Re: Rhonda Lea "Police Report" Kirk wins yet another popularity contest in AUK.

[Kadaitcha Man]

Lionel <usenet@imagenoir.com> Thou halfwit. Thou is open to
incontinency. Ye irrupted:

> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:15:04 +0545, "Kadaitcha Man"
> <nntp.news@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Lionel <usenet@imagenoir.com> Thou piss stain. Why thou art a man of
>> wax. Ye perorated:
>>
>>> Way to go Rhodenta! - You sure did a great job of demonstrating
>>> those lofty ethical standards of yours that you've spent so much
>>> time lecturing us about.
>>>
>>> <twirls finger in air>
>>
>> It is difficult to offer agreement without being seen to be doing a
>> victory dance.
>
> The way I see it, disqualifying myself from nominating her for awards
> or voting for her is a big enough sop to satisfy my oh-so-abysmal
> ethical standards, so I don't see any reason not to slap "Pretty
> Vacant" onto the stereo, turn it up to 11, & start pogoing on her
> empty head.
>
>> Nevertheless I agree.
>
> As do ~98% of the AUK posters who've expressed an opinion regarding
> Queen Rhodenta's charming behaviour.

Charming to the point where "Respondant" even spoke out. It all adds up to
anwful lot of alienation merely to prove charges of outright hypocrisy.

I loved this bit:

"Of course, that will require quite a bit of additional disclosure, but
you're the one who's pushing, and obviously, you've been told an incomplete
story."
news:58nq8nF2ghh21U1@mid.individual.net

The obvious implication is that I was feeding you information in private. I
bit my tongue about the only email thanking you privately for backing off
when I asked. It is entirely lost on her that the incomplete picture she
accuses you of holding was drawn by her very self and nobody else at all.

Touche.

--
alt.usenet.kooks
"We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us."
Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129]

Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.
Official Member:
Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660
Usenet Ruiner Lits
Top *******s on the Net Lits
Most hated usenetizens of all time Lits

"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

Jij alledaagse afvallige strontvlieg.

[Rhonda Lea Kirk]

"Kadaitcha Man" <nntp.news@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:s6ed3.fcg.17.1@news.alt.net
> Lionel <usenet@imagenoir.com> Thou halfwit. Thou is open to
> incontinency. Ye irrupted:
>
>> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:15:04 +0545, "Kadaitcha Man"
>> <nntp.news@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Lionel <usenet@imagenoir.com> Thou piss stain. Why thou art a man of
>>> wax. Ye perorated:
>>>
>>>> Way to go Rhodenta! - You sure did a great job of demonstrating
>>>> those lofty ethical standards of yours that you've spent so much
>>>> time lecturing us about.
>>>>
>>>> <twirls finger in air>
>>>
>>> It is difficult to offer agreement without being seen to be doing a
>>> victory dance.
>>
>> The way I see it, disqualifying myself from nominating her for awards
>> or voting for her is a big enough sop to satisfy my oh-so-abysmal
>> ethical standards, so I don't see any reason not to slap "Pretty
>> Vacant" onto the stereo, turn it up to 11, & start pogoing on her
>> empty head.
>>
>>> Nevertheless I agree.
>>
>> As do ~98% of the AUK posters who've expressed an opinion regarding
>> Queen Rhodenta's charming behaviour.
>
> Charming to the point where "Respondant" even spoke out.

And called you a sociopath.

> It all adds
> up to anwful lot of alienation merely to prove charges of outright
> hypocrisy.
>
> I loved this bit:
>
> "Of course, that will require quite a bit of additional disclosure,
> but you're the one who's pushing, and obviously, you've been told an
> incomplete story."
> news:58nq8nF2ghh21U1@mid.individual.net
>
> The obvious implication is that I was feeding you information in
> private. I bit my tongue about the only email thanking you privately
> for backing off when I asked. It is entirely lost on her that the
> incomplete picture she accuses you of holding was drawn by her very
> self and nobody else at all.
>
> Touche.

Although I have no gripe about it, it is clear from several posts I've
seen that you have been telling /someone/ something in email. How that
information makes its way from one person to another really isn't my
concern.

