Morrisey
17 posts by 9 authors
 |
 |
When I look at the group, on the front page there are 15 posts from Breen, and not one about rugby. I believe that's the very definition of a dirty spammer.
Click here to Reply
 |
"simon s-b" <bait...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:30895074.82.
> When I look at the group, on the front page there are 15 posts from Breen,
> and not one about rugby. I believe that's the very definition of a dirty
> spammer.
When I look at the group, all I see is replies. The man needs help, not> and not one about rugby. I believe that's the very definition of a dirty
> spammer.
attention.
Andrew
|
Look again. Most of his posts have no replies. Those that do are people telling him to fuck off, or his sock puppets telling us he's misunderstood. There have been some wastes of air on here over the years, but he tops the list.
That he thinks it's big and clever to pretend to be a young female journalist in order to try and cause problems for her, just because he's jealous of the fact that people actually bother to read what she says sums him up. She probably knows who her target audience is, and has some talent. Alas he'll never learn a thing, because he's utterly convinced of his perceived superiority.
That he thinks it's big and clever to pretend to be a young female journalist in order to try and cause problems for her, just because he's jealous of the fact that people actually bother to read what she says sums him up. She probably knows who her target audience is, and has some talent. Alas he'll never learn a thing, because he's utterly convinced of his perceived superiority.
|
- show quoted text -
rare, and there is some small amusement from mocking this most severely
afflicted of individuals.
No, you're right, you're right. I shall cease and desist immediately.
|
On Apr 14, 11:17 pm, simon s-b <baitt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> When I look at the group, on the front page there are 15 posts from Breen, and not one about rugby.
Not true.> When I look at the group, on the front page there are 15 posts from Breen, and not one about rugby.
>
> I believe that's the very definition of a dirty spammer.
|
On Apr 15, 12:54 am, simon s-b <baitt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Look again. Most of his posts have no replies.
Of course not all my posts have replies. Just like in a game of> Look again. Most of his posts have no replies.
football, not everything you try comes off. Sometimes, though, a post
has that extra little je ne sais quoi, and VOILA! there's a thread
with scores, sometimes hundreds, of contributions. Just to take a
random example, I refer you to the threads entitled "Sir Colin's dodgy
deer velvet ad"---which had 87 replies. I won't bore you by listing
some of my threads that have attracted in excess of one hundred
replies---unless you want me to do that.
>
> Those that do are people telling him to fuck off,
seven people telling this writer, i.e., moi, to fuck off. But hey,
that comes with the territory (to quote the great Jonah Lomu).
>
> or his sock puppets telling us he's misunderstood.
>
> There have been some wastes of air on here over the years, but he tops the list.
>
> That he thinks it's big and clever to pretend to be a young female journalist in order to try and cause problems for her,
writer and a student at Auckland University. She, like me and many
other people, was deeply angered by the way that "young female
journalist" (actually a middle-aged talkback jock) had savagely
denounced a woman for crying at the sentencing of her son's murderer.
So she wrote an identical attack on another murder victim's mother
under an assumed name (Kerre Woodham became "kerre ohoWmad"---geddit?)
The only difference was that this victim was white, whereas the first
was Maori.
Kerre Woodham knew perfectly well that her own vicious hypocrisy had
been pinpointed irrefutably, and her panic was almost palpable. In
fact, she came onto nz.general the very night of the first kerre
ohoWmad post, desperately trying to assure people that she had NOT
written the attack on the white girl's mother. She would never have
done that; only Maori mothers need to be publicly attacked for showing
grief in public.
As shown by the Herald on Sunday column which appeared eight days
later, her embarrassment and mortification at being exposed and
ridiculed had not abated in the slightest.
>
> just because he's jealous of the fact that people actually bother to read what she says sums him up.
people started to read kerre ohoWmad, and, yes, I guess they read more
by this writer, i.e. moi, as well.
>
> She probably knows who her target audience is, and has some talent.
>
> Alas he'll never learn a thing, because he's utterly convinced of his perceived superiority.
prepared to acknowledge my mistakes. So go ahead and convince me: what
have I or my associates done wrong by choosing to send up and mortify
a murderous and self-righteous radio talkback hypocrite?
The floor belongs to you, my friend.
|
On Sunday, April 15, 2012 3:25:30 AM UTC+1, Mo wrote:
> On Apr 15, 12:54 am, simon s-b <baitt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Look again. Most of his posts have no replies.
