PING FNVW

miguel <mjc101@gmail.com> Thou giglet wench. Your peevish chastity is
not worth a breakfast in the cheapest country. Thou footboy. You, that
are polluted with your lusts, stained with the guiltless blood of
innocents, corrupt and tainted with a thousand vices. Ye sobbed and ye
wavered:

> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>> Text Medium No. 5 <mhm29x21@meeeeooooooowwww.flonk> Thou goat. Thou
>> dost over ween in all. Thou quailing very land-fish. Thou
>> lice-infested barnacle. Ye disputed and ye cooed:
>>
>>> Hail Eris! On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 05:15:04 +0545, Kadaitcha Man
>>> jabbered inanely:
>>>
>>>> The Demon Prince of Absurdity <absurd_number_of_nicks@hell.corny>
>>>> Thou bowlegged hereditary hangman. Thou musty lousy footboy. Thou
>>>> dim-witted fatal screech-owl. Thou folly-fallen proud disdainful
>>>> haggard. Ye strained out and ye banged out:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 07:21:43 -0500, Rhonda Lea Kirk did the
>>>>> cha-cha, and screamed:
>>>>>> "Lionel" wrote
>>>>>>> Please check out:
>>>>>>> <3z13i2cqydadv20wxez54zsvs575dxpn1u@4nk.pbz> (Requires the
>>>>>>> obvious transformation.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're welcome to email me if the situation is less than obvious
>>>>>>> to you.
>>>>>> There's a reply in the thread that I would take as authoritative:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> rffpb0$h7s$1@arjf.argvaf.arg
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Requires same transformation as above message-id.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I feel compelled to point out that this post defines (for me) the
>>>>>> reason why an "asshole exception" to Formosa's Rule is a really
>>>>>> bad idea.
>>>>> The AE is vital -- assholes are inclined to take advantage of
>>>>> Formosa for their own purposes. They deserve no mercy, and
>>>>> anything that happens to them, happens because they're assholes,
>>>>> not because life's unfair.
>>>> I'm 100% with Rhonda on this. Despite the damning text in the
>>>> message ID Rhonda provided up there, your entire focus is still on
>>>> the asshole exception alone. You don't seem to have even the
>>>> slightest conern for either her daughter or herself, viz:
>>>>
>>>> "Although I do have suicidal impulses I put them in check for the
>>>> sake of the sperm donor's offspring."
>>>>
>>>> news:1172275831.150222.121230@8g2000cwh.googlegrou ps.com
>>>>
>>>> You should take good note of the severe and persistent dissociation
>>>> of "sperm donor's offspring" from the notion of "my daughter".
>>>>
>>>>> Life _is_ unfair, but anything untoward happening to an asshole
>>>>> isn't even remotely proof of it
>>>> Even if anything untoward happens because of some people's
>>>> insistence that the asshole exception should take precedence over
>>>> the safety of her "sperm donor's offspring"?
>>>>
>>>> Find another k0ok, Snarky. This one should be left alone.
>>> Well, actually, I've given this a lot of thought over the past few
>>> months, since first discussing it with NightMist back in December,
>>> or thereabouts (before I began archiving my chats), and I told NM
>>> she'd get Formosa'd, but I also told her she'd lose that
>>> protection. She's all talk and no action -- if there is a daughter,
>>> no harm will come to her that wouldn't come anyway because Mummy's
>>> crazy (and hopefully, "the offspring" will be taken away and placed
>>> in foster care before much longer, optimistically assuming her
>>> existence), and she'll not likely do anything to herself (not that
>>> I care what happens to the little manipulatrix) that she wouldn't
>>> do without being poked. She wants attention, not death.
>>
>> You missed the whole point I'm driving at, again, Snarky. You said it
>> yourself and still you missed it...
>>
>> "if there is a daughter, no harm will come to her that wouldn't come
>> anyway because Mummy's crazy..."
>>
>> Normally I admire confidence, but in this instance I can only take a
>> cold shower in the hope that my hackles will go down.
>>
>> Who are you and what do you know that allows you the authority to
>> make such a confident assertion, Snarky?
>>
>> The whole thrust of my opposition to the lifting of the Formosa is
>> comprised of these points:
>>
>> 1. The woman appears to be genuinely and seriously mentally ill.
>>
>> 2. Who here is equiped to answer the question, "Are her arsehole-like
>> tendencies innate or are they part of a highly complex manifestation
>> of long-term mental illness?
>>
>> 3. It is reasonable to believe that there is a high likelihood that
>> the child will suffer the consequences, either physically or
>> emotionally, of any prodding and poking done to AOK.
>>
>> 4. Not that my agreement means anything, but in order to get it,
>> someone will have to cross the real life boundary to prove that the
>> woman has no child and/or is not mentally ill. And I'll have a lot
>> to say about that if it's done by a kookologist.
>>
>> To those four points, I unashamedly add the point that Rhonda drew
>> out in her inimitable style...
>>
>> 5. "The whole point of not poking the Formosa'd person is to avoid
>> exacerbating
>> the potential danger."
>>
>> Point 1 should speak for itself.
>>
>> Point 2 should stop you dead in your tracks.
>>
>> Point 3 plus point 5 ahould be enough to knock the idea on the head
>> without the other points supporting them.
>>
>> Point 4 is a no-no, AFAIAC.
>>
>> Point 5 can't be ignored.
>>
>> I grant that, on the surface of, the woman is an arsehole who is
>> worthy of an arsehole exception, but given what else I see I cannot
>> in all conscience condone an exception.
>>
>> Look, I'll appeal to authority here... myself. I am not known for
>> letting arseholes off the hook but, IMO, AOK is one arsehole who
>> should be let off, if not for any reason other than doubt.
>>
> I'm proud of you for this, he-bitch.

