Sean Monaghan wrote:
miguel wrote:
Sean Monaghan wrote:
"Rhonda Lea Kirk" wrote:
"Sean Monaghan" wrote:

Seconds, anyone?
The nomination is ridiculous.

It's interesting how say that this *nomination* is ridiculous - not
Cranston's threat.

How can you know whether the threat is ridiculous without knowing what
predicated it?

Irrelevant. The actions of one net.kook never make it okay for another
to make (utterly stupid) life-threatening statements on Usenet.

That rule is utterly stupid. First, it's mainly a shield for coward
phony****s. Second, I'm probably as aware as anybody about the nature of
any legal jeopardy arising from such a statement, and can measure the
risk for myself. If you have some other justification for your absolute
standard, it'd be interesting to hear.

miguel

Sean Monaghan wrote:
"Rhonda Lea Kirk":

That would lead me to the conclusion that someone is overreacting to
words on the screen, and I don't mean Mike.

See http://www.caballista.org/auk/faq.html#question27

"27. Can I really be thrown in jail for posting threatening messages?

Yes. People have been tried and convicted for sending threatening or
harassing Email or Usenet posts. We do NOT support censorship of the
Internet; however, posting a message stating you are going to cause
virtual or unvirtual harm to someone will probably gain you a visit from
your Friendly Neighborhood FBI Agent."

"Probably" gain you a visit from your Friendly Neighborhood FBI Agent?

That's plain stupid.

If Chaney wants to call the FBI and complain, more power to him.

miguel

"Sean Monaghan" wrote in message

"Rhonda Lea Kirk" wrote in
:

"Sean Monaghan" wrote in message

"Rhonda Lea Kirk" wrote in
:

"Sean Monaghan" wrote in message

miguel wrote in
:

Kali wrote:
miguel said:
Kadaitcha Gimp Retard He-Bitch wrote:

Translation: even though all kookologists agree that taking
usenet to real life is prime kooksign, that's what I'm trying
to accomplish.

Good job there kOOk.

miguel

So, what are your plans for Steve Cheney?

If I ever meet him, I will put him in the hospital.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^

This is not a flame; this is a clear threat of physical violence.
This is something we'd expect from Richard "the St00pid" Bullis,
or from Edmond Heinz Wollmann - not the words of a 'marginal
kook', or from someone who is merely involved in a Usenet
flamewar.
This snippet of evidence not only justifies the open KotM
nomination of Michael Cranston attorney, but it also qualifies him
for the Bolo Bullis Foam Duck - AUK's highest lifetime-achievement
award for stupidity.

From - http://www.caballista.org/auk/awards.html

"Bolo Bullis Foam Duck - The spoonerism for "dumb ****", for those
who've lost more marbles than a Chinese Checker factory will ever
make."

I hereby nominate "Michael Cranston attorney"/Miguel to become
Bolo Bullis Foam Duck #27.

Seconds, anyone?

The nomination is ridiculous.

It's interesting how say that this *nomination* is ridiculous - not
Cranston's threat.

In the more than...I saw something from a 2004 post that indicated it
was 12 years then, so that would make it 15 years that Chaney has
been acting like a psychopath online...Mike has made absolutely no
effort to seek out Chaney and "put him in the hospital."

That would lead me to the conclusion that someone is overreacting to
words on the screen, and I don't mean Mike.

See http://www.caballista.org/auk/faq.html#question27

I'm not a lawyer, but I have 20 years in the legal profession,
three-quarters of that in practices that handled criminal matters,
including one firm that handled capital murder cases.

With that in mind, I'm not concerned that Mike will be doing any jail
time.

Note - To those

That would be my cue.

Paranoid much? I was referring to the nominee.

I'm the only person who has ever made the claim that any of these
nominations of Mike are revenge nominations, so it follows that I
would be the most likely person to do so for this nomination too.

That's logic, not paranoia.