--
Rhonda Lea Kirk

You can discover what your enemy fears most by
observing the means he uses to frighten you. Eric Hoffer

[Kadaitcha Man]

Rhonda Lea Kirk <rhondalea@gmail.com> Thou knot of damned bloodsuckers.
Thou harlot. Ye hiccupped:

> "Kadaitcha Man" <nntp.news@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:s6ed3.fcg.17.1@news.alt.net
>> Lionel <usenet@imagenoir.com> Thou halfwit. Thou is open to
>> incontinency. Ye irrupted:
>>
>>> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:15:04 +0545, "Kadaitcha Man"
>>> <nntp.news@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lionel <usenet@imagenoir.com> Thou piss stain. Why thou art a man
>>>> of wax. Ye perorated:
>>>>
>>>>> Way to go Rhodenta! - You sure did a great job of demonstrating
>>>>> those lofty ethical standards of yours that you've spent so much
>>>>> time lecturing us about.
>>>>>
>>>>> <twirls finger in air>
>>>>
>>>> It is difficult to offer agreement without being seen to be doing a
>>>> victory dance.
>>>
>>> The way I see it, disqualifying myself from nominating her for
>>> awards or voting for her is a big enough sop to satisfy my
>>> oh-so-abysmal ethical standards, so I don't see any reason not to
>>> slap "Pretty Vacant" onto the stereo, turn it up to 11, & start
>>> pogoing on her empty head.
>>>
>>>> Nevertheless I agree.
>>>
>>> As do ~98% of the AUK posters who've expressed an opinion regarding
>>> Queen Rhodenta's charming behaviour.
>>
>> Charming to the point where "Respondant" even spoke out.
>
> A<*****SLAP>

Real-lifing, ****-headed netk0oK.

--
alt.usenet.kooks
"We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us."
Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129]

Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.
Official Member:
Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660
Usenet Ruiner Lits
Top *******s on the Net Lits
Most hated usenetizens of all time Lits

"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

Ik denk dat je kan doorgaan als een stoephoer naaiende bezopen schelm.

[Rhonda Lea Kirk]

"Lionel" <usenet@imagenoir.com> wrote in message
news:f0a1kl$b6b$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:52:31 +0545, "Kadaitcha Man"
> <nntp.news@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Lionel <usenet@imagenoir.com> Thou halfwit. Thou is open to
>> incontinency. Ye irrupted:
>>
>>> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:15:04 +0545, "Kadaitcha Man"
>>> <nntp.news@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lionel <usenet@imagenoir.com> Thou piss stain. Why thou art a man
>>>> of wax. Ye perorated:
>>>>
>>>>> Way to go Rhodenta! - You sure did a great job of demonstrating
>>>>> those lofty ethical standards of yours that you've spent so much
>>>>> time lecturing us about.
>>>>>
>>>>> <twirls finger in air>
>>>>
>>>> It is difficult to offer agreement without being seen to be doing a
>>>> victory dance.
>>>
>>> The way I see it, disqualifying myself from nominating her for
>>> awards or voting for her is a big enough sop to satisfy my
>>> oh-so-abysmal ethical standards, so I don't see any reason not to
>>> slap "Pretty Vacant" onto the stereo, turn it up to 11, & start
>>> pogoing on her empty head.
>>>
>>>> Nevertheless I agree.
>>>
>>> As do ~98% of the AUK posters who've expressed an opinion regarding
>>> Queen Rhodenta's charming behaviour.
>>
>> Charming to the point where "Respondant" even spoke out. It all adds
>> up to anwful lot of alienation merely to prove charges of outright
>> hypocrisy.
>>
>> I loved this bit:
>>
>> "Of course, that will require quite a bit of additional disclosure,
>> but you're the one who's pushing, and obviously, you've been told an
>> incomplete story."
>> news:58nq8nF2ghh21U1@mid.individual.net
>>
>> The obvious implication is that I was feeding you information in
>> private.
>
> Of course. Anyone who emails private dirt around as much as she does
> will inevitably assume that everyone else uses the same tactics.

Actually, I don't do a whole lot of emailing or chatting. And the
"private dirt" was mostly public dirt until I posted about the police at
my door, i.e., the post Mike made early on was almost entirely about
incidents that were previously posted, most especially the incident in
the elevator and the public groping.

Nonetheless, I can't think of a whole lot else I've disclosed privately
to anyone that hasn't been posted here.

> Obviously it would never occur to her that she's nowhere near as good
> a liar as she thinks she is, & that it would be so easy to figure out
> the truth from the dozens of posts in which she made those ever-so
> 'subtle' references to the incident. In the end, I needed fewer than
> half the quotes I had available to fill in all the blanks.

So much for your insight, then. As I said, I have five months worth of
emails wherein I said all the same things as I said on the 23rd, and
none of those were the catalyst for a call to the police.

I wonder what changed, because it certainly wasn't anything I wrote.

>> I
>> bit my tongue about the only email thanking you privately for
>> backing off when I asked.
>
> <shrugs> I see no reason to be embarrassed about going the extra mile
> to do the right thing by an ex. It's not your fault that she twists
> everything that happens around her into some kind of conspiracy
> against her.
>
>> It is entirely lost on her that the incomplete picture she
>> accuses you of holding was drawn by her very self and nobody else at
>> all.
>>
>> Touche.
>
> <bows>
>
> Did you notice that for the last couple of days, I've been stucturing
> all my flames of her in close accordance with the advice in her own
> .sig? - I thought the irony was a nice artistic touch - especially as
> I was 100% certain that she'd be incapable of seeing it.

