Re: Jeepers LW, what's leaking from your pants?
 

Cassandra Incognito <a@b.invalid> wrote in
news:V6Gzi.989$L_7.624@newsfe16.phx:

> Flying ---- wrote:
>> Cassandra Incognito wrote:
>>
>>> L.W. (Bill) ------ III wrote:
>>>> I'm just really curious as to who you think will believe you
>>>> over any
>>>> man responsible enough to list his name and address here and in
>>>> every place I know of?????
>>> You're really stupid, given that I've already pointed that out.
>>> You, as I keep reminding you, haven't produced a single person who
>>> believes you.
>>>
>>>> All you can do is lie,
>>> Name one lie I've told, coward.
>>
>> it's often hard to prove or disprove a lie on usenet. you could be
>> lying about your name, for instance. nobody could really prove that
>> your last name is "incognito", but they could just assume that you
>> pulled it out of your ass, perhaps like anything you might say.
>> either way, when you make yourself semi-anonymous for no real good
>> reason, nobody besides your "in the know" net.friends are going to
>> have a reference point to judge your honesty.
>
> He made the assertion that I lied; he must provide his evidence so
> that it can be judged. He has not done so, and thus his assertion
> deserves all the derison it has drawn. Posting using what is very
> obviously a pseudonym is not any form of lying, as you should well
> know.

Keep going, Moppy loves any attention. Just throw it a few scraps and
watch it dance for weeks.

>>>> as most everything you have said
>>>> contradicts it's self.
>>> Point out one contradiction in anything I've said, coward.
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>
>> well, there was that time you denied being acquainted with cujo
>> around the same time you were seen saying that you were able to
>> respond to cujo's databasix posts *specifically* just fine. usually
>> "acquainted" means that you know someone's name and that's about it.
>> sure seemed like you knew cujo's name just fine.
>
> Being familar with someone's Usenet postings doesn't make them your
> acquaintance in RL, which perhaps I should have specified; that's my
> fault for not making that clear, since I inferred you were positing a
> more-than-Usnet familiarity between us.

Moppy was indeed doing so, that was the signature Roberta Backpedal(tm)
you just saw.

> And what makes you think I know Cujo's name? He's using a pretty
> obvious pseudonym. Does people posting with pseudonyms bother you for
> some reason?

Moppy is still pissed (insert whatever gender Roberta think it should be
today) for getting smacked around by Supernews for morphing a few years
back.

>> i thought it was rather contradictory. how about you?
>>
>
> I think Cujo was right when he wrote that you hate to be ignored.

Moppy has been doing this same tired act ever since he/she/it got the
---- beat out of he/she/it by the alt.alien.* crew 5 years ago. If you
want to watch Roberta go apeshit wait until Mike Davis smacks him around.
It usually happens these days when Floor Buffer wins another Usenet Kook
Award.

Jade did a nice job of slapping the freak around some time back. Moppy
even stopped following me around for a while.

--
Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls
in dfw.*, alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych.
COOSN-266-06-01895 - Supreme Holy Overlord of alt.----nozzles
Winner of the 8/2000 & 2/2003 HL&S award & July 2005 Hammer of Thor.
Winning Trainer - Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle - Dec. 2005
"You have no clue how stupid you sound, do you?" - Edmo in an echo
chamber.

Re: Jeepers LW, what's leaking from your pants?
 

Cassandra Incognito wrote:

> Flying ---- wrote:
>> Cassandra Incognito wrote:
>>
>>> L.W. (Bill) ------ III wrote:
>>>> I'm just really curious as to who you think will believe you over
>>>> any
>>>> man responsible enough to list his name and address here and in every
>>>> place I know of?????
>>> You're really stupid, given that I've already pointed that out. You, as
>>> I keep reminding you, haven't produced a single person who believes you.
>>>
>>>> All you can do is lie,
>>> Name one lie I've told, coward.
>>
>> it's often hard to prove or disprove a lie on usenet. you could be lying
>> about your name, for instance. nobody could really prove that your last
>> name is "incognito", but they could just assume that you pulled it out of
>> your ass, perhaps like anything you might say. either way, when you make
>> yourself semi-anonymous for no real good reason, nobody besides your "in
>> the know" net.friends are going to have a reference point to judge your
>> honesty.
>
> He made the assertion that I lied; he must provide his evidence so that
> it can be judged.

no he doesn't. he is quite able to just assume you are a liar.

no proof needed.

