Message for Jan Drew



A

Andrew Langer

Guest
What happened to your "plonking" me? What happened to "the end"? What happened to the "last message"
you were going to write to me in MHA?

- Andrew Langer

Any posts by Andrew Langer are his own, written by him, for his own enjoyment (and the education of
others). Unless expressly stated, they represent his own views, and not those of any other
individuals or entities. He is not, nor has he ever been, paid to post here.
 
J

Jan

Guest
>Subject: Message for Jan Drew
>From: Andrew Langer [email protected]
>Date: 2/26/2004 7:34 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <_Uy%[email protected]>
>
>What happened to your "plonking" me? What happened to "the end"? What happened to the "last
>message" you were going to write to me in MHA?

You are confused, the end was not posted on MHA.

Jan
 
I

Ilsa9

Guest
>What happened to your "plonking" me? What happened to "the end"? What happened to the "last
>message" you were going to write to me in MHA?
>
>- Andrew Lange

Jan enjoys lying about a wide range of topics, but her own behavior is a favorite. She lies about
what she says or has said, what she believes, what she does, what she believes she does, and who's
in her killfile.

She's as dishonest as she is hatefilled.
 
A

Andrew Langer

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, Jan says...
>
>>Subject: Message for Jan Drew From: Andrew Langer [email protected] Date: 2/26/2004 7:34 PM Pacific
>>Standard Time Message-id: <_Uy%[email protected]>
>>
>>What happened to your "plonking" me? What happened to "the end"? What happened to the "last
>>message" you were going to write to me in MHA?
>
>You are confused, the end was not posted on MHA.
>

No, it is you who is confused, as represented by your irrelevant answer.

The original message, "The End" is as follows:

Lines: 29 X-Admin: [email protected] From: [email protected] (Jan) Newsgroups: alt.support.breast-
implant Date: 20 Feb 2004 06:11:12 GMT References: <[email protected]>
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: The End Message-ID: <[email protected]
m21.aol.com>

>From: Andrew Langer [email protected] Date: 2/19/2004 8:54 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id:
><[email protected]>

I made my last post to you on MHA.

You asked me a question here, I answered it.

You didn't want to hear it, you wanted to be personally trashing, and going into the Jewish rant.

I hope you get over your paranoia, your hate and your need to be belittling and arguing constantly.

Everything anyone says that you disagree with you start in with the same repeating of the same
words, as if you fear everyone hates Jews.

It is an obsession.

I have suggest that the Jews on MHA who do this constantly go to a Jewish newsgroup and
discuss away.

Get over it and live a full life. This bickering is childish.

I have better things to do.

Take care,

Jan ---end quoted material---

"I made my last post to you on MHA... I have better things to do. Take care."

Yes, the message was posted in ASBI, but that doesn't change the finality of the message towards me
regarding posts in MHA.

As for ASBI, you said the following:

Lines: 95 X-Admin: [email protected] From: [email protected] (Jan) Newsgroups: alt.support.breast-
implant Date: 23 Feb 2004 01:58:50 GMT References: <[email protected]>
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: OT: Serious Question for Ilena Rosenthal... Message-
ID: <[email protected]> ..

PLONK! ---end quoted material---

So, as regarding _BOTH_ ASBI and MHA, you said that it was over.

According to http://www.dickalba.demon.co.uk/usenet/guide/faq_kill.html, killfiling can be signified
by stating the word, "plonk":

"If someone wants to publically announce that they have killfiled someone else, they might do this
by writing <PLONK>, to indicate the sound of something being thrown into a dark corner. Killfiling
is therefore occasionally called "plonking"."

Now you're heading into entirely new territory, according to this site:

But someone told me they'd 'plonked' me then they replied to a later message I posted. How could
they have read my post if they'd killfiled me?

Sometimes people will say they've killfiled someone but their vanity will not allow them to actually
do so in case they miss something the victim might say about them. Saying you've killfiled someone
then making further replies could be an indication that you may be heading in the direction of
f**kwittedness. If you say you've killfiled someone, then killfile them. Otherwise it is simply
meaningless posturing and will make you look like an idiot. ---end quoted material (obscenity edited)----

Do you want the definition of f**kwittedness?

http://www.dickalba.demon.co.uk/usenet/guide/faq_fwit.html

7. What is a F**kwit?

Let's get one thing clear right away - 'F**kwit' is no more swearing than

Regardless of its origins, the term 'f**kwit' has now become a newsgroup term for someone who
repeatedly and consistantly proves themselves totally impervious to clue, 'clue' being defined as
knowledge, enlightenment, advice.

The F**kwit website describes them as "those sad, strange or egocentric people; who after having had
some education on technical, custom or procedural points simply fail to absorb the advice. They fail
to understand or accept the clues offered."

Isn't 'f**kwit' just a ruder way of calling someone stupid?