>
> Of course not all my posts have replies. Just like in a game of
> football, not everything you try comes off. Sometimes, though, a post
> has that extra little je ne sais quoi, and VOILA! there's a thread
> with scores, sometimes hundreds, of contributions. Just to take a
> random example, I refer you to the threads entitled "Sir Colin's dodgy
> deer velvet ad"---which had 87 replies. I won't bore you by listing
> some of my threads that have attracted in excess of one hundred
> replies---unless you want me to do that.
The Earl would be delighted if you did, and perhaps also list the top threads but your puppet SSB.> On Apr 15, 12:54 am, simon s-b <baitt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Look again. Most of his posts have no replies.
>
> Of course not all my posts have replies. Just like in a game of
> football, not everything you try comes off. Sometimes, though, a post
> has that extra little je ne sais quoi, and VOILA! there's a thread
> with scores, sometimes hundreds, of contributions. Just to take a
> random example, I refer you to the threads entitled "Sir Colin's dodgy
> deer velvet ad"---which had 87 replies. I won't bore you by listing
> some of my threads that have attracted in excess of one hundred
> replies---unless you want me to do that.
> > Those that do are people telling him to fuck off,
>
> One or two. On a good day---or is it a bad day?---there'll be six or
> seven people telling this writer, i.e., moi, to fuck off. But hey,
> that comes with the territory (to quote the great Jonah Lomu).
> > or his sock puppets telling us he's misunderstood.
>
> "Sock puppets"? What the hell is going on here?
> > There have been some wastes of air on here over the years, but he tops the list.
>
> Oh come on now. I don't think you mean that. Not really....
>snip random rubgy related drivel
This writer ie moi got bored at this point.
|
- show quoted text -
|
- show quoted text -
you tell us all who she murdered.
|
"caspar milquetoast" <bo...@comswest.net.au> wrote in message
news:
- show quoted text -
wrong.
Probably the only reason anyone needs to not use Google Groups.
Andrew
|
On Apr 16, 3:20 am, earldullth...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> On Sunday, April 15, 2012 3:25:30 AM UTC+1, Mo wrote:
> > On Apr 15, 12:54 am, simon s-b <baitt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Look again. Most of his posts have no replies.
>
> > Of course not all my posts have replies. Just like in a game of
> > football, not everything you try comes off. Sometimes, though, a post
> > has that extra little je ne sais quoi, and VOILA! there's a thread
> > with scores, sometimes hundreds, of contributions. Just to take a
> > random example, I refer you to the threads entitled "Sir Colin's dodgy
> > deer velvet ad"---which had 87 replies. I won't bore you by listing
> > some of my threads that have attracted in excess of one hundred
> > replies---unless you want me to do that.
>
> The Earl would be delighted if you did, and perhaps also list the top threads but your puppet SSB.
Will do, Earl. Watch this space....> On Sunday, April 15, 2012 3:25:30 AM UTC+1, Mo wrote:
> > On Apr 15, 12:54 am, simon s-b <baitt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Look again. Most of his posts have no replies.
>
> > Of course not all my posts have replies. Just like in a game of
> > football, not everything you try comes off. Sometimes, though, a post
> > has that extra little je ne sais quoi, and VOILA! there's a thread
> > with scores, sometimes hundreds, of contributions. Just to take a
> > random example, I refer you to the threads entitled "Sir Colin's dodgy
> > deer velvet ad"---which had 87 replies. I won't bore you by listing
> > some of my threads that have attracted in excess of one hundred
> > replies---unless you want me to do that.
>
> The Earl would be delighted if you did, and perhaps also list the top threads but your puppet SSB.
>
> > > Those that do are people telling him to fuck off,
>
> > One or two. On a good day---or is it a bad day?---there'll be six or
> > seven people telling this writer, i.e., moi, to fuck off. But hey,
> > that comes with the territory (to quote the great Jonah Lomu).
>
> 6 or 7 is impressive. The highest number of other posters the Earl has been accussed of being is 4 on one thread.
>
> > > or his sock puppets telling us he's misunderstood.
>
> > "Sock puppets"? What the hell is going on here?
>
> Simon and his friends sit at home making puppets from old socks.
just informed moi that he's not my friend; an unfriendly, even boorish
thing to say to a colleague.