Too bad for you, cranston, you sickeningly fawning lickspittle. I've already
let my quota of one arsehole off the hook for this decade.

--
alt.usenet.kooks - Hammer of Thor: February 2007.
Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker:
September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.

Vescere puter subgalia meis.

"Now I know what it is. Now I know what it means when an
alt.usenet.kook x-post shows up."
AOK in news:ermdlu$nli$1@registered.motzarella.org

Mrs. K-Lucifer the hag from Hell wrote:

<snipped>

<plank>

Maximum Dog3 <MaximumDog3@Dog3.com> Thou rug-headed fly-by-night. Thou
reeking tinder-box. Thou maggot. It out herods Herrod. Ye prated and ye
hummed:

> Mrs. K-Lucifer the hag from Hell wrote:
>
> <snipped>
>
> <plank>

Yeah, two short ones, which you're as thick as.

--
alt.usenet.kooks - Hammer of Thor: February 2007.
Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker:
September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.

Vescere puter subgalia meis.

"Now I know what it is. Now I know what it means when an
alt.usenet.kook x-post shows up."
AOK in news:ermdlu$nli$1@registered.motzarella.org

Mrs. K-Lucifer the hag from Hell wrote:

> Yes I am. I too short to reach Master Lucifer's feet, which I can't lick.
> There is trouble ahead for me.

