Discussion:
"Your actions speak louder than your lies" - Miz Anderson to Ray Haddad (was: Re: It Won't Be Long)
(too old to reply)
Sylvia
2007-09-03 05:32:22 UTC
Permalink
.
In other words, the stuff she writes wouldn't be allowed as
testimony in a court. Thank you for making that abundantly clear.
.
Sylvia's not appearing as a witness. She's a prosecuting attorney, and her
evidence is YOUR OWN TESTIMONY.
<...>
Sylvia guilty of the very "crime," dishonesty, with which she's
charged Ray -- something which one can't say of Sal Towse, John
Ashby, and the others who have concerned themselves with the actual
evidence.
No, that doesn't stick. I've not checked every one, but if you follow her
tinyurls and read the cited thread, you'll find the context tends to
aggravate the charge. You'll find, time after time, that he lies in order to
smear, slime, and belittle others. The most eggregious example I can think
of is Ray's 'charred remains' claim. Do you know why he said that? Why he
claimed to have casually chucked burned bits of his shipmates in a box,
while eating a nice, greasy burger? Because Davida poked fun at him, saying
he'd probably be too squeamish to change dirty nappies!
<...>

"Squeamish? My dear Davida, I have pulled burned bodies from
airplane crashes and gathered up pieces of same after a crash
on the flight deck of the USS Nimitz in 1980. I took a break
between body recovery for a burger or two." - Ray Haddad [1]

OK, Mr. Pillock--I believe that you are ready to know... he gets worse:


Miz Eliska: "any ideas on how to get rid of the smoke smell? I soaked
in bubble bath, washed with scented soap, slathered
myself with luscious lotion and I still smell smoke."

Ray Haddad: "Vicks Vapo-Rub (tm) works great."

Mr. Stan: "That's for long-dead, decomposing bodies, you twit."

Ray Haddad: "Isn't that what smoked meat is? Last time I looked
inside my smoker, that chicken, pork and beef
were long dead and I was aiding the decomposition
by smokin' those babies! Yum!"

[WARNING: Ray Haddad now goes from stupid/gross to mind-boggling
insensitive/disgusting]

Ray Haddad: "[...] I had the grave displeasure of having to remove a
few charred bodies from a military crash on the
flight deck of an aircraft carrier once. Those
guys were fresh but crispy. Vicks made all the
difference."

Mr. Stan: "I didn't read this." http://tinyurl.com/359tkc


"Blather on about how moral you are, it doesn't matter.
We aren't listening. Your actions speak louder than your lies."

-- Miz Anderson to Ray Haddad

[1] A Prime Example of Disgusting Motivation and Creation:

The Rise and Fall of Another "Heroic" Adventure:
Part I - Baby Poop to Body Parts
http://tinyurl.com/2o3s8l
--
Sylvia

"Anyone who has ever seen combat regrets any loss of life,
even those of the individuals who are sent to kill us."

-- Ray "Dancing on War Graves" Haddad

"ONLY 256 Americans WERE KILLED while more than 100,000
Iraqi soldiers WERE KILLED in Operation Desert Storm.

"I STILL DANCE WITH GLEE over that set of Iraqi statistics.
I LOVE them. I REVEL in them. I absolutely and unequivocally am
appreciative of them. I do not feel even one iota of regret for those
those Iraqi statistics. My only concern is that they may not be truly
correct regarding the numbers of Iraqi dead. I was pretty sure that
initial estimates placed it closer to 190,000 dead Iraqi soldiers."

-- Ray "Dancing on War Graves" Haddad
http://tinyurl.com/2ev3fd

"Dead Americans, particularly combatants, fill a need of the left.
Without them, the body count remains too low to gain any support
against the war." http://tinyurl.com/2wm7hu

-- Ray "Complete Lack of Conscience" Haddad

"Did you order your body bags? They're going cheap!"

-- The Death Glee of Ray Haddad, "Stolen Valor" Thief

"You're just the worst kind of insensitive idiot"

-- Ray "Order your body bags!" Haddad
(emphasis, mine)

"Blather on about how moral you are, it doesn't
matter. We aren't listening. Your actions speak
louder than your lies."

-- Miz Anderson to Ray Haddad
Ed
2007-09-06 10:54:24 UTC
Permalink
.
In other words, the stuff she writes wouldn't be allowed as
testimony in a court. Thank you for making that abundantly clear.
.
Sylvia's not appearing as a witness. She's a prosecuting attorney, and her
evidence is YOUR OWN TESTIMONY.
...and then what? Are you going to have him arrested? Put in jail?
Banned from the Internet?

No.

Even <if> Ray is lying about everything he's ever done, Sylvia's
reaction is so completely off the wall as to be considered
pathological stalking!

Are you on some major holy crusade for the "truth" or something? Did
Ray piss in your cornflakes or shoot your dog and steal your Bible?

I mean, seriously, what's the deal?
Ray Haddad
2007-09-06 11:12:02 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 03:54:24 -0700, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
Post by Ed
Even <if> Ray is lying about everything he's ever done, Sylvia's
reaction is so completely off the wall as to be considered
pathological stalking!
Are you on some major holy crusade for the "truth" or something? Did
Ray piss in your cornflakes or shoot your dog and steal your Bible?
I mean, seriously, what's the deal?
All the best on getting an answer, Ed. I've been asking the same
thing for months now. As yet, no reply. Just more of the same.
--
Ray
boots
2007-09-06 11:18:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray Haddad
On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 03:54:24 -0700, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
Post by Ed
Even <if> Ray is lying about everything he's ever done, Sylvia's
reaction is so completely off the wall as to be considered
pathological stalking!
Are you on some major holy crusade for the "truth" or something? Did
Ray piss in your cornflakes or shoot your dog and steal your Bible?
I mean, seriously, what's the deal?
All the best on getting an answer, Ed. I've been asking the same
thing for months now. As yet, no reply. Just more of the same.
As if you couldn't shut it down in an instant if you so chose.
--
The sane answer, to madness, is insanity.
Ray Haddad
2007-09-06 11:44:47 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 05:18:01 -0600, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
Post by boots
Post by Ray Haddad
On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 03:54:24 -0700, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
Post by Ed
Even <if> Ray is lying about everything he's ever done, Sylvia's
reaction is so completely off the wall as to be considered
pathological stalking!
Are you on some major holy crusade for the "truth" or something? Did
Ray piss in your cornflakes or shoot your dog and steal your Bible?
I mean, seriously, what's the deal?
All the best on getting an answer, Ed. I've been asking the same
thing for months now. As yet, no reply. Just more of the same.
As if you couldn't shut it down in an instant if you so chose.
Just how do you suggest that would happen?
--
Ray
John Ashby
2007-09-06 11:55:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray Haddad
On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 05:18:01 -0600, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
Post by boots
Post by Ray Haddad
On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 03:54:24 -0700, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
Post by Ed
Even <if> Ray is lying about everything he's ever done, Sylvia's
reaction is so completely off the wall as to be considered
pathological stalking!
Are you on some major holy crusade for the "truth" or something? Did
Ray piss in your cornflakes or shoot your dog and steal your Bible?
I mean, seriously, what's the deal?
All the best on getting an answer, Ed. I've been asking the same
thing for months now. As yet, no reply. Just more of the same.
As if you couldn't shut it down in an instant if you so chose.
Just how do you suggest that would happen?
--
Ray
I notice that your question is not "What do you suggest I should do?"
but puts the action outside yourself by a passive construction. This
indicates a level of denial consistent with your established persona.
You might like to reflect on that.

john
Ray Haddad
2007-09-06 12:05:03 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 12:55:01 +0100, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
Post by John Ashby
Post by Ray Haddad
On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 05:18:01 -0600, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
Post by boots
Post by Ray Haddad
On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 03:54:24 -0700, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
Post by Ed
Even <if> Ray is lying about everything he's ever done, Sylvia's
reaction is so completely off the wall as to be considered
pathological stalking!
Are you on some major holy crusade for the "truth" or something? Did
Ray piss in your cornflakes or shoot your dog and steal your Bible?
I mean, seriously, what's the deal?
All the best on getting an answer, Ed. I've been asking the same
thing for months now. As yet, no reply. Just more of the same.
As if you couldn't shut it down in an instant if you so chose.
Just how do you suggest that would happen?
--
Ray
I notice that your question is not "What do you suggest I should do?"
but puts the action outside yourself by a passive construction. This
indicates a level of denial consistent with your established persona.
You might like to reflect on that.
I've done nothing wrong, John. Why should I do anything?
--
Ray
Ray Haddad
2007-09-06 12:15:03 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 13:11:42 +0100, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
Post by Ray Haddad
On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 12:55:01 +0100, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
Post by John Ashby
Post by Ray Haddad
On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 05:18:01 -0600, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
Post by boots
Post by Ray Haddad
On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 03:54:24 -0700, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
Post by Ed
Even <if> Ray is lying about everything he's ever done, Sylvia's
reaction is so completely off the wall as to be considered
pathological stalking!
Are you on some major holy crusade for the "truth" or something?
Did Ray piss in your cornflakes or shoot your dog and steal your
Bible?
I mean, seriously, what's the deal?
All the best on getting an answer, Ed. I've been asking the same
thing for months now. As yet, no reply. Just more of the same.
As if you couldn't shut it down in an instant if you so chose.
Just how do you suggest that would happen?
I notice that your question is not "What do you suggest I should do?"
but puts the action outside yourself by a passive construction. This
indicates a level of denial consistent with your established persona.
You might like to reflect on that.
I've done nothing wrong, John. Why should I do anything?
White or Blue?
What's your game here?
--
Ray
John Ashby
2007-09-06 12:20:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray Haddad
On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 13:11:42 +0100, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
Post by Ray Haddad
On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 12:55:01 +0100, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
Post by John Ashby
Post by Ray Haddad
On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 05:18:01 -0600, I said, "Pick a card, any
Post by boots
Post by Ray Haddad
On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 03:54:24 -0700, I said, "Pick a card, any
Post by Ed
Even <if> Ray is lying about everything he's ever done, Sylvia's
reaction is so completely off the wall as to be considered
pathological stalking!
Are you on some major holy crusade for the "truth" or something?
Did Ray piss in your cornflakes or shoot your dog and steal your
Bible?
I mean, seriously, what's the deal?
All the best on getting an answer, Ed. I've been asking the same
thing for months now. As yet, no reply. Just more of the same.
As if you couldn't shut it down in an instant if you so chose.
Just how do you suggest that would happen?
I notice that your question is not "What do you suggest I should
do?" but puts the action outside yourself by a passive construction.
This indicates a level of denial consistent with your established
persona. You might like to reflect on that.
I've done nothing wrong, John. Why should I do anything?
White or Blue?
What's your game here?
No game at all. My suggestion that you consider your state of denial, by
which I mean deeply consider it, not just brush it off with "I've done
nothing wrong" is just that, a suggestion based on an interpretation of
your words honestly expressed. The reference to the two branches of
that famous psychobabbling river is a reinforcement of my opinion that
you are indeed in a state of denial.

Boring but true.

john
Ray Haddad
2007-09-07 02:35:16 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 00:16:46 GMT, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
Ok, how have you "downplayed" your claim that you participated in a
bombing campaign that never happened? Or, your claim that you had photos
proving the ugly lies you leveled at Sylvia and me?
I have never downplayed anything. Sylvia is the one who stated that
I actually participated in flying over Hanoi. I did, however,
witness the planes leaving fully loaded with bombs and returning
empty. Their mission? Select targets around Hanoi. The date? A few
days after Nixon resigned. Your pal Sylvia is knowingly lying. I am
simply giving witness to what happened. You are free to believe it
or not.

As to the other incident, I have lived up to my promise not to
mention it any more. You, however . . .
--
Ray
Stan (the Man)
2007-09-07 10:46:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray Haddad
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 00:16:46 GMT, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
Ok, how have you "downplayed" your claim that you participated in a
bombing campaign that never happened? Or, your claim that you had
photos proving the ugly lies you leveled at Sylvia and me?
I have never downplayed anything.
"I have downplayed some descriptions for the sake of those
who don't wish to read all the gory details." -- You, one post up

Sylvia is the one who stated that
Post by Ray Haddad
I actually participated in flying over Hanoi.
*You* stated, "We flew . . . ." That indicates at least some level of
participation. Are you now saying you did not participate in any way in
that bombing campaign that never happened.

I did, however,
Post by Ray Haddad
witness the planes leaving fully loaded with bombs and returning
empty. Their mission? Select targets around Hanoi. The date? A few
days after Nixon resigned. Your pal Sylvia is knowingly lying. I am
simply giving witness to what happened. You are free to believe it
or not.
Not. Nor does anyone believe it, save the naive idiot who believes your
lie to be "plausible." It never happened. And, I note that you're *now*
attempting to downplay what you said, which was that planes from the USS
Ranger conducted an extended (was it monthlong?) bombing campaign of
Hanoi and Haiphong harbor.
Post by Ray Haddad
As to the other incident, I have lived up to my promise not to
mention it any more. You, however . . .
I will, however continue to smack you with that particularly odious lie.
You're a liar, Ray. An especially repulsive liar.

--
Stan
Ray Haddad
2007-09-07 18:08:24 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 10:46:50 GMT, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
Post by Stan (the Man)
Post by Ray Haddad
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 00:16:46 GMT, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
Ok, how have you "downplayed" your claim that you participated in a
bombing campaign that never happened? Or, your claim that you had
photos proving the ugly lies you leveled at Sylvia and me?
I have never downplayed anything.
"I have downplayed some descriptions for the sake of those
who don't wish to read all the gory details." -- You, one post up
Specifically about the bombing, no. I did not downplay. Other
things, yes. Downplayed for the sake of the weak. Like you, Stan.
Post by Stan (the Man)
Sylvia is the one who stated that
Post by Ray Haddad
I actually participated in flying over Hanoi.
*You* stated, "We flew . . . ." That indicates at least some level of
participation. Are you now saying you did not participate in any way in
that bombing campaign that never happened.
I am making this clear for you, Stan. Take a deep breath and read
carefully. I did NOT fly the planes myself or fly in them. The word
"we" refers to being part of a crew on a military ship that did the
deed.
Post by Stan (the Man)
I did, however,
Post by Ray Haddad
witness the planes leaving fully loaded with bombs and returning
empty. Their mission? Select targets around Hanoi. The date? A few
days after Nixon resigned. Your pal Sylvia is knowingly lying. I am
simply giving witness to what happened. You are free to believe it
or not.
Not. Nor does anyone believe it, save the naive idiot who believes your
lie to be "plausible." It never happened. And, I note that you're *now*
attempting to downplay what you said, which was that planes from the USS
Ranger conducted an extended (was it monthlong?) bombing campaign of
Hanoi and Haiphong harbor.
Now don't get caught in the Sylvia trap, Stan. We drew combat pay
for two months. I never claimed that we bombed anyone for two
months. That'd be Sylvia's work again. See how easily you swallow
her lies? Shame on you.
Post by Stan (the Man)
Post by Ray Haddad
As to the other incident, I have lived up to my promise not to
mention it any more. You, however . . .
I will, however continue to smack you with that particularly odious lie.
You're a liar, Ray. An especially repulsive liar.
I didn't lie.
--
Ray
Stan (the Man)
2007-09-07 18:29:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray Haddad
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 10:46:50 GMT, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
Post by Stan (the Man)
Post by Ray Haddad
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 00:16:46 GMT, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
Ok, how have you "downplayed" your claim that you participated in a
bombing campaign that never happened? Or, your claim that you had
photos proving the ugly lies you leveled at Sylvia and me?
I have never downplayed anything.
"I have downplayed some descriptions for the sake of those
who don't wish to read all the gory details." -- You, one post up
Specifically about the bombing, no. I did not downplay. Other
things, yes. Downplayed for the sake of the weak. Like you, Stan.
Post by Stan (the Man)
Sylvia is the one who stated that
Post by Ray Haddad
I actually participated in flying over Hanoi.
*You* stated, "We flew . . . ." That indicates at least some level of
participation. Are you now saying you did not participate in any way in
that bombing campaign that never happened.
I am making this clear for you, Stan. Take a deep breath and read
carefully. I did NOT fly the planes myself or fly in them. The word
"we" refers to being part of a crew on a military ship that did the
deed.
As I said, "We flew . . ." indicates some level of participation. So,
you are claiming to have been a part of a crew of a ship that took part
in a bombing of Hanoi and Haiphong in 1974 that never happened. Got it.
No bombing of Hanoi or Haiphong happened in 1974. You've had ample
opportunity to claim you made a mistake on the dates, yet have
steadfastly insisted that planes from the USS Ranger conducted bombings
that no one other than you ever knew about, including people who lived
in Hanoi at the time and presumably would've been aware that they were
being bombed. You're a liar, Ray.
Post by Ray Haddad
Post by Stan (the Man)
I did, however,
Post by Ray Haddad
witness the planes leaving fully loaded with bombs and returning
empty. Their mission? Select targets around Hanoi. The date? A few
days after Nixon resigned. Your pal Sylvia is knowingly lying. I am
simply giving witness to what happened. You are free to believe it
or not.
Not. Nor does anyone believe it, save the naive idiot who believes your
lie to be "plausible." It never happened. And, I note that you're *now*
attempting to downplay what you said, which was that planes from the USS
Ranger conducted an extended (was it monthlong?) bombing campaign of
Hanoi and Haiphong harbor.
Now don't get caught in the Sylvia trap, Stan. We drew combat pay
for two months. I never claimed that we bombed anyone for two
months. That'd be Sylvia's work again. See how easily you swallow
her lies? Shame on you.
I didn't say you claimed to have bombed Hanoi for two months. I said you
claimed an extended campaign, asking parenthetically if it was a month.
You, in fact, claimed it went on for 2-weeks. It didn't happen at all.
So, regardless of whether you claimed the bombing lasted for 2-months,
2-weeks or 2-minutes, you're a liar. It never happened.
Post by Ray Haddad
Post by Stan (the Man)
Post by Ray Haddad
As to the other incident, I have lived up to my promise not to
mention it any more. You, however . . .
I will, however continue to smack you with that particularly odious lie.
You're a liar, Ray. An especially repulsive liar.
I didn't lie.
You did. You continue to do so. You're scum, Ray, a lying, nauseating
pusbag.

--
Stan
Ray Haddad
2007-09-07 18:49:53 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 14:29:42 -0400, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
Ray
You aren't worthy of addressing me. Go hide behind your skirt.
--
Ray
Stan (the Man)
2007-09-07 19:02:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray Haddad
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 14:29:42 -0400, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
Ray
You aren't worthy of addressing me. Go hide behind your skirt.
As I've noted and will continue to note, you're a lying, nauseating pusbag.

--
Stan
Andrw
2007-09-07 21:35:43 UTC
Permalink
snip
Post by Stan (the Man)
As I said, "We flew . . ." indicates some level of participation. So,
err no - we flew to spain - meaning me and my famlily flew to spain on a
plane -
having no part in the crew, just a passenger - .......... nob

sorry but some people on here really read tooo much into things and make it
up. ..... nobs

<change of subject>

does sylvia have ginger hair then? :-p

Andrw
Sylvia
2007-09-14 20:46:11 UTC
Permalink
<...>
Post by Ray Haddad
Post by Ray Haddad
Sylvia is the one who stated that
Post by Ray Haddad
I actually participated in flying over Hanoi.
"Yes, we were. We drew two months of combat pay and flew
over Hanoi and Haiphong Harbor daily for a few weeks.
We did bomb selected targets. USS Ranger air wing planes
were involved." -- Ray Haddad http://tinyurl.com/3xwa94
Post by Ray Haddad
Post by Ray Haddad
*You* stated, "We flew . . . ." That indicates at least some level of
participation. Are you now saying you did not participate in any way in
that bombing campaign that never happened.
.
Post by Ray Haddad
I am making this clear for you, Stan. Take a deep breath and read
carefully. I did NOT fly the planes myself or fly in them. The word
"we" refers to being part of a crew on a military ship that did the
deed.
"You sound like John Kerry now.

"Kerry: We all committed atrocities over there in Vietnam.
Oh, wait. I meant that to mean a figurative 'we.' The OTHER
Swift Boat sailors are the 'we' part. Not me. I'm not part of
that 'we' to which I referred."

-- Ray Haddad, Lying Weasel & Stolen Valor Thief
http://tinyurl.com/2yw5j3
Post by Ray Haddad
Post by Ray Haddad
Post by Ray Haddad
I did, however, witness the planes leaving fully loaded with bombs
and returning empty. Their mission? Select targets around Hanoi.
The date? A few days after Nixon resigned. Your pal Sylvia is
knowingly lying.
Riiiight... it's a petite conspiracy just between me and the REST of the
WORLD.

"I also have, to my surprise, found no reference to it on the
Internet. I have registered and paid for a FOIA (Freedom of
Information Act) request to the US Navy historical archives
for information on that."

-- Ray Haddad in MW APRIL 8 2007
http://tinyurl.com/28hny7
<...>
Post by Ray Haddad
Now don't get caught in the Sylvia trap, Stan. We drew combat pay
for two months. I never claimed that we bombed anyone for two
months. That'd be Sylvia's work again. See how easily you swallow
her lies? Shame on you.
<...>

<laughing> Ray Haddad drew combat pay as he "flew over Hanoi and
Haiphong Harbor daily", just taking in the sights. Suuuure, The Navy
would send fighter planes on two months straight of *daily* round trips
of 800-900 miles just to cruise Hanoi with an occasional bombing of the
city... in a country we were no longer at not war with. And, no one
noticed. Not even the crew of the USS Ranger...

See, Haddad, as I mentioned a couple of times before, the Western
Pacific Ocean encompasses a huge area, and it turns out that I was
correct that the USS Ranger *was* busy movin' about it during that time
period, not parked in one spot at war as you and yer enablers claimed:

"USS RANGER Command History Report for 1974: Port Visits "

"Deployment Dates: 7 May 1974- 18 October 1974
"[...]
In-port, Subic Bay 23 Jul 1974 - 5 Aug 1974
In-port, Hong Kong 12 Aug 1974 - 18 Aug 1974
In-port, Subic Bay 21 Aug 1974 - 30 Aug 1974
In-port, Subic Bay 17 Sep 1974 - 28 Sep 1974
In port, Pearl Harbor 11-12 Oct 1974 " [1]

NOTE: Subic Bay Naval Repair Facility is in the Philippines, near
Manila, and combat pay is *not* required to be there.

Distance from Manila to Hanoi: 1,751 kilometers/1,088 miles
Distance from Hong Kong to Hanoi: 865 kilometers/538 miles

Ray Haddad, Stolen Valor Thief, it's disgusting that you think nothing
of smearing the reputation of the USS Ranger, her crew, the US Navy, and
the entire United States... just so you and Joshua P. Hill,
Steve/"fundoc", and yer other toadies and enablers can bolster your
stupid, pathetic fantasy life.

"Just because you can't find evidence on the web doesn't mean
you are correct and I am not. [...] If what I remember is wrong,
I will admit it. For now, all I have to go on is that memory and
the positive link to Nixon's date of resignation."

-- Ray Haddad http://tinyurl.com/3dw72t

I *am* correct, Haddad. I was *always* correct. You were *never* there.
The USS Ranger never participated in bombing Hanoi. You LIED. I suspect
we'll be waitin' a looooong time for you to admit that, huh?

And, just to save time:

[This space reserved for Haddad's enablers to claim that Miz Sylvia
is lying about Ray Haddad because this doesn't prove that Haddad never
step foot on Apollo 13.]

[ This space reserved for Steve/"fundoc" to repeatedly show off his
ability to spell the word "cunt", pretend to be a lawyer, accuse Miz
Sylvia of "manipulating" Haddad's words so that it only appears that he
claimed to have anything to do with the USS Ranger or Hanoi or Vietnam,
and to say that only stupid people wouldn't realize that by "daily",
Haddad obviously meant "never". ]

[ This space reserved for Ed Rhodes to declare that Miz
Sylvia's disproving Ray Haddad's cited (and repeated) bragging lies
about participating in a bombing murder spree of innocent civilians
should be "be considered pathological stalking!" on *her* part. ]

[ This space reserved for Sal towse to flip flop again about
Haddad's lies... and to add a cowardly little straw man weasel lie aimed
at Miz Sylvia ]

[ John Ashby to pointedly ignore what Miz Sylvia actually wrote
and back up Sal towse's cowardly little straw man weasel lie aimed at
Miz Sylvia--while expounding his self-perceived fairness and logic. ]

[ This space reserved for gekko to explain that it's not that
Ray Haddad lied, but that Miz Sylvia purposely never bothered to
consider the other possible definitions of the words "hurricane",
"children", "Hanoi", "deferment", "1974", "Saigon", "replying",
"attack", "diapers", "charred bodies", "crispy", "shipmates",
"hamburgers", "snogging", "we", "flew","daily", "bombed", "US Navy",
"Yankee Station", etc., or what *someone* gekko knows once told her in
2006. ]

[ This space reserved for Jackson Pillock to, again, chastise Miz
Sylvia for telling the lies about Haddad that Steve/"fundoc assured him
that she did. ]

[ This space reserved for Burr to add something that appears to
be, more or less, written in English, but yet remains totally
indecipherable. ]

"there are two types of mwers. those who continue
to defend and enable Ray Haddad, and those with
self-respect (and a sense of decency)."

-- Mr. $Zero
--
Sylvia

[1] Carrier Port Visits during Deployments to Vietnam, 1964-1975
Naval Aviation History Office, Naval Warfare Division
http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org4-6.htm

Recommended Reading:

The Rise and Fall of Another "Heroic" Adventure:
Part I - Baby Poop to Body Parts http://tinyurl.com/2o3s8l

HISTORY vs. RAY HADDAD, the Lying, Malicious, Slimy, Snipping VALOR
THIEF : Part I -- Bombing Hanoi in 1974
http://tinyurl.com/38h66e

"RAY HADDAD: A Busy Little (US Navy) Bee"
http://tinyurl.com/39lzt6
John Ashby
2007-09-14 22:41:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia
<...>
Post by Ray Haddad
Post by Ray Haddad
Sylvia is the one who stated that
Post by Ray Haddad
I actually participated in flying over Hanoi.
"Yes, we were. We drew two months of combat pay and flew
over Hanoi and Haiphong Harbor daily for a few weeks.
We did bomb selected targets. USS Ranger air wing planes
were involved." -- Ray Haddad http://tinyurl.com/3xwa94
Post by Ray Haddad
Post by Ray Haddad
*You* stated, "We flew . . . ." That indicates at least some level of
participation. Are you now saying you did not participate in any way in
that bombing campaign that never happened.
.
Post by Ray Haddad
I am making this clear for you, Stan. Take a deep breath and read
carefully. I did NOT fly the planes myself or fly in them. The word
"we" refers to being part of a crew on a military ship that did the
deed.
"You sound like John Kerry now.
"Kerry: We all committed atrocities over there in Vietnam.
Oh, wait. I meant that to mean a figurative 'we.' The OTHER
Swift Boat sailors are the 'we' part. Not me. I'm not part of
that 'we' to which I referred."
-- Ray Haddad, Lying Weasel & Stolen Valor Thief
http://tinyurl.com/2yw5j3
Post by Ray Haddad
Post by Ray Haddad
Post by Ray Haddad
I did, however, witness the planes leaving fully loaded with bombs
and returning empty. Their mission? Select targets around Hanoi.
The date? A few days after Nixon resigned. Your pal Sylvia is
knowingly lying.
Riiiight... it's a petite conspiracy just between me and the REST of the
WORLD.
"I also have, to my surprise, found no reference to it on the
Internet. I have registered and paid for a FOIA (Freedom of
Information Act) request to the US Navy historical archives
for information on that."
-- Ray Haddad in MW APRIL 8 2007
http://tinyurl.com/28hny7
<...>
Post by Ray Haddad
Now don't get caught in the Sylvia trap, Stan. We drew combat pay
for two months. I never claimed that we bombed anyone for two
months. That'd be Sylvia's work again. See how easily you swallow
her lies? Shame on you.
<...>
<laughing> Ray Haddad drew combat pay as he "flew over Hanoi and
Haiphong Harbor daily", just taking in the sights. Suuuure, The Navy
would send fighter planes on two months straight of *daily* round trips
of 800-900 miles just to cruise Hanoi with an occasional bombing of the
city... in a country we were no longer at not war with. And, no one
noticed. Not even the crew of the USS Ranger...
See, Haddad, as I mentioned a couple of times before, the Western
Pacific Ocean encompasses a huge area, and it turns out that I was
correct that the USS Ranger *was* busy movin' about it during that time
"USS RANGER Command History Report for 1974: Port Visits "
"Deployment Dates: 7 May 1974- 18 October 1974
"[...]
In-port, Subic Bay 23 Jul 1974 - 5 Aug 1974
In-port, Hong Kong 12 Aug 1974 - 18 Aug 1974
In-port, Subic Bay 21 Aug 1974 - 30 Aug 1974
In-port, Subic Bay 17 Sep 1974 - 28 Sep 1974
In port, Pearl Harbor 11-12 Oct 1974 " [1]
NOTE: Subic Bay Naval Repair Facility is in the Philippines, near
Manila, and combat pay is *not* required to be there.
Distance from Manila to Hanoi: 1,751 kilometers/1,088 miles
Distance from Hong Kong to Hanoi: 865 kilometers/538 miles
Ray Haddad, Stolen Valor Thief, it's disgusting that you think nothing
of smearing the reputation of the USS Ranger, her crew, the US Navy, and
the entire United States... just so you and Joshua P. Hill,
Steve/"fundoc", and yer other toadies and enablers can bolster your
stupid, pathetic fantasy life.
"Just because you can't find evidence on the web doesn't mean
you are correct and I am not. [...] If what I remember is wrong,
I will admit it. For now, all I have to go on is that memory and
the positive link to Nixon's date of resignation."
-- Ray Haddad http://tinyurl.com/3dw72t
I *am* correct, Haddad. I was *always* correct. You were *never* there.
The USS Ranger never participated in bombing Hanoi. You LIED. I suspect
we'll be waitin' a looooong time for you to admit that, huh?
[This space reserved for Haddad's enablers to claim that Miz Sylvia
is lying about Ray Haddad because this doesn't prove that Haddad never
step foot on Apollo 13.]
[ This space reserved for Steve/"fundoc" to repeatedly show off his
ability to spell the word "cunt", pretend to be a lawyer, accuse Miz
Sylvia of "manipulating" Haddad's words so that it only appears that he
claimed to have anything to do with the USS Ranger or Hanoi or Vietnam,
and to say that only stupid people wouldn't realize that by "daily",
Haddad obviously meant "never". ]
[ This space reserved for Ed Rhodes to declare that Miz
Sylvia's disproving Ray Haddad's cited (and repeated) bragging lies
about participating in a bombing murder spree of innocent civilians
should be "be considered pathological stalking!" on *her* part. ]
[ This space reserved for Sal towse to flip flop again about
Haddad's lies... and to add a cowardly little straw man weasel lie aimed
at Miz Sylvia ]
and back up Sal towse's cowardly little straw man weasel lie aimed at
Miz Sylvia--while expounding his self-perceived fairness and logic. ]
This document does prima facie contradict the events stated by and insisted
upon by Ray. One has to ask what the operational range for bombing raids
from a carrier would be, and the steaming speed of a carrier to reach a
point from which such raids could be launched - I don't know the answers,
but my guess based on carrier deployments in recent conflicts would have
been that there would not be sufficient time in the one or two week sea-time
sessions. However looking at the distance from Pearl Harbor to Manila that
was covered in two weeks in May/June, I could be underestimating. Why keep
popping back into port? Was it so they could drop down the shops? - 2000
loaves of bread, 6000 pints of milk and 8000 HE bombs please, Mr Arkwright.
Oh, and before you start accusing me of accusing you of lying, that's
flippancy.

