| |
Main
Date: 10 Jan 2006 10:41:24
From: BrianBall@bentwideronline.com
Subject: Stacie, FILTHY BITCH!
|
Hi readers, I'm proud to announce my new position. Click the link to
see my new "LOOK!"
Bwian Ball, editor in chief - Bentoverideronline.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------
http://highracers.blogspot.com/2005/12/bwian-joins-killer-bee-company...
Hot off the presess, Bwian from BROLie Land has just been hired by the
St. Petes Walkbike Company. He jumped at the chance to become the
newest Killer Bee executive. After years at the helm of #1 web site for
fat old geezers, his flair for promoting Bitch Shidda walkbikes above
all other recumbent products in the ketplace could no longer go
unrewarded by the Killer Bee board of directors.
According to Rich Pimpo, "We are excited to have Bwian on our payroll.
Prior to hiring him we did not have the budget to pay him cash for his
pro SlowGoWalker and walkbike reviews. We did however send him a number
of free walkbikes for his services. Now that he is a full time Killer
Bee, we have him by the balls just in time for our new product line
release for 2006. Bwian will be the highest paid Killer Bee executive
of all time to help susbsidize his new BROLie compound currently under
construction here in St. Petes.
Brian graciously accepted the honor and promised, "My first objective
is to re-locate our 2006 Brolie Rally to St. Petes, FL. Might as well
take advantage of the locals as they're ripe for the pickin's."
Fans of BROLie need not worry about Bwian shutting down his web site
anytime soon. ket analysts speculate this site will become the
priy web tool serving the exclusive needs of the St. Petes walkbike
manufacturer. Imminently, the FOGs of America will have no other
option than to sit on a recumbent that is too high for their feet to
touch the ground. And because it is well documented these bikes can't
stop well, the tidal wave of injuries are sure to continue. This
will not be good for senior citizen FOGs who are the target audience
for walkbike recumbents. Our senior's and AARP members of the USA
deserve better than this.
The staff at HRS are proud to see kickbacks and control of the media
not materializing at the Volae company. If you must buy a recumbent
highracer, please support the Volae Company run by hard working,
honest American folks with decent morals.
|
|
| |
Date: 15 Jan 2006 10:31:54
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: Stacie, FILTHY BITCH! another one bites the dust.
|
JimmyMac wrote:
> Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > JimmyMac wrote:
> > > Readers,
> > >
> > > What we have here is a demonstration of one of Tom's favorite logical
> > > fallacy debating tactics known as the red herring. This involves
> > > introducing irrelevant facts or arguments to distract from the question
> > > at hand. That is precisely what Tom did in his last two paragraphs to
> > > distract from the issues: 1. that although I misspelled the man's name,
> > > I did not do so because I was either ignorant or careless, 2. that he
> > > is a proofreader, but not a logician who is concerned more with form
> > > than function ... with spelling rather than communication of content,
> > > and 3. that his secondary intent was to deliberately be insulting by
> > > employing a gratuitous insult that was completely irrelevant and
> > > unnecessary in the conveying his intent unless that was part and parcel
> > > of what he intended to convey.
> > >
> > > It is worthy of note, that I generally spell the Bryan's name
> > > correctly. Although I am not the only one to have misspelled it, I was
> > > specifically singled out for having done so. Why? To quote Tommy boy
> > > ... no doubt because of our previous disagreement over the HRS blog
> > > authorship. The intent of Tom's post could have been conveyed without
> > > the inclusion of a presumptive, disingenuous rek regarding ignorance
> > > or carelessness. Tom's secondary intent was as obvious as his priy
> > > intent. Tom could have played his piffling game of proofreader that he
> > > takes such delight in without being insulting. No matter how he slices
> > > it, the intent of Tom's post was one that could best be described as a
> > > double-edged sword.
> >
> > Yo JimmyMac,
> >
> > I was responding to Jim Reilly's misspelling of "Bryan" as
> > "Brian", not anything you wrote. It is obvious you have an ax to
> > grind here, since you introduce the red herring of me specifically
> > singling you out for misspelling "Bryan" as "Brian". Claiming I
> > singled you out is a LIE. In my original post on this thread where I
> > pointed out the error, I did not quote a single word written by you,
> > Mr. Jim McNaa, nor did I mention you, Mr. Jim McNaa by name. DUH!
> >
> > Note: Jim Reilly, Reading, PA DOES NOT EQUAL Jim McNaa, Chicago, IL.
> > DUH!
> >
> > My original post in this thread had nothing to do with you Mr.
