Re: The Two Faces of Chadwick Stone: Usenet and Private For
Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 5:46 am
To the Moderator and Members of this Forum:
This forum, which holds itself as a place for higher intelligence, seems to me to be a fraud.
When a moderator heavy on the rules, but light on the enforcement of them because of personal whim, is paralyzed with his own confusion and fear of public opinion says one thing, but does another, have we not discovered another example of hypocrisy?
Here is your latest addition to your forum -- chadwick stone. You've read his sanitized cover statements on your forum; read him when he posts elsewhere.
Dave, I have never asked for your protection. I advised you that your forum was being poisoned by disinformation agents who operate freely on Usenet. You've embraced the poison.
You're on your own!!
I don't live in your world of nicey, nicey speculative thought, let's not rough each other's feathers. I live in THE REAL WORLD.
I am resolving problems of the REAL WORLD, while you TALK ABOUT THEM.
I perceive that I erred when subscribing to this forum. I stepped into the midst of educated fools.
Ray
Re: The Two Faces of Chadwick Stone: Usenet and Private Forum!
"Chadwick Stone©" <chad_stone@127.0.0.1>
Wed, 21 Jun 2006 16:42:40 GMT
cs: >X-No-Archive: YES
Raymond Karczewski [arkent3@earthlink.net] demonstrated more hypocrisy
449936f1.41298237@news.west.earthlink.net
cs: > Chadwick Stone (teh convict's owner) wrote:
cs: >Raymond Karczewski (my bitch) wrote:
> Wed Jun 21, 2006 2:39 pm
>
Re: CHRIST CONSCIOUSNESS VERSUS SATANIC IGNORAMUSES:
raykarczewski wrote:
rk: >>>> In 10 years they have not been able to stand to find a single CONTRADICTION IN ESSENCE written by this Christ"
cs: >>> Hmmmmm... you tell people to boycott government yet you live on a government pension, tell people to vote in governmental elections, forward complaints to Sheriff Daniel, the FBI, congressmen, senators, governors, the President (government officials and agencies), operate a congressional (government body) petition to compel an FBI (government agency) investigation... those all directly contradict your advice to others to boycott government.
rk: >> Only in your superficial, conflicted, underworked, overfed
Intellect, eh?! Why don't you play in the "prepubescent sandbox" where such shallow demonstrations of thought belong?
cs: > Why don't you reconcile these examples of NOT boycotting government while simultaneously calling for others to participate in this government boycott?
cs: ><crickets>
c: > 1. Your government pension: If the majority of American
tax-payers boycott the government then there would be no funding for your pension.
cs: ><crickets>
c: > 2. Voting in government elections: Participation in government process is in essence, exactly the opposite of boycotting government.
cs: ><crickets>
c: > 3. Engaging government officials and agencies: This certainly isn't a boycott of government.
cs: ><crickets>
c: > How can you, a serious person, seriously propose that others boycott government when you don't follow your own example? This is a valid question, this is not a smear, an insult, a campaign to discredit, it is a question that I am asking.
cs: ><crickets>
cs: >> Quote:
rk: >> Go ahead folks, check him out in alt.fan.art-bell newsgroup. You will be limited in what you find in Google Archives, because your newly subscribed hypcrite has ordered Google that his articles be removed from the archives after a few days.
cs: > I don't deny treating you with disdain and disrespect on
Usenet. That is Usenet.
rk: So you feel you can libel
cs: >You've got that BASSACKWARDS, convict. You libeled me, not the other way around. Stop using words you don't understand.
attack
cs: >It's called "SPNAKING" and almost every entity on Usenet that pays any attention to you at all, partakes.
smear another
cs: >It isn't a smear if it's true, convict.
with impunity
cs: >Everything I do on Usenet is with impunity. You haven't the power to silence me or anyone else.
because some etherear authority you label "Usenet." gives you license to do so.
cs: >I treat you like a shitstain because (1) there are no rules on Usenet that prohibit such treatment and (2) you deserve it.
