L
Lionel
Guest
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 13:56:01 -0400, "Rhonda Lea Kirk"
<spunky@databasix.com> wrote:
>"Lionel" <usenet@imagenoir.com> wrote in message
>news:f0qo7p$f63$10@blackhelicopter.databasix.com
>> On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 12:37:38 -0400, "Rhonda Lea Kirk"
>> <spunky@databasix.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Lionel" <usenet@imagenoir.com> wrote in message
>>> news:f0qjjo$6k3$4@blackhelicopter.databasix.com
>>>> On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 11:10:26 -0400, "Rhonda Lea Kirk"
>>>> <spunky@databasix.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Lionel" <usenet@imagenoir.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:f0qequ$ovh$2@blackhelicopter.databasix.com
>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 09:14:45 -0400, "Rhonda Lea Kirk"
>>>>>> <spunky@databasix.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Lionel" <usenet@imagenoir.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:f0p8al$qi0$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 23:41:35 -0400, "Rhonda Lea Kirk"
>>>>>>>> <spunky@databasix.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Lionel" <usenet@imagenoir.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:f0p5vi$lc2$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 22:06:53 -0400, "Rhonda Lea Kirk"
>>>>>>>>>> <spunky@databasix.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Lionel" <usenet@imagenoir.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:f0p0l8$9a5$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 20:23:41 -0400, "Rhonda Lea Kirk"
>>>>>>>>>>>> <spunky@databasix.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Lionel" <usenet@imagenoir.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:f0oqbk$ocn$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 09:27:38 -0600, Art Deco
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <erfc@caballista.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lionel <usenet@imagenoir.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 07:38:11 -0700, miguel
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mjc101@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kali wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Respondant said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> miguel wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Respondant wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> miguel wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Psick Pfreak Psycho Pstalker:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> miguel:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Groups restored
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you trying to make a statement, crasston?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Psick Pfreak Psycho Pstalker:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> miguel:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Psick Pfreak Psycho Pstalker:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> miguel:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And: 2) You're asking him to prove
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something that he can't possibly prove
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without outing personal email/IRC (or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever it was).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All he as to do is ask for permission.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My slip is showing, madam.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Corrected.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But he won't do that, because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that would cause his plausible deniability
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to vanish.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Translation: "If he does that then it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> justifies what the bunny-boiler did."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your logic circuits are failing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Corrected.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All you have to do is ask permission. If you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> receive permission, then the two situations
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are not comparable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is not to concede that there is anything
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unethical about posting one's own email.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What in particular do you not understand about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the word no, crasston?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will not stoop to the level of a psychotic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nutjob who is hell bent on exacting revenge
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because she was spurned.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's a bit late for you to ever claim any moral
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> highground on usenet, psycho.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But asking for permission to prove your tacit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but necessary premise that some suicidal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gesture made your phone call to the police
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasonable is not stooping to any level
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatsoever.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only reasonable conclusion anybody can draw
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is that you are aware there is no evidence of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such gesture so you're hiding behind your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ridiculous claim of moral high ground.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unlike you and the bunny-boiler, I have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> principles, and principles override everything
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in my world view except survival instinct. In
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other words, I refuse to stoop to her level or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to yours, thus you are free to draw any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusion you like, crasston.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you don't like that, tough titties for you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HTH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here, how about if I ask for you? Rhonda, if Rick
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has any email from you dated March 23 that he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believes is the equivalent of a suicidal gesture,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may he have permission to post it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now, if she says yes, how can that violate any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rule against the unauthorized posting of email to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> usenet?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> She would be authorizing it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your principles <cough> would not be at risk of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being sodomized and you could make the case for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the existence of a suicidal gesture.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about it, psycho?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm still trying to wrap my head around Rick
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> avowing he has "principles" and a "survival
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instinct" after having tacitly admitted to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> grabbing Rhonda's breast in public, (in front of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stranger, no less) and continuing to smoke
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cigarettes while being asthmatic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HTH ROFL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hard to figure, you're damn right.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Know what's even harder for me to figure? Where's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the outrage from AUK over the breast-grabbing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incident that Rick doesn't deny? Surely Kali or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some other armchair shrink should have written Rick
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the riot act over such an egregious offense, no?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or at least scolded him in public for not respecting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rhonda's "boundaries" or some other such
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> psycho-babble bullshit like that, no?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nevermind. That was all rhetorical.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The question is, why would anyone is AUK care to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> involve themselves in such a petty inquisition? Two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fifty-ish year-old lovers on vacation and he touched
