XPost: alt.usenet.kooks, alt.fan.art-bell, alt.fucknozzles   
   XPost: rec.arts.poems, alt.fluff-girl.pinku-sensei   
   From: thisemail@isamunge.com   
      
   On 3/6/09 3:12 PM, in article 2kolkd.un2.17.1@news.alt.net, "Gregory Hall"   
   wrote:   
      
   > MillerT proved he's a dope who lacks reading comprehension in:   
   >   
   > "MillerT"  wrote in message   
   > news:goruc7$6cg$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...   
   >>   
   >> I've never been told what to think, write or do.   
   >   
   > Then you're a liar or in a coma. Or perhaps you're deaf and just never heard   
   > yourself being told.   
      
   Examples, please, since I seem to have missed what you claim I've been told.   
      
   >   
   >> Diatribe: 1. archaic: a prolonged discourse   
   >> 2. a bitter and abusive speech or writing   
   >>   
   >> Greg's rant qualifies, sorry.    
   >   
   > Lack of reading comprehension noted.   
   > 1. My treatise was short and to the point as is the usual case.   
      
   It was long, as Usenet posts go. I had to scan to stay awake.   
      
   > 2) My treatise* embodied a conciliatory tone. It was a far cry from abusive   
   > and bitter.   
      
   I don't think an objective reader would agree with you.   
   >   
   > * 1: a systematic exposition or argument in writing including a methodical   
   >       discussion of the facts and principles involved and conclusions   
   > reached   
   >          
   >    2 obsolete: account , tale   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >>   
   >> Cabal: 1: the artifices and intrigues of a group of persons secretly   
   >> united   
   >> in a plot (as to overturn a government); also : a group engaged in such   
   >> artifices and intrigues 2: club, group    
   >>   
   >> So, you think AUK is plotting to overturn the government? Are they that   
   >> powerful? Or perhaps you'd like to explain what *you* mean by cabal.   
   >   
   > My gosh but you're stupid. The parenthetical content states *as in*. This is   
   > ONE example and not an exclusionary statement indicating that there are no   
   > other instances. Duh!   
      
   I was being facetious. My god, you take comments way too seriously.   
      
   > In the cause of the AUKers the plot is to defame,   
   > marginalize, and libel (artifices and intrigure) those whom they hand pick   
   > to ridicule.   
      
   Examples of libel, please? Be specific.   
      
   What you're describing is true of Usenet in general. Tell me you haven't   
   engaged in ridicule, attempts to marginalize, troll, flame, criticize, and   
   otherwise interact with other posters in a negative fashion. Tell me several   
   of you haven't formed your own little "cabal" that appears to operate in   
   much the same way you accuse people in AUK of behaving (minus awards).   
      
   Provide examples of posters who have *never* received the treatment you're   
   describing. AFAIK, we've all been the target of abuse at some time or other.   
   I know I have, but so what?   
      
   Usenet is not a playground for the thin-skinned.   
      
      
   > They conspire (secretly united in a plot) behind the scenes to   
   > chose their next victims. This little *club, goup* rigs the vote and   
   > 'appoints' certain people who get under their skin to their list of "Kooks."   
      
   Proof? I don't believe this conspiracy theory of yours.   
      
   ISTM, everyone is pretty open about expressing their opinions publicly. The   
   people who win awards seem to come to people's attention by virtue of their   
   own behavior, not because they were randomly chosen by some sekrit "cabal."   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)