TFM® wrote:

"F.G. Whitfurrows" wrote


TFM® wrote:

The Tide® is coming in."

Somebody say Tide? Roll ****in' Tide!



**** yeah! Alabama man!

(snicker)
TFM®

*Roll* *Tide*! *Yeaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh*!
*Roll* *****in* *Tide*!
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhahahahahah!




Well alright. If you say so. I never was into sports and I never went to
Alabama......unless you consider Huntsville Space Center part of
Alabama.............


But anyway, before I start sounding too sissyfied, you ever been to the deep
piney woods of Georgia?

Ain't nothin' but rednecks and bigfoot living in there.


Roll Tide biatch,
TFM®




Na, bigfoot is in Minnesota. He has been spotted and photographed here.
Photograph was in an issue of the Enquirer.

Maybe though bigfoot had a baby and Georgia has the baby. I haven't
read the Enquirer in a while to keep up on these newsworthy events !!!

BBQ

Chef Juke wrote:

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 05:24:13 -0600, Kevin S. Wilson
wrote:


On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 22:01:07 -0700, Chef Juke
wrote:


I really don't much care about intention. I've had it with ... all the other self-important bozos who think that
they have some sort of God-given right to shove their message down our
throats. ...Quit hollerin' at me


Um, Kevin?

Of the 62 posts in this thread, the original poster made 6 posts,
while you have made over twice as many (13). In comparing those posts
I think it fair to say that any impartial observer would find yours to
be far more agressive, negative and some (including a number of the
A.F.B. regualars who have responded, offensive.

In your messages to both to the original poster and to those who you
disagree with you repeatedly make assumptions about their INTENT
(which you say you don't care about) and use these assumptions to
bolster your arguments against them:
For example:

KEVIN: "You think that your message is so important that you can
ignore prohibitions against spamming, including those in your ISP's
Acceptable Use Policy"

Do you really think that the original poster was both aware of and
intentionally disregarding their ISPs Acceptable Use Policy?


You often resort to name calling ("self-important bozos", "racist",
"ignorant racist" "WebTVe", "You are a sad, pathetic, creepy little
man.", etc.), yet chastise other when they resort to the same.

It also seems that as threads you are involved in get longer, your
statements in them become more pedantic - you start focusing on a
minot point ( that someone did not answer one of your questions)
rather than the overarching point of the thread.

If the whole intent of your posts with this recurring theme (pointing
out to people that they are spammers) is to educate people to the
error of their ways, as indicated in your eigth post in this
particular thread:

"It really is simple: You're spamming. "

..then I have just one question for you.:

Couldn't you find a more constructive way to do it?

You have repeatedly chastised those who take you to task for your
approach and have repeatedly been hypocritical in doing so. You have
ridiculed those you consider "ignorant" rather than attempt to
constructively educate them.

Finally, based on the years of such threads, is seems clear to me that
ultimately, you simply don't care to engage with others in a
reasonable, respectful manner, especially if they have said or
implied something that you disagree with, or if you deem them somehow
'less' than you (ignorant, racist, etc.).

To me, that seems like a truer form of ignorance than unintentionally
breaking one's ISP Acceptable use policy while trying to help people


-Chef Juke
"EVERYbody Eats When They Come To MY House!"
www.chefjuke.com


Amen. I have been around this group for several years (though less in
the last year or so) and find Kevin to be the most obnoxious human being
ever. For the life of me, I just can't understand why he gets his
jolly's being such an obnoxious person. He has valuable knowledge to
contribute, but for the most part, he chooses to ignore that.

BBQ

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 15:12:59 -0600, Kevin S. Wilson
wrote:

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 06:57:50 -0700, Chef Juke
wrote:

big snip

You are a sad, pathetic, creepy little man.

That would be Dan Krueger, a sad, pathetic, creepy little man who has
e-mailed my boss repeatedly in an impotent attempt to get me censured
or fired for posting to Usenet. If ever anyone deserved those
appelations, it's Dan Krueger.

As for the rest of your post, I guess that's why newsreaders come with
killfiles. You don't have to read what I post. Nobody does.

