The Earl's gone again!
Garrison Hilliard
Here it is, folks... I have an unsubstantiated report that Earl Gordon
Curley has once again been booted off the ISP he was using, and has been
begging for forgiveness from Randi. However, this would explain Earl's
silence if true.
William Barwell
In article <Pine.SUN.3.95.961123...@garcia.efn.org>,
Awwwwwwwwww! Poor lil guy! Booted like a mangy alley cat, you say?
Afraid they'll get dragged into some silly lawsuit like happened with
Netcom.com and the Scientologists?
Or tired of the flack from those who got tired of Curley calling everybody
homos, child molesters and perverts?
Does mail to the lil creep bounce? Is his website still up?
I am sure the little fraud will be scurrying around for a new site.
Of course it may take awhile, with work, probation officer meetings, writ
servers, a binge or two and hiring lawyers, so we may have to be
patient.
Up to his boot tops in the slush of his own making, heh?
Snort!
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope Of Houston
Slack!
Earl Curley
> > From: Garrison Hilliard <garr...@efn.org>
> > Newsgroups: alt.paranormal; sci.skeptic
> > Subject: The Earl's gone again!
> > Date: Saturday, November 23, 1996 6:58 PM
> >
> >
> > Here it is, folks... I have an unsubstantiated report that Earl
> Gordon
> > Curley has once again been booted off the ISP he was using, and has
> been
> > begging for forgiveness from Randi. However, this would explain
> Earl's
> > silence if true.
ROTFL. Is this guy that stupid or did he really get hit with the James
Randi Crazy Ball?
Although I haven't seen the original and someone was kind enough to
forward me the above copy, it just goes to show you how the Randis and
Garrison Hilliards mental deficentcies work. Lies, innuendoes,
false-hoods, and straight BS has always been known traits in people with
criminal minds and I'm afraid that the two of them seem to fall into
this catagory. Sexual abuse is considered to be criminal nowadays is it
not? Just wondering.
Where on earth does he get his info from. As for contacting James
Randi, oh sure. Randi has his ass in a knot right now and he knows as
well as I do that if he's stupid enough to file suit, he'll not only
lose because he doesn't have a case but more important his whole life
will finally be heard in a court of law under one roof. In fact, I'm
waiting for the idiot to be that stupid so that I can finally present
the tape recording of him on the telephone soliciting sex from a number
of teenage boys, the transcripts of Uri Geller's testimony which states
that the police department in Munson did show Geller explicit sexual
pictures of Randi with young boys, and to have Robinson testify in a
court of law that he was sexually abused by Randi and to have his diary
finally be submitted to the courts as evidence.
As to Garrison Hilliard, I think it's time to sue his ass off. As
everyone can see, I'm still online and will continue to be so, unless my
friends at Globalserve get hit with a tornado and that's very unlikely.
William Barwell
In article <329777...@globalserve.net>,
Earl Curley <psy...@globalserve.net> wrote:
>> > From: Garrison Hilliard <garr...@efn.org>
>> > Newsgroups: alt.paranormal; sci.skeptic
>> > Subject: The Earl's gone again!
>> > Date: Saturday, November 23, 1996 6:58 PM
>> >
>> >
>
>As to Garrison Hilliard, I think it's time to sue his ass off. As
>everyone can see, I'm still online and will continue to be so, unless my
>friends at Globalserve get hit with a tornado and that's very unlikely.
>
Sue him! Sue him Curley! Dooooooo it! Do it! Come on, don't be such
a wussssssssy!
Heh!
Bruce Hutchinson
Earl Curley <psy...@globalserve.net> scribed:
>As to Garrison Hilliard, I think it's time to sue his ass off.
Is this a prediction, Curls? If it is, then we know Garrison is safe, as
you have never been right.
> As
>everyone can see, I'm still online and will continue to be so, unless my
>friends at Globalserve get hit with a tornado and that's very unlikely.
Ohmygooodd! Curley just "predicted" that Globalserve would not get hit by
a tornado! Those folks had better watch the sky REAL close in the near
future!
hutch
______________
"A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always
depend upon the support of Paul." --George Bernard Shaw
DaveHatunen
>Curley has once again been booted off the ISP he was using, and has been
>begging for forgiveness from Randi. However, this would explain Earl's
>silence if true.
As of 1996.11.23.1710 PDT his web page was still up.
--
********** DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@netcom.com) **********
* Daly City California *
* Between San Francisco and South San Francisco *
*******************************************************
Ian Dixon
> Lies, innuendoes,
>false-hoods, and straight BS has always been known traits in people with
>criminal minds
You said it Earl..and you did it as well. You stole other peoples work
placed your own copywrite notice on it. (on your web site)
Then by your own words you must have a criminal mind, and how can we
believe anything you say!!
Ian
Earl Curley
Garrison Hilliard wrote:
>
> Here it is, folks... I have an unsubstantiated report that Earl Gordon
> Curley has once again been booted off the ISP he was using, and has been
> begging for forgiveness from Randi. However, this would explain Earl's
> silence if true.
Garrison Hilliard I heard from the grapevine that James Randi was
actually photographed having sex with teenage boys by the Monson Police
Department and in fact during a recent civil action which Randi was
defending himself at, testimony was given that those pictures of James
Randi were produced and shown to the plaintiff. As well, it was also
noted that there are also a number of references to James Randi
distorting the truth, or in effect one Judge even called him a liar.
So, I'm presuming that the rumor monger who gave you the unsubstaniated
libelous and malicous report could very well have originated with James
Randi so therefore, since the both of you are recognized liars, need it
be suggested that once again the proof is in the pudding.
Oh before I forget, run right back to the rumor monger and tell him you
heard it from the horses mouth that the transcripts from the tape
recording is going online whether he likes it or not. I also heard from
unsubstaniated sources that the actual tape is being made into a
real-audio tape which will be placed on the Internet as well. Could
this all be leading up to exposing a cult instead of an educational
foundation.
I also heard from the grapevine that somewhere along the line there were
some funds that went missing which were pledged and sent into one of
these types of cults. From my understanding, it seems that the cult
leader needed to pay some personal expences and although he is
definitely in control of the resources, he forgot to tell the person who
pledged about using his money. It seems that there is a little problem
behind the scenes and in fact it was heard that one of the people who
was going to get suckered in for a pretty good dollar recently got wise
and withdrew his/her/whatever support. now, that cult leader scoundrel
is running around trying to collect more pledges to pay the other
pledger and due to the heat in the area is not able to do so.
Hello book number four. I think I'll call it "Never Let A Magician Make
Your Money Disappear - Even If He Bends Over Backwards For You".
Earl Curley
William Barwell wrote:
>
> In article <329777...@globalserve.net>,
> Earl Curley <psy...@globalserve.net> wrote:
> >> > From: Garrison Hilliard <garr...@efn.org>
> >> > Newsgroups: alt.paranormal; sci.skeptic
> >> > Subject: The Earl's gone again!
> >> > Date: Saturday, November 23, 1996 6:58 PM
> >> >
> >> >
>
> >
> >everyone can see, I'm still online and will continue to be so, unless my
> >friends at Globalserve get hit with a tornado and that's very unlikely.
> >
>
> a wussssssssy!
>
> Heh!
>
> Pope Charles
You better have that booze bottle back again. I see you can't handle
the little bit of excitment. Once a booze artist always one but there
are times even I have to relent and suggest you have a drink to sooth
your over zealous childish personality.
It's so great watching the bobsey-twins roll over like little pets for
Randi but I guess the two of them really are little "pets" and are use
to being ordered around. Here boy, here boy. Fetch. Sit. Lay down.
Bark. Bend over. Oooops, that's the one they use for later.
Ian Dixon
> Here boy, here boy. Fetch. Sit. Lay down.
>Bark. Bend over.
please Earl don't show us your perverted fantasies here!
why don't you ever try and use facts...oh I forgot you don't have any
do you, you just use mud when you fight.
Come on Curley show us how good you are! answer our posts before we
write them. if you can do that I promise you I will be on your side
and I will even fly over and be your agent.
Ian
William Barwell
In article <3297DA...@globalserve.net>,
Earl Curley <psy...@globalserve.net> wrote:
>William Barwell wrote:
>>
>> In article <329777...@globalserve.net>,
>> Earl Curley <psy...@globalserve.net> wrote:
>> >> > From: Garrison Hilliard <garr...@efn.org>
>> >> > Newsgroups: alt.paranormal; sci.skeptic
>> >> > Subject: The Earl's gone again!
>> >> > Date: Saturday, November 23, 1996 6:58 PM
>> >> >
>> >> >
>>
>> >
>> >As to Garrison Hilliard, I think it's time to sue his ass off. As
>> >everyone can see, I'm still online and will continue to be so, unless my
>> >friends at Globalserve get hit with a tornado and that's very unlikely.
>> >
>>
>> Sue him! Sue him Curley! Dooooooo it! Do it! Come on, don't be such
>> a wussssssssy!
>>
>> Heh!
>>
>> Pope Charles
>
>You better have that booze bottle back again. I see you can't handle
>the little bit of excitment. Once a booze artist always one but there
>are times even I have to relent and suggest you have a drink to sooth
>your over zealous childish personality.
Suuuuuuuuuuuuue him, Curley! No more being a big cowardly wussy-boy!
Trundle up to court and sue his sorry ass! Or are you one of these little
boozehounds that sits at the end of the bar and talks big until he falls
off the stool by the 12th drink?
Suuuuuueee hiimmmmmmm! Well, you won't.
Well, obviously you have no intention of suing.
You simply sit there with a skinfull and blather nonsense.
Like your predictions.
How about some more stupid predictions, Curley!
We need some laughs.
Come on! Entertain us some more!
karl mamer
Earl Curley <psy...@globalserve.net> writes:
> Bark. Bend over. Oooops, that's the one they use for later.
More homophobia. There are laws, Earl, in Canada agains spreading
hate towards gays.
--
TYRELL: Would you like to be modified?
BATTY: Had in mind something a little more radical.
Bob Casanova
On Sun, 24 Nov 1996 01:47:51 +0000, Earl Curley
<psy...@globalserve.net> wrote:
<snip>
>Hello book number four. I think I'll call it "Never Let A Magician Make
>Your Money Disappear - Even If He Bends Over Backwards For You".
What are the ISBNs and titles for 1, 2 and 3?
(I believe I asked this several months ago and never got an answer.
Deleted by the "Phantom Canceller", no doubt...)
>
>Earl Curley
>psy...@globalserve.net
>http://www.webdesign.ca/
(Note followups, if any)
Bob C.
"No one's life, liberty or property is safe while
the legislature is in session." - Mark Twain
William Barwell
In article <329edbe3...@news.crosslink.net>,
Bob Casanova <casa...@crosslink.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 24 Nov 1996 01:47:51 +0000, Earl Curley
><psy...@globalserve.net> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>Hello book number four. I think I'll call it "Never Let A Magician Make
>>Your Money Disappear - Even If He Bends Over Backwards For You".
>
>What are the ISBNs and titles for 1, 2 and 3?
>
>(I believe I asked this several months ago and never got an answer.
>Deleted by the "Phantom Canceller", no doubt...)
>
>
Did he say he had "written books", or "was booked"?
One wonders then why he hasn't given us any juicy bad predictions lately.
Psychic writer's block?
I mean, it's traditional that fake psychics have to put out at least a few
bad predictions to keep even that less than inspiring title.
After awhile you become a mere ex-fake psychic.
Check his web site. He probably means electronic self published
pamphlets, rather than real books. If you can find three downloadable
'books' there, you'll know what he means.
psy...@globalserve.net
In article <57aeo7$2...@zot.io.org>,
kam...@zot.io.org (karl mamer) wrote:
>
> Earl Curley <psy...@globalserve.net> writes:
>
> > Bark. Bend over. Oooops, that's the one they use for later.
>
> More homophobia. There are laws, Earl, in Canada agains spreading
> hate towards gays.
>
But more important there are laws which protect
children from peadofiles who prey on the weak and
take advantage of insecure children. As to
homophobic laws, I'll let the Gay Community
decide whether I'm homophobic or not. Ironically
since this thread started about the newspaper's
article which published the expose on James Randi
soliciting sex via the telephone, etc. there have been
more people from the gay community who have
been in contact with me, who support my position
and are as adamant as I am to make sure that no
others are subjected to those types of vile
infringements associated with those types of
peadolfile altercations. In fact, although I doubt
whether it will be required, I have had hundreds of
offers for financial support to proceed with any
litigation either initiated by James Randi or
alternatively by me, from a number of people who
are actively involved in gay rights.
