Jon,

It was Katy that was defending Gilly. Not me. He is fair game as far as
I'm concerned but I try my damniest not to acknowledge ANY "Make Believe
Characters" Getting very hard in ASA, so many "Sock-puppets" I don't
even remember Gilly's real name; Gilly is a "Puppet" at least twice
removed from reality.













http://community.webtv.net/tassail/ThomJazz

http://community.webtv.net/tassail/WHOSAFATSONEAL

Capt. JG wrote:
"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...

"katy" wrote in message
...

Thom Stewart wrote:

Gilly,

I'm not very comfortable with you using Art Linkletters dead daughter
name in your replies; to me. Please don't!

As far as my replies to Crazy Neal, you had better Goggle a bit and see
just how long we have been at each other. I would say its 10 years. Long
before you arrived.

You are hurting ASA just as badly as Neal, with imaginary beings. You
are one of the worst offenders in the group with "Make Believe" So, Bug
Off! Let the dead rest in Peace!

Rhom, I usually don't take issue with youm but this time I will. Gilly;s
socks have sometimes been the heart and soul of ASA's...he fulfills a
role here as Devil's Advocate. If one persona, in a real life name, tried
to do that, they'd be nailed to the wall. His puppets work, though, to
keep things in perspective. And they;re funny. You also forget that much
pf what his puppets speak is ironica, satirical or tongue in cheek. He
deals in innuendo. Many of us enjoy the word pay and his endless catalog
of characters that know just when and what they should interject into the
group. The few times that Gilly withdrew from asa, the threads became dry
and stale. He also does not disguise his own identity by using his socks,
We all know which characters are Gilly's and which are socks meant to
subvert. Leave him alone, please. Just don't rad his posts if it offends
you that much.


Thom, I'm assuming you're addressing me. I think you need to read your own
original post. If you look back, sure Gill has been a positive force, but
lately, he's not interested in anything but his own self-serving talk.
Look at what he posted about me in this very thread. Please show me where
I haven't "left him alone."




Sorry, I meant Katy...

Then it all boils down to one question: Did you or did you not turn him
in to his ISP? And I suppose your answer to that will be "I neither
admit or deny..." I admit freely I turned Neal in...and you know the
exterior reasons why I had to do that. Gilly does not hack, infest
others with malware or viruses. So he retaliated on group with
information about your past that might hurt you. Many people ahve thigs
in their pasts that they are not proud of or that they look back on ad
think "Why the heck did I do that?" Problem is, once it's done you have
to live with it forever. And things do tend to come back and haignt a
person, whether they think they've lived through them or not. Yur
alternative to all this is to either defend yourself, which you don't
have to do...I caould care less what anyone did back in the 60's...or
you can ignore it. Fighting it, though, without defending yourself i
some way, just drives the nails deeper.

"Thom Stewart" wrote in message
...
Jon,

It was Katy that was defending Gilly. Not me. He is fair game as far as
I'm concerned but I try my damniest not to acknowledge ANY "Make Believe
Characters" Getting very hard in ASA, so many "Sock-puppets" I don't
even remember Gilly's real name; Gilly is a "Puppet" at least twice
removed from reality.


http://community.webtv.net/tassail/ThomJazz

http://community.webtv.net/tassail/WHOSAFATSONEAL



I know Thom... it was Katytype that did me in. :-)

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Katy,

I do believe you're wrong on Gilly (Whatever his name may be) this time.
He has fallen into the habit, with his newest ALIAS, of attacking people
and expressing OT points of views. These kind of "Make Believes" are
adding to the downfall of the ASA Group!

It really doesn't make an awful lot of difference to me. I've sold the
boat but since 1996 I have developed a lot of very good "net friends,
you being one of them, but the ASA is hurting.

From the best, most active discussion group it has just become a shadow
of what it was.

As you know, I've taken steps to maintain the friendships I've
developed. The Decline does sadden me though and decline it has. I guess
it was TOO SUCCESSFUL. It drew to many distractors. As, they say; "All
good things must come to an end!"













http://community.webtv.net/tassail/ThomJazz

http://community.webtv.net/tassail/WHOSAFATSONEAL

"Thom Stewart" wrote
It was Katy that was defending Gilly. Not me. He is fair game as far as
I'm concerned but I try my damniest not to acknowledge ANY "Make Believe
Characters" Getting very hard in ASA, so many "Sock-puppets" I don't
even remember Gilly's real name; Gilly is a "Puppet" at least twice
removed from reality.

