Re: Ping Lionel (was Re: NOMINATION: Michael Cranston for Bobo Award)

[Rhonda Lea Kirk]

"Lionel" <usenet@imagenoir.com> wrote in message
news:f0remv$a02$2@blackhelicopter.databasix.com
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 14:40:50 -0600, Art Deco <erfc@caballista.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Rhonda Lea Kirk <spunky@databasix.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Lionel" <usenet@imagenoir.com> wrote in message
>>> news:f0qtin$t30$4@blackhelicopter.databasix.com
>>>> On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 12:09:19 -0700, miguel <mjc101@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Fagboi in a Leather Corset:
>>>>>> Crash Street Kidd:
>>>>>>> Art Deco, moron, wrote:
>>>>>>>> Crash Street Kidd wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As I mentioned previously everyone is not scared of me in real
>>>>>>>>> life. The
>>>>>>>>> blue eyed beauty has attacked me on a number of occasions and
>>>>>>>>> the worst I have done is block her punches and kicks. She hits
>>>>>>>>> harder than most of the guys I know. She studied Tae Kwon Do.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> One anonymous poster remarked that I sounded like a "stealth"
>>>>>>>>> alpha male which is what I suppose I am. I have nothing to
>>>>>>>>> prove so I don't go looking for fights. Sometimes you have
>>>>>>>>> to fight when the opposition gives you no choice by
>>>>>>>>> threatening someone near
>>>>>>>>> and dear to you like the blue eyed beauty.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe you should also post about you stratospheric IQ.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I find that people who bring the discussion of IQ into the
>>>>>>> picture as you just did are invariably stupid. HTH.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Funny, I've always felt the same way about dropkicks who talk
>>>>>> about their muscles on Usenet. It's kind of like steroid & HGH
>>>>>> abusing body builders trying to discuss chess strategies or
>>>>>> programming algorithms during a weights session.
>>>>>
>>>>> If Crash beats you at chess will you remove yourself from usenet
>>>>> altogether?
>>>>
>>>> No, I don't even like chess.
>>>
>>> Oddly enough, I don't find that at all surprising.
>>
>> Was that supposed to be an insult?
>
> Apparently so. I'm not much into crosswords or other such puzzles
> either - I find it much more interesting to solve complex problems
> that have real world applications.

Which way to put the roll of paper on the spindle?

--
Rhonda Lea Kirk

Some are tempted to think of life in cyberspace as insignificant,
as escape or meaningless diversion. It is not. Our experiences there
are serious play. We belittle them at our risk. Sherry Turkle

 

[Art Deco]

Rhonda Lea Kirk <spunky@databasix.com> wrote:

>I don't know

Well that is correct.

--
Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco

 

[Kadaitcha Man]

Rhonda Lea Kirk <spunky@databasix.com> Thou flap-mouthed
purpose-changer. Thou grotesque equivocator. Ye bemoaned:

> "Kadaitcha Man" <nntp.news@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:so2ku.2k8.19.1@news.alt.net
>> Rhonda Lea Kirk <spunky@databasix.com> Thou island carrion. Thou hath
>> more hair than wit, and more faults than hairs, and more wealth than
>> faults. Ye announced:
>>
>>> "Kadaitcha Man" <nntp.news@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:so23f.ku.19.1@news.alt.net
>>>> miguel <mjc101@gmail.com> Thou dumb innocent. Thou gnawing animal.
>>>> Ye muddled:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 15:32:53 -0600, Art Deco <erfc@caballista.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Rhonda Lea Kirk <spunky@databasix.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Art Deco" <erfc@caballista.org> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:260420071440500821%erfc@caballista.org
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Was that supposed to be an insult?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you play chess?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Did OJ Simpson slash his wife?
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you believe in America?
>>>>> Do you believe in Justice?
>>>>> Do you believe in the Constitution of the United States?
>>>>> Do you believe in the RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY?
>>>>>
>>>>> I do.
>>>>>
>>>>> The jury said it.
>>>>> I believe it.
>>>>> That settles it.
>>>>>
>>>>> NOT GUILTY.
>>>>>
>>>>> When the late great Johnny Cochrane told Judge Lance Ito Burrito
>>>>> that OJ Simpson was "absolutely, 100% NOT GUILTY," did the stupid
>>>>> prosecutors listen? No, they didn't. They persecuted a 100% NOT
>>>>> GUILTY man and kept him from hunting for the real killers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now the trail has gone cold.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, Deco, you must believe in prosecuting the 100% NOT GUILTY
>>>>> because you're some kind of idiot, huh?
>>>>
>>>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Very nice trigger. lmao - brilliant - Art asks a
>>>> 6 word question and the frothing loon froths on command, as
>>>> implicitly foretold with the recent words "Are you going to rant
>>>> about OJ Simpson next", and as stated directly 14 days ago, by Art
>>>> himself, 'Pssst -- crasston will defend OJ Simpson to his dying
>>>> breath."
>>>>
>>>> For this worthy on cue frothing the likes of which I've only ever
>>>> seen Pamela K Russell perform over Michael Jackson, I hereby
>>>> nominate Michael "miguel" Cranston for the Barbara Woodhouse
>>>> Memorial "Dog Whistle" k0oK Award, trained and owned by Art Deco.
>>>>
>>>> Barbara Woodhouse Memorial "Dog Whistle" Award
>>>> Named in honour of the skilful dog-trainer who became a British TV
>>>> personality in the 1980s, this award is given jointly to the best
>>>> trained net.kook in any given month and to his or her trainer.
>>>> Possible examples of good training include obedience to one's
>>>> owner's commands to reply to posts, and devotion in following one's
>>>> owner around from group to group and through the Google archive.
>>>> House-training, which, regrettably, is a rare accomplishment for a
>>>> kook, isn't a prerequisite. Woof.
>>>>
>>>> Do I hear seconds?
>>>
>>> For a cut and paste from an old troll?
>>
>> stupid
>
> Stupid?