Kevin,

That's it?

That is your response to all of the points made? To reiterate the
name calling and to say that folks can killfile you or not read your
posts?

I already made my point about namecalling, and as for your point about
not reading posts and/or killfiling - the very same could be said
about you in terms of dealing with the folks you consider spammers.
You could ignore them. You could killfile them immediately.

And the result would be (at least based on recent history and using
this thread as an example): Far fewer off-topic posts in this
newsgroup.

So, to paraphase Kevin S. Wilson: What would happen if everyone,
including you, did that instead of instigating a thread full of
negativity?



-Chef Juke
"EVERYbody Eats When They Come To MY House!"
www.chefjuke.com

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 11:27:43 -0700, Chef Juke
wrote:

That's it?

That is your response to all of the points made? To reiterate the
name calling and to say that folks can killfile you or not read your
posts?

Yeah, that's it, but you shouldn't take it personally. I just don't
give much of a red rat's ass about AFB these days, or about Usenet in
general. You might feel the same way if some sad, pathetic, creepy
coward had been e-mailing your boss for months in an attempt to get
you fired over your participation in Usenet. And, yes, I'm referring
to Dan Krueger, a sad, pathetic, creepy coward.

Chef, you talk about off-topic posts in AFB, but a close reading of
this group would indicate there's just about no such thing. AFB is
filled with grumpy old men of all ages who want to natter incessently
about the weather, drinking, politics, weather, drinking, and weather
and drinking. Yawn. They would hardly ever post about BBQ if it
weren't for the steady supply of newbies wanting to know what $300
pile-of-tin gasser they should buy on their next trip to Home Depot.
Double yawn.

Dan Krueger is one of AFB's regulars. It was here that I first came to
his creepy attention and it was about posts to AFB that he first began
complaining to my boss. Yet only ONE person from AFB has publicly said
that he is a loathsome, reprehensible coward for doing so. I figure
that any group containing a creep like Krueger -- and apparently
willing to countenance his creepy stalking -- can just go **** up a
rope. The fact that posts to AFB are by and large irrelevant makes me
care even less about debating with you or anyone else the
signal-to-noise ratio in AFB.

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 14:21:56 -0600, Kevin S. Wilson
wrote:

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 11:27:43 -0700, Chef Juke
wrote:

That's it?

That is your response to all of the points made? To reiterate the
name calling and to say that folks can killfile you or not read your
posts?

Yeah, that's it, but you shouldn't take it personally. I just don't
give much of a red rat's ass about AFB these days, or about Usenet in
general. You might feel the same way if some sad, pathetic, creepy
coward had been e-mailing your boss for months in an attempt to get
you fired over your participation in Usenet. And, yes, I'm referring
to Dan Krueger, a sad, pathetic, creepy coward.

Chef, you talk about off-topic posts in AFB, but a close reading of
this group would indicate there's just about no such thing. AFB is
filled with grumpy old men of all ages who want to natter incessently
about the weather, drinking, politics, weather, drinking, and weather
and drinking. Yawn. They would hardly ever post about BBQ if it
weren't for the steady supply of newbies wanting to know what $300
pile-of-tin gasser they should buy on their next trip to Home Depot.
Double yawn.

Dan Krueger is one of AFB's regulars. It was here that I first came to
his creepy attention and it was about posts to AFB that he first began
complaining to my boss. Yet only ONE person from AFB has publicly said
that he is a loathsome, reprehensible coward for doing so. I figure
that any group containing a creep like Krueger -- and apparently
willing to countenance his creepy stalking -- can just go **** up a
rope. The fact that posts to AFB are by and large irrelevant makes me
care even less about debating with you or anyone else the
signal-to-noise ratio in AFB.


Kevin,

If all you say is true, then I really don't understand your actions.
If you don't care...if you REALLY don't care (and you have said
repeatedly) then why do you bother?

Why do you bother to reply to the spammers? Why do you bother taking
the time to ridicule people on these same newsgroups that you "don't
care" about because of their choice of gas grill or internet provider?

You say a lot. More often than not your actions do not match your
words.

