[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"John Byrns" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Henry Pasternack wrote:

John Byrns wrote:
No, I am simply decrying the fighting technique of dragging innocent
third parties into the fray to increase the pressure on your opponent.
If you must fight with Andre please do it based on the merit or lack
thereof of what he is saying.

My complaint is against Iain, not Andre, and the pressure I'm applying
is on Iain as well. So your explanation does not follow logically from
the facts.

OK, let me get this straight, you have a complaint against Iain because
Andre's little story brought a smile to Iain's face, is that correct, or
am I missing something here?

Andre continues to violate my legal rights by posting false and
defamatory
statements against me. It is reasonable for me to express my displeasure
with Iain for his support of Andre. This is not an attack on Andre. It
is self defense.

Iain may or may not support Andre, that I wouldn't know, you seem to be
saying that because Iain liked Andre's story, that means he supports
Andre?


John. I am baffled! I grinned at what seemed to me
to be a tongue in cheek post. No more no less. My
reaction would have been the same if it had been written
by Georges Leclanche himself:-)

regards
Iain.

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Henry Pasternack" wrote in message
...
Iain Churches wrote:
Come on Peter. Lighten up. Andre's post made me smile:-)
That's a very good way to start the day.

It was a stupid, egotistical remark, and an all-too truthful reminder
of the abuse anyone can expect who doesn't capitulate to Jute's agenda.

It seriously diminshes my respect for you, Iain, that you choose to
carry on pleasantly with Andre, ignoring his many transgressions
against this newsgroup and its members.


Hello Henry

Surely ones reaction to any post is based upon its content,
not the name of the author? When I read the post
about the electric eel, I took it in the way I thought
it was intended, tongue in cheek. I did not see anything
malicous or sinister there. I grinned, and passed
on to the next post.

Iain

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Henry Pasternack" wrote in message
...
John Byrns wrote:
No, I am simply decrying the fighting technique of dragging innocent
third parties into the fray to increase the pressure on your opponent.
If you must fight with Andre please do it based on the merit or lack
thereof of what he is saying.

My complaint is against Iain, not Andre, and the pressure I'm applying
is on Iain as well. So your explanation does not follow logically from
the facts.


Henry You have no complaint against me. As I understand
it, your differences with Andre have roots in something that
happened some ten years ago, - before I even joined this
forum. How can you expect me to "take sides" in a dispute
about which I know nothing? Mike L is only a name to
me, as are his transformers. I have first hand contact
with neither the man nor his product.

Even if I did know what was behind all this animosity,
I would still probably be unwilling to take part in what
has now turned into a bar-room brawl.

All this happened a very long time ago. IMO it would
be in the best interests of RAT to treat it as a corpse
long buried. I can see no sense in constantly digging
it up for public review. Both you and Andre have a part
to play on this group. If you cannot co-exist, then
ignore each other's posts, and give the rest of us the
separate benefit of your knowledge, opinion and
expertise.

My presence here is to learn from and participate in
the discussions on tube audio. When I first joined this
group, one of the first threads in which I took part was
on the subject of AC ripple in tube amp power supplies.
The thread slowly came to a standstill, as all threads do,
and I was still less-than-clear as to what was happening
with regard to voltage ripple. One poster here offered
to send me a spreadsheet he had made in which one
could calculate the ripple for comparison with a real
world circuit. At that time, I had a slow dial-up connection
and the spreadsheet never got through. The same poster
promptly copied the spread-sheet to CD-ROM and put it
in the post to me. He would accept no payment for the
disc or postage, and was "just happy to help out" That
poster was Andre. Even though it is a while ago, my
appreciation of his help is not diminished. It would have
been easier, and a lot more sensational to have written
"What a chicken-sh*t f*ckw*t retard you are,
Iain Churches" :-)

Rather than be forced to take sides in a dispute about
which I know nothing, I would rather devote the limited
time I have to the two closed groups to which I have access,
and withdraw from RAT. If this group is to be allowed
to be turned into a bar room brawl, then it is probable
that I have nothing further to contribute.

I have seen so many good people here "slip out the
back door" The excellent Sander de Waal and
Chris Hornbeck were the most recent.
Perhaps it is now my turn?

Iain

[Andre Jute]

On Feb 24, 3:48*pm, "Iain Churches" wrote:
"John Byrns" wrote in message

...



In article ,
Henry Pasternack wrote:

John Byrns wrote:
No, I am simply decrying the fighting technique of dragging innocent
third parties into the fray to increase the pressure on your opponent..
If you must fight with Andre please do it based on the merit or lack
thereof of what he is saying.

My complaint is against Iain, not Andre, and the pressure I'm applying
is on Iain as well. *So your explanation does not follow logically from
the facts.

OK, let me get this straight, you have a complaint against Iain because
Andre's little story brought a smile to Iain's face, is that correct, or
am I missing something here?

Andre continues to violate my legal rights by posting false and
defamatory
statements against me. *It is reasonable for me to express my displeasure
with Iain for his support of Andre. *This is not an attack on Andre. *It
is self defense.

Iain may or may not support Andre, that I wouldn't know, you seem to be
saying that because Iain liked Andre's story, that means he supports
Andre?

John. I am baffled! * I grinned at what seemed to me
to be a tongue in cheek post. No more no less. *My
reaction would have been the same if it had been written
by Georges Leclanche himself:-)

regards
Iain.

Damn right too. You see a joke and, if you like it, you grin and pass
on. But to start a twenty-post flame war on it is simply anti-social.
Rather reminds me of the time I sent a post saying only, "The sun
shone today" and the usual scum, Pasternack & Pals. made a hundred-
plus-post flame war of it. I won several thousand in bets from psych
professionals who couldn't believe anyone would be as stupid to fall
for that one!

Andre Jute
Happy to entertain

BTW: Should I start a flame war about being compared, however
distantly, to Georges Leclance? It seems to me that hypersensitivity
to slight is pre-requisite of RAT membership...

[Jon Yaeger]

in article
, Andre
Jute at wrote on 2/24/08 12:37 PM:

On Feb 24, 3:48*pm, "Iain Churches" wrote:
"John Byrns" wrote in message

...



In article ,
Henry Pasternack wrote:

John Byrns wrote:
No, I am simply decrying the fighting technique of dragging innocent
third parties into the fray to increase the pressure on your opponent.

If you must fight with Andre please do it based on the merit or lack
thereof of what he is saying.

My complaint is against Iain, not Andre, and the pressure I'm applying
is on Iain as well. *So your explanation does not follow logically from
the facts.

OK, let me get this straight, you have a complaint against Iain because
Andre's little story brought a smile to Iain's face, is that correct, or
am I missing something here?

Andre continues to violate my legal rights by posting false and
defamatory
statements against me. *It is reasonable for me to express my displeasure
with Iain for his support of Andre. *This is not an attack on Andre. *It
is self defense.

Iain may or may not support Andre, that I wouldn't know, you seem to be
saying that because Iain liked Andre's story, that means he supports
Andre?

John. I am baffled! * I grinned at what seemed to me
to be a tongue in cheek post. No more no less. *My
reaction would have been the same if it had been written
by Georges Leclanche himself:-)

regards
Iain.

