On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 18:26:11 +0100, Aard  wrote:

>You forgot to mention the bit where the psycholists type stuff such as
>"yeah well, you're a troll and a fuckwit, and PLONK". When you slag
>off an individual by name, they're perfectly within their rights to
>use a different nym to avoid your killfile in order to reply. I know
>that don't sit well with you, but I also know that at least one ISP
>has told you the same thing in response to more of your whining :)

No ISP has told me any such thing.  And your scenario bears little
resemblance to the trail of nym-shifting by judith (or indeed you).

Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 19:00:04 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 18:26:11 +0100, Aard  wrote:
>
>>You forgot to mention the bit where the psycholists type stuff such as
>>"yeah well, you're a troll and a fuckwit, and PLONK". When you slag
>>off an individual by name, they're perfectly within their rights to
>>use a different nym to avoid your killfile in order to reply. I know
>>that don't sit well with you, but I also know that at least one ISP
>>has told you the same thing in response to more of your whining :)
>
>No ISP has told me any such thing.  

Funny, I got the impression from Virgin on the phone that they told
the complainer _why_ they rejected his/her complaint...

>And your scenario bears little
>resemblance to the trail of nym-shifting by judith (or indeed you).
>
I'm feeling magnanimous, so I'll ask "Ummmm, are you _sure_ you want
to say that?". Do you want to maybe look at the first posts from any
name I've used and see what they follow?

"Aard"  wrote in message 
news:ogc675169oqhmdea4lm1eot96ml51isktv@4ax.com...
>>
>>>You forgot to mention the bit where the psycholists type stuff such as
>>>"yeah well, you're a troll and a fuckwit, and PLONK". When you slag
>>>off an individual by name, they're perfectly within their rights to
>>>use a different nym to avoid your killfile in order to reply. I know
>>>that don't sit well with you, but I also know that at least one ISP
>>>has told you the same thing in response to more of your whining :)
...
> I'm feeling magnanimous, so I'll ask "Ummmm, are you _sure_ you want
> to say that?". Do you want to maybe look at the first posts from any
> name I've used and see what they follow?

So you're an insecure nym-shifting fucktard. You're so desperate for people 
to read your drivel that you take steps to leap out of killfiles at the 
slightest provocation. Of course you're perfectly within your rights to do 
that here - but that doesn't stop it being the behaviour of a very sore 
loser.

You're a vandal, same as those who might kick in the door mirrors on your 
car for a laugh. I'd guess you'd not condone their behaviour, but unless you 
would, you can add hypocrite to the long list of negative personality traits 
you exhibit.

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 19:33:25 +0100, "Clive George"
 wrote:

>"Aard"  wrote in message 
>news:ogc675169oqhmdea4lm1eot96ml51isktv@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>>You forgot to mention the bit where the psycholists type stuff such as
>>>>"yeah well, you're a troll and a fuckwit, and PLONK". When you slag
>>>>off an individual by name, they're perfectly within their rights to
>>>>use a different nym to avoid your killfile in order to reply. I know
>>>>that don't sit well with you, but I also know that at least one ISP
>>>>has told you the same thing in response to more of your whining :)
>...
>> I'm feeling magnanimous, so I'll ask "Ummmm, are you _sure_ you want
>> to say that?". Do you want to maybe look at the first posts from any
>> name I've used and see what they follow?
>
>So you're an insecure nym-shifting fucktard. 

Yup, and you're a pensioner-mugging child-beating shirtlifter. 

>You're so desperate for people 
>to read your drivel that you take steps to leap out of killfiles at the 
>slightest provocation. Of course you're perfectly within your rights to do 
>that here - but that doesn't stop it being the behaviour of a very sore 
>loser.
>
I'm sure your little rant makes  sense to you, but would you like to
at least _attempt_ to make it clear for anyone else? 

>You're a vandal, same as those who might kick in the door mirrors on your 
>car for a laugh.

What, precisely, are you smoking? Can we have some?

> I'd guess you'd not condone their behaviour, but unless you 
>would, you can add hypocrite to the long list of negative personality traits 
>you exhibit. 
>
Hang on, so it's hypocritical of me to call the twat who scratched my
car in a car park yesterday ignorant spineless pondscum, on the basis
that I use more than one name in a newsgroup. Okay, makes sense to me.
By the way, how long have you been such a fuckwit?

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 19:07:37 +0100, Aard  wrote:

>>No ISP has told me any such thing.  
>Funny, I got the impression from Virgin on the phone that they told
>the complainer _why_ they rejected his/her complaint...