As I say, prima facie it looks bad. Any comments, Ray?

john
boots
2007-09-06 12:19:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray Haddad
On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 05:18:01 -0600, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
Post by boots
Post by Ray Haddad
On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 03:54:24 -0700, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
Post by Ed
Even <if> Ray is lying about everything he's ever done, Sylvia's
reaction is so completely off the wall as to be considered
pathological stalking!
Are you on some major holy crusade for the "truth" or something? Did
Ray piss in your cornflakes or shoot your dog and steal your Bible?
I mean, seriously, what's the deal?
All the best on getting an answer, Ed. I've been asking the same
thing for months now. As yet, no reply. Just more of the same.
As if you couldn't shut it down in an instant if you so chose.
Just how do you suggest that would happen?
Perhaps you could fall on your head and remain in a coma for long
enough that the miasma disperses, rather than carefully stoking the
fire so that you may complain about the heat.
--
The sane answer, to madness, is insanity.
Ray Haddad
2007-09-06 23:02:41 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 06:19:11 -0600, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
Post by boots
Post by Ray Haddad
On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 05:18:01 -0600, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
Post by boots
Post by Ray Haddad
On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 03:54:24 -0700, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
Post by Ed
Even <if> Ray is lying about everything he's ever done, Sylvia's
reaction is so completely off the wall as to be considered
pathological stalking!
Are you on some major holy crusade for the "truth" or something? Did
Ray piss in your cornflakes or shoot your dog and steal your Bible?
I mean, seriously, what's the deal?
All the best on getting an answer, Ed. I've been asking the same
thing for months now. As yet, no reply. Just more of the same.
As if you couldn't shut it down in an instant if you so chose.
Just how do you suggest that would happen?
Perhaps you could fall on your head and remain in a coma for long
enough that the miasma disperses, rather than carefully stoking the
fire so that you may complain about the heat.
You think I have chosen this? Would you?
--
Ray
Alan Hope
2007-09-07 08:13:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by boots
Post by Ray Haddad
On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 03:54:24 -0700, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
Post by Ed
Even <if> Ray is lying about everything he's ever done, Sylvia's
reaction is so completely off the wall as to be considered
pathological stalking!
Are you on some major holy crusade for the "truth" or something? Did
Ray piss in your cornflakes or shoot your dog and steal your Bible?
I mean, seriously, what's the deal?
All the best on getting an answer, Ed. I've been asking the same
thing for months now. As yet, no reply. Just more of the same.
As if you couldn't shut it down in an instant if you so chose.
Never mind. It'll all fizzle out into nothing when that FOIA package
comes through.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
boots
2007-09-06 11:15:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed
.
In other words, the stuff she writes wouldn't be allowed as
testimony in a court. Thank you for making that abundantly clear.
.
Sylvia's not appearing as a witness. She's a prosecuting attorney, and her
evidence is YOUR OWN TESTIMONY.
...and then what? Are you going to have him arrested? Put in jail?
Banned from the Internet?
No.
Even <if> Ray is lying about everything he's ever done, Sylvia's
reaction is so completely off the wall as to be considered
pathological stalking!
Are you on some major holy crusade for the "truth" or something? Did
Ray piss in your cornflakes or shoot your dog and steal your Bible?
I mean, seriously, what's the deal?
I think perhaps Ray once mentioned that he adores the taste of roast
parrot, them's feud words to Sylvia.

Sometimes sock puppets get out of hand when the fingers are bored,
then it's the same old drivel again and again; if they've descended on
your nosegropes the best you can do is prolly just to skip past those
messages and get on with yer day. Skip past mine too, I shouldn't
spend time replying to crossposted messages, I have important stuff to
get done... here somewhere...

Or given the names of the nosegropes in question, maybe you fellers
could whip some magick on Sylvia's skanky ass and make her go "poof",
that would be a compassionate service performed to the benefit of all
and sundry. Good luck, keep yer wands stiff, etc.
--
The sane answer, to madness, is insanity.
Ed
2007-09-07 03:45:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by boots
Post by Ed
.
In other words, the stuff she writes wouldn't be allowed as
testimony in a court. Thank you for making that abundantly clear.
.
Sylvia's not appearing as a witness. She's a prosecuting attorney, and her
evidence is YOUR OWN TESTIMONY.
...and then what? Are you going to have him arrested? Put in jail?
Banned from the Internet?
No.
Even <if> Ray is lying about everything he's ever done, Sylvia's
reaction is so completely off the wall as to be considered
pathological stalking!
Are you on some major holy crusade for the "truth" or something? Did
Ray piss in your cornflakes or shoot your dog and steal your Bible?
I mean, seriously, what's the deal?
I think perhaps Ray once mentioned that he adores the taste of roast
parrot, them's feud words to Sylvia.
Well, gotta go with Sylvia on that one. Roast parrot's way too stringy.
Stan (the Man)
2007-09-06 12:15:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed
.
In other words, the stuff she writes wouldn't be allowed as
testimony in a court. Thank you for making that abundantly clear.
.
Sylvia's not appearing as a witness. She's a prosecuting
attorney, and her evidence is YOUR OWN TESTIMONY.
...and then what? Are you going to have him arrested? Put in jail?
Banned from the Internet?
No.
Even <if> Ray is lying about everything he's ever done, Sylvia's
reaction is so completely off the wall as to be considered
pathological stalking!
Are you on some major holy crusade for the "truth" or something? Did
Ray piss in your cornflakes or shoot your dog and steal your Bible?
I mean, seriously, what's the deal?
Ray has gone beyond simply lying about a so-called "military career." He
has attempted to take for his own the honor earned by others. And, for
no other reason than the fact that people outed him as a repulsive liar,
he attempted to take his revenge by attempting to smear with lies the
real life reputations of two of the people who did so. That's the deal.

--
Stan
Ray Haddad
2007-09-06 23:04:19 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 12:15:20 GMT, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
Post by Stan (the Man)
Ray has gone beyond simply lying about a so-called "military career." He
has attempted to take for his own the honor earned by others.
Now, there's the biggest whopper ever told by anyone here on MW,
Stan. YOUR lie is blatant. You can't even prove you were ever in the
service of our country, you sleaze.
--
Ray
Alan Hope
2007-09-07 08:14:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed
Even <if> Ray is lying about everything he's ever done, Sylvia's
reaction is so completely off the wall as to be considered
pathological stalking!
How is it stalking to post in a newsgroup?
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
Ed
2007-09-07 10:16:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Hope
Post by Ed
Even <if> Ray is lying about everything he's ever done, Sylvia's
reaction is so completely off the wall as to be considered
pathological stalking!
How is it stalking to post in a newsgroup?
We've got threads here that are almost all Sylvia. She'll have three
or four posts going with no one else interacting.

She posts long diatribes. Rambling discourses that almost rival Jack
Keuroac (sp).

There's a frightening, shrill tenor to her posts which borders on
pathological.

Obviously, this is not "physical" stalking, but it's still not healthy.
boots
2007-09-07 11:10:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed
Post by Alan Hope
Post by Ed
Even <if> Ray is lying about everything he's ever done, Sylvia's
reaction is so completely off the wall as to be considered
pathological stalking!
How is it stalking to post in a newsgroup?
We've got threads here that are almost all Sylvia. She'll have three
or four posts going with no one else interacting.
She posts long diatribes. Rambling discourses that almost rival Jack
Keuroac (sp).
There's a frightening, shrill tenor to her posts which borders on
pathological.
Obviously, this is not "physical" stalking, but it's still not healthy.
Sylvia's a sock who's under 3 feet tall and keeps a parrot, wtf do you
expect?
--
The sane answer, to madness, is insanity.
Alan Hope
2007-09-07 20:36:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by boots
Post by Ed
Post by Alan Hope
Post by Ed
Even <if> Ray is lying about everything he's ever done, Sylvia's
reaction is so completely off the wall as to be considered
pathological stalking!
How is it stalking to post in a newsgroup?
We've got threads here that are almost all Sylvia. She'll have three
or four posts going with no one else interacting.
She posts long diatribes. Rambling discourses that almost rival Jack
Keuroac (sp).
There's a frightening, shrill tenor to her posts which borders on
pathological.
Obviously, this is not "physical" stalking, but it's still not healthy.
Sylvia's a sock who's under 3 feet tall and keeps a parrot, wtf do you
expect?
If something borders on pathological, then surely it's not
pathological, in the way that the countries that border on France are
none of them France?

So what is this k00k saying: a thing that is not pathological is still
unhealthy? So what does he think pathological means?
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
Josh Hill
2007-09-07 21:23:09 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 22:36:23 +0200, Alan Hope
Post by Alan Hope
Post by boots
Post by Ed
Post by Alan Hope
Post by Ed
Even <if> Ray is lying about everything he's ever done, Sylvia's
reaction is so completely off the wall as to be considered
pathological stalking!
How is it stalking to post in a newsgroup?
We've got threads here that are almost all Sylvia. She'll have three
or four posts going with no one else interacting.
She posts long diatribes. Rambling discourses that almost rival Jack
Keuroac (sp).
There's a frightening, shrill tenor to her posts which borders on
pathological.
Obviously, this is not "physical" stalking, but it's still not healthy.
Sylvia's a sock who's under 3 feet tall and keeps a parrot, wtf do you
expect?
If something borders on pathological, then surely it's not
pathological, in the way that the countries that border on France are
none of them France?
So what is this k00k saying: a thing that is not pathological is still
unhealthy? So what does he think pathological means?
He's saying it's so close to France he can smell the croissants.
--
Josh

"This keeps out the stalkers, the obsessed, the dysfunctional, the abusive, and
the general, all-around jerks who get off on turning a group so toxic that nobody's
left after a while but the person and some of his associates or collaborators.
It's the slow poisoning of a group." - J. Michael Straczynski
Jackson Pillock
2007-09-07 22:04:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Josh Hill
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 22:36:23 +0200, Alan Hope
Post by Alan Hope
Post by boots
Post by Ed
Post by Alan Hope
Post by Ed
Even <if> Ray is lying about everything he's ever done, Sylvia's
reaction is so completely off the wall as to be considered
pathological stalking!
How is it stalking to post in a newsgroup?
We've got threads here that are almost all Sylvia. She'll have three
or four posts going with no one else interacting.
She posts long diatribes. Rambling discourses that almost rival Jack
Keuroac (sp).
There's a frightening, shrill tenor to her posts which borders on
pathological.
Obviously, this is not "physical" stalking, but it's still not healthy.
Sylvia's a sock who's under 3 feet tall and keeps a parrot, wtf do you
expect?
If something borders on pathological, then surely it's not
pathological, in the way that the countries that border on France are
none of them France?
So what is this k00k saying: a thing that is not pathological is still
unhealthy? So what does he think pathological means?
He's saying it's so close to France he can smell the croissants.
But they have croissants in other countries too, so...
Post by Josh Hill
--
Josh
"This keeps out the stalkers, the obsessed, the dysfunctional, the abusive, and
the general, all-around jerks who get off on turning a group so toxic that nobody's
left after a while but the person and some of his associates or collaborators.
It's the slow poisoning of a group." - J. Michael Straczynski
Josh Hill
2007-09-08 20:36:12 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 7 Sep 2007 23:04:48 +0100, "Jackson Pillock"
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Josh Hill
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 22:36:23 +0200, Alan Hope
Post by Alan Hope
Post by boots
Post by Ed
Post by Alan Hope
Post by Ed
Even <if> Ray is lying about everything he's ever done, Sylvia's
reaction is so completely off the wall as to be considered
pathological stalking!
How is it stalking to post in a newsgroup?
We've got threads here that are almost all Sylvia. She'll have three
or four posts going with no one else interacting.
She posts long diatribes. Rambling discourses that almost rival Jack
Keuroac (sp).
There's a frightening, shrill tenor to her posts which borders on
pathological.
Obviously, this is not "physical" stalking, but it's still not healthy.
Sylvia's a sock who's under 3 feet tall and keeps a parrot, wtf do you
expect?
If something borders on pathological, then surely it's not
pathological, in the way that the countries that border on France are
none of them France?
So what is this k00k saying: a thing that is not pathological is still
unhealthy? So what does he think pathological means?
He's saying it's so close to France he can smell the croissants.
But they have croissants in other countries too, so...
They're odorless croissants.
--
Josh

"This keeps out the stalkers, the obsessed, the dysfunctional, the abusive, and
the general, all-around jerks who get off on turning a group so toxic that nobody's
left after a while but the person and some of his associates or collaborators.
It's the slow poisoning of a group." - J. Michael Straczynski
Ed
2007-09-08 03:42:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Josh Hill
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 22:36:23 +0200, Alan Hope
Post by Alan Hope
Post by boots
Post by Ed
Post by Alan Hope
Post by Ed
Even <if> Ray is lying about everything he's ever done, Sylvia's
reaction is so completely off the wall as to be considered
pathological stalking!
How is it stalking to post in a newsgroup?
We've got threads here that are almost all Sylvia. She'll have three
or four posts going with no one else interacting.
She posts long diatribes. Rambling discourses that almost rival Jack
Keuroac (sp).
There's a frightening, shrill tenor to her posts which borders on
pathological.
Obviously, this is not "physical" stalking, but it's still not healthy.
Sylvia's a sock who's under 3 feet tall and keeps a parrot, wtf do you
expect?
If something borders on pathological, then surely it's not
pathological, in the way that the countries that border on France are
none of them France?
So what is this k00k saying: a thing that is not pathological is still
unhealthy? So what does he think pathological means?
He's saying it's so close to France he can smell the croissants.
--
Josh
The croissants if you're <lucky!>
Ed
2007-09-08 03:41:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Hope
Post by boots
Post by Ed
Post by Alan Hope
Post by Ed
Even <if> Ray is lying about everything he's ever done, Sylvia's
reaction is so completely off the wall as to be considered
pathological stalking!
How is it stalking to post in a newsgroup?
We've got threads here that are almost all Sylvia. She'll have three
or four posts going with no one else interacting.
She posts long diatribes. Rambling discourses that almost rival Jack
Keuroac (sp).
There's a frightening, shrill tenor to her posts which borders on
pathological.
Obviously, this is not "physical" stalking, but it's still not healthy.
Sylvia's a sock who's under 3 feet tall and keeps a parrot, wtf do you
expect?
If something borders on pathological, then surely it's not
pathological, in the way that the countries that border on France are
none of them France?
So what is this k00k saying: a thing that is not pathological is still
unhealthy? So what does he think pathological means?
"Borders on" as in "close to" or maybe even "almost indistinguishable
from."

I'm not going to say is <is> "pathological behavior" because I'm not
in the head shrinking game and it's not my call.
I <can> say, from my layman's position, that is "almost" seems
pathological (that's what "borders on" means) and that it seems
extremely unhealthy.
boots
2007-09-08 08:24:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Hope
Post by boots
Post by Ed
Post by Alan Hope
Post by Ed
Even <if> Ray is lying about everything he's ever done, Sylvia's
reaction is so completely off the wall as to be considered
pathological stalking!
How is it stalking to post in a newsgroup?
We've got threads here that are almost all Sylvia. She'll have three
or four posts going with no one else interacting.
She posts long diatribes. Rambling discourses that almost rival Jack
Keuroac (sp).
There's a frightening, shrill tenor to her posts which borders on
pathological.
Obviously, this is not "physical" stalking, but it's still not healthy.
Sylvia's a sock who's under 3 feet tall and keeps a parrot, wtf do you
expect?
If something borders on pathological, then surely it's not
pathological, in the way that the countries that border on France are
none of them France?
That could be danced around the well until someone fell in if one
looked at the question of where one is when standing on the border
between France and another country.
Post by Alan Hope
So what is this k00k saying: a thing that is not pathological is still
unhealthy? So what does he think pathological means?
Probably something near what it's defined to mean. The way I'm
reading him he's giving her the benefit of the doubt, assuming that
she's only occasionally unhealthy rather than habitually so. Fucksake
the woman keeps a parrot, what more must one know?
--
The sane answer, to madness, is insanity.
Sylvia
2007-09-14 06:39:52 UTC
Permalink
Mr. Hope wrote:

<...>
<...>
Post by Alan Hope
Post by Ed
Obviously, this is not "physical" stalking, but it's still not healthy.
<...>
Post by Alan Hope
If something borders on pathological, then surely it's not
pathological, in the way that the countries that border on France are
none of them France?
So what is this k00k saying: a thing that is not pathological is still
unhealthy? So what does he think pathological means?
"Go ahead, I dare you. Post something, ANYTHING that is not
contrary to USENET netiquette and original from you. [...]"

"I have money riding on this again, Pat. The local Perth guys are
back watching you and wagering with me. I warned them that I
know you like a book but they still think, misguidedly, that you
will do it just to spite me. However, you don't know which way
I bet, do you?

"Hahahahahahaha.

"I think you're getting very angry with me, Pat. Just be careful
"that those little tears of anger don't short out your keyboard,
Pat. Take a break for a while. Go and sit on mommy's lap a while
and she can comfort you. Isn't that why you still live at your
mommy's house? I mean, most sane people would leave home
after their mother got away with murdering their father,
as you claim.

"Your Sole Dedication In Life, Ray"

-- RAY HADDAD http://tinyurl.com/38gqnz
-----------------------------------------

"Most folks here are blissfully unaware of the humor injected
in my messages to Pat because they have their killfile set to
***@vsta.com so they can filter out this argument Pat that
continues forever without missing anything else I post. [...]

"Chris, I try my best to remain a gentleman and have asked Pat
repeatedly to take this to e-mail. His reason for not doing that?
He claims he doesn't want to suffer my abuse by e-mail.
Somehow, he manages to suffer it here. [...]

"Chris, contact me by e-mail if you wish to continue this and see
a copy of PatMail.zip. You'll laugh so hard your sides will ache."

-- RAY HADDAD http://tinyurl.com/2m5hnp
--
Sylvia

"Go and waaaaaaaaaaah on mommy's lap some more. Perhaps
she'll pull a bit of tough love on you and make you move out
after living at home for half a century. Cripes, Pat, get a life.

"Your Beloved, Ray"

-- RAY HADDAD http://tinyurl.com/389gwq
Alan Hope
2007-09-07 20:31:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed
Post by Alan Hope
Post by Ed
Even <if> Ray is lying about everything he's ever done, Sylvia's
reaction is so completely off the wall as to be considered
pathological stalking!
How is it stalking to post in a newsgroup?
We've got threads here that are almost all Sylvia. She'll have three
or four posts going with no one else interacting.
That's not what I asked.
Post by Ed
She posts long diatribes. Rambling discourses that almost rival Jack
Keuroac (sp).
I didn't ask.
Post by Ed
There's a frightening, shrill tenor to her posts which borders on
pathological.
How does that constitute stalking?
Post by Ed
Obviously, this is not "physical" stalking, but it's still not healthy.
How so?
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
John Ashby
2007-09-07 10:18:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Hope
Post by Ed
Even <if> Ray is lying about everything he's ever done, Sylvia's
reaction is so completely off the wall as to be considered
pathological stalking!
How is it stalking to post in a newsgroup?
You should know Alan. Where was it you stalked Stan to? Some current
affairs group?

john
Jackson Pillock
2007-09-06 23:10:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia
.
In other words, the stuff she writes wouldn't be allowed as
testimony in a court. Thank you for making that abundantly clear.
.
Sylvia's not appearing as a witness. She's a prosecuting attorney, and her
evidence is YOUR OWN TESTIMONY.
<...>
Sylvia guilty of the very "crime," dishonesty, with which she's
charged Ray -- something which one can't say of Sal Towse, John
Ashby, and the others who have concerned themselves with the actual
evidence.
No, that doesn't stick. I've not checked every one, but if you follow her
tinyurls and read the cited thread, you'll find the context tends to
aggravate the charge. You'll find, time after time, that he lies in order to
smear, slime, and belittle others. The most eggregious example I can think
of is Ray's 'charred remains' claim. Do you know why he said that? Why he
claimed to have casually chucked burned bits of his shipmates in a box,
while eating a nice, greasy burger? Because Davida poked fun at him, saying
he'd probably be too squeamish to change dirty nappies!
<...>
"Squeamish? My dear Davida, I have pulled burned bodies from
airplane crashes and gathered up pieces of same after a crash
on the flight deck of the USS Nimitz in 1980. I took a break
between body recovery for a burger or two." - Ray Haddad [1]
Getting back to my exchange with fundoc, in which I called you, "LIAR, LIAR,
LIAR," it's a case of two wrongs don't make a right. 'Don't do unto others'
and all that clobber.

Leaving aside ethical matters, if you can be shown to have manipulated
quotes, ie cut the bit about the second camera, even on such a tangenital
matter, it casts doubt on all your cites. (Ray, this does not mean I buy
your shit) Look at Wikipedia. Because of its fluid, changing nature and lack
of oversight, university departments etc, are beginning to stipulate that
scholars can't site it as a reliable source. Careful you don't build a
wiki-Ray.

Two mentions of wikis in one night. Is that unhealthy?
Post by Sylvia
Miz Eliska: "any ideas on how to get rid of the smoke smell? I soaked
in bubble bath, washed with scented soap, slathered
myself with luscious lotion and I still smell smoke."
Ray Haddad: "Vicks Vapo-Rub (tm) works great."
Mr. Stan: "That's for long-dead, decomposing bodies, you twit."
Ray Haddad: "Isn't that what smoked meat is? Last time I looked
inside my smoker, that chicken, pork and beef
were long dead and I was aiding the decomposition
by smokin' those babies! Yum!"
[WARNING: Ray Haddad now goes from stupid/gross to mind-boggling
insensitive/disgusting]
Ray Haddad: "[...] I had the grave displeasure of having to remove a
few charred bodies from a military crash on the
flight deck of an aircraft carrier once. Those
guys were fresh but crispy. Vicks made all the
difference."
Mr. Stan: "I didn't read this." http://tinyurl.com/359tkc
"Blather on about how moral you are, it doesn't matter.
We aren't listening. Your actions speak louder than your lies."
-- Miz Anderson to Ray Haddad
Part I - Baby Poop to Body Parts
http://tinyurl.com/2o3s8l
--
Sylvia
"Anyone who has ever seen combat regrets any loss of life,
even those of the individuals who are sent to kill us."
-- Ray "Dancing on War Graves" Haddad
"ONLY 256 Americans WERE KILLED while more than 100,000
Iraqi soldiers WERE KILLED in Operation Desert Storm.
"I STILL DANCE WITH GLEE over that set of Iraqi statistics.
I LOVE them. I REVEL in them. I absolutely and unequivocally am
appreciative of them. I do not feel even one iota of regret for those
those Iraqi statistics. My only concern is that they may not be truly
correct regarding the numbers of Iraqi dead. I was pretty sure that
initial estimates placed it closer to 190,000 dead Iraqi soldiers."
-- Ray "Dancing on War Graves" Haddad
http://tinyurl.com/2ev3fd
"Dead Americans, particularly combatants, fill a need of the left.
Without them, the body count remains too low to gain any support
against the war." http://tinyurl.com/2wm7hu
-- Ray "Complete Lack of Conscience" Haddad
"Did you order your body bags? They're going cheap!"
-- The Death Glee of Ray Haddad, "Stolen Valor" Thief
"You're just the worst kind of insensitive idiot"
-- Ray "Order your body bags!" Haddad
(emphasis, mine)
"Blather on about how moral you are, it doesn't
matter. We aren't listening. Your actions speak
louder than your lies."
-- Miz Anderson to Ray Haddad
Jackson Pillock
2007-09-06 23:14:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Sylvia
.
In other words, the stuff she writes wouldn't be allowed as
testimony in a court. Thank you for making that abundantly clear.
.
Sylvia's not appearing as a witness. She's a prosecuting attorney, and her
evidence is YOUR OWN TESTIMONY.
<...>
Sylvia guilty of the very "crime," dishonesty, with which she's
charged Ray -- something which one can't say of Sal Towse, John
Ashby, and the others who have concerned themselves with the actual
evidence.
No, that doesn't stick. I've not checked every one, but if you follow her
tinyurls and read the cited thread, you'll find the context tends to
aggravate the charge. You'll find, time after time, that he lies in order to
smear, slime, and belittle others. The most eggregious example I can think
of is Ray's 'charred remains' claim. Do you know why he said that? Why he
claimed to have casually chucked burned bits of his shipmates in a box,
while eating a nice, greasy burger? Because Davida poked fun at him, saying
he'd probably be too squeamish to change dirty nappies!
<...>
"Squeamish? My dear Davida, I have pulled burned bodies from
airplane crashes and gathered up pieces of same after a crash
on the flight deck of the USS Nimitz in 1980. I took a break
between body recovery for a burger or two." - Ray Haddad [1]
Getting back to my exchange with fundoc, in which I called you, "LIAR,
LIAR, LIAR," it's a case of two wrongs don't make a right. 'Don't do unto
others' and all that clobber.
Leaving aside ethical matters, if you can be shown to have manipulated
quotes, ie cut the bit about the second camera, even on such a tangenital
matter, it casts doubt on all your cites. (Ray, this does not mean I buy
your shit) Look at Wikipedia. Because of its fluid, changing nature and
lack of oversight, university departments etc, are beginning to stipulate
that scholars can't site it as a reliable source. Careful you don't build
a wiki-Ray.
Is it 'tangential'? God, what would 'tangenital' mean?
Post by Jackson Pillock
Two mentions of wikis in one night. Is that unhealthy?
Post by Sylvia
Miz Eliska: "any ideas on how to get rid of the smoke smell? I soaked
in bubble bath, washed with scented soap, slathered
myself with luscious lotion and I still smell smoke."
Ray Haddad: "Vicks Vapo-Rub (tm) works great."
Mr. Stan: "That's for long-dead, decomposing bodies, you twit."
Ray Haddad: "Isn't that what smoked meat is? Last time I looked
inside my smoker, that chicken, pork and beef
were long dead and I was aiding the decomposition
by smokin' those babies! Yum!"
[WARNING: Ray Haddad now goes from stupid/gross to mind-boggling
insensitive/disgusting]
Ray Haddad: "[...] I had the grave displeasure of having to remove a
few charred bodies from a military crash on the
flight deck of an aircraft carrier once. Those
guys were fresh but crispy. Vicks made all the
difference."
Mr. Stan: "I didn't read this." http://tinyurl.com/359tkc
"Blather on about how moral you are, it doesn't matter.
We aren't listening. Your actions speak louder than your lies."
-- Miz Anderson to Ray Haddad
Part I - Baby Poop to Body Parts
http://tinyurl.com/2o3s8l
--
Sylvia
"Anyone who has ever seen combat regrets any loss of life,
even those of the individuals who are sent to kill us."
-- Ray "Dancing on War Graves" Haddad
"ONLY 256 Americans WERE KILLED while more than 100,000
Iraqi soldiers WERE KILLED in Operation Desert Storm.
"I STILL DANCE WITH GLEE over that set of Iraqi statistics.
I LOVE them. I REVEL in them. I absolutely and unequivocally am
appreciative of them. I do not feel even one iota of regret for those
those Iraqi statistics. My only concern is that they may not be truly
correct regarding the numbers of Iraqi dead. I was pretty sure that
initial estimates placed it closer to 190,000 dead Iraqi soldiers."
-- Ray "Dancing on War Graves" Haddad
http://tinyurl.com/2ev3fd
"Dead Americans, particularly combatants, fill a need of the left.
Without them, the body count remains too low to gain any support
against the war." http://tinyurl.com/2wm7hu
-- Ray "Complete Lack of Conscience" Haddad
"Did you order your body bags? They're going cheap!"
-- The Death Glee of Ray Haddad, "Stolen Valor" Thief
"You're just the worst kind of insensitive idiot"
-- Ray "Order your body bags!" Haddad
(emphasis, mine)
"Blather on about how moral you are, it doesn't
matter. We aren't listening. Your actions speak
louder than your lies."
-- Miz Anderson to Ray Haddad
Ray Haddad
2007-09-06 23:19:48 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 7 Sep 2007 00:14:45 +0100, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
Post by Jackson Pillock
what would 'tangenital' mean?
Touching but not on the same plane as . . . I see what you mean.

Mandarin Oranges are almost round. That help?
--
Ray
Maxwell Lol
2007-09-07 15:39:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jackson Pillock
Is it 'tangential'? God, what would 'tangenital' mean?
Naked sunbathing.
Ray Haddad
2007-09-06 23:17:48 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 7 Sep 2007 00:10:04 +0100, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
(Ray, this does not mean I buy your shit)
It's not for sale, mate. Besides, as long as you simply state that
you don't believe it, there's no harm done. When you translate that
into accusations of lying and so forth, it becomes libelous.
--
Ray
Stan (the Man)
2007-09-07 00:14:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray Haddad
On Fri, 7 Sep 2007 00:10:04 +0100, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
(Ray, this does not mean I buy your shit)
It's not for sale, mate. Besides, as long as you simply state that
you don't believe it, there's no harm done. When you translate that
into accusations of lying and so forth, it becomes libelous.
--
Ray
That so? I say you're a liar. Sue.

--
Stan
Ray Haddad
2007-09-07 02:29:23 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 00:14:58 GMT, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
Post by Stan (the Man)
Post by Ray Haddad
On Fri, 7 Sep 2007 00:10:04 +0100, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
(Ray, this does not mean I buy your shit)
It's not for sale, mate. Besides, as long as you simply state that
you don't believe it, there's no harm done. When you translate that
into accusations of lying and so forth, it becomes libelous.
That so? I say you're a liar. Sue.
Don't call me Sue.
--
Ray
Ray Haddad
2007-09-07 02:39:47 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 00:14:58 GMT, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
Post by Stan (the Man)
Post by Ray Haddad
On Fri, 7 Sep 2007 00:10:04 +0100, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
(Ray, this does not mean I buy your shit)
It's not for sale, mate. Besides, as long as you simply state that
you don't believe it, there's no harm done. When you translate that
into accusations of lying and so forth, it becomes libelous.
That so? I say you're a liar. Sue.
You're probably too stupid to understand this but there are two
components to libel. One is proving it. That's the easy part. You
and Sylvia are guilty of libel. Period.

