On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 07:29:39 -0400, Hannah Gruen wrote:

> I've trimmed headers here for obvious reasons.

I reinstated them for obvious reasons.

> I was really saddened to hear of Bob's passing. I really, really liked him
> and enjoyed his posts. He is very much missed. As someone else already
> noted, he did not suffer fools gladly. I always kind of admired his tenacity
> in exposing and opposing the Chungtroll and his sockpuppet Mu.

Exposing what exactly? If you so admired Bobby, then why trim your
responses to other newsgroups?

> I really
> enjoyed his discourses on food and cooking, as well as things of a more
> sociological & political nature. Cantankerous and opinionated - yes - but
> underneath it was an easily discernible good heart and allegiance to what is
> true and good.

You enjoyed Bobby because Bobby was entertaining for you. That's fine,
but this part about Bobby being a "good heart...allegiance to Truth" is
a total crock.

Pastorio's Usenet history, which is the most public history that one can
have in his case, is one of obsessive-compulsive attacks on Chung and
occasionally Mu. For what purpose? To feed his planetary-sized ego,
exercise his black heart side, with a smidgen of truthfulness mixed in.

> As to what is written below,

>> "Mu" > wrote in message
>> news:elj4s3eki0eg.1f67q27kjt977
>>
>> Pastorio was, and by archive will always be, a Satanic curse on SMC.
>> Thank God, all things, in time, turn to the positive.

> and recently by C-troll, I am simply shocked.
> Beyond tasteless. Also revelatory of a sad, sick attitude *totally* not in
> accordance with the teachings of the God they profess to worship. For shame,
> Mu and Chung.
>
> HG

Shocked? O give ma a break, first you claim how lousy, trollish and
fraudulent we are, now you're "shocked"?

FYI, the teachings of Christ are plain to your claims "they are not in
accordance". Tell the Truth regardless of the social outcome or the
(worthless) opinions of others.

Of course, this may get One crucified before One is of modern middle
age.

On Apr 11, 11:23 pm, Mu > wrote:

> For what purpose? To feed his planetary-sized ego,
> exercise his black heart side, with a smidgen of truthfulness mixed in.

Hello Mu-Pot. You are as black as any kettle when it comes to:

+ - Planetary Sized Egos
+ - Black Heart Side Exercises (3 sets of 20 reps a day from you on
your on days)

The big difference between you and any kettle that you accuse is
smidgen of truth. You have never posted even an iota of truth. How you
would recognize actual truth, I don't know. I suspect a whole field of
science could be devoted to the study of the average dissociated net-
troll's relationship and understanding of the concept of truth, and
how it varies from the rest of humanity.

PS- This line is super funny:
"Tell the Truth regardless of the social outcome..."
The humor comes from your attempt at dissociation from social
consequences and reality by posting under a pseudonym. You face no
social outcome from your trolling on Usenet. There is no easy way to
tie your actions here back to the your real world life. At least the
Chung-hole ties the two together. Your attempt to compare with JC on
Truth and Social Outcome is laughable beyond my ability to laugh. I'll
be lucky to get any work done today at all.

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 07:31:03 -0400, Hannah Gruen wrote:

> "Mu" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 07:29:39 -0400, Hannah Gruen wrote:
>>
>>> I've trimmed headers here for obvious reasons.
>>
>> I reinstated them for obvious reasons.
>
> Your reason apparently being that you wish to bug a wide audience of people
> who have little in common exceot their wish to *not* hear from you. Not that
> asdl-c'ers do either.

I missed your crowning, Gruen, speaking for your feudals is nice for
them.

>> Exposing what exactly? If you so admired Bobby, then why trim your
>> responses to other newsgroups?
>
> See above.

Bad news, headers back.

>> You enjoyed Bobby because Bobby was entertaining for you. That's fine,
>> but this part about Bobby being a "good heart...allegiance to Truth" is
>> a total crock.
>
> Ummm... not really. Seems like the rest of us could discern that. Perhaps
> some of your own... umm... psychological and/or ego issues got in the way of
> appreciating him.

Not a bit, Bobby came after me from Day One, Chung too, he'd still be
doing it obsessively if he was alive.