You and Capt. JG need to get a room. Your talk about *getting very hard*
I'm sure turned him on. roflmao

Cheers,
Ellen

"katy" wrote in message
...
Then it all boils down to one question: Did you or did you not turn him
in to his ISP? And I suppose your answer to that will be "I neither admit
or deny..." I admit freely I turned Neal in...and you know the exterior
reasons why I had to do that. Gilly does not hack, infest others with
malware or viruses. So he retaliated on group with information about your
past that might hurt you. Many people ahve thigs in their pasts that they
are not proud of or that they look back on ad think "Why the heck did I do
that?" Problem is, once it's done you have to live with it forever. And
things do tend to come back and haignt a person, whether they think
they've lived through them or not. Yur alternative to all this is to
either defend yourself, which you don't have to do...I caould care less
what anyone did back in the 60's...or you can ignore it. Fighting it,
though, without defending yourself i some way, just drives the nails
deeper.


Yes, it all boils down to one question and one sentence in your post.

If I say I didn't, then inevitably someone will call me a liar. I've denied
similar things, such as being the one responsible for getting someone
tossed, but in every instance, the person in question called me a liar over
and over, and will probably do so forever to whomever will listen.

And, the one sentence is "So he retaliated on group with information about
your past that might hurt you." The word retaliated implies that he is 1) is
absolutely certain that I reported him, 2) he did nothing wrong, 3) it's ok
to retaliate. I certainly dispute 2 and 3. I can't say if he's certain or
not. I can say that his intention (and Neal's) was/is to "hurt" me. Gill
just threatened me physically in another post. FYI, I did nothing in the 60s
that I'm ashamed of, so I'm not sure what I'm supposed to fight or defend.

Yes, for some people, I agree that they will look back and wonder why they
did something or said something. Most mature adults do that from time to
time. I don't count Gill or Neal or the others I mentioned in that category,
as I've not seen that demonstrated by them. If you happen to recall, I
stopped (mostly) using foul language and arguing with the likes of Neal
quite a while ago. I regret doing it, but finally realized that it was just
making things worse. I wonder when/if Gill will ever come to that
conclusion.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Capt. JG" wrote
Gill, I'm going to answer you here, and then I'm done. You have no real interest in the answers, so there's no point
in going beyond this post.

snipped LSD overdose inspired wack job rantings of a mentally ill Capt. JG

Every time you post something, Capt. JG, what you say about other people
applies exactly to yourself. If only you could have a brain that wasn't burned
out by illegal drugs. If you hadn't damaged your brain, you'd be able to see
how really really mentally ill you are.... Everybody else sees it and feels sorry
for you. Or laughs at you like I do.... roflmao A healthy brain accepts reality.
Your brain just lives in a world full of psychotic colors and images. For you
there's no *if-then* reality.
It's one thing to be born with almost no brain function or to get one by
accident like a car wreck or an embolism. That's something I can understand. But
to take a functioning brain and then make it defective by taking illegal drugs
is so stupid. It tells me there wasn't ever much brain there to begin with.

Cheers,
Ellen

"Capt. JG" wrote
quite a while ago. I regret doing it, but finally realized that it was just making things worse. I wonder when/if Gill
will ever come to that conclusion.

Maybe you shoulda thought about that BEFORE you started netcopping him.
People just don't like snitches. But, you'll never understand that. Your brain
you burned out with LSD is not capable of it any more. Why don't you just go
take some more. Give your brain what it needs. Give it more drugs. Burn it out
all the way.

Cheers,
Ellen

Capt. JG wrote:
"katy" wrote in message
...

Then it all boils down to one question: Did you or did you not turn him
in to his ISP? And I suppose your answer to that will be "I neither admit
or deny..." I admit freely I turned Neal in...and you know the exterior
reasons why I had to do that. Gilly does not hack, infest others with
malware or viruses. So he retaliated on group with information about your
past that might hurt you. Many people ahve thigs in their pasts that they
are not proud of or that they look back on ad think "Why the heck did I do
that?" Problem is, once it's done you have to live with it forever. And
things do tend to come back and haignt a person, whether they think
they've lived through them or not. Yur alternative to all this is to
either defend yourself, which you don't have to do...I caould care less
what anyone did back in the 60's...or you can ignore it. Fighting it,
though, without defending yourself i some way, just drives the nails
deeper.



Yes, it all boils down to one question and one sentence in your post.

If I say I didn't, then inevitably someone will call me a liar. I've denied
similar things, such as being the one responsible for getting someone
tossed, but in every instance, the person in question called me a liar over
and over, and will probably do so forever to whomever will listen.

And, the one sentence is "So he retaliated on group with information about
your past that might hurt you." The word retaliated implies that he is 1) is
absolutely certain that I reported him, 2) he did nothing wrong, 3) it's ok
to retaliate. I certainly dispute 2 and 3. I can't say if he's certain or
not. I can say that his intention (and Neal's) was/is to "hurt" me. Gill
just threatened me physically in another post. FYI, I did nothing in the 60s
that I'm ashamed of, so I'm not sure what I'm supposed to fight or defend.