> > McNaa, so there is no reason you should respond as if that was the
> > case, unless you are looking to pick a fight? If so, that is being
> > disrespectful to the few readers of alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent who are
> > left.
> >
> > --
> > Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley (For a bit?)
>
> Tom,
>
> I think I misspelled the name once in the thread, but yout point is
> well taken. I wasn't singled out . The other Jim was. Sorry 'bout
> that ... must have been overly-tired ... mistake not a LIE. I still
> stand by my contention though that you a much more gifted
> proofreader/editor than logician.
Ah, so we agree that making a mistake is not the same as a lie.
Progress!
--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley (For a bit?)
|
| |
Date: 15 Jan 2006 10:30:28
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: Swimming Angels (was FILTHY BITCH!)
|
HH wrote:
> "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1137343367.564072.230370@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > HH wrote:
> >>
> >> Strange. I was just sitting here wondering how many angels could swim in
> >> a
> >> RANs recumbent bicycle seat pan assuming it could hold water. It's a bit
> >> off topic I know, but I just felt I needed to share this with you and
> >> your
> >> pal Mr. Mac.
> >
> > The RANS seat foam will hold a lot of water, and can take several days
> > to dry out if saturated. It will feel dry after a day or so, but the
> > rider will get a wet butt after a few minutes of sitting on it. If the
> > bike needs to be parked in the rain, take the foam off, or used
> > something like a grocery bag or extra large shower cap as a cover.
> >
>
> That's nice...
No, sitting on a partially saturated foam pad is not nice.
--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley (For a bit?)
|
| |
Date: 15 Jan 2006 09:01:07
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: Stacie, FILTHY BITCH! another one bites the dust.
|
Jim Reilly <jreilly@enter.net > wrote:
> I see these as personal attacks not "malicious parodies".
I see no reason why the two have to be mutally exclusive. Malicious
parody as a personal attack, if you prefer.
> As for
> "offending BRYAN (spelling corrected)", perhaps the author's motives
> were revenge for Bryan's parodies on the author's wife. No, that's
> probably not it! Because the author probably doesn't have a wife. If
> he did, he would understand that personal attacks on a man's wife is
> off limits.
Jim Reilly makes my point here - this particular malicious
parody/personal attack is likely used precisely because it is so
offensive.
--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley (For a bit?)
|
| |
Date: 15 Jan 2006 08:55:03
From: JimmyMac
Subject: Re: Stacie, FILTHY BITCH! another one bites the dust.
|
Johnny Sunset wrote:
> JimmyMac wrote:
> > Readers,
> >
> > What we have here is a demonstration of one of Tom's favorite logical
> > fallacy debating tactics known as the red herring. This involves
> > introducing irrelevant facts or arguments to distract from the question
> > at hand. That is precisely what Tom did in his last two paragraphs to
> > distract from the issues: 1. that although I misspelled the man's name,
> > I did not do so because I was either ignorant or careless, 2. that he
> > is a proofreader, but not a logician who is concerned more with form
> > than function ... with spelling rather than communication of content,
> > and 3. that his secondary intent was to deliberately be insulting by
> > employing a gratuitous insult that was completely irrelevant and
> > unnecessary in the conveying his intent unless that was part and parcel
> > of what he intended to convey.
> >
> > It is worthy of note, that I generally spell the Bryan's name
> > correctly. Although I am not the only one to have misspelled it, I was
> > specifically singled out for having done so. Why? To quote Tommy boy
> > ... no doubt because of our previous disagreement over the HRS blog
> > authorship. The intent of Tom's post could have been conveyed without
> > the inclusion of a presumptive, disingenuous rek regarding ignorance
> > or carelessness. Tom's secondary intent was as obvious as his priy
> > intent. Tom could have played his piffling game of proofreader that he
> > takes such delight in without being insulting. No matter how he slices
> > it, the intent of Tom's post was one that could best be described as a
> > double-edged sword.
>
> Yo JimmyMac,
>
> I was responding to Jim Reilly's misspelling of "Bryan" as
> "Brian", not anything you wrote. It is obvious you have an ax to
> grind here, since you introduce the red herring of me specifically
> singling you out for misspelling "Bryan" as "Brian". Claiming I
> singled you out is a LIE. In my original post on this thread where I
> pointed out the error, I did not quote a single word written by you,
> Mr. Jim McNaa, nor did I mention you, Mr. Jim McNaa by name. DUH!
>
> Note: Jim Reilly, Reading, PA DOES NOT EQUAL Jim McNaa, Chicago, IL.
> DUH!
>
> My original post in this thread had nothing to do with you Mr.
