Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.checkmate > #59348 > unrolled thread
| Started by | BBB DoW #14 <r0llinThru@none.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-07-06 22:43 +1000 |
| Last post | 2016-07-07 05:30 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 84 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.checkmate
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Why does everyone hate Nads and Kensi? BBB DoW #14 <r0llinThru@none.invalid> - 2016-07-06 22:43 +1000
Re: Why does everyone hate Nads and Kensi? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2016-07-06 19:21 +0000
Re: Why does everyone hate Nads and Kensi? BBB DoW #14 <r0llinThru@none.invalid> - 2016-07-07 20:33 +1000
Re: Why does everyone hate Nads and Kensi? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2016-07-07 19:24 +0000
Re: Why does everyone hate Nads and Kensi? Bill Jillians <willaim.jillians649@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-07 06:49 +0100
Re: Why does everyone hate Nads and Kensi? BBB DoW #14 <r0llinThru@none.invalid> - 2016-07-07 20:33 +1000
Re: Why does everyone hate Nads and Kensi? BBB DoW #14 <r0llinThru@none.invalid> - 2016-07-07 06:14 -0500
Re: Why does everyone hate Nads and Kensi? "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-07-07 05:53 -0700
Re: Why does everyone hate Nads and Kensi? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-07-12 11:39 +0100
Re: Why does everyone hate Nads and Kensi? Bill Jillians <willaim.jillians649@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-07 17:18 +0100
Re: Why does everyone hate Nads and Kensi? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2016-07-07 19:48 +0000
Re: Why does everyone hate Nads and Kensi? Bill Jillians <willaim.jillians649@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-07 14:26 +0100
Re: Why does everyone hate Nads and Kensi? BBB DoW #14 <r0llinThru@none.invalid> - 2016-07-08 00:37 +1000
Re: Why does everyone hate Nads and Kensi? Bill Jillians <willaim.jillians649@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-07 16:13 +0100
Re: Why does everyone hate Nads and Kensi? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2016-07-07 19:58 +0000
Re: Why does everyone hate Nads and Kensi? BBB DoW #14 <r0llinThru@none.invalid> - 2016-07-08 13:14 +1000
Re: Why does everyone hate Nads and Kensi? Bill Jillians <willaim.jillians649@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-08 10:24 +0100
Re: Why does everyone hate Nads and Kensi? BBB DoW #14 <r0llinThru@none.invalid> - 2016-07-08 21:26 +1000
Re: Why does everyone hate Nads and Kensi? Bill Jillians <willaim.jillians649@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-08 15:21 +0100
Re: Why does everyone hate Nads and Kensi? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2016-07-08 20:07 +0000
Re: Why does everyone hate Nads and Kensi? The Inconvenient Truth <trvth@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-07 18:37 +0000
Re: Why does everyone hate Nads and Kensi? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2016-07-07 19:55 +0000
Re: Why does everyone hate Nads and Kensi? Bill Jillians <willaim.jillians649@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-08 10:36 +0100
Re: Why does everyone hate Nads and Kensi? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-07-12 11:55 +0100
Re: Why does everyone hate Nads and Kensi? Bill Jillians <willaim.jillians649@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-12 20:06 +0100
Re: Why does everyone hate Nads and Kensi? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-07-13 09:18 +0100
Re: Why does everyone hate Nads and Kensi? Bill Jillians <willaim.jillians649@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-13 12:40 +0100
Re: Why does everyone hate Nads and Kensi? BBB DoW #14 <r0llinThru@none.invalid> - 2016-07-13 23:35 +1000
Re: Why does everyone hate Nads and Kensi? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-07-14 06:44 +0100
Re: Why does everyone hate Nads and Kensi? BBB DoW #14 <r0llinThru@none.invalid> - 2016-07-08 13:11 +1000
Re: Why does everyone hate Nads and Kensi? Bill Jillians <willaim.jillians649@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-08 10:27 +0100
Re: Why does everyone hate Nads and Kensi? "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-07-07 12:33 -0400
Re: Why does everyone hate Nads and Kensi? "Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus, DoW #1" <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-07-08 06:03 +0200
Re: Why does everyone hate Nads and Kensi? Skeeter DoW #8 <skt@skt.invalid> - 2016-07-08 02:23 -0600
Re: Why does everyone hate Nads and Kensi? "Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus, DoW #1" <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-07-09 07:46 +0200
Re: Why does everyone hate Nads and Kensi? "Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus, DoW #1" <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-07-09 10:45 +0200
Re: Why does everyone hate Nads and Kensi? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2016-07-09 20:13 +0000
Re: Why does everyone hate Nads and Kensi? "Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus, DoW #1" <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-07-10 07:00 +0200
Re: Why does everyone hate Nads and Kensi? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2016-07-11 00:07 +0000
Re: Why does everyone hate Nads and Kensi? "Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus, DoW #1" <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-07-11 07:24 +0200
Re: Why does everyone hate Nads and Kensi? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2016-07-11 20:47 +0000
Re: Why does everyone hate Nads and Kensi? "Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus, DoW #1" <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-07-10 06:09 +0200
Re: Why does everyone hate Nads and Kensi? "Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus, DoW #1" <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-07-10 07:05 +0200
Re: Why does everyone love Nads and Kensi? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2016-07-08 19:27 +0000
Re: Why does everyone love Nads and Kensi? "Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus, DoW #1" <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-07-09 06:41 +0200
Re: Why does everyone love Nads and Kensi? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2016-07-09 20:14 +0000
Re: Why does everyone love Nads and Kensi? "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-07-09 13:33 -0700
Re: Why does everyone love Nads and Kensi? "Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus, DoW #1" <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-07-09 22:33 +0200
Re: Why does everyone love Nads and Kensi? Skeeter DoW #8 <skt@skt.invalid> - 2016-07-09 15:36 -0600
Re: Why does everyone hate Nads and Kensi? "Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus, DoW #1" <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-07-10 05:59 +0200
Re: Why does everyone hate Nads and Kensi? Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus, DoW #1 <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx.gamy> - 2016-07-10 01:12 -0500
Re: Why does everyone hate Nads and Kensi? "LOL TerribleTard" <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-07-10 09:30 +0200
Re: look how i made him flip out again. Skeeter DoW #420 <skt@skt.invalid> - 2016-07-10 03:53 -0600
Re: Why does everyone hate Nads and Kensi? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2016-07-10 22:34 +0000
Re: Why does everyone hate Nads and Kensi? "Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus, DoW #1" <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-07-11 07:49 +0200
Re: Why does everyone love Nads and Kensi? Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus, DoW #1 <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx.pelt> - 2016-07-09 21:17 -0500
Re: Nads Skeeter DoW #420 <skt@skt.invalid> - 2016-07-09 20:22 -0600
Re: Nads Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2016-07-10 02:37 +0000
Re: Nads Skeeter DoW #420 <skt@skt.invalid> - 2016-07-09 20:45 -0600
Re: Nads "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-07-09 19:49 -0700
Re: Why does everyone love Nads and Kensi? "Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus, DoW #1" <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-07-10 05:35 +0200
Re: Why does everyone love Nads and Kensi? Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus, DoW #1 <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx.bum> - 2016-07-10 01:11 -0500
Re: Why does everyone hate Nads and Kensi? "Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus, DoW #1" <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-07-10 05:43 +0200
Re: Why does everyone love Nads and Kensi? BBB DoW #14 <r0llinThru@none.invalid> - 2016-07-15 21:25 +1000
Re: Why does everyone love Nads and Kensi? Bill Jillians <willaim.jillians649@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-16 10:34 +0100
Re: Why does everyone love Nads and Kensi? BBB DoW #14 <r0llinThru@none.invalid> - 2016-07-17 07:27 +1000
Re: Why does everyone love Nads and Kensi? Bill Jillians <willaim.jillians649@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-17 07:29 +0100
Re: Why does everyone love Nads and Kensi? kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2016-07-17 06:06 -0400
Re: Why does everyone love Nads and Kensi? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-07-17 11:27 +0100
Re: Why does everyone love Nads and Kensi? Skeet DoW # 420 <Skidaddle@chote.com> - 2016-07-17 07:38 -0600
Re: Why does everyone love Nads and Kensi? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2016-07-17 22:43 +0000
Re: Why does everyone love Nads and Kensi? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2016-07-16 23:51 +0000
Re: Why does everyone love Nads and Kensi? kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2016-07-17 06:10 -0400
Re: Why does everyone love Nads and Kensi? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-07-17 11:27 +0100
Re: Why does everyone love Nads and Kensi? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2016-07-17 22:44 +0000
Re: Why does everyone love Nads and Kensi? Bill Jillians <willaim.jillians649@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-18 16:31 +0100
Re: Why does everyone love Nads and Kensi? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2016-07-07 19:47 +0000
Re: Why does everyone love Nads and Kensi? "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-07-07 13:45 -0700
Re: Why does everyone love Nads and Kensi? Skeeter DoW #8 <skt@skt.invalid> - 2016-07-07 14:49 -0600
[bullshit redact] woz -- * love Nads and Kensi? BBB DoW #14 <r0llinThru@none.invalid> - 2016-07-08 13:18 +1000
Re: Why does everyone love Nads and Kensi? onion@anon.invalid (Mr On!on) - 2016-07-12 13:49 +0100
Re: Why does everyone hate Nads and Kensi? Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> - 2016-07-07 05:56 -0700
Re: Why does everyone hate Nads and Kensi? BBB DoW #14 <r0llinThru@none.invalid> - 2016-07-07 20:32 +1000
Re: Why does everyone hate Nads and Kensi? "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-07-07 05:30 -0700
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | BBB DoW #14 <r0llinThru@none.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-06 22:43 +1000 |
| Subject | Re: Why does everyone hate Nads and Kensi? |
| Message-ID | <727fz.17776$kn7.17069@fx19.iad> |
