He was a good dog

On 3 Nov, 23:09, "Bob Weinberger"
wrote:
"Mike" wrote in message

oups.com...

On 3 Nov, 20:30, "Bob Weinberger"
wrote:
Mike,

snip

However, in my view, his worst trait is his
hypocracy - he professes to abhor behavior and speach that may be hurtful
to
"oppressed" minorities (gays, native americans, people of african
descent,
etc.) while having no reservation in harassing and ridiculing the
obviously
mentally disturbed.

Bob Weinberger

I suppose you think that is remarkably witty and funny?

I really do sincerely hope that somebody like Fortenberry causes you
the maximum possible grief and upset, and that there is nobody there
with the guts to say or do anything about it.

Maybe some **** like you will also find it funny, and make a point of
telling you so?

MC

Sure, part of my intent was to be somewhat witty, but my stronger motive
was to jab Ken over what I perceive to be his hypocrisy on this point. If
he truly believes that you are mentally imbalanced (a conclusion that many
of us who have read your outbursts on this thread have also reached); to be
consistent with his proclaimed championship of the opressed, he should leave
you alone. I on the other hand make no pretense that I owe any "opressed"
group any more consideration than I do anyone else. Therefore I see no
hypocrisy in my pointing out to you (even knowing that it will have no
positive impact) that your actions in this (and several other similar)
thread(s) shout out MENTAL IMBALANCE.

Bob Weinberger

As you are doubtless perfectly well aware, he does not believe
anything of the sort, he is merely trying to find ways of attacking
me, or of gaining support for his nonsense, and that is all he can
come up with.

Quite remarkable that you consider Fortenberry and LaCourse´s actions
"normal" and mine to be a sign of mental imbalance. You think it´s
normal for people to castigate others in this manner? Call somebody a
Nazi, a homo, and a host of other things? Other people´s wives and
daughters ****s? A whole list of other misdeeds far too numerous to
mention?

Because if you do, you are deranged.

He does not care about gays either, as if he did he would not use
homosexuality as an insult. The same applies to racism and nazis. The
man is a disgraceful ****bag with a severe inferiority complex. He
MUST have his views accepted, no matter what, and he will go to any
lengths to try and ensure that.

I am not in the least mentally imbalanced. I am merely taking steps to
defend myself, and others. When you are the butt of such attacks, then
you might just possibly obtain a different perspective on the matter.
Maintaining that I am mentally imbalanced, in order to make a joke,
regardless of the effect it might have on me, is the action of an
unprincipled ****. If you truly believe I am mentally unbalanced, and
even more so if you do not. It also supports Fortenberry in his
endeavours, the man is an emotional vamnpire who feeds on just such
crap, and it encourages him to continue.

Would you care to tell me who "many of us" are? Indeed, can you find
anybody apart from the ******s involved in this crap, who will support
you in your claims that I am mentally imbalanced? Because if you can
´t you are not only an unprincipled ****, but a liar to boot.

I could go on, but there would not be much point would there?

Even if this whole collection of individuals, ( it´s not a group as
such) maintains that I am completely insanse, that does not make it
so. Even if the whole lot were to oppose me, it would also make no
difference, for the simple reason that I am right, I am within my
rights, and it is a matter of principle. Unlike you, I have some.

It does not really matter all that much what you believe or don´t
believe, it does not affect me or my actions There is also absolutely
nothing you can do about it. I will continue to defend myself, and I
don´t much care what you do. I merely thought it prudent to point out
what I think of you, as a result of your actions, and to paraphrase
something I heard recently "( even knowing that it will [most likely]
have no positive impact)".

You will of course note that I have not called you any silly names,
referred to your family or antecedents, or castigated you in any way.
I merely addressed the matter at hand, in a perfectly sane and civil
fashion, in direct reply to a post you addressed to me.

MC

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
...

snip

but His Loony Mikeness could easily choose not to post
to roff. The sicko is not "oppressed" he's just a sicko whackjob
and a highly offensive one at that.

--
Ken Fortenberry

No, he can't. He has tried numerous times and failed. As you have also
pointed out, one of the prime indicators of his mental imbalance is his
inability to keep from responding in a vitriolic ouitburst to anyone he
perceives as attacking him.
IIRC you defend gays because you believe that a gay person has no choice in
their sexual orientation. If that is your belief, how can you believe that
anyone repeatedly displaying the type of irrational behavior that Mike has,
has any real control of their belief set and response to certain stimuli.

