Discussion:
Tom Parker Bowles May Be King
(too old to reply)
Pinku-Sensei
2007-05-17 11:15:35 UTC
Permalink
I don't understand why she's not getting more attention at AUK.
I suppose it's because 1) Agnus is new, 2) she's talking about a subject
that many kookologists find obscure and arcane, and 3) AUK has been
distracted from new kooks outside of AUK by a bunch of lamers, trolls,
mission poasters, and borderline kooky RLing assholes who have been
charging directly at AUK and only very recently have been thrown into the
Galactic Killfile. With any luck, that last issue should be fading away.
Besides, she now has /my/ attention. I hope that helps.
--
Pinku-Sensei
Co-FNVW of AUK
Acting Pollmaster of AFA-B
Official Overseer of Kooks & Trolls in rec.arts.marching.drumcorps
http://www.caballista.org/auk/index.html
Pinku-Sensei
2007-05-17 11:16:39 UTC
Permalink
Do you think she's kooky enough for a nomination yet or should I give
her a little more time to develop her kookiness?
Let her develop. She really doesn't meet the qualifications for most
awards yet, even if she is manifesting a rather unique obsession. In fact,
the AUK awards she'd come closest to qualifying for now--Looney Maroon and
Palmjob Paddle--have rather high bars and would likely have stiff
competition; Brad Guth in particular would stomp her in a contest for
Looney Maroon. That said, do keep up the good work. Agnes may not yet be
award-worthy, but she is entertaining.
--
Pinku-Sensei
Co-FNVW of AUK
Acting Pollmaster of AFA-B
Official Overseer of Kooks & Trolls in rec.arts.marching.drumcorps
http://www.caballista.org/auk/index.html
Roofshadow
2007-05-17 17:02:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pinku-Sensei
Do you think she's kooky enough for a nomination yet or should I give
her a little more time to develop her kookiness?
Let her develop. She really doesn't meet the qualifications for most
awards yet, even if she is manifesting a rather unique obsession.
It IS pretty bizarre isn't it?

I've honestly never seen anything quite like it.

In fact,
Post by Pinku-Sensei
the AUK awards she'd come closest to qualifying for now--Looney Maroon and
Palmjob Paddle--have rather high bars and would likely have stiff
competition; Brad Guth in particular would stomp her in a contest for
Looney Maroon.
Maybe she'll get loonier if she's poked enough.

That said, do keep up the good work. Agnes may not yet be
Post by Pinku-Sensei
award-worthy, but she is entertaining.
Will do!

;)
--
Roofshadow

AUK FNG
Pinku-Sensei
2007-05-23 06:28:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roofshadow
Post by Pinku-Sensei
Do you think she's kooky enough for a nomination yet or should I
give her a little more time to develop her kookiness?
Let her develop. She really doesn't meet the qualifications for most
awards yet, even if she is manifesting a rather unique obsession.
It IS pretty bizarre isn't it?
Yes.
Post by Roofshadow
I've honestly never seen anything quite like it.
It is original, but I can read half-a-dozen weirder conspiracy theories
in a half-hour on alt.freemasonry.
Post by Roofshadow
In fact,
Post by Pinku-Sensei
the AUK awards she'd come closest to qualifying for now--Looney
Maroon and Palmjob Paddle--have rather high bars and would likely
have stiff competition; Brad Guth in particular would stomp her in a
contest for Looney Maroon.
Maybe she'll get loonier if she's poked enough.
She's getting there. Her copying and pasting in screed from elsewhere
while attributing it to someone who didn't write it is 1) dishonest, 2)
clueless, 3) kooky, and 4) something I haven't seen before. Brad Guth
could use competition for Clueless Newbie of the Month.
Post by Roofshadow
That said, do keep up the good work. Agnes may not yet be
Post by Pinku-Sensei
award-worthy, but she is entertaining.
Will do!
;)
Thank you!
--
Pinku-Sensei
Co-FNVW of AUK
Acting Pollmaster of AFA-B
Official Overseer of Kooks & Trolls in rec.arts.marching.drumcorps
http://www.caballista.org/auk/index.html
Roofshadow
2007-05-23 16:38:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pinku-Sensei
Post by Roofshadow
Post by Pinku-Sensei
Do you think she's kooky enough for a nomination yet or should I
give her a little more time to develop her kookiness?
Let her develop. She really doesn't meet the qualifications for most
awards yet, even if she is manifesting a rather unique obsession.
It IS pretty bizarre isn't it?
Yes.
Post by Roofshadow
I've honestly never seen anything quite like it.
It is original, but I can read half-a-dozen weirder conspiracy theories
in a half-hour on alt.freemasonry.
I bet we can get her really whipped up into a frenzy if we keep at it!
Post by Pinku-Sensei
Post by Roofshadow
In fact,
Post by Pinku-Sensei
the AUK awards she'd come closest to qualifying for now--Looney
Maroon and Palmjob Paddle--have rather high bars and would likely
have stiff competition; Brad Guth in particular would stomp her in a
contest for Looney Maroon.
Maybe she'll get loonier if she's poked enough.
She's getting there. Her copying and pasting in screed from elsewhere
while attributing it to someone who didn't write it is 1) dishonest, 2)
clueless, 3) kooky, and 4) something I haven't seen before. Brad Guth
could use competition for Clueless Newbie of the Month.
Thanks for the hint!

;)
Post by Pinku-Sensei
Post by Roofshadow
That said, do keep up the good work. Agnes may not yet be
Post by Pinku-Sensei
award-worthy, but she is entertaining.
Will do!
;)
Thank you!
You're welcome!
--
Roofshadow

AUK FNG
Pinku-Sensei
2007-05-24 05:13:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roofshadow
Post by Pinku-Sensei
Post by Roofshadow
I've honestly never seen anything quite like it.
It is original, but I can read half-a-dozen weirder conspiracy
theories in a half-hour on alt.freemasonry.
I bet we can get her really whipped up into a frenzy if we keep at it!
If she doesn't run away first. That seems to be the pattern with the
AGC kooks, beginning with Maryanne Kehoe, who still posts to AGC, but
runs away from any post with AUK in the subject line. As for Aggie, I
haven't seen her post in response to any of my pokings. If that pattern
holds, it would make her the third female kook, after PSYLVIA Sullivan
and Catherine Burr, to run away from me in abject PH34R. Rebecca Ore
also ran away from me, although she made it look brave, even as she
snecked AUK and replaced it with alt.flame.
Post by Roofshadow
Post by Pinku-Sensei
Post by Roofshadow
Maybe she'll get loonier if she's poked enough.
She's getting there. Her copying and pasting in screed from
elsewhere while attributing it to someone who didn't write it is 1)
dishonest, 2) clueless, 3) kooky, and 4) something I haven't seen
before. Brad Guth could use competition for Clueless Newbie of the
Month.
Thanks for the hint!
;)
Oh, you're quite welcome. Should she be nominated and seconded, she'd
be part of a three-way race with Brad Guth and Mike
"Howdy/TrumpetoftheLord" Schmidt of rec.arts.marching.drumcorps and
rec.music.makers.trumpet. That might be a scenario for a Guthball
victory, but it would be entertaining!

Here's another hint. Should she keep dodging hard questions by copying
and pasting text from other sources and then attributing it to people
who never wrote the words in the first place, I'll take it as a sign of
cowardice. Now, Aggie might never win against a serious RLing or Outer
Filthing kook like Honest John for Coward of the Month, but she could
give another question-dodger like MCP of soc.men a run for his money.
--
Pinku-Sensei
Co-FNVW of AUK
Acting Pollmaster of AFA-B
Official Overseer of Kooks & Trolls in rec.arts.marching.drumcorps
http://www.caballista.org/auk/index.html
John "C"
2007-05-25 04:40:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pinku-Sensei
Now, Aggie might never win against a serious RLing or Outer
Filthing kook like Honest John for Coward of the Month
What's the matter Pinkie, did Kimberly make you lick her rubber goober clean
after she screwed your ass real good?

Thanks for the "Storage Space" in your in your Sissy Slut head!

Your Pal,
HJ
Fred Hall
2007-05-25 04:45:50 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 24 May 2007 23:40:50 -0500, "John \"C\""
Post by John "C"
Post by Pinku-Sensei
Now, Aggie might never win against a serious RLing or Outer
Filthing kook like Honest John for Coward of the Month
What's the matter Pinkie, did Kimberly make you lick her rubber goober clean
after she screwed your ass real good?
Learned that at church last Sunday, didn't you?
Post by John "C"
Thanks for the "Storage Space" in your in your Sissy Slut head!
More fine christian behavior from the false christian scum hillbilly
friend of Winnie.
Post by John "C"
Your Pal,
HJ
--
Lits Slut#10
Usenet Ruiner #3
Top Asshole On The Net #2
Most Hated Usenetizen of all time #2
Hammer of Thor - August 2005
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, Trainer of Steve 'BowTurd' Young
COOSN-075-07-81342
miguel
2007-05-25 05:33:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred Hall
On Thu, 24 May 2007 23:40:50 -0500, "John \"C\""
Post by John "C"
Post by Pinku-Sensei
Now, Aggie might never win against a serious RLing or Outer
Filthing kook like Honest John for Coward of the Month
What's the matter Pinkie, did Kimberly make you lick her rubber goober clean
after she screwed your ass real good?
Learned that at church last Sunday, didn't you?
Post by John "C"
Thanks for the "Storage Space" in your in your Sissy Slut head!
More fine christian behavior from the false christian scum hillbilly
friend of Winnie.
Redirect to Rick Mather.
Fred Hall
2007-05-26 14:18:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by miguel
Post by Fred Hall
On Thu, 24 May 2007 23:40:50 -0500, "John \"C\""
Post by John "C"
Post by Pinku-Sensei
Now, Aggie might never win against a serious RLing or Outer
Filthing kook like Honest John for Coward of the Month
What's the matter Pinkie, did Kimberly make you lick her rubber goober clean
after she screwed your ass real good?
Learned that at church last Sunday, didn't you?
Post by John "C"
Thanks for the "Storage Space" in your in your Sissy Slut head!
More fine christian behavior from the false christian scum hillbilly
friend of Winnie.
Redirect to Rick Mather.
Why?
Aggie
2007-05-24 06:05:42 UTC
Permalink
On May 23, 2:28 am, "Pinku-Sensei" <pinku-***@caballista.org>
wrote:

Pinku, unless I explicity write that I am quoting somebody, please do
not pay too much heed the words appearing above my messages indicating
who I appear to be responding too.

Aggie
Pinku-Sensei
2007-05-24 06:58:47 UTC
Permalink
There, an attribution line that functions as a direct quote.

Now, what did I say that you are responding to?
Post by Aggie
Pinku, unless I explicity write that I am quoting somebody,
Which Google Groups just did for you.
Post by Aggie
please do
not pay too much heed the words appearing above my messages indicating
who I appear to be responding too.
Lazy. Then delete the attribution line, n00b.
--
Pinku-Sensei
Co-FNVW of AUK
Acting Pollmaster of AFA-B
Official Overseer of Kooks & Trolls in rec.arts.marching.drumcorps
http://www.caballista.org/auk/index.html
TheBookman
2007-05-24 22:34:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
Pinku, unless I explicity write that I am quoting somebody, please do
not pay too much heed the words appearing above my messages indicating
who I appear to be responding too.
You really haven't mastered the concept of communicating in a coherent
fashion, have you? Conversing with you in meatspace must be very
frustrating for the people around you.

ESL!
--
Bookman -The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in AFA-B
Kazoo Konspirator #668 (The Neighbor of the Beast)
Clue-Bat Wrangler
Keeper of the Nickname Lists
Despotic Kookologist of the New World Order
Hammer of Thor award, October 2005
BARBARA WOODHOUSE MEMORIAL DOG-WHISTLE AWARD
MIKE "MIGUEL" CRANSTON, TRAINED BY BOOKMAN
COOSN-266-06-89425


"I'd love to kill you in a ring" - Bartmo gets all touchy-feely


"****SPV....... So yes I am an idiot."


"ASK THE NWS, YOUR TAX DOLLAR GOES TO THEM NOT TO DR.TURI."
- Mr. Turi explains how to accurately predict hurricanes


"Bookman is yet another Usenet fignuten, meaning naysayer and/or
rusemaster of their incest cloned Third Reich. In other words, you're
communicating with an intellectual if not a biological clone of
Hitler."
- Brad Guth tries to wax "scientific", but invokes Godwin, instead.


WWFSMD?
Roofshadow
2007-05-17 17:03:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pinku-Sensei
I don't understand why she's not getting more attention at AUK.
I suppose it's because 1) Agnus is new, 2) she's talking about a subject
that many kookologists find obscure and arcane, and 3) AUK has been
distracted from new kooks outside of AUK by a bunch of lamers, trolls,
mission poasters, and borderline kooky RLing assholes who have been
charging directly at AUK and only very recently have been thrown into the
Galactic Killfile. With any luck, that last issue should be fading away.
Besides, she now has /my/ attention. I hope that helps.
It does - I'm glad someone appreciates her.

She may be a relatively quiet and harmless kook but she IS pretty kooky.
--
Roofshadow

AUK FNG
miguel
2007-05-17 19:12:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pinku-Sensei
I don't understand why she's not getting more attention at AUK.
I suppose it's because 1) Agnus is new, 2) she's talking about a subject
that many kookologists find obscure and arcane, and 3) AUK has been
distracted from new kooks outside of AUK by a bunch of lamers, trolls,
mission poasters, and borderline kooky RLing assholes who have been
charging directly at AUK and only very recently have been thrown into the
Galactic Killfile.
What would Lionel say?

Something about your pussy?
Post by Pinku-Sensei
With any luck, that last issue should be fading away.
Best get to instilling some discipline in your kookiest kookologists,
then, ma'am.
Post by Pinku-Sensei
Besides, she now has /my/ attention. I hope that helps.
So does your mom. Does that help too?

--

mIGUEL <-- Usenet's Most Award Winning Netizen, First Runner Up

AUK Galactic Killfile, 15 May 2007
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.usenet.kooks/msg/23766545e259d53c
Kook of the Month, March 2007
Palmjob Paddle, March 2007
George Pickett Memorial Trophy, March 2007
Tony Sidaway Memorial "Drama Queen" Award, March 2007
Tony Sidaway Memorial "Drama Queen" Award, April 2007
Busted Urinal Award
Bolo Bullis Foam Duck #27
Tinfoil Sombrero
Emmett Gulley Obsesso Award
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle
Co-Office Holder, Ministry of Circle Jerks, April 2007
Momma's Boy 2007 (not really!)