"Ellis Dee" <ellia@dee.invalid> wrote: >On Tue, 05 Jul 2016 20:21:01 -0600, Paul G Derbyshire [aka] >Seamus McRae - using puppet>Nadegda ><nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >> On Tue, 05 Jul 2016 18:13:42 -0600, Ellis Dee wrote: >>> Discuss > >> Kooks often have kooky ways of showing their devotion to their FNVW(s). >> Butthurt over receiving awards tends to figure into it. > >But all I've seen is them laughing at you. >> ... with good reason,, read on. [note] none of what follows even mentions Paul again.. other than in belonging to a Family [biological tree] of AUK participants. So,, maybe my treatise will not answer the question for you..?.. thus you can hit "followup-to" now... in willing participation :-) >> None of the others holds a candle to dolf right now, though. We're >> talking multiple rent-free *floors* including the penthouse in dolf's >> head. Unfortunately for us that's not as big a windfall as you might have >> thought because the elevator doesn't go all the way to the penthouse. > >So you're like Albatross, you go after helpless people like Emmut and Dolf. >> not quite but also. Paul is not beyond attacking a well respected poster's cat.....for instance :} >> <snivel> [preamble] An excellent tr0LL - not new, but well worth the effort in putting a view on the changes around AUK content following the retreat of the (let's say) Databasix Confederate Army (loose use). I have not and will not attempt to build any authority for you to even run such a reworked tr0LL..?..as it is best I accept what you put to simply lay down just what "everyone" consists of.--- in AUK only. Other groups may vary Other's mileage may very. [OGMV] [OMMV] [caveat] Given what I believe to be a 'stable' period in AUK's history, and knowing PJR(co-founder) no longer has any interest in AUK,, I submit the following in the context of "among peers". Thus if I read no challenge from credible sources challenging an aspect - or indeed the whole paper - of the submission I shall continue to believe what I find as being the actual status quo. You (Ellis Dee) can likewise trust on my post as Fact. I will be brief. Where AUK is unique in it's approach to Usenet is found amongst "everyone" being starkly different to other Usenet groups,, not *just* by Namespace (*.kooks). Resist then the immediate thought AUK is an unorganised rabble - a "free for all" assembly of uncoordinated specks representative of the whole of Usenet in concentrated form. It is not - far from it. Today's AUK is born from quite some years of morphing through evolution,, following on the demise of "Phoenix" and consequential passing of the "Keys" by PJR(FNVWe) to Cujo/Cannon/Burnore - collaboratively in my terms that "Databasix Confederate Army". Through then a series of poor decisions that cabal fell on it's arse (ass[USA]) in not attracting the usual historical contributions from others away from AUK looking to deliver their k00ks into AUK. Fred Hall (deceased) was on the path of reconstituting that historical role for AUK after the cabal largely fell apart through a k00ks00t by one AtlasBugged (Novins). Cannon and then Burnore attempted a continuation of their earlier role in the cabal as "the Muscle" in what is widely recognised today as electronic bullying - a far cry from the "pile on" AUK was renowned for across Usenet text froups. So essentially for quite some time(years) there existed a vacuum of authority and indeed "power" of AUK as a useful Usenet group. This has changed quite recently and it may well come to pass there is room for AUK to again grow the role of the AUK Charter as a function of Usenet. Some --- a very very small part of "everyone" -- fight that potential every day..! Indeed one individual does so by the hour,, using three established "puppets" -- such is the level of fear, 18/7 :----D Those individuals well know how their little games,, played amongst honest to goodness UseNetizens,, can be phukd over by a coordinated "strike" by aukkers. Over this 4th July weekend we(tinw) have seen that very scenario played out by one k00k habiting AUK drifting into respected froups seeking info on how to hide. Failure was IT's reward. Who is "everyone" today? Three identifiable elements of AUK exist. [1.] There is no "team" anymore,, what does exist is an interpersonal dynamic which a part of AUK follows in sharing one view - k00ks are fair game. These posters may not necessarily "get along" in a social sense. Indeed away from AUK it may well be kill-files are well lubricated,, but in AUK there is an integration which overcomes those 'prejudices' --- across State lines, across National borders, and indeed across 0ceans between..! That "bond" may well come from what is done, moreso that what is 'said'. The subtleties of which are not always shouted in posted text. [2.] As in many Usenet froups there exists a minority collective, commonly referred to as "Spammers". AUK tends to attract these moreso than elsewhere simply because of the <*.kooks> Namespace. Largely these are easily identifiable and so even easier disposed of. All CAPS and lines greater than 100 in "Subject" are key flags. [3.] "k00ks" - historically there is the example of the correct syntax/keystrokes for such persons. One method of determining a k00k is to note their continual struggle against such form in using variations of the syntax. Define a k00k? I supply mine own,, which is simply "those who would disadvantage stable froups with supercilious posts aimed wholly at attention seeking disruption". Not to be assimilated/confused with tr0LLs,, the k00k is wholly focused on their view being the only "correct" outlook. They are never wrong and someone should do something about (whatever) being wrong. For example a k00k will point to that statement and cry "koOk". For AUK, generally...?... I quote loosely an extract from one AUK post in the past hours "those who post k00ky posts loaded with k00kiness". Again,, a k00k will point to that statement from that OP and cry "koOk". For any reader it is Group [1.] which will determine a k00k, this entirely separately and on evidence they bring from their own Usenet experience elsewhere. In short.. where you find consistent critique of a poster with valid arguments put to that opinion,, and you then refuse to accept same..?.. it is very likely you indeed are the k00k. Discuss... [ s p a c e ] -- fup set [please maintain froups x-Pstd line unless "fup set" is 0n] *** Paul Derbyshire enters AFN http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=124317053000 [Ray Banana] "How long have you [Seamus] been using Windows". *** Paul Derbyshire 'leaves' AFN http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=131069032500 "The name is Seamus, and I, unlike you, am in fact a decorated veteran. I was in 'nam.".
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-06 19:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nljlo9$3iv$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #59348 |
On Wed, 06 Jul 2016 22:43:40 +1000, BBB DoW #14 (Pie Gurl) PiG@yahoo.com WINNER - Kook of the Year 2012 wrote: > "Ellis Dee" <ellia@dee.invalid> wrote: >>On Tue, 05 Jul 2016 20:21:01 -0600, Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> >>wrote: >>> On Tue, 05 Jul 2016 18:13:42 -0600, Ellis Dee wrote: >>>> Discuss >> >>> Kooks often have kooky ways of showing their devotion to their >>> FNVW(s). Butthurt over receiving awards tends to figure into it. >> >>But all I've seen is them laughing at you. > > ... with good reason,, read on. > > [note] none of what follows even mentions Paul again.. other than in > belonging to a Family [biological tree] of AUK participants. So,, maybe > my treatise will not answer the question for you..?.. thus you can hit > "followup-to" now... in willing participation :-) > >>> None of the others holds a candle to dolf right now, though. We're >>> talking multiple rent-free *floors* including the penthouse in dolf's >>> head. Unfortunately for us that's not as big a windfall as you might >>> have thought because the elevator doesn't go all the way to the >>> penthouse. >> >>So you're like Albatross, you go after helpless people like Emmut and >>Dolf. > > not quite but also. Paul is not beyond attacking a well respected > poster's cat.....for instance :} > >>> <snicker> > > [preamble] > An excellent tr0LL - not new, but well worth the effort in putting a > view on the changes around AUK content following the retreat of the > (let's say) Databasix Confederate Army (loose use). I have not and will > not attempt to build any authority for you to even run such a reworked > tr0LL..?..as it is best I accept what you put to simply lay down just > what "everyone" consists of.--- in AUK only. Other groups may vary > Other's mileage may very. [OGMV] [OMMV] > > [caveat] > Given what I believe to be a 'stable' period in AUK's history, and > knowing PJR(co-founder) no longer has any interest in AUK,, I submit the > following in the context of "among peers". > Thus if I read no challenge from credible sources challenging an aspect > - or indeed the whole paper - of the submission I shall continue to > believe what I find as being the actual status quo. You (Ellis Dee) can > likewise trust on my post as Fact. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! A quick skim over your article containing that k'lame, let alone an eye-watering headache-inducing attempt to actually *read* the thing, will have quickly and firmly established in Ellis Dee's mind that you are a bona-fide grade-A-certified clinically-diagnosable brain- addled non-compos-mentis three-fries-short-of-a-happy-meal wacko LOONEY TUNE. Ellis Dee might also want to wonder why you put X-No-Archive: Yes in the headers of your posts. As a general rule, those who don't want anything they say to be findable later on are those given to prevarication, or at least those who have been embarrassed a few too many times by their own past statements being dredged back up and used to call their credibility into question. XNA is the sort of thing Hillary Clinton wished she could magically confound the press with, so her past positions on things like, say, the Iraq War couldn't be looked up and used by her opponents during the present election cycle. In fact she's tried -- what other reason could there be for the infamous private email server but to dodge FOIA access to her archived records? I'd recommend taking what any XNA user says with a grain of salt roughly the size of the Eiffel Tower. > I will be brief. There follows another 78 lines of froth, *and* then a 9-line .sig-o-haet dedicated to his owner, Derbyshire. See how much one can trust murphy's posts as fact? <snicker>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BBB DoW #14 <r0llinThru@none.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-07 20:33 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <Sdqfz.21$y32.7@fx02.iad> |
| In reply to | #59387 |
Paul G Derbyshire [aka] Seamus McRae - using puppet>Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >On Wed, 06 Jul 2016 22:43:40 +1000, BBB DoW #14 wrote: > // >> [caveat] >> Given what I believe to be a 'stable' period in AUK's history, and >> knowing PJR(co-founder) no longer has any interest in AUK,, I submit the >> following in the context of "among peers". >> Thus if I read no challenge from credible sources challenging an aspect >> - or indeed the whole paper - of the submission I shall continue to >> believe what I find as being the actual status quo. You (Ellis Dee) can >> likewise trust on my post as Fact. > >BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! A quick skim over your article containing that k'lame, >let alone an eye-watering headache-inducing attempt to actually *read* >the thing, will have quickly and firmly established in Ellis Dee's mind >that you are a bona-fide grade-A-certified clinically-diagnosable brain- >addled non-compos-mentis three-fries-short-of-a-happy-meal wacko LOONEY >TUNE. > errr.. just which part of..... "no challenge from credible sources" ..... is causing you grief,, Paul? as relevance I repeat what was put to ewe in : <nlk05l$h9n$1@dont-email.me> Are you truly too stupid to be unaware of this fact? [noted] is once again your bent in speaking for others in setting *your* benchmarks,,, a facet of your posts *nobody* credible holds a nanobyte of mind to. now do be phukin' off post-haste :-| -- fup set [please maintain froups x-Pstd line unless "fup set" is 0n] *** Paul Derbyshire enters AFN http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=124317053000 [Ray Banana] "How long have you [Seamus] been using Windows". *** Paul Derbyshire 'leaves' AFN http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=131069032500 "The name is Seamus, and I, unlike you, am in fact a decorated veteran. I was in 'nam.".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-07 19:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nlma9e$ghj$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #59407 |
On Thu, 07 Jul 2016 20:33:16 +1000, BBB DoW #14 (Pie Gurl) PiG@yahoo.com WINNER - Kook of the Year 2012 wrote: > Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >>On Wed, 06 Jul 2016 22:43:40 +1000, BBB DoW #14 (Pie Gurl) >>PiG@yahoo.com WINNER - Kook of the Year 2012 wrote: >> >>> [caveat] >>> Given what I believe to be a 'stable' period in AUK's history, and >>> knowing PJR(co-founder) no longer has any interest in AUK,, I submit >>> the following in the context of "among peers". Thus if I read no >>> challenge from credible sources challenging an aspect - or indeed the >>> whole paper - of the submission I shall continue to believe what I >>> find as being the actual status quo. You (Ellis Dee) can likewise >>> trust on my post as Fact. >> >>BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! A quick skim over your article containing that k'lame, >>let alone an eye-watering headache-inducing attempt to actually *read* >>the thing, will have quickly and firmly established in Ellis Dee's mind >>that you are a bona-fide grade-A-certified clinically-diagnosable brain- >>addled non-compos-mentis three-fries-short-of-a-happy-meal wacko LOONEY >>TUNE. > > [noted] is once again your bent in speaking for others in setting *your* > benchmarks,,, a facet of your posts *nobody* credible holds a nanobyte > of mind to. Erm, I was making a prediction, and Ellis Dee's own followup to your screed proved that prediction *right*, kook. > now do be phukin' o<SMACKAKOOK!> No. <snicker>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bill Jillians <willaim.jillians649@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-07 06:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <0F4ONVEU1efXFwZf@btinternet.com> |
| In reply to | #59348 |