>> Pastorio's Usenet history, which is the most public history that one can
>> have in his case, is one of obsessive-compulsive attacks on Chung and
>> occasionally Mu. For what purpose? To feed his planetary-sized ego,
>> exercise his black heart side, with a smidgen of truthfulness mixed in.
>
> Actually, I don't think he was any more disgusted and put off by the
> hypocracy, tastelessness, rancor, and generally FOS ccontent of posts from
> C-troll and yourself than are the rest of us. He just apparently had more
> emotional energy than the rest of us with which to oppose your and C-troll's
> behavior on Usenet. I think the Usenet history tells the tale quite well.

It tells the tail of obsession packed with false innuendo and outright
lying. It was a game for him which stemmed from his darkest side.

>> Shocked? O give ma a break, first you claim how lousy, trollish and
>> fraudulent we are, now you're "shocked"?
>
> Yeah, I really am. You both have hit a new low, in my estimation.

Then why trim the headers, let the world know.

>> FYI, the teachings of Christ are plain to your claims "they are not in
>> accordance". Tell the Truth regardless of the social outcome or the
>> (worthless) opinions of others.
>
> Well, looks like you are failing to differentiate between the righteous
> judgments of God and the faulty, sin/error-prone judgments of the rest of
> us, Christians included. Which is probably why scripture tells us to be
> very, very careful about judging the hearts of others.

Untrue, my history is crystal clear on this differentiation as well as
the need for practicality using judgment. This is a very typical
Pastorio styled attack, a lie, you learned well.

>> Of course, this may get One crucified before One is of modern middle
>> age.
>
> See above. I cannot say that behavior of either you or the C-troll, here on
> Usenet, resembles in ANY way that of Jesus of Nazareth as described in
> scripture. Sorry... really.
>
> HG

Really? I'm kicking your butt around just like Christ did to the
moneychangers. At lest you don't haver a broken table.

On 12 Apr 2007 05:54:36 -0700, Hollywood wrote:

> Hello Mu-Pot. You are as black as any kettle when it comes to:
>
> + - Planetary Sized Egos

Proof of this where?

> + - Black Heart Side Exercises (3 sets of 20 reps a day from you on
> your on days)

See above.

> The big difference between you and any kettle that you accuse is
> smidgen of truth. You have never posted even an iota of truth.

A complete lie and you know it but go on......

> How you
> would recognize actual truth, I don't know. I suspect a whole field of
> science could be devoted to the study of the average dissociated net-
> troll's relationship and understanding of the concept of truth, and
> how it varies from the rest of humanity.

I suspect that you would lead us to believe you could interpret that
study too, right?

> PS- This line is super funny:
> "Tell the Truth regardless of the social outcome..."

I'm sure to a liar, see above, you would find this funny.

> The humor comes from your attempt at dissociation from social
> consequences and reality by posting under a pseudonym.

Your real name is Hollywood, is your first name Dr. ?

> You face no
> social outcome from your trolling on Usenet. There is no easy way to
> tie your actions here back to the your real world life.

Bzzt, wrong again, pseudonym or not, there are people who are on Usenet
who know me personally and professionally.

> At least the
> Chung-hole ties the two together. Your attempt to compare with JC on
> Truth and Social Outcome is laughable beyond my ability to laugh. I'll
> be lucky to get any work done today at all.

If you work and considering this post plays you out as a liar, as
erudite as a dry sponge, I'll believe you work when I see your paycheck.

Mu > wrote:

>> At least the
>> Chung-hole ties the two together. Your attempt to compare with JC on
>> Truth and Social Outcome is laughable beyond my ability to laugh. I'll
>> be lucky to get any work done today at all.
>
>If you work and considering this post plays you out as a liar, as
>erudite as a dry sponge, I'll believe you work when I see your paycheck.

"Name calling simply means you remain lost." -- Dr. Andy B. Chung

--
Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco

"Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Deco?
The section is clearly attributed to Art Deco, not to you, Deco."
-- Dr. David Tholen

"Who is "David Tholen", Daedalus? Still suffering from
attribution problems?"
-- Dr. David Tholen

"Mu" > wrote in message

> I'm kicking your butt around just like Christ did to the
> moneychangers. At lest you don't haver a broken table.

This is funny, but also sad. What happened to "Let he who is without sin
cast the first stone?" That's the rule for us folks. You can only do the
"casting out the moneychangers" stuff when you're God or the Messiah. Or
maybe you have a different Bible...?

