🚀 go-pugleaf

"Kent Paul Dolan" <xanthian@well.com> wrote in message 
news:0e2cdaef-b959-4fa6-a198-134f66defcae@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> Bob Bain <+...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>
>> You have made false accusations against me in a
>> public forum.
>
... <gawp> perish the thought!
b

> Produce one and document that it is false. You
> merely _reinterpret_ my statements into strawmen,
> and then claim that those strawmen are false, which
> is nothing close to finding the original statements
> as written to be false. You are, in this behavior,
> simply acting demented.
>
>> You have also misinterpreted (grossly) statements
>> I may have made in private email.
>
> Really? In what _provable_ way are my
> interpretations incorrect? If you _read_ my words,
> rather than warping them into some entirely other
> words in your mind before ingesting them, you'll
> find I have been Caeser's wife indeed in sticking
> strictly to matters to which you have already made
> public and private confession. You've already had to
> retract many of your claims in this regard, and I
> fail to see any remaining substance you haven't
> already confessed to be true.
>
>> At least you haven't attempted to intimidate me
>> with threats to declare to Centrelink "earnings
>> from illegal activity" made in the name of Tony
>> Smith while my mother lay on her death bed - nor
>> have you suggested directly that one day the
>> police may knock on my door and beat me to a pulp
>> on account of the fact I discuss censorship,
>> ethics and legality in Usenet.
>
> This is merely an example of your pathologically
> insane semantic freighting; none of this has the
> least relationship to your claims that I have made
> false accusations against you, this is simply you
> being entirely intellectually dishonest by trying to
> associate my claims with matters repugnant to you
> and to your audience.
>
>> At that time I issued a complaint to Yahoo which
>> some seem to have regarded as "fun".
>
> This is a non sequitur, you dragging in material
> that has no relationship to the discussion, again an
> example of your intellectual dishonesty.
>
> You rambling on interminably about all the injuries
> the entirely world has putatively ever done to you
> has precisely no merit is supporting your false
> accusatin that I have libeled you. You seem unable
> not only to support that accusation, but even to
> stay focused on it for the length of a News article.
>
>> I am not at this point  in time guilty of any
>> criminal activity
>
> What is that supposed to mean? You have already
> publicly in this very thread confessed to being
> tried, convicted, and fined for your behavior.
> That isn't something done to those innocent of
> criminal behavior.
>
>> and as noted am entitled to protection built into
>> the Statutes of New South Wales.
>
> That is a meaningless noise. All that protection was
> already given to you in a court of law, and you were
> _still_ convicted.
>
>> It is libellous to suggest that I have ever been
>> convicted of an offence involving Australia's
>> "less than liberal" censorship laws,
>
> But you have confessed in this thread to that very
> fact.
>
>> which by implication can be taken to mean that I
>> have been convicted of being in possession of
>> child pornography
>
> No it cannot, that is a strawman repeatedly dragged
> into these discussions by you because you are
> entirely unable to cope with reality. You were found
> to have attempted to import an unclassified video
> tape when doing so was A VIOLATION OF THE LAW OF
> AUSTRALIA. Full stop. No child porn in any way
> involved.
>
> Quite trying to drag kiddie porn into the discussion
> _in your defense_, a despicable example of your
> incredibly intellectual dishonesty and attempts at
> misdirection in these discussions.
>
>> something that is not and has never been true and
>> never will be true.
>
> No one said it was, except you trying to misdirect
> the discussion.
>
>> I have at no time attempted to harrass you.
>
> Sending me threats to quit libeling you when I have
> never done any such thing was harrassment, full
> stop.
>
> I took the trouble to copy that to your ISP, as I
> don't at all intend to be bullied by you or any
> other pissant intellectual munchkin unable to keep
> his thinking straight for the five consecutive
> minutes it takes to type a News posting.
>
>> I simply posted two opinion pieces from the net -
>> items which are being discussed in blogs and open
>> forums at the present time.