1. You assumed.

2. You came to an inaccurate conclusion.

3. Your 'logic' failed you.

shrug If you say so.

who will want to make the k'laim that this nomination
is based on 'revenge' due to some coincidental flamewar in which
I've never participated, let it be known that there have been many
flamewars in which individual AUKers have participated where not a
single nomination was ever made. Such k'laims are ludicrous,
unfounded, and based on ignorance (and quite possibly, based on
cluelessness)

Precisely the opposite. Unfortunately, I'm still working with the
very same hand tied behind my back.

as opposed to being based on rational thought.

Honor is rational. Without it, civilization would not survive. If I
had no honor, this would be a different argument entirely.

You take the awards' programme *far* too seriously.

Oh, I'm pretty sure it's not *me* who takes the awards' programme far
too seriously.

Says the person who is post-humping my nominations.

We only call it post-humping when it's disagreeable. The rest of the
time, it's the natural order of usenet.

*whoosh*

Right. It's like being back in fifth grade. No one had a clue then
either.

Let's see if you have a sufficient number of neurons firing today
to comprehend a fairly simple argument.

First (not firstly, that's semi-literate), you kookologists
universally disdain taking usenet to real life. "Real life" is
fairly understood to mean consequences in meatspace.

I think that standard of behavior is stupid and cowardly. I think
if somebody types some nasty **** safely from under his bed in
momma's basement he ought to possess enough character or courage
to say it to somebody's face. If said nasty **** has real world
consequences, even moreso. Perhaps there is one or two of you
kookologists who possess the character and courage to abide that
standard. I think I've read about one of you who does MMA
training at one point or another. The rest of you hide behind
your self-serving rule of conduct that serves only to insulate
you from any consequences for your bad behavior.

Second, since you kookologists hold universal disdain for taking
usenet to real life, one might expect you to refrain from doing
so, and that when one of your number elects out of desperation to
do so, others of you might be intellectually honest enough to
point out the hypocrisy.

I expect I'll be waiting a long time to see any display of that.

It's the same sort of hypocrisy I pointed out to you about your
netkopping post. Are you too emotionally overwrought to be
objective about this?

miguel

--
Rhonda Lea Kirk

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

miguel wrote in
:

Sean Monaghan wrote:
"Rhonda Lea Kirk":

That would lead me to the conclusion that someone is overreacting to
words on the screen, and I don't mean Mike.

See http://www.caballista.org/auk/faq.html#question27

"27. Can I really be thrown in jail for posting threatening messages?

Yes. People have been tried and convicted for sending threatening or
harassing Email or Usenet posts. We do NOT support censorship of the
Internet; however, posting a message stating you are going to cause
virtual or unvirtual harm to someone will probably gain you a visit
from your Friendly Neighborhood FBI Agent."

"Probably" gain you a visit from your Friendly Neighborhood FBI Agent?

That's plain stupid.

If Chaney wants to call the FBI and complain, more power to him.

That would be one of the most hilarious things to happen 'round these
parts in a while. It would be quite entertaining.

That's the bit that you and your public defender are missing - AUK is
*all* about entertainment. Always. No exceptions. Period.

--
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

"Sean Monaghan" wrote in message

"Rhonda Lea Kirk" wrote in
:

"Sean Monaghan" wrote in message

miguel wrote in
:

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

"Sean Monaghan" wrote in message

miguel wrote in
:

Kali wrote:
miguel said:
Kadaitcha Gimp Retard He-Bitch wrote:
Translation: even though all kookologists agree that taking
usenet to real life is prime kooksign, that's what I'm trying
to accomplish.
Good job there kOOk.
miguel
So, what are your plans for Steve Cheney?
If I ever meet him, I will put him in the hospital.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^

This is not a flame; this is a clear threat of physical
violence. This is something we'd expect from Richard "the
St00pid" Bullis, or from Edmond Heinz Wollmann - not the words
of a 'marginal kook', or from someone who is merely involved in
a Usenet flamewar.
This snippet of evidence not only justifies the open KotM
nomination of Michael Cranston attorney, but it also qualifies
him for the Bolo Bullis Foam Duck - AUK's highest
lifetime-achievement award for stupidity.

From - http://www.caballista.org/auk/awards.html

"Bolo Bullis Foam Duck - The spoonerism for "dumb ****", for
those who've lost more marbles than a Chinese Checker factory
will ever make."