Kadaitcha Man wrote:
> miguel <mjc101@gmail.com> Thou giglet wench. Your peevish chastity is
> not worth a breakfast in the cheapest country. Thou footboy. You, that
> are polluted with your lusts, stained with the guiltless blood of
> innocents, corrupt and tainted with a thousand vices. Ye sobbed and ye
> wavered:
>
>> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>>> Text Medium No. 5 <mhm29x21@meeeeooooooowwww.flonk> Thou goat. Thou
>>> dost over ween in all. Thou quailing very land-fish. Thou
>>> lice-infested barnacle. Ye disputed and ye cooed:
>>>
>>>> Hail Eris! On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 05:15:04 +0545, Kadaitcha Man
>>>> jabbered inanely:
>>>>
>>>>> The Demon Prince of Absurdity <absurd_number_of_nicks@hell.corny>
>>>>> Thou bowlegged hereditary hangman. Thou musty lousy footboy. Thou
>>>>> dim-witted fatal screech-owl. Thou folly-fallen proud disdainful
>>>>> haggard. Ye strained out and ye banged out:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 07:21:43 -0500, Rhonda Lea Kirk did the
>>>>>> cha-cha, and screamed:
>>>>>>> "Lionel" wrote
>>>>>>>> Please check out:
>>>>>>>> <3z13i2cqydadv20wxez54zsvs575dxpn1u@4nk.pbz> (Requires the
>>>>>>>> obvious transformation.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You're welcome to email me if the situation is less than obvious
>>>>>>>> to you.
>>>>>>> There's a reply in the thread that I would take as authoritative:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> rffpb0$h7s$1@arjf.argvaf.arg
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Requires same transformation as above message-id.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I feel compelled to point out that this post defines (for me) the
>>>>>>> reason why an "asshole exception" to Formosa's Rule is a really
>>>>>>> bad idea.
>>>>>> The AE is vital -- assholes are inclined to take advantage of
>>>>>> Formosa for their own purposes. They deserve no mercy, and
>>>>>> anything that happens to them, happens because they're assholes,
>>>>>> not because life's unfair.
>>>>> I'm 100% with Rhonda on this. Despite the damning text in the
>>>>> message ID Rhonda provided up there, your entire focus is still on
>>>>> the asshole exception alone. You don't seem to have even the
>>>>> slightest conern for either her daughter or herself, viz:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Although I do have suicidal impulses I put them in check for the
>>>>> sake of the sperm donor's offspring."
>>>>>
>>>>> news:1172275831.150222.121230@8g2000cwh.googlegrou ps.com
>>>>>
>>>>> You should take good note of the severe and persistent dissociation
>>>>> of "sperm donor's offspring" from the notion of "my daughter".
>>>>>
>>>>>> Life _is_ unfair, but anything untoward happening to an asshole
>>>>>> isn't even remotely proof of it
>>>>> Even if anything untoward happens because of some people's
>>>>> insistence that the asshole exception should take precedence over
>>>>> the safety of her "sperm donor's offspring"?
>>>>>
>>>>> Find another k0ok, Snarky. This one should be left alone.
>>>> Well, actually, I've given this a lot of thought over the past few
>>>> months, since first discussing it with NightMist back in December,
>>>> or thereabouts (before I began archiving my chats), and I told NM
>>>> she'd get Formosa'd, but I also told her she'd lose that
>>>> protection. She's all talk and no action -- if there is a daughter,
>>>> no harm will come to her that wouldn't come anyway because Mummy's
>>>> crazy (and hopefully, "the offspring" will be taken away and placed
>>>> in foster care before much longer, optimistically assuming her
>>>> existence), and she'll not likely do anything to herself (not that
>>>> I care what happens to the little manipulatrix) that she wouldn't
>>>> do without being poked. She wants attention, not death.
>>> You missed the whole point I'm driving at, again, Snarky. You said it
>>> yourself and still you missed it...
>>>
>>> "if there is a daughter, no harm will come to her that wouldn't come
>>> anyway because Mummy's crazy..."
>>>
>>> Normally I admire confidence, but in this instance I can only take a
>>> cold shower in the hope that my hackles will go down.
>>>
>>> Who are you and what do you know that allows you the authority to
>>> make such a confident assertion, Snarky?
>>>
>>> The whole thrust of my opposition to the lifting of the Formosa is
>>> comprised of these points:
>>>
>>> 1. The woman appears to be genuinely and seriously mentally ill.
>>>
>>> 2. Who here is equiped to answer the question, "Are her arsehole-like
>>> tendencies innate or are they part of a highly complex manifestation
>>> of long-term mental illness?
>>>
>>> 3. It is reasonable to believe that there is a high likelihood that
>>> the child will suffer the consequences, either physically or
>>> emotionally, of any prodding and poking done to AOK.
>>>
>>> 4. Not that my agreement means anything, but in order to get it,
>>> someone will have to cross the real life boundary to prove that the
>>> woman has no child and/or is not mentally ill. And I'll have a lot
>>> to say about that if it's done by a kookologist.
>>>
>>> To those four points, I unashamedly add the point that Rhonda drew
>>> out in her inimitable style...
>>>
>>> 5. "The whole point of not poking the Formosa'd person is to avoid
>>> exacerbating
>>> the potential danger."
>>>
>>> Point 1 should speak for itself.
>>>
>>> Point 2 should stop you dead in your tracks.
>>>
>>> Point 3 plus point 5 ahould be enough to knock the idea on the head
>>> without the other points supporting them.
>>>
>>> Point 4 is a no-no, AFAIAC.
>>>
>>> Point 5 can't be ignored.
>>>
>>> I grant that, on the surface of, the woman is an arsehole who is
>>> worthy of an arsehole exception, but given what else I see I cannot
>>> in all conscience condone an exception.
>>>
>>> Look, I'll appeal to authority here... myself. I am not known for
>>> letting arseholes off the hook but, IMO, AOK is one arsehole who
>>> should be let off, if not for any reason other than doubt.
>>>
>> I'm proud of you for this, he-bitch.
>
> Too bad for you, cranston, you sickeningly fawning lickspittle. I've already
> let my quota of one arsehole off the hook for this decade.
>
Oh my sides. When will the real abuse start? So far all I've seen is you
spooging all over yourself.