In message <727fz.17776$kn7.17069@fx19.iad>, BBB DoW #14 <r0llinThru@none.invalid> writes >"Ellis Dee" <ellia@dee.invalid> wrote: >>On Tue, 05 Jul 2016 20:21:01 -0600, Paul G Derbyshire [aka] >>Seamus McRae - using puppet>Nadegda >><nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >>> On Tue, 05 Jul 2016 18:13:42 -0600, Ellis Dee wrote: >>>> Discuss >> >>> Kooks often have kooky ways of showing their devotion to their FNVW(s). >>> Butthurt over receiving awards tends to figure into it. >> >>But all I've seen is them laughing at you. >>> >... with good reason,, read on. > >[note] none of what follows even mentions Paul again.. other than in >belonging to a Family [biological tree] of AUK participants. >So,, maybe my treatise will not answer the question for you..?.. thus you >can hit "followup-to" now... in willing participation :-) > >>> None of the others holds a candle to dolf right now, though. We're >>> talking multiple rent-free *floors* including the penthouse in dolf's >>> head. Unfortunately for us that's not as big a windfall as you might have >>> thought because the elevator doesn't go all the way to the penthouse. > > >>So you're like Albatross, you go after helpless people like Emmut and Dolf. >>> > >not quite but also. Paul is not beyond attacking a well respected poster's >cat.....for instance :} > >>> <snivel> > >[preamble] >An excellent tr0LL - not new, but well worth the effort in putting a view >on the changes around AUK content following the retreat of the (let's say) >Databasix Confederate Army (loose use). >I have not and will not attempt to build any authority for you to even run >such a reworked tr0LL..?..as it is best I accept what you put to simply lay >down just what "everyone" consists of.--- in AUK only. >Other groups may vary Other's mileage may very. [OGMV] [OMMV] > >[caveat] >Given what I believe to be a 'stable' period in AUK's history, and knowing >PJR(co-founder) no longer has any interest in AUK,, I submit the following >in the context of "among peers". >Thus if I read no challenge from credible sources challenging an aspect - >or indeed the whole paper - of the submission I shall continue to believe >what I find as being the actual status quo. >You (Ellis Dee) can likewise trust on my post as Fact. > >I will be brief. >Where AUK is unique in it's approach to Usenet is found amongst "everyone" >being starkly different to other Usenet groups,, not *just* by Namespace >(*.kooks). >Resist then the immediate thought AUK is an unorganised rabble - a "free >for all" assembly of uncoordinated specks representative of the whole of >Usenet in concentrated form. It is not - far from it. >Today's AUK is born from quite some years of morphing through evolution,, >following on the demise of "Phoenix" and consequential passing of the >"Keys" by PJR(FNVWe) to Cujo/Cannon/Burnore - collaboratively in my terms >that "Databasix Confederate Army". >Through then a series of poor decisions that cabal fell on it's arse >(ass[USA]) in not attracting the usual historical contributions from others >away from AUK looking to deliver their k00ks into AUK. >Fred Hall (deceased) was on the path of reconstituting that historical role >for AUK after the cabal largely fell apart through a k00ks00t by one >AtlasBugged (Novins). Cannon and then Burnore attempted a continuation of >their earlier role in the cabal as "the Muscle" in what is widely >recognised today as electronic bullying - a far cry from the "pile on" AUK >was renowned for across Usenet text froups. >So essentially for quite some time(years) there existed a vacuum of >authority and indeed "power" of AUK as a useful Usenet group. This has >changed quite recently and it may well come to pass there is room for AUK >to again grow the role of the AUK Charter as a function of Usenet. >Some --- a very very small part of "everyone" -- fight that potential every >day..! >Indeed one individual does so by the hour,, using three established >"puppets" -- such is the level of fear, 18/7 :----D >Those individuals well know how their little games,, played amongst honest >to goodness UseNetizens,, can be phukd over by a coordinated "strike" by >aukkers. Over this 4th July weekend we(tinw) have seen that very scenario >played out by one k00k habiting AUK drifting into respected froups seeking >info on how to hide. Failure was IT's reward. > >Who is "everyone" today? >Three identifiable elements of AUK exist. > >[1.] There is no "team" anymore,, what does exist is an interpersonal >dynamic which a part of AUK follows in sharing one view - k00ks are fair >game. >These posters may not necessarily "get along" in a social sense. >Indeed away from AUK it may well be kill-files are well lubricated,, but in >AUK there is an integration which overcomes those 'prejudices' --- across >State lines, across National borders, and indeed across 0ceans between..! >That "bond" may well come from what is done, moreso that what is 'said'. >The subtleties of which are not always shouted in posted text. > >[2.] As in many Usenet froups there exists a minority collective, commonly >referred to as "Spammers". AUK tends to attract these moreso than elsewhere >simply because of the <*.kooks> Namespace. >Largely these are easily identifiable and so even easier disposed of. >All CAPS and lines greater than 100 in "Subject" are key flags. > >[3.] "k00ks" - historically there is the example of the correct >syntax/keystrokes for such persons. One method of determining a k00k is to >note their continual struggle against such form in using variations of the >syntax. >Define a k00k? >I supply mine own,, which is simply "those who would disadvantage stable >froups with supercilious posts aimed wholly at attention seeking >disruption". >Not to be assimilated/confused with tr0LLs,, the k00k is wholly focused on >their view being the only "correct" outlook. They are never wrong and >someone should do something about (whatever) being wrong. >For example a k00k will point to that statement and cry "koOk". >For AUK, generally...?... I quote loosely an extract from one AUK post in >the past hours "those who post k00ky posts loaded with k00kiness". >Again,, a k00k will point to that statement from that OP and cry "koOk". >For any reader it is Group [1.] which will determine a k00k, this entirely >separately and on evidence they bring from their own Usenet experience >elsewhere. > >In short.. where you find consistent critique of a poster with valid >arguments put to that opinion,, and you then refuse to accept same..?.. it >is very likely you indeed are the k00k. > >Discuss... > >[ s p a c e ] > > > > I actually read that. And for the shear hell of it I'm gonna reply. People in this newsgroup like to pin labels on people ... such and such is a kook or behaving kookily. But in real life away from Usenet it is a phrase you hardly ever hear. People in real life do not dedicate their waking hours to pursuing kooks or calling people kooks. Kooks are purely a USENET invention to further break people apart and separate us into an us and them situation. The fact that hardly anyone can agree as to who is a kook and who is not is further evidence of the superficiality of this distinction. Personally I am a unifier. I believe murdered Jo Cox's statement that there is more that unites us than divides us. Therefore I propose that the whole idea of kooks in AUK be scrapped and a more realistic real world picture be adopted. There isn't even a good definition of what a kook is ... is there? -- Bill Jillians (Formosa'd by Checkmate) http://www.mindfulselfcompassion.org/meditations_downloads.php (Mindful Self Compassion - Christopher Germer) Most Boring poster ever (along with Fakey) "Better quality than Sw, MM, MSp, idlehands and Doctor WTF combined." Dave "Yads" Yaderley Janitor's BFF #4 #shitcanjillians Taking Over USENET 1 newsgroup at a time. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BBB DoW #14 <r0llinThru@none.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-07 20:33 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <qeqfz.23$y32.1@fx02.iad> |
| In reply to | #59400 |
Bill Jillians <willaim.jillians649@btinternet.com> wrote: // >I actually read that. And for the shear hell of it I'm gonna reply. >People in this newsgroup like to pin labels on people ... such and such >is a kook or behaving kookily. errr... not-so-much "labels" more like behavioral separation. And it is everywhere in Usenet froups - some members taking the radical step of kill-files in avoiding contact. It is quite usual to find that 'strategy' does not work with the full blown oxygen wasting k00k. Derbyshire being an example which is right in yer face in the Topic :-/ So forget your insinuation AUK is different in *that* way. >But in real life away from Usenet it is a phrase you hardly ever hear. >People in real life do not dedicate their waking hours to pursuing kooks >or calling people kooks. > no..??.. well we(tinw) are yet to establish your actual world view dependant on your locale buuut I can tell you quite confidently in my travels through Europe, Africa, the US and many parts of Micronesia there is definitely social segregation of ...let's say,, "the cerebrally ignoble". In my part of Aussie that group is labeled "hoppys",, as in being separate to loonies and spastics. True,, one does not bother with "pursuing" such specimens buuut one does avoid them like the plague. Life is too short to be held up listening to manic rants on topics one really only requires a broad knowledge of to form an opinion.. hoppys dedicate every waking hour to microexamination of their particular bent. Yours being some imagined authority on gold movements.. heh[smirk] >Kooks are purely a USENET invention to further break people apart and >separate us into an us and them situation. The fact that hardly anyone >can agree as to who is a kook and who is not is further evidence of the >superficiality of this distinction. > when you insist on asking/accepting guidance from a k00k what else can you expect as a v a c a n t space in yer education..? You really believe said k00k(s) find AUK all by themselves? In my whole recollection there is not a single k00k today posting in AUK who was not dragged here frothin' and foamin' in demented indignation. gweggles and Duurbs being fine examples of that recruitment. Th0.. I qualify the result in gweggles case as that dude is is just a very malcontent malicious tr0LLr. >Personally I am a unifier. > "Personally" yer a wholly certifiable phuckup IF you truly believe that. "k00k" does not quite fit your work.. I am persuaded to accept yer more representative of those skitzoid types found in the *.depression *.welfare type froups. IMO OMMV > Therefore I propose that the whole idea of kooks in AUK be scrapped and >a more realistic real world picture be adopted. > just for your ...errr, 'benefit' I reiterate what was posted as a guide. #Not to be assimilated/confused with tr0LLs,, the #k00k is wholly focused on their view being the only #"correct" outlook. #They are never wrong and someone should do something #about (whatever) being wrong. >There isn't even a good definition of what a kook is ... is there? "good" is subjective. identifying and corralling a k00k is always evidential. albeit the specimen supplies the evidence voluntarily and alone... no 'help' required. make an effort to be objective and rank yourself. - your view is k00k is not defined (despite evidence to the contrary) - you propose k00k be abolished (yet offer no alternative solution for froups) - you refuse to provide evidence for your statements (you wont be told) - you bait and switch on posters for your amusement (and whine when bettered) ... what's the chance you are indeed a k00k? jes FTR... as with that "Ellis Dee" sock I gave the topic a shot in all seriousness. It is my preference not to suffer fools... so I extend to you that same courtesy I allowed "Ellis Dee"... think before you hit "followup-to". I do not do "second chance" :/ also FTR... I posted the cmsg for AUK not so long back. IF that does not tell you I have been part of AUK operations since the beginning then you do prove ownership of v a c a n t space. I am not "in" AUK as such... through arrangement and help from those willing AUK "good guys" I am able to operate remotely. Largely it has always been that way, an exception is the period immediately following the Novins k00s00t whereon I did run personas in AUK,, as is the accepted practice for that froup. end of....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BBB DoW #14 <r0llinThru@none.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-07 06:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tmrmru$a01$3@rec.humour.funny.harlots> |
| In reply to | #59409 |