RIP, Lamont Cranston, my childhood poodle.

He was my true friend.
My best pal.
My only bright star.

Want some awards? Flame the FNVW's slag ho!
Lionel
2007-05-17 19:31:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by miguel
Post by Pinku-Sensei
I don't understand why she's not getting more attention at AUK.
I suppose it's because 1) Agnus is new, 2) she's talking about a subject
that many kookologists find obscure and arcane, and 3) AUK has been
distracted from new kooks outside of AUK by a bunch of lamers, trolls,
mission poasters, and borderline kooky RLing assholes who have been
charging directly at AUK and only very recently have been thrown into the
Galactic Killfile.
What would Lionel say?
I would say great googly moogly. Where's the leather sale going on?
Post by miguel
Something about your pussy?
I like salami best not fish!
Post by miguel
Post by Pinku-Sensei
With any luck, that last issue should be fading away.
Best get to instilling some discipline in your kookiest kookologists,
then, ma'am.
I want a leather bra
Post by miguel
Post by Pinku-Sensei
Besides, she now has /my/ attention. I hope that helps.
So does your mom. Does that help too?
My Brokeback lover is named Michael Phillips.

Michael Phillips lives at:

839 S. Beacon St. #1030
San Pedro, CA 90733, United States

He can be called at:

1-310-941-0229

My other Brokeback lover is named Anthony Jenkins.

Anthony Jenkins lives at:

1608 Comanche Run
Madison, Tennessee 37115, United States

1-615-865-4488


Here's some of the sweet nothings I whisper in their ears:

*FUCKING BUTT FUCK COLON COWBOY BLACK FUCKING FLESH FLY
BACK-DOOR BUDDY JACK FUCKING BELLY-BUMP FUCKING FUCK YOU FUCKING BONE BOX
BOSS-QUEEN PISS DUDES APPLE-JOHN FUCKING FUCKING BOLLOCK BAG BUTT SMASHER
FUCKING PAVEMENT-POUNDER FUCKING BITCHVILLE BITCHEN-TWITCHEN FUCKSTRESS
FUCKING HOOTERS FUCKING BEAT MOLL BUM BANDIT BUTT HAIR FUCKING FEVER
BLISTER BRA BUDDIES FUCKING FUCKING COCK GOBLIN FUCKING SLUT ASS MAN
FUCKING CRAP FUCKING CUNT-STICKER FUCKING-STICK PISSER TARBABY FLESH
INJECTION GERM FUCKING PUSSY FUCKING GITFACE BUM PRODDER PLEASER LOVE
MUFFINS FUCKING BREASTICLES GUTTER-SLUT FUCKING LOVE MUFFINS ARSE-OPENER
FUCKING BACK-DOOR DIRT BOX COON FUCKING VOMIT CLIT LOVE STICK BLOOD SWORD
BITCH BABY FUCKING ARSE PRINCESS FAGGOT DICK OF DEATH FUCKING FAIRY
ASSHOLE PLUGGING BUTT PIRATE FUCKING LUST-BITCH ASSWIPE ANAL COPULATION
BUTT REAMER NYMPHO CUSTARD CANNON ANAL COPULATOR CUSTARD FUCKING LOVE
LENGTH JEW AIRHEAD BUM-FUCKER BUM JOCKEY FUCKING ARSE MONKEY FUCKING
FUCKING CUNT-STIRRER FLOP ARSE NIGGER CHUTNEY FUCKING PIMPLE FUCKING
KIPPER RIPPER FUCK UP ARSE COOLER WOMAN OF JOY PISS FUCKING INFECTER
TOSSER WHISTLE FLIP FUCKING BLOOD WEEK ANAL SPEAR YOUR CLIT BACK-DOOR
BURGLAR FUCKING BEAT FUCKING RAPE BUM GRAVY PUDDINGS HOOKNOSE MOLL COCK
SUCKER ARSE-LEECH DWARF FERRET FUCKING BUNGHOLE FAGGOT BLOWJOB FAGGOT
BLOWJOB PUBIC FUCKING FUCKING NYMPHO DICK LICKER KNOB FUCKING SHIT FOR
BRAINS CODPIECE FUCKING ASS-LICKING ARSEHOLE HAIR FUCKING BAZOOMS CLIT
GENITAL WARTS FUCKING ANUS BANDIT STAB QUEER RAPE CLIT FUCKING ANAL
FUCKING BARE-BUM FISTING COOTER ARSE-BOY FLESH BAT COMFORT FUCKING HEAD
BED PISSER WOMAN ANUS-QUEEN SHAG CLIT PRICK COCK FUCKING POLACK BELLY-FUCK
SHAG VAGINA SHIT MAIN VEIN BLOWJOB FUCKING ASS-BONE FART BUM BANDIT FUCKER
ASSWIPE LIKE FUCKING BIGGUS DICKUS LOVE MUFFINS ABSCESS SCROTUM IT DIRTY
VIRGIN TIT ASSWIPE CUNT RIFLE PUBES PORK SWORD TWAT MUFF QUIM DYKE SHITE
DISCHARGE SMEGMA*
Roofshadow
2007-05-18 00:45:51 UTC
Permalink
As silly as it may be to suggest, may I ask that we cool things down a
bit and try to discuss the simple argument that I've posed: that Tom
can be King.
Many of you had many some very strong counter-arguments. For instance,
it was said that the privy council must approve any marriage, and they
would have known about this notification in 1973. In reply, I've
argued that there are some routine or inconspicious motions that are
passed at any meeting, and that a motion referencing some other
document could have passed, and that that document could have been
kept confidential since 1973.
It was said that it is very difficult to argue that a marriage
occurred in a British church in 1973, because the marriage documents
(banns) are always published on many levels. I countered by saying
that a foreign church could have been used, because the essential
thing is that the Queen's consent (and council's) is obtained.
Somebody then said that even those churches have good security, and
libraries publishing the marriages. I countered by saying that a
church doesn't need to be used; a civil marriage in a foreign land
will do, as was done (coincedentally) between Camilla and Charles a
few years ago.
Ideally this should be a logical as well as common-sensical
discussion. I find it interesting!
Aggie
I find you kooky and obsessed with a very silly non-issue.
--
Roofshadow

AUK FNG
Aggie
2007-05-18 05:04:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roofshadow
I find you kooky and obsessed with a very silly non-issue.
Much of life is concerned with pedantic, routine things. The point of
newsgroups is to play, have fun. This is not work, right? Surely we
can be silly... in a non-abusive way. Can you do that?

Aggie
Roofshadow
2007-05-18 17:13:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
Post by Roofshadow
I find you kooky and obsessed with a very silly non-issue.
Much of life is concerned with pedantic, routine things. The point of
newsgroups is to play, have fun. This is not work, right? Surely we
can be silly... in a non-abusive way. Can you do that?
You're certainly fun to watch... I'll grant you that much.
--
Roofshadow

AUK FNG
Aggie
2007-05-19 02:08:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roofshadow
Post by Aggie
Much of life is concerned with pedantic, routine things. The point of
newsgroups is to play, have fun. This is not work, right? Surely we
can be silly... in a non-abusive way. Can you do that?
You're certainly fun to watch... I'll grant you that much.
It's good to have fun. It's also important to disagree in a civil way.
We're adults, right, and this isn't a playground.

Thanks
Aggie
Roofshadow
2007-05-19 02:32:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
Post by Roofshadow
Post by Aggie
Much of life is concerned with pedantic, routine things. The point of
newsgroups is to play, have fun. This is not work, right? Surely we
can be silly... in a non-abusive way. Can you do that?
You're certainly fun to watch... I'll grant you that much.
It's good to have fun. It's also important to disagree in a civil way.
We're adults, right, and this isn't a playground.
You sound like a schoolmarm.
--
Roofshadow

AUK FNG
Aggie
2007-05-19 05:51:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roofshadow
Post by Aggie
Post by Roofshadow
Post by Aggie
Much of life is concerned with pedantic, routine things. The point of
newsgroups is to play, have fun. This is not work, right? Surely we
can be silly... in a non-abusive way. Can you do that?
You're certainly fun to watch... I'll grant you that much.
It's good to have fun. It's also important to disagree in a civil way.
We're adults, right, and this isn't a playground.
You sound like a schoolmarm.
I don't know roofshadow. Maybe it is "schoolmarmish" to try to debate
politely on newsgroups. Reading through the many messages, as I'm sure
you have, such civility is very rare. It's like a jungle of sorts. But
there comes a time when environment cannot be blamed, nor human
nature, but independent choice. And... I have feelings too.

Aggie
Roofshadow
2007-05-19 21:52:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
Post by Roofshadow
Post by Aggie
Post by Roofshadow
Post by Aggie
Much of life is concerned with pedantic, routine things. The point of
newsgroups is to play, have fun. This is not work, right? Surely we
can be silly... in a non-abusive way. Can you do that?
You're certainly fun to watch... I'll grant you that much.
It's good to have fun. It's also important to disagree in a civil way.
We're adults, right, and this isn't a playground.
You sound like a schoolmarm.
I don't know roofshadow. Maybe it is "schoolmarmish" to try to debate
politely on newsgroups. Reading through the many messages, as I'm sure
you have, such civility is very rare. It's like a jungle of sorts. But
there comes a time when environment cannot be blamed, nor human
nature, but independent choice. And... I have feelings too.
My feeling is that you're kookily obsessed with a silly non-issue.
--
Roofshadow

AUK FNG
Pinku-Sensei
2007-05-23 06:35:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roofshadow
Post by Aggie
I don't know roofshadow. Maybe it is "schoolmarmish" to try to debate
politely on newsgroups. Reading through the many messages, as I'm
sure you have, such civility is very rare. It's like a jungle of
sorts. But there comes a time when environment cannot be blamed, nor
human nature, but independent choice. And... I have feelings too.
My feeling is that you're kookily obsessed with a silly non-issue.
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/issues.htm

"Issues has an issue and she won't rest until it becomes your issue, too.
Even when she's not talking about her issue it's clear she would rather be
talking about her issue. Something of a secular evangelist, her religion,
her raison d'etre, her abiding passion is....well, her issue. Not exclusive
to any ideological orientation, her issue could be the environment,
abortion rights, raw foods, breast feeding, whatever. Her obsession,
however, provides the key to defeating her in battle; she can't tolerate
indifference, so if her thrusts are simply ignored she will rage, accuse,
condemn, plead and finally, go away."
--
Pinku-Sensei
Co-FNVW of AUK
Acting Pollmaster of AFA-B
Official Overseer of Kooks & Trolls in rec.arts.marching.drumcorps
http://www.caballista.org/auk/index.html
Roofshadow
2007-05-23 16:37:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pinku-Sensei
Post by Roofshadow
Post by Aggie
I don't know roofshadow. Maybe it is "schoolmarmish" to try to debate
politely on newsgroups. Reading through the many messages, as I'm
sure you have, such civility is very rare. It's like a jungle of
sorts. But there comes a time when environment cannot be blamed, nor
human nature, but independent choice. And... I have feelings too.
My feeling is that you're kookily obsessed with a silly non-issue.
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/issues.htm
"Issues has an issue and she won't rest until it becomes your issue, too.
Even when she's not talking about her issue it's clear she would rather be
talking about her issue. Something of a secular evangelist, her religion,
her raison d'etre, her abiding passion is....well, her issue. Not exclusive
to any ideological orientation, her issue could be the environment,
abortion rights, raw foods, breast feeding, whatever. Her obsession,
however, provides the key to defeating her in battle; she can't tolerate
indifference, so if her thrusts are simply ignored she will rage, accuse,
condemn, plead and finally, go away."
That sounds like Aggie all right.

But I don't want her to go away - at least not until she's won an award
or two!

;)
--
Roofshadow

AUK FNG
Pinku-Sensei
2007-05-24 05:40:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roofshadow
Post by Pinku-Sensei
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/issues.htm
"Issues has an issue and she won't rest until it becomes your issue,
too. Even when she's not talking about her issue it's clear she would
rather be talking about her issue. Something of a secular evangelist,
her religion, her raison d'etre, her abiding passion is....well, her
issue. Not exclusive to any ideological orientation, her issue could
be the environment, abortion rights, raw foods, breast feeding,
whatever. Her obsession, however, provides the key to defeating her
in battle; she can't tolerate indifference, so if her thrusts are
simply ignored she will rage, accuse, condemn, plead and finally, go
away."
That sounds like Aggie all right.
Yep, along with Artful Dodger. Interesting combination of traits,
althought it makes her difficult to deal with in any attempt at an
honest debate.
Post by Roofshadow
But I don't want her to go away -
Neither do I, but you, PJR, and I aren't ignoring her, either. If she
fits the Flame Warrior description above, paying attention to her will
keep her posting. Only ignoring her for a long period of time will make
her go away.
Post by Roofshadow
at least not until she's won an award or two!
That can be arranged, although it might take a while.
--
Pinku-Sensei
Co-FNVW of AUK
Acting Pollmaster of AFA-B
Official Overseer of Kooks & Trolls in rec.arts.marching.drumcorps
http://www.caballista.org/auk/index.html
Aggie
2007-05-24 19:32:02 UTC
Permalink
On May 24, 1:40 am, "Pinku-Sensei" <pinku-***@caballista.org>
wrote:

Pinku makes the point that the "Official Secrets Act" keeps some
Queen's Council decisions confidential. However such information, by
nature, is not available publicly, and probably located in a handful
of places. Such places may be able to be reached by a researcher, with
the security clearance of the Queen's office. These places have
thousands of documents. Is it utterly impossible to add an entry into
one of these documents?

Aggie
John "C"
2007-05-25 04:46:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
Pinku makes the point that the "Official Secrets Act" keeps some
Queen's Council decisions confidential. However such information, by
nature, is not available publicly, and probably located in a handful
of places. Such places may be able to be reached by a researcher, with
the security clearance of the Queen's office. These places have
thousands of documents. Is it utterly impossible to add an entry into
one of these documents?
Aggie
The "secrets" are tattooed to Sissy Slave Pinkie's ass cheeks so Kimberly
can read-over them while she's "laying the dildo" to Pinkie's ass.

