There has been a great deal of rhetoric about Bob T and his comments
to Stu being libelous or malicious harassment, so I thought I'd check
it out.

I had a conversation with two lawyers I play squash with, and they
both tell me Bobs in trouble.
If the logs are retrieved from Bobs news provider, and his identity
is proven, the evidence against Bob ( Bob's own posts) floating on
the Internet for all to see for many years to come is irrefutable.
To further prove who Bob is I'm betting he paid with a credit card.

Will his identity accidentally make it to the net?

On Fri, 28 May 2010 09:01:13 -0500, WTF wrote:

> Will his identity accidentally make it to the net?

Most of us already know Bob's full name. It's Bob Terwilliger.
What's it to you, sockpuppet?

-sw

On Fri, 28 May 2010 09:01:13 -0500, WTF wrote:

> There has been a great deal of rhetoric about Bob T and his comments
> to Stu being libelous or malicious harassment, so I thought I'd check
> it out.
>
> I had a conversation with two lawyers I play squash with, and they
> both tell me Bobs in trouble.
> If the logs are retrieved from Bobs news provider, and his identity
> is proven, the evidence against Bob ( Bob's own posts) floating on
> the Internet for all to see for many years to come is irrefutable.
> To further prove who Bob is I'm betting he paid with a credit card.
>
> Will his identity accidentally make it to the net?

your squashbuds don't know what they're talking about:

Generally speaking, defamation is the issuance of a false statement about
another person, which causes that person to suffer harm. Slander involves
the making of defamatory statements by a transitory (non-fixed)
representation, usually an oral (spoken) representation. Libel involves the
making of defamatory statements in a printed or fixed medium, such as a
magazine or newspaper.

Typically, the elements of a cause of action for defamation include:

1. A false and defamatory statement concerning another;
2. The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party (that
is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement);
3. If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at
least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and
4. *Damage to the plaintiff.*

<http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html#1>

take note of #4. no tort, no suit. saying rude things about stu on usenet
does not constitute 'damage,' unless he hangs himself out of emotional
distress or something.

blake

blake murphy > wrote:

>take note of #4. no tort, no suit. saying rude things about stu on usenet
>does not constitute 'damage,' unless he hangs himself out of emotional
>distress or something.

Isn't there also something about needing to mitigate damages, i.e.
whoever is posting as Stu cannot decide to act so as to maximize
the damage, and then claim to be injured by this then larger amount?

Steve

On Fri, 28 May 2010 11:24:57 -0400, blake murphy wrote:

> Typically, the elements of a cause of action for defamation include:
>
> 1. A false and defamatory statement concerning another;
> 2. The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party (that
> is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement);
> 3. If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at
> least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and
> 4. *Damage to the plaintiff.*

I was going to give Stu $10,000 for all the hard work he's done on
his website. That was, until I read on Usenet that he was a child
molester. Now I'll never use that site again.

-sw

On Fri, 28 May 2010 11:24:57 -0400, blake murphy
> wrote:

>On Fri, 28 May 2010 09:01:13 -0500, WTF wrote:
>
>> There has been a great deal of rhetoric about Bob T and his comments
>> to Stu being libelous or malicious harassment, so I thought I'd check
>> it out.
>>
>> I had a conversation with two lawyers I play squash with, and they
>> both tell me Bobs in trouble.
>> If the logs are retrieved from Bobs news provider, and his identity
>> is proven, the evidence against Bob ( Bob's own posts) floating on
>> the Internet for all to see for many years to come is irrefutable.
>> To further prove who Bob is I'm betting he paid with a credit card.
>>
>> Will his identity accidentally make it to the net?
>
>your squashbuds don't know what they're talking about:
>
> Generally speaking, defamation is the issuance of a false statement about
>another person, which causes that person to suffer harm. Slander involves
>the making of defamatory statements by a transitory (non-fixed)
>representation, usually an oral (spoken) representation. Libel involves the
>making of defamatory statements in a printed or fixed medium, such as a
>magazine or newspaper.
>
>Typically, the elements of a cause of action for defamation include:
>
> 1. A false and defamatory statement concerning another;
> 2. The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party (that
>is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement);
> 3. If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at
>least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and
> 4. *Damage to the plaintiff.*
>
><http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html#1>
>
>take note of #4. no tort, no suit. saying rude things about stu on usenet
>does not constitute 'damage,' unless he hangs himself out of emotional
>distress or something.
>
>blake
>

But Blake, Bob would be charged with criminal harassment, and the
legal definition of harassment, according to Black's Law Dictionary,
is:

"A course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes
substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate
purpose" or "Words, gestures, and actions which tend to annoy, alarm
and abuse (verbally) another person."

