Path: news.nzbot.com!spool1.sonic-news.com!news-out.sonic-news.com!iad.highwinds-media.com!feeder.news-service.com!news.alt.net!fictitious-path
Subject: Re: A small bit of Y-Not profile
Date: Sun, 01 Nov 2009 17:33:09 -0400
From: Mover <Mover@Watch-Me.com>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.prettyboy
Reply-To: Mover
Message-ID: <011120091733095749%Mover@Watch-Me.com>
References: <4uOdnYDRoYPsbn_XnZ2dnUVZ_qWdnZ2d@giganews.com> <0001HW.C70A8A2C00132621B02919BF@news.newscene.com> <261020091808232835%Mover@Watch-Me.com> <0001HW.C70BB33B00278972B02919BF@news.newscene.com> <271020090037026309%Mover@Watch-Me.com> <0001HW.C70E865E0030FC5BB02919BF@news.newscene.com> <291020092011459224%Mover@Watch-Me.com> <0001HW.C70FBEA10021B389B02919BF@news.newscene.com> <301020090345041111%Mover@Watch-Me.com> <0001HW.C71261AD00243AEEB02919BF@news.newscene.com>
Organization: Move He - Thee Ate Her
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
User-Agent: Thoth/1.8.3 (Macintosh)
X-No-Archive: yes
Lines: 449
NNTP-Posting-Host: f8290318.news.astraweb.com
X-Trace: DXC=C>JK2HL_bbZI56`<E^G]B^L?0kYOcDh@ZW[FS9l[dUZ]48\dgLN[0YV^0mbC@m`[eWlCG@c^>A<:QEB=D2bOQ29RcT4]YMo4W`[
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.fan.prettyboy:7447
In article <0001HW.C71261AD00243AEEB02919BF@news.newscene.com>,
Morpheus <Morpheus@dreamland.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 00:45:04 -0700, Mover wrote
> (in article <301020090345041111%Mover@Watch-Me.com>):
>
> > In article <0001HW.C70FBEA10021B389B02919BF@news.newscene.com>,
> > Morpheus <Morpheus@dreamland.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 17:11:45 -0700, Mover wrote
> >> (in article <291020092011459224%Mover@Watch-Me.com>):
> >>
> >>> In article <0001HW.C70E865E0030FC5BB02919BF@news.newscene.com>,
> >>> Morpheus <Morpheus@dreamland.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> 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).
> >>>
> >>> Not at all. I just proved I was here before you (years before Y Not
> >>> too), just like I showed lookin, and saw all that happened.
> >>> I saw the "Quack" being used against you, oh "portly" one. LOL
> >>> A lot of people saw all that too, and are perfectly able to type them
> >>> out in a post to you if they feel like it. Doesn't make them Y Not, any
> >>> more than typing "Amen" makes them the Pope. LOL
> >>> You always had a problem with proof. LOL
> >>>
> >>>> 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..."
> >>>
> >>> He sure did. It's hard for anyone else but you to say with accuracy
> >>> when you "appeared", because most posters lurk for a time before they
> >>> start posting, and are limited in which groups they know about.
> >>>
> >>>> 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).
> >>>
> >>> You really DO have a problem with proof. LOL
> >>> Most posters who posted before "X-No-Archive: yes" became a popular
> >>> addition to newsreader headers, have their posts available in the
> >>> Google archives for all to see. You could see I'm right, but you won't.
> >>> That would mean research! LOL
> >>> You might take a look at Doc's recent repost of his old post defending
> >>> Y Not against Lookin's original castration of him (regarding his
> >>> precious balls LOL). That was before their falling out. I can tell you
> >>> how that happened if you want. It could be very interesting what Doc
> >>> would say about it. LOL
> >>>
> >>>> 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.