If someone is harrassing you, you should be telling the authorities,
not trying (apparently) to drum up support on an internet newsgroup.

I don't take it personally. I just was attempting to discuss the
situation and the issues you and others have brought up in this
newsgroup....and tried to do so without resorting to the namecalling
and other silliness that seems to prevail at times around here. You've
not really responded in kind and I have to assume that you don't care
to (as you've stated).

So...I will assume that if you really don't care, that we won't be
seeing much from you here in the future. Unless you DO care on some
level, even if it is that you like stirring the pot and ticking people
off. If that is the case then I expect we will just keep seing more
of the same. If so....well, I think that's too bad. I really think
your time and effort could be better spent.


-Chef Juke
"EVERYbody Eats When They Come To MY House!"
www.chefjuke.com

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 14:32:26 -0700, Chef Juke
wrote:

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 14:21:56 -0600, Kevin S. Wilson
wrote:

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 11:27:43 -0700, Chef Juke
wrote:

That's it?

That is your response to all of the points made? To reiterate the
name calling and to say that folks can killfile you or not read your
posts?

Yeah, that's it, but you shouldn't take it personally. I just don't
give much of a red rat's ass about AFB these days, or about Usenet in
general. You might feel the same way if some sad, pathetic, creepy
coward had been e-mailing your boss for months in an attempt to get
you fired over your participation in Usenet. And, yes, I'm referring
to Dan Krueger, a sad, pathetic, creepy coward.

Chef, you talk about off-topic posts in AFB, but a close reading of
this group would indicate there's just about no such thing. AFB is
filled with grumpy old men of all ages who want to natter incessently
about the weather, drinking, politics, weather, drinking, and weather
and drinking. Yawn. They would hardly ever post about BBQ if it
weren't for the steady supply of newbies wanting to know what $300
pile-of-tin gasser they should buy on their next trip to Home Depot.
Double yawn.

Dan Krueger is one of AFB's regulars. It was here that I first came to
his creepy attention and it was about posts to AFB that he first began
complaining to my boss. Yet only ONE person from AFB has publicly said
that he is a loathsome, reprehensible coward for doing so. I figure
that any group containing a creep like Krueger -- and apparently
willing to countenance his creepy stalking -- can just go **** up a
rope. The fact that posts to AFB are by and large irrelevant makes me
care even less about debating with you or anyone else the
signal-to-noise ratio in AFB.


Kevin,

If all you say is true,

Trust me, it's true. Months ago my boss came into my office and said,
"You have another stalker who doesn't like what you post to Usenet. Be
careful." A few weeks ago, while talking to me about online privacy,
my boss said, "What did you do to **** this Dan Krueger guy off? He
still sends me stuff you've posted to Usenet.

My boss doesn't read Usenet. I have never mentioned Dan Krueger's name
to my boss. Draw your own conclusions as to why my boss knows him by
name.

then I really don't understand your actions.
If you don't care...if you REALLY don't care (and you have said
repeatedly) then why do you bother?

Bother? Chef, I read and post to Usenet for the same fundamental
reason I suspect you do: for amusement, entertainment, and community.
It's really that simple.

Why do you bother to reply to the spammers?

I rarely see spam in AFB. Apparently, individual.net's filters catch
most of it. I do see the same old bozos replying to garden-variety
spam, though, as if they're the only ones schmart enough to figure out
that "Make Penis Fast" might be spam. I generally reply to the dipshit
spammers who think we're dumb enough to fall for "Hey, I just found
this way-cool BBQ site!" or to ones like this most recent mook, who
thinks that slapping the word "Katrina" on a post makes up for blatant
advertising, bad manners, and poor taste.

Why do you bother taking
the time to ridicule people on these same newsgroups that you "don't
care" about

I think you misunderstand what I mean when I say I don't much care
about AFB. I mean that I don't much care whether you or anyone else
thinks my posts are on- or off-topic, given that for months if not
years a typical "on-topic" post to AFB consists of a detailed
enumeration of the amount of rainfall a given geographical area has or
hasn't received. Oh, and don't forget the chest-thumping about one's
drinking prowess, now or in some misty Good Ol' Days of years gone by.
Then there's always "ROTFLMAO." Who could get tired of seeing those
posts?

