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

[miguel <mjc101@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 06:55:26 +0545, "Kadaitcha Man"
<nntp.news@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>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

I give you Rick Mather, uberkook