Stay tuned. You're in Toronto. Keep your eyes
on the media over the next few weeks.
Your comments are duly noted and have been
passed on to those who are extremely interested in
who's behind this fascade and who orchestrated the
blatant approach to the cult like atmosphere which
has run rampant in these threads.
Enjoy.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Ian Dixon
>So, I'm presuming that the rumor monger who gave you the unsubstaniated
>libelous and malicous report could very well have originated with James
>Randi so therefore, since the both of you are recognized liars, need it
>be suggested that once again the proof is in the pudding.
yes and the pudding for you is your web site, how can we believe
anything you say. We all know now that you Curley, have been lying to
everyone ...maybe even to yourself. Have you gone to see a Doctor
about this problem you have??
Ian
William Mayers
In <329777...@globalserve.net> Earl Curley
<psy...@globalserve.net> writes:
>
>> > From: Garrison Hilliard <garr...@efn.org>
>> > Newsgroups: alt.paranormal; sci.skeptic
>> > Subject: The Earl's gone again!
>> > Date: Saturday, November 23, 1996 6:58 PM
>> >
>> >
>> Gordon
>> > Curley has once again been booted off the ISP he was using, and
has
>> been
>> > begging for forgiveness from Randi. However, this would explain
>> Earl's
>> > silence if true.
>
James
>Randi Crazy Ball?
>
>Although I haven't seen the original and someone was kind enough to
>forward me the above copy, it just goes to show you how the Randis and
>false-hoods, and straight BS has always been known traits in people
with
>this catagory. Sexual abuse is considered to be criminal nowadays is
it
>not? Just wondering.
nobody, straight or gay that'd go along with a proposition from
Curleycue. I know a couple sows that're a mite lonely, tho - y'can
find 'em in the nearest pigsty, Curls...what's that? Oh, he knows
already, since he _lives_ in the nearest pigsty.
>
>Where on earth does he get his info from. As for contacting James
>Randi, oh sure. Randi has his ass in a knot right now and he knows as
>well as I do that if he's stupid enough to file suit, he'll not only
>lose because he doesn't have a case but more important his whole life
>will finally be heard in a court of law under one roof. In fact, I'm
>waiting for the idiot to be that stupid so that I can finally present
>the tape recording of him on the telephone soliciting sex from a
number
>of teenage boys, the transcripts of Uri Geller's testimony which
states
>that the police department in Munson did show Geller explicit sexual
>pictures of Randi with young boys, and to have Robinson testify in a
>court of law that he was sexually abused by Randi and to have his
diary
>finally be submitted to the courts as evidence.
>
>everyone can see, I'm still online and will continue to be so, unless
my
>friends at Globalserve get hit with a tornado and that's very
unlikely.
>
Earl Curley
karl mamer wrote:
>
> Earl Curley <psy...@globalserve.net> writes:
>
> > Bark. Bend over. Oooops, that's the one they use for later.
>
> More homophobia. There are laws, Earl, in Canada agains spreading
> hate towards gays.
>
> TYRELL: Would you like to be modified?
>
> BATTY: Had in mind something a little more radical.
Now here's an interesting conclusion by Karl Mamer. I did not mention
anything about "gays" and yet he refered to my remarks as being gay
oriented. I can only presume either he's self-consious of his actions
or he presumed that all gays bend over. So be it. But, I guess his
true colors showed through his remarks. Another one out of closet. If
we keep this up, I'm sure the others will confess as well. It's looking
more and more like my hypothesis was accurate after all. Right
guys/girls?
Earl Curley
The following has been transcribed from the James Randi Sex Tape which
I've advised the Internet that I have in my possession. The segment
below is only the first party of the tape and might I suggest is quite
calm comparable to the rest of tape. The remainder of the tape will be
submitted in segments whether by me or other sources.
The following is being posted to suffice those who have doubted such
tapes exist and have also been sent to the major news centers world-wide
for verification.
James Randi has stated in the public media that, a telephone company had
asked him to tape his conversations because he reported he was being
black-mailed, that he interacted with a police department who asked his
assistance and to many other explanations to be noted. I have not asked
for his personal explanation to these tapes whatsoever. From the
information which I have under affidavit the tape recording was
sanctioned by the courts of the US and in fact it was a police
department who recorded the contents of the tape I have in my possession
under a wire-tapping court order. If this information is inaccurate
then I apologize to all concerned but I don't believe that is the case.
In Geller vs Randi not only was this transcript submitted into court but
the tape recording was heard as well. Geller testified that he had also
seen explicit pictures of James Randi in sexual encounters with young
men which had been shown to him by the Monson Police Department. These
are the facts of the case and can be verified. In the civil action
between Bryd vs Randi these same transcripts were also part of the
proceedings and were verified by the court.
Therefore, is there a reason to diminish the reputation of the publics
perception of James Randi or is there a reason to question exactly who
and what this man stands for.
Earl Curley
psy...@globalserve.net
http://wwww.webdesign.ca/
DONALD IS RANDI:
VOICE: Donald?
RANDI: Yes.
VOICE: Listen, I called you about a couple of weeks ago, you know, to
see if we can get together. You told me to call you back. I called you
back, but you weren't home. I was wondering if you can get down this
way.
RANDI: Oh, who's that?
VOICE: Well, I didn't want to tell you my name, or anything, but I
called from the Board Walk. Remember I told you I had to go to a
christening?
RANDI: Oh yah, yah. I was late getting home that night. I didn't know
whether you called me or not. Any chance you getting on to Red Bank?
VOICE: No.
RANDI: I sort of have got to wait here. Saturdays are sort of hard for
me to get away because I will be getting lots of phone calls from
different places on Saturday night, so I've got to stick around. Where
are you?
VOICE: Bayridge.
RANDI: Oh. So if we get together what are you interested in?
VOICE: Whatever you want to give.
RANDI: Oh yah, what else that includes?
VOICE: Oh well, it's up to you. I don't care.
RANDI: You've got to tell me what you like.
VOICE: I like anything.
RANDI: For instance?
VOICE: F**k and s**k and everything.
RANDI: Do you blow? How many inches have you got?
VOICE: I beg your pardon?
RANDI: How many inches have you got?
VOICE: Seven.
RANDI: How tall are you? How much do you weigh, and everything?
VOICE: 6'11"
RANDI: What do you weigh?
VOICE: 180.
RANDI: How are you built?
VOICE: Pretty good. there is a lot to feel.
RANDI: What?
VOICE: there is a lot to feel.
RANDI: Where?
VOICE: All over.
RANDI: Oh well, quantity isn't important - quality that counts. When
was the last time you had it?
VOICE: Oh, I go often. I usually go to eat to the shopping center.
RANDI: Oh yah, usually meet somebody there?
VOICE: I usually go every Saturday and pick up somebody. I couldn't get
there today, so I figured I'll give you a ring.
RANDI: Well, why can't you come to Red Bank?
VOICE: Oh, I can't, see - I have to get home by 5pm because we are
expecting company.
RANDI: Oh, well where can I meet you?
VOICE: Can you get down to the Broadwalk here?
RANDI: Well, probably, yah. When, tomorrow?
VOICE: You know where the Spy is?
RANDI: The what?
VOICE: The Spy. It's a small restaurant on the Broadwalk.
RANDI: No, I don't know.
VOICE: You know where the arcade is?
RANDI: Yah.
VOICE: Well, there is a little restaurant next to the arcade. It's
called the Spy, that's where you were - that's where I've got your
telephone number.
RANDI: Oh yah.
VOICE: There are three benches in between these two buildings. I will
be sitting on the middle one.
RANDI: What will you be wearing?
VOICE: I've got a navy-blue jacket on and a white blue pants, and white
sneakers.
RANDI: So, will we have much time, if I go to pick you up?
VOICE: Yah, will have plenty.
RANDI: You know some place we can go?
VOICE: right end of the Broadwalk there is a little place we can go in.
there is nobody on the Broadwalk, I think.
RANDI: What if I drive you around in the car, can you do a blow job on
me?
VOICE: What?
RANDI: If I drive you around in the car will you do a blow job on me?
VOICE: Around where?
RANDI: We'll find some place to drive - will you be satisfied with that?
VOICE: Yah, I guess so, if you give one back.
RANDI: Well, we'll see. Ok, it's 20 after 3. How about if I see you
there at 4?
VOICE: Ah, can you make it a quarter of?
RANDI: Em, I don't think I can get there quite soon enough.
VOICE: Alright, 4 o'clock, then.
RANDI: I'll be as soon as I can.
VOICE: I'll wait, alright?
RANDI: Alright.
VOICE: Yah. If I am not there, just sit on the middle bench there.
I'll sit down and then you will recognize me.
RANDI: Well, I tell you, I'll just keep driving around till you show
up. alright?
VOICE: Alright. You might not be able to see me there because there is
a golf course. It's over there like a golf course little building.
RANDI: Oh yah, you just stay on the middle bench anyway, and I'll find
you.
VOICE: Ok.
RANDI: Alright.
VOICE: Bye.
RANDI: Bye
Bob Casanova
On 24 Nov 1996 17:49:13 -0600, wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William
Barwell) wrote:
>In article <329edbe3...@news.crosslink.net>,
>Bob Casanova <casa...@crosslink.net> wrote:
>>On Sun, 24 Nov 1996 01:47:51 +0000, Earl Curley
>><psy...@globalserve.net> wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>Hello book number four. I think I'll call it "Never Let A Magician Make
>>>Your Money Disappear - Even If He Bends Over Backwards For You".
>>
>>What are the ISBNs and titles for 1, 2 and 3?
>>
>>(I believe I asked this several months ago and never got an answer.
>>Deleted by the "Phantom Canceller", no doubt...)
>>
>>
>
>
>Did he say he had "written books", or "was booked"?
It wasn't really clear... ;-)
>
>
>One wonders then why he hasn't given us any juicy bad predictions lately.
>Psychic writer's block?
>I mean, it's traditional that fake psychics have to put out at least a few
>bad predictions to keep even that less than inspiring title.
>After awhile you become a mere ex-fake psychic.
>
>Check his web site. He probably means electronic self published
>pamphlets, rather than real books. If you can find three downloadable
>'books' there, you'll know what he means.
Thanks, but one view of The Green Face was plenty.
>
>Pope Charles
>SubGenius Pope Of Houston
>Slack!
>
(Note followups, if any)
Dave Monroe
Oh, for God's sake. What's wrong with you?
Post this shit in alt.stupidity.
Anybody got anything for alt.paranormal?
--
David S. Monroe David....@cdc.com
Software Engineer
Control Data Systems
2970 Presidential Drive, Suite 200
Fairborn, Ohio 45324
(937) 427-6385
Steve Terrell
Earl Curley wrote:
>
> The following has been transcribed from the James Randi Sex Tape which
> I've advised the Internet that I have in my possession. The segment
> below is only the first party of the tape and might I suggest is quite
> calm comparable to the rest of tape. The remainder of the tape will be
> submitted in segments whether by me or other sources.
You mean the "so-called ... Tape".
> The following is being posted to suffice those who have doubted such
> tapes exist and have also been sent to the major news centers world-wide
> for verification.
This is not proof of a tape.
> James Randi has stated in the public media that, a telephone company had
> asked him to tape his conversations because he reported he was being
> black-mailed, that he interacted with a police department who asked his
> assistance and to many other explanations to be noted. I have not asked
> for his personal explanation to these tapes whatsoever. From the
> information which I have under affidavit the tape recording was
> sanctioned by the courts of the US and in fact it was a police
> department who recorded the contents of the tape I have in my possession
> under a wire-tapping court order. If this information is inaccurate
> then I apologize to all concerned but I don't believe that is the case.
You just said that he was helping the police. So what's the problem? If
the police were wire tapping his house without his knowledge, they would
have gotten a conviction of sorts. He is obviously helping with a sting
operation. It is probably too hard to get a wire tap for anybody who is
even accused of something like this. A simple under-cover cop with a
wire is all that is needed.
> In Geller vs Randi not only was this transcript submitted into court but
> the tape recording was heard as well. Geller testified that he had also
> seen explicit pictures of James Randi in sexual encounters with young
> men which had been shown to him by the Monson Police Department. These
> are the facts of the case and can be verified. In the civil action
> between Bryd vs Randi these same transcripts were also part of the
> proceedings and were verified by the court.
