A message for Carl Fogel
o...@ozarkbicycleservice.com
The yellow envelope was quite eye catching; does it match your helmet?
The rubber stamp return address is a little tacky, do consider those
nice, pre-printed stickers.
And the letter! We both got a hoot out of it. Oh so serious....written
by a true dweeb. Not to mention you made several erroneous assumptions.
Nothing will change, but at least your $8.34 bought a few laughs at
this end. And the USPS needs the business. ;-)
Cheers!
carl...@comcast.net
Let's share some of the assumptions and the letter . . .
Richard Malesweski's parents, Michael and Helen:
Richard Malesweski's father Michael's home address and telephone
number:
http://www.whitepages.com/5092/search/ReversePhone?phone=479-631-9378
Richard Malesweski's "business" address and telephone number, which
are the same (he has no listed address or telephone of his own):
http://www.ozarkbicycleservice.com/
A typical thread started by Richard Malesweski and comments on it in
an audio group:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/56750e7af0d23ba5
A typical challenge from Richard Malesweski for people to meet him
face to face:
A typical result of that bluster:
An often-mentioned accusation that Richard Malesweski robbed a
customer before he left Massachusetts:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/0bdbb0ccbdaee5e9?dmode=source
And a letter that I wrote last week to Richard's father, since that's
what we do in my neck of the woods when little boys (aged 56) keep
writing obscenities on the walls:
Dear Mr. Malesweski,
Can you do anything about your son Richard?
He's taken to posting numerous obscene comments to the
bicycle newsgroup rec.bicycles.tech as "Ozark Bicycle."
Below, I'm sorry to say, is an example of what's coming from
the computer in your home. Any librarian can go to the
newsgroup's archives at
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech
and search for posts including the words "ozark" and
"asshole" (or similar words from the post below by Richard)
and show you dozens of examples of the same sort of thing.
You have my sympathy in a difficult situation.
Carl Fogel
From: Ozark Bicycle - view profile
Date: Thurs, May 11 2006 3:33 pm
Email: "Ozark Bicycle"
<bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com>
Groups: rec.bicycles.tech
Let's do yet another poll:
We're looking for opinions here:
1) Is Frank Krygowski in a clueless asshole?
and
2) Is it true Frank Krygowski screws inflatable sex dolls
because the all the available data indicates it is both less
expensive and safer than having intercourse with an actual
human female? (Plus, they can't say "no".)
and
3) Is Frank Krygowski just an all around jerk-off who just
pulls his pud after dipping his hand in a Sam's Club sized
vat of petroleum jelly whilst reading RBT?
Vote early and vote often!
Reply
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/35e057f174bba11a
G.T.
<o...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote in message
news:1150841046.6...@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> I could, of course, post your address, etc., but I won't do that.
>
You could, of course, stop being a prick, etc., but you won't do that.
Greg
--
"Up in the clouds
ah up in the clouds
down in the dirt
it's so good
so good it hurts" - The Mekons
John Forrest Tomlinson
>Stalk much, Carl? I think you have lost the distinction between the
>Usenet/internet world and the *real* world. You need a break, pal.
>Seek help.
Considering that you recently dared a couple of people with criticism
that they say things online that they wouldn't do face-to-face, I find
it odd that you're now pointing out differenced between online
communication and the "real" world.
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
carl...@comcast.net
>Stalk much, Carl? I think you have lost the distinction between the
>Usenet/internet world and the *real* world. You need a break, pal.
>Seek help.
>
>
>I could, of course, post your address, etc., but I won't do that.
Carl Fogel
309 Grace Ave.
Pueblo, CO 81004-1031
doug....@gmail.com
Awright, Carl's phone number!!!
Hey Carl, Do you have Prince Albert in a can?
...
...
...
Hey, Carl, you gotta Mr. Jass there? First name Hugh.
...
...
...
...
Hmm, why isn't this working? I musta forgotten how to do it.
carl...@comcast.net
Dear Bart,
You have to pick up the receiver before you dial.
Cheers,
Moe Szyslak
doug....@gmail.com
KEWL - THanks!! Smell ya - I mean Talk to ya - laaaaaater!
MUHAhahahaha
Barnard Frederick
Wow. You two really hate each other, don't you? Yet, the burning
question is: who cares? I have to wonder why either of you would think
anyone on r.b.t wants to hear it.
Sorni
> Wow. You two really hate each other, don't you? Yet, the burning
> question is: who cares? I have to wonder why either of you would
> think anyone on r.b.t wants to hear it.
I'm wondering what Ozark's /parents/ have to do with anything.
Bee...zarr.
Snippy Bobkins
news:1150836912.4...@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Dear Carl,
>
Dear Cheers,
Get over it. Get a life.
--
Snippy
carl...@comcast.net
Dear John,
Even odder is that Richard Malesweski's second post in this thread,
which you quote above and to which three people replied on RBT, has
vanished.
Perhaps that's a good sign.
Here's what Richard apparently decided to remove from Google:
"Stalk much, Carl? I think you have lost the distinction between the
Usenet/internet world and the *real* world. You need a break, pal.
Seek help."
"I could, of course, post your address, etc., but I won't do that."
Here's my reply:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/d5157abedde1cf9c
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Sorni
> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> On 20 Jun 2006 15:04:06 -0700, o...@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Stalk much, Carl? I think you have lost the distinction between the
>>> Usenet/internet world and the *real* world. You need a break, pal.
>>> Seek help.
>>
>> Considering that you recently dared a couple of people with criticism
>> that they say things online that they wouldn't do face-to-face, I
>> find it odd that you're now pointing out differenced between online
>> communication and the "real" world.
>>
>> JT
>>
>> ****************************
>> Remove "remove" to reply
>> Visit http://www.jt10000.com
>> ****************************
>
> Dear John,
>
> Even odder is that Richard Malesweski's second post in this thread,
> which you quote above and to which three people replied on RBT, has
> vanished.
It's still in the thread right where it was posted on my newsreader/server.
> Perhaps that's a good sign.
>
> Here's what Richard apparently decided to remove from Google:
>
> "Stalk much, Carl? I think you have lost the distinction between the
> Usenet/internet world and the *real* world. You need a break, pal.
> Seek help."
Um, JFT quoted that already -- just scroll up.
You do seem a tad obsessed; hope it gives you pleasure.
BS
carl...@comcast.net
A) You snipped Richard Malesweski's last sentence, which I included,
but John omitted:
"I could, of course, post your address, etc., but I won't do that."
When you "just scroll up," you also have to read what's on the screen.