That seems to be what the word actually is, yes. Having trouble reading?

> Art's made several requests today; I would guess it seemed only polite
> to comply:

Whereas I assert it was stupid to comply by frothing on demand, copy/paste
or not.

> Message-ID: <260420071104583690%erfc@caballista.org>
> Message-ID: <260420071441373640%erfc@caballista.org>
> Message-ID: <260420071532538178%erfc@caballista.org>
>
>> Cut 'n paste or
>> no, Deco said crasstoad would do it, and crasstoad did do it.
>
> No. He asked me once and he asked Mike twice.

What in particular did you not understand about the statement, "Deco said
crasstoad would do it"? Should it be inferred that you did not read the
explicitly quoted text? Or are you engaging in your ususual non-game of
argument by outright avoidance? Hmmm?

My money is on the latter.

>> Anyway,
>> you have no say in the matter so **** right off and die.
>
> Shoulda thought of that on the 23rd.

What does that have to do with a discussion about the nomination?

Should the reader suppose that they may have cause to infer that you might
be wishing to make reference to things that have been explicity withdrawn
from? And should the reader then infer other things logically flowing on
from that? Or is it that, since you say it should have been thought of
beforehand, then one might be paranoid if the reference may only refer to
nothing other than a previous BWMDW nomination someone made on that very
date being knocked down by the FNVW because of an existing owner?

"Now you've brought it into this thread, but I saw no post from HJ that
mentioned..."

"He's not the one who introduce...into the threads in which I
was posting."

Et al.

If you decide to respond to that and address it directly (miracles have been
known to happen) rather than weaseling your way around the point as you do,
take careful note of the keywords and key phrases: Should; suppose; might;
"the reader", wishing, "one", may, "Or is it that" etc.

> The real question, I suppose is whether Mike can be trained by both
> Bookman and Deco:
>
> http://www.caballista.org/auk/kookle.php?search=cranston
>
> I don't know the answer.

Anyone who claims auk as their home group would reasonably be expected to
know that the FNVW decides those questions, thus the answer to the question
is "The FNVW will decide." Besides, even supposing, for the sake of argument
only, that the FNVW does knock the ownership nom down on the grounds that
Bookman is crasstoad's owner, what may otherwise have been lost in the
general chatter of the newsgroups may now have taken on a slightly higher
profile than it had before. The underlying principle then is, it's the
thought that counts. Win-win; for me. Lose-lose for crasstoad.

Need evidence for any validity at all in that latter win-win/lose-lose
point? It's here: news:59ctamF2jh46hU1@mid.individual.net

--
alt.usenet.kooks
"We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us."
Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129]

Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.
Official Member:
Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660
Usenet Ruiner Lits
Top Assholes on the Net Lits
Most hated usenetizens of all time Lits

"Now I know what it is. Now I know what it means when an
alt.usenet.kook x-post shows up."
AOK in news:ermdlu$nli$1@registered.motzarella.org

Jij bent een platgereden op bart ka

 

[Rhonda Lea Kirk]

"Kadaitcha Man" <nntp.news@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:so83k.poj.19.1@news.alt.net
> Rhonda Lea Kirk <spunky@databasix.com> Thou flap-mouthed
> purpose-changer. Thou grotesque equivocator. Ye bemoaned:
>
>> "Kadaitcha Man" <nntp.news@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:so2ku.2k8.19.1@news.alt.net
>>> Rhonda Lea Kirk <spunky@databasix.com> Thou island carrion. Thou
>>> hath more hair than wit, and more faults than hairs, and more
>>> wealth than faults. Ye announced:
>>>
>>>> "Kadaitcha Man" <nntp.news@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:so23f.ku.19.1@news.alt.net
>>>>> miguel <mjc101@gmail.com> Thou dumb innocent. Thou gnawing animal.
>>>>> Ye muddled:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 15:32:53 -0600, Art Deco
>>>>>> <erfc@caballista.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rhonda Lea Kirk <spunky@databasix.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Art Deco" <erfc@caballista.org> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:260420071440500821%erfc@caballista.org
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Was that supposed to be an insult?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you play chess?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Did OJ Simpson slash his wife?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you believe in America?
>>>>>> Do you believe in Justice?
>>>>>> Do you believe in the Constitution of the United States?
>>>>>> Do you believe in the RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The jury said it.
>>>>>> I believe it.
>>>>>> That settles it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> NOT GUILTY.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When the late great Johnny Cochrane told Judge Lance Ito Burrito
>>>>>> that OJ Simpson was "absolutely, 100% NOT GUILTY," did the stupid
>>>>>> prosecutors listen? No, they didn't. They persecuted a 100% NOT
>>>>>> GUILTY man and kept him from hunting for the real killers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now the trail has gone cold.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, Deco, you must believe in prosecuting the 100% NOT GUILTY
>>>>>> because you're some kind of idiot, huh?
>>>>>
>>>>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Very nice trigger. lmao - brilliant - Art asks
>>>>> a 6 word question and the frothing loon froths on command, as
>>>>> implicitly foretold with the recent words "Are you going to rant
>>>>> about OJ Simpson next", and as stated directly 14 days ago, by Art
>>>>> himself, 'Pssst -- crasston will defend OJ Simpson to his dying
>>>>> breath."
>>>>>
>>>>> For this worthy on cue frothing the likes of which I've only ever
>>>>> seen Pamela K Russell perform over Michael Jackson, I hereby
>>>>> nominate Michael "miguel" Cranston for the Barbara Woodhouse
>>>>> Memorial "Dog Whistle" k0oK Award, trained and owned by Art Deco.
>>>>>
>>>>> Barbara Woodhouse Memorial "Dog Whistle" Award
>>>>> Named in honour of the skilful dog-trainer who became a British TV
>>>>> personality in the 1980s, this award is given jointly to the best
>>>>> trained net.kook in any given month and to his or her trainer.
>>>>> Possible examples of good training include obedience to one's
>>>>> owner's commands to reply to posts, and devotion in following
>>>>> one's owner around from group to group and through the Google
>>>>> archive. House-training, which, regrettably, is a rare
>>>>> accomplishment for a kook, isn't a prerequisite. Woof.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do I hear seconds?
>>>>
>>>> For a cut and paste from an old troll?
>>>
>>> stupid
>>
>> Stupid?
>
> That seems to be what the word actually is, yes. Having trouble
> reading?
>
>> Art's made several requests today; I would guess it seemed only
>> polite to comply:
>
> Whereas I assert it was stupid to comply by frothing on demand,
> copy/paste or not.
>
>> Message-ID: <260420071104583690%erfc@caballista.org>
>> Message-ID: <260420071441373640%erfc@caballista.org>
>> Message-ID: <260420071532538178%erfc@caballista.org>
>>
>>> Cut 'n paste or
>>> no, Deco said crasstoad would do it, and crasstoad did do it.
>>
>> No. He asked me once and he asked Mike twice.
>
> What in particular did you not understand about the statement, "Deco
> said crasstoad would do it"?