The pictures didn't exist. Otherwise, the pictures themselves would have
been submitted into evidence. And when did the Police start going about
showing sneek-peeks of pornography to people? If I trot to my local Police
station and ask for some dirty pictures, will they show me some? Geller
is obviously lying here. (Or Earl.)
Chow,
Steve
lazz...@aol.com
Earl, first of all, there's no proof that:
1. That's Randi on the tape.
2. That the person being solicited is underage.
If the tape does turn out to be a deliberate exposure of a blackmail
operation, your pathetic "apology" doesn't wash.
And even if the first item above IS true, what does a person's sexual
orientation have to do with his/her trustworthiness? Shall we tap your
phone lines as you sweet talk your girlfriend/boyfriend/furry animal into
a sexual situation?
In a political campaign, what you're doing would be called smear tactics,
and that kind of thing usually reflects worse on the smearer than the
smearee. However, I don't know what you could do or say to get anyone's
opinion of you to be lower than it already is.
And you wake up and look in the mirror in the morning? What a soulless,
lonely mistake you are.
Earl Curley
Steve Terrell wrote:
>
> Earl Curley wrote:
> >
> > The following has been transcribed from the James Randi Sex Tape which
> > I've advised the Internet that I have in my possession. The segment
> > below is only the first party of the tape and might I suggest is quite
> > calm comparable to the rest of tape. The remainder of the tape will be
> > submitted in segments whether by me or other sources.
>
>
> > tapes exist and have also been sent to the major news centers world-wide
> > for verification.
>
>
> > asked him to tape his conversations because he reported he was being
> > black-mailed, that he interacted with a police department who asked his
> > assistance and to many other explanations to be noted. I have not asked
> > for his personal explanation to these tapes whatsoever. From the
> > information which I have under affidavit the tape recording was
> > sanctioned by the courts of the US and in fact it was a police
> > department who recorded the contents of the tape I have in my possession
> > under a wire-tapping court order. If this information is inaccurate
> > then I apologize to all concerned but I don't believe that is the case.
>
> the police were wire tapping his house without his knowledge, they would
> have gotten a conviction of sorts. He is obviously helping with a sting
> operation. It is probably too hard to get a wire tap for anybody who is
> even accused of something like this. A simple under-cover cop with a
> wire is all that is needed.
>
> > the tape recording was heard as well. Geller testified that he had also
> > seen explicit pictures of James Randi in sexual encounters with young
> > men which had been shown to him by the Monson Police Department. These
> > are the facts of the case and can be verified. In the civil action
> > between Bryd vs Randi these same transcripts were also part of the
> > proceedings and were verified by the court.
>
> been submitted into evidence. And when did the Police start going about
> showing sneek-peeks of pornography to people? If I trot to my local Police
> station and ask for some dirty pictures, will they show me some? Geller
> is obviously lying here. (Or Earl.)
>
> Chow,
> Steve
Here we have the usual skeptic answer for everything. If they can't
come up with sound reasoning, simply accuse the world of being liars. I
presume court documents are cause for questioning but the facts remain
that indeed this was testimony under oath and I doubt Uri Geller or
anyone else for that matter, would jeopradize their career or their
ability to win a court case by liing under oath. Mind you the records
show that James Randi may have.
Tom Johnson
Earl Curley (psy...@globalserve.net) wrote:
: The following has been transcribed from the James Randi Sex Tape which
: DONALD IS RANDI:
: VOICE: Donald?
: RANDI: Yes.
: VOICE: No.
: VOICE: Bayridge.
: VOICE: I like anything.
: RANDI: For instance?
: VOICE: Seven.
: VOICE: 6'11"
: VOICE: 180.
: RANDI: What?
: RANDI: Where?
: VOICE: All over.
: RANDI: The what?
: RANDI: Yah.
: RANDI: Oh yah.
: VOICE: What?
: VOICE: Around where?
: RANDI: Alright.
: VOICE: Ok.
: RANDI: Alright.
: VOICE: Bye.
: RANDI: Bye
I thought the original accusation was the Randi was a pedophile. I don't
know many children who are 6'11".
Keep up the good detective work.
TJ
lazz...@aol.com
Earl Curley wrote (responding to Steve Terrell's post):
EC:
>>Geller testified that he had also
> > seen explicit pictures of James Randi in sexual encounters with young
> > men which had been shown to him by the Monson Police Department.
These
> > are the facts of the case and can be verified. In the civil action
> > between Bryd vs Randi these same transcripts were also part of the
> > proceedings and were verified by the court.
> The pictures didn't exist. Otherwise, the pictures themselves would
have
> been submitted into evidence. And when did the Police start going about
> showing sneek-peeks of pornography to people? If I trot to my local
Police
> station and ask for some dirty pictures, will they show me some? Geller
> is obviously lying here. (Or Earl.)
>
> Chow,
> Steve
-Here we have the usual skeptic answer for everything. If they can't
-come up with sound reasoning, simply accuse the world of being liars. I
-presume court documents are cause for questioning but the facts remain
-that indeed this was testimony under oath and I doubt Uri Geller or
-anyone else for that matter, would jeopradize their career or their
-ability to win a court case by liing under oath. Mind you the records
-show that James Randi may have.
So, by your UNSOUND reasoning, James Randi is the only person in the world
who would "lii" under oath? Lying under oath is one of the things many
people do to avoid "jeopradizing" their career or their ability to win a
court case. Of course, it's criminal, and now you've accused Randi of
committing perjury. In what court case, you moron?
Garrison Hilliard
On Tue, 26 Nov 1996, Tom Johnson wrote:
>
> : RANDI: How tall are you? How much do you weigh, and everything?
>
> : VOICE: 6'11"
>
> : RANDI: What do you weigh?
>
> : VOICE: 180.
>
>
> I thought the original accusation was the Randi was a pedophile. I don't
> know many children who are 6'11".
>
> Keep up the good detective work.
Well, this just demonstrates that Earl equates homosexuality with
pedophilia... I wonder why? Just how old are your boyfriends, Earl?
lazz...@aol.com
Earl Said:
>I doubt Uri Geller or
> -anyone else for that matter, would jeopradize their career or their
> -ability to win a court case by liing under oath. Mind you the records
> -show that James Randi may have.
>
-> So, by your UNSOUND reasoning, James Randi is the only person in the
world
-> who would "lii" under oath? Lying under oath is one of the things many
-> people do to avoid "jeopradizing" their career or their ability to win
a
-> court case. Of course, it's criminal, and now you've accused Randi of
-> committing perjury. In what court case, you moron?
EARL said:
>Read the judgement Bryd vs Randi you moron.
Oh, was Randi convicted of committing perjury in that case? Is that what
you're saying? Because he WASN'T, so SHUT UP!
> Instead of just mouthing off isn't it time asshole
Ahh, Earl is the first one to get vicious. He takes umbrage at a very
low-key insult like "moron" and cranks up the retaliation level by about
15 notches to spew out "asshole". A house for an eye and a death for a
tooth, is that how you play? What a hair-trigger temper you've got. The
police should watch you, because you're obviously a demented, dangerous
person who is nearly out of control.
> to get your facts straight before you critize as you always do.
You said Randi committed perjury. He was never even tried for such a
thing, as he never did such a thing. Get YOUR facts straight, creep!
> And instead of posting excerpts of my comments next
>time post the whole post so that others can also see how you manipulate
>a thread to serve your own needs.
Christ, what a friggin' idiot you are. It is typical in written discourse
to only delineate the salient (or, in your case, repulsive) points of an
argument. That's what quotation marks are for, stupid! I only need to
quote the part that I find the most ridiculous, and which I intend to
comment on! I don't quote the rest because it's already there for all to
see, and why waste people's time reading your blather in full, over and
over?
Is the cold winter getting to you in that dank little condo of yours?
Earl Curley
Garrison Hilliard wrote:
>
> On Tue, 26 Nov 1996, Tom Johnson wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > : VOICE: 6'11"
> >
> > : RANDI: What do you weigh?
> >
> > : VOICE: 180.
> >
> >
> > know many children who are 6'11".
> >
> > Keep up the good detective work.
>
> pedophilia... I wonder why? Just how old are your boyfriends, Earl?
I can only presume from your comment above that you are publicly stating
that James Randi is a homosexual. Need it be brought to your attention
but even I did not suspect that revelation.
Jack Curtis
Earl Curley wrote:
>
>I can only presume from your comment above that you are publicly stating
that James Randi is a homosexual. Need it be brought to your attention
but even I did not suspect that revelation.
So f__king what?
karl mamer
psy...@globalserve.net writes:
> soliciting sex via the telephone, etc. there have been
> more people from the gay community who have
> been in contact with me, who support my position
Oh, sure.
> Stay tuned. You're in Toronto. Keep your eyes
> on the media over the next few weeks.
Oh, sure.
> Your comments are duly noted and have been
> passed on to those who are extremely interested in
> who's behind this fascade and who orchestrated the
> blatant approach to the cult like atmosphere which
> has run rampant in these threads.
There Earl goes making sense again.
> Earl Curley
> psy...@globalserve.net
> http://www.webdesign.ca/
>
> -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Why are you suddenly posting through dejanews?
--
kam...@io.org
I'm a pessimistic optimist: I look for the
silver lining in every cloud but I know it's
going to turn out to be lead.
Bob Casanova
>Garrison Hilliard wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 26 Nov 1996, Tom Johnson wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > : RANDI: How tall are you? How much do you weigh, and everything?
>> >
>> > : VOICE: 6'11"
>> >
>> > : RANDI: What do you weigh?
>> >
>> > : VOICE: 180.
>> >
>> >
>> > I thought the original accusation was the Randi was a pedophile. I don't
>> > know many children who are 6'11".
>> >
>> > Keep up the good detective work.
>>
>> Well, this just demonstrates that Earl equates homosexuality with
>> pedophilia... I wonder why? Just how old are your boyfriends, Earl?
>
>I can only presume from your comment above that you are publicly stating
>that James Randi is a homosexual. Need it be brought to your attention
>but even I did not suspect that revelation.
Ah, you meant a 6'11" 180lb underage *female*! With, as I recall, a
rather long...what?
>
>Earl Curley
>psy...@globalserve.net
>http://www.webdesign.ca/
(Note followups, if any)
karl mamer
Earl Curley <psy...@globalserve.net> writes:
> karl mamer wrote:
> >
> > Earl Curley <psy...@globalserve.net> writes:
> >
> > > Bark. Bend over. Oooops, that's the one they use for later.
> >
> > More homophobia. There are laws, Earl, in Canada agains spreading
> > hate towards gays.
> Now here's an interesting conclusion by Karl Mamer. I did not mention
> anything about "gays" and yet he refered to my remarks as being gay
> oriented. I can only presume either he's self-consious of his actions
> or he presumed that all gays bend over. So be it. But, I guess his
> true colors showed through his remarks. Another one out of closet. If
> we keep this up, I'm sure the others will confess as well. It's looking
> more and more like my hypothesis was accurate after all. Right
> guys/girls?
I seem to remember in grade 4 that calling someone "gay" was a big, huge
insult. It was considered a come-back's come-back. King o' the
come-backs. That was then. This is now. I can't recall the last time
my ultimate (or only) come-back was the gay ploy. It's been
years, Earl. Move on. The avatar who wrote the ground breaking work
"22 Emotional Exercises" and, what, two other books that don't seem
to be in any edition of books in print must be able to cook
up a witty rejoinder or two, huh?
Okay, give it a try. Hit the "r" key and lay on me. Surprise me, Chrome.
--
"Jules, if you give this nimrod fifteen hundred buck, I'm gonna
shoot 'em on general principle."
Hugh Young
In <329A3F...@globalserve.net> Earl Curley
<psy...@globalserve.net> wrote:
>The following has been transcribed from the James Randi Sex Tape
which
>I've advised the Internet that I have in my possession.
And what did the Internet tell you to do with it, Earl?
>DONALD IS RANDI:
Says who?
>
>VOICE: Donald?
>
>RANDI: Yes.
>RANDI: How tall are you? How much do you weigh, and everything?
>
>VOICE: 6'11"
>
>RANDI: What do you weigh?
>
>VOICE: 180.
>
>RANDI: How are you built?
>
>VOICE: Pretty good. there is a lot to feel.
Sounds like Donald or someone is talking to an adult. Does Curley
imagine that if it were Randi, and if he did chat up a man (which
having met Randi I strongly doubt) it would make an atom of
difference to the truth of psychic claims? Clearly Curley is not only
viciously homophobic but desperate.
--
Hugh Young, Pukerua Bay, Nuclear-free Aotearoa / NEW ZEALAND
Bona to varda your dolly old eek!