> He has not done so, and thus his assertion deserves
> all the derison it has drawn. Posting using what is very obviously a
> pseudonym is not any form of lying, as you should well know.

nobody said that using a pseudonym equated to lying. using a pseudonym to
post semi-anonymous taunts and rambling prose about this "bill" fellow is
what makes a lot of people judge you to be a cowardly dumbass. in a lot of
people's experiences cowardly dumbasses tend to lie a lot to protect their
own asses.

>
>>>> as most everything you have said
>>>> contradicts it's self.
>>> Point out one contradiction in anything I've said, coward.
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>
>> well, there was that time you denied being acquainted with cujo around
>> the same time you were seen saying that you were able to respond to
>> cujo's
>> databasix posts *specifically* just fine. usually "acquainted" means
>> that
>> you know someone's name and that's about it. sure seemed like you knew
>> cujo's name just fine.
>
> Being familar with someone's Usenet postings doesn't make them your
> acquaintance in RL,

and yet nobody said "acquaintence in RL".

are you acquainted with the works of shakespeare?

yes? OMGZ!!! you know shaekspaere in realz life!!!11!!

nice broken logic, genius.

> which perhaps I should have specified; that's my
> fault for not making that clear, since I inferred you were positing a
> more-than-Usnet familiarity between us.

hmm... have you considered you might infer lots of stuff that's wrong all of
the time.

> And what makes you think I know Cujo's name?

oh idunno, perhaps your admission of knowing who i spoke of when i said
"cujo"? surely you didn't respond: "i haven't seen that movie".

> He's using a pretty
> obvious pseudonym. Does people posting with pseudonyms bother you for
> some reason?

nope. i just assume that they are cowardly little losers. they don't
"bother" me at all.

>
>> i thought it was rather contradictory. how about you?
>>
>
> I think Cujo was right when he wrote that you hate to be ignored.

i think that cujo doesn't know me and never will. cujo reads too deeply
into usenet writings, as do a lot of other cretins.

--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3OZTcNACSY
.-------.
.'.-'''''-.'._
//` `\\\
;; ;;'.__.===== ==========,
|| . <- || __ )
;: your ;;.' '======= ========'
\\ penus ///
':...___...:'~
`'-----'`

"The fact that you're being increasing annoying..." - QuackfArt

Re: Jeepers LW, what's leaking from your pants?
 

Cassandra Incognito wrote:

> Flying ---- wrote:
>> Cassandra Incognito wrote:
>>
>>> L.W. (Bill) ------ III wrote:
>>>> I'm just really curious as to who you think will believe you over
>>>> any
>>>> man responsible enough to list his name and address here and in every
>>>> place I know of?????
>>> You're really stupid, given that I've already pointed that out. You, as
>>> I keep reminding you, haven't produced a single person who believes you.
>>>
>>>> All you can do is lie,
>>> Name one lie I've told, coward.
>>
>> it's often hard to prove or disprove a lie on usenet. you could be lying
>> about your name, for instance. nobody could really prove that your last
>> name is "incognito", but they could just assume that you pulled it out of
>> your ass, perhaps like anything you might say. either way, when you make
>> yourself semi-anonymous for no real good reason, nobody besides your "in
>> the know" net.friends are going to have a reference point to judge your
>> honesty.
>
> He made the assertion that I lied; he must provide his evidence so that
> it can be judged.

no he doesn't. he is quite able to just assume you are a liar.

no proof needed.

> He has not done so, and thus his assertion deserves
> all the derison it has drawn. Posting using what is very obviously a
> pseudonym is not any form of lying, as you should well know.

nobody said that using a pseudonym equated to lying. using a pseudonym to
post semi-anonymous taunts and rambling prose about this "bill" fellow is
what makes a lot of people judge you to be a cowardly dumbass. in a lot of
people's experiences cowardly dumbasses tend to lie a lot to protect their
own asses.