Not necessarily. While stupidity is certainly a component of f**kwittery, someone can be stupid but
still accept clue when it is offered.

Here's an example of the sort of behaviour which will qualify the perpetrator for the title
of f**kwit.

Someone posts to uk.music.folk announcing that they have a CD for sale. They repeat this post on
a daily basis, in spite of it being pointed out that they are in breach of that group's Charter
and that they are in danger of having their posts classed as Spam and falling foul of the
cancelbots. They respond by flaming the complainants and insisting that they have the right to
post what they want where they want. They are now exhibiting serious signs of f**kwittedness but
cannot yet be deemed a f**kwit as there is still a small possibility that they will realise the
error of their ways.

People explain to them why what they are doing is anti-social and against the whole spirit of
acceptable newsgroup practise. Someone might even try to persuade them that rights also carry
responsibilities. They respond by loudly complaining that they are being censored by a clique of
netcops and fascists who are inhibiting their right to freedom of speech.

They may make these responses with what they imagine to be witty put-downs of the complainants. The
alarm bells should ring at this point. To quote from the F**kwit FAQ at the F**kwit website,
"Because of this inability to receive clue, most f**kwits actually believe that they are being
stylish and amusing when they aren't. Which is one of the major factors that predisposes a person to
f**kwittedness."

Anyway, you now know that what you are dealing with is no longer mere stupidity but is either a
deliberate troll or a full-blown f**kwit.

What is the correct method of dealing with a proven f**kwit?

Once it has become clear that this is someone utterly impervious to clue, they should be ignored
from then on. If necessary, put them in a killfile. But arguing with them will be completely
pointless. There is an old saying - "Never try to teach a pig to sing, it just wastes your time and
annoys the pig". ---end quoted material (obscenities edited)---

So, come again? What happened to your "plonking" me? What happened to "the end"? What happened to
the "last message" you were going to write to me in MHA?

- Andrew Langer

Any posts by Andrew Langer are his own, written by him, for his own enjoyment (and the education of
others). Unless expressly stated, they represent his own views, and not those of any other
individuals or entities. He is not, nor has he ever been, paid to post here.
 
R

Rich.

Guest
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 21:14:35 GMT, Andrew Langer<[email protected]>
wrote:

<snip>

>So, come again? What happened to your "plonking" me? What happened to "the end"? What happened to
>the "last message" you were going to write to me in MHA?
>
>- Andrew Langer

I hope for your case that these questions are rhetorical as the answer to them is obvious and it is
even more obvious that Jan Drew will NEVER admit to you that she was wrong or dishonest.

Jan Drew is a pathologic liar. She is unable to discuss anything with anyone who disagrees with her
POV. All she can do is lie and hurt false attacks against her opponents.

If you try to really discuss anything with Jan and persist in confronting her about her reluctance
to answer your questions, soon you will become very frustrated and if you are human, will lash out
against Jan. Then Jan will focus on your "anger" or call you obsessed with her and suggest that you
deal with it. Her modus operandi in this and other newsgroups is well known.

Be forewarned, as it is an exercise in futility to expect Jan to answer your questions
honestly. I understand that failure to understand this can cause premature graying of the hair.
A word to the wise.

Aloha,

Rich

-------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------

The best defense to logic is ignorance
 
A

Andrew Langer

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, Jan says...
>
>>Subject: Re: Message for Jan Drew From: Andrew Langer [email protected] Date: 2/27/2004 1:14 PM
>>Pacific Standard Time Message-id: <%qO%[email protected]>
>>
>>In article <[email protected]>, Jan says...
>>>
>>>>Subject: Message for Jan Drew From: Andrew Langer [email protected] Date: 2/26/2004 7:34 PM
>>>>Pacific Standard Time Message-id: <_Uy%[email protected]>
>>>>
>>>>What happened to your "plonking" me? What happened to "the end"? What happened to the "last
>>>>message" you were going to write to me in MHA?
>>>
>>>You are confused, the end was not posted on MHA.
>>>
>>
>>No, it is you who is confused, as represented by your irrelevant answer.
>>
>>The original message, "The End" is as follows:
>>
>>Lines: 29 X-Admin: [email protected] From: [email protected] (Jan) Newsgroups: alt.support.breast-
>>implant
>
>ASBI.
>

Which is entirely irrelevant. I never said, as you apparently claim, that "The End" was posted on
MHA. To repost that which you snipped (again, to clearly dodge a substantive response):

The original message, "The End" is as follows:

Lines: 29 X-Admin: [email protected] From: [email protected] (Jan) Newsgroups: alt.support.breast-
implant Date: 20 Feb 2004 06:11:12 GMT References: <[email protected]>
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: The End Message-ID: <[email protected]
m21.aol.com>

>From: Andrew Langer [email protected] Date: 2/19/2004 8:54 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id:
><[email protected]>

I made my last post to you on MHA.

