Re: Why is Iceman getting so excited over a post written by Smoocher?
- From: hoofprints <equsphotogophr@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 09:13:38 -0800
Iceman wrote:
>
> Marie wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 18:22:15 -0600, Iceman wrote
> > (in article <dnfrfq$2nr$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>):
> >
> >> Marie wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Fri, 9 Dec 2005 21:51:58 -0600, Iceman wrote
> >>> (in article <dndjcv$nuu$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>):
> >>>
> >>>> Marie wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Fri, 9 Dec 2005 19:17:26 -0600, Iceman wrote
> >>>>> (in article <dndab6$hmk$2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>):
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> hoofprints wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Psyko, the Smoochers posts are on google and include the following
> >>>>>>> information. Linda's home address in NV, a link to a map which
> >>>>>>> shows the route her child takes to and from school each day.
> >>>>>>> You are 'intimidating' a legally blind woman and her disabled child.
> >>>>>>> Why should anyone take 'your' side against BJ for making fun of your
> >>>>>>> own daughter who has diabetes?
> >>>>>>> hoof
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Liar, I posted proof, you did not. That post does not exist fool.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Now run along jump, into bed with your female friend and pull the
> >>>>>> covers over your head.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> It is easy to explain, Linda posted something I did not remember
> >>>> happening, but then I don't usually frequent the ng's that she does. So
> >>>> I found the post in question and posted a link.
> >>>
> >>> The operating word here is *usually*, instead of *never*.
> >>
> >> Of course it is, I wrote it that way. WOW, are you ever brilliant! You
> >> saw what I clearly wrote.
> >>
> >>> I guess you have a lapse in memory but I recall you stalking her in
> >>> all her usual haunts.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I did not stalk, contrary to your idiocy. It does not meet the definition
> >> of stalking, else one could say you have been stalking me with all these
> >> posts of yours. ??
> >
> > *Followed*! Feel better now?
> >>
> >>> You called Lynne a fool and told her the post does not exist. Too much
> >>> reaction on your part makes me think that you are Smoocher, the author
> >>> of the post.
> >>
> >> LOL. Why not add that to your lits too? You said I was Kali's sock and
> >> now this.
> >
> > You missed the obvious conclusion.
> >
> >>
> >> Besides, you are stuck on stupid. I told her it does not exist and it
> >> doesn't. You or her cannot post proof to the contrary. I also stated that
> >> what she says she saw she didn't and neither did you nor Linda. That post
> >> does not exist. As to reaction? No one had found the post in question nor
> >> anything remotely similar so I looked and posted what I found. Simple
> >> huh? D'oh.
> >
> > Geez, Kali saw that post, too. Think she used it as a base for her FAQ.
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> Do you care to support Linda's lie?
> >>>
> >>> You have not proved she lied. The post is there.
> >>>>
> >>>> Do you care to support Lynne's flagrant and obvious lie as well?
> >>>
> >>> You have not proved she is lying, either.
> >>
> >> Ahh, but I have, now I believe you are terminally stuck on stupid.
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> Care to explain why you are a voyeur?
> >>>
> >>> Gee, another title. First, I am a troll, then a sock and now a voyeur.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Yes, and the shoe fits.
> >
> > You a shoe man too?
> >>
> >>>> Care to explain why your choose to believe lies rather than truth? Tell
> >>>> us why you are so blind?
> >>>
> >>> Your truth appears to be a fiction created by numerous mindreaders and
> >>> fantisizers?
> >>>
> >>
> >> WTF? Are you referring to Linda and Lynne here? Brad? Wyatt Ehrenfels?
> >>
> >>> If believing in the honesty and goodness of most people is being blind,
> >>> then, so be it.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Believing without just cause is blind, and stupid. You have read proof to
> >> the contrary unless your terminally being stuck on stupid has blinded you
> >> to truth much like most kooks.
> >
> > I would rather live happily with faith in my fellow man and occasionally
> > be disappointed than live the way you suggest. Stupid it may be but 86
> > years of living my way has not changed my mind and neither will you.
> >
> > You have not yet proved that anyone has lied. All you have proved is that
> > we are talking about two different things.
>
> 86 eh? Congratulations. Perhaps you have had a senior moment and forgot what
> the original subject was that you brought up. Nevermind.
>
> While I do not retract anything that I said to you as it was based on your
> responses and actions, I have no heart in flaming an elderly person and
> there fore will not be continuing with you in this thread. It may be
> jumping to conclusions as you seem to have some limited capabilities in
> reading ng's but no doubt you have limited experience with the subtleties
> on the Usenet, MID's and the like. So if I jumped on you too harshly about
> that it is simply because I know little about you. About the only thing I
> remember about you is your narrow focus and unholy backup of Linda. Perhaps
> you are her mom or some other relative. Dunno, don't care.
>
> Have a Merry Christmas, and if it is of any value to you
>I saw none of the
> bitterness nor vindictiveness in you that I see in Lynne and Linda and that
> is a good thing.
THe emotion you are seeing is ANGER, not bitterness nor vindictiveness.
You are the one who took it too far, and doesn't like the outcome of
your sAUKing behavior.
Anger, Iceman, bitter and vindictive is in you.
And Iceman, those posts to SMDh are not only in the archives but in hard
copies.
Let's see, you have back paddled on my statement where I told you
Linda's address was in the archives, just as she stated it was, and by
the poster she said posted the post. Now you know that those posts are
there, and have stated that you saw them. Care to backpedal on any of
your other crappy statements or beliefs?
No, I didn't think so, you just are not 'that big of a man' are you!!
hoof
>
> May your life be rich and full with many more years to come.
>
> Now......into the mental killfile wit j00. :)
>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Good and expected example of normal tactics of SPP: *defense by
> >>> attack*.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Truth hurts, eh? I do not patronize stupidity, idiocy, nor thoughtless
> >> provocateurs. (k00ks)
> >
> > but here you are.
> >
> > *Truth hurts* who? Guess your mother never taught you about sticks and
> > stones. lol
> >
> >>
> >>
>
> --
> Iceman PhD
--
{ Disclaimer: Non Existent words contained within this poast
were created in response to the Paperwork Reduction Act.}
{If you have a problem with that,
take it to the Environmentalists Complaint Dept.}
A Free Thinker.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: The authority on strangers has made his pronouncement. Re: ping kali the lying k00k
- Next by Date: Re: Drop dead, Joe Jared (psycho drunk "Just Taylor")!!!
- Previous by thread: Report Brad Jesness's abuse of Amazon, again.
- Next by thread: Why is Brad Jesness in groups like alt.recovery.aa? How else can he harrass Joe Jared?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