>
>>>> as most everything you have said
>>>> contradicts it's self.
>>> Point out one contradiction in anything I've said, coward.
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>
>> well, there was that time you denied being acquainted with cujo around
>> the same time you were seen saying that you were able to respond to
>> cujo's
>> databasix posts *specifically* just fine. usually "acquainted" means
>> that
>> you know someone's name and that's about it. sure seemed like you knew
>> cujo's name just fine.
>
> Being familar with someone's Usenet postings doesn't make them your
> acquaintance in RL,

and yet nobody said "acquaintence in RL".

are you acquainted with the works of shakespeare?

yes? OMGZ!!! you know shaekspaere in realz life!!!11!!

nice broken logic, genius.

> which perhaps I should have specified; that's my
> fault for not making that clear, since I inferred you were positing a
> more-than-Usnet familiarity between us.

hmm... have you considered you might infer lots of stuff that's wrong all of
the time.

> And what makes you think I know Cujo's name?

oh idunno, perhaps your admission of knowing who i spoke of when i said
"cujo"? surely you didn't respond: "i haven't seen that movie".

> He's using a pretty
> obvious pseudonym. Does people posting with pseudonyms bother you for
> some reason?

nope. i just assume that they are cowardly little losers. they don't
"bother" me at all.

>
>> i thought it was rather contradictory. how about you?
>>
>
> I think Cujo was right when he wrote that you hate to be ignored.

i think that cujo doesn't know me and never will. cujo reads too deeply
into usenet writings, as do a lot of other cretins.

--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3OZTcNACSY
.-------.
.'.-'''''-.'._
//` `\\\
;; ;;'.__.===== ==========,
|| . <- || __ )
;: your ;;.' '======= ========'
\\ penus ///
':...___...:'~
`'-----'`

"The fact that you're being increasing annoying..." - QuackfArt

Re: Jeepers LW, what's leaking from your pants?
 

Cassandra Incognito wrote:

> Flying ---- wrote:
>> Cassandra Incognito wrote:
>>
>>> L.W. (Bill) ------ III wrote:
>>>> I'm just really curious as to who you think will believe you over
>>>> any
>>>> man responsible enough to list his name and address here and in every
>>>> place I know of?????
>>> You're really stupid, given that I've already pointed that out. You, as
>>> I keep reminding you, haven't produced a single person who believes you.
>>>
>>>> All you can do is lie,
>>> Name one lie I've told, coward.
>>
>> it's often hard to prove or disprove a lie on usenet. you could be lying
>> about your name, for instance. nobody could really prove that your last
>> name is "incognito", but they could just assume that you pulled it out of
>> your ass, perhaps like anything you might say. either way, when you make
>> yourself semi-anonymous for no real good reason, nobody besides your "in
>> the know" net.friends are going to have a reference point to judge your
>> honesty.
>
> He made the assertion that I lied; he must provide his evidence so that
> it can be judged.

no he doesn't. he is quite able to just assume you are a liar.

no proof needed.

> He has not done so, and thus his assertion deserves
> all the derison it has drawn. Posting using what is very obviously a
> pseudonym is not any form of lying, as you should well know.

nobody said that using a pseudonym equated to lying. using a pseudonym to
post semi-anonymous taunts and rambling prose about this "bill" fellow is
what makes a lot of people judge you to be a cowardly dumbass. in a lot of
people's experiences cowardly dumbasses tend to lie a lot to protect their
own asses.

>
>>>> as most everything you have said
>>>> contradicts it's self.
>>> Point out one contradiction in anything I've said, coward.
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>
>> well, there was that time you denied being acquainted with cujo around
>> the same time you were seen saying that you were able to respond to
>> cujo's
>> databasix posts *specifically* just fine. usually "acquainted" means
>> that
>> you know someone's name and that's about it. sure seemed like you knew
>> cujo's name just fine.
>
> Being familar with someone's Usenet postings doesn't make them your
> acquaintance in RL,

and yet nobody said "acquaintence in RL".

are you acquainted with the works of shakespeare?

yes? OMGZ!!! you know shaekspaere in realz life!!!11!!

nice broken logic, genius.

