Justice Watch Support JW "Spam On Threads, SOS!" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... Spam On Threads, SOS!, Mandarin, 16:11:39, 3/19/2001 Mandarin, Nedthan Johns, 16:18:51, 3/19/2001, (#1) Ned, hogging threads is not posting,, janphi, 16:25:50, 3/19/2001, (#2) You know, Watching you, 16:26:34, 3/19/2001, (#3) Ned is a cyberpest..., LurkerXIV, 16:57:06, 3/19/2001, (#4) Watching You.., Nedthan Johns, 16:58:01, 3/19/2001, (#5) Lurker, Nedthan Johns, 16:58:30, 3/19/2001, (#6) I work in the Internet industry..., Dunvegan, 17:00:47, 3/19/2001, (#7) Ned,, LurkerXIV, 17:07:01, 3/19/2001, (#8) Excellent thread, A.K., 17:10:59, 3/19/2001, (#9) Thanks Dunv ..., Mandarin, 17:11:17, 3/19/2001, (#10) Mandarin: Nearly finished with one plagu..., Dunvegan, 17:24:20, 3/19/2001, (#19) A.K. , Mandarin, 17:15:57, 3/19/2001, (#12) Dunvegan, Gemini, 17:15:43, 3/19/2001, (#11) Gem, if you can show me, Watching you, 06:30:02, 3/20/2001, (#59) Well you lucky dawgs...., China, 17:24:45, 3/19/2001, (#20) haha, China, Watching you, 07:45:37, 3/20/2001, (#60) Yes, China,, LurkerXIV, 17:33:29, 3/19/2001, (#25) Lurker..., Pedro, 17:36:06, 3/19/2001, (#27) OK, Pedro, LurkerXIV, 17:53:30, 3/19/2001, (#34) Lay off Ned, Stonegate, 17:20:27, 3/19/2001, (#15) zzzzzzzzz, Mandarin, 17:18:20, 3/19/2001, (#14) hmmmm, Gemini, 17:18:04, 3/19/2001, (#13) Gemini, A.K., 17:23:29, 3/19/2001, (#18) Well A.K., Gemini, 17:33:19, 3/19/2001, (#24) Gem, A.K., 17:42:36, 3/19/2001, (#30) They're baaaaaaack!, Mandarin, 17:21:45, 3/19/2001, (#17) There are posts there I want to see, ayelean, 17:31:43, 3/19/2001, (#23) Mandarin, Gemini, 17:20:51, 3/19/2001, (#16) I LOVE the idea of giving Ned..., Dunvegan, 17:27:14, 3/19/2001, (#22) but then, Mandarin, Gemini, 17:26:37, 3/19/2001, (#21) No ..., Mandarin, 22:21:17, 3/19/2001, (#54) Do you, Gemini, 17:38:01, 3/19/2001, (#28) OK..., Pedro, 17:34:46, 3/19/2001, (#26) In Ned's defense, Britt, 17:49:28, 3/19/2001, (#32) uh oh, Gemini, 17:41:41, 3/19/2001, (#29) :-), Pedro, 17:44:18, 3/19/2001, (#31) Dunevegan.., Nedthan Johns, 17:50:58, 3/19/2001, (#33) Gemini, Nedthan Johns, 17:53:39, 3/19/2001, (#35) Pedro, Nedthan Johns, 17:55:30, 3/19/2001, (#36) Stonegate, Nedthan Johns, 17:56:29, 3/19/2001, (#37) Ned, darby, 18:23:01, 3/19/2001, (#38) Darby et al, ayelean, 18:46:01, 3/19/2001, (#39) ayelean, darby, 18:47:25, 3/19/2001, (#40) I'm with Aeylean, Bets, 19:39:02, 3/19/2001, (#44) A Statistical Analysis of Spammage, Dunvegan, 18:56:13, 3/19/2001, (#41) Dunvegan, pip, 19:01:41, 3/19/2001, (#42) Brilliant, Dunvegan!, LurkerXIV, 19:15:49, 3/19/2001, (#43) Spammage!, darby, 19:40:59, 3/19/2001, (#45) Sigh...., Country Girl, 20:06:17, 3/19/2001, (#48) Darby, Ned, Tricia, 20:01:40, 3/19/2001, (#47) Dunvegan..., Pedro, 19:58:37, 3/19/2001, (#46) Thanks, Florida, 20:29:00, 3/19/2001, (#50) Watch out, Pedro..., LurkerXIV, 20:17:58, 3/19/2001, (#49) oh thank you Darby, Gemini, 20:40:26, 3/19/2001, (#51) Gem, A.K., 23:31:28, 3/19/2001, (#56) oh me oh my, Gemini, 01:36:46, 3/20/2001, (#57) Pedro: You've been pretty even-handed..., Dunvegan, 20:42:21, 3/19/2001, (#52) My 2 cents, v_p, 21:51:25, 3/19/2001, (#53) Dunvegan ..., Mandarin, 23:03:52, 3/19/2001, (#55) Lyrics for Ned's Critics, Diwi, 05:50:07, 3/20/2001, (#58) Now THIS is a WOR thread!, fly, 08:54:57, 3/20/2001, (#61) Another POV :), Ayeka, 10:46:06, 3/20/2001, (#64) ..HOT DAMMMM ~!, jonesy, 10:45:15, 3/20/2001, (#63) one rant and one rant only, mary99, 09:57:26, 3/20/2001, (#62) Where Is It?, Mandarin, 11:28:05, 3/20/2001, (#65) Ned, DNA and opinions, darby, 12:25:56, 3/20/2001, (#67) darby, fly, 12:56:21, 3/20/2001, (#68) too bad, mandarin, fly, 12:03:30, 3/20/2001, (#66) ....fly, jonesy, 14:02:09, 3/20/2001, (#69) LOL jonesy!, fly, 14:56:59, 3/20/2001, (#70) HeckFire...If Neddery is Okeely-Dokely....., Dunvegan, 15:03:02, 3/20/2001, (#71) Dunvegan, mary99, 16:14:23, 3/20/2001, (#73) Whew Dun, Gemini, 15:39:30, 3/20/2001, (#72) Got it..., Pedro, 18:56:39, 3/20/2001, (#74) Pedro..., LurkerXIV, 19:29:36, 3/20/2001, (#75) Jonesy..., Pedro, 20:06:13, 3/20/2001, (#77) Sorry, Pedro..., Dunvegan, 20:01:31, 3/20/2001, (#76) Dunvegan, ayelean, 20:29:01, 3/20/2001, (#79) I did.., Pedro, 20:16:02, 3/20/2001, (#78) Britt and Pedro, FT, 20:40:24, 3/20/2001, (#80) FT, Pedro, 21:41:12, 3/20/2001, (#84) Hi, FT, Britt, 21:09:07, 3/20/2001, (#81) Britt, ayelean, 21:39:37, 3/20/2001, (#83) lol, Ayelean, Britt, 22:58:48, 3/20/2001, (#85) No way..., v_p, 21:35:24, 3/20/2001, (#82) Thanks DunV ..., Mandarin, 23:29:55, 3/20/2001, (#86) Drat, A.K., 01:39:02, 3/21/2001, (#87) A ll K nowing, Holly, 12:06:14, 3/21/2001, (#96) I only have, Watching you, 04:52:46, 3/21/2001, (#88) ...yes indeedy WY -, jonesy, 09:17:11, 3/21/2001, (#89) hahahahaha, Watching you, 09:32:49, 3/21/2001, (#90) We are all breathing the same air, RiverRat, 10:11:28, 3/21/2001, (#91) Watchin You..., Pedro, 10:46:42, 3/21/2001, (#92) Nobody should be, Watching you, 11:09:47, 3/21/2001, (#93) WY.., Pedro, 11:45:48, 3/21/2001, (#94) My dear Pedro, Watching you, 12:01:28, 3/21/2001, (#95) Who been messin wid my man?, Twitch, 12:12:59, 3/21/2001, (#97) promises, promises, fly, 12:34:37, 3/21/2001, (#100) fly, darby, 12:27:45, 3/21/2001, (#99) AK, Morgan, 12:23:34, 3/21/2001, (#98) Fly, Morgan, 13:22:07, 3/21/2001, (#102) PooperScooper had the best Scoop..., LurkerXIV, 13:13:50, 3/21/2001, (#101) Morgan, fly, 14:10:05, 3/21/2001, (#103) yoo hoo, AK, mary99, 14:22:17, 3/21/2001, (#105) Fly, Morgan, 14:17:50, 3/21/2001, (#104) Morgan, fly, 14:29:41, 3/21/2001, (#107) Holly & Morgan, A.K., 14:29:13, 3/21/2001, (#106) Well,, v_p, 15:14:39, 3/21/2001, (#108) AK, Morgan, 15:52:19, 3/21/2001, (#109) pssst Fly, v_p, Gemini, 17:59:00, 3/21/2001, (#110) LOL!, A.K., 18:03:56, 3/21/2001, (#111) Typical reply A.K., Gemini, 18:19:23, 3/21/2001, (#112) Gem, fly, 10:31:12, 3/22/2001, (#113) fly - Please pay attention., Holly, 10:34:21, 3/22/2001, (#114) ................................................................... "Spam On Threads, SOS!" Posted by Mandarin on 16:11:39 3/19/2001 Chris, Pedro ... where are you when we need you? Janphi is right when she says there's spam going on in the threads right now. I usually enjoy posting on JW but anytime Ned? gets cracking, he/she/they appear to accomplish what I think they set out to do and that is simply "bury a thread". Your forum has always been (IMO) the best, bar none, of any thread regarding our common interest, namely Jonbenet Ramsey. Is there any way you can use some Irish Diplomacy and tell Ned to go to hell in a way