Re: Call Them What They Are: Those who murder Iraqi civilians are terrorists

Kavik Kang wrote:

> "Levi Juden" <levi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:MyoHe.3443$GO1.3324@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Kavik Kang wrote:
>
> Notice how many subjects he has dropped after having failed in so many
> attempts at attacking me.

Love it! So hilariously defensive have you been that, quite evidently, the
attempts have been singularly successful, and I haven't laughed so much in
weeks.

> For example, he is no longer using my SFB title
> since that didn't work out for him.

Well, you *did* point out to me that it wasn't necessary to address you by
your full rank. But hey, if it dents your ego to be plain old KK again, I
can always go back to calling you "Romulan Deputy Commander, Joint Chiefs
of Fleets, Star Fleet Battles Staff". Feel better now?

> He also dropped the war discussion,
> because that wasn't working out for him either.

"war discussion"? I don't recall seeing, among your delusional ravings,
anything that could in any literal sense be deemed "war discussion".

> I would be willing to bet that he is using a fake name,

Ah, now for once you are correct. I post with my paternal grandfather's
name since, in my rather sensitive professional situation, I would be
placing my career in government at considerable risk were I to use my real
name or my own computer.

> and
> that he and I have had many encounters in the past,

Alas, no. But I do sincerely relish many more in the future. You're such
fun!

> although I have no
> idea who
> exactly this is. He is obsessed with me, and he is not alone, many of his
> kind are obsessed with me because none of them have ever been able to
> successfully hang their coveted "kook" label on me.

http://www.all-usenet-archive.com/File.asp?service=43438
(scroll down to "KOOK OF THE MONTH ... Kavik Kang")

>>> E-mail address? You said that qoute was from a magazine... A magazine
>>> with
>>> E-Mail addresses? That's odd... Would you care to show me this "e-mail
>>> address"... I doubt it.
>>
>> http://archive.anomalies.net/paranet/newsletter/64
>
> Ahhhh.... Now I get it. This is not from a magazine as you were
> attempting
> to make it appear to be.

No, actually it was you who used the word "magazine". I simply (and
correctly) referred to your delightful contributions in "Abduction Digest".

> This is not from internet, either. And it is
> me, now that you provide some context I understand what this is and where
> it is
> from. This is actually from a local BBS system called Paranet. This was
> a
> post to Paranet which is 13 YEARS OLD!!! You must be even more obssessed
> with me than I thought to have spent the hours it must have taken dredge
> up
> a 13 year old post to a local BBS system. Wow, you are even more pathetic
> than I imagined.

I didn't take me any time at all to discovering it. I merely delegated the
task to one of my staff as a quite plausible research task in my
department. I hope my uninterest in spending my personal time on it
doesn't seem too unflattering.

> Of course, it does not have the same e-mail address as
> you
> claimed, since there were no internet "e-mail addresses" on BBSs. So that
> was a total and complete lie on your part, wasn't it?

I was, of course, interested in far more than just BBSs. Yawn.

> I've also changed
> ISPs several times in the 13 YEARS(!) since this post was made. So it is
> not the same e-mail address, you were simply lying about that, as anyone
> can
> plainly see. As such, I could have easily continued to say it wasn't me,
> but I am always 100% honest in these discussions, and this is me. I was
> on
> Paranet WHEN I WAS A CHILD!!! How did you even find something from a
> local
> BBS? That must have been some effort you undertook.

Your 100% honesty is commendable but baffling. The article in question is
from June 2nd, 1992; and since you now claim (in your posting of May 5th,
2005) to be 36 years old, you are telling me that, at the age of 23, you
were still a child.

Yes, actually, the more I think about it, the more it makes sense: I do very
much have the impression that I am conversing with a child.

> Now, as to the post itself. It is 13 years old, I was still practically a
> child. I was a much more lazy writer back then, and it is very poorly
> worded. Since I write for a living (it's a part of what I do, anyway,
> this
> is actually very interesting too see). It does come off as my believing
> in
> aliens, I admit that, but that is only due to lazy writing. Using phrases
> like "we see" and "I have always believed".

I think, quite frankly, that whichever way you might have worded it, the
meaning comes across loud and clear.

> So, now that you have provided some context, yes, I did write this... AS A
> CHILD.

Hhhmmm ... that's very interesting. Someone who, at 23 years old,
considered himself a child. Yes, very telling. Ho hum. ;-)

> It is very lazy writing, too, as anyone can see by comparing it to
> the hundreds if not thousands of other posts on the subject that reveal
> the
> truly skeptical nature that I have on the subject. Not a Raving Lunatic
> Debunker position, such as you hold, because I do not share your severe
> mental disorder, but an "open minded skeptic" position. In other words, a
> "rational" position. I would like to thank you though, for displaying
> your
> severe mental disorder in all of it's "glory". Your obsession with me is
> clear. As is your willingness to go to any length of dishonest trickery
> in
> an attempt to satisfy your demented needs. You managed to find one post
> out of thousands that was lazily worded, and are attempting to portray
> that as
> my position. Obviously, anyone can easily google my posts, and see just
> how
> pathetic you really are. How many hours did it take you to sift through
> 13 years of posts looking for a single one that was badly worded that you
> could
> attempt to exploit? 5? 6? That's quite an obsession you have there.