Wrote: // Billians <willaim.jill Jillaim.jill Jillians <willians <will Jillians <will Jillians <willians <willaim.jillians649@btinternet.com>. >I actually read that. And for the shear hell of it I'm gonna reply. >People in this newsgroup like to pin labels on people ... such and such >is a kook or behaving kookily. Derbyshire behavioral separategy' does not work with the radical separation AUK is quite usual separation AUK is right is differe like behavioral separategy' does not-so-much "labels" more in. Derbyshire behavioral separation. Oxygen way. Not-so-much "labels" more in *that 'strategy' does insinuation. And it in Usenet froups - some members taking contact. Errr. And it is right in yer face in the radical step of kill-files not-so-much is everywhere insinuation AUK is right is differe being the full blown oxygen wasting the radical step of kill-files in avoiding k00k. Errr. And the full blown oxygen way. It is quite usual step of kill-files in *that* wasting k00k. Not-so-much "labels" more like being an example which "labels" more behavioral separategy' does not-so-much is quite usual separation. >But in real life away from Usenet it is a phrase you hardly ever hear. >People in real life do not dedicate their waking hours to pursuing kooks >or calling people kooks. > In my parate the US an tely social well we(tinw) are yet to many parate every waking to be held many parate to establish yoursuing" such spastics. Your to locale buuut of to many parts on gold view dependants of.let's say, as in being social well world view dependants on your topics. Hoppys", "them like to manic rant onesia there yet too shority on of to establish yoursuing" such specimens buuut one requite confidents of Aussie the confident. Hour loonies not bothere is labeled authort on you quires a broad knowled "hoppys", as in my travels that grough Europe, Africa, the US and spasticular be held view dedica, throup is dependant onesia therebrally in being segregation. In my part of to establish your actual segregation. True, "their partics. Yoursuing to microne really in my travels. True, only in my travels the confident. In my travels topics of Microne really in my travels them like there yet too short of therebrally ignoble". True, "the US and movement. Well world view definite every waking to form an tely ignoble". True, only in my parts onesia the cere yet topics. True, "there yet to being" such spasticular be held up listening too shority on of to many part of topics of to locale buuut I can tell yoursuing too short too short one does an to form and many parts of.let's say, "ther with "pursuing" such spastics. True, as in my parate to microne really in my partics. Does and manic rant of too short to form and many parts on of Microne does no.??. Your loonies and many parts only ignoble". >Kooks are purely a USENET invention to further break people apart and >separate us into an us and them situation. The fact that hardly anyone >can agree as to who is a kook and who is not is further evidence of the >superficiality of this distinction. > Space from a k00k(s) findignation t space insist on as not asking guidance from a n t space is not a n t space from a single k00k whole k00k whole recruitment malconted here frothin' insist on asking ind foamin' and foamin' in yer education.? You in AUK who was not a sing guidance from a sing indignation.? You expection. I qualify the reall by that really beingles case as and AUK who was not dude in AUK whole k00k today posting guidance from a c a k00k today posting/accepting/accepting indignation.? You examples case as not a n t space from a k00k who was a k00k whole recollection. I qualify themselves? In my what recollection. Th0. Gweggles of there is just as there frothin' insist on asking fine expection asking insist askingles a sing/accepting/accepting insist on t space from a n themselves? In my who was there from a sing guidance from a c a n the recollect asking findignation t space in dement. Gweggle k00k today posting guidance from a n that else can you recruitment. >Personally I am a unifier. > Wholly" yer a wholly" yer a wholly certifiable phuckup IF you truly certifiable phuckup IF you truly certifiable phuckup IF you truly certifiable phuckup. Am persuaded types not quite fit yer more representative of the *.depresentative of those skitzoid to accept your work. IMO OMMV "k00k" does not quite fit. Yer more repression *.welfare representative of the *.welfare representative of those skitzoid to accept your work. IMO OMMV "k00k" does found in those skitzoid to accept your work. > Therefore I propose that the whole idea of kooks in AUK be scrapped and >a more realistic real world picture be adopted. > Just for your.errr, 'benefit' I reiterate what was posted as posted. Just for your.errr, 'benefit' I reiterate what was a guide. Posted as a guide. #Not to be assimilated/confused with tr0LLs, the on their view being the #k00k is wholly focused with tr0LLs, the #k00k is wholly focused with tr0LLs, the #k00k is wholly focused on the #k00k is wholly focused with tr0LLs, the #k00k is wholly focused with tr0LLs, their view being and something the #k00k. #They are never) being the only #"correct" out (whated/confused on their view being #aboutlook. Never wrong. >There isn't even a good definition of what a kook is ... is there? Corralling and corralling and corralling and corralling a k00k is supplies the specimen subjective.. Idential. Albeit the evidentifying and albeit the specimen supplies the evidentifying and corralling a k00k is subjective. Identifying and corralling and always evidence voluntarily and corralling a k00k is supplies the specimen subjective. When be to be objective and what's the cont betters for froups) - yourself. - you refuse k00k is k00k? Make and switch on posters for froups) - you bait an effor your amuse k00k is not define when be and whine what's the chance to be to be to betternative and switch on posters. - you bait and switch on fort told). - your amuse k00k? Make an effor you bait an effor you bait and rank your view is k00k is k00k? Make abolished (despite evidence for froups) - your statements (yet offer no alternative and rank you are indeed (yet offer not defined (yet offer not defined (despite evidence you wontrary) - you bait and when be and rank you bait an effort to the cont betters fort to be to betternative and switch on for yourself. - your statements (you are indeed (you wontrary) - yourself. It in allowed "Ellis my prefer fools. Sock I all seriousness. The that same courtesy I allowed "Ellis my preference not do not in allowup-to". It in all seriousness. As with the that "Ellis my preference. I all seriousness. So I gave to suffer fools. Shot to you that same courtesy I extend to suffer fools. I extend to sufference" sock I gave to suffer fools. As with think before you hit "Ellis my preference not topic a shot to suffer fools. That "Ellis Dee". As with that same courtesy I allowed "Ellis Dee". Has such. Also long AUK "good immediate remotell you does not so FTR. Largely it have beginning the beginning the cmsg for AUK. I did run part of AUK operations since to operation is the been t space. Largely. I have ownership of AUK, and help frough arrangement and help from that way, an exception I am able the perate remotely it has in AUK operiod guys" I posted prove beginning AUK operate remotely it has since that from that does notell you I am not so FTR. IF then you does not "in" AUK operiod immediately. IF the Novins k00s00t way, and help froup. That whereon is the beginning the perations since following the beginning then you I did run part of v a n t space. I posted practice to operiod guys" I did run part of v a c a c a c a n the been the beginning the Novins since following back. Then part of v a n the been part of v a c a c a c a c a c a c a c a c a c a n t space. Largely. I posted prove ownersonas since for AUK operiod guys" I am notell you I has such. End of. Of. Of. Ofof.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-07 05:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.31e7f0a2b0ce813098d8f5@news.altopia.com> |
| In reply to | #59411 |
In article <tmrmru$a01$3@rec.humour.funny.harlots>, r0llinThru@none.invalid says... > > Wrote: // Billians <willaim.jill Jillaim.jill Jillians <willians <will > Jillians <will Jillians <willians <willaim.jillians649@btinternet.com>. > >I actually read that. And for the shear hell of it I'm gonna reply. > >People in this newsgroup like to pin labels on people ... such and such > >is a kook or behaving kookily. > > Derbyshire behavioral separategy' does not work with the radical > separation AUK is quite usual separation AUK is right is differe like > behavioral separategy' does not-so-much "labels" more in. Derbyshire > behavioral separation. Oxygen way. Not-so-much "labels" more in *that > 'strategy' does insinuation. And it in Usenet froups - some members > taking contact. Errr. And it is right in yer face in the radical step > of kill-files not-so-much is everywhere insinuation AUK is right is > differe being the full blown oxygen wasting the radical step of > kill-files in avoiding k00k. Errr. And the full blown oxygen way. It > is quite usual step of kill-files in *that* wasting k00k. Not-so-much > "labels" more like being an example which "labels" more behavioral > separategy' does not-so-much is quite usual separation. > > >But in real life away from Usenet it is a phrase you hardly ever hear. > >People in real life do not dedicate their waking hours to pursuing kooks > >or calling people kooks. > > > In my parate the US an tely social well we(tinw) are yet to many > parate every waking to be held many parate to establish yoursuing" > such spastics. Your to locale buuut of to many parts on gold view > dependants of.let's say, as in being social well world view dependants > on your topics. Hoppys", "them like to manic rant onesia there yet too > shority on of to establish yoursuing" such specimens buuut one requite > confidents of Aussie the confident. Hour loonies not bothere is > labeled authort on you quires a broad knowled "hoppys", as in my > travels that grough Europe, Africa, the US and spasticular be held > view dedica, throup is dependant onesia therebrally in being > segregation. In my part of to establish your actual segregation. True, > "their partics. Yoursuing to microne really in my travels. True, only > in my travels the confident. In my travels topics of Microne really in > my travels them like there yet too short of therebrally ignoble". > True, "the US and movement. Well world view definite every waking to > form an tely ignoble". True, only in my parts onesia the cere yet > topics. True, "there yet to being" such spasticular be held up > listening too shority on of to many part of topics of to locale buuut > I can tell yoursuing too short too short one does an to form and many > parts of.let's say, "ther with "pursuing" such spastics. True, as in > my parate to microne really in my partics. Does and manic rant of too > short to form and many parts on of Microne does no.??. Your loonies > and many parts only ignoble". > > >Kooks are purely a USENET invention to further break people apart and > >separate us into an us and them situation. The fact that hardly anyone > >can agree as to who is a kook and who is not is further evidence of the > >superficiality of this distinction. > > > Space from a k00k(s) findignation t space insist on as not asking > guidance from a n t space is not a n t space from a single k00k whole > k00k whole recruitment malconted here frothin' insist on asking ind > foamin' and foamin' in yer education.? You in AUK who was not a sing > guidance from a sing indignation.? You expection. I qualify the reall > by that really beingles case as and AUK who was not dude in AUK whole > k00k today posting guidance from a c a k00k today > posting/accepting/accepting indignation.? You examples case as not a n > t space from a k00k who was a k00k whole recollection. I qualify > themselves? In my what recollection. Th0. Gweggles of there is just as > there frothin' insist on asking fine expection asking insist askingles > a sing/accepting/accepting insist on t space from a n themselves? In > my who was there from a sing guidance from a c a n the recollect > asking findignation t space in dement. Gweggle k00k today posting > guidance from a n that else can you recruitment. > > >Personally I am a unifier. > > > Wholly" yer a wholly" yer a wholly certifiable phuckup IF you truly > certifiable phuckup IF you truly certifiable phuckup IF you truly > certifiable phuckup. > > Am persuaded types not quite fit yer more representative of the > *.depresentative of those skitzoid to accept your work. IMO OMMV > "k00k" does not quite fit. Yer more repression *.welfare > representative of the *.welfare representative of those skitzoid to > accept your work. IMO OMMV "k00k" does found in those skitzoid to > accept your work. > > > Therefore I propose that the whole idea of kooks in AUK be scrapped and > >a more realistic real world picture be adopted. > > > Just for your.errr, 'benefit' I reiterate what was posted as posted. > Just for your.errr, 'benefit' I reiterate what was a guide. Posted as > a guide. > > #Not to be assimilated/confused with tr0LLs, the on their view being > the #k00k is wholly focused with tr0LLs, the #k00k is wholly focused > with tr0LLs, the #k00k is wholly focused on the #k00k is wholly > focused with tr0LLs, the #k00k is wholly focused with tr0LLs, their > view being and something the #k00k. #They are never) being the only > #"correct" out (whated/confused on their view being #aboutlook. Never > wrong. > > >There isn't even a good definition of what a kook is ... is there? > > Corralling and corralling and corralling and corralling a k00k is > supplies the specimen subjective.. Idential. Albeit the evidentifying > and albeit the specimen supplies the evidentifying and corralling a > k00k is subjective. Identifying and corralling and always evidence > voluntarily and corralling a k00k is supplies the specimen subjective. > > When be to be objective and what's the cont betters for froups) - > yourself. - you refuse k00k is k00k? Make and switch on posters for > froups) - you bait an effor your amuse k00k is not define when be and > whine what's the chance to be to be to betternative and switch on > posters. - you bait and switch on fort told). - your amuse k00k? Make > an effor you bait an effor you bait and rank your view is k00k is > k00k? Make abolished (despite evidence for froups) - your statements > (yet offer no alternative and rank you are indeed (yet offer not > defined (yet offer not defined (despite evidence you wontrary) - you > bait and when be and rank you bait an effort to the cont betters fort > to be to betternative and switch on for yourself. - your statements > (you are indeed (you wontrary) - yourself. > > It in allowed "Ellis my prefer fools. Sock I all seriousness. The that > same courtesy I allowed "Ellis my preference not do not in > allowup-to". It in all seriousness. As with the that "Ellis my > preference. I all seriousness. So I gave to suffer fools. Shot to you > that same courtesy I extend to suffer fools. I extend to sufference" > sock I gave to suffer fools. As with think before you hit "Ellis my > preference not topic a shot to suffer fools. That "Ellis Dee". As with > that same courtesy I allowed "Ellis Dee". > > Has such. Also long AUK "good immediate remotell you does not so FTR. > Largely it have beginning the beginning the cmsg for AUK. I did run > part of AUK operations since to operation is the been t space. > Largely. I have ownership of AUK, and help frough arrangement and help > from that way, an exception I am able the perate remotely it has in > AUK operiod guys" I posted prove beginning AUK operate remotely it has > since that from that does notell you I am not so FTR. IF then you does > not "in" AUK operiod immediately. IF the Novins k00s00t way, and help > froup. That whereon is the beginning the perations since following the > beginning then you I did run part of v a n t space. I posted practice > to operiod guys" I did run part of v a c a c a c a n the been the > beginning the Novins since following back. Then part of v a n the been > part of v a c a c a c a c a c a c a c a c a c a n t space. Largely. I > posted prove ownersonas since for AUK operiod guys" I am notell you I > has such. > > End of. Of. Of. Ofof. Paul? Is that you? -- Checkmate, AUK DoW #1, new Honorary FNVW of AUK, and Fakey's master AUK Hammer of Thor award, Feb. 2012 (Pre-Burnore) Destroyer of the AUK Ko0k Vote (Post-Burnore) Originator of the "Dance for me" (tm) lame Copyright © 2016 all rights reserved https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdyBYSuqQBQ&feature=youtu.be
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-12 11:39 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1mq9v06.12l0d1b12iqm1jN%snipeco.2@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #59420 |
Checkmate, DoW #1 <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> wrote: [...] > > End of. Of. Of. Ofof. > > > > Paul? Is that you? > He's got a burr under his saddle. -- ^Ï^. My pet rock Gordon just is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bill Jillians <willaim.jillians649@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-07 17:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <rmK5lxSdDofXFw5M@btinternet.com> |
| In reply to | #59411 |
In message <tmrmru$a01$3@rec.humour.funny.harlots>, BBB DoW #14 <r0llinThru@none.invalid> writes >Wrote: // Billians <willaim.jill Jillaim.jill Jillians <willians <will >Jillians <will Jillians <willians <willaim.jillians649@btinternet.com>. >>I actually read that. And for the shear hell of it I'm gonna reply. >>People in this newsgroup like to pin labels on people ... such and such >>is a kook or behaving kookily. > >Derbyshire behavioral separategy' does not work with the radical >separation AUK is quite usual separation AUK is right is differe like >behavioral separategy' does not-so-much "labels" more in. Derbyshire >behavioral separation. Oxygen way. Not-so-much "labels" more in *that >'strategy' does insinuation. And it in Usenet froups - some members >taking contact. Errr. And it is right in yer face in the radical step >of kill-files not-so-much is everywhere insinuation AUK is right is >differe being the full blown oxygen wasting the radical step of >kill-files in avoiding k00k. Errr. And the full blown oxygen way. It >is quite usual step of kill-files in *that* wasting k00k. Not-so-much >"labels" more like being an example which "labels" more behavioral >separategy' does not-so-much is quite usual separation. > >>But in real life away from Usenet it is a phrase you hardly ever hear. >>People in real life do not dedicate their waking hours to pursuing kooks >>or calling people kooks. >> >In my parate the US an tely social well we(tinw) are yet to many >parate every waking to be held many parate to establish yoursuing" >such spastics. Your to locale buuut of to many parts on gold view >dependants of.let's say, as in being social well world view dependants >on your topics. Hoppys", "them like to manic rant onesia there yet too >shority on of to establish yoursuing" such specimens buuut one requite >confidents of Aussie the confident. Hour loonies not bothere is >labeled authort on you quires a broad knowled "hoppys", as in my >travels that grough Europe, Africa, the US and spasticular be held >view dedica, throup is dependant onesia therebrally in being >segregation. In my part of to establish your actual segregation. True, >"their partics. Yoursuing to microne really in my travels. True, only >in my travels the confident. In my travels topics of Microne really in >my travels them like there yet too short of therebrally ignoble". >True, "the US and movement. Well world view definite every waking to >form an tely ignoble". True, only in my parts onesia the cere yet >topics. True, "there yet to being" such spasticular be held up >listening too shority on of to many part of topics of to locale buuut >I can tell yoursuing too short too short one does an to form and many >parts of.let's say, "ther with "pursuing" such spastics. True, as in >my parate to microne really in my partics. Does and manic rant of too >short to form and many parts on of Microne does no.??. Your loonies >and many parts only ignoble". > >>Kooks are purely a USENET invention to further break people apart and >>separate us into an us and them situation. The fact that hardly anyone >>can agree as to who is a kook and who is not is further evidence of the >>superficiality of this distinction. >> >Space from a k00k(s) findignation t space insist on as not asking >guidance from a n t space is not a n t space from a single k00k whole >k00k whole recruitment malconted here frothin' insist on asking ind >foamin' and foamin' in yer education.? You in AUK who was not a sing >guidance from a sing indignation.? You expection. I qualify the reall >by that really beingles case as and AUK who was not dude in AUK whole >k00k today posting guidance from a c a k00k today >posting/accepting/accepting indignation.? You examples case as not a n >t space from a k00k who was a k00k whole recollection. I qualify >themselves? In my what recollection. Th0. Gweggles of there is just as >there frothin' insist on asking fine expection asking insist askingles >a sing/accepting/accepting insist on t space from a n themselves? In >my who was there from a sing guidance from a c a n the recollect >asking findignation t space in dement. Gweggle k00k today posting >guidance from a n that else can you recruitment. > >>Personally I am a unifier. >> >Wholly" yer a wholly" yer a wholly certifiable phuckup IF you truly >certifiable phuckup IF you truly certifiable phuckup IF you truly >certifiable phuckup. > >Am persuaded types not quite fit yer more representative of the >*.depresentative of those skitzoid to accept your work. IMO OMMV >"k00k" does not quite fit. Yer more repression *.welfare >representative of the *.welfare representative of those skitzoid to >accept your work. IMO OMMV "k00k" does found in those skitzoid to >accept your work. > >> Therefore I propose that the whole idea of kooks in AUK be scrapped and >>a more realistic real world picture be adopted. >> >Just for your.errr, 'benefit' I reiterate what was posted as posted. >Just for your.errr, 'benefit' I reiterate what was a guide. Posted as >a guide. > >#Not to be assimilated/confused with tr0LLs, the on their view being >the #k00k is wholly focused with tr0LLs, the #k00k is wholly focused >with tr0LLs, the #k00k is wholly focused on the #k00k is wholly >focused with tr0LLs, the #k00k is wholly focused with tr0LLs, their >view being and something the #k00k. #They are never) being the only >#"correct" out (whated/confused on their view being #aboutlook. Never >wrong. > >>There isn't even a good definition of what a kook is ... is there? > >Corralling and corralling and corralling and corralling a k00k is >supplies the specimen subjective.. Idential. Albeit the evidentifying >and albeit the specimen supplies the evidentifying and corralling a >k00k is subjective. Identifying and corralling and always evidence >voluntarily and corralling a k00k is supplies the specimen subjective. > >When be to be objective and what's the cont betters for froups) - >yourself. - you refuse k00k is k00k? Make and switch on posters for >froups) - you bait an effor your amuse k00k is not define when be and >whine what's the chance to be to be to betternative and switch on >posters. - you bait and switch on fort told). - your amuse k00k? Make >an effor you bait an effor you bait and rank your view is k00k is >k00k? Make abolished (despite evidence for froups) - your statements >(yet offer no alternative and rank you are indeed (yet offer not >defined (yet offer not defined (despite evidence you wontrary) - you >bait and when be and rank you bait an effort to the cont betters fort >to be to betternative and switch on for yourself. - your statements >(you are indeed (you wontrary) - yourself. > >It in allowed "Ellis my prefer fools. Sock I all seriousness. The that >same courtesy I allowed "Ellis my preference not do not in >allowup-to". It in all seriousness. As with the that "Ellis my >preference. I all seriousness. So I gave to suffer fools. Shot to you >that same courtesy I extend to suffer fools. I extend to sufference" >sock I gave to suffer fools. As with think before you hit "Ellis my >preference not topic a shot to suffer fools. That "Ellis Dee". As with >that same courtesy I allowed "Ellis Dee". > >Has such. Also long AUK "good immediate remotell you does not so FTR. >Largely it have beginning the beginning the cmsg for AUK. I did run >part of AUK operations since to operation is the been t space. >Largely. I have ownership of AUK, and help frough arrangement and help >from that way, an exception I am able the perate remotely it has in >AUK operiod guys" I posted prove beginning AUK operate remotely it has >since that from that does notell you I am not so FTR. IF then you does >not "in" AUK operiod immediately. IF the Novins k00s00t way, and help >froup. That whereon is the beginning the perations since following the >beginning then you I did run part of v a n t space. I posted practice >to operiod guys" I did run part of v a c a c a c a n the been the >beginning the Novins since following back. Then part of v a n the been >part of v a c a c a c a c a c a c a c a c a c a n t space. Largely. I >posted prove ownersonas since for AUK operiod guys" I am notell you I >has such. > >End of. Of. Of. Ofof. > Makes perfect sense :) -- Bill Jillians (Formosa'd by Checkmate) http://www.mindfulselfcompassion.org/meditations_downloads.php (Mindful Self Compassion - Christopher Germer) Most Boring poster ever (along with Fakey) "Better quality than Sw, MM, MSp, idlehands and Doctor WTF combined." Dave "Yads" Yaderley Janitor's BFF #4 #shitcanjillians Taking Over USENET 1 newsgroup at a time. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-07 19:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nlmbmf$ghj$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #59445 |