So you're writing about what frightens you, Lionel? Because I'm not
afraid of you, and I can't imagine why you would be afraid of me.

--
Rhonda Lea Kirk

You can discover what your enemy fears most by
observing the means he uses to frighten you. Eric Hoffer

[Kadaitcha Man]

Lionel <usenet@imagenoir.com> Thou insignificant rascal. Thou fly-eating
spanish-pouch. Ye divulged:

> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:52:31 +0545, "Kadaitcha Man"
> <nntp.news@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Lionel <usenet@imagenoir.com> Thou halfwit. Thou is open to
>> incontinency. Ye irrupted:
>>
>>> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:15:04 +0545, "Kadaitcha Man"
>>> <nntp.news@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lionel <usenet@imagenoir.com> Thou piss stain. Why thou art a man
>>>> of wax. Ye perorated:
>>>>
>>>>> Way to go Rhodenta! - You sure did a great job of demonstrating
>>>>> those lofty ethical standards of yours that you've spent so much
>>>>> time lecturing us about.
>>>>>
>>>>> <twirls finger in air>
>>>>
>>>> It is difficult to offer agreement without being seen to be doing a
>>>> victory dance.
>>>
>>> The way I see it, disqualifying myself from nominating her for
>>> awards or voting for her is a big enough sop to satisfy my
>>> oh-so-abysmal ethical standards, so I don't see any reason not to
>>> slap "Pretty Vacant" onto the stereo, turn it up to 11, & start
>>> pogoing on her empty head.
>>>
>>>> Nevertheless I agree.
>>>
>>> As do ~98% of the AUK posters who've expressed an opinion regarding
>>> Queen Rhodenta's charming behaviour.
>>
>> Charming to the point where "Respondant" even spoke out. It all adds
>> up to anwful lot of alienation merely to prove charges of outright
>> hypocrisy.
>>
>> I loved this bit:
>>
>> "Of course, that will require quite a bit of additional disclosure,
>> but you're the one who's pushing, and obviously, you've been told an
>> incomplete story."
>> news:58nq8nF2ghh21U1@mid.individual.net
>>
>> The obvious implication is that I was feeding you information in
>> private.
>
> Of course. Anyone who emails private dirt around as much as she does
> will inevitably assume that everyone else uses the same tactics.

I've already had a direct invitation to stoop to her level.

"Why don't you post your March 13 email to me..."

For the sake of argument only, if it is granted that I am predisposed to
using such disgraceful tactics as hers, doing such a thing would only afford
her the delusional leverage of being able to impart insanely twisted
approval to her own treachery; as if she hasn't been caught doing that often
enough already.

Time for a quote...

In news:f096m8$4qi$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com,
Kali <kali@powder.keg> typed:

> In <58pkv6F2hrmk3U1@mid.individual.net>, Rhonda Lea Kirk
> rhondalea@gmail.com said:

>> We're all responsible for our own stuff, so don't put words in my
>> mouth or twist the words I write, Kali.
>
> No need to twist, you just reiterated that Lionel made you do
> it. An alternative would be that you wanted to do it anyway, and
> lionel gave you an *excuse* to do it. Both possibilities boil
> down to the same problem: an external locus of control, among
> other things. People with an external locus of control don't
> learn from their experiences, and are destined to repeat them.

> Obviously it would never occur to her that she's nowhere near as good
> a liar as she thinks she is,

To be honest and fair, I'm certain she thinks she's telling the truth. The
sad part is, even Blind ****ing Freddy can see that she doesn't.

> & that it would be so easy to figure out
> the truth from the dozens of posts in which she made those ever-so
> 'subtle' references to the incident. In the end, I needed fewer than
> half the quotes I had available to fill in all the blanks.

She transmogrified the accusation from "And clearly you've been giving them
snippets of information while withholding the big picture" into "Although I
have no gripe about it, it is clear from several posts I've seen that you
have been telling /someone/ something in email. How that information makes
its way from one person to another really isn't my concern."

The shifting sands of the Sahara. Paranoia must be such a *****.

The alert observer will also note the stinking, rotten mountain of
hypocritical projection when one considers her admission to privately doing
her drama queen act for crasston, "Steve" (whoever that was), and Kali, not
to mention a goodly proportion of the unsuspecting usenet public.

>> I
>> bit my tongue about the only email thanking you privately for
>> backing off when I asked.
>
> <shrugs> I see no reason to be embarrassed about going the extra mile
> to do the right thing by an ex.