miguel <mjc101@gmail.com> Thou lean raw-boned rascal. There is neither
honesty, manhood or good fellowship in thee. Thou ignorant. Thou
stagnant, deceiving nut. Ye regurgitated and ye berated:

> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>> miguel <mjc101@gmail.com> Thou giglet wench. Your peevish chastity is
>> not worth a breakfast in the cheapest country. Thou footboy. You,
>> that are polluted with your lusts, stained with the guiltless blood of
>> innocents, corrupt and tainted with a thousand vices. Ye sobbed and
>> ye wavered:
>>
>>> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>>>> Text Medium No. 5 <mhm29x21@meeeeooooooowwww.flonk> Thou goat. Thou
>>>> dost over ween in all. Thou quailing very land-fish. Thou
>>>> lice-infested barnacle. Ye disputed and ye cooed:
>>>>
>>>>> Hail Eris! On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 05:15:04 +0545, Kadaitcha Man
>>>>> jabbered inanely:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The Demon Prince of Absurdity <absurd_number_of_nicks@hell.corny>
>>>>>> Thou bowlegged hereditary hangman. Thou musty lousy footboy. Thou
>>>>>> dim-witted fatal screech-owl. Thou folly-fallen proud disdainful
>>>>>> haggard. Ye strained out and ye banged out:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 07:21:43 -0500, Rhonda Lea Kirk did the
>>>>>>> cha-cha, and screamed:
>>>>>>>> "Lionel" wrote
>>>>>>>>> Please check out:
>>>>>>>>> <3z13i2cqydadv20wxez54zsvs575dxpn1u@4nk.pbz> (Requires the
>>>>>>>>> obvious transformation.)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You're welcome to email me if the situation is less than
>>>>>>>>> obvious to you.
>>>>>>>> There's a reply in the thread that I would take as
>>>>>>>> authoritative: rffpb0$h7s$1@arjf.argvaf.arg
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Requires same transformation as above message-id.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I feel compelled to point out that this post defines (for me)
>>>>>>>> the reason why an "asshole exception" to Formosa's Rule is a
>>>>>>>> really bad idea.
>>>>>>> The AE is vital -- assholes are inclined to take advantage of
>>>>>>> Formosa for their own purposes. They deserve no mercy, and
>>>>>>> anything that happens to them, happens because they're assholes,
>>>>>>> not because life's unfair.
>>>>>> I'm 100% with Rhonda on this. Despite the damning text in the
>>>>>> message ID Rhonda provided up there, your entire focus is still
>>>>>> on the asshole exception alone. You don't seem to have even the
>>>>>> slightest conern for either her daughter or herself, viz:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Although I do have suicidal impulses I put them in check for the
>>>>>> sake of the sperm donor's offspring."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> news:1172275831.150222.121230@8g2000cwh.googlegrou ps.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You should take good note of the severe and persistent
>>>>>> dissociation of "sperm donor's offspring" from the notion of "my
>>>>>> daughter".
>>>>>>> Life _is_ unfair, but anything untoward happening to an asshole
>>>>>>> isn't even remotely proof of it
>>>>>> Even if anything untoward happens because of some people's
>>>>>> insistence that the asshole exception should take precedence over
>>>>>> the safety of her "sperm donor's offspring"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Find another k0ok, Snarky. This one should be left alone.