Yes, for some people, I agree that they will look back and wonder why they
did something or said something. Most mature adults do that from time to
time. I don't count Gill or Neal or the others I mentioned in that category,
as I've not seen that demonstrated by them. If you happen to recall, I
stopped (mostly) using foul language and arguing with the likes of Neal
quite a while ago. I regret doing it, but finally realized that it was just
making things worse. I wonder when/if Gill will ever come to that
conclusion.

There is a difference, though, that you're overlooking. Neal does
physical damage to people's computers. Gilly does not. WOrds are words,
I've learened, and some words should just be ignored. If what Gilly
published about you is not true, you have elgal recourse to sue him. If
it is true, then it truly is a matter of public record and he did
nothing bit point the arrow to the evidence. What other people do with
it isn't in his control. As far as retaliation goes, you retaliate when
you turn someone in because they don't fit your sescription of what
should and should not be said here. I only tirned someone in when a
physical possesion of mine was invaded and destroyed. Big difference
there. Get over it Jon. There's way too much life to live.

"katy" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"katy" wrote in message
...

Then it all boils down to one question: Did you or did you not turn him
in to his ISP? And I suppose your answer to that will be "I neither admit
or deny..." I admit freely I turned Neal in...and you know the exterior
reasons why I had to do that. Gilly does not hack, infest others with
malware or viruses. So he retaliated on group with information about your
past that might hurt you. Many people ahve thigs in their pasts that
they are not proud of or that they look back on ad think "Why the heck
did I do that?" Problem is, once it's done you have to live with it
forever. And things do tend to come back and haignt a person, whether
they think they've lived through them or not. Yur alternative to all
this is to either defend yourself, which you don't have to do...I caould
care less what anyone did back in the 60's...or you can ignore it.
Fighting it, though, without defending yourself i some way, just drives
the nails deeper.



Yes, it all boils down to one question and one sentence in your post.

If I say I didn't, then inevitably someone will call me a liar. I've
denied similar things, such as being the one responsible for getting
someone tossed, but in every instance, the person in question called me a
liar over and over, and will probably do so forever to whomever will
listen.

And, the one sentence is "So he retaliated on group with information
about your past that might hurt you." The word retaliated implies that he
is 1) is absolutely certain that I reported him, 2) he did nothing wrong,
3) it's ok to retaliate. I certainly dispute 2 and 3. I can't say if he's
certain or not. I can say that his intention (and Neal's) was/is to
"hurt" me. Gill just threatened me physically in another post. FYI, I did
nothing in the 60s that I'm ashamed of, so I'm not sure what I'm supposed
to fight or defend.

Yes, for some people, I agree that they will look back and wonder why
they did something or said something. Most mature adults do that from
time to time. I don't count Gill or Neal or the others I mentioned in
that category, as I've not seen that demonstrated by them. If you happen
to recall, I stopped (mostly) using foul language and arguing with the
likes of Neal quite a while ago. I regret doing it, but finally realized
that it was just making things worse. I wonder when/if Gill will ever
come to that conclusion.

There is a difference, though, that you're overlooking. Neal does physical
damage to people's computers. Gilly does not. WOrds are words, I've
learened, and some words should just be ignored. If what Gilly published
about you is not true, you have elgal recourse to sue him. If it is true,
then it truly is a matter of public record and he did nothing bit point
the arrow to the evidence. What other people do with it isn't in his
control. As far as retaliation goes, you retaliate when you turn someone
in because they don't fit your sescription of what should and should not
be said here. I only tirned someone in when a physical possesion of mine
was invaded and destroyed. Big difference there. Get over it Jon. There's
way too much life to live.


I'm not overlooking anything. If Gilly wants to publish things about me that
aren't true, I certainly have that option. I think it would probably be
expensive and not worth the effort, but yes, I suppose I could sue. Why are
you hung up on what he wrote or didn't write? I don't think I've said one
word about it either way. And, you're assuming that I've "turned him in" for
something that, as far as ISPs are concerned, is not something that would
cause them to do anything. My ISP certainly ignores these types of
complaints... well, they did ask me about "this Neal character" at one point
a few years ago.

Sorry, but there's nothing for me to "get over," since I haven't done
anything or even felt anything (other than mild disgust). I'm not
perpetuating this, and I'm being civil about it in the forum. Are you going
to tell me next that I should not be able to state my opinion about other
subjects... if so, please give me a list. I wouldn't want to get it wrong!

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com