BoatBanter.com - [threat] Nomination - "Miguel" for Bullis Foam Duck #27 { NOMINATION -- Kadaitcha Man for Hammer of Thor}

BoatBanter.com (https://www.boatbanter.com/)

- ASA (https://www.boatbanter.com/asa/)

- - [threat] Nomination - "Miguel" for Bullis Foam Duck #27 { NOMINATION -- Kadaitcha Man for Hammer of Thor} (https://www.boatbanter.com/asa/79139-%5Bthreat%5D-nomination-miguel-bullis-foam-duck-27-%7Bre-nomination-kadaitcha-man-hammer-thor%7D.html)

[threat] Nomination - "Miguel" for Bullis Foam Duck #27 {NOMINATION -- Kadaitcha Man for Hammer of Thor}

Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
"miguel" wrote in message

Respondant wrote:
miguel wrote:
Respondant wrote:
miguel wrote:
Respondant wrote:
Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
snip
It was a very fragile situation. I cannot even begin to describe
the trouble it caused me.
What say you, Snarky?
For what award should I nominate the responsible kook?
Rhonda? As much as I despise writing this, I agree with Meat
Plow. :-) You really should (re)consider dropping this
altogether. I know you've said you're inclined to see it
through, (for reasons I'm not aware of, and don't care to know)
but to what end? What good can possibly come of it?
Why is it in her best interests to drop it?
I never said it was. I said she might (re)consider dropping it.
That's all. And I stand by it. As I'm sure you are well aware,
Rhonda is free to do what she damn well pleases.
If you have a suggestion for her, you must have some reason to
believe it's in her best interests to follow your suggestion. You
wouldn't just make some suggestion randomly, would you?
I might.
C'mon. Let's hear why in your opinion it's best for her to drop it.
She's already stated that she hates being in the middle of a mess
between people she likes. (That would include, you) So I don't
think it's all that far-fetched for me to ask her to (re)consider
bowing out (which she also hinted at a while ago) so as to *retain*
her friendships with all concerned.
That's fair. Thanks.

PS. The wife and I are still willing to buy ya a drink if ya
ever find yourself down in the Toms River/Seaside area.
Maybe Rhonda and I will be dating by then, and you can buy me one
too, you stupid ****.
Sure. Why not? Maybe you'll even call me a stupid **** to my
face? Now THAT would be intersesting.
Well, let's hope I get a chance someday then.
Let's both hope that. And let's hope if you say it to my face, you
say it in "fun". K?
That probably won't happen, since you created that fangroup for me.

Different Bill, I think.

Okay, I apologize, Bill.

[threat] Nomination - "Miguel" for Bullis Foam Duck #27 { NOMINATION -- Kadaitcha Man for Hammer of Thor}

"Respondant" wrote in message

Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:

"Respondant" wrote in message

miguel wrote:

Respondant wrote:
Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:

snip

It was a very fragile situation. I cannot even begin to describe
the trouble it caused me.

What say you, Snarky?

For what award should I nominate the responsible kook?

Rhonda? As much as I despise writing this, I agree with Meat
Plow. :-) You really should (re)consider dropping this
altogether. I know you've said you're inclined to see it
through, (for reasons I'm not aware of, and don't care to know)
but to what end? What good can possibly come of it?

Why is it in her best interests to drop it?

I never said it was. I said she might (re)consider dropping it.

You said I /really should/, not that I might.

I sit corrected. My bad.

That's all. And I stand by it. As I'm sure you are well aware,
Rhonda is free to do what she damn well pleases.

See below.

PS. The wife and I are still willing to buy ya a drink if ya ever
find yourself down in the Toms River/Seaside area.

Maybe Rhonda and I will be dating by then, and you can buy me one
too, you stupid ****.

Sure. Why not? Maybe you'll even call me a stupid **** to my face?

And maybe you'll even call me a **** to my face?

I'd have to know you a really LONG time, (or DESPISE you) before I'd
use that particular word if you were even within earshot. I have
more respect for woman than to say something like that. I get the
feeling you remember me from a while ago since you brought up the
"****" thing. And I know it ****ed you off, and I apologized for it,

I gave you three chances to apologize and you didn't. That was why it
became a problem.

