On 6 Sep 2006 06:04:03 -0500, "::Y-Not::" <%+15$-Y-Not@here-and.there>
wrote:
>In article <k7gqf2p41l4vm5qoq2v1nd39as2fibslnm@4ax.com>, Mephistopheles
><no-fixed@address.net> wrote:
>
>Here is what I have written to another, some hours ago:
>
>Oh I DO plan to reply to his post. Again, not to attack, but to show
>him how really funny he is.
>I saw his post many hours ago, but I wanted to stop laughing before I
>typed the reply.
>"Methinks he doth protest too much", and without substance. :-)
>People can SEE what he does. No amount of fancy overloaded words will
>distract from that, no matter how much he strains himself in trying.
>
>> To Y-Not:-
>>
>> For several months now, this group which had lain dormant, has seen a
>> wonderful coming together of various posters. Every exchange in this
>> group has been of the friendliest, both in giving & receiving. This
>> was an outstandingly happy, harmonious group. Until you came trampling
>> in to launch yet another poisonous but quite laughable assault on me.
>
>Actually, no, you are wrong. It was Romeo who broke the peace here. I
>even agreed with you about that in my post you label with such harsh
>words.
>Here you go again accusing him of being me. When you will ever stop
>that?
>
>I didn't attack you. But if that's what you want?
>Well, since you say I did, then I couldn't do any worse by actually
>doing it for real, right? If you think my nice words to you were an
>attack, how could your sensibilities survive a REAL attack? You aint
>seen nuttin yet! :-)
>Do you remember what I did to my attackers after Homeanon was finally
>arrested, when I was free at last to let loose? I wasn't hardly trying
>my best then. ;-)
>But alas, not this time. Romeo asked me not to, so it is to HIM you owe
>thanks for my gracious forbearance.
>
>> In my comments in the "Back to Basics" thread above, I had shared your
>> disappointment & had not uttered a single unfavorable word against
>> you.........Yet you fell on me with your customary ill-tempered fury.
>> What is it, that is festering away so insidiously inside you? Why does
>> my nic so turn your head?
>
>Because I have a neck? :-)
>
>You are speaking apples and oranges. Your original post didn't mention
>the activities of Romeo, that you helped to motivate, which I then
>addressed in my reply to you.
>
>Whenever you attempt to describe my negative feelings and motivations,
>that I don't have, you are actually, and quite accurately, describing
>your own. I don't have them, but you sure do, and it's awfully amusing
>to see you do this, and my other attackers as well, and none of you
>ever realize you are doing it.
>You people always seem to forget this is a job for me. I take nothing
>personally here. Those who post at the prompting of their egos, such as
>all of you do with most of your posts, and yourself especially, do take
>most everything personally, even what isn't.
>That you choose to project your childish feelings onto ME, of all
>people, is quite silly, actually. I'm a shrink, remember?
>So ah, stop that. :-)
>
>> To the general reader
>>
>> I shall not lower myself to reprint YN's incredible assault on me,
>> which includes some 15 unsubstantiated Slanders, not one of which
>> would stand up in an English Court!
>
>Actually, you lower yourself by not quoting my post, because all can
>see that it is a transparent attempt to avoid trying to refute what you
>cannot.
>I didn't assault anyone, accept maybe Romeo, a little. I but told you
>the truth you dislike. If that is an assault to you, then rail at
>reality.
>You need to view anything you dislike that is communicated to you, as
>an attack, when it is not. I have told you before why your perceptions
>are warped that way. Do you need me to tell you again? Do you need to
>be my patient again? And in public? Or will you stop this?
>
>> My alleged treatment of Romeo seems to be what sticks in his craw the
>> most.. And he builds on that lie to diss everything I stand for in
>> every single group, & all the people "who have left", he lays not at
>> his door, but at mine!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>Sorry, it's not a lie, as anyone who can read the posts will see.
>
>> So, as my latest crime seems to be involved with Romeo, let's look at
>> "The Romeo lie".
>>
>> Some weeks ago in Chris I noticed several posters making reference to
>> a certain Romeo, but no Romeo post appeared anywhere on my screen.
>> So I started a thread asking:- "Is Easynews being Picky again?"
>>
>> ****** 1.- Here is that post :-
>>
>> " I see, from the 15 plus JAMMer thread, references made to TWO posts
>> by some wannabee "Romeo".........?
>>
>> "There is no record of any post by Romeo on my server."
>>
>> ****** 2.-
>>
>> 17 minutes later, before any replies came through, I wrote:-
>>
>> "Well, bugger me. The plot thickens.
>> "The missing posts downloaded using Outlook Express.
>>
>> "So it ain't EN, but something Agent doesn't like about Shakespeare
>> characters.
>>
>> "Any ideas, Q?"
>>
>> *****All pretty innocuous stuff, so far. After all, I HAD NOT seen a
>> single Romeo post, & he could turn out to be my best buddie.
>>
>> ***** 3,- Then, out of the blue, this from Romeo:-
>>
>> >So you are some illustrious person, are you Mephistopheles?.
>> >Then i'll get a lot of enemies if i say fuck you!, or better fuck you
>> >bastard!"
>>
>> ***** 4.- So I, for the FIRST & ONLY exchange I had with him, on
>> being called "a fucking bastard", simply toyed whimsically with his
>> OWN addy, giving its dictionary definition, as follows:-
>>
>> "cenobite", vid. "coenobite"
>>
>> "From "coenobium":- a colony of unicellular organisms".
>> "I didn't know which bit to laugh at most; "colony" or "unicellular"
>>
>> "It would appear then that the question of your identity has
>> satisfactorily resolved itself, without any speculation on my part.