I think you are mistaken as to the identity of the complainer - either
that or it was a joe-job.  I can't find any trace of a message from or
to Virgin Media and I think I'd know better than to complain to an ISP
about something as trivial as nym-shifting.

>>And your scenario bears little
>>resemblance to the trail of nym-shifting by judith (or indeed you).

>I'm feeling magnanimous, so I'll ask "Ummmm, are you _sure_ you want
>to say that?". Do you want to maybe look at the first posts from any
>name I've used and see what they follow? 

Sure.  They usually follow you being plonked for trolling. No, let's
be more exact: you were mainly, as I recall, backing up judith and
Nuxx.  If you actually cared about their opinions being heard you'd be
working on them to just state the opinion and leave out the insults,
fallacious twaddle and creepy obsessive personalisation, but actually
you appeared to a fair number of people to be running round stoking
the fires they were lighting.  If you can't see why that would be
unwelcome I probably can't explain it to you.

People are allowed to killfile you.  People have killfiled me, with or
without telling me.  That's their right.  Nym-shifting to evade the
killfiles is just obnoxious.

Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 20:00:57 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 19:07:37 +0100, Aard  wrote:
>
>>>No ISP has told me any such thing.  
>>Funny, I got the impression from Virgin on the phone that they told
>>the complainer _why_ they rejected his/her complaint...
>
>I think you are mistaken as to the identity of the complainer - either
>that or it was a joe-job.  I can't find any trace of a message from or
>to Virgin Media and I think I'd know better than to complain to an ISP
>about something as trivial as nym-shifting.
>
Fair enough, I'm happy to apologise where I get it wrong. Virgin told
me they'd had a complaint and I assumed wrongly it was you.

>>>And your scenario bears little
>>>resemblance to the trail of nym-shifting by judith (or indeed you).
>
>>I'm feeling magnanimous, so I'll ask "Ummmm, are you _sure_ you want
>>to say that?". Do you want to maybe look at the first posts from any
>>name I've used and see what they follow? 
>
>Sure.  They usually follow you being plonked for trolling.

Ummmm, that was the point. I remember a particular instance of you
having a pop at me over something, and finishing with <plonk>. I
wanted to point out the errors in your pop, and changed my nym to do
so - I also pointed out that if you wanted to plonk me or anyone else
you were free to, but that in telling the plonkee of said action you
were clearly informing them that if they wanted to reply they'd have
to change their name to do so. IIRC, you followed up with an identical
piece, with the identical result.

> No, let's
>be more exact: you were mainly, as I recall, backing up judith and
>Nuxx.  If you actually cared about their opinions being heard you'd be
>working on them to just state the opinion and leave out the insults,
>fallacious twaddle and creepy obsessive personalisation, but actually
>you appeared to a fair number of people to be running round stoking
>the fires they were lighting.  If you can't see why that would be
>unwelcome I probably can't explain it to you.
>
Along with others, you seem to think that the 'trolls' are in some
sort of league together, when nothing could be further from the truth.
I've never exchanged so much as an email with judith, or nuxx. I'm not
trying to promote their opinions any more than they are mine, except
of course where we agree. I still think that judith had something
about a web page changing, and I agreed with her on that. Other than
that, quite often we _disagree_ and there's a post recently of mine
where I said that I had never bothered to get to the bottom of Nuxx's
problems with you because they were simply too long.

>People are allowed to killfile you.  People have killfiled me, with or
>without telling me.  That's their right.  Nym-shifting to evade the
>killfiles is just obnoxious.
>
Well if you _didn't_ tell me, I wouldn't know that I needed to change
my name in order to get myself across again, would I? :)

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 20:22:36 +0100, Aard  wrote:

>Fair enough, I'm happy to apologise where I get it wrong. Virgin told
>me they'd had a complaint and I assumed wrongly it was you.

Apology accepted.  A reasonable illustration, though, of a particular
problem: certain individuals have personalised matters so obsessively
that there is a tendency to believe that I am the only one affected or
annoyed by it.  A spate of socks taking pops at one of them was
strongly asserted to be me, but it wasn't.  I am not the sort of
person to say anything on Usenet - or elsewhere - that I would not put
my name to.

>I remember a particular instance of you
>having a pop at me over something, and finishing with <plonk>. I
>wanted to point out the errors in your pop, and changed my nym to do
>so

Message-ID?

