DUHane Arnold and Dustfart k0oK scopp more awards (Re: WINNERS! Usenet Kook Awards, February 2007)

[miguel]

Meat Plow wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 17:09:31 -0800, miguel wrote:
>
>> Meat Plow wrote:
>>> miguel wrote:
>>>> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>>>>> miguel <mjc101@gmail.com> Thou low-life common laugher. Thou saucy
>>>>> remorseless. Thou ineffectual fellow of no merits. Thou boozy manikin.
>>>>> Ye brown-nosed and ye whined:
>>>>>> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>>>>>>>> Congratulations, Kadaitcha Man! I told you your luck would change
>>>>>>>> after January. It certainly did, as you managed to defeat a strong
>>>>>>>> field of worthy kookologists. All hail Kadaitcha Man!!!1!!
>>>>>>> Woo Hoo! Commiserations to the others, and thanks to all for the
>>>>>>> support and vote of confidence.
>>>>>> It's a shame this wasn't awarded posthumously, *****.
>>>>> Aw, poor you.
>>>>> Say, Cranston, you do realise that you spewed 4k of froth at Kali in one
>>>>> post, don't you?
>>>>>

>>>>> Of course there is variance in application of standards across
>>>>> individuals and situations. Of course this isn't a black and white
>>>>> issue. Very few things are. But what the **** does that have to do with
>>>>> the double standard I identified?
>>>>> Again: the kook crew here feels free to netkop somebody about the BI,
>>>>> but if you contact an ISP about TOS violations re content, that's
>>>>> verboten. If I were to contact Snarky's provider about his insults,
>>>>> suddenly I'm a netkkkopper. It's freaky stupid is what it is. Yet nearly
>>>>> everybody here has bought into it.
>>>>> These mores are adopted to insulate those who engage in ****ty behavior
>>>>> from the consequences of their behavior. It's the same with taking
>>>>> usenet to real life. Suppose somebody hides behind their keyboard
>>>>> calling an enemy all sorts of rancid names and making all sorts of
>>>>> outlandish claims. It's considered kooky to drag that person's ass from
>>>>> behind his keyboard and kick the **** out of him. The reason this
>>>>> standard exists is merely to protect that cowardly ******* that engages
>>>>> in this behavior. Such a standard exists nowhere else. What could
>>>>> possibly justify this standard?
>>>>> Well, psychology isn't a real science, so I understand your inferiority
>>>>> complex and your need to sound like you're educated.
>>>>> What's next? Suggesting I need anger management?
>>>>> LOL.
>>>>> Also, your pants are on fire. By the next post I'm quite sure they'll be
>>>>> hanging over the telephone wire.
>>>>> There is a difference between "presume" and "assume." One with your
>>>>> academic credentials should surely understand this.
>>>>> A real scientist would recognize that curves tend toward steep or flat.
>>>>> Curves aren't slow or fast. But you are a psychologist so this is
>>>>> probably new to you. Since you are so proud of your advanced database of
>>>>> knowledge perhaps you should add this little factoid to it. Next time
>>>>> you want to insult somebody by referencing his or her learning curve,
>>>>> the more precise (and precision is your paramount desire, we know) way
>>>>> to do it would be to suggest that they have a flat learning curve.
>>>>> Mathematically you could represent this as Y=0. This is, incidentally,
>>>>> Joan GriffinTHAL's learning curve.
>>>>> This is about as hard as doing reverse psychology on my grandson. When
>>>>> he was two.
>>>>> Well, are you?
>>>>> Feel free to flesh out your claim with examples.
>>>>> Tick tock.
>>>>> Feel free to flesh out your claim with examples.
>>>>> Tick tock.
>>>>> Feel free to provide them.
>>>>> Tick tock.
>>>>> Not true. Your first less than friendly act was to respond with feigned
>>>>> politeness to my original question. I responded to that with equally
>>>>> feigned politeness, mirroring yours. Next, you asked your loaded, er,
>>>>> pointed question that implied your belief I was paranoid -- definitely
>>>>> kookbait. I responded pedantically in order to return the insult. We've
>>>>> traded insults pretty equally from there, although in my opinion I'm
>>>>> certainly winning on points because mine are so much more clever, witty
>>>>> and cutting than yours.
>>>>> Sniggler^wSchoolmarm please!
>>>>> Your tendency to project disliked parts of yourself onto me is well
>>>>> evidenced in this thread.
>>>>> tee hee!
>>>>> miguel
>>>>>