>
> That is a non sequitur, your harrassment was in the
> private email my response to which you dishonestly
> posted without permission, discussion, or necessity.
>
> Since doing so convicts you of intellectual
> dishonesty from your own keyboard, you've just made
> yourself a laughingstock.
>
> Not that you weren't one already, so this merely
> reinforces your reputation as a whiner and cheat.
>
>> I am not under suspicion in respect of illegal
>> activity.
>
> No, you are ALREADY tried, convicted, and punished
> by a fine for illegal activity.
>
> This statement by you trying to rewrite that history
> all of which you have confessed in public, by
> misdirection now, is merely yet another example of
> your intellectual dishonesty at work.
>
> Double jeopardy being presumably as unacceptable to
> the law of Oz as it is to the law of the USA, you
> would have to commit new illegal activity to again
> be under suspicion of having done so, unless your
> authorities just habitually grab suspicions out of
> the passing breeze and apply them at random to
> Ozites.
>
>> I have however pointed out that certain items in
>> my possession (and sent to me by those entrusted
>> with enforcing the law) have caused me much misery
>> and grief to the point where legal action may be
>> an appropriate remedy.
>
> Bull. Your "misery and grief" are entirely
> self-inflicted, entirely created in self-interest by
> you in your attempts to rewrite your personal
> history, i.e., the represent flat out insanity, and
> are not the business of the constituted authorities
> to ameliorate. If the material offended you so
> greatly, a rubbish tip was a much better target for
> it than a law enforcement office.
>
>> I can only repeat I am awaiting a reply from the
>> Prime Minister of Australia (Kevin Rudd) in
>> respect to an email sent to him on 12th.
>> September 2007 regarding the grief these items and
>> the accusations have caused me.
>
> Um, seem my previous note that inaction is what
> bureaucrats do.
>
> If you are waiting to get your life out of the
> gutter into which you have discarded it until some
> bureaucrat takes the time to sort out your
> personality problems as directed at video tapes and
> the delusion that conservative Australia's freedom
> of access to video taped material should match in
> all respects the most liberal treatment you can find
> applied anywhere elsewhere on planet Earth, you are
> in line for an _immense_ wait.
>
> Sorting out constituants' mental health issues is in
> no way part of the charter a bureaucrat takes on by
> being elected. They have enough problems dealing
> with constituants' _sane_ requests.
>
>> If necessary I can produce letters to people
>> entrusted with the enforcement of law in this
>> country and inparticular a letter to the former
>> Attorney General of Australia - Philip Ruddock in
>> respect of those matters.
>
> What is necessary is for you to find the sanity to
> stop annoying the constituted authorities with your
> mental health issues, not to keep flogging them in
> ever greater detail on Usenet as if that were going
> to make the world match the demented map you have of
> it in your head.
>
>> You may note that copies of this Usenet posting
>> are being sent to those whom you appear to
>> believe should sever my Internet connection -
>> simply because I dispute the wrongful allegations
>> you have made.
>
> Well, to do that, you'd first have to list such
> wrongful allegations, without dragging in your many,
> many strawman misstatements of what I've written,
> and then you'd have to show how what I've written,
> with great care by me not to go beyond exactly what
> you've already confessed, is in any way different
> from the things to which you _have_ confessed.
>
> Instead, you have limited yourself to whining,
> misdirection, erection of strawmen, generalities
> behind which are no specifics, and a whole litany of
> intellectually dishonest behaviors to try to warp
> those true things I've written to be some entirely
> other things which I have NOT written, because the
> true things I've said about you distress your
> inablity to honestly confront your own misdeeds once
> and for all and then proceed with your life leaving
> them behind you as lessons learned.
>
> You most profoundly are REJECTING learning the
> needed life lessons from your offense, trial, and
> conviction, in your ongoing flood of boring trivia
> about the very mild censorship laws of Australia.
>
>>  Bob Bain
>
> xanthian, not withdrawing a damned word.