From news-central.tiac.net!news-in.tiac.net!uunet!in1.uu.net!feed1.news.erols.com!arclight.uoregon.edu!enews.sgi.com!ix.netcom.com!news Sun Dec 1 14:04:22 1996 Path: news-central.tiac.net!news-in.tiac.net!uunet!in1.uu.net!feed1.news.erols.com!arclight.uoregon.edu!enews.sgi.com!ix.netcom.com!news From: wilhelp@ix.netcom.com (Bill Palmer ) Newsgroups: alt.flame,alt.usenet.kooks,alt.fan.karl-malden.nose Subject: SIR, I SUSPECT YOU OF BEING AN INSECT! Date: 27 Nov 1996 07:40:31 GMT Organization: Netcom Lines: 134 Message-ID: <57gr9f$1g4@sjx-ixn9.ix.netcom.com> References: <57buot$bqk@sjx-ixn9.ix.netcom.com> <01bbdaf1$9ac38920$c1ad79a8@davidk> <57d14s$kqh@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com> <01bbdb16$6cbcda20$c1ad79a8@davidk> <57daik$5i8@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com> <01bbdb33$ae079c50$c1ad79a8@davidk> <57ecf4$klf@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com> <01bbdba4$4877c970$c1ad79a8@davidk> <57f601$ph@sjx-ixn9.ix.netcom.com> <01bbdbbf$78333940$c1ad79a8@davidk> <57fmg6$h38@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com> <01bbdbe1$5694fdb0$c1ad79a8@davidk> <57fpim$ioe@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com> <01bbdbe9$49e86310$c1ad79a8@davidk> NNTP-Posting-Host: lax-ca18-13.ix.netcom.com X-NETCOM-Date: Tue Nov 26 11:40:31 PM PST 1996 Xref: news-central.tiac.net alt.flame:75419 alt.usenet.kooks:19011 alt.fan.karl-malden.nose:34555 In <01bbdbe9$49e86310$c1ad79a8@davidk> "David Kendrick" writes: [After reading "Gristy" Kendrick's previous post, I get the strange feeling that he intends to continue with the same pattern that he's followed through several "articles" now. On one level, it may be the simple matter that he can't get far out of his wormhole of obscurity without falling back on the same tired lamestering devices that I have commented on--and that he keeps tritely repeating. He may indeed be another trivial, fourth-rate lamester-- or there may be something more behind his posts. I will get to that last part soon.] [Last time, Kendrick claimed the paragraph of mine he snippped to pieces and irrelevantly commented on was filled with "non-sequiturs" and "poor formulations." Of course, it would easy to just be annoyed and ask if he expected a doctoral dissertation in the approximately 175 word paragraph he blathers about with his sophomoric and pseudo-intellectual critical remarks.] [Neeless to say, Kendrick (ever the quintessence of vague criticism) does not identify the "non sequiturs" and "poor formulations" he found. That is understandable, because if he identified them, he knows he would be leaving the door open to counter-rebuttal.] Counter rebuttal is not what most fourth-rate lamesters like, you, "Gristy," perfer to think about. Though you have no style at all; though you shows no evidence of creative thinking talent--you somehow flatter yourself that someone will listen to your gratuitous and incorrect criticisms. Maybe "somone" will. As for me, I always consider the source, Kendrick, and what the "souce" shows in his own writing. Your pseudo-intellectual "evaluations" merit more comment, Kendrick. In your own posts, you have shown nothing at all by way of logic, rhetoric, or, as I have said, style. Your vague complaint of "non sequitur" strikes me as funny, since you have not shown the slightest ability to develop even the weakest ideational concatenation in your own "writing." You merely snip my tex into small pieces, and then you add fatuous, irrelevant put-downs. Over and over. Further, your dishonest whines about "poor formulations" in my 175 word article prove even more ironic. "Formulations," Gristy says. As though his own posts offered the reader any more than the pale shadow of a ghost of a systematic statement. "Snip and quip; snip and quip." THAT is the "Gristy formulation" for his continual fourth-rate lamestering. Now, Gristy, we can't look at your rhetoric without leading into a larger question--something that touches on an issue far more important. As to the crude rhetoric you have used, perhaps it has not occurred to you that the victim of a massive libel campaign might object to being compared to "Bull Conner." On the other hand, perhaps it DID occur to you, Kendrick. I am merely trying to piece some interesting facts about you together; I make no claim to have answers as to the scope of the libel campaign itself. Unraveling the skein a bit further, I first considered that it was likely that you were in fact trying to ingratiate yourself with the foul group of vindictive misfits starting the libel campaign. Now, I am not saying that is the case, but I have met these, "I want to make sure the odds are fifty to one before I get involved" types, and you seem like one of them in your behavior, so I hope you will forgive my suspicians. Now let's move toward the more important issues. I also note that you seemed to object to my using a scatological reference to designate the initiator of what may be the largest and vilest defamation scheme in Usenet history. Well, gee, Kendrick, I'm sorry that YOU think MY reaction to being targeted by the monstrous ".sig libel" campaign is ungentle. Now, I'm certainly not suggesting that in itself--or even when combined with your "Bull Conner" slur on me-- makes you a pawn or a shill. Your remark may in fact have been the thoughtless comment of someone too shallow and lacking in human understanding to wonder or care what it might be like to be victimized by a vicious libel campaign. Make no mistake about it, Louse-monkey John Hausmann--in a dim, malevolent, and very criminal way--DOES know the Net. Consequently, I'm now in fact wondering if his appalling act of debasement the other day was not a deliberate decision on his part to degrade himself by begging and shitting his pants in the hopes of getting his ".sig libel" rolling through sympathy. Hausmann's revolting performance brings me to another issue concerning YOU, Kendrick: timing. Something does not smell quite right about the way you popped out of your wormhole of obsscurity very close to the time the ".sig libel" was set in motion by Hausmann's disgusting display. A thing or two does not jell there, Gristy. I'm sorry if I sound unduly suspicious in what I must say below. Maybe you just happened to pop up at the wrong time with your cruel and unfair "Bull Conner" allusion. Further, maybe you ALWAYS employ dishonest laming techniques. But being as I am a plain spoken man who just happens to be the target of one of the biggest and most malicious libel campaigns in the history of the Net, I feel I must tell you flat out: SIR, I SUSPECT YOU OF BEING AN INSECT. copyright FLAME GIANT "On Wordscreens of the World"