HJ
Fred Hall
2007-05-25 04:56:48 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 24 May 2007 23:46:46 -0500, "John \"C\""
Post by John "C"
Post by Aggie
Pinku makes the point that the "Official Secrets Act" keeps some
Queen's Council decisions confidential. However such information, by
nature, is not available publicly, and probably located in a handful
of places. Such places may be able to be reached by a researcher, with
the security clearance of the Queen's office. These places have
thousands of documents. Is it utterly impossible to add an entry into
one of these documents?
Aggie
The "secrets" are tattooed to Sissy Slave Pinkie's ass cheeks so Kimberly
can read-over them while she's "laying the dildo" to Pinkie's ass.
Turns you on to think about dildo's and asses, eh?

What does Jesus think about your homosexual obsessions, false
christian slime?
Post by John "C"
HJ
--
Lits Slut#10
Usenet Ruiner #3
Top Asshole On The Net #2
Most Hated Usenetizen of all time #2
Hammer of Thor - August 2005
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, Trainer of Steve 'BowTurd' Young
COOSN-075-07-81342
miguel
2007-05-25 05:34:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred Hall
On Thu, 24 May 2007 23:46:46 -0500, "John \"C\""
Post by John "C"
Post by Aggie
Pinku makes the point that the "Official Secrets Act" keeps some
Queen's Council decisions confidential. However such information, by
nature, is not available publicly, and probably located in a handful
of places. Such places may be able to be reached by a researcher, with
the security clearance of the Queen's office. These places have
thousands of documents. Is it utterly impossible to add an entry into
one of these documents?
Aggie
The "secrets" are tattooed to Sissy Slave Pinkie's ass cheeks so Kimberly
can read-over them while she's "laying the dildo" to Pinkie's ass.
Turns you on to think about dildo's and asses, eh?
What does Jesus think about your homosexual obsessions, false
christian slime?
Redirect to Rick Mather.
Aggie
2007-05-25 16:40:59 UTC
Permalink
On May 25, 1:34 am, miguel <***@gmail.com> wrote:


Umm.. gentleman, please take this argument somewhere else. I'd like to
devote this newsgroup to the possibility, as I see it, that Tom Parker
Bowles may be King.

Aggie
TheBookman
2007-05-25 18:45:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
Umm.. gentleman, please take this argument somewhere else. I'd like to
devote this newsgroup to the possibility, as I see it, that Tom Parker
Bowles may be King.
And by extension, as you see it, pigs may sprout wings and perch in peach
trees and warble Gershwin.

ESL!
--
Bookman -The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in AFA-B
Kazoo Konspirator #668 (The Neighbor of the Beast)
Clue-Bat Wrangler
Keeper of the Nickname Lists
Despotic Kookologist of the New World Order
Hammer of Thor award, October 2005
BARBARA WOODHOUSE MEMORIAL DOG-WHISTLE AWARD
MIKE "MIGUEL" CRANSTON, TRAINED BY BOOKMAN
COOSN-266-06-89425


"I'd love to kill you in a ring" - Bartmo gets all touchy-feely


"****SPV....... So yes I am an idiot."


"ASK THE NWS, YOUR TAX DOLLAR GOES TO THEM NOT TO DR.TURI."
- Mr. Turi explains how to accurately predict hurricanes


"Bookman is yet another Usenet fignuten, meaning naysayer and/or
rusemaster of their incest cloned Third Reich. In other words, you're
communicating with an intellectual if not a biological clone of
Hitler."
- Brad Guth tries to wax "scientific", but invokes Godwin, instead.


WWFSMD?
Aggie
2007-05-25 20:37:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by TheBookman
And by extension, as you see it, pigs may sprout wings and perch in peach
trees and warble Gershwin.
Bookman, here I am trying to drive the discussion to something
productive, and I get this gobbledy-g00k in response. Who's the troll
and who's the reasonable one?

Anyway, we've established that:
1) Tom Parker Bowles' Catholic upbringing may be a non-issue.
2) A foreign country's marriage records can be doctored.
3) The decisions of the Queen's Council are sometimes held in secret,
stored in locations accessible by those authorized by the Queen and
others.
4) The monarch would need to support any such plot, or else it will
fail.
5) Prince William and Henry need not be illegitimated, for a divorce
could have been recorded between Camilla and Charles in a foreign
country before 1982.
6) It is reasonable to argue that Camilla could have cheated on
Charles following their "marriage" and that that's why Tom looks the
way he does.

Comments?

Aggie
Pinku-Sensei
2007-05-26 21:39:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
Post by TheBookman
And by extension, as you see it, pigs may sprout wings and perch in
peach trees and warble Gershwin.
Bookman, here I am trying to drive the discussion to something
productive,
Wild speculation about the line of succession is productive?
Post by Aggie
and I get this gobbledy-g00k in response.
Oh, I understood it. The esteemed Bookman was saying that what you have
been suggesting was as likely as pigs flying.

"gobbledy-g00k"? Aggie, are you sure you don't have more of a clue than
you're displaying?
Post by Aggie
Who's the troll
and who's the reasonable one?
As G.K. Chesterton once said, "The madman is not the man who has lost
his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his
reason."
Post by Aggie
1) Tom Parker Bowles' Catholic upbringing may be a non-issue.
Really? For the benefit of the readers on soc.history.what-if, please
repeat the support for this position.
Post by Aggie
2) A foreign country's marriage records can be doctored.
Duh.
Post by Aggie
3) The decisions of the Queen's Council are sometimes held in secret,
stored in locations accessible by those authorized by the Queen and
others.
Plausible, but what is your evidence?
Post by Aggie
4) The monarch would need to support any such plot, or else it will
fail.
And why would she?
Post by Aggie
5) Prince William and Henry need not be illegitimated, for a divorce
could have been recorded between Camilla and Charles in a foreign
country before 1982.
Which goes back to your point #2.
Post by Aggie
6) It is reasonable to argue that Camilla could have cheated on
Charles following their "marriage" and that that's why Tom looks the
way he does.
Which would illegitimate /him/, thus rendering your whole scheme as
completely beyond the realm of possibility.
Post by Aggie
Comments?
This still belongs in alternative history. It's not going to happen in
this timeline.
--
Pinku-Sensei
Co-FNVW of AUK
Acting Pollmaster of AFA-B
Official Overseer of Kooks & Trolls in rec.arts.marching.drumcorps
http://www.caballista.org/auk/index.html
John "C"
2007-05-26 23:38:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pinku-Sensei
This still belongs in alternative history.
http://www.ztgphosting.com/_w/sfg/004sfg_g180_3595.jpg
TheBookman
2007-05-26 23:52:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
Post by TheBookman
And by extension, as you see it, pigs may sprout wings and perch in peach
trees and warble Gershwin.
Bookman, here I am trying to drive the discussion to something
productive, and I get this gobbledy-g00k in response. Who's the troll
and who's the reasonable one?
I'm the reasonable troll, and you're the unreasonable no0b. HTH.
You have a mouse in your pocket?
Post by Aggie
1) Tom Parker Bowles' Catholic upbringing may be a non-issue.
2) A foreign country's marriage records can be doctored.
3) The decisions of the Queen's Council are sometimes held in secret,
stored in locations accessible by those authorized by the Queen and
others.
4) The monarch would need to support any such plot, or else it will
fail.
5) Prince William and Henry need not be illegitimated, for a divorce
could have been recorded between Camilla and Charles in a foreign
country before 1982.
6) It is reasonable to argue that Camilla could have cheated on
Charles following their "marriage" and that that's why Tom looks the
way he does.
Comments?
It's one of the lamer conspiracy theories I've ever seen, right down there
with the guy who k'lamed that his home Greek Orthodox church publicly
married him to Heidi Klum as his second wife.

ESL!
--
Bookman -The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in AFA-B
Kazoo Konspirator #668 (The Neighbor of the Beast)
Clue-Bat Wrangler
Keeper of the Nickname Lists
Despotic Kookologist of the New World Order
Hammer of Thor award, October 2005
BARBARA WOODHOUSE MEMORIAL DOG-WHISTLE AWARD
MIKE "MIGUEL" CRANSTON, TRAINED BY BOOKMAN
COOSN-266-06-89425


"I'd love to kill you in a ring" - Bartmo gets all touchy-feely


"****SPV....... So yes I am an idiot."


"ASK THE NWS, YOUR TAX DOLLAR GOES TO THEM NOT TO DR.TURI."
- Mr. Turi explains how to accurately predict hurricanes


"Bookman is yet another Usenet fignuten, meaning naysayer and/or
rusemaster of their incest cloned Third Reich. In other words, you're
communicating with an intellectual if not a biological clone of
Hitler."
- Brad Guth tries to wax "scientific", but invokes Godwin, instead.


WWFSMD?
Peter J Ross
2007-05-27 02:00:57 UTC
Permalink
In alt.usenet.kooks on Sat, 26 May 2007 18:52:28 -0500, TheBookman
Post by TheBookman
It's one of the lamer conspiracy theories I've ever seen, right down there
with the guy who k'lamed that his home Greek Orthodox church publicly
married him to Heidi Klum as his second wife.
Aggie has a long way to go before she can rival the mighty Nick
"Kansan" Kaffes. For a start, she hasn't yet claimed to be the true
heir to the throne of an empire.
--
PJR :-)
FNVWE : DHoT : HoT 2006-01
COOSN-266-06-40792 : 10GS : UHoL
PSMHL&S 2003-12 & 2005-05 : 10GC&TR
TheBookman
2007-05-27 07:44:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter J Ross
In alt.usenet.kooks on Sat, 26 May 2007 18:52:28 -0500, TheBookman
Post by TheBookman
It's one of the lamer conspiracy theories I've ever seen, right down there
with the guy who k'lamed that his home Greek Orthodox church publicly
married him to Heidi Klum as his second wife.
Aggie has a long way to go before she can rival the mighty Nick
"Kansan" Kaffes. For a start, she hasn't yet claimed to be the true
heir to the throne of an empire.
Wasn't comparing ko0ks, just ko0ktheories.

I will concede that her schtick wasn't as ko0ky as Nikky's one about the
semen-soaked tissues & Heidi's pregnancy.

ESL!
--
Bookman -The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in AFA-B
Kazoo Konspirator #668 (The Neighbor of the Beast)
Clue-Bat Wrangler
Keeper of the Nickname Lists
Despotic Kookologist of the New World Order
Hammer of Thor award, October 2005
BARBARA WOODHOUSE MEMORIAL DOG-WHISTLE AWARD
MIKE "MIGUEL" CRANSTON, TRAINED BY BOOKMAN
COOSN-266-06-89425


"I'd love to kill you in a ring" - Bartmo gets all touchy-feely


"****SPV....... So yes I am an idiot."


"ASK THE NWS, YOUR TAX DOLLAR GOES TO THEM NOT TO DR.TURI."
- Mr. Turi explains how to accurately predict hurricanes


"Bookman is yet another Usenet fignuten, meaning naysayer and/or
rusemaster of their incest cloned Third Reich. In other words, you're
communicating with an intellectual if not a biological clone of
Hitler."
- Brad Guth tries to wax "scientific", but invokes Godwin, instead.


WWFSMD?
Kadaitcha Man
2007-05-27 09:01:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by TheBookman
Post by Peter J Ross
In alt.usenet.kooks on Sat, 26 May 2007 18:52:28 -0500, TheBookman
Post by TheBookman
It's one of the lamer conspiracy theories I've ever seen, right
down there with the guy who k'lamed that his home Greek Orthodox
church publicly married him to Heidi Klum as his second wife.
Aggie has a long way to go before she can rival the mighty Nick
"Kansan" Kaffes. For a start, she hasn't yet claimed to be the true
heir to the throne of an empire.
Wasn't comparing ko0ks, just ko0ktheories.
I will concede that her schtick wasn't as ko0ky as Nikky's one about
the semen-soaked tissues & Heidi's pregnancy.
Ten to one on that the semen-soaked tissues was just a ruse to avoid having
to admit to losing at a game of soggy biscuit.
--
alt.usenet.kooks
"We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us."
Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129]

Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.
Official Member:
Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660
Usenet Ruiner Lits
Top Assholes on the Net Lits
Most hated usenetizens of all time Lits
AUK psychos and felons Lits
#2 Cog in the Usenet Hate Machine Lits

"Now I know what it is. Now I know what it means when an
alt.usenet.kook x-post shows up."
AOK in news:ermdlu$nli$***@registered.motzarella.org

Quomodo cogis comas tuas sic videri?
Pinku-Sensei
2007-05-26 21:25:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
Umm.. gentleman, please take this argument somewhere else.
Even when one of them is (making a show of) defending your honor? My, you
/are/ single-minded!
Post by Aggie
I'd like to devote this newsgroup
*evil chuckle* Which newsgroup? You're posting to five of them. Even if
you meant just alt.gossip.celebrities, that group is for the discussion of
all celebrities, not just the British Royal Family. You'll be extremely
lucky to keep /this thread/ on that topic.
Post by Aggie
to the possibility, as I see it, that Tom Parker
Bowles may be King.
Again, alternate history.

[alt.fan.prettyboy replaced with soc.history.what-if.]
--
Pinku-Sensei
Co-FNVW of AUK
Acting Pollmaster of AFA-B
Official Overseer of Kooks & Trolls in rec.arts.marching.drumcorps
http://www.caballista.org/auk/index.html
John "C"
2007-05-26 23:39:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pinku-Sensei
*evil chuckle*
You like getting rooted, don't ya?


http://www.ztgphosting.com/_w/sfg/004sfg_g180_3595.jpg
Peter J Ross
2007-05-27 01:54:11 UTC
Permalink
In alt.usenet.kooks on 25 May 2007 09:40:59 -0700, Aggie
I'd like to devote this newsgroup to the possibility, as I see it,
that Tom Parker Bowles may be King.
I'd like to devote this newsgroup to the possibility, as I see it,
that "Aggie" may be a kook, or a troll, or both.
--
PJR :-)
FNVWE : DHoT : HoT 2006-01
COOSN-266-06-40792 : 10GS : UHoL
PSMHL&S 2003-12 & 2005-05 : 10GC&TR
Lionel
2007-05-27 02:24:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter J Ross
In alt.usenet.kooks on 25 May 2007 09:40:59 -0700, Aggie
I'd like to devote this newsgroup to the possibility, as I see it,
that Tom Parker Bowles may be King.
I'd like to devote this newsgroup to the possibility, as I see it,
that "Aggie" may be a kook, or a troll, or both.
I'd like to devote this post to the possibility, as I see it, that you
may be right about "Aggie" maybe being a kook, or a troll, or both.
--
\___ Proud Cog #1 in the AUK Hate Machine
_(AUK)====:: Do *you* think that you have the Right Stuff?
/='='='='-, Apply TODAY by addressing a gratuitously cruel
(O+O+O+O+O) flame to: "Uncle Fester", C/O soc.singles & AUK.
~^^^^^^^^^~~~^~^^~'~~^'^~~~"~~'"~^~'"~~^~"~'~^'^~^~^^~^~"~^~"'~'"~^~~
TheBookman
2007-05-27 07:44:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lionel
Post by Peter J Ross
In alt.usenet.kooks on 25 May 2007 09:40:59 -0700, Aggie
I'd like to devote this newsgroup to the possibility, as I see it,
that Tom Parker Bowles may be King.
I'd like to devote this newsgroup to the possibility, as I see it,
that "Aggie" may be a kook, or a troll, or both.
I'd like to devote this post to the possibility, as I see it, that you
may be right about "Aggie" maybe being a kook, or a troll, or both.
I'd like to devote this reply to the possibility, as I see it, that you
may be right about "Aggie" maybe being a kook, or a troll, or both.