Damn right too. You see a joke and, if you like it, you grin and pass
on. But to start a twenty-post flame war on it is simply anti-social.
Rather reminds me of the time I sent a post saying only, "The sun
shone today" and the usual scum, Pasternack & Pals. made a hundred-
plus-post flame war of it. I won several thousand in bets from psych
professionals who couldn't believe anyone would be as stupid to fall
for that one!

Andre Jute
Happy to entertain


*** I made hundreds of thousands of dollars with bets from psych
professionals who couldn't believe that Jute would think anyone would be
gullible enough to believe that there are psych professionals who wager on
his personal fetishes and delusions . . .

;-)

[Henry Pasternack[_2_]]

Iain Churches wrote:
Even if I did know what was behind all this animosity,
I would still probably be unwilling to take part in what
has now turned into a bar-room brawl.

All this happened a very long time ago. IMO it would
be in the best interests of RAT to treat it as a corpse
long buried. I can see no sense in constantly digging
it up for public review. Both you and Andre have a part
to play on this group. If you cannot co-exist, then
ignore each other's posts, and give the rest of us the
separate benefit of your knowledge, opinion and
expertise.

No, Iain, you've got it completely wrong. I am truly
disappointed that I haven't been able to convey to you
a proper understanding of what is really going on here.

The reality gap is so daunting that I think I could only
harm my position by continuing this discussion in public.
If any of what I'm saying concerns you and you wish to
carry on in private email, I would be pleased to do so.
Otherwise, just let it go. In the future I will adjust
my expectations of you accordingly.

That poster was Andre. Even though it is a while ago,
my appreciation of his help is not diminished.

Iain, I said this to Sander, to no effect, and I'm saying
it to you now. Andre Jute is a profoundly deceitful and
harmful man. You have been duped. I am truly sorry for
that. There is a battle for mindshare here, and it looks
as though Evil has claimed another victory.

Sigh.

-Henry

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Henry Pasternack" wrote in message
...
Iain Churches wrote:
Even if I did know what was behind all this animosity,
I would still probably be unwilling to take part in what
has now turned into a bar-room brawl.

All this happened a very long time ago. IMO it would
be in the best interests of RAT to treat it as a corpse
long buried. I can see no sense in constantly digging
it up for public review. Both you and Andre have a part
to play on this group. If you cannot co-exist, then
ignore each other's posts, and give the rest of us the
separate benefit of your knowledge, opinion and
expertise.

No, Iain, you've got it completely wrong. I am truly
disappointed that I haven't been able to convey to you
a proper understanding of what is really going on here.

The reality gap is so daunting that I think I could only
harm my position by continuing this discussion in public.
If any of what I'm saying concerns you and you wish to
carry on in private email, I would be pleased to do so.
Otherwise, just let it go. In the future I will adjust
my expectations of you accordingly.


Henry. Your argument is with Andre, on a subject of
which I have little or no knowledge. How can you
make me the demon of the piece?

Iain

[Henry Pasternack[_2_]]

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
.fi...
Henry. Your argument is with Andre, on a subject of
which I have little or no knowledge. How can you
make me the demon of the piece?

Iain, I didn't say you were a demon.

I've invited you to take this discussion offline. I'd be glad to continue
it with you via email.

-Henry

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Henry Pasternack" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churches" wrote in message
.fi...
Henry. Your argument is with Andre, on a subject of
which I have little or no knowledge. How can you
make me the demon of the piece?

Iain, I didn't say you were a demon.

"The demon of the piece" is a term used in English opera.
I am sorry if my meaning was not clear:-) Perhaps you use
some other term, in the US maybe "villain" ? But I am
not one of those either:-)

I've invited you to take this discussion offline. I'd be glad to continue
it with you via email.

Agreed.
Iain

[Andre Jute]

Henry Pasternack wrote:

Iain Churches wrote:
Even if I did know what was behind all this animosity,
I would still probably be unwilling to take part in what
has now turned into a bar-room brawl.

All this happened a very long time ago. IMO it would
be in the best interests of RAT to treat it as a corpse
long buried. I can see no sense in constantly digging
it up for public review. Both you and Andre have a part
to play on this group. If you cannot co-exist, then
ignore each other's posts, and give the rest of us the
separate benefit of your knowledge, opinion and
expertise.

No, Iain, you've got it completely wrong. I am truly
disappointed that I haven't been able to convey to you
a proper understanding of what is really going on here.

Let me help: Henry Pasternack ten years ago tried to assassinate my
character for the basest of mercenary motives, the profits of Creepy
Mike LaFever of Magnequest; it was a pure hatchet job: I had done
nothing to Pasternack, who didn't even know who I was; Creepy Mike
just pointed Pasternack at me, a total stranger. like he would a dog.
Pastennack tried for years to smear me. In the process he committed
immoralities and crimes, and bragged about them. I did absolutely
nothing except keep score. I'm still keeping score. All that has
changed is that now Pasternack is trying to blame me for the way he
wrecked his own reputation. It won't wash.

The reality gap is so daunting that I think I could only
harm my position by continuing this discussion in public.

Let me help by translating this into English. Henry Pasternack says:
"I can't explain away all those crimes I committed and bragged about
in public, so now I'll run away. Again."

If any of what I'm saying concerns you and you wish to
carry on in private email, I would be pleased to do so.

The translation continues. Henry Pasternack says: "But I'll be happy
to make my false accusations about Andre Jutein private mail so that
he cannot contradict me. And I'll prove in private mail, where no one
will hold up inconvenient facts like me bragging about my crimes. how
I am innocent."

Otherwise, just let it go. In the future I will adjust
my expectations of you accordingly.

This is straighforward emotional blackmail. Henry Pasternack says: "If
you won't conspire with me behind the backs of everyone else, I will
hold you in the same contempt I have already earned from everyone
else."

That poster was Andre. Even though it is a while ago,
my appreciation of his help is not diminished.

And then Pasternack gives some samples of the lies he wants to tell in
private mail:

Iain, I said this to Sander, to no effect, and I'm saying
it to you now. Andre Jute is a profoundly deceitful and
harmful man.

You've had ten years to prove a single instance, Pasternack. You've
failed. In the process you committed crimes and indecencies that
rightly made your name a byword for slimy deceit and misbehaviour. Now
you want to creep around behind my back -- for the umpteenth time --
and spread your poison once more where I cannot reach to expose on
your lies. Besides being deceitful slime, Pasternack, you a coward.

You have been duped.

Amazing. Pasternack stands accused of child molestation on the public
prints by the father of the children he attacked. Pasternack had no
answer to the accusation when it was made and he has no answer now.
His guilt was instantly confirmed by Robert Chernofsky. who is
Pasternack's longtime co-conspirator in the crimes of the Magnequest
Scum. Creepy Mike LaFever, boss of the Magnequest Scum confessed to
the sending of graphic male homosexual pornography as a method of the
Magnequest Scum. I myself traced pornography sent in my name to
Pasternack's ISP. These are facts, standing on the public record. But,
according to Pasternack, everyone who believes these public records
have been duped! If Pasternack is not lying about that, why hasn't
Pasternack brought his bumbuddy Chernofsky (the notorious BobC) to say
it was all a mistake, he really meant another Pasternack did it? Why
hasn't Pasternack brought the father of the two little girls to say he
retracts the accusation?

