Gary Burnore wrote:
> Checkmate <LunaticFringe@the.edge> wrote:
>> Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading
>> posts by Checkmate!
>>
>> First, check out what Sweetness said:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> "Checkmate" <LunaticFringe@The.Edge> wrote in message
>>> news:64vnfa.qve.19.5@news.alt.net...
>>>> Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading
>>>> posts by Checkmate!
>>>>
>>>> First, check out what Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler said:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 00:23:18 -0800, Checkmate
>>>>> <LunaticFringe@The.Edge> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading
>>>>>> posts by Checkmate!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> First, check out what Fred Hall said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 20:45:56 -0800, Checkmate
>>>>>>> <LunaticFringe@The.Edge> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when
>>>>>>>> reading posts by
>>>>>>>> Checkmate!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> First, check out what Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 12:32:29 -0500, "Sweetness"
>>>>>>>>> <sweetchixorREMOVE@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Ms. Kitty" <ms@kitty.now> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:64e56r.crg.17.1@news.alt.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Gary Burnore" <gburnore@panix.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:k8hf6l$3u$1@reader1.panix.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ms. Kitty <ms@kitty.now> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> [snip a bunch of rethug talking points]
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If somoene would have said this about a rethuglincan
>>>>>>>>>>>> president, you'd be
>>>>>>>>>>>> all over it crying how people don't respect the office of
>>>>>>>>>>>> the president.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You're fucking pathetic.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Listen up, you stupid fuck! I go against the republicans as
>>>>>>>>>>> fast as the
>>>>>>>>>>> democrats. I am not really either party. I am just making
>>>>>>>>>>> both be
>>>>>>>>>>> accountable. Something you would know nothing about. . .
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqjpG9xYjOc&feature=share
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I have my sons in this war...are you still raping the little
>>>>>>>>>>> girl scouts,
>>>>>>>>>>> through your young daughter?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Targeting some little kid(s) now ? Nice self-spank there,
>>>>>>>>>> asshat.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, it doesn't get much lower, nor more clueless than that.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Because she's clueless enough try to troll folks into feeling
>>>>>>>>>> sorry for her,
>>>>>>>>>> asking them to 'pray' for her.. all the while trying to
>>>>>>>>>> start a flame war
>>>>>>>>>> that she _lost_ in _two_ posts by lowering herself to
>>>>>>>>>> dragging some other
>>>>>>>>>> posters innocent "young daughter" into it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I hereby nominate "Lady Pilot"/"Blondie"/"Ms.
>>>>>>>>>> Kitty"/"Checkermate"/"Ms Sir
>>>>>>>>>> Gregory" and the rest of her socks... for the Clueless
>>>>>>>>>> Newbie of The Month
>>>>>>>>>> Award.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Clueless Newbie of the Month:
>>>>>>>>>> The Clueless Newbie of the Month (CNotM) is pretty much the
>>>>>>>>>> same sort of
>>>>>>>>>> thing as the KotM, but honors spectacular cluelessness on
>>>>>>>>>> Usenet rather than
>>>>>>>>>> Kookery.
>>>>>>>>>> Actually being a newbie is not a strict requirement for
>>>>>>>>>> eligibility; but the
>>>>>>>>>> type of cluelessness being recognized needs to be of the sort
>>>>>>>>>> typical of
>>>>>>>>>> newbies.
>>>>>>>>>> If someone has been on the net for some time and still acts
>>>>>>>>>> like a newbie,
>>>>>>>>>> they're eligible. As of March 1, 2012, this award is not
>>>>>>>>>> repeatable.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Seconds ?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nomination accepted.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Because she didn't even have the balls to be slagging another
>>>>>>>>>> posters
>>>>>>>>>> innocent "young daughter" using the nym that she's well
>>>>>>>>>> _known_ by.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (What's that matter, LP. Would your "*Lady* Pilot" sock not
>>>>>>>>>> approve of you
>>>>>>>>>> using some little kid who is not on Usenet and has never
>>>>>>>>>> hurt you in any
>>>>>>>>>> fucking way, in an argument that you started and LOST within
>>>>>>>>>> TWO posts ?)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Wow. Who knew that she was such a skanky lowlife. :(
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I hereby nominate "Lady Pilot"/"Blondie"/"Ms.