Hint: look at my reply to that sentence and tell us what it was.
B) Look again--Richard Malesweski's second post was removed from
Google Groups, which allows authors to kill their own posts:
Richard cannot remove it from every server on the planet.
Hope this gives you pleasure.
Sorni
No, your posting his parents' names and addresses (and phone numbers? I
didn't want to read your garbage so I don't know) gives me no pleasure.
Says a lot about you, however.
"Not just Grumpy Geezer Gazoo, but hateful and lowlife, too."
Poet Bill
carl...@comcast.net
When your post consists of two obvious mistakes, pretend no one pointed
them out as A) and B).
Sorni
You said that his second post had "vanished". Period. Not true. You then
re-quoted something that he apparently (allegedly) wanted removed that was
already included in JFT's post. That was all I pointed out.
If you /only/ meant the part about posting your address and phone number,
then you should have said that.
Of course, your /really/ egregious error was posting personal information
about someone -- and his family -- in the first place. What kind of person
takes pleasure in embarrassing and possibly endangering (lots of kooks out
there) a man and his parents over a silly misunderstanding (or whatever
transpired between you two) on a stupid Usenet newsgroup of all things?
I knew you were smarmy, two-faced and a weasel. Guess we can add petty to
the list, too.
HAND. BS
John Forrest Tomlinson
<sorno...@sanno.rrspam.com> wrote:
>Um, JFT quoted that already -- just scroll up.
I think Carl's point is that Ozark may have decided to try to cancel
the message, out of embarrasment and hope of not escalating things.
The lattter would be a good sign. But cancellations rarely work fully
on usenet.
>You do seem a tad obsessed; hope it gives you pleasure.
Considering that Ozark started this with threats to Carl a few weeks
ago, a firm response seems approrpriate and normal. Perhaps some
people would just ignore Ozark, but to call Carl obsessed for
"counter-attacking" a person who has started a thread attacking him is
partisan at how this started.
Sit back and take another look at what started this.
John Forrest Tomlinson
<sorno...@sanno.rrspam.com> wrote:
>No, your posting his parents' names and addresses (and phone numbers? I
>didn't want to read your garbage so I don't know)
Isn't it Ozark's address too?
John Forrest Tomlinson
<sorno...@sanno.rrspam.com> wrote:
>You said that his second post had "vanished". Period. Not true. You then
>re-quoted something that he apparently (allegedly) wanted removed that was
>already included in JFT's post. That was all I pointed out.
Carl was wrong in using the word "vanished" without qualification.
It's vanished from the Google groups archive, but still exists in
other forms of usenet. Thanks for the clarification.
>
>If you /only/ meant the part about posting your address and phone number,
>then you should have said that.
>
>Of course, your /really/ egregious error was posting personal information
>about someone -- and his family -- in the first place. What kind of person
>takes pleasure in embarrassing and possibly endangering (lots of kooks out
>there) a man and his parents over a silly misunderstanding (or whatever
>transpired between you two) on a stupid Usenet newsgroup of all things?
Sorni, if you want to know about kooks, do some googling of this guy
Ozark. I've learned from this group that his name is Richard
Malesweski. Google "Richard Malesweski" and Ozark at the same time.
The first thread that shows up at the moment is one from Ozark
attacking Carl. Others are in rec.audio.opinion in which it seems like
Ozark posts under several different names and has a lot of people who
despise him. That doesn't prove anything, but browse around a bit in
there.
Lest you think I'm a stalker/kook too, I decided to take a look as a
precaution before meeting Ozark in person. Despite some rather severe
accusations against him, I'm stll going to go through the face-to-face
with him.
Even if you agree with him about helmets or about the people who are
sceptical of helmets, I'd urge you to try to learn more about this
fellow before you merely defend him out-of-hand on other topics.
RonSonic
R.A.O?!?!?!?!?!?!?
The freeking Mos Eisley of Usenet.
All the wreck audio groups are well, wrecks. That one's the worst.
I barely got out of R.A.T with my life. R.A.O is a sewer of villiany.
Ron
Sorni
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 07:37:11 GMT, "Sorni"
> <sorno...@sanno.rrspam.com> wrote:
>
>
>> You said that his second post had "vanished". Period. Not true.
>> You then re-quoted something that he apparently (allegedly) wanted
>> removed that was already included in JFT's post. That was all I
>> pointed out.
>
> Carl was wrong in using the word "vanished" without qualification.
> It's vanished from the Google groups archive, but still exists in
> other forms of usenet. Thanks for the clarification.
Thanks for being objective enough to say that. Appreciated.
>> If you /only/ meant the part about posting your address and phone
>> number, then you should have said that.
>>
>> Of course, your /really/ egregious error was posting personal
>> information about someone -- and his family -- in the first place.
>> What kind of person takes pleasure in embarrassing and possibly
>> endangering (lots of kooks out there) a man and his parents over a
>> silly misunderstanding (or whatever transpired between you two) on a
>> stupid Usenet newsgroup of all things?
>
>
> Sorni, if you want to know about kooks, do some googling of this guy
> Ozark. I've learned from this group that his name is Richard
> Malesweski. Google "Richard Malesweski" and Ozark at the same time.
> The first thread that shows up at the moment is one from Ozark
> attacking Carl. Others are in rec.audio.opinion in which it seems like
> Ozark posts under several different names and has a lot of people who
> despise him. That doesn't prove anything, but browse around a bit in
> there.
My only point -- and granted I don't know everything about what transpired
between Fogel and Ozark -- is that Carl apparently sent him a letter of some
sort, and when Ozark made it public, Carl then posted link after link about
the man /and his family/. Just seems like that sort of crap is stepping
over the bounds of propriety to me -- sort of like people who've gone from
Usenet flame wars to contacting people's employers and trying to get them
fired. To me that's just over the line. Usenet is not "real life" -- or
shouldn't be -- and some people seem to have difficulty separating the two,
> Lest you think I'm a stalker/kook too, I decided to take a look as a
> precaution before meeting Ozark in person. Despite some rather severe
> accusations against him, I'm stll going to go through the face-to-face
> with him.
>
> Even if you agree with him about helmets or about the people who are
> sceptical of helmets, I'd urge you to try to learn more about this
> fellow before you merely defend him out-of-hand on other topics.
I hardly defend him out of hand (for example, I'm sure we'll fall to
oppsosing sides the next time a /political/ argument unfolds). I simply
think that Fogel went too far -- again -- and if indeed his "victim" is a
"bad guy", then that should be even /further/ reason to show some restraint.
