Movies that upset the general public

[Stephen DeMay]

The HBO film on Phil Specterstood on the " He didn't do it "side of the street. Lana's supporters picketed the HBO studio....damn the evidence. Every post I've seen on a Specter news story is against the guy. The verdict and appeals denials were a good indication of how things work in the USA

[madar...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, June 7, 2014 8:09:12 PM UTC-4, Stephen DeMay wrote:
> The HBO film on Phil Specterstood on the " He didn't do it "side of the street. Lana's supporters picketed the HBO studio....damn the evidence. Every post I've seen on a Specter news story is against the guy. The verdict and appeals denials were a good indication of how things work in the USA

I don't know that Lana Clarkson supporters necessarily stand in for the "general public." 99.9% of the public don't even care about this case. Most of them don't even KNOW about it.

[nick...@gmail.com]

A larger percentage of the public know him as a crazy guy who shot someone than as a musical genius who produced some of the best pop records. That's what happens when you kill someone. All the good stuff gets forgotten.

[Stephen DeMay]

On Saturday, June 7, 2014 8:09:12 PM UTC-4, Stephen DeMay wrote:

> The HBO film on Phil Specterstood on the " He didn't do it "side of the street. Lana's supporters picketed the HBO studio....damn the evidence. Every post I've seen on a Specter news story is against the guy. The verdict and appeals denials were a good indication of how things work in the USA

The blood spatter evidence clearly shows he was nowhere near the girl when the gun went off. That simple

[hislop]

I would never say anything like that, about the general public, it's
like taking trends on Yahoo seriously.

[Me, formerly nanwynnfan]

On Saturday, June 7, 2014 8:09:12 PM UTC-4, Stephen DeMay wrote:

> The HBO film on Phil Specterstood on the " He didn't do it "side of the street. Lana's supporters picketed the HBO studio....damn the evidence. Every post I've seen on a Specter news story is against the guy. The verdict and appeals denials were a good indication of how things work in the USA

So as NOT to interfere with the flow of this thread, I'll post in the specific topic being addressed: Films that upset the general public. Here are two, actually a matched set from 1945:

The Woman in the Window [1945] raised a bit of havoc over the final ending, which could have gone either of two ways, existentially either-or.

Scarlet Street [1945] raised even more religious and social consternation in its disregard for the accepted proprieties of crime and punishment and its violation of the attendant sensibilities.

BOTH are scheduled for showing on TCM tonight, Tuesday, June 10, 2014:

8:00 PM The Woman in the Window

10:00 PM Scarlet Street

[I have entered additional relevant observations on my Life in Shimmering Rooms thread.

[madar...@gmail.com]

Staying on topic even when the OP doesn't. That's pretty damned radical. I salute you, sir.

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 10, 2014 11:43:01 AM UTC-4, Me, formerly nanwynnfan wrote:

> So as NOT to interfere with the flow of this thread, I'll post in the specific topic being addressed: Films that upset the general public. Here are two, actually a matched set from 1945:
>
> The Woman in the Window [1945] raised a bit of havoc over the final ending, which could have gone either of two ways, existentially either-or.
>

It came out in 1944 and I know it rankled critics but it was -- as I understand it -- an audience hit. Actually it couldn't go either way. In the novel, suicide was the ending and in the film it wasn't because of the Hays Code and Nunnally Johnson knew that going in.

>
> Scarlet Street [1945] raised even more religious and social consternation in its disregard for the accepted proprieties of crime and punishment and its violation of the attendant sensibilities.
>

The really interesting aspect of the reaction to Scarlet Street is that -- at the time -- no one -- even critics -- objected to an innocent man getting the death penalty. Another interesting note is that Fritz Lang beat Joe Breen (of the Hays Office) at Breen's own game. The purpose of the Hays Code -- Breen stated numerous times -- is morality. Lang argued -- or at least Lang said he argued -- that Christopher Cross is punished for his crime and while the ending isn't guilt by a trial, the punishment is still moral.

The other theory -- per Raymond Chandler -- is that toward the end of the war, the Hays Office became more law and allowed darker material to be produced, eg, Double Indemnity. I know the film -- Scarlet Street -- caused a ruckus with censors although I'm not sure that it was all that big a deal with audiences.

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 10, 2014 12:02:30 PM UTC-4, wlah...@gmail.com wrote:

> The other theory -- per Raymond Chandler -- is that toward the end of the war, the Hays Office became more law and allowed darker material to be produced, eg, Double Indemnity. I know the film -- Scarlet Street -- caused a ruckus with censors although I'm not sure that it was all that big a deal with audiences.

Became more "lax" and not "law." Ooops.

[Me, formerly nanwynnfan]

On Saturday, June 7, 2014 8:09:12 PM UTC-4, Stephen DeMay wrote:

> The HBO film on Phil Specterstood on the " He didn't do it "side of the street. Lana's supporters picketed the HBO studio....damn the evidence. Every post I've seen on a Specter news story is against the guy. The verdict and appeals denials were a good indication of how things work in the USA

Well, just before I posted the tv scheduling of the double feature, I ALMOST checked the release dates [which perhaps I should have done]; but I knew TWITW pre-dated Scarlet Street by a very short time window ... as it was seen as a "strike while the iron is hot" opportunity for the box office.

My observations and perspective are a bit different from yours, as I was a lay person [contemporary with the films' release date]; saw them in their original release[s]; and was personally exposed to the fulminations they aroused.

TWITW COULD HAVE GONE EITHER OF TWO WAYS: the owner of film rights on a published novel was no more obliged then than he would be today to adhere to the novel's story line. Thus, the poewers that were behind TWITW had TWO choices: adhere to the original, OR take a road that seemed [box office-wise] to go for a less upsetting ending [sine Professor Wanley was presented as a very decent family man]. I also avoided making specific reference to the plot and presentation furore, because I figured that some here, just might be young enough to be viewing either/both films for the first time. [It was a bit like recalling the producers' admonition to 1944 movie-goers, "Don't give away the ending."

"Scarlet Street," regardless of ex post facto musings, was a big deal, in some print media, and most certainly from pulpits. Then, as now, NYC is a metropolis of some size; and as a student in a parochial elementary school was urged, as was the entire student body, in assembly, to take the oath/pledge NOT to see TWITW [some jeapardy for eternal prospects suggested here]. Dutifully, I stood and recited the pledge, keeping my fingers crossed in my pockets to nullify to forced pledge ... then went to see the movie without fear of damnation [because I had declared "fins" on the oath-taking].

In any event, I was hoping to share a viewing opportunity with prospective viewers.

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 10, 2014 3:36:35 PM UTC-4, Me, formerly nanwynnfan wrote:

> TWITW COULD HAVE GONE EITHER OF TWO WAYS: the owner of film rights on a published novel was no more obliged then than he would be today to adhere to the novel's story line. Thus, the powers that were behind TWITW had TWO choices: adhere to the original, OR take a road that seemed [box office-wise] to go for a less upsetting ending [sine Professor Wanley was presented as a very decent family man].

No. Nunnally Johnson knew going in that suicide would not be an option for the Edward G Robinson character. It has nothing to do with obligations to the author. The Hays Code was quite specific and Johnson couldn't get around it. Thus, the suicide option as an ending never stood a chance. It had nothing to do with anticipated audience reactions.

