Mr. Richman an advise please.

[Lionel Chapuis]

Bruce,

I had confrontation this evening with a guy concerning a very bad joke
he has done here one RAO.
This is not the problem...
During our hard discussion he systematicaly bring and bring again the
subject on pedophily, pederasty, pornography and more generally sexual
crimes.
I'm afraid that this man has been subject of sexual cruelty during his
childhood in this case I must apology, in other case I don't understand.

I know that this problem doesn't really concern audio but if you have
any interesting advise please let me know.

Thanks in advance,
Lionel

[tor b]

>I had confrontation this evening with a guy concerning a very bad joke
>he has done here one RAO.
>This is not the problem...
>During our hard discussion he systematicaly bring and bring again the
>subject on pedophily, pederasty, pornography and more generally sexual
>crimes.
>I'm afraid that this man has been subject of sexual cruelty during his
>childhood in this case I must apology, in other case I don't understand.
>
>I know that this problem doesn't really concern audio but if you have
>any interesting advise please let me know.
>


Lionelle -

On you I feel bad. So much anger, frustration and disappointment you have.
No friends or loved ones. Sadness. Rejection. Also, you have many trouble
with our language yes. Do with your pedophily, pederasty and pornography.
Then sleep.

tor

[Lionel Chapuis]

tor b a écrit :

> [...]Also, you have many trouble with our language yes.

That's why I practise so hardly !

Lionel

[Arny Krueger]

"Lionel Chapuis" <lionel{dot}chapuis{at}free{dot}fr> wrote in message


> I had confrontation this evening with a guy concerning a very bad joke
> he has done here one RAO.
> This is not the problem...
> During our hard discussion he systematically bring and bring again the
> subject on pedophilia, pederasty, pornography and more generally sexual
> crimes.
> I'm afraid that this man has been subject of sexual cruelty during his
> childhood in this case I must apology, in other case I don't
> understand.

> I know that this problem doesn't really concern audio but if you have
> any interesting advise please let me know.

Please don't expect Richman to criticize his team-mates. He's part of the
scam.

Marc Phillips *concerns* about sex crimes are about as real as the *man*
himself. He's a typical RAO sockpuppet. He works out of a difficult-to-trace
AOL account. He has no publicly-known home address or phone. He gives no
personal information that can be scrutinized. Try to trace his phone calls.
A person has been presented to the world as being him, but that is easy to
falsify if nobody does too much checking.

This pedophilia gambit on RAO is at least 6 years old. It's what radical
subjectivists do when they are chopped to ribbons in online debates too many
times. In their twisted value system childish crap like this is fair play
because the essence of radical subjectivism is belief that one is
essentially error-free. I think the first time this gambit was played with
me, the perp was a sockpuppet named Derrida, and this was over 6 years ago.

[Lionel Chapuis]

Arny Krueger a écrit :

> Please don't expect Richman to criticize his team-mates. He's part of the
> scam.
>
> Marc Phillips *concerns* about sex crimes are about as real as the *man*
> himself. He's a typical RAO sockpuppet. He works out of a difficult-to-trace
> AOL account. He has no publicly-known home address or phone. He gives no
> personal information that can be scrutinized. Try to trace his phone calls.
> A person has been presented to the world as being him, but that is easy to
> falsify if nobody does too much checking.
>
> This pedophilia gambit on RAO is at least 6 years old. It's what radical
> subjectivists do when they are chopped to ribbons in online debates too many
> times. In their twisted value system childish crap like this is fair play
> because the essence of radical subjectivism is belief that one is
> essentially error-free. I think the first time this gambit was played with
> me, the perp was a sockpuppet named Derrida, and this was over 6 years ago.
>
>
"It's what radical subjectivists do when they are chopped to ribbons in
online debates too many times. In their twisted value system childish
crap like this is fair play because the essence of radical subjectivism
is belief that one is essentially error-free."

Agree.

I think you're wrong/rigth Arnold.

I sincerely think that in the group Bruce Richman is the "toy of
circumstances", a "victim of the history" (litteraly translate from
french, sorry).

In his normal social life he wouldn't have choosen such stinky coward as
a friend !

Lionel

[dave weil]

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 07:48:02 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>> In his normal social life he wouldn't have chosen such stinky coward
>> as a friend !
>
>Nor would he choose to be the pompous ass he projects here.

So, why have *you* chosen to be one. What's *your* reason?

[Bruce J. Richman]

Arny Krueger gives further evidence of his paranoia-based conspiracy theories:

>"Lionel Chapuis" <lionel{dot}chapuis{at}free{dot}fr> wrote in message

>
>> I had confrontation this evening with a guy concerning a very bad joke
>> he has done here one RAO.
>> This is not the problem...
>> During our hard discussion he systematically bring and bring again the
>> subject on pedophilia, pederasty, pornography and more generally sexual
>> crimes.
>> I'm afraid that this man has been subject of sexual cruelty during his
>> childhood in this case I must apology, in other case I don't
>> understand.
>
>> I know that this problem doesn't really concern audio but if you have
>> any interesting advise please let me know.
>
>Please don't expect Richman to criticize his team-mates. He's part of the
>scam.
>

Compulsive liar Krueger, as is his despicable custom, is lying through his
teeth and simply displaying his ignorance.

(1) There is no "team" except in the delusional, paranoid fantasies that
Krueger has created.

(2) Krueger has provided no evidence whatsoever to support his latest set of
lies about an alleged "scam":.

(3) Even the most intellectually challenged readers such as Krueger & McKelvy
can not find any RAO postings to indicate that I am part of any ongoing
pedophilia discussions concerning compulisve liar Krueger.

(4) Krueger has a documented history of libel and false accusations -
especially concerning assorted conspiracy theories
about his many enemies.



>Marc Phillips *concerns* about sex crimes are about as real as the *man*
>himself. He's a typical RAO sockpuppet. He works out of a difficult-to-trace
>AOL account. He has no publicly-known home address or phone. He gives no
>personal information that can be scrutinized. Try to trace his phone calls.
>A person has been presented to the world as being him, but that is easy to
>falsify if nobody does too much checking.
>

Prove it!

>This pedophilia gambit on RAO is at least 6 years old. It's what radical
>subjectivists do when they are chopped to ribbons in online debates too many
>times. In their twisted value system childish crap like this is fair play
>because the essence of radical subjectivism is belief that one is
>essentially error-free. I think the first time this gambit was played with
>me, the perp was a sockpuppet named Derrida, and this was over 6 years ago.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
Licensed Psychologist


(signed this way because of pending libel suit against Krueger, and probable
necessity to supply supportive documentary evidence).

[Marc Phillips]

Arny said:

>Marc Phillips *concerns* about sex crimes are about as real as the *man*
>himself.

That would be a true statement.

He's a typical RAO sockpuppet.

That would be a false statement.