(BTW, our apparent agreement over the helmet issue had very little to do
with our so-called alliance in the recent flame wars. It was much more
about arrogance, condescension, dishonest tactics, etc. While I sort of
cringed more than once at some of his comments, I at least understood his
frustration and striking back. Did he go too far a few times -- or more
than a few times? Sure. That doesn't mean someone should keep poking him
weeks later...AND involve his family, IMO.
Whatever.
BS
Sorni
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 06:58:54 GMT, "Sorni"
> <sorno...@sanno.rrspam.com> wrote:
>
>
>> No, your posting his parents' names and addresses (and phone
>> numbers? I didn't want to read your garbage so I don't know)
>
> Isn't it Ozark's address too?
Who the heck cares? The links I looked at -- briefly -- mentioned the man's
mother's and father's names. What is Fogel trying to prove or accomplish?
It's a bush move. Period.
Sorni
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 05:52:32 GMT, "Sorni"
> <sorno...@sanno.rrspam.com> wrote:
>
>> Um, JFT quoted that already -- just scroll up.
>
> I think Carl's point is that Ozark may have decided to try to cancel
> the message, out of embarrasment and hope of not escalating things.
> The lattter would be a good sign. But cancellations rarely work fully
> on usenet.
>
>> You do seem a tad obsessed; hope it gives you pleasure.
>
> Considering that Ozark started this with threats to Carl a few weeks
> ago, a firm response seems approrpriate and normal. Perhaps some
> people would just ignore Ozark, but to call Carl obsessed for
> "counter-attacking" a person who has started a thread attacking him is
> partisan at how this started.
>
> Sit back and take another look at what started this.
I only see someone's family being dragged into it. (And weeks after the
initial spat at that.)
It's over the line.
o...@ozarkbicycleservice.com
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
snipped
>
>
> Sorni, if you want to know about kooks, do some googling of this guy
> Ozark. I've learned from this group that his name is Richard
> Malesweski. Google "Richard Malesweski" and Ozark at the same time.
> The first thread that shows up at the moment is one from Ozark
> attacking Carl. Others are in rec.audio.opinion in which it seems like
> Ozark posts under several different names and has a lot of people who
> despise him. That doesn't prove anything, but browse around a bit in
> there.
>
rec.audio.opinion, eh?
Perhaps a little background is in order:
I did post to RAO at one time, but always under my own name. My last
post was, IIRC, around the end of '99/beginning of 2000. Last year, I
had a reason to take a look at RAO and how my name was being smeared
there. Pretty amazing how people will make things up out of whole
cloth. Are they insane, or just vicious?
Instead of looking at what happened to my name on RAO, let's look at
what happened to some other people, all respected professionals with
verifible identities. Then you can decide how much weight to accord
what goes on on RAO.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First up is Howard Ferstler. Howard is a well known audio/video writer
and reviewer. Here's his bio:
You can contact Howard at:
ferstler /at/ att.global/dot/net
and ask him about RAO
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Next up is James "Jim" Johnston. "jj" is a leading fiure in the world
of audio codecs. Formerly with Bell Labs, he now is with Microsoft. His
bio:
You can probably contact jj through MS and ask him about RAO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Next is Arnold Krueger. "Arny" is a well known figure in the audio
world and was a featured guest at the Stereophile-sponsered "HE2005"
a/v show last year.
Here's his website:
There's a contact link for Arny on the site. Ask him about RAO.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------0
Lastly, we have Bill Watkins. Bill was the inventor of the
Infinity-Watkins Dual Drive woofer, "sound muffs" and other
innovations. Here is his website:
Ask Bill about his RAO "experiences".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RAO is a cesspool, full of accusations of criminal activity,
sockpuppetry, necrophilia, pedophilia and worse. People who haven't
posted in years are accused of using "sockpuppets" whenever a new
poster shows their face. The driving force behind this insanity is an
anonymous person (or persons) posting under the name "George M.
Middius". Here are a few examples of what this entity posts on RAO:
(to help decode the babble, I will recluctantly post this:
Middius refers to Howard ferstler as "clerkie", to Jim Johnston as
"phoebe", witchy" and the "telco witch", to Arny Krueger as "Arnii",
"Krooger' and several other names and, finally, to Bill Watkins as
"Booby Wumpkins".)
And now, some samples of what goes on on RAO:
How much credibility would you give anything this "person" and his
cohorts post on Usenet, or anywhere else?
carl...@comcast.net
<sorno...@sanno.rrspam.com> wrote:
>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 07:37:11 GMT, "Sorni"
>> <sorno...@sanno.rrspam.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> You said that his second post had "vanished". Period. Not true.
>>> You then re-quoted something that he apparently (allegedly) wanted
>>> removed that was already included in JFT's post. That was all I
>>> pointed out.
>>
>> Carl was wrong in using the word "vanished" without qualification.
>> It's vanished from the Google groups archive, but still exists in
>> other forms of usenet. Thanks for the clarification.
>
>Thanks for being objective enough to say that. Appreciated.
[snip]
If anyone bothers to read the post, they'll see this:
"Here's what Richard apparently decided to remove from Google:"
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/36b9d8f76f8d4896
That looks like a clear and obvious qualification to me. (John just
made the mistake of thinking that Sorni bothers to read things before
he starts typing.)
As for the rest, it's amusing to see Sorni working himself up into a
lather about privacy because I posted a link to public phone
directory that shows who actually lives at the address and telephone
number that Richard Malesweski posts on the only page of his public
web site.
Even more amusing is the implied notion that Richard's father Michael
is somehow harmed by this.
After all, here's what Richard claims was the reaction:
"We both got a hoot out of it."
Of course, if you prefer to think that Richard is lying and that his
father never saw the letter below, that's up to you. I'm willing to
believe that Richard and his father are alike, just as I'm willing to
believe that he's lying about his father getting a hoot out of it.
With only Richard's word for what happened, there's no way for us to
tell whether his father enjoys obscene posts, too.
Obviously, Richard is lying when he claimed in his opening post that
"Nothing will change"--Richard is now backing off the obscene nonsense
that led me to ask his father if he could do anything about his
56-year-old little boy. Disagreement is fine with me, and I'll put up
with his stalking my posts in unrelated threads. But I'm glad to see
less of his feces smeared on the newsgroup walls.
Sorni
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 16:11:36 GMT, "Sorni"
> <sorno...@sanno.rrspam.com> wrote:
>
>> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>> On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 07:37:11 GMT, "Sorni"
>>> <sorno...@sanno.rrspam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> You said that his second post had "vanished". Period. Not true.