Blair P Houghton
Earl Curley <psy...@globalserve.net> wrote:
>Here we have the usual skeptic answer for everything. If they can't
Here we have the usual liar's answer for everything. If he
gets caught in the lie, he will simply accuse the world of
calling him a liar.
--Blair
"Being consistently ungrammatical
is merely a diversionary tactic."
David Wall
In article <19961126184...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, lazz...@aol.com
says...
>
>Earl, first of all, there's no proof that:
>
>1. That's Randi on the tape.
>
>2. That the person being solicited is underage.
>
>If the tape does turn out to be a deliberate exposure of a blackmail
>operation, your pathetic "apology" doesn't wash.
>
>And even if the first item above IS true, what does a person's sexual
>orientation have to do with his/her trustworthiness? Shall we tap your
>phone lines as you sweet talk your girlfriend/boyfriend/furry animal into
>a sexual situation?
Curley is just trying to sidetrack the discussion from any real examination of
his psychic claims, IMO, with the added fun of trashing one of the better-known
skeptics. He's succeeding quite well, too. Perhaps too well with the
trashing, since Randi says he's going to sue him for libel. For what it's
worth (nothing, really), Randi has my moral support.
David Wall
Blair P Houghton
In article <329BB0...@globalserve.net>,
>> > know many children who are 6'11". Keep up the good detective work.
>> pedophilia... I wonder why? Just how old are your boyfriends, Earl?
>I can only presume from your comment above that you are publicly stating
>that James Randi is a homosexual. Need it be brought to your attention
>but even I did not suspect that revelation.
Earl can "presume" this only because Earl is an illogical
pratt willing to commit any manner of prevarication in
order to assuage his tissue-thin ego.
--Blair
"You need your hydraulics
checked, Squanto."
Earl Curley
Geez, Blair, how did I forget to attach you to the list of the
"Peadofile Parade"? If I'm not mistaken, weren't you one of the first
to come out of the closet on November 18, 1995 to be exact?
Philippe Schnoebelen
Earl Curley <psych...@globalserve.net> writes:
> how did I forget to attach you to the list of the
> "Peadofile Parade"?
Don't do this !!!! We get $75 every time you toy with your idea of a
Peadofile Parade. Better use it as a topic for your next PhD.
> If I'm not mistaken,
??? "mistaken" ??? But are you not a psychic ?
--Philippe
Bob Casanova
On 29 Nov 1996 11:56:32 +0100, in sci.skeptic, Philippe Schnoebelen
<p...@cosmos.imag.fr> wrote:
Correct: He are not a psychic. He are a dipshit.
;-)
>
>--Philippe
Blair P Houghton
In article <329E29...@globalserve.net>,
Earl Curley <psy...@globalserve.net> wrote:
>
>Geez, Blair, how did I forget to attach you to the list of the
>"Peadofile Parade"? If I'm not mistaken, weren't you one of the first
>to come out of the closet on November 18, 1995 to be exact?
Slight problem with that, Curls.
I had no active Internet access on or about 11/18/95. Between
10/1, when I left Intel, and 1/26/96, when I bought this account,
I posted nothing and nowhere.
Thank you for adding me to the class of people you've
libeled, though. The money will come in handy. What
little you have of it, that is.
--Blair
"Like taking candy from a baby."
millers
In article <329BB0...@globalserve.net>, psy...@globalserve.net says...
>I can only presume from your comment above that you are publicly stating
>that James Randi is a homosexual. Need it be brought to your attention
>but even I did not suspect that revelation.
>
>Earl Curley
>psy...@globalserve.net
>http://www.webdesign.ca
Earl, are you equating homosexuality (of the consenting-adults variety) with
pedophilia? If so, does this mean you are viciously prejudiced against
homosexuals, or abnormally tolerant of pedophilia?
kmil...@cswnet.com
OK Randi and Earl - break and go to neutral corners for a minute,
please.
No one asked for my opinion, but you and your followers are flooding
this news group with your punches and slaps, and I want to give you
one more point of view.
As some one who has been involved with the "new age" or
"spiritualist" community for more than 25 years, I am well aware of
Randi's games and tactics. I have even seen him perform in person,
and while it was an enjoyable show, I still prefer the work of
Blackstone Sr.
Randi has a great ego and is very skilled and bending and twisting
what he says to be sure that is fits what he wants it to support. He
can sound brash, arrogant and obnoxious, when he needs to "push"
some one's buttons. That is how he has be able to find so many
suckers to take his test and so many followers to support his cause.
He is just like a politian carefully performing to evoke the exact
response he needs at the time.
Most of the "psychics" that he has tested are just like him - big egos
and the ability to be brash, arrogant and obnoxious. When these two
types clash - logic, spirituality and truth are the first casualties
of the war.
I have never meet Earl, but I have read his work and like Randi - Earl
is very near the middle in his field. I have read and seen better and
worse. But from reading the posts, the egos involved in this battle
are very evenly matched.
Randi and his followers may call me a fake or a phoney or any other
name they wish - it will not bother me. After my life of study, which
continues every day, I am learning more and more about love and
tolerance of those who have a different point of view. And being
different does not make me or them right, it means we have our own
way to find the truth.
Randi has done much to hurt many people, but he has also done
much good. I personally feel that had Randi not pointed out that
"psychics" should call themselves "entertainment" did more for the
economy than was done in the last 148 years. For when Randi said
call it entertainment, that was the birth of the 900# "entertainment
readings" which allowed psychics in all parts of the nation to avoid
the laws that had prevailed for many years. And Randi's work with
that minister - I think his name was Peter Popoff, I do not remember
for sure - was great.
The ones I feel sorry for are those who have had their belief system -
not their beliefs - destroyed. Randi has said in some of his books
that unicorns do not exist, yet the Holy Bible says they at least did
exist, and I am willing to but my faith and trust in the Bible and the
Almighty over Randi any and every day of the week.
Earl, by attacking Randi you are building more support for him,
allowing more people to find his web page and building his support.
And in the process you are probably having more people visit your
web site as well. I must wonder if the free advertising is the main
area of this battle.
Lastly, if Randi was the child molesting demon that some have made
him out to be, it is a mater for the police and the families involved
and NOT a news group. And I remember hearing this story first on
Oprah's show many years ago. As for the transcript that you put on
the net, if it is true and he was seeking a quickie, than so what. It
is not a crime to have encounters with same sex partners, and I know
may gay members in the psychic community. Either way, the sexual
preference has nothing to do with the issues that exist between Randi
and the psychic or new age community. It was wrong to bring that out
as a charge to discredit him.
In the long run, what actions Randi has taken to help and harm others
is a matter between him and the Almighty. It is a kin to walking in
the woods, a rattle snake can not harm you, if you know where he is.
And most of the time the rattle snake will avoid you if you avoid him,
but if you start after him, be ready to get bite!
This is also like a Catholic and a Mormon discussing heaven - you will
never get them to agree on anything.
I remember a saying that two wrongs do not make a right, and that is
what I see happening. Cool down guys, life is too short to carry on
like this.
Al Collier
To those who believe, no explation is needed:
To those who refuse to believe, no explation will suffice.
j...@manx2.demon.co.uk
Some of you may find this interesting:
According to the Criminal Code of Canada, 1996, the following definitions
apply:
(section 298 - Definition - Mode of Expression)
298 (1) A defamatory libel is matter published, without lawful
justification or excuse, that is likely to injure the reputation of any
person by exposing him to hatred, contempt, or ridicule, or that is
designed to insult the person of or concerning whom it is published.
(2) A defamatory libel may be expressed directly or by insinuation or
irony
(a) in words legibly marked upon any substance, or
(b) by any object signifying a defamatory libel otherwise than by words.
(Section 299 - Publishing)
299. A person publishes a libel when he
(a) exhibits it in public,
(b) causes it to be read or seen, or
(c) shows or delivers it, or causes it to be shown or delivered, with
intent that it should be read or seen by the person whom it defames or by
any other person.
(Section 300 - Punishment for defamatory libel)
300. Every one who publishes a defamatory libel that he knows is false is
guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding five years.
--
John Atkinson
http://www.manx2.demon.co.uk/index.htm
Current Email: j...@manx2.demon.co.uk
Permanent Email: j...@bigfoot.com
Blair P Houghton
In article <84937521...@manx2.demon.co.uk> <j...@manx2.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>According to the Criminal Code of Canada:
>(Section 300 - Punishment for defamatory libel)
>300. Every one who publishes a defamatory libel that he knows is false is
>guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not
>exceeding five years.
Wow. Hear that, Curls? *Jail* time.
I really hope your homophobia is just a put-on, or you're
going to be one unhappy puppy in the pokey.
--Blair
"Maybe you should never
have lied to us."
karl mamer
Earl Curley <psy...@globalserve.net> writes:
> Geez, Blair, how did I forget to attach you to the list of the
> "Peadofile Parade"? If I'm not mistaken, weren't you one of the first
^^^
> to come out of the closet on November 18, 1995 to be exact?
A peadofile parade? What's that? A procession of people who enjoy
unripe seed pods?
--
"A Third Stage Guild Navigator will be here within minutes!"
William Mayers
In <57q4uk$3...@trojan.neta.com> bl...@trojan.neta.com (Blair P
I wouldn't hold my breath waitin' for that - it's kinda doubtful anyone
in authority considers Curleycue's pathetic barf worthy of prosecution.
Tho' Curls himself is probably quite worthy of institutionalisation -
you know, of the padded-cell variety?
Bill
Bob Casanova
On 30 Nov 1996 02:25:28 GMT, in sci.skeptic, mil...@gte.net (millers)
wrote:
Why attempt to restrict him, when it's obvious he has the capacity to
be *both*?
Bob Casanova
>Some of you may find this interesting:
>
>According to the Criminal Code of Canada, 1996, the following definitions
>apply:
>
>(section 298 - Definition - Mode of Expression)
>298 (1) A defamatory libel is matter published, without lawful
>justification or excuse, that is likely to injure the reputation of any
>person by exposing him to hatred, contempt, or ridicule, or that is
>designed to insult the person of or concerning whom it is published.
>(2) A defamatory libel may be expressed directly or by insinuation or
>irony
> (a) in words legibly marked upon any substance, or
> (b) by any object signifying a defamatory libel otherwise than by words.
>
>(Section 299 - Publishing)
>299. A person publishes a libel when he
> (a) exhibits it in public,
> (b) causes it to be read or seen, or
> (c) shows or delivers it, or causes it to be shown or delivered, with
>intent that it should be read or seen by the person whom it defames or by
>any other person.
>
>(Section 300 - Punishment for defamatory libel)
>300. Every one who publishes a defamatory libel that he knows is false is
>guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not
>exceeding five years.
Well, based *only* on my own reading of his posts in s.s (and assuming
5 years per count), this means Curley could be due for parole about
the time Gondwanaland reforms. Of course, I could be off by an eon or
two...
>
>
>--
>John Atkinson
>http://www.manx2.demon.co.uk/index.htm
>Current Email: j...@manx2.demon.co.uk
>Permanent Email: j...@bigfoot.com
>
>
(Note followups, if any)
paul fletcher
>
>
>
Blair P Houghton wrote:
>
> In article <84937521...@manx2.demon.co.uk> <j...@manx2.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >(Section 300 - Punishment for defamatory libel)
> >300. Every one who publishes a defamatory libel that he knows is false is
> >guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not
> >exceeding five years.
>
>
> I really hope your homophobia is just a put-on, or you're
> going to be one unhappy puppy in the pokey.
>
> --Blair
> "Maybe you should never
> have lied to us."
Why doesn't Randi just admit what he is? Who says anyone is homophobic? Pedophilia is
also referred to in the criminal code and is an illegal act like robbery. Would you not be
afraid of being robbed? So too, one fears pedophiles. That is not homophobic.
William Barwell
In article <57q4uk$3...@trojan.neta.com>,
Blair P Houghton <bl...@trojan.neta.com> wrote:
>In article <84937521...@manx2.demon.co.uk> <j...@manx2.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>According to the Criminal Code of Canada:
>>(Section 300 - Punishment for defamatory libel)
>>300. Every one who publishes a defamatory libel that he knows is false is
>>guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not
>>exceeding five years.
>
>Wow. Hear that, Curls? *Jail* time.
>
>I really hope your homophobia is just a put-on, or you're
>going to be one unhappy puppy in the pokey.
>
- Homer Simpson to Krusty the Clown
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope Of Houston
Slack!