>>>>> Well, actually, I've given this a lot of thought over the past few
>>>>> months, since first discussing it with NightMist back in December,
>>>>> or thereabouts (before I began archiving my chats), and I told NM
>>>>> she'd get Formosa'd, but I also told her she'd lose that
>>>>> protection. She's all talk and no action -- if there is a
>>>>> daughter, no harm will come to her that wouldn't come anyway
>>>>> because Mummy's crazy (and hopefully, "the offspring" will be
>>>>> taken away and placed in foster care before much longer,
>>>>> optimistically assuming her existence), and she'll not likely do
>>>>> anything to herself (not that I care what happens to the little
>>>>> manipulatrix) that she wouldn't do without being poked. She wants
>>>>> attention, not death.
>>>> You missed the whole point I'm driving at, again, Snarky. You said
>>>> it yourself and still you missed it...
>>>>
>>>> "if there is a daughter, no harm will come to her that wouldn't
>>>> come anyway because Mummy's crazy..."
>>>>
>>>> Normally I admire confidence, but in this instance I can only take
>>>> a cold shower in the hope that my hackles will go down.
>>>>
>>>> Who are you and what do you know that allows you the authority to
>>>> make such a confident assertion, Snarky?
>>>>
>>>> The whole thrust of my opposition to the lifting of the Formosa is
>>>> comprised of these points:
>>>>
>>>> 1. The woman appears to be genuinely and seriously mentally ill.
>>>>
>>>> 2. Who here is equiped to answer the question, "Are her
>>>> arsehole-like tendencies innate or are they part of a highly
>>>> complex manifestation of long-term mental illness?
>>>>
>>>> 3. It is reasonable to believe that there is a high likelihood that
>>>> the child will suffer the consequences, either physically or
>>>> emotionally, of any prodding and poking done to AOK.
>>>>
>>>> 4. Not that my agreement means anything, but in order to get it,
>>>> someone will have to cross the real life boundary to prove that the
>>>> woman has no child and/or is not mentally ill. And I'll have a lot
>>>> to say about that if it's done by a kookologist.
>>>>
>>>> To those four points, I unashamedly add the point that Rhonda drew
>>>> out in her inimitable style...
>>>>
>>>> 5. "The whole point of not poking the Formosa'd person is to avoid
>>>> exacerbating
>>>> the potential danger."
>>>>
>>>> Point 1 should speak for itself.
>>>>
>>>> Point 2 should stop you dead in your tracks.
>>>>
>>>> Point 3 plus point 5 ahould be enough to knock the idea on the head
>>>> without the other points supporting them.
>>>>
>>>> Point 4 is a no-no, AFAIAC.
>>>>
>>>> Point 5 can't be ignored.
>>>>
>>>> I grant that, on the surface of, the woman is an arsehole who is
>>>> worthy of an arsehole exception, but given what else I see I cannot
>>>> in all conscience condone an exception.
>>>>
>>>> Look, I'll appeal to authority here... myself. I am not known for
>>>> letting arseholes off the hook but, IMO, AOK is one arsehole who
>>>> should be let off, if not for any reason other than doubt.
>>>>
>>> I'm proud of you for this, he-bitch.
>>
>> Too bad for you, cranston, you sickeningly fawning lickspittle. I've
>> already let my quota of one arsehole off the hook for this decade.
>>
> Oh my sides.

What's wrong with your sides?

> When will the real abuse start? So far all I've seen is
> you spooging all over yourself.