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> her breast. Do you feel outraged about that,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Respondant? I can't muster up enough give- a-**** for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some reason.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're pretty good at answering rhetorical questions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> after all, Kali.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> According to Rhonda he grabbed her breast in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presence of a friend whom they had recently just met
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in meatspace, in a way that can only be construed as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gesture of territoriality and possessiveness. It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objectified her. It was degrading.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It was being playful, numbnuts. Her violent buddy was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> telling us all how she's practically a Black Belt, & how
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> she isn't at all inhibited about beating up men in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> social situations, so if the lying twat was so upset
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about it, why didn't she slap him one at the time? My
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GF's shy & tiny, but she'd whack me one if I grabbed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> her tit in public.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're trying to minimize it for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your own stupid reasons by characterizing it as mere
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> touching.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're trying to maximise it to get in her pants,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crasstoad, you simpering little crawler. It won't work,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> y'know, she laughs at wimps like you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note that she made sure that crasston knows all the gory
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> details, probably including date, time, location, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> names of witnesses.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course. No doubt she thinks he'll provide her with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legal assistance to escalate her persecution,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tell me more, Carnac.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seeing as she's unemployed & can't afford a real attorney.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> One of the few lawyer friends I stayed in contact with in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> New Jersey specializes in First Amendment issues.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> <twirls finger in air> Whoop de do. I have three
>>>>>>>>>>>> ex-girlfriends who're lawyers, all of whom I'm still on good
>>>>>>>>>>>> terms with.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> rofl!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Oh Lionel, you poor pathetic ****.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's no more pathetic than your boundless faith in the notion
>>>>>>>>>> that knowing a lawyer makes your worthless cause any more
>>>>>>>>>> winnable, which is obviously what you're trying to say with
>>>>>>>>>> your lame reference to your "lawyer friends" in NJ. Give 'em a
>>>>>>>>>> call, Bunny-Boiler - they'll tell you that you haven't got a
>>>>>>>>>> case against any of us, & that attempting to bring one will
>>>>>>>>>> just make you look even kookier than you already do.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You asserted that I can't afford legal counsel. I explained
>>>>>>>>> what I would do if I needed legal counsel.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And I explained how you've ****ed up any possibility of using it
>>>>>>>> to further your demented jihad.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Giving legal advice, are you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yep. You think you're the first vengeful nutter I've seen spewing
>>>>>> legal threats in AUK?
>>>>>
>>>>> Am I the first person on whose behalf you have made such threats,
>>>>> Lionel?
>>>>
>>>> "I know you are but what am I?"
>>>
>>> Is that the best you can do?
>>>
>>> No facts in evidence, just more of your pathetic lack of flaming
>>> skills.
>>
>> Oh, I thought you wanted to spew whiny psychobabble. If it's flames
>> you want, I'm ready when you are, Hon.
>
>Really?
>
>It seems your best work so far has been to label me a pedophile, Lionel.
>
>Somehow, that just doesn't seem to cut it for "creative flaming."
Like I said, any time you feel like flaming, just go ahead & give me
your best shot, Honeybunch.
--
W "Some people are alive only because it is illegal to kill them."
. | ,. w ,
\|/ \|/ Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
<spunky@databasix.com> wrote:
>"Lionel" <usenet@imagenoir.com> wrote in message
>news:f0qo7p$f63$10@blackhelicopter.databasix.com
>> On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 12:37:38 -0400, "Rhonda Lea Kirk"
>> <spunky@databasix.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Lionel" <usenet@imagenoir.com> wrote in message
>>> news:f0qjjo$6k3$4@blackhelicopter.databasix.com
>>>> On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 11:10:26 -0400, "Rhonda Lea Kirk"
>>>> <spunky@databasix.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Lionel" <usenet@imagenoir.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:f0qequ$ovh$2@blackhelicopter.databasix.com
>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 09:14:45 -0400, "Rhonda Lea Kirk"
>>>>>> <spunky@databasix.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Lionel" <usenet@imagenoir.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:f0p8al$qi0$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 23:41:35 -0400, "Rhonda Lea Kirk"
>>>>>>>> <spunky@databasix.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Lionel" <usenet@imagenoir.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:f0p5vi$lc2$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 22:06:53 -0400, "Rhonda Lea Kirk"
>>>>>>>>>> <spunky@databasix.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Lionel" <usenet@imagenoir.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:f0p0l8$9a5$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 20:23:41 -0400, "Rhonda Lea Kirk"
>>>>>>>>>>>> <spunky@databasix.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Lionel" <usenet@imagenoir.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:f0oqbk$ocn$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 09:27:38 -0600, Art Deco
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <erfc@caballista.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lionel <usenet@imagenoir.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 07:38:11 -0700, miguel
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mjc101@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kali wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Respondant said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> miguel wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Respondant wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> miguel wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Psick Pfreak Psycho Pstalker:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> miguel:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Groups restored
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you trying to make a statement, crasston?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Psick Pfreak Psycho Pstalker:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> miguel:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Psick Pfreak Psycho Pstalker:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> miguel:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And: 2) You're asking him to prove
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something that he can't possibly prove
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without outing personal email/IRC (or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever it was).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All he as to do is ask for permission.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My slip is showing, madam.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Corrected.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But he won't do that, because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that would cause his plausible deniability
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to vanish.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Translation: "If he does that then it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> justifies what the bunny-boiler did."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your logic circuits are failing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Corrected.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All you have to do is ask permission. If you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> receive permission, then the two situations
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are not comparable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is not to concede that there is anything
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unethical about posting one's own email.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What in particular do you not understand about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the word no, crasston?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will not stoop to the level of a psychotic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nutjob who is hell bent on exacting revenge