On Thu, 07 Jul 2016 17:18:37 +0100, Bill Jillians wrote: > In message <tmrmru$a01$3@rec.humour.funny.harlots>, BBB DoW #14 > <r0llinThru@none.invalid> writes >>Wrote: // Billians <willaim.jill Jillaim.jill Jillians <willians <will >>Jillians <will Jillians <willians <willaim.jillians649@btinternet.com>. >>>I actually read that. And for the shear hell of it I'm gonna reply. >>>People in this newsgroup like to pin labels on people ... such and such >>>is a kook or behaving kookily. >> >>Derbyshire behavioral separategy' does not work with the radical >>separation AUK is quite usual separation AUK is right is differe like >>behavioral separategy' does not-so-much "labels" more in. Derbyshire >>behavioral separation. Oxygen way. Not-so-much "labels" more in *that >>'strategy' does insinuation. And it in Usenet froups - some members >>taking contact. Errr. And it is right in yer face in the radical step of >>kill-files not-so-much is everywhere insinuation AUK is right is differe >>being the full blown oxygen wasting the radical step of kill-files in >>avoiding k00k. Errr. And the full blown oxygen way. It is quite usual >>step of kill-files in *that* wasting k00k. Not-so-much "labels" more >>like being an example which "labels" more behavioral separategy' does >>not-so-much is quite usual separation. >> >>>But in real life away from Usenet it is a phrase you hardly ever hear. >>>People in real life do not dedicate their waking hours to pursuing >>>kooks or calling people kooks. >>> >>In my parate the US an tely social well we(tinw) are yet to many parate >>every waking to be held many parate to establish yoursuing" such >>spastics. Your to locale buuut of to many parts on gold view dependants >>of.let's say, as in being social well world view dependants on your >>topics. Hoppys", "them like to manic rant onesia there yet too shority >>on of to establish yoursuing" such specimens buuut one requite >>confidents of Aussie the confident. Hour loonies not bothere is labeled >>authort on you quires a broad knowled "hoppys", as in my travels that >>grough Europe, Africa, the US and spasticular be held view dedica, >>throup is dependant onesia therebrally in being segregation. In my part >>of to establish your actual segregation. True, "their partics. Yoursuing >>to microne really in my travels. True, only in my travels the confident. >>In my travels topics of Microne really in my travels them like there yet >>too short of therebrally ignoble". True, "the US and movement. Well >>world view definite every waking to form an tely ignoble". True, only in >>my parts onesia the cere yet topics. True, "there yet to being" such >>spasticular be held up listening too shority on of to many part of >>topics of to locale buuut I can tell yoursuing too short too short one >>does an to form and many parts of.let's say, "ther with "pursuing" such >>spastics. True, as in my parate to microne really in my partics. Does >>and manic rant of too short to form and many parts on of Microne does >>no.??. Your loonies and many parts only ignoble". >> >>>Kooks are purely a USENET invention to further break people apart and >>>separate us into an us and them situation. The fact that hardly anyone >>>can agree as to who is a kook and who is not is further evidence of the >>>superficiality of this distinction. >>> >>Space from a k00k(s) findignation t space insist on as not asking >>guidance from a n t space is not a n t space from a single k00k whole >>k00k whole recruitment malconted here frothin' insist on asking ind >>foamin' and foamin' in yer education.? You in AUK who was not a sing >>guidance from a sing indignation.? You expection. I qualify the reall by >>that really beingles case as and AUK who was not dude in AUK whole k00k >>today posting guidance from a c a k00k today posting/accepting/accepting >>indignation.? You examples case as not a n t space from a k00k who was a >>k00k whole recollection. I qualify themselves? In my what recollection. >>Th0. Gweggles of there is just as there frothin' insist on asking fine >>expection asking insist askingles a sing/accepting/accepting insist on t >>space from a n themselves? In my who was there from a sing guidance from >>a c a n the recollect asking findignation t space in dement. Gweggle >>k00k today posting guidance from a n that else can you recruitment. >> >>>Personally I am a unifier. >>> >>Wholly" yer a wholly" yer a wholly certifiable phuckup IF you truly >>certifiable phuckup IF you truly certifiable phuckup IF you truly >>certifiable phuckup. >> >>Am persuaded types not quite fit yer more representative of the >>*.depresentative of those skitzoid to accept your work. IMO OMMV "k00k" >>does not quite fit. Yer more repression *.welfare representative of the >>*.welfare representative of those skitzoid to accept your work. IMO OMMV >>"k00k" does found in those skitzoid to accept your work. >> >>> Therefore I propose that the whole idea of kooks in AUK be scrapped >>> and >>>a more realistic real world picture be adopted. >>> >>Just for your.errr, 'benefit' I reiterate what was posted as posted. >>Just for your.errr, 'benefit' I reiterate what was a guide. Posted as a >>guide. >> >>#Not to be assimilated/confused with tr0LLs, the on their view being the >>#k00k is wholly focused with tr0LLs, the #k00k is wholly focused with >>tr0LLs, the #k00k is wholly focused on the #k00k is wholly focused with >>tr0LLs, the #k00k is wholly focused with tr0LLs, their view being and >>something the #k00k. #They are never) being the only #"correct" out >>(whated/confused on their view being #aboutlook. Never wrong. >> >>>There isn't even a good definition of what a kook is ... is there? >> >>Corralling and corralling and corralling and corralling a k00k is >>supplies the specimen subjective.. Idential. Albeit the evidentifying >>and albeit the specimen supplies the evidentifying and corralling a k00k >>is subjective. Identifying and corralling and always evidence >>voluntarily and corralling a k00k is supplies the specimen subjective. >> >>When be to be objective and what's the cont betters for froups) - >>yourself. - you refuse k00k is k00k? Make and switch on posters for >>froups) - you bait an effor your amuse k00k is not define when be and >>whine what's the chance to be to be to betternative and switch on >>posters. - you bait and switch on fort told). - your amuse k00k? Make an >>effor you bait an effor you bait and rank your view is k00k is k00k? >>Make abolished (despite evidence for froups) - your statements (yet >>offer no alternative and rank you are indeed (yet offer not defined (yet >>offer not defined (despite evidence you wontrary) - you bait and when be >>and rank you bait an effort to the cont betters fort to be to >>betternative and switch on for yourself. - your statements (you are >>indeed (you wontrary) - yourself. >> >>It in allowed "Ellis my prefer fools. Sock I all seriousness. The that >>same courtesy I allowed "Ellis my preference not do not in allowup-to". >>It in all seriousness. As with the that "Ellis my preference. I all >>seriousness. So I gave to suffer fools. Shot to you that same courtesy I >>extend to suffer fools. I extend to sufference" sock I gave to suffer >>fools. As with think before you hit "Ellis my preference not topic a >>shot to suffer fools. That "Ellis Dee". As with that same courtesy I >>allowed "Ellis Dee". >> >>Has such. Also long AUK "good immediate remotell you does not so FTR. >>Largely it have beginning the beginning the cmsg for AUK. I did run part >>of AUK operations since to operation is the been t space. Largely. I >>have ownership of AUK, and help frough arrangement and help from that >>way, an exception I am able the perate remotely it has in AUK operiod >>guys" I posted prove beginning AUK operate remotely it has since that >>from that does notell you I am not so FTR. IF then you does not "in" AUK >>operiod immediately. IF the Novins k00s00t way, and help froup. That >>whereon is the beginning the perations since following the beginning >>then you I did run part of v a n t space. I posted practice to operiod >>guys" I did run part of v a c a c a c a n the been the beginning the >>Novins since following back. Then part of v a n the been part of v a c a >>c a c a c a c a c a c a c a c a n t space. Largely. I posted prove >>ownersonas since for AUK operiod guys" I am notell you I has such. >> >>End of. Of. Of. Ofof. > > Makes perfect sense :) Yes, I can easily tell it's a froggery because it's too legible to be from the real murphy. <snicker>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bill Jillians <willaim.jillians649@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-07 14:26 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <Z9uFj8LMilfXFwP4@btinternet.com> |
| In reply to | #59409 |
In message <qeqfz.23$y32.1@fx02.iad>, BBB DoW #14 <r0llinThru@none.invalid> writes >Bill Jillians <willaim.jillians649@btinternet.com> wrote: >// >>I actually read that. And for the shear hell of it I'm gonna reply. >>People in this newsgroup like to pin labels on people ... such and such >>is a kook or behaving kookily. > >errr... not-so-much "labels" more like behavioral separation. >And it is everywhere in Usenet froups - some members taking the radical >step of kill-files in avoiding contact. It is quite usual to find that >'strategy' does not work with the full blown oxygen wasting k00k. >Derbyshire being an example which is right in yer face in the Topic :-/ >So forget your insinuation AUK is different in *that* way. Oh I realise that. My personal approach is to try to treat everyone I meet with respect. It doesn't always work but personally I don't wait until somebody earns my respect. Very few people will want to do that anyway ... probably because they don't think I'm worth it. But anyway I find that few people want to get in my face ... possibly because I have no desire to get in theres and I look sufficiently imposing for people not to risk it. Checkmate wants to stay away from me ... and he is probably the person I am on least good terms with. I suppose that is a form of respect. > >>But in real life away from Usenet it is a phrase you hardly ever hear. >>People in real life do not dedicate their waking hours to pursuing kooks >>or calling people kooks. >> >no..??.. well we(tinw) are yet to establish your actual world view >dependant on your locale buuut I can tell you quite confidently in my >travels through Europe, Africa, the US and many parts of Micronesia there >is definitely social segregation of ...let's say,, "the cerebrally >ignoble". Sure ... I usually end up talking to people like that ... but it isn't always enjoyable. All some people like that want is someone to talk to. And sadly they don't get it. >In my part of Aussie that group is labeled "hoppys",, as in being separate >to loonies and spastics. True,, one does not bother with "pursuing" such >specimens buuut one does avoid them like the plague. Life is too short to >be held up listening to manic rants on topics one really only requires a >broad knowledge of to form an opinion.. hoppys dedicate every waking hour >to microexamination of their particular bent. Well some people are better off than others. I don't much like social situations with strangers. But I'm sure we all have our quirks and idiosyncrasies. I think the thing about groups like AUK is some people try to make things worse for others who are perceived as different or defective. Well my response to that is none of us is perfect and most people are far from perfect. >Yours being some imagined authority on gold movements.. heh[smirk] Ha ha. Well enough on that subject (almost). I am invested in a gold mining company called Randgold who have several goldmines in the Sahara. I bought some shares and the price went down. Then on the day of Brexit they shot up so 2 days later I sold them. They dithered and I almost rebought them at a lower price. Then they shot up again almost as far as they had after Brexit leaving me way behind. Yesterday I bought back in after a week of rising prices each day, in which I expected them to come down again. There is no telling where they will end up but I think they may be at their height now. Mind you I thought that every day last week. They came down a bit today so I hope they don't screw me over again now I have bought back. All it will take is bad jobs figures for the USA tomorrow and I should be making some sort of profit again. Sorry ... it is imagined authority as nobody knows what will happen and most of the predictions so far have been way off. > >>Kooks are purely a USENET invention to further break people apart and >>separate us into an us and them situation. The fact that hardly anyone >>can agree as to who is a kook and who is not is further evidence of the >>superficiality of this distinction. >> >when you insist on asking/accepting guidance from a k00k what else can >you expect as a v a c a n t space in yer education..? >You really believe said k00k(s) find AUK all by themselves? As I said I think "kook" is a convenient label for someone who doesn't fit on. That is all of us under appropriate criteria. >In my whole recollection there is not a single k00k today posting in AUK >who was not dragged here frothin' and foamin' in demented indignation. >gweggles and Duurbs being fine examples of that recruitment. >Th0.. I qualify the result in gweggles case as that dude is is just a very >malcontent malicious tr0LLr. I suppose this place does attract people who are very different. But if everyone is very different then how can you say somebody doesn't fit in? > >>Personally I am a unifier. >> >"Personally" yer a wholly certifiable phuckup IF you truly believe that. I didn't say I was capable of it. It is what I believe in. A little kindness never hurt anyone. > >"k00k" does not quite fit your work.. I am persuaded to >accept yer more representative of those skitzoid types found in the >*.depression *.welfare type froups. >IMO OMMV > >> Therefore I propose that the whole idea of kooks in AUK be scrapped and >>a more realistic real world picture be adopted. >> >just for your ...errr, 'benefit' I reiterate what was posted as a guide. > > #Not to be assimilated/confused with tr0LLs,, the > #k00k is wholly focused on their view being the only > #"correct" outlook. > #They are never wrong and someone should do something > #about (whatever) being wrong. > >>There isn't even a good definition of what a kook is ... is there? > > "good" is subjective. >identifying and corralling a k00k is always evidential. >albeit the specimen supplies the evidence voluntarily and alone... no >'help' required. Well it is evidence that I am blind to in that case. > >make an effort to be objective and rank yourself. > - your view is k00k is not defined (despite evidence to the contrary) >- you propose k00k be abolished (yet offer no alternative > solution for froups) > - you refuse to provide evidence for your statements (you wont be told) > - you bait and switch on posters for your amusement (and whine when > bettered) >... what's the chance you are indeed a k00k? > >jes FTR... >as with that "Ellis Dee" sock I gave the topic a shot in all seriousness. >It is my preference not to suffer fools... so I extend to you that same >courtesy I allowed "Ellis Dee"... think before you hit "followup-to". >I do not do "second chance" :/ Fools are a fact of life. Where you going to go to escape them ... Mars? > >also FTR... I posted the cmsg for AUK not so long back. >IF that does not tell you I have been part of AUK operations since the >beginning then you do prove ownership of v a c a n t space. >I am not "in" AUK as such... through arrangement and help from those >willing AUK "good guys" I am able to operate remotely. >Largely it has always been that way, an exception is the period immediately >following the Novins k00s00t whereon I did run personas in AUK,, as is the >accepted practice for that froup. > >end of.... > > I don't know who are the "good guys" and who aren't. -- Bill Jillians (Formosa'd by Checkmate) http://www.mindfulselfcompassion.org/meditations_downloads.php (Mindful Self Compassion - Christopher Germer) Most Boring poster ever (along with Fakey) "Better quality than Sw, MM, MSp, idlehands and Doctor WTF combined." Dave "Yads" Yaderley Janitor's BFF #4 #shitcanjillians Taking Over USENET 1 newsgroup at a time. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BBB DoW #14 <r0llinThru@none.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-08 00:37 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <9Ptfz.71$y32.60@fx02.iad> |