Let me get this straight.

Fourteen days ago, Art commented on something he has commented on
countless times before, and suddenly he's psychic? It's not even like he
predicted a date the event would occur, although he then precipitated it
by asking the question. In other words, he should have been able to
predict it, but didn't.

Even better, if you threw a stick for the dog and it took him fourteen
days to retrieve it, would you call him well-trained?

And "Pssst -- crasston will defend OJ Simpson to his dying breath,"
doesn't even describe what Mike has done. It's more along the lines of
what David Goldberger did, albeit not quite so personally heroic. But I
wouldn't expect you to understand the difference between defending the
system and defending the criminal, anyway.

Frankly, I'd give Art an Allisat for biting so hard before I'd give Mike
a Dogwhistle. But that's just me. I would just have expected him to be
over it by now.

> Should it be inferred that you did not
> read the explicitly quoted text? Or are you engaging in your ususual
> non-game of argument by outright avoidance? Hmmm?
>
> My money is on the latter.

I think your argument is, in a word, moronic. Check with a bookie to see
what kind of odds you'd get on Art's "prediction," as stated.

>>> Anyway,
>>> you have no say in the matter so **** right off and die.
>>
>> Shoulda thought of that on the 23rd.
>
> What does that have to do with a discussion about the nomination?

What does "**** right off and die" have to do with a discussion of the
nomination?

> Should the reader suppose that they may have cause to infer that you
> might be wishing to make reference to things that have been explicity
> withdrawn from?

I haven't withdrawn from anything.

> And should the reader then infer other things
> logically flowing on from that? Or is it that, since you say it
> should have been thought of beforehand, then one might be paranoid if
> the reference may only refer to nothing other than a previous BWMDW
> nomination someone made on that very date being knocked down by the
> FNVW because of an existing owner?

The reference was to "**** off and die."

> "Now you've brought it into this thread, but I saw no post from HJ
> that mentioned..."
>
> "He's not the one who introduce...into the threads in which I
> was posting."
>
> Et al.

Do you have a point? It's not apparent from the quoted text.

> If you decide to respond to that and address it directly (miracles
> have been known to happen) rather than weaseling your way around the
> point as you do, take careful note of the keywords and key phrases:
> Should; suppose; might; "the reader", wishing, "one", may, "Or is it
> that" etc.

Rick, you're so vague as to be incomprehensible.

If you want to say something, stop babbling and say it.

>> The real question, I suppose is whether Mike can be trained by both
>> Bookman and Deco:
>>
>> http://www.caballista.org/auk/kookle.php?search=cranston
>>
>> I don't know the answer.
>
> Anyone who claims auk as their home group would reasonably be
> expected to know that the FNVW decides those questions, thus the
> answer to the question is "The FNVW will decide."

The question has arisen before. I don't remember the answer. At the
time, I thought it was a no, but I really don't recall with certainty.

> Besides, even
> supposing, for the sake of argument only, that the FNVW does knock
> the ownership nom down on the grounds that Bookman is crasstoad's
> owner, what may otherwise have been lost in the general chatter of
> the newsgroups may now have taken on a slightly higher profile than
> it had before. The underlying principle then is, it's the thought
> that counts. Win-win; for me. Lose-lose for crasstoad.

If you call this a win, I suppose so.

> Need evidence for any validity at all in that latter win-win/lose-lose
> point? It's here: news:59ctamF2jh46hU1@mid.individual.net

If that's what you call evidence, it's no wonder you have to resort to
baffling with bullshit to win.