I am truly sorry for
that. There is a battle for mindshare here, and it looks
as though Evil has claimed another victory.

Ah, so melodramatic. Only a pscyhopath would think that anyone who
merely keeps tally of the psychopath's crimes is "Evil".

Sigh.

Oh, it's a valley of tears for child molesters, bullies, liars and
thieves, like Henry Pasternack, and so it should be.

-Henry

There is justice after all. LOL.

Andre Jute
No child molesters in my magisterium

[Andre Jute]

On Feb 26, 7:10*am, "Iain Churches" wrote:
"Henry Pasternack" wrote in message

...



Iain Churches wrote:
Even if I did know what was behind all this animosity,
I would still probably be unwilling to take part in what
has now turned into a bar-room brawl.

All this happened a very long time ago. IMO it would
be in the best interests of RAT to treat it as a corpse
long buried. *I can see no sense in constantly digging
it up for public review. Both you and Andre have a part
to play on this group. *If you cannot co-exist, then
ignore each other's posts, and give the rest of us the
separate benefit of your knowledge, opinion and
expertise.

No, Iain, you've got it completely wrong. *I am truly
disappointed that I haven't been able to convey to you
a proper understanding of what is really going on here.

The reality gap is so daunting that I think I could only
harm my position by continuing this discussion in public.
If any of what I'm saying concerns you and you wish to
carry on in private email, I would be pleased to do so.
Otherwise, just let it go. *In the future I will adjust
my expectations of you accordingly.

Henry. Your argument is with Andre, on a subject of
which I have little or no knowledge. *

Here's the executive summary:
Henry Pasternack ten years ago tried to assassinate my
character for the basest of mercenary motives, the profits of Creepy
Mike LaFever of Magnequest; it was a pure hatchet job: I had done
nothing to Pasternack, who didn't even know who I was; Creepy Mike
just pointed Pasternack at me, a total stranger. like he would a dog.
Pastennack tried for years to smear me. In the process he committed
immoralities and crimes, and bragged about them. I did absolutely
nothing except keep score. I'm still keeping score. All that has
changed is that now Pasternack is trying to blame me for the way he
wrecked his own reputation. It won't wash.

How can you
make me the demon of the piece?

As an apprentice Zulu witchdoctor I learned to make charms against
demonization. I'll send you one but you will have to trust that I
remember which way round some of parts and incantations go...

Iain

LOL. This entire affair is bizarre.

Andre Jute
Charisma is the talent of inducing apoplexy in losers by merely
existing

[Andre Jute]

On Feb 26, 4:18*pm, "Iain Churches" wrote:
"Henry Pasternack" wrote in message

...

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
i.fi...
Henry. Your argument is with Andre, on a subject of
which I have little or no knowledge. *How can you
make me the demon of the piece?

Iain, I didn't say you were a demon.

"The demon of the piece" is a term used in English opera.
I am sorry if my meaning was not clear:-) *Perhaps you use
some other term, in the US *maybe "villain" *? * But I am
not one of those either:-)



I've invited you to take this discussion offline. *I'd be glad to continue
it with you via email.

Agreed.
Iain

And you will of course send me a copy of every letter in which the
slimy liar and child molester Henry Pasternack mentions my name or
otherwise refers to me.

I'm really amazed at you submitting to Pasternack's emotional
blackmail, Iain. What good do you think can possibly come of
permitting the slimy child molester Henry Pasternack to tell in
private lies he couldn't prove in ten years in public?

Andre Jute
No star chambers in my magisterium: right out in public or not at all

[Jon Yaeger]

in article
, Andre
Jute at wrote on 2/26/08 1:24 PM:

On Feb 26, 4:18*pm, "Iain Churches" wrote:
"Henry Pasternack" wrote in message

...

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
.fi...
Henry. Your argument is with Andre, on a subject of
which I have little or no knowledge. *How can you
make me the demon of the piece?

Iain, I didn't say you were a demon.

"The demon of the piece" is a term used in English opera.
I am sorry if my meaning was not clear:-) *Perhaps you use
some other term, in the US *maybe "villain" *? * But I am
not one of those either:-)



I've invited you to take this discussion offline. *I'd be glad to continue
it with you via email.

Agreed.
Iain

And you will of course send me a copy of every letter in which the
slimy liar and child molester Henry Pasternack mentions my name or
otherwise refers to me.

I'm really amazed at you submitting to Pasternack's emotional
blackmail, Iain. What good do you think can possibly come of
permitting the slimy child molester Henry Pasternack to tell in
private lies he couldn't prove in ten years in public?

Andre Jute
No star chambers in my magisterium: right out in public or not at all


Jute,

You are a scumbag and a lying sack of ****.

I can't think of an internet crime much lower than your inventing an Italian
audiophile to fabricate a charge of child molestation against Henry
Pasternack.

Several posts ago I rehashed the logs in question, which anyone with minimal
intelligence would conclude that the "Italian" is pure Jute, and nothing
more (acknowledging that your sycophant & tool West has less than the
minimum.

Your incredible iniquity is demonstrated by your continually posting these
libelous, bull**** charges on the N.G. so that anyone who wants to research
Henry's work will be poisoned by your lies.

It's a good thing I don't live in Ireland because I'd come over and kick
your ass myself. Whatever you think of Henry, his doesn't deserve this
series of torts.

Jon

[Henry Pasternack[_2_]]

Jon Yaeger wrote:
Whatever you think of Henry, his doesn't deserve this series of torts.

I would, however, enjoy a series of tarts, preferably apple, strawberry,
or custard.

-Henry

[John Byrns]

In article ,
"Henry Pasternack" wrote:

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
.fi...
Henry. Your argument is with Andre, on a subject of
which I have little or no knowledge. How can you
make me the demon of the piece?

Iain, I didn't say you were a demon.

I've invited you to take this discussion offline. I'd be glad to continue
it with you via email.

Can you explain why discussion is even needed on this subject? If you
don't like Andre, just don't talk with him, as a non contributer I don't
understand why you find it necessary to monitor Andre's activities here?


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[Henry Pasternack[_2_]]

John Byrns wrote:
Can you explain why discussion is even needed on this subject? If you
don't like Andre, just don't talk with him, as a non contributer I don't
understand why you find it necessary to monitor Andre's activities here?

Mmmm. This apple tart is good. Would you like a piece, John?

-Henry

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
...
On Feb 26, 4:18 pm, "Iain Churches" wrote:
"Henry Pasternack" wrote in message

...

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
i.fi...
Henry. Your argument is with Andre, on a subject of
which I have little or no knowledge. How can you
make me the demon of the piece?

Iain, I didn't say you were a demon.

"The demon of the piece" is a term used in English opera.
I am sorry if my meaning was not clear:-) Perhaps you use
some other term, in the US maybe "villain" ? But I am
not one of those either:-)



I've invited you to take this discussion offline. I'd be glad to
continue
it with you via email.

Agreed.
Iain

And you will of course send me a copy of every letter in which the
slimy liar and child molester Henry Pasternack mentions my name or
otherwise refers to me.