>>>>>
>>>>> You have k0oK tattooed in 2" high letters on your steeply sloping forehead.
>>>>>
>>>>> Kookle Search Results
>>>>> 2 matches for "cranston".
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike "Miguel" Cranston
>>>>> Busted Urinal Award
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike "Miguel" Cranston, trained by Bookman
>>>>> Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle

>>>>> Oh. You have room to grow too.

>>>> Wow, *****, a little eight word sentence sure got you frothing! How much
>>>> time did you spend on the cut and paste?

>>> The majority of said froth was a quote of your post.
>> You'd probably accuse the danimal of frothing. Quantity is not a sound
>> measure of emotional content. Most of you people are too dumb to realize
>> this, or too invested in using your fagboi retard nerd gimp weapons to
>> care. You surely aren't intellectually honest enough to acknowledge that
>> I pretty much matched Kali in output word for word.

>> What would that say about her posts?

> I'd say find someone who gives a ****.

I did, dumbass. Thanks for playing.

miguel

[Kadaitcha Man]

miguel <mjc101@gmail.com> Thou measureless liar. Thou callow,
pork-bellied rank-scented meiny. Thou dam. Thou greasy, blue-haired
fever blister. Ye fussed and ye proscribed:

> I pretty much matched Kali in output word for word.
>
> What would that say about her posts?

<aside>
Meh. cranston tries for a narcissism hit by stealth.

--
alt.usenet.kooks - Hammer of Thor: February 2007.
Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker:
September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.

Vescere puter subgalia meis.

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

[miguel]

Kadaitcha Man wrote:
> miguel <mjc101@gmail.com> Thou measureless liar. Thou callow,
> pork-bellied rank-scented meiny. Thou dam. Thou greasy, blue-haired
> fever blister. Ye fussed and ye proscribed:
>
>> I pretty much matched Kali in output word for word.
>>
>> What would that say about her posts?
>
> <aside>
> Meh. cranston tries for a narcissism hit by stealth.

Translation: He shoots! He scores!

hth he-*****

miguel

[Kadaitcha Man]

miguel <mjc101@gmail.com> Thou measureless liar. Thou wild heart. Thou
scab-laden empiric. Thou poisonous lecher. Ye muttered and ye chatted:

> Meat Plow wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 17:09:31 -0800, miguel wrote:
>>
>>> Meat Plow wrote:
>>>> miguel wrote:
>>>>> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>>>>>> miguel <mjc101@gmail.com> Thou low-life common laugher. Thou
>>>>>> saucy remorseless. Thou ineffectual fellow of no merits. Thou
>>>>>> boozy manikin. Ye brown-nosed and ye whined:
>>>>>>> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Congratulations, Kadaitcha Man! I told you your luck would
>>>>>>>>> change after January. It certainly did, as you managed to
>>>>>>>>> defeat a strong field of worthy kookologists. All hail
>>>>>>>>> Kadaitcha Man!!!1!!
>>>>>>>> Woo Hoo! Commiserations to the others, and thanks to all for
>>>>>>>> the support and vote of confidence.
>>>>>>> It's a shame this wasn't awarded posthumously, *****.
>>>>>> Aw, poor you.
>>>>>> Say, Cranston, you do realise that you spewed 4k of froth at
>>>>>> Kali in one post, don't you?
>>>>>>