Doesn't sound like you have much personal self-control
cs: >On the contrary, it's quite deliberate.
and integrity, does it?
cs: >At least I have some. You lost all of yours when you punked out after 8 years on the beat in Pacifica. Yeah, I read all about your drama queen hysterics at town meetings
cs: > This is a moderated forum with a moderator and members of the readership who state that attacks are unacceptable.
rk: So you admit that you have no integrity in and of yourself, but must rely upon the remote licensing authority of another for your actions. Sounds like a Satanic minion to me. How does it sound to you?
cs: >It sounds like I respect the rules of a private venue... unlike you. It sounds like I understand that the users of that forum, people who have been there for years, don't want to see their board turned away from it's intended purpose into my own private spank-a-thon. Why is it that I understand and respect this, but you don't?
cs: > I am not attacking you.
rk: Your attacks are of not concern to me as you are so deep in your self-made Hell, no amount of Light of intelligence can be piped into you. I only respond to your posts to expose you, to show others what a hypocrite looks and acts like.
cs: >You do a good job of demonstrating hypocrisy, as several of the regs of that board have already come to see.
cs: > While on this board I will not attack you, insult you, call you names, or anything of the sort. I respect the rules of the board and regard it as a "de-militarized zone."
rk: De-militarized? Pipsqueaks like you are all talk and no go.
Look how you have exposed your Satanic nature to the world in this post.
cs: >If you believe that obeying rules demonstrates a "satanic" nature, then that explains why you have such a lengthy felony rap sheet.
You are trapped in the complicated web of deceit you have woven for yourself.
cs: >*snicker* I've exhibited more honesty in the several days than you have mustered in a lifetime.
cs: > Now that we have established my conduct, can we please advance to the substance of your "boycott" agenda?
rk: stone, you're not worthy of my time
cs: >Can you spot the irony?
other than to use you as a lesson to others as an icon of hell doing what hypocrites do.
cs: >Same question, different spate of kaz0o drool.
cs: > Quote:
rk:>> In your dualistic hypocrisy, you try so damn hard to sucker me and others into your inane wordtwisting debates because you are incapable of holding fast to a serious dialoue. "Sovereign Sockpuppet" aka "chadwick stone" aka a host of other throwaway identities, you do not possess a single substantive thought or perception of your own, as
your sole capacity is expose in the issuance of reactive, trite sound bytes as you mimic your target by quoting his words and forging posts in his name.
cs: > Wait a minute, Ray. Your insults are of no consequence to me but accusing me of forging you is libelous.
rk: Not if its True.
cs: >And it isn't. You've presented not a shred of evidence to substantiate your trite claims.
You don't realize it yet stone, you and the other disinformation
agents are ultimately going to wind up in court and jail.
cs: >Empty threats from an empty shirt... a ten year old threat at that. You cannot cite the criminal code that I have violated, nor can you present evidence of such a violation. Not that I wouldn't love to see you in a courtroom, cross examining yourself on the witless stand. You can bet I would make a few bucks selling a video tape of you embarrassing yourself as you turn your head from side to side.
You may have your posts destroyed in Google, but I haven't
destroyed the evidence.
cs: >Does the phrase "chain of custody" have any meaning to you, convict? Probably not since you quit studying the law just like you quit everything else of worth in your life. Quitters like you simply lack the intestinal fortitude to see your threats through.
cs: > I have no interest in forging you, in fact, since (as you have continued to assert) I do not understand your message,
rk: Hell, DUMMY what you DON'T UNDERSTAND IS LEGION!!
cs: >A classic gem from Raymond "I don't use ad hominem attacks" Karczewski.
cs: > I could not sucessfully forge you even if I wanted to.
rk: Such prideful admission of your impotence won't bring you any sympathy from the victimminded crowd, will it?
cs: >Once again you use words you don't understand. You must have been one of those fellows who the teachers simply passed on to rid themselves of you.
cs: > Help me to undestand your message by answering a few questions.
rk: You're asking my help. Isn't that SPESHUL?!!!
cs: >I'm asking for you to give a few moments of lucid thought, but you can't do it, can you. Perhaps you shouldn't have been so quick to dismiss the mental hygeine exam that was offered you by Judge Coon.
rk: Aside from such groveling for help, do you see what I mean. You have nothing of your own to offer. It is easy for guttersnips to take pot shots at someone or something they do not understand by asking questions then following such answers by questioning the answers ad infinitum. It makes makes guttersnipe one-liner cheap shot disinformation agents like you and dr. postment look like you know what you are talking about. But alas, it is only an Illusion. It cloaks the guttersnipe ignoramus with the aura of hypocrisy. No matter how much he can waddle, pose and quack like a duck on Usenet
and private Forums, such lowly guttersnipes will never achieve their aspired positions as even that of a lowly duck. Such is the future awaiting all impostors and impersonators.
cs: >Woohoo! Nice meltdown, convict. Feel free to go *quack* yourself! <snicker>
rk: stone, you are what you are. You can't hide it. Hell, isn't it?
cs: >Yep, a law abiding man who plays by the rules. Too bad you cannot make the same claim, convict.