ESL!
--
Bookman -The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in AFA-B
Kazoo Konspirator #668 (The Neighbor of the Beast)
Clue-Bat Wrangler
Keeper of the Nickname Lists
Despotic Kookologist of the New World Order
Hammer of Thor award, October 2005
BARBARA WOODHOUSE MEMORIAL DOG-WHISTLE AWARD
MIKE "MIGUEL" CRANSTON, TRAINED BY BOOKMAN
COOSN-266-06-89425


"I'd love to kill you in a ring" - Bartmo gets all touchy-feely


"****SPV....... So yes I am an idiot."


"ASK THE NWS, YOUR TAX DOLLAR GOES TO THEM NOT TO DR.TURI."
- Mr. Turi explains how to accurately predict hurricanes


"Bookman is yet another Usenet fignuten, meaning naysayer and/or
rusemaster of their incest cloned Third Reich. In other words, you're
communicating with an intellectual if not a biological clone of
Hitler."
- Brad Guth tries to wax "scientific", but invokes Godwin, instead.


WWFSMD?
Fred Hall
2007-05-26 14:20:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by miguel
Post by Fred Hall
On Thu, 24 May 2007 23:46:46 -0500, "John \"C\""
Post by John "C"
Post by Aggie
Pinku makes the point that the "Official Secrets Act" keeps some
Queen's Council decisions confidential. However such information, by
nature, is not available publicly, and probably located in a handful
of places. Such places may be able to be reached by a researcher, with
the security clearance of the Queen's office. These places have
thousands of documents. Is it utterly impossible to add an entry into
one of these documents?
Aggie
The "secrets" are tattooed to Sissy Slave Pinkie's ass cheeks so Kimberly
can read-over them while she's "laying the dildo" to Pinkie's ass.
Turns you on to think about dildo's and asses, eh?
What does Jesus think about your homosexual obsessions, false
christian slime?
Redirect to Rick Mather.
That's twice.

Did he make your pussy hurt so much you've developed an obsession?
Aggie
2007-05-26 16:51:21 UTC
Permalink
People, please take your obscenities elsewhere. Otherwise, I shall
have to restart this discussion in a new thread.

Aggie
Crash Street Kidd
2007-05-26 17:00:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
People, please take your obscenities elsewhere. Otherwise, I shall
have to restart this discussion in a new thread.
Aggie
If you want to avoid the profanities, you should filter out the
AUKooks. Why do they have a hate on for you?

CSK
Fred Hall
2007-05-26 17:58:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crash Street Kidd
Post by Aggie
People, please take your obscenities elsewhere. Otherwise, I shall
have to restart this discussion in a new thread.
Aggie
If you want to avoid the profanities, you should filter out the
AUKooks. Why do they have a hate on for you?
Fuck off, pervert
Post by Crash Street Kidd
CSK
Fred Hall
2007-05-26 17:59:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
People, please take your obscenities elsewhere.
Request denied
Post by Aggie
Otherwise, I shall
have to restart this discussion in a new thread.
Now that's frightening
Post by Aggie
Aggie
Steve Williams
2007-05-27 00:15:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
People, please take your obscenities elsewhere. Otherwise, I shall
have to restart this discussion in a new thread.
Please keep this FUCKING RUBBISH out of alt.usenet.kooks, this
is a SERIOUS newsgroup for ADULT SENSIBLE DISCUSSION.

advThanksance
Pinku-Sensei
2007-05-26 20:47:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by John "C"
The "secrets" are tattooed to Sissy Slave Pinkie's ass cheeks so Kimberly
can read-over them while she's "laying the dildo" to Pinkie's ass.
After closely observing how kooks have been slurping each other and passing
on misinformation as if it were gospel, I propose the following additions
to "Teh Way of the K00k":

In response to "Never learn from your mistakes," insert
"Never learn from other kooks mistakes, either."

In response to "Always practice your mistakes; you may get them right,"
insert "If you don't have your own mistakes to practice, practice another
kook's mistakes. You might succeed where they failed."

Finally, after "Be vigilant in your redundancy. The more you repeat
yourself, the more likely others will believe you," insert "Whenever
another kook posts something you wish to be true about your adversaries,
repeat it. You might convince even more kooks."

I hope these suggestions meet with the approval of the readership of AUK.
--
Pinku-Sensei
Co-FNVW of AUK
Acting Pollmaster of AFA-B
Official Overseer of Kooks & Trolls in rec.arts.marching.drumcorps
http://www.caballista.org/auk/index.html
Meat Plow
2007-05-26 20:57:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pinku-Sensei
Post by John "C"
The "secrets" are tattooed to Sissy Slave Pinkie's ass cheeks so Kimberly
can read-over them while she's "laying the dildo" to Pinkie's ass.
After closely observing how kooks have been slurping each other and passing
on misinformation as if it were gospel, I propose the following additions
In response to "Never learn from your mistakes," insert
"Never learn from other kooks mistakes, either."
In response to "Always practice your mistakes; you may get them right,"
insert "If you don't have your own mistakes to practice, practice another
kook's mistakes. You might succeed where they failed."
Finally, after "Be vigilant in your redundancy. The more you repeat
yourself, the more likely others will believe you," insert "Whenever
another kook posts something you wish to be true about your adversaries,
repeat it. You might convince even more kooks."
I hope these suggestions meet with the approval of the readership of AUK.
I support these revisions.
--
#1 Offishul Ruiner of Usenet, March 2007
#1 Usenet Asshole, March 2007
#1 Bartlo Pset, March 13-24 2007
#10 Most hated Usenetizen of all time
#8 AUK Hate Machine Cog
Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, June 2004
COOSN-266-06-25794
miguel
2007-05-28 18:34:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Meat Plow
Post by Pinku-Sensei
Post by John "C"
The "secrets" are tattooed to Sissy Slave Pinkie's ass cheeks so Kimberly
can read-over them while she's "laying the dildo" to Pinkie's ass.
After closely observing how kooks have been slurping each other and passing
on misinformation as if it were gospel, I propose the following additions
In response to "Never learn from your mistakes," insert
"Never learn from other kooks mistakes, either."
In response to "Always practice your mistakes; you may get them right,"
insert "If you don't have your own mistakes to practice, practice another
kook's mistakes. You might succeed where they failed."
Finally, after "Be vigilant in your redundancy. The more you repeat
yourself, the more likely others will believe you," insert "Whenever
another kook posts something you wish to be true about your adversaries,
repeat it. You might convince even more kooks."
I hope these suggestions meet with the approval of the readership of AUK.
I support these revisions.
You would, you dirty stinking dicklicker.
unknown
2007-05-26 21:05:20 UTC
Permalink
On 26 May 2007 20:47:01 GMT, "Pinku-Sensei"
Post by Pinku-Sensei
Post by John "C"
The "secrets" are tattooed to Sissy Slave Pinkie's ass cheeks so Kimberly
can read-over them while she's "laying the dildo" to Pinkie's ass.
After closely observing how kooks have been slurping each other and passing
on misinformation as if it were gospel, I propose the following additions
In response to "Never learn from your mistakes," insert
"Never learn from other kooks mistakes, either."
In response to "Always practice your mistakes; you may get them right,"
insert "If you don't have your own mistakes to practice, practice another
kook's mistakes. You might succeed where they failed."
Finally, after "Be vigilant in your redundancy. The more you repeat
yourself, the more likely others will believe you," insert "Whenever
another kook posts something you wish to be true about your adversaries,
repeat it. You might convince even more kooks."
I hope these suggestions meet with the approval of the readership of AUK.
I really pissed you off huh?
--
Usenet lits score:

GIT-R-DONE!
alt.usenet.legends.lamey
http://blu05.port5.com
AUK Offishal Tinfoil Sombrero award 05/07
#20 Usenet asshole
#6 Lits Slut
#9 Cog in the AUK Hate Machine
<approved by Lionel>
#11 Most posting trolls/hunters/flonkers 2007
#1 Disenfranchised AUK Kookologist.
#1 AUK Galactic Killfile Award
< we all know how well that works...LOL >
Post by Pinku-Sensei
Oh fer fucksakes. Welcome to my killfile you annoying little gnat.
<working on one of them specheel AUK awards>
FragileWarrior
2007-05-26 21:13:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pinku-Sensei
Post by John "C"
The "secrets" are tattooed to Sissy Slave Pinkie's ass cheeks so
Kimberly can read-over them while she's "laying the dildo" to
Pinkie's ass.
After closely observing how kooks have been slurping each other and
passing on misinformation as if it were gospel, I propose the
In response to "Never learn from your mistakes," insert
"Never learn from other kooks mistakes, either."
In response to "Always practice your mistakes; you may get them
right," insert "If you don't have your own mistakes to practice,
practice another kook's mistakes. You might succeed where they
failed."
Finally, after "Be vigilant in your redundancy. The more you repeat
yourself, the more likely others will believe you," insert "Whenever
another kook posts something you wish to be true about your
adversaries, repeat it. You might convince even more kooks."
I hope these suggestions meet with the approval of the readership of AUK.
Those were mighty fine revisions. Might fine revisions indeed.
Kadaitcha Man
2007-05-26 22:20:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pinku-Sensei
Post by John "C"
The "secrets" are tattooed to Sissy Slave Pinkie's ass cheeks so
Kimberly can read-over them while she's "laying the dildo" to
Pinkie's ass.
After closely observing how kooks have been slurping each other and
passing on misinformation as if it were gospel, I propose the
In response to "Never learn from your mistakes," insert
"Never learn from other kooks mistakes, either."
In response to "Always practice your mistakes; you may get them
right," insert "If you don't have your own mistakes to practice,
practice another kook's mistakes. You might succeed where they
failed."
Finally, after "Be vigilant in your redundancy. The more you repeat
yourself, the more likely others will believe you," insert "Whenever
another kook posts something you wish to be true about your
adversaries, repeat it. You might convince even more kooks."
I hope these suggestions meet with the approval of the readership of AUK.
Sounds fair to me.
--
alt.usenet.kooks
"We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us."
Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129]

Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.
Official Member:
Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660
Usenet Ruiner Lits
Top Assholes on the Net Lits
Most hated usenetizens of all time Lits
AUK psychos and felons Lits
#2 Cog in the Usenet Hate Machine Lits

"Now I know what it is. Now I know what it means when an
alt.usenet.kook x-post shows up."
AOK in news:ermdlu$nli$***@registered.motzarella.org

O tempora! O mores!
Cujo DeSockpuppet
2007-05-26 22:49:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pinku-Sensei
Post by John "C"
The "secrets" are tattooed to Sissy Slave Pinkie's ass cheeks so
Kimberly can read-over them while she's "laying the dildo" to
Pinkie's ass.
After closely observing how kooks have been slurping each other and
passing on misinformation as if it were gospel, I propose the
In response to "Never learn from your mistakes," insert
"Never learn from other kooks mistakes, either."
Kooks never learn from *any* mistakes. Period.
Post by Pinku-Sensei
In response to "Always practice your mistakes; you may get them
right," insert "If you don't have your own mistakes to practice,
practice another kook's mistakes. You might succeed where they
failed."
See above.
Post by Pinku-Sensei
Finally, after "Be vigilant in your redundancy. The more you repeat
yourself, the more likely others will believe you," insert "Whenever
another kook posts something you wish to be true about your
adversaries, repeat it. You might convince even more kooks."
That's been in operation since the Wollmann/Kettler/PEAT Axis of Kookery.
Post by Pinku-Sensei
I hope these suggestions meet with the approval of the readership of AUK.
They're kinda obvious to anyone with half a brane and if any kook read
them and learned, (Yeah, right.) it might diminish the entertainment.

I'm opposed unless it's put in the KAT.
--
Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls
in dfw.*, alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych.
COOSN-266-06-01895 - Supreme Holy Overlord of alt.fucknozzles
Winner of the 8/2000 & 2/2003 HL&S award & July 2005 Hammer of Thor.
Winning Trainer - Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle - Dec. 2005
"Get help sir, you are seriously ill. What a shame, the mentally
disturbed are now the only thing posting on usenet, too bad they can't
recognize real counselors like me and be helped." - Eddieeee, still
shilling illegal services.
John "C"
2007-05-26 23:34:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pinku-Sensei
Post by John "C"
The "secrets" are tattooed to Sissy Slave Pinkie's ass cheeks so Kimberly
can read-over them while she's "laying the dildo" to Pinkie's ass.
After closely observing how kooks have been slurping each other and passing
on misinformation as if it were gospel, I propose the following additions
In response to "Never learn from your mistakes," insert
"Never learn from other kooks mistakes, either."
In response to "Always practice your mistakes; you may get them right,"
insert "If you don't have your own mistakes to practice, practice another
kook's mistakes. You might succeed where they failed."
Finally, after "Be vigilant in your redundancy. The more you repeat
yourself, the more likely others will believe you," insert "Whenever
another kook posts something you wish to be true about your adversaries,
repeat it. You might convince even more kooks."
I hope these suggestions meet with the approval of the readership of AUK.
I enjoyed em Pinkie!

You're such a good "Sissy-Slave".

Kimberly laying the Rubber-Root to Pinkie's ass:

Loading Image...

Has Kimberly ordered her Sissy-Slave Pinkie to get castrated yet?

Oh, been there and done that, OK!