>>>>>> Of course there is variance in application of standards across
>>>>>> individuals and situations. Of course this isn't a black and
>>>>>> white issue. Very few things are. But what the **** does that have to
>>>>>> do with the double standard I identified?
>>>>>> Again: the kook crew here feels free to netkop somebody about
>>>>>> the BI, but if you contact an ISP about TOS violations re content,
>>>>>> that's
>>>>>> verboten. If I were to contact Snarky's provider about his
>>>>>> insults, suddenly I'm a netkkkopper. It's freaky stupid is what
>>>>>> it is. Yet nearly everybody here has bought into it.
>>>>>> These mores are adopted to insulate those who engage in ****ty
>>>>>> behavior from the consequences of their behavior. It's the same
>>>>>> with taking usenet to real life. Suppose somebody hides behind their
>>>>>> keyboard
>>>>>> calling an enemy all sorts of rancid names and making all sorts
>>>>>> of outlandish claims. It's considered kooky to drag that
>>>>>> person's ass from behind his keyboard and kick the **** out of
>>>>>> him. The reason this standard exists is merely to protect that
>>>>>> cowardly ******* that
>>>>>> engages in this behavior. Such a standard exists nowhere else. What
>>>>>> could
>>>>>> possibly justify this standard?
>>>>>> Well, psychology isn't a real science, so I understand your
>>>>>> inferiority complex and your need to sound like you're educated.
>>>>>> What's next? Suggesting I need anger management?
>>>>>> LOL.
>>>>>> Also, your pants are on fire. By the next post I'm quite sure
>>>>>> they'll be hanging over the telephone wire.
>>>>>> There is a difference between "presume" and "assume." One with
>>>>>> your academic credentials should surely understand this.
>>>>>> A real scientist would recognize that curves tend toward steep
>>>>>> or flat. Curves aren't slow or fast. But you are a psychologist
>>>>>> so this is probably new to you. Since you are so proud of your
>>>>>> advanced
>>>>>> database of knowledge perhaps you should add this little factoid
>>>>>> to it. Next time you want to insult somebody by referencing his or
>>>>>> her learning
>>>>>> curve, the more precise (and precision is your paramount desire, we
>>>>>> know) way to do it would be to suggest that they have a flat learning
>>>>>> curve. Mathematically you could represent this as Y=0. This is,
>>>>>> incidentally, Joan GriffinTHAL's learning curve.
>>>>>> This is about as hard as doing reverse psychology on my
>>>>>> grandson. When he was two.
>>>>>> Well, are you?
>>>>>> Feel free to flesh out your claim with examples.
>>>>>> Tick tock.
>>>>>> Feel free to flesh out your claim with examples.
>>>>>> Tick tock.
>>>>>> Feel free to provide them.
>>>>>> Tick tock.
>>>>>> Not true. Your first less than friendly act was to respond with
>>>>>> feigned politeness to my original question. I responded to that
>>>>>> with equally feigned politeness, mirroring yours. Next, you
>>>>>> asked your loaded, er, pointed question that implied your belief
>>>>>> I was paranoid -- definitely kookbait. I responded pedantically
>>>>>> in order to return the insult. We've traded insults pretty
>>>>>> equally from there, although in my opinion I'm certainly winning
>>>>>> on points because mine are so much more clever, witty and
>>>>>> cutting than yours. Sniggler^wSchoolmarm please!
>>>>>> Your tendency to project disliked parts of yourself onto me is
>>>>>> well evidenced in this thread.
>>>>>> tee hee!
>>>>>> miguel
>>>>>>

>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have k0oK tattooed in 2" high letters on your steeply
>>>>>> sloping forehead. Kookle Search Results
>>>>>> 2 matches for "cranston".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mike "Miguel" Cranston
>>>>>> Busted Urinal Award
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mike "Miguel" Cranston, trained by Bookman
>>>>>> Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle
>
>>>>>> Oh. You have room to grow too.
>
>>>>> Wow, *****, a little eight word sentence sure got you frothing!
>>>>> How much time did you spend on the cut and paste?
>
>>>> The majority of said froth was a quote of your post.
>>> You'd probably accuse the danimal of frothing. Quantity is not a
>>> sound measure of emotional content. Most of you people are too dumb
>>> to realize this, or too invested in using your fagboi retard nerd
>>> gimp weapons to care. You surely aren't intellectually honest
>>> enough to acknowledge that I pretty much matched Kali in output
>>> word for word.
>
>>> What would that say about her posts?
>
>> I'd say find someone who gives a ****.
>
> I did, dumbass.