>Along with others, you seem to think that the 'trolls' are in some
>sort of league together, when nothing could be further from the truth.
>I've never exchanged so much as an email with judith, or nuxx. I'm not
>trying to promote their opinions any more than they are mine, except
>of course where we agree. I still think that judith had something
>about a web page changing, and I agreed with her on that. Other than
>that, quite often we _disagree_ and there's a post recently of mine
>where I said that I had never bothered to get to the bottom of Nuxx's
>problems with you because they were simply too long.

I'm happy to hear that you are not colluding with them, but I suspect
that you may be missing the point: you gave the /appearance/ of
collusion in a particularly long-lasting and vicious campaign of
trolling.  When tempers are high and people are feeling bruised and
under siege, it is probably best to be careful when appearing to
support those responsible for the abuse.

Aside: Nuxx's argument goes like this: Paul Smith said that speed
cameras kill, therefore it is true.  Guy Chapman proved that his
statistics were bogus (<http://tinyurl.com/Smith-Bogus>), but because
Paul Smith said it, not only is it true, but /everybody knows it to be
true/.  Therefore Guy Chapman's proof that Smith's claim was bogus is
deliberate deceit and collusion in the murder of thousands.  Sorry if
you were looking for something rational.

Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 19:00:04 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

<snip>


>No ISP has told me any such thing.  And your scenario bears little
>resemblance to the trail of nym-shifting by judith (or indeed you).
>
>Guy

Oh dear oh dear.

Tell us about the time that you posted as Lou Knee and were caught
out.

Why do you not actually deny doing so?

Why are you so dishonest?


-- 


Vote NO to the proposed group uk.rec.cycling.moderated aka uk.rec.cycling.censored

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 21:12:54 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

<snip>

> I am not the sort of
>person to say anything on Usenet - or elsewhere - that I would not put
>my name to.

You are frankly a lying bastard.

Did you make the post as Lou Knee in order to call someone a shit?

--        
Guy Chapman nym-shifted to Lou Knee in order to call someone a shit.
He was caught out by the evidence of the IP address he used.
He has "implied" that it was not himself - but refuses to answer the simple question:
"Guy Chapman: Did you make the Lou Knee post?"
He is despicable - on this evidence you should not believe *anything* he says.

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 21:12:54 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:
>
>Message-ID?

I've searched but I can't find it. Can't remember the name I was
using. 
>
>>Along with others, you seem to think that the 'trolls' are in some
>>sort of league together, when nothing could be further from the truth.
>>I've never exchanged so much as an email with judith, or nuxx. I'm not
>>trying to promote their opinions any more than they are mine, except
>>of course where we agree. I still think that judith had something
>>about a web page changing, and I agreed with her on that. Other than
>>that, quite often we _disagree_ and there's a post recently of mine
>>where I said that I had never bothered to get to the bottom of Nuxx's
>>problems with you because they were simply too long.
>
>I'm happy to hear that you are not colluding with them, but I suspect
>that you may be missing the point: you gave the /appearance/ of
>collusion in a particularly long-lasting and vicious campaign of
>trolling.  When tempers are high and people are feeling bruised and
>under siege, it is probably best to be careful when appearing to
>support those responsible for the abuse.
>
What people read, over and above the literal words written, is
entirely up to them, and I can't be bothered to modify my style to
pacify anyone looking for a windmill to tote at. I agree with Nuxx
objecting to being labelled by you and at least one other as the
person responsible for your late night calls, when I don't believe you
have a shred of evidence that it _is_ him. If people want to accuse me
of being his 'pal' because of that, so be it - I'd rather be aligned
to him as the victim of that slur than one of those slinging rocks. I
read the fundamentals of judith's argument about your web page
changing, and on superficial reading it seemed to make more sense than
the implausible denials from you. Again, if that makes me her 'pal',
well I've got worse pals. There's an element of 'the enemy of my enemy
is my friend' in the reg's insistence of a league of trolls that just
doesn't bear any resemblance to fact, I'm afraid. I'd go further, but
I'm still burned from the last time you managed to solicit a carefully
constructed reply from me which you promptly ignored.

>Aside: Nuxx's argument goes like this: Paul Smith said that speed
>cameras kill, therefore it is true.  Guy Chapman proved that his
>statistics were bogus (<http://tinyurl.com/Smith-Bogus>), but because
>Paul Smith said it, not only is it true, but /everybody knows it to be
>true/.  Therefore Guy Chapman's proof that Smith's claim was bogus is
>deliberate deceit and collusion in the murder of thousands.  Sorry if
>you were looking for something rational.
>
I'm sure Nuxx would have a different spin, but like I said, it's too
long for me to bother trying to get to the bottom of. I do notice that
when things quieten a little in urc, it's not uncommon for you to have
a sly dig in the direction of one of those two posters just to stir
things up again.