--
Rhonda Lea Kirk

Some are tempted to think of life in cyberspace as insignificant,
as escape or meaningless diversion. It is not. Our experiences there
are serious play. We belittle them at our risk. Sherry Turkle

 

[miguel]

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 06:55:26 +0545, "Kadaitcha Man"
<nntp.news@gmail.com> wrote:

>Rhonda Lea Kirk <spunky@databasix.com> Thou flap-mouthed
>purpose-changer. Thou grotesque equivocator. Ye bemoaned:
>
>> "Kadaitcha Man" <nntp.news@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:so2ku.2k8.19.1@news.alt.net
>>> Rhonda Lea Kirk <spunky@databasix.com> Thou island carrion. Thou hath
>>> more hair than wit, and more faults than hairs, and more wealth than
>>> faults. Ye announced:
>>>
>>>> "Kadaitcha Man" <nntp.news@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:so23f.ku.19.1@news.alt.net
>>>>> miguel <mjc101@gmail.com> Thou dumb innocent. Thou gnawing animal.
>>>>> Ye muddled:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 15:32:53 -0600, Art Deco <erfc@caballista.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rhonda Lea Kirk <spunky@databasix.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Art Deco" <erfc@caballista.org> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:260420071440500821%erfc@caballista.org
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Was that supposed to be an insult?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you play chess?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Did OJ Simpson slash his wife?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you believe in America?
>>>>>> Do you believe in Justice?
>>>>>> Do you believe in the Constitution of the United States?
>>>>>> Do you believe in the RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The jury said it.
>>>>>> I believe it.
>>>>>> That settles it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> NOT GUILTY.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When the late great Johnny Cochrane told Judge Lance Ito Burrito
>>>>>> that OJ Simpson was "absolutely, 100% NOT GUILTY," did the stupid
>>>>>> prosecutors listen? No, they didn't. They persecuted a 100% NOT
>>>>>> GUILTY man and kept him from hunting for the real killers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now the trail has gone cold.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, Deco, you must believe in prosecuting the 100% NOT GUILTY
>>>>>> because you're some kind of idiot, huh?
>>>>>
>>>>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Very nice trigger. lmao - brilliant - Art asks a
>>>>> 6 word question and the frothing loon froths on command, as
>>>>> implicitly foretold with the recent words "Are you going to rant
>>>>> about OJ Simpson next", and as stated directly 14 days ago, by Art
>>>>> himself, 'Pssst -- crasston will defend OJ Simpson to his dying
>>>>> breath."
>>>>>
>>>>> For this worthy on cue frothing the likes of which I've only ever
>>>>> seen Pamela K Russell perform over Michael Jackson, I hereby
>>>>> nominate Michael "miguel" Cranston for the Barbara Woodhouse
>>>>> Memorial "Dog Whistle" k0oK Award, trained and owned by Art Deco.
>>>>>
>>>>> Barbara Woodhouse Memorial "Dog Whistle" Award
>>>>> Named in honour of the skilful dog-trainer who became a British TV
>>>>> personality in the 1980s, this award is given jointly to the best
>>>>> trained net.kook in any given month and to his or her trainer.
>>>>> Possible examples of good training include obedience to one's
>>>>> owner's commands to reply to posts, and devotion in following one's
>>>>> owner around from group to group and through the Google archive.
>>>>> House-training, which, regrettably, is a rare accomplishment for a
>>>>> kook, isn't a prerequisite. Woof.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do I hear seconds?
>>>>
>>>> For a cut and paste from an old troll?
>>>
>>> stupid
>>
>> Stupid?
>
>That seems to be what the word actually is, yes. Having trouble reading?
>
>> Art's made several requests today; I would guess it seemed only polite
>> to comply:
>
>Whereas I assert it was stupid to comply by frothing on demand, copy/paste
>or not.
>
>> Message-ID: <260420071104583690%erfc@caballista.org>
>> Message-ID: <260420071441373640%erfc@caballista.org>
>> Message-ID: <260420071532538178%erfc@caballista.org>
>>
>>> Cut 'n paste or
>>> no, Deco said crasstoad would do it, and crasstoad did do it.
>>
>> No. He asked me once and he asked Mike twice.
>
>What in particular did you not understand about the statement, "Deco said
>crasstoad would do it"? Should it be inferred that you did not read the
>explicitly quoted text? Or are you engaging in your ususual non-game of
>argument by outright avoidance? Hmmm?
>
>My money is on the latter.
>
>>> Anyway,
>>> you have no say in the matter so **** right off and die.
>>
>> Shoulda thought of that on the 23rd.
>
>What does that have to do with a discussion about the nomination?
>
>Should the reader suppose that they may have cause to infer that you might
>be wishing to make reference to things that have been explicity withdrawn
>from? And should the reader then infer other things logically flowing on
>from that? Or is it that, since you say it should have been thought of
>beforehand, then one might be paranoid if the reference may only refer to
>nothing other than a previous BWMDW nomination someone made on that very
>date being knocked down by the FNVW because of an existing owner?
>
>"Now you've brought it into this thread, but I saw no post from HJ that
>mentioned..."
>
>"He's not the one who introduce...into the threads in which I
>was posting."
>
>Et al.
>
>If you decide to respond to that and address it directly (miracles have been
>known to happen) rather than weaseling your way around the point as you do,
>take careful note of the keywords and key phrases: Should; suppose; might;
>"the reader", wishing, "one", may, "Or is it that" etc.
>
>> The real question, I suppose is whether Mike can be trained by both
>> Bookman and Deco:
>>
>> http://www.caballista.org/auk/kookle.php?search=cranston
>>
>> I don't know the answer.
>
>Anyone who claims auk as their home group would reasonably be expected to
>know that the FNVW decides those questions, thus the answer to the question
>is "The FNVW will decide." Besides, even supposing, for the sake of argument
>only, that the FNVW does knock the ownership nom down on the grounds that
>Bookman is crasstoad's owner, what may otherwise have been lost in the
>general chatter of the newsgroups may now have taken on a slightly higher
>profile than it had before. The underlying principle then is, it's the
>thought that counts. Win-win; for me. Lose-lose for crasstoad.
>
>Need evidence for any validity at all in that latter win-win/lose-lose
>point? It's here: news:59ctamF2jh46hU1@mid.individual.net

I give you Rick Mather, uberkook

 

[Sean Monaghan]

On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 20:09:18 -0400, "Rhonda Lea Kirk"
<spunky@databasix.com> wrote:

[...]

