Re: EXTRA: Graham teh Kook admits to serious failure (Re: Dammit.. How to get 2 zones and power from a 4-conductor)

[Nelson Muntz <none@xxxxxxxxx>]

Kadaitcha Man wrote:

>Nelson Muntz <none@xxxxxxxxx> Thou decayed dotant. Thou instrument of
>darkness. Ye repeated:
>
>> Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
>>
>>> "Nelson Muntz" <none@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>> news:4o1n23dkq7hi8845qud328qucdnf1c9q15@xxxxxxx
>>>> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You are not even effective as a human being, Graham.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Say's the idiot that can't find a girlfriend on his own continent,
>>>> then horribly screws up when he manages to find someone to
>>>> manipulate (for a few months) 8000 miles away.
>>>
>>> How many times do you need to be told that your issue with Kadaitcha
>>> Man has nothing to do with me?
>>
>> Let me get this right.. His failure to do right by you is off-limits,
>> yes?  So all of his net-trolling and manipulation had nothing to do
>> with you getting involved with him in the first place?
>
>Don't look now but there go all your previous assertions about not using
>Rhonda as an excuse to get to me, netk0oK.
>
>> You didn't even bother to ask WHY we had the problem in the first
>> place.  My sneaky deed was NOT unprovoked - far from it.
>
>Oops! You need to be told that the word sneaky is not a suitable euphemism
>for wire fraud criminal activity.

Oops!  You need to be told that you were bamboozled.


>HTH
>
>>> The fact that you continue to bring me into it certainly gives lie to
>>> your claim of concern for my welfare.
>>
>> If that's what you think, I can't help it.
>
>Don't look now, netK0oK but you seem to be sinking, fast.
>
>> My concern is genuine, but fading fast.
>
>Watch...

heh.

>> I now see why there may be credence in the horrible
>> nickname you received.
>
>Your concern is so genuine and fading so fast that it dissolved into a flame
>in the very next sentence.
>
>BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

That was unimpressive.  Next time I'm not going to watch.

>
>> Why do you think I didn't jump on the offer to
>> get those Tastycakes?  It was because I didn't want to send you my
>> home address.
>
>BWAHAHAHAHA! Your hindisgh is so perfect you must have eyes in your
>arsehole.

My 'hindisgh' is 20/20.

>
>>>> Yeah- tell me more about how effective you are, Ricky.
>>>
>>> He's got major IQ points on you, and he's neither a fucking racist
>>> nor a net abuser.
>>
>> He's a fucking lunatic, and the worst net-abuser I've ever witnessed.
>
>Really?
>

Did I stu-t-t-t-t-e-r?

>> I'm not racist either
>
>BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Calling Mexicans "wetbacks", their sick children
>"Pedro's kids", and calling black-skinned women "nappy-headed-ho's" is not
>racist?

No, it's making a point - like when you call others "cunts".  Done for
effect.


>> - my prediction in the rant was true after all,
>> wasn't it?   Take off those rose-colored glasses.
>>
>>> That puts him well ahead of you from the starting gate.
>>
>> Uh-huh..  You two deserve each other.
>
>Well, no, that's not true. Firstly, and far less importantly, my defence of
>myself does not require any measure of deserving on anyone else's part; none
>whatsoever. The evidence for the inherent truth in that statement is seen in
>the fact that I'm now beating you up for your statement there.
>

There is no need to defend yourself, unless you have a guilty
conscience or feel like you made a mistake of some sort.

>If I felt any third party whom you are attacking were deserving in any way
>whatsoever then I'd just sit back and let you go for it, and I wouldn't bat
>an eyelid; indeed perhaps I'd be right behind you, slurping at you by
>thanking you for your understanding, encouragement and support. Perhaps you
>haven't noticed that I'm not doing that.

Which 3rd party are we talking about?
>
>Secondly, and vitally, some, far too many, adults have had horrible crimes
>perpetrated upon them in their childhood at the hands of grossly sick mental
>freaks of nature. Since the child becomes the adult, whatever happened to
>the child is, in one way or another, part and parcel of the package that is
>the adult, no matter how well the adult deals with any supposed awful
>childhood incident. Your fuckwitted netk0oK statement then necessarily
>entails that your targets are also deserving of every disgraceful thing that
>may have been meted out to them as children.
>
>I am certain that you will not understand any of that at all since you are
>clearly a sociopath. I am also certain that you will not ever comprehend the
>notion that you have tacitly put your tawdry seal of approval on child rape,
>child bashing, child prostitution, child slave labour, and any and all other
>subhuman acts of exploitation and abuse perpetrated on children the world
>over who are fortunate to live long enough to become adults.
>
>Only a complete and utterly fucked in the head psychopath and sociopath,
>that would be you, would require that any adult deserved the hideous
>treatment they may have received but neither asked for nor deserved as a
>child.
>
>You are one utterly sick fuck, Graham teh k0oK. I am going to tear your
>fucked up psyche apart and piss into your empty cranium; and I make that as
>a solemn promise to you.
>
>You can make your impending netDE4th less painful for yourself by shutting
>the fuck right up about other people and leaving anything to do with them
>right out of your argument with me.

What the hell are you talking about, whackjob?