When I say I don't much care about AFB, I mean that shrug AFB is by
and large irrelevant, rendered so by those who post most frequently
and by those who scream the loudest about off-topic this and off-topic
that.

because of their choice of gas grill or internet provider?

You're reaching now, Chef. I don't recall ever "ridiculing" (your
word) someone over their choice of gas grill. Rather, I said that most
of these grumpy old men of all ages would have little to say about BBQ
if it weren't for the steady supply of newbies asking which gas grill
to buy. Then they get to show off.

As for ridiculing WebTVers, that's a time-honored tradition. Besides,
didn't AOL pull the plug on Usenet, leaving us without AOLers to
taunt?

You say a lot. More often than not your actions do not match your
words.

If someone is harrassing you, you should be telling the authorities,
not trying (apparently) to drum up support on an internet newsgroup.

I have no interest in drumming up support in this or any other
newsgroup. I am simply reporting the facts of Dan Kreuger's creepy
behavior. No reason why Google shouldn't have a full accounting of
that behavior as well as a complete record of him following me from
group to group with the sole purpose of launching personal attacks.

The authorities? Creeps like Dan Krueger take meaningless Usenet
squabbles into real life, not me. So far, Krueger has been just this
smart enough to avoid breaking the law or inviting civil action.
Trust me, you'll know if he ever relapses into his usual stupidity;
he'll wish a house had fallen on him instead.

I don't take it personally. I just was attempting to discuss the
situation and the issues you and others have brought up in this
newsgroup....and tried to do so without resorting to the namecalling
and other silliness that seems to prevail at times around here. You've
not really responded in kind and I have to assume that you don't care
to (as you've stated).

"Namecalling and other silliness" are predictable consequences of a
central, defining characteristic of Usenet -- that by and large,
people are allowed to do pretty much whatever they want, within the
bounds of the AUP of their ISP. The catch is, I'm also allowed.

So Bozo A is allowed to post some ignorant racist comment, but I'm
allowed to call him on it and to remind people of it later on. Bozo B
is allowed to try to pull the wool over my eyes with "I found this
great BBQ site," and I'm allowed to post the results of a Whois that
show he owns the site. Kent is allowed to regularly post nonsense, and
I and others are allowed to call it nonsense. The Fat Boi and his
curmudgeunly sycophants are allowed to whip themselves into a mindless
frenzy trying to out-do each other in calling me names, and I'm
allowed to point at them and snicker.

I'm allowed. You're allowed.

We would've seen far less noise in this group over the years if half
the regulars here understood that basic concept of Usenet. Less noise,
too, if they understood that if "I'm Allowed" leads to their tender
sensibilities being ruffled, then perhaps they ought to find a
different pasttime or figure out how to use a killfile.

BTW, Chef, I hope you don't jump rashly onto the idea that what I'm
saying is "You're allowed, as long as you do things my way." Dum bass
spammers can continue to post about the great BBQ site they found;
most of them don't do it more than once before disappearing in a cloud
of taunting ridicule. The Fat Boi can post ethnic slurs all he wants,
so long as he abides by the law and his ISP's AUP; nothing's stopping
him, other than his apparent desire to be accepted by others in AFB.
"I'm allowed, you're allowed" just means that everyone has to deal
with the consequences of their online behavior. Talk nonsense often
enough, be mocked and taunted or maybe meet Mr. Killfile. Post ethnic
slurs, be prepared for people to vilify and denounce you. And so it
goes. From what I know of you, Chef, I suspect you more than most
people here appreciate the beauty, simplicity, and effectivess of
self-policing and self-regulation in a community.

So...I will assume that if you really don't care, that we won't be
seeing much from you here in the future.

False assumption, one based on a misunderstanding of my "I don't care"
comment. If you see less of me, it'll be because other, more
interesting conversations have taken precedence for my time. Most
days, talking with my dog would probably qualify.

Unless you DO care on some
level, even if it is that you like stirring the pot and ticking people
off.

