J.D. Walker wrote:
wrote:

At first I thought another Fake had arisen, but now I see that Phil
Innes just didn't use the "quote" function properly. The rather silly
comment attributed to me was actually written by J.D. Walker.

As for ridiculing Mad Marcus -- it's just too easy.

Dear Mr. Hilary,

I had gained the impression you were the sort that found it too easy to
ridicule others. Thanks for the confirmation.
--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.

"By the way, where is the Promised Analysis of the Mottershead
Report?"


On the contrary, I ridicule only the ridiculous. Are you really
anxious to defend an ambulatory schizophrenic with coprophiliac
delusions? And weren't you the one who made that fairly tasteless
crack about Truong?

wrote:

J.D. Walker wrote:
wrote:
At first I thought another Fake had arisen, but now I see that Phil
Innes just didn't use the "quote" function properly. The rather silly
comment attributed to me was actually written by J.D. Walker.

As for ridiculing Mad Marcus -- it's just too easy.
Dear Mr. Hilary,

I had gained the impression you were the sort that found it too easy to
ridicule others. Thanks for the confirmation.
--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.

"By the way, where is the Promised Analysis of the Mottershead
Report?"


On the contrary, I ridicule only the ridiculous. Are you really
anxious to defend an ambulatory schizophrenic with coprophiliac
delusions? And weren't you the one who made that fairly tasteless
crack about Truong?

Dear Mr. Hilary,

I am not defending anyone. I see you have set yourself up as
diagnostician, prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner. Thus you have
branded Marcus. I wonder what psychiatric and legal credentials you have.

Marcus may have problems, but I am not in a position to aid him, or to
ameliorate the consequences of those problems. But, I am certainly not
going to kick him when he is down.

Mr. Truong, on the other hand, might deserve more respect if he had
stepped down from the executive board when the Mottershead report came
to light.
--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.

"By the way, where is the Promised Analysis of the Mottershead
Report?"

J.D. Walker wrote:
wrote:

J.D. Walker wrote:
wrote:
At first I thought another Fake had arisen, but now I see that Phil
Innes just didn't use the "quote" function properly. The rather silly
comment attributed to me was actually written by J.D. Walker.

As for ridiculing Mad Marcus -- it's just too easy.
Dear Mr. Hilary,

I had gained the impression you were the sort that found it too easy to
ridicule others. Thanks for the confirmation.
--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.

"By the way, where is the Promised Analysis of the Mottershead
Report?"


On the contrary, I ridicule only the ridiculous. Are you really
anxious to defend an ambulatory schizophrenic with coprophiliac
delusions? And weren't you the one who made that fairly tasteless
crack about Truong?

Dear Mr. Hilary,

I am not defending anyone. I see you have set yourself up as
diagnostician, prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner. Thus you have
branded Marcus. I wonder what psychiatric and legal credentials you have.

Marcus may have problems, but I am not in a position to aid him, or to
ameliorate the consequences of those problems. But, I am certainly not
going to kick him when he is down.

Mr. Truong, on the other hand, might deserve more respect if he had
stepped down from the executive board when the Mottershead report came
to light.
--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.

"By the way, where is the Promised Analysis of the Mottershead
Report?"


You comparing apples and oranges. Since you are a relative newcomer
here, perhaps you are not familiar with the long list of scatological
posts by Marcus Roberts, or of his past history in the USCF as a
general nuisance. Of course you are under no obligation to research
the matter (reading the stuff is pretty unpleasant), but until you
know what you are talking about, silence is the wisest course. I have
no interest in defending (or even discussing) Paul Truong. The only
reason I posted on this thread was that Phil Innes's poor excerpting
made it appear that I was responsible for a (somewhat unpleasant)
piece of snark written by you. Case closed.

wrote:

J.D. Walker wrote:
wrote:
J.D. Walker wrote:
wrote:
At first I thought another Fake had arisen, but now I see that Phil
Innes just didn't use the "quote" function properly. The rather silly
comment attributed to me was actually written by J.D. Walker.

As for ridiculing Mad Marcus -- it's just too easy.
Dear Mr. Hilary,

I had gained the impression you were the sort that found it too easy to
ridicule others. Thanks for the confirmation.
--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.

"By the way, where is the Promised Analysis of the Mottershead
Report?"

On the contrary, I ridicule only the ridiculous. Are you really
anxious to defend an ambulatory schizophrenic with coprophiliac
delusions? And weren't you the one who made that fairly tasteless
crack about Truong?
Dear Mr. Hilary,

I am not defending anyone. I see you have set yourself up as
diagnostician, prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner. Thus you have
branded Marcus. I wonder what psychiatric and legal credentials you have.