>> After all, I am not given to that sort of thing. LOL."
>>
>> END OF ALL CORRESPONDENCE with Romeo. Yep, folks, that was it. No foul
>> language in my reply.
>>
>> After that, the incident dismissed from my mind, I posted some music
>> for gollum
>
>I doubt the dismissal part.
>All our readers know you do this edited quoting, just to try to
>convince readers to not believe what they can see for themselves in the
>original posts. You count on their laziness to help you deceive them.
>
>I don't do this. It is deceitful manipulation. It is not honorable. I
>don't tell people what to think, like you do. I want them to see and
>think for themselves. Unlike you, I think they are quite able to see
>the truth on their own, and don't need any help for that, beyond
>advising them where to look.
>Could it be that you don't want them to see the truth, but only your
>inaccurate personal interpretations?
>Well, why else would you do this?
>
>> Then, a note to Ghost on his Glo?be piccy
>>
>> And finally, to round off my brief visit to Chris, a merry little poem
>> "Who killed cock robin?"
>>
>> I never instigated any exchanges with Romeo, He did that himsel, & I
>> gave him but one reply, as above..
>
>The why of that is obvious. You failed to mention the comments you made
>about him, outright, and with attempts at subtlety, to other posters,
>specifically to goad him to try to prove he isn't me. That is a
>security violation. You directly supported and agreed with the other
>people who attacked Romeo.
>This can be easily seen by our readers, in my discussion group, which
>you despoiled with your divisive and inciting actions.
>
>> My interest in his direction currently is NIL.
>
>Good, if it can be believed. I hope the reverse is also true.
>
>>
>> NOW BACK TO Y-NOT
>>
>> So, isn't it about time you started making apologies for a change, for
>> this bloated screed of invective against me?
>>
>> Again, I am only confronting you with plain facts, not abusing your
>> person.
>
>Lies and attempted manipulative deception, are not abuse? Then don't.
>
>> This will be my only post to you on this matter in Smeagol. For this
>> is not the place for rubbishing people. Stick to Chris for all such
>> vituperative attacks on all & sundry.....not that you'll find me there
>> all that often.
>
>There is NO "place for rubbishing people"! I don't, but you do, and you
>help others to do it. When you stop, that won't happen.
>If you can't behave yourself, and stop personally attacking people, and
>supporting those who do, with your snide dirty comments and innuendoes,
>then don't post in MY group at all. I left this group alone for months,
>but you obviously haven't cared to return the favor. I don't cause
>disruptions, but YOU sure do, and then you claim false innocence when
>you have to suffer the results!
>Actually, I hardly ever post where there are no disruptions, which is
>why I didn't post here until there was one, to correct it. Which I
>have, successfully.
>I will continue to try to help you see the damage you do, when you do
>it (even to your friends), in the hope that you will become a more
>responsible member of this society. So if you don't want that from me,
>DON'T do destructive things.
>
>> Mephi
>>
>
>It is inadvisable to accuse someone of lying, with lies of your own,
>especially when people can see the reality of things, in posts that are
>still on most servers. I advise you not to do that, especially to
>someone, such as myself, who, unlike yourself, is known to be fair and
>truthful, which you have actually counted on from me when you thought
>it was to your advantage.
>
>There is another thing. Instead if replying directly to me, or taking
>it to my discussion group (which Romeo nicely did for you), you posted
>a highly emotional title to the group here, in what amounts to an
>intentionally divisive rabble rousing attempt to acquire the support of
>your gang, to wage your war on me for you, just as you tried to do with
>your support for Morpheus' denial of identity attacks on Romeo. Do you
>think your manipulative tactics don't go unrecognized?
>A sort of a warning, here. When you engage in rabble-rousing, whose who
>flock to your banner, will be rabble, and by this they will be known.
>Why would you do such a thing to your friends? Please don't do that
>again.
>
>I hold you to a higher standard than I do the others who oppose me,
>because you are more intelligent and have a better real education they
>they do. It's a shame that you choose to use all that for willful
>negativity. Please try to do better. Please don't attack people, or
>support others in doing it, and please try to hold your poison pen in
>check. PLEASE treat ALL others as you would have them treat you. When
>you do, there will be the utmost peace between us.
>
>
>Take care,
>
>
>Y Not
>
>
> "Cogito ergo sumthing to think about being."
I think Mephi is wrong to claim this was a "flame" by Y-Not. Rather, it
was a troll post and a classic troll at that. Anyone following these
groups for the past few years would expect the anguished response from
Mephi concerning Y-Not's allegations and if outsiders could expect it,
there is little doubt as to the true purpose of Y-Not's post which
suggested Mephi may have had something to do with the picture posts. Mr.
Not goes on at great length about the "things" done to "his" groups and
he seems to revel in the fact that a possible major upset has now
occurred in this quiet backwater.
Which leads on to another point, and one so obvious that I am surprised
that a psychologist of his standing should overlook it in his summary of
who actually posted the trouble making pics. There is a fifth possible
explanation which Mr. Not conveniently fails to notice: He himself
posted the pics. He posted them using the same program as Mephi uses in
order to create suspicion. (And just in case others did not notice that
fact, he made sure the program was brought to everyone's attention in
his masterly summing up.) He would have posted the pics in the certain
knowledge that Mephi would respond by expressing grief at the intrusion
into a.f.smeagol, and Mr. Not could then turn on the upset Mephi to
lambast him with "now you know how it feels". He is as tricky as Dicky.
Now that Mr. Not has decided to crank up the troll a notch or two I hope
Mephi will stick to his guns, get back to posting some more
food-for-the-soul music and ignore the bait being dangled before him.
johnny
(change lightvision to fairview)
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 |
|