>>>>>>>>>> Kitty"/"Checkermate"/"Ms Sir
>>>>>>>>>> Gregory" and the rest of her skanky socks... for Coward of
>>>>>>>>>> The Month Award.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Coward of the Month:
>>>>>>>>>> Given to the best (as in, most noticeable) sockpuppeteer of
>>>>>>>>>> the month.
>>>>>>>>>> Anyone of any kind who uses a sockpuppet can get it; like
>>>>>>>>>> the HL&S this
>>>>>>>>>> award is not necessarily reserved for Kooks! You can nominate
>>>>>>>>>> either the
>>>>>>>>>> sockpuppet or if you know the real name behind it that
>>>>>>>>>> person; either way,
>>>>>>>>>> the sockpuppeteer gets just credit. The award is also given
>>>>>>>>>> to people who
>>>>>>>>>> don't follow up on threats. Or respond to hard questions. Or
>>>>>>>>>> other cowardly
>>>>>>>>>> acts AUK can be convinced of.
>>>>>>>>>> Also, given to the most cowardly, yellow-bellied Usenet
>>>>>>>>>> chicken of the
>>>>>>>>>> month. Anyone who meets the current month's eligibility bar
>>>>>>>>>> can get it; like
>>>>>>>>>> the HL&S and the Palmjob Paddle, this award is not
>>>>>>>>>> necessarily reserved for
>>>>>>>>>> Kooks!
>>>>>>>>>> Those who hide behind pseudoanonymous sockpuppets, to say
>>>>>>>>>> and do things they
>>>>>>>>>> would not normally say or do as 'themselves', usually make
>>>>>>>>>> good candidates;
>>>>>>>>>> you can nominate either the sockpuppet or if you know the
>>>>>>>>>> real name behind
>>>>>>>>>> it that person; either way, the sockpuppeteer gets just
>>>>>>>>>> credit.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Seconds ?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nomination accepted.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm gonna help Rhiannon get an award... stay tuned.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I will. With her being part of a froup nominated for a merit
>>>>>>> award (and I'm assuming you aren't referencing a forthcoming
>>>>>>> additional merit award), and also nominated for a non-merit
>>>>>>> award, it could be interesting. I'm not sure if that has ever
>>>>>>> happened in AUK.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then I think it's high time I made it happen! Clueless Newbie
>>>>>> comes to mind...
>>>>>
>>>>> <puts on foam resistant suit>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nomination accepted. As I noted earlier, this should be
>>>>> interesting.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, those horribly mangled posts and the I-don't-give-a-fuck
>>>> attitude are all reminiscent of 10-15 years ago when herds of
>>>> Webbies came stumbling through Usenet in search of KP and
>>>> third-grade level arguments.
>>>>
>>>> And do we have a second, anyone? Anyone real sweet, perhaps?
>>>> <---hint
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That would be lovely, but..
>>> Have I missed a memo on rule changes or something ?
>>>
>>> Far as I know, I'm not allowed to Nominate LP for CNotM -and- Second
>>> Rhiannon for CNotM.. for the same ballot.
>>>
>>> And you've already Seconded, or maybe Thirded... my LP nom for
>>> CNotM.
>>>
>>> Shit, maybe I really - did- miss a memo....
>>>
>>> If your CNotM nom for Rhiannon is for the next after next ballot,
>>> then yes, Seconds.
>>>
>>> <wee bit boggled>
>>
>> Ya got me. I haven't kept track of all the nominations and seconds
>> this month, or who made them. I was actually only intending to
>> float the idea at this point, because I think there's much more
>> kOOkery and klOOlessness to come from Rhiannon if she sticks around.
>> I see it already, but perhaps most others don't... yet. I'm
>> certainly willing to let her kOOkery ferment like a fine whine for
>> another month. Let's go with that. Fred?
>>
>> Fake FNVWs need not reply...
>>
> I'd second it if she didn't. It's there alright. But another month of
> frothage pre-award would be more entertaining.
hi gary
|
|