> "Scarlet Street," regardless of ex post facto musings, was a big deal, in some print media, and most certainly from pulpits. Then, as now, NYC is a metropolis of some size; and as a student in a parochial elementary school was urged, as was the entire student body, in assembly, to take the oath/pledge NOT to see TWITW [some jeapardy for eternal prospects suggested here]. Dutifully, I stood and recited the pledge, keeping my fingers crossed in my pockets to nullify to forced pledge ... then went to see the movie without fear of damnation [because I had declared "fins" on the oath-taking].
>

Yeah, if you were in the cocoon of catholics then you were subjected to the rantings of the priests and The Tablet. When I was a young catholic, I read The Tablet to find out which movie I wanted to see and they were all condemned. I'm still not sure what point you're trying to make.

[Me, formerly nanwynnfan]

It seems to me that YOU are the one trying to make a point here. I never quite considered myself in a "cocoon" of anything, either in 1944 or today. Nor was religious response limited to the Tablet [which I never did allow myself to read, being immersed in parochial education 5 days of the week, with Benediction every Friday after school].

In passing, I alluded to the timeliness of tonight's TCM double feature, given current discussion here regarding films that disturbed the general public. It is you who seems somehow affronted by my casual [and accurate] observations.

As I recall, there was a considerable parcel of geography in which populations were exercised by unwarranted [by truth] execution of "innocent" people, whether incited by the Bible [pick a Testament] or regional sensibilities [justified or UN].

No point to be made: that was done almost 70 years ago.

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 10, 2014 5:48:10 PM UTC-4, Me, formerly nanwynnfan wrote:

> In passing, I alluded to the timeliness of tonight's TCM double feature, given current discussion here regarding films that disturbed the general public. It is you who seems somehow affronted by my casual [and accurate] observations.
>

First, your observations are anecdotal and don't reflect the cross-section of the audience. Second, merely because the Catholic church had issues with a film's "morality," doesn't mean that the audiences had the same response. In some cases, the audiences never saw the film because the church condemned it so it would be misleading to say that the film upset them. Yes, censorship boards in the US had issues with Scarlet Street although -- according to Hollywood lore -- the Hays Office didn't. Also, critics weren't all that upset. Your claim is that audience members were "upset" by the film and yet you've offered nothing to support it. It's box office receipts say otherwise.

[Me, formerly nanwynnfan]

wlah:

You are given to your own declarative and rather emphatic, though unwarranted conclusions, making you far too tedious.

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 10, 2014 9:46:53 PM UTC-4, Me, formerly nanwynnfan wrote:
> wlah:
>
>
>
> You are given to your own declarative and rather emphatic, though unwarranted conclusions, making you far too tedious.

Yeah. That's what it must be. Couldn't be that you don't know what you're talking about. You say audiences were upset and yet when prodded for some kind of information that supports your contention, you attack me personally. That sums it up. I'd rather be tedious than a stinking bag of shit on a hot highway in July trying to justify my existence.

[Me, formerly nanwynnfan]

wlah...@gmail.com
10:10 PM (8 minutes ago)

Each time you open your mouth [post] you strip away another layer of what I think I must have stepped in on the way to the forum.

Lovely metaphor for existential self-justification, to boot.

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 10, 2014 10:22:45 PM UTC-4, Me, formerly nanwynnfan wrote:

> Each time you open your mouth [post] you strip away another layer of what I think I must have stepped in on the way to the forum.
>

Now who's being tedious? I'm done. I get this shit from know-nothings all the time. You're just another broken record of personal attacks. I no longer give a shit. Go get a room with trotsky, OW, hardly a boy and the others and try to think up some new material. I'm sick of being bored by morons.

[trotsky]

On 6/10/14 9:30 PM, wlah...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 10, 2014 10:22:45 PM UTC-4, Me, formerly nanwynnfan wrote:
>
>> Each time you open your mouth [post] you strip away another layer of what I think I must have stepped in on the way to the forum.
>>
> Now who's being tedious? I'm done. I get this shit from know-nothings all the time. You're just another broken record of personal attacks. I no longer give a shit. Go get a room with trotsky,

Troll alert. I haven't said a fucking thing to this fatuous fuck but he
trolls me nonetheless. Does anybody really think this shit is acceptable?

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 9:36:49 PM UTC-4, trotsky wrote:

> Troll alert. I haven't said a fucking thing to this fatuous fuck but he
> trolls me nonetheless. Does anybody really think this shit is acceptable?

It was a cite. Hahahahahahahahhahaa

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 9:36:49 PM UTC-4, trotsky wrote:

> Troll alert. I haven't said a fucking thing to this fatuous fuck but he
> trolls me nonetheless. Does anybody really think this shit is acceptable?

trotsky playing victim, that's rich. The big bad wee willy has tweaked the troll's nose and now he's whining. One ridiculous dialog with mPig and somehow trotsky thinks he's redeemed and a regular guy. Whine, trotsky, whine . . .

[nick...@gmail.com]

Trotsky openly admits that making fun of people on Usenet is his hobby but if someone turns it on him, he goes ballistic. He can dish it out but he can't take it. You would think that if his passion in life is being abusive on the internet then he'd do a better job of handling it when it gets thrown back at him.

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 10:24:34 PM UTC-4, nick...@gmail.com wrote:

> Trotsky openly admits that making fun of people on Usenet is his hobby but if someone turns it on him, he goes ballistic. He can dish it out but he can't take it. You would think that if his passion in life is being abusive on the internet then he'd do a better job of handling it when it gets thrown back at him.

What a wimp. He sucks up to mPig and now he thinks he's respectable. I love it when trotsky whines after someone treats him as he treats others. You would think he had more self-awareness. Haahahaha.

[trotsky]

Perhaps your nickpuppet has an explanation for your aberrant behavior.

[trotsky]

On 6/11/14 9:05 PM, wlah...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 9:36:49 PM UTC-4, trotsky wrote:
>
>> Troll alert. I haven't said a fucking thing to this fatuous fuck but he
>> trolls me nonetheless. Does anybody really think this shit is acceptable?
>
> trotsky playing victim,

Wow, must have been an important post if you had to respond twice.

[trotsky]

On 6/11/14 9:24 PM, nick...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 10:05:41 PM UTC-4, wlah...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 9:36:49 PM UTC-4, trotsky wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Troll alert. I haven't said a fucking thing to this fatuous fuck but he
>>> trolls me nonetheless. Does anybody really think this shit is acceptable?
>>
>>
>>
>> trotsky playing victim, that's rich. The big bad wee willy has tweaked the troll's nose and now he's whining. One ridiculous dialog with mPig and somehow trotsky thinks he's redeemed and a regular guy. Whine, trotsky, whine . . .
>
> Trotsky openly admits that making fun of people on Usenet is his hobby

Hey, shit for brains, aren't you going to make excuses for willy's
trolling me, or are you really that much of a fucking liar?

[trotsky]

On 6/11/14 9:31 PM, wlah...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 10:24:34 PM UTC-4, nick...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Trotsky openly admits that making fun of people on Usenet is his hobby but if someone turns it on him, he goes ballistic. He can dish it out but he can't take it. You would think that if his passion in life is being abusive on the internet then he'd do a better job of handling it when it gets thrown back at him.
>
> What a wimp. He sucks up to mPig and now he thinks he's respectable.

