On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:37:02 -0700, Mover wrote
(in article <271020090037026309%Mover@Watch-Me.com>):
> In article <0001HW.C70BB33B00278972B02919BF@news.newscene.com>,
> Morpheus <Morpheus@dreamland.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:08:23 -0700, Mover wrote
>> (in article <261020091808232835%Mover@Watch-Me.com>):
>>
>>> In article <0001HW.C70A8A2C00132621B02919BF@news.newscene.com>,
>>> Morpheus <Morpheus@dreamland.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 05:30:39 -0700, Fort Babysitter wrote
>>>> (in article <4uOdnYDRoYPsbn_XnZ2dnUVZ_qWdnZ2d@giganews.com>):
>>>>
>>>>> A small bit of Y-Not profile
>>>>> ===================
>>>>> This post discusses a few of the small bits of
>>>>> Y-Not and the small Y-Not's moronic presence
>>>>> on Usenet.
>>>>> ++
>>>>> After repeatedly attempting to compete with
>>>>> KidHacker for a presence in the Fort and upon
>>>>> miserably failing, Y-Not started resorting to using
>>>>> tricks that Y-Not thought were clever. And again
>>>>> Y-Not failed miserably. Y-Not was Usenet castrated
>>>>> in the Fort.
>>>>> ++
>>>>> The Usenet castration of Y-Not drove the small
>>>>> bit Y-Not into a deep and torturous mind set. And
>>>>> deep down within and into his insane real self. After
>>>>> being Usenet castrated in the Fort, Y-Not could never
>>>>> again use his little and pitiful Y-Not nic. And he never has.
>>>>> ++
>>>>> The small and little Y-Not's presence on Usenet is
>>>>> now from the real and true Y-Not. Y-Not's presence
>>>>> on Usenet is from a moronic coward that is hiding behind
>>>>> anything that he can find.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fort Babysitter
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Geeeze. Maybe you're not that crazy after all....
>>>>
>>>> When Doc was 'outed' my theory is he went to ground and Y-Not took over
>>>> his
>>>> identity and has been posting as him since.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's interesting! LOL
>>>
>>> But how did he get the password to Doc's hushmail account?
>>> And, would Y Not as Doc do some really stupid things no one who's been
>>> accused of Y Not ever did so bad? I don't think so. Would Y Not ever
>>> attack Grant? No. Would Grant attack Y Not as Doc, even criticize him?
>>> Impossible! LOL
>>> I see the same Doc here who attacked Y Not so hysterically in the past,
>>> who still can't stop accusing people who criticize him of being Y Not.
>>> I see the same Doc who tries to split up friends and supporters of
>>> people he fights with, and tries to manipulate them to attack who he
>>> wants. I see the same Doc who uses personal info to attack people, and
>>> never apologizes for all the wrong he does.
>>> There IS a difference, however, in this new Doc (since just before Y
>>> Not left), and the old; sometimes he tries to not do these bad things.
>>> Sometimes he remembers that fighting here serves no GOOD purpose.
>>> Sometimes he remembers to be a better man. Then he is accused of being
>>> that ultimate better man, in the eyes of some, Y Not, his former arch
>>> enemy, the stoic target of resentment and hate of all the fragile
>>> paranoid egos who ever inhabited the Fort. He can't win! LOL
>>>
>>> From my viewpoint, the old simpler Doc was more fun to play with. This
>>> new Doc requires a little more work, but I'll live with it. LOL
>>>
>>> Mover
>>>
>>> Ps He's never going to like me. LOL
>>> That's alright. I never wanted to lick boots anyway. I wonder what kind
>>> of Polish he uses. Hungarian? LOL
>>
>> That certainly is an interesting (amusing even) version of events. Would
>> Grant attack Y-Not?? Ha the puppets act out the play dictated by the
>> pulling of the strings.
>
> I don't see strings. Nothing to gain by them. Results don't show
> evidence of useful purpose. Therefore, you should check your delusion
> for more justification, or Occam's Razor could slice your head off. LOL
>
>> The new 'voice' of Doc is different. It's obvious to anyone who has
>> followed
>> your dialogue with him in the past
>
> What dialog? He doesn't go out of his way to reply to me. I don't ask
> for it, either.
>
>> Even you admit his style has changed. Of course. It isn't that Doc.