that he/she/they might look forward to the trip? It's really time consuming wading through marathon threads that keep trying to beat us over the head and it is of course, counter productive. Where's Lacey these days? Regards, Mandarin [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "Mandarin" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 16:18:51 3/19/2001 M: Chris, Pedro ... where are you when we need you? Janphi is right when she says there's spam going on in the threads right now. I usually enjoy posting on JW but anytime Ned? gets cracking, he/she/they appear to accomplish what I think they set out to do and that is simply "bury a thread". Nedd: Hey I have a right to post just like you do Mardarin. I can't help it that I am a fast typer. besides I am discussing the case, nothing else. Take your complaining somewhere else Your forum has always been (IMO) the best, bar none, of any thread regarding our common interest, namely Jonbenet Ramsey. Nedd: Yep, just as all of my threads are based about. Justice for her. Is there any way you can use some Irish Diplomacy and tell Ned to go to hell in a way that he/she/they might look forward to the trip? Nedd: Oh naughty naughty Mandarin, you are breaking forum rules ;)( It's really time consuming wading through marathon threads that keep trying to beat us over the head and it is of course, counter productive. Nedd: Then do yourself a favor and don't read them. Some people like what I have to say, since it makes them think ! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "Ned, hogging threads is not posting," Posted by janphi on 16:25:50 3/19/2001 it's spamming...filling up an entire thread with only your thoughts and not allowing others to take turns. I posted something I wanted others to read and you had buried it with three posts before I could even have it displayed. Within minutes, there were 10-15 more posts. You are replying to people's posts from 1-2 THREADS back. Go there and hit "reply" and reply to them. Constantly bumping up your own posts to always be at the top of the forum is hogging and bullying. It isn't fair--you are trying to stop people from having the chance to read anyone else's posts except yours. And 3/4ths of them are personally insulting other posters! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "You know" Posted by Watching you on 16:26:34 3/19/2001 isn't it strange that every time Ned appears, this forum ends up in a battle? Imagine that. Good typing skills, Ned. I too can type over 100 wpm, but I've never felt the need to impress anyone with it. It's also possible to type posts and save them, then post them one after the other. Your typing skills aren't the point, though, it's your nasty retorts to those who have a problem with your hogging the threads. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "Ned is a cyberpest..." Posted by LurkerXIV on 16:57:06 3/19/2001 and a spammer. Don't we have a rule against that? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "Watching You.." Posted by Nedthan Johns on 16:58:01 3/19/2001 There are days I go without posting. I have a right to my view. I have been cordial and nice to everyone here even when some have not. I am not here to change anyone's point of view, however as far as I am concerned I was told this was an open forum and as long as I abide by the rules I can participate. Sorry that since you call the sky blue everyone around you, you feel needs to do the same. i once thought these people guilty, I now see evidence I feel clearly proves them not to be, I have a right to voice it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "Lurker" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 16:58:30 3/19/2001 No you don't. But there is a rule against nastyness. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "I work in the Internet industry..." Posted by Dunvegan on 17:00:47 3/19/2001 ...been doing so for over 10 years...and what Ned is up to can be defined as UNADULTERATED SPAMMAGE! Definition of Spam (From internet.com's Webopedia) Electronic junk mail or junk newsgroup postings. Some people define spam even more generally as any unsolicited e-mail. In addition to wasting people's time with unwanted e-mail, spam also eats up a lot of network bandwidth. Consequently, there are many organizations, as well as individuals, who have taken it upon themselves to fight spam with a variety of techniques. There is some debate about the source of the term, but the generally accepted version is that it comes from the Monty Python song, "Spam spam spam spam, spam spam spam spam, lovely spam, wonderful spam..." Like the song, spam is an endless repetition of worthless text. Another school of thought maintains that it comes from the computer group lab at the University of Southern California who gave it the name because it has many of the same characteristics as the lunchmeat Spam: Nobody wants it or ever asks for it. No one ever eats it; it is the first item to be pushed to the side when eating the entree. PLEASE HELP US, CHRIS! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "Ned," Posted by LurkerXIV on 17:07:01 3/19/2001 When was the last time you made a donation to Chris for your gluttonous use of her bandwidth? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "Excellent thread" Posted by A.K. on 17:10:59 3/19/2001 My compliments to the chefs. And that doesn't include you, Nedlessthanzero. Actually I've long skipped his dopey posts since I barely have time to read at all, and he lacks the skill to post without quoting other peoples' passages. I don't need to read things twice, and hence, I skip right over Neddddd. I wish someone would offer Lake his old gig back. At least he was funny once in a while. His replacements are just so dour and desperate. But then, look who they work for. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "Thanks Dunv ..." Posted by Mandarin on 17:11:17 3/19/2001 Been missing your posts for a couple of days. Sounds like your back in excellent form after your recent visit to the Doc. Hope the hives have gone, FOREVER! A very dear friend of mine had them, at least I think it was hives and she suffered miserably. Are shingles the same as hives? BTW, have you ever come across any method that counter acts the intentions of would-be spammers and their ilk? There has to be a way to muzzle them. Regards, Mandarin [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 19. "Mandarin: Nearly finished with one plague..." Posted by Dunvegan on 17:24:20 3/19/2001 ...and here's another! What to do? Chris and/or Pedro need to decide what to do here...it's a judgement call for the administrator of the board. Me? I'd love to see a Bozo Filter hold posts to a maximum of, oh 20 a day. Bozo Filter A feature supported by many e-mail clients and news readers that enables you to block out messages from specific individuals. The list of addresses that you want to block is called a bozo list or kill file. Bozo filters are one way to reduce flames and spam. I think that Ned has taken his crusade to the point where it alienates community. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "A.K. " Posted by Mandarin on 17:15:57 3/19/2001 Just wanted to add .... does ANYONE really read Ned's ramblings? Maybe we should all get together and give Nedyboy his own unique thread. Maybe Chris can give him something like a "Workout Room" where he can talk to him/herself ad nauseum. Then every once in a while, we can peek in to see if he has finally combusted. Regards, Mandarin [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "Dunvegan" Posted by Gemini on 17:15:43 3/19/2001 I agree Ned would be a more welcome poster if he practiced a little restraint and allowed for some give and take between his posts. However, I, also, work in the 'net industry and have done for years. No big deal, but from this perspective, I know it's extremely bad manners to assault others with all caps (not to mention colored all caps) and waste bandwidth with a lot of unnecessary graphics. It's always interesting to see the forum factions choose up sides and come out spittin', but if one poster is taken to task for bad manners, it seems all should be equally concerned with their own forum etiquette. ps WY, I thought you were highly indignant about thread policing. Double standards? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 59. "Gem, if you can show me" Posted by Watching you on 06:30:02 3/20/2001 where I ever thought it was okay to flood threads with repetitious posts, I would appreciate it. Telling people what they can post is one thing. Deliberately filling up threads, effectively hogging threads, is something else. No double standards here, Auntie Gem. Just your left-brained, or right, whatever, reasoning skills taking a break. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 20. "Well you lucky dawgs...." Posted by China on 17:24:45 3/19/2001 ....I'm Chris this week. A little slower, a little older, but a reasonable facsimile. I think until one has lived thru a PLA invasion you don't know what SPAM is. I think we all have scroll buttons. I suggest we use them for the intended purpose. I think we normally move complaint threads to the Work Out Room. Your thoughts on what I think are welcome. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 60. "haha, China" Posted by Watching you on 07:45:37 3/20/2001 when I want your opinion, I'll give it to you. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 25. "Yes, China," Posted by LurkerXIV on 17:33:29 3/19/2001 By all means, move this to the WOR, but not until all the bloodletting has been done. Judging from the responses, most people are aggravated by Ned, and have been waiting for a chance to vent. Catharsis is good for the soul. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 27. "Lurker..." Posted by Pedro on 17:36:06 3/19/2001 ...agravated because they don't agree on his POW and because some of them are the ones that use to spam us all with few but endless posts, the scroll key works for both sides. Pedro [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 34. "OK, Pedro" Posted by LurkerXIV on 17:53:30 3/19/2001 I'll satisfy my blood lust by going out to rent "Gladiator" again and watch it 3 or 4 more times. Hopefully, I'll get a glimpse of what's under Maximus' uniform ...and it ain't DNA. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 15. "Lay off Ned" Posted by Stonegate on 17:20:27 3/19/2001 Ned is only trying to be fair, by showing both sides of the conversation and making sure that no one is not misquoted. That's all. I like his approach, he is fair and honest. I don't see why his approach is so threatening to you. If you don't like it, don't read it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "zzzzzzzzz" Posted by Mandarin on 17:18:20 3/19/2001 Oops, there I go again, snoring in public. My apologies. Hey you, get offa my cloud! Regards, Mandarin [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "hmmmm" Posted by Gemini on 17:18:04 3/19/2001 Trying to drum up some more gossip, A.K.? But, considering who you work for, I guess old habits are ingrained. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 18. "Gemini" Posted by A.K. on 17:23:29 3/19/2001 You must have info that no one else does regarding my employment. I'm certain you're as accurate about that as you are honest about being a fence sitter. Mandarin, girl, you've been on a ROLL lately! Do not stop, your words are pearls. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 24. "Well A.K." Posted by Gemini on 17:33:19 3/19/2001 All the info I have has come from public posts ... particularly those about your connections to the tabs (from admirers and debunkers alike, btw). Now then, using the same yardstick, it looks like you must have info about Ned's employers (and about whoever else to whom you may have been referring). Implication is cheap and shoddy, no matter who it's directed toward. Just thought you might like to see how others feel when you start the Cindy-Adams-act. (yuck) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 30. "Gem" Posted by A.K. on 17:42:36 3/19/2001 Spare me your snobby social work. I have seen four-plus years of sloppy guesswork about who I am and what I do. I used to post the FACTS regularly and gave up because some people here tend to care about supporting their favorite theories and ignoring real info waved under their noses. What-ever... Nonetheless, there are many credible posters on JW, with enlightened minds, awesome curiosity and a commitment to responsible reporting. It is they who make this place as great as it is, despite the attempts of the ratfinks who share bandwidth. Hey China -- always glad to see you! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 17. "They're baaaaaaack!" Posted by Mandarin on 17:21:45 3/19/2001 Uh Oh! Look out guys, the flies are here again. Better get out your old fly swatter Dunv! Chow time. Bye for now! Regards, Mandarin [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 23. "There are posts there I want to see" Posted by ayelean on 17:31:43 3/19/2001 but I can't get them to load. BooHoo Can someone reply on the last post to make a new thread. What's with all the ????????'s going on in Ned's posts? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 16. "Mandarin" Posted by Gemini on 17:20:51 3/19/2001 Just wanted to add .... does ANYONE really read Ned's ramblings? Usually not. Soon as those long quotes come up, I usually move on. OMG! That's 3 posts for me on one little thread! Is it spam? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 22. "I LOVE the idea of giving Ned..." Posted by Dunvegan on 17:27:14 3/19/2001 ...his VERY OWN FORUM.... As a matter of fact, Ned-ole-fella: you seem prolific enough to have your own web site...you could fill it up every day with quotes you cut-and-paste-and-counterpoint all day long! Sound like heaven, Ned? It does to me.... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 21. "but then, Mandarin" Posted by Gemini on 17:26:37 3/19/2001 there are a few here whose posts I never bother with at all, 'cause they are nod-nod posts and, a few who like to dish out the grief but run a'shreikin' if their posts provoke any replies except nod-nods and stroke-strokes. Sound familiar? Are you taking a poll? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 54. "No ..." Posted by Mandarin on 22:21:17 3/19/2001 I'm not into poles but I'd be willing to bet 118,000 keystrokes that you just love them. You're pretty good at projecting your very worst faults on others. Gemini .... the sign of the twins - which evil twin are you today Gemmy? Regards, Mandarin [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 28. "Do you" Posted by Gemini on 17:38:01 3/19/2001 have problems with a variety of view points, Dun? Just wondering. Oh No! That's ... what? ... six or seven for GEM. Spam? Nah ... I think it's mostly balogna (boloney?), but mixed in with a whole meat counter of ham scraps ... how can you tell? LOL! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 26. "OK..." Posted by Pedro on 17:34:46 3/19/2001 ...you had have a good fun for a while. Now, I seen music (in the daily and I can't get away from it like it or not) graphics all over the place, caps and endless threads up to 110 posts by 3 posters. Ned post many times, right, but they have to answer to many posters. Others just post one long boring endless threads and they do it everyday. Ned hasn't broke any house rule, so he's welcome to answer with many short ones or few endless ones. Pedro [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 32. "In Ned's defense" Posted by Britt on 17:49:28 3/19/2001 I flip chit at Ned regularly and feel entitled to do so because he knows I'm (usually) kidding and we've been forum buds for a long time even though his current rantings make me cringe :) But seriously FWIW, IMO he is not an agendist, an RSTist, a deliberate spammer, nor a Ramsey in Ned's clothing. He's simply on a roll. He does that. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 29. "uh oh" Posted by Gemini on 17:41:41 3/19/2001 : ) That up there is an innocent smilie ... sorry P&C sorry P&C sorry P&C You're right ... it was fun, but enuf is enuf : ). luv you guys [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 31. ":-)" Posted by Pedro on 17:44:18 3/19/2001 And I love you all. NO need to say China is very fair and hates us all equally. Pedro [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 33. "Dunevegan.." Posted by Nedthan Johns on 17:50:58 3/19/2001 D: ...been doing so for over 10 years...and what Ned is up to can be defined as UNADULTERATED SPAMMAGE! Definition of Spam (From internet.com's Webopedia) Electronic junk mail or junk newsgroup postings. Some people define spam even more generally as any unsolicited e-mail. Nedd: name one thing that I posted that is junk Dunevegan. In addition to wasting people's time with unwanted e-mail, spam also eats up a lot of network bandwidth. Nedd: You have every right NOT to read it Dune. Consequently, there are many organizations, as well as individuals, who have taken it upon themselves to fight spam with a variety of techniques. There is some debate about the source of the term, but the generally accepted version is that it comes from the Monty Python song, "Spam spam spam spam, spam spam spam spam, lovely spam, wonderful spam..." Like the song, spam is an endless repetition of worthless text. Another school of thought maintains that it comes from the computer group lab at the University of Southern California who gave it the name because it has many of the same characteristics as the lunchmeat Spam: Nobody wants it or ever asks for it. No one ever eats it; it is the first item to be pushed to the side when eating the entree. PLEASE HELP US, CHRIS! Nedd: I can't beleive you call what I have to debate about as spam, this really shows the integrity of some people here. How sad. You people don't want justice for JonBenet, you are only interested in repeating gossip. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 35. "Gemini" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 17:53:39 3/19/2001 Gem: However, I, also, work in the 'net industry and have done for years. No big deal, but from this perspective, I know it's extremely bad manners to assault others with all caps (not to mention colored all caps) and waste bandwidth with a lot of unnecessary graphics. Nedd: Thank you Gem. Yes Dunevegan is well skilled in art. :0) It's always interesting to see the forum factions choose up sides and come out spittin', but if one poster is taken to task for bad manners, it seems all should be equally concerned with their own forum etiquette. ps WY, I thought you were highly indignant about thread policing. Double standards? Nedd: Thanka again Gemini. Good point [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 36. "Pedro" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 17:55:30 3/19/2001 ...agravated because they don't agree on his POW and because some of them are the ones that use to spam us all with few but endless posts, the scroll key works for both sides. Pedro Thank you Pedro, exactly It sounds to me that some of you are actually afraid to hear what I have to say, because it is starting to make sense. Think about it [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 37. "Stonegate" Posted by Nedthan Johns on 17:56:29 3/19/2001 Ned is only trying to be fair, by showing both sides of the conversation and making sure that no one is not misquoted. That's all. I like his approach, he is fair and honest. I don't see why his approach is so threatening to you. If you don't like it, don't read it. Thank you stonegate, well Lurker apparently not everyone is FED up with me, some people are actually listening. :0) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 38. "Ned" Posted by darby on 18:23:01 3/19/2001 I don't mind your POV, but I think it's pure insanity to repeat everyone's posts within your own posts, and for a number of reasons: 1) Your repeating of the posts wastes bandwidth. 