The second part is proving damages. Neither of you could do that in
a million years on USENET. You're both a couple of monkeys banging
at keyboards lying about anyone you feel like attacking.

Take Josh, for example. He claims to have you kill filed. He does. I
can attest to that. So can you but you won't. Instead, you point
your limp, crooked finger at the times when he gossips about you.
Just like you gossiping about him. Only when Josh does it, you
whine. When you do it, you puff your chest out like a baboon. Thus,
in addition to being a sleazy example of a bent copper in New York,
you are a lying, gossiping, hypocritical fishwife.

Sue me.
--
Ray
Ray Haddad
2007-09-07 02:52:56 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 10:39:47 +0800, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
Post by Ray Haddad
s you simply state that
Post by Stan (the Man)
Post by Ray Haddad
you don't believe it, there's no harm done. When you translate that
into accusations of lying and so forth, it becomes libelous.
That so? I say you're a liar. Sue.
You're probably too stupid to understand this but there are two
components to libel. One is proving it. That's the easy part. You
and Sylvia are guilty of libel. Period.
The second part is proving damages. Neither of you could do that in
a million years on USENET. You're both a couple of monkeys banging
at keyboards lying about anyone you feel like attacking.
After I wrote that I realized I wasn't clear enough.

What I meant is that neither of you can damage me on USENET. That
your own existence is so fragile as to suffer fatal blows or damage
from things posted on USENET is further testament to your guilt in
your actions in real life here and here on USENET. If you don't want
your life discussed here, you know how to prevent it. Or maybe
Fundoc should enlighten you both. Again. Grow up, Stan.
--
Ray
Stan (the Man)
2007-09-07 10:46:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray Haddad
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 10:39:47 +0800, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
Post by Ray Haddad
s you simply state that
Post by Stan (the Man)
Post by Ray Haddad
you don't believe it, there's no harm done. When you translate that
into accusations of lying and so forth, it becomes libelous.
That so? I say you're a liar. Sue.
You're probably too stupid to understand this but there are two
components to libel. One is proving it. That's the easy part. You
and Sylvia are guilty of libel. Period.
The second part is proving damages. Neither of you could do that in
a million years on USENET. You're both a couple of monkeys banging
at keyboards lying about anyone you feel like attacking.
After I wrote that I realized I wasn't clear enough.
What I meant is that neither of you can damage me on USENET. That
your own existence is so fragile as to suffer fatal blows or damage
from things posted on USENET is further testament to your guilt in
your actions in real life here and here on USENET. If you don't want
your life discussed here, you know how to prevent it. Or maybe
Fundoc should enlighten you both. Again. Grow up, Stan.
--
Ray
"fundoc! Help meeeeeeeeee, pleeeeeeeeeeeeeease!"
Ray "Lying, Nauseating Pusbag" Haddad

--
Stan
Ray Haddad
2007-09-07 18:11:01 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 10:46:14 GMT, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
Post by Stan (the Man)
Post by Ray Haddad
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 10:39:47 +0800, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
Post by Ray Haddad
s you simply state that
Post by Stan (the Man)
Post by Ray Haddad
you don't believe it, there's no harm done. When you translate that
into accusations of lying and so forth, it becomes libelous.
That so? I say you're a liar. Sue.
You're probably too stupid to understand this but there are two
components to libel. One is proving it. That's the easy part. You
and Sylvia are guilty of libel. Period.
The second part is proving damages. Neither of you could do that in
a million years on USENET. You're both a couple of monkeys banging
at keyboards lying about anyone you feel like attacking.
After I wrote that I realized I wasn't clear enough.
What I meant is that neither of you can damage me on USENET. That
your own existence is so fragile as to suffer fatal blows or damage
from things posted on USENET is further testament to your guilt in
your actions in real life here and here on USENET. If you don't want
your life discussed here, you know how to prevent it. Or maybe
Fundoc should enlighten you both. Again. Grow up, Stan.
"fundoc! Help meeeeeeeeee, pleeeeeeeeeeeeeease!"
Ray "Lying, Nauseating Pusbag" Haddad
Go hide behind your skirt, Stan.
--
Ray
Josh Hill
2007-09-07 03:22:32 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 10:39:47 +0800, Ray Haddad
Post by Ray Haddad
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 00:14:58 GMT, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
Post by Stan (the Man)
Post by Ray Haddad
On Fri, 7 Sep 2007 00:10:04 +0100, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
(Ray, this does not mean I buy your shit)
It's not for sale, mate. Besides, as long as you simply state that
you don't believe it, there's no harm done. When you translate that
into accusations of lying and so forth, it becomes libelous.
That so? I say you're a liar. Sue.
You're probably too stupid to understand this but there are two
components to libel. One is proving it. That's the easy part. You
and Sylvia are guilty of libel. Period.
The second part is proving damages. Neither of you could do that in
a million years on USENET. You're both a couple of monkeys banging
at keyboards lying about anyone you feel like attacking.
Take Josh, for example. He claims to have you kill filed. He does. I
can attest to that. So can you but you won't. Instead, you point
your limp, crooked finger at the times when he gossips about you.
Just like you gossiping about him. Only when Josh does it, you
whine. When you do it, you puff your chest out like a baboon. Thus,
in addition to being a sleazy example of a bent copper in New York,
you are a lying, gossiping, hypocritical fishwife.
Sue me.
Damn, you're on the warpath tonight. And taking scalps, I see.

The bottom line with regard to me and Stan: I'm neither the aggressor
nor the liar. Anything else is folderol. I've stopped mentioning him
two or three times over the years to no effect, and had in fact
planned to do so again, until I asked myself what the benefit would be
and could think of none (now that Gekko, probably the only genuinely
unconvinced person here, has made it clear that she'll rationalize
away any gesture I make). I've agreed with him to end our flame war,
only to have him renege on the agreement. He's proven himself a liar,
so I can no longer accept his word, but deeds still speak: if Stan
doesn't want me to gossip about or flame him, he won't gossip about or
flame me, and if he wants me to unplonk him, he'll say something
witty, interesting, informative, or provocative rather than obnoxious.
--
Josh

"This keeps out the stalkers, the obsessed, the dysfunctional, the abusive, and
the general, all-around jerks who get off on turning a group so toxic that nobody's
left after a while but the person and some of his associates or collaborators.
It's the slow poisoning of a group." - J. Michael Straczynski
Ray Haddad
2007-09-07 04:47:00 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 23:22:32 -0400, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
Post by Josh Hill
Damn, you're on the warpath tonight. And taking scalps, I see.
I'm just observing those two idiots pretending to be so high and
mighty regarding the truth while putting forward the most blatant
crock of their own lies ever written as a badge of honor. Both of
them have done nothing but lie about me ignoring my own description
of things that actually happened. I'm absolutely certain the magic
groups have already tired of the Sylvia and Stan show and probably
most of the MW crowd has started skipping over their posts.
--
Ray
Stan (the Man)
2007-09-07 10:45:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray Haddad
On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 23:22:32 -0400, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
Post by Josh Hill
Damn, you're on the warpath tonight. And taking scalps, I see.
I'm just observing those two idiots pretending to be so high and
mighty regarding the truth while putting forward the most blatant
crock of their own lies ever written as a badge of honor. Both of
them have done nothing but lie about me ignoring my own description
of things that actually happened. I'm absolutely certain the magic
groups have already tired of the Sylvia and Stan show and probably
most of the MW crowd has started skipping over their posts.
Yet, you still can't point to one lie either Sylvia or I have told. And,
not everyone is skipping our posts. You and your little butt plug are still
reading.

--
Stan
Ray Haddad
2007-09-07 18:12:39 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 10:45:47 GMT, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
Post by Stan (the Man)
Post by Ray Haddad
On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 23:22:32 -0400, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
Post by Josh Hill
Damn, you're on the warpath tonight. And taking scalps, I see.
I'm just observing those two idiots pretending to be so high and
mighty regarding the truth while putting forward the most blatant
crock of their own lies ever written as a badge of honor. Both of
them have done nothing but lie about me ignoring my own description
of things that actually happened. I'm absolutely certain the magic
groups have already tired of the Sylvia and Stan show and probably
most of the MW crowd has started skipping over their posts.
Yet, you still can't point to one lie either Sylvia or I have told. And,
not everyone is skipping our posts. You and your little butt plug are still
reading.
Would that there were only one, Stan. They are as numerous as the
stars.
--
Ray
Stan (the Man)
2007-09-07 18:34:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray Haddad
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 10:45:47 GMT, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
Post by Stan (the Man)
Post by Ray Haddad
On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 23:22:32 -0400, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
Post by Josh Hill
Damn, you're on the warpath tonight. And taking scalps, I see.
I'm just observing those two idiots pretending to be so high and
mighty regarding the truth while putting forward the most blatant
crock of their own lies ever written as a badge of honor. Both of
them have done nothing but lie about me ignoring my own description
of things that actually happened. I'm absolutely certain the magic
groups have already tired of the Sylvia and Stan show and probably
most of the MW crowd has started skipping over their posts.
Yet, you still can't point to one lie either Sylvia or I have told. And,
not everyone is skipping our posts. You and your little butt plug are still
reading.
Would that there were only one, Stan. They are as numerous as the
stars.
Yet, you still can't name one.

--
Stan
Josh Hill
2007-09-07 21:25:45 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 02:12:39 +0800, Ray Haddad
Post by Ray Haddad
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 10:45:47 GMT, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
Post by Stan (the Man)
Post by Ray Haddad
On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 23:22:32 -0400, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
Post by Josh Hill
Damn, you're on the warpath tonight. And taking scalps, I see.
I'm just observing those two idiots pretending to be so high and
mighty regarding the truth while putting forward the most blatant
crock of their own lies ever written as a badge of honor. Both of
them have done nothing but lie about me ignoring my own description
of things that actually happened. I'm absolutely certain the magic
groups have already tired of the Sylvia and Stan show and probably
most of the MW crowd has started skipping over their posts.
Yet, you still can't point to one lie either Sylvia or I have told. And,
not everyone is skipping our posts. You and your little butt plug are still
reading.
Would that there were only one, Stan. They are as numerous as the
stars.
Poor Stan's way up de Nile, I fear.
--
Josh

"This keeps out the stalkers, the obsessed, the dysfunctional, the abusive, and
the general, all-around jerks who get off on turning a group so toxic that nobody's
left after a while but the person and some of his associates or collaborators.
It's the slow poisoning of a group." - J. Michael Straczynski
Stan (the Man)
2007-09-07 21:35:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Josh Hill
On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 02:12:39 +0800, Ray Haddad
Post by Ray Haddad
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 10:45:47 GMT, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
Post by Stan (the Man)
Post by Ray Haddad
On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 23:22:32 -0400, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
Post by Josh Hill
Damn, you're on the warpath tonight. And taking scalps, I see.
I'm just observing those two idiots pretending to be so high and
mighty regarding the truth while putting forward the most blatant
crock of their own lies ever written as a badge of honor. Both of
them have done nothing but lie about me ignoring my own description
of things that actually happened. I'm absolutely certain the magic
groups have already tired of the Sylvia and Stan show and probably
most of the MW crowd has started skipping over their posts.
Yet, you still can't point to one lie either Sylvia or I have told. And,
not everyone is skipping our posts. You and your little butt plug are still
reading.
Would that there were only one, Stan. They are as numerous as the
stars.
Poor Stan's way up de Nile, I fear.
No, but you're way up Ray's ass. Not exactly unfamiliar territory for
you, I'll admit.

--
Stan
Sylvia
2007-09-11 08:40:40 UTC
Permalink
<...>
Post by Ray Haddad
Post by Stan (the Man)
Yet, you still can't point to one lie either Sylvia or I have told. And,
not everyone is skipping our posts. You and your little butt plug are still
reading.
.
Post by Ray Haddad
Would that there were only one, Stan. They are as numerous as the
stars.
--
Ray
Eeeeeew! Why is Ray Haddad whining about how many butt plugs he has?

1) Having them is *his* choice.

2) TMI.
--
Sylvia

Paul Harwood: "You, though: Murmurings. Threats. Attempts
to coerce."

Ray Haddad: "Where did I threaten you, Paul? I simply stated
that as long as you continue to show disrespect
for Gekko's personal request, I shall, with
deliberation, do what I wish to your name or
anything else here."

Mr. Hope: "Hey UV! Ray has got another stalkee! And he's
on a roll."

Ray Haddad: "Do you see how that works now? Work with me here.
Show me the tiniest bit of sentience now, Paul."

Paul Harwood: "You're a coward, Ray. You want to be a bully, but
you don't have what it takes, so you settle for
the next best thing."

Ray Haddad: "Ooh! I'm so crushed by this. Not only is Gekko
getting to you, but so am I. Come on,
Paulie-wallie. Call me some other name instead
of being a gronw up."

Paul Harwood: "I'm disappointed.

Ray Haddad: "I'm not. You're right on schedule."
http://tinyurl.com/22q6hp


( Haddad, look up the word "sentience". )
Josh Hill
2007-09-07 15:41:37 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 12:47:00 +0800, Ray Haddad
Post by Ray Haddad
On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 23:22:32 -0400, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
Post by Josh Hill
Damn, you're on the warpath tonight. And taking scalps, I see.
I'm just observing those two idiots pretending to be so high and
mighty regarding the truth while putting forward the most blatant
crock of their own lies ever written as a badge of honor. Both of
them have done nothing but lie about me ignoring my own description
of things that actually happened. I'm absolutely certain the magic
groups have already tired of the Sylvia and Stan show and probably
most of the MW crowd has started skipping over their posts.
I suspect you're right. I'd say Sylvia made a mistake by following you
into another group, but I'm no longer convinced that she's responsible
for her own actions.
--
Josh

"This keeps out the stalkers, the obsessed, the dysfunctional, the abusive, and
the general, all-around jerks who get off on turning a group so toxic that nobody's
left after a while but the person and some of his associates or collaborators.
It's the slow poisoning of a group." - J. Michael Straczynski
Stan (the Man)
2007-09-07 10:46:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Josh Hill
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 10:39:47 +0800, Ray Haddad
Post by Ray Haddad
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 00:14:58 GMT, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
Post by Stan (the Man)
Post by Ray Haddad
On Fri, 7 Sep 2007 00:10:04 +0100, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
(Ray, this does not mean I buy your shit)
It's not for sale, mate. Besides, as long as you simply state that
you don't believe it, there's no harm done. When you translate that
into accusations of lying and so forth, it becomes libelous.
That so? I say you're a liar. Sue.
You're probably too stupid to understand this but there are two
components to libel. One is proving it. That's the easy part. You
and Sylvia are guilty of libel. Period.
The second part is proving damages. Neither of you could do that in
a million years on USENET. You're both a couple of monkeys banging
at keyboards lying about anyone you feel like attacking.
Take Josh, for example. He claims to have you kill filed. He does. I
can attest to that. So can you but you won't. Instead, you point
your limp, crooked finger at the times when he gossips about you.
Just like you gossiping about him. Only when Josh does it, you
whine. When you do it, you puff your chest out like a baboon. Thus,
in addition to being a sleazy example of a bent copper in New York,
you are a lying, gossiping, hypocritical fishwife.
Sue me.
Damn, you're on the warpath tonight. And taking scalps, I see.
The bottom line with regard to me and Stan: I'm neither the aggressor
nor the liar. Anything else is folderol.
No, you're no aggressor. But, you *are* a liar. And, a naive idiot.

I've stopped mentioning him
Post by Josh Hill
two or three times over the years to no effect,
There's one of your lies now.

and had in fact
Post by Josh Hill
planned to do so again, until I asked myself what the benefit would be
and could think of none (now that Gekko, probably the only genuinely
unconvinced person here, has made it clear that she'll rationalize
away any gesture I make). I've agreed with him to end our flame war,
only to have him renege on the agreement.
Nope. I made no such agreement. You may feel free to attempt to post a
cite, though.

He's proven himself a liar,
Post by Josh Hill
so I can no longer accept his word, but deeds still speak: if Stan
doesn't want me to gossip about or flame him, he won't gossip about or
flame me, and if he wants me to unplonk him, he'll say something
witty, interesting, informative, or provocative rather than obnoxious.
You're incapable of flaming, but you may gossip all you like. You'll
simply have to wear the label of coward for doing so, then hiding behind
the skirt of your lying claim of a killfile. Works fine for me. Makes
you look like a jerk.

--
Stan
Sylvia
2007-09-11 08:28:00 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>,
Josh Hill <***@gmail.com> wrote:

<...>
Post by Josh Hill
"This keeps out the stalkers, the obsessed, the dysfunctional, the
abusive, and the general, all-around jerks who get off on turning a
group so toxic that nobody's left after a while but the person and
some of his associates or collaborators. It's the slow poisoning of a
group." - J. Michael Straczynski
Paul Harwood: "It's a good name, after all, for a good person."

Ray Haddad: "Paul, how do you feel about your personal details
being here for all to see? Check this site out:

[ snip Ray Haddad's links to Harwood's WHOIS
registration information which included his home address ]

"I'm a good person, Paul. I'm not so sure about
you, though. I've heard that you used to be one
in days gone by."

Dr Zen: "Why did you do that, Ray? To show Paul why you
might want to hide your name? Because there are
always cunts like you that will find a way to
find out where you live?

"It's how you get off, Ray, I should have
remembered, to make the personal public. Your
excuse you can keep, fuckhead."

Ray Haddad: "No excuse required. It's all public information."
http://tinyurl.com/2z6hnc
--
Sylvia

"You're losing a lot of respect if you continue to do this
sort of thing. Not that you had much to start, Paul."

-- Ray Haddad to Paul Harwood after posting
Harwood's home address http://tinyurl.com/28qw55
Sylvia
2007-09-07 08:15:26 UTC
Permalink
"Jackson Pillock" wrote:

<...>
Post by Jackson Pillock
Getting back to my exchange with fundoc, in which I called you, "LIAR, LIAR,
LIAR,"
I wasn't aware that you had. I wish that you would have addressed me
directly instead of indirectly in a post to Steve/fundoc [1]. I just
found the post and see that he is twisting what I said except for one
instance and there he twisted the context (about the camera outfit,
which I note in this post). I'm sure that he is pleased that someone
finally bit on that troll and in that he knows I have already disproved
most of the other things he claimed when he first claimed them.

Haven't you noted that Steve/fundoc claimed "Sylvia stated", but he did
*not* quote and cite me? Why do you think that is? A while back he
listed a lot of "Sylvia stated"s where he added cites (without quotes),
which, if you actually bothered to go read them, proved that he was
either lying about what I said or about the context in which I said it.
( "Proof of the Lack of Worth of the Statements of RAY HADDAD's Thrall,
Steve (Fundoc/Thinggfish/Euripides /etc.)" http://tinyurl.com/2am4x8 )
Post by Jackson Pillock
it's a case of two wrongs don't make a right. 'Don't do unto others'
and all that clobber.
Except, of course, you took Steve/fundoc at his word. Did you believe
what he claimed that I said when he wrote this lying smear:

"Look officer oinky, even if you and Sylvia are in fact fucking -
as she's mentioned in a series of posts now, [...] she was held
up to well deserved ridicule. Which might make you rethink
your affair with her, if you're actually having one, as she's
been claiming[...]"

-- Steve / Fundoc continuing Ray Haddad's lies in MW
Post by Jackson Pillock
Leaving aside ethical matters,
No, let's *not* leave ethical matters. How am I supposed to prove that I
did *not* say what he, Ray Haddad, or Josuha P. Hill claimed I have?
They don't say where or when, just that I supposedly did. Recently I was
able to prove that John Ashby lied about what I said about Haddad, but
only because he said that I had a post or two earlier. Haddad and his
pals have been spreading his smears across various threads going back
most of the year, trying to keep various people from telling the truth
about him. Do you recall their smears of Bob Sloan--a Real Navy veteran
who called Ray Haddad on his military career lies?

Haddad threatened me with "exposure", but as there was nothing for him
to use against me, he made stuff up. And to try to stop a another Real
Navy veteran from calling him on his lies, he made up a lie that we were
having an an extramarital affair. Steve/fundoc and Josh followed his
lead, embellishing the lies and using the crude language that Ray Haddad
dances around. I have already cited them on that.

This is not Haddad's earliest lie on all this, but note that he said it
back in February.

"Stan [...] got mad at me for referring to Sylvia as a liar.
Which she is. Those two have been cuddling and snogging a lot,
my friend. Sylvia gets a free pass from Stan no matter what
she does here. The privilege of an intimate relationship, don't
you know."

-- Esxerpt from one of Ray Haddad's
Slimy Lying Smear Campaigns Feb 24 2007
Post by Jackson Pillock
if you can be shown to have manipulated quotes,
"If"? I don't see you waiting for proof. Steve/fundoc, of all people,
told you "Sylvia stated" and then you told me "I called you, "LIAR,
LIAR, LIAR,". Earlier you also accepted Josh's lies about things he
claimed that I said.

I really don't get it, Mr. Pillock. The other day you wrote:

"I've not checked every one, but if you follow her tinyurls
and read the cited thread, you'll find the context tends to
aggravate the charge. You'll find, time after time, that he
lies in order to smear, slime, and belittle others. "

Then Haddad's friends pop back up and simply state that I lied and you
take them seriously. They've said that for months, over and over, and
have never been able to prove even *one* instance where I lied. I have
*proved* countless times where they have. But you call me a liar on
Steve/fundoc's word without even having given me a chance to refute what
he said this time.

Not only have I disproved Haddad's various stories, but I have also
proved that he lied about the very basis of all of his "22 year military
career"--his being drafted to begin with. Not just with his
contradictory stories of what he was doing at the time, but based on
quotes about his children, which came out of posts over the years that
were totally unrelated to his military "career" lies. As the father of
four children by 1970, Ray Haddad would never have been drafted then.

Assuming he would have been found fit to be in the military at all, Ray
Haddad's fatherhood at that time gave him a Class III-A deferment. In
his military "career" stories he, of course, doesn't mention his
children, instead claiming his "luck" ran out when he was unable to get
his college deferment renewed. That, BTW, is another Stupid Lie. College
deferments did not have to be renewed or reapplied for--the lottery
system did *not* change that. Still, Ray Haddad was not the college kid
he pretended to be at the time, but the father for four children
himself, with the fifth of his six children coming up in 1971.
Post by Jackson Pillock
ie cut the bit about the second camera,
<...>

The only person who has done any manipulation is Steve/fundoc.
Post by Jackson Pillock
even on such a tangenital matter,
Right off, although he lumps it in with what I said about Ray Haddad's
military claims, Steve/fundoc is really talking about an example I gave
to Josh about a particular video tape recorder when Josh and I argued
about the state of video tape recording and the broadcast news
industry--a subject that has NOTHING to do with Ray Haddad's claims. Ray
Haddad did not even offer his opinion on that subject.

Secondly, I did not lie in that cite. When I snipped the listed camera
equipment that wasn't the camera with the VTR that I was talking about,
I didn't realize that "second unit" I also snipped wasn't camera
equipment too, that, instead the author had been referring to a second
truck. See where you read "second unit" as a "second camera"? I made the
same mistake as you just did, Mr. Pillock. (http://tinyurl.com/2v7knr
July 1)

More importantly, not only didn't I notice that I had made that mistake,
but I had dismissed my entire example the next day, before Josh replied
to it, when I realized (as I noted to Josh) that I had mixed up the
names of the camera outfits (I was thinking of the Ampex VR3000, not the
Norelco, which also had a backpack, but only with VTR related
electronics and a separate VTR). And, as I said, "my point still stands:
video tape backpacks were used for TV news then."
http://tinyurl.com/32o8ct July 2

Josh acknowledge my change of camera outfits for my example (he quoted
me) and he and I went on from there. The day *after* I threw out that
other example, from the very post where I threw it out, Steve/fundoc
posted this lovely reply ( as his sock, "diogenes \(this one\)"):

"You didn't mix them up you stupid fucking cunt.

[snip his quote of my quote and the mistake]

"and presented the result as proof that the Norelco was used
in 1967. Whereas everyone except a complete fucking buffoon
such as yourself knows that the Norelco wasn't released until
1968. That's not a mix up you stupid fucking cunt, thats a
desperate pathetic lie. Fortunately your risible and inept
calumniation was exposed and you have been held up to well
deserved ridicule. What a sad fucking cunt you are."
http://tinyurl.com/2a6o7t

When I finally got around to looking at what Steve/fundoc had decided
to post in his typically eloquently manner, I did not, of course, bother
to reply. I would have had Josh tried to run with what Steve/fundoc
wrote, but he just replied to me instead. No one replied to
Steve/fundoc's slimy move until he repeated it for you. And you, Mr.
Pillock, made the same mistake that I made with that quote.

That said, in the other post you wrote:

"Okay, you've found several lies; I was lazy.

"LIAR LIAR LIAR yourself, Sylvia."
Post by Jackson Pillock
it casts doubt on all your cites.
(Ray, this does not mean I buy your shit)
"All". Of course, that is what Steve/fundoc intended, despite the fact
that you checked out some of my cites and *never* found that I lied.

I showed you Steve/fundoc's dishonesty in his claim about the camera
outfits and provided links to back up what I wrote. I'd appreciate it if
you'd tell me *which* "several lies" you believe that Steve/fundoc
claims I told. I'm also curious as to why you'd say things like:

"I do not share your admiration for Ray's 'trolling style.' I
think it's contemptable. Sylvia, by contrast, speaks very plainly,
takes pains to be clear, and scrupulously supports her assertions
with quotes and cites, so that anyone who wishes to check, can.
Quite reasonable, really. Honest. Reasoned argument is possible
with Sylvia. Not so Ray. "

.. but then take the word of Steve/fundoc, who is a demonstrated liar
(and is backing up another demonstrated liar). Compare what you say
about how I support my assertions to Steve/fundoc telling you what I
claimed instead of citing. Same thing for what Josh claims I said.
Post by Jackson Pillock
Look at Wikipedia. Because of its fluid, changing nature and lack
of oversight, university departments etc, are beginning to stipulate that
scholars can't site it as a reliable source. Careful you don't build a
wiki-Ray.
Two mentions of wikis in one night. Is that unhealthy?
I have no idea what you mean. If you are again referring to something in
another post that you addressed to Steve/fundoc, please give me a cite.
I am aware that at times Ray Haddad has snipped my cites and claimed
that I got vital information from the Wikipedia when I actually used
sources such as the US Navy. Is that what you mean?
--
Sylvia

MIZ DONNA: "Anyone who posts to this newsgroup who chooses to slap
another poster is fair game. Once you slap, you're gonna get slapped.