I'm sure libel would come into play as well.

On Fri, 28 May 2010 16:44:53 +0100, Janet Baraclough
> wrote:

>The message >
>from WTF > contains these words:
>
>
>> I had a conversation with two lawyers I play squash with,
>
> that's that game for sweaty little grunters with small balls, isn't it?
>
> Janet

Well dear, you've never complained before.

On Fri, 28 May 2010 09:42:26 -0500, Stu wrote:

> On Fri, 28 May 2010 09:21:49 -0500, Sqwertz
> > wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 28 May 2010 09:01:13 -0500, WTF wrote:
>>
>>> Will his identity accidentally make it to the net?
>>
>>Most of us already know Bob's full name. It's Bob Terwilliger.
>
> I believe in live and let live, if I get a public apology here in this
> newsgroup before noon and an apology sent to my email address I'll let
> this go because that's all I really want from Bob.

How many words does it have to be... 300? 500?

Tell us how one goes about defaming a fictitious person
(specifically, one named "stu"). How many names have you used
since you started posting here?

> I proceed at
> 12:01PM CST, I may win or not, but Bob will watch his mouth next time.

That must be one nasty case of constipation. I'm rooting for the
turd.

-sw

On Fri, 28 May 2010 11:02:18 -0500, Stu wrote:

> Fictitious I'm not, and my name is Stu. I have 14 posts from May8,
> 2010 to May 24, 2010 from Bob posted into this newsgroup as evidence
> of harassment.

Be sure to give us updates every step of the way. And don't cop
out in 2 weeks saying you don't have time to follow through with
it, or some other lame excuse.

-sw

On Fri, 28 May 2010 10:54:01 -0500, Sqwertz
> wrote:

>On Fri, 28 May 2010 09:42:26 -0500, Stu wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 28 May 2010 09:21:49 -0500, Sqwertz
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 28 May 2010 09:01:13 -0500, WTF wrote:
>>>
>>>> Will his identity accidentally make it to the net?
>>>
>>>Most of us already know Bob's full name. It's Bob Terwilliger.
>>
>> I believe in live and let live, if I get a public apology here in this
>> newsgroup before noon and an apology sent to my email address I'll let
>> this go because that's all I really want from Bob.
>
>How many words does it have to be... 300? 500?
>
>Tell us how one goes about defaming a fictitious person
>(specifically, one named "stu"). How many names have you used
>since you started posting here?

I'm only watching a few random posts in these stu-gee ****ing matches
but I gotta say he's as goofy at the imaginary jerry sauk. Actually
worse. I'm not a lawyer and don't play one on TV but assembling a
jury of people who actually know what usenet is would be a pretty hard
project. Then a judge would have to educate him/herself. Even a
dumbass lawyer would be able to point out that most people post with a
fake name and usenet is not facebook and can at times become a game of
wit. Far from reality when flame-wars occur. It's amazing that one
sockpuppet can think it's going to prosecute another sockpuppet.

Usenet is full of nutjobs and some are fun to **** with at times but
this one is out of control and wasting so much time people could be
spending talking about food. I'm not trying to control anything as I
know I can't. I'm just saying I miss the time you and other quality
food posters are wasting on the slimeball. The OM crap is just as
bad. Most of the responses I see to people I don't read are negative.

Sorry if I'm on a soapbox but I find this the most useful group I read
and I felt the need to voice my opinion.

Lou

Stu wrote:

> On Fri, 28 May 2010 10:54:01 -0500, Sqwertz
> > wrote:

>>How many words does it have to be... 300? 500?
>>
>>Tell us how one goes about defaming a fictitious person
>>(specifically, one named "stu"). How many names have you used
>>since you started posting here?
>
> Fictitious I'm not, and my name is Stu. I have 14 posts from May 8,
> 2010 to May 24, 2010 from Bob posted into this newsgroup as evidence
> of harassment.