I wasn't embarassed, Lionel. I knew the accusation would come, and it did,
twice, as above, so I quietly held onto the fact because I knew it would be
needed.

> It's not your fault that she twists
> everything that happens around her into some kind of conspiracy
> against her.

I fully expect to get blamed for her still not having a job in three months
time when she's finished "putting everything into chronological order".

>> It is entirely lost on her that the incomplete picture she
>> accuses you of holding was drawn by her very self and nobody else at
>> all.
>>
>> Touche.
>
> <bows>
>
> Did you notice that for the last couple of days, I've been stucturing
> all my flames of her in close accordance with the advice in her own
> .sig? - I thought the irony was a nice artistic touch - especially as
> I was 100% certain that she'd be incapable of seeing it.

Doubly ironic. What's in her .sig describes exactly what I did after I got
the wakeup call to what was going on.

--
alt.usenet.kooks
"We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us."
Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129]

Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.
Official Member:
Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660
Usenet Ruiner Lits
Top *******s on the Net Lits
Most hated usenetizens of all time Lits

"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

Ik denk dat je kan doorgaan als een binneste buiten gepijpte
dichtgegroeide makaak.

[Rhonda Lea Kirk]

"Kadaitcha Man" <nntp.news@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:s6s0q.5ll.17.1@news.alt.net
> Lionel <usenet@imagenoir.com> Thou insignificant rascal. Thou
> fly-eating spanish-pouch. Ye divulged:
>
>> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:52:31 +0545, "Kadaitcha Man"
>> <nntp.news@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Lionel <usenet@imagenoir.com> Thou halfwit. Thou is open to
>>> incontinency. Ye irrupted:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:15:04 +0545, "Kadaitcha Man"
>>>> <nntp.news@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Lionel <usenet@imagenoir.com> Thou piss stain. Why thou art a man
>>>>> of wax. Ye perorated:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Way to go Rhodenta! - You sure did a great job of demonstrating
>>>>>> those lofty ethical standards of yours that you've spent so much
>>>>>> time lecturing us about.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <twirls finger in air>
>>>>>
>>>>> It is difficult to offer agreement without being seen to be doing
>>>>> a victory dance.
>>>>
>>>> The way I see it, disqualifying myself from nominating her for
>>>> awards or voting for her is a big enough sop to satisfy my
>>>> oh-so-abysmal ethical standards, so I don't see any reason not to
>>>> slap "Pretty Vacant" onto the stereo, turn it up to 11, & start
>>>> pogoing on her empty head.
>>>>
>>>>> Nevertheless I agree.
>>>>
>>>> As do ~98% of the AUK posters who've expressed an opinion regarding
>>>> Queen Rhodenta's charming behaviour.
>>>
>>> Charming to the point where "Respondant" even spoke out. It all adds
>>> up to anwful lot of alienation merely to prove charges of outright
>>> hypocrisy.
>>>
>>> I loved this bit:
>>>
>>> "Of course, that will require quite a bit of additional disclosure,
>>> but you're the one who's pushing, and obviously, you've been told an
>>> incomplete story."
>>> news:58nq8nF2ghh21U1@mid.individual.net
>>>
>>> The obvious implication is that I was feeding you information in
>>> private.
>>
>> Of course. Anyone who emails private dirt around as much as she does
>> will inevitably assume that everyone else uses the same tactics.
>
> I've already had a direct invitation to stoop to her level.
>
> "Why don't you post your March 13 email to me..."
>
> For the sake of argument only, if it is granted that I am predisposed
> to using such disgraceful tactics as hers, doing such a thing would
> only afford her the delusional leverage of being able to impart
> insanely twisted approval to her own treachery; as if she hasn't been
> caught doing that often enough already.

That's handy for you, isn't it? <laughing>

The thing is, I have no objection to your posting it, and it's your
email.

But you'd never post that one, among several others.

> Time for a quote...
>
>

> In news:f096m8$4qi$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com,
> Kali <kali@powder.keg> typed:
>
>> In <58pkv6F2hrmk3U1@mid.individual.net>, Rhonda Lea Kirk
>> rhondalea@gmail.com said:
>
>>> We're all responsible for our own stuff, so don't put words in my
>>> mouth or twist the words I write, Kali.
>>
>> No need to twist, you just reiterated that Lionel made you do
>> it. An alternative would be that you wanted to do it anyway, and
>> lionel gave you an *excuse* to do it. Both possibilities boil
>> down to the same problem: an external locus of control, among
>> other things. People with an external locus of control don't
>> learn from their experiences, and are destined to repeat them.
>

lol

>> Obviously it would never occur to her that she's nowhere near as good
>> a liar as she thinks she is,
>
> To be honest and fair, I'm certain she thinks she's telling the
> truth. The sad part is, even Blind ****ing Freddy can see that she
> doesn't.