"But you broke the prime directive. You went after her husband, not
her. Families are out of bounds. You're an outlaw, but you've always
struck me as an outlaw with scruples"

STEVE/FUNDOC: "[...] Second, feel free to shove the 'prime directive'
up your mother's ass, because I just don't give a fuck. I refuse to
participate in a society where you make the rules, end of story. And as
the perpetually perspicuous Paula pnoted, I've been mocking Hill's
genetically defective family for months now, and will continue to do so
for so long as (1) there are genetically defective Hills to mock and (2)
it amuses my many fans when I do so. In fact, among my greatest usenet
regrets is that Hill the father did not more frequently spurt massive
quantities of diseased sperm into Hill the mother's horrifyingly
polluted womb so as to produce a gaggle more ferociously mutated Hills
-- schizophrenic junkie corpses, retarded ass-raped petty criminal AIDs
victims, and especially half jewish half hispanic half a fag when tanned
can't get a cab zipperfuckingheads -- just so that there was a mountain
more Hills misery for me to relish." http://tinyurl.com/23luac

[1] So far, Fundoc/Steve's 2007 Sock Names just in misc.writing alone
include (but are not limited to):

* "Euripides Pants \(the other pair\)"
* "Sylvia's Polluted Fucking Womb"
* "Junior Sample"
* "Sylvie" (note the "e" in place of the "a" in my name)
* "Cindy Sheehan"
* "If it oinks like a pig"
* "Dead Cook \(the other one\)"
* "Dead Chef \(this one\)"
* "diogenes \(this one\)"
* "walt disney"
* "Tom Pax"
* "Sylvia's current stalkee"
* "Buck Mulligan"
* "cufnod"
* "donfuc"
* "JF Cooper"
* "Joe P Writer"
* "Johnny "Guitar" Cochrane"
* "William Cuntsler"
Protests too much, methinks
2007-09-07 13:06:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia
<...>
Post by Jackson Pillock
Getting back to my exchange with fundoc, in which I called you, "LIAR, LIAR,
LIAR,"
I wasn't aware that you had. I wish that you would have addressed me
directly instead of indirectly in a post to Steve/fundoc [1]. I just
found the post and see that he is twisting what I said except for one
instance and there he twisted the context (about the camera outfit,
which I note in this post). I'm sure that he is pleased that someone
finally bit on that troll and in that he knows I have already disproved
most of the other things he claimed when he first claimed them.
Haven't you noted that Steve/fundoc claimed "Sylvia stated", but he did
*not* quote and cite me? Why do you think that is? A while back he
listed a lot of "Sylvia stated"s where he added cites (without quotes),
which, if you actually bothered to go read them, proved that he was
either lying about what I said or about the context in which I said it.
( "Proof of the Lack of Worth of the Statements of RAY HADDAD's Thrall,
Steve (Fundoc/Thinggfish/Euripides /etc.)" http://tinyurl.com/2am4x8 )
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah
Post by Sylvia
Post by Jackson Pillock
it's a case of two wrongs don't make a right. 'Don't do unto others'
and all that clobber.
Except, of course, you took Steve/fundoc at his word. Did you believe
"Look officer oinky, even if you and Sylvia are in fact fucking -
as she's mentioned in a series of posts now, [...] she was held
up to well deserved ridicule. Which might make you rethink
your affair with her, if you're actually having one, as she's
been claiming[...]"
-- Steve / Fundoc continuing Ray Haddad's lies in MW
Post by Jackson Pillock
Leaving aside ethical matters,
No, let's *not* leave ethical matters. How am I supposed to prove that I
did *not* say what he, Ray Haddad, or Josuha P. Hill claimed I have?
They don't say where or when, just that I supposedly did. Recently I was
able to prove that John Ashby lied about what I said about Haddad, but
only because he said that I had a post or two earlier. Haddad and his
pals have been spreading his smears across various threads going back
most of the year, trying to keep various people from telling the truth
about him. Do you recall their smears of Bob Sloan--a Real Navy veteran
who called Ray Haddad on his military career lies?
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah
Post by Sylvia
Haddad threatened me with "exposure", but as there was nothing for him
to use against me, he made stuff up. And to try to stop a another Real
Navy veteran from calling him on his lies, he made up a lie that we were
having an an extramarital affair. Steve/fundoc and Josh followed his
lead, embellishing the lies and using the crude language that Ray Haddad
dances around. I have already cited them on that.
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah
Post by Sylvia
This is not Haddad's earliest lie on all this, but note that he said it
back in February.
"Stan [...] got mad at me for referring to Sylvia as a liar.
Which she is. Those two have been cuddling and snogging a lot,
my friend. Sylvia gets a free pass from Stan no matter what
she does here. The privilege of an intimate relationship, don't
you know."
-- Esxerpt from one of Ray Haddad's
Slimy Lying Smear Campaigns Feb 24 2007
Post by Jackson Pillock
if you can be shown to have manipulated quotes,
"If"? I don't see you waiting for proof. Steve/fundoc, of all people,
told you "Sylvia stated" and then you told me "I called you, "LIAR,
LIAR, LIAR,". Earlier you also accepted Josh's lies about things he
claimed that I said.
"I've not checked every one, but if you follow her tinyurls
and read the cited thread, you'll find the context tends to
aggravate the charge. You'll find, time after time, that he
lies in order to smear, slime, and belittle others. "
Then Haddad's friends pop back up and simply state that I lied and you
take them seriously. They've said that for months, over and over, and
have never been able to prove even *one* instance where I lied. I have
*proved* countless times where they have. But you call me a liar on
Steve/fundoc's word without even having given me a chance to refute what
he said this time.
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah
Post by Sylvia
Not only have I disproved Haddad's various stories, but I have also
proved that he lied about the very basis of all of his "22 year military
career"--his being drafted to begin with. Not just with his
contradictory stories of what he was doing at the time, but based on
quotes about his children, which came out of posts over the years that
were totally unrelated to his military "career" lies. As the father of
four children by 1970, Ray Haddad would never have been drafted then.
Assuming he would have been found fit to be in the military at all, Ray
Haddad's fatherhood at that time gave him a Class III-A deferment. In
his military "career" stories he, of course, doesn't mention his
children, instead claiming his "luck" ran out when he was unable to get
his college deferment renewed. That, BTW, is another Stupid Lie. College
deferments did not have to be renewed or reapplied for--the lottery
system did *not* change that. Still, Ray Haddad was not the college kid
he pretended to be at the time, but the father for four children
himself, with the fifth of his six children coming up in 1971.
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blahBlah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah
Post by Sylvia
Post by Jackson Pillock
ie cut the bit about the second camera,
<...>
The only person who has done any manipulation is Steve/fundoc.
Post by Jackson Pillock
even on such a tangenital matter,
Right off, although he lumps it in with what I said about Ray Haddad's
military claims, Steve/fundoc is really talking about an example I gave
to Josh about a particular video tape recorder when Josh and I argued
about the state of video tape recording and the broadcast news
industry--a subject that has NOTHING to do with Ray Haddad's claims. Ray
Haddad did not even offer his opinion on that subject.
Secondly, I did not lie in that cite. When I snipped the listed camera
equipment that wasn't the camera with the VTR that I was talking about,
I didn't realize that "second unit" I also snipped wasn't camera
equipment too, that, instead the author had been referring to a second
truck. See where you read "second unit" as a "second camera"? I made the
same mistake as you just did, Mr. Pillock. (http://tinyurl.com/2v7knr
July 1)
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah
Post by Sylvia
More importantly, not only didn't I notice that I had made that mistake,
but I had dismissed my entire example the next day, before Josh replied
to it, when I realized (as I noted to Josh) that I had mixed up the
names of the camera outfits (I was thinking of the Ampex VR3000, not the
Norelco, which also had a backpack, but only with VTR related
video tape backpacks were used for TV news then."
http://tinyurl.com/32o8ct July 2
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah
Post by Sylvia
Josh acknowledge my change of camera outfits for my example (he quoted
me) and he and I went on from there. The day *after* I threw out that
other example, from the very post where I threw it out, Steve/fundoc
"You didn't mix them up you stupid fucking cunt.
[snip his quote of my quote and the mistake]
"and presented the result as proof that the Norelco was used
in 1967. Whereas everyone except a complete fucking buffoon
such as yourself knows that the Norelco wasn't released until
1968. That's not a mix up you stupid fucking cunt, thats a
desperate pathetic lie. Fortunately your risible and inept
calumniation was exposed and you have been held up to well
deserved ridicule. What a sad fucking cunt you are."
http://tinyurl.com/2a6o7t
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blahBlah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blahBlah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blahBlah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blahBlah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blahBlah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah
Post by Sylvia
When I finally got around to looking at what Steve/fundoc had decided
to post in his typically eloquently manner, I did not, of course, bother
to reply. I would have had Josh tried to run with what Steve/fundoc
wrote, but he just replied to me instead. No one replied to
Steve/fundoc's slimy move until he repeated it for you. And you, Mr.
Pillock, made the same mistake that I made with that quote.
"Okay, you've found several lies; I was lazy.
"LIAR LIAR LIAR yourself, Sylvia."
Post by Jackson Pillock
it casts doubt on all your cites.
(Ray, this does not mean I buy your shit)
"All". Of course, that is what Steve/fundoc intended, despite the fact
that you checked out some of my cites and *never* found that I lied.
I showed you Steve/fundoc's dishonesty in his claim about the camera
outfits and provided links to back up what I wrote. I'd appreciate it if
you'd tell me *which* "several lies" you believe that Steve/fundoc
"I do not share your admiration for Ray's 'trolling style.' I
think it's contemptable. Sylvia, by contrast, speaks very plainly,
takes pains to be clear, and scrupulously supports her assertions
with quotes and cites, so that anyone who wishes to check, can.
Quite reasonable, really. Honest. Reasoned argument is possible
with Sylvia. Not so Ray. "
.. but then take the word of Steve/fundoc, who is a demonstrated liar
(and is backing up another demonstrated liar). Compare what you say
about how I support my assertions to Steve/fundoc telling you what I
claimed instead of citing. Same thing for what Josh claims I said.
Post by Jackson Pillock
Look at Wikipedia. Because of its fluid, changing nature and lack
of oversight, university departments etc, are beginning to stipulate that
scholars can't site it as a reliable source. Careful you don't build a
wiki-Ray.
Two mentions of wikis in one night. Is that unhealthy?
I have no idea what you mean. If you are again referring to something in
another post that you addressed to Steve/fundoc, please give me a cite.
I am aware that at times Ray Haddad has snipped my cites and claimed
that I got vital information from the Wikipedia when I actually used
sources such as the US Navy. Is that what you mean?
--
Sylvia
MIZ DONNA: "Anyone who posts to this newsgroup who chooses to slap
another poster is fair game. Once you slap, you're gonna get slapped.
"But you broke the prime directive. You went after her husband, not
her. Families are out of bounds. You're an outlaw, but you've always
struck me as an outlaw with scruples"
STEVE/FUNDOC: "[...] Second, feel free to shove the 'prime directive'
up your mother's ass, because I just don't give a fuck. I refuse to
participate in a society where you make the rules, end of story. And as
the perpetually perspicuous Paula pnoted, I've been mocking Hill's
genetically defective family for months now, and will continue to do so
for so long as (1) there are genetically defective Hills to mock and (2)
it amuses my many fans when I do so. In fact, among my greatest usenet
regrets is that Hill the father did not more frequently spurt massive
quantities of diseased sperm into Hill the mother's horrifyingly
polluted womb so as to produce a gaggle more ferociously mutated Hills
-- schizophrenic junkie corpses, retarded ass-raped petty criminal AIDs
victims, and especially half jewish half hispanic half a fag when tanned
can't get a cab zipperfuckingheads -- just so that there was a mountain
more Hills misery for me to relish." http://tinyurl.com/23luac
[1] So far, Fundoc/Steve's 2007 Sock Names just in misc.writing alone
* "Euripides Pants \(the other pair\)"
* "Sylvia's Polluted Fucking Womb"
* "Junior Sample"
* "Sylvie" (note the "e" in place of the "a" in my name)
* "Cindy Sheehan"
* "If it oinks like a pig"
* "Dead Cook \(the other one\)"
* "Dead Chef \(this one\)"
* "diogenes \(this one\)"
* "walt disney"
* "Tom Pax"
* "Sylvia's current stalkee"
* "Buck Mulligan"
* "cufnod"
* "donfuc"
* "JF Cooper"
* "Joe P Writer"
* "Johnny "Guitar" Cochrane"
* "William Cuntsler"
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah
Jackson Pillock
2007-09-07 14:17:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia
<...>
Post by Jackson Pillock
Getting back to my exchange with fundoc, in which I called you, "LIAR, LIAR,
LIAR,"
I wasn't aware that you had. I wish that you would have addressed me
directly instead of indirectly in a post to Steve/fundoc [1].
I assumed you were following, and addressed you directly, though I was
replying to fundoc.

I just
Post by Sylvia
found the post and see that he is twisting what I said except for one
instance and there he twisted the context (about the camera outfit,
which I note in this post). I'm sure that he is pleased that someone
finally bit on that troll and in that he knows I have already disproved
most of the other things he claimed when he first claimed them.
Haven't you noted that Steve/fundoc claimed "Sylvia stated", but he did
*not* quote and cite me? Why do you think that is? A while back he
listed a lot of "Sylvia stated"s where he added cites (without quotes),
which, if you actually bothered to go read them, proved that he was
either lying about what I said or about the context in which I said it.
( "Proof of the Lack of Worth of the Statements of RAY HADDAD's Thrall,
Steve (Fundoc/Thinggfish/Euripides /etc.)" http://tinyurl.com/2am4x8 )
Post by Jackson Pillock
it's a case of two wrongs don't make a right. 'Don't do unto others'
and all that clobber.
Except, of course, you took Steve/fundoc at his word. Did you believe
"Look officer oinky, even if you and Sylvia are in fact fucking -
as she's mentioned in a series of posts now, [...] she was held
up to well deserved ridicule. Which might make you rethink
your affair with her, if you're actually having one, as she's
been claiming[...]"
-- Steve / Fundoc continuing Ray Haddad's lies in MW
Post by Jackson Pillock
Leaving aside ethical matters,
No, let's *not* leave ethical matters. How am I supposed to prove that I
did *not* say what he, Ray Haddad, or Josuha P. Hill claimed I have?
They don't say where or when, just that I supposedly did. Recently I was
able to prove that John Ashby lied about what I said about Haddad, but
only because he said that I had a post or two earlier. Haddad and his
pals have been spreading his smears across various threads going back
most of the year, trying to keep various people from telling the truth
about him. Do you recall their smears of Bob Sloan--a Real Navy veteran
who called Ray Haddad on his military career lies?
Haddad threatened me with "exposure", but as there was nothing for him
to use against me, he made stuff up. And to try to stop a another Real
Navy veteran from calling him on his lies, he made up a lie that we were
having an an extramarital affair. Steve/fundoc and Josh followed his
lead, embellishing the lies and using the crude language that Ray Haddad
dances around. I have already cited them on that.
This is not Haddad's earliest lie on all this, but note that he said it
back in February.
"Stan [...] got mad at me for referring to Sylvia as a liar.
Which she is. Those two have been cuddling and snogging a lot,
my friend. Sylvia gets a free pass from Stan no matter what
she does here. The privilege of an intimate relationship, don't
you know."
-- Esxerpt from one of Ray Haddad's
Slimy Lying Smear Campaigns Feb 24 2007
Post by Jackson Pillock
if you can be shown to have manipulated quotes,
"If"? I don't see you waiting for proof. Steve/fundoc, of all people,
told you "Sylvia stated" and then you told me "I called you, "LIAR,
LIAR, LIAR,". Earlier you also accepted Josh's lies about things he
claimed that I said.
"I've not checked every one, but if you follow her tinyurls
and read the cited thread, you'll find the context tends to
aggravate the charge. You'll find, time after time, that he
lies in order to smear, slime, and belittle others. "
Then Haddad's friends pop back up and simply state that I lied and you
take them seriously. They've said that for months, over and over, and
have never been able to prove even *one* instance where I lied. I have
*proved* countless times where they have. But you call me a liar on
Steve/fundoc's word without even having given me a chance to refute what
he said this time.
Not only have I disproved Haddad's various stories, but I have also
proved that he lied about the very basis of all of his "22 year military
career"--his being drafted to begin with. Not just with his
contradictory stories of what he was doing at the time, but based on
quotes about his children, which came out of posts over the years that
were totally unrelated to his military "career" lies. As the father of
four children by 1970, Ray Haddad would never have been drafted then.
Assuming he would have been found fit to be in the military at all, Ray
Haddad's fatherhood at that time gave him a Class III-A deferment. In
his military "career" stories he, of course, doesn't mention his
children, instead claiming his "luck" ran out when he was unable to get
his college deferment renewed. That, BTW, is another Stupid Lie. College
deferments did not have to be renewed or reapplied for--the lottery
system did *not* change that. Still, Ray Haddad was not the college kid
he pretended to be at the time, but the father for four children
himself, with the fifth of his six children coming up in 1971.
Post by Jackson Pillock
ie cut the bit about the second camera,
<...>
The only person who has done any manipulation is Steve/fundoc.
Post by Jackson Pillock
even on such a tangenital matter,
Right off, although he lumps it in with what I said about Ray Haddad's
military claims, Steve/fundoc is really talking about an example I gave
to Josh about a particular video tape recorder when Josh and I argued
about the state of video tape recording and the broadcast news
industry--a subject that has NOTHING to do with Ray Haddad's claims. Ray
Haddad did not even offer his opinion on that subject.
Secondly, I did not lie in that cite. When I snipped the listed camera
equipment that wasn't the camera with the VTR that I was talking about,
I didn't realize that "second unit" I also snipped wasn't camera
equipment too, that, instead the author had been referring to a second
truck. See where you read "second unit" as a "second camera"? I made the
same mistake as you just did, Mr. Pillock. (http://tinyurl.com/2v7knr
July 1)
More importantly, not only didn't I notice that I had made that mistake,
but I had dismissed my entire example the next day, before Josh replied
to it, when I realized (as I noted to Josh) that I had mixed up the
names of the camera outfits (I was thinking of the Ampex VR3000, not the
Norelco, which also had a backpack, but only with VTR related
video tape backpacks were used for TV news then."
http://tinyurl.com/32o8ct July 2
Josh acknowledge my change of camera outfits for my example (he quoted
me) and he and I went on from there. The day *after* I threw out that
other example, from the very post where I threw it out, Steve/fundoc
"You didn't mix them up you stupid fucking cunt.
[snip his quote of my quote and the mistake]
"and presented the result as proof that the Norelco was used
in 1967. Whereas everyone except a complete fucking buffoon
such as yourself knows that the Norelco wasn't released until
1968. That's not a mix up you stupid fucking cunt, thats a
desperate pathetic lie. Fortunately your risible and inept
calumniation was exposed and you have been held up to well
deserved ridicule. What a sad fucking cunt you are."
http://tinyurl.com/2a6o7t
When I finally got around to looking at what Steve/fundoc had decided
to post in his typically eloquently manner, I did not, of course, bother
to reply. I would have had Josh tried to run with what Steve/fundoc
wrote, but he just replied to me instead. No one replied to
Steve/fundoc's slimy move until he repeated it for you. And you, Mr.
Pillock, made the same mistake that I made with that quote.
"Okay, you've found several lies; I was lazy.
"LIAR LIAR LIAR yourself, Sylvia."
Post by Jackson Pillock
it casts doubt on all your cites.
(Ray, this does not mean I buy your shit)
"All". Of course, that is what Steve/fundoc intended, despite the fact
that you checked out some of my cites and *never* found that I lied.
I showed you Steve/fundoc's dishonesty in his claim about the camera
outfits and provided links to back up what I wrote. I'd appreciate it if
you'd tell me *which* "several lies" you believe that Steve/fundoc
claims I told.
1. Where you insist that Ray claims to have been a SEAL. Do you still so
insist?
2. Where you insist that Ray cliams he personally flew missions over NVN in
1974. Are you maintaining that?
3. Where you (according to fundoc) exaggerated Ray's crude, sexual
references. 'Full description of diseased vagina.' Did you claim Ray said
that, and if so, can you provide the cite?
4. Where you cut the bit about the 'second unit' or whatever. I accept your
explaination of that.
5. Do you still maintain that no hurricanes came near enough to Norfolk, VA,
during the time of Ray's claim of putting to sea to avoid one?
6. Do you seriously think Josh is acting as an accessory to a crime?
Post by Sylvia
"I do not share your admiration for Ray's 'trolling style.' I
think it's contemptable. Sylvia, by contrast, speaks very plainly,
takes pains to be clear, and scrupulously supports her assertions
with quotes and cites, so that anyone who wishes to check, can.
Quite reasonable, really. Honest. Reasoned argument is possible
with Sylvia. Not so Ray. "
.. but then take the word of Steve/fundoc, who is a demonstrated liar
(and is backing up another demonstrated liar). Compare what you say
about how I support my assertions to Steve/fundoc telling you what I
claimed instead of citing. Same thing for what Josh claims I said.
I do not know fundoc to be a liar. He's said some disgusting things, and
provided tinyurls to sickening images, but not lied to me, as far as I know.

But, okay. I'll take your word for it: did you accuse Ray of using
pornographic langauge? Did you accuse him of writing a 'full description' of
a 'diseased vagina'? If no, then I'll ask fundoc to cite.
Post by Sylvia
Post by Jackson Pillock
Look at Wikipedia. Because of its fluid, changing nature and lack
of oversight, university departments etc, are beginning to stipulate that
scholars can't site it as a reliable source. Careful you don't build a
wiki-Ray.
Two mentions of wikis in one night. Is that unhealthy?
I have no idea what you mean. If you are again referring to something in
another post that you addressed to Steve/fundoc, please give me a cite.
I am aware that at times Ray Haddad has snipped my cites and claimed
that I got vital information from the Wikipedia when I actually used
sources such as the US Navy. Is that what you mean?
No. I'm saying that if one of your cites can be shown to be false, distorted
or incomplete, then the rest of your cites will come into question.
Post by Sylvia
--
Sylvia
MIZ DONNA: "Anyone who posts to this newsgroup who chooses to slap
another poster is fair game. Once you slap, you're gonna get slapped.
"But you broke the prime directive. You went after her husband, not
her. Families are out of bounds. You're an outlaw, but you've always
struck me as an outlaw with scruples"
STEVE/FUNDOC: "[...] Second, feel free to shove the 'prime directive'
up your mother's ass, because I just don't give a fuck. I refuse to
participate in a society where you make the rules, end of story. And as
the perpetually perspicuous Paula pnoted, I've been mocking Hill's
genetically defective family for months now, and will continue to do so
for so long as (1) there are genetically defective Hills to mock and (2)
it amuses my many fans when I do so. In fact, among my greatest usenet
regrets is that Hill the father did not more frequently spurt massive
quantities of diseased sperm into Hill the mother's horrifyingly
polluted womb so as to produce a gaggle more ferociously mutated Hills
-- schizophrenic junkie corpses, retarded ass-raped petty criminal AIDs
victims, and especially half jewish half hispanic half a fag when tanned
can't get a cab zipperfuckingheads -- just so that there was a mountain
more Hills misery for me to relish." http://tinyurl.com/23luac
[1] So far, Fundoc/Steve's 2007 Sock Names just in misc.writing alone
* "Euripides Pants \(the other pair\)"
* "Sylvia's Polluted Fucking Womb"
* "Junior Sample"
* "Sylvie" (note the "e" in place of the "a" in my name)
* "Cindy Sheehan"
* "If it oinks like a pig"
* "Dead Cook \(the other one\)"
* "Dead Chef \(this one\)"
* "diogenes \(this one\)"
* "walt disney"
* "Tom Pax"
* "Sylvia's current stalkee"
* "Buck Mulligan"
* "cufnod"
* "donfuc"
* "JF Cooper"
* "Joe P Writer"
* "Johnny "Guitar" Cochrane"
* "William Cuntsler"
Protests too much, methinks
2007-09-07 15:10:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jackson Pillock
I do not know fundoc to be a liar. He's said some disgusting things, and
provided tinyurls to sickening images, but not lied to me, as far as I know.
Yes, that fundoc certainly is incorrigible.
Post by Jackson Pillock
But, okay. I'll take your word for it: did you accuse Ray of using
pornographic langauge? Did you accuse him of writing a 'full description'
of a 'diseased vagina'? If no, then I'll ask fundoc to cite.
Happy to oblige.

"lies that my body is plagued with destruction from sexually transmitted
disease, along with full descriptions of this."

http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/c62be75a141e106c?dmode=source&hl=en
Sylvia
2007-09-08 20:10:05 UTC
Permalink
I answered the first part of your questions, Mr. Pillock. I'll answer
the rest later today.
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Sylvia
<...>
Post by Jackson Pillock
Getting back to my exchange with fundoc, in which I called you, "LIAR,
LIAR, LIAR,"
.
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Sylvia
I wasn't aware that you had. I wish that you would have addressed me
directly instead of indirectly in a post to Steve/fundoc [1].
.
Post by Jackson Pillock
I assumed you were following,
Why? I wasn't involved in that series of posts in that thread. What
little I posted, I posted elsewhere.
Post by Jackson Pillock
and addressed you directly, though I was replying to fundoc.
To me, if you are replying to someone else, especially if there is no
sign of my participating in the argument, you're not addressing me
"directly".

<...>
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Sylvia
Post by Jackson Pillock
Leaving aside ethical matters,
No, let's *not* leave ethical matters.
<..>
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Sylvia
"I've not checked every one, but if you follow her tinyurls
and read the cited thread, you'll find the context tends to
aggravate the charge. You'll find, time after time, that he
lies in order to smear, slime, and belittle others. "
Then Haddad's friends pop back up and simply state that I lied and you
take them seriously.
<...>
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Sylvia
Post by Jackson Pillock
it casts doubt on all your cites.
(Ray, this does not mean I buy your shit)
"All". Of course, that is what Steve/fundoc intended, despite the fact
that you checked out some of my cites and *never* found that I lied.
I showed you Steve/fundoc's dishonesty in his claim about the camera
outfits and provided links to back up what I wrote. I'd appreciate it if
you'd tell me *which* "several lies" you believe that Steve/fundoc
claims I told.
.
Post by Jackson Pillock
1. Where you insist that Ray claims to have been a SEAL.
You'll need to include the cite that made you believe that I ever made
that claim. Or, did you mean "Where *Steve/Fundoc* claims that you
insist that Ray claims to have been a SEAL"?
Post by Jackson Pillock
Do you still so insist?
"How long have you been beating your wife?"
Post by Jackson Pillock
2. Where you insist that Ray cliams he personally flew missions over NVN in
1974. Are you maintaining that?
Where I *quote* Ray Haddad claiming, in one of his Hanoi lie versions,
that he was one of a crew that flew over Hanoi during bombing
missions--missions that he drew combat pay for.

"Yes, we were. We drew two months of combat pay and flew
over Hanoi and Haiphong Harbor daily for a few weeks.
We did bomb selected targets. USS Ranger air wing planes
were involved."

-- Ray Haddad, Valor Thief
http://tinyurl.com/3xwa94

He insisted to Mr. Reese that he (Haddad) was there for the bombing.

Mr. Doug Reese: "You already kinda have one strike against you with the
1974 Hanoi bombing bit, as that just didn't happen. You are either lying
about that, or you just got your dates mixed-up and don't want to admit
it, but that bombing didn't happen. No amount of FOIAs will change that."

Ray Haddad: "It happened, Doug. I was there. You weren't."
http://tinyurl.com/3al3tc

Haddad claims he knows it happened because he was *THERE*--not, say,
over 400 miles away, but *THERE*. Mr. Pillock, you and I went through
that point during our discussion over Ray Haddad's "I was there" claim,
and you did not accuse me of lying then--why now? What's changed?
Post by Jackson Pillock
3. Where you (according to fundoc)
"According to fundoc"--gawd.
Post by Jackson Pillock
exaggerated Ray's crude, sexual references. 'Full description of
diseased vagina.' Did you claim Ray said that, and if so, can you
provide the cite?
You accepted Steve/fundoc's word that I said that (I did not), accused
me of lying, and now you ask *me* to provide a cite for something that
Steve/fundoc *claimed* that I said. You already believe it--show me why.
Post by Jackson Pillock
4. Where you cut the bit about the 'second unit' or whatever. I accept your
explaination of that.
And do you see that Steve/Fundoc was dishonest in insisting that that
"bit" from an argument with Josh over the history VTRs was proof of me
lying?

<...>
--
Sylvia

"Now, before you or anybody else goes off on me for this being
my 'opinion,' remember that it is an opinion based on over 40
years in this business of performing. It is not on the fringes of
show business, as some would have you believe.

"When I call an agent to contact a movie star for a benefit show,
I normally get their home phone number. Such is my reputation
in show business. I am not speaking from a baseless existence on
the internet. I have performed magic in the jungles of Vietnam,
the deserts of Egypt and stages with air conditioning (thank God).

"None of what I said here is optional. You must do that all the
time in public."

-- Ray Haddad, Control Freak Feb 01 2000
Subject: "Dear Miss Manners" http://tinyurl.com/yv2965


"Again, this is advice from a 40 year veteran in show business.
I am not just offering you an opinion alone. This is truly fact
based on 40 years of watching magicians blackballed for being
amateur critics. [...]

"You'll find that my observations of real life circumstances have
far more to do with reality in this business than a theory put
forward because you FEEL you should be able to talk freely.
Keep talking. I'll get your gigs."

-- Ray Haddad, Control Freak Feb 01 2000
http://tinyurl.com/3935fj
Jackson Pillock
2007-09-09 10:17:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia
I answered the first part of your questions, Mr. Pillock. I'll answer
the rest later today.
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Sylvia
<...>
Post by Jackson Pillock
Getting back to my exchange with fundoc, in which I called you, "LIAR,
LIAR, LIAR,"
.
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Sylvia
I wasn't aware that you had. I wish that you would have addressed me
directly instead of indirectly in a post to Steve/fundoc [1].
.
Post by Jackson Pillock
I assumed you were following,
Why? I wasn't involved in that series of posts in that thread. What
little I posted, I posted elsewhere.
I thought you took a general interest in these topics.
Post by Sylvia
Post by Jackson Pillock
and addressed you directly, though I was replying to fundoc.
To me, if you are replying to someone else, especially if there is no
sign of my participating in the argument, you're not addressing me
"directly".
Okay.
Post by Sylvia
<...>
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Sylvia
Post by Jackson Pillock
Leaving aside ethical matters,
No, let's *not* leave ethical matters.
<..>
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Sylvia
"I've not checked every one, but if you follow her tinyurls
and read the cited thread, you'll find the context tends to
aggravate the charge. You'll find, time after time, that he
lies in order to smear, slime, and belittle others. "
Then Haddad's friends pop back up and simply state that I lied and you
take them seriously.
<...>
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Sylvia
Post by Jackson Pillock
it casts doubt on all your cites.
(Ray, this does not mean I buy your shit)
"All". Of course, that is what Steve/fundoc intended, despite the fact
that you checked out some of my cites and *never* found that I lied.
I showed you Steve/fundoc's dishonesty in his claim about the camera
outfits and provided links to back up what I wrote. I'd appreciate it if
you'd tell me *which* "several lies" you believe that Steve/fundoc
claims I told.
.
Post by Jackson Pillock
1. Where you insist that Ray claims to have been a SEAL.
You'll need to include the cite that made you believe that I ever made
that claim. Or, did you mean "Where *Steve/Fundoc* claims that you
insist that Ray claims to have been a SEAL"?
Post by Jackson Pillock
Do you still so insist?
"How long have you been beating your wife?"
"I have never beaten my wife." Easy. I take it that's what you're saying
about the SEAL business.
Post by Sylvia
Post by Jackson Pillock
2. Where you insist that Ray cliams he personally flew missions over NVN in
1974. Are you maintaining that?
Where I *quote* Ray Haddad claiming, in one of his Hanoi lie versions,
that he was one of a crew that flew over Hanoi during bombing
missions--missions that he drew combat pay for.
"Yes, we were. We drew two months of combat pay and flew
over Hanoi and Haiphong Harbor daily for a few weeks.
We did bomb selected targets. USS Ranger air wing planes
were involved."
-- Ray Haddad, Valor Thief
http://tinyurl.com/3xwa94
He insisted to Mr. Reese that he (Haddad) was there for the bombing.
Mr. Doug Reese: "You already kinda have one strike against you with the
1974 Hanoi bombing bit, as that just didn't happen. You are either lying
about that, or you just got your dates mixed-up and don't want to admit
it, but that bombing didn't happen. No amount of FOIAs will change that."
Ray Haddad: "It happened, Doug. I was there. You weren't."
http://tinyurl.com/3al3tc
Haddad claims he knows it happened because he was *THERE*--not, say,
over 400 miles away, but *THERE*. Mr. Pillock, you and I went through
that point during our discussion over Ray Haddad's "I was there" claim,
and you did not accuse me of lying then--why now? What's changed?
The record. Ray is now clear that he claims to have drawn combat pay and
seen planes take off, armed, and return, light.
Post by Sylvia
Post by Jackson Pillock
3. Where you (according to fundoc)
"According to fundoc"--gawd.
Post by Jackson Pillock
exaggerated Ray's crude, sexual references. 'Full description of
diseased vagina.' Did you claim Ray said that, and if so, can you
provide the cite?
You accepted Steve/fundoc's word that I said that (I did not), accused
me of lying, and now you ask *me* to provide a cite for something that
Steve/fundoc *claimed* that I said. You already believe it--show me why.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/c62be75a141e106c?dmode=source&hl=en
Post by Sylvia
Post by Jackson Pillock
4. Where you cut the bit about the 'second unit' or whatever. I accept your
explaination of that.
And do you see that Steve/Fundoc was dishonest in insisting that that
"bit" from an argument with Josh over the history VTRs was proof of me
lying?
He seems to think you deliberately altered it, to change the meaning.
Post by Sylvia
<...>
--
Sylvia
"Now, before you or anybody else goes off on me for this being
my 'opinion,' remember that it is an opinion based on over 40
years in this business of performing. It is not on the fringes of
show business, as some would have you believe.
"When I call an agent to contact a movie star for a benefit show,
I normally get their home phone number. Such is my reputation
in show business. I am not speaking from a baseless existence on
the internet. I have performed magic in the jungles of Vietnam,
the deserts of Egypt and stages with air conditioning (thank God).
"None of what I said here is optional. You must do that all the
time in public."
-- Ray Haddad, Control Freak Feb 01 2000
Subject: "Dear Miss Manners" http://tinyurl.com/yv2965
"Again, this is advice from a 40 year veteran in show business.
I am not just offering you an opinion alone. This is truly fact
based on 40 years of watching magicians blackballed for being
amateur critics. [...]
"You'll find that my observations of real life circumstances have
far more to do with reality in this business than a theory put
forward because you FEEL you should be able to talk freely.
Keep talking. I'll get your gigs."
-- Ray Haddad, Control Freak Feb 01 2000
http://tinyurl.com/3935fj
Sylvia
2007-09-14 00:51:47 UTC
Permalink
.
.
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Sylvia
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Sylvia
<...>
Post by Jackson Pillock
Getting back to my exchange with fundoc, in which I called you, "LIAR,
LIAR, LIAR,"
.
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Sylvia
I wasn't aware that you had. I wish that you would have addressed me
directly instead of indirectly in a post to Steve/fundoc [1].
.
Post by Jackson Pillock
I assumed you were following,
Why? I wasn't involved in that series of posts in that thread. What
little I posted, I posted elsewhere.
I thought you took a general interest in these topics.
There are 272 posts to *this thread alone* (13 are mine)--who has time
to read all that (besides Haddad, who, he sez, has minions to do his
work)?