Andre. In the years that I have had a presence on RAT and
other Usenet groups, I have made it my policy to be polite
and courteous to those with whom I come into contact.
This seems to have worked - with one exception. I let
myself get irate with Arny K whose attempts to prostitute
professional classical recording have sometimes been
too much for the patience of even the good St.Glockenspiel.

I'm really amazed at you submitting to Pasternack's emotional
blackmail, Iain. What good do you think can possibly come of
permitting the slimy child molester Henry Pasternack to tell in
private lies he couldn't prove in ten years in public?

Andre. As I told Henry openly here on this NG, I know very
little of the dispute between you. Neither does it interest me.
Magnaquest is only a name to me. My own name is firmly
etched on the client lists of both Sowter and Lundahl. All that
happened between the two of you was ten years ago.
Surely it is time now to let this corpse rest? What good
can be achieved by regularly digging it up for public review?

I take the stand I take now, because I firmly believe that
this animosity is slowly but surely eroding the very fabric of
this our group. We have watched too many good people tiptoe
out of the back door. Sander de Waal and Chris Hornbeck,
two men for whom I have enormous respect were the
last two do to this. How many more will there be before
this group and its subscribers come to their senses?

It is my belief that just like you or I, or anyone else here,
Henry has a rightful place in this group. I look forward
to discussing audio with him.

Regards to all
Iain

[John Byrns]

In article ,
Henry Pasternack wrote:

John Byrns wrote:
Can you explain why discussion is even needed on this subject? If you
don't like Andre, just don't talk with him, as a non contributer I don't
understand why you find it necessary to monitor Andre's activities here?

Mmmm. This apple tart is good. Would you like a piece, John?

Yes, please, I love apple tarts.


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[Henry Pasternack[_2_]]

John Byrns wrote:
Yes, please, I love apple tarts.

Help yourself. There's more where that came from.

-Henry

[Andre Jute]

Jon Yaeger wrote:

in article
, Andre
Jute at wrote on 2/26/08 1:24 PM:

On Feb 26, 4:18*pm, "Iain Churches" wrote:
"Henry Pasternack" wrote in message

I've invited you to take this discussion offline. *I'd be glad to continue
it with you via email.

Agreed.
Iain

And you will of course send me a copy of every letter in which the
slimy liar and child molester Henry Pasternack mentions my name or
otherwise refers to me.

I'm really amazed at you submitting to Pasternack's emotional
blackmail, Iain. What good do you think can possibly come of
permitting the slimy child molester Henry Pasternack to tell in
private lies he couldn't prove in ten years in public?

Andre Jute
No star chambers in my magisterium: right out in public or not at all

Predictably, the Garage Vermin Jon Yaeger then tries some character
assassination of his own; predictably, it is tenth-rate stuff and
nonsense:

Jute,

You are a scumbag and a lying sack of ****.

I can't think of an internet crime much lower than your inventing an Italian
audiophile to fabricate a charge of child molestation against Henry
Pasternack.

The charge of child molestation against Henry Pasternack was made by
Pasternack's longtime associate in pornography-mongering, Robert
Chernofsky, known on RAT as BobC. Nothing to do with me; I just report
the facts. You, Jon Yaeger, are lying for your puppetmaster, Henry
Pasternack.

Several posts ago I rehashed the logs in question, which anyone with minimal
intelligence would conclude that the "Italian" is pure Jute,

It wasn't the Italian father of the two little girls who named
Pasternack, actually, it was Pasternack's bumbuddy, Robert Chernofsky.
That too is in the logs that you, Jon Yaeger, republished. You, Jon
Yaeger, are lying for your puppetmaster, Henry Pasternack.

and nothing
more (acknowledging that your sycophant & tool West has less than the
minimum.

You, Jon Yaeger, are lying for your puppetmaster, Henry Pasternack.

Your incredible iniquity is demonstrated by your continually posting these
libelous, bull**** charges on the N.G. so that anyone who wants to research
Henry's work will be poisoned by your lies.

What "work" has Pasternack done that is worth "researching"? That poor
dumb ****mat for Creepy Mike has spent the last ten years trying to
assassinate my character, committing in the process the crimes and
immoralities which ruined his reputation, which wasn't all that good
before that either. You, Jon Yaeger, are lying for your puppetmaster,
Henry Pasternack.

As to what I post about Pasternack, these accusations come from solid
sources: what could be more credible than one pornography criminal
(Chernofsky) casually admitting the guilt of another pornography
criminal (Pasternack)? The child molestation incident is just the tip
of a mountain of similar incidents which are well-known and well-
proven, forming an interlocking matrix of supporting evidence for the
child molestation charge against Henry Pasternack. Everyone who was on
the old Joenet and on the single driver conference knows who did it;
when in the midst of this storm of homosexual pornography Pasternack
appeared for the first time on the single driver conference, Jeremy
Epstein joked about Pasternack "bear baiting", meaning doing it to me,
and Pasternack couldn't be bothered to deny he was behind the
pornograpy. You, Jon Yaeger, are lying for your puppetmaster, Henry
Pasternack. Again.

If you're about to claim "Jute controls Chernofsky as well", don't
make a fool of yourself yet again. Read the threads. Chernofsky
idolizes Pasternack ("Henry is good," said Chernofsky after Pasternack
committed an atrocity). Chernofsky wouldn't spit on me if I were
alight. Chernofsky says Pasternack sent the graphic male homosexual
pornography to the computer used by two little girls for their
homework -- because Pasternack was bored with not being able to get at
me!

It's a good thing I don't live in Ireland because I'd come over and kick
your ass myself. Whatever you think of Henry, his doesn't deserve this
series of torts.

Oh, I didn't deserve ten years of immoral and pointless persecution by
Pasternack either, nor did RAT deserve the destruction attendant on
Pasternack's futile effort to drive me out. But it isn't me who
committed all these crimes and indecencies, it is Pasternack, in his
quest to assassinate my character. Trying to blame me for merely
listing Pasternack's crimes is entirely futile. Pasternack is a
vicious, anti-social psychopath. He has shown no remorse for his
crimes, which include wrecking RAT by his pursuit of me.

With the assistance of Iain Churches, Pasternack is about to start
another destructive chapter on RAT. When his vicious bullying
character has once more gotten him into trouble he can't handle and he
once more runs away, screeching imprecations over his shoulder as the
door hits him in the ass, I shall remind you of your part in defending
this vicious little man Pasternack.

Jon

You can count on it, John-Jon-Jono. Mmm, perhaps, to rub it in hard
enough to penetrate your thick skull, when the time comes I'll ask
West to explain to you what a blustering idiot you are.

Andre Jute
"Jute has clearly conducted a great deal of research into everything
he describes, investing the novel with an air of prophecy. His moral
and ecological concerns are important." -- Times Literary Supplement

[Peter Wieck]

On Feb 26, 8:49*pm, Andre Jute wrote:

"Jute has clearly conducted a great deal of research into everything
he describes, investing the novel with an air of prophecy. His moral
and ecological concerns are important." -- Times Literary Supplement

http://entertainment.timesonline.co....nment/the_tls/

Do a search on Andre Jute.