Bruce Hutchinson
kmil...@cswnet.com scribed:
>Randi has done much to hurt many people, but he has also done
>much good.
Care to elucidate? Exactly what has Randi done to "hurt many people"?
hutch
______
Member in good standing of "Randi, et al".
Dan Drake
OK, I just have to bite--
In message <329fa422...@news.cswnet.com> - kmil...@cswnet.comSat,
30 Nov 1996 03:28:41 GMT writes:
>
>...
>The ones I feel sorry for are those who have had their belief system -
>
>not their beliefs - destroyed. Randi has said in some of his books
>that unicorns do not exist, yet the Holy Bible says they at least did
>exist, and I am willing to but my faith and trust in the Bible and the
>Almighty over Randi any and every day of the week.
A mighty affirmation of Holy Scripture is an interesting thing to find in
sci.skeptic, but I realize this was cross-posted to lots of places. So,
about those unicorns, are you referring to the unicorn reference in Job?
Are you aware, perhaps, that the Bible was not originally written in
English? The reference in the Hebrew was to the re'em, a fierce wild bull
that was a good symbol for untamability (never mind that it was actually
the ancestor of domestic cattle). So, when the learned English gentlemen
needed a translation of this unfamiliar word for a beast that was extinct
in England and nearly extinct on the continent, they picked a usefully
proud and fierce animal, the unicorn.
People who rely on passing references in the splendid, elegant Authorized
Version to prove their version of facts remind me of the person who told
Dorothy Sayers (a formidable believer in Scripture) that he didn't like
these modern translations but preferred his Bible in The Original English.
================================================
Dan Drake
dand...@netcom.com
millers
In article <329E29...@globalserve.net>, psy...@globalserve.net says...
>Geez, Blair, how did I forget to attach you to the list of the
>"Peadofile Parade"? If I'm not mistaken, weren't you one of the first
>to come out of the closet on November 18, 1995 to be exact?
Suggested definitions of 'Peadofile'
1. One who files Peat moss (placing it in alphabetical order).
2. One who files peat moss (abrading it with a serrated metal tool).
3&4. One who files (see def. 1 & 2, above) feet. (ped = feet, i.e.
'pedestrian')
DaveHatunen
In article <32A0BE...@sympatico.ca>,
paul fletcher <vpf...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
[...]
>> Wow. Hear that, Curls? *Jail* time.
>>
>> I really hope your homophobia is just a put-on, or you're
>> going to be one unhappy puppy in the pokey.
>Why doesn't Randi just admit what he is?
Um. He doesn't have to admit anything. Curley is hte one who will ahve
to support his statements,
Who says anyone is homophobic?
Curley has made some posts that might imply that he -- Curley -- is
homophobic. He needs a visit to San Francisco to give him some
perspective.
>Pedophilia is
>also referred to in the criminal code and is an illegal act like robbery.
Which is why Curley's statements calling Randi (and myself) a pedophile
wouls be actiaonable as defamation. Since it imputes felonious conduct,
I beleive it would be defamation per se, but it's been 23 years since
my brief stint in law school and my torts classes; I understand the law
of defamtion in America has changed a bit. But if Randi is indeed
filing an action, it will be in Ontario.
Would you not be
>afraid of being robbed? So too, one fears pedophiles. That is not homophobic.
But Curley has made statements regarding both homosexuality and
pedophilia. Curley has range.
--
********** DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@netcom.com) **********
* Daly City California *
* Between San Francisco and South San Francisco *
*******************************************************
Andrew Clarke
On Sat, 30 Nov 1996 18:09:24 -0500, paul fletcher
<vpf...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Why doesn't Randi just admit what he is? Who says anyone is homophobic? Pedophilia is
>also referred to in the criminal code and is an illegal act like robbery. Would you not be
>afraid of being robbed? So too, one fears pedophiles. That is not homophobic.
Did you real Curley's 'transcript' of the tapes? The caller
(allegedly Randi, but who knows?) was soliciting sex from a 6 foot 11,
180 pound child. Now call me inexperienced in these things, but I've
never seen a child of these dimensions (except in a Disney film) so I
will assume that these paedophilia accusations are bogus at best, and
libelous at worst.
--
Andrew Clarke - "If Jesus loves me, why won't he swallow?"
PGP Public Key available on request.
"Having your nuts nibbled off by a Laplander, that's a way to die."
http://www.plinth.demon.co.uk/ - nothing interesting that way lies
Paul Burridge
In article <57qebl$r...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>, William Barwell (wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM) writes:
>In article <57q4uk$3...@trojan.neta.com>,
>Blair P Houghton <bl...@trojan.neta.com> wrote:
>>In article <84937521...@manx2.demon.co.uk> <j...@manx2.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>According to the Criminal Code of Canada:
>>>(Section 300 - Punishment for defamatory libel)
>>>300. Every one who publishes a defamatory libel that he knows is false is
>>>guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not
>>>exceeding five years.
>>
>>
>>I really hope your homophobia is just a put-on, or you're
>>going to be one unhappy puppy in the pokey.
>>
>
> - Homer Simpson to Krusty the Clown
Looks like somebody's going to be helping Bubba hide his 'meat
puppet.' :-)
-- Paul
Sciant omnes tam presentes et futuri quod sum omnisapiens
et omnisciens omnino er excipio aliquando
Earl Curley
Blair P Houghton wrote:
>
> In article <84937521...@manx2.demon.co.uk> <j...@manx2.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >According to the Criminal Code of Canada:
> >(Section 300 - Punishment for defamatory libel)
> >300. Every one who publishes a defamatory libel that he knows is false is
> >guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not
> >exceeding five years.
>
> Wow. Hear that, Curls? *Jail* time.
>
> I really hope your homophobia is just a put-on, or you're
> going to be one unhappy puppy in the pokey.
>
> "Maybe you should never
> have lied to us."
Only an idiot would the justification clause arguing his point. "which
he knows is false" is the key phrase and I know for a fact all my data
is accurate 100% and backed up by court depositions, ruling, testimony
and evidence. Get educated and then come back with your stupidity.
Jim Jonas
In article <32A18D...@globalserve.net>, psy...@globalserve.net wrote:
> ... "which
> he knows is false" is the key phrase and I know for a fact all my data
> is accurate 100% ...
Ahh! So it's going to be the insanity defense is it? Well you may
have something there. There certainly isn't any lack of publicly
available evidence that you have serious problems with the fantasy/reality
issue.
-Jim Jonas
G1
Blair P Houghton wrote:
>
> --Blair
> "Being consistently ungrammatical
> is merely a diversionary tactic."
Hey Blair - From where does that quote originate? Or should I say 'whom'?
I b serious.
G1
G1
Behaving particularly subhumanly, Earl Curley wrote:
SNIP!!!!!!!!!! You nasty boy!
>, how did I forget to attach you to the list of the
> "Peadofile Parade"? If I'm not mistaken, weren't you one of the first
> to come out of the closet on November 18, 1995 to be exact?
>
> Earl curley
> psy...@globalserve.net
> http://www.webdesign.ca/
Earl! God Damn IT! Just one time. Just one time. JUST ONCE!!! SPELL the word
correctly!!!!!!!!! Or if that is impossible spell it incorrectly consistently.
I've seen you write "Phedfile" "Phedophil" And now PEAdofile? Are you suggesting that
this person loves peas? Or loves to file peas? Or loves to pee? Or loves to pee in files?
(Given your spelling, and I do not mean Aaron, I suppose that's possible.)
Get over it. You do this guy's PR very well, by the way. I'm sure I'm not the only one
who had never had the occasion to hear about this dude until I read your vile postings.
G1
*************************************
"The conservation movement is a breeding ground of Communists and other
subversives. We intend to clean them out, even if it means rounding
up every bird watcher in the country."
-- John Mitchell, Atty. General 1969-1972
G1
Causing me to read the alleged transcripts, Tom Johnson wrote:
Snip
>
> I thought the original accusation was the Randi was a pedophile. I don't
> know many children who are 6'11".
>
> Keep up the good detective work.
>
> TJ
TJ! I am laughing!
Oh my god! I missed that completely! You are so funny! Plus - didn't this person call
"Donald" and not vice versa?
Oh well - the OJ thing kind of put the final kibosh on any lingering faith I had in the
weight of transcripts of any kind. And the internet has validated that 'Truth' is largely a
matter of preference.
But manohman! It's fascinating.
Like a dance.
Or a train wreck.
G1
************************************************
"It's the most wonderful time of the year!"
G1
Not one to ever give up a really bad argument, Earl Curley wrote:
>
> Garrison Hilliard wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 26 Nov 1996, Tom Johnson wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > : RANDI: How tall are you? How much do you weigh, and everything?
> > >
> > > : VOICE: 6'11"
> > >
> > > : RANDI: What do you weigh?
> > >
> > > : VOICE: 180.
> > >
> > >
> > > I thought the original accusation was the Randi was a pedophile. I don't
> > > know many children who are 6'11".
> > >
> > > Keep up the good detective work.
> >
> > pedophilia... I wonder why? Just how old are your boyfriends, Earl?
>
> I can only presume from your comment above that you are publicly stating
> that James Randi is a homosexual. Need it be brought to your attention
> but even I did not suspect that revelation.
>
I believe this poster was referring to a) A suspicion that you equate homosexuality with
pedophilia, and b) that that equation may be a result of your own homosexuality
accompanied with a preference for young boys resulting in a confusion of terms brought
about by personalization or projection of your own habits and behaviors onto others and
the world at large. That is: The common practice of assuming that because you behave
a certain way and you believe a certain thing, that those two factors are somehow related.
Oh heck - I could just go on all night.
My real question is about this bit:
> I can only presume from your comment above that you are publicly stating that James > Randi is a homosexual. Need it be brought to your attention but even I did not suspect > that revelation.
You published the damned thing didn't you? Are you just reading it now, Earl?
Or shall I refer to you as Pierre?
G1
***********************************************
"Psst. Hey, you. Yeah you. C'mere." (Deep Throat)
G1
j...@manx2.demon.co.uk wrote:
>
> Some of you may find this interesting:
>
> According to the Criminal Code of Canada, 1996, the following definitions
> apply:
>
> (section 298 - Definition - Mode of Expression)
> 298 (1) A defamatory libel is matter published, without lawful
> justification or excuse, that is likely to injure the reputation of any
> person by exposing him to hatred, contempt, or ridicule, or that is
> designed to insult the person of or concerning whom it is published.
> (2) A defamatory libel may be expressed directly or by insinuation or
> irony
> (a) in words legibly marked upon any substance, or
> (b) by any object signifying a defamatory libel otherwise than by words.
>
> (Section 299 - Publishing)
> 299. A person publishes a libel when he
> (a) exhibits it in public,
> (b) causes it to be read or seen, or
> (c) shows or delivers it, or causes it to be shown or delivered, with
> intent that it should be read or seen by the person whom it defames or by
> any other person.
>
> 300. Every one who publishes a defamatory libel that he knows is false is
> guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not
> exceeding five years.
>
> John Atkinson
> http://www.manx2.demon.co.uk/index.htm
> Current Email: j...@manx2.demon.co.uk
> Permanent Email: j...@bigfoot.com
So, it would be okay to write that "Earl Curley is a churlish lout who can't spell pedophile
but knows one when he sees one and feels free to accuse any living soul of an act that is
a crime, then deny any knowledge of doing so?"
Right?
But it would NOT be okay to say "Earl Curley is ugly" because I do not know that to be
true?
But I COULD say that "I suspect Earl Curley to be an ignorant, loud, nasty-tempered,
homophobic liar."
BUT I do not know that his claims about whosit are accurate (not that I give a weenie) so
he could, actually not fulfill the liar part?
Do I have that right?
I ask only because I'm curious.
G1
***********************************
"Earl Earl Bo-Bearl. Banana fana fo fearl." The Name Game
Donna M. Webb
Speaking of education, where did you get your degree Hurles?
he he
Donna
Earl Curley
Whoever you are, the onewho has no balls to simply be identified while
making your idiotic remarks with no foundation or bearing, the real
issue to the Randi Sex Tape is that they were all under the age of
consent and even a sicko like a couple you jerks should have a little
compassion for kids who have been lead astray by a pervert. More
important the tape speaks for itself. James Randi was caught red handed
soliciting sexual favors in the most explicit and vulgar way.
Although big mouth James Randi threatened to sue and assured the public
he would travel to Toronto to initiate the action (still waiting) and
mouthed off as usual about his reputation which he doesn't have, simply
get him to answer whether in the past he's being confronted with the
transcript portion of the tape I presented here, in a court of law and,
whether that portion of the transcript was in fact verified to be him.