>>>> You then re-quoted something that he apparently (allegedly) wanted
>>>> removed that was already included in JFT's post. That was all I
>>>> pointed out.
>>>
>>> Carl was wrong in using the word "vanished" without qualification.
>>> It's vanished from the Google groups archive, but still exists in
>>> other forms of usenet. Thanks for the clarification.
>>
>> Thanks for being objective enough to say that. Appreciated.
>
> [snip]
>
> If anyone bothers to read the post, they'll see this:
>
> "Here's what Richard apparently decided to remove from Google:"
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/36b9d8f76f8d4896
>
> That looks like a clear and obvious qualification to me. (John just
> made the mistake of thinking that Sorni bothers to read things before
> he starts typing.)
Ya got me there alright, Grumps. I already said I had ZERO INTEREST in
reading a bunch of personal information about a poster's mother and father.
Once I saw what you were up to, I simply shook my head that you'd stoop to
new low (even for you).
Wow, had to scroll through a lot MORE that I have no interest in reading.
(All that stuff excuses your scummy behavior /how/ exactly?)
You're a petty, vindicative, hateful old coot. All you've accomplished is
to reinforce that opinion. Way to go.
Latherless Bill
o...@ozarkbicycleservice.com
carl...@comcast.net wrote:
<extraneous Fogelesque horseshit snipped>
> Obviously, Richard is lying when he claimed in his opening post that
> "Nothing will change"
Yep, you're right, Carl. You sure kicked my ass and straightened me
out. You da Man, Carl!
I can see my comments about Krygowski and the inflatable doll are
outside the bounds of what you'll tolerate, and I'll never let it
happen again.
I do have a question, though: do you call your inflatable "Peggy"?
"Plus ca change, plus c'est le meme chose"
;-)
carl...@comcast.net
Bill Sorenson and Richard Malesweksi, two of a kind:
"All I know is my Crossmax XLs (rear hub especially) blow goats."
"Bill 'and no, that was not a shot at Fogel' S. "
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/6afdf92ac69e9930
John Forrest Tomlinson
>shouldn't be -- and some people seem to have difficulty separating the two,
Perhaps if Ozark considered any communication to be "real" this
wouldn't escalate and people like him would think a little more
carefully about what they say. I'm perfectly happy to say the same
things I've said online in face-to-face meetings. I don't hide behind
some pseudonym here either.
Ozark, in the past at least, speculated that some people (me and
another) wouldn't act the same in person as we do in this group. Well
I do. I take words seriously. If that means thinking usenet is "real
life" then so much the better. If Ozark or anyone can't deal with
that, they should shut up here.
o...@ozarkbicycleservice.com
carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> Sorni wrote:
<more Fogelesque horseshiy snipped>
> >
> > Wow, had to scroll through a lot MORE that I have no interest in reading.
> > (All that stuff excuses your scummy behavior /how/ exactly?)
> >
> > You're a petty, vindicative, hateful old coot. All you've accomplished is
> > to reinforce that opinion. Way to go.
> >
> > Latherless Bill
>
> Bill Sorenson and Richard Malesweksi, two of a kind:
>
> "All I know is my Crossmax XLs (rear hub especially) blow goats."
>
> "Bill 'and no, that was not a shot at Fogel' S. "
>
You're coming unhinged, Fogey. Go visit "Peggy".
John Forrest Tomlinson
<sorno...@sanno.rrspam.com> wrote:
>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 06:58:54 GMT, "Sorni"
>> <sorno...@sanno.rrspam.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> No, your posting his parents' names and addresses (and phone
>>> numbers? I didn't want to read your garbage so I don't know)
>>
>> Isn't it Ozark's address too?
>
>Who the heck cares?
[snips]
> What is Fogel trying to prove or accomplish?
The point is that Ozark may well be an intellectually immature
teenager living with his parents, or possibly an adult mooching off
his parents for far too long. If he's going to go around insulting
people on their age and other things, then it seems fair for him to
catch flack in return.
Of course, perhaps he's a responsible adult caring for his aging
parents, or lives in a very loving home where the family can't bear to
be apart. If so, more power to him.
John Forrest Tomlinson
<sorno...@sanno.rrspam.com> wrote:
>carl...@comcast.net wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 16:11:36 GMT, "Sorni"
>> <sorno...@sanno.rrspam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 07:37:11 GMT, "Sorni"
>>>> <sorno...@sanno.rrspam.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> You said that his second post had "vanished". Period. Not true.
>>>>> You then re-quoted something that he apparently (allegedly) wanted
>>>>> removed that was already included in JFT's post. That was all I
>>>>> pointed out.
>>>>
>>>> Carl was wrong in using the word "vanished" without qualification.
>>>> It's vanished from the Google groups archive, but still exists in
>>>> other forms of usenet. Thanks for the clarification.
>>>
>>> Thanks for being objective enough to say that. Appreciated.
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> If anyone bothers to read the post, they'll see this:
>>
>> "Here's what Richard apparently decided to remove from Google:"
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/36b9d8f76f8d4896
>>
>> That looks like a clear and obvious qualification to me. (John just
>> made the mistake of thinking that Sorni bothers to read things before
>> he starts typing.)
>
>Ya got me there alright, Grumps.
I give you benefit of the doubt and you just don't care about accuracy
and instead turn things around with another insult and a begrudging
"apology." That's classy.
I'm reminded of your "who the hell are you" bit -- you're either
mentally weak or a very good liar.
John Forrest Tomlinson
<usenet...@jt10000.com> wrote:
>
>The point is that Ozark may well be an intellectually immature
>teenager living with his parents, or possibly an adult mooching off
>his parents for far too long. If he's going to go around insulting
>people on their age and other things, then it seems fair for him to
>catch flack in return.
I meant "flak."
And I lived with my parents for several years after grad school.
carl...@comcast.net
<usenet...@jt10000.com> wrote:
Dear John,
There's nothing wrong with children living with their parents. My
mother's home from the hospital right now.
My point is that if children start writing the kind of stuff that
Richard Malesweski writes on the newsgroup, we'll end up a cesspool
like rec.audio.opinion, so it's sensible to ask their parents if they
can do anything.
According to Richard, his father Michael enjoys reading his son's
obscene posts. I expect that Richard is just lying as usual. What
parent would be amused by his 56-year-old son posting such things in
public?
Compare the two obscene posts below, and see where the newsgroup is
heading. Richard Malesweski is doing everything in RBT that he did in
RAO. These posts are just examples of what he likes to post.