#4.

> Thanks for playing.

#1. #7.

Nice work, cranston. Two three-word sentences and three stock lames. You
scored another #7 for repeating #1.

1. spnak! nice backpedal! You replied so I win. (dance, owned
etc.) You are my *****. Spank. You are my toy. You are
delusional. You love me. You are jealous. You follow me
around. You are obsessed. YHBT. Monkey see, monkey do.
2. Slurp! Get a room. etc.
3. My rules count. I won't reply anymore therefore I win. Post
edit, context snip, etc.
4. Sheep ****er, fag, native, **** your mother, sister, brother,
father. Cock sucker, *******, brain damaged, retard, jackass,
newbie, incompetent, monkey, boring, asswipe, loser, child,
village idiot, immature, paedophile, head > groin, **** you,
**** off, stfu, geriatric, amateur, nigger, inmate etc.
5. Testicles, anus, penis, faecal matter, urine, vagina, bodily
excretions, masturbation etc.
6. blink (clueless)
7. Nazi, MEOW, repeat, same old ... etc.
8. Typo, spelling, grammar, punctuation, comprehension lame.
9. I'm rubber, you're glue! IKYABWAI. Lame by proxy, truth
hurts, takes one to know one. So you don't know the answer
then? That proves my point. Get a life, etc.
10. Whine/pout/flip-flop, FOOM self-nuke, Autoflame.

Your score so far:

1. ##
2.
3. #
4. #
5.
6.
7. ##
8.
9.
10.

Six lames, two short posts. You must be proud, cranston.

--
alt.usenet.kooks - Hammer of Thor: February 2007.
Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker:
September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.

Vescere puter subgalia meis.

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

[miguel]