He works out of a difficult-to-trace
>AOL account.

Do you mean AOL, the largest ISP in the country?

Do you think everyone chooses AOL because it allows them protection to troll on
Usenet? No, I think that applies to friends of your like Richard Malesweski.
Oh, and it applies to you, too, because you've been monitored using your AOL
account on RAO.

He has no publicly-known home address or phone.

That would be a false statement, considering that a few people here have met me
in person, and some of those have even been to my house. The correct statement
would be that my home phone and address are not known to you.

He gives no
>personal information that can be scrutinized.

That would be a false statement. I'm constantly talking about things in my
personal life. Just because you always manage to get them wrong when you
repeat them doesn't mean they're unknown. In fact, the third or fourth post I
made here I gave my whole name, occupation, and where I lived. That's
certainly more information than we know about the majority of RAO posters.

Try to trace his phone calls.

My phone calls? Who's tracing phone calls, other than law enforcement?

>A person has been presented to the world as being him, but that is easy to
>falsify if nobody does too much checking.

So start checking, Arny! Obviously you haven't, or you wouldn't be able to
make such ridiculous claims.

>
>This pedophilia gambit on RAO is at least 6 years old. It's what radical
>subjectivists do when they are chopped to ribbons in online debates too many
>times. In their twisted value system childish crap like this is fair play
>because the essence of radical subjectivism is belief that one is
>essentially error-free. I think the first time this gambit was played with
>me, the perp was a sockpuppet named Derrida, and this was over 6 years ago.

Gee, if different people have accused you at different times of doing the same
thing, maybe there's something to it! At least that's what the police would
think.

Boon

[Marc Phillips]

Lionel Chapuis said:

>Marc Phillips a écrit :
>[snip stupid garbage]
>Boony-boy you are really an idiot but I will put parsley in my ears and
>a tape on your mouth.
>
>Remember :
>Before (__.__)
>After (__o__)
>

In other words, you can't refute what I say, so you'll be happy with
surrendering, running away, and thumbing your nose at me from down the street.

Sounds typically French to me.

Boon

[Lionel Chapuis]

Marc Phillips a écrit :

> Any time someone dies because their body cannot tolerate the natural elements
> around them, then it is death by natural causes. The weather is NATURAL.
>

I am agree with you Boon !
3,000 Americans died of natural cause in the WTC because their body
cannot tolerate the brutal modification of the natural elements :
temperature, suffocation, brutal slowdown...
It's really a pity, a shame, to be obliged to go up to there with you
but you are really to stupid.

Many apologies to the others

Lionel

[Marc Phillips]

Lionel Chapuis said:

>Marc Phillips a écrit :
>
>> Any time someone dies because their body cannot tolerate the natural
>elements
>> around them, then it is death by natural causes. The weather is NATURAL.
>>
>
>I am agree with you Boon !
>3,000 Americans died of natural cause in the WTC because their body
>cannot tolerate the brutal modification of the natural elements :
>temperature, suffocation, brutal slowdown...
>It's really a pity, a shame, to be obliged to go up to there with you
>but you are really to stupid.
>
>Many apologies to the others

Again you're foolishly mixing up premeditated murder by another human being
with death by hot weather.

Let me explain this to you one more time. Here, where I live, the temperature
has been much warmer than in France, yet no one has died from the heat (that
has been reported by the news, anyway). Why is this? Because we are
acclimated to the heat. We either build dwellings with this in mind, or
reschedule our activities accordingly. Every weekend of every summer, the
freeways are crowded with people going out to the Colorado River, which is in
the middle of one of the hottest deserts on earth, and almost no one dies from
the heat, which can exceed 120 degrees.

Palm Springs, again one of the hottest places on earth, is heavily populated by
people over 65. Rarely do any of them die from the heat.

Now, in France, which is unused to temperatures over 100 (in some cases people
were dying in temps well below 100), all those deaths occured because people
were not used to that kind of heat. They did not employ the kind of
architecture that repels the heat. People did not alter their activities to
combat the heat, such as going to public buildings, or checking on their
elderly neighbors and relatives.

Dying of stress from the heat because your body is not able to deal with it is
NATURAL SELECTION. It's no different than the periodic droughts in Africa.
Sure, it's sad that people have to die like that, but it's been happening for
millions of years. If the land cannot sustain life, that is nature adapting.
It's very simple stuff.

My joke did not make fun of the deaths, but rather the gaffe that Chirac made
by saying they'd solve the problem by October. In fact, it really wasn't a
joke, because I didn't editorialize that much. There was no difference between
what I said about Chirac and what millions of your countrymen have been saying
about Bush over the last year or more.

Frankly, Lionel, you have become so foolish that I'm running out of things to
say to you. We don't need any more lying, hypocritical, bone-numbingly stupid
pedophiles on RAO. Quit while you're behind.

Boon

[Lionel Chapuis]

Marc Phillips a écrit :

> Dying of stress from the heat because your body is not able to deal with it is
> NATURAL SELECTION.
>
Euthanasia apologist ?

> My joke did not make fun of the deaths, but rather the gaffe that Chirac made
> by saying they'd solve the problem by October. In fact, it really wasn't a
> joke, because I didn't editorialize that much.

Chirac didn't make such gaffe, this is surely a pernicious translation
of one of your favorite racist tabloïd.


There was no difference between
> what I said about Chirac and what millions of your countrymen have been saying
> about Bush over the last year or more.
>

Once you confirm, you really have a problem with french people.

You are a liar. The subject of your message was clearly written at the
plural form.

[Lionel Chapuis]

Marc Phillips a écrit :

> Lionel Chapuis said:

>>You are a liar. The subject of your message was clearly written at the
>>plural form.
>
>
> Oh, so suddenly you're an expert in English, eh, sockpuppet?
>
> Actually, you're not, so that's why you're having this problem. "Those crazy
> French!...for example, look at what Chirac said!" That's one way an
> English-speaking person could interpret my post. "Yes, we've certainly been
> hearing crazy things about the French this year, first their refusal to support
> us in our war against terrorism, and now they're dying by the thousands because
> it's 98 degrees in Paris!" That's another way to take it. You, who cannot
> speak (or pretends not to speak) decent English, took it to mean "I, Marc
> Phillips, hate the French, and I think it's funny that over 11,000 of them are
> dead!"
>
> Now, do you think there's a problem with the way you read it, or do you want to
> keep looking like a hysterical little trollop?
>
> Boon
>
>

No Mr. Phillips I just pretend that you are an idiot ready to any nasty
joke to be popular on a newgroup. Full point !
All doubts I had concerning the misinterpretation have been washed by
your delirious arguments.