> which perhaps I should have specified; that's my
> fault for not making that clear, since I inferred you were positing a
> more-than-Usnet familiarity between us.

hmm... have you considered you might infer lots of stuff that's wrong all of
the time.

> And what makes you think I know Cujo's name?

oh idunno, perhaps your admission of knowing who i spoke of when i said
"cujo"? surely you didn't respond: "i haven't seen that movie".

> He's using a pretty
> obvious pseudonym. Does people posting with pseudonyms bother you for
> some reason?

nope. i just assume that they are cowardly little losers. they don't
"bother" me at all.

>
>> i thought it was rather contradictory. how about you?
>>
>
> I think Cujo was right when he wrote that you hate to be ignored.

i think that cujo doesn't know me and never will. cujo reads too deeply
into usenet writings, as do a lot of other cretins.

--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3OZTcNACSY
.-------.
.'.-'''''-.'._
//` `\\\
;; ;;'.__.===== ==========,
|| . <- || __ )
;: your ;;.' '======= ========'
\\ penus ///
':...___...:'~
`'-----'`

"The fact that you're being increasing annoying..." - QuackfArt

Re: Jeepers LW, what's leaking from your pants?
 

Cassandra Incognito wrote:

> Flying ---- wrote:
>> Cassandra Incognito wrote:
>>
>>> L.W. (Bill) ------ III wrote:
>>>> I'm just really curious as to who you think will believe you over
>>>> any
>>>> man responsible enough to list his name and address here and in every
>>>> place I know of?????
>>> You're really stupid, given that I've already pointed that out. You, as
>>> I keep reminding you, haven't produced a single person who believes you.
>>>
>>>> All you can do is lie,
>>> Name one lie I've told, coward.
>>
>> it's often hard to prove or disprove a lie on usenet. you could be lying
>> about your name, for instance. nobody could really prove that your last
>> name is "incognito", but they could just assume that you pulled it out of
>> your ass, perhaps like anything you might say. either way, when you make
>> yourself semi-anonymous for no real good reason, nobody besides your "in
>> the know" net.friends are going to have a reference point to judge your
>> honesty.
>
> He made the assertion that I lied; he must provide his evidence so that
> it can be judged.

no he doesn't. he is quite able to just assume you are a liar.

no proof needed.

> He has not done so, and thus his assertion deserves
> all the derison it has drawn. Posting using what is very obviously a
> pseudonym is not any form of lying, as you should well know.

nobody said that using a pseudonym equated to lying. using a pseudonym to
post semi-anonymous taunts and rambling prose about this "bill" fellow is
what makes a lot of people judge you to be a cowardly dumbass. in a lot of
people's experiences cowardly dumbasses tend to lie a lot to protect their
own asses.

>
>>>> as most everything you have said
>>>> contradicts it's self.
>>> Point out one contradiction in anything I've said, coward.
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>
>> well, there was that time you denied being acquainted with cujo around
>> the same time you were seen saying that you were able to respond to
>> cujo's
>> databasix posts *specifically* just fine. usually "acquainted" means
>> that
>> you know someone's name and that's about it. sure seemed like you knew
>> cujo's name just fine.
>
> Being familar with someone's Usenet postings doesn't make them your
> acquaintance in RL,

and yet nobody said "acquaintence in RL".

are you acquainted with the works of shakespeare?

yes? OMGZ!!! you know shaekspaere in realz life!!!11!!

nice broken logic, genius.

> which perhaps I should have specified; that's my
> fault for not making that clear, since I inferred you were positing a
> more-than-Usnet familiarity between us.

hmm... have you considered you might infer lots of stuff that's wrong all of
the time.

> And what makes you think I know Cujo's name?

oh idunno, perhaps your admission of knowing who i spoke of when i said
"cujo"? surely you didn't respond: "i haven't seen that movie".

> He's using a pretty
> obvious pseudonym. Does people posting with pseudonyms bother you for
> some reason?

nope. i just assume that they are cowardly little losers. they don't
"bother" me at all.