> >>>
> >>> That means you can't trust anybody, because it's impossible to know who
> >>> they are unless you know them in real life, and even that is no
> >>> guarantee. Unfortunately, it also shows you want them to expose
> >>> themselves to you. Not a good thing to hmm, expose here. LOL
> >>>
> >>> You do what Doc does; he does things in his posts and says in those
> >>> posts he's not doing them. For example, his reply to a poster here two
> >>> months (I think) ago was pure vent against other things, yet in the
> >>> post he said he wasn't venting. Now why would he think the other poster
> >>> would even think Doc was venting, at all, enough to justify mentioning
> >>> it in the first place? Obviously because Doc could see he was venting,
> >>> but didn't let himself be totally conscious of it, because he didn't
> >>> want to. I thought that was so funny, it was hard not to point that
> >>> out, but that would have been discourteous to the other poster.
> >>> Your use of "Doc-1" and "Doc-2" proves my point. LOL
> >>>
> >>>> 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.
> >>>
> >>> Some other posters did that too. abc did that to High (I think that was
> >>> his nic) right after abc had said he would complain to another poster's
> >>> NSP about his porn posts to get him in trouble, and forced him out.
> >>> You were right to be suspicious of Doc, but you weren't of abc. Why?
> >>> Looks like one of Y Not's little truisms applies here; Double Standards!
> >>>
> >>>> 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.
> >>>
> >>> You're not all that good with making accurate opinions. LOL
> >>> Paradoxically, You would be much better at it, if you could realize
> >>> that.
> >>> Grumpy was Boomer and other people. Mephi used a few different nics and
> >>> admitted it. So did abc. So did you. LOL In fact, most posters did,
> >>> except Doc. So, who were they really? Which nic was the real one? LOL
> >>>
> >>> How could I contaminate anybody? I never met anybody here in real life.
> >>> Couldn't give out pig wings (swine flu LOL) even if I wanted to.
> >>> If you mean Y Not, that applies too, if he never met anyone here in
> >>> real life. Do you mean he invaded their minds and changed who they
> >>> were? You like science fiction too? LOL He would have to be a master
> >>> psychologist to be able to do that with just text, even if it were
> >>> possible, which I doubt. Oh wait, you said he isn't one at all. We have
> >>> more than a pair a doxies here! LOL
> >>> Could it be your understanding of people changed, and not the people?
> >>> Are you too covered in ego to admit to yourself you can't judge people
> >>> very well from posts? No one can. Your fixations, not just on Doc as
> >>> you wanted to know him, but on Y Not and other posters, show you place
> >>> much too much credence on your non existent ability to judge and
> >>> recognize people from their posts. None of us can, least of all you.
> >>> Y Not was impersonated many times, probably over a hundred. Most of
> >>> them would have gone unrecognized if the header difference hadn't been
> >>> pointed out. The other way applies too. I could post just like Y Not,
> >>> use all his deliberate "trademarks" (yes, it was obvious), "especially"
> >>> his "somewhat" stilted rhythmic prose, just like anybody else can who's
> >>> a professional writer, and still never be him, because I'm not.
> >>> All I've said here is logical and reasonable, but can you understand
> >>> it? Actually, the question should be WHY can't you understand it.
> >>> Fixations, maybe? LOL
> >>>
> >>> Here's a funny incident you might find amusing, and VERY apropos to
> >>> this theme:
> >>> In another BL group, before your time, when Y Not was respected and
> >>> admired by all (and loved too) for being a gentle scholar and
> >>> counselor, some posters were discussing flaming. Y Not joined the
> >>> discussion in a different way by posting a short movie of a college
> >>> student prank of someone setting his fart on fire, and his surprised
> >>> reaction and yells (I saved it and can repost it if you want, if I can
> >>> remember which of the two I have was the right one).
> >>> Many posters there couldn't believe the gentle Y Not would post such a
> >>> thing, and accused him of being impersonated. It took Y Not a lot of
> >>> wordy posts, against a lot of resistance, to convince them he was
> >>> really him. LOL
> >>>
> >>> Too bad you weren't here before Doc's blowup, to see Y Not how he was
> >>> then, and how he was treated in those days. You might think differently
> >>> about this entire issue now, just as many who knew him then do now.