You got a lot of slack from me, including that "foot on Rhonda's chest
for victolly" bs, if you recall, but when I drew the line, you tried to
dance over it.

but you would have none of it.

When I have a chance...sometime after this is all over...I'll retrieve
the message IDs for you, and then we'll discuss your faulty memory.

I've been married nearly 25 years
Rhonda, to the love of my life. And yes, she absolutely abhors that
word ... But sometimes it's fun to just poke her with it for
reactions sake. That's all.

We had this discussion too, which is why your behavior was so
inexplicable.

Now THAT would be intersesting.

I think MY idea is more interesting.

Would you *like* me to call both you and my wife "****s" over a beer?
I'm pretty sure as long as the wife knows it's coming ahead of time,
I can get away with it. :-)

Sheesh.

My sentiments exactly.

--
Rhonda Lea Kirk

Happiness limits the amount of suffering one is
willing to inflict on others. Phèdre nó Delaunay

[threat] Nomination - "Miguel" for Bullis Foam Duck #27 {NOMINATION -- Kadaitcha Man for Hammer of Thor}

Respondant wrote:
Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:

"miguel" wrote in message

Respondant wrote:
miguel wrote:
Respondant wrote:
miguel wrote:
Respondant wrote:
Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
snip
It was a very fragile situation. I cannot even begin to
describe the trouble it caused me.
What say you, Snarky?
For what award should I nominate the responsible kook?
Rhonda? As much as I despise writing this, I agree with Meat
Plow. :-) You really should (re)consider dropping this
altogether. I know you've said you're inclined to see it
through, (for reasons I'm not aware of, and don't care to know)
but to what end? What good can possibly come of it?
Why is it in her best interests to drop it?
I never said it was. I said she might (re)consider dropping it.
That's all. And I stand by it. As I'm sure you are well aware,
Rhonda is free to do what she damn well pleases.
If you have a suggestion for her, you must have some reason to
believe it's in her best interests to follow your suggestion. You
wouldn't just make some suggestion randomly, would you?
I might.
C'mon. Let's hear why in your opinion it's best for her to drop it.
She's already stated that she hates being in the middle of a mess
between people she likes. (That would include, you) So I don't
think it's all that far-fetched for me to ask her to (re)consider
bowing out (which she also hinted at a while ago) so as to *retain*
her friendships with all concerned.
That's fair. Thanks.

PS. The wife and I are still willing to buy ya a drink if ya
ever find yourself down in the Toms River/Seaside area.
Maybe Rhonda and I will be dating by then, and you can buy me one
too, you stupid ****.
Sure. Why not? Maybe you'll even call me a stupid **** to my
face? Now THAT would be intersesting.
Well, let's hope I get a chance someday then.
Let's both hope that. And let's hope if you say it to my face, you
say it in "fun". K?
That probably won't happen, since you created that fangroup for me.
Different Bill, I think.

You'd be correct.

I apologize, sir.

[threat] Nomination - "Miguel" for Bullis Foam Duck #27 { NOMINATION -- Kadaitcha Man for Hammer of Thor}

miguel wrote:

Respondant wrote:
Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:

"miguel" wrote in message

Respondant wrote:
miguel wrote:
Respondant wrote:
miguel wrote:
Respondant wrote:
Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
snip
It was a very fragile situation. I cannot even begin to
describe the trouble it caused me.
What say you, Snarky?
For what award should I nominate the responsible kook?
Rhonda? As much as I despise writing this, I agree with Meat
Plow. :-) You really should (re)consider dropping this
altogether. I know you've said you're inclined to see it
through, (for reasons I'm not aware of, and don't care to
know) but to what end? What good can possibly come of it?
Why is it in her best interests to drop it?
I never said it was. I said she might (re)consider dropping it.
That's all. And I stand by it. As I'm sure you are well aware,
Rhonda is free to do what she damn well pleases.
If you have a suggestion for her, you must have some reason to
believe it's in her best interests to follow your suggestion. You
wouldn't just make some suggestion randomly, would you?
I might.
C'mon. Let's hear why in your opinion it's best for her to drop
it.
She's already stated that she hates being in the middle of a mess
between people she likes. (That would include, you) So I don't
think it's all that far-fetched for me to ask her to (re)consider
bowing out (which she also hinted at a while ago) so as to
*retain* her friendships with all concerned.
That's fair. Thanks.

