On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:22:35 GMT, Snarky
caballista.organ>
wrote:
>On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 07:49:35 -0500, ZapRatz wrote
>> Where, and how, have I been dishonest?
>
>The post-edit above, where you make it look like you've merely moved an
>attribution line, when in fact you added the quote from Sarah, and deleted
>the context for my earlier post. That was the very soul of dishonesty. But
>thanks for proving that you're the heavy in these proceedings, and Sarah
>merely one of your witty co-owners (with me, that is).
You're funny.
>
>>>You, Bill Cmelak, are nothing but a lying little whiner, who can't handle
>>>being flamed on a fucking flame group like antU.
>>
>> Some folks, unlike yourself it seems, do not appreciate or enjoy being
>> maligned by despicable malcontents like sara cesspool for whom you are
>> acting as her shit-house lawyer.
>
>Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww. Fwamed in a fwame group! Who would have thought? I
>guess you're used to newsgroups run by the Miss Manners Code of Behaviour.
Now you've attempted, but failed, to be cute; akin to being trite, not
pretty.
>
>> During this incident that sara cesspool initiated, I didn't whine, I
>> retaliated. There is a difference.
>
>And now you're whining, because you got yer arse kicked all over the
>group, and then across usenet.
>
And I'm supposed to care about your opinion? Or, is that meant as
further provocation?
Surely you have something better to do with your time than fishing
with stale bait. "I'm Your Puppet" is just a Marvin Gaye song, after
all.
>>>>>> You're funny.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The only person making someone do something is... you.
>>>>
>>>>>You're either Cmelak or Anderson, because only Cmelak and Anderson care
>>>>>about the reputations of Cmelak and Anderson, and think that their reps
>>>>>on usenet are equivalent to their real-life reps. 'Member what you said
>>>>>about "defending yourself"?
>>>>
>>>> I don't deny that I am Bill Cmelak.
>>>
>>>Oh, goody, Mr. Screeder. It's nice to have these things settled.
>>
>> What the fuck is your major malfunction? sara cesspool has repeatedly
>> stated, erroneously, that I am three or more other people or that I have
>> used numerous internet identities I have never used.
>
>Or that you claim you have never used. See how Gilmer responds to
>accusations that he socks up? He pretty much ignores them or laughs at
>them, doesn't he? Don't you wish that you'd picked up on that? Because now
>it's a little late. You're not laughing, you're whining.
Gilmer has his reasons for lying and utilizing more than 60 aliases
over the past few years to commit his numerous nefarious acts of
deception.
I don't find Gilmer's forging of my internet identities and email
addresses, along with his creation of dozens of troll identities based
upon my real name or that of my father, too amusing.
It is easy for Gilmer to laugh at actions such as those because, as
I've called him a number of times, he is a despicable prick. I have
higher standards than he in that area of internet activity. Although,
I admit I did sink to his level several times a few years ago but I've
outgrown that activity. Unfortunately, he hasn't.
If Gilmer had used aliases that were inoffensive this whole protracted
battle would have been far different that it has been. It also didn't
help that he fabricated so many lies about me and my personal life.
Because, if Sarah and her no-wit alter ego fatfuck-kenfool didn't pick
up on Gilmer's lies and perpetuate them out of her juvenile-minded
vindictiveness, we wouldn't be having this pseudo-conversation right
now.
With all of that being pointed out, why is defending one's own name
considered by you to be "whining?" Not that I really care what your
answer may be, but, I'll waste more time humoring you.
>
>> Is there some aspect of truth as a concept that you cannot comprehend? You
>> obviously cannot understand why someone may dislike being misidentified
>> via unwarranted malice.
>
>On usenet, especially in flame groups, it's the price of anonymity. I've
>been accused of being a dozen or more other people whom I've never even
>pretended to be (and one whom I made the slightest bit of effort at
>pretending to be, without being sneaky about it for a moment, who is now
>believed by more than one k00k to be the same person as me (plus another
>who was believed to be socking up as me, before I socked up as him)). On
>usenet, anyone may pretend to be anyone else, and there is ultimately no
>way to even be sure, without a PGP/GPG signature, that a given post comes
>from a particular person.
This battle did not begin in a flame group. The 'sleeping single but
talking double' Ehrets are too big of a pussy (singular) to finish
what [t]he[y] started so [t]he[y] sought assistance from someone to do
dirty work for him; yes "him."
I'll pass on deciphering your parenthetical comments. Attempting twice
to do so didn't clarify your intent, if there was intent beyond
spewing a bunch of gibberish.
>
>>>> Furthermore, I continue to refute the numerous irrational and illogical
>>>> claims that I am Anderson or that I share nyms or accounts with that
>>>> person or anyone else. I post to unsent on behalf of no one but myself.
>>>
>>>Some posts from "Jose Gaspar" read more like your voice, and others like
>>>hers. Posts in this thread, sent to AUK, that is. Not without reason, it
>>>would appear.
>>
>> Okay, "Mike Hunt", you are assuming that because I transmit usenet
>> messages in the English language, and happen to use the same words as
>> someone else conversant in the English language, I must be that other
>> person. How quaint. Is my message count the same as the mysterious "Mike
>> Hunt", as well?
>
>"Mike Hunt" is a painfully obvious play on words with "my cunt", and
>therefore just another nym. There is no "Mike Hunt" in this thread,
>outside of imaginary people.
If you are not going to read what I've cited, as well as ignoring the
full document from which it originated which I've directed you toward,
then it seems my best option is to ignore your comments and therefore,
you in the process.
When you are not posting as Jose, Karen is.
>Jose is not an actual human being. This truth was made more obvious by
>"Jose" posting a pic of a pirate statue in lieu of a personal photo,
>since that makes it clear the nym was chosen in honour of "Pyrate" John
>Gilmer.
Whatever you wish to read into Gaspar's actions pertaining to that
incident is fine by me. And you know what? You've gotten something
correct. Jose is not an actual human being.
However, your continued presumption of me as having utilized the Jose
Gaspar identity, and sharing any identity or account with Karen, is
unsubstantiated and incorrect. That's the last time I'll be stating
that. Take it for the truth that it is or, continue to ignore it if
you wish.
Here's a clue: Research history and learn who Jose Gaspar was in a
historical sense. Relate the information to Gilmer however you wish.
You're going to have to do that yourself because I'm not going to
access that information for you and transmit it into the newsgroup.
>
>>>>>> You are doing one hell of a job showcasing the mental infirmities of
>>>>>> Sarah Czepiel, a babbling idiot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I believe you spent time in Florida. That is undoubtedly where your
>>>>>> mind jumped the shark.
>>>>
>>>>>I believe you have never spent time in Florida (not south of
>>>>>Jacksonville, anyway), Karen. Cmelak, you might have, I don't know.
>>>>
>>>> I most certainly have. During one trip, I traveled the Atlantic coast
>>>> from Virginia down to Key West and back up the Gulf Coast to
>>>> Tallahassee where my uncle lived and died.
>>>
>>>Then that was you posting as Gaspar, after Karen posting as same, or else
>>
>> Did I state I traveled throughout Florida at the time the Gaspar messages
>> were transmitted into newsgroups? A person's life is not defined by the
>> time frame of incidents you (and I mean you, not as a generality) focus
>> upon for your own self-serving reasons.
>
>Look, Karen obviously has no fucking clue about Florida, so since you
>claim to have been there, either you fucked up about Key Biscayne, or she
>did. "Jose Gaspar" is a made-up name for a sockpuppet, like "Zapratz". He
>has no reality beyond what you and Karen impart to the nym.
Well, since you haven't believed my past responses to your nonsensical
presumptions that I have presented myself as any variant of the Gaspar
identity, there is no sense in me answering that claim in the future.
You're on your own from now on, sport.
It is said that you can beat a dead horse but, in this discussion I
refuse to portray the equine role.
>>>you blundered like someone who was only pretending, and got caught.
>>>Either way, it seems you're quite fucked, m'laddie.
>>
>> I'm not "fucked" as your implication suggests. You are merely presuming
>> things in the ignorant manner currently employed by sara cesspool, and as
>> pyratejohn has in the past. Your ignorance is your problem, its not my
>> fault.
>
>Nice dodging, ducking, and weaving, but "defending" yourself that way is
>useless.
Take it as you wish.
>
>> Either you lie about not
>>>sharing a stinky sock with Karen (if she made the claim), or you lie
>>>about having been to Florida. Which is it?
>>
>> It's up to you to believe what you will. If you are going to believe
>> something that never happened, you're going to spend the remainder of your
>> pathetic life seeking evidence that never existed. Just like pyratejohn
>> and sara cesspool, you'll remain ignorant while unjustly blaming someone
>> else for your narrow-mindedness. You can't win.
>
>I? Seek evidence to prove that you are Jose Gaspar, except when Karen is?
>Why would I bother? I am perfectly happy to assume that I am correct, and
>you are bloviating, without bothering to look for proof. You have already
>proven that you cannot handle being flamed in a flame group, and making up
>sockpuppets in order to have "supporters" is a classic ploy of such
>whiners. No, if you want to prove that you are not who and what I say you
>are, you shall have to try much harder, and be a lot more creative.
>
>>>Tell me, do you feel thoroughly thrashed yet?
>
>Apparently not.
>
>>>>>> Signed,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mike Hunt
>>>>
>>>>>Awwww, how kyooooot!
>>>>
>>>> That is a reference which originates in the k00kery of BuccaneerJuan,
>>>> aka, PirateJohn, who currently calls himself PyrateJohn, namely:
>>>
>>>Yeah, tell some cunt who cares. You have kook awards headed your way. You
>>>know, you really should have noticed me putting my kookologist hat back
>>>on, after you started kooking-out following my declaration that I was
>>>taking the hat off. Then again, if you had, you wouldn't have started
>>>screeding.
>>
>> You're going to do whatever you want; no matter how irrational or
>> illogical it may be and whether or not someone you target is guilty or
>> innocent of whatever you wish to pin on them.
>
>Bloviation. Duck, dodge, weave, and whine. Classic, Cmelak.
Your assessment is irrelevant.
>
>> So, wear your silly hat, or not; whatever I say obviously isn't going to
>> matter to you.
>
>Everything you say "matters" to me, on some level -- your "self-defence"
>is positively Wollmannesque (as in "Edmond Heinz") in its whine, your
>attacks have all the force of Bullis, and your histrionics about Sarah,
>Ken and PJ reek of Karczewski's rants about "Government Disinformation
>Agents" (ongoing since 1998). However, I still don't care what John said.
Call up whatever secret-handshake psychobabble you wish to please
yourself and appease your cohorts. Chuckle off to Buffalo with it, for
all I care.
>
>> If you don't care to believe the truth that I state, then that is an
>> aspect of your ignorance, not my reality.
>
>The "truth" that you state is unsupported by anything beyond your ego, and
>you fail the "intentional humour" test, which may be re-stated as, "It's
>only true if it makes you laugh". John, Ken, and Sarah have each passed
>that test. You have not.
I'm sure the successful membership drive to enrich your clusterfuck
coven pleases all of you in the collective, old and new members alike.
>
>> By the way, are you ken, or sara?
>
>Only Snarky. My posting history dates back to October 17th, 1999, and
>furthermore, I am known by this nick IRL -- have been since 1990. I live
>in Canada, as you can see by my abuse desk's domain. There are several
>images of me online, too.
I've got a few internet years seniority on you. I was a subscriber of
The Source beginning in 1988. It was subsequently purchased by
Compu$erve.
--
As of the day this message is being posted there are,
lacking an unexpected alternate outcome, 153 days
remaining in the imperial presidency of George W. Bush