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because she was spurned.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's a bit late for you to ever claim any moral
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> highground on usenet, psycho.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But asking for permission to prove your tacit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but necessary premise that some suicidal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gesture made your phone call to the police
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasonable is not stooping to any level
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatsoever.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only reasonable conclusion anybody can draw
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is that you are aware there is no evidence of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such gesture so you're hiding behind your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ridiculous claim of moral high ground.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unlike you and the bunny-boiler, I have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> principles, and principles override everything
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in my world view except survival instinct. In
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other words, I refuse to stoop to her level or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to yours, thus you are free to draw any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusion you like, crasston.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you don't like that, tough titties for you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HTH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here, how about if I ask for you? Rhonda, if Rick
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has any email from you dated March 23 that he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believes is the equivalent of a suicidal gesture,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may he have permission to post it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now, if she says yes, how can that violate any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rule against the unauthorized posting of email to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> usenet?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> She would be authorizing it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your principles <cough> would not be at risk of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being sodomized and you could make the case for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the existence of a suicidal gesture.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about it, psycho?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm still trying to wrap my head around Rick
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> avowing he has "principles" and a "survival
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instinct" after having tacitly admitted to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> grabbing Rhonda's breast in public, (in front of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stranger, no less) and continuing to smoke
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cigarettes while being asthmatic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HTH ROFL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hard to figure, you're damn right.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Know what's even harder for me to figure? Where's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the outrage from AUK over the breast-grabbing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incident that Rick doesn't deny? Surely Kali or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some other armchair shrink should have written Rick
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the riot act over such an egregious offense, no?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or at least scolded him in public for not respecting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rhonda's "boundaries" or some other such
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> psycho-babble bullshit like that, no?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nevermind. That was all rhetorical.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The question is, why would anyone is AUK care to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> involve themselves in such a petty inquisition? Two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fifty-ish year-old lovers on vacation and he touched
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> her breast. Do you feel outraged about that,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Respondant? I can't muster up enough give- a-**** for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some reason.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're pretty good at answering rhetorical questions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> after all, Kali.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> According to Rhonda he grabbed her breast in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presence of a friend whom they had recently just met
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in meatspace, in a way that can only be construed as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gesture of territoriality and possessiveness. It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objectified her. It was degrading.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It was being playful, numbnuts. Her violent buddy was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> telling us all how she's practically a Black Belt, & how
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> she isn't at all inhibited about beating up men in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> social situations, so if the lying twat was so upset
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about it, why didn't she slap him one at the time? My
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GF's shy & tiny, but she'd whack me one if I grabbed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> her tit in public.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're trying to minimize it for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your own stupid reasons by characterizing it as mere
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> touching.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're trying to maximise it to get in her pants,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crasstoad, you simpering little crawler. It won't work,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> y'know, she laughs at wimps like you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note that she made sure that crasston knows all the gory
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> details, probably including date, time, location, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> names of witnesses.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course. No doubt she thinks he'll provide her with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legal assistance to escalate her persecution,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tell me more, Carnac.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seeing as she's unemployed & can't afford a real attorney.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> One of the few lawyer friends I stayed in contact with in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> New Jersey specializes in First Amendment issues.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> <twirls finger in air> Whoop de do. I have three
>>>>>>>>>>>> ex-girlfriends who're lawyers, all of whom I'm still on good
>>>>>>>>>>>> terms with.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> rofl!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Oh Lionel, you poor pathetic ****.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's no more pathetic than your boundless faith in the notion
>>>>>>>>>> that knowing a lawyer makes your worthless cause any more
>>>>>>>>>> winnable, which is obviously what you're trying to say with
>>>>>>>>>> your lame reference to your "lawyer friends" in NJ. Give 'em a
>>>>>>>>>> call, Bunny-Boiler - they'll tell you that you haven't got a
>>>>>>>>>> case against any of us, & that attempting to bring one will
>>>>>>>>>> just make you look even kookier than you already do.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You asserted that I can't afford legal counsel. I explained
>>>>>>>>> what I would do if I needed legal counsel.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And I explained how you've ****ed up any possibility of using it
>>>>>>>> to further your demented jihad.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Giving legal advice, are you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yep. You think you're the first vengeful nutter I've seen spewing
>>>>>> legal threats in AUK?
>>>>>
>>>>> Am I the first person on whose behalf you have made such threats,
>>>>> Lionel?
>>>>
>>>> "I know you are but what am I?"
>>>
>>> Is that the best you can do?
>>>
>>> No facts in evidence, just more of your pathetic lack of flaming
>>> skills.
>>
>> Oh, I thought you wanted to spew whiny psychobabble. If it's flames
>> you want, I'm ready when you are, Hon.
>
>Really?
>
>It seems your best work so far has been to label me a pedophile, Lionel.
>
>Somehow, that just doesn't seem to cut it for "creative flaming."
Like I said, any time you feel like flaming, just go ahead & give me
your best shot, Honeybunch.
--
W "Some people are alive only because it is illegal to kill them."
. | ,. w ,
\|/ \|/ Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