What abuse, crasston? Do you feel someone may be trying to abuse you in some
way?

--
alt.usenet.kooks - Hammer of Thor: February 2007.
Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker:
September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.

Vescere puter subgalia meis.

"Now I know what it is. Now I know what it means when an
alt.usenet.kook x-post shows up."
AOK in news:ermdlu$nli$1@registered.motzarella.org

miguel <mjc101@gmail.com> Thou little thing better than dirt. A vain,
giddy, shallow, humorous youth. Thou hollow-hearted friend. Thou
dissembling, lice-infested foul misshapen stigmatic. Ye swore and ye
poured forth:

> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>> miguel <mjc101@gmail.com> Thou lean raw-boned rascal. There is
>> neither honesty, manhood or good fellowship in thee. Thou ignorant.
>> Thou stagnant, deceiving nut. Ye regurgitated and ye berated:
>>
>>> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>>>> miguel <mjc101@gmail.com> Thou giglet wench. Your peevish chastity
>>>> is not worth a breakfast in the cheapest country. Thou footboy.
>>>> You, that are polluted with your lusts, stained with the guiltless
>>>> blood of innocents, corrupt and tainted with a thousand vices. Ye
>>>> sobbed and ye wavered:
>>>>
>>>>> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>>>>>> Text Medium No. 5 <mhm29x21@meeeeooooooowwww.flonk> Thou goat.
>>>>>> Thou dost over ween in all. Thou quailing very land-fish. Thou
>>>>>> lice-infested barnacle. Ye disputed and ye cooed:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hail Eris! On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 05:15:04 +0545, Kadaitcha Man
>>>>>>> jabbered inanely:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Demon Prince of Absurdity
>>>>>>>> <absurd_number_of_nicks@hell.corny> Thou bowlegged hereditary
>>>>>>>> hangman. Thou musty lousy footboy. Thou dim-witted fatal
>>>>>>>> screech-owl. Thou folly-fallen proud disdainful haggard. Ye
>>>>>>>> strained out and ye banged out:
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 07:21:43 -0500, Rhonda Lea Kirk did the
>>>>>>>>> cha-cha, and screamed:
>>>>>>>>>> "Lionel" wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> Please check out:
>>>>>>>>>>> <3z13i2cqydadv20wxez54zsvs575dxpn1u@4nk.pbz> (Requires the
>>>>>>>>>>> obvious transformation.)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You're welcome to email me if the situation is less than
>>>>>>>>>>> obvious to you.
>>>>>>>>>> There's a reply in the thread that I would take as
>>>>>>>>>> authoritative: rffpb0$h7s$1@arjf.argvaf.arg
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Requires same transformation as above message-id.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I feel compelled to point out that this post defines (for me)
>>>>>>>>>> the reason why an "asshole exception" to Formosa's Rule is a
>>>>>>>>>> really bad idea.
>>>>>>>>> The AE is vital -- assholes are inclined to take advantage of
>>>>>>>>> Formosa for their own purposes. They deserve no mercy, and
>>>>>>>>> anything that happens to them, happens because they're
>>>>>>>>> assholes, not because life's unfair.
>>>>>>>> I'm 100% with Rhonda on this. Despite the damning text in the
>>>>>>>> message ID Rhonda provided up there, your entire focus is still
>>>>>>>> on the asshole exception alone. You don't seem to have even the
>>>>>>>> slightest conern for either her daughter or herself, viz:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Although I do have suicidal impulses I put them in check for
>>>>>>>> the sake of the sperm donor's offspring."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> news:1172275831.150222.121230@8g2000cwh.googlegrou ps.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You should take good note of the severe and persistent
>>>>>>>> dissociation of "sperm donor's offspring" from the notion of
>>>>>>>> "my daughter".
>>>>>>>>> Life _is_ unfair, but anything untoward happening to an
>>>>>>>>> asshole isn't even remotely proof of it
>>>>>>>> Even if anything untoward happens because of some people's
>>>>>>>> insistence that the asshole exception should take precedence
>>>>>>>> over the safety of her "sperm donor's offspring"?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Find another k0ok, Snarky. This one should be left alone.
>>>>>>> Well, actually, I've given this a lot of thought over the past
>>>>>>> few months, since first discussing it with NightMist back in
>>>>>>> December, or thereabouts (before I began archiving my chats),
>>>>>>> and I told NM she'd get Formosa'd, but I also told her she'd