Bob Weinberger

Bob Weinberger wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
but His Loony Mikeness could easily choose not to post
to roff. The sicko is not "oppressed" he's just a sicko whackjob
and a highly offensive one at that.

No, he can't. He has tried numerous times and failed. As you have also
pointed out, one of the prime indicators of his mental imbalance is his
inability to keep from responding in a vitriolic ouitburst to anyone he
perceives as attacking him.
IIRC you defend gays because you believe that a gay person has no choice in
their sexual orientation. If that is your belief, how can you believe that
anyone repeatedly displaying the type of irrational behavior that Mike has,
has any real control of their belief set and response to certain stimuli.

Gay people have to live in the real world, they cannot simply
unplug themselves from existing day to day in our society.

His Loony Mikeness on the other hand does not need Usenet to
eat, sleep or drink, he could, in theory, unplug himself at
any time and be no worse for the wear.

--
Ken Fortenberry

In reply To Bib Weinberger´s post.


Your perceptions of a particular matter do not make it so. You have no
way of knowing what I might have tried or not. You continue now to
describe my behaviour as irrational. On what do you base this particular
perception?

There is nothing at all irrational about defending oneself in the face
of personal attacks, or are you seriously suggesting that these attacks
are a figment of my imagination?

Otherwise, your arguments, given the false precepts, are more or less
cogent. That however will have no effect on Fortenberry, because he
never believed for a second that I am unbalanced or irrational, he
merely wishes to force his views on me, and on anybody else who
disagrees with him. I on the other hand most certainly do not wish to
force my views on anybody. I merely wish people to cease attacking me
personally.

I am perfectly willing to discuss anything at all, in a civil manner,
and I don´t mind people disagreeing with me at all on practically
anything. Anybody who seriously imagines he is always right is a fool,
and I am not a fool.

Really rather funny seeing you trying to converse about my mental health
with a pathological ****bag!

MC

Ken Fortenberry wrote:

on the other hand does not need Usenet to
eat, sleep or drink, he could, in theory, unplug himself at
any time and be no worse for the wear.


So could you Kennyboy, and a lot more people would be no worse for wear
as a result.

MC

"Mike" wrote in message
ups.com...

As you are doubtless perfectly well aware, he does not believe
anything of the sort, he is merely trying to find ways of attacking
me, or of gaining support for his nonsense, and that is all he can
come up with.

No, I am not perfectly aware of Ken's motives as I am no mind reader. The
fact that you firmly believe that to be his motive smells very strongly of
paranoia.

Quite remarkable that you consider Fortenberry and LaCourse´s actions
"normal" and mine to be a sign of mental imbalance. You think it´s
normal for people to castigate others in this manner? Call somebody a
Nazi, a homo, and a host of other things? Other people´s wives and
daughters ****s? A whole list of other misdeeds far too numerous to
mention?

Because if you do, you are deranged.

I never said nor do I believe that many of their actions are "normal". Many
of them are certainly distasteful, but for the most part they do not have
the sense of paranoia, denial of the obvious, and absurd display of
irrationality that many of your posts do.

He does not care about gays either, as if he did he would not use
homosexuality as an insult. The same applies to racism and nazis. The
man is a disgraceful ****bag with a severe inferiority complex. He
MUST have his views accepted, no matter what, and he will go to any
lengths to try and ensure that.

While I have a certain level of agreement with your first sentance, the last
sentance applies to you at least as strongly as it does to him.

I am not in the least mentally imbalanced. I am merely taking steps to
defend myself, and others. When you are the butt of such attacks, then
you might just possibly obtain a different perspective on the matter.
Maintaining that I am mentally imbalanced, in order to make a joke,
regardless of the effect it might have on me, is the action of an
unprincipled ****. If you truly believe I am mentally unbalanced, and
even more so if you do not. It also supports Fortenberry in his
endeavours, the man is an emotional vamnpire who feeds on just such
crap, and it encourages him to continue.

