Re: NOMINATION: Barbara Woodhouse Memorial "Dog Whistle" (Re: NOT GUILTY Re: Ping Lionel (was Re: NOMINATION: Michael Cranston for Bobo Award))

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

Rhonda Lea Kirk <spunky@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Thou flap-mouthed
purpose-changer. Thou grotesque equivocator. Ye bemoaned:

> "Kadaitcha Man" <nntp.news@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:so2ku.2k8.19.1@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Rhonda Lea Kirk <spunky@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Thou island carrion. Thou hath
>> more hair than wit, and more faults than hairs, and more wealth than
>> faults. Ye announced:
>>
>>> "Kadaitcha Man" <nntp.news@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>> news:so23f.ku.19.1@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> miguel <mjc101@xxxxxxxxx> Thou dumb innocent. Thou gnawing animal.
>>>> Ye muddled:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 15:32:53 -0600, Art Deco <erfc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Rhonda Lea Kirk <spunky@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Art Deco" <erfc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:260420071440500821%erfc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Was that supposed to be an insult?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you play chess?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Did OJ Simpson slash his wife?
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you believe in America?
>>>>> Do you believe in Justice?
>>>>> Do you believe in the Constitution of the United States?
>>>>> Do you believe in the RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY?
>>>>>
>>>>> I do.
>>>>>
>>>>> The jury said it.
>>>>> I believe it.
>>>>> That settles it.
>>>>>
>>>>> NOT GUILTY.
>>>>>
>>>>> When the late great Johnny Cochrane told Judge Lance Ito Burrito
>>>>> that OJ Simpson was "absolutely, 100% NOT GUILTY," did the stupid
>>>>> prosecutors listen? No, they didn't. They persecuted a 100% NOT
>>>>> GUILTY man and kept him from hunting for the real killers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now the trail has gone cold.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, Deco, you must believe in prosecuting the 100% NOT GUILTY
>>>>> because you're some kind of idiot, huh?
>>>>
>>>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Very nice trigger. lmao - brilliant - Art asks a
>>>> 6 word question and the frothing loon froths on command, as
>>>> implicitly foretold with the recent words "Are you going to rant
>>>> about OJ Simpson next", and as stated directly 14 days ago, by Art
>>>> himself, 'Pssst -- crasston will defend OJ Simpson to his dying
>>>> breath."
>>>>
>>>> For this worthy on cue frothing the likes of which I've only ever
>>>> seen Pamela K Russell perform over Michael Jackson, I hereby
>>>> nominate Michael "miguel" Cranston for the Barbara Woodhouse
>>>> Memorial "Dog Whistle" k0oK Award, trained and owned by Art Deco.
>>>>
>>>> Barbara Woodhouse Memorial "Dog Whistle" Award
>>>> Named in honour of the skilful dog-trainer who became a British TV
>>>> personality in the 1980s, this award is given jointly to the best
>>>> trained net.kook in any given month and to his or her trainer.
>>>> Possible examples of good training include obedience to one's
>>>> owner's commands to reply to posts, and devotion in following one's
>>>> owner around from group to group and through the Google archive.
>>>> House-training, which, regrettably, is a rare accomplishment for a
>>>> kook, isn't a prerequisite. Woof.
>>>>
>>>> Do I hear seconds?
>>>
>>> For a cut and paste from an old troll?
>>
>> stupid
>
> Stupid?

That seems to be what the word actually is, yes. Having trouble reading?

> Art's made several requests today; I would guess it seemed only polite
> to comply:

Whereas I assert it was stupid to comply by frothing on demand, copy/paste
or not.

> Message-ID: <260420071104583690%erfc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Message-ID: <260420071441373640%erfc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Message-ID: <260420071532538178%erfc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>> Cut 'n paste or
>> no, Deco said crasstoad would do it, and crasstoad did do it.
>
> No. He asked me once and he asked Mike twice.

What in particular did you not understand about the statement, "Deco said
crasstoad would do it"? Should it be inferred that you did not read the
explicitly quoted text? Or are you engaging in your ususual non-game of
argument by outright avoidance? Hmmm?

My money is on the latter.

>> Anyway,
>> you have no say in the matter so fuck right off and die.
>
> Shoulda thought of that on the 23rd. ;)

What does that have to do with a discussion about the nomination?

Should the reader suppose that they may have cause to infer that you might
be wishing to make reference to things that have been explicity withdrawn
from? And should the reader then infer other things logically flowing on
from that? Or is it that, since you say it should have been thought of
beforehand, then one might be paranoid if the reference may only refer to
nothing other than a previous BWMDW nomination someone made on that very
date being knocked down by the FNVW because of an existing owner?

"Now you've brought it into this thread, but I saw no post from HJ that
mentioned..."

"He's not the one who introduce...into the threads in which I
was posting."

Et al.

If you decide to respond to that and address it directly (miracles have been
known to happen) rather than weaseling your way around the point as you do,
take careful note of the keywords and key phrases: Should; suppose; might;
"the reader", wishing, "one", may, "Or is it that" etc.

> The real question, I suppose is whether Mike can be trained by both
> Bookman and Deco:
>
> http://www.caballista.org/auk/kookle.php?search=cranston
>
> I don't know the answer.

Anyone who claims auk as their home group would reasonably be expected to
know that the FNVW decides those questions, thus the answer to the question
is "The FNVW will decide." Besides, even supposing, for the sake of argument
only, that the FNVW does knock the ownership nom down on the grounds that
Bookman is crasstoad's owner, what may otherwise have been lost in the
general chatter of the newsgroups may now have taken on a slightly higher
profile than it had before. The underlying principle then is, it's the
thought that counts. Win-win; for me. Lose-lose for crasstoad.

Need evidence for any validity at all in that latter win-win/lose-lose
point? It's here: news:59ctamF2jh46hU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

--
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

Jij bent een platgereden op bart kaëll geilende schijndode.