Excellent use of online fellatio.

[nick...@gmail.com]

"Years ago I used to tell people that some like to play first person
shooter video games and I like to make fun of people on Usenet. It's
really that simple."

Like I said, making fun of people on Usenet is your passion. You likened it to playing first person shooters. People who play first person shooters generally don't cry and swear and whine like a baby and turn into a foul-mouthed buffoon every time they get shot.

I can't get over how pathetically sad it is that someone would cop to being abusive on the internet as a hobby. You don't even like movies. The movie groups are nothing but stomping grounds for your ranting little cheap shots.

[trotsky]

On 6/12/14 6:49 AM, nick...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, June 12, 2014 5:49:35 AM UTC-4, trotsky wrote:
>> On 6/11/14 9:24 PM, nick...@gmail.com wrote:

>>> Trotsky openly admits that making fun of people on Usenet is his hobby
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Hey, shit for brains, aren't you going to make excuses for willy's
>> trolling me, or are you really that much of a fucking liar?
>
> "Years ago I used to tell people that some like to play first person
> shooter video games and I like to make fun of people on Usenet. It's
> really that simple."
>
> Like I said, making fun of people on Usenet is your passion.

You're avoiding the subject, because you are stupid and afraid. The
subject is willy trolled me and I did nothing to provoke it. The fact
is I've already eviscerated him a hundred times over, so there is no fun
in it, so I stopped. He's like a level one challenge.

You likened it to playing first person shooters. People who play
first person shooters generally don't cry and swear and whine like a
baby and turn into a foul-mouthed buffoon every time they get shot.

Look, nickpuppet, I know that you are stupid, but willy trolling me
without being provoked is his problem, not mine. You need to revise
your bullshit story.

>
> I can't get over how pathetically sad it is that someone would cop to being abusive on the internet as a hobby.

That's interesting, because I find sockpuppets and anonyshits to be
pathetically sad. I can go into further detail if need be.

[nick...@gmail.com]

You've compared yourself favorably to Don Rickles (a typical dated reference), but when Rickles gets heckled he doesn't go off his head and start stalking his heckler and doing "research" and conducting investigations into the person who heckled him. That's the sign of a crazy person. You remind me less of Don Rickles and more of the trolling psychopath villain in the new Stephen King novel.

[moviePig]

'Acceptable'? ...sure, we're on Usenet. But, fwiw, I also think
*nobody* would think less of you for ignoring it. (That's not meant to
be preachy.)

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, June 12, 2014 9:52:31 AM UTC-4, nick...@gmail.com wrote:

> You've compared yourself favorably to Don Rickles (a typical dated reference), but when Rickles gets heckled he doesn't go off his head and start stalking his heckler and doing "research" and conducting investigations into the person who heckled him. That's the sign of a crazy person. You remind me less of Don Rickles and more of the trolling psychopath villain in the new Stephen King novel.

All of that being true, I just love it when trotsky goes ballistic because someone treated him as he treats people. And the whining is just the icing on the cake along with his claims of victory and the other boilerplate responses. And he makes proclamations as if someone is listening or gives a shit about what he regurgitates. It's a hoot.

[trotsky]

On 6/12/14 8:52 AM, nick...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, June 12, 2014 8:24:06 AM UTC-4, trotsky wrote:
>> On 6/12/14 6:49 AM, nick...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>
>>>
>>
>>> I can't get over how pathetically sad it is that someone would cop to being abusive on the internet as a hobby.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> That's interesting, because I find sockpuppets and anonyshits to be
>> pathetically sad. I can go into further detail if need be.
>
> You've compared yourself favorably to Don Rickles (a typical dated reference),

We're not talking about me we're talking about you. You're doing the
same thing wee willy does--are you his sockpuppet?

[trotsky]

I don't disagree with your point of view, but if you're as good as me at
dealing with trolls would you ignore it?

[trotsky]

The sockpuppet and puppeteer still unable to show self awareness.
Pathetically sad.

[moviePig]

Hard to know. I do think that ignoring them -- especially internally --
is as good as one can get at dealing with trolls.

[nick...@gmail.com]

Good to know you've still got Trotsky's back. He might be a virulent class-baiting homophobe to some of us, but he'll always be your "bad boy", that good liberal who supports gay marriage and loves animals.

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Friday, June 13, 2014 8:09:55 PM UTC-4, nick...@gmail.com wrote:

> Good to know you've still got Trotsky's back. He might be a virulent class-baiting homophobe to some of us, but he'll always be your "bad boy", that good liberal who supports gay marriage and loves animals.

I cannot believe how mPig has totally lost his mind in the last month or so. First it's people of color and then it's "let's get the fat people" and now it's his unmitigated sucking up to trotsky. He just doesn't get how he's endorsing that piece of shit troll by trying for the ridiculous notion of being the doyen or the peacemaker. But I do love to listen to trotsky whine and sputter "self-awareness" and all that other moldy bullshit because he can't think of something new to say. It just breaks me up.

[nick...@gmail.com]

mPig has a tendency to make things more complicated than they need to be but since I'm a stupid person as Trotsky keeps telling everyone, I'll make things as simple as possible: Trotsky has literally spent decades being verbally abusive to people because it is his stated hobby. It is what he enjoys doing. Now because you and I call bullshit on it, mPig seems to think we're equally complicit, or maybe even more guilty (for reasons that completely escape me). I don't get it. It's like you've got the imposter Don Rickles onstage insulting the fuck out of everyone and there's mPig in the audience smirking out of one side of his mouth and looking down at anyone who heckles back at fake Rickles out the other side of his mouth. That heckler just called Trotsky fat . . . oh, really, that's too much.

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Friday, June 13, 2014 8:31:59 PM UTC-4, nick...@gmail.com wrote:

>That heckler just called Trotsky fat . . . oh, really, that's too much.

What I love is when trotsky whines because I call him stupid. Then he calls you stupid. trotsky's whole one-trick pony nonsense goes like this: He baits you, attacks you, and tries to ridicule you and when you strike back, he claims that you lack self-awareness because you're being as imbecilic as he is. This is what mPig is defending? A disgusting troll with severe personality problems and moldy cultural references?

[Stephen DeMay]

On Saturday, June 7, 2014 8:09:12 PM UTC-4, Stephen DeMay wrote:
> The HBO film on Phil Specterstood on the " He didn't do it "side of the street. Lana's supporters picketed the HBO studio....damn the evidence. Every post I've seen on a Specter news story is against the guy. The verdict and appeals denials were a good indication of how things work in the USA

my point was if every comment on every article on Spector on the web is negative I would think a large percentage of the general public was anti Phil and the film must have gone down the wrong pipe for them. John Q likes his plain and simple such as the wildly inaccurate film about Jodi Arias.

[trotsky]

In your opinion. My opinion is that they need to be squashed like the
cockroaches they are. Suffice it to say that as long as we're on the
same page about wee willy being a troll I'm fine with that.