I'm sure he'll come up with some lame excuse to pacify a few of his
groupies and partners in crime, but the bottom line if this is set to
guilty or innocent, James Randi is guilty as hell. At least O.J.
simpson had no witnesses. James Randi, I've uncovered quite a few.
Where's that law suit you chicken shit.
Philippe Schnoebelen
kmil...@cswnet.com writes:
> I have never meet Earl, but I have read his work [...]. I have read and
> seen better and worse.
You have seen worse ? That's hard to imagine ...
Worse ? Could it have been, by any chance, by "Allan Fairbridge" or "Susan
Bell" ?
--Philippe
Freestone Wilson
kmil...@cswnet.com wrote:
>
> OK Randi and Earl - break and go to neutral corners for a minute,
> please.
>
> Randi has a great ego and is very skilled and bending and twisting
> what he says to be sure that is fits what he wants it to support. He
>
> can sound brash, arrogant and obnoxious, when he needs to "push"
> some one's buttons. That is how he has be able to find so many
> suckers to take his test and so many followers to support his cause.
> He is just like a politian carefully performing to evoke the exact
> response he needs at the time.
>
> Most of the "psychics" that he has tested are just like him - big egos
>
> and the ability to be brash, arrogant and obnoxious. When these two
> types clash - logic, spirituality and truth are the first casualties
> of the war.
>
> continues every day, I am learning more and more about love and
> tolerance of those who have a different point of view. And being
> different does not make me or them right, it means we have our own
> way to find the truth.
>
> "psychics" should call themselves "entertainment" did more for the
> economy than was done in the last 148 years. For when Randi said
> call it entertainment, that was the birth of the 900# "entertainment
> readings" which allowed psychics in all parts of the nation to avoid
> the laws that had prevailed for many years. And Randi's work with
> that minister - I think his name was Peter Popoff, I do not remember
> for sure - was great.
sigh.......
a breath of fresh air!!!!!!!
i agree! ----with your article.
i will add this, though.....
--that i have found a kind of TRUISM..to hold, here..
which is....that most people "who get things done"..are obnoxious,
brash..and ya would not ever want them over for dinner, ever!!!!"
we would be in the dark ages..if it were not for the SHRIEKING,
SQUALLING WHEELS--in need of grease!!! {it is the squeaking wheel, that
gets greased!}.
thus..these great egos...are like that .
yes, i can feel the personal ambivilance, over this!!!
they both did a lot..for the psychic sciences...
somehow,,i read of a Labor Union pioneer..who was one of the very first
to try to organize workers..back in the days when most laborers were
abused. he went to the coal fields of Kentucey, i believe.
...and, he was very rude, belligent, obnoxious..and he changed the
world!!!!!
have ya noticed...both the radical right people, and the radical left,
people...NEVER SMILE!!!
live is s-o-o-o-o-o-o o o o serious!!!!!!
---and, they Get Things Done!
freestone
Blair P Houghton
In article <32A212...@primenet.com>, G1 <godd...@primenet.com> wrote:
>Blair P Houghton wrote:
>> "Being consistently ungrammatical
>> is merely a diversionary tactic."
>
>Hey Blair - From where does that quote originate? Or should I say 'whom'?
From me.
--Blair
"Or should I say 'meme'?"
Blair P Houghton
In article <32A18D...@globalserve.net>,
Earl Curley <psy...@globalserve.net> wrote:
>Only an idiot would the justification clause arguing his point.
What language is this?
>"which
>he knows is false" is the key phrase and I know for a fact all my data
>is accurate 100% and backed up by court depositions, ruling, testimony
>and evidence.
This is another lie.
You stated that you believe I am a "peadofile" and that I came "out
of the closet" on Nov. 18, 1995 "to be exact".
I pointed out that the date was impossible, as I hadn't had
an active connection to the net for a month and a half, and
wouldn't for another two months. You almost made a
bullseye in getting it completely wrong.
Out of deference to the ideas' absurdity, and trust that
the people on the net understand by now that you are a
liar, I didn't bother to point out that I am neither a
homosexual nor attracted sexually to children in any way.
But now that you have laid out the sources of your
"knowledge" I will state that there exist on this earth no
depositions, rulings, testimony, or evidence regarding me
or my life, other than my statement to the Maricopa County
Divorce Commissioner (a judge) that I had followed the
standard procedures, told the truth on the forms, and
believed my marriage to be "irretrievably broken". So, in
addition to the fact that I am neither a homosexual (nor
a bisexual, and sometimes I even despair of being a
continuing heterosexual), nor am I attracted sexually to
children in any way, I am also confident that there is no
way you could have misconstrued any depositions, ruling,
testimony, or evidence to conclude that I might be, as
there are none.
You made it up.
You knew your statements to be false, in that you know with
100% certainty that you have neither evidence nor even an
inkling of inference that they were true.
You are telling highly defamatory lies about me in print to
hundreds if not thousands of people in Canada, the US, and
around the world.
>Get educated and then come back with your stupidity.
Get a lawyer and keep your yap shut until after the
trial, Earl. You're only digging yourself a bigger hole
by continuing to post.
--Blair
"Is there a word for someone
whose extant lies exceed the
sum of his knowledge?"
Philippe Schnoebelen
Earl Curley <psy...@globalserve.net> writes:
Earl> I know for a fact all my data
Earl> is accurate 100% and backed up by court depositions, ruling, testimony
Earl> and evidence.
Well, don't forget to mention it is also baked up by your thinely honed
intuition. And add to this (you're never too sure with justice courts)
that Allan Fairbridge [Hi Allan!] emailed you that YES IT IS TRUE BUT I
CANNOT STATE IT PUBLICLY.
With this, you'll probably reach 200% accuracy.
BTW, don't go to the tribunal with your pants down. It would probably ruin
your hard-earned credibility as a psychic.
--Philippe
lazz...@aol.com
Earl "I'm con-FUSED!" Curley wrote:
<they were all under the age of
<consent...More important the tape speaks for itself.
Earl, are you telling us that htis 6'11", 180lb. person was under the age
of consent at the time of the conversation? How old, exactly, was this
"child", since you seem to have all the info?
Earl Curley
WITHOUT PREJUDICE:
You have one week to retract your allegations and if that is not
addressed publicly take my word for it, sport, although unlike James
Randi who's afraid to file a civil action against me for simply pointing
out the facts of allegations, evidenceand dispositions of his past
misdeeds, I will not hesitate to address your allegations, by simply
filing suit against your service provider for allowing you to make
libelous and malicously untrue allegations which are not factual and in
fact, I've spoken to Mr. Allan Fairbridge who's more than prepared to
join the suit strictly for the hell of it.
As to Susan Bell, there's not anyone who knows my practice nor who's
seen me preform in public or on radio who is not aware that Susan was my
secretary for over two years and is bright enough to be attending
university at this time. They also know that Susan is disabled and one
more word which malines her, asshole, and you can bet your last dollar
that if you can't defend a law suit because of being a child, I'm sure,
as Randi mentioned in his stupid threat, your parents can pay for you.
Now retract your comments or present proof which in anyway proves these
two people neither exist, or further to your allegation that I had
falsified their names. That's your last chance, punk.
j...@manx2.demon.co.uk
> Get a lawyer and keep your yap shut until after the
> trial, Earl. You're only digging yourself a bigger hole
> by continuing to post.
Curley reminds me of the play "Richard III" by Wilyum Shazpeere
where the ghosts of all those he had wronged come to meet him:
"Remember me, Curls? Whom you called paranoid schizophrenic?
Despair and die ..."
Tilman Hausherr
In <32A2D9...@globalserve.net>, Earl Curley <psy...@globalserve.net>
wrote:
>As to Susan Bell, there's not anyone who knows my practice nor who's
>seen me preform in public or on radio who is not aware that Susan was my
>secretary for over two years and is bright enough to be attending
>university at this time.
Must be an university without internet connection, I guess.
>They also know that Susan is disabled and one
>more word which malines her, asshole, and you can bet your last dollar
>that if you can't defend a law suit because of being a child, I'm sure,
>as Randi mentioned in his stupid threat, your parents can pay for you.
You didn't understand this last year, and you don't understand it this
year. On the internet Susan is just like any person, since her
disability is physical (and unrelated to reading / writing), not mental.
Tilman
Earl Curley
Here's another one of Tilman's sick remarks. I guess being physically
disabled is a joke to people like him. He not only gets his jollies
berating innocent physically impaired people but has the audacity to
play on it. You're the sickest of sick, Tilman and this is the second
time you've showed your true colors. Anyone with an ounce of
credibility wouldn't let someone like Tilman get away with stripping the
dignity of a disabled person and I hope the rest of those reading his
disgusting remarks lets him know.
Bob Casanova
On 1 Dec 1996 17:02:03 -0700, in sci.skeptic, G1
<godd...@primenet.com> wrote:
>> --
>> John Atkinson
>> http://www.manx2.demon.co.uk/index.htm
>> Current Email: j...@manx2.demon.co.uk
>> Permanent Email: j...@bigfoot.com
>
>So, it would be okay to write that "Earl Curley is a churlish lout who can't spell pedophile
>but knows one when he sees one and feels free to accuse any living soul of an act that is
>a crime, then deny any knowledge of doing so?"
>
>Right?
>
>But it would NOT be okay to say "Earl Curley is ugly" because I do not know that to be
>true?
>
>But I COULD say that "I suspect Earl Curley to be an ignorant, loud, nasty-tempered,
>homophobic liar."
>
>BUT I do not know that his claims about whosit are accurate (not that I give a weenie) so
>he could, actually not fulfill the liar part?
>
>Do I have that right?
Sounds good to me...
>
>I ask only because I'm curious.
;-)
>
>G1
>***********************************
>"Earl Earl Bo-Bearl. Banana fana fo fearl." The Name Game
(Note followups, if any)
Bob C.
"No one's life, liberty or property is safe while
the legislature is in session." - Mark Twain
Bob Casanova
On 2 Dec 1996 10:15:41 -0700, in sci.skeptic, bl...@trojan.neta.com
(Blair P Houghton) wrote:
>In article <32A18D...@globalserve.net>,
>Earl Curley <psy...@globalserve.net> wrote:
>>Only an idiot would the justification clause arguing his point.
>
>What language is this?
Early Curls. Of course, it's indistinguishable from Later Curls, but
whatthehell...
<snip>
>
> --Blair
> "Is there a word for someone
> whose extant lies exceed the
> sum of his knowledge?"
(Note followups, if any)
Timr
> >"Peadofile Parade"? If I'm not mistaken, weren't you one of the first
> >to come out of the closet on November 18, 1995 to be exact?
>
>
> 1. One who files Peat moss (placing it in alphabetical order).
>
> 2. One who files peat moss (abrading it with a serrated metal tool).
>
> 3&4. One who files (see def. 1 & 2, above) feet. (ped = feet, i.e.
PEDAFILES. GET OFF THIS PAGE PLEASE! I DONT CARE TO HEAR YOUR
PROBLEMS, YOU SHOULD BE PUT IN JAIL OR DE-MEMBERED!! YOU ARE THE LOWEST
FORM OF LIFE..
Edmond Wollmann
Timr wrote:
This doesn't belong in alt.astrology.
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 1996 Astrological Consulting/Altair Publications
http://home.aol.com/ewollmann
PO Box 221000 San Diego, CA. 92192-1000
(619)453-2342 e-mail woll...@mail.sdsu.edu
Earl Curley
j...@manx2.demon.co.uk wrote:
>
> > Get a lawyer and keep your yap shut until after the
> > trial, Earl. You're only digging yourself a bigger hole
> > by continuing to post.
>
> Curley reminds me of the play "Richard III" by Wilyum Shazpeere
> where the ghosts of all those he had wronged come to meet him:
>
> "Remember me, Curls? Whom you called paranoid schizophrenic?
> Despair and die ..."
>
> John Atkinson
> http://www.manx2.demon.co.uk/index.htm
> Current Email: j...@manx2.demon.co.uk
> Permanent Email: j...@bigfoot.com
I remember you quite well. You not only fit the mould as a few others
but what you forgot to mention was that you listed your paranoid
tendencies directly on your web site. If I get some time I'll pull it
from my archives (remember when I had you removed from one, or was that
two, service providers for posting a forged post) and I'll be happy to
post it here so all your friends can see who they all relate to. Birds
of feather flock together, so they say.