This does all seem tediously repetetive, you know. Far be it from me to
suggest that you may be paranoid, of course, but still ...

>>> Like I said to begin with, it's either me and
>>> taken out of context, or it is one of the other people on internet with
>>> my
>>> name
>>
>> Isn't it spooky how others on the internet not only seem to have your
>> name and your email address(es) but also so consistently make the same
>> 7th grade
>> spelling errors (e.g. 'rediculous') in their rambling fantasies?
>
> Same E-mail address? On a BBS system 13 years ago? Clearly you were
> lying
> about that all along. It does not have the same e-mail address. And I
> have a spell checker too, I intentionally don't use it so that morons like
> you
> will embarrass themselves by resorting to critizing spelling. I type at
> about 70wpm and don't care how things are spelled in casual postings,

That's what makes you so easy to find, of course. Well, that and your
ubiquitous Neil Peart epigram.

> everyone understands what word is being used. Thank you for demonstrating
> how you will grab at any straw you can reach in order to fulfill the
> demented needs of your severe psychological disorder, Raving Lunatic
> Debunker.

Yes, indeed, as everyone well knows, poor spelling and grammar are exactly
the mark of someone who (as you claim above) "write[s] for a living". Bey,
hey, just think of how much more you could make for a living if you
actually learned to spell!

>>> Are you done disrupting the politcal newsgroups with this discussion
>>> that nobody cares about, are do you plan to annoy the entire newsgroup
>>> further with your irrelivant, inaccurate, and off-topic rantings
>>> displaying your
>>> obsession with me? Nobody here is interested in discussing me, we are
>>> discussing the war.
>>
>> On the contrary, it's clearly highly pertinent and on-topic to remind
>> people
>> here (just in the undoubtedly counterfactual case of anyone harbouring
>> the slightest lingering doubt) that the fantasist kook-of-the-month Marc
>> Michalik a.k.a. Kavik Kang is a crackpot whose postings here and
>> elsewhere smack of the wildest lunacy and who is therefore not to be
>> taken seriously.
>
> Ahhh, yes, the old "I am performing a public service" line. The age old
> cry of the deranged loner loser who must belittle others in order to
> satisfy
> their fragile little egos. And you are the only person displaying
> "lunacy"
> around here. You spent god knows how many hours pouring through my old
> posts until you could find something, after passing over literally
> hundreds if not thousands because there was nothing in any of them that
> you could use, until finally, at long last, you were able to find a SINGLE
> lazily
> worded post from 13 YEARS ago. You had to wade through 13 YEARS of posts
> before finding one that you thought you could finally use, the other 13
> YEARS worth of posts very obviously contained nothing you could use in
> your pathetic attempt to hang your precious "kook" label on someone thus
> satisfying your severe mental disorder and feeling like you are "somebody"
> because in real life you are such a lonely and pathetic loser. You also
> followed me here from a newsgroup I have not posted too for months.

Oh, dear, that repetitiveness yet again. Look up "compulsive repetitive
behaviour" in a good psychology book, think about it very hard, and save
yourself lots of repetitive typing in your much awaited reply.

> Finally there is your second pure lie, after your lie about "the same
> e-mail address" when this was from a local BBS dialed into directly (and
> I've only
> been using this e-mail adress for 5 years anyway).

Oh dear, oh dear, the poor child is at it again. Yawn.

> Your second "Kook of
> the
> Month" lie is a real gem, isn't it. I have never been "elected" for ANY
> "kook awards", although it certainly is not from a lack of trying, is it?
> In fact, in the few times that you stark raving lunatics even managed to
> nominate me, I don't think I've ever recieved more than 4 votes... and I
> can probably name the people who voted for me every time... the same exact
> 4 people every time,

And you have a persecution complex as well? Uh, huh, so you have so far
told us in this very revealing posting that you were a 23-year-old child
obsessed with aliens, that you are a writer who lacks the basic technical
skills of writing, that repetitively saying the same thing 20 times is
somehow rhetorically more stylish than saying it coherently just once ... I
think I should generously save you further embarrassment by saying nothing
about your other obsessions. By the way, how are things in Area 51 these
days?

I think that, rather than pointlessly responding to the remainder of your
posting, I'll just (as the delightful old saying goes) "give you enough
rope" ...

Have a nice day! and am *so* much looking forward to your next hilarious
response!