Kadaitcha Man wrote:
> miguel <mjc101@gmail.com> Thou measureless liar. Thou wild heart. Thou
> scab-laden empiric. Thou poisonous lecher. Ye muttered and ye chatted:
>
>> Meat Plow wrote:
>>> On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 17:09:31 -0800, miguel wrote:
>>>
>>>> Meat Plow wrote:
>>>>> miguel wrote:
>>>>>> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>>>>>>> miguel <mjc101@gmail.com> Thou low-life common laugher. Thou
>>>>>>> saucy remorseless. Thou ineffectual fellow of no merits. Thou
>>>>>>> boozy manikin. Ye brown-nosed and ye whined:
>>>>>>>> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Congratulations, Kadaitcha Man! I told you your luck would
>>>>>>>>>> change after January. It certainly did, as you managed to
>>>>>>>>>> defeat a strong field of worthy kookologists. All hail
>>>>>>>>>> Kadaitcha Man!!!1!!
>>>>>>>>> Woo Hoo! Commiserations to the others, and thanks to all for
>>>>>>>>> the support and vote of confidence.
>>>>>>>> It's a shame this wasn't awarded posthumously, *****.
>>>>>>> Aw, poor you.
>>>>>>> Say, Cranston, you do realise that you spewed 4k of froth at
>>>>>>> Kali in one post, don't you?
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Of course there is variance in application of standards across
>>>>>>> individuals and situations. Of course this isn't a black and
>>>>>>> white issue. Very few things are. But what the **** does that have to
>>>>>>> do with the double standard I identified?
>>>>>>> Again: the kook crew here feels free to netkop somebody about
>>>>>>> the BI, but if you contact an ISP about TOS violations re content,
>>>>>>> that's
>>>>>>> verboten. If I were to contact Snarky's provider about his
>>>>>>> insults, suddenly I'm a netkkkopper. It's freaky stupid is what
>>>>>>> it is. Yet nearly everybody here has bought into it.
>>>>>>> These mores are adopted to insulate those who engage in ****ty
>>>>>>> behavior from the consequences of their behavior. It's the same
>>>>>>> with taking usenet to real life. Suppose somebody hides behind their
>>>>>>> keyboard
>>>>>>> calling an enemy all sorts of rancid names and making all sorts
>>>>>>> of outlandish claims. It's considered kooky to drag that
>>>>>>> person's ass from behind his keyboard and kick the **** out of
>>>>>>> him. The reason this standard exists is merely to protect that
>>>>>>> cowardly ******* that
>>>>>>> engages in this behavior. Such a standard exists nowhere else. What
>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>> possibly justify this standard?
>>>>>>> Well, psychology isn't a real science, so I understand your
>>>>>>> inferiority complex and your need to sound like you're educated.
>>>>>>> What's next? Suggesting I need anger management?
>>>>>>> LOL.
>>>>>>> Also, your pants are on fire. By the next post I'm quite sure
>>>>>>> they'll be hanging over the telephone wire.
>>>>>>> There is a difference between "presume" and "assume." One with
>>>>>>> your academic credentials should surely understand this.
>>>>>>> A real scientist would recognize that curves tend toward steep
>>>>>>> or flat. Curves aren't slow or fast. But you are a psychologist
>>>>>>> so this is probably new to you. Since you are so proud of your
>>>>>>> advanced
>>>>>>> database of knowledge perhaps you should add this little factoid
>>>>>>> to it. Next time you want to insult somebody by referencing his or
>>>>>>> her learning
>>>>>>> curve, the more precise (and precision is your paramount desire, we
>>>>>>> know) way to do it would be to suggest that they have a flat learning
>>>>>>> curve. Mathematically you could represent this as Y=0. This is,
>>>>>>> incidentally, Joan GriffinTHAL's learning curve.
>>>>>>> This is about as hard as doing reverse psychology on my
>>>>>>> grandson. When he was two.
>>>>>>> Well, are you?
>>>>>>> Feel free to flesh out your claim with examples.
>>>>>>> Tick tock.
>>>>>>> Feel free to flesh out your claim with examples.
>>>>>>> Tick tock.
>>>>>>> Feel free to provide them.
>>>>>>> Tick tock.
>>>>>>> Not true. Your first less than friendly act was to respond with
>>>>>>> feigned politeness to my original question. I responded to that
>>>>>>> with equally feigned politeness, mirroring yours. Next, you
>>>>>>> asked your loaded, er, pointed question that implied your belief
>>>>>>> I was paranoid -- definitely kookbait. I responded pedantically
>>>>>>> in order to return the insult. We've traded insults pretty
>>>>>>> equally from there, although in my opinion I'm certainly winning
>>>>>>> on points because mine are so much more clever, witty and
>>>>>>> cutting than yours. Sniggler^wSchoolmarm please!
>>>>>>> Your tendency to project disliked parts of yourself onto me is
>>>>>>> well evidenced in this thread.
>>>>>>> tee hee!
>>>>>>> miguel
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You have k0oK tattooed in 2" high letters on your steeply
>>>>>>> sloping forehead. Kookle Search Results
>>>>>>> 2 matches for "cranston".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mike "Miguel" Cranston
>>>>>>> Busted Urinal Award
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mike "Miguel" Cranston, trained by Bookman
>>>>>>> Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle
>>>>>>> Oh. You have room to grow too.
>>>>>> Wow, *****, a little eight word sentence sure got you frothing!
>>>>>> How much time did you spend on the cut and paste?
>>>>> The majority of said froth was a quote of your post.
>>>> You'd probably accuse the danimal of frothing. Quantity is not a
>>>> sound measure of emotional content. Most of you people are too dumb
>>>> to realize this, or too invested in using your fagboi retard nerd
>>>> gimp weapons to care. You surely aren't intellectually honest
>>>> enough to acknowledge that I pretty much matched Kali in output
>>>> word for word.
>>>> What would that say about her posts?
>>> I'd say find someone who gives a ****.
>> I did, dumbass.
>
> #4.
>
>> Thanks for playing.
>
> #1. #7.
>
> Nice work, cranston. Two three-word sentences and three stock lames. You
> scored another #7 for repeating #1.
>
> 1. spnak! nice backpedal! You replied so I win. (dance, owned
> etc.) You are my *****. Spank. You are my toy. You are
> delusional. You love me. You are jealous. You follow me
> around. You are obsessed. YHBT. Monkey see, monkey do.
> 2. Slurp! Get a room. etc.
> 3. My rules count. I won't reply anymore therefore I win. Post
> edit, context snip, etc.
> 4. Sheep ****er, fag, native, **** your mother, sister, brother,
> father. Cock sucker, *******, brain damaged, retard, jackass,
> newbie, incompetent, monkey, boring, asswipe, loser, child,
> village idiot, immature, paedophile, head > groin, **** you,
> **** off, stfu, geriatric, amateur, nigger, inmate etc.
> 5. Testicles, anus, penis, faecal matter, urine, vagina, bodily
> excretions, masturbation etc.
> 6. blink (clueless)
> 7. Nazi, MEOW, repeat, same old ... etc.
> 8. Typo, spelling, grammar, punctuation, comprehension lame.
> 9. I'm rubber, you're glue! IKYABWAI. Lame by proxy, truth
> hurts, takes one to know one. So you don't know the answer
> then? That proves my point. Get a life, etc.
> 10. Whine/pout/flip-flop, FOOM self-nuke, Autoflame.
>
> Your score so far:
>
> 1. ##
> 2.
> 3. #
> 4. #
> 5.
> 6.
> 7. ##
> 8.
> 9.
> 10.
>
> Six lames, two short posts. You must be proud, cranston.
>
Not really. It's no big feat to get you all spun up, he-*****. I'm sure
some people are chuckling though.