> >>>
> >>>> Other than that I just take folks as they present themselves and neither
> >>>> believe or disbelieve them. Except for you, of course.
> >>>
> >>> You do what you want to do, what makes you feel good (selfish? LOL),
> >>> irrespective of logic and facts. That makes you funny, but not always
> >>> in a flattering to you way.
> >>> Not that I mind. LOL
> >>>
> >>>> 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.
> >>>
> >>> So what else is new? Every poster here is fiction! LOL
> >>> Well, except for Doc, since his exposure.
> >>>
> >>> I think you need better glasses, before you make more of a spectacle of
> >>> yourself. LOL
> >>>
> >>> Mover
> >>
> >> Tell me more about how it is you know Doc didn't post under different
> >> nics.
> >>
> >> I didn't realize that, in addition to ALL your other skills -(
> >> psychologist,
> >> clergyman, martial arts experts, secret spy, etc. ad nauseum) you ar
> >> clairvoyent?
> >>
> >
> > Read a dictionary lately? Obviously not. LOL
> > I never said I had any of those "skills", some of which are occupations
> > instead. I thought you had sum edducationalistic skills yourself. Was I
> > wrong to count on you using them here? LOL
> >
> > By the way, isn't "secret spy" a little redundant? LOL
> > I don't remember he ever said he was one of those. Tell me, what did he
> > say about that? Could be interesting.
> > He did say he had dyslexia. Did you know that is often accompanied by
> > motion sickness? So you really could add nauseums to the list. LOL
> > "martial arts experts" is supposed to be plural for one person? So many
> > missed-steaks. Should I feel insulted you didn't give me your best text
> > cooking effort? LOL
> >
> > Doc has posted with different nics, with an autoposter, and not as a
> > secret, but for his text posts he only used various forms of his full
> > nic and Doc, and Fort ID, in the Fort and the discussion group, since
> > at least from when you "appeared", as far as I remember. He said that's
> > what he did, and I believe him, because he obviously didn't need to do
> > more. If he wanted clones to fight along side and for him, he
> > manipulated other people into doing it, such as you and Ninja. Doc
> > didn't need extra nics. So you "see", clear-voyence isn't needed, when
> > clear illuminating reason is used with the intelligence to make it
> > work. That why you didn't? LOL
> > Ask Doc (he doesn't have a good reason to lie about it), if you really
> > want to know. I doubt you will. LOL
> >
> > If this is all you can complain about in my post, you're almost too
> > boring to notice. LOL
> > But anyway, thank you for agreeing with the rest of what I wrote.
> >
> > Mover
>
> "Can not."
>
> "Can too."
>
> "Can not"
>
> "Can too"
You work in a canning factory? LOL
>
> As usual you are operating at the level of an over-bearing 10 year old.
To someone without humor, all humor looks like it comes from a 10 year
old. A wise self-observation from you. Unexpected! LOL
If you stop behaving in some of your posts to me like a spoiled
childish brat, you wouldn't have me "spanking" you with my branding of
humor. You can. Some of your replies to me were clever and funny. I
apologize if I didn't say so to each and every one of your worthy
posts. I noticed some of them too late for appropriate comment, and
with some I let you have the last word, out of respect.
If your can can illustration is your basis for comparing me to a ten
year old, please be advised that such as you described takes TWO to
make it happen. Didn't you realize you were calling yourself a 10 year
old? LOL
> You cleverly caught two typos. Whooopdy-fucking-do. You ought to feel very
> proud.
No. Not clever. They stuck out like cowlicks. Maybe next time? LOL
> BTW (at the level of a little more advanced English criticism) you didn't
> modify your pronoun "he".
Didn't need to. If you couldn't understand, why should I bother? You
will form your own wrong conclusions anyway. LOL
> Who he?
Who you? LOL
> Or, better stated in your own language, "Hee Haw".
>
Could be. LOL
Does my neck look red to you? I can't see it very well, there's that
old mullet in the way. LOL
Mover
Ps This thread is getting a bit long. Want to try another?
|
|