Time for this one again, methinks:

http://xkcd.com/386/

--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
.. .
> On Fri, 28 May 2010 09:01:13 -0500, WTF wrote:
>
>> There has been a great deal of rhetoric about Bob T and his comments
>> to Stu being libelous or malicious harassment, so I thought I'd check
>> it out.
>>
>> I had a conversation with two lawyers I play squash with, and they
>> both tell me Bobs in trouble.
>> If the logs are retrieved from Bobs news provider, and his identity
>> is proven, the evidence against Bob ( Bob's own posts) floating on
>> the Internet for all to see for many years to come is irrefutable.
>> To further prove who Bob is I'm betting he paid with a credit card.
>>
>> Will his identity accidentally make it to the net?
>
> your squashbuds don't know what they're talking about:
>
> Generally speaking, defamation is the issuance of a false statement about
> another person, which causes that person to suffer harm. Slander involves
> the making of defamatory statements by a transitory (non-fixed)
> representation, usually an oral (spoken) representation. Libel involves
> the
> making of defamatory statements in a printed or fixed medium, such as a
> magazine or newspaper.
>
> Typically, the elements of a cause of action for defamation include:
>
> 1. A false and defamatory statement concerning another;
> 2. The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party (that
> is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement);
> 3. If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at
> least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and
> 4. *Damage to the plaintiff.*
>
> <http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html#1>
>
> take note of #4. no tort, no suit. saying rude things about stu on
> usenet
> does not constitute 'damage,' unless he hangs himself out of emotional
> distress or something.


Proving defamation in court is a huge challenge for the best of lawyers.
Just finding one willing to try is hard enough and paying them is even
harder.

Paul
>
> blake
>

On Fri, 28 May 2010 19:11:18 +0200, ChattyCathy
> wrote:

>Stu wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 28 May 2010 10:54:01 -0500, Sqwertz
>> > wrote:
>
>>>How many words does it have to be... 300? 500?
>>>
>>>Tell us how one goes about defaming a fictitious person
>>>(specifically, one named "stu"). How many names have you used
>>>since you started posting here?
>>
>> Fictitious I'm not, and my name is Stu. I have 14 posts from May 8,
>> 2010 to May 24, 2010 from Bob posted into this newsgroup as evidence
>> of harassment.
>
>Time for this one again, methinks:
>
>http://xkcd.com/386/

Heheh, I know how to get you into bed for a little snackipoo real
quick, spoon feed you a repeat of yesterday's lunch... premium French
vanilla, red ripe strawberries, beautiful blackberries, whipped
cream... you'll never resist my charms:
http://i49.tinypic.com/2vkgwa8.jpg

"ChattyCathy" > wrote in message
...
> Stu wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 28 May 2010 10:54:01 -0500, Sqwertz
>> > wrote:
>
>>>How many words does it have to be... 300? 500?
>>>
>>>Tell us how one goes about defaming a fictitious person
>>>(specifically, one named "stu"). How many names have you used
>>>since you started posting here?
>>
>> Fictitious I'm not, and my name is Stu. I have 14 posts from May 8,
>> 2010 to May 24, 2010 from Bob posted into this newsgroup as evidence
>> of harassment.
>
> Time for this one again, methinks:
>
> http://xkcd.com/386/
>

But Mr. Pid will not get it.

brooklyn1 wrote:
>
> Heheh, I know how to get you into bed for a little snackipoo real
> quick, spoon feed you a repeat of yesterday's lunch... premium French
> vanilla, red ripe strawberries, beautiful blackberries, whipped
> cream... you'll never resist my charms:
> http://i49.tinypic.com/2vkgwa8.jpg

Fageddabout your "charms", just pass me that bowl ;-)

Looks really delicious Sheldon.
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

On Fri, 28 May 2010 12:04:22 -0500, Lou Decruss
> wrote:

>On Fri, 28 May 2010 10:54:01 -0500, Sqwertz
> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 28 May 2010 09:42:26 -0500, Stu wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 28 May 2010 09:21:49 -0500, Sqwertz
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 28 May 2010 09:01:13 -0500, WTF wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Will his identity accidentally make it to the net?
>>>>
>>>>Most of us already know Bob's full name. It's Bob Terwilliger.
>>>
>>> I believe in live and let live, if I get a public apology here in this
>>> newsgroup before noon and an apology sent to my email address I'll let
>>> this go because that's all I really want from Bob.
>>
>>How many words does it have to be... 300? 500?
>>
>>Tell us how one goes about defaming a fictitious person
>>(specifically, one named "stu"). How many names have you used
>>since you started posting here?
>
>I'm only watching a few random posts in these stu-gee ****ing matches
>but I gotta say he's as goofy at the imaginary jerry sauk. Actually
>worse. I'm not a lawyer and don't play one on TV but assembling a
>jury of people who actually know what usenet is would be a pretty hard
>project. Then a judge would have to educate him/herself. Even a
>dumbass lawyer would be able to point out that most people post with a
>fake name and usenet is not facebook and can at times become a game of
>wit. Far from reality when flame-wars occur. It's amazing that one
>sockpuppet can think it's going to prosecute another sockpuppet.
>
>Usenet is full of nutjobs and some are fun to **** with at times but
>this one is out of control and wasting so much time people could be
>spending talking about food. I'm not trying to control anything as I
>know I can't. I'm just saying I miss the time you and other quality
>food posters are wasting on the slimeball. The OM crap is just as
>bad. Most of the responses I see to people I don't read are negative.
>
>Sorry if I'm on a soapbox but I find this the most useful group I read
>and I felt the need to voice my opinion.

Okay, my ribs are marinating in the fridge, gotta flip em a couple
times each day, will cook em on Sunday. I managed to fit both pork
and the beef in two 1 gallon zip bags. I think I may have used too
much garlic, time will tell (is there such a thing as too much
garlic). I don't really have a rib marinade recipe, it's whatever
seems right but I follow a general plan so I end up with a pretty good
example of what's served at a good Chinese restaurant... I detest
goopy bbq sauce.

http://i50.tinypic.com/290rbqa.jpg

Got some rib steaks too, they were cheap, but how bad could they be:
http://i47.tinypic.com/21amf10.jpg

cybercat wrote:

>
> "ChattyCathy" > wrote in message
> ...

>> Time for this one again, methinks:
>>
>> http://xkcd.com/386/
>>
>
> But Mr. Pid will not get it.

Prolly not, but at least the rest of group should ;-)
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

On Fri, 28 May 2010 11:24:57 -0400, blake murphy
> wrote:

>On Fri, 28 May 2010 09:01:13 -0500, WTF wrote:
>
>> There has been a great deal of rhetoric about Bob T and his comments
>> to Stu being libelous or malicious harassment, so I thought I'd check
>> it out.
>>
>> I had a conversation with two lawyers I play squash with, and they
>> both tell me Bobs in trouble.
>> If the logs are retrieved from Bobs news provider, and his identity
>> is proven, the evidence against Bob ( Bob's own posts) floating on
>> the Internet for all to see for many years to come is irrefutable.
>> To further prove who Bob is I'm betting he paid with a credit card.
>>
>> Will his identity accidentally make it to the net?
>
>your squashbuds don't know what they're talking about:
>
> Generally speaking, defamation is the issuance of a false statement about
>another person, which causes that person to suffer harm. Slander involves
>the making of defamatory statements by a transitory (non-fixed)
>representation, usually an oral (spoken) representation. Libel involves the
>making of defamatory statements in a printed or fixed medium, such as a
>magazine or newspaper.
>
>Typically, the elements of a cause of action for defamation include:
>
> 1. A false and defamatory statement concerning another;
> 2. The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party (that
>is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement);
> 3. If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at
>least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and
> 4. *Damage to the plaintiff.*
>
><http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html#1>
>
>take note of #4. no tort, no suit. saying rude things about stu on usenet
>does not constitute 'damage,' unless he hangs himself out of emotional
>distress or something.

I have lotsa trees and I have lotsa Stupid rope.

On May 28, 10:11*am, ChattyCathy > wrote:
> Stu wrote:
> > On Fri, 28 May 2010 10:54:01 -0500, Sqwertz
> > > wrote:
> >>How many words does it have to be... 300? *500?
>
> >>Tell us how one goes about defaming a fictitious person
> >>(specifically, one named "stu"). *How many names have you used
> >>since you started posting here?
>
> > Fictitious I'm not, and my name is Stu. I have 14 posts from May 8,
> > 2010 to May 24, 2010 from Bob posted into this newsgroup as evidence
> > of harassment.
>
> Time for this one again, methinks:
>
> http://xkcd.com/386/
>
> --
> Cheers
> Chatty Cathy

Perfect!!