You will get O results.

One more lie from a congenital liar, charlatan and poseur. And, of
course, one who makes his accusations with no independently verifiable
evidence from any source other than his fevered brain.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Jon Yaeger]

in article ,
Andre Jute at wrote on 2/26/08 8:49 PM:

Jon Yaeger wrote:

in article
, Andre
Jute at wrote on 2/26/08 1:24 PM:

On Feb 26, 4:18*pm, "Iain Churches" wrote:
"Henry Pasternack" wrote in message

I've invited you to take this discussion offline. *I'd be glad to continue
it with you via email.

Agreed.
Iain

And you will of course send me a copy of every letter in which the
slimy liar and child molester Henry Pasternack mentions my name or
otherwise refers to me.

I'm really amazed at you submitting to Pasternack's emotional
blackmail, Iain. What good do you think can possibly come of
permitting the slimy child molester Henry Pasternack to tell in
private lies he couldn't prove in ten years in public?

Andre Jute
No star chambers in my magisterium: right out in public or not at all

Predictably, the Garage Vermin Jon Yaeger then tries some character
assassination of his own; predictably, it is tenth-rate stuff and
nonsense:

Jute,

You are a scumbag and a lying sack of ****.

I can't think of an internet crime much lower than your inventing an Italian
audiophile to fabricate a charge of child molestation against Henry
Pasternack.

The charge of child molestation against Henry Pasternack was made by
Pasternack's longtime associate in pornography-mongering, Robert
Chernofsky, known on RAT as BobC. Nothing to do with me; I just report
the facts. You, Jon Yaeger, are lying for your puppetmaster, Henry
Pasternack.

Several posts ago I rehashed the logs in question, which anyone with minimal
intelligence would conclude that the "Italian" is pure Jute,

It wasn't the Italian father of the two little girls who named
Pasternack, actually, it was Pasternack's bumbuddy, Robert Chernofsky.
That too is in the logs that you, Jon Yaeger, republished. You, Jon
Yaeger, are lying for your puppetmaster, Henry Pasternack.

and nothing
more (acknowledging that your sycophant & tool West has less than the
minimum.

You, Jon Yaeger, are lying for your puppetmaster, Henry Pasternack.

Your incredible iniquity is demonstrated by your continually posting these
libelous, bull**** charges on the N.G. so that anyone who wants to research
Henry's work will be poisoned by your lies.

What "work" has Pasternack done that is worth "researching"? That poor
dumb ****mat for Creepy Mike has spent the last ten years trying to
assassinate my character, committing in the process the crimes and
immoralities which ruined his reputation, which wasn't all that good
before that either. You, Jon Yaeger, are lying for your puppetmaster,
Henry Pasternack.

As to what I post about Pasternack, these accusations come from solid
sources: what could be more credible than one pornography criminal
(Chernofsky) casually admitting the guilt of another pornography
criminal (Pasternack)? The child molestation incident is just the tip
of a mountain of similar incidents which are well-known and well-
proven, forming an interlocking matrix of supporting evidence for the
child molestation charge against Henry Pasternack. Everyone who was on
the old Joenet and on the single driver conference knows who did it;
when in the midst of this storm of homosexual pornography Pasternack
appeared for the first time on the single driver conference, Jeremy
Epstein joked about Pasternack "bear baiting", meaning doing it to me,
and Pasternack couldn't be bothered to deny he was behind the
pornograpy. You, Jon Yaeger, are lying for your puppetmaster, Henry
Pasternack. Again.

If you're about to claim "Jute controls Chernofsky as well", don't
make a fool of yourself yet again. Read the threads. Chernofsky
idolizes Pasternack ("Henry is good," said Chernofsky after Pasternack
committed an atrocity). Chernofsky wouldn't spit on me if I were
alight. Chernofsky says Pasternack sent the graphic male homosexual
pornography to the computer used by two little girls for their
homework -- because Pasternack was bored with not being able to get at
me!

It's a good thing I don't live in Ireland because I'd come over and kick
your ass myself. Whatever you think of Henry, his doesn't deserve this
series of torts.

Oh, I didn't deserve ten years of immoral and pointless persecution by
Pasternack either, nor did RAT deserve the destruction attendant on
Pasternack's futile effort to drive me out. But it isn't me who
committed all these crimes and indecencies, it is Pasternack, in his
quest to assassinate my character. Trying to blame me for merely
listing Pasternack's crimes is entirely futile. Pasternack is a
vicious, anti-social psychopath. He has shown no remorse for his
crimes, which include wrecking RAT by his pursuit of me.

With the assistance of Iain Churches, Pasternack is about to start
another destructive chapter on RAT. When his vicious bullying
character has once more gotten him into trouble he can't handle and he
once more runs away, screeching imprecations over his shoulder as the
door hits him in the ass, I shall remind you of your part in defending
this vicious little man Pasternack.

Jon

You can count on it, John-Jon-Jono. Mmm, perhaps, to rub it in hard
enough to penetrate your thick skull, when the time comes I'll ask
West to explain to you what a blustering idiot you are.

Andre Jute
"Jute has clearly conducted a great deal of research into everything
he describes, investing the novel with an air of prophecy. His moral
and ecological concerns are important." -- Times Literary Supplement


'Dre,

Please have West -- who can't find his ass with both hands -- tell me what
an idiot I am.

In the meantime, all of your subterfuge aside . . . the crux of your deceit
is inventing the Italian with two daughters who "happened upon" pornography
that you falsely ascribe to Mr. Pasternack. Hence the spurious "child
molester" moniker that you invented for him.

I didn't find any indication that Henry was an alleged "child molester" in
anything else I read, except the part that you invented. Maybe you got Bob
to believe your ****; I don't know.

Accusing someone of child molestation is a serious thing. And if you are
not the originator of the lie (which I believe you to be) then you are
perpetuating the lie and slander.

Can YOU PROVE Henry is or was a child molester? Of course not. So STFU.

Jon

[Andre Jute]

Jon Yaeger wrote:

Andre Jute at wrote on 2/26/08 8:49 PM:

Jon Yaeger wrote:

Andre Jute at wrote on 2/26/08 1:24 PM:

On Feb 26, 4:18 pm, "Iain Churches" wrote:
"Henry Pasternack" wrote in message

I've invited you to take this discussion offline. I'd be glad to continue
it with you via email.

Agreed.
Iain

And you will of course send me a copy of every letter in which the
slimy liar and child molester Henry Pasternack mentions my name or
otherwise refers to me.

I'm really amazed at you submitting to Pasternack's emotional
blackmail, Iain. What good do you think can possibly come of
permitting the slimy child molester Henry Pasternack to tell in
private lies he couldn't prove in ten years in public?

Andre Jute
No star chambers in my magisterium: right out in public or not at all

Predictably, the Garage Vermin Jon Yaeger then tries some character
assassination of his own; predictably, it is tenth-rate stuff and
nonsense:

Jute,

You are a scumbag and a lying sack of ****.

I can't think of an internet crime much lower than your inventing an Italian
audiophile to fabricate a charge of child molestation against Henry
Pasternack.