> The real question, I suppose is whether Mike can be trained by both
> Bookman and Deco:
>
> http://www.caballista.org/auk/kookle.php?search=cranston
>
> I don't know the answer.

http://www.caballista.org/auk/kookle.php?search=lysaght

--
Official FAQ for Alt.Usenet.Kooks: http://www.caballista.org/auk

COOSN-266-06-58907; Hammer of Thor - August 2005

Barbara Woodhouse Memorial "Dog Whistle" Award, Winning Trainer

Pierre Salinger Memorial "Hook, Line & Sinker" awards -
March 2005, July 2005, August 2005, August 2006, February 2007

[Co-] Friendly Neighbourhood Vote Wrangler

 

[Lionel]

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 04:42:46 +0000, Sean Monaghan <sean@alcatroll.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 20:09:18 -0400, "Rhonda Lea Kirk"
><spunky@databasix.com> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>> The real question, I suppose is whether Mike can be trained by both
>> Bookman and Deco:
>>
>> http://www.caballista.org/auk/kookle.php?search=cranston
>>
>> I don't know the answer.
>
>http://www.caballista.org/auk/kookle.php?search=lysaght


W00t! Poodle-****er is the pwnededist!

--
W "Some people are alive only because it is illegal to kill them."
. | ,. w ,
\|/ \|/ Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Rhonda Lea Kirk]

"Sean Monaghan" <sean@alcatroll.com> wrote in message
news:njv233tjcokr0p16reu2sn12pcol2830g4@news.club127.net
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 20:09:18 -0400, "Rhonda Lea Kirk"
> <spunky@databasix.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> The real question, I suppose is whether Mike can be trained by both
>> Bookman and Deco:
>>
>> http://www.caballista.org/auk/kookle.php?search=cranston
>>
>> I don't know the answer.
>
> http://www.caballista.org/auk/kookle.php?search=lysaght

Thanks.

--
Rhonda Lea Kirk

Some are tempted to think of life in cyberspace as insignificant,
as escape or meaningless diversion. It is not. Our experiences there
are serious play. We belittle them at our risk. Sherry Turkle

 

[Crash Street Kidd]

On Apr 26, 3:09 pm, miguel <mjc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Fagboi in a Leather Corset:
>
>
>
>
>
> >Crash Street Kidd:
> >>Art Deco, moron, wrote:
> >>> Crash Street Kidd wrote:
> >>> >As I mentioned previously everyone is not scared of me in real life.
> >>> >The
> >>> >blue eyed beauty has attacked me on a number of occasions and
> >>> >the worst I have done is block her punches and kicks. She hits harder
> >>> >than most of the guys I know. She studied Tae Kwon Do.
> >>> >One anonymous poster remarked that I sounded like a "stealth"
> >>> >alpha male which is what I suppose I am. I have nothing to prove
> >>> >so I don't go looking for fights. Sometimes you have to fight when
> >>> >the opposition gives you no choice by threatening someone near
> >>> >and dear to you like the blue eyed beauty.
>
> >>> Maybe you should also post about you stratospheric IQ.
>
> >>I find that people who bring the discussion of IQ into the picture
> >>as you just did are invariably stupid. HTH.
>
> >Funny, I've always felt the same way about dropkicks who talk about
> >their muscles on Usenet. It's kind of like steroid & HGH abusing body
> >builders trying to discuss chess strategies or programming algorithms
> >during a weights session.
>
> If Crash beats you at chess will you remove yourself from usenet
> altogether?- Hide quoted text -

Is it okay if play the game drunk and blindfolded?

Crash Street Kidd

>
> - Show quoted text -

 

[Crash Street Kidd]

On Apr 26, 3:43 pm, "Rhonda Lea Kirk" <spu...@databasix.com> wrote:
> "Lionel" <use...@imagenoir.com> wrote in message
>
> news:f0qtin$t30$4@blackhelicopter.databasix.com
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 12:09:19 -0700, miguel <mjc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Fagboi in a Leather Corset:
> >>> Crash Street Kidd:
> >>>> Art Deco, moron, wrote:
> >>>>> Crash Street Kidd wrote:
>
> >>>>>> As I mentioned previously everyone is not scared of me in real
> >>>>>> life. The
> >>>>>> blue eyed beauty has attacked me on a number of occasions and
> >>>>>> the worst I have done is block her punches and kicks. She hits
> >>>>>> harder than most of the guys I know. She studied Tae Kwon Do.
>
> >>>>>> One anonymous poster remarked that I sounded like a "stealth"
> >>>>>> alpha male which is what I suppose I am. I have nothing to prove
> >>>>>> so I don't go looking for fights. Sometimes you have to fight
> >>>>>> when the opposition gives you no choice by threatening someone
> >>>>>> near
> >>>>>> and dear to you like the blue eyed beauty.
>
> >>>>> Maybe you should also post about you stratospheric IQ.
>
> >>>> I find that people who bring the discussion of IQ into the picture
> >>>> as you just did are invariably stupid. HTH.
>
> >>> Funny, I've always felt the same way about dropkicks who talk about
> >>> their muscles on Usenet. It's kind of like steroid & HGH abusing
> >>> body builders trying to discuss chess strategies or programming
> >>> algorithms during a weights session.
>
> >> If Crash beats you at chess will you remove yourself from usenet
> >> altogether?
>
> > No, I don't even like chess.
>
> Oddly enough, I don't find that at all surprising.

It does take some intellectual capacity to play properly.