Lionel Chapuis

[Michael Mckelvy]

"Lionel Chapuis" <lionel{dot}chapuis{at}free{dot}fr> wrote in message
...
> Bruce,
>
> I had confrontation this evening with a guy concerning a very bad joke
> he has done here one RAO.
> This is not the problem...
> During our hard discussion he systematicaly bring and bring again the
> subject on pedophily, pederasty, pornography and more generally sexual
> crimes.
> I'm afraid that this man has been subject of sexual cruelty during his
> childhood in this case I must apology, in other case I don't understand.
>
> I know that this problem doesn't really concern audio but if you have
> any interesting advise please let me know.
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Lionel
>

Other than drawing on some personal expierience from his own childhood, or
books in the inmate library, it's hard to know what use Quakenbush could be
in such a matter.

[Michael Mckelvy]

"Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message
...
> Compulsive liar Krueger once again displays his total inability to
comprehend
> or evaluate normal human behavior:
>
>
> >
> >"Lionel Chapuis" <lionel{dot}chapuis{at}free{dot}fr> wrote in message
>
> >> Arny Krueger a écrit :
> >>
> >>> Please don't expect Richman to criticize his team-mates. He's part
> >>> of the scam.
> >>>
> >>> Marc Phillips *concerns* about sex crimes are about as real as the
> >>> *man* himself. He's a typical RAO sockpuppet. He works out of a
> >>> difficult-to-trace AOL account. He has no publicly-known home
> >>> address or phone. He gives no personal information that can be
> >>> scrutinized. Try to trace his phone calls. A person has been
> >>> presented to the world as being him, but that is easy to falsify if
> >>> nobody does too much checking.
> >>>
> >>> This pedophilia gambit on RAO is at least 6 years old. It's what
> >>> radical subjectivists do when they are chopped to ribbons in online
> >>> debates too many times. In their twisted value system childish crap
> >>> like this is fair play because the essence of radical subjectivism
> >>> is belief that one is essentially error-free. I think the first time
> >>> this gambit was played with me, the perp was a sockpuppet named
> >>> Derrida, and this was over 6 years ago.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> "It's what radical subjectivists do when they are chopped to ribbons
> >> in online debates too many times. In their twisted value system
> >> childish crap like this is fair play because the essence of radical
> >> subjectivism is belief that one is essentially error-free."
> >
> >> Agree.
> >
> >> I think you're wrong/rigth Arnold.
> >
> >> I sincerely think that in the group Bruce Richman is the "toy of
> >> circumstances", a "victim of the history" (literally translate from
> >> French, sorry).
> >
> >Hey, you could be right. Much of what we see here is contrived by/for the
> >online environment.
> >
> >> In his normal social life he wouldn't have chosen such stinky coward
> >> as a friend !
> >
> >Nor would he choose to be the pompous ass he projects here.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> This assessment, coming from RAO's resident compulsive liar and paranoid
> sociopath, has the same total absence of validity as the rest of my
libelous, delusional and false statements.
>
> When it comes to arrogance, almost total unwillingness to ever admit to
any
> type of human error (especially on RAO), and a demonstrated lengthy
history of
> falsely trying to present himself as an "eggspert" on audio matters,
nobody
> even comes close to the snotty, pompous, and totally self-absorbed,
compulsive
> liar Krueger.
>
> All one has to do is look at his current dialogue with Scott Wheeler for
an
> example of his latest attempts to con the RAO readers. This arrogant liar
and
> blowhard is now pretending to be a legal expert - LOL! Of course, as
Scott has
> correctly pointed out, there are attornies and judges to take care of
that.
>
>
> Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
> Licensed Psychologist
>
>
> (signed this way because of pending libel suit against Krueger, and
probably
> need to provide supportive documentary evidence).
> Bruce J. Richman
>
>
It well documented you are an idiot and a liar.

[George M. Middius]

Marc Phillips said:

> You know, Usenet has plenty of French-speaking newsgroups. Go visit them.

And take Mcinturd with you.

[S888Wheel]

<<
Weren't you the guy who was begging me to publish something nasty about
outside of USENET because posting on USENET couln't be used for libel suits?

>>


If Bruce believed that at one time he was mistaken. Nothing wrong with making
mistaken assumptions about the laws of libel unless you have libeled someone.
Posts on USENET can be libel.

[GeoSynch]

S888Wheel wrote:

> Posts on USENET can be libel.

Got any proof, like a specific link to an authoritative finding
that someone won a lawsuit claiming to have been libelled
on a Usenet newsgroup?


GeoSynch

[S888Wheel]

I said

<<

> Posts on USENET can be libel.
>>


Geosynch said


<<
Got any proof, like a specific link to an authoritative finding
that someone won a lawsuit claiming to have been libelled
on a Usenet newsgroup?
>>


The proof is in the law itself. California civil code 45. Two cases involving
libel on the internet lawsuits would be Young v. New Haven Advocate and Gutnick
v. Dow Jones & co. Inc. They were not USENET postings but if you can cite any
facts that would make posts on USENET exempt from California civil code 45 but
not the two cited cases of internet libel I would be interested in hearing it.

[GeoSynch]

S888Wheel wrote:

> > Posts on USENET can be libel.

> > Got any proof, like a specific link to an authoritative finding
> > that someone won a lawsuit claiming to have been libelled
> > on a Usenet newsgroup?

> The proof is in the law itself. California civil code 45. Two cases involving
> libel on the internet lawsuits would be Young v. New Haven Advocate and Gutnick
> v. Dow Jones & co. Inc. They were not USENET postings but if you can cite any
> facts that would make posts on USENET exempt from California civil code 45 but
> not the two cited cases of internet libel I would be interested in hearing it.

IOW, no, nobody has ever won a lawsuit for being libelled on a Usenet newsgroup.


GeoSynch

[S888Wheel]

Geosync said

<<
> > Got any proof, like a specific link to an authoritative finding
> > that someone won a lawsuit claiming to have been libelled
> > on a Usenet newsgroup?
>>


I said

<<
> The proof is in the law itself. California civil code 45. Two cases
involving
> libel on the internet lawsuits would be Young v. New Haven Advocate and
Gutnick
> v. Dow Jones & co. Inc. They were not USENET postings but if you can cite any
> facts that would make posts on USENET exempt from California civil code 45
but
> not the two cited cases of internet libel I would be interested in hearing
it.
>>


No that is not what I said in other words. I don't know if anyone has won a
libel lawsuit for being libeled on a Usenet group. I don't know if anyone has
ever filed a suit for libel on a Usenet group. I have read other cases of
lawsuits being filed over libel on other forums similar to Usenet groups. Those
cases were not dismissed at all. OTOH can you cite any lawsuits for libel being
dismissed because the libel was on a Usenet group?

[Arny Krueger]

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message


> No that is not what I said in other words. I don't know if anyone has
> won a libel lawsuit for being libeled on a Usenet group. I don't know
> if anyone has ever filed a suit for libel on a Usenet group.