>>>>>>> lose that protection. She's all talk and no action -- if there
>>>>>>> is a daughter, no harm will come to her that wouldn't come
>>>>>>> anyway because Mummy's crazy (and hopefully, "the offspring"
>>>>>>> will be taken away and placed in foster care before much longer,
>>>>>>> optimistically assuming her existence), and she'll not likely do
>>>>>>> anything to herself (not that I care what happens to the little
>>>>>>> manipulatrix) that she wouldn't do without being poked. She
>>>>>>> wants attention, not death.
>>>>>> You missed the whole point I'm driving at, again, Snarky. You
>>>>>> said it yourself and still you missed it...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "if there is a daughter, no harm will come to her that wouldn't
>>>>>> come anyway because Mummy's crazy..."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Normally I admire confidence, but in this instance I can only
>>>>>> take a cold shower in the hope that my hackles will go down.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Who are you and what do you know that allows you the authority to
>>>>>> make such a confident assertion, Snarky?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The whole thrust of my opposition to the lifting of the Formosa
>>>>>> is comprised of these points:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. The woman appears to be genuinely and seriously mentally ill.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. Who here is equiped to answer the question, "Are her
>>>>>> arsehole-like tendencies innate or are they part of a highly
>>>>>> complex manifestation of long-term mental illness?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3. It is reasonable to believe that there is a high likelihood
>>>>>> that the child will suffer the consequences, either physically or
>>>>>> emotionally, of any prodding and poking done to AOK.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 4. Not that my agreement means anything, but in order to get it,
>>>>>> someone will have to cross the real life boundary to prove that
>>>>>> the woman has no child and/or is not mentally ill. And I'll have
>>>>>> a lot to say about that if it's done by a kookologist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To those four points, I unashamedly add the point that Rhonda
>>>>>> drew out in her inimitable style...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 5. "The whole point of not poking the Formosa'd person is to
>>>>>> avoid exacerbating
>>>>>> the potential danger."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Point 1 should speak for itself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Point 2 should stop you dead in your tracks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Point 3 plus point 5 ahould be enough to knock the idea on the
>>>>>> head without the other points supporting them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Point 4 is a no-no, AFAIAC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Point 5 can't be ignored.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I grant that, on the surface of, the woman is an arsehole who is
>>>>>> worthy of an arsehole exception, but given what else I see I
>>>>>> cannot in all conscience condone an exception.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Look, I'll appeal to authority here... myself. I am not known for
>>>>>> letting arseholes off the hook but, IMO, AOK is one arsehole who
>>>>>> should be let off, if not for any reason other than doubt.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I'm proud of you for this, he-bitch.
>>>> Too bad for you, cranston, you sickeningly fawning lickspittle.
>>>> I've already let my quota of one arsehole off the hook for this
>>>> decade.
>>> Oh my sides.
>>
>> What's wrong with your sides?
>>
>>> When will the real abuse start? So far all I've seen is
>>> you spooging all over yourself.
>>
>> What abuse, crasston? Do you feel someone may be trying to abuse you
>> in some way?
>
> "Too bad for you, cranston, you sickeningly fawning lickspittle. I've
> already let my quota of one arsehole off the hook for this decade."
>
> So, questionably-literate he-bitch, when will the real abuse start?

What abuse, craston? Are you suggesting that someone might want to abuse
you, mere pussy that you are.

--
alt.usenet.kooks - Hammer of Thor: February 2007.
Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker:
September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.

Vescere puter subgalia meis.

"Now I know what it is. Now I know what it means when an
alt.usenet.kook x-post shows up."
AOK in news:ermdlu$nli$1@registered.motzarella.org