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

["Rhonda Lea Kirk" <spunky@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"Kadaitcha Man" <nntp.news@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:so83k.poj.19.1@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> 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"?

Let me get this straight.

Fourteen days ago, Art commented on something he has commented on
countless times before, and suddenly he's psychic? It's not even like he
predicted a date the event would occur, although he then precipitated it
by asking the question. In other words, he should have been able to
predict it, but didn't.

Even better, if you threw a stick for the dog and it took him fourteen
days to retrieve it, would you call him well-trained?

And "Pssst -- crasston will defend OJ Simpson to his dying breath,"
doesn't even describe what Mike has done. It's more along the lines of
what David Goldberger did, albeit not quite so personally heroic. But I
wouldn't expect you to understand the difference between defending the
system and defending the criminal, anyway.

Frankly, I'd give Art an Allisat for biting so hard before I'd give Mike
a Dogwhistle. But that's just me. I would just have expected him to be
over it by now.

> 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.

I think your argument is, in a word, moronic. Check with a bookie to see
what kind of odds you'd get on Art's "prediction," as stated.

>>> 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?

What does "fuck right off and die" have to do with a discussion of 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?

I haven't withdrawn from anything.

> 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?

The reference was to "fuck off and die."

> "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.

Do you have a point? It's not apparent from the quoted text.

> 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.

Rick, you're so vague as to be incomprehensible.

If you want to say something, stop babbling and say it.

>> 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."

The question has arisen before. I don't remember the answer. At the
time, I thought it was a no, but I really don't recall with certainty.

> 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.

If you call this a win, I suppose so.

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

If that's what you call evidence, it's no wonder you have to resort to
baffling with bullshit to win.

--
Rhonda Lea Kirk

Some are tempted to think of life in cyberspace as insignificant,
as escape or meaningless diversion. It is not. Our experiences there
are serious play. We belittle them at our risk. Sherry Turkle