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 22:03:16 +0100, Aard  wrote:

>I do notice that
>when things quieten a little in urc, it's not uncommon for you to have
>a sly dig in the direction of one of those two posters just to stir
>things up again. 

I've never noticed that, so it's certainly not deliberate.

Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 21:45:59 +0100, "Wm..."
 wrote:

>Fri, 31 Jul 2009 21:27:49  
>uk.net.news.config jms 
>
>>On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 21:12:54 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
>> wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>> I am not the sort of
>>>person to say anything on Usenet - or elsewhere - that I would not put
>>>my name to.
>>
>>You are frankly a lying bastard.
>>
>>Did you make the post as Lou Knee in order to call someone a shit?
>
>Listen carefully: uk.* as a whole does not care who Lou Knee was.
>
>Stop now.  You are embarrassing yourself.


I am responding to Chapman saying that he would not say something he
did not put his name to.

I am using the Lou Knee saga as an example to point out he is a lying
bastard.

I could have chosen any one of a number of examples - the Lou Knee one
is recent and a perfect example.

PS I don't need advice from a dishonest person like you.



-- 


Vote NO to the proposed group uk.rec.cycling.moderated aka uk.rec.cycling.censored

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 22:49:40 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 22:03:16 +0100, Aard  wrote:
>
>>I do notice that
>>when things quieten a little in urc, it's not uncommon for you to have
>>a sly dig in the direction of one of those two posters just to stir
>>things up again. 
>
>I've never noticed that, so it's certainly not deliberate.
>
>Guy


No of course not.

Why do you think regulars  kept telling you to stop poking people in
that fashion.

Do you think *they* were making it up?

-- 


Vote NO to the proposed group uk.rec.cycling.moderated aka uk.rec.cycling.censored

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 22:49:40 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 22:03:16 +0100, Aard  wrote:
>
>>I do notice that
>>when things quieten a little in urc, it's not uncommon for you to have
>>a sly dig in the direction of one of those two posters just to stir
>>things up again. 
>
>I've never noticed that, so it's certainly not deliberate.
>
You've done it _today_ ffs! In a subthread with nothing from judith,
you came out with something about extrapolating her post numbers
followed by "but do remember its not her thats got the problem, its
us"!!!

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 23:20:07 +0100, Aard  wrote:

>You've done it _today_ ffs! In a subthread with nothing from judith,
>you came out with something about extrapolating her post numbers
>followed by "but do remember its not her thats got the problem, its
>us"!!!

In response to this from Simon:

>I think it may be worth pointing out that despite all Judith's efforts
>I'm still the second most prolific poster to this group /ever/ - after
>Tony Raven.

So, entirely apposite and I was not the one who first brought up
judith in that subthread anyway.

Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 19:00:04 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

<snip>


>No ISP has told me any such thing.  And your scenario bears little
>resemblance to the trail of nym-shifting by judith (or indeed you).
>
>Guy


Ah yes - "nym-shifting" tell us about it.

A very simple question for you Guy:

"Did you make the  first post as Lou Knee?"

Why won't you answer  the question Guy?

Do you nym-shift?

Are you dishonest Guy?



-- 


Vote NO to the proposed group uk.rec.cycling.moderated aka uk.rec.cycling.censored

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 20:00:57 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 19:07:37 +0100, Aard  wrote:
>
>>>No ISP has told me any such thing.  
>>Funny, I got the impression from Virgin on the phone that they told
>>the complainer _why_ they rejected his/her complaint...
>
>I think you are mistaken as to the identity of the complainer - either
>that or it was a joe-job.  I can't find any trace of a message from or
>to Virgin Media and I think I'd know better than to complain to an ISP
>about something as trivial as nym-shifting.
>



Ho, ho ho, you are very funny.

Trivial?

I am sure you have previously tried to tell us how serious
nym-shifting was.

Oh yes - I recall - that was before you were caught out as Lou Knee -
wasn't it?

(Sorry .............. ? ............... forgot)


-- 
Show your non-acceptance of Ian Jackson as the proposed chief moderator of URCM and the use of his chiark system.
Vote against the formation of the group.