HJ
Pinku-Sensei
2007-05-23 06:42:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roofshadow
Post by Aggie
It's good to have fun. It's also important to disagree in a civil
way. We're adults, right, and this isn't a playground.
You sound like a schoolmarm.
Or, at the risk of Godwining myself, one of these:

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/netiquettenazi.htm

"Netiquette Nazi is in control and does not tolerate back talk, especially
from a sniveling worm like you. She demands the strictest adherence forum
protocols and rules of engagement . If you deviate in the slightest you
WILL be punished. Even Admin is careful not to attract her ire."
--
Pinku-Sensei
Co-FNVW of AUK
Acting Pollmaster of AFA-B
Official Overseer of Kooks & Trolls in rec.arts.marching.drumcorps
http://www.caballista.org/auk/index.html
Roofshadow
2007-05-23 16:36:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pinku-Sensei
Post by Roofshadow
Post by Aggie
It's good to have fun. It's also important to disagree in a civil
way. We're adults, right, and this isn't a playground.
You sound like a schoolmarm.
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/netiquettenazi.htm
"Netiquette Nazi is in control and does not tolerate back talk, especially
from a sniveling worm like you. She demands the strictest adherence forum
protocols and rules of engagement . If you deviate in the slightest you
WILL be punished. Even Admin is careful not to attract her ire."
LOL!

How dare we poke fun and laugh at Aggie'd k00ky ways?
--
Roofshadow

AUK FNG
Pinku-Sensei
2007-05-26 21:40:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roofshadow
Post by Pinku-Sensei
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/netiquettenazi.htm
"Netiquette Nazi is in control and does not tolerate back talk,
especially from a sniveling worm like you. She demands the strictest
adherence forum protocols and rules of engagement . If you deviate in
the slightest you WILL be punished. Even Admin is careful not to
attract her ire."
LOL!
How dare we poke fun and laugh at Aggie'd k00ky ways?
Or swear and argue in "her" thread.
--
Pinku-Sensei
Co-FNVW of AUK
Acting Pollmaster of AFA-B
Official Overseer of Kooks & Trolls in rec.arts.marching.drumcorps
http://www.caballista.org/auk/index.html
John "C"
2007-05-26 23:34:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pinku-Sensei
Post by Roofshadow
Post by Pinku-Sensei
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/netiquettenazi.htm
"Netiquette Nazi is in control and does not tolerate back talk,
especially from a sniveling worm like you. She demands the strictest
adherence forum protocols and rules of engagement . If you deviate in
the slightest you WILL be punished. Even Admin is careful not to
attract her ire."
LOL!
How dare we poke fun and laugh at Aggie'd k00ky ways?
Or swear and argue in "her" thread.
Kimberly laying the Rubber-Root to Pinkie's ass:

http://www.ztgphosting.com/_w/sfg/004sfg_g180_3595.jpg

Has Kimberly ordered her Sissy-Slave Pinkie to get castrated yet?

HJ
Aggie
2007-05-28 04:04:24 UTC
Permalink
To reduce the amount of email in people's boxes, I've included all my
response in one reply.
Post by Pinku-Sensei
Not as if the position of the monarch of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland is worth scheming for these days.
Sure it is. The privilege and splendour of the monarch as well as the
fame is alluring for many.
Post by Pinku-Sensei
Tom can be popular. Perhaps even more popular than Prince William.
At which point, a few people might seriously wonder about the
possibilities for his future and your wool-gathering might actually bear
on the real world. Until then, dream on.
Popularity is one of the most possible things to achieve in this
world. Unlike mountains, which almost certainly cannot be moved
(without new technology and industry), and stars, which almost
certainly cannot be grabbed (without the same), fame is as easy as
hiring the right PR consultant, choosing the right organizers, and
using enough mushy words to woo the public. William may be more
attractive as a Prince of Wales, but what has he done for the world?
Tom, on the other hand, could launch a national "fight the hunger"
campaign to bring food to starving countries. As his campaign grows in
popularity, more tv commercials will be made, more references given in
the evening news, and more awards will be received. Remember, Tom
Parker Bowles already travels the world, particularly to poorer
countries (where he admits to eating local dishes of unique
composition!). Also, a few weeks ago Tom came out in the press in his
support of one of his father's international initiatives, though I
forget which one (and I can find it for you if you'd like).
Post by Pinku-Sensei
BTW, what about my question about pitching the entire institution of the
monarchy and turning Britain into a republic? That's more realistic
thanTom Parker Bowlesever becoming King.
This idea is more evident in the mainstream discussions of Britain,
but there is a stiff oppositon to it too. The advantage of having Tom
declared heir, as prescribed earlier, is that it would come as such a
surprise that opposition to it initially would be marginal. Since the
public loses focus on ideas within days, Tom or Charles' PR employees
would have to plan extra-hard to ensure that enough "experts" are made
available to the press, and otherwise manipulate the media coverage.
Unless there is a Diana-like uproar happening, which I don't forsee
unless Prince William and Harry (or someone else) publicly admonish
Tom and thus focus the opposition, the public will consent to the move
as they consent to almost everything reported on the evening news.
Post by Pinku-Sensei
Certainly. Your idea makes for amusing idle speculation but has, as
you've acknowledged, little bearing on the real world.
I think you've misunderstood. Tom may not be thinking about becoming
King, but that doesn't change the realities of the world, and (what I
see as) the increased possibility of him being crowned. If Tom is
great like some other Kings have been, and not meager like many others
have been, he can achieve amazing things.
Post by Pinku-Sensei
Such places may be able to be reached by a researcher, with
the security clearance of the Queen's office. These places have
thousands of documents. Is it utterly impossible to add an entry into
one of these documents? "
Again, I think you're asking the readers of the wrong group. I think
people who know more about the British legal system would know better
than alt.gossip.celebrities.
Thanks. Can any of our new-found experts comment on this?
Post by Pinku-Sensei
...may not be kooky enough, but the way she insists on being clue-resistant to how to respond to others
on USENET certainly might be. [uk.legal added.]
I use googlegroups... you know, from *this* century.
Post by Pinku-Sensei
It's not a bad troll, but she'd have to admit that she's trolling. Ten
quatloos says she won't.
Why would I? It would only disparage myself.
Post by Pinku-Sensei
I'm going to see if anyone gives a damn on soc.history.what-if and
uk.legal.
Thanks.
Post by Pinku-Sensei
Even when one of them is (making a show of) defending your honor? My, you
/are/ single-minded!
My honour would be best defended once somebody here actually comes out
and says my proposals are possible.
Post by Pinku-Sensei
to the possibility, as I see it, thatTom Parker> Bowlesmay be King.
Again, alternate history.
It's not quite alternate history as I'm not saying that Camilla did in
fact marry Charles in 1973; only that a lie could be made today
stating it. Also, since it hasn't happened, it's not history yet.
Post by Pinku-Sensei
Bookman, here I am trying to drive the discussion to something
productive,
Wild speculation about the line of succession is productive?
It is at least focused. By focusing on content rather than
personalities, we appeal to our intelligence rather than to animal-
like bullying.
Post by Pinku-Sensei
1)Tom Parker Bowles' Catholic upbringing may be a non-issue.
Really? For the benefit of the readers on soc.history.what-if, please
repeat the support for this position.
As some have pointed out in the alt.gossip.celebrities and
alt.talk.royalty groups, Tom's Catholic upbringing could be ruled
irrelevant since the documents surrounding the Act of Settlement said
that a person needs to renounce Catholicism and be openly protestant
in order to be King. Since Tom has recently been married to a
protestant in a protestant church, it can be said that he has accepted
the Protestant church and detested the Catholic one.
Post by Pinku-Sensei
2) A foreign country's marriage records can be doctored.
Duh.
Thank you for defending my honour! You are the first person to agree
with what are my simple, straightforward and realistic ideas.
Post by Pinku-Sensei
3) The decisions of the Queen's Council are sometimes held in secret,
stored in locations accessible by those authorized by the Queen and
others.
Plausible, but what is your evidence?
The evidence is that the Queen's Council accepted the notice of a
marriage from the Prince of Wales, as mandate in the Act of
Settlement, which sets out what must be done to be King.
Post by Pinku-Sensei
4) The monarch would need to support any such plot, or else it will
fail.
And why would she?
The monarch formally plays a minor role in the plot, choosing only the
appoint the 16, 20 or 22 (how much is it?) companions to the Queen.
She can use this role however to appoint Tom to the council, if he (or
better yet, the Public Records Office) releases information revealing
Tom's legitimacy. The monarch, more importantly, needs to support such
a release of information by, at least, not denying the information to
the media, for otherwise the claim will lose all credibility.
Informally, the monarch's consent may be necessary for any specialist
who seeks to alter confidential Queen's Council's decisions. As well,
the monarch's website and publications could lend much credibility to
Tom being a Prince of Wales, at least to the public, if they would
include such a royal title in his biography and note the 1973
marriage.
Post by Pinku-Sensei
6) It is reasonable to argue that Camilla could have cheated on
Charles following their "marriage" and that that's why Tom looks the
way he does.
Which would illegitimate /him/, thus rendering your whole scheme as
completely beyond the realm of possibility.
As others have agreed, no provision is made in any constitutional
documents separating the concept of being born legitimate and being
born a biological son, with the exception of being an adopted son. It
is not relevant. However I am not suggesting that Camilla or Tom would
publicly state exactly why he doesn't look like his legitimate father,
Charles, only what the tabloids could explain to the eager and curious
royal-watchers.

Aggie
Kadaitcha Man
2007-05-28 04:15:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
To reduce the amount of email in people's boxes, I've included all my
response in one reply.
What?
Post by Aggie
Post by Pinku-Sensei
Not as if the position of the monarch of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland is worth scheming for these days.
Sure it is. The privilege and splendour of the monarch as well as the
fame is alluring for many.
Post by Pinku-Sensei
Tom can be popular. Perhaps even more popular than Prince William.
At which point, a few people might seriously wonder about the
possibilities for his future and your wool-gathering might actually bear
on the real world. Until then, dream on.
Popularity is one of the most possible things to achieve in this
world. Unlike mountains, which almost certainly cannot be moved
(without new technology and industry), and stars, which almost
certainly cannot be grabbed (without the same), fame is as easy as
hiring the right PR consultant, choosing the right organizers, and
using enough mushy words to woo the public. William may be more
attractive as a Prince of Wales, but what has he done for the world?
Tom, on the other hand, could launch a national "fight the hunger"
campaign to bring food to starving countries. As his campaign grows in
popularity, more tv commercials will be made, more references given in
the evening news, and more awards will be received. Remember, Tom
Parker Bowles already travels the world, particularly to poorer
countries (where he admits to eating local dishes of unique
composition!). Also, a few weeks ago Tom came out in the press in his
support of one of his father's international initiatives, though I
forget which one (and I can find it for you if you'd like).
Post by Pinku-Sensei
BTW, what about my question about pitching the entire institution of the
monarchy and turning Britain into a republic? That's more realistic
thanTom Parker Bowlesever becoming King.
This idea is more evident in the mainstream discussions of Britain,
but there is a stiff oppositon to it too. The advantage of having Tom
declared heir, as prescribed earlier, is that it would come as such a
surprise that opposition to it initially would be marginal. Since the
public loses focus on ideas within days, Tom or Charles' PR employees
would have to plan extra-hard to ensure that enough "experts" are made
available to the press, and otherwise manipulate the media coverage.
Unless there is a Diana-like uproar happening, which I don't forsee
unless Prince William and Harry (or someone else) publicly admonish
Tom and thus focus the opposition, the public will consent to the move
as they consent to almost everything reported on the evening news.
Post by Pinku-Sensei
Certainly. Your idea makes for amusing idle speculation but has, as
you've acknowledged, little bearing on the real world.
I think you've misunderstood. Tom may not be thinking about becoming
King, but that doesn't change the realities of the world, and (what I
see as) the increased possibility of him being crowned. If Tom is
great like some other Kings have been, and not meager like many others
have been, he can achieve amazing things.
Post by Pinku-Sensei
Such places may be able to be reached by a researcher, with
the security clearance of the Queen's office. These places have
thousands of documents. Is it utterly impossible to add an entry
into one of these documents? "
Again, I think you're asking the readers of the wrong group. I think
people who know more about the British legal system would know better
than alt.gossip.celebrities.
Thanks. Can any of our new-found experts comment on this?
Post by Pinku-Sensei
...may not be kooky enough, but the way she insists on being
clue-resistant to how to respond to others on USENET certainly might
be. [uk.legal added.]
I use googlegroups... you know, from *this* century.
Post by Pinku-Sensei
It's not a bad troll, but she'd have to admit that she's trolling.
Ten
quatloos says she won't.
Why would I? It would only disparage myself.
Post by Pinku-Sensei
I'm going to see if anyone gives a damn on soc.history.what-if and
uk.legal.
Thanks.
Post by Pinku-Sensei
Even when one of them is (making a show of) defending your honor?
My, you /are/ single-minded!
My honour would be best defended once somebody here actually comes out
and says my proposals are possible.
Post by Pinku-Sensei
to the possibility, as I see it, thatTom Parker> Bowlesmay be King.
Again, alternate history.
It's not quite alternate history as I'm not saying that Camilla did in
fact marry Charles in 1973; only that a lie could be made today
stating it. Also, since it hasn't happened, it's not history yet.
Post by Pinku-Sensei
Bookman, here I am trying to drive the discussion to something
productive,
Wild speculation about the line of succession is productive?
It is at least focused. By focusing on content rather than
personalities, we appeal to our intelligence rather than to animal-
like bullying.
Post by Pinku-Sensei
1)Tom Parker Bowles' Catholic upbringing may be a non-issue.
Really? For the benefit of the readers on soc.history.what-if, please
repeat the support for this position.
As some have pointed out in the alt.gossip.celebrities and
alt.talk.royalty groups, Tom's Catholic upbringing could be ruled
irrelevant since the documents surrounding the Act of Settlement said
that a person needs to renounce Catholicism and be openly protestant
in order to be King. Since Tom has recently been married to a
protestant in a protestant church, it can be said that he has accepted
the Protestant church and detested the Catholic one.
Post by Pinku-Sensei
2) A foreign country's marriage records can be doctored.
Duh.
Thank you for defending my honour! You are the first person to agree
with what are my simple, straightforward and realistic ideas.
Post by Pinku-Sensei
3) The decisions of the Queen's Council are sometimes held in
secret, stored in locations accessible by those authorized by the
Queen and others.
Plausible, but what is your evidence?
The evidence is that the Queen's Council accepted the notice of a
marriage from the Prince of Wales, as mandate in the Act of
Settlement, which sets out what must be done to be King.
Post by Pinku-Sensei
4) The monarch would need to support any such plot, or else it will
fail.
And why would she?
The monarch formally plays a minor role in the plot, choosing only the
appoint the 16, 20 or 22 (how much is it?) companions to the Queen.
She can use this role however to appoint Tom to the council, if he (or
better yet, the Public Records Office) releases information revealing
Tom's legitimacy. The monarch, more importantly, needs to support such
a release of information by, at least, not denying the information to
the media, for otherwise the claim will lose all credibility.
Informally, the monarch's consent may be necessary for any specialist
who seeks to alter confidential Queen's Council's decisions. As well,
the monarch's website and publications could lend much credibility to
Tom being a Prince of Wales, at least to the public, if they would
include such a royal title in his biography and note the 1973
marriage.
Post by Pinku-Sensei
6) It is reasonable to argue that Camilla could have cheated on
Charles following their "marriage" and that that's why Tom looks the
way he does.
Which would illegitimate /him/, thus rendering your whole scheme as
completely beyond the realm of possibility.
As others have agreed, no provision is made in any constitutional
documents separating the concept of being born legitimate and being
born a biological son, with the exception of being an adopted son. It
is not relevant. However I am not suggesting that Camilla or Tom would
publicly state exactly why he doesn't look like his legitimate father,
Charles, only what the tabloids could explain to the eager and curious
royal-watchers.
Aggie
--
alt.usenet.kooks
"We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us."
Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129]

Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.
Official Member:
Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660
Usenet Ruiner Lits
Top Assholes on the Net Lits
Most hated usenetizens of all time Lits
AUK psychos and felons Lits
#2 Cog in the Usenet Hate Machine Lits

"Now I know what it is. Now I know what it means when an
alt.usenet.kook x-post shows up."
AOK in news:ermdlu$nli$***@registered.motzarella.org

Obesa cantavit.
Aggie
2007-05-28 14:56:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
To reduce the amount of email in people's boxes, I've included all my
response in one reply.
What?
I've put all of my responses to people's posts in one large message,
rather than in 8 or 10 small messages. For those receiving each post
individually via email, this can cut down on the amount of email
messages they receive.