Oh, before I forget, has your web site service provider mentioned if
they were served with the civil litigation yet for providing you with a
site which is malicous, unfactual, libelous and more important providing
site services to a self-proclaimed mentally deficent individual? If not
I'm sure they will. Enjoy your time online while you can. Oooops there
goes another sewrvice provider for you. There can't be too many more
take care of in your area.
Bob Casanova
>Philippe Schnoebelen wrote:
>>
>> kmil...@cswnet.com writes:
>>
>> > I have never meet Earl, but I have read his work [...]. I have read and
>> > seen better and worse.
>>
>> You have seen worse ? That's hard to imagine ...
>>
>> Worse ? Could it have been, by any chance, by "Allan Fairbridge" or "Susan
>> Bell" ?
>>
>> --Philippe
>
>
>WITHOUT PREJUDICE:
>
>You have one week to retract your allegations
Er, *what* allegations? That your posts are the worst he's seen?
Hardly seems to be libelous, even if it weren't true...
and if that is not
>addressed publicly take my word for it, sport, although unlike James
>Randi who's afraid to file a civil action against me for simply pointing
>out the facts of allegations, evidenceand dispositions of his past
>misdeeds, I will not hesitate to address your allegations, by simply
>filing suit against your service provider for allowing you to make
>libelous and malicously untrue allegations which are not factual and in
>fact, I've spoken to Mr. Allan Fairbridge who's more than prepared to
>join the suit strictly for the hell of it.
>
>As to Susan Bell, there's not anyone who knows my practice nor who's
>seen me preform in public or on radio who is not aware that Susan was my
>secretary for over two years and is bright enough to be attending
>university at this time. They also know that Susan is disabled and one
>more word which malines her, asshole, and you can bet your last dollar
>that if you can't defend a law suit because of being a child, I'm sure,
>as Randi mentioned in his stupid threat, your parents can pay for you.
>
>Now retract your comments or present proof which in anyway proves these
>two people neither exist, or further to your allegation that I had
>falsified their names. That's your last chance, punk.
Oh, *those* (nonexistent in the above post) allegations! Are you
reading something into Philippe's post which isn't actually there? I
thought you might be. Don't look now, but the paranoids are after you
again.
>
>Earl Curley
>psy...@globalserve.net
>http://www.webdesign.ca/
(Note followups, if any)
Dan Pressnell
j...@manx2.demon.co.uk wrote:
>> Get a lawyer and keep your yap shut until after the
>> trial, Earl. You're only digging yourself a bigger hole
>> by continuing to post.
>Curley reminds me of the play "Richard III" by Wilyum Shazpeere
>where the ghosts of all those he had wronged come to meet him:
>"Remember me, Curls? Whom you called paranoid schizophrenic?
>Despair and die ..."
Hmmm... Can I get in on this? Remember the time Earl tried to
tortiously interfere with the contract I have with my internet service
provider?
Dan
Joe Crawford
>> >Here we have the usual skeptic answer for everything. If they can't
>> >come up with sound reasoning, simply accuse the world of being liars.
>>
>> Here we have the usual liar's answer for everything. If he
>> gets caught in the lie, he will simply accuse the world of
>> calling him a liar.
>>
>> --Blair
>Geez, Blair, how did I forget to attach you to the list of the
>"Peadofile Parade"? If I'm not mistaken, weren't you one of the first
>to come out of the closet on November 18, 1995 to be exact?
>
Ed With all Due Respect.. Shut Up.. Is your answer for losing an
arguement calling people peadofiles? Is this the best you can do, I
have only been part of this group for about 2-3 weeks and have
remained fairly quet so far... What is your major malfunction.. Your
Paranormal Abilities going into overload?? After reading most of the
threads with your involvement you seem to come accross as a total
buffoon.
So far your only "Proof" is some Tape transcrip... Look I can do that
too...
Taken from a Transcrip dated 11/01/96 3:14am
Ed: Why are you calling me?
Person: Well It was 3:15 in the morning and I was felling down.
Ed: can't you call Deion Warwic or somehting, I do need my sleep you
know
Person: Well I just wanted to know if you felt like maby comming over
and looking at my stamp collection
Ed: Hmmmm any old ones from Zimbabway?
Person: Well why yes.. I do have quite a collection from that area of
the world.
Ed: Ok well I'll be over in about half an hour
Person: Well Ok my address is ***********,****** lane..
Ed: Bye now.
------------
End of Transcrip
So as you can see posting a transcrip is well... BUNK.... So I ask
very nicely.. Shut up and try living in the real world for awhile..
you could like it
(Joe Crawford)(Midn...@golden.net)(Ouch.My.Head)
(http//:golden.net/~midnight)(Don't worry, its only life)
scott
>G1 wrote:
>>
>> Not one to ever give up a really bad argument, Earl Curley wrote:
>> >
>> > Garrison Hilliard wrote:
>> > >
>> > > On Tue, 26 Nov 1996, Tom Johnson wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > : RANDI: How tall are you? How much do you weigh, and everything?
>> > > >
>> > > > : VOICE: 6'11"
>> > > >
>> > > > : RANDI: What do you weigh?
>> > > >
>> > > > : VOICE: 180.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>
>Whoever you are, the onewho has no balls to simply be identified while
>making your idiotic remarks with no foundation or bearing, the real
>issue to the Randi Sex Tape is that they were all under the age of
>consent and even a sicko like a couple you jerks should have a little
>compassion for kids who have been lead astray by a pervert. More
>important the tape speaks for itself. James Randi was caught red handed
>soliciting sexual favors in the most explicit and vulgar way.
>
>Although big mouth James Randi threatened to sue and assured the public
>he would travel to Toronto to initiate the action (still waiting) and
>mouthed off as usual about his reputation which he doesn't have, simply
>get him to answer whether in the past he's being confronted with the
>transcript portion of the tape I presented here, in a court of law and,
>whether that portion of the transcript was in fact verified to be him.
>I'm sure he'll come up with some lame excuse to pacify a few of his
>groupies and partners in crime, but the bottom line if this is set to
>guilty or innocent, James Randi is guilty as hell. At least O.J.
>simpson had no witnesses. James Randi, I've uncovered quite a few.
>Where's that law suit you chicken shit.
>
I am a long time admirer of Randi's work and am a bit baffled by this
entire line of thinking. Lets say Randi is gay (not that I have any
reason to think so) and that he was caught 'red handed' as you say
(with me it's not usually my hands that get red) soliciting sexual
favors, so what? How do you think people have sex anyway Curley? I
mean your just not going to get laid much if you don't bring the
subject up. Is it the same sex aspect that bugs you? Who the hell
cares?
Okay I get it it's the underage thing. Well lets say for a second
that it's true ( and I have no reason to belive that it is) there are
two problems with it.
One: It would probably be pretty damn easy to misjudge the age of a
person six foot eleve.
Two: The fact that person A is a pedofile does not make person B a
genuine psychic (or mystic or Jesus Christ or anything else for that
matter)
Jim Jonas
In article <57v2rt$4...@trojan.neta.com>, bl...@trojan.neta.com (Blair P
Houghton) wrote:
>
> --Blair
> "Is there a word for someone
> whose extant lies exceed the
> sum of his knowledge?"
I would imagine that the word 'Earl' would express that concept pretty
well around these parts.
-Jim Jonas
Philippe Schnoebelen
Earl Curley <psy...@globalserve.net> writes:
Earl> I've spoken to Mr. Allan Fairbridge who's more than prepared to
Earl> join the suit strictly for the hell of it.
I clearly imagine the scene. ***giggles***
Earl gets his puppets out of the shoe box.
"Mr. Allan, do you know what is happening on the net ?"
[Takes a shriek voice] "No !?"
[Back to Earl's normal voice] "A pervert is nagging at you.
But he'll soon get what he's asking for ..."
[Back to shriek voice] "Yes. Nail him Earl. Do you need me to post anew ?
Telling them how great you are ?"
Earl, you are pathetic... You are parading pants down in front of a
world-wide audience of thousands. WAKE UP !!
--Philippe
Philippe Schnoebelen
Earl Curley <psych...@globalserve.net> writes:
Earl> Anyone with an ounce of
Earl> credibility wouldn't let someone like Tilman get away with stripping the
Earl> dignity of a disabled person and I hope the rest of those reading his
Earl> disgusting remarks lets him know.
I'll let him know he seems a perfectly nice guy, and in fact never posted
anything joking at disabled people.
Now if you mean joking at an intellectually-disabled famous Toronto
pathetic psychopath, well, he did not really joke. He stated what is
plainly and painfully clear to all readers here.
[To Tilman:] disregard the complaints you receive from Allan Fairbridge and
Susan Bell. I understand that Susan does/did the typing work for Earl.
This explains why Earl (seems to) share her syntax and "spelling". I'd say
she probably do the typing for Allan too. ***giggles***
Earl, WAKE UP !!!
--Philippe
Earl Curley
The James Randi you so admire is not the James Randi who operates behind
the scenes in real life. Just ask a fellow by the name of Ben Robinson
who was only 15 years old at the time, who was also an admirier of James
Randi the magician, who went to a show of his in New York City, was
approached by Randi after the show and taken for supper and was fondled
in an elevator after the event by James Randi. At the time he was
totally shocked but there was more to come. In a disposition which has
been brought up in court cases a few years after the fact, Randi
supposedly took him to his managers office in New York and proceeded to
invite Robinson into a hidden room which resembled a dungeon. Robinson
was so disturbed by these events that it has virtually ruined his life
even today. The only reason Randi escaped charges was because of the
statute of limitations and nothing more than that. In fact any future
court cases, Randi can expect Robinson's testimony to be heard and he
knows that. And that's what you admire? Give me a break.
> Okay I get it it's the underage thing. Well lets say for a second
> that it's true ( and I have no reason to belive that it is) there are
> two problems with it.
> One: It would probably be pretty damn easy to misjudge the age of a
> person six foot eleve.
> Two: The fact that person A is a pedofile does not make person B a
> genuine psychic (or mystic or Jesus Christ or anything else for that
> matter)
The fact remains is that the James Randis of this world are taking
avantage of their positions in public life and abusing the trust that we
parents place on him to teach our children and we didn't allow our
children his public events to have them abused by him. Now Randi where
is that civil action?
Earl Curley
Bob Casanova wrote:
>
> On Mon, 02 Dec 1996 13:28:12 +0000, in sci.skeptic, Earl Curley
> <psy...@globalserve.net> wrote:
>
> >Philippe Schnoebelen wrote:
> >>
> >> kmil...@cswnet.com writes:
> >>
> >> > I have never meet Earl, but I have read his work [...]. I have read and
> >> > seen better and worse.
> >>
> >> You have seen worse ? That's hard to imagine ...
> >>
> >> Worse ? Could it have been, by any chance, by "Allan Fairbridge" or "Susan
> >> Bell" ?
> >>
> >> --Philippe
> >
> >
> >WITHOUT PREJUDICE:
> >
> >You have one week to retract your allegations
>
> Er, *what* allegations? That your posts are the worst he's seen?
> Hardly seems to be libelous, even if it weren't true...
>
> and if that is not
> >addressed publicly take my word for it, sport, although unlike James
> >Randi who's afraid to file a civil action against me for simply pointing
> >out the facts of allegations, evidenceand dispositions of his past
> >misdeeds, I will not hesitate to address your allegations, by simply
> >filing suit against your service provider for allowing you to make
> >libelous and malicously untrue allegations which are not factual and in
> >join the suit strictly for the hell of it.
> >
> >seen me preform in public or on radio who is not aware that Susan was my
> >secretary for over two years and is bright enough to be attending
> >university at this time. They also know that Susan is disabled and one
> >more word which malines her, asshole, and you can bet your last dollar
> >that if you can't defend a law suit because of being a child, I'm sure,
> >as Randi mentioned in his stupid threat, your parents can pay for you.
> >
> >Now retract your comments or present proof which in anyway proves these
> >two people neither exist, or further to your allegation that I had
> >falsified their names. That's your last chance, punk.
>
> Oh, *those* (nonexistent in the above post) allegations! Are you
> reading something into Philippe's post which isn't actually there? I
> thought you might be. Don't look now, but the paranoids are after you
> again.
>
> >
>
> Bob C.
>
> "No one's life, liberty or property is safe while
> the legislature is in session." - Mark Twain
WITHOUT PREJUDICE:
I've allowed Phillippe's posts to go ignored in the past as well as
yours. Not only the two of you but a few of your other friends have
overstepped your boundaries. You believe that you can libel anyone and
get away with it well you're mistaken.