You asked me a question here, I answered it.

You didn't want to hear it, you wanted to be personally trashing, and going into the Jewish rant.

I hope you get over your paranoia, your hate and your need to be belittling and arguing constantly.

Everything anyone says that you disagree with you start in with the same repeating of the same
words, as if you fear everyone hates Jews.

It is an obsession.

I have suggest that the Jews on MHA who do this constantly go to a Jewish newsgroup and
discuss away.

Get over it and live a full life. This bickering is childish.

I have better things to do.

Take care,

Jan ---end quoted material---

"I made my last post to you on MHA... I have better things to do. Take care."

Yes, the message was posted in ASBI, but that doesn't change the finality of the message towards me
regarding posts in MHA.

As for ASBI, you said the following:

Lines: 95 X-Admin: [email protected] From: [email protected] (Jan) Newsgroups: alt.support.breast-
implant Date: 23 Feb 2004 01:58:50 GMT References: <[email protected]>
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: OT: Serious Question for Ilena Rosenthal... Message-
ID: <[email protected]> .

PLONK! ---end quoted material---

So, as regarding _BOTH_ ASBI and MHA, you said that it was over.

According to http://www.dickalba.demon.co.uk/usenet/guide/faq_kill.html, killfiling can be signified
by stating the word, "plonk":

"If someone wants to publically announce that they have killfiled someone else, they might do this
by writing <PLONK>, to indicate the sound of something being thrown into a dark corner. Killfiling
is therefore occasionally called "plonking"."

Now you're heading into entirely new territory, according to this site:

But someone told me they'd 'plonked' me then they replied to a later message I posted. How could
they have read my post if they'd killfiled me?

Sometimes people will say they've killfiled someone but their vanity will not allow them to actually
do so in case they miss something the victim might say about them. Saying you've killfiled someone
then making further replies could be an indication that you may be heading in the direction of
f**kwittedness. If you say you've killfiled someone, then killfile them. Otherwise it is simply
meaningless posturing and will make you look like an idiot. ---end quoted material (obscenity edited)----

Do you want the definition of f**kwittedness?

http://www.dickalba.demon.co.uk/usenet/guide/faq_fwit.html

7. What is a F**kwit?

Let's get one thing clear right away - 'F**kwit' is no more swearing than

Regardless of its origins, the term 'f**kwit' has now become a newsgroup term for someone who
repeatedly and consistantly proves themselves totally impervious to clue, 'clue' being defined as
knowledge, enlightenment, advice.

The F**kwit website describes them as "those sad, strange or egocentric people; who after having had
some education on technical, custom or procedural points simply fail to absorb the advice. They fail
to understand or accept the clues offered."

Isn't 'f**kwit' just a ruder way of calling someone stupid?

Not necessarily. While stupidity is certainly a component of f**kwittery, someone can be stupid but
still accept clue when it is offered.

Here's an example of the sort of behaviour which will qualify the perpetrator for the title
of f**kwit.

Someone posts to uk.music.folk announcing that they have a CD for sale. They repeat this post on
a daily basis, in spite of it being pointed out that they are in breach of that group's Charter
and that they are in danger of having their posts classed as Spam and falling foul of the
cancelbots. They respond by flaming the complainants and insisting that they have the right to
post what they want where they want. They are now exhibiting serious signs of f**kwittedness but
cannot yet be deemed a f**kwit as there is still a small possibility that they will realise the
error of their ways.

People explain to them why what they are doing is anti-social and against the whole spirit of
acceptable newsgroup practise. Someone might even try to persuade them that rights also carry
responsibilities. They respond by loudly complaining that they are being censored by a clique of
netcops and fascists who are inhibiting their right to freedom of speech.

They may make these responses with what they imagine to be witty put-downs of the complainants. The
alarm bells should ring at this point. To quote from the F**kwit FAQ at the F**kwit website,
"Because of this inability to receive clue, most f**kwits actually believe that they are being
stylish and amusing when they aren't. Which is one of the major factors that predisposes a person to
f**kwittedness."

Anyway, you now know that what you are dealing with is no longer mere stupidity but is either a
deliberate troll or a full-blown f**kwit.

What is the correct method of dealing with a proven f**kwit?

Once it has become clear that this is someone utterly impervious to clue, they should be ignored
from then on. If necessary, put them in a killfile. But arguing with them will be completely
pointless. There is an old saying - "Never try to teach a pig to sing, it just wastes your time and
annoys the pig". ---end quoted material (obscenities edited)---

So, come again? What happened to your "plonking" me? What happened to "the end"? What happened to
the "last message" you were going to write to me in MHA?

- Andrew Langer

Any posts by Andrew Langer are his own, written by him, for his own enjoyment (and the education of
others). Unless expressly stated, they represent his own views, and not those of any other
individuals or entities. He is not, nor has he ever been, paid to post here.