What's the matter with you idiots??

in article , Vern93 at
wrote on 10/19/03 12:50 AM:

In article ,
Alan Baker wrote:

Proof?

Bert



Why don't we just ask you?

What statements of Scott's do you *not* support?

Well that sure was a conversation killer.

Alan, just a guess, but is it raining in Vancouver today?

Post proof.

in article , Alan Baker at
wrote on 10/19/03 12:54 AM:

In article ,
"Bert Hoff" wrote:

"Richard Henry" wrote in message
news:Xupkb.52818$La.24132@fed1read02...

Actually Bert Hoff has said that he fully supports Scott's statements.

Proof?

tinyurl.com/rgs3

"I support all of my co-moderator's statements."



That link does not work.

Not bright enough to try "http://" in front of it?

http://tinyurl.com/rgs3


And that's no proof that I fully support Scott's statements.

So you're arguing simultaneously that you don't know what he meant
because the link didn't work for you *and* that what was said (that you
don't know, mind!) doesn't prove something.

Not bright enough to realize I'm not the co-moderator he is referring to?
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
What a bunch of dumb****s!

in article Nbskb.52826$La.33631@fed1read02, Richard Henry at
wrote on 10/19/03 1:46 AM:


"Bert Hoff" wrote in message
...

"Richard Henry" wrote in message
news:Xupkb.52818$La.24132@fed1read02...

Actually Bert Hoff has said that he fully supports Scott's
statements.

Proof?

tinyurl.com/rgs3

"I support all of my co-moderator's statements."



That link does not work.

Works for me.

Posted to rsa by Bert Hoff, 10-10-2003. Here is mo

So do you support your co-moderator's statement or not?

Sorry, I don't know what a "Csan" is,or how to "Csan." Is that related to
C-Span? As far as I know,noneof the events fromMen's have been televised.

Why do you mock other people's typos, when you do them?

Your post have *not* all been on-topic,on-thread or in defense of yourself.
Somehave been outright flaming. "On-thread" is irrelevant. Responding "on
thread" means that there are*two* people, not just *one* person, in
violation of the guidelines.

I support all of my co-moderator's statements.


And that's no proof that I fully support Scott's statements.

PUOSU.

So I should have known better than to believe something you posted?



Clue time, dumb****. I'm not his co-moderator. You've been lying from the
beginning, and making a whole bunch of fuss over YOUR idiotic lies.
BWHAHAHAHAHAHA!
What an idiot!

in article
cGhhdHBoaWw=.9f4764f6a4872fafb95ea7c2440a2b15@1066 570082.cotse.net,
CurtisLemay at wrote on 10/19/03 6:28 AM:

The little bum wiper of Sponge bob poopie pants wrote:

snip

And we wonder where bob gets his arguing style from. Boofie, you
must of been one hell of a lawyer in the court room. Any two bit
shyster could have taken you apart.

I wuz meaning to ask how the "expert" of human relations wuz
getting along, I heard a rumor that you were getting a third divorce.
Has your estranged son started talking to you yet?

You are vile, not to mention insane.

(If you don't get the subliminal message here, it's get your fat
chain-smoking lying ass back to fagwad and keep it there. With all
your skeletons in the closet and people's growing intolerance for
you and your buddy, you could find yourself in for a difficult time.)

Get help, wacko.

in article , Alan Baker at
wrote on 10/18/03 10:11 PM:

In article ,
"Bert Hoff" wrote:

"Richard Henry" wrote in message
news:GRkkb.52461$La.9159@fed1read02...

"Alan Baker" wrote in message
...
In article ,
scottabe wrote:

I'm not making accusations. I'm telling the truth. Shame you can't
tell
the difference between criminals and decent men.


Apparently no one on the planet can. At least no one has ever posted in
support of you that I've seen.

Gee. I wonder why.


Actually Bert Hoff has said that he fully supports Scott's statements.

Proof?

Bert



Why don't we just ask you?

What statements of Scott's do you *not* support?

Why don't we ask you?
What death threats do you not support?
What false allegations of molesting children do you not support?
Since you are friendly with those who do so, we assume you support such
behavior: since you continually deny the reality of those vile acts, we
assume you are insane.

in article , Alan Baker at
wrote on 10/18/03 10:12 PM:

In article ,
scottabe wrote:

in article , Alan Baker at
wrote on 10/18/03 9:24 PM:

In article ,
scottabe wrote:

in article , Alan Baker at
wrote on 10/18/03 8:27 PM:

In article ,
scottabe wrote:

in article ckmkb.52767$La.25040@fed1read02, Richard Henry at
wrote on 10/18/03 7:05 PM:


"Alan Baker" wrote in message
...