HG

On Apr 12, 8:05 pm, Mu > wrote:
> On 12 Apr 2007 05:54:36 -0700, Hollywood wrote:
>
> > Hello Mu-Pot. You are as black as any kettle when it comes to:
>
> > + - Planetary Sized Egos
>
> Proof of this where?

All over usenet. It's so ubiquitous as to be common knowledge.
Therefore, in need of no site. Your "special friend" Chung's
Multiverse Sized Ego is on display with every post he makes. Since you
ALWAYS support his EGO drenched nonsense (The Holy Spirit Speaks to
Me, so I know better than anyone else), your ego is, ergo, nearly as
large. You aren't quite the self promoter that your lover is.

> > + - Black Heart Side Exercises (3 sets of 20 reps a day from you on
> > your on days)
>
> See above.

See above.

> > The big difference between you and any kettle that you accuse is
> > smidgen of truth. You have never posted even an iota of truth.
>
> A complete lie and you know it but go on......

Okay, you have a loose acquaintance with the truth. Sometimes, I get
you confused with your lover.

> > How you
> > would recognize actual truth, I don't know. I suspect a whole field of
> > science could be devoted to the study of the average dissociated net-
> > troll's relationship and understanding of the concept of truth, and
> > how it varies from the rest of humanity.
>
> I suspect that you would lead us to believe you could interpret that
> study too, right?

Don't measure Brain-Cock against me. You are unarmed.

> > PS- This line is super funny:
> > "Tell the Truth regardless of the social outcome..."
>
> I'm sure to a liar, see above, you would find this funny.

Coming from you, I'm still laughing about it.

> > The humor comes from your attempt at dissociation from social
> > consequences and reality by posting under a pseudonym.
>
> Your real name is Hollywood, is your first name Dr. ?

Uhm, couple quick points here.
1- http://groups.google.com/groups/prof...6prRsqjc7uCt1A
That's my real name in my email. Anyone who can read a header can
discern it.
2- I don't make statements like "I Follow the teachings of <insert
semi-mythological demigod> and therefore tell the truth regardless of
social consequences." That's you and your Diet Guru/Moron of Choice.
Point to where I suggest that I tell the truth without a regard to
social consequences on the usenet. If you can find it, I will mail you
five dollars and a written apology.

> > You face no
> > social outcome from your trolling on Usenet. There is no easy way to
> > tie your actions here back to the your real world life.
>
> Bzzt, wrong again, pseudonym or not, there are people who are on Usenet
> who know me personally and professionally.

Yeah, but Chung is your lover. I suppose if you told the truth about
him, there might be a lovers spat and that could get ugly. I'm told
that male-male households are a lot more prone to domestic violence
turning fatal. You might want to tread very carefully.

But for anyone that you actually speak your version of truth to, they
wouldn't know you from anyone on the street. Here's a test. Could Bob
P have picked you out on a crowded street in a major city? How about
Hannah? I know I couldn't.

> > At least the
> > Chung-hole ties the two together. Your attempt to compare with JC on
> > Truth and Social Outcome is laughable beyond my ability to laugh. I'll
> > be lucky to get any work done today at all.
>
> If you work and considering this post plays you out as a liar, as
> erudite as a dry sponge, I'll believe you work when I see your paycheck.

You know as well as I do why you will never see my paycheck. Why you
will never get an email from my work email. And why any attempt to
contact me in the real world will result in a no-contact, 1000-yard
restraining order. I did manage to get some work done yesterday. Funny
thing. The pay is the same regardless of outcome. Gotta love a merit
position.

The long and short of it is: You are either so deeply deluded that you
actually believe everything you say, including your sole franchise on
Truth, or you are a punk who has been exposed here as a hypocrite. I'm
not suggesting that these are mutually exclusive. In fact, it is
entirely likely that you are an exposed punk with a serious case of
netdissociation who believes his own hype, and is a hypocrite. Nice
going.

Remember, I'm rooting for you and Chung. You deserve the same civil
rights as all people regardless of sexual orientation. Just keep it
consensual.

Hannah Gruen > wrote:

>"Mu" > wrote in message
>
>> I'm kicking your butt around just like Christ did to the
>> moneychangers. At lest you don't haver a broken table.
>
>This is funny, but also sad. What happened to "Let he who is without sin
>cast the first stone?" That's the rule for us folks. You can only do the
>"casting out the moneychangers" stuff when you're God or the Messiah. Or
>maybe you have a different Bible...?
>
>HG

Mu uses the New Chung Version (NCV).

