Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 18:07:52 GMT
Subject: Re: Does the Shame of Belleville know that such an accusation is against his TOS? Re: Does Roger Approve of Downloading CHILD PORN From The Internet? His Friends Do!
References: <email@example.com> <10624-40052F47firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American)
In one age, called the Second Age by some,
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be George Haskell wrote
in message :
>On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 16:39:36 GMT,
><email@example.com> Roger wrote:
>>Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 16:39:36 GMT
>>Subject: Does the Shame of Belleville know that such an accusation is against his TOS?
>How is that Roger the Dodger? I asked a plain, simple, and honest question and
>you now changed the subject title and gutted the content of my post!
And then you made a definitive statement about my friends, none of
whom post to Usenet, nor have an affinity for child porn.
Or did you forget that part of your lying subject header.
I left in those parts I responded to, in accordance with Usenet
conventions and the dictates of netiquette.
>>>>>>Can't refute what was posted, so you resort to personal attacks, huh,
>>>>>He's the one who admitted to being a nut case so how is it I personally attacked
>>>>>him for showing what he has freely admitted about his mental state?
>>>>I see we still need to work on that whole "on-topic" concept. What
>>>>possible bearing would what you claim have on what he posted, even if
>>>>your ironic slur about "nut case" were true.
>>>The answer should be self evident even for a hard head such as you!
>>IOW, you cannot say what possible bearing it would have on the topic
>>Michael was discussing.
>How can a nut case who has been convicted of stealing a person's identity and
>has admitted to lying be taken seriously on anything and why do you keep
>deleting the proofs?
Can't refute what was posted, so you resort to personal attacks, huh,
He can be taken seriously in the same way that someone that has been
proven in court to be a lying stalker who makes serious but ultimately
impotent threats against those he disagrees with expects to be.
Who do you think that might be, SoB?
And BTW, I snip your quotes because they are not relevant to the
points that I am making, nor do I much care what Michael may have said
-- that's not what *I* am talking about.
>>>IOW Ragland thinks because he downloaded it for free then it is Okay seeing how
>>>he didn't have to pay for it!! What have you to say about your fellow kook now
>>>Roger and mind you your pal Ken McVay has obviously done the same thing too
>>>seeing how he has stated:
>>What, exactly, makes him my "fellow kook"
>You seem to be detached from reality as much as he is.
Proving once again the delusional nature of your world view.
Once again: what, exactly, makes him my "fellow kook?"
>>or McVay "my pal?"
>They definitely aren't your enemies seeing how you constantly fall on your sword
I have fallen on no swords, nor do I "defend" them -- I merely correct
So again: What, exactly, makes McVay "my pal?"
>>And after all these years are you *still* ignorant of the difference
>>between photos of naked children and child porn?
>Why don't you go tell your local police that you like to download naked children
>pictures from the internet and see what happens to you! You will get educated
So, you *want* to understand a difference between photos of naked
children and child porn. Are you also picketing the local art museum?
They have pictures of naked people there, too -- that's porn by your
>BTW your pal Ken McVay has done so himself as evidenced here:
You should really stop lying about who my "pals" are -- by your
standards it trashes what credibility your delusions lead you to think
>>>>>At least he is honest about being mentally ill whereas you and your fellow
>>>>>filth think you're normal!
>>>>Of course, the Shame of Belleville never uses personal attacks...
>>>HE IS MENTALLY ILL AND HE WAS THE ONE WHO TOLD US!! HOW IS IT A PERSONAL ATTACK
>>>POSTING HIS OWN CONFESSORY STATEMENTS TO THAT EFFECT?
>>Because it is off topic and had nothing whatever to do with the thread
>>you interrupted with your slurs.
>Every time I slam dunk you- you make that same claim! You don't like being shown
>for being the fool you truly are do you Roger?
"Slam dunk" me? In your dreams.
The bottom line is the only reason for you to keep reposting this is
as a personal attack.
>Here is another nut case:
And another completely gratuitous personal attack -- this time on
someone that hasn't even posted here in several years. What possible
relevance could *that* have?