After proving the allegations which have been brought up against James
Randi (if and whenever he files that civil action) you can be assured
that a few of you are going down with him. Your smart Alex remarks have
constantly been malicous and enjoy your time that you have available on
this Internet because mark my words; that when I'm through with a you
few of you you'll be lucky to even pretend you have access.
I've discovered a very interesting loop-hole. Since none of you
children have resources of any sort, my actions will be directed against
the international service providers. interestingly enough, the same
actions are null and void in Canada and Japan.
Both of your service providers have been notified in written form by my
legal counsel of the potential actions and I assure you if they allow
you to still post your vile libelous statements within the perscribed
time limit they have been notified of, an immediate action will be
launched. Have fun guys. I'm going to have the last laugh as usual.
Philippe Schnoebelen
Earl Curley <psych...@globalserve.net> writes:
Earl> Just ask a fellow by the name of Ben Robinson
Thank you Earl for the good advice. And, of course, this is what you did
yourself no ? You asked a fellow by the name of Ben Robinson ! Did you ?
Oh ! Please, understand that I am not accusing you of lying and pretending
you asked him because you have not yet pretended you did. I'm just asking
whether you followed your good advice... ***giggles***
PS: I know a true psychic needs not "ask people" in the flesh just like
ordinary mortals have to. ***more giggles***
--Philippe
Blair P Houghton
In article <32A204...@apci.net>, Timr <reit...@apci.net> wrote:
>ALL I KNOW IS THAT I CAME HEAR TO READ ON PARANORMAL AND I FOUND
>PEDAFILES. GET OFF THIS PAGE PLEASE! I DONT CARE TO HEAR YOUR
>PROBLEMS, YOU SHOULD BE PUT IN JAIL OR DE-MEMBERED!! YOU ARE THE LOWEST
>FORM OF LIFE..
Hey, Earl!
This is called "evidence of defamation."
--Blair
"I save *everything*."
Philippe Schnoebelen
Earl Curley <psych...@globalserve.net> writes:
Earl> Your smart Alex remarks have constantly been malicous
!!!! Smart Alex !!!! BWAAAAHHHHAAHHAAHHAAHH
Please ... stop it ... BWAAAAHAHA ... let me catch my breath ... I beg you
How can you hope to explain in a courtroom that you are not an illiterate
deluded buffon posing as Dr.Prof.Dr. Earl, PhD^2.
Earl> Both of your service providers have been notified
??? My service provider ? You mean Alex ?! ***LAUGHS***
[[[===begin Earl's dream sequence===]]]
Earl> Have fun guys. I'm going to have the last laugh as usual.
[[[===end Earl's dream sequence===]]]
Typical Earl's rejoinder. With this, you can leave the discussion for a
while, happy to know that in the end the true Robin Hood that you are will
get his revenge over the villains. Have sweet dreams ... In the
"meantime", thousands have the first laughs, seeing you parading pants
down.
WAKE UP !!!
--Philippe
New York Theosophical Society
Earl Curley (psy...@globalserve.net) wrote:
: The James Randi you so admire is not the James Randi who operates behind
: the scenes in real life. Just ask a fellow by the name of Ben Robinson
: who was only 15 years old at the time, who was also an admirier of James
: Randi the magician, who went to a show of his in New York City, was
: approached by Randi after the show and taken for supper and was fondled
: in an elevator after the event by James Randi. At the time he was
: totally shocked but there was more to come. In a disposition which has
: been brought up in court cases a few years after the fact, Randi
: supposedly took him to his managers office in New York and proceeded to
: invite Robinson into a hidden room which resembled a dungeon. Robinson
: was so disturbed by these events that it has virtually ruined his life
: even today. The only reason Randi escaped charges was because of the
: statute of limitations and nothing more than that. In fact any future
: court cases, Randi can expect Robinson's testimony to be heard and he
: knows that. And that's what you admire? Give me a break.
I first met Randi at Lou Tannen's when I was a similar age. I saw
him a number of times, talked with him at length, and there was never
even a hint of impropriety.
Bart Lidofsky
Tilman Hausherr
In <32A322...@globalserve.net>, Earl Curley <psy...@globalserve.net>
wrote:
>Here's another one of Tilman's sick remarks. I guess being physically
>disabled is a joke to people like him. He not only gets his jollies
>berating innocent physically impaired people but has the audacity to
>play on it. You're the sickest of sick, Tilman and this is the second
>time you've showed your true colors. Anyone with an ounce of
>credibility wouldn't let someone like Tilman get away with stripping the
>dignity of a disabled person and I hope the rest of those reading his
>disgusting remarks lets him know.
Curley, your remark is similar to last year, showing you aren't getting
smarter as you get older. Should we treat Susan Bell differently in
debates because she has a physical disability ? Like "Susan, you said
Curley is a psychic, this is wrong, but because you have to fight with
your disability, I accept that he is a psychic?".
People who are disabled want to be treated like ordinary people, except
of course in matters *related* to their disability.
Tilman
Steve Terrell
Earl Curley wrote:
> ...
> Here's another one of Tilman's sick remarks. I guess being physically
> disabled is a joke to people like him. He not only gets his jollies
> berating innocent physically impaired people but has the audacity to
> play on it. You're the sickest of sick, Tilman and this is the second
> time you've showed your true colors. Anyone with an ounce of
> credibility wouldn't let someone like Tilman get away with stripping the
> dignity of a disabled person and I hope the rest of those reading his
> disgusting remarks lets him know.
>
Earl,
I have a friend who is physically disabled. Would you mind terribly if
she took a turn at bashing Susan via usenet?
Chow,
Steve
Steve Terrell
Earl Curley wrote:
> You have one week to retract your allegations and if that is not
> addressed publicly take my word for it, sport, although unlike James
> Randi who's afraid to file a civil action against me for simply pointing
> out the facts of allegations, evidenceand dispositions of his past
> misdeeds, I will not hesitate to address your allegations, by simply
> filing suit against your service provider for allowing you to make
> libelous and malicously untrue allegations which are not factual and in
> fact, I've spoken to Mr. Allan Fairbridge who's more than prepared to
> join the suit strictly for the hell of it.
Earl, you are a weenie. Please extend to me the customary "1 week" grace
period to retract my statement that you are a weenie; after which,
I will apologize for calling you a weenine and will proceed to call you a
doofus. By the way, I am physically disabled, so you shouldn't raise
questions about me.
> As to Susan Bell, there's not anyone who knows my practice nor who's
> seen me preform in public or on radio who is not aware that Susan was my
> secretary for over two years and is bright enough to be attending
> university at this time. They also know that Susan is disabled and one
> more word which malines her, asshole, and you can bet your last dollar
> that if you can't defend a law suit because of being a child, I'm sure,
> as Randi mentioned in his stupid threat, your parents can pay for you.
The wording here could refer to the fact that no one knows his practice
or has seen/heard him perform.
Also, it looks to me that Earl, psychic, is the only one degrading susan.
He says this in reference to Susan: "... her, asshole, ...". I think that
"her, Susan, ..." would have been more than sufficient. Unless-- Earl ment to
say "her asshole", which I haven't seen anyone but Earl reference.
> Now retract your comments or present proof which in anyway proves these
> two people neither exist, or further to your allegation that I had
> falsified their names. That's your last chance, punk.
What does "neither exist" mean?
Earl Curley
Steve Terrell wrote:
>
> Earl Curley wrote:
> > ...
> > Here's another one of Tilman's sick remarks. I guess being physically
> > disabled is a joke to people like him. He not only gets his jollies
> > berating innocent physically impaired people but has the audacity to
> > play on it. You're the sickest of sick, Tilman and this is the second
> > time you've showed your true colors. Anyone with an ounce of
> > credibility wouldn't let someone like Tilman get away with stripping the
> > dignity of a disabled person and I hope the rest of those reading his
> > disgusting remarks lets him know.
> >
>
> I have a friend who is physically disabled. Would you mind terribly if
> she took a turn at bashing Susan via usenet?
>
> Chow,
> Steve
I have a friend who's gay. Would you mind if he took a turn at bashing
you?
Bob Casanova
On Tue, 03 Dec 1996 13:44:49 -0600, in sci.skeptic, Steve Terrell
<st...@hfab1.sc.ti.com> wrote:
>Earl Curley wrote:
>
<snip>
>
>> Now retract your comments or present proof which in anyway proves these
>> two people neither exist, or further to your allegation that I had
>> falsified their names. That's your last chance, punk.
>
>What does "neither exist" mean?
It's an Earlism. It means he is "grammatically challenged".
>
>> Earl Curley
>> psy...@globalserve.net
>> http://www.webdesign.ca/
(Note followups, if any)
Bob Casanova
On Tue, 03 Dec 1996 08:17:36 +0000, in sci.skeptic, Earl Curley
<psy...@globalserve.net> wrote:
>Bob Casanova wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 02 Dec 1996 13:28:12 +0000, in sci.skeptic, Earl Curley
>> <psy...@globalserve.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Philippe Schnoebelen wrote:
>> >>
>> >> kmil...@cswnet.com writes:
>> >>
>> >> > I have never meet Earl, but I have read his work [...]. I have read and
>> >> > seen better and worse.
>> >>
>> >> You have seen worse ? That's hard to imagine ...
>> >>
>> >> Worse ? Could it have been, by any chance, by "Allan Fairbridge" or "Susan
>> >> Bell" ?
>> >>
>> >> --Philippe
>> >
>> >
>> >WITHOUT PREJUDICE:
>> >
>> >You have one week to retract your allegations
>>
>> Er, *what* allegations? That your posts are the worst he's seen?
>> Hardly seems to be libelous, even if it weren't true...
>>
>> and if that is not
>> >addressed publicly take my word for it, sport, although unlike James
>> >Randi who's afraid to file a civil action against me for simply pointing
>> >out the facts of allegations, evidenceand dispositions of his past
>> >misdeeds, I will not hesitate to address your allegations, by simply
>> >filing suit against your service provider for allowing you to make
>> >libelous and malicously untrue allegations which are not factual and in
>> >fact, I've spoken to Mr. Allan Fairbridge who's more than prepared to
>> >join the suit strictly for the hell of it.
>> >
>> >As to Susan Bell, there's not anyone who knows my practice nor who's
>> >seen me preform in public or on radio who is not aware that Susan was my
>> >secretary for over two years and is bright enough to be attending
>> >university at this time. They also know that Susan is disabled and one
>> >more word which malines her, asshole, and you can bet your last dollar
>> >that if you can't defend a law suit because of being a child, I'm sure,
>> >as Randi mentioned in his stupid threat, your parents can pay for you.
>> >
>> >Now retract your comments or present proof which in anyway proves these
>> >two people neither exist, or further to your allegation that I had
>> >falsified their names. That's your last chance, punk.
>>
>> Oh, *those* (nonexistent in the above post) allegations! Are you
>> reading something into Philippe's post which isn't actually there? I
>> thought you might be. Don't look now, but the paranoids are after you
>> again.
>>
>> >
>> >Earl Curley
>> >psy...@globalserve.net
>> >http://www.webdesign.ca/
>>
>> (Note followups, if any)
>>
>> Bob C.
>>
>> "No one's life, liberty or property is safe while
>> the legislature is in session." - Mark Twain
>
>WITHOUT PREJUDICE:
>
>I've allowed Phillippe's posts to go ignored in the past as well as
>yours. Not only the two of you but a few of your other friends have
>overstepped your boundaries.
Earl, I don't *have* no steenking boundaries.
You believe that you can libel anyone and
>get away with it well you're mistaken.
Show me an example of my "libel". Didn't think so...
>
>After proving the allegations which have been brought up against James
>Randi (if and whenever he files that civil action) you can be assured
>that a few of you are going down with him. Your smart Alex remarks have
>constantly been malicous
From the Master of Malicious Remarks...
and enjoy your time that you have available on
>this Internet because mark my words; that when I'm through with a you
>few of you you'll be lucky to even pretend you have access.
And I'll pretend it here.
>
>I've discovered a very interesting loop-hole. Since none of you
>children have resources of any sort, my actions will be directed against
>the international service providers. interestingly enough, the same
>actions are null and void in Canada and Japan.
>
>Both of your service providers have been notified in written form by my
>legal counsel of the potential actions
BS
and I assure you if they allow
>you to still post your vile libelous statements within the perscribed
>time limit they have been notified of, an immediate action will be
>launched. Have fun guys. I'm going to have the last laugh as usual.
Idiots usually laugh continuously; feel free.