--
Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco

"Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Deco?
The section is clearly attributed to Art Deco, not to you, Deco."
-- Dr. David Tholen

"Who is "David Tholen", Daedalus? Still suffering from
attribution problems?"
-- Dr. David Tholen

"Hannah Gruen" > wrote

> This is funny, but also sad. What happened to "Let he who is without sin
> cast the first stone?"

It was annulled by "Ouch! Hey, Mom! Stop that!"

--
Bob

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 07:51:12 -0400, Hannah Gruen wrote:

> "Mu" > wrote in message
>
>> I'm kicking your butt around just like Christ did to the
>> moneychangers. At lest you don't haver a broken table.
>
> This is funny, but also sad. What happened to "Let he who is without sin
> cast the first stone?" That's the rule for us folks.

Nice rule, event was a stoning, extrapolation is subjective, the length
of that extrapolation into our daily lives is also subjective. It could
go as far as never being critical of anything at anytime. Which is
ridiculous.

> You can only do the
> "casting out the moneychangers" stuff when you're God or the Messiah. Or
> maybe you have a different Bible...?
>
> HG

Nothing happened to it and who says that you cannot be aggressively
Christian. Which parts of Christ's Life are we to emulate, which not?
The Bible is not an analytical tool of Christ's Life anyway.

You clipped the statement you made which was very disingenuous to say
the least "I cannot say that behavior of either you or the C-troll, here
on Usenet, resembles in ANY way that of Jesus of Nazareth as described
in scripture. Sorry... really" The ANY is your point of emphasis and it
makes you entirely wrong.

On 13 Apr 2007 07:27:45 -0700, Hollywood wrote:

>>> Hello Mu-Pot. You are as black as any kettle when it comes to:
>>
>>> + - Planetary Sized Egos
>>
>> Proof of this where?
>
> All over usenet. It's so ubiquitous as to be common knowledge.
> Therefore, in need of no site. Your "special friend" Chung's
> Multiverse Sized Ego is on display with every post he makes.

You weren't talking about Chung, you were talking about Mu. So what we
have is your opinion, that's fine, have it but it is nothing more than
an opinion from someone who criticizes me for having an alias lol, can't
stay on subject and claims accuracy by ubiquity. Absurd.

On 13 Apr 2007 07:27:45 -0700, Hollywood wrote:

> Since you
> ALWAYS support his EGO drenched nonsense (The Holy Spirit Speaks to
> Me, so I know better than anyone else), your ego is, ergo, nearly as
> large. You aren't quite the self promoter that your lover is.

There you go again, you lie like a dog in Summer and you cannot possibly
back this up whatsoever. Mu is archived as having disagreements with
Chung. Get a grip, you're making an ass out of yourself (or more of one
I should say).

On 13 Apr 2007 07:27:45 -0700, Hollywood wrote:

>>> How you
>>> would recognize actual truth, I don't know. I suspect a whole field of
>>> science could be devoted to the study of the average dissociated net-
>>> troll's relationship and understanding of the concept of truth, and
>>> how it varies from the rest of humanity.
>>
>> I suspect that you would lead us to believe you could interpret that
>> study too, right?
>
> Don't measure Brain-Cock against me. You are unarmed.

I have no intention of measuring intelligence with you, it's a foregone
conclusion, you're short of it.

Take for instance your Usenet history of interpreting research. That is
why I asked, and you dodged, the question with an high school,
pimply-faced response.

You are no scientist and you have zero credentials to back your
super-ridiculous attempts to analyze clinical research. On Usenet, the
number of people I have met who were qualified to do so is so few and
your not even on the consideration list.

You're a braggart with too much time on his hands speaking to and with a
mostly clueless audience who have no idea what questions to /ask/ to
judge citation analyzers.

On 13 Apr 2007 07:27:45 -0700, Hollywood wrote:

> Uhm, couple quick points here.
> 1- http://groups.google.com/groups/prof...6prRsqjc7uCt1A
> That's my real name in my email. Anyone who can read a header can
> discern it.

Yippee, I surely believe you. I'm Mu.

> 2- I don't make statements like "I Follow the teachings of <insert
> semi-mythological demigod> and therefore tell the truth regardless of
> social consequences." That's you and your Diet Guru/Moron of Choice.
> Point to where I suggest that I tell the truth without a regard to
> social consequences on the usenet. If you can find it, I will mail you
> five dollars and a written apology.