<...>
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Sylvia
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Sylvia
I'd appreciate it if you'd tell me *which* "several lies" you
believe that Steve/fundoc claims I told.
.
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Sylvia
Post by Jackson Pillock
1. Where you insist that Ray claims to have been a SEAL.
.
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Sylvia
You'll need to include the cite that made you believe that I ever made
that claim. Or, did you mean "Where *Steve/Fundoc* claims that you
insist that Ray claims to have been a SEAL"?
.
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Sylvia
Post by Jackson Pillock
Do you still so insist?
.
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Sylvia
"How long have you been beating your wife?"
.
Post by Jackson Pillock
"I have never beaten my wife." Easy. I take it that's what you're saying
about the SEAL business.
.
I was pointing out that you weren't even asking me if I had said that (I
didn't). Having taken Steve/fundo's*word* that I had, you asked me if I
was "still" *insisting*.
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Sylvia
Post by Jackson Pillock
2. Where you insist that Ray cliams he personally flew missions
over NVN in 1974. Are you maintaining that?
.
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Sylvia
Where I *quote* Ray Haddad claiming, in one of his Hanoi lie versions,
that he was one of a crew that flew over Hanoi during bombing
missions--missions that he drew combat pay for.
"Yes, we were. We drew two months of combat pay and flew
over Hanoi and Haiphong Harbor daily for a few weeks.
We did bomb selected targets. USS Ranger air wing planes
were involved."
-- Ray Haddad, Valor Thief
http://tinyurl.com/3xwa94
He insisted to Mr. Reese that he (Haddad) was there for the bombing.
Mr. Doug Reese: "You already kinda have one strike against you with the
1974 Hanoi bombing bit, as that just didn't happen. You are either lying
about that, or you just got your dates mixed-up and don't want to admit
it, but that bombing didn't happen. No amount of FOIAs will change that."
Ray Haddad: "It happened, Doug. I was there. You weren't."
http://tinyurl.com/3al3tc
Haddad claims he knows it happened because he was *THERE*--not, say,
over 400 miles away, but *THERE*. Mr. Pillock, you and I went through
that point during our discussion over Ray Haddad's "I was there" claim,
and you did not accuse me of lying then--why now? What's changed?
.
Post by Jackson Pillock
The record.
No. The archives still show that I quoted and replied to Ray Haddad
saying:

"Yes, we were. We drew two months of combat pay and flew
over Hanoi and Haiphong Harbor daily for a few weeks.
We did bomb selected targets. USS Ranger air wing planes
were involved."

-- Ray Haddad, Valor Thief
http://tinyurl.com/3xwa94
Post by Jackson Pillock
Ray is now clear that he claims
<...>

You accused me of lying about the version of the Hanoi lie that he told
before, the one that I quoted, the one where he says he flew over Hanoi.

You seem to forget that it never happened at all, which was the point of
my post about that lie to begin with.
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Sylvia
Post by Jackson Pillock
3. Where you (according to fundoc)
"According to fundoc"--gawd.
Post by Jackson Pillock
exaggerated Ray's crude, sexual references. 'Full description of
diseased vagina.' Did you claim Ray said that, and if so, can you
provide the cite?
.
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Sylvia
You accepted Steve/fundoc's word that I said that (I did not), accused
me of lying, and now you ask *me* to provide a cite for something that
Steve/fundoc *claimed* that I said. You already believe it--show me why.
.
Post by Jackson Pillock
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/c62be75a141e106c?dmode=source&
hl=en
That's Steve's link to a post where I never claimed that Haddad said
that. If I had, one of you would have quoted me.
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Sylvia
Post by Jackson Pillock
4. Where you cut the bit about the 'second unit' or whatever. I
accept your explaination of that.
.
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Sylvia
And do you see that Steve/Fundoc was dishonest in insisting that that
"bit" from an argument with Josh over the history VTRs was proof of me
lying?
.
Post by Jackson Pillock
He seems to think
<...>

I did not ask you what he thought.
--
Sylvia

"there are two types of mwers. those who continue
to defend and enable Ray Haddad, and those with
self-respect (and a sense of decency)."

-- Mr. $Zero
Jackson Pillock
2007-09-14 13:44:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia
.
.
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Sylvia
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Sylvia
<...>
Post by Jackson Pillock
Getting back to my exchange with fundoc, in which I called you, "LIAR,
LIAR, LIAR,"
.
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Sylvia
I wasn't aware that you had. I wish that you would have addressed me
directly instead of indirectly in a post to Steve/fundoc [1].
.
Post by Jackson Pillock
I assumed you were following,
Why? I wasn't involved in that series of posts in that thread. What
little I posted, I posted elsewhere.
I thought you took a general interest in these topics.
There are 272 posts to *this thread alone* (13 are mine)--who has time
to read all that (besides Haddad, who, he sez, has minions to do his
work)?
<...>
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Sylvia
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Sylvia
I'd appreciate it if you'd tell me *which* "several lies" you
believe that Steve/fundoc claims I told.
.
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Sylvia
Post by Jackson Pillock
1. Where you insist that Ray claims to have been a SEAL.
.
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Sylvia
You'll need to include the cite that made you believe that I ever made
that claim. Or, did you mean "Where *Steve/Fundoc* claims that you
insist that Ray claims to have been a SEAL"?
.
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Sylvia
Post by Jackson Pillock
Do you still so insist?
.
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Sylvia
"How long have you been beating your wife?"
.
Post by Jackson Pillock
"I have never beaten my wife." Easy. I take it that's what you're saying
about the SEAL business.
.
I was pointing out that you weren't even asking me if I had said that (I
didn't). Having taken Steve/fundo's*word* that I had, you asked me if I
was "still" *insisting*.
Okay. So you're not. That's cleared up now. Finished. Bye-bye topic.
Post by Sylvia
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Sylvia
Post by Jackson Pillock
2. Where you insist that Ray cliams he personally flew missions
over NVN in 1974. Are you maintaining that?
.
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Sylvia
Where I *quote* Ray Haddad claiming, in one of his Hanoi lie versions,
that he was one of a crew that flew over Hanoi during bombing
missions--missions that he drew combat pay for.
"Yes, we were. We drew two months of combat pay and flew
over Hanoi and Haiphong Harbor daily for a few weeks.
We did bomb selected targets. USS Ranger air wing planes
were involved."
-- Ray Haddad, Valor Thief
http://tinyurl.com/3xwa94
He insisted to Mr. Reese that he (Haddad) was there for the bombing.
Mr. Doug Reese: "You already kinda have one strike against you with the
1974 Hanoi bombing bit, as that just didn't happen. You are either lying
about that, or you just got your dates mixed-up and don't want to admit
it, but that bombing didn't happen. No amount of FOIAs will change that."
Ray Haddad: "It happened, Doug. I was there. You weren't."
http://tinyurl.com/3al3tc
Haddad claims he knows it happened because he was *THERE*--not, say,
over 400 miles away, but *THERE*. Mr. Pillock, you and I went through
that point during our discussion over Ray Haddad's "I was there" claim,
and you did not accuse me of lying then--why now? What's changed?
.
Post by Jackson Pillock
The record.
No. The archives still show that I quoted and replied to Ray Haddad
"Yes, we were. We drew two months of combat pay and flew
over Hanoi and Haiphong Harbor daily for a few weeks.
We did bomb selected targets. USS Ranger air wing planes
were involved."
-- Ray Haddad, Valor Thief
http://tinyurl.com/3xwa94
Post by Jackson Pillock
Ray is now clear that he claims
<...>
You accused me of lying about the version of the Hanoi lie that he told
before, the one that I quoted, the one where he says he flew over Hanoi.
Okay. Do you understand what I said about it at the time, what I repeate
since, and what I repeat now: Ray was not claiming to have personally flown
on these missions? Do you understand that?
Post by Sylvia
You seem to forget that it never happened at all, which was the point of
my post about that lie to begin with.
I do not seem to forget that.
Post by Sylvia
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Sylvia
Post by Jackson Pillock
3. Where you (according to fundoc)
"According to fundoc"--gawd.
Post by Jackson Pillock
exaggerated Ray's crude, sexual references. 'Full description of
diseased vagina.' Did you claim Ray said that, and if so, can you
provide the cite?
.
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Sylvia
You accepted Steve/fundoc's word that I said that (I did not), accused
me of lying, and now you ask *me* to provide a cite for something that
Steve/fundoc *claimed* that I said. You already believe it--show me why.
.
Post by Jackson Pillock
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/c62be75a141e106c?dmode=source&
hl=en
That's Steve's link to a post where I never claimed that Haddad said
that. If I had, one of you would have quoted me.
Whatever. That's what I'm talking about. So, just to be clear: you are not
accusing Haddad of using such language. Who did say it BTW? Was it fundoc?
Because if it was, then I'd say he's been telling porkies.
Post by Sylvia
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Sylvia
Post by Jackson Pillock
4. Where you cut the bit about the 'second unit' or whatever. I
accept your explaination of that.
.
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Sylvia
And do you see that Steve/Fundoc was dishonest in insisting that that
"bit" from an argument with Josh over the history VTRs was proof of me
lying?
.
Post by Jackson Pillock
He seems to think
<...>
I did not ask you what he thought.
Okay then, in answer to your question, no.
Post by Sylvia
--
Sylvia
"there are two types of mwers. those who continue
to defend and enable Ray Haddad, and those with
self-respect (and a sense of decency)."
-- Mr. $Zero
Funderful
2007-09-14 14:30:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Sylvia
.
.
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Sylvia
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Sylvia
<...>
Post by Jackson Pillock
Getting back to my exchange with fundoc, in which I called you, "LIAR,
LIAR, LIAR,"
.
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Sylvia
I wasn't aware that you had. I wish that you would have addressed me
directly instead of indirectly in a post to Steve/fundoc [1].
.
Post by Jackson Pillock
I assumed you were following,
Why? I wasn't involved in that series of posts in that thread. What
little I posted, I posted elsewhere.
I thought you took a general interest in these topics.
There are 272 posts to *this thread alone* (13 are mine)--who has time
to read all that (besides Haddad, who, he sez, has minions to do his
work)?
<...>
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Sylvia
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Sylvia
I'd appreciate it if you'd tell me *which* "several lies" you
believe that Steve/fundoc claims I told.
.
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Sylvia
Post by Jackson Pillock
1. Where you insist that Ray claims to have been a SEAL.
.
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Sylvia
You'll need to include the cite that made you believe that I ever made
that claim. Or, did you mean "Where *Steve/Fundoc* claims that you
insist that Ray claims to have been a SEAL"?
.
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Sylvia
Post by Jackson Pillock
Do you still so insist?
.
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Sylvia
"How long have you been beating your wife?"
.
Post by Jackson Pillock
"I have never beaten my wife." Easy. I take it that's what you're saying
about the SEAL business.
.
I was pointing out that you weren't even asking me if I had said that (I
didn't). Having taken Steve/fundo's*word* that I had, you asked me if I
was "still" *insisting*.
Okay. So you're not. That's cleared up now. Finished. Bye-bye topic.
Post by Sylvia
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Sylvia
Post by Jackson Pillock
2. Where you insist that Ray cliams he personally flew missions
over NVN in 1974. Are you maintaining that?
.
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Sylvia
Where I *quote* Ray Haddad claiming, in one of his Hanoi lie versions,
that he was one of a crew that flew over Hanoi during bombing
missions--missions that he drew combat pay for.
"Yes, we were. We drew two months of combat pay and flew
over Hanoi and Haiphong Harbor daily for a few weeks.
We did bomb selected targets. USS Ranger air wing planes
were involved."
-- Ray Haddad, Valor Thief
http://tinyurl.com/3xwa94
He insisted to Mr. Reese that he (Haddad) was there for the bombing.
Mr. Doug Reese: "You already kinda have one strike against you with the
1974 Hanoi bombing bit, as that just didn't happen. You are either lying
about that, or you just got your dates mixed-up and don't want to admit
it, but that bombing didn't happen. No amount of FOIAs will change that."
Ray Haddad: "It happened, Doug. I was there. You weren't."
http://tinyurl.com/3al3tc
Haddad claims he knows it happened because he was *THERE*--not, say,
over 400 miles away, but *THERE*. Mr. Pillock, you and I went through
that point during our discussion over Ray Haddad's "I was there" claim,
and you did not accuse me of lying then--why now? What's changed?
.
Post by Jackson Pillock
The record.
No. The archives still show that I quoted and replied to Ray Haddad
"Yes, we were. We drew two months of combat pay and flew
over Hanoi and Haiphong Harbor daily for a few weeks.
We did bomb selected targets. USS Ranger air wing planes
were involved."
-- Ray Haddad, Valor Thief
http://tinyurl.com/3xwa94
Post by Jackson Pillock
Ray is now clear that he claims
<...>
You accused me of lying about the version of the Hanoi lie that he told
before, the one that I quoted, the one where he says he flew over Hanoi.
Okay. Do you understand what I said about it at the time, what I repeate
since, and what I repeat now: Ray was not claiming to have personally
flown on these missions? Do you understand that?
Post by Sylvia
You seem to forget that it never happened at all, which was the point of
my post about that lie to begin with.
I do not seem to forget that.
Post by Sylvia
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Sylvia
Post by Jackson Pillock
3. Where you (according to fundoc)
"According to fundoc"--gawd.
Post by Jackson Pillock
exaggerated Ray's crude, sexual references. 'Full description of
diseased vagina.' Did you claim Ray said that, and if so, can you
provide the cite?
.
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Sylvia
You accepted Steve/fundoc's word that I said that (I did not), accused
me of lying, and now you ask *me* to provide a cite for something that
Steve/fundoc *claimed* that I said. You already believe it--show me why.
.
Post by Jackson Pillock
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/c62be75a141e106c?dmode=source&
hl=en
That's Steve's link to a post where I never claimed that Haddad said
that. If I had, one of you would have quoted me.
Whatever. That's what I'm talking about. So, just to be clear: you are not
accusing Haddad of using such language. Who did say it BTW? Was it fundoc?
Because if it was, then I'd say he's been telling porkies.
You are not a very careful reader Mr. Pillock. Allow me.

"did you accuse Ray of using pornographic langauge? Did you accuse him of
writing a 'full description' of a 'diseased vagina'?

What I wrote originally in response to your request for one single thing
that Slyvia'd said was false was: he had posted to this newsgroup "a full
description" of her diseased vagina, also a lie.

No quotes around Slyvia's "diseased vagina" -- Which I am pleased to see
discussed here in several newsgroups needless to say -- quotes around "full
description."

Diseased vagina was my paraphrase of her body "plagued with destruction"
(below) because what part of her body would be plagued by sexually
transmitted disease if not her vagina? I'm guessing she doesn't do anal.

So strictly speaking I misspoke. Because she didn't accuse Haddad, she
accused "his group," which he "enlisted" and "is running."

"Ray Haddad has been running nasty smear campaigns against regular posters
of MW [...] He enlisted the help of people who used to post here [...]
*Some* of the nastier lie his group published include: [...] lies that my
body is plagued with destruction from sexually transmitted disease, along
with full descriptions of this."

The point is that there is no where a "full description" of Slyvia's body
"plagued with destruction from sexually transmitted disease." I wrote some
juvenalia -- satire you called it -- about her stinky pussy. I didn't write
it because Haddad asked me, I wasn't recruited by Haddad, and it's not a
"full description" of anything.

Not being a deranged stalker I have zero reason to lie about any of this. If
you think I do you're fucking nuts.
Jackson Pillock
2007-09-14 16:20:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Funderful
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Sylvia
.
.
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Sylvia
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Sylvia
<...>
Post by Jackson Pillock
Getting back to my exchange with fundoc, in which I called you, "LIAR,
LIAR, LIAR,"
.
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Sylvia
I wasn't aware that you had. I wish that you would have addressed me
directly instead of indirectly in a post to Steve/fundoc [1].
.
Post by Jackson Pillock
I assumed you were following,
Why? I wasn't involved in that series of posts in that thread. What
little I posted, I posted elsewhere.
I thought you took a general interest in these topics.
There are 272 posts to *this thread alone* (13 are mine)--who has time
to read all that (besides Haddad, who, he sez, has minions to do his
work)?
<...>
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Sylvia
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Sylvia
I'd appreciate it if you'd tell me *which* "several lies" you
believe that Steve/fundoc claims I told.
.
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Sylvia
Post by Jackson Pillock
1. Where you insist that Ray claims to have been a SEAL.
.
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Sylvia
You'll need to include the cite that made you believe that I ever made
that claim. Or, did you mean "Where *Steve/Fundoc* claims that you
insist that Ray claims to have been a SEAL"?
.
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Sylvia
Post by Jackson Pillock
Do you still so insist?
.
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Sylvia
"How long have you been beating your wife?"
.
Post by Jackson Pillock
"I have never beaten my wife." Easy. I take it that's what you're saying
about the SEAL business.
.
I was pointing out that you weren't even asking me if I had said that (I
didn't). Having taken Steve/fundo's*word* that I had, you asked me if I
was "still" *insisting*.
Okay. So you're not. That's cleared up now. Finished. Bye-bye topic.
Post by Sylvia
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Sylvia
Post by Jackson Pillock
2. Where you insist that Ray cliams he personally flew missions
over NVN in 1974. Are you maintaining that?
.
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Sylvia
Where I *quote* Ray Haddad claiming, in one of his Hanoi lie versions,
that he was one of a crew that flew over Hanoi during bombing
missions--missions that he drew combat pay for.
"Yes, we were. We drew two months of combat pay and flew
over Hanoi and Haiphong Harbor daily for a few weeks.
We did bomb selected targets. USS Ranger air wing planes
were involved."
-- Ray Haddad, Valor Thief
http://tinyurl.com/3xwa94
He insisted to Mr. Reese that he (Haddad) was there for the bombing.
Mr. Doug Reese: "You already kinda have one strike against you with the
1974 Hanoi bombing bit, as that just didn't happen. You are either lying
about that, or you just got your dates mixed-up and don't want to admit
it, but that bombing didn't happen. No amount of FOIAs will change that."
Ray Haddad: "It happened, Doug. I was there. You weren't."
http://tinyurl.com/3al3tc
Haddad claims he knows it happened because he was *THERE*--not, say,
over 400 miles away, but *THERE*. Mr. Pillock, you and I went through
that point during our discussion over Ray Haddad's "I was there" claim,
and you did not accuse me of lying then--why now? What's changed?
.
Post by Jackson Pillock
The record.
No. The archives still show that I quoted and replied to Ray Haddad
"Yes, we were. We drew two months of combat pay and flew
over Hanoi and Haiphong Harbor daily for a few weeks.
We did bomb selected targets. USS Ranger air wing planes
were involved."
-- Ray Haddad, Valor Thief
http://tinyurl.com/3xwa94
Post by Jackson Pillock
Ray is now clear that he claims
<...>
You accused me of lying about the version of the Hanoi lie that he told
before, the one that I quoted, the one where he says he flew over Hanoi.
Okay. Do you understand what I said about it at the time, what I repeate
since, and what I repeat now: Ray was not claiming to have personally
flown on these missions? Do you understand that?
Post by Sylvia
You seem to forget that it never happened at all, which was the point of
my post about that lie to begin with.
I do not seem to forget that.
Post by Sylvia
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Sylvia
Post by Jackson Pillock
3. Where you (according to fundoc)
"According to fundoc"--gawd.
Post by Jackson Pillock
exaggerated Ray's crude, sexual references. 'Full description of
diseased vagina.' Did you claim Ray said that, and if so, can you
provide the cite?
.
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Sylvia
You accepted Steve/fundoc's word that I said that (I did not), accused
me of lying, and now you ask *me* to provide a cite for something that
Steve/fundoc *claimed* that I said. You already believe it--show me why.
.
Post by Jackson Pillock
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/c62be75a141e106c?dmode=source&
hl=en
That's Steve's link to a post where I never claimed that Haddad said
that. If I had, one of you would have quoted me.
Whatever. That's what I'm talking about. So, just to be clear: you are
not accusing Haddad of using such language. Who did say it BTW? Was it
fundoc? Because if it was, then I'd say he's been telling porkies.
You are not a very careful reader Mr. Pillock.
I'm trying, funster. Really, really giving it some effort here.

Allow me.
Post by Funderful
"did you accuse Ray of using pornographic langauge? Did you accuse him of
writing a 'full description' of a 'diseased vagina'?
What I wrote originally in response to your request for one single thing
that Slyvia'd said was false was: he had posted to this newsgroup "a full
description" of her diseased vagina, also a lie.
No quotes around Slyvia's "diseased vagina" -- Which I am pleased to see
discussed here in several newsgroups needless to say -- quotes around
"full description."
Diseased vagina was my paraphrase of her body "plagued with destruction"
(below) because what part of her body would be plagued by sexually
transmitted disease if not her vagina? I'm guessing she doesn't do anal.
So strictly speaking I misspoke.
LIAR!

Because she didn't accuse Haddad, she
Post by Funderful
accused "his group," which he "enlisted" and "is running."
"Ray Haddad has been running nasty smear campaigns against regular posters
of MW [...] He enlisted the help of people who used to post here [...]
*Some* of the nastier lie his group published include: [...] lies that my
body is plagued with destruction from sexually transmitted disease, along
with full descriptions of this."
Exactly. Kinda sounds like you though, to be fair.
Post by Funderful
The point is that there is no where a "full description" of Slyvia's body
"plagued with destruction from sexually transmitted disease." I wrote some
juvenalia -- satire you called it -- about her stinky pussy. I didn't
write it because Haddad asked me, I wasn't recruited by Haddad, and it's
not a "full description" of anything.
Ah hah. Someone's been visiting les chateaux de la Loire* Valley.
Post by Funderful
Not being a deranged stalker I have zero reason to lie about any of this.
If you think I do you're fucking nuts.
*That means 'liar' in French.
Josh Hill
2007-09-15 01:46:16 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 17:20:33 +0100, "Jackson Pillock"
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Funderful
Because she didn't accuse Haddad, she
accused "his group," which he "enlisted" and "is running."
"Ray Haddad has been running nasty smear campaigns against regular posters
of MW [...] He enlisted the help of people who used to post here [...]
*Some* of the nastier lie his group published include: [...] lies that my
body is plagued with destruction from sexually transmitted disease, along
with full descriptions of this."
Exactly. Kinda sounds like you though, to be fair.
And not like me. However, I believe she's referring to a post of mine,
one in which I characterized her brain as syphilitic.

I assumed when I wrote that that I would not be taken literally, since
tertiary syphilis has since the invention of Penicillin been
completely preventable in those not black and receiving care from the
Tuskeegee Institute. Sylvia, though, chose to misrepresent my meaning
and distort what I said through a misleading paraphrase.

Ironically, the pleasure she takes in smearing people, a pleasure
which is seemingly redoubled when someone's reputation is actually
harmed by her distortions, is what I was referring to.

Other lies and distortions in the brief paragraph above include the
claim that Ray Haddad has been running smear campaigns and has
enlisted the help of others: Sylvia has not been smeared, my help has
not been enlisted -- and if you know Towse and Fundoc, you know that
theirs has not been either -- and while she has been roundly insulted,
no one is running a smear campaign against her. Even if we were
inclined that way, nothing does her more harm to her reputation than
pointing to her lies and distortions.

Which, Sylvia, you may take as a bit of advice: the people who come
out of this looking bad will not be Ray, or me, or Fundoc or Sal or
any of the others who have been drawing attention to your
misrepresentations. Honest onlookers have already caught on to the
fact that what you say is not true. It's only a matter of time before
they conclude that the lies are either a matter of willful choice, or
the product of a brain not metaphorically but genuinely diseased.
--
Josh

"Let us find health and vigor and hope, and the diseased portion
of the earth will fall behind of its own doing. For that we need
no aggressive strategic plans, no provocation of military hostilities,
no showdowns." - George Kennan
Funt
2007-09-15 12:02:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Funderful
LIAR!
Shurg. We're all going down together, didn't you get the memo? Me and Hill
and Bill Oliver and several other nefarious characters are engaged in a vast
criminal conspiracy to violate the Stolen Valor Act by aiding and abetting
Ray Haddad in his federal crime of bragging about the time he ate a
hamburger on a boat. You can't separate the guilty from the innocent in
something as heinous as that. If I wrote an essay of a body plagued with
destruction, then we all did, and we all deserve to hang for it.

This thing is bigger than any one person. If you knew what was good for you,
you'd walk away now.
Post by Funderful
Because she didn't accuse Haddad, she
Post by Funderful
accused "his group," which he "enlisted" and "is running."
"Ray Haddad has been running nasty smear campaigns against regular
posters of MW [...] He enlisted the help of people who used to post here
[...] *Some* of the nastier lie his group published include: [...] lies
that my body is plagued with destruction from sexually transmitted
disease, along with full descriptions of this."
Exactly. Kinda sounds like you though, to be fair.
It's unclear to me who you're trying to be fair to. Are you trying to be
fair to Slyvia, who's whining that her pap is being smeared? Or to Josh
Hill, who Slyvia quite reasonably claims has violated federal law by his
involvement in a vast criminal conspiracy to post messages on the interwebs
and by golly she has the proof.

In any event, of course it was me. Hill probably doesn't even know what
pussy looks like, so he couldn't write a full descrption of one. And
whatever else Haddad is, the closest he's ever come to writing poRn is the
word "snogging." So it was me, being crude, what a fucking surprise.

"And once again new york's fucking dumbest leaps into the fray to defend his
usenet fuckbuddy. No doubt in your masturbatory fantasies you imagine
yourself a brave knight on a shining white horse rescuing a damsylvia in
distress. Well. Let's leave aside for the moment the question of whether you
and Sylvia are fucking, whether Sylvia has four fingers or a fist jammed up
into her cunt while she composes posts about you and she fucking, whether an
officer of the NYPD can maintain an erection long enough to fuck a broad
without conjuring up a mental image of a negro chained to a radiator with a
broom handle broken off in his ass, and whether if you and Sylvia are
virtually fucking you'll contract virtual syphilis from her diseased barren
scabrous fucking virtual cunt."

As far as I can recall, that's about as clinical as I got regarding Slyvia's
stinky privates. If five or six adjectives strung in front of a noun
comprise a "full description" of anything, much less "a body is plagued with
destruction from sexually transmitted disease" then I'm guilty as charged
and Stan can take me down to the station house and sodomize me with his
trusty broom. If not, not, and we can just chalk it up the hyperbole to
Insepector Javert's understandable prosecutorial zeal. Because if she
doesn't nip this kid of thing in the bud now, what's next? First someone
claims to have eaten a hamburger on a boat, and then somebody else claims to
have eaten a ham and swiss on rye on an airplane and the next thing you know
it's fucking anarchy, dogs and cats sleeping together, great whores made
drunk with the wine of fornication, people stealing cable. No, best to nip
it in the bud now, while there's still time.
Post by Funderful
Post by Funderful
The point is that there is no where a "full description" of Slyvia's body
some juvenalia -- satire you called it -- about her stinky pussy. I
didn't write it because Haddad asked me, I wasn't recruited by Haddad,
and it's not a "full description" of anything.
Ah hah. Someone's been visiting les chateaux de la Loire* Valley.
Post by Funderful
Not being a deranged stalker I have zero reason to lie about any of this.
If you think I do you're fucking nuts.
*That means 'liar' in French.
Jackson Pillock
2007-09-15 17:11:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Funt
Post by Funderful
LIAR!
Shurg. We're all going down together, didn't you get the memo? Me and Hill
and Bill Oliver and several other nefarious characters are engaged in a
vast criminal conspiracy to violate the Stolen Valor Act by aiding and
abetting Ray Haddad in his federal crime of bragging about the time he ate
a hamburger on a boat. You can't separate the guilty from the innocent in
something as heinous as that. If I wrote an essay of a body plagued with
destruction, then we all did, and we all deserve to hang for it.
This thing is bigger than any one person. If you knew what was good for
you, you'd walk away now.
Post by Funderful
Because she didn't accuse Haddad, she
Post by Funderful
accused "his group," which he "enlisted" and "is running."
"Ray Haddad has been running nasty smear campaigns against regular
posters of MW [...] He enlisted the help of people who used to post here
[...] *Some* of the nastier lie his group published include: [...] lies
that my body is plagued with destruction from sexually transmitted
disease, along with full descriptions of this."
Exactly. Kinda sounds like you though, to be fair.
It's unclear to me who you're trying to be fair to. Are you trying to be
fair to Slyvia, who's whining that her pap is being smeared? Or to Josh
Hill, who Slyvia quite reasonably claims has violated federal law by his
involvement in a vast criminal conspiracy to post messages on the
interwebs and by golly she has the proof.
To the truth itself, Funt. As in Ghandi.
This is fun
2007-09-09 11:25:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia
I answered the first part of your questions, Mr. Pillock. I'll answer
the rest later today.
.
Post by Sylvia
Post by Jackson Pillock
1. Where you insist that Ray claims to have been a SEAL.
You'll need to include the cite that made you believe that I ever made
that claim. Or, did you mean "Where *Steve/Fundoc* claims that you
insist that Ray claims to have been a SEAL"?
Ooooooo, ooooo pick me, pick me! I know!!

You insisted that Ray claims to have been a SEAL in a thread you wrote
entitled

"When RAY HADDAD Performed SEAL Tricks of the Trade"

in which you wrote that

"He's [Haddad] claimin' Special Ops duties, no doubt. Cool, 'cause the list
of Navy SEALs *is*, most definitely, complete [...] Then again, mebbe Sailor
Ray Haddad, who was... <checking notes> an E-5 at the time, was only a kinda
sorta SEAL..."

and then you wrote

"Well, then, Haddad, you'll have no problem with my askin' (Real) Navy SEALs
to look at them years of words of yours and judge if the commando
eye-to-eye fighting and killing you claim to have done as yer assigned
military duty could have possibly been the duty of anyone *not* a Navy SEAL.
And, when they say, "This guy has been claimin' to be a SEAL--what group did
he claim to be in?"