I like most people have indeed been the butt of such attacks, and I, like
most "normal" people simply consider the source and let the insults slide
off.
I didn't maintain that you are mentally imbalanced to make a joke. I used
the fact that Ken beleives you to be mentally imbalanced (as I do) yet
continues to pester you to point out his hypocracy - and as the basis of a
joke.
Failing to consider what impact my incorporating your mental imbalance into
a joke may have on you may say something about my lack of sensitivity and my
belief that the mentally imbalanced are no more worthy of consideration than
anyone else, but it has nothing to do with my principles or whether or not I
am a ****.

Would you care to tell me who "many of us" are? Indeed, can you find
anybody apart from the ******s involved in this crap, who will support
you in your claims that I am mentally imbalanced? Because if you can
´t you are not only an unprincipled ****, but a liar to boot.

I have shown this thread to numerous people who you have never heard of, and
all of whom don't participate in newsgroups and obviously wouldn't want
their names spread on a newsgroup - their unanimous response is along the
lines of "What agroup of nutcases, especially Mike."

I could go on, but there would not be much point would there?

Yet you do for three more paragraphs.

Even if this whole collection of individuals, ( it´s not a group as
such) maintains that I am completely insanse, that does not make it
so. Even if the whole lot were to oppose me, it would also make no
difference, for the simple reason that I am right, I am within my
rights, and it is a matter of principle. Unlike you, I have some.

Would you care to list them. "Because if you can´t you are not only an
unprincipled ****, but a liar to boot."

It does not really matter all that much what you believe or don´t
believe, it does not affect me or my actions There is also absolutely
nothing you can do about it. I will continue to defend myself, and I
don´t much care what you do. I merely thought it prudent to point out
what I think of you, as a result of your actions, and to paraphrase
something I heard recently "( even knowing that it will [most likely]
have no positive impact)".

Obviously there was no effect on your actions other than to "force" you to
compose a 539 word response.

You will of course note that I have not called you any silly names,
referred to your family or antecedents, or castigated you in any way.
I merely addressed the matter at hand, in a perfectly sane and civil
fashion, in direct reply to a post you addressed to me.

I guess "unprincipled ****" doesn't count.

MC

Although I have no belief that the mentally imbalanced deserve any special
consideration, I will try to refrain from any further infliction of distress
on you that you don't care about nor feel the need to address with long
rambling responses. It's becoming too much like pulling the legs off a fly.

Bob Weinberger wrote:
"Mike" wrote in message
ups.com...

As you are doubtless perfectly well aware, he does not believe
anything of the sort, he is merely trying to find ways of attacking
me, or of gaining support for his nonsense, and that is all he can
come up with.

No, I am not perfectly aware of Ken's motives as I am no mind reader. The
fact that you firmly believe that to be his motive smells very strongly of
paranoia.

Quite remarkable that you consider Fortenberry and LaCourse´s actions
"normal" and mine to be a sign of mental imbalance. You think it´s
normal for people to castigate others in this manner? Call somebody a
Nazi, a homo, and a host of other things? Other people´s wives and
daughters ****s? A whole list of other misdeeds far too numerous to
mention?

Because if you do, you are deranged.

I never said nor do I believe that many of their actions are "normal". Many
of them are certainly distasteful, but for the most part they do not have
the sense of paranoia, denial of the obvious, and absurd display of
irrationality that many of your posts do.

He does not care about gays either, as if he did he would not use
homosexuality as an insult. The same applies to racism and nazis. The
man is a disgraceful ****bag with a severe inferiority complex. He
MUST have his views accepted, no matter what, and he will go to any
lengths to try and ensure that.

While I have a certain level of agreement with your first sentance, the last
sentance applies to you at least as strongly as it does to him.

I am not in the least mentally imbalanced. I am merely taking steps to
defend myself, and others. When you are the butt of such attacks, then
you might just possibly obtain a different perspective on the matter.
Maintaining that I am mentally imbalanced, in order to make a joke,
regardless of the effect it might have on me, is the action of an
unprincipled ****. If you truly believe I am mentally unbalanced, and
even more so if you do not. It also supports Fortenberry in his
endeavours, the man is an emotional vamnpire who feeds on just such
crap, and it encourages him to continue.