I hereby nominate "Michael Cranston attorney"/Miguel to become
Bolo Bullis Foam Duck #27.

Seconds, anyone?
The nomination is ridiculous.

It's interesting how say that this *nomination* is ridiculous -
not Cranston's threat.

How can you know whether the threat is ridiculous without knowing
what predicated it?

Irrelevant. The actions of one net.kook never make it okay for
another to make (utterly stupid) life-threatening statements on
Usenet.

Life-threatening?

Any type of a beating that requires hospitalisation is potentially
life-threatening.

Beating?


Okay, I'm not going to keep this up. You tried to bat me around in the
other part of the thread about making assumptions, but you've made an
incredible leap--"Evel does the Snake River Canyon" comes to mind--that
I can't even keep my eye on your rocket.

You can--and will, I'm sure--continue with the hyperbole. I've voiced my
objections, and I find it contemptible. But there's not a lot to be
gained beating my head against the wall over childish bullying either.

--
Rhonda Lea Kirk

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

Sean Monaghan wrote:
miguel wrote:
Sean Monaghan wrote:
"Rhonda Lea Kirk":
That would lead me to the conclusion that someone is overreacting to
words on the screen, and I don't mean Mike.
See http://www.caballista.org/auk/faq.html#question27
"27. Can I really be thrown in jail for posting threatening messages?

Yes. People have been tried and convicted for sending threatening or
harassing Email or Usenet posts. We do NOT support censorship of the
Internet; however, posting a message stating you are going to cause
virtual or unvirtual harm to someone will probably gain you a visit
from your Friendly Neighborhood FBI Agent."

"Probably" gain you a visit from your Friendly Neighborhood FBI Agent?

That's plain stupid.

If Chaney wants to call the FBI and complain, more power to him.

That would be one of the most hilarious things to happen 'round these
parts in a while. It would be quite entertaining.

I'll be sure and let you know if they knock on my door. Don't hold your
breath though.

That's the bit that you and your public defender are missing - AUK is
*all* about entertainment. Always. No exceptions. Period.

That was a pretty stupid thing to say, in that (1) neither my PD nor I
is unaware of this and (2) it's obvious what she is complaining about is
that the hypocrisy of what you are doing is in part what makes it
unentertaining for her. It's like somebody who is a narcissistic
sociopath calling her humor deficient. Precisely who would be
entertained by that?

miguel

"Sean Monaghan" wrote in message

miguel wrote in
:

Sean Monaghan wrote:
"Rhonda Lea Kirk":

That would lead me to the conclusion that someone is overreacting
to words on the screen, and I don't mean Mike.

See http://www.caballista.org/auk/faq.html#question27

"27. Can I really be thrown in jail for posting threatening messages?

Yes. People have been tried and convicted for sending threatening or
harassing Email or Usenet posts. We do NOT support censorship of the
Internet; however, posting a message stating you are going to cause
virtual or unvirtual harm to someone will probably gain you a visit
from your Friendly Neighborhood FBI Agent."

"Probably" gain you a visit from your Friendly Neighborhood FBI
Agent?

That's plain stupid.

If Chaney wants to call the FBI and complain, more power to him.

That would be one of the most hilarious things to happen 'round these
parts in a while. It would be quite entertaining.

That's the bit that you and your public defender are missing - AUK is
*all* about entertainment. Always. No exceptions. Period.

There is nothing entertaining for me in watching people that I used to
like and respect fall and shatter their feet of clay.

--
Rhonda Lea Kirk

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

In , Sean Monaghan
said:
: miguel wrote in
: :
:
: Sean Monaghan wrote:
: "Rhonda Lea Kirk":
:
: That would lead me to the conclusion that someone is overreacting to
: words on the screen, and I don't mean Mike.
:
: See http://www.caballista.org/auk/faq.html#question27
:
: "27. Can I really be thrown in jail for posting threatening messages?
:
: Yes. People have been tried and convicted for sending threatening or
: harassing Email or Usenet posts. We do NOT support censorship of the
: Internet; however, posting a message stating you are going to cause
: virtual or unvirtual harm to someone will probably gain you a visit
: from your Friendly Neighborhood FBI Agent."
:
: "Probably" gain you a visit from your Friendly Neighborhood FBI Agent?
:
: That's plain stupid.
:
: If Chaney wants to call the FBI and complain, more power to him.
:
: That would be one of the most hilarious things to happen 'round these
: parts in a while. It would be quite entertaining.
:
: That's the bit that you and your public defender are missing - AUK is
: *all* about entertainment. Always. No exceptions. Period.

