stupid to understand reason, or both (and I think
that likely also)
I have killfiled, Mr. Long. Especially, with a new baby in the house. I
just don't have the time to be wasted by such stupidity. I suggest everyone
do the same. We don't need racism such as his, in this group.
Jill E. Deel
vale...@netset.com