The charge of child molestation against Henry Pasternack was made by
Pasternack's longtime associate in pornography-mongering, Robert
Chernofsky, known on RAT as BobC. Nothing to do with me; I just report
the facts. You, Jon Yaeger, are lying for your puppetmaster, Henry
Pasternack.

Several posts ago I rehashed the logs in question, which anyone with minimal
intelligence would conclude that the "Italian" is pure Jute,

It wasn't the Italian father of the two little girls who named
Pasternack, actually, it was Pasternack's bumbuddy, Robert Chernofsky.
That too is in the logs that you, Jon Yaeger, republished. You, Jon
Yaeger, are lying for your puppetmaster, Henry Pasternack.

and nothing
more (acknowledging that your sycophant & tool West has less than the
minimum.

You, Jon Yaeger, are lying for your puppetmaster, Henry Pasternack.

Your incredible iniquity is demonstrated by your continually posting these
libelous, bull**** charges on the N.G. so that anyone who wants to research
Henry's work will be poisoned by your lies.

What "work" has Pasternack done that is worth "researching"? That poor
dumb ****mat for Creepy Mike has spent the last ten years trying to
assassinate my character, committing in the process the crimes and
immoralities which ruined his reputation, which wasn't all that good
before that either. You, Jon Yaeger, are lying for your puppetmaster,
Henry Pasternack.

As to what I post about Pasternack, these accusations come from solid
sources: what could be more credible than one pornography criminal
(Chernofsky) casually admitting the guilt of another pornography
criminal (Pasternack)? The child molestation incident is just the tip
of a mountain of similar incidents which are well-known and well-
proven, forming an interlocking matrix of supporting evidence for the
child molestation charge against Henry Pasternack. Everyone who was on
the old Joenet and on the single driver conference knows who did it;
when in the midst of this storm of homosexual pornography Pasternack
appeared for the first time on the single driver conference, Jeremy
Epstein joked about Pasternack "bear baiting", meaning doing it to me,
and Pasternack couldn't be bothered to deny he was behind the
pornograpy. You, Jon Yaeger, are lying for your puppetmaster, Henry
Pasternack. Again.

If you're about to claim "Jute controls Chernofsky as well", don't
make a fool of yourself yet again. Read the threads. Chernofsky
idolizes Pasternack ("Henry is good," said Chernofsky after Pasternack
committed an atrocity). Chernofsky wouldn't spit on me if I were
alight. Chernofsky says Pasternack sent the graphic male homosexual
pornography to the computer used by two little girls for their
homework -- because Pasternack was bored with not being able to get at
me!

It's a good thing I don't live in Ireland because I'd come over and kick
your ass myself. Whatever you think of Henry, his doesn't deserve this
series of torts.

Oh, I didn't deserve ten years of immoral and pointless persecution by
Pasternack either, nor did RAT deserve the destruction attendant on
Pasternack's futile effort to drive me out. But it isn't me who
committed all these crimes and indecencies, it is Pasternack, in his
quest to assassinate my character. Trying to blame me for merely
listing Pasternack's crimes is entirely futile. Pasternack is a
vicious, anti-social psychopath. He has shown no remorse for his
crimes, which include wrecking RAT by his pursuit of me.

With the assistance of Iain Churches, Pasternack is about to start
another destructive chapter on RAT. When his vicious bullying
character has once more gotten him into trouble he can't handle and he
once more runs away, screeching imprecations over his shoulder as the
door hits him in the ass, I shall remind you of your part in defending
this vicious little man Pasternack.

Jon

You can count on it, John-Jon-Jono. Mmm, perhaps, to rub it in hard
enough to penetrate your thick skull, when the time comes I'll ask
West to explain to you what a blustering idiot you are.

Andre Jute
"Jute has clearly conducted a great deal of research into everything
he describes, investing the novel with an air of prophecy. His moral
and ecological concerns are important." -- Times Literary Supplement


'Dre,

Please have West -- who can't find his ass with both hands -- tell me what
an idiot I am.

As soon as Pasternack has run away again.

In the meantime, all of your subterfuge aside . . . the crux of your deceit
is inventing the Italian with two daughters who "happened upon" pornography
that you falsely ascribe to Mr. Pasternack. Hence the spurious "child
molester" moniker that you invented for him.

No, the two little girls didn't "happen upon" the pornography as you
have it. The father built one of my amplifier designs and Pasternack,
in the standard Magnequest Scum method of sending disgusting
pornography in my name to anyone who had any dealings with me, sent
the graphic male homosexual pornography to his mailbox -- on the same
computer his two little girls used for their homework and for writing
to their granny. The father traced the pornography to Pasternack's ISP
but didn't accuse Pasternack by name. Pasternack's friend Robert
Chernofsky named Pasternack.

I didn't find any indication that Henry was an alleged "child molester" in
anything else I read, except the part that you invented.

Robert Chernofsky, Pasternack's friend who named Pasternack as the
child molester, is only too real, with a long track record here on
RAT, and a living persona you can track to Riverside Drive. But you
won't, will you, because you are willfully blind to the evidence
against Pasternack.

Pasternack is a thief who stole my property. It sits on his netsite
still. Pasternack bragged publicly about his persecution of me, of
destroying my livelihood. An expert I hired traced pornography, same
as above, sent to the single driver conference, to Pasternack.
Pasternack's motivator, Creepy Mike Lafevre, confessed that his gang
sent the pornography. We're not talking about a single occurrence or a
few incidents here, we are talking about years of systematic evil
committed by Pasternack & Pals. They publicly gloated about it. Child
molestation is a very small step from there. I have no difficulty in
believing it.

Maybe you got Bob
to believe your ****; I don't know.

LOL. You'll cost me another keyboard, you silly little man. You should
read the threads here on RAT. BobC honestly believed RAT's only
business was and should be to destroy me.

No, Bob Chernofsky named Henry "Porno" Pasternack because Chernofsky
couldn't see that there was anything wrong with sending disgusting
pornography in my name to total strangers merely to intimidate me.
Chernofsky is a psychopath, just like Pasternack.

Accusing someone of child molestation is a serious thing. And if you are
not the originator of the lie (which I believe you to be) then you are
perpetuating the lie and slander.

Who cares **** what you believe, Yaeger? You're a crooked garage
trader and a witless internet flamer. I'm only corresponding with you
because you don't know when you're beat and you therefore give me
another chance to impress Pasternack's guilt on the index. In my
opinion, if you saw Pasternack molest children, you would lie to deny
it.

Can YOU PROVE Henry is or was a child molester? Of course not. So STFU.

The balance of evidence is overwhelming. Even more damning is the fact
that Pasternack has not brought his bumbuddy Chernofsky to RAT to
retract his accusation of Porno Pas. Chernofsky has demonstrated often
enough that he has no compunction in lying for members of the
Magnequest Scum, so we must wonder if even Chernofsky's scurvy soul
revolts at Pasternack's child molestation (now that the implications
have been explained to Chernofsky -- he sure as hell didn't understand
them when he blurted out Pasternack's sickening reason for the child
molestation, that Pasternack was bored because he couldn't get at me).

