Hail Eris! On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:22:45 -0500, ZapRatz sang, "If I were a
Deep One...blub, blub, blub, blub, blub, blub, blub, blub, bloody, bloody,
blub...", and then randomly typed out:
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:22:35 GMT, Snarky 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.
Glad you think so, again, since I wasn't attempting to be amusing (to
you). I don't bother trying to amuse outer filth.
>>>>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.
Well, with any luck, I've amused my friends and colleagues, and that's all
that matters. I did attempt to hammer a clue into you, but you seem
impervious.
>>> 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?
Whichever. I'm mocking you for your weakness. This is a text medium, where
your physical self is irrelevant, but you insist on the opposite.
> 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.
No, you're Cmelak's puppet, but also PJ's poodle, as well as the
Ehretts'.
>>>>>>> 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.
Da-yum! I see I have a lot of catching-up to do. I don't have nearly as
many nyms in use. Maybe two dozen.
> 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.
Poooooooooooor baby! Doesn't it suck to know that you could have pwned him
but good, if you'd had a clue? All the whines forestall any chance of you
ever owning him, though. In a flame group, that's death. You might as well
just shoot yourself now, if your usenet rep is that important to you,
because you are going to get an FAQ (a factual one, albeit negative)
detailing all your whines and kookery. It'll go on Kookpedia, too. Face
it, you're better off if you quit posting today, under any nym. Go play an
online game, or something. Trust me, you'll feel much better.
> 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.
Too bad for you, then. Your rep is the one in the toilet, primarily
because of your own whining.
> 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.
Ahhh, teh lies, TEH LIES! You can't recognise flames, eh? You started
"defending" yourself against the flames, and people started picking up on
your hot buttons, your weaknesses, and pushed them with abandon. Now
you're just a pathetic little crybaby, and no one believes your protests
about lies. Not even me.
> 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.
It's weak. Who cares who or what you are in meatspace? I doubt I'll ever
meet you in person, or practically anyone posting to the various hundreds
of groups to which I've x-poasted in nearly nine years. I've been flamed
up one side and down the other, I've had more shit made up about me than
I can possibly remember, I've been forged and frogged by all sorts of
lamers, and one thing I never do is "defend" myself, beyond making the
occasional "setting the record straight" post. You've gone beyond that, to
having "setting the record straight" *flamewars*, which implies a level of
dedication possessed only by self-obsessed k00ks.
>>> 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."
The Ehretts are a couple. I know this for a fact. You are a k00k. I know
that for a fact, too.
> 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.
OK, I'll go through and add pointers in [square] brackets.
(and one [poster] whom I made the slightest bit of effort at pretending to
be, without being sneaky about [that effort] for a moment, who is now
believed by more than one k00k to be the same person as me (plus another
[poster] who was believed to be socking up as me, before I socked up as
him [IOW, when I originally posted as myself, someone said, "Hi, ",
so I chose to mess with the heads of the silly people who were clearly
obsessed with the poster in question, by socking up as that poster, though
I was careful to make it obvious to those possessed of clue who I was -- a
remarkably small number of posters to that group]))
>>>>> 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.
What, read your lies, whines, and prevarications? Only when I have more
free time than housework & Kookpedia entries to do.
> 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.
Wow! An admission that I can believe!
> 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.
There is but a small chance that "Jose Gaspar" is ever anyone besides you
or Karen, and the wrong side of a snowball's chance in hell that it's
*never* you, meaning, I think you're lying like a neo-con again. You two
might have roped a third person into your little game, but they only do
Jose part-time, at most. The tone changes a bit too much to be just one
person, and the context makes it clear that sometimes it has to be Karen,
or has to be you, but other times it's muddled.
> Here's a clue: Research history and learn who Jose Gaspar was in a
> historical sense. Relate the information to Gilmer however you wish.
Oh, it's obvious that he was a pirate, since Gilmer chose to add the word
to his nick, and you guys just had to be "cwever", adding a historical
pirate's nym to your repertoire.
> 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.
So solly, Chollie, but you'll have to pay me to do your dirty laundry for
you. No tickee, no washee.
>>>>>>> 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.
As I've said, I'm perfectly happy to assume that I am correct, given no
authenticated proof to the contrary.
> It is said that you can beat a dead horse but, in this discussion I refuse
> to portray the equine role.
Oh, that's OK, I wasn't planning on beating any dead horses. What are you
going to do with your pile of glue, though?
>>>>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.
You're still missing the most important point: It's highly unlikely that
there is a third person who is as obsessed with PJ, Ken, and Sarah as you
two are, and far more likely that Jose is sometimes you, and sometimes
Karen. You have motivation, however crazed, to hate them *that* much, and
so does Karen, but who else? Your usage of sockpuppets is highly
indicative of unwarranted obsession, and I suspect you are a RL stalker.
>>> 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.
Note: No response.
>>>>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.
My assessment is vital to your winning k00k awards. The Unabomber Surprise
applies, in part, to liars, you know. To wit, "the art of saying infinite
amounts of Nothing"...
>>> 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.
Keep on saying "infinite amounts of nothing", Silly.
>>> 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.
I do hope you'll enjoy your Kookpedia entry. I'll be asking for details
from Ken, Sarah, and John for it (once you win -- results will be out in
3-4 weeks, following balloting), as well as adding what I've noted in
these various threads.
>>> 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.
Yeah, heard all about it elsewhere -- The Source, that is. Too bad you
never picked up a clue in twenty years on usenet, eh? At least, not one
that didn't just laugh and run away.
With smirks to Aratzio,
--
________________________________________________________________________
Hail Eris! mhm 29x21; TM#5; Anonymous Psycho Criminal #18
TEH USENETS BULLIE
http://www.runescape.com/
Join my RuneScape clan!
http://z11.invisionfree.com/Holy_Pretzel_Cabal/index.php
Full name of clan: Cabal of the Holy International Discordian Internet
And Usenet Terrorist Pretzel
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle
Trainer of PorchMonkey4Life
http://www.screedbomb.info/porchie/
Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, June 2008
Hammer of Thor, July 2008
"Not supporting me is equivalent to forfeiting your own rights." --
John D. Wentzky: Warrior For Your Freedumb! Message-ID:
<33km2419sg6fnq3shtbatqa602eagfbskl@
4ax.com>
"You cognatatively challenged fool!" -- According to Agamemnon, Stephen
Wilson is, apparently, highly ignorant about cognates, and so is anyone
who dares to disagree with him, in Message-ID:
eclipse.net.uk>
"Is it still necrophilia if I'm conscious?"-- Owen Harper, "Dead Man
Walking", Torchwood (20/207)