You're probably the first person to be stupid enough to try that, sockpuppet
Wheel. This is especially difficult given that the name of the forum
contains the word "opinion".

[tor b]

>
>Sorry, I'm not here to prove a negative, but do let us
>know if your libel suit against Arny makes it beyond the
>summary dismissal stage or is otherwise not laughed out
>of the courtroom. TIA.
>
>

Prove a negative?????

Could you possibly be any dumber???????

How often do you **** your pants in public like that???????

[tor b]

>
>You're probably the first person to be stupid enough to try that, sockpuppet
>Wheel. This is especially difficult given that the name of the forum
>contains the word "opinion".
>
>
>
>


So everything you post here is nothing more than the opinion of a nutcase?

Good point.

[S888Wheel]

I said

<<
> No that is not what I said in other words. I don't know if anyone has
> won a libel lawsuit for being libeled on a Usenet group. I don't know
> if anyone has ever filed a suit for libel on a Usenet group.
>>


Arny said

<<
You're probably the first person to be stupid enough to try that, sockpuppet
Wheel. This is especially difficult given that the name of the forum
contains the word "opinion".
>>

This is rich. Are you now contending that it is your "opinion" that I am a
pedophile and you are just exercising your rights of free speech? Think before
you answer. You have already falsely accused me of being a pedophile once on
RAO.

[George M. Middius]

tor b said:

> >Sorry, I'm not here to prove a negative, but do let us
> >know if your libel suit against Arny makes it beyond the
> >summary dismissal stage or is otherwise not laughed out
> >of the courtroom. TIA.

> Prove a negative?????

> Could you possibly be any dumber???????

Indeed yes, it can. For example, it's been saying that Senator
Joseph McCarthy was a "great American".

> How often do you **** your pants in public like that???????

I think it's batting over .900 in that regard.

[George M. Middius]

Girth said:

> Hatemongering AOL posters may wish to consider this:
> Judge Rules ISP, Server Location May Determine Jurisdiction
> http://www.isp-planet.com/politics/061199jursidiction.html

That one is juicy. Here's the meat of it:

"According to the court papers, [Virginia resident Steve N.] Bochan
alleged that in some of their messages, [Texas residents Ray and
Mary La Fontaine] accused him of being a pedophile. A lawsuit for
defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress ensued.
....
"Because the La Fontaines posted their comments to the newsgroup
using a Texas-based ISP and their AOL account, the judge determined
that the defamatory messages were transmitted first to AOL's Usenet
server in Loudoun County, Va. There the message was both stored
temporarily and transmitted to other Usenet servers around the
world.

"Judge Ellis ruled that because publication is a required element of
defamation, and evidence showed that the use of a Usenet server in
Virginia was integral to that publication, there was sufficient
activity in the state of Virginia to allow for jurisdiction over the
La Fontaines."


Too bad Krooger will be unable to comprehend this decision.

[Bruce J. Richman]

George M. Middius wrote:


>Girth said:
>
>> Hatemongering AOL posters may wish to consider this:
>> Judge Rules ISP, Server Location May Determine Jurisdiction
>> http://www.isp-planet.com/politics/061199jursidiction.html
>
>That one is juicy. Here's the meat of it:
>
>"According to the court papers, [Virginia resident Steve N.] Bochan
>alleged that in some of their messages, [Texas residents Ray and
>Mary La Fontaine] accused him of being a pedophile. A lawsuit for
>defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress ensued.
>...
>"Because the La Fontaines posted their comments to the newsgroup
>using a Texas-based ISP and their AOL account, the judge determined
>that the defamatory messages were transmitted first to AOL's Usenet
>server in Loudoun County, Va. There the message was both stored
>temporarily and transmitted to other Usenet servers around the
>world.
>
>"Judge Ellis ruled that because publication is a required element of
>defamation, and evidence showed that the use of a Usenet server in
>Virginia was integral to that publication, there was sufficient
>activity in the state of Virginia to allow for jurisdiction over the
>La Fontaines."
>
>
>Too bad Krooger will be unable to comprehend this decision.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

His lack of contact with reality will no doubt interfere with any
comprehension of this decision. However, should the many people he has defamed
over the years on RAO via use of the Internet take advantage of this ruling and
pursue similar cases against him, any attempt at an insanity defense will not
help him, since such defenses can only be used in criminal cases, but not civil
cases.


Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
Licensed Psychologist


(signed this way because of pending libel suit against Krueger for defamation,
and probable need to supply supportive documentary evidence).

[Powell]

"GeoSynch" wrote

> > OTOH can you cite any lawsuits for libel
> > being dismissed because the libel was
> > on a Usenet group?
>
> Sorry, I'm not here to prove a negative,
>
Agreed. Perhaps Scott should do due some
research before continuing to prosecute his
case on USEnet. He also has not demonstrated
that he has suffered actual financial damage.

Can we say “no cause of action” :).


> but do let us know if your libel suit against
> Arny makes it beyond the summary
> dismissal stage or is otherwise not laughed
> out of the courtroom. TIA.
>
Yup, and what about the laughing and
harassment to follow by not following through
after all this feather-ruffling. Arny already
has a on-going four year old vendetta against
Atkinson.

Scott case can’t stand muster nor does he
have the financial depth for such an
undertaking. Arny’s inappropriate behavior
extends across this board... Scott is not
special (litigious material). Imagine Scott's
difficulty trying to demonstrate that Arny’s
opinion has weight/influence on r.a.o..

[S888Wheel]

I said

<<
> > OTOH can you cite any lawsuits for libel
> > being dismissed because the libel was
> > on a Usenet group >>


Geosynch said

<<
> Sorry, I'm not here to prove a negative,
> >>


Powell said

<<
Agreed. >>


You agree that Geosynch isn't here to prove a negative. That's nice but quite
irrelevant. I didn't ask him to prove anything only to cite an example of a
libel case being dismissed because the libel took place on Usenet.

Powell said


<< Perhaps Scott should do due some
research before continuing to prosecute his
case on USEnet. >>


I have done plenty of research on this issue. I have carefully reviewed all the
California civil codes that apply and all the forms for pleadings and
practices.

Powell said

<< He also has not demonstrated
that he has suffered actual financial damage.

Can we say “no cause of action� :).

>>


Of course you can say it just like Arny can say i'm not a real person. Of
course saying it doesn't make it so. Maybe if you would review California civil
code 45a and then review the forms for pleadings and practices regarding libel,
page 30.6 under the heading of general damages you will see that you are wrong.


Geosynch said

<<
> but do let us know if your libel suit against
> Arny makes it beyond the summary
> dismissal stage or is otherwise not laughed
> out of the courtroom. TIA.
> >>


Powell said


<<
Yup, and what about the laughing and
harassment to follow by not following through
after all this feather-ruffling. >>


It won't be an issue. You are just making assumptions about what will
transpire.