> McNaa, so there is no reason you should respond as if that was the
> case, unless you are looking to pick a fight? If so, that is being
> disrespectful to the few readers of alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent who are
> left.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley (For a bit?)
Tom,
I think I misspelled the name once in the thread, but yout point is
well taken. I wasn't singled out . The other Jim was. Sorry 'bout
that ... must have been overly-tired ... mistake not a LIE. I still
stand by my contention though that you a much more gifted
proofreader/editor than logician.
JimmyMac.
|
| |
Date: 15 Jan 2006 08:42:47
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: Swimming Angels (was FILTHY BITCH!)
|
HH wrote:
>
> Strange. I was just sitting here wondering how many angels could swim in a
> RANs recumbent bicycle seat pan assuming it could hold water. It's a bit
> off topic I know, but I just felt I needed to share this with you and your
> pal Mr. Mac.
The RANS seat foam will hold a lot of water, and can take several days
to dry out if saturated. It will feel dry after a day or so, but the
rider will get a wet butt after a few minutes of sitting on it. If the
bike needs to be parked in the rain, take the foam off, or used
something like a grocery bag or extra large shower cap as a cover.
--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley (For a bit?)
|
| | |
Date: 15 Jan 2006 10:58:29
From: HH
Subject: Re: Swimming Angels (was FILTHY BITCH!)
|
"Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1137343367.564072.230370@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> HH wrote:
>>
>> Strange. I was just sitting here wondering how many angels could swim in
>> a
>> RANs recumbent bicycle seat pan assuming it could hold water. It's a bit
>> off topic I know, but I just felt I needed to share this with you and
>> your
>> pal Mr. Mac.
>
> The RANS seat foam will hold a lot of water, and can take several days
> to dry out if saturated. It will feel dry after a day or so, but the
> rider will get a wet butt after a few minutes of sitting on it. If the
> bike needs to be parked in the rain, take the foam off, or used
> something like a grocery bag or extra large shower cap as a cover.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley (For a bit?)
>
That's nice, but I wonder if the angels really care if your butt gets wet or
not.
Maybe Mr. Mac will know.
|
| |
Date: 15 Jan 2006 07:11:26
From:
Subject: Re: Stacie, FILTHY BITCH! another one bites the dust.
|
I see these as personal attacks not "malicious parodies". As for
"offending BRYAN (spelling corrected)", perhaps the author's motives
were revenge for Bryan's parodies on the author's wife. No, that's
probably not it! Because the author probably doesn't have a wife. If
he did, he would understand that personal attacks on a man's wife is
off limits.
Jim
|
| |
Date: 14 Jan 2006 20:30:14
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: Stacie, FILTHY BITCH! another one bites the dust.
|
JimmyMac wrote:
> Readers,
>
> What we have here is a demonstration of one of Tom's favorite logical
> fallacy debating tactics known as the red herring. This involves
> introducing irrelevant facts or arguments to distract from the question
> at hand. That is precisely what Tom did in his last two paragraphs to
> distract from the issues: 1. that although I misspelled the man's name,
> I did not do so because I was either ignorant or careless, 2. that he
> is a proofreader, but not a logician who is concerned more with form
> than function ... with spelling rather than communication of content,
> and 3. that his secondary intent was to deliberately be insulting by
> employing a gratuitous insult that was completely irrelevant and
> unnecessary in the conveying his intent unless that was part and parcel
> of what he intended to convey.
>
> It is worthy of note, that I generally spell the Bryan's name
> correctly. Although I am not the only one to have misspelled it, I was
> specifically singled out for having done so. Why? To quote Tommy boy
> ... no doubt because of our previous disagreement over the HRS blog
> authorship. The intent of Tom's post could have been conveyed without
> the inclusion of a presumptive, disingenuous rek regarding ignorance
> or carelessness. Tom's secondary intent was as obvious as his priy
> intent. Tom could have played his piffling game of proofreader that he
> takes such delight in without being insulting. No matter how he slices
> it, the intent of Tom's post was one that could best be described as a
> double-edged sword.
Yo JimmyMac,
I was responding to Jim Reilly's misspelling of "Bryan" as
"Brian", not anything you wrote. It is obvious you have an ax to
grind here, since you introduce the red herring of me specifically
singling you out for misspelling "Bryan" as "Brian". Claiming I
singled you out is a LIE. In my original post on this thread where I
pointed out the error, I did not quote a single word written by you,
Mr. Jim McNaa, nor did I mention you, Mr. Jim McNaa by name. DUH!