Skepticult® Member# 581-00504-208
ChadwickStone at Gmail dot com
Usenet's most helpful netizen
Hammer of Thor, March 2005
This forum, which holds itself as a place for higher intelligence, seems to me to be a fraud.
When a moderator heavy on the rules, but light on the enforcement of them because of personal whim, is paralyzed with his own confusion and fear of public opinion says one thing, but does another, have we not discovered another example of hypocrisy?
Here is your latest addition to your forum -- chadwick stone. You've read his sanitized cover statements on your forum; read him when he posts elsewhere.
Dave, I have never asked for your protection. I advised you that your forum was being poisoned by disinformation agents who operate freely on Usenet. You've embraced the poison.
You're on your own!!
I don't live in your world of nicey, nicey speculative thought, let's not rough each other's feathers. I live in THE REAL WORLD.
I am resolving problems of the REAL WORLD, while you TALK ABOUT THEM.
I perceive that I erred when subscribing to this forum. I stepped into the midst of educated fools.
Ray
Re: The Two Faces of Chadwick Stone: Usenet and Private Forum!
"Chadwick Stone©" <chad_stone@127.0.0.1>
Wed, 21 Jun 2006 16:42:40 GMT
cs: >X-No-Archive: YES
Raymond Karczewski [arkent3@earthlink.net] demonstrated more hypocrisy
449936f1.41298237@news.west.earthlink.net
cs: > Chadwick Stone (teh convict's owner) wrote:
cs: >Raymond Karczewski (my bitch) wrote:
> Wed Jun 21, 2006 2:39 pm
>
Re: CHRIST CONSCIOUSNESS VERSUS SATANIC IGNORAMUSES:
raykarczewski wrote:
rk: >>>> In 10 years they have not been able to stand to find a single CONTRADICTION IN ESSENCE written by this Christ"
cs: >>> Hmmmmm... you tell people to boycott government yet you live on a government pension, tell people to vote in governmental elections, forward complaints to Sheriff Daniel, the FBI, congressmen, senators, governors, the President (government officials and agencies), operate a congressional (government body) petition to compel an FBI (government agency) investigation... those all directly contradict your advice to others to boycott government.
rk: >> Only in your superficial, conflicted, underworked, overfed
Intellect, eh?! Why don't you play in the "prepubescent sandbox" where such shallow demonstrations of thought belong?
cs: > Why don't you reconcile these examples of NOT boycotting government while simultaneously calling for others to participate in this government boycott?
cs: ><crickets>
c: > 1. Your government pension: If the majority of American
tax-payers boycott the government then there would be no funding for your pension.
cs: ><crickets>
c: > 2. Voting in government elections: Participation in government process is in essence, exactly the opposite of boycotting government.
cs: ><crickets>
c: > 3. Engaging government officials and agencies: This certainly isn't a boycott of government.
cs: ><crickets>
c: > How can you, a serious person, seriously propose that others boycott government when you don't follow your own example? This is a valid question, this is not a smear, an insult, a campaign to discredit, it is a question that I am asking.
cs: ><crickets>
cs: >> Quote:
rk: >> Go ahead folks, check him out in alt.fan.art-bell newsgroup. You will be limited in what you find in Google Archives, because your newly subscribed hypcrite has ordered Google that his articles be removed from the archives after a few days.
cs: > I don't deny treating you with disdain and disrespect on
Usenet. That is Usenet.
rk: So you feel you can libel
cs: >You've got that BASSACKWARDS, convict. You libeled me, not the other way around. Stop using words you don't understand.
attack
cs: >It's called "SPNAKING" and almost every entity on Usenet that pays any attention to you at all, partakes.
smear another
cs: >It isn't a smear if it's true, convict.
with impunity
cs: >Everything I do on Usenet is with impunity. You haven't the power to silence me or anyone else.
because some etherear authority you label "Usenet." gives you license to do so.
cs: >I treat you like a shitstain because (1) there are no rules on Usenet that prohibit such treatment and (2) you deserve it.
Doesn't sound like you have much personal self-control
cs: >On the contrary, it's quite deliberate.
and integrity, does it?
cs: >At least I have some. You lost all of yours when you punked out after 8 years on the beat in Pacifica. Yeah, I read all about your drama queen hysterics at town meetings
cs: > This is a moderated forum with a moderator and members of the readership who state that attacks are unacceptable.
rk: So you admit that you have no integrity in and of yourself, but must rely upon the remote licensing authority of another for your actions. Sounds like a Satanic minion to me. How does it sound to you?
cs: >It sounds like I respect the rules of a private venue... unlike you. It sounds like I understand that the users of that forum, people who have been there for years, don't want to see their board turned away from it's intended purpose into my own private spank-a-thon. Why is it that I understand and respect this, but you don't?
cs: > I am not attacking you.
rk: Your attacks are of not concern to me as you are so deep in your self-made Hell, no amount of Light of intelligence can be piped into you. I only respond to your posts to expose you, to show others what a hypocrite looks and acts like.
cs: >You do a good job of demonstrating hypocrisy, as several of the regs of that board have already come to see.
cs: > While on this board I will not attack you, insult you, call you names, or anything of the sort. I respect the rules of the board and regard it as a "de-militarized zone."
rk: De-militarized? Pipsqueaks like you are all talk and no go.
Look how you have exposed your Satanic nature to the world in this post.
cs: >If you believe that obeying rules demonstrates a "satanic" nature, then that explains why you have such a lengthy felony rap sheet.
You are trapped in the complicated web of deceit you have woven for yourself.
cs: >*snicker* I've exhibited more honesty in the several days than you have mustered in a lifetime.
cs: > Now that we have established my conduct, can we please advance to the substance of your "boycott" agenda?
rk: stone, you're not worthy of my time
cs: >Can you spot the irony?
other than to use you as a lesson to others as an icon of hell doing what hypocrites do.
cs: >Same question, different spate of kaz0o drool.
cs: > Quote:
rk:>> In your dualistic hypocrisy, you try so damn hard to sucker me and others into your inane wordtwisting debates because you are incapable of holding fast to a serious dialoue. "Sovereign Sockpuppet" aka "chadwick stone" aka a host of other throwaway identities, you do not possess a single substantive thought or perception of your own, as
your sole capacity is expose in the issuance of reactive, trite sound bytes as you mimic your target by quoting his words and forging posts in his name.
cs: > Wait a minute, Ray. Your insults are of no consequence to me but accusing me of forging you is libelous.
rk: Not if its True.
cs: >And it isn't. You've presented not a shred of evidence to substantiate your trite claims.
You don't realize it yet stone, you and the other disinformation
agents are ultimately going to wind up in court and jail.
cs: >Empty threats from an empty shirt... a ten year old threat at that. You cannot cite the criminal code that I have violated, nor can you present evidence of such a violation. Not that I wouldn't love to see you in a courtroom, cross examining yourself on the witless stand. You can bet I would make a few bucks selling a video tape of you embarrassing yourself as you turn your head from side to side.
You may have your posts destroyed in Google, but I haven't
destroyed the evidence.
cs: >Does the phrase "chain of custody" have any meaning to you, convict? Probably not since you quit studying the law just like you quit everything else of worth in your life. Quitters like you simply lack the intestinal fortitude to see your threats through.
cs: > I have no interest in forging you, in fact, since (as you have continued to assert) I do not understand your message,
rk: Hell, DUMMY what you DON'T UNDERSTAND IS LEGION!!
cs: >A classic gem from Raymond "I don't use ad hominem attacks" Karczewski.
cs: > I could not sucessfully forge you even if I wanted to.
rk: Such prideful admission of your impotence won't bring you any sympathy from the victimminded crowd, will it?
cs: >Once again you use words you don't understand. You must have been one of those fellows who the teachers simply passed on to rid themselves of you.
cs: > Help me to undestand your message by answering a few questions.
rk: You're asking my help. Isn't that SPESHUL?!!!
cs: >I'm asking for you to give a few moments of lucid thought, but you can't do it, can you. Perhaps you shouldn't have been so quick to dismiss the mental hygeine exam that was offered you by Judge Coon.
rk: Aside from such groveling for help, do you see what I mean. You have nothing of your own to offer. It is easy for guttersnips to take pot shots at someone or something they do not understand by asking questions then following such answers by questioning the answers ad infinitum. It makes makes guttersnipe one-liner cheap shot disinformation agents like you and dr. postment look like you know what you are talking about. But alas, it is only an Illusion. It cloaks the guttersnipe ignoramus with the aura of hypocrisy. No matter how much he can waddle, pose and quack like a duck on Usenet
and private Forums, such lowly guttersnipes will never achieve their aspired positions as even that of a lowly duck. Such is the future awaiting all impostors and impersonators.
cs: >Woohoo! Nice meltdown, convict. Feel free to go *quack* yourself! <snicker>
rk: stone, you are what you are. You can't hide it. Hell, isn't it?
cs: >Yep, a law abiding man who plays by the rules. Too bad you cannot make the same claim, convict.
Skepticult® Member# 581-00504-208
ChadwickStone at Gmail dot com
Usenet's most helpful netizen
Hammer of Thor, March 2005