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

["Kadaitcha Man" <nntp.news@xxxxxxxxx>]

Nelson Muntz <none@xxxxxxxxx> Thou hodgepudding. Thou pirate. Ye
chalked:

> 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.

See how quickly you admit defeat by delving into implicit typo lames? Hmmm?

>>>>> 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?

So, not only are you a racist, you mock peoples' disabilities. Shame on you,
netK0oK.

>>> 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.

Cunts are not distinguishable by race, racist.

>>> - 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.

You will note that you have completely missed the point.

>> 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?

Like I said, you've missed the point, entirely. It isn't surprising that you
need to take a dissertation or argument and stamp it with a kindergaten
rubber saying "REAL!"

>> 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?

Focus that single but blind beady eye of yours that sits forlornly in the
middle of your steeply sloping forhead on this:

"I am certain that you will not understand any of that at all since you are
clearly a sociopath."

It is of no concern to me what you do and do not understand because it is
reasonable to assume that you are not the only person reading what is being
said about you.

HTH

--
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 Assholes 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Straks vind ik je nog een ruikende aërotische papomslag.