I haven't played that much lately. I think the last time
might have been when I played two blindfold games
simultaneously against weak opposition while drinking
large quantities of alcohol. I won both games. (And
Loonel no my opponents weren't blindfolded.)

Crash Street Kidd, Canadian Chess Master, USCF National Master title
12,342nd greatest FIDE chess player of
ALL Time...
It says so right on the Internet.

>
> --
> Rhonda Lea Kirk
>
> Some are tempted to think of life in cyberspace as insignificant,
> as escape or meaningless diversion. It is not. Our experiences there
> are serious play. We belittle them at our risk. Sherry Turkle- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

 

[DaRkAnGeL]

On 2007-04-26 19:12:58 -0500, "Kadaitcha Man" <nntp.news@gmail.com> said:

> miguel <mjc101@gmail.com> Thou dumb innocent. Thou gnawing animal. Ye
> muddled:
>
>> On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 15:32:53 -0600, Art Deco <erfc@caballista.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Rhonda Lea Kirk <spunky@databasix.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Art Deco" <erfc@caballista.org> wrote in message
>>>> news:260420071440500821%erfc@caballista.org
>
>>>>> Was that supposed to be an insult?
>>>>
>>>> Do you play chess?
>>>
>>> Did OJ Simpson slash his wife?
>>
>> Do you believe in America?
>> Do you believe in Justice?
>> Do you believe in the Constitution of the United States?
>> Do you believe in the RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY?
>>
>> I do.
>>
>> The jury said it.
>> I believe it.
>> That settles it.
>>
>> NOT GUILTY.
>>
>> When the late great Johnny Cochrane told Judge Lance Ito Burrito that
>> OJ Simpson was "absolutely, 100% NOT GUILTY," did the stupid
>> prosecutors listen? No, they didn't. They persecuted a 100% NOT GUILTY
>> man and kept him from hunting for the real killers.
>>
>> Now the trail has gone cold.
>>
>> So, Deco, you must believe in prosecuting the 100% NOT GUILTY because
>> you're some kind of idiot, huh?
>
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Very nice trigger. lmao - brilliant - Art asks a 6 word
> question and the frothing loon froths on command, as implicitly foretold
> with the recent words "Are you going to rant about OJ Simpson next", and as
> stated directly 14 days ago, by Art himself, 'Pssst -- crasston will defend
> OJ Simpson to his dying breath."
>
> For this worthy on cue frothing the likes of which I've only ever seen
> Pamela K Russell perform over Michael Jackson, I hereby nominate Michael
> "miguel" Cranston for the Barbara Woodhouse Memorial "Dog Whistle" k0oK
> Award, trained and owned by Art Deco.
>
> Barbara Woodhouse Memorial "Dog Whistle" Award
> Named in honour of the skilful dog-trainer who became a British TV
> personality in the 1980s, this award is given jointly to the best trained
> net.kook in any given month and to his or her trainer. Possible examples of
> good training include obedience to one's owner's commands to reply to posts,
> and devotion in following one's owner around from group to group and through
> the Google archive. House-training, which, regrettably, is a rare
> accomplishment for a kook, isn't a prerequisite. Woof.
>
> Do I hear seconds?

Heartily and exuberantly seconded.
That is, if I'm allowed to vote ....
:^)
--
---
DarkAngel
"Making the world a little bit darker, one life at a time, since 1975!"

 

[Kadaitcha Man]

DaRkAnGeL <chaos@whydontyouFOAD.net> Thou giant traitor. Thou hilding
foe. Ye bubbled:

> On 2007-04-26 19:12:58 -0500, "Kadaitcha Man" <nntp.news@gmail.com>
> said:
>> miguel <mjc101@gmail.com> Thou dumb innocent. Thou gnawing animal. Ye
>> muddled:
>>
>>> On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 15:32:53 -0600, Art Deco <erfc@caballista.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Rhonda Lea Kirk <spunky@databasix.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Art Deco" <erfc@caballista.org> wrote in message
>>>>> news:260420071440500821%erfc@caballista.org
>>
>>>>>> Was that supposed to be an insult?
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you play chess?
>>>>
>>>> Did OJ Simpson slash his wife?
>>>
>>> Do you believe in America?
>>> Do you believe in Justice?
>>> Do you believe in the Constitution of the United States?
>>> Do you believe in the RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY?
>>>
>>> I do.
>>>
>>> The jury said it.
>>> I believe it.
>>> That settles it.
>>>
>>> NOT GUILTY.
>>>
>>> When the late great Johnny Cochrane told Judge Lance Ito Burrito
>>> that OJ Simpson was "absolutely, 100% NOT GUILTY," did the stupid
>>> prosecutors listen? No, they didn't. They persecuted a 100% NOT
>>> GUILTY man and kept him from hunting for the real killers.
>>>
>>> Now the trail has gone cold.
>>>
>>> So, Deco, you must believe in prosecuting the 100% NOT GUILTY
>>> because you're some kind of idiot, huh?
>>
>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Very nice trigger. lmao - brilliant - Art asks a
>> 6 word question and the frothing loon froths on command, as
>> implicitly foretold with the recent words "Are you going to rant
>> about OJ Simpson next", and as stated directly 14 days ago, by Art
>> himself, 'Pssst -- crasston will defend OJ Simpson to his dying
>> breath." For this worthy on cue frothing the likes of which I've only
>> ever
>> seen Pamela K Russell perform over Michael Jackson, I hereby
>> nominate Michael "miguel" Cranston for the Barbara Woodhouse
>> Memorial "Dog Whistle" k0oK Award, trained and owned by Art Deco.
>>
>> Barbara Woodhouse Memorial "Dog Whistle" Award
>> Named in honour of the skilful dog-trainer who became a British TV
>> personality in the 1980s, this award is given jointly to the best
>> trained net.kook in any given month and to his or her trainer.
>> Possible examples of good training include obedience to one's
>> owner's commands to reply to posts, and devotion in following one's
>> owner around from group to group and through the Google archive.
>> House-training, which, regrettably, is a rare accomplishment for a
>> kook, isn't a prerequisite. Woof. Do I hear seconds?
>
> Heartily and exuberantly seconded.