On Fri, 28 May 2010 16:44:53 +0100, Janet Baraclough
> wrote:

>The message >
>from WTF > contains these words:
>
>
>> I had a conversation with two lawyers I play squash with,
>
> that's that game for sweaty little grunters with small balls, isn't it?
>
> Janet

Small black balls.

On Fri, 28 May 2010 11:52:53 -0500, Stu wrote:

> btw...I'm leaving that up to Garry, he's going after the logs first.

For his Memorial Day cookout, no doubt. After all, he would have
to be American and licensed to practice law in the state and
county in which Bob resides.

Since they would have very little bearing on your case. Bob is
not denying he made the posts, and the "logs" are right there on
every major news server and Google.

This imaginary lawyer of yours is as dumb as you are.

-sw

On Fri, 28 May 2010 19:11:18 +0200, ChattyCathy wrote:

> Time for this one again, methinks:
>
> http://xkcd.com/386/

I've never posted any links to youtube, and have watched less than
10 of them, but this is one of the 10:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bxiqp...eature=related

-sw

On Fri, 28 May 2010 20:08:32 +0200, ChattyCathy wrote:

> brooklyn1 wrote:
>>
>> Heheh, I know how to get you into bed for a little snackipoo real
>> quick, spoon feed you a repeat of yesterday's lunch... premium French
>> vanilla, red ripe strawberries, beautiful blackberries, whipped
>> cream... you'll never resist my charms:
>> http://i49.tinypic.com/2vkgwa8.jpg
>
> Fageddabout your "charms", just pass me that bowl ;-)

That didn't make you sick at all? I just dry heaved at the though
of Sheldon being romantic.

-sw

Sqwertz wrote:

> On Fri, 28 May 2010 19:11:18 +0200, ChattyCathy wrote:
>
>> Time for this one again, methinks:
>>
>> http://xkcd.com/386/
>
> I've never posted any links to youtube, and have watched less than
> 10 of them, but this is one of the 10:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bxiqp...eature=related

<snork>

Quite appropriate in this case, methinks?

--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

On Fri, 28 May 2010 14:10:14 -0400, brooklyn1 wrote:

> http://i50.tinypic.com/290rbqa.jpg

The marinade would be more effective if you pull the excess air
out of the bag allowing the meat to make more contact.

-sw

Sqwertz wrote:
>
> Be sure to give us updates every step of the way. And don't cop
> out in 2 weeks saying you don't have time to follow through with
> it, or some other lame excuse.

If he doesn't win this case, doesn't that mean
the allegations are true?

In article >,
Sqwertz > wrote:

> On Fri, 28 May 2010 11:52:53 -0500, Stu wrote:
>
> > btw...I'm leaving that up to Garry, he's going after the logs first.
>
> For his Memorial Day cookout, no doubt. After all, he would have
> to be American and licensed to practice law in the state and
> county in which Bob resides.

Not sure about all that. Lawyers in the US are licensed by state, but
who is Garry? Could be a private investigator.

Although Stu is Canadian, he has stated before that he is a transplant
from the US. He probably has many contacts in the US.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

"Dan Abel" > wrote in message
...
| In article >,
| Sqwertz > wrote:
|
| > On Fri, 28 May 2010 11:52:53 -0500, Stu wrote:
| >
| > > btw...I'm leaving that up to Garry, he's going after the logs first.
| >
| > For his Memorial Day cookout, no doubt. After all, he would have
| > to be American and licensed to practice law in the state and
| > county in which Bob resides.
|
| Not sure about all that. Lawyers in the US are licensed by state, but
| who is Garry? Could be a private investigator.
|
| Although Stu is Canadian, he has stated before that he is a transplant
| from the US. He probably has many contacts in the US.

Both of whom doubtless are rooting for him forthwith and nonstop.

pavane

On Fri, 28 May 2010 12:51:28 -0700, Dan Abel wrote:

> In article >,
> Sqwertz > wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 28 May 2010 11:52:53 -0500, Stu wrote:
>>
>>> btw...I'm leaving that up to Garry, he's going after the logs first.
>>
>> For his Memorial Day cookout, no doubt. After all, he would have
>> to be American and licensed to practice law in the state and
>> county in which Bob resides.
>
> Not sure about all that. Lawyers in the US are licensed by state, but
> who is Garry? Could be a private investigator.

A PI couldn't do dick about getting a subpoena for logs from the
NSP. He did blather something about a $500 retainer.