I like most people have indeed been the butt of such attacks, and I, like
most "normal" people simply consider the source and let the insults slide
off.
I didn't maintain that you are mentally imbalanced to make a joke. I used
the fact that Ken beleives you to be mentally imbalanced (as I do) yet
continues to pester you to point out his hypocracy - and as the basis of a
joke.
Failing to consider what impact my incorporating your mental imbalance into
a joke may have on you may say something about my lack of sensitivity and my
belief that the mentally imbalanced are no more worthy of consideration than
anyone else, but it has nothing to do with my principles or whether or not I
am a ****.

Would you care to tell me who "many of us" are? Indeed, can you find
anybody apart from the ******s involved in this crap, who will support
you in your claims that I am mentally imbalanced? Because if you can
´t you are not only an unprincipled ****, but a liar to boot.

I have shown this thread to numerous people who you have never heard of, and
all of whom don't participate in newsgroups and obviously wouldn't want
their names spread on a newsgroup - their unanimous response is along the
lines of "What agroup of nutcases, especially Mike."

I could go on, but there would not be much point would there?

Yet you do for three more paragraphs.

Even if this whole collection of individuals, ( it´s not a group as
such) maintains that I am completely insanse, that does not make it
so. Even if the whole lot were to oppose me, it would also make no
difference, for the simple reason that I am right, I am within my
rights, and it is a matter of principle. Unlike you, I have some.

Would you care to list them. "Because if you can´t you are not only an
unprincipled ****, but a liar to boot."

It does not really matter all that much what you believe or don´t
believe, it does not affect me or my actions There is also absolutely
nothing you can do about it. I will continue to defend myself, and I
don´t much care what you do. I merely thought it prudent to point out
what I think of you, as a result of your actions, and to paraphrase
something I heard recently "( even knowing that it will [most likely]
have no positive impact)".

Obviously there was no effect on your actions other than to "force" you to
compose a 539 word response.

You will of course note that I have not called you any silly names,
referred to your family or antecedents, or castigated you in any way.
I merely addressed the matter at hand, in a perfectly sane and civil
fashion, in direct reply to a post you addressed to me.

I guess "unprincipled ****" doesn't count.

MC

Although I have no belief that the mentally imbalanced deserve any special
consideration, I will try to refrain from any further infliction of distress
on you that you don't care about nor feel the need to address with long
rambling responses. It's becoming too much like pulling the legs off a fly.



Ah well, I didn´t count the words in yours, but I think it was rather
more, and I didn´t notice anybody forcing you to do anything either. As
your arguments are biased in favour of your prejudiced views, there is
no point in my trying to refute them.

You have taken the pressure off Fortenberry for a moment or two,
doubtless he will be eternally grateful, until you disagree with him.

You keep repeating propaganda you have heard on here, but there is not a
shred of evidence to back it up.

What people unknown to me may think of various posts on this newsgroup
is quite irrelevant.

Lastly, refraining from inflicting distress on others, is a matter of
character, it is something one does becuase one feels it is right,
regardless of how anybody else may feel about it.

Have a nice day.

MC

On 4 Nov, 03:49, rw wrote:
Bob Weinberger wrote:
Mike,

You are correct that Ken is an asshole ( an epithet that he strangly seems
to accept with pride). He also pompously sets himself up as the protector of
what is policically correct thought and speach, and attacks people ( using
methods that go far beyond socially acceptable norms) who hold what he deems
to be intolerant views. However, in my view, his worst trait is his
hypocracy - he professes to abhor behavior and speach that may be hurtful to
"oppressed" minorities (gays, native americans, people of african descent,
etc.) while having no reservation in harassing and ridiculing the obviously
mentally disturbed.

Bob Weinberger

Fortenberry's baiting of Connor displays a disgusting sadistic nature --
one that he can safely express only on the Internet. LaCourse's
cheerleading, the same. He likes to play little dog to Fortenberry's big
dog. I don't know which is worse.

Neither does Fortenberry seem to care that his sadistic game spoils ROFF
for others.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Absolutely correct.

MC

"MC" wrote in message ...

Mike,

In your last reply to Bob W. you made the statement:

"What people unknown to me may think of various posts on this newsgroup
is quite irrelevant."

Now I don't have a dog in this fight and agree that quite a bit of less than
adult like discussion takes place here with regularity--as I have been known
to do on numerous occasions myself. I am curious though. If you or anyone
else for that matter think that "

"MC" wrote in message ...

Hit the wrong ****in' button!

Never mind, it really not worth the effort.

Op