Jon

For God's sake man, even without the child molestation Pasternack is
indubitably vicious scum. And what makes him vicious scum, and the
fact that he ran with confessed pornographers, and the very period
(over ten years now) over which he committed these crimes, all adds up
to a psychopath who would without hesitation punish the children for
the father's "sins". The final proof of Pasternack's psychopathology
is that he shows no remorse for his crimes, his lies, his bullying,
his thefts, the pornography, the assaults on complete strangers merely
to intimidate me. What, in this uniquely Pasternackian perspective, is
a little child molestation?

Get real, Yaeger. What all this comes down to is that you have no
answer to the charge of child molestation against Pasternack -- except
to beat up the messenger.

Andre Jute
Disgusted with apologists for a child molester
***
"Jute has clearly conducted a great deal of research into everything
he describes, investing the novel with an air of prophecy. His moral
and ecological concerns are important." -- Times Literary Supplement

[Andre Jute]

This is what happens when a jumped-up janitor (and wannabe writer --
almost an axiomatic condition with these clowns) is "enabled" by the
internet to correspond with intellectuals and starts believing he is
their equal:

Worthless Wiecky aka Peter Wieck wrote:

On Feb 26, 8:49*pm, Andre Jute wrote:

"Jute has clearly conducted a great deal of research into everything
he describes, investing the novel with an air of prophecy. His moral
and ecological concerns are important." -- Times Literary Supplement

http://entertainment.timesonline.co....nment/the_tls/

Do a search on Andre Jute.

Of course you didn't find it there, you silly little man. As everyone
knows, except apparently jumped-up janitors like you, that section of
the TLS archive dates back only to 1994.

You will get O results.

There's a difference, Worthless, between a capital O and the numeral
zero rendered as 0. Such details matter quite as much as clean linen,
but I wouldn't expect you to understand.

If you are so ignorant of matters familiar to every cultured person
that you look in the wrong place, and then make accusations based on
your ignorance, you are a liar and scum.

One more lie from a congenital liar, charlatan and poseur.

As I said, Worthless Wiecky, you are a liar and scum. But that's
hardly news. I look forward to your abject apology when you at last
find the rather jolly review from which the blurb was taken by my
publisher.

And, of
course, one who makes his accusations with no independently verifiable
evidence from any source other than his fevered brain.

Come now, Worthless, even you cannot be that stupid. Your pal Henry
"Porno" Pasternack was accused of child molestation by Robert
Chernofsky on the Joenet. That stands on the Sound List archive at
Harvard and the relevant extracts were published here on RAT by your
fellow toilet seat germ, the garage vermin Jon Yaeger. Chernofsky
lives on Riverside Drive in Brooklyn, New York and posted here on RAT
for years in support of Pasternack; his nom de flambe was BobC. A
child molester doesn't get any more independently verifiable than
being accused by the children, the parents and his own comrade-in-
pornography.

Funny thing is, you scum have never addressed the fully verifiable
fact that Pasternack was named as the child abuser in question not by
me but by Pasternack's own bumbuddy and pornography accomplice, Robert
Chernofsky. I wonder why you are so reticent about BobC's sterling
service in outing Porno Pas.

But, hey, why bother telling you? We're used to you missing the
evidence even after you fall over it, aren't we, Worthless Wiecky? And
lying about it after it is explained to you. After all, that is why we
call you Worthless, because you're both useless and dishonest.

We also remember how for years poor Worthless Wiecky tried to make out
my publishers, all of them leading trade publishers, are vanity
publishers. What an eejit:

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

Below I publish the reason poor Worthless tries so hard to assassinate
my character: I'm in the process of establishing beyond any doubt that
his hero Henry Pasternack is a child molester.

Andre Jute
Laughing so hard, I sputtered Earl Grey into my keyboard --
fortunately I find the net so amusing, I buy them by the dozen so that
I always have another to hand

*******
Jon Yaeger wrote:

in article
, Andre
Jute at wrote on 2/26/08 1:24 PM:

On Feb 26, 4:18*pm, "Iain Churches" wrote:
"Henry Pasternack" wrote in message

I've invited you to take this discussion offline. *I'd be glad to continue
it with you via email.

Agreed.
Iain

And you will of course send me a copy of every letter in which the
slimy liar and child molester Henry Pasternack mentions my name or
otherwise refers to me.

I'm really amazed at you submitting to Pasternack's emotional
blackmail, Iain. What good do you think can possibly come of
permitting the slimy child molester Henry Pasternack to tell in
private lies he couldn't prove in ten years in public?

Andre Jute
No star chambers in my magisterium: right out in public or not at all

Predictably, the Garage Vermin Jon Yaeger then tries some character
assassination of his own; predictably, it is tenth-rate stuff and
nonsense:

Jute,

You are a scumbag and a lying sack of ****.

I can't think of an internet crime much lower than your inventing an Italian
audiophile to fabricate a charge of child molestation against Henry
Pasternack.

The charge of child molestation against Henry Pasternack was made by
Pasternack's longtime associate in pornography-mongering, Robert
Chernofsky, known on RAT as BobC. Nothing to do with me; I just report
the facts. You, Jon Yaeger, are lying for your puppetmaster, Henry
Pasternack.

Several posts ago I rehashed the logs in question, which anyone with minimal
intelligence would conclude that the "Italian" is pure Jute,

It wasn't the Italian father of the two little girls who named
Pasternack, actually, it was Pasternack's bumbuddy, Robert Chernofsky.
That too is in the logs that you, Jon Yaeger, republished. You, Jon
Yaeger, are lying for your puppetmaster, Henry Pasternack.

and nothing
more (acknowledging that your sycophant & tool West has less than the
minimum.

You, Jon Yaeger, are lying for your puppetmaster, Henry Pasternack.

Your incredible iniquity is demonstrated by your continually posting these
libelous, bull**** charges on the N.G. so that anyone who wants to research
Henry's work will be poisoned by your lies.

What "work" has Pasternack done that is worth "researching"? That poor
dumb ****mat for Creepy Mike has spent the last ten years trying to
assassinate my character, committing in the process the crimes and
immoralities which ruined his reputation, which wasn't all that good
before that either. You, Jon Yaeger, are lying for your puppetmaster,
Henry Pasternack.

As to what I post about Pasternack, these accusations come from solid
sources: what could be more credible than one pornography criminal
(Chernofsky) casually admitting the guilt of another pornography
criminal (Pasternack)? The child molestation incident is just the tip
of a mountain of similar incidents which are well-known and well-
proven, forming an interlocking matrix of supporting evidence for the
child molestation charge against Henry Pasternack. Everyone who was on
the old Joenet and on the single driver conference knows who did it;
when in the midst of this storm of homosexual pornography Pasternack
appeared for the first time on the single driver conference, Jeremy
Epstein joked about Pasternack "bear baiting", meaning doing it to me,
and Pasternack couldn't be bothered to deny he was behind the
pornograpy. You, Jon Yaeger, are lying for your puppetmaster, Henry
Pasternack. Again.

If you're about to claim "Jute controls Chernofsky as well", don't
make a fool of yourself yet again. Read the threads. Chernofsky
idolizes Pasternack ("Henry is good," said Chernofsky after Pasternack
committed an atrocity). Chernofsky wouldn't spit on me if I were
alight. Chernofsky says Pasternack sent the graphic male homosexual
pornography to the computer used by two little girls for their
homework -- because Pasternack was bored with not being able to get at
me!