It ultimately depends on what the charge is - civil or criminal -
what kind of lawyer he hires and their required credentials.

> Although Stu is Canadian, he has stated before that he is a transplant
> from the US. He probably has many contacts in the US.

You say that like he may be of some importance to somebody other
than his wife (who needs a new pair of shoes, BTW).

-sw

Stu wrote:

> I figure that I've been a nice enough guy by giving Bob 72 hrs. to
> decide which way he wants to go, in 10min. I'll know.

No. You're just acting like a suck. Get over it.

On Fri, 28 May 2010 09:01:13 -0500, WTF wrote:

> Will his identity accidentally make it to the net?

Speaking of identities, you can drop this sockpuppet WTYF/Stu duo
of yours. You are clearly the same person.


-sw

On Fri, 28 May 2010 16:38:13 -0500, Stu wrote:

> On Fri, 28 May 2010 16:27:54 -0500, Sqwertz
> > wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 28 May 2010 09:01:13 -0500, WTF wrote:
>>
>>> Will his identity accidentally make it to the net?
>>
>>Speaking of identities, you can drop this sockpuppet WTYF/Stu duo
>>of yours. You are clearly the same person.
>
> actually I'm clearly not

Bullshit. You post to the exact same groups (including the local
Canada and forsale groups), use the same newsreader (different
versions), hate the same people, are both hung up on "The Logs".
Who else is supporting you other than WTF?

Dude, we've seen plenty of sock puppets and plenty of threats of
lawsuits over the years (they often go hand in hand). You'd have
to be stupid to think we're that stupid.

-sw

In article >,
brooklyn1 > wrote:
> Heheh, I know how to get you into bed for a little snackipoo real
> quick, spoon feed you a repeat of yesterday's lunch... premium French
> vanilla, red ripe strawberries, beautiful blackberries, whipped
> cream... you'll never resist my charms:
> http://i49.tinypic.com/2vkgwa8.jpg

Premium French Vanilla? <cough> Looks more like Old Country Buffet's
soft serve "ice cream" dessert. Looks good, too.


--
Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
http://web.me.com/barbschaller
Updated 4-24-2010 with food story and pictures

In article >,
brooklyn1 > wrote:

> On Fri, 28 May 2010 19:11:18 +0200, ChattyCathy
> > wrote:
>
> >Stu wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 28 May 2010 10:54:01 -0500, Sqwertz
> >> > wrote:
> >
> >>>How many words does it have to be... 300? 500?
> >>>
> >>>Tell us how one goes about defaming a fictitious person
> >>>(specifically, one named "stu"). How many names have you used
> >>>since you started posting here?
> >>
> >> Fictitious I'm not, and my name is Stu. I have 14 posts from May 8,
> >> 2010 to May 24, 2010 from Bob posted into this newsgroup as evidence
> >> of harassment.
> >
> >Time for this one again, methinks:
> >
> >http://xkcd.com/386/
>
> Heheh, I know how to get you into bed for a little snackipoo real
> quick, spoon feed you a repeat of yesterday's lunch... premium French
> vanilla, red ripe strawberries, beautiful blackberries, whipped
> cream... you'll never resist my charms:
> http://i49.tinypic.com/2vkgwa8.jpg

On closer examination, maybe it is premium French Vanilla and the
whipped cream is Reddi-Wip. I was mistaking the Reddi Wip for the ice
cream. Sorry, Sheldon. :-)


--
Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
http://web.me.com/barbschaller
Updated 4-24-2010 with food story and pictures

On Fri, 28 May 2010 17:24:08 -0500, Melba's Jammin'
> wrote:

>In article >,
> brooklyn1 > wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 28 May 2010 19:11:18 +0200, ChattyCathy
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >Stu wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, 28 May 2010 10:54:01 -0500, Sqwertz
>> >> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>>How many words does it have to be... 300? 500?
>> >>>
>> >>>Tell us how one goes about defaming a fictitious person
>> >>>(specifically, one named "stu"). How many names have you used
>> >>>since you started posting here?
>> >>
>> >> Fictitious I'm not, and my name is Stu. I have 14 posts from May 8,
>> >> 2010 to May 24, 2010 from Bob posted into this newsgroup as evidence
>> >> of harassment.
>> >
>> >Time for this one again, methinks:
>> >
>> >http://xkcd.com/386/
>>
>> Heheh, I know how to get you into bed for a little snackipoo real
>> quick, spoon feed you a repeat of yesterday's lunch... premium French
>> vanilla, red ripe strawberries, beautiful blackberries, whipped
>> cream... you'll never resist my charms:
>> http://i49.tinypic.com/2vkgwa8.jpg
>
>On closer examination, maybe it is premium French Vanilla and the
>whipped cream is Reddi-Wip. I was mistaking the Reddi Wip for the ice
>cream. Sorry, Sheldon. :-)