What you call "stirring the pot" I call "conversation." Is it always
civil conversation? Nope, but I don't find that the least bit
surprising, given human nature. As for ticking people off, I'm not
taking responsibility for how someone reacts to what I post. They have
a keyboard in front of them, same as me. If they want to refute what I
say, they should. If they want to mock what I say, they're allowed.
Nothing's stopping them . . . except perhaps a lack of wit and the
ability to write well. Next time you encounter a self-congratulatory
frenzy of name-calling, or Kent's predictable but disturbing
scatological references, ask yourself if what you're witnessing isn't
maybe the thrashing about of people ill-equipped to engage in debate
in a text-only medium, or to summon up wit or humor that exceeds what
might be found on an elementary-school playground.

Of course, the most profoundly ill-equipped, the truly impotent and
desperate -- such as the Fat Boi and Dan Krueger -- resort to threats
of violence, stalking, and harassment. That's no surprise. In fact,
it's predictable.

If that is the case then I expect we will just keep seing more
of the same. If so....well, I think that's too bad. I really think
your time and effort could be better spent.

Chef, you know I like you. I've told you before, and you've done
nothing since to change how I feel. So don't take it personally when I
say that I always chuckle when I see someone spending time on Usenet
to question the manner in which someone else spends time on Usenet.

Best,
KSW

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 16:54:20 -0600, Kevin S. Wilson
wrote:

[much drivel deleted]

If that is the case then I expect we will just keep seing more
of the same. If so....well, I think that's too bad. I really think
your time and effort could be better spent.



Chef, you know I like you. I've told you before, and you've done
nothing since to change how I feel. So don't take it personally when I
say that I always chuckle when I see someone spending time on Usenet
to question the manner in which someone else spends time on Usenet.

Best,
KSW


Kevin, you really should not skip those sessions with your shrink.

Larry wrote:
Kevin S. Wilson
wrote:

[much drivel deleted]

If that is the case then I expect we will just keep seing more
of the same. If so....well, I think that's too bad. I really think
your time and effort could be better spent.



Chef, you know I like you. I've told you before, and you've done
nothing since to change how I feel. So don't take it personally when
I say that I always chuckle when I see someone spending time on
Usenet to question the manner in which someone else spends time on
Usenet.

Best,
KSW


Kevin, you really should not skip those sessions with your shrink.

Well, at least he's not a hypocrite.g

--
The High Honorable Reverend
Fosco Gamgee Wooaaa.... hahaa... Whitfurrows
and his 6" stoner


--Weddings performed for a nominal fee.
--Beer or magic shrooms accepted in lieu of cash payment
ROFL!

"Kevin S. Wilson" wrote

AFB is
filled with grumpy old men of all ages who want to natter incessently
about the weather, drinking, politics, weather, drinking, and weather
and drinking.


So it finally comes to light. You're a non-drinker and think those of us
who do drink are shit. We're beneath you.

I hope to drink enough to give you a heart attack, you miserable little tic
turd.

Here's to Kevvie, official AFB ****tard of the year!


TdrinkingFM®

"Cumblossom" wrote

The authorities? Creeps like Dan Krueger take meaningless Usenet
squabbles into real life, not me. So far, Krueger has been just this
smart enough to avoid breaking the law or inviting civil action.
Trust me, you'll know if he ever relapses into his usual stupidity;
he'll wish a house had fallen on him instead.


So you don't drag Usenet fights into real life, yet you wait for him to
lapse into his "usual stupidity" so you can do just that.

Backpedal your way out of that bit of self-incrimination, biatch.


TFM®

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 23:46:10 GMT, "TFM®"
wrote:


"Kevin S. Wilson" wrote

AFB is
filled with grumpy old men of all ages who want to natter incessently
about the weather, drinking, politics, weather, drinking, and weather
and drinking.

So it finally comes to light. You're a non-drinker and think those of us
who do drink are shit. We're beneath you.

You are sorely mistaken, but that's hardly surprising. You're not even
imaginative enough to realize that someone can be a drinker and be
bored all the same with post after post about drinking.