>
> > > There have been some wastes of air on here over the years, but he tops the list.
>
> > Oh come on now. I don't think you mean that. Not really....
>
> The Earl has some way to go, perhaps we could have a league table of wastes of air?
>
> >snip random rubgy related drivel
>
> This writer ie moi got bored at this point.
|
On Apr 16, 9:53 am, "Andrew Dunford" <adunf...@artifax.net> wrote:
> "caspar milquetoast" <b...@comswest.net.au> wrote in message
> "caspar milquetoast" <b...@comswest.net.au> wrote in message
>
> news:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 14/04/2012 8:26 PM, Andrew Dunford wrote:
>
> >> "simon s-b" <baitt...@gmail.com> wrote in message> news:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 14/04/2012 8:26 PM, Andrew Dunford wrote:
>
> >>news:30895074.82.
> >>> When I look at the group, on the front page there are 15 posts from
> >>> Breen, and not one about rugby. I believe that's the very definition
> >>> of a dirty spammer.
>
> >> When I look at the group, all I see is replies. The man needs help, not
> >> attention.
>
> >> Andrew
>
> > Yes, I know you're right, but such a genuinely world-class loser is rare,
> > and there is some small amusement from mocking this most severely
> > afflicted of individuals.
>
> > No, you're right, you're right. I shall cease and desist immediately.
>
> I'm not being holier than thou - I reply to it myself.
Thank you, Congressman Weiner.> >>> When I look at the group, on the front page there are 15 posts from
> >>> Breen, and not one about rugby. I believe that's the very definition
> >>> of a dirty spammer.
>
> >> When I look at the group, all I see is replies. The man needs help, not
> >> attention.
>
> >> Andrew
>
> > Yes, I know you're right, but such a genuinely world-class loser is rare,
> > and there is some small amusement from mocking this most severely
> > afflicted of individuals.
>
> > No, you're right, you're right. I shall cease and desist immediately.
>
> I'm not being holier than thou - I reply to it myself.
- show quoted text -
|
On 14/04/2012 12:17, simon s-b wrote:
> When I look at the group, on the front page there are 15 posts from Breen, and not one about rugby. I believe that's the very definition of a dirty spammer.
Whatever game you guys are playing with Morrisey, clearly he's winning. > When I look at the group, on the front page there are 15 posts from Breen, and not one about rugby. I believe that's the very definition of a dirty spammer.
|
On Apr 16, 7:33 pm, "Mark (newsgroups)" <marknewsgro...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
wrote:
> On 14/04/2012 12:17, simon s-b wrote:
>
> > When I look at the group, on the front page there are 15 posts from Breen, and not one about rugby. I believe that's the very definition of a dirty spammer.
>
> Whatever game you guys are playing with Morrisey, clearly he's winning.
Hear, hear! >
> > When I look at the group, on the front page there are 15 posts from Breen, and not one about rugby. I believe that's the very definition of a dirty spammer.
>
> Whatever game you guys are playing with Morrisey, clearly he's winning.
|
On Apr 16, 7:33 pm, "Mark (newsgroups)" <marknewsgro...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
wrote:
> On 14/04/2012 12:17, simon s-b wrote:
>
> > When I look at the group, on the front page there are 15 posts from Breen, and not one about rugby. I believe that's the very definition of a dirty spammer.
>
> Whatever game you guys are playing with Morrisey, clearly he's winning.
Absolutely. >
> > When I look at the group, on the front page there are 15 posts from Breen, and not one about rugby. I believe that's the very definition of a dirty spammer.
>
> Whatever game you guys are playing with Morrisey, clearly he's winning.
|
- show quoted text -
|
On Apr 16, 7:33 pm, "Mark (newsgroups)" <marknewsgro...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
wrote:
> On 14/04/2012 12:17, simon s-b wrote:
>
> > When I look at the group, on the front page there are 15 posts from Breen, and not one about rugby. I believe that's the very definition of a dirty spammer.
>
> Whatever game you guys are playing with Morrisey, clearly he's winning.
I have to agree. You're on the money, my friend. >
> > When I look at the group, on the front page there are 15 posts from Breen, and not one about rugby. I believe that's the very definition of a dirty spammer.
>
> Whatever game you guys are playing with Morrisey, clearly he's winning.
No comments:
Post a Comment