Note: Jim Reilly, Reading, PA DOES NOT EQUAL Jim McNaa, Chicago, IL.
DUH!
My original post in this thread had nothing to do with you Mr.
McNaa, so there is no reason you should respond as if that was the
case, unless you are looking to pick a fight? If so, that is being
disrespectful to the few readers of alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent who are
left.
--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley (For a bit?)
|
| | |
Date: 15 Jan 2006 10:12:30
From: HH
Subject: Swimming Angels (was FILTHY BITCH!)
|
"Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1137299414.483701.262530@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> JimmyMac wrote:
>> Readers,
>>
>> What we have here is a demonstration of one of Tom's favorite logical
>> fallacy debating tactics known as the red herring. This involves
>> introducing irrelevant facts or arguments to distract from the question
>> at hand. That is precisely what Tom did in his last two paragraphs to
>> distract from the issues: 1. that although I misspelled the man's name,
>> I did not do so because I was either ignorant or careless, 2. that he
>> is a proofreader, but not a logician who is concerned more with form
>> than function ... with spelling rather than communication of content,
>> and 3. that his secondary intent was to deliberately be insulting by
>> employing a gratuitous insult that was completely irrelevant and
>> unnecessary in the conveying his intent unless that was part and parcel
>> of what he intended to convey.
>>
>> It is worthy of note, that I generally spell the Bryan's name
>> correctly. Although I am not the only one to have misspelled it, I was
>> specifically singled out for having done so. Why? To quote Tommy boy
>> ... no doubt because of our previous disagreement over the HRS blog
>> authorship. The intent of Tom's post could have been conveyed without
>> the inclusion of a presumptive, disingenuous rek regarding ignorance
>> or carelessness. Tom's secondary intent was as obvious as his priy
>> intent. Tom could have played his piffling game of proofreader that he
>> takes such delight in without being insulting. No matter how he slices
>> it, the intent of Tom's post was one that could best be described as a
>> double-edged sword.
>
> Yo JimmyMac,
>
> I was responding to Jim Reilly's misspelling of "Bryan" as
> "Brian", not anything you wrote. It is obvious you have an ax to
> grind here, since you introduce the red herring of me specifically
> singling you out for misspelling "Bryan" as "Brian". Claiming I
> singled you out is a LIE. In my original post on this thread where I
> pointed out the error, I did not quote a single word written by you,
> Mr. Jim McNaa, nor did I mention you, Mr. Jim McNaa by name. DUH!
>
> Note: Jim Reilly, Reading, PA DOES NOT EQUAL Jim McNaa, Chicago, IL.
> DUH!
>
> My original post in this thread had nothing to do with you Mr.
> McNaa, so there is no reason you should respond as if that was the
> case, unless you are looking to pick a fight? If so, that is being
> disrespectful to the few readers of alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent who are
> left.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley (For a bit?)
>
Strange. I was just sitting here wondering how many angels could swim in a
RANs recumbent bicycle seat pan assuming it could hold water. It's a bit
off topic I know, but I just felt I needed to share this with you and your
pal Mr. Mac.
|
| |
Date: 14 Jan 2006 19:12:15
From: JimmyMac
Subject: Re: Stacie, FILTHY BITCH! another one bites the dust.
|
Readers,
What we have here is a demonstration of one of Tom's favorite logical
fallacy debating tactics known as the red herring. This involves
introducing irrelevant facts or arguments to distract from the question
at hand. That is precisely what Tom did in his last two paragraphs to
distract from the issues: 1. that although I misspelled the man's name,
I did not do so because I was either ignorant or careless, 2. that he
is a proofreader, but not a logician who is concerned more with form
than function ... with spelling rather than communication of content,
and 3. that his secondary intent was to deliberately be insulting by
employing a gratuitous insult that was completely irrelevant and
unnecessary in the conveying his intent unless that was part and parcel
of what he intended to convey.
It is worthy of note, that I generally spell the Bryan's name
correctly. Although I am not the only one to have misspelled it, I was
specifically singled out for having done so. Why? To quote Tommy boy
... no doubt because of our previous disagreement over the HRS blog
authorship. The intent of Tom's post could have been conveyed without
the inclusion of a presumptive, disingenuous rek regarding ignorance
or carelessness. Tom's secondary intent was as obvious as his priy
intent. Tom could have played his piffling game of proofreader that he
takes such delight in without being insulting. No matter how he slices
it, the intent of Tom's post was one that could best be described as a
double-edged sword.
Jim McNaa
|
| |
Date: 14 Jan 2006 15:34:31
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: Stacie, FILTHY BITCH! another one bites the dust.
|
JimmyMac wrote:
> Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > JimmyMac wrote:
> > > Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > > > Jim Reilly <jreilly@enter.net> wrote:
> > > > > Jim, I watched in disgust as the annonymous author(s) of HRS slandered
> > > > > you, Rich Pinto, Bacchetta Bikes, BROL, and Brian Ball. But I too find
> > > > > it impossible to believe and understand why one would target Brian's
> > > > > wife with their, foul, slanderous, trash talk.
> > > >
> > > > Who the heck is Brian (sic) Ball?
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley (For a bit?)
> > >
> > > Tom,
> > >
> > > Do you think because the name is spelled Bwian that people are unaware
> > > of who is being slandered? Don't insult the re[a]ders intelligence. They
> > > are not fools, nor are they fooled, so why must you act the part of the
> > > fool?
> >
> > The managing editor of 'Bentrider Online [1] is Bryan (sic) J. Ball. I
> > see no mention of a "Brian (sic) Ball on the 'Bentrider Online website.
> > "Brian" is not "Bryan"; "i" is not "y".
> >
> > I will agree with Mr. McNaa's implication that the misspelling as
> > "Bwian" is done with malicious intent, and I believe that the
> > misspelling as "Brian" is merely done out of ignorance or carelessness
> > with no malicious intent.
> >
> > [1] <http://www.bentrideronline.com/>.
> >
> > --
> > Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley (For a bit?)
>
> Readers,
>
> Of course there was no malicious intent on my part in misspelling
> Bryan's name. Even Google recognizes that the name is commonly spelled
> both ways. When I searched on "Bryan Ball recumbent" and "Brian Ball
> recumbent", the same number of hits were tabulated and Google
> recognized the misspelling with not so much as a snide rek, but
> Google is more forgiving and less vitriolic than Tom Sherman. Since I
> knew another Brian for many years prior to knowing Bryan, and he
> spelled his name with an 'i' rather that a 'y', it is logical to assume
> that my misspelling was due to force of habit rather than Tom's errant
> assumption that my error was due to ignorance or carelessness. Where
> logic is concerned, Tom exudes ignorance and carelessness. Granted, he
> would make an excellent proofreader or editor, but logic is just not
> his forte. As is the nature of the beast, Tom concerns himself more
> with form than function. Tom fails to recognize that this was not about
> spelling, but about communication of a concept ... nothing more ...
> nothing less. Fortunately, this was understood by all but one.
The intent of my post should have been obvious (i.e. pointing out the
misspelling of Mr. Ball's first name), which is why I wrote "Brian
(sic) Ball" instead of "Brian Ball". Mr. McNaa of course ignores the
obvious and posts a histrionic message in response, no doubt because
our previous disagreement over the HRS blog authorship.
If I posted, "what is a 'Rans' (sic)", would anyone think I was
denigrating the company located in Hays (not Hayes), Kansas named RANS?
"Bryan" is an easier name to deal with than "Brian", since a spell
checker will catch the transposition to "Brayn" but not to "Brain".
--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley (For a bit?)
|
| |
Date: 14 Jan 2006 13:43:44
From: JimmyMac
Subject: Re: Stacie, FILTHY BITCH! another one bites the dust.
|
Johnny Sunset wrote:
> JimmyMac wrote:
> > Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > > Jim Reilly <jreilly@enter.net> wrote:
> > > > Jim, I watched in disgust as the annonymous author(s) of HRS slandered
> > > > you, Rich Pinto, Bacchetta Bikes, BROL, and Brian Ball. But I too find
> > > > it impossible to believe and understand why one would target Brian's
> > > > wife with their, foul, slanderous, trash talk.
> > >
> > > Who the heck is Brian (sic) Ball?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley (For a bit?)
> >
> > Tom,
> >
> > Do you think because the name is spelled Bwian that people are unaware
> > of who is being slandered? Don't insult the re[a]ders intelligence. They
> > are not fools, nor are they fooled, so why must you act the part of the
> > fool?
>
> The managing editor of 'Bentrider Online [1] is Bryan (sic) J. Ball. I
> see no mention of a "Brian (sic) Ball on the 'Bentrider Online website.
> "Brian" is not "Bryan"; "i" is not "y".
>
> I will agree with Mr. McNaa's implication that the misspelling as
> "Bwian" is done with malicious intent, and I believe that the
> misspelling as "Brian" is merely done out of ignorance or carelessness
> with no malicious intent.
>
> [1] <http://www.bentrideronline.com/>.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley (For a bit?)
Readers,
Of course there was no malicious intent on my part in misspelling
Bryan's name. Even Google recognizes that the name is commonly spelled
both ways. When I searched on "Bryan Ball recumbent" and "Brian Ball
recumbent", the same number of hits were tabulated and Google
recognized the misspelling with not so much as a snide rek, but
Google is more forgiving and less vitriolic than Tom Sherman. Since I
knew another Brian for many years prior to knowing Bryan, and he
spelled his name with an 'i' rather that a 'y', it is logical to assume
that my misspelling was due to force of habit rather than Tom's errant
assumption that my error was due to ignorance or carelessness. Where
logic is concerned, Tom exudes ignorance and carelessness. Granted, he
would make an excellent proofreader or editor, but logic is just not
his forte. As is the nature of the beast, Tom concerns himself more
with form than function. Tom fails to recognize that this was not about
spelling, but about communication of a concept ... nothing more ...
nothing less. Fortunately, this was understood by all but one.
JimmyMac
|
| |
Date: 14 Jan 2006 07:14:50
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: Stacie, FILTHY BITCH! another one bites the dust.
|
Jim Reilly <jreilly@enter.net > wrote:
> Jim, I watched in disgust as the annonymous author(s) of HRS slandered
> you, Rich Pinto, Bacchetta Bikes, BROL, and Br[y]an Ball. But I too find
> it impossible to believe and understand why one would target Br[y]an's
> wife with their, foul, slanderous, trash talk.
The short answer is obvious - the malicious parody of Stacie Ball is
done because it offends Bryan Ball.
Of course this leads to the question of motive, where I will not
publicly speculate.
--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley (For a bit?)
|
| |
Date: 14 Jan 2006 07:08:26
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: Stacie, FILTHY BITCH! another one bites the dust.
|
JimmyMac wrote:
> Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > Jim Reilly <jreilly@enter.net> wrote:
> > > Jim, I watched in disgust as the annonymous author(s) of HRS slandered
> > > you, Rich Pinto, Bacchetta Bikes, BROL, and Brian Ball. But I too find
> > > it impossible to believe and understand why one would target Brian's
> > > wife with their, foul, slanderous, trash talk.
> >
> > Who the heck is Brian (sic) Ball?
> >
> > --
> > Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley (For a bit?)
>
> Tom,
>
> Do you think because the name is spelled Bwian that people are unaware
> of who is being slandered? Don't insult the re[a]ders intelligence. They
> are not fools, nor are they fooled, so why must you act the part of the
> fool?
The managing editor of 'Bentrider Online [1] is Bryan (sic) J. Ball. I
see no mention of a "Brian (sic) Ball on the 'Bentrider Online website.
"Brian" is not "Bryan"; "i" is not "y".
I will agree with Mr. McNaa's implication that the misspelling as
"Bwian" is done with malicious intent, and I believe that the
misspelling as "Brian" is merely done out of ignorance or carelessness
with no malicious intent.
[1] <http://www.bentrideronline.com/ >.
--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley (For a bit?)
|
| |
Date: 13 Jan 2006 23:45:23
From: JimmyMac
Subject: Re: Stacie, FILTHY BITCH! another one bites the dust.
|
jrei...@enter.net wrote:
> Jim, I watched in disgust as the annonymous author(s) of HRS slandered
> you, Rich Pinto, Bacchetta Bikes, BROL, and Brian Ball. But I too find
> it impossible to believe and understand why one would target Brian's
> wife with their, foul, slanderous, trash talk.
>From one Jim to anouther,
Nice to hear from the vocal minority. See what I posted in this regard
concering my intention if this continues. Some of this has recently
spilled over into Stacie Ball's website. Below, you will find what the
the SBC ISP Terms of Service has to say followed by som identifying
information regarding the priy perpetrator:
The Company may terminate membership, or suspend any individual
Member's access to the Service, without notice, for conduct that the
Company believes is a violation of this Agreement or any policies or
guidelines posted by the Company on the Service. Using your a service
account for is grounds for termination of membership, and may be
referred to law enforcement authorities.
Members agree to Terms of Service & Acceptable Use Policy ... NOT to
use the Service to:
- impersonate any person or entity
- forge headers or otherwise manipulate identifiers in order to
disguise the origin of any Content transmitted through the Service;
- "stalk" or otherwise threaten harass abuse or intimidate others
68.251.63.37 = [ ppp-68-251-63-37.dsl.chcgil.ameritech.net ]
OrgName: SBC Internet Services
OrgID: SIS-80
Address: 2701 W 15th St PMB 236
City: Plano
StateProv: TX
PostalCode: 75075
Country: US
NetRange: 68.248.0.0 - 68.255.255.255
CIDR: 68.248.0.0/13
NetName: SBCIS-SIS80
NetHandle: NET-68-248-0-0-1
Parent: NET-68-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Allocation
NameServer: NS1.AMERITECH.NET
NameServer: NS2.AMERITECH.NET
Comment: Contact IPAdmin-Ameritech@sbis.sbc.com
for general IP support.
Comment: Contact support@swbell.net
for technical support issues.
Comment: Contact abuse@ameritech.net
for policy abuse issues
RegDate: 2003-08-01
Updated: 2005-09-30
RTechHandle: IPADM3-ARIN
RTechName: IPAdmin-Ameritech
RTechPhone: 1-800-648-1626
RTechEmail: IPAdmin-Ameritech@sbis.sbc.com
OrgAbuseHandle: ABUSE6-ARIN
OrgAbuseName: Abuse - Southwestern Bell Internet
OrgAbusePhone: 1-800-648-1626
OrgAbuseEmail: abuse@sbcglobal.net
OrgNOCHandle: SUPPO-ARIN
OrgNOCName: Support - Southwestern Bell Internet Services
OrgNOCPhone: 1-800-648-1626
OrgNOCEmail: support@swbell.net
OrgTechHandle: IPADM2-ARIN
OrgTechName: IPAdmin-SBIS
OrgTechPhone: 1-800-648-1626
OrgTechEmail: IPAdmin-SBIS@sbis.sbc.com
CustName: PPPoX Pool - Rback4 CHCGIL
Address: 72701 W 15th ST PMB 236
City: Plano
StateProv: TX
PostalCode: 75075
Country: US
RegDate: 2004-01-30
Updated: 2004-01-30
NetRange: 68.251.48.0 - 68.251.63.255
CIDR: 68.251.48.0/20
NetName: SBC068251048000040130
NetHandle: NET-68-251-48-0-1
Parent: NET-68-248-0-0-1
NetType: Reassigned
Comment: For Policy Abuse issues contact: abuse@swbell.net
Comment: For Technical issues contact: noc@sbcis.sbc.com
RegDate: 2004-01-30
Updated: 2004-01-30
RTechHandle: IPADM3-ARIN
RTechName: IPAdmin-Ameritech
RTechPhone: 1-800-648-1626
RTechEmail: IPAdmin-Ameritech@sbis.sbc.com
OrgAbuseHandle: ABUSE6-ARIN
OrgAbuseName: Abuse - Southwestern Bell Internet
OrgAbusePhone: 1-800-648-1626
OrgAbuseEmail: abuse@sbcglobal.net
OrgNOCHandle: SUPPO-ARIN
OrgNOCName: Support - Southwestern Bell Internet Services
OrgNOCPhone: 1-800-648-1626
OrgNOCEmail: support@swbell.net
OrgTechHandle: IPADM2-ARIN
OrgTechName: IPAdmin-SBIS
OrgTechPhone: 1-800-648-1626
OrgTechEmail: IPAdmin-SBIS@sbis.sbc.com
Jim McNaa
|
| |
Date: 13 Jan 2006 23:25:21
From: JimmyMac
Subject: Re: Stacie, FILTHY BITCH! another one bites the dust.
|
Johnny Sunset wrote:
> Jim Reilly <jreilly@enter.net> wrote:
> > Jim, I watched in disgust as the annonymous author(s) of HRS slandered
> > you, Rich Pinto, Bacchetta Bikes, BROL, and Brian Ball. But I too find
> > it impossible to believe and understand why one would target Brian's
> > wife with their, foul, slanderous, trash talk.
>
> Who the heck is Brian (sic) Ball?
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley (For a bit?)
Tom,
Do you think because the name is spelled Bwian that people are unaware
of who is being slandered? Don't insult the reders intelligence. They
are not fools, nor are they fooled, so why must you act the part of the
fool?
JimmyMac
|
| |
Date: 13 Jan 2006 17:19:42
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: Stacie, FILTHY BITCH! another one bites the dust.
|
Jim Reilly <jreilly@enter.net > wrote:
> Jim, I watched in disgust as the annonymous author(s) of HRS slandered
> you, Rich Pinto, Bacchetta Bikes, BROL, and Brian Ball. But I too find
> it impossible to believe and understand why one would target Brian's
> wife with their, foul, slanderous, trash talk.
Who the heck is Brian (sic) Ball?
--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley (For a bit?)
|
| | |
Date: 14 Jan 2006 19:00:43
From: nget
Subject: Re: Stacie, FILTHY BITCH! another one bites the dust.
|
Johnny Sunset Wrote:
> Jim Reilly <jreilly@enter.net> wrote:
> > Jim, I watched in disgust as the annonymous author(s) of HR
> slandered
> > you, Rich Pinto, Bacchetta Bikes, BROL, and Brian Ball. But I to
> find
> > it impossible to believe and understand why one would target Brian's
> > wife with their, foul, slanderous, trash talk.
>
> Who the heck is Brian (sic) Ball?
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley (For a bit?)
Just so that all will know why Stacie has been a target in all o
this,and the whole thing with Mojo is this. Mojo is without a doubt th
most complete and absolute smeghead that I have ever had the misfortun
to lay my eyes on
--
nget
|
| | |
Date: 13 Jan 2006 23:56:32
From: Steve knight
Subject: Re: Stacie, FILTHY BITCH! another one bites the dust.
|
come on now this is usenet. if you take what is on here serius you
have a problem. I have been reading usenet for cost to 20 years. more
posts then not are garbage or nasty. but just ignore them they are not
real and they don't have any real effect unless you respond or believe
them.
my only complaint was I could not filter him out with agent.
Knight-Toolworks
http://www.knight-toolworks.com
affordable handmade wooden planes
|
| |
Date: 13 Jan 2006 13:04:29
From:
Subject: Re: Stacie, FILTHY BITCH! another one bites the dust.
|
Jim, I watched in disgust as the annonymous author(s) of HRS slandered
you, Rich Pinto, Bacchetta Bikes, BROL, and Brian Ball. But I too find
it impossible to believe and understand why one would target Brian's
wife with their, foul, slanderous, trash talk.
Jim Reilly
Reading, PA
|
| |
Date: 12 Jan 2006 16:44:27
From: JimmyMac
Subject: Re: Stacie, FILTHY BITCH! another one bites the dust.
|
Edward Dolan wrote:
> "Steve knight" <stevek@knight-toolworks.com> wrote in message
> news:35mbs1t3oghjrqn1m5qitsgb7rmng7kdb4@4ax.com...
> >
> >>http://highracers.blogspot.com/2005/12/bwian-joins-killer-bee-company...
> >>
> >
> > he is history his account is DOA.
>
> That does not seem like enough for all the grief he (they) caused. I would
> like to see a hefty fine or a little jail time so the lesson could sink in.
> Merely losing an account does not count for much with these kind of idiots.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed Dolan - Minnesota
Ed (Dolan ... NOT Gin),
I couldn't agree more. The DOA blog is definitely insufficient
punishment now that the damage has been done. For one thing, there are
these cross-posted vile, vulgar, denigrating and defamatory posts that
have portrayed me as a pervert, a homosexual, an adulterer and a child
molester none of which can be substantiated. Nasty posts have also
targeted Rich Pinto and Brian Ball and how many posts have they made
here? Then there is this other nagging question. Why was it necessary
for Stacie Ball to be dragged into all this? Why should she be the
target of such revolting, foul posts? She has nothing to do with any of
this. There are now even entries on her website calling her attention
to stuff I allegedly wrote about her that was actually written by those
who have impersonated me by using my email address as their Google
Nickname. What we have her is a few very demented people in need of a
serious ass whoopin', some jail time or at the very leas a restraining
order and a defamation lawsuit (read monetary judgment). This has
gotten really gotten way out of hand and it would be prudent for those
responsible to quit while they are ahead.
Jim McNaa (the real JimmyMac)
|
| |
Date: 11 Jan 2006 20:19:17
From: Steve knight
Subject: Re: Stacie, FILTHY BITCH! another one bites the dust.
|
>http://highracers.blogspot.com/2005/12/bwian-joins-killer-bee-company...
>
he is history his account is DOA.
Knight-Toolworks
http://www.knight-toolworks.com
affordable handmade wooden planes
|
| | |
Date: 11 Jan 2006 23:37:14
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Stacie, FILTHY BITCH! another one bites the dust.
|
"Steve knight" <stevek@knight-toolworks.com > wrote in message
news:35mbs1t3oghjrqn1m5qitsgb7rmng7kdb4@4ax.com...
>
>>http://highracers.blogspot.com/2005/12/bwian-joins-killer-bee-company...
>>
>
> he is history his account is DOA.
That does not seem like enough for all the grief he (they) caused. I would
like to see a hefty fine or a little jail time so the lesson could sink in.
Merely losing an account does not count for much with these kind of idiots.
Regards,
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
|
|