Well you go ahead and post some examples of people who've supported
you
in this group (other than your little yes-man, Bert).

I'll bet you that if we examine the record, pretty much everyone who
ever posted a word in defense of you got tired of your bull**** and
you
then decided that they too were "terrorists" and "stalkers".

That includes me.


I decided you are a terrorist and a stalker because you are a terrorist
and
a stalker. Period.


But you admit that at one time he made statements in support of you,
right?

I admit he posted my home address in my hometown newsgroup trying to
incite
a wacko like you to stalk me. I admit he has lied and defamed and
participated in a criminal conspiracy of terrorism.
I admit he's an asshole.
And I admit you're ****ing insane, dumb****.


Posted your address, did he? Show us the link.

Uh-huh. Won't. Right. Figures.

When I do post a link, you ignore it.

When have you *ever* posted a link when I've asked you?

About as many times as you've told the truth.

So get ****ed.
It happened.
Keep lying like the psychopath you are.

Like I said.

Figures.

So get ****ed.

scottabe wrote:

in article , Alan Baker at
wrote on 10/18/03 8:30 PM:
[snip]
No one really believes what he says anyway. g

Thousands of people do. The people who left this newsgroup in disgust.

"Thousands of people", that's really funny. Hey Scott, if "thousands of
people" believe what you, how come NONE of them has ever said so? After
all, they could always post anonymously to protect themselves from
"dweeb terror". How come none of them has ever come forward? How come
hundreds of people instead voted AGAINST YOU to form RSAM?

By what basis do you believe you're supported and admired by thousands
of people? That's really the height of narcissistic delusion. Poor
Schattie. You're the Master of the Universe, but everybody makes fun of
you for some reason.

Dave

in article , Dave Stallard at
wrote on 10/19/03 7:59 AM:

scottabe wrote:

in article , Alan Baker at
wrote on 10/18/03 8:30 PM:
[snip]
No one really believes what he says anyway. g

Thousands of people do. The people who left this newsgroup in disgust.

"Thousands of people", that's really funny. Hey Scott, if "thousands of
people" believe what you, how come NONE of them has ever said so?

Because they are afraid of being targeted by assholes like you.

After
all, they could always post anonymously to protect themselves from
"dweeb terror". How come none of them has ever come forward? How come
hundreds of people instead voted AGAINST YOU to form RSAM?

Hundreds? You and your sockpuppets? How come RSA.Terrorist is so dead?
Clue time, asshole. They also voted against YOU.

By what basis do you believe you're supported and admired by thousands
of people? That's really the height of narcissistic delusion. Poor
Schattie. You're the Master of the Universe, but everybody makes fun of
you for some reason.


Everybody? Only in your insane world, trying to Master of the Universe the
truth out of your conscienceness. What a sick asshole!

scottabe wrote:

in article , Dave Stallard at
wrote on 10/19/03 7:59 AM:

scottabe wrote:

in article , Alan Baker at
wrote on 10/18/03 8:30 PM:
[snip]
No one really believes what he says anyway. g

Thousands of people do. The people who left this newsgroup in disgust.

"Thousands of people", that's really funny. Hey Scott, if "thousands of
people" believe what you, how come NONE of them has ever said so?

Because they are afraid of being targeted by assholes like you.

If all these thousands of people who support you are afraid of being
"targeted", why hasn't a single one of them posted anonymously in
support of you? There are plenty of servers that allow you to post
anonymously with complete safety, as you well know. Instead, the only
person who has posted anonymously in support of you is ... you.

After
all, they could always post anonymously to protect themselves from
"dweeb terror". How come none of them has ever come forward? How come
hundreds of people instead voted AGAINST YOU to form RSAM?

Hundreds? You and your sockpuppets? How come RSA.Terrorist is so dead?
Clue time, asshole. They also voted against YOU.

Plenty of former RSA regulars voted yes. You fought against it tooth
and nail. You even tried to recruit people from other groups to vote
against it. You lost, overwhelmingly.

As for the lack of posts on RSAM, well, it has had considerable
technical problems. And perhaps some people have been scared off by
YOUR threats to defame people who posted to it, and YOUR verbal attacks
on some of its posters.

Dave

"scottabe" wrote in message
...

How come RSA.Terrorist is so dead?
/bobcott
Dead? 56 posting since Oct 15. Meanwhile, your favorite group has 16 over
the same period (not counted invisible deleted postings).
bobcott