Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!hoptoad!ptsfa!pyramid!amdcad!decwrl!glenn
From: glenn@decwrl.UUCP
Newsgroups: alt.flame
Subject: Re: Fighting off the Weemba Worshipers
Message-ID: <92@bacchus.DEC.COM>
Date: Mon, 26-Oct-87 15:00:21 EST
Article-I.D.: bacchus.92
Posted: Mon Oct 26 15:00:21 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 29-Oct-87 00:48:01 EST
References: <1747@chinet.UUCP> <90@bacchus.DEC.COM> <1780@chinet.UUCP>
Reply-To: glenn@decwrl.UUCP (The Elder Weem)
Followup-To: alt.flame
Distribution: world
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 97
Keywords: Scribner, stupidity, ultra-stupidity
Summary: Too stupid to Ignore


     The Kid is back. I suppose that somehow I should be impressed that she
designed to answer such a stupid and inconsistant flame as the one that
was posted but I'm not surprised. It's often typical of the knee jerk reaction
found so commonly amongst those who can't ignore anything that has their name
attached to it, even when the drivel is so inconsistent and unusual as to be
unreadable.

     She even managed to find a friend here. Steve, this one's for you!
(I feel like I'm back now, I even got criticizims on *spelling*!  This is 
great! Makes me feel like net.religion is back!)

In article <1780@chinet.UUCP> rhonda@chinet.UUCP (Rhonda Scribner) writes:
>Wow, in one article this guy calling himself Elder Weem has come out to
>rattle on about my "premire" article in this affair (actually anyone who's
>been reading these articles knows that my last article was post-mire :-) )

     Your last article should have been post mortum on the matter. You even
managed to miss the *point* of the article, which was that I can rant and
rave about *anything* I want, the condition of the world, the weather, the
strangeness of the ionosphere, and it *doesn't make a difference*! Who's
it going to effect? Me? AHAHAHAHA! You? (Well, you answered the previous
post so anything's possible I guess?) 

     Thank you, I've been vindicated. The fact of the matter Rhonda old
bean is that you can't ignore someone who posts about you, *even* when the
post is so stupid and nonsensical as the one I made previously. You *have*
to have the last word and your position is *always* correct. But you know
what? It doesn't make a difference.

     That's what your arguments do here. They *don't* make a difference.

>In his tantrum, he accuses me of hypocrasy (his spelling) in (get this!)
>defending Tim Maroney (obviously he posts in an alternate universe).  Not
>only does he fail to spell my name right (I thought correctly spelling the
>name of the person you're flaming was rule #1 of net etiquette), he fails
>to spell a number of words even close to right, including the
>aforementioned "premire,"  "Brahams," "whitty," and last but not least,
>"Aycuk!"  I mean, the battle cry of the "Brahams" gang, and this guy
>can't even get that right!  

     Spelling flames on the net are *old*. Tell me Rhonda, since this posting
is so laughable and so full of errors, (by my own admission it was chock full
'o 'em!), why did you feel the need to respond? Certainly not to clarify the
post, it was an impossible thing to clarify. (Not that you tried very hard).
Nor was the letter in e-mail an attempt to clarify. (Laughable it was, an
attempt to clarify?  Well, I suppose it must have had to do with nurturing
a penis envy, all this talk about castration, something you'd like to discuss
sometime?)

     So why post a rebuttal? A needed urge to jump out and jab at someone? 
Perhaps you just couldn't let the moment pass? A momentary lapse of reasoning?
Or was it your *evil* twin that felt the urge to respond?

     As I surmised it's even better than the above speculations. It appears
you can't let something go by, (even something or someone as brain dead as the
Elder Weem, ;-), without showing your superior position. You can't just let it
slide. Attack with full steam! Blow 'em away! Even when the post doesn't have
anything to do with you, like the flames that erupted between Matt and Tim!
Get 'm Rhonda! Make the net a safe, (if slightly sanitized) place to post!

>The only reason I'm bothering to respond to such an obvious plethora
>of misinformation is to make sure Gene welcomes him properly into the
>"Brahams" Gang Fan Club.  Here is a paragon of BG style and substance for
>you to marvel at, Gene.  I'll bet you and Matthew don't even get this
>good! :-)  Though I'll bet you wish you could.  Remember, this is a guy
>who looks up to and idolizes you and Matthew, saying "yes, Matthew was
>an S.O.B. but he was OUR S.O.B."  Perhaps you'll reflect on this a bit.
>Instead of cooking up another "Rhonda is mean and nasty to us" article.
>Actually in recent days I've found nothing more amusing than the flurry
>of articles berating me for talking negatively about the poor "defenseless"
>Brahms Gang as the authors scold OTHER people for their crybaby "whining."
>Ayuck ayuck ayuck, anyone?
>								--Rhonda

     The only reason you responded to this was because you couldn't just let
pass obscurely into the night. Two people already got in on the joke you 
missed. But then, it *was* designed with you in mind! 

     P{erhaps the most pathetic thing about this is that I managed to not only
get you to post, but to send private mail as well. Must have really jerked
the o'l chain, eh?

     Thanks for confirming what your postings have already shown. 

     (BTW - Your halo's slipped!)


Ayuck,ayuck,ayuck!

Happy Trails,

Glenn

"Actually in recent days I've found nothing more amusing than the flurry
of articles berating me for talking negatively about the poor "defenseless"
Brahms Gang ....." R. Scribner