miguel

[Kadaitcha Man]

miguel <mjc101@gmail.com> Thou base bondsman. Ill-met by moonlight. Thou
figure pedantical. Thou is open to incontinency. Ye gagged and ye
meowed:

> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>> miguel <mjc101@gmail.com> Thou measureless liar. Thou callow,
>> pork-bellied rank-scented meiny. Thou dam. Thou greasy, blue-haired
>> fever blister. Ye fussed and ye proscribed:
>>
>>> I pretty much matched Kali in output word for word.
>>>
>>> What would that say about her posts?
>>
>> <aside>
>> Meh. cranston tries for a narcissism hit by stealth.
>
> Translation: He shoots! He scores!

#1.

> hth he-*****

#4.

> miguel

1. spnak! nice backpedal! You replied so I win. (dance, owned
etc.) You are my *****. Spank. You are my toy. You are
delusional. You love me. You are jealous. You follow me
around. You are obsessed. YHBT. Monkey see, monkey do.
2. Slurp! Get a room. etc.
3. My rules count. I won't reply anymore therefore I win. Post
edit, context snip, etc.
4. Sheep ****er, fag, native, **** your mother, sister, brother,
father. Cock sucker, *******, brain damaged, retard, jackass,
newbie, incompetent, monkey, boring, asswipe, loser, child,
village idiot, immature, paedophile, head > groin, **** you,
**** off, stfu, geriatric, amateur, nigger, inmate etc.
5. Testicles, anus, penis, faecal matter, urine, vagina, bodily
excretions, masturbation etc.
6. blink (clueless)
7. Nazi, MEOW, repeat, same old ... etc.
8. Typo, spelling, grammar, punctuation, comprehension lame.
9. I'm rubber, you're glue! IKYABWAI. Lame by proxy, truth
hurts, takes one to know one. So you don't know the answer
then? That proves my point. Get a life, etc.
10. Whine/pout/flip-flop, FOOM self-nuke, Autoflame.

Your score so far:

1. ###
2.
3. #
4. ###
5.
6. #
7. ##
8.
9.
10.

4 posts, 10 lames.

--
alt.usenet.kooks - Hammer of Thor: February 2007.
Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker:
September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.

Vescere puter subgalia meis.