;-)

LJ

> because no sane or rational person would ever vote
> for a
> "skeptical proponant" like me. For those who don't know what we are
> talking about, this Raving Lunatic Debunker and his similarly mentaly
> afflicted freinds have their own usenet group that they use to provide
> themselves with a pseudo-authority that gives them an even bigger rush
> when they
> successfully hang their precious "kook" label on someone. In fact, the
> "kookologists" are in reality themselves the biggest "kooks" on all of
> usenet, a fact which they display daily. So this is your second outright
> lie, I have never been "awarded" any of your silly awards, although you
> deranged lunatics have been unsuccessfully trying for years, haven't
> you...
> It just kills you that no sane people will vote for me, doesn't it? That
> only your tiny little clique ever does so and EVERYONE else scratches
> their heads upon reading my posts and wonders why such a rational person
> was even
> nominated. Lie #2 for you.
>
>
> ***
>
> KK: I brought the following over from the other post in this same thread,
> since there is no reason to carry on two seperate discussions with a
> lonely and pathetic raving lunatic like you...
>
> Damn you're a laugh a minute, dude! Your skepticism w.r.t. the existence
> of the Great Wall of China was a real cracker -- I loved that one: "You
> have failed to show a single piece of evidence to support your
> extraodrinary
> claim that there is a Great Wall in China." A pity your sketpicism
> doesn't quite stretch as far as your obsessions with Area 51 and your
> little green aliens.
>
> ***
>
> You are clearly the only person here with an "obsession". It most
> certainly does extend to those subjects, as anyone who googles my posts
> will plainly
> see. They will see my skeptical stance on the subject and shake their
> heads in wonder of how you could be such a pathetic loser that you would
> follow me here from another newsgroup I haven't posted too for months,
> spent god knows how many hours to find a single lazily worded 13 year old
> post (with hundreds if not thousands other posts you had to have seen
> passed over because they reveal the truth and were not useful too you),
> and then come here and go full bore into attempting to satisfy your severe
> mental disorder and feel like a real, normal person since in real life you
> are forced to
> live as a lonely pathetic loser. Anyone can google my posts and see that
> you really are a deranged lunatic.
>
> As for the "Great Great Wall Debate", I clearly state that I know the
> Great
> Wall of China exists. Everybody knows it exists, which is very obviously
> the whole point. As you well know, that discussion is the shield I wield
> against the lunacy of Raving Lunatic Debunkers such as yourself. Nothing
> can be proven in the face of the method of argument known as "debunkery",
> and the "Great Great Wall Debate" proves that fact beyond all doubt. Are
> you saying that you have some evidence to present for that wacky wall of
> yours? No? I didn't think so... We both know you wouldn't dare attempt
> to take that on by yourself... the last time you Raving Lunatic Debunkers
> attempted to do that it didn't work out well at all for you, did it? It
> started as a 5 on 1 gang up and one by one you each "ran away" until only
> one remained. When the final participant refused to advance the
> disucssion further and did nothing but hurl insults for 2 days, after
> attempting a lame trick of acting like he was ready to discuss it again
> only to ignore it and
> hurl more insults, it finally ended due to his non-participation. 5 on
> 1...
> and you all "ran away". Then, in perhaps the most hypocritical moment in
> the history of usenet, you actually "nominated" me for one of your
> pathetic
> awards for "running away from a conversation". Hahahaha. 5 on one... 4
> of the 5 ran away from the conversation, the last one refused to
> participate further with anything other than insults... and then they
> attempt to
> "nominate" me for "running away", hahahahahahahahahaha. That was classic.
> You guys are so pathetic that mere words can not describe it.
>
> So, now that you have bothered this newsgroup and forced me into this
> lengthy explination of who you are and why you are hear... I think we are
> done, don't you? Unless, of course, you have any evidence for that wacky
> wall that you'd like to present... I didn't think so...
>
> My usenet posts speak for themselves and reveal you to be both a liar and
> a
> stark raving lunatic with a severe mental disorder. I am more than
> comfortable with allowing them to stand on their own. Anyone who cares,
> which is nobody, only you are obsessed with me, can google them and see
> for
> themselves. Take your best shot, you get a free one, I've said all that I
> need too and further responses to you are unessary Art Deco, or PJR, or
> Bookman, or whichever of the raving lunatic nutcases you are.
>
> Of course, I will respond should you choose to attempt to present some
> evidence for that wacky wall of yours... but we both know that you won't
> do
> that. Your kind can discuss the wall, or you can discuss with someone
> else,
> as you well know. So, do you have any evidence to present for that wacky
> wall of yours? Any evidence at all? <crickets> I didn't think so...
>
>
>
> To the iraq group people, this is where I learned how to deal with the
> "dishonest trickery" I often discuss that the enemy propagansits use.
> I've mentioned before that the enemy propaganists are amatures, and now
> you can see this example of the difference between those amatures and a
> true pro
> like this stark raving lunatic. Combatting his dishonest trickery is
> quite the chore by comparisson, as you can see merely from the length of
> the
> response that he made necessary through his dishonest trickery. This guy
> is a real pro who, through just a few sentances, can create an illusion
> that
> takes pages to shatter. We can all be thankful that the enemy
> propagandists do not have anywhere near his level of skill.

.