2) Others' posts are already there to read. It generally makes little sense to repeat what posters have already said, especially in our environment, where both posters and posts are relatively few. (There ARE one or two here who tend to alter their own posts to read differently than first intended. This is the exception rather than the rule, and I think that ONLY those posters sometimes need to have their posts re-quoted, before they change them.) 3) Your posts are confusing to read. Your painstaking attempt to distinguish your opinion from that of other posters is the very thing that makes your posts hard for me to follow. Even though you make an effort to label whose opinion is whose, I have trouble keeping track of whether the opinion is yours or the other posters' opinions. Also, when you quote yourself, I'm never sure if you're re-quoting yourself from a past post, or adding a new idea. I tend to stop reading your posts, mostly because I don't have the time to sort through it all. Ned, I do understand your need to address each poster separately. But you can still accomplish this without repeating their posts. You might want to try what I do: For reference, I go ahead and cut and paste into my post box everything I want to address--from each poster I want to address. I include each poster's name and then type my answer to that poster. But before pressing "Post Message," I delete the poster's old stuff. This makes a much easier read. Though I don't make it a habit, there ARE times when I need to include a quote from another poster. To set it apart for clarity, I like to put the quote into italics. This can be easily accomplished by putting < i > the quote < /i > inside of bracketted i's like this (but take out the spaces inside each set of brackets). [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 39. "Darby et al" Posted by ayelean on 18:46:01 3/19/2001 Darby you expressed well, what I wanted to say about the confusing way Ned's posts read. How you don't know if it is the original poster's words or Ned's words. It is reminiscent of the style of writing in the POS don't you think? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 40. "ayelean" Posted by darby on 18:47:25 3/19/2001 YES. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 44. "I'm with Aeylean" Posted by Bets on 19:39:02 3/19/2001 Darby, thanks for expressing the reason why I never read Nedthan's posts. It has nothing to do with what I think of the poster or even their ideas - it's just that I don't have enough time at the computer to wade through reading stuff twice and having to figure what's Nedd and what isn't. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 41. "A Statistical Analysis of Spammage" Posted by Dunvegan on 19:46:48 3/19/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 19:46:48, 3/19/2001 http://members.aol.com/bluedune/images/spam.jpg Edited in the spirit of cooperation, community, and conservation of bandwidth...if you wish to see the statistical analysis chart of the thread in question, just click on the link above... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 42. "Dunvegan" Posted by pip on 19:01:41 3/19/2001 A picture is worth a thousand words. Thanks. pip [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 43. "Brilliant, Dunvegan!" Posted by LurkerXIV on 19:15:49 3/19/2001 Maybe Pedro and China will take a look at that and make a different decision. Or maybe we have to wait until Chris returns. Giving loads of free bandwidth to the RST on JW is akin to the ADL giving free space to the Nazi Party. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 45. "Spammage!" Posted by darby on 19:40:59 3/19/2001 I love it! Did you coin the word "spammage," Dunvegan? Great pictorial. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 48. "Sigh...." Posted by Country Girl on 20:06:17 3/19/2001 IMO, I think most (if not all) of us have the grey matter to remember the posts Nedd refers to without having to re-read every word. Of course I copy/paste a sentence or two myself as do many of us but I don't feel I have to copy/paste/respond to every written word by every single poster on every single thread I read. Dun, your chart shows perfectly what happens when it becomes a NeddThread. It's not a matter of opinion(s)...there are many opinions (like the old saying...everyone's got one) but I believe Nedd can get his opinion across in less than 39 posts. I could be wrong. LOL! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 47. "Darby, Ned" Posted by Tricia on 20:01:40 3/19/2001 Darby great job in explaining how Ned's posts can be so difficult to read! Ned if you want to get your point of view across then don't write a war and peace post. It's too much. Nobody will read it. I wouldn't mind reading your point of view. Trouble is this weird burning smell starts coming out of my ears because my brain goes into overload trying to read your posts. My eyeballs start spinning out of control. You know Ned I have no idea if you points are really valid. I can't get through them. Ned I read current events and talk all day. That is what I do for a living. Sometimes I have 20 seconds to tell my audience about a major event that will effect their lives. Ya know what? It can be done. You can be brief. Brief is good ned. Tricia Sorry this wasn't brief. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 46. "Dunvegan..." Posted by Pedro on 19:58:37 3/19/2001 ...very funny one. Now am I suppose to take it serious or are you teasing?. The first thing you should do is take in consideration the length of the posts. Go from there, analize a week period and you'll be surpised. However, I think wait for Chris and present to her the complains against what her moderators have decided to do is a fair position. So hold your breath and we'll see, I'll wait for her too :-). If this things I am reading here are serious, and not as I take them, I think you're all teassing, then I should tell you that I don't agree with Ned's POW in the case nor in the DNA. But I am sure you all know better than to imply any wrongdoing on my part. But,this is a free country, so feel free to complain, we all can. Pedro [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 50. "Thanks" Posted by Florida on 20:29:00 3/19/2001 Dunvegan - that graphic really shows what everyone is complaining about. It is really rude and boorish for Nedthan Johns to take up entire threads by copying and responding to every sentence each poster writes that he disagrees with. And when we scroll it's exhausting and it takes forever to scroll to the next post that is NOT by Nedthan Johns. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 49. "Watch out, Pedro..." Posted by LurkerXIV on 20:17:58 3/19/2001 we are going to vote you off the Island, and bring jonesy back as Chief Honcho! Then everyone will behave. And Ned's head will look like a bowling pin after jonesy gets done with him. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 51. "oh thank you Darby" Posted by Gemini on 21:26:34 3/19/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 21:26:34, 3/19/2001 for calling Ned's attention to the problem some of us have with the endless quoting. L-XIV, any time a group of posters gangs up on one poster ... much less starts a whole thread for that purpose ... it's a gang-bash. That's an old familiar tactic in unmoderated, free-for-all newsgroups, but most moderated forums won't tolerate it. It isn't just bad manners, it's mean spirit. I wouldn't want anyone to do it to you or Holly or, even, GL. Can't you put aside the partisan attitude long enough to see it's just wrong? "Snobby", A.K.? I thinkest thou projectest too mucheth. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 56. "Gem" Posted by A.K. on 23:31:28 3/19/2001 How typically passive-aggressive of you to fire the first shot then wonder why people react in anger. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 57. "oh me oh my" Posted by Gemini on 01:36:46 3/20/2001 A.K., you came in this thread firing shots, but I guess you only wanted to toss out implications ... not be called on 'em. Are you kidding? Are you really angry? If so, I guess the shoe fits you when it comes to throwing hardballs but not being able to catch worth a darn. tsk [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 52. "Pedro: You've been pretty even-handed..." Posted by Dunvegan on 20:42:21 3/19/2001 ...and fair during all of this "hoo-ha". Applause to you for playing "Solomon" or "Judge Judy"...you rule with a light and fair hand, Pedro. I think that what Ned has been doing has troubled me because (just in my viewpoint) it was "excessive in the context of the community." The thing that Ned's posting reminded me most of was that old obstructionist trick "the filibuster"... fil·i·bus·ter (fil'-bus't-r) n. 1.The use of obstructionist tactics, especially prolonged speechmaking, for the purpose of delaying legislative action. 2.An instance of the use of this delaying tactic. 3.An adventurer who engages in a private military action in a foreign country. It looked like Ned was just spending ALL of his day and ALL of his time just rebuking posts and posters. I thought Justice Watch was more oriented to constructive discussion of case...somehow, Ned has missed the spirit of the board, as it has been expressed for some time now. OK...it well may be what Ned honestly wishes to do, and that is how he is naturally. It could be that Ned is simply made that way...although I remember that when he first joined JW he wasn't about owning threads and answering each and every murmur that wasn't exactly his POV. So, perhaps Ned is just honestly BORING. ...but, if someone were going to act as a disruptive influence on a forum...all these cases about to go to court...the filibuster is a grand way to play "gob stopper" to an entire board. Especially a board that could be referenced by those who are looking for information that you will not find anywhere else. When I first opened the "Is There Reasonable Doubt?" thread, I literally sat back in my chair...and then I thought: "Well...I suppose this is Ned's Thread, now..." I started to read Ned's remarks, and give him a hearing...but shortly into the tit-for-tat my eyes glazed over. It was just...excessive. May be just me, but that's what I thought. No votes for censorship from me, Pedro...but, there must be some kind of middle ground that allows for a reasonable community standard within free speech. If Ned is not willing to curb his own posting, I really don't have an answer. Muzzles only work on pit-bulls. I like freedom of speech. Even Ned's freedom of speech. But, I wish Ned would respect the tenor of this forum in his posting. ...and, finally...I'd REALLY hate to see the spectre of the ole filibuster destroy everyone's enjoyment of free speech here at Justice Watch. (Just my $0.02...and an entirely personal opinion. 'K?) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 53. "My 2 cents" Posted by v_p on 21:51:25 3/19/2001 I feel like Ned is trying to cram his opinion down my throat. It's a pain in the a$$ to have to scroll past his posts once he gets started. No, it's not against the rules to post 39 consecutive posts, but it's damned inconsiderate, especially when he feels it necessary to insert the entire post of the person he is addressing. Hey Ned, try this if you insist upon answering each and every post on a thread: Use notepad, (under accessories). You can write your message on the notepad and still have the thread open to refer to. Then, simply bold the posters you want to address, one by one, and devote a few lines to each. Then you simply copy and paste your replies to the JW message board and voila - just one post that says it all. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 55. "Dunvegan ..." Posted by Mandarin on 23:03:52 3/19/2001 That was a great and hillarious spam chart. How did you get to be so smart? What irks me is that Ned & Co. must think we all just came into town on a turnip truck. Someone (you maybe) made a remark that struck a chord, i.e. that Ned's post were like a pitbull, or something. Now who in the RamCamp comes to mind when you say the word pitbull. And who in the RamCamp (Patsy says) gets up each and every day and searches EVERYTHING related to Jonbenet on the net? Why Herr Susan,no doubt! Could this Ned be Suzy and Patti keying away at their laptops in the Moonbeam restaurant? And could Jams be doing all the dog work for them? The posts have another eerie parallel to the Jonbenet crime scene, e.g. they both have the aura of "overkill". To Pedro/China ... I like people who play the devil's advocate and have done so myself, many times on the forum. But Ned's post are not enlightening anyone, just mainly trying to sell DOI, which may be doing poorly at the bookstores. I have my faults, as we all do, but the motives of Ned are quite transparent and they fool no one. Do you not have a problem with them? Yeah, I know we can use the scroll key and BTW, I'm darn sure most of us are doing that, but is there any need for a single poster to run and thread to 120+ and counting simply to deliver DOI propaganda, while in fact stating that they do not need to read any other book but that one? Doesn't that tell you something Pedro? Would Chris really allow that to go on for soooooooo long. Maybe, but I hardly think so. She has dedicated so much time to JW! Can you ask China to give you 40 lashes tonight? Regards, Mandarin [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 58. "Lyrics for Ned's Critics" Posted by Diwi on 05:50:07 3/20/2001 Sounds of Silence By Simon and Garfunkle Hello darkness, my old friend I've come to talk with you again Because a vision softly creeping Left its seeds while I was sleeping And the vision that was planted in my brain Still remains Within the sound of silence In restless dreams I walked alone Narrow streets of cobblestone Beneath the halo of a street lamp I turned my collar to the cold and damp When my eyes were stabbed by the flash of a neon light That split the night And touched the sound of silence And in the naked light I saw Ten thousand people maybe more People talking without speaking People hearing without listening People writing songs that voices never shared No one dared Disturb the sound of silence "Fools," said I, "You do not know Silence like a cancer grows Hear my words that I might teach you Take my arms that I might reach you" But my words like silent raindrops fell And echoed in the wells of silence And the people bowed and prayed To the neon god they'd made And the sign flashed out its warning In the words that it was forming And the sign said "The words of the prophets are Written on the subway walls And tenement halls And whispered in the sounds of silence" [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 61. "Now THIS is a WOR thread!" Posted by fly on 08:54:57 3/20/2001 Finally, a thread in the WOR worthy of the WOR rather than the Front Porch! You've gotta lotta nerve As Pedro suggested, given the bandwidth devoted to people's rashes, pets, and recap of the day's activities, you have a lotta nerve to complain about Ned's use of bandwidth for on-topic posts. Don't get me wrong - I have no problem with the stuff on the daily or the other off-topic stuff that gets posted. It's a good thing to be able to share things in our lives. I just think that removes any justification for complaining about the number or length of Ned's posts. Also, I don't recall such outrage at Ginja's numerous and world record length posts, the posting of articles that were linked on Maw's page, or other complete articles instead of just a link. To repost or not to repost? That is the question I agree with darby that Ned's format can be tough to untangle. A little more obvious separation of repost and responses would be helpful. However, I don't agree that it is usually unnecessary or inappropriate to repost something to provide context for new comments, but then, maybe that's because I do that some of the time. Perhaps all of you have better memories than I do, but I like having the context right there. Perhaps Ned could be a bit more selective, or cut the extraneous stuff from his reposts. Also, just yesterday I did exactly what somebody told Ned to do - posted on a #2 thread in response to a #2 post, rather than on the #3 thread, and was immediately told to please post on the new thread. So which is the "right" procedure? Ned = Dead? I don't understand how having lots of posts from Ned buries a thread. Your posts are still there, and given what some are saying, there's no problem keeping track of the stimulus for your posts. Ned's posts don't keep anybody from posting. They might "fill up" a thread quickly, but there's always an #N+1 thread option. Ned is no more trying to ram his/her opinion down your throats than you are trying to ram your opinion down his/hers. Everybody here is arguing their points of view, and in some cases even providing justification for that point of view. That's what I thought a discussion forum is about. Old news? Been there, done that. So what if Ned posts the same ideas over and over? That is the rule here, rather than the exception. How many times have people brought up JBR's hair being bleached? How many times have people said Beuf was hinky? Or Fleet White? Or Don Paugh? Or commented on PR's funeral attire? We've done essentially nothing BUT repeat the same old things for years now. No thugs in our house! Bottom line, IMO, is that some of you don't agree with Ned, and you don't like to have anybody posting anything other than the majority view. I've seen the same thing happen over and over when somebody posts outside the anti-Ram fold. Straight out of Social Psychology 101: Reactions to nonconformity. People ignore the value of the ideas and start yelling RST!!! Ramseys posting!!! Agendas!!! Outhouses and glass houses People often revert to an ad hominem attack in the absence of a rational, factual position. If you think Ned's ideas are full of shit, post the information that proves they are shit. Cut the crap about agendas, RST, spam, etc.. If you don't want to reveal you have no counterargument worth posting, or if you simply don't have the time or energy to do so, scrolling is always an option. Afterall, you guys just feed Ned's production by posting about Ned or to Ned. You know Ned is going to respond. I do hate to suggest scrolling, though, because even the most idiotic poster once in awhile has something valuable to say. ;-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 64. "Another POV :)" Posted by Ayeka on 10:46:06 3/20/2001 I won't generalize and say everything Ned posts is not worth reading, because it's not true -- but the frequency with which it's repeated becomes a little hard to take. fly has a point about how we all have a tendency to repeat ourselves, but somehow Ned's post seem to take that tendency to its illogical conclusion. I don't mind so much when Ginja (as an example given earlier) makes a long post, because she doesn't do it constantly, and when she does, it's usually filled with the kind of information that helps us