Aggie
Peter J Ross
2007-05-28 16:27:21 UTC
Permalink
In alt.usenet.kooks on 28 May 2007 07:56:38 -0700, Aggie
Post by Aggie
Post by Aggie
To reduce the amount of email in people's boxes, I've included all my
response in one reply.
What?
I've put all of my responses to people's posts in one large message,
rather than in 8 or 10 small messages. For those receiving each post
individually via email, this can cut down on the amount of email
messages they receive.
Why do you think people want to receive your posts by email?

Fmpmfpmfffmm mfpmmmfmm fmpppf mmpmpp mmm fmppffppfpmfpmf.
--
PJR :-)
FNVWE : DHoT : HoT 2006-01
COOSN-266-06-40792 : 10GS : UHoL
PSMHL&S 2003-12 & 2005-05 : 10GC&TR
Pinku-Sensei
2007-05-23 06:44:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
It's good to have fun. It's also important to disagree in a civil way.
We're adults, right, and this isn't a playground.
I can tell that you really don't know much about USENET.
--
Pinku-Sensei
Co-FNVW of AUK
Acting Pollmaster of AFA-B
Official Overseer of Kooks & Trolls in rec.arts.marching.drumcorps
http://www.caballista.org/auk/index.html
Roofshadow
2007-05-18 00:48:38 UTC
Permalink
In alt.usenet.kooks on 17 May 2007 11:12:47 -0700, Aggie
As silly as it may be to suggest, may I ask that we cool things down a
bit and try to discuss the simple argument that I've posed: that Tom
can be King.
Can't we have Franz von Bayern instead? He has the distinct advantages
of being related to the royal family and not being an Upper-Class Twit
of the Year.
Yay!
Many of you had many some very strong counter-arguments. For instance,
it was said that the privy council must approve any marriage, and they
would have known about this notification in 1973. In reply, I've
argued that there are some routine or inconspicious motions that are
passed at any meeting, and that a motion referencing some other
document could have passed, and that that document could have been
kept confidential since 1973.
Why not, indeed! After all, they successfully covered up the fact that
our alleged Queen is really a reptilian from another planet until
David Icke exposed her.
I just read today that Dr. Who exposed the Royal Family as a bunch of
werewolves!

I'd love to see Aggie work that into her conspiracy theory somehow!
It was said that it is very difficult to argue that a marriage
occurred in a British church in 1973, because the marriage documents
(banns) are always published on many levels.
Banns aren't published for marriage by special licence. Hey, your
theory is starting to sound really plausible!
Uh oh...
I countered by saying
that a foreign church could have been used, because the essential
thing is that the Queen's consent (and council's) is obtained.
I knew those sneaky foreigners would be involved somehow. Was it the
Illuminati or the Gnomes of Zurich who performed the ceremony?
I wonder if Alexa is aware of this stuff?
Somebody then said that even those churches have good security, and
libraries publishing the marriages. I countered by saying that a
church doesn't need to be used; a civil marriage in a foreign land
will do, as was done (coincedentally) between Camilla and Charles a
few years ago.
That's no coincidence! What kind of conspiracy theorist are you if you
believe in coincidences?
LOL
Ideally this should be a logical as well as common-sensical
discussion. I find it interesting!
I find it fascinating. Unfortunately, Tommy and Duke Franz will both
have to step aside, because I can now exclusively reveal that my
father was the legitimate son of King George VI and Mary Pickford, who
celebrated their marriage in Northern Rhodesia in 1922.
Feel free to address me as "Sire".
How about "Your Esteemed And Most Gracious Majesty" - is that OK?
--
Roofshadow

AUK FNG
Peter J Ross
2007-05-18 01:17:59 UTC
Permalink
In alt.usenet.kooks on Thu, 17 May 2007 20:48:38 -0400, Roofshadow
Post by Roofshadow
In alt.usenet.kooks on 17 May 2007 11:12:47 -0700, Aggie
As silly as it may be to suggest, may I ask that we cool things down a
bit and try to discuss the simple argument that I've posed: that Tom
can be King.
Can't we have Franz von Bayern instead? He has the distinct advantages
of being related to the royal family and not being an Upper-Class Twit
of the Year.
Yay!
"Come now, gather now, here where the flowers grow;
White is the blossom as the snow on the beinn.
Hear now freedom's call; we'll make a solemn vow
Now by the Roses of Prince Charlie!"

The awfulness of the current Royal Family must be raising Jacobite
hopes, since Franz and his family are all-round good guys and their
lineage is indisputable.
Post by Roofshadow
Many of you had many some very strong counter-arguments. For instance,
it was said that the privy council must approve any marriage, and they
would have known about this notification in 1973. In reply, I've
argued that there are some routine or inconspicious motions that are
passed at any meeting, and that a motion referencing some other
document could have passed, and that that document could have been
kept confidential since 1973.
Why not, indeed! After all, they successfully covered up the fact that
our alleged Queen is really a reptilian from another planet until
David Icke exposed her.
I just read today that Dr. Who exposed the Royal Family as a bunch of
werewolves!
Only Princess Anne was mentioned by name in that episode. I thought it
a cheap shot. In any case, she looks like a horse, not a wolf.
Post by Roofshadow
I'd love to see Aggie work that into her conspiracy theory somehow!
Tommy Parker-Bowles was a member of teh Piers Gaveston Society as an
Oxford undergraduate. My experience in Oxford of the PG crowd was that
they were even more laughable than the Bullingdon.
Post by Roofshadow
It was said that it is very difficult to argue that a marriage
occurred in a British church in 1973, because the marriage documents
(banns) are always published on many levels.
Banns aren't published for marriage by special licence. Hey, your
theory is starting to sound really plausible!
Uh oh...
I countered by saying
that a foreign church could have been used, because the essential
thing is that the Queen's consent (and council's) is obtained.
I knew those sneaky foreigners would be involved somehow. Was it the
Illuminati or the Gnomes of Zurich who performed the ceremony?
I wonder if Alexa is aware of this stuff?
I think she should be told!
Post by Roofshadow
Somebody then said that even those churches have good security, and
libraries publishing the marriages. I countered by saying that a
church doesn't need to be used; a civil marriage in a foreign land
will do, as was done (coincedentally) between Camilla and Charles a
few years ago.
That's no coincidence! What kind of conspiracy theorist are you if you
believe in coincidences?
LOL
Ideally this should be a logical as well as common-sensical
discussion. I find it interesting!
I find it fascinating. Unfortunately, Tommy and Duke Franz will both
have to step aside, because I can now exclusively reveal that my
father was the legitimate son of King George VI and Mary Pickford, who
celebrated their marriage in Northern Rhodesia in 1922.
Feel free to address me as "Sire".
How about "Your Esteemed And Most Gracious Majesty" - is that OK?
No, that's too ornate. Just call me Sire, and I might make you a
Countess.

I'm slightly nervous, but I hope to be a good King.
--
PJR :-)
FNVWE : DHoT : HoT 2006-01
COOSN-266-06-40792 : 10GS : UHoL
PSMHL&S 2003-12 & 2005-05 : 10GC&TR
Roofshadow
2007-05-18 16:39:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter J Ross
In alt.usenet.kooks on Thu, 17 May 2007 20:48:38 -0400, Roofshadow
Post by Roofshadow
In alt.usenet.kooks on 17 May 2007 11:12:47 -0700, Aggie
As silly as it may be to suggest, may I ask that we cool things down a
bit and try to discuss the simple argument that I've posed: that Tom
can be King.
Can't we have Franz von Bayern instead? He has the distinct advantages
of being related to the royal family and not being an Upper-Class Twit
of the Year.
Yay!
"Come now, gather now, here where the flowers grow;
White is the blossom as the snow on the beinn.
Hear now freedom's call; we'll make a solemn vow
Now by the Roses of Prince Charlie!"
The awfulness of the current Royal Family must be raising Jacobite
hopes, since Franz and his family are all-round good guys and their
lineage is indisputable.
And they're all bound to be nervous now that Tom Parker-Bowles is in the
running too.

Heh.
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Roofshadow
Many of you had many some very strong counter-arguments. For instance,
it was said that the privy council must approve any marriage, and they
would have known about this notification in 1973. In reply, I've
argued that there are some routine or inconspicious motions that are
passed at any meeting, and that a motion referencing some other
document could have passed, and that that document could have been
kept confidential since 1973.
Why not, indeed! After all, they successfully covered up the fact that
our alleged Queen is really a reptilian from another planet until
David Icke exposed her.
I just read today that Dr. Who exposed the Royal Family as a bunch of
werewolves!
Only Princess Anne was mentioned by name in that episode. I thought it
a cheap shot. In any case, she looks like a horse, not a wolf.
Werehorse maybe?
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Roofshadow
I'd love to see Aggie work that into her conspiracy theory somehow!
Tommy Parker-Bowles was a member of teh Piers Gaveston Society as an
Oxford undergraduate. My experience in Oxford of the PG crowd was that
they were even more laughable than the Bullingdon.
So... not the sharpest knife in the drawer huh?
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Roofshadow
It was said that it is very difficult to argue that a marriage
occurred in a British church in 1973, because the marriage documents
(banns) are always published on many levels.
Banns aren't published for marriage by special licence. Hey, your
theory is starting to sound really plausible!
Uh oh...
I countered by saying
that a foreign church could have been used, because the essential
thing is that the Queen's consent (and council's) is obtained.
I knew those sneaky foreigners would be involved somehow. Was it the
Illuminati or the Gnomes of Zurich who performed the ceremony?
I wonder if Alexa is aware of this stuff?
I think she should be told!
It's being x-posted to a.f.a.b - doesn't she hang out there?

I seem to remember she had a kooky theory of her own about the Royal
Family but I could be confusing her with another lunatic.
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Roofshadow
Somebody then said that even those churches have good security, and
libraries publishing the marriages. I countered by saying that a
church doesn't need to be used; a civil marriage in a foreign land
will do, as was done (coincedentally) between Camilla and Charles a
few years ago.
That's no coincidence! What kind of conspiracy theorist are you if you
believe in coincidences?
LOL
Ideally this should be a logical as well as common-sensical
discussion. I find it interesting!
I find it fascinating. Unfortunately, Tommy and Duke Franz will both
have to step aside, because I can now exclusively reveal that my
father was the legitimate son of King George VI and Mary Pickford, who
celebrated their marriage in Northern Rhodesia in 1922.
Feel free to address me as "Sire".
How about "Your Esteemed And Most Gracious Majesty" - is that OK?
No, that's too ornate. Just call me Sire, and I might make you a
Countess.
Of course Sire!
Post by Peter J Ross
I'm slightly nervous, but I hope to be a good King.
You were a great FNVW - I suspect that the responsibilities of the
Monarch are a lot less demanding than the responsibilities of the FNVW
nowadays.

;)
--
Roofshadow

AUK FNG
Roofshadow
2007-05-21 22:36:07 UTC
Permalink
But you cannot get past the fact that he was raised a Roman Catholic and
thus, not eligible regardless of his legitimacy.
There has also been a debate about this a few days ago. The consensus
is that the Act of Succession says that you must presently renounce
Catholicism, and not be married to one; but how you were raised is
irrelevant.
The impassable hurdle for T. P.-B. is that he is in fact both the
legal and biological son of Andrew Parker-Bowles and not of the heir
to the British throne. You can tell that he's a Parker and not a
Windsor just by *looking* at the man, for heavens' sake.
It can be "rumoured" that Camilla had an affair with Andrew when
married to Charles, and that's why Charles broke off their
(unpublicized) marriage. That's why Tom looks like Andrew.
I think there would be significant objection among Parliament, the
press, and the British public if members of the royal family were to
attempt to perpetrate a fraud (forging marriage records, etc.) in
order to put someone (whether Tom Parker Bowles or anyone else) into
the line of successon to the crown.
All is lost if it is thought that fraud has been perpetrated - the
evidence must be convincing.
Despite your eagerness to attribute this to me I didn't write any of the
stuff you're replying to here - but thanks for playing!
--
Roofshadow

AUK FNG
Aggie
2007-05-22 03:26:15 UTC
Permalink
It's more fun to respond to content and reason, roofshadow. Please add
something to the debate and I'd be happy to reply.


Aggie
Roofshadow
2007-05-22 03:52:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
It's more fun to respond to content and reason, roofshadow. Please add
something to the debate and I'd be happy to reply.
I love how you snipped the whole post where I pointed out that you'd
replied to stuff that you'd wrongly attributed to me.