Powell said

<< Arny already
has a on-going four year old vendetta against
Atkinson. >>


So?

Powell said

<<

Scott case can’t stand muster nor does he
have the financial depth for such an
undertaking. >>


Can't stand muster? What do you know about my "financial depth?" You are just
blowing hot air.


Powell said


<< Arny’s inappropriate behavior
extends across this board... Scott is not
special (litigious material). >>

I never claimed to be special. Everyone who is libeled is free to deal with it
in whatever lawful way they choose. just because I may be the first to choose a
libel lawsuit does not infer that my claim is special.

Powell said


<< Imagine Scott's
difficulty trying to demonstrate that Arny’s
opinion has weight/influence on r.a.o..
>>

Perhaps you can point to any part of the California civil code that requires
the plaintiff in a libel suit to prove weight of an opinion/influence. I think
you need to familiarize yourself with the civil codes before making comments on
them. Arny did not express an opinion, he wrecklessly made a false accusation
that I am a pedophile. The civil codes are very clear on this matter. Check
them out.

[Powell]

"S888Wheel" wrote

<snip quacking>

Hehehe... Scott, you have no case and no
attorney of record, mr. Do-it-yourself.

[GeoSynch]

S888Wheel wrote:

> > OTOH can you cite any lawsuits for libel being
> > dismissed because the libel was on a Usenet group?

> Sorry, I'm not here to prove a negative,

> I didn't ask you to prove a negative. i asked you to cite an example. Guess you
> couldn't do it.

Guess again, slick:

" In July 2001, the judge ruled that defendant Rosenthal, who had republished
messages from Bolen to several news groups, was shielded from liability by the
Internet Decency Act, which the judge believed was intended to protect anyone
posting messages to newsgroups."

You'll find that passage somewhere in the middle of this link:
http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/bolen.html


GeoSynch

[S888Wheel]

Geosynch said

<<
> Sorry, I'm not here to prove a negative,
>>


I said


<<
Guess again, slick:

" In July 2001, the judge ruled that defendant Rosenthal, who had republished
messages from Bolen to several news groups, was shielded from liability by the
Internet Decency Act, which the judge believed was intended to protect anyone
posting messages to newsgroups."
>>


Which has what to do with this issue of an original post? At least come up with
something relevant to the issue.

[S888Wheel]

Powell said


<<

Hehehe... Scott, you have no case and no
attorney of record, mr. Do-it-yourself.
>>

OK so you aren't familiar with the california civil codes and have nothing of
merit to say on the matter. At least it would seem so given you failed to
respond with any legal points. I have no case until I file a lawsuit. Then I
have a case. I have no lawyer unless I hire one. One does not need a lawyer to
file a lawsuit and win.

[GeoSynch]

Powell wrote

> > > OTOH can you cite any lawsuits for libel
> > > being dismissed because the libel was
> > > on a Usenet group?

> > Sorry, I'm not here to prove a negative,

> Agreed. Perhaps Scott should do due some
> research before continuing to prosecute his
> case on USEnet. He also has not demonstrated
> that he has suffered actual financial damage.

Correct. Though he may have suffered emotional
distress, unless he gives music lessons to little kiddies
whose parents surf this group, there is no demonstrable
cause for having suffered actual financial damage.

> > but do let us know if your libel suit against
> > Arny makes it beyond the summary
> > dismissal stage or is otherwise not laughed
> > out of the courtroom. TIA.

> Yup, and what about the laughing and
> harassment to follow by not following through
> after all this feather-ruffling. Arny already
> has a on-going four year old vendetta against
> Atkinson.

If anybody had just reason to sue Arny ... :-)

> Scott case can't stand muster nor does he
> have the financial depth for such an
> undertaking. Arny's inappropriate behavior
> extends across this board... Scott is not
> special (litigious material). Imagine Scott's
> difficulty trying to demonstrate that Arny's
> opinion has weight/influence on r.a.o..

Even his fellow brethren engineers don't take him seriously.


GeoSynch

[George M. Middius]

S888Wheel said:

> > Hehehe... Scott, you have no case and no
> > attorney of record, mr. Do-it-yourself.

> OK so you aren't familiar with the california civil codes and have nothing of
> merit to say on the matter. At least it would seem so given you failed to
> respond with any legal points. I have no case until I file a lawsuit. Then I
> have a case. I have no lawyer unless I hire one. One does not need a lawyer to
> file a lawsuit and win.

Don't waste a lot of time on Powell. He (she? whatever) takes pride in
leaving people scratching their heads at the random collections of
words he deposits on Usenet.

I've finally discovered the truth about why Powell harassed Phoebe
Johnston at work. It was because he was envious of Phoebe's inability
to make sense. She seemed to do it so effortlessly, while Powell had
to scramble his brian by inhaling nasty stuff like airplane glue in
order to turn himself into a Babble Box.

[GeoSynch]

S888Wheel wrote:

> " In July 2001, the judge ruled that defendant Rosenthal, who had republished
> messages from Bolen to several news groups, was shielded from liability by the
> Internet Decency Act, which the judge believed was intended to protect anyone
> posting messages to newsgroups."

> Which has what to do with this issue of an original post? At least come up with
> something relevant to the issue.

What part of the statement "defendant ... was shielded from liability by the Internet
Decency Act .... intended to protect anyone posting messages to newsgroups"
eludes you?

Nitpicking between "original post" and "republished messages" is a bit specious, no?


GeoSynch

[George M. Middius]

S888Wheel said:

> > Hehehe... Scott, you have no case and no
> > attorney of record, mr. Do-it-yourself.

> OK so you aren't familiar with the california civil codes and have nothing of
> merit to say on the matter. At least it would seem so given you failed to
> respond with any legal points. I have no case until I file a lawsuit. Then I
> have a case. I have no lawyer unless I hire one. One does not need a lawyer to
> file a lawsuit and win.

Don't waste a lot of time on Powell. He (she? whatever) takes pride in
leaving people scratching their heads at the random collections of
words he deposits on Usenet.

I've finally discovered the truth about why Powell harassed Phoebe
Johnston at work. It was because he was envious of Phoebe's inability
to make sense. She seemed to do it so effortlessly, while Powell had
to scramble his brain by inhaling nasty stuff like airplane glue in
order to turn himself into a Babble Box.

[S888Wheel]

>
>Nitpicking between "original post" and "republished messages" is a bit
>specious, no?
>

No.

[Arny Krueger]

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message


> Arny did not express an
> opinion, he wrecklessly made a false accusation that I am a
> pedophile.

I think you need to go back and check the post in question:

(1) You've only partially represented what it said.

(2) You've overlooked the fact it was posted in a newsgroup where all posts
are labeled "opinion", as in rec.audio.opinion.

(3) You've overlooked the fact that the entity the post was directed to was
and is an anonymous fictitious name.