Note that Richard Malesweski ("Tony Loban") is claiming elsewhere in
this thread that he always posted under his own name in
rec.audio.opinion--another typical lie.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
[Richard Malesweski wrote as "Tony Loban":]
Please complete this phrase:
George Middius is the masrer...
A)baiter
B)hater
C)masturbator
D)all of the above
Vote early, vote often.
Results will be announced on Thursday, Day of the Turkey
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/62a729e4404dddbd
[Richard Malesweski wrote:]
Let's do yet another poll:
We're looking for opinions here:
1) Is Frank Krygowski in a clueless asshole?
and
2) Is it true Frank Krygowski screws inflatable sex dolls because the
all the available data indicates it is both less expensive and safer
than having intercourse with an actual human female? (Plus, they can't
say "no".)
and
3) Is Frank Krygowski just an all around jerk-off who just pulls his
pud after dipping his hand in a Sam's Club sized vat of petroleum
jelly
whilst reading RBT?
Vote early and vote often!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/35e057f174bba11a
Jeff Starr
<sorno...@sanno.rrspam.com> wrote:
>carl...@comcast.net wrote:
What I get a kick out of is that he keeps posting all the insults at
Frank. Lest we forget, there they are again. Post something once and
it usually gets lost in all the other posts. Post it again and again,
it begins to stand out. Seems to me Frank is getting the worst of
those posts;-)
The whole thing is rather pathetic. It's like porn spam, you don't go
looking for it, but if it is there, you just have to take a peek. Kind
of like that;-)
Life is Good!
Jeff
o...@ozarkbicycleservice.com
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
<snipped>
>
> Of course, perhaps he's a responsible adult caring for his aging
> parents
Bingo. And the only child, to boot. So, sad to say, it's me or a
"managed care" facility. I don't want to see my parents warehoused.
Sorni
And this excuses your scummy behaviour /how/, exactly? (BTW, I thought it
was funny, you old goat.)
People can read the threads and see what /you/ ignore or refuse to address,
and judge your behavior accordingly.
You stepped over the line. Period.
(BTW, is that a "cunning mis-spelling {sic} of my name, Professor Gazoo?
LOL )
Sorni
You /of course/ deleted the very next thing I wrote, disingenuoso. I didn't
read what the old goat posted because I find it HIGHLY OBJECTIONABLE to post
personal information about NG members /and their families/.
Try being honest just once.
> I'm reminded of your "who the hell are you" bit -- you're either
> mentally weak or a very good liar.
Gosh, I guess I /should/ have remembered my exact quote to someone from two
weeks earlier -- especially when the meaning is so VASTLY different betweeen
"who are you?" and "who the hell are you?". GUILTY AS CHARGED, MASTER!
{Rolls Eyes}
John Forrest Tomlinson
Are you still going to be able to get away to come to NYC as you had
planned?
Sorni
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 16:11:36 GMT, "Sorni"
> <sorno...@sanno.rrspam.com> wrote:
>> Usenet is not "real life" -- or
>> shouldn't be -- and some people seem to have difficulty separating
>> the two,
>
> Perhaps if Ozark considered any communication to be "real" this
> wouldn't escalate and people like him would think a little more
> carefully about what they say. I'm perfectly happy to say the same
> things I've said online in face-to-face meetings. I don't hide behind
> some pseudonym here either.
>
> Ozark, in the past at least, speculated that some people (me and
> another) wouldn't act the same in person as we do in this group. Well
> I do. I take words seriously. If that means thinking usenet is "real
> life" then so much the better. If Ozark or anyone can't deal with
> that, they should shut up here.
And this relates to Fogel posting info on Ozark's /parents/ how exactly?!?
o...@ozarkbicycleservice.com
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On 21 Jun 2006 18:07:27 -0700, o...@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote:
>
> >
> >John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> >
> ><snipped>
> >>
> >> Of course, perhaps he's a responsible adult caring for his aging
> >> parents
> >
> >Bingo. And the only child, to boot. So, sad to say, it's me or a
> >"managed care" facility. I don't want to see my parents warehoused.
>
> Are you still going to be able to get away to come to NYC as you had
> planned?
>
A week or two away is not usually a problem, soI really do hope to make
the East Coast trip, but the time frame is still a bit loosey-goosey.
Depends on the schedule of a few friends and on nailing down an
acceptable and available place in Wellfleet, MA for a several days. I
will keep you posted, as promised, John.
Sorni
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 18:44:55 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
> <usenet...@jt10000.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> The point is that Ozark may well be an intellectually immature
>> teenager living with his parents, or possibly an adult mooching off
>> his parents for far too long. If he's going to go around insulting
>> people on their age and other things, then it seems fair for him to
>> catch flack in return.
>
> I meant "flak."
>
> And I lived with my parents for several years after grad school.
None of which would even be in discussion if Fogel hadn't gone out of his
way to find out personal information about a NG member, SEND HIS PARENTS A
LETTER (big fat tattle tale LOL ), and then POST their personal info on
Usenet where any nutjob can see it and possibly use it.
I know everyone's afraid to criticize the Verbose Professor lest they be the
victim of his razor-sharp keyboard, but by any objective standard he crossed
the line of acceptable behavior. It's flat wrong.
John Forrest Tomlinson
<sorno...@sanno.rrspam.com> wrote:
>You /of course/ deleted the very next thing I wrote, disingenuoso.
I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about the insult "grumps."
We're not required to respond to every single sentence you write.
>I didn't
>read what the old goat posted because I find it HIGHLY OBJECTIONABLE to post
>personal information about NG members /and their families/.
>Try being honest just once.
Now you're telling me that you post responses to other people's posts
without even reading the whole post? And yet *I'm* the bad buy for not
re-posting *your* stuff in its entirety?
You just blew my mind. I can't believe you'd say something that
absurd in public.
>
>> I'm reminded of your "who the hell are you" bit -- you're either
>> mentally weak or a very good liar.
>
>Gosh, I guess I /should/ have remembered my exact quote to someone from two
>weeks earlier -- especially when the meaning is so VASTLY different betweeen
>"who are you?" and "who the hell are you?". GUILTY AS CHARGED, MASTER!
I'm not charging you with forgetting. I'm charging you with lying --
with faking the second quote to sweep your obnoxiusness away.
I actually went back to that afterwards and was even more convinced
you were lying. Why? Because I criticised you very shortly after the
first time you used "hell" and you had another post referrring to
that. So you posted the words hell and then you posted someone about
my calling it a curse word. And then you claim to have forgotten that
issue. Amazing.
If your memory is really that poor then I can understand now why you
keep wanting people to re-post what you write. But if it's really
that bad (which I doubt -- I think you were lying) then I'd urge you
to write a lot less and read a lot more. Or take notes and be more
careful before you write.