You can't even keep track of who you're replying to can you?
--
Roofshadow

AUK FNG
Aggie
2007-05-22 04:05:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roofshadow
Post by Aggie
It's more fun to respond to content and reason, roofshadow. Please add
something to the debate and I'd be happy to reply.
I love how you snipped the whole post where I pointed out that you'd
replied to stuff that you'd wrongly attributed to me.
You can't even keep track of who you're replying to can you?
--
Roofshadow
AUK FNG
Roofshadow, I cut and pasted the various points that were made
throughout several posts, and responded to them at once. I usually
don't add the authors to each point that was raised, nor do I like
sending too many emails to people's boxes. I added those points to
this newsgroup so that perhaps somebody may be interested and can
reply... to the content.


Aggie
Roofshadow
2007-05-22 18:40:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
Post by Roofshadow
Post by Aggie
It's more fun to respond to content and reason, roofshadow. Please add
something to the debate and I'd be happy to reply.
I love how you snipped the whole post where I pointed out that you'd
replied to stuff that you'd wrongly attributed to me.
You can't even keep track of who you're replying to can you?
--
Roofshadow
AUK FNG
Roofshadow, I cut and pasted the various points that were made
throughout several posts, and responded to them at once. I usually
don't add the authors to each point that was raised, nor do I like
sending too many emails to people's boxes. I added those points to
this newsgroup so that perhaps somebody may be interested and can
reply... to the content.
I didn't write a single line of "the content" and yet you attributed
every word of it to me.

If you can't even keep track of who wrote what how can you expect people
to take your k00ky konspiracy theories seriously?
--
Roofshadow

AUK FNG
Pinku-Sensei
2007-05-23 06:00:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
Roofshadow, I cut and pasted the various points that were made
throughout several posts, and responded to them at once.
That's going to confuse experienced USENET users no end. They will
expect that anything quoted will be from posts immediately prior to the
one they are currently reading.
Post by Aggie
I usually
don't add the authors to each point that was raised,
Lazy of you, if not downright dishonest. You should credit the original
authors, so they know whose points you are refuting.

By the way, how new are you to USENET?
Post by Aggie
nor do I like
sending too many emails to people's boxes.
What does that have to do with your point?
Post by Aggie
I added those points to
this newsgroup so that perhaps somebody may be interested and can
reply... to the content.
That was very counterproductive of you. Now you have an argument about
your knowledge of USENET protocol on your hands.
--
Pinku-Sensei
Co-FNVW of AUK
Acting Pollmaster of AFA-B
Official Overseer of Kooks & Trolls in rec.arts.marching.drumcorps
http://www.caballista.org/auk/index.html
Roofshadow
2007-05-23 16:42:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pinku-Sensei
Post by Aggie
Roofshadow, I cut and pasted the various points that were made
throughout several posts, and responded to them at once.
That's going to confuse experienced USENET users no end. They will
expect that anything quoted will be from posts immediately prior to the
one they are currently reading.
I think confusion is what she was shooting for here.
Post by Pinku-Sensei
Post by Aggie
I usually
don't add the authors to each point that was raised,
Lazy of you, if not downright dishonest. You should credit the original
authors, so they know whose points you are refuting.
By the way, how new are you to USENET?
I don't think she's THAT new - I understand she's been chased off at
least one royalty ng for her antics.
Post by Pinku-Sensei
Post by Aggie
nor do I like
sending too many emails to people's boxes.
What does that have to do with your point?
Nothing!
Post by Pinku-Sensei
Post by Aggie
I added those points to
this newsgroup so that perhaps somebody may be interested and can
reply... to the content.
That was very counterproductive of you. Now you have an argument about
your knowledge of USENET protocol on your hands.
If she was being an "Artful Dodger" that might be what she wanted... I
doubt she wants to engage PJR on this subject again since he clearly
knows more about it than she does (and he's sane) and he can kick her
butt from here to China and back again without even breaking a sweat.
--
Roofshadow

AUK FNG
Pinku-Sensei
2007-05-23 06:04:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roofshadow
Post by Aggie
It's more fun to respond to content and reason, roofshadow. Please
add something to the debate and I'd be happy to reply.
I love how you snipped the whole post where I pointed out that you'd
replied to stuff that you'd wrongly attributed to me.
She's being an Artful Dodger.

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/artfuldodger.htm

"Artful Dodger is a nimble and elusive Warrior. When strongly attacked
he changes the subject with a diversionary counterattack. For example,
if in a moment of pique his opponent refers to him to him as a
"sonofabitch", Artful Dodger will not only demand a public apology for
the insult to his own mother, but will castigate his opponent on behalf
all mothers everywhere. Knowing full well that staying on topic works to
his disadvantage, Artful Dodger will not allow himself to be pinned
down."
Post by Roofshadow
You can't even keep track of who you're replying to can you?
Oh, I think she can. I just suspect that she'd just rather not be
bothered with it.
--
Pinku-Sensei
Co-FNVW of AUK
Acting Pollmaster of AFA-B
Official Overseer of Kooks & Trolls in rec.arts.marching.drumcorps
http://www.caballista.org/auk/index.html
Roofshadow
2007-05-23 16:40:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pinku-Sensei
Post by Roofshadow
Post by Aggie
It's more fun to respond to content and reason, roofshadow. Please
add something to the debate and I'd be happy to reply.
I love how you snipped the whole post where I pointed out that you'd
replied to stuff that you'd wrongly attributed to me.
She's being an Artful Dodger.
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/artfuldodger.htm
"Artful Dodger is a nimble and elusive Warrior. When strongly attacked
he changes the subject with a diversionary counterattack. For example,
if in a moment of pique his opponent refers to him to him as a
"sonofabitch", Artful Dodger will not only demand a public apology for
the insult to his own mother, but will castigate his opponent on behalf
all mothers everywhere. Knowing full well that staying on topic works to
his disadvantage, Artful Dodger will not allow himself to be pinned
down."
Post by Roofshadow
You can't even keep track of who you're replying to can you?
Oh, I think she can. I just suspect that she'd just rather not be
bothered with it.
Ahh... it makes sense now.

"Artful Dodger" - LOL!
--
Roofshadow

AUK FNG
JFlexer
2007-05-22 16:43:10 UTC
Permalink
--

-J

** Keeper of Betty Buckley and Bette Midler **
Post by Aggie
It's more fun to respond to content and reason, roofshadow. Please add
something to the debate and I'd be happy to reply.
Aggie
Agnes,

I agree, reason makes on online debate enjoyable... unfortunately, we've
seen none of that from you...

Wild conjecture? Well, now... that's a different kettle of fish entirely...
--
-J

** Keeper of Betty Buckley and Bette Midler **
Aggie
2007-05-22 20:39:41 UTC
Permalink
On May 22, 12:43 pm, "JFlexer" <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

Anyway, the debate over in the royalty newsgroup is concerning whether
Tom Parker Bowles would be disqualified because he is Catholic. It
seems as though he won't be. Here is the latest message, attached
below. Everyone, please feel welcome to respond:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking back beyond the Act of Settlement 1701 to the "Act Declaring
the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession
of
the Crown" of 1689, which the Act of Settlement makes continued
reference to and thereby both reaffirms and incorporates, we find the
following wording which seems to address the situation of determining
whether a given successor is a "popish prince" or not:

"that every king and queen of this realm who at any time hereafter
shall come to and succeed in the imperial crown of this kingdom shall
on the first day of the meeting of the first Parliament next after
his
or her coming to the crown, sitting in his or her throne in the House
of Peers in the presence of the Lords and Commons therein assembled,
or at his or her coronation before such person or persons who shall
administer the coronation oath to him or her at the time of his or
her
taking the said oath (which shall first happen), make, subscribe and
audibly repeat the declaration mentioned in the statute made in the
thirtieth year of the reign of King Charles the Second entitled, _An
Act for the more effectual preserving the king's person and
government
by disabling papists from sitting in either House of Parliament._ But
if it shall happen that such king or queen upon his or her succession
to the crown of this realm shall be under the age of twelve years,
then every such king or queen shall make, subscribe and audibly
repeat
the same declaration at his or her coronation or the first day of the
meeting of the first Parliament as aforesaid which shall first happen
after such king or queen shall have attained the said age of twelve
years."


Which demonstrates that the framers and subscribers of the Act were
indeed willing to do what was claimed to be impossible, viz., to
impose a test (the very same test of the Test Act) upon a successor
to
the crown, not, indeed, prior to the succession, but at the first
point in time at which such successor should make a public appearance
in full regalia. The matter of an underage successor is also
envisioned. If it were intended to exclude anyone who had *ever been
Catholic* or *ever received a Catholic education*, such tests would
be
superfluous.


The exact wording of the declaration required of candidates is as
follows:
"IA: B: doe solemnely and sincerely in the presence of God professe
testifie and declare That I doe believe that in the Sacrament of the
Lords Supper there is not any Transubtantiation of the Elements of
Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ at or after the
Consecration thereof by any person whatsoever; And that the
Invocation
or Adoration of the Virgin Mary or any other Saint, and the Sacrifice
of the Masse as they are now used in the Church of Rome are
superstitious and idolatrous, And I doe solemnely in the presence of
God professe testifie and declare That I doe make this Declaration
and
every part thereof in the plaine and ordinary sence of the Words read
unto me as they are commonly understood by English Protestants
without
any Evasion, Equivocation or Mentall Reservation whatsoever and
without any Dispensation already granted me for this purpose by the
Pope or any other Authority or Person whatsoever or without any hope
of any such Dispensation from any person or authority whatsoever or
without thinking that I am or can be acquitted before God or Man or:
absolved of this Declaration or any part thereof although the Pope or
any other. Person or Persons or Power whatsoever should dispence with
or annull the same, or declare that it was null and void from the
begining."
-------------------------------


Aggie
Pinku-Sensei
2007-05-23 06:16:48 UTC
Permalink
Oh, my, more Artful Dodging from Aggie!

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/artfuldodger.htm
Post by Aggie
Anyway, the debate over in the royalty newsgroup is concerning whether
I wonder what effect adding the royalty group into the crosspost would do.
Anyhoo... this is alt.gossip.celebrities (and associated)...
...and why did you leave attribution to me in your previous post when
you didn't quote me?
Perhaps because she's lazy, intellectually dishonest, or just plain kooky.
C'mon, Agnes, give it a rest. Back in the bin with you...
Clearly, poking kooks is not your forte. Leave it to us (TINU)
professionals.
--
Pinku-Sensei
Co-FNVW of AUK
Acting Pollmaster of AFA-B
Official Overseer of Kooks & Trolls in rec.arts.marching.drumcorps
http://www.caballista.org/auk/index.html
Pinku-Sensei
2007-05-23 06:22:37 UTC
Permalink
No, he did not. Quit lying, Agnes.
Anyway, the debate over in the royalty newsgroup <SLAP>
Then crosspost the discussion from alt.talk.royalty into
alt.gossip.celebrities. Don't just copy and paste one of your favorite
posts and then attribute it to someone who didn't write it.

Here, I'll show you how it's done.

[alt.talk.royalty added.]
--
Pinku-Sensei
Co-FNVW of AUK
Acting Pollmaster of AFA-B
Official Overseer of Kooks & Trolls in rec.arts.marching.drumcorps
http://www.caballista.org/auk/index.html
Pinku-Sensei
2007-05-26 20:02:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pinku-Sensei
Then crosspost the discussion from alt.talk.royalty into
alt.gossip.celebrities. Don't just copy and paste one of your
favorite posts
Ah, good, you quoted me correctly and answered appropropriately. Maybe
there's hope that you'll acquire a clue after all.
If there was an interesting point brought up in another discussion,
I'd like to raise it in order to instigate debate.
Fine. Then you should include either the message id (which you can get
on Google Groups by clicking on "show original" under "more options") or
the Google Groups reference for the original post so people can see that
you're not misquoting someone else /indirectly/.
For those few still
reading and braving this recent barrage of emails from Pinku,
"[E]mails from Pinku." I may have spoken too soon about you acquiring a
clue, as you're still coming up with new signs of cluelessness, Agnes.
I thank
you. Please feel free to respond to the content I raised earlier
today.
Thank you for the kind invitation. *bows*

BTW, froup-snecking reversed.
--
Pinku-Sensei
Co-FNVW of AUK
Acting Pollmaster of AFA-B
Official Overseer of Kooks & Trolls in rec.arts.marching.drumcorps
http://www.caballista.org/auk/index.html
John "C"
2007-05-26 23:36:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pinku-Sensei
Thank you for the kind invitation. *bows*
Pinkie bowing at home!

Kimberly laying the Rubber-Root to Pinkie's ass:

http://www.ztgphosting.com/_w/sfg/004sfg_g180_3595.jpg
miguel
2007-05-28 18:31:58 UTC
Permalink
On 26 May 2007 20:02:11 GMT, "Pinku-Sensei"
Post by Pinku-Sensei
Post by Pinku-Sensei
Then crosspost the discussion from alt.talk.royalty into
alt.gossip.celebrities. Don't just copy and paste one of your
favorite posts
Ah, good, you quoted me correctly and answered appropropriately. Maybe
there's hope that you'll acquire a clue after all.
If there was an interesting point brought up in another discussion,
I'd like to raise it in order to instigate debate.
Fine. Then you should include either the message id (which you can get
on Google Groups by clicking on "show original" under "more options") or
the Google Groups reference for the original post so people can see that
you're not misquoting someone else /indirectly/.
For those few still
reading and braving this recent barrage of emails from Pinku,
"[E]mails from Pinku." I may have spoken too soon about you acquiring a
clue, as you're still coming up with new signs of cluelessness, Agnes.
I thank
you. Please feel free to respond to the content I raised earlier
today.
Thank you for the kind invitation. *bows*
BTW, froup-snecking reversed.
Abj ivapr, guvf vf vzcbegnag jbex lbh'er qbvat urer jvgu Nttvr, V
tenag lbh gung, ohg vf vg ernyyl jbegu gur gvzr vg gnxrf njnl sebz
nppbzcyvfuvat lbhe tbny bs orpbzvat gur Wrsserl Gnzobe bs fbsg pber
cbea?