Marcus may have problems, but I am not in a position to aid him, or to
ameliorate the consequences of those problems. But, I am certainly not
going to kick him when he is down.

Mr. Truong, on the other hand, might deserve more respect if he had
stepped down from the executive board when the Mottershead report came
to light.
--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.

"By the way, where is the Promised Analysis of the Mottershead
Report?"


You comparing apples and oranges. Since you are a relative newcomer
here, perhaps you are not familiar with the long list of scatological
posts by Marcus Roberts, or of his past history in the USCF as a
general nuisance. Of course you are under no obligation to research
the matter (reading the stuff is pretty unpleasant), but until you
know what you are talking about, silence is the wisest course. I have
no interest in defending (or even discussing) Paul Truong. The only
reason I posted on this thread was that Phil Innes's poor excerpting
made it appear that I was responsible for a (somewhat unpleasant)
piece of snark written by you. Case closed.

Dear Mr. Hilary,

I commented on your behavior, not Mr. Roberts. Now you wish to close
the case and move on. Fine, I understand how the carelessness of Mr.
Innes can cause confusion. I ask you to consider, when in the future
you encounter a similar circumstance, if your ridicule helps in anyway,
or is it just throwing oil on a fire. Have a fine holiday.
--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.

"By the way, where is the Promised Analysis of the Mottershead
Report?"

J.D. Walker wrote:
wrote:

J.D. Walker wrote:
wrote:
J.D. Walker wrote:
wrote:
At first I thought another Fake had arisen, but now I see that Phil
Innes just didn't use the "quote" function properly. The rather silly
comment attributed to me was actually written by J.D. Walker.

As for ridiculing Mad Marcus -- it's just too easy.
Dear Mr. Hilary,

I had gained the impression you were the sort that found it too easy to
ridicule others. Thanks for the confirmation.
--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.

"By the way, where is the Promised Analysis of the Mottershead
Report?"

On the contrary, I ridicule only the ridiculous. Are you really
anxious to defend an ambulatory schizophrenic with coprophiliac
delusions? And weren't you the one who made that fairly tasteless
crack about Truong?
Dear Mr. Hilary,

I am not defending anyone. I see you have set yourself up as
diagnostician, prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner. Thus you have
branded Marcus. I wonder what psychiatric and legal credentials you have.

Marcus may have problems, but I am not in a position to aid him, or to
ameliorate the consequences of those problems. But, I am certainly not
going to kick him when he is down.

Mr. Truong, on the other hand, might deserve more respect if he had
stepped down from the executive board when the Mottershead report came
to light.
--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.

"By the way, where is the Promised Analysis of the Mottershead
Report?"


You comparing apples and oranges. Since you are a relative newcomer
here, perhaps you are not familiar with the long list of scatological
posts by Marcus Roberts, or of his past history in the USCF as a
general nuisance. Of course you are under no obligation to research
the matter (reading the stuff is pretty unpleasant), but until you
know what you are talking about, silence is the wisest course. I have
no interest in defending (or even discussing) Paul Truong. The only
reason I posted on this thread was that Phil Innes's poor excerpting
made it appear that I was responsible for a (somewhat unpleasant)
piece of snark written by you. Case closed.

Dear Mr. Hilary,

I commented on your behavior, not Mr. Roberts. Now you wish to close
the case and move on. Fine, I understand how the carelessness of Mr.
Innes can cause confusion. I ask you to consider, when in the future
you encounter a similar circumstance, if your ridicule helps in anyway,
or is it just throwing oil on a fire. Have a fine holiday.
--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.

"By the way, where is the Promised Analysis of the Mottershead
Report?"


I think you're probably sincere, albeit misguided, so I'm trying to
take it easy on you. What you seem to be arguing is that it's
acceptable for nutcases like Roberts (and, to a lesser extent, Sloan)
to engage in offensive and insulting speech or behavior, but for the
sane people to call them on it would be mean. That's affirmative
action for the crazy and stupid, and I'll have no truck with it.

And, BTW, if you intend to use my name (which I did not invite you to
do), please learn to spell it first.

wrote:

J.D. Walker wrote:
wrote:
J.D. Walker wrote:
wrote:
J.D. Walker wrote:
wrote:
At first I thought another Fake had arisen, but now I see that Phil
Innes just didn't use the "quote" function properly. The rather silly
comment attributed to me was actually written by J.D. Walker.