[trotsky]

On 6/13/14 7:09 PM, nick...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, June 13, 2014 9:23:36 AM UTC-4, moviePig wrote:
>> On 6/13/2014 8:10 AM, trotsky wrote:
>>
> if you're as good as me at
>>> dealing with trolls would you ignore it?
>>
>>
>> Hard to know. I do think that ignoring them -- especially internally --
>> is as good as one can get at dealing with trolls.
>>
> Good to know you've still got Trotsky's back. He might be a virulent class-baiting homophobe to some of us,

wee willy, you're in denial. You are too neurotic to admit that you set
this in motion by your trolling. Technically speaking you are in
denial. My hunch is a mental health professional would and has told you
the same thing. This is the biggest problem with Usenet: people with
damaged psyches such as yourself get to air their dirty laundry in
public. You are in denial and mentally incapable of showing an iota of
self awareness. This has gone on for months where you have been unable
to discuss your own behavior. Look, if people want to call me a bastard
for pointing out the obvious fact that you have mental health issues,
that's fine. The fact remains.

[trotsky]

Wee willy, I have concluded that "nick" is your sockpuppet, which is why
I responded to him by calling him "wee willy". Your posts have become
indistinguishable when talking about me because you are a lousy troll
and a shitty puppeteer. Sorry.

[trotsky]

On 6/13/14 7:31 PM, nick...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, June 13, 2014 8:15:48 PM UTC-4, wlah...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Friday, June 13, 2014 8:09:55 PM UTC-4, nick...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Good to know you've still got Trotsky's back. He might be a virulent class-baiting homophobe to some of us, but he'll always be your "bad boy", that good liberal who supports gay marriage and loves animals.
>>
>>
>>
>> I cannot believe how mPig has totally lost his mind in the last month or so. First it's people of color and then it's "let's get the fat people" and now it's his unmitigated sucking up to trotsky. He just doesn't get how he's endorsing that piece of shit troll by trying for the ridiculous notion of being the doyen or the peacemaker. But I do love to listen to trotsky whine and sputter "self-awareness" and all that other moldy bullshit because he can't think of something new to say. It just breaks me up.
>
> mPig has a tendency to make things more complicated than they need to be but since I'm a stupid person as Trotsky keeps telling everyone, I'll make things as simple as possible: Trotsky has literally spent decades being verbally abusive to people because it is his stated hobby. It is what he enjoys doing. Now because you and I call bullshit on it,

What do you mean by "bullshit", nickpuppet? I'm lying? You're not
making sense.

[trotsky]

On 6/13/14 7:53 PM, wlah...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, June 13, 2014 8:31:59 PM UTC-4, nick...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> That heckler just called Trotsky fat . . . oh, really, that's too much.
>
> What I love is when trotsky whines because I call him stupid.

I thought you stopped responding to me. You are starting to sound like
Kurtz from "Apocalypse Now". Why not tell is the bit about a snail
crawling on the edge of a razor blade?

[nick...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, June 14, 2014 5:59:24 AM UTC-4, trotsky wrote:
> On 6/13/14 7:15 PM, wlah...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Friday, June 13, 2014 8:09:55 PM UTC-4, nick...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> Good to know you've still got Trotsky's back. He might be a virulent class-baiting homophobe to some of us, but he'll always be your "bad boy", that good liberal who supports gay marriage and loves animals.
>
> >
>
> > I cannot believe how mPig has totally lost his mind in the last month or so. First it's people of color and then it's "let's get the fat people" and now it's his unmitigated sucking up to trotsky. He just doesn't get how he's endorsing that piece of shit troll by trying for the ridiculous notion of being the doyen or the peacemaker. But I do love to listen to trotsky whine and sputter "self-awareness" and all that other moldy bullshit because he can't think of something new to say. It just breaks me up.
>
>
>
>
>
> Wee willy, I have concluded that "nick" is your sockpuppet, which is why
> I responded to him by calling him "wee willy".

Hey, MoviePig, your buddy is so far off the rails he thinks William and I are the same person. Since you've referred to me as "nPuppet" in a few of your responses to Trotsky, maybe you believe it though.

[moviePig]

Serious question: did you really not notice the joke in that (one, iirc)
post, where I first called myself 'mPuppet' (...which post was thus a
jibe at, if anyone, Trotsky)?

[moviePig]

No, my guess is that William wasn't trolling so much as using bad
judgment. (Of course, if he was trolling, it was *good* judgment...)

[moviePig]

What sits badly with me is that you, I, and many, many others tolerated
such behavior -- from Trotsky and others -- for all those "decades", and
only now see fit to convene a war-crimes council. You've made your
sentiments known (belatedly) and I've agreed with you (even more
belatedly). To some extent you've tried to change the rules of the
game, which I applaud and support even if it fails. But afaics you're
also required to let people move towards those rules. Is it your and
William's aim to hound Trotsky out of existence -- like he and others
might have done Calvin while you and I said little? To be clear: I
haven't "got Trotsky's back" so much as I have a dislike/distrust of
pointless "punishment". (E.g., look at William's dogged perversion
above of my recent statements about blacks or obesity -- which he
characteristically insists is what I actually think.) You say that I'm
"complicating" things, and if I am, it's because there are people
involved -- i.e., the same reason that you began all this.

[nick...@gmail.com]

It was your good-humored attempt to ape Trotsky's lingo and catchphrasing, someone who's so fucked in the head right now he thinks William and I are the same person. Right now you're reading something from someone who doesn't exist. What a trip.

[nick...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, June 14, 2014 10:08:26 AM UTC-4, moviePig wrote:

>
> What sits badly with me is that you, I, and many, many others tolerated
> such behavior -- from Trotsky and others -- for all those "decades", and
> only now see fit to convene a war-crimes council. You've made your
> sentiments known (belatedly) and I've agreed with you (even more
> belatedly). To some extent you've tried to change the rules of the
> game, which I applaud and support even if it fails. But afaics you're
> also required to let people move towards those rules. Is it your and
> William's aim to hound Trotsky out of existence -- like he and others
> might have done Calvin while you and I said little? To be clear: I
> haven't "got Trotsky's back" so much as I have a dislike/distrust of
> pointless "punishment". (E.g., look at William's dogged perversion
> above of my recent statements about blacks or obesity -- which he
> characteristically insists is what I actually think.) You say that I'm
> "complicating" things, and if I am, it's because there are people
> involved -- i.e., the same reason that you began all this.
>

Translation: maintain the status quo. Keep on trollin', Trots. I wish I could float above it all like you do and look down on the rest of us with such Solomon-like wisdom. I've told you what my final straw with Trotsky was. Is there no final straw for you, nothing offensive and disgusting enough that Trotsky could say that would lead you to write him off for good?

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, June 14, 2014 10:33:56 AM UTC-4, nick...@gmail.com wrote:

> Translation: maintain the status quo. Keep on trollin', Trots. I wish I could float above it all like you do and look down on the rest of us with such Solomon-like wisdom. I've told you what my final straw with Trotsky was. Is there no final straw for you, nothing offensive and disgusting enough that Trotsky could say that would lead you to write him off for good?

I love how mPig doesn't get how I am trotskying him. My use of trotsky's name was completely acceptable -- even to a dork such as trots -- because it was a cite and a point of reference and then he posted his tired litany of moldy insults. The intent is not to hound trotsky out of existence, the intent is to show how utterly empty and stupid he is. My intent is to occasionally taunt him and then ignore him. Nothing else will make him so batshit crazy. If others jump in, that's just icing on the cupcake.