>
>> i thought it was rather contradictory. how about you?
>>
>
> I think Cujo was right when he wrote that you hate to be ignored.

i think that cujo doesn't know me and never will. cujo reads too deeply
into usenet writings, as do a lot of other cretins.

--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3OZTcNACSY
.-------.
.'.-'''''-.'._
//` `\\\
;; ;;'.__.===== ==========,
|| . <- || __ )
;: your ;;.' '======= ========'
\\ penus ///
':...___...:'~
`'-----'`

"The fact that you're being increasing annoying..." - QuackfArt

Re: Jeepers LW, what's leaking from your pants?
 

Cujo DeSockpuppet wrote:

> Cassandra Incognito <a@b.invalid> wrote in
> news:V6Gzi.989$L_7.624@newsfe16.phx:
>
>> Flying ---- wrote:
>>> Cassandra Incognito wrote:
>>>
>>>> L.W. (Bill) ------ III wrote:
>>>>> I'm just really curious as to who you think will believe you
>>>>> over any
>>>>> man responsible enough to list his name and address here and in
>>>>> every place I know of?????
>>>> You're really stupid, given that I've already pointed that out.
>>>> You, as I keep reminding you, haven't produced a single person who
>>>> believes you.
>>>>
>>>>> All you can do is lie,
>>>> Name one lie I've told, coward.
>>>
>>> it's often hard to prove or disprove a lie on usenet. you could be
>>> lying about your name, for instance. nobody could really prove that
>>> your last name is "incognito", but they could just assume that you
>>> pulled it out of your ass, perhaps like anything you might say.
>>> either way, when you make yourself semi-anonymous for no real good
>>> reason, nobody besides your "in the know" net.friends are going to
>>> have a reference point to judge your honesty.
>>
>> He made the assertion that I lied; he must provide his evidence so
>> that it can be judged. He has not done so, and thus his assertion
>> deserves all the derison it has drawn. Posting using what is very
>> obviously a pseudonym is not any form of lying, as you should well
>> know.
>
> Keep going, Moppy loves any attention. Just throw it a few scraps and
> watch it dance for weeks.
>
>>>>> as most everything you have said
>>>>> contradicts it's self.
>>>> Point out one contradiction in anything I've said, coward.
>>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> well, there was that time you denied being acquainted with cujo
>>> around the same time you were seen saying that you were able to
>>> respond to cujo's databasix posts *specifically* just fine. usually
>>> "acquainted" means that you know someone's name and that's about it.
>>> sure seemed like you knew cujo's name just fine.
>>
>> Being familar with someone's Usenet postings doesn't make them your
>> acquaintance in RL, which perhaps I should have specified; that's my
>> fault for not making that clear, since I inferred you were positing a
>> more-than-Usnet familiarity between us.
>
> Moppy was indeed doing so, that was the signature Roberta Backpedal(tm)
> you just saw.
>
>> And what makes you think I know Cujo's name? He's using a pretty
>> obvious pseudonym. Does people posting with pseudonyms bother you for
>> some reason?
>
> Moppy is still pissed (insert whatever gender Roberta think it should be
> today) for getting smacked around by Supernews for morphing a few years
> back.

ROFL

"smacked around"??

would that be the time you were accusing me of "avoiding killfiles"?

look at all the good that did. still on supernews, still changing my email
addy whenever the hell i feel like it.

better go run and tell on me, wuss. :]

>
>>> i thought it was rather contradictory. how about you?
>>>
>>
>> I think Cujo was right when he wrote that you hate to be ignored.
>
> Moppy has been doing this same tired act ever since he/she/it got the
> ---- beat out of he/she/it by the alt.alien.* crew 5 years ago.

so netkkkopping and harassment is the same as "kicking the ---- out of
someone"?

http://netkooks.org/netkkkops

you are a real riot, cujo. keep up the good posting. i hope you win that
boxing match with that dead dude.

> If you
> want to watch Roberta go apeshit wait until Mike Davis smacks him around.
> It usually happens these days when Floor Buffer wins another Usenet Kook
> Award.
>
> Jade did a nice job of slapping the freak around some time back. Moppy
> even stopped following me around for a while.
>

--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3OZTcNACSY
.-------.
.'.-'''''-.'._
//` `\\\
;; ;;'.__.===== ==========,
|| . <- || __ )
;: your ;;.' '======= ========'
\\ penus ///
':...___...:'~
`'-----'`

"The fact that you're being increasing annoying..." - QuackfArt

Re: Jeepers LW, what's leaking from your pants?
 

Cujo DeSockpuppet wrote:

> Cassandra Incognito <a@b.invalid> wrote in
> news:V6Gzi.989$L_7.624@newsfe16.phx:
>
>> Flying ---- wrote:
>>> Cassandra Incognito wrote:
>>>
>>>> L.W. (Bill) ------ III wrote:
>>>>> I'm just really curious as to who you think will believe you
>>>>> over any
>>>>> man responsible enough to list his name and address here and in
>>>>> every place I know of?????
>>>> You're really stupid, given that I've already pointed that out.
>>>> You, as I keep reminding you, haven't produced a single person who
>>>> believes you.
>>>>
>>>>> All you can do is lie,
>>>> Name one lie I've told, coward.
>>>
>>> it's often hard to prove or disprove a lie on usenet. you could be
>>> lying about your name, for instance. nobody could really prove that
>>> your last name is "incognito", but they could just assume that you
>>> pulled it out of your ass, perhaps like anything you might say.
>>> either way, when you make yourself semi-anonymous for no real good
>>> reason, nobody besides your "in the know" net.friends are going to
>>> have a reference point to judge your honesty.
>>
>> He made the assertion that I lied; he must provide his evidence so
>> that it can be judged. He has not done so, and thus his assertion
>> deserves all the derison it has drawn. Posting using what is very
>> obviously a pseudonym is not any form of lying, as you should well
>> know.
>
> Keep going, Moppy loves any attention. Just throw it a few scraps and
> watch it dance for weeks.
>
>>>>> as most everything you have said
>>>>> contradicts it's self.
>>>> Point out one contradiction in anything I've said, coward.
>>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> well, there was that time you denied being acquainted with cujo
>>> around the same time you were seen saying that you were able to
>>> respond to cujo's databasix posts *specifically* just fine. usually
>>> "acquainted" means that you know someone's name and that's about it.
>>> sure seemed like you knew cujo's name just fine.
>>
>> Being familar with someone's Usenet postings doesn't make them your
>> acquaintance in RL, which perhaps I should have specified; that's my
>> fault for not making that clear, since I inferred you were positing a
>> more-than-Usnet familiarity between us.
>
> Moppy was indeed doing so, that was the signature Roberta Backpedal(tm)
> you just saw.
>
>> And what makes you think I know Cujo's name? He's using a pretty
>> obvious pseudonym. Does people posting with pseudonyms bother you for
>> some reason?
>
> Moppy is still pissed (insert whatever gender Roberta think it should be
> today) for getting smacked around by Supernews for morphing a few years
> back.

ROFL

"smacked around"??

would that be the time you were accusing me of "avoiding killfiles"?

look at all the good that did. still on supernews, still changing my email
addy whenever the hell i feel like it.

better go run and tell on me, wuss. :]

>
>>> i thought it was rather contradictory. how about you?
>>>
>>
>> I think Cujo was right when he wrote that you hate to be ignored.
>
> Moppy has been doing this same tired act ever since he/she/it got the
> ---- beat out of he/she/it by the alt.alien.* crew 5 years ago.

so netkkkopping and harassment is the same as "kicking the ---- out of
someone"?

http://netkooks.org/netkkkops

you are a real riot, cujo. keep up the good posting. i hope you win that
boxing match with that dead dude.

> If you
> want to watch Roberta go apeshit wait until Mike Davis smacks him around.
> It usually happens these days when Floor Buffer wins another Usenet Kook
> Award.
>
> Jade did a nice job of slapping the freak around some time back. Moppy
> even stopped following me around for a while.
>

--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3OZTcNACSY
.-------.
.'.-'''''-.'._
//` `\\\
;; ;;'.__.===== ==========,
|| . <- || __ )
;: your ;;.' '======= ========'
\\ penus ///
':...___...:'~
`'-----'`

"The fact that you're being increasing annoying..." - QuackfArt

Re: Jeepers LW, what's leaking from your pants?
 

Cujo DeSockpuppet wrote:

> Cassandra Incognito <a@b.invalid> wrote in
> news:V6Gzi.989$L_7.624@newsfe16.phx:
>
>> Flying ---- wrote:
>>> Cassandra Incognito wrote:
>>>
>>>> L.W. (Bill) ------ III wrote:
>>>>> I'm just really curious as to who you think will believe you
>>>>> over any
>>>>> man responsible enough to list his name and address here and in
>>>>> every place I know of?????
>>>> You're really stupid, given that I've already pointed that out.
>>>> You, as I keep reminding you, haven't produced a single person who
>>>> believes you.
>>>>
>>>>> All you can do is lie,
>>>> Name one lie I've told, coward.
>>>
>>> it's often hard to prove or disprove a lie on usenet. you could be
>>> lying about your name, for instance. nobody could really prove that
>>> your last name is "incognito", but they could just assume that you
>>> pulled it out of your ass, perhaps like anything you might say.
>>> either way, when you make yourself semi-anonymous for no real good
>>> reason, nobody besides your "in the know" net.friends are going to
>>> have a reference point to judge your honesty.
>>
>> He made the assertion that I lied; he must provide his evidence so
>> that it can be judged. He has not done so, and thus his assertion
>> deserves all the derison it has drawn. Posting using what is very
>> obviously a pseudonym is not any form of lying, as you should well
>> know.
>
> Keep going, Moppy loves any attention. Just throw it a few scraps and
> watch it dance for weeks.
>
>>>>> as most everything you have said
>>>>> contradicts it's self.
>>>> Point out one contradiction in anything I've said, coward.
>>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> well, there was that time you denied being acquainted with cujo
>>> around the same time you were seen saying that you were able to
>>> respond to cujo's databasix posts *specifically* just fine. usually
>>> "acquainted" means that you know someone's name and that's about it.
>>> sure seemed like you knew cujo's name just fine.
>>
>> Being familar with someone's Usenet postings doesn't make them your
>> acquaintance in RL, which perhaps I should have specified; that's my
>> fault for not making that clear, since I inferred you were positing a
>> more-than-Usnet familiarity between us.
>
> Moppy was indeed doing so, that was the signature Roberta Backpedal(tm)
> you just saw.
>
>> And what makes you think I know Cujo's name? He's using a pretty
>> obvious pseudonym. Does people posting with pseudonyms bother you for
>> some reason?
>
> Moppy is still pissed (insert whatever gender Roberta think it should be
> today) for getting smacked around by Supernews for morphing a few years
> back.

ROFL

"smacked around"??

would that be the time you were accusing me of "avoiding killfiles"?

look at all the good that did. still on supernews, still changing my email
addy whenever the hell i feel like it.

better go run and tell on me, wuss. :]

>
>>> i thought it was rather contradictory. how about you?
>>>
>>
>> I think Cujo was right when he wrote that you hate to be ignored.
>
> Moppy has been doing this same tired act ever since he/she/it got the
> ---- beat out of he/she/it by the alt.alien.* crew 5 years ago.

so netkkkopping and harassment is the same as "kicking the ---- out of
someone"?

http://netkooks.org/netkkkops

you are a real riot, cujo. keep up the good posting. i hope you win that
boxing match with that dead dude.

> If you
> want to watch Roberta go apeshit wait until Mike Davis smacks him around.
> It usually happens these days when Floor Buffer wins another Usenet Kook
> Award.
>
> Jade did a nice job of slapping the freak around some time back. Moppy
> even stopped following me around for a while.
>

--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3OZTcNACSY
.-------.
.'.-'''''-.'._
//` `\\\
;; ;;'.__.===== ==========,
|| . <- || __ )
;: your ;;.' '======= ========'
\\ penus ///
':...___...:'~
`'-----'`

"The fact that you're being increasing annoying..." - QuackfArt

Re: Jeepers LW, what's leaking from your pants?
 

Cujo DeSockpuppet wrote:

> Cassandra Incognito <a@b.invalid> wrote in
> news:V6Gzi.989$L_7.624@newsfe16.phx:
>
>> Flying ---- wrote:
>>> Cassandra Incognito wrote:
>>>
>>>> L.W. (Bill) ------ III wrote:
>>>>> I'm just really curious as to who you think will believe you
>>>>> over any
>>>>> man responsible enough to list his name and address here and in
>>>>> every place I know of?????
>>>> You're really stupid, given that I've already pointed that out.
>>>> You, as I keep reminding you, haven't produced a single person who
>>>> believes you.
>>>>
>>>>> All you can do is lie,
>>>> Name one lie I've told, coward.
>>>
>>> it's often hard to prove or disprove a lie on usenet. you could be
>>> lying about your name, for instance. nobody could really prove that
>>> your last name is "incognito", but they could just assume that you
>>> pulled it out of your ass, perhaps like anything you might say.
>>> either way, when you make yourself semi-anonymous for no real good
>>> reason, nobody besides your "in the know" net.friends are going to
>>> have a reference point to judge your honesty.
>>
>> He made the assertion that I lied; he must provide his evidence so
>> that it can be judged. He has not done so, and thus his assertion
>> deserves all the derison it has drawn. Posting using what is very
>> obviously a pseudonym is not any form of lying, as you should well
>> know.
>
> Keep going, Moppy loves any attention. Just throw it a few scraps and
> watch it dance for weeks.
>
>>>>> as most everything you have said
>>>>> contradicts it's self.
>>>> Point out one contradiction in anything I've said, coward.
>>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> well, there was that time you denied being acquainted with cujo
>>> around the same time you were seen saying that you were able to
>>> respond to cujo's databasix posts *specifically* just fine. usually
>>> "acquainted" means that you know someone's name and that's about it.
>>> sure seemed like you knew cujo's name just fine.
>>
>> Being familar with someone's Usenet postings doesn't make them your
>> acquaintance in RL, which perhaps I should have specified; that's my
>> fault for not making that clear, since I inferred you were positing a
>> more-than-Usnet familiarity between us.
>
> Moppy was indeed doing so, that was the signature Roberta Backpedal(tm)
> you just saw.
>
>> And what makes you think I know Cujo's name? He's using a pretty
>> obvious pseudonym. Does people posting with pseudonyms bother you for
>> some reason?
>
> Moppy is still pissed (insert whatever gender Roberta think it should be
> today) for getting smacked around by Supernews for morphing a few years
> back.

ROFL

"smacked around"??

would that be the time you were accusing me of "avoiding killfiles"?

look at all the good that did. still on supernews, still changing my email
addy whenever the hell i feel like it.

better go run and tell on me, wuss. :]

>
>>> i thought it was rather contradictory. how about you?
>>>
>>
>> I think Cujo was right when he wrote that you hate to be ignored.
>
> Moppy has been doing this same tired act ever since he/she/it got the
> ---- beat out of he/she/it by the alt.alien.* crew 5 years ago.

so netkkkopping and harassment is the same as "kicking the ---- out of
someone"?

http://netkooks.org/netkkkops

you are a real riot, cujo. keep up the good posting. i hope you win that
boxing match with that dead dude.

> If you
> want to watch Roberta go apeshit wait until Mike Davis smacks him around.
> It usually happens these days when Floor Buffer wins another Usenet Kook
> Award.
>
> Jade did a nice job of slapping the freak around some time back. Moppy
> even stopped following me around for a while.
>

--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3OZTcNACSY
.-------.
.'.-'''''-.'._
//` `\\\
;; ;;'.__.===== ==========,
|| . <- || __ )
;: your ;;.' '======= ========'
\\ penus ///
':...___...:'~
`'-----'`

"The fact that you're being increasing annoying..." - QuackfArt

Re: Jeepers LW, what's leaking from your pants?
 

On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 17:25:39 -0400, Flying ---- wrote:


>> Does people posting with pseudonyms bother you for
>> some reason?


> nope. i just assume that they are cowardly little losers.



Nothing to add, just wanted to make sure someone here who's at the
'cereal-box' level of literacy saw it in an easy-to-read form.