I never said you did, I said I did, are you ADD?

Mu > wrote:

>On 13 Apr 2007 07:27:45 -0700, Hollywood wrote:
>
>>>> How you
>>>> would recognize actual truth, I don't know. I suspect a whole field of
>>>> science could be devoted to the study of the average dissociated net-
>>>> troll's relationship and understanding of the concept of truth, and
>>>> how it varies from the rest of humanity.
>>>
>>> I suspect that you would lead us to believe you could interpret that
>>> study too, right?
>>
>> Don't measure Brain-Cock against me. You are unarmed.
>
>I have no intention of measuring intelligence with you, it's a foregone
>conclusion, you're short of it.
>
>Take for instance your Usenet history of interpreting research. That is
>why I asked, and you dodged, the question with an high school,
>pimply-faced response.
>
>You are no scientist and you have zero credentials to back your
>super-ridiculous attempts to analyze clinical research. On Usenet, the
>number of people I have met who were qualified to do so is so few and
>your not even on the consideration list.
>
>You're a braggart with too much time on his hands speaking to and with a
>mostly clueless audience who have no idea what questions to /ask/ to
>judge citation analyzers.

The same is true of "Dr." Andy Chung.

--
Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco

"Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Deco?
The section is clearly attributed to Art Deco, not to you, Deco."
-- Dr. David Tholen

"Who is "David Tholen", Daedalus? Still suffering from
attribution problems?"
-- Dr. David Tholen

On Apr 13, 11:05 pm, Mu > wrote:
> On 13 Apr 2007 07:27:45 -0700, Hollywood wrote:
>
> > Uhm, couple quick points here.
> > 1-http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?enc_user=rvJTsBQAAABWpxlModHw...
> > That's my real name in my email. Anyone who can read a header can
> > discern it.
>
> Yippee, I surely believe you. I'm Mu.
>
> > 2- I don't make statements like "I Follow the teachings of <insert
> > semi-mythological demigod> and therefore tell the truth regardless of
> > social consequences." That's you and your Diet Guru/Moron of Choice.
> > Point to where I suggest that I tell the truth without a regard to
> > social consequences on the usenet. If you can find it, I will mail you
> > five dollars and a written apology.
>
> I never said you did, I said I did, are you ADD?

The statement is only laughable as hypocrisy. Since I make no claims
contrary, show the hypocrisy of using a nom-de-guerre.

Are you daft? Yeah.

PS: - On your galactic ego: Your insistence of superior intelligence,
my inability to read research, etc, all point to it. Your easy
dismissal of all who disagree with you, without any real consideration
of their arguments, same thing. I rest my case. You have an ego that
is as large as Bob's ever was, though not quite as out grown as your
lover's.

Now **** off. I'm tired of you.

Why do idiots like those below post such crap?




On 14 Apr 2007 08:24:33 -0700, "Hollywood" > wrote:

>On Apr 13, 11:05 pm, Mu > wrote:
>> On 13 Apr 2007 07:27:45 -0700, Hollywood wrote:
>>
>> > Uhm, couple quick points here.
>> > 1-http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?enc_user=rvJTsBQAAABWpxlModHw...
>> > That's my real name in my email. Anyone who can read a header can
>> > discern it.
>>
>> Yippee, I surely believe you. I'm Mu.
>>
>> > 2- I don't make statements like "I Follow the teachings of <insert
>> > semi-mythological demigod> and therefore tell the truth regardless of
>> > social consequences." That's you and your Diet Guru/Moron of Choice.
>> > Point to where I suggest that I tell the truth without a regard to
>> > social consequences on the usenet. If you can find it, I will mail you
>> > five dollars and a written apology.
>>
>> I never said you did, I said I did, are you ADD?
>
>The statement is only laughable as hypocrisy. Since I make no claims
>contrary, show the hypocrisy of using a nom-de-guerre.
>
>Are you daft? Yeah.
>
>PS: - On your galactic ego: Your insistence of superior intelligence,
>my inability to read research, etc, all point to it. Your easy
>dismissal of all who disagree with you, without any real consideration
>of their arguments, same thing. I rest my case. You have an ego that
>is as large as Bob's ever was, though not quite as out grown as your
>lover's.
>
>Now **** off. I'm tired of you.