PS. The wife and I are still willing to buy ya a drink if ya
ever find yourself down in the Toms River/Seaside area.
Maybe Rhonda and I will be dating by then, and you can buy me
one too, you stupid ****.
Sure. Why not? Maybe you'll even call me a stupid **** to my
face? Now THAT would be intersesting.
Well, let's hope I get a chance someday then.
Let's both hope that. And let's hope if you say it to my face,
you say it in "fun". K?
That probably won't happen, since you created that fangroup for
me. Different Bill, I think.

You'd be correct.

I apologize, sir.

Accepted. No big deal. Like I told Rhonda, I'm gone. But I *do* hope
y'all get this worked out.

Nomination - "Miguel" for Bullis Foam Duck #27 { NOMINATION -- Kadaitcha Man for Hammer of Thor}

*Ping* Trippy - Bobo Pool submission { PING Rhonda... [threat] Nomination - "Miguel" for Bullis Foam Duck #27 { NOMINATION -- Kadaitcha Man for Hammer of Thor}}

trippy wrote in
:

In article , Sean Monaghan
took the hamburger meat, threw it on the grill, and I said "Oh Wow"...

miguel wrote in
:

Kimberly K. Barnard, University of Wisconsin-Parkside, Department
of Psychology, wrote:
miguel said:
Kimberly K. Barnard, University of Wisconsin-Parkside, Department
of Psychology
(http://oldweb.uwp.edu/academic/psych...culty/barnard/)
wrote:
miguel said:
Dumbarse Git wrote:
miguel:

Kimberly K. Barnard, University of Wisconsin-Parkside:

You bitched about KM repeating your purported occupation
(which you admit to in another thread),

You're a liar. I've never bitched about KM repeating my
occupation.

I see you caught your attribution error in your post to Dumbarse
Git. If I may make a suggestion, perhaps you should wipe the
froth and spittle from your screen before hitting the "send" key.

yet it falls within your code of ethics to post the
(alleged) institution and precise location of someone else.

I'm reading a lecture on ethics from Sean Monaghan, who moments
ago said that it's all about the entertainment. Will somebody
please nominate you for some steaming pile of hypocrisy award?
I'm beginning to think that your intellectual prowess is about
the equivalent of ****stain's, which would be your only defense
to said award.

If Kimberly K. Barnard, University of Wisconsin-Parkside,
Department of Psychology is going to associate my name and
occupation with the word "dog****er," given that she stated she
has no trouble with somebody's name being associated with their
posts on usenet, then where's the problem? Of course, all she
needs to do to avoid this is cease her participation in the
google stacking. If you are her friend, you might think about
stopping yourself.

Thank you for this very telling campaign speech.

You are a dolt. In part, though, she has you to thank for this,
what with the fanboi page you did for me. ****stain, too. If
you all want to stop the RL stuff, I'm happy to stop too. Your
choice.

The question is - will your public defender find this
behaviour to be acceptable, or will that person continue to
rationalise on your behalf?

It's sad that you dismiss it as rationalization.

Please do continue to defend this nasty, filthy creature, and
let him drag you into the pits of hell as you become his
unwitting proxy in his kooky mission against AUK. I'm sorry,
I've tried to be reasonable for your sake. But it's way past
pillory time for him - he's been at this a lot longer than I had
realized. Intelligent, non-kooky people don't parade their
kookiness in AUK, or take baseball bats to wasp's nests.

Is this your professional opinion, Kimberly K. Barnard,
University of Wisconsin-Parkside,
http//oldweb.uwp.edu/academic/psychology/faculty/barnard/

Now feel free to call me a hypocrite and any nominating or
voting I do for him "revenge" motivated. I call it making
entertainment out of a bully.

And really, I am sorry about all this, as it probably does
affect our friendship (miguel has no respect for it, in case you
hadn't noticed). All I can do today is shake my head at your
defense of him and wish you'd stop.

I miss the days when I could anonymously play the dozens with
people on usenet, in soc.singles, on AUK, in AFA-B, without
having asshole kooks like you, Dumbarse Git Sean, K-Bitch and
****stain get all my identifying information out front and
center, and in a way that will cause reputational and commercial
damage to me.