And then when Haddad said "I never made any such claim"

You replied: "Sure ya did. Lots of times."

http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/browse_frm/thread/eede4e711872c6fd/23159f42f887ac81?lnk=st&q=&rnum=1#23159f42f887ac81



You are not a very good liar Slyvia, which is odd, considering all the
practice you've had.
Sylvia
2007-09-08 22:46:56 UTC
Permalink
Mr. Pillock, this post addresses your taking Steve/fundoc's *word* that
I did not prove that Ray Haddad's military "career" story about a major
hurricane striking Norfolk VA was also a lie. I include my evidence from
my original thread since you appear to have missed it the thread.
<...>
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Jackson Pillock
Getting back to my exchange with fundoc, in which I called you, "LIAR,
LIAR, LIAR,"
<...>
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Jackson Pillock
it casts doubt on all your cites.
(Ray, this does not mean I buy your shit)
<...>
Post by Jackson Pillock
I'd appreciate it if you'd tell me *which* "several lies" you
believe that Steve/fundoc claims I told.
<...>
Post by Jackson Pillock
5. Do you still maintain that no hurricanes came near enough to Norfolk, VA,
during the time of Ray's claim of putting to sea to avoid one?
<amused>

Haddad claims that he failed to avoid it ("we bobbed around like a cork
fully at the mercy of the winds and seas"). As Steve/Fundoc, Ray Haddad,
and Joshua P. Hill well know (but continue to deny), I proved that
Haddad's hurricane is a fantasy. Unless the United States Government's
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (my source) retracts its
relevant hurricane reports, my proof stands. Here's the exact cite I
gave fundoc on May 8 in my original thread about Ray Haddad's Hurricane
Lie:

http://www.hpc.ncep.noaa.gov/research/roth/valate20hur.htm

(And, before Haddad replies by snipping that link and claiming "Wikki",
note that my cite is from the NOAA/ National Weather Service, National
Centers for Environmental Prediction, Hydrometeorological Prediction
Center.)

You'll have to scroll down to find the 1970's (Ray Haddad refused to
name a specific year or even the name of his supposed hurricane), but
you will see that nothing stronger than a tropical storm struck the
*entire* state of Virginia during that decade. I believe that covers
your "near enough" qualification, even though in Ray Haddad's original
lie he *specifically* says that his fantasy hurricane struck Norfolk:

"When I got back, I discovered a tree had fallen smack
into the middle of my car which was parked over 100
yards from the tree on the base at Norfolk. A clearly
defined path showed where it traversed the parking lot
damaging cars along the way."

--Excerpt, Ray Haddad lies about Saving an Aircraft
Carrier from Hurricane http://tinyurl.com/yo5gwu

In my original post I mentioned that no hurricanes hit Norfolk (or even
VA) during the 1970's, which is true, but remember that my purpose was
to specifically debunk Ray Haddad's lie of his heroic efforts during a
major hurricane:

"I'll bet y'all saw this one comin'--unlike the folks of
Norfolk who *never* saw Haddad's sudden, fierce, destructive
hurricane comin'. Or, goin'. No one even notice it strike the
city. Mebbe they're related to the folks of Hanoi. Another
Haddad ULTRA-TOP SECRET adventure!"

Ray Haddad's fantasy hurricane was at least strong enough to rip a large
tree out of the ground and throw it one hundred yards. The National
NOAA/National Hurricane Center had 1970's tracking charts of Major
Landfalling US hurricanes (CAT3 and up) that were clear at a glance [1]
(as opposed to the HPC's page), so I used them, clearly labeled, for my
lovely illustration:

" Loading Image... See? PROOF *and*
an Artist's Conception of the horrific conditions Haddad faced
while trying to save one of our ships!"

I even labeled Virginia and Norfolk so geography-challenged peeps could
easily see that no hurricanes such as Haddad described came anywhere
near the state of Virginia, let alone directly striking Norfolk. When
Steve/"fundoc" started in with his twisty lies to support Haddad's lie,
I threw in the other cite I had that also covered State of Virginia
hurricanes weaker than Haddad's fantasy hurricane, though that required
scrolling through the text to find the 1970's.

I point this out because if you had looked at the thread before calling
me a liar you would have seen not only my proof, but also Steve/fundoc's
attempt to twist and sleaze Haddad's tree tossing hurricane lie into
being about "a big storm":

"[...] the word hurricane can be used to describe any intense
or violent storm. Thus, when Haddad said a hurricane approached,
it is likely that he used the word to mean 'a big storm.' Thus,
even your own false and desperate lying through your cunt post
facto distinction between tropical storm and hurricane will not
avail you." -- Steve/fundoc http://tinyurl.com/2kvyvp

In that instance, Steve/"fundoc" posts under the user name "Dead Cook
\(the other one\)" (this was soon after our Chef Pastorio "Bob (this
one)" died and Haddad got whapped for using Chef Pastorio's death to
"score points").

After I systematically discounted his cites as not proving Haddad's lie
that a major hurricane struck Norfolk, VA, Steve/"fundoc" recycled them,
such as:

"1. You are a lying through your cunt about the information in the
cites I provided. For example, I posted a link to the path of
Hurricance Belle.
Loading Image...
The map shows that Hurricane Belle was a category two hurricane
the eye of which passed within 100 or so miles of Norfolk Virginia
in 1976."

Steve/"fundoc" likes to pretend that he is a lawyer, doncha know (and to
pretend that "within 100 or so miles of Norfolk" is the same as Haddad's
claim that a hurricane struck Norfolk).

"I'm saying that if one of your cites can be shown to be false,
distorted or incomplete, then the rest of your cites will come
into question." -- Mr. Pillock to Miz Sylvia

I'd say his cite was false, wouldn't you?

Steve/"fundoc": "that Norfolk Virginia was not struck by a single
hurricane between 1970 and 1980. A lie."

Mr. Pillock: "You proved her wrong on that, whether she likes
it or not. But it wasn't a lie. She thought
she'd nailed him."

So, Mr. Pillock, what *proof* did Steve/"fundoc" offer you that made you
state that he had proved me wrong about no hurricanes having struck
Norfolk Virginia during the 1970's? Do you, Ray Haddad, Joshua P. Hill,
and Steve/"fundoc" know something that my source, the United States
Government's National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, doesn't?

<...>
--
Sylvia

Fundoc: "Oh, wait, I see. You took the stuff I wrote, wherein,
as another poster noted, I gave you such a kicking
that there was nothing left of you for him to kick,
and took your name out, and put mine in. That's
terribly clever. However did you manage it."

Anopheles: "I learned it from you, old chap."

Fundoc: "That's an even more feeble IKYABWAI than your usual."

Anopheles: "You see, you do have something to teach the world
after all, apart from the virtue of birth control.
Deformity is a terrible thing."

Fundoc: "Uh huh. And your reliance on an imaginary physical
reality in a text based medium is terrible reminder
of your complete and utter lack of wit."

Anopheles: "It explains that dreadful, humourless grudge you have
with the rest of the world."

Fundoc: "I don't have a grudge against the rest of the world.
Just the fuckwitted bits."

Anopheles: "Dear Fundoc.

"Please accept my sincerest apologies for insinuating
that you have a 'grudge against the rest of the
world'. Of course you don't. Your posts are always
full of encouragement, joy and light hearted humour
that we all delight in. You are possibly the most
sweetest poopsie in the group. That must be why
everyone loves you so.

"Anopheles."

Mr. Hope: "It's enough for me."

http://tinyurl.com/29mz5m
Jackson Pillock
2007-09-09 10:38:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia
Mr. Pillock, this post addresses your taking Steve/fundoc's *word* that
I did not prove that Ray Haddad's military "career" story about a major
hurricane striking Norfolk VA was also a lie. I include my evidence from
my original thread since you appear to have missed it the thread.
<...>
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Jackson Pillock
Getting back to my exchange with fundoc, in which I called you, "LIAR,
LIAR, LIAR,"
<...>
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Jackson Pillock
it casts doubt on all your cites.
(Ray, this does not mean I buy your shit)
<...>
Post by Jackson Pillock
I'd appreciate it if you'd tell me *which* "several lies" you
believe that Steve/fundoc claims I told.
<...>
Post by Jackson Pillock
5. Do you still maintain that no hurricanes came near enough to Norfolk, VA,
during the time of Ray's claim of putting to sea to avoid one?
<amused>
Haddad claims that he failed to avoid it ("we bobbed around like a cork
fully at the mercy of the winds and seas"). As Steve/Fundoc, Ray Haddad,
and Joshua P. Hill well know (but continue to deny), I proved that
Haddad's hurricane is a fantasy. Unless the United States Government's
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (my source) retracts its
relevant hurricane reports, my proof stands. Here's the exact cite I
gave fundoc on May 8 in my original thread about Ray Haddad's Hurricane
http://www.hpc.ncep.noaa.gov/research/roth/valate20hur.htm
(And, before Haddad replies by snipping that link and claiming "Wikki",
note that my cite is from the NOAA/ National Weather Service, National
Centers for Environmental Prediction, Hydrometeorological Prediction
Center.)
You'll have to scroll down to find the 1970's (Ray Haddad refused to
name a specific year or even the name of his supposed hurricane), but
you will see that nothing stronger than a tropical storm struck the
*entire* state of Virginia during that decade. I believe that covers
your "near enough" qualification, even though in Ray Haddad's original
"When I got back, I discovered a tree had fallen smack
into the middle of my car which was parked over 100
yards from the tree on the base at Norfolk. A clearly
defined path showed where it traversed the parking lot
damaging cars along the way."
--Excerpt, Ray Haddad lies about Saving an Aircraft
Carrier from Hurricane http://tinyurl.com/yo5gwu
In my original post I mentioned that no hurricanes hit Norfolk (or even
VA) during the 1970's, which is true, but remember that my purpose was
to specifically debunk Ray Haddad's lie of his heroic efforts during a
"I'll bet y'all saw this one comin'--unlike the folks of
Norfolk who *never* saw Haddad's sudden, fierce, destructive
hurricane comin'. Or, goin'. No one even notice it strike the
city. Mebbe they're related to the folks of Hanoi. Another
Haddad ULTRA-TOP SECRET adventure!"
Ray Haddad's fantasy hurricane was at least strong enough to rip a large
tree out of the ground and throw it one hundred yards. The National
NOAA/National Hurricane Center had 1970's tracking charts of Major
Landfalling US hurricanes (CAT3 and up) that were clear at a glance [1]
(as opposed to the HPC's page), so I used them, clearly labeled, for my
" http://gardex.googlepages.com/ship.jpg See? PROOF *and*
an Artist's Conception of the horrific conditions Haddad faced
while trying to save one of our ships!"
I even labeled Virginia and Norfolk so geography-challenged peeps could
easily see that no hurricanes such as Haddad described came anywhere
near the state of Virginia, let alone directly striking Norfolk. When
Steve/"fundoc" started in with his twisty lies to support Haddad's lie,
I threw in the other cite I had that also covered State of Virginia
hurricanes weaker than Haddad's fantasy hurricane, though that required
scrolling through the text to find the 1970's.
I point this out because if you had looked at the thread before calling
me a liar you would have seen not only my proof, but also Steve/fundoc's
attempt to twist and sleaze Haddad's tree tossing hurricane lie into
"[...] the word hurricane can be used to describe any intense
or violent storm. Thus, when Haddad said a hurricane approached,
it is likely that he used the word to mean 'a big storm.' Thus,
even your own false and desperate lying through your cunt post
facto distinction between tropical storm and hurricane will not
avail you." -- Steve/fundoc http://tinyurl.com/2kvyvp
In that instance, Steve/"fundoc" posts under the user name "Dead Cook
\(the other one\)" (this was soon after our Chef Pastorio "Bob (this
one)" died and Haddad got whapped for using Chef Pastorio's death to
"score points").
After I systematically discounted his cites as not proving Haddad's lie
that a major hurricane struck Norfolk, VA, Steve/"fundoc" recycled them,
"1. You are a lying through your cunt about the information in the
cites I provided. For example, I posted a link to the path of
Hurricance Belle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Belle_1976_track.png
The map shows that Hurricane Belle was a category two hurricane
the eye of which passed within 100 or so miles of Norfolk Virginia
in 1976."
Steve/"fundoc" likes to pretend that he is a lawyer, doncha know (and to
pretend that "within 100 or so miles of Norfolk" is the same as Haddad's
claim that a hurricane struck Norfolk).
"I'm saying that if one of your cites can be shown to be false,
distorted or incomplete, then the rest of your cites will come
into question." -- Mr. Pillock to Miz Sylvia
I'd say his cite was false, wouldn't you?
No. I'm no expert, but I think that that might well have been enough for the
captian to put to sea.
Post by Sylvia
Steve/"fundoc": "that Norfolk Virginia was not struck by a single
hurricane between 1970 and 1980. A lie."
Mr. Pillock: "You proved her wrong on that, whether she likes
it or not. But it wasn't a lie. She thought
she'd nailed him."
So, Mr. Pillock, what *proof* did Steve/"fundoc" offer you that made you
state that he had proved me wrong about no hurricanes having struck
Norfolk Virginia during the 1970's? Do you, Ray Haddad, Joshua P. Hill,
and Steve/"fundoc" know something that my source, the United States
Government's National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, doesn't?
Fundoc showed that there were enough tropical storms, near-misses by
hurricanes,etc. for a ship to have put to sea sometime during the seventies.
I wasn't the only one persuaded, either. Look back over the thread and see
where RJM talked about having watched a Soviet ship put to sea, for
instance.
Post by Sylvia
<...>
--
Sylvia
Fundoc: "Oh, wait, I see. You took the stuff I wrote, wherein,
as another poster noted, I gave you such a kicking
that there was nothing left of you for him to kick,
and took your name out, and put mine in. That's
terribly clever. However did you manage it."
Anopheles: "I learned it from you, old chap."
Fundoc: "That's an even more feeble IKYABWAI than your usual."
Anopheles: "You see, you do have something to teach the world
after all, apart from the virtue of birth control.
Deformity is a terrible thing."
Fundoc: "Uh huh. And your reliance on an imaginary physical
reality in a text based medium is terrible reminder
of your complete and utter lack of wit."
Anopheles: "It explains that dreadful, humourless grudge you have
with the rest of the world."
Fundoc: "I don't have a grudge against the rest of the world.
Just the fuckwitted bits."
Anopheles: "Dear Fundoc.
"Please accept my sincerest apologies for insinuating
that you have a 'grudge against the rest of the
world'. Of course you don't. Your posts are always
full of encouragement, joy and light hearted humour
that we all delight in. You are possibly the most
sweetest poopsie in the group. That must be why
everyone loves you so.
"Anopheles."
Mr. Hope: "It's enough for me."
http://tinyurl.com/29mz5m
Josh Hill
2007-09-09 14:25:39 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 9 Sep 2007 11:38:43 +0100, "Jackson Pillock"
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Sylvia
Steve/"fundoc" likes to pretend that he is a lawyer, doncha know (and to
pretend that "within 100 or so miles of Norfolk" is the same as Haddad's
claim that a hurricane struck Norfolk).
Oh, so now Fundoc isn't a lawyer?

Do your lies never cease?
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Sylvia
"I'm saying that if one of your cites can be shown to be false,
distorted or incomplete, then the rest of your cites will come
into question." -- Mr. Pillock to Miz Sylvia
I'd say his cite was false, wouldn't you?
No. I'm no expert, but I think that that might well have been enough for the
captian to put to sea.
Post by Sylvia
Steve/"fundoc": "that Norfolk Virginia was not struck by a single
hurricane between 1970 and 1980. A lie."
Mr. Pillock: "You proved her wrong on that, whether she likes
it or not. But it wasn't a lie. She thought
she'd nailed him."
So, Mr. Pillock, what *proof* did Steve/"fundoc" offer you that made you
state that he had proved me wrong about no hurricanes having struck
Norfolk Virginia during the 1970's? Do you, Ray Haddad, Joshua P. Hill,
and Steve/"fundoc" know something that my source, the United States
Government's National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, doesn't?
Fundoc showed that there were enough tropical storms, near-misses by
hurricanes,etc. for a ship to have put to sea sometime during the seventies.
I wasn't the only one persuaded, either. Look back over the thread and see
where RJM talked about having watched a Soviet ship put to sea, for
instance.
Last I checked, weather reports weren't accurate enough to predict
with certainty the area that a hurricane would hit until right before
the event. One doesn't have to be a naval expert to know that the Navy
is going to be cautious about leaving ships in port when there's a
hurricane headed for the area.

Sylvia knows this damn well. She apparently has Gekko convinced that
she's in earnest, but over the years I've seen her be serious a couple
of times and I know that she's not that surpassingly dumb. Rather, she
gets her kicks from twisting and smearing. I used to wonder what she
accomplished through what I thought was obvious tomfoolery, but I've
learned over the years that people actually do swallow her poison. I
mean, in this case, I might have myself, had I not already been
familiar with her reputation and had Fundoc not come along with the
actual facts.
--
Josh

"This keeps out the stalkers, the obsessed, the dysfunctional, the abusive, and
the general, all-around jerks who get off on turning a group so toxic that nobody's
left after a while but the person and some of his associates or collaborators.
It's the slow poisoning of a group." - J. Michael Straczynski
Sylvia
2007-09-10 11:24:13 UTC
Permalink
<...>
Post by Sylvia
After I systematically discounted his cites as not proving Haddad's lie
that a major hurricane struck Norfolk, VA, Steve/"fundoc" recycled them,
"1. You are a lying through your cunt about the information in the
cites I provided. For example, I posted a link to the path of
Hurricance Belle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Belle_1976_track.png
The map shows that Hurricane Belle was a category two hurricane
the eye of which passed within 100 or so miles of Norfolk Virginia
in 1976."
Steve/"fundoc" likes to pretend that he is a lawyer, doncha know (and to
pretend that "within 100 or so miles of Norfolk" is the same as Haddad's
claim that a hurricane struck Norfolk).
"I'm saying that if one of your cites can be shown to be false,
distorted or incomplete, then the rest of your cites will come
into question." -- Mr. Pillock to Miz Sylvia
I'd say his cite was false, wouldn't you?
No. I'm no expert, but I think that that might well have been enough for the
captian to put to sea.
<staring>

Shamey, shamey, Mr. Pillock. I am *most* disappointed that you would
resort to shifting goalposts, especially to defend such a nasty lying
weasel as Steve/fundoc.

FOR THE FOLKS AT HOME:

See if you can spot what I have *always* said, exactly, that I proved
that Ray Haddad lied about in his story about a HURRICANE STRIKING
NORFOLK VA IN THE 1970'S (hints included):

"After I systematically discounted his cites as not proving
Haddad's lie that a major hurricane struck Norfolk, VA"

"Haddad's lie that a major hurricane struck Norfolk, VA" <----------

"Re: Reply to Mr. Pillock's questions #2: Ray Haddad's
Imaginary 1970's Hurricane in Norfolk "

"Imaginary 1970's Hurricane in Norfolk" <----------

"Steve/"fundoc" likes to pretend that he is a lawyer, doncha
know (and to pretend that 'within 100 or so miles of Norfolk'
is the same as Haddad's claim that a hurricane struck Norfolk"

"Haddad's claim that a hurricane struck Norfolk" <----------

"When I got back, I discovered a tree had fallen smack
into the middle of my car which was parked over 100
yards from the tree on the base at Norfolk. A clearly
defined path showed where it traversed the parking lot
damaging cars along the way."

--Excerpt, Ray Haddad lies about Saving an Aircraft
Carrier from Hurricane http://tinyurl.com/yo5gwu

CAT 5 wind damage "on the base at Norfolk" <----------

My ORIGINAL THREAD, May 1st:

"PROFILES IN <koff!> COURAGE: Haddad Saves Aircraft
Carrier from Hurricane! (NOT!)"

"I'll start with the KILLER POINT in case ya don't want to
see just how incredibly badly constructed *this* HUGE LIE
of Haddad's is.

"HADDAD'S CLAIM: As we join this tall tale, Haddad's about
to take a never named aircraft carrier out to sea to protect it
from a severe never named hurricane that he sez [WHAPPED!]
Norfolk VA during the 1970's. "

"Saves Aircraft Carrier from Hurricane! (NOT!) <----------

"KILLER POINT [...] a severe never named hurricane that he sez
[WHAPPED!] Norfolk VA during the 1970's." <----------

<UNsnip!>
Mr. Pillock, this post addresses your taking Steve/fundoc's *word* that
I did not prove that Ray Haddad's military "career" story about a major
hurricane striking Norfolk VA was also a lie. I include my evidence from
my original thread since you appear to have missed it the thread.
</UNsnip!>

"story about a major hurricane striking Norfolk VA" <----------
Post by Sylvia
Steve/"fundoc": "that Norfolk Virginia was not struck by a single
hurricane between 1970 and 1980. A lie."
"that Norfolk Virginia was not struck by a single hurricane between 1970
and 1980" <--------------
Post by Sylvia
Mr. Pillock: "You proved her wrong on that, whether she likes
it or not. But it wasn't a lie. She thought
she'd nailed him."
summabitch! SEE! You KNEW *exactly* what point I said that I had proved
(even if you took Steve's lying word that I had not)! I proved it
directly to you, and then you go and shift goal posts.

You went and fell asleep near a pod, didn't you? Pity.
Post by Sylvia
So, Mr. Pillock, what *proof* did Steve/"fundoc" offer you that made you
state that he had proved me wrong about no hurricanes having struck
Norfolk Virginia during the 1970's? Do you, Ray Haddad, Joshua P. Hill,
and Steve/"fundoc" know something that my source, the United States
Government's National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, doesn't?
"no hurricanes having struck Norfolk Virginia during the 1970's?" <-----
Fundoc showed that there were enough tropical storms, near-misses by
hurricanes,etc.
No. Steve/fundoc *lied* about tropical storms in other states being
proof that a hurricane struck Norfolk during the 1970's.

So, Mr. Pillock, what *proof* did Steve/"fundoc" offer you that made you
state that he had proved me wrong about no hurricanes having struck
Norfolk Virginia during the 1970's?
for a ship to have put to sea sometime during the seventies.
NO. HURRICANES. HAVING. STRUCK. NORFOLK VIRGINIA. DURING. THE. 1970'S.
I wasn't the only one persuaded, either.
I find that very sad.
Look back over the thread and see where RJM talked about having
watched a Soviet ship put to sea, for instance.
NO. HURRICANES. HAVING. STRUCK. NORFOLK VIRGINIA. DURING. THE. 1970'S.
NO. HURRICANES. HAVING. STRUCK. NORFOLK VIRGINIA. DURING. THE. 1970'S.
NO. HURRICANES. HAVING. STRUCK. NORFOLK VIRGINIA. DURING. THE. 1970'S.

<annoyed>

<type! type! type! click!>

http://www.mw-land.com/abf.html
--
Sylvia <--- Supreme Ruler of MW, the Universe, and... whatcha got?


Miz Sylvia: "There was no hurricane in Norfolk. Haddad made that
all up just to lecture a MIGS. No hurricane, no
need to avoid it."

Mr. RJM: "If there was a hurricane (imminent) a carrier would
have put to sea rather than remain in port."

Miz Sylvia: " <standing on ladder and peering over Mr. RJM's
shoulder at screen>

"Did someone say that a carrier would stay in port
for a hurricane? That's silly!"

Mr. RJM: "I've seen a Soviet destroyer squadron hightail it
out to sea on getting an early monsoon storm
warning. Treat for a ship watcher, I gotta say."

Miz Sylvia: "'Zactly, Mr. RJM! That's wot I said! It only makes <---
sense for a ship to leave early instead of waitin'
so that it got caught in the storm.

" <UNsnip> (Miz Sylvia wrote:)

'What the heck are the chances that Navy <---
peeps would wait until the hurricane
loomed near, instead of headin' for safe
waters earlier?'
" </UNsnip>

"Hey! Didja see my illustration of Haddad's
imaginary aircraft carrier bein' pitched about
'fully at the mercy of the winds and seas'?

'http://gardex.googlepages.com/ship.jpg
Didja? Huh? <tiny tears>

"Ya didn't lookit, didja?"
Pies de Arcilla
2007-09-10 14:18:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia
Miz Sylvia: "'Zactly, Mr. RJM! That's wot I said! It only makes <---
sense for a ship to leave early instead of waitin'
so that it got caught in the storm.
Looking at Ray's post that you cited, I'm not sure why you think his
ship got caught in the storm. When he wrote that the ship "bobbed
around like a cork fully at the mercy of the winds and seas", that
doesn't mean that it was in the middle of the storm--it's just a way
of dramatically describing its vulnerability to one if it didn't leave
the area posthaste.
Ejucaided Redneck
2007-09-11 01:35:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pies de Arcilla
Post by Sylvia
Miz Sylvia: "'Zactly, Mr. RJM! That's wot I said! It only makes <---
sense for a ship to leave early instead of waitin'
so that it got caught in the storm.
Looking at Ray's post that you cited, I'm not sure why you think his
ship got caught in the storm. When he wrote that the ship "bobbed
around like a cork fully at the mercy of the winds and seas", that
doesn't mean that it was in the middle of the storm--it's just a way
of dramatically describing its vulnerability to one if it didn't leave
the area posthaste.
For a modern carrier to bob around "like a cork fully at the mercy of
the winds and seas" it's got to be in a helluva blow. Big storm.
Major league type storm.

For that matter, ships are dispersed days and days ahead of a
hurricane getting anywhere near a port. Soon as it looks like the
blow might hit, they run for it.

--
Time will wound all heels
And it ain't pretty.
--- Chris Smither ("Your Winsome Smile")
--
http://bobsloansampler.com/
Now available: "Nobody Knows, Nobody Sees"
Herald-Leader Column: http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/14945607.htm
MISSING MOUNTAINS: http://www.windpub.com/books/missing.htm
Pies de Arcilla
2007-09-11 02:23:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ejucaided Redneck
Post by Pies de Arcilla
Post by Sylvia
Miz Sylvia: "'Zactly, Mr. RJM! That's wot I said! It only makes <---
sense for a ship to leave early instead of waitin'
so that it got caught in the storm.
Looking at Ray's post that you cited, I'm not sure why you think his
ship got caught in the storm. When he wrote that the ship "bobbed
around like a cork fully at the mercy of the winds and seas", that
doesn't mean that it was in the middle of the storm--it's just a way
of dramatically describing its vulnerability to one if it didn't leave
the area posthaste.
For a modern carrier to bob around "like a cork fully at the mercy of
the winds and seas" it's got to be in a helluva blow. Big storm.
Major league type storm.
He was dramatizing the fact that all boats (in the water) are "at the
mercy" of the wind and sea,
all the time. And that the carrier _would_ have been vulnerable to the
storm _if_ it had stayed in port.

No person who was being reasonable *and* assuming Ray was being
reasonable,
would say that he claimed the carrier was _in_ the storm,
any more than they would say he claimed to have _personally_ bombed
Hanoi.

I'm not saying the story is true, just that some of the objections to
it are
_unnecessary_ violations of Gricean maxims. Gricean maxims are not a
_courtesy_ that you extend someone; they are _necessary_ to get
information
out of an utterance _if_ it is constructed using them...which Ray may
or may
not have been doing of course--I fully understand that.
This is fun
2007-09-11 03:00:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ejucaided Redneck
For a modern carrier to bob around "like a cork fully at the mercy of
the winds and seas" it's got to be in a helluva blow. Big storm.
Major league type storm.
Or perhaps Haddad is just a bad writer.
Ed
2007-09-17 00:48:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ejucaided Redneck
Post by Pies de Arcilla
Post by Sylvia
Miz Sylvia: "'Zactly, Mr. RJM! That's wot I said! It only makes <---
sense for a ship to leave early instead of waitin'
so that it got caught in the storm.
Looking at Ray's post that you cited, I'm not sure why you think his
ship got caught in the storm. When he wrote that the ship "bobbed
around like a cork fully at the mercy of the winds and seas", that
doesn't mean that it was in the middle of the storm--it's just a way
of dramatically describing its vulnerability to one if it didn't leave
the area posthaste.
For a modern carrier to bob around "like a cork fully at the mercy of
the winds and seas" it's got to be in a helluva blow. Big storm.
Major league type storm.
For that matter, ships are dispersed days and days ahead of a
hurricane getting anywhere near a port. Soon as it looks like the
blow might hit, they run for it.
I am curious about one thing. How "modern" would the carrier Ray was
supposed to be on be if the story is to have taken place about 30
years ago? And, for that matter, I would assume the carrier wouldn't
have been all that new even <in> the 70s.
Ray Haddad
2007-09-17 01:00:27 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 17:48:29 -0700, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
Post by Ed
Post by Ejucaided Redneck
Post by Pies de Arcilla
Post by Sylvia
Miz Sylvia: "'Zactly, Mr. RJM! That's wot I said! It only makes <---
sense for a ship to leave early instead of waitin'
so that it got caught in the storm.
Looking at Ray's post that you cited, I'm not sure why you think his
ship got caught in the storm. When he wrote that the ship "bobbed
around like a cork fully at the mercy of the winds and seas", that
doesn't mean that it was in the middle of the storm--it's just a way
of dramatically describing its vulnerability to one if it didn't leave
the area posthaste.
For a modern carrier to bob around "like a cork fully at the mercy of
the winds and seas" it's got to be in a helluva blow. Big storm.
Major league type storm.
For that matter, ships are dispersed days and days ahead of a
hurricane getting anywhere near a port. Soon as it looks like the
blow might hit, they run for it.
I am curious about one thing. How "modern" would the carrier Ray was
supposed to be on be if the story is to have taken place about 30
years ago? And, for that matter, I would assume the carrier wouldn't
have been all that new even <in> the 70s.
Akkk! It was fairly new, Ed. USS Nimitz (CVN-68). However, the
damage that high winds and heavy seas can do to the pier and the
ship means that even newer ships set sail when threatened. It's
standard operating procedure even today.