It's Stewart's ice cream, I think as good as any commercial premium.
Was just gonna be a bowl of icecream until I remembered the berries
and redi-wip. The icecream was already in the bowl so by the time I
rinsed, dried, hulled, and sliced the strawberries the ice cream was
melting... was still luscious aplenty to gets yoose gals to join me
for a boudior snackipoo. hehe

On Fri, 28 May 2010 20:08:32 +0200, ChattyCathy
> wrote:

>brooklyn1 wrote:
>>
>> Heheh, I know how to get you into bed for a little snackipoo real
>> quick, spoon feed you a repeat of yesterday's lunch... premium French
>> vanilla, red ripe strawberries, beautiful blackberries, whipped
>> cream... you'll never resist my charms:
>> http://i49.tinypic.com/2vkgwa8.jpg
>
>Fageddabout your "charms", just pass me that bowl ;-)
>
>Looks really delicious Sheldon.

That's just a sample... wait'll I prepare you with the full monty for
a rollabout on my rubber sheet! LOL

On Fri, 28 May 2010 13:44:25 -0500, Sqwertz
> wrote:

>On Fri, 28 May 2010 20:08:32 +0200, ChattyCathy wrote:
>
>> brooklyn1 wrote:
>>>
>>> Heheh, I know how to get you into bed for a little snackipoo real
>>> quick, spoon feed you a repeat of yesterday's lunch... premium French
>>> vanilla, red ripe strawberries, beautiful blackberries, whipped
>>> cream... you'll never resist my charms:
>>> http://i49.tinypic.com/2vkgwa8.jpg
>>
>> Fageddabout your "charms", just pass me that bowl ;-)
>
>That didn't make you sick at all? I just dry heaved at the though
>of Sheldon being romantic.
>
>-sw

That's the best compliment you could ever give me. hehe

On Fri, 28 May 2010 13:54:29 -0500, Sqwertz
> wrote:

>On Fri, 28 May 2010 14:10:14 -0400, brooklyn1 wrote:
>
>> http://i50.tinypic.com/290rbqa.jpg
>
>The marinade would be more effective if you pull the excess air
>out of the bag allowing the meat to make more contact.

I agree, but I over stuffed those bags and they both got pinholes in
the same corner.... didn't feel like going through the messiness of
changing bags... after flipping and marinating three days I doubt it
will matter. I only hope I didn't use too much garlic, and I forgot
the ginger. I prepped so much food yesterday that this is the first
time in a long time I ran out of room in my kitchen fridge that I had
to run that wartymelon down to my basement fridge.

"Sqwertz" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 28 May 2010 16:38:13 -0500, Stu wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 28 May 2010 16:27:54 -0500, Sqwertz
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 28 May 2010 09:01:13 -0500, WTF wrote:
>>>
>>>> Will his identity accidentally make it to the net?
>>>
>>>Speaking of identities, you can drop this sockpuppet WTYF/Stu duo
>>>of yours. You are clearly the same person.
>>
>> actually I'm clearly not
>
> Bullshit. You post to the exact same groups (including the local
> Canada and forsale groups), use the same newsreader (different
> versions), hate the same people, are both hung up on "The Logs".
> Who else is supporting you other than WTF?

Not even different versions, in the messages I see:

X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 5.00/32.1171


Also identical injection-info, and pretty much everything except the ID and
the account at eternal-september.




Brian

In article >,
brooklyn1 > wrote:

> It's Stewart's ice cream, I think as good as any commercial premium.
> Was just gonna be a bowl of icecream until I remembered the berries
> and redi-wip. The icecream was already in the bowl so by the time I
> rinsed, dried, hulled, and sliced the strawberries the ice cream was
> melting... was still luscious aplenty to gets yoose gals to join me
> for a boudior snackipoo. hehe

Now if you'd've had raspberries. . . .


--
Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
http://web.me.com/barbschaller
Updated 4-24-2010 with food story and pictures