[nick...@gmail.com]

Admittedly, if after all the "research" and investigations he likes to get into (when trolling is your hobby, you've got to go that extra mile), if the conclusion he's come to is that I'm your sockpuppet, then he might be even stupider and crazier than I realized, though I think he called me a sockpuppet a few hundred times without knowing what one is and now he's trying to paint himself out that corner. I also get the impression that while MPig doesn't think I'm a sockpuppet and Trots is wrong on that one, he's adopting a civilized "agree to disagree" tone with his pal about it.

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, June 14, 2014 11:47:11 AM UTC-4, nick...@gmail.com wrote:

>
> Admittedly, if after all the "research" and investigations he likes to get into (when trolling is your hobby, you've got to go that extra mile), if the conclusion he's come to is that I'm your sockpuppet, then he might be even stupider and crazier than I realized, though I think he called me a sockpuppet a few hundred times without knowing what one is and now he's trying to paint himself out that corner. I also get the impression that while MPig doesn't think I'm a sockpuppet and Trots is wrong on that one, he's adopting a civilized "agree to disagree" tone with his pal about it.

Trotsky has never had a creative moment in his life. All he does is recycle what people call him on to other people. No doubt other people called him on his self-awareness, meds, mental illness history and all the other pointless barbs he throws and he's just passing it on. As for mPig, he can't take a solid stand on a movie, so what do you expect?

[trotsky]

Yes, well, I'm sure you being you that you don't contemplate such things
the way I do. When you attack someone indirectly rather than directly
the way he did I call it "backhanded trolling" which means you don't
have the backbone to address the person directly but rather serve your
agenda in this backhanded (and underhanded) way. If he wasn't such a
dick I probably could cut him some slack because he just comes of as a
newbie troll and flamer. C'est la vie.

[trotsky]

Prepare to be further berated for being evenhanded. Hey, at least we
have all the hands covered: evenhanded, underhanded, and backhanded.

[trotsky]

On 6/14/14 9:33 AM, nick...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, June 14, 2014 10:08:26 AM UTC-4, moviePig wrote:
>
>>
>> What sits badly with me is that you, I, and many, many others tolerated
>> such behavior -- from Trotsky and others -- for all those "decades", and
>> only now see fit to convene a war-crimes council. You've made your
>> sentiments known (belatedly) and I've agreed with you (even more
>> belatedly). To some extent you've tried to change the rules of the
>> game, which I applaud and support even if it fails. But afaics you're
>> also required to let people move towards those rules. Is it your and
>> William's aim to hound Trotsky out of existence -- like he and others
>> might have done Calvin while you and I said little? To be clear: I
>> haven't "got Trotsky's back" so much as I have a dislike/distrust of
>> pointless "punishment". (E.g., look at William's dogged perversion
>> above of my recent statements about blacks or obesity -- which he
>> characteristically insists is what I actually think.) You say that I'm
>> "complicating" things, and if I am, it's because there are people
>> involved -- i.e., the same reason that you began all this.
>>
> Translation: maintain the status quo. Keep on trollin', Trots.

Actually, william did the trolling here and you are too stupid and
agenda driven to speak to it correctly. I don't expect much from
anonyshits and sockpuppets. I mean, really, do you think your low grade
sockpuppetting has done anything to establish a believable identity?
Get real. (So to speak.)

[trotsky]

On 6/14/14 9:57 AM, wlah...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, June 14, 2014 10:33:56 AM UTC-4, nick...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Translation: maintain the status quo. Keep on trollin', Trots. I wish I could float above it all like you do and look down on the rest of us with such Solomon-like wisdom. I've told you what my final straw with Trotsky was. Is there no final straw for you, nothing offensive and disgusting enough that Trotsky could say that would lead you to write him off for good?
>
> I love how mPig doesn't get how I am trotskying him.

Nobody except your sockpuppet "gets this", wee willy.

My use of trotsky's name was completely acceptable

Yes, as a troll. I realize you're a newbie at this but ignorance isn't
an excuse.

-- even to a dork such as trots -- because it was a cite and a point
of reference and then he posted his tired litany of moldy insults.

Why would such "moldy insults" be worth your time? Aren't you better
than this? Oh, fuck, there's that self-awareness thing again! Oops,
kryptonite!

[trotsky]

On 6/14/14 10:54 AM, wlah...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, June 14, 2014 11:47:11 AM UTC-4, nick...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>> Admittedly, if after all the "research" and investigations he likes to get into (when trolling is your hobby, you've got to go that extra mile), if the conclusion he's come to is that I'm your sockpuppet, then he might be even stupider and crazier than I realized, though I think he called me a sockpuppet a few hundred times without knowing what one is and now he's trying to paint himself out that corner. I also get the impression that while MPig doesn't think I'm a sockpuppet and Trots is wrong on that one, he's adopting a civilized "agree to disagree" tone with his pal about it.
>
> Trotsky has never had a creative moment in his life.

That actually made me laugh. People, including assholes such as
yourself, imitate me CONSTANTLY. Hey, here's an exercise: google how
many times I've said "imitation is the most sincere form of flattery."
Yeah, I know you don't have the balls to discuss this in a rational
fashion, but there it is. At least you have the online fellatio with
the nickpuppet to fall back on.

[moviePig]

Well, I suppose he could kick Hitler's dog...

A more serious analogy might be that, even if I were able, I'm strongly
reluctant to gentrify this sort of neighborhood with capital punishment.
And that's my personal predilection, not 'Solomon-like wisdom. As for
my 'floating above it all', it's not as though I've never been variously
attacked by every one of the participants here.

I think much of what's going on here is road rage ...which can be
addictive. Things were quiet(ish) for a while until William recently
flipped Trotsky off out of context. And Trotsky rose to the bait. And
here we are. I don't think you can lay 100% of that fecund atmosphere
on Trotsky's earlier (and, again, admittedly over-the-top) behavior.

[nick...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, June 15, 2014 8:57:47 AM UTC-4, moviePig wrote:
> On 6/14/2014 10:33 AM, nick...@gmail.com wrote:
>

>
> > Translation: maintain the status quo. Keep on trollin', Trots. I wish I could float above it all like you do and look down on the rest of us with such Solomon-like wisdom. I've told you what my final straw with Trotsky was. Is there no final straw for you, nothing offensive and disgusting enough that Trotsky could say that would lead you to write him off for good?
>
>
>
> Well, I suppose he could kick Hitler's dog...
>

I asked you a serious question and that's your response. No wonder you're in Trotsky's pocket.

[trotsky]

Agreed--intelligence and senses of humor need not apply.

[moviePig]

No, that was 5% of my response. Specifically, it was the 5% that was
intended to be amusing. (I can't tell if you didn't think it funny or
are just refusing to laugh.)

Meanwhile, I gather that what you're suggesting is that, in my view,
there are no "capital crimes" nor offenders beyond rehab. And there may
be some truth to that. Sure, I'd write somebody off (and have done) if
they seemed to me permanently mentally misaligned ...and you're unlikely
to find to me talking to those people at all. But I don't think that's
in play here. Plainly put, I think Trotsky and William got into some
sort of star-crossed dick-measuring contest, which you and I agree that
Trotsky took too far. Where we disagree is that you see his overreach
as symptomatic of a long-standing, wide, irreversible insensitivity --
i.e., that of a sociopath. And, indeed, if *I* saw that -- in anybody
-- then I, too, would try to beat it down or get myself to high ground.
That's less concise or colorful than saving Hitler's dog, but I hope
it addresses your question.

[trotsky]

It doesn't, because what he's really asking you is why he's so lame.

[nick...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, June 15, 2014 10:20:50 AM UTC-4, moviePig wrote:

>
> > I asked you a serious question and that's your response. No wonder you're in Trotsky's pocket.
>
>
>
> No, that was 5% of my response. Specifically, it was the 5% that was
> intended to be amusing. (I can't tell if you didn't think it funny or
> are just refusing to laugh.)

Refusing to laugh implies your response was funny to begin with, which it wasn't, but then I don't have a sense of humor, do I?

>
>
>
> Meanwhile, I gather that what you're suggesting is that, in my view,
> there are no "capital crimes" nor offenders beyond rehab. And there may
> be some truth to that. Sure, I'd write somebody off (and have done) if
> they seemed to me permanently mentally misaligned ...and you're unlikely
> to find to me talking to those people at all. But I don't think that's
> in play here. Plainly put, I think Trotsky and William got into some
> sort of star-crossed dick-measuring contest, which you and I agree that
> Trotsky took too far. Where we disagree is that you see his overreach
> as symptomatic of a long-standing, wide, irreversible insensitivity --
> i.e., that of a sociopath.

He is a sociopath. There are decades of posts that prove it. (I mean, really, yesterday he was saying William and I are the same person--is that the sign of a sane individual?) He's said it's his thing--to make fun of people on Usenet. You find that tolerable. You think it's fine that he bounces around mocking people's financial status, their politics, where they live, their sexual orientation, etc. You're cool with it. We get that now. And we're talking in circles at this point. So here's my final thought on the subject--Trotsky is a sociopath and because you won't accept what's staring straight at you in your face, you've got zero credibility. You haven't even given me any straight answers. For all I know you might even think I am William's sockpuppet because you spend so much time over-complicating things, it's impossible to make any sense of what you're on about half the time.

[moviePig]

Someone who thinks you're William's alter-ego would be a psychopath
(break with reality). I doubt Trotsky thinks it ...and you know I
don't, so stop that.

No, I think none of your examples is 'fine' (which you also know). But,
e.g., afaics the gay-baiting has effectively stopped -- from everyone.
Now, if any gay poster here says that past offenses merit current
banishment, then I'd have to consider his privileged perspective. But,
absent such insight, we each have to rely on our respective consciences.
And, since this isn't math, there are no 'straight answers' afaik,
only easy "solutions". I'm choosing to play it by ear ...because the
only reasonable alternative I know of might be Obveeus's of not
listening at all.

[nick...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, June 15, 2014 11:20:25 AM UTC-4, moviePig wrote:

> No, I think none of your examples is 'fine' (which you also know). But,
> e.g., afaics the gay-baiting has effectively stopped -- from everyone.
> Now, if any gay poster here says that past offenses merit current
> banishment, then I'd have to consider his privileged perspective.

"Privileged perspective"? I'm not gay but he's gay-bashed me. (I'm an "effeminate metrosexual" to use Trotsky's words.) So my taking offense is immaterial considering I don't have the "privileged perspective" of being gay?

So if someone's slinging anti-gay slurs in your direction, it only matters if you have the "privileged perspective" of being gay. Okay.

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, June 15, 2014 11:28:54 AM UTC-4, nick...@gmail.com wrote:

> So if someone's slinging anti-gay slurs in your direction, it only matters if you have the "privileged perspective" of being gay. Okay.

To flatter trotsky with a moldy reference and to sum up the process of talking to mPig, I offer:

"First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is
First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is"

trotsky and mPig having a dialog is ridiculously funny since both rely on empty references and mPig couches his in his convoluted syntax and trotsky in his self-absorbed psychosis. It's sort of a battle between plaid and paisley.

[moviePig]

Long ago, 'muteFan' called me "metrosexual". (I remember because I had
to look the word up.) Despite her being somewhat sincere, I think, it
hardly bothered me. Yeah, this time it's probably Trotsky's attempt to
be cute with the new gay-slur strictness ...and, yeah, he's among the
least entitled to make such attempts. I don't sanction it. Did you
want me to speak up? Did you want everyone to? Meanwhile, afaik, only
if you're gay (or at least thought to be) can you be gay-bashed ...or,
more importantly, know what it feels like.

Again, though, this is Usenet, and thus only a sandbox. Afaics, you've
made your several points, without significant opposition ...and likely
with considerable support for them going forward. Apart from outright
revenge (a craving I'm by no means above, myself), I'd think that'd be
most of what you'd want.

[trotsky]

Pathological lack of self awareness duly noted. You're a sick puppy, willy.

[trotsky]

On 6/15/14 9:20 AM, moviePig wrote:

> On 6/15/2014 9:18 AM, nick...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sunday, June 15, 2014 8:57:47 AM UTC-4, moviePig wrote:
>>> On 6/14/2014 10:33 AM, nick...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>
>>>
>>>> Translation: maintain the status quo. Keep on trollin', Trots. I
>>>> wish I could float above it all like you do and look down on the
>>>> rest of us with such Solomon-like wisdom. I've told you what my
>>>> final straw with Trotsky was. Is there no final straw for you,
>>>> nothing offensive and disgusting enough that Trotsky could say that
>>>> would lead you to write him off for good?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, I suppose he could kick Hitler's dog...
>>>
>> I asked you a serious question and that's your response. No wonder
>> you're in Trotsky's pocket.
>
> No, that was 5% of my response. Specifically, it was the 5% that was
> intended to be amusing. (I can't tell if you didn't think it funny or
> are just refusing to laugh.)

Mpig, you clearly don't see the pattern here: both willy and "nick" do
the same thing: they will vehemently avoid an conversation about
themselves, i.e. they will show no self-awareness whatsoever. They do
this again and again and again, and you keep falling for it. Corner
these fuckers (or fucker, as the case may be and is). Ask them to
describe their own behavior(s). It will NEVER happen. I've been
observing this kind of bullshit behavior on Usenet for a long time, and
ever one of these weasels react the same way when you call them out.

[moviePig]

Sorry, but a "conversation about themselves" would be, by definition, ad
hominem. Moreover, e.g., Nick was pretty willing to talk about how he
first got into this ...and, to be clear, I'm pretty sure his main
purpose has been to respond to some fairly indisputable wrongs.

[trotsky]

Yes, excellent. And how did he respond to either of us when told he had
the option of ignoring my posts? You mess with the bull you get the
horns. I can repeat this another 500 times if necessary. It's a bunch
of bullshit. This is just a rationalization for his incessant whining
about my presence.

[nick...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, June 15, 2014 1:27:16 PM UTC-4, moviePig wrote:

>
> Long ago, 'muteFan' called me "metrosexual". (I remember because I had
> to look the word up.) Despite her being somewhat sincere, I think, it
> hardly bothered me. Yeah, this time it's probably Trotsky's attempt to
> be cute with the new gay-slur strictness ...and, yeah, he's among the
> least entitled to make such attempts. I don't sanction it. Did you
> want me to speak up? Did you want everyone to? Meanwhile, afaik, only
> if you're gay (or at least thought to be) can you be gay-bashed ...or,
> more importantly, know what it feels like.

Did Mutefan accuse you of fucking gay priests? Probably not.

On at least three occasions in my life I've been walking alone at night and people driving by have called me a "nigger". I'm white, but it's nighttime and they're idiot racists acting like assholes. It's still a racial slur, right? It might not be as hurtful considering I'm not black but it's still a racial slur. It'd still get someone arrested in most Western European democracies. But the difference between those asshole racists and Trotsky is that they were mistaken. They thought I was black but I wasn't. Trotsky knows I'm not gay but still spouts out nonsense about me fucking gay priests. It takes a special level of idiot gay-basher to bash people who aren't gay, but it doesn't make it any less malevolent.

And maybe I'm overly sensitive on the subject but people get hurt bad by these kinds of insults, whether they're black or not, whether they're gay or not. I thought you and Trotsky were liberals? You both sound like Pat Buchanan. My political tradition is British working class leftism (Trotsky thinks us English folk are "limey fucks") and now I know why proper leftists look down on liberals. You're a mealy mouthed bunch of phonies. I'll join the John Birchers if they still exist before I'll be a Trotsky liberal.

[nick...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, June 15, 2014 4:37:54 PM UTC-4, trotsky wrote:

>
>
> Mpig, you clearly don't see the pattern here: both willy and "nick" do
> the same thing: they will vehemently avoid an conversation about
> themselves, i.e. they will show no self-awareness whatsoever. They do
> this again and again and again, and you keep falling for it. Corner
> these fuckers (or fucker, as the case may be and is).

MoviePig earlier today:

[nick...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, June 15, 2014 8:46:06 PM UTC-4, trotsky wrote:


You mess with the bull you get the
> horns. I can repeat this another 500 times if necessary.

Repeat it as many times as necessary but to a lot of us all that happens when you mess with the bull, you don't get the horns, you get verbally abused by a morbidly obese shut-in who's got nothing better to do with his life than type nonsense. In your own head you might be some Norman Mailer bad boy but the sad reality is you're a sorry worthless fat fuck.

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, June 15, 2014 10:48:36 PM UTC-4, nick...@gmail.com wrote:

> Repeat it as many times as necessary but to a lot of us all that happens when you mess with the bull, you don't get the horns, you get verbally abused by a morbidly obese shut-in who's got nothing better to do with his life than type nonsense. In your own head you might be some Norman Mailer bad boy but the sad reality is you're a sorry worthless fat fuck.

The sad thing is that over the years he's already repeated it 500 times. He just repeats everything. He's a moronic monotonous broken record. When you mess with this piece of bullshit all you get is the echo chamber of his failures and every time he repeats his tired litany, he admits he has no sense of humor, no originality and no self awareness. The truly sad aspect is that mPig -- thinking he's the great conciliator -- is in reality this tired troll's enabler. I laugh every time trotsky lashes out. It says: "I'm in pain and in my childish way I want to hurt someone." He has so over-exposed his crippled sense of self that he just vanishes in a white blur. Tweak him and he bleeds.

[trotsky]

On 6/15/14 9:43 PM, nick...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, June 15, 2014 1:27:16 PM UTC-4, moviePig wrote:
>
>>
>> Long ago, 'muteFan' called me "metrosexual". (I remember because I had
>> to look the word up.) Despite her being somewhat sincere, I think, it
>> hardly bothered me. Yeah, this time it's probably Trotsky's attempt to
>> be cute with the new gay-slur strictness ...and, yeah, he's among the
>> least entitled to make such attempts. I don't sanction it. Did you
>> want me to speak up? Did you want everyone to? Meanwhile, afaik, only
>> if you're gay (or at least thought to be) can you be gay-bashed ...or,
>> more importantly, know what it feels like.
>
> Did Mutefan accuse you of fucking gay priests? Probably not.
>
> On at least three occasions in my life I've been walking alone at night and people driving by have called me a "nigger". I'm white, but it's nighttime and they're idiot racists acting like assholes. It's still a racial slur, right? It might not be as hurtful considering I'm not black but it's still a racial slur. It'd still get someone arrested in most Western European democracies. But the difference between those asshole racists and Trotsky is that they were mistaken. They thought I was black but I wasn't. Trotsky knows I'm not gay but still spouts out nonsense about me fucking gay priests.

Cite?

And yet the question of why you don't ignore me and hope I go away never
gets answered. How much time do I spend replying to Obveeus, for example?

I have to admit, though, you do have me curious who is behind the sock.
The original "nick" was never this whiny. Never, as in not ever. wee
willy isn't even whiny like this, so I don't think he's capable of
pulling this off. Lately I'm leaning towards one of the earlier
contributors of ramc-f back for a reprise in the form of "nick". It's a
pity it's so hard to find these things out, but enjoy the anonymity!!

[trotsky]

Yeah, you got mpig to be hypocrite, big deal. He says speculating on a
person's mental health is verboten, and look what you made him do.
You're an asshole, but then you already knew that.

[trotsky]

On 6/15/14 9:48 PM, nick...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, June 15, 2014 8:46:06 PM UTC-4, trotsky wrote:
>
>
> You mess with the bull you get the
>> horns. I can repeat this another 500 times if necessary.
>
> Repeat it as many times as necessary

Killfile broken, shit for brains? Answer the fucking question you
fucking moron. I'm losing my patience with you. I've been very
reserved up to this point.

[trotsky]

On 6/15/14 10:20 PM, wlah...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, June 15, 2014 10:48:36 PM UTC-4, nick...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Repeat it as many times as necessary but to a lot of us all that happens when you mess with the bull, you don't get the horns, you get verbally abused by a morbidly obese shut-in who's got nothing better to do with his life than type nonsense. In your own head you might be some Norman Mailer bad boy but the sad reality is you're a sorry worthless fat fuck.
>
> The sad thing is

The sad thing is your pathological lack of self awareness. Clinically
speaking you're in denial. I still hold that you have to take
medication for your condition but I doubt you'll be forthcoming about that!

[moviePig]

Well, the law, anyway, distinguishes between "fucking gay priests" and
"You had sex with Fr. O'Malley" -- as the the former is 'verbal abuse'
(like "motherfucker") while the latter is libel (and actionable).

But, no, as far as I'm concerned, "nigger" isn't okay, and now, though
somewhat newly, "fag" (etc.) isn't either. And their persistent use
today -- here -- suggests to me someone with clear issues. I don't
think I've ever said or acted otherwise. And, yeah, it always upsets me
to think I'm hurting anyone (...as it seems I inadvertently just did to
the woman on current-films who posted about 'Mad Men'). But all my
empathy still can't see that gays on this n.g. will much care whether I
formally shun Trotsky because he *used to* routinely emit gay slurs. A
month ago when it was going on, maybe ...but today, I doubt it. (For
one thing, who the fuck am *I*, anyway?)

Meanwhile, I do understand that, in between outrages anyway, you try to
be consistently well-reasoned and communicative about all of this. The
thing is, so do I.

[moviePig]

I'm probably doing little more than protecting my own self-image with
this, but here goes:

1. To me, it seems incontestible that Nick and William are different
people -- so incontestible, in fact, that it belongs firmly and
inescapably in the 'reality' that overwhelming consensus declares.

2. Although a judgement of psychosis is never *entirely*
incontestible, still, based on other exchanges, I strongly doubt that
you (Trotsky) are psychotic, i.e., having a break with reality.

3. Therefore, I conclude that you (Trotsky) conceived this
"secret-identity" bullshit as yet another way to get a rise out of Nick
and William ...and must be now congratulating yourself.

4. Since I'm not interested in getting a rise out of anybody, (to
quote Rory McIlroy) that's all I'll be saying about this in any setting.

[nick...@gmail.com]

On Monday, June 16, 2014 9:15:47 AM UTC-4, moviePig wrote:
But all my
> empathy still can't see that gays on this n.g. will much care whether I
> formally shun Trotsky because he *used to* routinely emit gay slurs.

*used to*? Been to the cesspool that is rec.arts.tv lately? Trotsky gets much comic mileage referring to someone who posts under the name of "Guy Fawkes" as, well, no point in even going on with that.

[moviePig]

Okay, I'm somewhat ashamed to admit this (for so many reasons), but, I
quickly scanned Trotsky's r.a.t. posts for June, and found nothing
indictable ...and anyone's welcome to show me my error about that.
Admittedly, I don't know what, if anything, I'd have done about it
anyway (for so many reasons), but there it is, fwiw...

[nick...@gmail.com]

On Monday, June 16, 2014 10:30:17 AM UTC-4, moviePig wrote:

>
> Okay, I'm somewhat ashamed to admit this (for so many reasons), but, I
> quickly scanned Trotsky's r.a.t. posts for June, and found nothing
> indictable ...and anyone's welcome to show me my error about that.
>

If you looked you might have found him referring to a regular here as being as "gay as a three dollar bill" on June 1. But when did you decide that June is the amnesty point for Trotsky's homophobic slurs? But since you don't consider it a slur unless the person is actually gay, then it doesn't matter anyway. That might be why you got so bent out of shape when BTR1701 called Trotsky "Hutt" because in the Trotsky world the things he mocks people for--being gay, being poor, being sockpuppets, generally aren't true anyway, but when someone says something that is a factual truth--Trotsky is dangerously overweight--then you get upset. It's that stepping over the line into real fact that brings out your internal censor.

[trotsky]

You describe this behavior as "stalking" don't you, "nick"? How do you
plan on weaselling your way out of this one you stupid asshole?

[trotsky]

Et tu, mpig? You're "stalking" me also? That's twice now the
nickpuppet has gotten you to engage in hypocritical acts. You're being
played like a tambourine.

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Monday, June 16, 2014 6:23:25 AM UTC-4, trotsky wrote:

> The sad thing is your pathological lack of self awareness. Clinically
> speaking you're in denial. I still hold that you have to take
> medication for your condition but I doubt you'll be forthcoming about that!

I rest my case. The same old shit coming out of a wounded psyche and sliding toward mimicking the Greek mountain nymph Echo. Desperate accusations made in an attempt to be hurtful and therefore alive. He's revealed so much in this thread that once again I almost feel sorry for him as he sucks on a Ho-Ho and plots his response using the same tired litany. Self awareness, indeed . . .

[trotsky]

On 6/16/14 11:21 AM, wlah...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, June 16, 2014 6:23:25 AM UTC-4, trotsky wrote:
>
>> The sad thing is your pathological lack of self awareness. Clinically
>> speaking you're in denial. I still hold that you have to take
>> medication for your condition but I doubt you'll be forthcoming about that!
>
> I rest my case. The same old shit

QED

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Monday, June 16, 2014 4:17:46 PM UTC-4, trotsky wrote:

> QED

Not again? Maybe you need another Ding Dong . . .

[moviePig]

On one hand, holding someone to account for what they claim to be seems
warranted. On the other hand, the similarity to stalking was never lost
on me.

[moviePig]

Yes, sorry, I'm still not proficient with this newsreader. Now I've
looked through the first week of June, and found your cite:

"...as gay as a 3 dollar bill."

as well as:

"Closet homosexual alert."

(also, accusations of misogyny and of being dickless)

I'm not apologizing for them, but I'm guessing that two months ago,
e.g., that would've been "as *queer* as a three-dollar bill" (which btw
is the only way it makes sense).

So I dunno. Trotsky says he's voluntarily stopped baiting gays. These
posts -- from among a hundred or so in what you tell me is a "cesspool"
-- suggest he might think he has.

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Monday, June 16, 2014 5:24:21 PM UTC-4, moviePig wrote:

> So I dunno. Trotsky says he's voluntarily stopped baiting gays. These
> posts -- from among a hundred or so in what you tell me is a "cesspool"
> -- suggest he might think he has.
>

Are you really that fucking stupid? No convoluted syntax here. trotsky was shamed out of baiting people by calling them gay because it blunted his personal attacks and the pain ended up on the handle rather than the point of his flaccid sword. You, deluded as you are, see this as progress where it is merely a change in strategy on trotsky's part. Is his suggestion that people are on meds, in denial, have psychological problems or can't afford cable somehow acceptable? You seem to think they are. If trotsky suggests I have mental problems and I call him a fat, Ding Dong sucking, cellar-dweller, then, according to your dipshit rules, I have broken some social taboo and he's the victim. He's playing you and you're too fucking stupid to see it. As Joseph N. Welch once asked Joe McCarthy, "At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"

[moviePig]

Tell me, if someone stops baiting gays (to whatever degree), how do we
tell whether they wanted to or were shamed into it (...and assuming that
the option of 'both' is more than we can handle)?

[blutarsky]

moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote in
news:539f7760$0$47953$c3e8da3$5d8f...@news.astraweb.com:

oh, for christ's sake.

blutarsky

--

I swear: if I live to complete this autobiography, I will go through it
again and cross out all the 'Hi ho's.'
Hi ho.

[trotsky]

Comment on your on behavior and stop airing your mental dirty laundry.
Take another happy pill if need be.

[trotsky]

Maybe not, but the hypocrisy of accusing me of doing it first sure seems
to have been.

[trotsky]

And "gay as a three dollar bill" certainly isn't terribly specific vis a
vis a person's sexual orientation. Also, the guy referred to as
misogynistic clearly is and women on the group have agreed. But please,
if a Biblical stoning is necessary don't let me hold you up. I'm still
puzzled on the killfile thing and the hypocrisy of what "nick" calls
"stalking", though.

[trotsky]

On 6/16/14 5:10 PM, wlah...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, June 16, 2014 5:24:21 PM UTC-4, moviePig wrote:
>
>> So I dunno. Trotsky says he's voluntarily stopped baiting gays. These
>> posts -- from among a hundred or so in what you tell me is a "cesspool"
>> -- suggest he might think he has.
>>
> Are you really that fucking stupid?

And wee willy's pathological lack of self awareness continues. I've
been easy on your thus far, willy. It's on now.