As for ridiculing Mad Marcus -- it's just too easy.
Dear Mr. Hilary,

I had gained the impression you were the sort that found it too easy to
ridicule others. Thanks for the confirmation.
--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.

"By the way, where is the Promised Analysis of the Mottershead
Report?"
On the contrary, I ridicule only the ridiculous. Are you really
anxious to defend an ambulatory schizophrenic with coprophiliac
delusions? And weren't you the one who made that fairly tasteless
crack about Truong?
Dear Mr. Hilary,

I am not defending anyone. I see you have set yourself up as
diagnostician, prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner. Thus you have
branded Marcus. I wonder what psychiatric and legal credentials you have.

Marcus may have problems, but I am not in a position to aid him, or to
ameliorate the consequences of those problems. But, I am certainly not
going to kick him when he is down.

Mr. Truong, on the other hand, might deserve more respect if he had
stepped down from the executive board when the Mottershead report came
to light.
--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.

"By the way, where is the Promised Analysis of the Mottershead
Report?"

You comparing apples and oranges. Since you are a relative newcomer
here, perhaps you are not familiar with the long list of scatological
posts by Marcus Roberts, or of his past history in the USCF as a
general nuisance. Of course you are under no obligation to research
the matter (reading the stuff is pretty unpleasant), but until you
know what you are talking about, silence is the wisest course. I have
no interest in defending (or even discussing) Paul Truong. The only
reason I posted on this thread was that Phil Innes's poor excerpting
made it appear that I was responsible for a (somewhat unpleasant)
piece of snark written by you. Case closed.
Dear Mr. Hilary,

I commented on your behavior, not Mr. Roberts. Now you wish to close
the case and move on. Fine, I understand how the carelessness of Mr.
Innes can cause confusion. I ask you to consider, when in the future
you encounter a similar circumstance, if your ridicule helps in anyway,
or is it just throwing oil on a fire. Have a fine holiday.
--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.

"By the way, where is the Promised Analysis of the Mottershead
Report?"


I think you're probably sincere, albeit misguided, so I'm trying to
take it easy on you. What you seem to be arguing is that it's
acceptable for nutcases like Roberts (and, to a lesser extent, Sloan)
to engage in offensive and insulting speech or behavior, but for the
sane people to call them on it would be mean. That's affirmative
action for the crazy and stupid, and I'll have no truck with it.

And, BTW, if you intend to use my name (which I did not invite you to
do), please learn to spell it first.

Dear Mr. Unsigned,

Ah, so the case is not closed then...

First, I would like to spell your name correctly, but you do not sign it
to your messages. If you do not want to be known as Mr. Hilary, or Mr.
Hillery, or whatever, you might offer some alternative that is better
than jkh001.

Second, My argument has nothing to do with condoning behavior by anyone
else. We all have to live with the consequences of our actions --
including all the people you mentioned. I do believe in the rule of
law, and the desirability of courtesy.

Third, your argument seems to be that if you spot someone that you feel
justified to brand as a nut case, that you suddenly gain license to
ridicule them. Unfortunately, many other people feel the same way. In
fact the argument gets stretched in various ways, e.g. "Anyone that
disagrees with me is a nutcase, therefore..." or, "Anyone that looks
differently than me is a nutcase, therefore..." and so on.

Any sane, rational person can see this sort of thing everyday in many of
these newgroups. Thus, our world fills up to the moon with ridicule,
insults, venom and ill feelings. How should a sane, rational person
respond?

Fourth, consider this aspect of the logic of your argument. If indeed
you have located and targeted a nut case to ridicule, are you behaving
as a sane, rational person by doing so? I submit not. A superior
person would find constructive ways to deal with others.

Fifth, as to my sincerity... I can not claim to be a paragon of
sincerity, yet I am trying to present honest thoughts in a respectful
and civil manner. (I admit to some failings when it comes to Mr. Innes.
Indeed, we all run into people we regard as deranged. But I am trying...)

Enough.... Is the case open or closed now?
--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.

"By the way, where is the Promised Analysis of the Mottershead
Report?"

On Dec 24, 2:22 am, "J.D. Walker" wrote:

Fifth, as to my sincerity... I can not claim to be a paragon of
sincerity, yet I am trying to present honest thoughts in a respectful
and civil manner. (I admit to some failings when it comes to Mr. Innes.
Indeed, we all run into people we regard as deranged. But I am trying...)

Indeed you are respectful and civil. It's a welcome change around
here. As for the P Innes, you are not alone in disrespecting that
chucklehead.