> That is, if I'm allowed to vote ....

The only ones that can't vote, nominate or second are socks and official
kooks.

> :^)

--
alt.usenet.kooks
"We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us."
Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129]

Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.
Official Member:
Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660
Usenet Ruiner Lits
Top Assholes on the Net Lits
Most hated usenetizens of all time Lits

"Now I know what it is. Now I know what it means when an
alt.usenet.kook x-post shows up."
AOK in news:ermdlu$nli$1@registered.motzarella.org

Jij alpine alledaagse strontstomper.

 

[DaRkAnGeL]

On 2007-04-27 23:51:31 -0500, "Kadaitcha Man" <nntp.news@gmail.com> said:

> DaRkAnGeL <chaos@whydontyouFOAD.net> Thou giant traitor. Thou hilding
> foe. Ye bubbled:
>
>> On 2007-04-26 19:12:58 -0500, "Kadaitcha Man" <nntp.news@gmail.com>
>> said:
>>> miguel <mjc101@gmail.com> Thou dumb innocent. Thou gnawing animal. Ye
>>> muddled:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 15:32:53 -0600, Art Deco <erfc@caballista.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Rhonda Lea Kirk <spunky@databasix.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Art Deco" <erfc@caballista.org> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:260420071440500821%erfc@caballista.org
>>>
>>>>>>> Was that supposed to be an insult?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you play chess?
>>>>>
>>>>> Did OJ Simpson slash his wife?
>>>>
>>>> Do you believe in America?
>>>> Do you believe in Justice?
>>>> Do you believe in the Constitution of the United States?
>>>> Do you believe in the RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY?
>>>>
>>>> I do.
>>>>
>>>> The jury said it.
>>>> I believe it.
>>>> That settles it.
>>>>
>>>> NOT GUILTY.
>>>>
>>>> When the late great Johnny Cochrane told Judge Lance Ito Burrito
>>>> that OJ Simpson was "absolutely, 100% NOT GUILTY," did the stupid
>>>> prosecutors listen? No, they didn't. They persecuted a 100% NOT
>>>> GUILTY man and kept him from hunting for the real killers.
>>>>
>>>> Now the trail has gone cold.
>>>>
>>>> So, Deco, you must believe in prosecuting the 100% NOT GUILTY
>>>> because you're some kind of idiot, huh?
>>>
>>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Very nice trigger. lmao - brilliant - Art asks a
>>> 6 word question and the frothing loon froths on command, as
>>> implicitly foretold with the recent words "Are you going to rant
>>> about OJ Simpson next", and as stated directly 14 days ago, by Art
>>> himself, 'Pssst -- crasston will defend OJ Simpson to his dying
>>> breath." For this worthy on cue frothing the likes of which I've only
>>> ever
>>> seen Pamela K Russell perform over Michael Jackson, I hereby
>>> nominate Michael "miguel" Cranston for the Barbara Woodhouse
>>> Memorial "Dog Whistle" k0oK Award, trained and owned by Art Deco.
>>>
>>> Barbara Woodhouse Memorial "Dog Whistle" Award
>>> Named in honour of the skilful dog-trainer who became a British TV
>>> personality in the 1980s, this award is given jointly to the best
>>> trained net.kook in any given month and to his or her trainer.
>>> Possible examples of good training include obedience to one's
>>> owner's commands to reply to posts, and devotion in following one's
>>> owner around from group to group and through the Google archive.
>>> House-training, which, regrettably, is a rare accomplishment for a
>>> kook, isn't a prerequisite. Woof. Do I hear seconds?
>>
>> Heartily and exuberantly seconded.
>
>
>
>> That is, if I'm allowed to vote ....
>
> The only ones that can't vote, nominate or second are socks and official
> kooks.
>
>> :^)

I think I'm more of a fish-net stocking, really. ;^)
Oh ... that's not what you meant.
Damn.
:^)
--
---
DarkAngel
"Making the world a little bit darker, one life at a time, since 1975!"

 

[Kadaitcha Man]

DaRkAnGeL <chaos@whydontyouFOAD.net> Thou recreant and most degenerate
traitor. Thou art a traitor, false to thy gods, thy brother and thy
father. Ye writhed:

> On 2007-04-27 23:51:31 -0500, "Kadaitcha Man" <nntp.news@gmail.com>
> said:
>> DaRkAnGeL <chaos@whydontyouFOAD.net> Thou giant traitor. Thou hilding
>> foe. Ye bubbled:
>>
>>> On 2007-04-26 19:12:58 -0500, "Kadaitcha Man" <nntp.news@gmail.com>
>>> said:
>>>> miguel <mjc101@gmail.com> Thou dumb innocent. Thou gnawing animal.
>>>> Ye muddled:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 15:32:53 -0600, Art Deco <erfc@caballista.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Rhonda Lea Kirk <spunky@databasix.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Art Deco" <erfc@caballista.org> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:260420071440500821%erfc@caballista.org
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Was that supposed to be an insult?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you play chess?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Did OJ Simpson slash his wife?
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you believe in America?
>>>>> Do you believe in Justice?
>>>>> Do you believe in the Constitution of the United States?
>>>>> Do you believe in the RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY?
>>>>>
>>>>> I do.
>>>>>
>>>>> The jury said it.
>>>>> I believe it.
>>>>> That settles it.
>>>>>
>>>>> NOT GUILTY.
>>>>>
>>>>> When the late great Johnny Cochrane told Judge Lance Ito Burrito
>>>>> that OJ Simpson was "absolutely, 100% NOT GUILTY," did the stupid
>>>>> prosecutors listen? No, they didn't. They persecuted a 100% NOT
>>>>> GUILTY man and kept him from hunting for the real killers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now the trail has gone cold.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, Deco, you must believe in prosecuting the 100% NOT GUILTY
>>>>> because you're some kind of idiot, huh?
>>>>
>>>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Very nice trigger. lmao - brilliant - Art asks a
>>>> 6 word question and the frothing loon froths on command, as
>>>> implicitly foretold with the recent words "Are you going to rant
>>>> about OJ Simpson next", and as stated directly 14 days ago, by Art
>>>> himself, 'Pssst -- crasston will defend OJ Simpson to his dying
>>>> breath." For this worthy on cue frothing the likes of which I've
>>>> only ever
>>>> seen Pamela K Russell perform over Michael Jackson, I hereby
>>>> nominate Michael "miguel" Cranston for the Barbara Woodhouse
>>>> Memorial "Dog Whistle" k0oK Award, trained and owned by Art Deco.
>>>>
>>>> Barbara Woodhouse Memorial "Dog Whistle" Award
>>>> Named in honour of the skilful dog-trainer who became a British TV
>>>> personality in the 1980s, this award is given jointly to the best
>>>> trained net.kook in any given month and to his or her trainer.
>>>> Possible examples of good training include obedience to one's
>>>> owner's commands to reply to posts, and devotion in following one's
>>>> owner around from group to group and through the Google archive.
>>>> House-training, which, regrettably, is a rare accomplishment for a
>>>> kook, isn't a prerequisite. Woof. Do I hear seconds?
>>>
>>> Heartily and exuberantly seconded.
>>
>>
>>
>>> That is, if I'm allowed to vote ....
>>
>> The only ones that can't vote, nominate or second are socks and
>> official kooks.
>>
>>> :^)
>
> I think I'm more of a fish-net stocking, really. ;^)

With garters?

<salivate>

> Oh ... that's not what you meant.

It is now.

> Damn.
> :^)

--
alt.usenet.kooks
"We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us."
Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129]

Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.
Official Member:
Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660
Usenet Ruiner Lits
Top Assholes on the Net Lits
Most hated usenetizens of all time Lits

"Now I know what it is. Now I know what it means when an
alt.usenet.kook x-post shows up."
AOK in news:ermdlu$nli$1@registered.motzarella.org

Ik denk dat je kan doorgaan als een homopathische afgeslachte poep.

 

[Lionel]

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 22:44:14 -0500, DaRkAnGeL
<chaos@whydontyouFOAD.net> wrote:

>On 2007-04-26 19:12:58 -0500, "Kadaitcha Man" <nntp.news@gmail.com> said:
>
>> miguel <mjc101@gmail.com> Thou dumb innocent. Thou gnawing animal. Ye
>> muddled:
>>
>>> On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 15:32:53 -0600, Art Deco <erfc@caballista.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Rhonda Lea Kirk <spunky@databasix.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Art Deco" <erfc@caballista.org> wrote in message
>>>>> news:260420071440500821%erfc@caballista.org
>>
>>>>>> Was that supposed to be an insult?
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you play chess?
>>>>
>>>> Did OJ Simpson slash his wife?
>>>
>>> Do you believe in America?
>>> Do you believe in Justice?
>>> Do you believe in the Constitution of the United States?
>>> Do you believe in the RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY?
>>>
>>> I do.
>>>
>>> The jury said it.
>>> I believe it.
>>> That settles it.
>>>
>>> NOT GUILTY.
>>>
>>> When the late great Johnny Cochrane told Judge Lance Ito Burrito that
>>> OJ Simpson was "absolutely, 100% NOT GUILTY," did the stupid
>>> prosecutors listen? No, they didn't. They persecuted a 100% NOT GUILTY
>>> man and kept him from hunting for the real killers.
>>>
>>> Now the trail has gone cold.
>>>
>>> So, Deco, you must believe in prosecuting the 100% NOT GUILTY because
>>> you're some kind of idiot, huh?
>>
>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Very nice trigger. lmao - brilliant - Art asks a 6 word
>> question and the frothing loon froths on command, as implicitly foretold
>> with the recent words "Are you going to rant about OJ Simpson next", and as
>> stated directly 14 days ago, by Art himself, 'Pssst -- crasston will defend
>> OJ Simpson to his dying breath."
>>
>> For this worthy on cue frothing the likes of which I've only ever seen
>> Pamela K Russell perform over Michael Jackson, I hereby nominate Michael
>> "miguel" Cranston for the Barbara Woodhouse Memorial "Dog Whistle" k0oK
>> Award, trained and owned by Art Deco.
>>
>> Barbara Woodhouse Memorial "Dog Whistle" Award
>> Named in honour of the skilful dog-trainer who became a British TV
>> personality in the 1980s, this award is given jointly to the best trained
>> net.kook in any given month and to his or her trainer. Possible examples of
>> good training include obedience to one's owner's commands to reply to posts,
>> and devotion in following one's owner around from group to group and through
>> the Google archive. House-training, which, regrettably, is a rare
>> accomplishment for a kook, isn't a prerequisite. Woof.
>>
>> Do I hear seconds?
>
>Heartily and exuberantly seconded.
>That is, if I'm allowed to vote ....

You certainly are.

And this nom is ofishully THIRDED with extreme prejudice &
snickering.

--
W "Some people are alive only because it is illegal to kill them."
. | ,. w ,
\|/ \|/ Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------