Before you get too mired in all this, do note that Sylvia is simply
doing her best to spread lies about me digging at what she thinks
are "facts" which are more closely related to her own fantasies. But
then, you've figured that all out by now.
--
Ray
Ed
2007-09-17 09:38:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray Haddad
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 17:48:29 -0700, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
Post by Ed
Post by Ejucaided Redneck
Post by Pies de Arcilla
Post by Sylvia
Miz Sylvia: "'Zactly, Mr. RJM! That's wot I said! It only makes <---
sense for a ship to leave early instead of waitin'
so that it got caught in the storm.
Looking at Ray's post that you cited, I'm not sure why you think his
ship got caught in the storm. When he wrote that the ship "bobbed
around like a cork fully at the mercy of the winds and seas", that
doesn't mean that it was in the middle of the storm--it's just a way
of dramatically describing its vulnerability to one if it didn't leave
the area posthaste.
For a modern carrier to bob around "like a cork fully at the mercy of
the winds and seas" it's got to be in a helluva blow. Big storm.
Major league type storm.
For that matter, ships are dispersed days and days ahead of a
hurricane getting anywhere near a port. Soon as it looks like the
blow might hit, they run for it.
I am curious about one thing. How "modern" would the carrier Ray was
supposed to be on be if the story is to have taken place about 30
years ago? And, for that matter, I would assume the carrier wouldn't
have been all that new even <in> the 70s.
Akkk! It was fairly new, Ed. USS Nimitz (CVN-68). However, the
damage that high winds and heavy seas can do to the pier and the
ship means that even newer ships set sail when threatened. It's
standard operating procedure even today.
Before you get too mired in all this, do note that Sylvia is simply
doing her best to spread lies about me digging at what she thinks
are "facts" which are more closely related to her own fantasies. But
then, you've figured that all out by now.
--
Ray-
I'm not saying anything about whether the carrier could have sat at
the docks or not.

The post said that "modern carriers" wouldn't be bobbing and weaving
like a cork in the water. My question was; if the story was from the
70s, then it can hardly be considered a "modern" carrier by today's
standards. Even if it was built in the 60s or even early 70s, would it
have the same technology that todays sailors take pretty much for
granted?
Ray Haddad
2007-09-17 09:45:02 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 02:38:24 -0700, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
Post by Ed
Post by Ray Haddad
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 17:48:29 -0700, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
Post by Ed
Post by Ejucaided Redneck
Post by Pies de Arcilla
Post by Sylvia
Miz Sylvia: "'Zactly, Mr. RJM! That's wot I said! It only makes <---
sense for a ship to leave early instead of waitin'
so that it got caught in the storm.
Looking at Ray's post that you cited, I'm not sure why you think his
ship got caught in the storm. When he wrote that the ship "bobbed
around like a cork fully at the mercy of the winds and seas", that
doesn't mean that it was in the middle of the storm--it's just a way
of dramatically describing its vulnerability to one if it didn't leave
the area posthaste.
For a modern carrier to bob around "like a cork fully at the mercy of
the winds and seas" it's got to be in a helluva blow. Big storm.
Major league type storm.
For that matter, ships are dispersed days and days ahead of a
hurricane getting anywhere near a port. Soon as it looks like the
blow might hit, they run for it.
I am curious about one thing. How "modern" would the carrier Ray was
supposed to be on be if the story is to have taken place about 30
years ago? And, for that matter, I would assume the carrier wouldn't
have been all that new even <in> the 70s.
Akkk! It was fairly new, Ed. USS Nimitz (CVN-68). However, the
damage that high winds and heavy seas can do to the pier and the
ship means that even newer ships set sail when threatened. It's
standard operating procedure even today.
Before you get too mired in all this, do note that Sylvia is simply
doing her best to spread lies about me digging at what she thinks
are "facts" which are more closely related to her own fantasies. But
then, you've figured that all out by now.
I'm not saying anything about whether the carrier could have sat at
the docks or not.
The post said that "modern carriers" wouldn't be bobbing and weaving
like a cork in the water. My question was; if the story was from the
70s, then it can hardly be considered a "modern" carrier by today's
standards. Even if it was built in the 60s or even early 70s, would it
have the same technology that todays sailors take pretty much for
granted?
Modern carriers are those not like the straight deck carriers of
WWII. The USS Nimitz is a modern carrier. In fact, all carriers
built after her are referred to as Nimitz Class Carriers. Yes.
Modern carriers do bob around at sea and the wind against the huge
surface area of the hull can and does cause the ship to pound
against the pier causing damage to both the ship and pier if left
dockside. That's why, even today, all carriers set sail if there is
any danger of a hurricane or tropical storm.
--
Ray

Jackson Pillock
2007-09-10 15:38:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia
<...>
Post by Sylvia
After I systematically discounted his cites as not proving Haddad's lie
that a major hurricane struck Norfolk, VA, Steve/"fundoc" recycled them,
"1. You are a lying through your cunt about the information in the
cites I provided. For example, I posted a link to the path of
Hurricance Belle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Belle_1976_track.png
The map shows that Hurricane Belle was a category two hurricane
the eye of which passed within 100 or so miles of Norfolk Virginia
in 1976."
Steve/"fundoc" likes to pretend that he is a lawyer, doncha know (and to
pretend that "within 100 or so miles of Norfolk" is the same as Haddad's
claim that a hurricane struck Norfolk).
"I'm saying that if one of your cites can be shown to be false,
distorted or incomplete, then the rest of your cites will come
into question." -- Mr. Pillock to Miz Sylvia
I'd say his cite was false, wouldn't you?
No. I'm no expert, but I think that that might well have been enough for the
captian to put to sea.
<staring>
Shamey, shamey, Mr. Pillock. I am *most* disappointed that you would
resort to shifting goalposts, especially to defend such a nasty lying
weasel as Steve/fundoc.
See if you can spot what I have *always* said, exactly, that I proved
that Ray Haddad lied about in his story about a HURRICANE STRIKING
"After I systematically discounted his cites as not proving
Haddad's lie that a major hurricane struck Norfolk, VA"
"Haddad's lie that a major hurricane struck Norfolk, VA" <----------
"Re: Reply to Mr. Pillock's questions #2: Ray Haddad's
Imaginary 1970's Hurricane in Norfolk "
"Imaginary 1970's Hurricane in Norfolk" <----------
"Steve/"fundoc" likes to pretend that he is a lawyer, doncha
know (and to pretend that 'within 100 or so miles of Norfolk'
is the same as Haddad's claim that a hurricane struck Norfolk"
"Haddad's claim that a hurricane struck Norfolk" <----------
"When I got back, I discovered a tree had fallen smack
into the middle of my car which was parked over 100
yards from the tree on the base at Norfolk. A clearly
defined path showed where it traversed the parking lot
damaging cars along the way."
--Excerpt, Ray Haddad lies about Saving an Aircraft
Carrier from Hurricane http://tinyurl.com/yo5gwu
CAT 5 wind damage "on the base at Norfolk" <----------
"PROFILES IN <koff!> COURAGE: Haddad Saves Aircraft
Carrier from Hurricane! (NOT!)"
"I'll start with the KILLER POINT in case ya don't want to
see just how incredibly badly constructed *this* HUGE LIE
of Haddad's is.
"HADDAD'S CLAIM: As we join this tall tale, Haddad's about
to take a never named aircraft carrier out to sea to protect it
from a severe never named hurricane that he sez [WHAPPED!]
Norfolk VA during the 1970's. "
"Saves Aircraft Carrier from Hurricane! (NOT!) <----------
"KILLER POINT [...] a severe never named hurricane that he sez
[WHAPPED!] Norfolk VA during the 1970's." <----------
<UNsnip!>
Mr. Pillock, this post addresses your taking Steve/fundoc's *word* that
I did not prove that Ray Haddad's military "career" story about a major
hurricane striking Norfolk VA was also a lie. I include my evidence from
my original thread since you appear to have missed it the thread.
</UNsnip!>
"story about a major hurricane striking Norfolk VA" <----------
Post by Sylvia
Steve/"fundoc": "that Norfolk Virginia was not struck by a single
hurricane between 1970 and 1980. A lie."
"that Norfolk Virginia was not struck by a single hurricane between 1970
and 1980" <--------------
Post by Sylvia
Mr. Pillock: "You proved her wrong on that, whether she likes
it or not. But it wasn't a lie. She thought
she'd nailed him."
summabitch! SEE! You KNEW *exactly* what point I said that I had proved
(even if you took Steve's lying word that I had not)! I proved it
directly to you, and then you go and shift goal posts.
You went and fell asleep near a pod, didn't you? Pity.
Post by Sylvia
So, Mr. Pillock, what *proof* did Steve/"fundoc" offer you that made you
state that he had proved me wrong about no hurricanes having struck
Norfolk Virginia during the 1970's? Do you, Ray Haddad, Joshua P. Hill,
and Steve/"fundoc" know something that my source, the United States
Government's National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, doesn't?
"no hurricanes having struck Norfolk Virginia during the 1970's?" <-----
Fundoc showed that there were enough tropical storms, near-misses by
hurricanes,etc.
No. Steve/fundoc *lied* about tropical storms in other states being
proof that a hurricane struck Norfolk during the 1970's.
So, Mr. Pillock, what *proof* did Steve/"fundoc" offer you that made you
state that he had proved me wrong about no hurricanes having struck
Norfolk Virginia during the 1970's?
for a ship to have put to sea sometime during the seventies.
NO. HURRICANES. HAVING. STRUCK. NORFOLK VIRGINIA. DURING. THE. 1970'S.
I wasn't the only one persuaded, either.
I find that very sad.
Look back over the thread and see where RJM talked about having
watched a Soviet ship put to sea, for instance.
NO. HURRICANES. HAVING. STRUCK. NORFOLK VIRGINIA. DURING. THE. 1970'S.
NO. HURRICANES. HAVING. STRUCK. NORFOLK VIRGINIA. DURING. THE. 1970'S.
NO. HURRICANES. HAVING. STRUCK. NORFOLK VIRGINIA. DURING. THE. 1970'S.
<annoyed>
<type! type! type! click!>
http://www.mw-land.com/abf.html
--
Sylvia <--- Supreme Ruler of MW, the Universe, and... whatcha got?
Miz Sylvia: "There was no hurricane in Norfolk. Haddad made that
all up just to lecture a MIGS. No hurricane, no
need to avoid it."
Mr. RJM: "If there was a hurricane (imminent) a carrier would
have put to sea rather than remain in port."
Miz Sylvia: " <standing on ladder and peering over Mr. RJM's
shoulder at screen>
"Did someone say that a carrier would stay in port
for a hurricane? That's silly!"
Mr. RJM: "I've seen a Soviet destroyer squadron hightail it
out to sea on getting an early monsoon storm
warning. Treat for a ship watcher, I gotta say."
Miz Sylvia: "'Zactly, Mr. RJM! That's wot I said! It only makes <---
sense for a ship to leave early instead of waitin'
so that it got caught in the storm.
" <UNsnip> (Miz Sylvia wrote:)
'What the heck are the chances that Navy <---
peeps would wait until the hurricane
loomed near, instead of headin' for safe
waters earlier?'
" </UNsnip>
"Hey! Didja see my illustration of Haddad's
imaginary aircraft carrier bein' pitched about
'fully at the mercy of the winds and seas'?
'http://gardex.googlepages.com/ship.jpg
Didja? Huh? <tiny tears>
"Ya didn't lookit, didja?"
Whatever.
This is fun
2007-09-09 12:14:53 UTC
Permalink
Part VII, in which Slyvia demonstrates that she's such a bad liar that even
the alleged proofs she provides prove she's lying.
Post by Sylvia
After I systematically discounted his cites as not proving Haddad's lie
that a major hurricane struck Norfolk, VA,
Lie #1.

Haddad didn't say a hurricane "struck" Norfolk. He said that a hurricane
approached Norfolk: "I was in Norfolk, Virginia stationed on an aircraft
carrier during **the approach** of a hurricane."

Then to make sure that it takes, Slyvia repeats and embellishes the lie:

" in Ray Haddad's original lie he *specifically* says that his fantasy
hurricane struck Norfolk."

Note that now Slyvia has Haddad "specifically" claiming to have said
something that he didn't say at all.


Yet another example of poor demented Slyvia demanding a linguistic
exactitude from others that she does not herself display.



Lie #2.

Wherein Slyvia posts a giant chunk of crap claiming it says one thing
whereas it says another. On the assumption that there's so much crap there
that no one will bother to wade thru it. Well, I bothered. Here from
Slyvia's own source are direct quotations regarding the effect of hurricanes
on Norfolk VA in the 1970s


"August 27, 1971 (A second Doria): Maximum sustained winds were 52 mph at
Norfolk [...] a large warehouse near the Norfolk airport experienced severe
damage. Appreciable losses were caused by a tornado as it tracked through
Portsmouth [ed note: 2 miles from Norfolk VA]. ***Hundreds of trees fell
**** and a dozen homes were damaged."

Slyvia ridicules "Ray Haddad's fantasy hurricane" which was "at least strong
enough to rip a large tree out of the ground."

Yet according to Slyvia's own source, Doria caused hundreds of trees to
fall.



"September 30-October 3, 1971 (Ginger): Maximum winds were under 50 mph
across southern Virginia. Norfolk gusted to 49 mph from the northeast on the
30th. ***A few trees were leveled **** [...] Moderate to heavy beach erosion
ate away at Virginia Beach."

More trees leveled. And "heavy beach erosion" which certainly suggests heavy
surf, which would cause boats to "bob around like a cork."



"August 9, 1976 (Belle): [Belle] passed 85 miles east of Norfolk."

One wonders how a storm could pass within 85 miles of Norfolk without
"approaching" it. Indeed, one wonders why Norfolk would be used as a
reference at all, if the storm had not approached it.


"September 5, 1979 (David): The menacing storm [...] its final landfall near
Hilton Head, SC. When squalls passed through Virginia on the 5th, two
powerful tornadoes tracked through Newport News . . . . Most damage across
the area was produced by gusty winds, as high as 60 mph. ****Trees and power
lines were no match for David **** [. . . ] Eight tornadoes touched down
from Fairfax and Loudon counties south to Newport News. [...] Heavy rains
fell across the mountains of western Virginia and also in the vicinity of
Norfolk.

Trees were no match for David. Tornados in Newport News, 20 miles from
Norfolk.



So much for Slyvia's alleged proof.
Josh Hill
2007-09-09 14:32:24 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 12:14:53 GMT, "This is fun"
Post by This is fun
Part VII, in which Slyvia demonstrates that she's such a bad liar that even
the alleged proofs she provides prove she's lying.
Post by Sylvia
After I systematically discounted his cites as not proving Haddad's lie
that a major hurricane struck Norfolk, VA,
Lie #1.
Haddad didn't say a hurricane "struck" Norfolk. He said that a hurricane
approached Norfolk: "I was in Norfolk, Virginia stationed on an aircraft
carrier during **the approach** of a hurricane."
Note to all: See? Even I fell for this, and I trust Sylvia about as
far as I trust the ghost of Nixon.
Post by This is fun
Slyvia ridicules "Ray Haddad's fantasy hurricane" which was "at least strong
enough to rip a large tree out of the ground."
Yet according to Slyvia's own source, Doria caused hundreds of trees to
fall.
Ah, but they weren't ripped from the ground: rather, they grew so
demoralized that they pulled out their roots and toppled of their own
accord.
--
Josh

"This keeps out the stalkers, the obsessed, the dysfunctional, the abusive, and
the general, all-around jerks who get off on turning a group so toxic that nobody's
left after a while but the person and some of his associates or collaborators.
It's the slow poisoning of a group." - J. Michael Straczynski
Sylvia
2007-09-10 11:15:02 UTC
Permalink
Mr. Pillock, I certainly hope you intend to reply to Steve/fundoc and
call *him* a LIAR! LIAR! LIAR!, and to say to him "if one of your cites
can be shown to be false, distorted or incomplete, then the rest of your
cites will come into question", like ya did to me when you took
Steve/fundoc's word that *I* was lying.

In article <1tREi.117$***@trndny07>,

Steve/"fundoc" (of the defunct basement music "band", the appropriately
named "Weasels"), posting at the moment as "This is fun"
Post by This is fun
Part VII, in which Slyvia demonstrates that she's such a bad liar that even
the alleged proofs she provides prove she's lying.
Post by Sylvia
After I systematically discounted his cites as not proving Haddad's lie
that a major hurricane struck Norfolk, VA,
Lie #1.
Haddad didn't say a hurricane "struck" Norfolk.
<...>

Note how Steve/fundoc cut my quote of Ray Haddad saying just that:

<UNsnip!>
Post by This is fun
Post by Sylvia
"When I got back, I discovered a tree had fallen smack
into the middle of my car which was parked over 100
yards from the tree on the base at Norfolk. A clearly
defined path showed where it traversed the parking lot
damaging cars along the way."
--Excerpt, Ray Haddad lies about Saving an Aircraft
Carrier from Hurricane http://tinyurl.com/yo5gwu
</UNsnip!>

Note that to rip a huge tree out of the ground and hurl it the length of
a football field, especially with the drag of "damaging cars along the
way" before landing it on top of his car, Haddad's Fantasy Hurricane
would need the strength of a CAT 5 hurricane: winds at *over* 155 MPH.
[1] Which is why I originally used the "CAT 3 and up" hurricane charts
for 1970's: http://gardex.googlepages.com/ship.jpg as my proof.

Steve/fundoc lies and deceitfully snips quotes from my cites to try to
spin tropical storms in other states into being a hurricane in Norfolk
for Ray Haddad--and, yet, the top speed *he* quotes is 60 MPH, which is
only mid-strength range tropical storm. Even the weakest hurricane
starts at 74 MPH [1], and that hurricane is less than half the strength
required for Ray Haddad's. Did I mention that I have lived most of my
adult life in Hurricane Alley?
Projection of a Hadadian Trio Tactic.
Post by This is fun
" in Ray Haddad's original lie he *specifically* says that his fantasy
hurricane struck Norfolk."
" the base at Norfolk." -- Ray Haddad
Post by This is fun
Note that now Slyvia has Haddad "specifically" claiming to have said
something that he didn't say at all.
" the base at Norfolk." -- Ray Haddad

<yawning>

'Scuse, Mr. Pillock--so, are ya pickin' up a pattern, here?
Post by This is fun
Lie #2.
<snip personal lames>
Post by This is fun
Here from Slyvia's own source
The United States Government's National Oceanic & Atmospheric
Administration .

<UNsnip!>
http://www.hpc.ncep.noaa.gov/research/roth/valate20hur.htm
</UNsnip!>
Post by This is fun
are direct quotations regarding the
effect of hurricanes on Norfolk VA in the 1970s
Steve is a LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! Anyone who clicks on the link will see that
the page is of Late Twentieth Century Hurricanes and Tropical Storms.
They will also see that *no* hurricanes struck Norfolk during the
1970's. (Of course, Ray Haddad *did* scrape the bottom of the barrel
for Steve/fundoc.)
Post by This is fun
"August 27, 1971 (A second Doria): Maximum sustained winds were 52 mph at
Norfolk [...] a large warehouse near the Norfolk airport experienced severe
damage. Appreciable losses were caused by a tornado as it tracked through
Portsmouth [ed note: 2 miles from Norfolk VA]. ***Hundreds of trees fell
**** and a dozen homes were damaged."
Oh, look! Steve manipulated a quote again. The truth:

"August 27, 1971 (A second Doria): A weak tropical depression formed
in the eastern Atlantic and moved swiftly to the west, passing through
the northern Leeward Islands on the 23rd, and moving just to the east of
the Bahamas on the 25th. While recurving to the north, Doria became a
tropical storm and continued to intensify as it approached the coast.
Maximum sustained winds were 65 mph with the system as it made landfall
in North Carolina (see track below)."

See, how deceitful Steve's snippage is, Mr. Pillock? A tropical storm,
*not* a hurricane. A tropical storm that made landfall in North
Carolina, *not* a hurricane that struck Norfolk, VA, as Ray Haddad
claimed. See how Steve/fundoc *did* lie to you? In fact, even in NC,
the wind speed was just in the upper mid-strength range for a tropical
storm.
Post by This is fun
the effect of hurricanes on Norfolk VA in the 1970s
"August 27, 1971 (A second Doria): Maximum sustained winds were 52 mph at
Norfolk [...] a large warehouse near the Norfolk airport experienced severe
damage. Appreciable losses were caused by a tornado as it tracked through
Portsmouth [ed note: 2 miles from Norfolk VA]. ***Hundreds of trees fell
**** and a dozen homes were damaged."
Golly, looks like the storm was in Norfolk, doesn't it? The truth:

"Maximum sustained winds were 52 mph at Norfolk, 59 mph at Wallops
Island, and 60 mph at Langley Air Force Base. A large warehouse near the
Norfolk airport experienced severe damage. Appreciable losses were
caused by a tornado as it tracked through Portsmouth and Chesapeake.
Hundreds of trees fell and a dozen homes were damaged."

Norfolk and Langley are military bases, and Wallops is a gov't flight
facility. They are mentioned because they keep the most reliable wind
speed readings in the area of the tropical storm's landfall (NC). Note
that Norfolk has the lowest wind speed reading.
Post by This is fun
Slyvia ridicules
Miz Sylvia noted...
Post by This is fun
"Ray Haddad's fantasy hurricane" which was "at least strong
enough to rip a large tree out of the ground."
Mr. Pillock, note Steve/Fundoc's quote manipulation--my sentence did not
end where he placed the period. What I really wrote (my post:
http://tinyurl.com/37x43t ):

"Ray Haddad's fantasy hurricane was at least strong enough to
rip a large tree out of the ground and throw it one hundred yards."
Post by This is fun
Yet according to Slyvia's own source, Doria caused hundreds of trees to
fall.
Note how Steve/fundoc also lies about what my cite says, which is:

"Appreciable losses were caused by a tornado as it tracked
through Portsmouth and Chesapeake. Hundreds of trees fell
and a dozen homes were damaged."

*Not* a hurricane in Norfolk, not even the tropical storm that went to
North Carolina that Steve lied was a hurricane in Norfolk--but a
tornado. And, where was this tornado that made the trees fall? *Not* in
Norfolk, but in Portsmouth and Chesapeake. Do you have any doubt that
Steve's snipping was intentionally deceitful? There you have the
character of a Ray Haddad Enabler.

<snip rest of Steve's lying, weasely Little Lawyer points>

Feel free to compare the rest of his lies to the truth. You will see
Steve repeat the same stupid tactic as he has since I first posted my
proof of *this* Ray Haddad lie about his fantasy "military career".
Post by This is fun
So much for Slyvia's alleged proof.
So much for Steve's version of my proof.

Steve/"Dead Chef": "Of course, merely being employed by the federal
agency that allegedly mitigates against hazards such as
hurricanes does not make me an expert on hurricanes [...]"
[...]

Miz Sylvia: "This MW (Official) No Shit, Sherlock Moment (tm)

" was brought to us by fundoc.

"(Apparently merely being employed by a federal agency
does not make fundoc an expert in the use of the
word 'mitigate', either.) "
--
Sylvia

Miz Ultravioltet: "Hey, Ob...you've heard about his fantasy of
being a lawyer, haven't you? Latest news
is that he's such a poor one he even loses
his *imaginary* cases! ba-da-boom

"When a bum starts to wheeze
'Bout his fake law degrees
That's Fundoc, yeah! "

Obnox : "Well, I dunno, UV; anyone as low-to-the-ground
and nasty as Fundoc would probably make a
damn fine lawyer."

"And there are guys in prison - jailhouse
lawyers - who become quite knowledgeable,
so it is plausible, given his lifestyle.

"I think his greatest claim to respectability
is playing in a struggling punk band. That
is the one thing - the only thing - I can
respect about him. In fact, I'd rather see
him succeed at that than at law. I bet most
self-respecting people would rather socialize
with a punker than a lawyer, anyway."
http://tinyurl.com/35hv5h


[1] "Tropical Storm: An organized system of strong thunderstorms
with a defined surface circulation and maximum sustained winds
of 39­73 MPH (34­63 knots)."

CAT 3: 111-130 MPH Damage: Extensive: Small buildings,
low-lying roads cut off.

CAT 4 131-155 Damage: Extreme: Roofs destroyed, trees down,
roads cut off, mobile homes destroyed. Beach homes flooded.

CAT 5 More than 155 Damage: Catastrophic: Most buildings destroyed.
Vegetation destroyed. Major roads cut off. Homes flooded.


http://www.fema.gov/areyouready/hurricanes.shtm
Pies de Arcilla
2007-09-10 14:26:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia
Note that to rip a huge tree out of the ground and hurl it the length of
a football field, especially with the drag of "damaging cars along the
way" before landing it on top of his car, Haddad's Fantasy Hurricane
would need the strength of a CAT 5 hurricane: winds at *over* 155 MPH.
Looking at Ray's original post, he doesn't say the tree was huge and
he doesn't say the tree was
uprooted, as opposed to broken off. He doesn't say it wasn't already
dead, either.
This is fun
2007-09-10 15:02:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia
Mr. Pillock, I certainly hope you intend to reply to Steve/fundoc and
call *him* a LIAR! LIAR! LIAR!, and to say to him "if one of your cites
can be shown to be false, distorted or incomplete, then the rest of your
cites will come into question", like ya did to me when you took
Steve/fundoc's word that *I* was lying.
Steve/"fundoc" (of the defunct basement music "band", the appropriately
named "Weasels"),
That's www.theweasels.com/ for those of you scoring at home. Axis of Weasel,
on sale now.



posting at the moment as "This is fun"
Post by Sylvia
Post by This is fun
Part VII, in which Slyvia demonstrates that she's such a bad liar that even
the alleged proofs she provides prove she's lying.
Post by Sylvia
After I systematically discounted his cites as not proving Haddad's lie
that a major hurricane struck Norfolk, VA,
Lie #1.
Haddad didn't say a hurricane "struck" Norfolk.
<...>
<UNsnip!>
Post by This is fun
Post by Sylvia
"When I got back, I discovered a tree had fallen smack
into the middle of my car which was parked over 100
yards from the tree on the base at Norfolk. A clearly
defined path showed where it traversed the parking lot
damaging cars along the way."
--Excerpt, Ray Haddad lies about Saving an Aircraft
Carrier from Hurricane http://tinyurl.com/yo5gwu
</UNsnip!>
That says that Haddad's car was parked in Norfolk and that a tree fell on
it.
Post by Sylvia
Note that to rip a huge tree out of the ground and hurl it the length of
a football field, especially with the drag of "damaging cars along the
way" before landing it on top of his car, Haddad's Fantasy Hurricane
would need the strength of a CAT 5 hurricane: winds at *over* 155 MPH.
Typical Slyvia bullshit.

An article from the CBC, describing a "thunderstorm" with 60 and 100 KPH
winds that "uprooted trees."

"Environment Canada says a severe storm that blew through a small community
west of Fredericton this week was not a tornado. The twister-like storm hit
near Zealand on Tuesday night. It uprooted trees, [...] Environment Canada
meteorologist Claude Coté surveyed the destruction on Wednesday and said it
was caused by winds between 60 and 100 km/h [...] it was the result of a
strong downdraft from a thunderstorm"
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2006/07/12/nb-tornadotouchdown.html

60 to 100 KPH is aboot 40 to 60 MPH.
http://users.tpg.com.au/doktormj/km2miles.htm
Post by Sylvia
[1] Which is why I originally used the "CAT 3 and up" hurricane charts
for 1970's: http://gardex.googlepages.com/ship.jpg as my proof.
That's an interesting picture Slyvia. I never looked at it before.

According to what you have there, between 1970 and 1980 the United States
was struck by a mere 11 hurricanes, none east of Mississippi.

Are you sure it's complete? It seems to omit for example Hurricane David:

"Mighty Hurricane David grew into one of the most intense storms ever to
cross the Caribbean Sea. After wiping out the tiny island of Dominica with
150 mph winds, David crashed ashore in the Dominican Republic at peak
intensity on Aug. 30, with wind gusts over 200 mph. More than 1,200 people
on the two-nation island were killed and over 80,000 were left homeless.
Damage totaled more than $1 billion in the Caribbean alone. Skipping through
the Bahamas, David struck a glancing blow on Florida, just north of the Gold
Coast, tore across Cape Canaveral and then chewed its way up the East Coast
on Sept. 6, downing trees and powerlines well into New England."

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/huricane/wdavid.htm

2000 peeople were killed by Hurricane David, including several people as it
" tore across Cape Canaveral and then chewed its way up the East Coast." And
yet it is not on your carefully researched map taptaptap.

Do you think those people who were allegedly killed by Hurricane Davis as it
tore up the east coast of the US may still be alive? If so, we should
organize a crew to free them from their coffins. Or at least notify their
families. Something.
Post by Sylvia
Steve/fundoc lies and deceitfully snips quotes from my cites to try to
spin tropical storms in other states into being a hurricane in Norfolk
for Ray Haddad--and, yet, the top speed *he* quotes is 60 MPH, which is
only mid-strength range tropical storm. Even the weakest hurricane
starts at 74 MPH [1], and that hurricane is less than half the strength
required for Ray Haddad's. Did I mention that I have lived most of my
adult life in Hurricane Alley?
Hurricane (n): (2) a storm of the most intense severity; (3) anything
suggesting a violent storm.
Post by Sylvia
Projection of a Hadadian Trio Tactic.
Post by This is fun
" in Ray Haddad's original lie he *specifically* says that his fantasy
hurricane struck Norfolk."
" the base at Norfolk." -- Ray Haddad
He said his car was parked on "the base at Norfolk" and that a tree fell on
it.
Post by Sylvia
Post by This is fun
Note that now Slyvia has Haddad "specifically" claiming to have said
something that he didn't say at all.
" the base at Norfolk." -- Ray Haddad
He said his car was parked on "the base at Norfolk" and that a tree fell on
it.
Post by Sylvia
<yawning>
'Scuse, Mr. Pillock--so, are ya pickin' up a pattern, here?
Everyone's picking up a pattern Slyvia. You are either a so stupid that you
don't know the meaning of simple english words, and/or you are a compulsive
serial liar, and/or you should be in a mental institution.
Post by Sylvia
Post by This is fun
Lie #2.
<snip personal lames>
Post by This is fun
Here from Slyvia's own source
The United States Government's National Oceanic & Atmospheric
Administration .
<UNsnip!>
http://www.hpc.ncep.noaa.gov/research/roth/valate20hur.htm
</UNsnip!>
Post by This is fun
are direct quotations regarding the
effect of hurricanes on Norfolk VA in the 1970s
Steve is a LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! Anyone who clicks on the link will see that
the page is of Late Twentieth Century Hurricanes and Tropical Storms.
They will also see that *no* hurricanes struck Norfolk during the
1970's. (Of course, Ray Haddad *did* scrape the bottom of the barrel
for Steve/fundoc.)
Are you sure that this storm called Hurricane Agnes didn't strike Norfolk
and environs in 1972?

Loading Image...

Loading Image...

Seems like it might have, from the pictures.