Perhaps soon you may miss those days too.

You didn't care when the rest of them started in on me. In fact
you decided to join in. So solly.

Threat noted.

I hope so.

If you stop, and if you can persuade your friends, who are,
frighteningly, even less rational than you, to stop, I'll be happy
to pull the plug on this as well. The nerd gimp retard fagbois hold
the keys to the kingdom, Kimberly K. Barnard, University of
Wisconsin-Parkside, Department of Psychology.

Wow. Extortion attempt.

Yo, Moonbeam - we[TINW] have a new submission for the Bobo pool.
Pleace to consider this frothing maniac for odds. Thanks in advance.

http://www.alcatroll.com/sean/miguel

Noted. Research will commence shortly.

Thank you, sir. :-)

--
Official FAQ for Alt.Usenet.Kooks: http://www.caballista.org/auk

COOSN-266-06-58907

Hammer of Thor - August 2005

Pierre Salinger Memorial "Hook, Line & Sinker" awards -
March 2005, July 2005, August 2005, August 2006, February 2007

[Co]Friendly Neighbourhood Vote Wrangler

Nomination - "Miguel" for Bullis Foam Duck #27 { NOMINATION -- Kadaitcha Man for Hammer of Thor}

Kali wrote:
In , Art Deco
said:
: Demon Lord of Confusion
: ballista.org wrote:
: On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 10:58:51 -0600, Art Deco attempted to confuse the
: issue further by squeaking:
: Cujo DeSockpuppet wrote:
: Kali wrote:
: Art Deco said:
: :Cardinal Snarky of the Fannish Inquisition wrote:
: :On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 19:07:50 -0600, Art Deco sat in thee Comfee
: :Chaire, and didst finally confess, after taking Muche Tea:
: :miguel wrote:
: :
: :In th
: :
: :Shuttup, Cranston.
: :Shuttup, Cranston.
: :Shuttup, Cranston.
: Shuttup, Cranston.
: Shuttup, Cranston.
: Shuttup, Cranston.
: Shuttup, Cranston.
: Shuttup, Cranston.
Shuttup, Cranston.
Shuttup, Cranston.

--
Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco

"To err is human, to cover it up is Weasel" -- Dogbert

Nomination of Michael "Miguel Cranston for Clueless Newbie ofthe Month

Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
"Steve Leyland"
Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
"Butt**** Bill"

It's really that simple, and that's really your only realistic
option if you intend to affect the outcome. Complaining about
nominations does very little more than amuse kookologists.

It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye.

can somewon pleace poast a lits of which wons are teh kooks and
which are teh kookologists? TIA.

Depends on who you ask, Steve. I've volunteered to be the kook
several times now.

The only thing I don't like is that the same tools in the hands of
the kookologists are legitimate "weapons" but in the hands of the
kooks, they are kooky. I have a systemizing-type mind, and it makes
my brain buzz when I try to reconcile such reasoning.

Anyway, if you figure out who is who, you're probably safest if you
keep it to yourself.

No, man. We need more lits.

--
Democrats use bookmarks.
Republicans just bend over a page.

[threat] Nomination - "Miguel" for Bullis Foam Duck #27 {NOMINATION -- Kadaitcha Man for Hammer of Thor}

Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
"Sean Monaghan" wrote in message

Your feelings got hurt over Usenet posts. Grow a thicker skin,
drama queen.

It doesn't matter how /you/ characterize it, and it doesn't matter if
you resort to ad homming me, because the damage Snarky did had
nothing to do with /my/ feelings.

Sean is stupid.

[threat] Nomination - "Miguel" for Bullis Foam Duck #27 { NOMINATION -- Kadaitcha Man for Hammer of Thor}

"miguel" wrote in message

Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
"Sean Monaghan" wrote in message

Your feelings got hurt over Usenet posts. Grow a thicker skin,
drama queen.

It doesn't matter how /you/ characterize it, and it doesn't matter if
you resort to ad homming me, because the damage Snarky did had
nothing to do with /my/ feelings.

Sean is stupid.

Considering he seems to think he can provoke me into a meltdown by
bullying me with bull****, I'd have to agree.

--
Rhonda Lea Kirk

Happiness limits the amount of suffering one is
willing to inflict on others. Phèdre nó Delaunay