BTW sockpuppet Whell, I've asked you repeatedly to prove your true identity
which you've repeatedly declined to do. Therefore, it is quite clear that
you have no intent of ever being anything but an anonymous fictitious name.
That makes you a non-entity in the eyes of any legal institution, including
any court of law.

[Arny Krueger]

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message

> I said
>
> <<
>> No that is not what I said in other words. I don't know if anyone has
>> won a libel lawsuit for being libeled on a Usenet group. I don't know
>> if anyone has ever filed a suit for libel on a Usenet group.
> >>
>
>
> Arny said
>
> <<
> You're probably the first person to be stupid enough to try that,
> sockpuppet Wheel. This is especially difficult given that the name of
> the forum contains the word "opinion".
> >>

> This is rich. Are you now contending that it is your "opinion" that I
> am a pedophile and you are just exercising your rights of free
> speech?

Are you dense or what, sockpuppet "Wheel"? Why don't you recite the name of
this newsgroup to yourself until you perceive the obvious?

>Think before you answer. You have already falsely accused me
> of being a pedophile once on RAO.

Sockpuppet Wheel, you are guilty of being a non-entity, in the eyes of the
law. You obviously don't know the name of the newsgroup you are posting in.
You're also guilty of selective quoting in an effort to make your purported
case. Finally, you've repeatedly lied about obtaining the formal services of
a lawyer to advise you.

In short sockpuppet Wheel, you have zero credibility in the eyes of the law
or any reasonable person.

[S888Wheel]

>
>Powell wrote
>
>> > > OTOH can you cite any lawsuits for libel
>> > > being dismissed because the libel was
>> > > on a Usenet group?

Geosynch said

>
>> > Sorry, I'm not here to prove a negative,
>

Powell said

>
>> Agreed. Perhaps Scott should do due some
>> research before continuing to prosecute his
>> case on USEnet. He also has not demonstrated
>> that he has suffered actual financial damage.

Geosynch said

>
> Correct. Though he may have suffered emotional
>distress, unless he gives music lessons to little kiddies
>whose parents surf this group, there is no demonstrable
>cause for having suffered actual financial damage.

These free legal lessons for arny and his supporters are getting old.
Geosynch's demonstration of his ignorance of California civil code is noted.
Read California civil code 45a. Then read the forms for pleadings and practices
on libel page 30.6 under the heading of general damages.

Geosynch said

>
>> > but do let us know if your libel suit against
>> > Arny makes it beyond the summary
>> > dismissal stage or is otherwise not laughed
>> > out of the courtroom. TIA.
>

Powell said

>
>> Yup, and what about the laughing and
>> harassment to follow by not following through
>> after all this feather-ruffling. Arny already
>> has a on-going four year old vendetta against
>> Atkinson.

geosynch said

>
>If anybody had just reason to sue Arny ... :-)

As if one person having a reason to sue someone precludes another person from
having a reason to sue that same person.

Powell said

>
>> Scott case can't stand muster nor does he
>> have the financial depth for such an
>> undertaking. Arny's inappropriate behavior
>> extends across this board... Scott is not
>> special (litigious material). Imagine Scott's
>> difficulty trying to demonstrate that Arny's
>> opinion has weight/influence on r.a.o..

Geosynch said

>
>Even his fellow brethren engineers don't take him seriously.
>

I guess this is some sort of a stab at an insult.

[Oily Tartlet]

On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 20:48:21 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>I think you need to go back and check the post in question:

I read it. You're a paedophile.

>(1) You've only partially represented what it said.

Yes, but you're a paedophile.

>(2) You've overlooked the fact it was posted in a newsgroup where all posts
>are labeled "opinion", as in rec.audio.opinion.

Paedo.

>(3) You've overlooked the fact that the entity the post was directed to was
>and is an anonymous fictitious name.

Interesting, paedophile, but not quite interesting enough to stop me
thinking and asserting that you're a paedophile.

>BTW sockpuppet Whell, I've asked you repeatedly to prove your true identity
>which you've repeatedly declined to do. Therefore, it is quite clear that
>you have no intent of ever being anything but an anonymous fictitious name.
>That makes you a non-entity in the eyes of any legal institution, including
>any court of law.

Well, paedophile, that's certainly spruced up the flowers in my vase,
but the question remains: Why do you insist on molesting small
children?

--
Oily Tartlet

[S888Wheel]

I said

>
>> Arny did not express an
>> opinion, he wrecklessly made a false accusation that I am a
>> pedophile.
>

Arny said

>
>I think you need to go back and check the post in question:
>

I have checked it quite carefully.

Arny said

>
>(1) You've only partially represented what it said.

Here is exactly what you said.

"So sockpuppet Wheel. you're a well-known pedophile like Marc Phillips and
George Middius?"

"OK sockpuppet wheel, so you're not only a widely reported pedophile and proud
of it, but you're also a hypocrite."

A clear false accusation that I am a pedophile.

Arny said


>
>(2) You've overlooked the fact it was posted in a newsgroup where all posts
>are labeled "opinion", as in rec.audio.opinion

I have not over looked that fact. You have simply over looked all the
information on the California civil codes and forms for pleadings and practices
that I have cited for your benefit. I can lead you to the law but I can't make
you read it or understand it.

Arny said

>
>(3) You've overlooked the fact that the entity the post was directed to was
>and is an anonymous fictitious name.

See above.

Arny said

>
>BTW sockpuppet Whell, I've asked you repeatedly to prove your true identity
>which you've repeatedly declined to do.

You have a letter in your hand with my name and signature on it.

Arny said

>Therefore, it is quite clear that
>you have no intent of ever being anything but an anonymous fictitious name.
>That makes you a non-entity in the eyes of any legal institution, including
>any court of law.
>

You speak for courts of law without even knowing the law. Certainly you can
cite the specific California civil codes that apply to all of these defenses
you are claiming can't you? Well. no you can't. They don't exist. I have cited
all the relevant material on the subject for your benefit. You will have to
seek legal council elsewhere from now on or bear the burden of your ignorance
of California law after the 20th.

[George M. Middius]

Sockpuppet Yustabe said to ****-for-Brains:

> How many times do you have to lie to yourself before you
> start beleiving your own lies?

Only once. That fact is well established.

> Are you halfway there yet?

Krooger's toilet of lies overfloweth as usual.

[Arny Krueger]

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message

> I said
>
>>
>>> Arny did not express an
>>> opinion, he wrecklessly made a false accusation that I am a
>>> pedophile.
>>
>
> Arny said
>
>>
>> I think you need to go back and check the post in question:
>>
>
> I have checked it quite carefully.


Then you can't read.


> Arny said
>
>>
>> (1) You've only partially represented what it said.

> Here is exactly what you said.

> "So sockpuppet Wheel. you're a well-known pedophile like Marc
> Phillips and George Middius?"