Odd that it didn't make your map that you taptaptap researched so thoroughly
taptaptap.
Post by Sylvia
Post by This is fun
"August 27, 1971 (A second Doria): Maximum sustained winds were 52 mph at
Norfolk [...] a large warehouse near the Norfolk airport experienced severe
damage. Appreciable losses were caused by a tornado as it tracked through
Portsmouth [ed note: 2 miles from Norfolk VA]. ***Hundreds of trees fell
**** and a dozen homes were damaged."
Just so Slyvia: I manipulated the quote by leaving in the bits that had to
do with Norfolk and excising the bits that did not have to do with Norfolk,
as the latter were not germane to a discussion of Norfolk. Whereas you leave
in all the irrelevant bits to disguise your lies.
Post by Sylvia
"August 27, 1971 (A second Doria): A weak tropical depression formed
in the eastern Atlantic and moved swiftly to the west, passing through
the northern Leeward Islands on the 23rd, and moving just to the east of
the Bahamas on the 25th. While recurving to the north, Doria became a
tropical storm and continued to intensify as it approached the coast.
Maximum sustained winds were 65 mph with the system as it made landfall
in North Carolina (see track below)."
See, how deceitful Steve's snippage is, Mr. Pillock? A tropical storm,
*not* a hurricane. A tropical storm that made landfall in North
Carolina, *not* a hurricane that struck Norfolk, VA, as Ray Haddad
claimed. See how Steve/fundoc *did* lie to you? In fact, even in NC,
the wind speed was just in the upper mid-strength range for a tropical
storm.
You must think Jackson Pillock is very stupid Slyvia. Why do you think that?
Post by Sylvia
Post by This is fun
the effect of hurricanes on Norfolk VA in the 1970s
"August 27, 1971 (A second Doria): Maximum sustained winds were 52 mph at
Norfolk [...] a large warehouse near the Norfolk airport experienced severe
damage. Appreciable losses were caused by a tornado as it tracked through
Portsmouth [ed note: 2 miles from Norfolk VA]. ***Hundreds of trees fell
**** and a dozen homes were damaged."
Golly, looks like the storm was in Norfolk, doesn't it?
Why yes it does look like the storm was in Norfok, which would account for
"a large warehouse near the Norfolk airport" experiencing "severe damage." I
assumed that the "severe damage" to the large building was from "Doria"
because "Doria" was the storm being discussed in the article about storms.

Did you have a different take? What do you think the "severe damage" was
from? Termites perhaps? Vandals?
Post by Sylvia
"Maximum sustained winds were 52 mph at Norfolk, 59 mph at Wallops
Island, and 60 mph at Langley Air Force Base. A large warehouse near the
Norfolk airport experienced severe damage. Appreciable losses were
caused by a tornado as it tracked through Portsmouth and Chesapeake.
Hundreds of trees fell and a dozen homes were damaged."
Norfolk and Langley are military bases, and Wallops is a gov't flight
facility. They are mentioned because they keep the most reliable wind
speed readings in the area of the tropical storm's landfall (NC). Note
that Norfolk has the lowest wind speed reading.
Post by This is fun
Slyvia ridicules
Miz Sylvia noted...
Post by This is fun
"Ray Haddad's fantasy hurricane" which was "at least strong
enough to rip a large tree out of the ground."
Mr. Pillock, note Steve/Fundoc's quote manipulation--my sentence did not
"Ray Haddad's fantasy hurricane was at least strong enough to
rip a large tree out of the ground and throw it one hundred yards."
Post by This is fun
Yet according to Slyvia's own source, Doria caused hundreds of trees to
fall.
"Appreciable losses were caused by a tornado as it tracked
through Portsmouth and Chesapeake. Hundreds of trees fell
and a dozen homes were damaged."
Your cite says in describing the effect of Doria that "Hundreds of trees
fell."

I wrote that "Doria caused hundreds of trees to fall."

Cite the "lies" please.
Post by Sylvia
*Not* a hurricane in Norfolk, not even the tropical storm that went to
North Carolina that Steve lied was a hurricane in Norfolk--but a
tornado. And, where was this tornado that made the trees fall? *Not* in
Norfolk, but in Portsmouth and Chesapeake.
Portsmouth is ~ 2 miles from Norfolk.

http://maps.google.com/maps?tab=wl
Post by Sylvia
Do you have any doubt that
Steve's snipping was intentionally deceitful? There you have the
character of a Ray Haddad Enabler.
"EARLY in 1967 is was equipped with [...] a Norelco PCP BACKPACK PORTABLE
CAMERA. [1]

Ooooh! *That's* gotta be embarrassin' for old Josh, doncha think?"


--- Slyvia, explaining her understanding of snipping and deceit
Sylvia
2007-09-09 00:11:53 UTC
Permalink
<...>
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Jackson Pillock
Getting back to my exchange with fundoc, in which I called you, "LIAR,
LIAR, LIAR,"
<...>
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Jackson Pillock
it casts doubt on all your cites.
(Ray, this does not mean I buy your shit)
<...>
Post by Jackson Pillock
I'd appreciate it if you'd tell me *which* "several lies" you
believe that Steve/fundoc claims I told.
<...>

Hee's the rest.
Post by Jackson Pillock
6. Do you seriously think Josh is acting as an accessory to a crime?
Ray Haddad has repeatedly broken a Federal law (the Stolen Valor Act).
I've proved that to do so is to commit a Felony crime. That's serious.
He may also be guilty of repeatedly breaking a Federal law against
impersonating military personnel as an enlisted man and as an officer (I
haven't had times to find details that may provide a loophole for him).
That would be serious. I also proved that, should Ray Haddad set foot in
some states (he claims to travel in the US doing a magic act), he could
also be charged with the crime of impersonating a military Veteran.
That's serious.

Joshua P. Hill and Steve/"fundoc", as the Archives show, keep posting
that I have lied when I said that Ray Haddad has lied about earning
military medals and about supposed military adventures that would have
earned him military awards and decorations. Haddad keeps using their
help to lie even more about his fake military "career" (remember, he
insists that he is a United States citizen). Joshua P. Hill and
Steve/"fundoc" are also United States citizens (and live in the States
while Ray Haddad lives far away in another continent). And, helping
someone in the commission of a crime... well, that's a serious enough
act that it could become a crime in its own right:

"A criminal charge of aiding and abetting or accessory can
usually be brought against anyone who helps in the commission
of a crime [...] Depending on the degree of involvement, the
offender's participation in the crime may rise to the level of
conspiracy." [1]

'Course, it would be up to a court of law. I wonder if they often use
that to persuade accessory-esque peeps to testify against a felon.

[ This space reserved for Steve/"fundoc" to put on his "Little
Lawyer" suit and pretend he didn't make a fool of himself last
time he tried to take on Miz Sylvia on a point of law. ]

"Have you heard of the term, 'valor thief,' Ray? I've had
a little google, as I sit here bored, suffering a nasty cold,
and it seems there are people out there who specialise in
outing fake Vietnam vets. They LIKE doing it, Ray. Shall I
contact them, and let them know what you've been claiming,
where you've been claiming it, etc?"

-- Mr. Pillock to Ray Haddad (a comment which
brought the new Stolen Valor Act law to
Miz Sylvia's attention)
Post by Jackson Pillock
"I do not share your admiration for Ray's 'trolling style.' I
think it's contemptable. Sylvia, by contrast, speaks very plainly,
takes pains to be clear, and scrupulously supports her assertions
with quotes and cites, so that anyone who wishes to check, can.
Quite reasonable, really. Honest. Reasoned argument is possible
with Sylvia. Not so Ray. "
... but then take the word of Steve/fundoc, who is a demonstrated liar
(and is backing up another demonstrated liar). Compare what you say
about how I support my assertions to Steve/fundoc telling you what I
claimed instead of citing. Same thing for what Josh claims I said.
.
Post by Jackson Pillock
I do not know fundoc to be a liar.
I gave you a link to proof. See?

<moving quoted text>
Post by Jackson Pillock
Haven't you noted that Steve/fundoc claimed "Sylvia stated", but he did
*not* quote and cite me? Why do you think that is? A while back he
listed a lot of "Sylvia stated"s where he added cites (without quotes),
which, if you actually bothered to go read them, proved that he was
either lying about what I said or about the context in which I said it.
( "Proof of the Lack of Worth of the Statements of RAY HADDAD's Thrall,
Steve (Fundoc/Thinggfish/Euripides /etc.)" http://tinyurl.com/2am4x8 )
Post by Jackson Pillock
it's a case of two wrongs don't make a right. 'Don't do unto others'
and all that clobber.
</moving quoted text>
Post by Jackson Pillock
He's said some disgusting things,
He has said a lot of disgusting things.
Post by Jackson Pillock
and provided tinyurls to sickening images, but not lied to me,
Seeing him lie to and about other people counts, Mr. Pillock, and HELLO?
This has been about how he has been lying to *you* (and anyone reading
these posts) about what I have said.
Post by Jackson Pillock
as far as I know.
You quoted it, but did you somehow miss (in my last post) my showing you
the following quote of his and asking you if you believed what he
claimed I have said? Or, is saying that Steve/"fundoc" has not lied to
you your answer?

"Look officer oinky, even if you and Sylvia are in fact fucking -
as she's mentioned in a series of posts now, [...] she was held
up to well deserved ridicule. Which might make you rethink
your affair with her, if you're actually having one, as she's
been claiming[...]"

-- Steve / Fundoc continuing Ray Haddad's lies in MW
I did not ask you to take my word for Steve/"fundoc"'s dishonesty or for
anything that I have said. I provided proof. That you chose not to look
at it doesn't change that.
Post by Jackson Pillock
did you accuse Ray of using pornographic langauge? Did you accuse
him of writing a 'full description' of a 'diseased vagina'?
No, I did not. Why did you accept Steve/"fundoc"'s word that I did? Do
you not realize that he is the one who wrote those crude lies about me?
"He's said some disgusting things", remember?
Post by Jackson Pillock
If no, then I'll ask fundoc to cite.
I would have thought you'd do that *before* you called me a liar.

I wonder why you have not considered, beyond your earlier personal
observations of my honesty, why would anyone lie about Ray Haddad's
phony claims when he has been soooo generous to Usenet with them? Who
could make up anything stupider and more damming than the lies he tells
about himself? Like claiming his "luck ran out" so that he was
drafted... at the time he was the father of four children.

I mean, that destroys his entire "22 year military career" right there,
and yet Steve/"fundoc"'s got you telling me that I lied about Haddad
claiming that he flew over Hanoi when I quoted him saying that he flew
over Hanoi... on bombing missions that you know never happened.

<...>
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Jackson Pillock
Two mentions of wikis in one night. Is that unhealthy?
.
Post by Jackson Pillock
I have no idea what you mean. If you are again referring to something in
another post that you addressed to Steve/fundoc, please give me a cite.
I am aware that at times Ray Haddad has snipped my cites and claimed
that I got vital information from the Wikipedia when I actually used
sources such as the US Navy. Is that what you mean?
.
Post by Jackson Pillock
No. I'm saying that if one of your cites can be shown to be false, distorted
or incomplete, then the rest of your cites will come into question.
When you said that I replied:

" 'If'? I don't see you waiting for proof. Steve/"fundoc", of
all people, told you 'Sylvia stated' and then you told me
'I called you, LIAR, LIAR, LIAR'. "

By "false, distorted or incomplete" I take it you mean deliberate
dishonesty, yes? And, have you seen any like that among my cites since
you looked last time (and said that was honest)? Not "according to
fundoc", but according to what I have actually written? You told him:

"Okay, you've found several lies; I was lazy.
LIAR LIAR LIAR yourself, Sylvia."

How is judging me on anyone's word (especially the likes of
Steve/fundoc) rather than on what I write not being "lazy"?

Mr. Pillock: "If you can be shown to have manipulated quotes,
even on such a tangenital matter, it casts doubt
on all your cites."

Miz Sylvia: " 'All'. Of course, that is what Steve/fundoc intended,
despite the fact that you checked out some of my
cites and *never* found that I lied."
--
Sylvia

[1]
http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/aiding_abetting_accessory.html

Miz Ultravioltet: "Hey, Ob...you've heard about his fantasy of
being a lawyer, haven't you? Latest news
is that he's such a poor one he even loses
his *imaginary* cases! ba-da-boom

"When a bum starts to wheeze
'Bout his fake law degrees
That's Fundoc, yeah! "

Obnox : "Well, I dunno, UV; anyone as low-to-the-ground
and nasty as Fundoc would probably make a
damn fine lawyer."

"And there are guys in prison - jailhouse
lawyers - who become quite knowledgeable,
so it is plausible, given his lifestyle.

"I think his greatest claim to respectability
is playing in a struggling punk band. That
is the one thing - the only thing - I can
respect about him. In fact, I'd rather see
him succeed at that than at law. I bet most
self-respecting people would rather socialize
with a punker than a lawyer, anyway."

http://tinyurl.com/35hv5h
Jackson Pillock
2007-09-09 11:01:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia
<...>
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Jackson Pillock
Getting back to my exchange with fundoc, in which I called you, "LIAR,
LIAR, LIAR,"
<...>
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Jackson Pillock
it casts doubt on all your cites.
(Ray, this does not mean I buy your shit)
<...>
Post by Jackson Pillock
I'd appreciate it if you'd tell me *which* "several lies" you
believe that Steve/fundoc claims I told.
<...>
Hee's the rest.
Post by Jackson Pillock
6. Do you seriously think Josh is acting as an accessory to a crime?
Ray Haddad has repeatedly broken a Federal law (the Stolen Valor Act).
I've proved that to do so is to commit a Felony crime. That's serious.
He may also be guilty of repeatedly breaking a Federal law against
impersonating military personnel as an enlisted man and as an officer (I
haven't had times to find details that may provide a loophole for him).
That would be serious. I also proved that, should Ray Haddad set foot in
some states (he claims to travel in the US doing a magic act), he could
also be charged with the crime of impersonating a military Veteran.
That's serious.
Joshua P. Hill and Steve/"fundoc", as the Archives show, keep posting
that I have lied when I said that Ray Haddad has lied about earning
military medals and about supposed military adventures that would have
earned him military awards and decorations. Haddad keeps using their
help to lie even more about his fake military "career" (remember, he
insists that he is a United States citizen). Joshua P. Hill and
Steve/"fundoc" are also United States citizens (and live in the States
while Ray Haddad lives far away in another continent). And, helping
someone in the commission of a crime... well, that's a serious enough
"A criminal charge of aiding and abetting or accessory can
usually be brought against anyone who helps in the commission
of a crime [...] Depending on the degree of involvement, the
offender's participation in the crime may rise to the level of
conspiracy." [1]
'Course, it would be up to a court of law. I wonder if they often use
that to persuade accessory-esque peeps to testify against a felon.
[ This space reserved for Steve/"fundoc" to put on his "Little
Lawyer" suit and pretend he didn't make a fool of himself last
time he tried to take on Miz Sylvia on a point of law. ]
"Have you heard of the term, 'valor thief,' Ray? I've had
a little google, as I sit here bored, suffering a nasty cold,
and it seems there are people out there who specialise in
outing fake Vietnam vets. They LIKE doing it, Ray. Shall I
contact them, and let them know what you've been claiming,
where you've been claiming it, etc?"
-- Mr. Pillock to Ray Haddad (a comment which
brought the new Stolen Valor Act law to
Miz Sylvia's attention)
Post by Jackson Pillock
"I do not share your admiration for Ray's 'trolling style.' I
think it's contemptable. Sylvia, by contrast, speaks very plainly,
takes pains to be clear, and scrupulously supports her assertions
with quotes and cites, so that anyone who wishes to check, can.
Quite reasonable, really. Honest. Reasoned argument is possible
with Sylvia. Not so Ray. "
... but then take the word of Steve/fundoc, who is a demonstrated liar
(and is backing up another demonstrated liar). Compare what you say
about how I support my assertions to Steve/fundoc telling you what I
claimed instead of citing. Same thing for what Josh claims I said.
.
Post by Jackson Pillock
I do not know fundoc to be a liar.
I gave you a link to proof. See?
<moving quoted text>
Post by Jackson Pillock
Haven't you noted that Steve/fundoc claimed "Sylvia stated", but he did
*not* quote and cite me? Why do you think that is? A while back he
listed a lot of "Sylvia stated"s where he added cites (without quotes),
which, if you actually bothered to go read them, proved that he was
either lying about what I said or about the context in which I said it.
( "Proof of the Lack of Worth of the Statements of RAY HADDAD's Thrall,
Steve (Fundoc/Thinggfish/Euripides /etc.)"
http://tinyurl.com/2am4x8 )
Post by Jackson Pillock
it's a case of two wrongs don't make a right. 'Don't do unto others'
and all that clobber.
</moving quoted text>
Post by Jackson Pillock
He's said some disgusting things,
He has said a lot of disgusting things.
Post by Jackson Pillock
and provided tinyurls to sickening images, but not lied to me,
Seeing him lie to and about other people counts, Mr. Pillock, and HELLO?
This has been about how he has been lying to *you* (and anyone reading
these posts) about what I have said.
Post by Jackson Pillock
as far as I know.
You quoted it, but did you somehow miss (in my last post) my showing you
the following quote of his and asking you if you believed what he
claimed I have said? Or, is saying that Steve/"fundoc" has not lied to
you your answer?
"Look officer oinky, even if you and Sylvia are in fact fucking -
as she's mentioned in a series of posts now, [...] she was held
up to well deserved ridicule. Which might make you rethink
your affair with her, if you're actually having one, as she's
been claiming[...]"
-- Steve / Fundoc continuing Ray Haddad's lies in MW
I think that's satire. See the elipses? What might be in the snipped text
to change the meaning of the passage?
Post by Sylvia
I did not ask you to take my word for Steve/"fundoc"'s dishonesty or for
anything that I have said. I provided proof. That you chose not to look
at it doesn't change that.
Post by Jackson Pillock
did you accuse Ray of using pornographic langauge? Did you accuse
him of writing a 'full description' of a 'diseased vagina'?
No, I did not. Why did you accept Steve/"fundoc"'s word that I did? Do
you not realize that he is the one who wrote those crude lies about me?
"He's said some disgusting things", remember?
Post by Jackson Pillock
If no, then I'll ask fundoc to cite.
I would have thought you'd do that *before* you called me a liar..'
I took his word. As I said, I don't know fundoc to be a liar.
Post by Sylvia
I wonder why you have not considered, beyond your earlier personal
observations of my honesty, why would anyone lie about Ray Haddad's
phony claims when he has been soooo generous to Usenet with them? Who
could make up anything stupider and more damming than the lies he tells
about himself? Like claiming his "luck ran out" so that he was
drafted... at the time he was the father of four children
I mean, that destroys his entire "22 year military career" right there,
and yet Steve/"fundoc"'s got you telling me that I lied about Haddad
claiming that he flew over Hanoi when I quoted him saying that he flew
over Hanoi... on bombing missions that you know never happened.
As I said to you at the time, you're pushing it too far. Haddad is a liar.
Even fundoc thinks it's 'painfully obvious' that he's exaggerated. Even Josh
calls him a 'troll.' Not sure how troll=honest, but never mind.
Post by Sylvia
<...>
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Jackson Pillock
Two mentions of wikis in one night. Is that unhealthy?
.
Post by Jackson Pillock
I have no idea what you mean. If you are again referring to something in
another post that you addressed to Steve/fundoc, please give me a cite.
I am aware that at times Ray Haddad has snipped my cites and claimed
that I got vital information from the Wikipedia when I actually used
sources such as the US Navy. Is that what you mean?
.
Post by Jackson Pillock
No. I'm saying that if one of your cites can be shown to be false, distorted
or incomplete, then the rest of your cites will come into question.
" 'If'? I don't see you waiting for proof. Steve/"fundoc", of
all people, told you 'Sylvia stated' and then you told me
'I called you, LIAR, LIAR, LIAR'. "
By "false, distorted or incomplete" I take it you mean deliberate
dishonesty, yes? And, have you seen any like that among my cites since
you looked last time (and said that was honest)? Not "according to
"Okay, you've found several lies; I was lazy.
LIAR LIAR LIAR yourself, Sylvia."
How is judging me on anyone's word (especially the likes of
Steve/fundoc) rather than on what I write not being "lazy"?
Mr. Pillock: "If you can be shown to have manipulated quotes,
even on such a tangenital matter, it casts doubt
on all your cites."
Miz Sylvia: " 'All'. Of course, that is what Steve/fundoc intended,
despite the fact that you checked out some of my
cites and *never* found that I lied."
Not for me personally. I think you usually get it right. But it gives Ray
wriggle room. I warned you of that earlier, remember?
Post by Sylvia
--
Sylvia
[1]
http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/aiding_abetting_accessory.html
Miz Ultravioltet: "Hey, Ob...you've heard about his fantasy of
being a lawyer, haven't you? Latest news
is that he's such a poor one he even loses
his *imaginary* cases! ba-da-boom
"When a bum starts to wheeze
'Bout his fake law degrees
That's Fundoc, yeah! "
Obnox : "Well, I dunno, UV; anyone as low-to-the-ground
and nasty as Fundoc would probably make a
damn fine lawyer."
"And there are guys in prison - jailhouse
lawyers - who become quite knowledgeable,
so it is plausible, given his lifestyle.
"I think his greatest claim to respectability
is playing in a struggling punk band. That
is the one thing - the only thing - I can
respect about him. In fact, I'd rather see
him succeed at that than at law. I bet most
self-respecting people would rather socialize
with a punker than a lawyer, anyway."
http://tinyurl.com/35hv5h
This is fun
2007-09-09 13:19:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jackson Pillock
Post by Sylvia
"Look officer oinky, even if you and Sylvia are in fact fucking -
as she's mentioned in a series of posts now, [...] she was held
up to well deserved ridicule. Which might make you rethink
your affair with her, if you're actually having one, as she's
been claiming[...]"
-- Steve / Fundoc continuing Ray Haddad's lies in MW
I think that's satire. See the elipses? What might be in the snipped text
to change the meaning of the passage?
Now you're getting the idea Jackson Pillock. What might be snipped to change
the meaning? Let's see:

"Look officer oinky, even if you and Sylvia are in fact fucking - as she's
mentioned in a series of posts now, not that I believe it because (a) it's
unlikely that she's seen a cock in the 21st century and (b) despite the fact
that she evidently has a boy's ass I don't know that a pig such as yourself
could get it up for her as she's not chained to a radiator with a toilet
plunger in her ass -- there's no reason to interrupt every thread she's
involved in with your stupid questions and typo lames."

What seems to have been snipped was a statement that directly contradicts
Slyvia's ridiculous allegation.

Color me stunned.
Josh Hill
2007-09-09 14:10:10 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 9 Sep 2007 12:01:06 +0100, "Jackson Pillock"
Post by Sylvia
I wonder why you have not considered, beyond your earlier personal
observations of my honesty, why would anyone lie about Ray Haddad's
phony claims when he has been soooo generous to Usenet with them? Who
could make up anything stupider and more damming than the lies he tells
about himself? Like claiming his "luck ran out" so that he was
drafted... at the time he was the father of four children.
I mean, that destroys his entire "22 year military career" right there,
and yet Steve/"fundoc"'s got you telling me that I lied about Haddad
claiming that he flew over Hanoi when I quoted him saying that he flew
over Hanoi... on bombing missions that you know never happened.
Ray did not say he flew over Hanoi; he said "We flew over Hanoi." No
native English speaker would make the mistake of thinking that a
member of a group referring to an action performed as part of an
ensemble effort by his group was claiming that the action had been
performed by himself. Hence, you are not a speaker of English, but a
speaker of Swahili. Since your prose does not contain traces of
Swahili grammar, you cannot have written it. I must therefore conclude
that your posts have been written by a ghost writer. This calls into
question your existence, since if there were really someone named
Sylvia, there would be no need for a ghost writer. Therefore you are
an invented character. Characters like Betty Crocker are typically
invented by food companies. Therefore you are the creation of a food
company. Since you have refused to admit here that you are the
affiliated with a food company, you are obviously a liar. And since
you are a liar, I cannot believe anything you say. Given that I
disbelieve only lies, everything you say is a lie. Since everything
you say is a lie and you have claimed to have a parrot, you do not
have a parrot. Since you do not have a parrot, there is no reason you
cannot have a cat. Therefore you have a cat.

I cannot possibly express my disgust at someone so low as to claim
they have a parrot when in fact they have a cat.
--
Josh

"This keeps out the stalkers, the obsessed, the dysfunctional, the abusive, and
the general, all-around jerks who get off on turning a group so toxic that nobody's
left after a while but the person and some of his associates or collaborators.
It's the slow poisoning of a group." - J. Michael Straczynski
Sylvia
2007-09-14 07:12:02 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>,
Josh Hill <***@gmail.com>, who claims that he killfiled Miz
Sylvia's posts but still reads and replies to what she wrote, wrote:

<...>
Post by Josh Hill
Post by Sylvia
I wonder why you have not considered, beyond your earlier personal
observations of my honesty, why would anyone lie about Ray Haddad's
phony claims when he has been soooo generous to Usenet with them? Who
could make up anything stupider and more damming than the lies he tells
about himself? Like claiming his "luck ran out" so that he was
drafted... at the time he was the father of four children.
I mean, that destroys his entire "22 year military career" right there,
and yet Steve/"fundoc"'s got you telling me that I lied about Haddad
claiming that he flew over Hanoi when I quoted him saying that he flew
over Hanoi... on bombing missions that you know never happened.
Ray did not say he flew over Hanoi;
"Yes, we were. We drew two months of combat pay and flew
over Hanoi and Haiphong Harbor daily for a few weeks.
We did bomb selected targets. USS Ranger air wing planes
were involved."

-- Ray Haddad http://tinyurl.com/3xwa94
Post by Josh Hill
he said "We flew over Hanoi."
"I'm getting the scent of weasel on the wind."

-- Mr. Hope
Post by Josh Hill
No native English speaker would make the mistake of thinking that a
member of a group referring to an action performed as part of an
ensemble effort by his group was claiming that the action had been
performed by himself.
<...>

"You sound like John Kerry now.

"Kerry: We all committed atrocities over there in Vietnam.
Oh, wait. I meant that to mean a figurative 'we.' The OTHER
Swift Boat sailors are the 'we' part. Not me. I'm not part of
that 'we' to which I referred."

-- Ray Haddad, Lying Weasel & Stolen Valor Thief
http://tinyurl.com/2yw5j3
--
Sylvia

"In case it escapes your notice, you regularly respond to me
and address me here while continuing to declare that I am
in your kill file. The real dope is that you can't even help
yourself. [...]

"But, I like being in your kill file because I get to point out
how moronic you appear when you address me, discuss me
or reply to me. The only real way to filter me can only take
place inside your head, Josh. Until you learn that, you're
doomed to be a moron.

"Now, strap on that drool cup. You're going to dampen your
keyboard and short it out again."

-- Ray Haddad to Joshua P. Hill

-- Ray Haddad to Joshua P. Hill
This is fun
2007-09-09 13:13:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia
Joshua P. Hill and Steve/"fundoc", as the Archives show, keep posting
that I have lied when I said that Ray Haddad has lied about earning
military medals and about supposed military adventures that would have
earned him military awards and decorations. Haddad keeps using their
help to lie even more about his fake military "career" (remember, he
insists that he is a United States citizen). Joshua P. Hill and
Steve/"fundoc" are also United States citizens (and live in the States
while Ray Haddad lives far away in another continent). And, helping
someone in the commission of a crime... well, that's a serious enough
Just an FYI Slyvia, but I checked Title 18, which is the federal criminal
code, and Congress has not yet gotten around to making disagreeing with you
in usenet a federal crime. Probably they meant to, but they were too busy,
what with the war and so forth.
Post by Sylvia
"A criminal charge of aiding and abetting or accessory can
usually be brought against anyone who helps in the commission
of a crime [...] Depending on the degree of involvement, the
offender's participation in the crime may rise to the level of
conspiracy." [1]
'Course, it would be up to a court of law. I wonder if they often use
that to persuade accessory-esque peeps to testify against a felon.
[ This space reserved for Steve/"fundoc" to put on his "Little
Lawyer" suit and pretend he didn't make a fool of himself last
time he tried to take on Miz Sylvia on a point of law. ]
As I recall, during our last legal discussion you used some legal jargon
incorrectly (legal "precedence" was especially amusing), demonstrated you
knew fuck all abour reading case law, and just generally acted the buffoon.

Regarding your completely ridiculous assertion that Josh Hill has
violated federal law by posting in a newsgroup.


In pertinent part, the stolen valor act, 18 usc 704, reads:

§ 704. Military medals or decorations

(a) [deled by me - criminalizes trafficking in medals]

(b) False claims about receipt of military decorations or medals. Whoever
falsely represents himself or herself, verbally or in writing, to have been
awarded any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the Armed Forces
of the United States, any of the service medals or badges awarded to the
members of such forces, the ribbon, button, or rosette of any such badge,
decoration, or medal, or any colorable imitation of such item shall be fined
under this title, imprisoned not more than six months, or both.


Thus, section b makes it a crime to "falsely represents himself or herself."

Note what it does not criminalize: making a false claim about someone else.
So if for example Josh Hill claims that Haddad has won a military
decoration, that is not a violation of the statute.

Arguendo, if Haddad never served in the military and never recieved any
medals, he would have violated the act by claiming to have done so.

In order to be prosecuted for Haddad's alleged crime, Josh Hill would have
to meet the federal definition of either an accomplice or an accessory.

18 USC § 2 (b), the federal accomplice statute, provides that

"(b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed
by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is
punishable as a principal."

Josh Hill did not "willfully cause" Ray Haddad to lie about receiving a
medal. At worst, all he did was believe Haddad's statement after it was
made. Neither would Haddad's alleged illegal act --claiming that Haddad won
a medal -- be a crime if directly performed by Hill, because the statute
does not criminalize making statements about others. Thus, even if Haddad
had committed a crime, which is not proven, Hill's behavior, which comprises
merely believing the lie, could not be punished.


18 USC 3 defines accessory after the fact. It provides that

"Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been
committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to
hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory
after the fact."

Whatever Hill has done, he has not done it "to hinder or prevent"
the "apprehension, trial or punishment" or "the offender."

Thus Hill cannot be an accessory to any alleged crime.

Perhaps you should apologize to this poor Josh Hill fellow for libelling him
so grieviously.
This is fun
2007-09-09 15:06:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by This is fun
18 USC § 2 (b), the federal accomplice statute, provides that
"(b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed
by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is
punishable as a principal."
To briefly follow up my own post, because I left out 18 usc 2(a):

§ 2. Principals

(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets,
counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a
principal.


As noted by the 6th circuit in US v Ledezma, one cannot abet a completed
crime: "The essence of the crime of aiding and abetting is a defendant's
offering assistance or encouragement to his principal in the commission of a
substantive offense. However, one cannot aid and abet a completed crime."
Thus, once Haddad's alleged lie was uttered, any potential accomplice
liability becomes impossible.
Pies de Arcilla
2007-09-08 03:54:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia
.. but then take the word of Steve/fundoc, who is a demonstrated liar
(and is backing up another demonstrated liar).
You do accuse people of dishonesty indiscriminately. Me, for example.

If you can make a mistake writing about cameras, then so can fundoc.
Loading...