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

[miguel]

Meat Plow wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 17:14:26 -0800, miguel wrote:
>
>> Meat Plow wrote:
>>> On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 17:09:31 -0800, miguel wrote:
>>>
>>>> Meat Plow wrote:
>>>>> miguel wrote:
>>>>>> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>>>>>>> miguel <mjc101@gmail.com> Thou low-life common laugher. Thou saucy
>>>>>>> remorseless. Thou ineffectual fellow of no merits. Thou boozy manikin.
>>>>>>> Ye brown-nosed and ye whined:
>>>>>>>> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Congratulations, Kadaitcha Man! I told you your luck would change
>>>>>>>>>> after January. It certainly did, as you managed to defeat a strong
>>>>>>>>>> field of worthy kookologists. All hail Kadaitcha Man!!!1!!
>>>>>>>>> Woo Hoo! Commiserations to the others, and thanks to all for the
>>>>>>>>> support and vote of confidence.
>>>>>>>> It's a shame this wasn't awarded posthumously, *****.
>>>>>>> Aw, poor you.
>>>>>>> Say, Cranston, you do realise that you spewed 4k of froth at Kali in one
>>>>>>> post, don't you?
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Of course there is variance in application of standards across
>>>>>>> individuals and situations. Of course this isn't a black and white
>>>>>>> issue. Very few things are. But what the **** does that have to do with
>>>>>>> the double standard I identified?
>>>>>>> Again: the kook crew here feels free to netkop somebody about the BI,
>>>>>>> but if you contact an ISP about TOS violations re content, that's
>>>>>>> verboten. If I were to contact Snarky's provider about his insults,
>>>>>>> suddenly I'm a netkkkopper. It's freaky stupid is what it is. Yet nearly
>>>>>>> everybody here has bought into it.
>>>>>>> These mores are adopted to insulate those who engage in ****ty behavior
>>>>>>> from the consequences of their behavior. It's the same with taking
>>>>>>> usenet to real life. Suppose somebody hides behind their keyboard
>>>>>>> calling an enemy all sorts of rancid names and making all sorts of
>>>>>>> outlandish claims. It's considered kooky to drag that person's ass from
>>>>>>> behind his keyboard and kick the **** out of him. The reason this
>>>>>>> standard exists is merely to protect that cowardly ******* that engages
>>>>>>> in this behavior. Such a standard exists nowhere else. What could
>>>>>>> possibly justify this standard?
>>>>>>> Well, psychology isn't a real science, so I understand your inferiority
>>>>>>> complex and your need to sound like you're educated.
>>>>>>> What's next? Suggesting I need anger management?
>>>>>>> LOL.
>>>>>>> Also, your pants are on fire. By the next post I'm quite sure they'll be
>>>>>>> hanging over the telephone wire.
>>>>>>> There is a difference between "presume" and "assume." One with your
>>>>>>> academic credentials should surely understand this.
>>>>>>> A real scientist would recognize that curves tend toward steep or flat.
>>>>>>> Curves aren't slow or fast. But you are a psychologist so this is
>>>>>>> probably new to you. Since you are so proud of your advanced database of
>>>>>>> knowledge perhaps you should add this little factoid to it. Next time
>>>>>>> you want to insult somebody by referencing his or her learning curve,
>>>>>>> the more precise (and precision is your paramount desire, we know) way
>>>>>>> to do it would be to suggest that they have a flat learning curve.
>>>>>>> Mathematically you could represent this as Y=0. This is, incidentally,
>>>>>>> Joan GriffinTHAL's learning curve.
>>>>>>> This is about as hard as doing reverse psychology on my grandson. When
>>>>>>> he was two.
>>>>>>> Well, are you?
>>>>>>> Feel free to flesh out your claim with examples.
>>>>>>> Tick tock.
>>>>>>> Feel free to flesh out your claim with examples.
>>>>>>> Tick tock.
>>>>>>> Feel free to provide them.
>>>>>>> Tick tock.
>>>>>>> Not true. Your first less than friendly act was to respond with feigned
>>>>>>> politeness to my original question. I responded to that with equally
>>>>>>> feigned politeness, mirroring yours. Next, you asked your loaded, er,
>>>>>>> pointed question that implied your belief I was paranoid -- definitely
>>>>>>> kookbait. I responded pedantically in order to return the insult. We've
>>>>>>> traded insults pretty equally from there, although in my opinion I'm
>>>>>>> certainly winning on points because mine are so much more clever, witty
>>>>>>> and cutting than yours.
>>>>>>> Sniggler^wSchoolmarm please!
>>>>>>> Your tendency to project disliked parts of yourself onto me is well
>>>>>>> evidenced in this thread.
>>>>>>> tee hee!
>>>>>>> miguel
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You have k0oK tattooed in 2" high letters on your steeply sloping forehead.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Kookle Search Results
>>>>>>> 2 matches for "cranston".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mike "Miguel" Cranston
>>>>>>> Busted Urinal Award
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mike "Miguel" Cranston, trained by Bookman
>>>>>>> Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle
>>>>>>> Oh. You have room to grow too.
>>>>>> Wow, *****, a little eight word sentence sure got you frothing! How much
>>>>>> time did you spend on the cut and paste?
>>>>> The majority of said froth was a quote of your post.
>>>> You'd probably accuse the danimal of frothing. Quantity is not a sound
>>>> measure of emotional content. Most of you people are too dumb to realize
>>>> this, or too invested in using your fagboi retard nerd gimp weapons to
>>>> care. You surely aren't intellectually honest enough to acknowledge that
>>>> I pretty much matched Kali in output word for word.
>>>> What would that say about her posts?
>>> I'd say find someone who gives a ****.
>> I did, dumbass. Thanks for playing.
>
> Your reading skills are pathetic.
>
Please stop! I can't take any more of that!