So what kind of pedophile are Marc Phillips and George Middius?

If they aren't pedophiles, then the statement should be interpreted as
saying that you aren't one either.

> "OK sockpuppet wheel, so you're not only a widely reported pedophile
> and proud of it, but you're also a hypocrite."

> A clear false accusation that I am a pedophile.

No, just that you are said to be a pedophile, which is of course true.

> Arny said

>>
>> (2) You've overlooked the fact it was posted in a newsgroup where
>> all posts are labeled "opinion", as in rec.audio.opinion

> I have not over looked that fact. You have simply over looked all the
> information on the California civil codes and forms for pleadings and
> practices that I have cited for your benefit. I can lead you to the
> law but I can't make you read it or understand it.

You obviously aren't interpreting the law properly. No law that prohibits
expressing opinion as opinion can stand a constitutional test.

> Arny said

>>
>> (3) You've overlooked the fact that the entity the post was
>> directed to was and is an anonymous fictitious name.

> See above.

Wrong sockpuppet Wheel. It is presumed that the parties are legal entities.
Just becaues every law doesn't say that doesn't mean that a court won't
enforce that fact.

> Arny said

>>
>> BTW sockpuppet Wheel, I've asked you repeatedly to prove your true
>> identity which you've repeatedly declined to do.

> You have a letter in your hand with my name and signature on it.

Which is totally meaningless.

> Arny said

>> Therefore, it is quite clear that
>> you have no intent of ever being anything but an anonymous
>> fictitious name. That makes you a non-entity in the eyes of any
>> legal institution, including any court of law.

> You speak for courts of law without even knowing the law.

The same can be said of you. They're laughing in your face over at
misc.legal!

>Certainly
> you can cite the specific California civil codes that apply to all of
> these defenses you are claiming can't you? Well. no you can't.

I don't need to because I'm not in California nor do I do business in
Calfornia. What's happening sockpuppet Wheel is that you are totally
overcome with artifacts of your own imagination.

> They don't exist.

That's because this whole event exists only in your mind, sockpuppet Wheel.

> I have cited all the relevant material on the subject
> for your benefit. You will have to seek legal council elsewhere from
> now on or bear the burden of your ignorance of California law after
> the 20th.

LOL!

[Arny Krueger]

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message

>
> I have never claimed to have obtained the formal services of a lawyer
> to advise me.

I don't think so but what I think is moot in this matter. Please find a
lawyer to advise you and this time tell him the whole truth.

Like I said, they're laughing at you over in misc.legal which you previously
cited as an authority. Unlike you, I told them the truth.

[Oily Tartlet]

On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 06:36:45 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>> I have never claimed to have obtained the formal services of a lawyer
>> to advise me.
>
>I don't think so but what I think is moot in this matter. Please find a
>lawyer to advise you and this time tell him the whole truth.
>
>Like I said, they're laughing at you over in misc.legal which you previously
>cited as an authority. Unlike you, I told them the truth.

Is *this* what you're talking about?

http://www.google.com/groups?q=group:misc.legal+author:arny+author:krueg er&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=3RSdnQ1-CvsTgc6iXTWJkw%40comcast.com&rnum=1

LOL!

--
Oily Tartlet

[Powell]

"George M. Middius" wrote

> Don't waste a lot of time on Powell.
>
"Re: George quacking on gun control"

How was I to know that your name would continue
to be posted on the gun thread subject line ;-) ?

[Powell]

"S888Wheel" wrote

> > Hehehe... Scott, you have no case and no
> > attorney of record, mr. Do-it-yourself.
>
> I have no lawyer unless I hire one. One does
> not need a lawyer to file a lawsuit and win.
>
Those who defend themselves have a “fool for
a client,” as they say.

[S888Wheel]

>> I said
>>
>>>
>>>> Arny did not express an
>>>> opinion, he wrecklessly made a false accusation that I am a
>>>> pedophile.

>
>> Arny said
>>
>>>
>>> I think you need to go back and check the post in question:
>>>

I said

>
>>
>> I have checked it quite carefully.
>

Arny said

>
>Then you can't read.
>

Personal attack noted.

>
>> Arny said
>>
>>>
>>> (1) You've only partially represented what it said.

I said

>
>> Here is exactly what you said.

>
>> "So sockpuppet Wheel. you're a well-known pedophile like Marc
>> Phillips and George Middius?"
>

Arny said

>
>So what kind of pedophile are Marc Phillips and George Middius?
>
>If they aren't pedophiles, then the statement should be interpreted as
>saying that you aren't one either.
>

Clearly you are completely unaware of the laws regarding language in libel in
California.

I quoted Arny

>
>> "OK sockpuppet wheel, so you're not only a widely reported pedophile
>> and proud of it, but you're also a hypocrite."

I said

>
>> A clear false accusation that I am a pedophile.

Arny said

>
>No, just that you are said to be a pedophile, which is of course true.
>

Yet another libelous statement accusing me of being a pedophile. I guess you
are in a hurry to get to court. If this happens again the 20th deadline is no
longer on the table. They have special rules for people who repeat their libel
over and over again.

>
>> Arny said
>
>>>
>>> (2) You've overlooked the fact it was posted in a newsgroup where
>>> all posts are labeled "opinion", as in rec.audio.opinion

I said

>
>> I have not over looked that fact. You have simply over looked all the
>> information on the California civil codes and forms for pleadings and
>> practices that I have cited for your benefit. I can lead you to the
>> law but I can't make you read it or understand it.

Arny said

>
>You obviously aren't interpreting the law properly. No law that prohibits
>expressing opinion as opinion can stand a constitutional test.
>

Wrong. Read the material I cited.

>
>> Arny said
>
>>>
>>> (3) You've overlooked the fact that the entity the post was
>>> directed to was and is an anonymous fictitious name.

I said

>
>> See above.
>

Arny said

>
>Wrong sockpuppet Wheel. It is presumed that the parties are legal entities.
>Just becaues every law doesn't say that doesn't mean that a court won't
>enforce that fact.
>

Clearly you have not read the material I have cited.

>
>> Arny said
>
>>>
>>> BTW sockpuppet Wheel, I've asked you repeatedly to prove your true
>>> identity which you've repeatedly declined to do.

I said

>
>> You have a letter in your hand with my name and signature on it.
>

Arny said

>
>Which is totally meaningless.
>

No.

>
>> Arny said
>
>>> Therefore, it is quite clear that
>>> you have no intent of ever being anything but an anonymous
>>> fictitious name. That makes you a non-entity in the eyes of any
>>> legal institution, including any court of law.

I said

>
>> You speak for courts of law without even knowing the law.
>

Arny said

>
>The same can be said of you. They're laughing in your face over at
>misc.legal!

I read the thread. i didn't see anyone laughing. i noticed you never mentioned
that you falsely accused me of being a pedophile. See if they think that is
funny.