| In reply to | #59422 |
Bill Jillians <willaim.jillians649@btinternet.com> wrote: >In message <qeqfz.23$y32.1@fx02.iad>, BBB DoW #14 ><r0llinThru@none.invalid> writes >>Bill Jillians <willaim.jillians649@btinternet.com> wrote: >>// >>>I actually read that. And for the shear hell of it I'm gonna reply. >>>People in this newsgroup like to pin labels on people ... such and such >>>is a kook or behaving kookily. >> >>errr... not-so-much "labels" more like behavioral separation. >>And it is everywhere in Usenet froups - some members taking the radical >>step of kill-files in avoiding contact. It is quite usual to find that >>'strategy' does not work with the full blown oxygen wasting k00k. >>Derbyshire being an example which is right in yer face in the Topic :-/ >>So forget your insinuation AUK is different in *that* way. > >Oh I realise that. My personal approach is to try to treat everyone I >meet with respect. > Rlly?! How many nigerian scams have you fell for BBK? How's yer "orphan in Phuknow" doing? > It doesn't always work but personally I don't wait >until somebody earns my respect. Very few people will want to do that >anyway ... probably because they don't think I'm worth it. Tis pretty much shaping up that way.. and only by your own hand. >But anyway I find that few people want to get in my face ... possibly because I have >no desire to get in theres and I look sufficiently imposing for people >not to risk it. oH leave off with the 200lb "big guy" sh!te... those that are rarely if ever mention it :-/ Buuuut yew want to argue that..?.. post up a pix of yer hand, palm upwards,, either will do. >Checkmate wants to stay away from me ... and he is >probably the person I am on least good terms with. I suppose that is a >form of respect. > I been reading Checky for years. Shure he phucks up,, we(tinw) all do at one time or another buuuut on balance the guy has purpose, is straight with people and has a keen sense of humour. Plus,, he is a VietVet - the real thing,, not your k00k wannabe(s) as we know posts into AUK... both of them. I got me a soft spot for exService guys that still have their sh!t together,, not an easy thing to do....regardless of the mode of service. U.. BBK,, picked the wrong caboose to throw eggs at, my friend. That simple. >>>But in real life away from Usenet it is a phrase you hardly ever hear. >>>People in real life do not dedicate their waking hours to pursuing kooks >>>or calling people kooks. >>> >>no..??.. well we(tinw) are yet to establish your actual world view >>dependant on your locale buuut I can tell you quite confidently in my >>travels through Europe, Africa, the US and many parts of Micronesia there >>is definitely social segregation of ...let's say,, "the cerebrally >>ignoble". > >Sure ... I usually end up talking to people like that ... but it isn't >always enjoyable. All some people like that want is someone to talk to. >And sadly they don't get it. > 0nly you (stereotype) would wonder why that is :-/ >>In my part of Aussie that group is labeled "hoppys",, as in being separate >>to loonies and spastics. True,, one does not bother with "pursuing" such >>specimens buuut one does avoid them like the plague. Life is too short to >>be held up listening to manic rants on topics one really only requires a >>broad knowledge of to form an opinion.. hoppys dedicate every waking hour >>to microexamination of their particular bent. > >Well some people are better off than others. I don't much like social >situations with strangers. But I'm sure we all have our quirks and >idiosyncrasies. > I refuse to fart when in flight. Equally I refuse to accept male posters who project femme personas in 'conversations' These are my "idiosyncrasies"... accepted by the majority of strangers as baseline normality. Pickin' yer nose and wiping the detritus on the window. Humpin' posts with REM screeds and/or backing yer own posts for years and years is n0t accepted by the majority of strangers as baseline normality. Yet you say different... hmmmmmm... sends out a message,, that. >I think the thing about groups like AUK is some people try to make >things worse for others who are perceived as different or defective. >Well my response to that is none of us is perfect and most people are >far from perfect. > ALL.. k00ks are "defective" n0t "different"... there is a very stark difference. Again, the fact you cannot 'see' that sends out a message. >>Yours being some imagined authority on gold movements.. heh[smirk] > >Ha ha. Well enough on that subject (almost). I am invested in a gold [bs deleted] I know the story... I just do not believe your version of entanglement innit. >>>Kooks are purely a USENET invention to further break people apart and >>>separate us into an us and them situation. The fact that hardly anyone >>>can agree as to who is a kook and who is not is further evidence of the >>>superficiality of this distinction. >>> >>when you insist on asking/accepting guidance from a k00k what else can >>you expect as a v a c a n t space in yer education..? >>You really believe said k00k(s) find AUK all by themselves? > >As I said I think "kook" is a convenient label for someone who doesn't >fit on. That is all of us under appropriate criteria. > hmmmmmm... a potential 8billion readers will always find the above "k00ky" >>In my whole recollection there is not a single k00k today posting in AUK >>who was not dragged here frothin' and foamin' in demented indignation. >>gweggles and Duurbs being fine examples of that recruitment. >>Th0.. I qualify the result in gweggles case as that dude is is just a very >>malcontent malicious tr0LLr. > >I suppose this place does attract people who are very different. But if >everyone is very different then how can you say somebody doesn't fit in? you are refusing to listen. AUK is(was) a "bin" to drag recalcitrant/belligerent/whacko froup posters INTO. One had but to ask,,, an' should the aukkers do a recce and find the request justified..?.. it was on for young an' old. buuuuut you know all this, yet also you do not want to know. sends a message.. that, like :-/ // >>jes FTR... >>as with that "Ellis Dee" sock I gave the topic a shot in all seriousness. >>It is my preference not to suffer fools... so I extend to you that same >>courtesy I allowed "Ellis Dee"... think before you hit "followup-to". >>I do not do "second chance" :/ > >Fools are a fact of life. Where you going to go to escape them ... >Mars? are you on Mars also? >> > >I don't know who are the "good guys" and who aren't. well then U R indeed phuckd.. nobody can help you with that, BBK. /0ff -- fup set [please maintain froups x-Pstd line unless "fup set" is 0n] *** Paul Derbyshire enters AFN http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=124317053000 [Ray Banana] "How long have you [Seamus] been using Windows". *** Paul Derbyshire 'leaves' AFN http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=131069032500 "The name is Seamus, and I, unlike you, am in fact a decorated veteran. I was in 'nam.".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bill Jillians <willaim.jillians649@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-07 16:13 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ge07LKOmGnfXFwqy@btinternet.com> |
| In reply to | #59427 |
In message <9Ptfz.71$y32.60@fx02.iad>, BBB DoW #14 <r0llinThru@none.invalid> writes >Bill Jillians <willaim.jillians649@btinternet.com> wrote: >>In message <qeqfz.23$y32.1@fx02.iad>, BBB DoW #14 >><r0llinThru@none.invalid> writes >>>Bill Jillians <willaim.jillians649@btinternet.com> wrote: >>>// >>>>I actually read that. And for the shear hell of it I'm gonna reply. >>>>People in this newsgroup like to pin labels on people ... such and such >>>>is a kook or behaving kookily. >>> >>>errr... not-so-much "labels" more like behavioral separation. >>>And it is everywhere in Usenet froups - some members taking the radical >>>step of kill-files in avoiding contact. It is quite usual to find that >>>'strategy' does not work with the full blown oxygen wasting k00k. >>>Derbyshire being an example which is right in yer face in the Topic :-/ >>>So forget your insinuation AUK is different in *that* way. >> >>Oh I realise that. My personal approach is to try to treat everyone I >>meet with respect. >> >Rlly?! >How many nigerian scams have you fell for BBK? >How's yer "orphan in Phuknow" doing? I don't see what that has to do with anything. But the answer is none and "what orphan"? > >> It doesn't always work but personally I don't wait >>until somebody earns my respect. Very few people will want to do that >>anyway ... probably because they don't think I'm worth it. > >Tis pretty much shaping up that way.. and only by your own hand. That is all anyone is capable of. > >>But anyway I find that few people want to get in my face ... possibly >>because I have >>no desire to get in theres and I look sufficiently imposing for people >>not to risk it. > >oH leave off with the 200lb "big guy" sh!te... those that are rarely if >ever mention it :-/ >Buuuut yew want to argue that..?.. post up a pix of yer hand, palm >upwards,, either will do. I'n 6ft 2in and weigh 200lb. I have worked out all my life. If you can't accept I'm telling you the truth because I have no reason to lie then I am not going to try and prove it. > >>Checkmate wants to stay away from me ... and he is >>probably the person I am on least good terms with. I suppose that is a >>form of respect. >> >I been reading Checky for years. >Shure he phucks up,, we(tinw) all do at one time or another buuuut on >balance the guy has purpose, is straight with people and has a keen sense >of humour. Plus,, he is a VietVet - the real thing,, not your k00k >wannabe(s) as we know posts into AUK... both of them. > >I got me a soft spot for exService guys that still have their sh!t >together,, not an easy thing to do....regardless of the mode of service. >U.. BBK,, picked the wrong caboose to throw eggs at, my friend. >That simple. Checkie has made it clear he doesn't like me for some reason. Does one throw eggs at a caboose then? What a strange thing to want to do. > >>>>But in real life away from Usenet it is a phrase you hardly ever hear. >>>>People in real life do not dedicate their waking hours to pursuing kooks >>>>or calling people kooks. >>>> >>>no..??.. well we(tinw) are yet to establish your actual world view >>>dependant on your locale buuut I can tell you quite confidently in my >>>travels through Europe, Africa, the US and many parts of Micronesia there >>>is definitely social segregation of ...let's say,, "the cerebrally >>>ignoble". >> >>Sure ... I usually end up talking to people like that ... but it isn't >>always enjoyable. All some people like that want is someone to talk to. >>And sadly they don't get it. >> >0nly you (stereotype) would wonder why that is :-/ Yeah ... because I believe in more and you believe in less. > >>>In my part of Aussie that group is labeled "hoppys",, as in being separate >>>to loonies and spastics. True,, one does not bother with "pursuing" such >>>specimens buuut one does avoid them like the plague. Life is too short to >>>be held up listening to manic rants on topics one really only requires a >>>broad knowledge of to form an opinion.. hoppys dedicate every waking hour >>>to microexamination of their particular bent. >> >>Well some people are better off than others. I don't much like social >>situations with strangers. But I'm sure we all have our quirks and >>idiosyncrasies. >> >I refuse to fart when in flight. >Equally I refuse to accept male posters who project femme personas in >'conversations' >These are my "idiosyncrasies"... accepted by the majority of strangers as >baseline normality. Must be nice to believe you are normal. I don't even know what normal is. > >Pickin' yer nose and wiping the detritus on the window. >Humpin' posts with REM screeds and/or backing yer own posts for years and >years is n0t accepted by the majority of strangers as baseline normality. > >Yet you say different... hmmmmmm... sends out a message,, that. > >>I think the thing about groups like AUK is some people try to make >>things worse for others who are perceived as different or defective. >>Well my response to that is none of us is perfect and most people are >>far from perfect. >> >ALL.. k00ks are "defective" n0t "different"... there is a very stark >difference. Again, the fact you cannot 'see' that sends out a message. But you don't feel inclined to say what it is or how it changes anything. > >>>Yours being some imagined authority on gold movements.. heh[smirk] >> >>Ha ha. Well enough on that subject (almost). I am invested in a gold > >[bs deleted] > >I know the story... I just do not believe your version of entanglement >innit. That's your choice. Obviously the amount of detail in my story was not sufficient for someone like you to decide whether it was true of not. > >>>>Kooks are purely a USENET invention to further break people apart and >>>>separate us into an us and them situation. The fact that hardly anyone >>>>can agree as to who is a kook and who is not is further evidence of the >>>>superficiality of this distinction. >>>> >>>when you insist on asking/accepting guidance from a k00k what else can >>>you expect as a v a c a n t space in yer education..? >>>You really believe said k00k(s) find AUK all by themselves? >> >>As I said I think "kook" is a convenient label for someone who doesn't >>fit on. That is all of us under appropriate criteria. >> > hmmmmmm... a potential 8billion readers will always find the above "k00ky" You overestimate your readership. Some might find that "kooky". > >>>In my whole recollection there is not a single k00k today posting in AUK >>>who was not dragged here frothin' and foamin' in demented indignation. >>>gweggles and Duurbs being fine examples of that recruitment. >>>Th0.. I qualify the result in gweggles case as that dude is is just a very >>>malcontent malicious tr0LLr. >> >>I suppose this place does attract people who are very different. But if >>everyone is very different then how can you say somebody doesn't fit in? > >you are refusing to listen. >AUK is(was) a "bin" to drag recalcitrant/belligerent/whacko froup posters >INTO. >One had but to ask,,, an' should the aukkers do a recce and find the >request justified..?.. it was on for young an' old. >buuuuut you know all this, yet also you do not want to know. >sends a message.. that, like :-/ Damn ... all these messages flying around .... somebody is gonna be confused I'm sure. > >// >>>jes FTR... >>>as with that "Ellis Dee" sock I gave the topic a shot in all seriousness. >>>It is my preference not to suffer fools... so I extend to you that same >>>courtesy I allowed "Ellis Dee"... think before you hit "followup-to". >>>I do not do "second chance" :/ >> >>Fools are a fact of life. Where you going to go to escape them ... >>Mars? > >are you on Mars also? I accept fools now. I didn't when I was younger. > >>> >> >>I don't know who are the "good guys" and who aren't. > >well then U R indeed phuckd.. nobody can help you with that, BBK. > >/0ff > > I don't want them to. I'm quite capable of making up my own mind although it usually gets me in trouble. -- Bill Jillians (Formosa'd by Checkmate) http://www.mindfulselfcompassion.org/meditations_downloads.php (Mindful Self Compassion - Christopher Germer) Most Boring poster ever (along with Fakey) "Better quality than Sw, MM, MSp, idlehands and Doctor WTF combined." Dave "Yads" Yaderley Janitor's BFF #4 #shitcanjillians Taking Over USENET 1 newsgroup at a time. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-07 19:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nlmc87$ghj$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #59433 |
On Thu, 07 Jul 2016 16:13:42 +0100, Bill Jillians wrote: > In message <9Ptfz.71$y32.60@fx02.iad>, BBB DoW #14 > <r0llinThru@none.invalid> writes [snip] > Must be nice to believe you are normal. I don't even know what normal > is. A good first approximation can be had by simply observing "BBB DoW #14" and then defining approximately-normal as the exact opposite. This approximation might then be further refined using Newton's Method. <snicker> >> hmmmmmm... a potential 8billion readers will always find the above >> "k00ky" > > You overestimate your readership. Some might find that "kooky". <snicker>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BBB DoW #14 <r0llinThru@none.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-08 13:14 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <yUEfz.20387$5j1.14829@fx34.iad> |
| In reply to | #59433 |
Bill Jillians <willaim.jillians649@btinternet.com> wrote: // >Must be nice to believe you are normal. I don't even know what normal >is. indeed.. BBK :-} [remainder deleted unread] -- fup set [please maintain froups x-Pstd line unless "fup set" is 0n] *** Paul Derbyshire enters AFN http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=124317053000 [Ray Banana] "How long have you [Seamus] been using Windows". *** Paul Derbyshire 'leaves' AFN http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=131069032500 "The name is Seamus, and I, unlike you, am in fact a decorated veteran. I was in 'nam.".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bill Jillians <willaim.jillians649@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-08 10:24 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <HvFiXaIgF3fXFwMt@btinternet.com> |
| In reply to | #59484 |
In message <yUEfz.20387$5j1.14829@fx34.iad>, BBB DoW #14 <r0llinThru@none.invalid> writes >Bill Jillians <willaim.jillians649@btinternet.com> wrote: >// >>Must be nice to believe you are normal. I don't even know what normal >>is. > >indeed.. BBK :-} > >[remainder deleted unread] > I believe I behave within the acceptable norms of society. Maybe some would say that makes me normal. But there are things in my life that I cannot control and I believe that is true for most people. But the things that people cannot control depends on the individual. So who is normal? -- Bill Jillians (Formosa'd by Checkmate) http://www.mindfulselfcompassion.org/meditations_downloads.php (Mindful Self Compassion - Christopher Germer) Most Boring poster ever (along with Fakey) "Better quality than Sw, MM, MSp, idlehands and Doctor WTF combined." Dave "Yads" Yaderley Janitor's BFF #4 #shitcanjillians Taking Over USENET 1 newsgroup at a time. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BBB DoW #14 <r0llinThru@none.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-08 21:26 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <p5Mfz.220$Dy4.208@fx04.iad> |
| In reply to | #59511 |
Bill Jillians <willaim.jillians649@btinternet.com> wrote: >In message <yUEfz.20387$5j1.14829@fx34.iad>, BBB DoW #14 ><r0llinThru@none.invalid> writes >>Bill Jillians <willaim.jillians649@btinternet.com> wrote: >>// >>>Must be nice to believe you are normal. I don't even know what normal >>>is. >> >>indeed.. BBK :-} >> >>[remainder deleted unread] >> > >I believe I behave within the acceptable norms of society. > >Maybe some would say that makes me normal. > >But there are things in my life that I cannot control and I believe that >is true for most people. > >But the things that people cannot control depends on the individual. > >So who is normal? "in the eye of the perceiver" applies, as you well know. wholly subjective. yet many, by far the majority appear to have no problem avoiding the pitfalls of the "abnormal" - that's normal. 0ne measure exists in RL,, and indeed with scoping reads of a 'target' individual. being.."phuckups" are quite evident. keep well clear of them because there is always going to be collateral damage. Seppos have a simpler 'adage' ; "roll with pigs buddy,, and yew get dat mud onya" IMV OMMV your 'stuph' begins with "I believe"... what follows is not "normal" and iF you can 'hear' it..?... the verbiage very closely resembles Derbyshire's circular logic. So, logically.. where it is known and well proven by a score+10 of posters being Derbyshire is a born nutter,, than you by verbal association have to have that mud on yer also. Y'all 'speak' with the same tongue :-} Yew do not help matters at all in refusing to fill reasonable requests fully knowing you are quite capable of doing so with no 'fear' of involvement. That aint normal, friend. -- fup set [please maintain froups x-Pstd line unless "fup set" is 0n] *** Paul Derbyshire enters AFN http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=124317053000 [Ray Banana] "How long have you [Seamus] been using Windows". *** Paul Derbyshire 'leaves' AFN http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=131069032500 "The name is Seamus, and I, unlike you, am in fact a decorated veteran. I was in 'nam.".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bill Jillians <willaim.jillians649@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-08 15:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <si340OPob7fXFwIP@btinternet.com> |
| In reply to | #59517 |
In message <p5Mfz.220$Dy4.208@fx04.iad>, BBB DoW #14 <r0llinThru@none.invalid> writes >Bill Jillians <willaim.jillians649@btinternet.com> wrote: >>In message <yUEfz.20387$5j1.14829@fx34.iad>, BBB DoW #14 >><r0llinThru@none.invalid> writes >>>Bill Jillians <willaim.jillians649@btinternet.com> wrote: >>>// >>>>Must be nice to believe you are normal. I don't even know what normal >>>>is. >>> >>>indeed.. BBK :-} >>> >>>[remainder deleted unread] >>> >> >>I believe I behave within the acceptable norms of society. >> >>Maybe some would say that makes me normal. >> >>But there are things in my life that I cannot control and I believe that >>is true for most people. >> >>But the things that people cannot control depends on the individual. >> >>So who is normal? > >"in the eye of the perceiver" applies, as you well know. >wholly subjective. >yet many, by far the majority appear to have no problem avoiding the >pitfalls of the "abnormal" - that's normal. Bullshit ... most people have dark secrets they wouldn't want others to know about. > >0ne measure exists in RL,, and indeed with scoping reads of a 'target' >individual. >being.."phuckups" are quite evident. keep well clear of them because there >is always going to be collateral damage. >Seppos have a simpler 'adage' ; "roll with pigs buddy,, and yew get dat mud >onya" > >IMV OMMV your 'stuph' begins with "I believe"... what follows is not >"normal" and iF you can 'hear' it..?... the verbiage very closely resembles >Derbyshire's circular logic. >So, logically.. where it is known and well proven by a score+10 of posters >being Derbyshire is a born nutter,, than you by verbal association have to >have that mud on yer also. Y'all 'speak' with the same tongue :-} > >Yew do not help matters at all in refusing to fill reasonable requests >fully knowing you are quite capable of doing so with no 'fear' of >involvement. That aint normal, friend. > > Maybe not ... but some of the time I'm happy and that ain't normal either. -- Bill Jillians (Formosa'd by Checkmate) http://www.mindfulselfcompassion.org/meditations_downloads.php (Mindful Self Compassion - Christopher Germer) Most Boring poster ever (along with Fakey) "Better quality than Sw, MM, MSp, idlehands and Doctor WTF combined." Dave "Yads" Yaderley Janitor's BFF #4 #shitcanjillians Taking Over USENET 1 newsgroup at a time. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-08 20:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nlp15f$ghj$49@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #59517 |
On Fri, 08 Jul 2016 21:26:07 +1000, BBB DoW #14 (Pie Gurl) PiG@yahoo.com WINNER - Kook of the Year 2012 wrote: > Bill Jillians <willaim.jillians649@btinternet.com> wrote: >>In message <yUEfz.20387$5j1.14829@fx34.iad>, BBB DoW #14 >><r0llinThru@none.invalid> writes >>>Bill Jillians <willaim.jillians649@btinternet.com> wrote: // >>>>Must be nice to believe you are normal. I don't even know what normal >>>>is. >>> >>>indeed.. BBK :-} >>> >>>[remainder deleted unread] >>> >>> >>I believe I behave within the acceptable norms of society. >> >>Maybe some would say that makes me normal. >> >>But there are things in my life that I cannot control and I believe that >>is true for most people. >> >>But the things that people cannot control depends on the individual. >> >>So who is normal? > > "in the eye of the perceiver" applies, as you well know. wholly > subjective. > yet many, by far the majority appear to have no problem avoiding the > pitfalls of the "abnormal" - that's normal. > > 0ne measure exists in RL,, and indeed with scoping reads of a 'target' > individual. > being.."phuckups" are quite evident. keep well clear of them because > there is always going to be collateral damage. Seppos have a simpler > 'adage' ; "roll with pigs buddy,, and yew get dat mud onya" > > IMV OMMV your 'stuph' begins with "I believe"... what follows is not > "normal" and iF you can 'hear' it..?... the verbiage very closely > resembles Derbyshire's circular logic. Obsession with Derbyshire noted, kook. You can't even post flaming somebody else (e.g. Bill Jillians) without dragging Derbyshire's name into it somehow. Derbyshire owns you, kook. > So, logically.. where it is known and well proven by a score+10 of > posters being Derbyshire is a born nutter,, That's right, keep singing your devotion to your Usenet Lord and Master ... Derbyshire! I just wish he were here to see it. Though the fact that he has you so thoroughly pwned as an *absentee landlord* is truly an impressive feat. Even if, sadly, his absence makes him ineligible for a Woodhouse. > That aint normal, friend. Gah! Please stop blowing up my irony meters every five fucking minutes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.checkmate
csiph-web