Jryy, qbrf vg?
Roofshadow
2007-05-23 16:44:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
Anyway, the debate over in the royalty newsgroup is concerning whether
Anyhoo... this is alt.gossip.celebrities (and associated)...
...and why did you leave attribution to me in your previous post when you
didn't quote me?
C'mon, Agnes, give it a rest. Back in the bin with you...
--
-J
** Keeper of Betty Buckley and Bette Midler **
Please try not to pay attention to an "attribution" at the top of a
message unless I expressly write that I am quoting you.
LMAO!
Open question: where did the secret documents concerning Edward and
Wallis Simpson, which were recently released, lay for all these years?
How was this portion of Council meetings recorded in the public
minutes?
Who cares?
--
Roofshadow

AUK FNG
Peter J Ross
2007-05-24 20:45:53 UTC
Permalink
In alt.usenet.kooks on Wed, 23 May 2007 12:44:16 -0400, Roofshadow
Post by Roofshadow
Post by Aggie
Anyway, the debate over in the royalty newsgroup is concerning whether
Anyhoo... this is alt.gossip.celebrities (and associated)...
...and why did you leave attribution to me in your previous post when you
didn't quote me?
C'mon, Agnes, give it a rest. Back in the bin with you...
--
-J
** Keeper of Betty Buckley and Bette Midler **
Please try not to pay attention to an "attribution" at the top of a
message unless I expressly write that I am quoting you.
LMAO!
I'm beginning to think that CNotM is a possibility, though PSMHL&S
can't be ruled out yet.
Post by Roofshadow
Open question: where did the secret documents concerning Edward and
Wallis Simpson, which were recently released, lay for all these years?
How was this portion of Council meetings recorded in the public
minutes?
Who cares?
That's two of us who don't give a damn so far. Any others?
--
PJR :-)
FNVWE : DHoT : HoT 2006-01
COOSN-266-06-40792 : 10GS : UHoL
PSMHL&S 2003-12 & 2005-05 : 10GC&TR
Pinku-Sensei
2007-05-26 20:33:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter J Ross
In alt.usenet.kooks on Wed, 23 May 2007 12:44:16 -0400, Roofshadow
Post by Roofshadow
Please try not to pay attention to an "attribution" at the top of a
message unless I expressly write that I am quoting you.
LMAO!
I'm beginning to think that CNotM is a possibility,
Oh, she's a definite possibility. I find it more than slightly ironic
that the content of her conspiracy theory may not be kooky enough, but
the way she insists on being clue-resistant to how to respond to others
on USENET certainly might be.
Post by Peter J Ross
though PSMHL&S can't be ruled out yet.
It's not a bad troll, but she'd have to admit that she's trolling. Ten
quatloos says she won't.
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Roofshadow
Open question: where did the secret documents concerning Edward and
Wallis Simpson, which were recently released, lay for all these
years? How was this portion of Council meetings recorded in the
public minutes?
Who cares?
That's two of us who don't give a damn so far. Any others?
I'm going to see if anyone gives a damn on soc.history.what-if and
uk.legal.
--
Pinku-Sensei
Co-FNVW of AUK
Acting Pollmaster of AFA-B
Official Overseer of Kooks & Trolls in rec.arts.marching.drumcorps
http://www.caballista.org/auk/index.html
John "C"
2007-05-26 23:35:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pinku-Sensei
Post by Peter J Ross
In alt.usenet.kooks on Wed, 23 May 2007 12:44:16 -0400, Roofshadow
Post by Roofshadow
Please try not to pay attention to an "attribution" at the top of a
message unless I expressly write that I am quoting you.
LMAO!
I'm beginning to think that CNotM is a possibility,
Oh, she's a definite possibility. I find it more than slightly ironic
that the content of her conspiracy theory may not be kooky enough, but
the way she insists on being clue-resistant to how to respond to others
on USENET certainly might be.
Post by Peter J Ross
though PSMHL&S can't be ruled out yet.
It's not a bad troll, but she'd have to admit that she's trolling. Ten
quatloos says she won't.
Post by Peter J Ross
Post by Roofshadow
Open question: where did the secret documents concerning Edward and
Wallis Simpson, which were recently released, lay for all these
years? How was this portion of Council meetings recorded in the
public minutes?
Who cares?
That's two of us who don't give a damn so far. Any others?
I'm going to see if anyone gives a damn
Kimberly laying the Rubber-Root to Pinkie's ass:

http://www.ztgphosting.com/_w/sfg/004sfg_g180_3595.jpg

Has Kimberly ordered her Sissy-Slave Pinkie to get castrated yet?
Pinku-Sensei
2007-05-24 05:22:55 UTC
Permalink
Please try not to pay attention to an "attribution" at the top of a
message unless I expressly write that I am quoting you.
Oh, dear... <snicker>
I'm laughing at her right along with you. :-)
--
Pinku-Sensei
Co-FNVW of AUK
Acting Pollmaster of AFA-B
Official Overseer of Kooks & Trolls in rec.arts.marching.drumcorps
http://www.caballista.org/auk/index.html
Pinku-Sensei
2007-05-24 05:31:27 UTC
Permalink
Please try not to pay attention to an "attribution" at the top of a
message unless I expressly write that I am quoting you.
*evil chuckle*

Agnes, here's a free clue for you. The attribution ("so-and-so <email
address> wrote in message ID blah, blah, blah) is your news program or
service stating on your behalf that you're expressly quoting someone. If
you aren't going to expressly quote someone, then you'd best delete the
attribution line. After all, you already deleted everything else when you
copied and pasted over what Google Groups quoted for you. Otherwise,
you're putting words in their mouths.
Oh, look, another Artful Dodge.
where did the secret documents concerning Edward and
Wallis Simpson, which were recently released, lay for all these years?
What the matter, Agnes, have you never heard of the Official Secrets Act?
How was this portion of Council meetings recorded in the public
minutes?
It probably wasn't. So, what's your point?
--
Pinku-Sensei
Co-FNVW of AUK
Acting Pollmaster of AFA-B
Official Overseer of Kooks & Trolls in rec.arts.marching.drumcorps
http://www.caballista.org/auk/index.html
Pinku-Sensei
2007-05-26 20:24:25 UTC
Permalink
Tsk, tsk. You forgot to quote the relevant passage.
Gentlemen, just cool it please.
That plea will fall on deaf ears if you don't post to the groups they
read, both of which you snecked. I have corrected that error on your
part. Besides, as long as there is the whiff of conspiracy theory in
your thinking, your posts are quite on-topic in both groups.

[alt.usenet.kooks and alt.fan.art-bell restored.]
Does anybody have anything substantive to say?
Certainly. Your idea makes for amusing idle speculation but has, as
you've acknowledged, little bearing on the real world. I suspect that
alt.gossip.celebrity is not the best forum for it. Instead, wondering
how Tom Parker Bowles, Upper Class Twit of the Year for 2007, could ever
become King would fit better in a newsgroup devoted to such wool-
gathering.

[soc.history.what-if added.]
Here is an earlier post
"Pinku makes the point that the "Official Secrets Act" keeps some
Queen's Council decisions confidential. However such information, by
nature, is not available publicly, and probably located in a handful
of places.
Very good. You may be clueless about USENET, but you can read. That's
a start.
Such places may be able to be reached by a researcher, with
the security clearance of the Queen's office. These places have
thousands of documents. Is it utterly impossible to add an entry into
one of these documents? "
Again, I think you're asking the readers of the wrong group. I think
people who know more about the British legal system would know better
than alt.gossip.celebrities.

[uk.legal added.]

There, I've added all the on-topic groups appropriate to your line of
questioning. Even better, you can still cross-post to /all/ of them
using Google Groups! Care to thank me?
--
Pinku-Sensei
Co-FNVW of AUK
Acting Pollmaster of AFA-B
Official Overseer of Kooks & Trolls in rec.arts.marching.drumcorps
http://www.caballista.org/auk/index.html
John "C"
2007-05-26 23:35:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pinku-Sensei
Tsk, tsk. You forgot to quote the relevant passage.
Gentlemen, just cool it please.
That plea will fall on deaf ears
Kimberly laying the Rubber-Root to Pinkie's ass:

http://www.ztgphosting.com/_w/sfg/004sfg_g180_3595.jpg

Has Kimberly ordered her Sissy-Slave Pinkie to get castrated yet?
Peter J Ross
2007-05-28 20:15:14 UTC
Permalink
In alt.usenet.kooks on Mon, 28 May 2007 11:52:38 -0700, miguel
In alt.usenet.kooks on Thu, 24 May 2007 17:20:42 -0700, miguel
Your question is nonsense, Peter. You and your fellow kookologistkooks
are now poking at Aggie, who appears to be completely harmless. You'll
poke and poke until she wins some of your tard awards, and then you'll
have the obligatory after-election reacharound party where you'll once
again celebrate your usenet elitism. You've been doing the same thing
for what, 15 years now? Several of your kookologist kook buddies are
over 50, still doing the same thing year after year.
Tsk tsk. "Pathetic" doesn't even begin to cover it.
Stop for a moment and dwell on the fact that Aggie is "one of them"
while Rick and Lionel are one of you.
How many more years of amusement can you get out of Joseph Bartlo?
Most of your targets are guilty only of a bit of eccentricity. They
are no different from you in that respect. Yet you mock them. Have you
lost all sense of decency?
How about Lamey?
Lamey doesn't stalk people as much as you, Cranny. There are degrees
of loathsomeness, and Lamey has to work hard if he's to catch up with
you.
I'm sorry your little friend had such a hard go of it. If she'd kept
her pedo schtick out of it things would have been much different. As
it is, you yourself bear a fair amount of responsibility for her pain,
inasmuch as you lead her to dish out abuse when you know, or should
know, that she's incapable of dealing with it when it's returned.
It's kinda sad how you beat a dead horse like Bartlo or Bullis for
years without end.
The only dead-horse beater who has mentioned Bartlo or Bullis in this
thread is you, Cranny.
How sad.
Yes, it is sad how Bartlo is now being elected the AUK mascot after
all these years. Do you retards never tire of the same game?
Just sayin'
Changing "-ing" to "-in'" doesn't turn you into Mark Twain, Cranny.
How pathetic can you get?
I could be you. That's about as pathetic as it can get, I believe.
"Wah! I've been recognised as a net.kook, so I'm going to whine
extensively even in threads that have nothing to do with me and whose
topics are beyond my comprehension. Wah!"
Why can't you just accept the fact I handed Judith her ass fair and
square?
Why can't you just accept the fact that bookman is your current owner,
not Zoë?

<http://www.caballista.org/auk/kookle.php?search=miguel+bookman>

[AFA-B added]
--
PJR :-)
FNVWE : DHoT : HoT 2006-01
COOSN-266-06-40792 : 10GS : UHoL
PSMHL&S 2003-12 & 2005-05 : 10GC&TR
Pinku-Sensei
2007-05-23 06:12:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
It's more fun to respond to content and reason, roofshadow.
Reason isn't much use when one's assumptions are faulty.
Post by Aggie
Please add
something to the debate and I'd be happy to reply.
Fine then. Regardless of how you think that what you propose is possible,
whatever makes you think that Tom Parker-Bowles, Upper Class Twit of the
Year, is interested in becoming king or that anyone in power in the United
Kingdom would prefer that he ascend to the throne instead of those in the
established line of succession? In fact, why would his becoming king be
preferable to pitching the entire institution of the monarchy into the
dustbin of history and starting a republic if people are that dissatisfied
with the current crop of royals?
--
Pinku-Sensei
Co-FNVW of AUK
Acting Pollmaster of AFA-B
Official Overseer of Kooks & Trolls in rec.arts.marching.drumcorps
http://www.caballista.org/auk/index.html
Aggie
2007-05-24 19:17:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pinku-Sensei
Fine then. Regardless of how you think that what you propose is possible,
whatever makes you think thatTom Parker-Bowles, Upper Class Twit of the
Year, is interested in becoming king or that anyone in power in the United
Kingdom would prefer that he ascend to the throne instead of those in the
established line of succession?
There's nothing really that makes me think that Tom wants the job.
Perhaps the thought has come across his mind, for he has of course
been at Buckingham Palace in the presence of the Queen, but I'm sure
he hasn't calculated things as we here have.

Presently, most people would prefer the present line of succession,
but if Tom starts a charitable campaign of sorts to say, bring food to
developing countries, and becomes very well-known for it, he can
become popular. Perhaps even more popular than Prince William.

Aggie
JFlexer
2007-05-24 19:29:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
Post by Pinku-Sensei
Fine then. Regardless of how you think that what you propose is possible,
whatever makes you think thatTom Parker-Bowles, Upper Class Twit of the
Year, is interested in becoming king or that anyone in power in the United
Kingdom would prefer that he ascend to the throne instead of those in the
established line of succession?
There's nothing really that makes me think that Tom wants the job.
Perhaps the thought has come across his mind, for he has of course
been at Buckingham Palace in the presence of the Queen, but I'm sure
he hasn't calculated things as we here have.
We? Ya got a mouse in your pocket?

Cause I haven't seen one iota of support for any of your mad ravings about
Mr. Parker-Bowles...
--
-J

** Keeper of Betty Buckley and Bette Midler **
Pinku-Sensei
2007-05-26 20:10:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aggie
Post by Pinku-Sensei
Fine then. Regardless of how you think that what you propose is
possible, whatever makes you think thatTom Parker-Bowles, Upper Class
Twit of the Year, is interested in becoming king or that anyone in
power in the United Kingdom would prefer that he ascend to the throne
instead of those in the established line of succession?
There's nothing really that makes me think that Tom wants the job.
That's comforting.
Post by Aggie
Perhaps the thought has come across his mind, for he has of course
been at Buckingham Palace in the presence of the Queen, but I'm sure
he hasn't calculated things as we here have.
Not as if the position of the monarch of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland is worth scheming for these days.
Post by Aggie
Presently, most people would prefer the present line of succession,
I quite agree.
Post by Aggie
but if Tom starts a charitable campaign of sorts to say, bring food to
developing countries, and becomes very well-known for it, he can
become popular.
That would be an improvement for the Upper Class Twit of the Year,
wouldn't it?
Post by Aggie
Perhaps even more popular than Prince William.
At which point, a few people might seriously wonder about the
possibilities for his future and your wool-gathering might actually bear
on the real world. Until then, dream on.

BTW, what about my question about pitching the entire institution of the
monarchy and turning Britain into a republic? That's more realistic
than Tom Parker Bowles ever becoming King.
--
Pinku-Sensei
Co-FNVW of AUK
Acting Pollmaster of AFA-B
Official Overseer of Kooks & Trolls in rec.arts.marching.drumcorps
http://www.caballista.org/auk/index.html
John "C"
2007-05-26 23:37:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pinku-Sensei
That's comforting.
http://www.ztgphosting.com/_w/sfg/004sfg_g180_3595.jpg

You like eh?
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...