I said

>
>>Certainly
>> you can cite the specific California civil codes that apply to all of
>> these defenses you are claiming can't you? Well. no you can't.
>

Arny said

>
>I don't need to because I'm not in California nor do I do business in
>Calfornia. What's happening sockpuppet Wheel is that you are totally
>overcome with artifacts of your own imagination.

As you so often say, if irony could kill...

I said

>
>> They don't exist.

Arny said

>
>That's because this whole event exists only in your mind, sockpuppet Wheel.
>

No.


I said

>
>> I have cited all the relevant material on the subject
>> for your benefit. You will have to seek legal council elsewhere from
>> now on or bear the burden of your ignorance of California law after
>> the 20th.

Arny said

>
>LOL!
>

Are you going to use that on your answer to the lawsuit?

[Lionel Chapuis]

> Thanks for proving my point about your inability to read and write English.
> You know, Usenet has plenty of French-speaking newsgroups. Go visit them.
>
> Boon
>

Do you think I will be able to find an other boonie-boy to spank is big
fat ass ?

[Anon E Mouse]

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003, George M. Middius wrote:

> Marc Phillips said:
>
> > You know, Usenet has plenty of French-speaking newsgroups. Go visit them.
>
> And take Mcint[yre] with you.

Z'aimez pas ma présence, Votre Middiotie?
--
Anon E. Mouse

[Anon E Mouse]

On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, S888Wheel wrote:

> [...]
>
> Are you going to use that on your answer to the lawsuit?

Make sure my name appears on the libellé too... 8-D

Gotta love those pranks on Usenet...
--
Anon E. Mouse

[Playing] "Andy" - Les Rita Mitsouko

Andy!
Dis-moi oui, chéri!

[Michael Mckelvy]

"Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message
...
> Scott wrote:
>
>
> ><<
> >Weren't you the guy who was begging me to publish something nasty about
> >outside of USENET because posting on USENET couln't be used for libel
suits?
> >
> > >>
> >
> >
> >If Bruce believed that at one time he was mistaken. Nothing wrong with
making
> >mistaken assumptions about the laws of libel unless you have libeled
someone.
> >Posts on USENET can be libel.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> No, I never said or believed that posts published on a Usenet NG could not
be
> the grounds of a libel suit. I *did* however challenge several of RAO's
more
> chronic libelers such as duh-Mikey, to publish his idiotic lies in a print
> publication.
>
>
>
> Bruce J. Richman
>
>

That would mean I have to come up with idiotic lies. I haven't done that,
so I should be safe.


>

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
...

> That would mean I have to come up with idiotic lies. I haven't done that,
> so I should be safe.

However, you could be charged for plagerizing Arny's stupid lies, as you
are too
dimwitted to come up with your own original stupid lies.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Marc Phillips]

Girth said:

(Marc Phillips) wrote:
>
>>Dying of stress from the heat because your body is not able to deal with it
>is
>>NATURAL SELECTION.
>
>Depends.. was the excessive heat a natural event?

Yes, it was.

Boon

[George M. Middius]

Girth said:

> >> >>Depends.. was the excessive heat a natural event?
> >> >
> >> >Yes, it was.
> >>
> >> Meteorologists say : global warming.
> >
> >So you're selling off your SUV tout de suite?
>
> Since you put it like that, I guess it's fair to say that America
> played a big role in the deaths of these French people.

If I were putting it like that, I'd say all the petrol-gluttons of
the world "played a big role". You U.S.-haters should also
acknowledge that the chief impetus for lowering tailpipe emissions
of greenhouse gases was the U.S. government.

However, you have yet to prove that global warming was the culprit.
Did Mother Nature smack those oldsters to the ground and prevent
them from seeking relief on their own? Who paralyzed their families?
We saw Chirac beating his chest, but why doesn't his government have
some sort of contingency on the boards? It can't be unknown to them
that thousands of ancient apartments are blessedly free of air
conditioning.

Suppose the same weather phenomenon and a similar result in
heat-related deaths were to occur in the UK next summer. Let's hear
your predictions. Would the government fall? Would single-issue
zealots trumpet the evils of global warming?

[Lionel Chapuis]

Girth a écrit :

> George M. Middius > wrote:
>
>
>>>>>Depends.. was the excessive heat a natural event?
>>>>
>>>>Yes, it was.
>>>
>>>Meteorologists say : global warming.
>>
>>So you're selling off your SUV tout de suite?
>
>
> Since you put it like that, I guess it's fair to say that America
> played a big role in the deaths of these French people.
>
>
>
>
> --
> S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t

I was sure that Boon "Oily Target" Phillips was behind that !

[Lionel Chapuis]

George M. Middius a écrit :

>
> Girth said:
>
>
>>>>>>Depends.. was the excessive heat a natural event?
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, it was.
>>>>
>>>>Meteorologists say : global warming.
>>>
>>>So you're selling off your SUV tout de suite?
>>
>>Since you put it like that, I guess it's fair to say that America
>>played a big role in the deaths of these French people.
>
>
> If I were putting it like that, I'd say all the petrol-gluttons of
> the world "played a big role". You U.S.-haters should also
> acknowledge that the chief impetus for lowering tailpipe emissions
> of greenhouse gases was the U.S. government.
>
> However, you have yet to prove that global warming was the culprit.
> Did Mother Nature smack those oldsters to the ground and prevent
> them from seeking relief on their own? Who paralyzed their families?

Nobody ! A lot of them died in hospital. I personally know a nice
looking good specialized hospital in which they have had 21 dead in a
day. So stop listening your stupid American medias concerning this
problem and come here I will show you the true and explain it.
Anyway, like myself a lot of french people was on holidays and I never
bring my TV with me. Moreover when meteorologists said that this heat
will late at least 1 week nobody could imagine such deasaster.
In some US area people know very well tornados they know how to protect
their life. Imagine what would happen if tornado suddenly born in a
place where it never occur before and you have an idea of what happened
in France. Imagine that next winter in Florida temperature would
suddenly decrease to -25°C in one night how many oldsters would die

> We saw Chirac beating his chest, but why doesn't his government have
> some sort of contingency on the boards? It can't be unknown to them
> that thousands of ancient apartments are blessedly free of air
> conditioning.

Pure polemic and politic fiction ! More air conditioning will increase
pollution... The snake his eating his tail.

I really don't like you Middius. You want to look here as a
well-modern-informed man and you still continue to say in an other way
****s that your Dennis Prager wrote.
In this particular case it's an unexpected natural deasaster full point.
Any polemic around it is indecent in the same way if I was starting here
a discussion around why NYC service, firemen failed to save more people
in WTC.

In this particular case I'm sure that all those dead people now need
more Mr. Krueger prayers than your stupid and indecent comments

So **** you, **** Phillips, **** Prager in a same batch.

Lionel Chapuis