[repost]
>remembered my exact quote
BTW -- if you're going to put something in quotation marks, as you did
with your cleaned up version of your question to Helen, the reader is
going to think it's an actual quotation -- not a paraphrase. Did they
teach you that when you were getting that degree you mentioned
earlier? I imagine they did. All the more reason to think you were
trying to deceive us or sweep your obnoxious question away.
John Forrest Tomlinson
<sorno...@sanno.rrspam.com> wrote:
[some more stuff]
It's remarkable how you keep posting about things you purport to not
care about.
And you complain about me being dishonest!
Sorni
> On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 01:16:15 GMT, "Sorni"
> <sorno...@sanno.rrspam.com> wrote:
>
>
>> You /of course/ deleted the very next thing I wrote, disingenuoso.
>
> I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about the insult "grumps."
> We're not required to respond to every single sentence you write.
Fogel has shown himself to be a hateful, deceitful weasel. I hardly think
calling him "grumps" is out of line.
>> I didn't
>> read what the old goat posted because I find it HIGHLY OBJECTIONABLE
>> to post personal information about NG members /and their families/.
>> Try being honest just once.
>
> Now you're telling me that you post responses to other people's posts
> without even reading the whole post? And yet *I'm* the bad buy for not
> re-posting *your* stuff in its entirety?
Re-read the thread John. I already said I clicked on a few of Fogels /many/
links -- saw what they were (information about Ozark's mother and father) --
and closed them because I have no interest whatsoever in reading that crap.
It's out of bounds.
Sigh. I'll go find it again. Read the top of this page:
http://www.humorsphere.com/simpsons/bart-simpson-quotes.htm
John Forrest Tomlinson
<sorno...@sanno.rrspam.com> wrote:
>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 01:16:15 GMT, "Sorni"
>> <sorno...@sanno.rrspam.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> You /of course/ deleted the very next thing I wrote, disingenuoso.
>>
>> I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about the insult "grumps."
>> We're not required to respond to every single sentence you write.
>
>Fogel has shown himself to be a hateful, deceitful weasel. I hardly think
>calling him "grumps" is out of line.
>
>
>>> I didn't
>>> read what the old goat posted because I find it HIGHLY OBJECTIONABLE
>>> to post personal information about NG members /and their families/.
>>> Try being honest just once.
>>
>> Now you're telling me that you post responses to other people's posts
>> without even reading the whole post? And yet *I'm* the bad buy for not
>> re-posting *your* stuff in its entirety?
>
>Re-read the thread John.
No. *You* re-read what *you wrote* a few posts ago. You're a
hypocrite or an idiot or both to think that it's valid to criticize
other people for not re-posting large amounts of material from you
when they are only responding to a particular point, and yet you will
not even do other people the courtesy of reading enough of their post
to draw reasonable conclusions.
If some part of their post is so objectionable to you that you don't
want to read more, then don't. That's your perogative. But if you
choose to respond from a position of ignorance, don't object when you
make mistakes and get called on it.
You know the more I read of your stuff the more child-like you seem.
And not child-like in the joyful/curious way. Rather child-like in
the sense of thinking that the world, and particularly logic, revolve
around you and are not general principles. You're way too subjective.
Sorni
> On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 01:27:50 GMT, "Sorni"
> <sorno...@sanno.rrspam.com> wrote:
>
> [some more stuff]
>
> It's remarkable how you keep posting about things you purport to not
> care about.
Let's put it back then:
"None of which would even be in discussion {your living with your parents}
if Fogel hadn't gone out of his way to find out personal information about a
NG member, SEND HIS PARENTS A LETTER (big fat tattle tale ), and then POST
their personal info on Usenet where any nutjob can see it and possibly use
it.
I know everyone's afraid to criticize the Verbose Professor lest they be the
victim of his razor-sharp keyboard, but by any objective standard he crossed
the line of acceptable behavior. It's flat wrong."
I /don't/ care about Ozark's parents' address, phone number, medical
conditions, etc. I /do/ care about sleazy behavior like posting people's
personal information on Usenet. I trust that even you can discern the
distinction.
> And you complain about me being dishonest!
Yes, I do /because you keep exhibiting it/. HTH.
You're back to humping my every post, apparently, so answer this: do you
condone what Fogel did? In case you're going to pretend to not know, I'll
refresh it for you. He apparently sent Ozark's parents a letter (IRL, not
an e-mail), and then published their personal information (names, addresses,
living situations) on the web -- AFTER doing an extensive search for that
material, obviously.
So you think that's acceptable? Nothing wrong with it? Par for the Usenet
course?
I think it's over the line. Period.
BS (and a lot of it)
John Forrest Tomlinson
<sorno...@sanno.rrspam.com> wrote:
>You're back to humping my every post, apparently, so answer this: do you
>condone what Fogel did?
I've don't like and don't dislike it. I wouldn't do it myself, but
can understand why he did.
John Forrest Tomlinson
<sorno...@sanno.rrspam.com> wrote:
[yet more stuff]
Wow. You're still posting away.
Sorni
> On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 02:04:24 GMT, "Sorni"
> <sorno...@sanno.rrspam.com> wrote:
>
> [yet more stuff]
>
> Wow. You're still posting away.
Wow. You're still humping away.
o...@ozarkbicycleservice.com
Is your leg getting sore? ;-)
Sorni
> On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 01:52:52 GMT, "Sorni"
>>>> I didn't
>>>> read what the old goat posted because I find it HIGHLY
>>>> OBJECTIONABLE to post personal information about NG members /and
>>>> their families/. Try being honest just once.
>>> Now you're telling me that you post responses to other people's
>>> posts without even reading the whole post? And yet *I'm* the bad
>>> buy for not re-posting *your* stuff in its entirety?
>>
>> Re-read the thread John.
>
> No. *You* re-read what *you wrote* a few posts ago.
No need to go back that far. Here's what you deleted right after I told you
to re-read the thread:
"I already said I clicked on a few of Fogel's many links -- saw what they
were (information about Ozark's mother and father) -- and closed them
because I have no interest whatsoever in reading that crap. It's out of
bounds."
HTH.
John Forrest Tomlinson
<sorno...@sanno.rrspam.com> wrote:
>You /of course/ deleted the very next thing I wrote, disingenuoso. I didn't
>read what the old goat posted because I find it HIGHLY OBJECTIONABLE
Sorry, but I just have to come back to this. Amazing -- combining an
insult to my honesty for not re-posting more of what you wrote, with
an admission that you didn't read someone else's stuff (to which you
responded anyway). Just amazing. You've got some nerve to put those
elements together.
Disengenous? You're the guy who claims to have forgotten using the
word "hell" in a sentence, despite being criticised for it and
responding to that right after the fact. You're the guy who ragged on
someone in this thread for the way they characterized an old post
being cancelled or not appearing. Ragged on him *twice.* And then
it's shown that that was not true and his characterization was
accurate..
And yet *I'm* disengenous? When you're the one who seems to forget
things or characterize them in ways that are wrong but happen to
support your point of view? Do you really believe yourself?
Yeah, maybe you're not a liar. Maybe you really are just sloppy. Or
maybe you follow the tenant "It's not a lie if you believe it
yourself."
Sorni
I might have to put on long pants so he doesn't starch my /flipflops/!
Bill "Eeewwwwwwww" S.
John Forrest Tomlinson
At least I don't claim to not be interested. Odd for someone who is
often so disengenous, don't you think?
John Forrest Tomlinson
<sorno...@sanno.rrspam.com> wrote:
Sure it "helps." It's confirmnig that you're an excessively
subjective person who follows one rule of behaviour for himself (read
or don't read, but still respond) and another other people (they'd
better read more of what I write, and repost more of it).
John Forrest Tomlinson
What is it with you two and sexuality for insults?
o...@ozarkbicycleservice.com
But, his "razor-sharp keyboard" isn't much. eh? A little smarm, a few
back-handed insuults, some phony "helpfulness". After that, he's down
to forwarding private emails, unsolicited, to third parties and posting
personal information on the internet. What's next, some crank phone
calls?
> but by any objective standard he crossed
> the line of acceptable behavior. It's flat wrong.
Fogel fancies himself the policeman of Usenet, as well as the arbiter
of proper behavior. He can do no wrong.
Sorni
> On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 02:14:48 GMT, "Sorni"
> <sorno...@sanno.rrspam.com> wrote:
>
>> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>> On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 02:04:24 GMT, "Sorni"
>>> <sorno...@sanno.rrspam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> [yet more stuff]
>>>
>>> Wow. You're still posting away.
>>
>> Wow. You're still humping away.
> At least I don't claim to not be interested. Odd for someone who is
> often so disengenous, don't you think?
You replied /twice/ to the same post, the second time to remark that *I* was
still posting away! LOL Too rich.
You also conveniently ignored and/or deleted what I wrote about this
"interest issue" of yours, so I'll go get it. (Sigh.)
"I /don't/ care about Ozark's parents' address, phone number, medical
conditions, etc. I /do/ care about sleazy behavior like posting people's
personal information on Usenet. I trust that even you can discern the
distinction."
Now watch you trim it /again/ and then say how "interested" I am.
It's a sleazy tactic, John, even for you.
OK, hump away, Humpsterson. This is too boring to continue...
BS
PS: Please learn how to spell 'disingenuous'. After all, you exemplify it
pretty damned well.
o...@ozarkbicycleservice.com
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On 21 Jun 2006 19:18:27 -0700, o...@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote:
>
> >
> >Sorni wrote:
> >> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> >> > On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 02:04:24 GMT, "Sorni"
> >> > <sorno...@sanno.rrspam.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > [yet more stuff]
> >> >
> >> > Wow. You're still posting away.
> >>
> >> Wow. You're still humping away.
> >
> >
> >Is your leg getting sore? ;-)
>
> What is it with you two and sexuality for insults?
>
Are we offending you, you little sensitive tank? Contact Perfesser
Fogel; perhaps you can have a party. He already has the whine, you can
bring the cheeze.
Sorni
> On 21 Jun 2006 19:18:27 -0700, o...@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote:
>
>>
>> Sorni wrote:
>>> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 02:04:24 GMT, "Sorni"
>>>> <sorno...@sanno.rrspam.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [yet more stuff]
>>>>
>>>> Wow. You're still posting away.
>>>
>>> Wow. You're still humping away.
>>
>>
>> Is your leg getting sore? ;-)
>
> What is it with you two and sexuality for insults?
Again, JFT shows he knows little or nothing of common expressions. (The
first being "Who the hell are you?" from good ol' Bart.)
"Post humping" alludes to a dog on a person's leg, John. It's hardly
"sexuality for insults" and I certainly didn't coin it. Been used in AM-B
for many years.
HTH (doubt it).
R Brickston
<carl...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:i59j92d5a5hg2ti6e...@4ax.com...
>
> Below, I'm sorry to say, is an example of what's coming from
> the computer in your home. Any librarian can go to the
> newsgroup's archives at
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech
>
> and search for posts including the words "ozark" and
> "asshole" (or similar words from the post below by Richard)
> and show you dozens of examples of the same sort of thing.
Wait... you can search the newsgroups on Google?
carl...@comcast.net
<rb2017...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
><carl...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:i59j92d5a5hg2ti6e...@4ax.com...
>>
>> Below, I'm sorry to say, is an example of what's coming from
>> the computer in your home. Any librarian can go to the
>> newsgroup's archives at
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech
>>
>> and search for posts including the words "ozark" and
>> "asshole" (or similar words from the post below by Richard)
>> and show you dozens of examples of the same sort of thing.
>
>Wait... you can search the newsgroups on Google?
Dear RB,
Sure. Click on the link below:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech
Your screen will show the threads for RBT. The threads are shown in
the order of the most recent posts.
Put in "jobst" in the right-hand box next to "search this group" and
you'll get this screen:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/search?group=rec.bicycles.tech&q=jobst&qt_g=1
It should show about 38,300 results in the RBT archives for posts
containing "jobst".
But Jobst is actually only human, so click on the "advanced groups
search" in the middle near the top, and you get this screen:
http://groups.google.com/advanced_search?q=jobst&
Remove the "jobst" in the top box next to "with all the words," put
"rec.bicycles.tech" in the "group" box, stuff
"jobst....@stanfordalumni.org" in the author box, and hit enter.
You get this screen, which reduces Jobst's RBT postings to a more
human 4,890:
Hit the browser back button, stuff "fogel" into the "with all the
words" box, hit enter, and you get a screen that shows poor Jobst
dealing with "fogel" 161 times:
Here's a trick that many people miss. Jobst has undoubtedly been
plagued by "fogel" more than 161 times. Click on the "17" at the
bottom to go to the end of the results, and you get this screen:
Notice at the bottom where it says that Google omitted some very
similar entries? Click on the "repeat-search-with-omitted-results"
link, and you get:
Now there are 380 results. Google tends to show only one hit per
thread, so it's easy to miss the post that you're looking for if it's
in a large thread and Google omits it because it stopped at the first
match in the thread.
Another trick that many people don't know involves linking to the post
that you want, not to a 10-post display. Click on the "show options"
at the top of the post that you want, and then click on "individual
message"--this takes you to a screen that shows just the message that
you want, and you can cut and paste its address into a post:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/c467be1f35e0a9e3
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Michael Press
"Sorni" <sorno...@sanno.rrspam.com> wrote:
> begin 666 lol.gif
Do not post binaries to r.b.t.
--
Michael Press
Sorni
> In article <IUmmg.20294$uy3...@tornado.socal.rr.com>,
> "Sorni" <sorno...@sanno.rrspam.com> wrote:
>> begin 666 lol.gif
> Do not post binaries to r.b.t.
Seems to happen when copying and pasting text that contains an emoticon.
For example, :) is a smiley face. However, if one copies that sentence and
pastes it in a reply, then it becomes an attachment for some reason.
Hope you recover from the trauma. :-D
Bad Boy Billy
John Forrest Tomlinson
<sorno...@sanno.rrspam.com> wrote:
>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> On 21 Jun 2006 19:18:27 -0700, o...@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Sorni wrote:
>>>> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 02:04:24 GMT, "Sorni"
>>>>> <sorno...@sanno.rrspam.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> [yet more stuff]
>>>>>
>>>>> Wow. You're still posting away.
>>>>
>>>> Wow. You're still humping away.
>>>
>>>
>>> Is your leg getting sore? ;-)
>>
>> What is it with you two and sexuality for insults?
>
>Again, JFT shows he knows little or nothing of common expressions. (The
>first being "Who the hell are you?" from good ol' Bart.)
>
>"Post humping" alludes to a dog on a person's leg, John.
That's a sex act by a dog.
John Forrest Tomlinson
<sorno...@sanno.rrspam.com> wrote:
>Michael Press wrote:
>> In article <IUmmg.20294$uy3...@tornado.socal.rr.com>,
>> "Sorni" <sorno...@sanno.rrspam.com> wrote:
>
>>> begin 666 lol.gif
>
>> Do not post binaries to r.b.t.
>
>Seems to happen when copying and pasting text that contains an emoticon.
>
>For example, :) is a smiley face. However, if one copies that sentence and
>pastes it in a reply, then it becomes an attachment for some reason.
You post from Outlook Express I believe. There should be a way to
disable that under Tools > Options.
Or perhaps try a different newsreader.
>Hope you recover from the trauma. :-D
Typical -- a snide remark instead of a simple apology.
Jeff Starr
<usenet...@jt10000.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> What is it with you two and sexuality for insults?
>>
>>Again, JFT shows he knows little or nothing of common expressions. (The
>>first being "Who the hell are you?" from good ol' Bart.)
>>
>>"Post humping" alludes to a dog on a person's leg, John.
>
>That's a sex act by a dog.
>
>JT
>
You really are an idiot, but in this case a funny idiot.
Thanks for the laugh.
Life is Good!
Jeff
Sorni
> On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 02:42:04 GMT, "Sorni"
> <sorno...@sanno.rrspam.com> wrote:
>
>> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>> On 21 Jun 2006 19:18:27 -0700, o...@ozarkbicycleservice.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sorni wrote:
>>>>> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 02:04:24 GMT, "Sorni"
>>>>>> <sorno...@sanno.rrspam.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [yet more stuff]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wow. You're still posting away.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wow. You're still humping away.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is your leg getting sore? ;-)
>>>
>>> What is it with you two and sexuality for insults?
>>
>> Again, JFT shows he knows little or nothing of common expressions.
>> (The first being "Who the hell are you?" from good ol' Bart.)
>>
>> "Post humping" alludes to a dog on a person's leg, John.
>
> That's a sex act by a dog.
It's a compulsive act by a mutt. (And you're pretty good at it! LOL )
Sorni
> On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 03:45:40 GMT, "Sorni"
> <sorno...@sanno.rrspam.com> wrote:
>
>> Michael Press wrote:
>>> In article <IUmmg.20294$uy3...@tornado.socal.rr.com>,
>>> "Sorni" <sorno...@sanno.rrspam.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> begin 666 lol.gif
>>
>>> Do not post binaries to r.b.t.
>>
>> Seems to happen when copying and pasting text that contains an
>> emoticon.
>>
>> For example, :) is a smiley face. However, if one copies that
>> sentence and pastes it in a reply, then it becomes an attachment for
>> some reason.
>
> You post from Outlook Express I believe. There should be a way to
> disable that under Tools > Options.
It doesn't happen often enough to worry about.
> Or perhaps try a different newsreader.
It doesn't happen often enough to worry about.
>
>> Hope you recover from the trauma. :-D
> Typical -- a snide remark instead of a simple apology.
I'm sorry you're such a tool.
Better? <eg>
jtaylor
"Sorni" <sorno...@sanno.rrspam.com> wrote in message
news:pIymg.15705$Z67....@tornado.socal.rr.com...
>
> It doesn't happen often enough to worry about.
>
>
> It doesn't happen often enough to worry about.
> >
Wasn't that the advice given to you and your fellow zealots recently in
another thread?
John Forrest Tomlinson
<sorno...@sanno.rrspam.com> wrote:
>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 03:45:40 GMT, "Sorni"
>> <sorno...@sanno.rrspam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Michael Press wrote:
>>>> In article <IUmmg.20294$uy3...@tornado.socal.rr.com>,
>>>> "Sorni" <sorno...@sanno.rrspam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> begin 666 lol.gif
>>>
>>>> Do not post binaries to r.b.t.
>>>
>>> Seems to happen when copying and pasting text that contains an
>>> emoticon.
>>>
>>> For example, :) is a smiley face. However, if one copies that
>>> sentence and pastes it in a reply, then it becomes an attachment for
>>> some reason.
>>
>> You post from Outlook Express I believe. There should be a way to
>> disable that under Tools > Options.
>
>It doesn't happen often enough to worry about.
Yeah, I mean you could browse around your newsreader for a few minutes
to fix it, but it's not worth your time -- only a few hundred or
thousand people see the attachment and since it's not a virus that's
their problem.
>> Typical -- a snide remark instead of a simple apology.
>
>I'm sorry you're such a tool.
>
>Better? <eg>
No. The guy made a simple and approprite request of you but your ego
or stupidity prevents you from apologizing -- you always seem to need
a comeback even when you're wrong. That reflects badly on you.