It's a good thing I don't live in Ireland because I'd come over and kick
your ass myself. Whatever you think of Henry, his doesn't deserve this
series of torts.

Oh, I didn't deserve ten years of immoral and pointless persecution by
Pasternack either, nor did RAT deserve the destruction attendant on
Pasternack's futile effort to drive me out. But it isn't me who
committed all these crimes and indecencies, it is Pasternack, in his
quest to assassinate my character. Trying to blame me for merely
listing Pasternack's crimes is entirely futile. Pasternack is a
vicious, anti-social psychopath. He has shown no remorse for his
crimes, which include wrecking RAT by his pursuit of me.

With the assistance of Iain Churches, Pasternack is about to start
another destructive chapter on RAT. When his vicious bullying
character has once more gotten him into trouble he can't handle and he
once more runs away, screeching imprecations over his shoulder as the
door hits him in the ass, I shall remind you of your part in defending
this vicious little man Pasternack.

Jon

You can count on it, John-Jon-Jono. Mmm, perhaps, to rub it in hard
enough to penetrate your thick skull, when the time comes I'll ask
West to explain to you what a blustering idiot you are.

Andre Jute
"Jute has clearly conducted a great deal of research into everything
he describes, investing the novel with an air of prophecy. His moral
and ecological concerns are important." -- Times Literary Supplement

[Peter Wieck]

Poltroon:

So, I am not in your killfile after all. One more lie.

As I am sure you have an original copy of the TLS in hand, why not
publish a link to it for all to see? Otherwise, you are merely
attempting to spin your way out of another lie.

Further, it is just sad that you are still attempting to ride on
(likely pretended) accomplishments over 14 years old (at least). One
would think that you would have moved on by now to more recent events
to support your charlatanism - at least something that could be easily
and independently verified. Something that is sadly lacking in every
one of your accusations and attempts at character assasination. All
that you actually accomplish is showing yourself for a pathetic fool
who needs his meds adjusted yet again.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[West]

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
...
On Feb 17, 11:11 am, tubegarden wrote:
On Feb 16, 3:54?pm, Andre Jute wrote:

"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; give a man a fully
charged electric eel and he'll never bother you for anything else ever
again."
? ? ? ? ? ? -- Anonymous

Hi RATs!

Give a man a walrus and a carpenter and he'll enjoy having tea and
crumpets while the stereo drives all three crazy and they then go out
and attack Cleveland, Ohio.

Happy Ears!
Al

An attack on Cleveland could only result in an improvement.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

Cleveland can't be too bad compared to Wyncote with you as a resident there

west.

[Peter Wieck]

On Mar 2, 2:31*pm, "West" wrote:

Cleveland can't be too bad compared to Wyncote with you as a resident there

Community Statistics of 34654
population male 10,690
population female 10,608
median age 39.86
college graduate 19%
white collar 74%
blue collar 26%
no. of households 7,797
no. of family households 5,474
average family size 3.29
median household income $43,734
average household income $58,817
total crime index 28
average January low temperature 50.2 F
average July High Temperature 91.3 F
Rain Fall - Annual 52.42"
air pollution index 87


population male 3,788
population female 2,800
median age 48.62
college graduate 42%
white collar 82%
blue collar 18%
no. of households 2,434
no. of family households 1,500
average family size 3.09
median household income $80,832
average household income $88,854
total crime index 14
average January low temperature 23.6 F
average July High Temperature 86.5 F
Rain Fall - Annual 47.93"
air pollution index 97


Well, better here than New Port Richie....

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Andre Jute]

I still haven't put the little scumbag Worthless Peter Wieck back in
my killfile because I keep hoping that the wretched little man will
say something I can add to Creepy Mike and Porno Pas's ****list. Now
he as sent some statistics of the kind with which I am intimately
familiar; they are the bread and butter of an applied demographer.
They permit me to describe the two communities precisely without ever
having been there. Read on and you will aloud, and weep in rage at the
waste.

On Mar 2, 7:51*pm, Peter Wieck wrote:
On Mar 2, 2:31*pm, "West" wrote:

Cleveland can't be too bad compared to Wyncote with you as a resident there

This is apparently West's hometown. We don't know if the stats are
honest or if Worthless Wiecky cooked them; he has a history of telling
barefaced lies. But here goes:
Community Statistics of 34654
population male 10,690
population female 10,608
median age 39.86
college graduate 19%
white collar 74%
blue collar 26%
no. of households 7,797
no. of family households 5,474
average family size 3.29
median household income $43,734
average household income $58,817
total crime index 28
average January low temperature 50.2 F
average July High Temperature 91.3 F
Rain Fall - Annual 52.42"
air pollution index 87

I see an honest hardworking town of real people, what we once used
approvingly to call "middle America".

And here Worthless Wiecky brags about the place where he lives, which
appears to be an incorporation of bragging rights rather than a
hometown:
population male 3,788
population female 2,800
median age 48.62
college graduate 42%
white collar 82%
blue collar 18%
no. of households 2,434
no. of family households 1,500
average family size 3.09
median household income $80,832
average household income $88,854
total crime index 14
average January low temperature 23.6 F
average July High Temperature 86.5 F
Rain Fall - Annual 47.93"
air pollution index 97

Now here we see a bunch of aging and smug profiteers and low-level
speculators. people who are rich rather than prosperous, who when they
should be living at their ease in a graded society, as all healthy
societies are, instead are fearfully hiding among their own kind, not
quite comfortable there either, probably wondering about buying
another gun. They are a prime target for the sellers of gated, armed
response communities. I bet that despite the higher percentage of
college degrees, true literacy is lower in Worthless Wiecky's town
than in the first community we saw. We have a sample in Worthless
Wiecky's falsely portentous writing, which always by its refusal to
give up a singular meaning appears jerry-built.

Well, better here than New Port Richie....

You're a parvenu, Worthless Peter Wieck, and every time you open your
mouth you confirm our worst suspicions that you're all flash and no
flesh, all brag and no substance.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

Andre Jute
Behind the socio-economic statistics stand people, individuals, one by
one. -- Andre Jute, Chairman's valedictory, Media Association AGM,
1971

[Peter Wieck]

On Mar 2, 8:29*pm, Andre Jute wrote:

More crap, different day.

Pillock put out the challenge, I just posted the relevant information.
Do the search yourself, if you doubt it. Wyncote is US-Zip Code 19095.
New Port Richie, FL is 34564 as specific to pillocks address as is
relevant to his ham license - public record in these United States
(and, by the way, not yet renewed).

So, were pillock not to have made the challenge, none of this would
have been posted.

And you have claimed on more than one occasion to have put me on your
killfile. I have stated on several occasions that an ego such as yours
could never put anyone or anything on your killfile as you crave
attention at any level, even if entirely truthful.

So, once again, you prove yourself a craven, lying poltroon.

Thank you so much for jumping to the crack of my whip. Were this a
circus, I would throw you a biscuit... As it is now, you are not worth
even that.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA