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

"L.W. \(Bill\) ------ III" <LWBill------@------.net> wrote in
news:46d0a33d$0$619$88260bb3@free.teranews.com:

> You remind me of a little rat dog, like a Mexican Chiwawa, with
> its
> senseless barking it's rabid head off, me too, me too. Not man enough

Man? I have already told you I'm a lesbian. How st00pid are you, dipshit?

> to even sign your statement as any man would. YOU ARE A COWARD! Crawl
> back in your hole, like the rest of you low life queer, losers!

So answer the (implicit) question, Goat----er:

"If I'm "not worth the time", explain why you replied, peckerhead."

> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
>
> "Cujo DeSockpuppet" <cujo@petitmorte.net> wrote in message
> news:faq8p9$anj$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
>>
>> What "pack", dumb----? I just laugh at kooks like you on my own.
>>
>> PS: If I'm "not worth the time", explain why you replied, peckerhead.
>>
>> --
>
>
>



--
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 are among the worst goddamned liars that exists, and I'd love to
kill
you in a ring and put an end to the useless crap which is you - but
you'll
clearly never give me that chance." - Foamboi Bartlo in a calm moment.

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

"L.W. \(Bill\) ------ III" <LWBill------@------.net> wrote in
news:46d0a33d$0$619$88260bb3@free.teranews.com:

> You remind me of a little rat dog, like a Mexican Chiwawa, with
> its
> senseless barking it's rabid head off, me too, me too. Not man enough

Man? I have already told you I'm a lesbian. How st00pid are you, dipshit?

> to even sign your statement as any man would. YOU ARE A COWARD! Crawl
> back in your hole, like the rest of you low life queer, losers!

So answer the (implicit) question, Goat----er:

"If I'm "not worth the time", explain why you replied, peckerhead."

> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
>
> "Cujo DeSockpuppet" <cujo@petitmorte.net> wrote in message
> news:faq8p9$anj$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
>>
>> What "pack", dumb----? I just laugh at kooks like you on my own.
>>
>> PS: If I'm "not worth the time", explain why you replied, peckerhead.
>>
>> --
>
>
>



--
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 are among the worst goddamned liars that exists, and I'd love to
kill
you in a ring and put an end to the useless crap which is you - but
you'll
clearly never give me that chance." - Foamboi Bartlo in a calm moment.

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

"L.W. \(Bill\) ------ III" <LWBill------@------.net> wrote in
news:46d0a33d$0$619$88260bb3@free.teranews.com:

> You remind me of a little rat dog, like a Mexican Chiwawa, with
> its
> senseless barking it's rabid head off, me too, me too. Not man enough

Man? I have already told you I'm a lesbian. How st00pid are you, dipshit?

> to even sign your statement as any man would. YOU ARE A COWARD! Crawl
> back in your hole, like the rest of you low life queer, losers!

So answer the (implicit) question, Goat----er:

"If I'm "not worth the time", explain why you replied, peckerhead."

> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
>
> "Cujo DeSockpuppet" <cujo@petitmorte.net> wrote in message
> news:faq8p9$anj$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
>>
>> What "pack", dumb----? I just laugh at kooks like you on my own.
>>
>> PS: If I'm "not worth the time", explain why you replied, peckerhead.
>>
>> --
>
>
>



--
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 are among the worst goddamned liars that exists, and I'd love to
kill
you in a ring and put an end to the useless crap which is you - but
you'll
clearly never give me that chance." - Foamboi Bartlo in a calm moment.

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

Flying ---- wrote:
> 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.

In which case he can be called out on it, as has been done.

>> 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.

Bill did. Oh, that's right, you inserted yourself into a thread in
which you profess ignorance of the thread's primary subject.

Are you always this clueless?

> 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.

Given the quality of the two posters making that judgment, I can live
with that. And so far as I know, my taunts are totally anonymous,
unlike yours.

>in a lot of
> people's experiences cowardly dumbasses tend to lie a lot to protect their
> own asses.

Have a lot of experience with that, do you?

>>>>> 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".

However, as Cujo already pointed out, it was YOU who morphed my "I am
not Cujo's acquaintance" into "denied being acquainted with cujo," not
me. I was merely giving you the benefit of the doubt.

> are you acquainted with the works of shakespeare?
>
> yes? OMGZ!!! you know shaekspaere in realz life!!!11!!
>
> nice broken logic, genius.

Try that one again, sir. You're having trouble with it.

>> 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.

Nope.

>> 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".

Knowing a poster by their handle and knowing their name are not the same
things.

>> 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.

Well, that's good to know. Have you ever posted under a pseudonym?
Think carefully about your answer.

>>> 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.
>

You can tell a lot about a tree by the fruit that falls off its branches.

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

Flying ---- wrote:
> 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.

In which case he can be called out on it, as has been done.

>> 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.

Bill did. Oh, that's right, you inserted yourself into a thread in
which you profess ignorance of the thread's primary subject.

Are you always this clueless?

> 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.

Given the quality of the two posters making that judgment, I can live
with that. And so far as I know, my taunts are totally anonymous,
unlike yours.

>in a lot of
> people's experiences cowardly dumbasses tend to lie a lot to protect their
> own asses.

Have a lot of experience with that, do you?

>>>>> 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".

However, as Cujo already pointed out, it was YOU who morphed my "I am
not Cujo's acquaintance" into "denied being acquainted with cujo," not
me. I was merely giving you the benefit of the doubt.

> are you acquainted with the works of shakespeare?
>
> yes? OMGZ!!! you know shaekspaere in realz life!!!11!!
>
> nice broken logic, genius.

Try that one again, sir. You're having trouble with it.

>> 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.

Nope.

>> 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".

Knowing a poster by their handle and knowing their name are not the same
things.

>> 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.

Well, that's good to know. Have you ever posted under a pseudonym?
Think carefully about your answer.

>>> 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.
>

You can tell a lot about a tree by the fruit that falls off its branches.

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

Flying ---- wrote:
> 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.

In which case he can be called out on it, as has been done.

>> 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.

Bill did. Oh, that's right, you inserted yourself into a thread in
which you profess ignorance of the thread's primary subject.

Are you always this clueless?

> 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.

Given the quality of the two posters making that judgment, I can live
with that. And so far as I know, my taunts are totally anonymous,
unlike yours.

>in a lot of
> people's experiences cowardly dumbasses tend to lie a lot to protect their
> own asses.

Have a lot of experience with that, do you?

>>>>> 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".

However, as Cujo already pointed out, it was YOU who morphed my "I am
not Cujo's acquaintance" into "denied being acquainted with cujo," not
me. I was merely giving you the benefit of the doubt.

> are you acquainted with the works of shakespeare?
>
> yes? OMGZ!!! you know shaekspaere in realz life!!!11!!
>
> nice broken logic, genius.

Try that one again, sir. You're having trouble with it.

>> 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.

Nope.

>> 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".

Knowing a poster by their handle and knowing their name are not the same
things.

>> 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.

Well, that's good to know. Have you ever posted under a pseudonym?
Think carefully about your answer.

>>> 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.
>

You can tell a lot about a tree by the fruit that falls off its branches.

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

Flying ---- wrote:
> 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.

In which case he can be called out on it, as has been done.

>> 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.

Bill did. Oh, that's right, you inserted yourself into a thread in
which you profess ignorance of the thread's primary subject.

Are you always this clueless?

> 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.

Given the quality of the two posters making that judgment, I can live
with that. And so far as I know, my taunts are totally anonymous,
unlike yours.

>in a lot of
> people's experiences cowardly dumbasses tend to lie a lot to protect their
> own asses.

Have a lot of experience with that, do you?

>>>>> 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".

However, as Cujo already pointed out, it was YOU who morphed my "I am
not Cujo's acquaintance" into "denied being acquainted with cujo," not
me. I was merely giving you the benefit of the doubt.

> are you acquainted with the works of shakespeare?
>
> yes? OMGZ!!! you know shaekspaere in realz life!!!11!!
>
> nice broken logic, genius.

Try that one again, sir. You're having trouble with it.

>> 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.

Nope.

>> 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".

Knowing a poster by their handle and knowing their name are not the same
things.

>> 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.

Well, that's good to know. Have you ever posted under a pseudonym?
Think carefully about your answer.

>>> 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.
>

You can tell a lot about a tree by the fruit that falls off its branches.

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

L.W. (Bill) ------ III wrote:
> To Whom it May Concern,
> I would appreciate the name and address of these trolls, Square Wheel:
> S0106000ea6ba70e7.vn.shawcable.net 24.86.24.251 intrepidator@shaw.ca and
> 24bit:
> 12.205.158.32 AT&T WorldNet Services ATT Mediacom Communications Corp. I
> will keep your name in confidence, kindly email -------------------- or
> LW------@------.net
> Sincerely,
> Llewellyn W. (Bill) ------ III

Why do you want their names and addresses, Bill? What use would they be
to you?

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

L.W. (Bill) ------ III wrote:
> To Whom it May Concern,
> I would appreciate the name and address of these trolls, Square Wheel:
> S0106000ea6ba70e7.vn.shawcable.net 24.86.24.251 intrepidator@shaw.ca and
> 24bit:
> 12.205.158.32 AT&T WorldNet Services ATT Mediacom Communications Corp. I
> will keep your name in confidence, kindly email -------------------- or
> LW------@------.net
> Sincerely,
> Llewellyn W. (Bill) ------ III

Why do you want their names and addresses, Bill? What use would they be
to you?

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

L.W. (Bill) ------ III wrote:
> To Whom it May Concern,
> I would appreciate the name and address of these trolls, Square Wheel:
> S0106000ea6ba70e7.vn.shawcable.net 24.86.24.251 intrepidator@shaw.ca and
> 24bit:
> 12.205.158.32 AT&T WorldNet Services ATT Mediacom Communications Corp. I
> will keep your name in confidence, kindly email -------------------- or
> LW------@------.net
> Sincerely,
> Llewellyn W. (Bill) ------ III

Why do you want their names and addresses, Bill? What use would they be
to you?