You know for a fact that I've told the truth, Rick.

You also know I have megabytes of proof that I've told the truth, Rick.

You should also realize that I no longer give a flying **** about "auk's
rules for usenet" because those rules get bent all too often in the
pursuit of kooks.

I don't care if I'm called a kook.

>> & that it would be so easy to figure out
>> the truth from the dozens of posts in which she made those ever-so
>> 'subtle' references to the incident. In the end, I needed fewer than
>> half the quotes I had available to fill in all the blanks.
>
> She transmogrified the accusation from "And clearly you've been
> giving them snippets of information while withholding the big
> picture" into "Although I have no gripe about it, it is clear from
> several posts I've seen that you have been telling /someone/
> something in email. How that information makes its way from one
> person to another really isn't my concern."
>
> The shifting sands of the Sahara. Paranoia must be such a *****.

You would know, o possessive one.

> The alert observer will also note the stinking, rotten mountain of
> hypocritical projection when one considers her admission to privately
> doing her drama queen act for crasston, "Steve" (whoever that was),
> and Kali, not to mention a goodly proportion of the unsuspecting
> usenet public.

You know who Steve is. We had a very long conversation about Steve and
your concerns about Steve.

>>> I
>>> bit my tongue about the only email thanking you privately for
>>> backing off when I asked.
>>
>> <shrugs> I see no reason to be embarrassed about going the extra mile
>> to do the right thing by an ex.
>
> I wasn't embarassed, Lionel. I knew the accusation would come, and it
> did, twice, as above, so I quietly held onto the fact because I knew
> it would be needed.

I love it when you're rational.

It's too bad you can't maintain it.

>> It's not your fault that she twists
>> everything that happens around her into some kind of conspiracy
>> against her.
>
> I fully expect to get blamed for her still not having a job in three
> months time when she's finished "putting everything into
> chronological order".

Nothing you do now has any effect on my life or well-being. The damage
you've already done has ongoing effect--how can it not--but you no
longer have the ability to influence my behavior.

>>> It is entirely lost on her that the incomplete picture she
>>> accuses you of holding was drawn by her very self and nobody else at
>>> all.
>>>
>>> Touche.
>>
>> <bows>
>>
>> Did you notice that for the last couple of days, I've been stucturing
>> all my flames of her in close accordance with the advice in her own
>> .sig? - I thought the irony was a nice artistic touch - especially as
>> I was 100% certain that she'd be incapable of seeing it.
>
> Doubly ironic. What's in her .sig describes exactly what I did after
> I got the wakeup call to what was going on.

<shakes head>

--
Rhonda Lea Kirk

You can discover what your enemy fears most by
observing the means he uses to frighten you. Eric Hoffer

[Kadaitcha Man]

Rhonda Lea Kirk <rhondalea@gmail.com> Thou droning revolted tapster.
Thou puking beastly knave. Ye frothed:

> "Lionel" <usenet@imagenoir.com> wrote in message
> news:f0a1kl$b6b$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com
>> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:52:31 +0545, "Kadaitcha Man"
>> <nntp.news@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Lionel <usenet@imagenoir.com> Thou halfwit. Thou is open to
>>> incontinency. Ye irrupted:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:15:04 +0545, "Kadaitcha Man"
>>>> <nntp.news@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Lionel <usenet@imagenoir.com> Thou piss stain. Why thou art a man
>>>>> of wax. Ye perorated:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Way to go Rhodenta! - You sure did a great job of demonstrating
>>>>>> those lofty ethical standards of yours that you've spent so much
>>>>>> time lecturing us about.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <twirls finger in air>
>>>>>
>>>>> It is difficult to offer agreement without being seen to be doing
>>>>> a victory dance.
>>>>
>>>> The way I see it, disqualifying myself from nominating her for
>>>> awards or voting for her is a big enough sop to satisfy my
>>>> oh-so-abysmal ethical standards, so I don't see any reason not to
>>>> slap "Pretty Vacant" onto the stereo, turn it up to 11, & start
>>>> pogoing on her empty head.
>>>>
>>>>> Nevertheless I agree.
>>>>
>>>> As do ~98% of the AUK posters who've expressed an opinion regarding
>>>> Queen Rhodenta's charming behaviour.
>>>
>>> Charming to the point where "Respondant" even spoke out. It all adds
>>> up to anwful lot of alienation merely to prove charges of outright
>>> hypocrisy.
>>>
>>> I loved this bit:
>>>
>>> "Of course, that will require quite a bit of additional disclosure,
>>> but you're the one who's pushing, and obviously, you've been told an
>>> incomplete story."
>>> news:58nq8nF2ghh21U1@mid.individual.net
>>>
>>> The obvious implication is that I was feeding you information in
>>> private.
>>
>> Of course. Anyone who emails private dirt around as much as she does
>> will inevitably assume that everyone else uses the same tactics.
>
> Actually, I don't do a whole lot of emailing or chatting. And the
> "private dirt" was mostly public dirt until I posted about the police
> at my door, i.e., the post Mike made early on was almost entirely
> about incidents that were previously posted, most especially the
> incident in the elevator and the public groping.

Round and round you go... ever the victim.

That that was already dispensed with is a matter of record.

> Nonetheless, I can't think of a whole lot else I've disclosed
> privately to anyone that hasn't been posted here.

How convenient.

>> Obviously it would never occur to her that she's nowhere near as good
>> a liar as she thinks she is, & that it would be so easy to figure out
>> the truth from the dozens of posts in which she made those ever-so
>> 'subtle' references to the incident. In the end, I needed fewer than
>> half the quotes I had available to fill in all the blanks.
>
> So much for your insight, then. As I said, I have five months worth of
> emails wherein I said all the same things as I said on the 23rd, and
> none of those were the catalyst for a call to the police.

Round and round you go... ever the victim.

> I wonder what changed, because it certainly wasn't anything I wrote.

Facts changed to "facts" and truth changed to "truth". You've been dragged
over that I don't know how many times, so...

Round and round you go... ever the victim.

>>> I
>>> bit my tongue about the only email thanking you privately for
>>> backing off when I asked.
>>
>> <shrugs> I see no reason to be embarrassed about going the extra mile
>> to do the right thing by an ex. It's not your fault that she twists
>> everything that happens around her into some kind of conspiracy
>> against her.
>>
>>> It is entirely lost on her that the incomplete picture she
>>> accuses you of holding was drawn by her very self and nobody else at
>>> all.
>>>
>>> Touche.
>>
>> <bows>
>>
>> Did you notice that for the last couple of days, I've been stucturing
>> all my flames of her in close accordance with the advice in her own
>> .sig? - I thought the irony was a nice artistic touch - especially as
>> I was 100% certain that she'd be incapable of seeing it.
>
> So you're writing about what frightens you, Lionel?

ObDodge.

"You can discover what your enemy fears most by observing the means he uses
to frighten you."

The word frighten is not emphatic in its context thus it implies effort not
accomplishment.

HTH

> Because I'm not
> afraid of you, and I can't imagine why you would be afraid of me.

Drama queen two-step shuffle noted.

--
alt.usenet.kooks
"We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us."
Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129]

Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.
Official Member:
Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660
Usenet Ruiner Lits
Top *******s on the Net Lits
Most hated usenetizens of all time Lits

"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

Jij bent vast een klere schrale kleefkut.

[Rhonda Lea Kirk]

"Kadaitcha Man" <nntp.news@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:s6t9o.ahm.17.1@news.alt.net
> Rhonda Lea Kirk <rhondalea@gmail.com> Thou droning revolted tapster.
> Thou puking beastly knave. Ye frothed:
>
>> "Lionel" <usenet@imagenoir.com> wrote in message
>> news:f0a1kl$b6b$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com
>>> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:52:31 +0545, "Kadaitcha Man"
>>> <nntp.news@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lionel <usenet@imagenoir.com> Thou halfwit. Thou is open to
>>>> incontinency. Ye irrupted:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:15:04 +0545, "Kadaitcha Man"
>>>>> <nntp.news@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Lionel <usenet@imagenoir.com> Thou piss stain. Why thou art a man
>>>>>> of wax. Ye perorated:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Way to go Rhodenta! - You sure did a great job of demonstrating
>>>>>>> those lofty ethical standards of yours that you've spent so much
>>>>>>> time lecturing us about.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <twirls finger in air>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is difficult to offer agreement without being seen to be doing
>>>>>> a victory dance.
>>>>>
>>>>> The way I see it, disqualifying myself from nominating her for
>>>>> awards or voting for her is a big enough sop to satisfy my
>>>>> oh-so-abysmal ethical standards, so I don't see any reason not to
>>>>> slap "Pretty Vacant" onto the stereo, turn it up to 11, & start
>>>>> pogoing on her empty head.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Nevertheless I agree.
>>>>>
>>>>> As do ~98% of the AUK posters who've expressed an opinion
>>>>> regarding Queen Rhodenta's charming behaviour.
>>>>
>>>> Charming to the point where "Respondant" even spoke out. It all
>>>> adds up to anwful lot of alienation merely to prove charges of
>>>> outright hypocrisy.
>>>>
>>>> I loved this bit:
>>>>
>>>> "Of course, that will require quite a bit of additional disclosure,
>>>> but you're the one who's pushing, and obviously, you've been told
>>>> an incomplete story."
>>>> news:58nq8nF2ghh21U1@mid.individual.net
>>>>
>>>> The obvious implication is that I was feeding you information in
>>>> private.
>>>
>>> Of course. Anyone who emails private dirt around as much as she does
>>> will inevitably assume that everyone else uses the same tactics.
>>
>> Actually, I don't do a whole lot of emailing or chatting. And the
>> "private dirt" was mostly public dirt until I posted about the police
>> at my door, i.e., the post Mike made early on was almost entirely
>> about incidents that were previously posted, most especially the
>> incident in the elevator and the public groping.
>
> Round and round you go... ever the victim.
>
> That that was already dispensed with is a matter of record.

Dispensed with?

>> Nonetheless, I can't think of a whole lot else I've disclosed
>> privately to anyone that hasn't been posted here.
>
> How convenient.

Well, at least you know what I've had to say about you.

>>> Obviously it would never occur to her that she's nowhere near as
>>> good a liar as she thinks she is, & that it would be so easy to
>>> figure out the truth from the dozens of posts in which she made
>>> those ever-so 'subtle' references to the incident. In the end, I
>>> needed fewer than half the quotes I had available to fill in all
>>> the blanks.
>>
>> So much for your insight, then. As I said, I have five months worth
>> of emails wherein I said all the same things as I said on the 23rd,
>> and none of those were the catalyst for a call to the police.
>
> Round and round you go... ever the victim.
>
>> I wonder what changed, because it certainly wasn't anything I wrote.
>
> Facts changed to "facts" and truth changed to "truth". You've been
> dragged over that I don't know how many times, so...
>
> Round and round you go... ever the victim.
>
>>>> I
>>>> bit my tongue about the only email thanking you privately for
>>>> backing off when I asked.
>>>
>>> <shrugs> I see no reason to be embarrassed about going the extra
>>> mile to do the right thing by an ex. It's not your fault that she
>>> twists everything that happens around her into some kind of
>>> conspiracy against her.
>>>
>>>> It is entirely lost on her that the incomplete picture she
>>>> accuses you of holding was drawn by her very self and nobody else
>>>> at all.
>>>>
>>>> Touche.
>>>
>>> <bows>
>>>
>>> Did you notice that for the last couple of days, I've been
>>> stucturing all my flames of her in close accordance with the advice
>>> in her own .sig? - I thought the irony was a nice artistic touch -
>>> especially as I was 100% certain that she'd be incapable of seeing
>>> it.
>>
>> So you're writing about what frightens you, Lionel?
>
> ObDodge.
>
> "You can discover what your enemy fears most by observing the means
> he uses to frighten you."
>
> The word frighten is not emphatic in its context thus it implies
> effort not accomplishment.
>
> HTH

The effort seems to be falling short unless he's frightening himself.

>> Because I'm not
>> afraid of you, and I can't imagine why you would be afraid of me.
>
> Drama queen two-step shuffle noted.

You're just one big PKB, Rick.

--
Rhonda Lea Kirk

You can discover what your enemy fears most by
observing the means he uses to frighten you. Eric Hoffer

[Kadaitcha Man]

Rhonda Lea Kirk <rhondalea@gmail.com> Thou cobloaf. You put sharp
weapons in a madman's hands. Ye poured forth:

> "Kadaitcha Man" <nntp.news@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:s6s0q.5ll.17.1@news.alt.net
>> Lionel <usenet@imagenoir.com> Thou insignificant rascal. Thou
>> fly-eating spanish-pouch. Ye divulged:
>>
>>> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:52:31 +0545, "Kadaitcha Man"
>>> <nntp.news@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lionel <usenet@imagenoir.com> Thou halfwit. Thou is open to
>>>> incontinency. Ye irrupted:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:15:04 +0545, "Kadaitcha Man"
>>>>> <nntp.news@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Lionel <usenet@imagenoir.com> Thou piss stain. Why thou art a man
>>>>>> of wax. Ye perorated:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Way to go Rhodenta! - You sure did a great job of demonstrating
>>>>>>> those lofty ethical standards of yours that you've spent so much
>>>>>>> time lecturing us about.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <twirls finger in air>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is difficult to offer agreement without being seen to be doing
>>>>>> a victory dance.
>>>>>
>>>>> The way I see it, disqualifying myself from nominating her for
>>>>> awards or voting for her is a big enough sop to satisfy my
>>>>> oh-so-abysmal ethical standards, so I don't see any reason not to
>>>>> slap "Pretty Vacant" onto the stereo, turn it up to 11, & start
>>>>> pogoing on her empty head.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Nevertheless I agree.
>>>>>
>>>>> As do ~98% of the AUK posters who've expressed an opinion
>>>>> regarding Queen Rhodenta's charming behaviour.
>>>>
>>>> Charming to the point where "Respondant" even spoke out. It all
>>>> adds up to anwful lot of alienation merely to prove charges of
>>>> outright hypocrisy.
>>>>
>>>> I loved this bit:
>>>>
>>>> "Of course, that will require quite a bit of additional disclosure,
>>>> but you're the one who's pushing, and obviously, you've been told
>>>> an incomplete story."
>>>> news:58nq8nF2ghh21U1@mid.individual.net
>>>>
>>>> The obvious implication is that I was feeding you information in
>>>> private.
>>>
>>> Of course. Anyone who emails private dirt around as much as she does
>>> will inevitably assume that everyone else uses the same tactics.
>>
>> I've already had a direct invitation to stoop to her level.
>>
>> "Why don't you post your March 13 email to me..."
>>
>> For the sake of argument only, if it is granted that I am predisposed
>> to using such disgraceful tactics as hers, doing such a thing would
>> only afford her the delusional leverage of being able to impart
>> insanely twisted approval to her own treachery; as if she hasn't been
>> caught doing that often enough already.
>
> That's handy for you, isn't it? <laughing>
>
> The thing is, I<*****SLAP>

Who gives a ****?

--
alt.usenet.kooks
"We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us."
Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129]

Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.
Official Member:
Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660
Usenet Ruiner Lits
Top *******s on the Net Lits
Most hated usenetizens of all time Lits

"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

Wat ben jij een klootzakkende kutloze anuslikker.

[Rhonda Lea Kirk]

"Kadaitcha Man" <nntp.news@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:s6vcf.icj.17.1@news.alt.net
> Rhonda Lea Kirk <rhondalea@gmail.com> Thou cobloaf. You put sharp
> weapons in a madman's hands. Ye poured forth:
>
>> "Kadaitcha Man" <nntp.news@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:s6s0q.5ll.17.1@news.alt.net
>>> Lionel <usenet@imagenoir.com> Thou insignificant rascal. Thou
>>> fly-eating spanish-pouch. Ye divulged:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:52:31 +0545, "Kadaitcha Man"
>>>> <nntp.news@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Lionel <usenet@imagenoir.com> Thou halfwit. Thou is open to
>>>>> incontinency. Ye irrupted:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:15:04 +0545, "Kadaitcha Man"
>>>>>> <nntp.news@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lionel <usenet@imagenoir.com> Thou piss stain. Why thou art a
>>>>>>> man of wax. Ye perorated:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Way to go Rhodenta! - You sure did a great job of demonstrating
>>>>>>>> those lofty ethical standards of yours that you've spent so
>>>>>>>> much time lecturing us about.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <twirls finger in air>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is difficult to offer agreement without being seen to be
>>>>>>> doing a victory dance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The way I see it, disqualifying myself from nominating her for
>>>>>> awards or voting for her is a big enough sop to satisfy my
>>>>>> oh-so-abysmal ethical standards, so I don't see any reason not to
>>>>>> slap "Pretty Vacant" onto the stereo, turn it up to 11, & start
>>>>>> pogoing on her empty head.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nevertheless I agree.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As do ~98% of the AUK posters who've expressed an opinion
>>>>>> regarding Queen Rhodenta's charming behaviour.
>>>>>
>>>>> Charming to the point where "Respondant" even spoke out. It all
>>>>> adds up to anwful lot of alienation merely to prove charges of
>>>>> outright hypocrisy.
>>>>>
>>>>> I loved this bit:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Of course, that will require quite a bit of additional
>>>>> disclosure, but you're the one who's pushing, and obviously,
>>>>> you've been told an incomplete story."
>>>>> news:58nq8nF2ghh21U1@mid.individual.net
>>>>>
>>>>> The obvious implication is that I was feeding you information in
>>>>> private.
>>>>
>>>> Of course. Anyone who emails private dirt around as much as she
>>>> does will inevitably assume that everyone else uses the same
>>>> tactics.
>>>
>>> I've already had a direct invitation to stoop to her level.
>>>
>>> "Why don't you post your March 13 email to me..."
>>>
>>> For the sake of argument only, if it is granted that I am
>>> predisposed to using such disgraceful tactics as hers, doing such a
>>> thing would only afford her the delusional leverage of being able
>>> to impart insanely twisted approval to her own treachery; as if she
>>> hasn't been caught doing that often enough already.
>>
>> That's handy for you, isn't it? <laughing>
>>
>> The thing is, I<*****SLAP>
>
> Who gives a ****?

You, obviously, or I would "still" be in your killfile.

--
Rhonda Lea Kirk

You can discover what your enemy fears most by
observing the means he uses to frighten you. Eric Hoffer