That would be almost as entertaining as Cranston filing a civil
suit over having had his name and "dog****er" listed together in
the Google archives.

You see, Sean, on Usenet it's not ok to call Cranston a
"dog****er", but it is ok for him to make kooky death threats.
Get it? lol

Kali
--
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called
research, would it?"
- Albert Einstein

Kali wrote:
Sean Monaghan said:
miguel wrote:
Sean Monaghan wrote:
"Rhonda Lea Kirk":

That would lead me to the conclusion that someone is overreacting to
words on the screen, and I don't mean Mike.

See http://www.caballista.org/auk/faq.html#question27

"27. Can I really be thrown in jail for posting threatening messages?

Yes. People have been tried and convicted for sending threatening or
harassing Email or Usenet posts. We do NOT support censorship of the
Internet; however, posting a message stating you are going to cause
virtual or unvirtual harm to someone will probably gain you a visit
from your Friendly Neighborhood FBI Agent."

"Probably" gain you a visit from your Friendly Neighborhood FBI Agent?

That's plain stupid.

If Chaney wants to call the FBI and complain, more power to him.

That would be one of the most hilarious things to happen 'round these
parts in a while. It would be quite entertaining.

That's the bit that you and your public defender are missing - AUK is
*all* about entertainment. Always. No exceptions. Period.

That would be almost as entertaining as [name] filing a civil
suit over having had his name and "dog****er" listed together in
the Google archives.

You are now participating in the google stacking effort yourself? That
seems odd, as you acknowledged you've been a victim of it too.

You see, Sean, on Usenet it's not ok to call [name] a
"dog****er", but it is ok for him to make kooky death threats.
Get it? lol

Charlotte was right about me. I'm sorry you weren't more resilient.

miguel

In , miguel mjc101
@gmail.com said:
: Kali wrote:
: Sean Monaghan said:
: miguel wrote:
: Sean Monaghan wrote:
: "Rhonda Lea Kirk":
:
: That would lead me to the conclusion that someone is overreacting to
: words on the screen, and I don't mean Mike.
:
: See http://www.caballista.org/auk/faq.html#question27
:
: "27. Can I really be thrown in jail for posting threatening messages?
:
: Yes. People have been tried and convicted for sending threatening or
: harassing Email or Usenet posts. We do NOT support censorship of the
: Internet; however, posting a message stating you are going to cause
: virtual or unvirtual harm to someone will probably gain you a visit
: from your Friendly Neighborhood FBI Agent."
:
: "Probably" gain you a visit from your Friendly Neighborhood FBI Agent?
:
: That's plain stupid.
:
: If Chaney wants to call the FBI and complain, more power to him.
:
: That would be one of the most hilarious things to happen 'round these
: parts in a while. It would be quite entertaining.
:
: That's the bit that you and your public defender are missing - AUK is
: *all* about entertainment. Always. No exceptions. Period.
:
: That would be almost as entertaining as [name] filing a civil
: suit over having had his name and "dog****er" listed together in
: the Google archives.
:
: You are now participating in the google stacking effort yourself? That
: seems odd, as you acknowledged you've been a victim of it too.

Hardly, clown.

: You see, Sean, on Usenet it's not ok to call [name] a
: "dog****er", but it is ok for him to make kooky death threats.
: Get it? lol
:
: Charlotte was right about me. I'm sorry you weren't more resilient.

All I see is kook. You're not as kooky as some, but still, you
are a kook. It's amusing how you invoke the favor of Charlotte
and Rhonda whenever you're called out. One of these days you'll
use up all your free passes. Oh, wait, it would appear that you
already have.

: miguel
:
Kali
--
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called
research, would it?"
- Albert Einstein