miguel <mjc101@gmail.com> Thou little thing better than dirt. A vain,
giddy, shallow, humorous youth. Thou hollow-hearted friend. Thou
dissembling, lice-infested foul misshapen stigmatic. Ye swore and ye
poured forth:

> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>> miguel <mjc101@gmail.com> Thou lean raw-boned rascal. There is
>> neither honesty, manhood or good fellowship in thee. Thou ignorant.
>> Thou stagnant, deceiving nut. Ye regurgitated and ye berated:
>>
>>> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>>>> miguel <mjc101@gmail.com> Thou giglet wench. Your peevish chastity
>>>> is not worth a breakfast in the cheapest country. Thou footboy.
>>>> You, that are polluted with your lusts, stained with the guiltless
>>>> blood of innocents, corrupt and tainted with a thousand vices. Ye
>>>> sobbed and ye wavered:
>>>>
>>>>> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>>>>>> Text Medium No. 5 <mhm29x21@meeeeooooooowwww.flonk> Thou goat.
>>>>>> Thou dost over ween in all. Thou quailing very land-fish. Thou
>>>>>> lice-infested barnacle. Ye disputed and ye cooed:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hail Eris! On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 05:15:04 +0545, Kadaitcha Man
>>>>>>> jabbered inanely:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Demon Prince of Absurdity
>>>>>>>> <absurd_number_of_nicks@hell.corny> Thou bowlegged hereditary
>>>>>>>> hangman. Thou musty lousy footboy. Thou dim-witted fatal
>>>>>>>> screech-owl. Thou folly-fallen proud disdainful haggard. Ye
>>>>>>>> strained out and ye banged out:
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 07:21:43 -0500, Rhonda Lea Kirk did the
>>>>>>>>> cha-cha, and screamed:
>>>>>>>>>> "Lionel" wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> Please check out:
>>>>>>>>>>> <3z13i2cqydadv20wxez54zsvs575dxpn1u@4nk.pbz> (Requires the
>>>>>>>>>>> obvious transformation.)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You're welcome to email me if the situation is less than
>>>>>>>>>>> obvious to you.
>>>>>>>>>> There's a reply in the thread that I would take as
>>>>>>>>>> authoritative: rffpb0$h7s$1@arjf.argvaf.arg
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Requires same transformation as above message-id.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I feel compelled to point out that this post defines (for me)
>>>>>>>>>> the reason why an "******* exception" to Formosa's Rule is a
>>>>>>>>>> really bad idea.
>>>>>>>>> The AE is vital -- *******s are inclined to take advantage of
>>>>>>>>> Formosa for their own purposes. They deserve no mercy, and
>>>>>>>>> anything that happens to them, happens because they're
>>>>>>>>> *******s, not because life's unfair.
>>>>>>>> I'm 100% with Rhonda on this. Despite the damning text in the
>>>>>>>> message ID Rhonda provided up there, your entire focus is still
>>>>>>>> on the ******* exception alone. You don't seem to have even the
>>>>>>>> slightest conern for either her daughter or herself, viz:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Although I do have suicidal impulses I put them in check for
>>>>>>>> the sake of the sperm donor's offspring."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> news:1172275831.150222.121230@8g2000cwh.googlegrou ps.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You should take good note of the severe and persistent
>>>>>>>> dissociation of "sperm donor's offspring" from the notion of
>>>>>>>> "my daughter".
>>>>>>>>> Life _is_ unfair, but anything untoward happening to an
>>>>>>>>> ******* isn't even remotely proof of it
>>>>>>>> Even if anything untoward happens because of some people's
>>>>>>>> insistence that the ******* exception should take precedence
>>>>>>>> over the safety of her "sperm donor's offspring"?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Find another k0ok, Snarky. This one should be left alone.
>>>>>>> Well, actually, I've given this a lot of thought over the past
>>>>>>> few months, since first discussing it with NightMist back in
>>>>>>> December, or thereabouts (before I began archiving my chats),
>>>>>>> and I told NM she'd get Formosa'd, but I also told her she'd
>>>>>>> lose that protection. She's all talk and no action -- if there
>>>>>>> is a daughter, no harm will come to her that wouldn't come
>>>>>>> anyway because Mummy's crazy (and hopefully, "the offspring"
>>>>>>> will be taken away and placed in foster care before much longer,
>>>>>>> optimistically assuming her existence), and she'll not likely do
>>>>>>> anything to herself (not that I care what happens to the little
>>>>>>> manipulatrix) that she wouldn't do without being poked. She
>>>>>>> wants attention, not death.
>>>>>> You missed the whole point I'm driving at, again, Snarky. You
>>>>>> said it yourself and still you missed it...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "if there is a daughter, no harm will come to her that wouldn't
>>>>>> come anyway because Mummy's crazy..."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Normally I admire confidence, but in this instance I can only
>>>>>> take a cold shower in the hope that my hackles will go down.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Who are you and what do you know that allows you the authority to
>>>>>> make such a confident assertion, Snarky?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The whole thrust of my opposition to the lifting of the Formosa
>>>>>> is comprised of these points:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. The woman appears to be genuinely and seriously mentally ill.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. Who here is equiped to answer the question, "Are her
>>>>>> arsehole-like tendencies innate or are they part of a highly
>>>>>> complex manifestation of long-term mental illness?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3. It is reasonable to believe that there is a high likelihood
>>>>>> that the child will suffer the consequences, either physically or
>>>>>> emotionally, of any prodding and poking done to AOK.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 4. Not that my agreement means anything, but in order to get it,
>>>>>> someone will have to cross the real life boundary to prove that
>>>>>> the woman has no child and/or is not mentally ill. And I'll have
>>>>>> a lot to say about that if it's done by a kookologist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To those four points, I unashamedly add the point that Rhonda
>>>>>> drew out in her inimitable style...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 5. "The whole point of not poking the Formosa'd person is to
>>>>>> avoid exacerbating
>>>>>> the potential danger."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Point 1 should speak for itself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Point 2 should stop you dead in your tracks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Point 3 plus point 5 ahould be enough to knock the idea on the
>>>>>> head without the other points supporting them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Point 4 is a no-no, AFAIAC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Point 5 can't be ignored.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I grant that, on the surface of, the woman is an arsehole who is
>>>>>> worthy of an arsehole exception, but given what else I see I
>>>>>> cannot in all conscience condone an exception.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Look, I'll appeal to authority here... myself. I am not known for
>>>>>> letting arseholes off the hook but, IMO, AOK is one arsehole who
>>>>>> should be let off, if not for any reason other than doubt.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I'm proud of you for this, he-*****.
>>>> Too bad for you, cranston, you sickeningly fawning lickspittle.
>>>> I've already let my quota of one arsehole off the hook for this
>>>> decade.
>>> Oh my sides.
>>
>> What's wrong with your sides?
>>
>>> When will the real abuse start? So far all I've seen is
>>> you spooging all over yourself.
>>
>> What abuse, crasston? Do you feel someone may be trying to abuse you
>> in some way?
>
> "Too bad for you, cranston, you sickeningly fawning lickspittle. I've
> already let my quota of one arsehole off the hook for this decade."
>
> So, questionably-literate he-*****, when will the real abuse start?

What abuse, craston? Are you suggesting that someone might want to abuse
you, mere ***** that you are.

--
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