[Moog]

miguel illuminated the devils arse on Sat, 10 Mar 2007 17:59:55 -0800, by
typing:

> Please stop! I can't take any more of that!

A good usenet rimming is too much for you?.....

*squeel* *squeel*

I know a great back street usenet doctor that can cure you.

--
Moog

http://www.last.fm/user/efcmoog/
"Liquor in the Front. Poker in the Rear"

[miguel]

Kadaitcha Man wrote:
> miguel <mjc101@gmail.com> Thou base bondsman. Ill-met by moonlight. Thou
> figure pedantical. Thou is open to incontinency. Ye gagged and ye
> meowed:
>
>> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>>> miguel <mjc101@gmail.com> Thou measureless liar. Thou callow,
>>> pork-bellied rank-scented meiny. Thou dam. Thou greasy, blue-haired
>>> fever blister. Ye fussed and ye proscribed:
>>>
>>>> I pretty much matched Kali in output word for word.
>>>>
>>>> What would that say about her posts?
>>> <aside>
>>> Meh. cranston tries for a narcissism hit by stealth.
>> Translation: He shoots! He scores!
>
> #1.
>
>> hth he-*****
>
> #4.
>
>> miguel
>
> 1. spnak! nice backpedal! You replied so I win. (dance, owned
> etc.) You are my *****. Spank. You are my toy. You are
> delusional. You love me. You are jealous. You follow me
> around. You are obsessed. YHBT. Monkey see, monkey do.
> 2. Slurp! Get a room. etc.
> 3. My rules count. I won't reply anymore therefore I win. Post
> edit, context snip, etc.
> 4. Sheep ****er, fag, native, **** your mother, sister, brother,
> father. Cock sucker, *******, brain damaged, retard, jackass,
> newbie, incompetent, monkey, boring, asswipe, loser, child,
> village idiot, immature, paedophile, head > groin, **** you,
> **** off, stfu, geriatric, amateur, nigger, inmate etc.
> 5. Testicles, anus, penis, faecal matter, urine, vagina, bodily
> excretions, masturbation etc.
> 6. blink (clueless)
> 7. Nazi, MEOW, repeat, same old ... etc.
> 8. Typo, spelling, grammar, punctuation, comprehension lame.
> 9. I'm rubber, you're glue! IKYABWAI. Lame by proxy, truth
> hurts, takes one to know one. So you don't know the answer
> then? That proves my point. Get a life, etc.
> 10. Whine/pout/flip-flop, FOOM self-nuke, Autoflame.
>
> Your score so far:
>
> 1. ###
> 2.
> 3. #
> 4. ###
> 5.
> 6. #
> 7. ##
> 8.
> 9.
> 10.
>
> 4 posts, 10 lames.
>
Good work there he-*****. Can you go back over my past 10 years of
posting and make up a scorecard? I've got to head out for awhile, but
I'll look forward to seeing your research when I return.

hth he-*****

miguel

[Maximum Dog]

<**** off>