I hope to drink enough to give you a heart attack, you miserable little tic
turd.

Threats of (fanciful) violence. You're back to square one, racist. And
so, so, so predictable.

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 23:57:48 GMT, "TFM®"
wrote:


"Cumblossom" wrote

The authorities? Creeps like Dan Krueger take meaningless Usenet
squabbles into real life, not me. So far, Krueger has been just this
smart enough to avoid breaking the law or inviting civil action.
Trust me, you'll know if he ever relapses into his usual stupidity;
he'll wish a house had fallen on him instead.


So you don't drag Usenet fights into real life, yet you wait for him to
lapse into his "usual stupidity" so you can do just that.

Backpedal your way out of that bit of self-incrimination, biatch.

Have someone read to you that part about "breaking the law or inviting
civil action."

"Kevin S. Wilson" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 23:57:48 GMT, "TFM®"
wrote:


"Cumblossom" wrote

The authorities? Creeps like Dan Krueger take meaningless Usenet
squabbles into real life, not me. So far, Krueger has been just this
smart enough to avoid breaking the law or inviting civil action.
Trust me, you'll know if he ever relapses into his usual stupidity;
he'll wish a house had fallen on him instead.


So you don't drag Usenet fights into real life, yet you wait for him to
lapse into his "usual stupidity" so you can do just that.

Backpedal your way out of that bit of self-incrimination, biatch.

Have someone read to you that part about "breaking the law or inviting
civil action."


Have someone read your own post to you.

You said creeps like Dan take meaningless Usenet squabbles into real life,
not you.

Then you finished that paragraph with the insinuation that you would be all
over him like stink on shit were he to just give you the chance.

You're a ****ing joke Cumblossom. You're hated and despised in this group.
****ing accept that and walk away with what little dignity you have left.


The racist,
TFM®

"TFM®" wrote:
wrote

You're finally right about something, Kevvie. One week of toying with
you has reminded me of why I kf'd you last year. So back ya go. Don't
bother replying. You really are gone and I won't see anymore of your
egocentricities.

Behind your sham chivalry, I contend, lurk some nasty tendencies to
sadism, egocentricity, rebellion and neurosis. Hopefully, someday, you
will grow out of your egocentrism, observe other players, gradually
begin to co-operate with others, and finally in conjunction with a
group arrive at a reciprocal agreement embodying definite rules of
play.

'Til then, vaya con Dios!

Goddamn, Nick! Did you write that or pla.....steal it?

OED. (selected quotes)

1926 M. Warden tr. Piaget’s Lang. & Thought of Child v. 238 All
ego-centrism is designed by its structure to stand half-way between
autistic thought which is ‘undirected’..and ‘directed’ intelligence.
Ego-centrism is therefore obedient to the self’s good pleasure and not to
the dictates of impersonal logic.

1932 D. H. Lawrence Last Poems 179 The hordes of the ego-centric, the
robots.

1934 Mind XLIII. 87 Egocentrism, in so far as it means confusion of the ego
and the external world, and egocentrism in so far as it means lack of
co-operation, constitutes one and the same phenomenon.

1943 H. Read Education through Art viii. 276 Then by stages the player
grows out of his egocentrism, observes other players, gradually begins to
co-operate with others, and finally in conjunction with a group arrives at
a reciprocal agreement embodying definite rules.

1970 Ibid. 13 Mar. 17 Behind their sham chivalry, I contend, lurk some
nasty tendencies to sadism, egocentricity, rebellion and neurosis.

Yes. I prefer using the words of the Masters of the past, generally
acknowledging the source, but in Kevvie's case, just enjoying rubbing salt
into his self-infliced wounds. I am, however, happy to share the source
with you.

Pretty good, you ol' bastid;.
Gotta go, I feel Cumblossom humpin' my leg again.

Spurting,
TFM®

LMAO

--
Nick. Support severely wounded and disabled War on Terror Veterans and
their families:
http://saluteheroes.org/ & http://www.woundedwarriorproject.org/

Thank a Veteran and Support Our Troops. You are not forgotten. Thanks ! ! !

Thought it was time to change the subject.

TFM®