>
> Changing styles doesn't have to mean different people, Duey. LOL
> Quack! Quack! Quack! Quack! Quack! Quack! Quack! LOL
>
> Doc was much nicer before you showed up at the Fort (he loved Y Not),
> then he changed to fanatic combatant. Then he changed to being nice,
> and pulled you into his attack he started again (this is the Doc you
> fixated on, just as he intended), then he went nice (you were disgusted
> with him for that), and then attacked again (ah, he's right again),
> then he went nice (the traitor was lost to you), and then... You should
> get the idea. All through this he was still the same person. He keeps
> changing back and forth, like he was into a fifth. A whole case, a
> whole brewery of it! LOL
> Which is the REAL Doc? There isn't one. Never was. Because HE doesn't
> know.
>
> Very young children can form Attachment Disorders when their parent(s)
> change their behavior patterns significantly, after the child has
> formed a fixed association for the parent(s) previous behavior pattern.
> In their simple logic, "parent = this". Parent does not do this but
> does that = "not parent". When they become older, and don't realize
> where their feeling of family alienation comes from, they sometimes
> form a fantasy of being adopted to explain it. Some children go so far
> as to believe their parent has been abducted and replaced by an alien.
> This could be your problem. You need Doc to be one way you've fixated
> on. When he isn't, to you he can't be Doc, so he must have been
> replaced by the very alien Y Not.
> Now are you sure you want to be prancing about around here being the
> poster CHILD of such a juvenile psychological disorder? I hope not! LOL
>
>> "...the stoic target of resentment and hate of all the fragile egos who
>> ever
>> inhabited the fort..." Wow. If I din't know you were kidding, I'd think
>> you
>> were delusional.
>>
>> But you're not.
>
> But I was. LOL
> Obvious exaggeration can be a form of humor, right?
> But you didn't want to see it that way. Now who's delusional? LOL
>
>> More of a sociopath.
>
> More of nothing but me. LOL
>
> Sorry, there's no evidence of my being a sociopath in any of my posts.
> So far. LOL
> Nor in yours. Or, possibly surprisingly enough, in lookin's.
> In fact, I don't see how there could be, in the fantom partial entities
> we create to show of ourselves in what we chose to post.
>
>> LOL
>>
>
> Why should I post something you would agree with, to YOU? Where would
> be the fun in that? LOL
>
> I don't think what I posted about psychological things is new to you or
> to other people here (lots of people here know about psychology), so
> don't go calling me Y Not because of that. Pick a different, better,
> reason, if you have to use that old attack tactic that DOC invented for
> you. LOL
> Oh, didn't he once (or twice?) call YOU Y Not? LOL
>
> If you have any more buttons I haven't pushed yet, please let me know
> about them. I'd be much obliged. LOL
>
> Mover
If there was ever any doubt that you are Y-Not (not that anyone who's been
listening in here for very long has any doubt), you removed it with your
references to Duey. That nic was used by me long before most of the sock
puppets you currently stage-manage were on scene (including Grant, Mover and
even Awake).
As for Doc, what you say is just bullshit and easily refuted. When I
appeared on the scene you and Doc-1 were embattled. Daily messages flew back
and forth with insults. In fact, (as you well know) Doc first accused me of
being one your sock puppets. And "...in the enemy camp..."
Now you say he "...loved Y-Not'. What nonsense. It simply adds proof to the
fact that Doc = 2 (present Doc) is your invention and bears little
relationship to Doc -1 (original Doc).
Nonsense also, your contention that I was "fixated" on Doc. We rarely
exchanged messages of any kind and then usually only about security issues.
I never particularly trusted Doc then (I certainly don't trust him now).
Nothing against Doc -1 as I don't trust anyone in these groups until I've
known them a while and see if they are truthful or if they are true to who
they say they are.
My first encounter with Doc wasn't even in this group and I've always been
suspcious because he demanded "proof I was a boylover" by sending him illegal
pictures, movies, etc. I never did and was suspicious of him from that time
on.
There were some folks who, in my opinion, were who they appeared to be.
Grumpy was one. So were abc and Mephi. There are a couple of others who I
trust up to a point in that I'm pretty sure they are uncontaminated with you.
Other than that I just take folks as they present themselves and neither
believe or disbelieve them. Except for you, of course.
You are not to be believed. All you do and all that you pretend to be is, as
far as I can tell, some sort of fiction. Fortunately you are given to
creating sock puppets that are so like you that they are easy to detect.
|
|