deal with the case from some legal standpoint. To Ned, I would say: it's not quantity that counts, it's quality. Stop and really read the post you're replying to, because often times it feels like you don't. Summarize. Think out your post before you type it. Do a little thing like editing before posting, and make copious use of the Preview button. There isn't a contest on JW about who posts first or most. :) Ayeka [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 63. "..HOT DAMMMM ~!" Posted by jonesy on 10:45:15 3/20/2001 ..finally a REAL WOR thread ~! Pedro, tread softly, as LURKER says, you are up for a recall ~! I have always thot posters who have to 'post' what they are answering to was cause they couldn't remember anything unless it was right in front of them - even I (at my age) don't have to do that - reminds me of when I had to ask my kids "now what did I just say " anything Ned has said we have already read over and over at the swamp, ned is a true cult follower, yes indeedy !!! ...IF you have to scroll thru 39 out of 40 posts, why bother to even read the forum - twas exactly the same way with all the ginger-snaps posts - ..me thinks Ned is having a "Salmon Day" - that is the experience of spending an entire day(week) working on a task, swimming upstream only to get screwed and die in the end - [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 62. "one rant and one rant only" Posted by mary99 on 10:01:07 3/20/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 10:01:07, 3/20/2001 Fly, we stand together here. Forget whether the Ramseys are guilty or innocent and reflect on the attack mode of certain posters to 'new' ideas they lack the wisdom to appreciate. Flame me, call me a Ned fan, whatever... the paranoid comments that Ned is part of the RST coming from you, Mandarin, whose snide remarks about Mame (and to me) seeing a conspiracy in Boulder or a sex ring are pathetic. If you don't like the idea of the DNA being readable or important, good for you. Doesn't mean your opinion matters one whit in the grand scheme of things. While Ned DID use a lot of bandwidth, and at 39 straight posts on that thread probably set some kind of record, I don't think he should be attacked for repeating himself, as so few seem to be listening, and are indeed proud to say they ignore him and his comments. It's so nice to be righteous and so self-satisfied, huh? The suppression of free thought and expression is JW at it's worst and the Ned-bashers will be mighty lonesome when they have only their high-fiving buddies left to chat with. Or since the murder is solved according to you, perhaps it's time to collect the reward and ditch the rest of us fools? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 65. "Where Is It?" Posted by Mandarin on 11:28:05 3/20/2001 Oh Jesus, where the hell is my gun when I need it? Soooooo many preachers, sooooo little time. The writings on the wall and it ain't the sounds of silence. End of my thread .... I get the last word! Off to the dailies or a greenie thread for some genuine entertainment. Regards, Mandarin Mandarin [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 67. "Ned, DNA and opinions" Posted by darby on 12:25:56 3/20/2001 fly - I agree that it's okay to sometimes copy a post, but Ned seems to do this each and every time he responds to something, whether it makes sense to do so or not. If nothing else, the practice of copying others' posts EVERY time makes for boring and unnecessarily wordy (as well as confusing) posts. Other than that, I for one LIKE to see the opposing viewpoints. I think such a balance helps in getting to the truth. For instance, I'm all for getting to the bottom of whether or not JBR had intact unidentified DNA under her nails. It looks like this is presently unresolved, and opinions about it are just that--opinions. We've seen information which says the fingernail DNA is degraded, but we've ALSO seen information which says the DNA is intact. If anyone happens to be right on this issue, it's apparently just a lucky guess. As it is, I'd much rather see lively discussions about it than a bunch of like-minded people (BORG, if you will) agreeing that the ONLY answer is the one we WANT to hear. In any event, once again, when I hear posters crying that Alex Hunter is the sole reason for this case not being prosecuted, I want to remind you all that it was NOT just Alex Hunter but an entire panel of prosecutors--and even the governor of Colorado--who all agreed the case wasn't ready to prosecute. Now, I don't know if the basic reason for this has anything to do with DNA, but I suspect that nobody here can say with certainty that DNA has nothing to do with it. I will say that if DNA were so irrelevant in this case, there surely would be no reason for the continued testing of it--even to this day. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 68. "darby" Posted by fly on 12:56:21 3/20/2001 darby - Your minimal comments, limited mostly to the ease of reading Ned's format exempts you from major inclusion in my comments. I'm in complete agreement concerning Hunter and the DNA. This case has had more watchdogs than most, and all the watchdogs are barking the same way. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 66. "too bad, mandarin" Posted by fly on 12:03:30 3/20/2001 You're going to have to post again to be last. After reading jonesy's post I realized something I said might well be misinterpreted. My comment about hating to advise scrolling was intended as a general principle. I was not referring to Ned when I said even the most idiotic poster occassionally has something to contribute. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 69. "....fly" Posted by jonesy on 14:02:09 3/20/2001 ..I resent reading 'jonesy' and the 'most idiotic poster' all in the same post .........hahaha sometimes I think I understand everything, then I regain consciousness ~! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 70. "LOL jonesy!" Posted by fly on 14:56:59 3/20/2001 It was the mention of scrolling, not an association of you with idiotic poster, that made me aware of a possible misinterpretation. Very funny salmon analogy, BTW. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 71. "HeckFire...If Neddery is Okeely-Dokely..." Posted by Dunvegan on 15:03:02 3/20/2001 ...I suppose that no one would mind, nd I could also practice "Neddery"...you know: take every one of Nedd's posts...every single one...copy the post that Ned references...either support or not the referenced post (depending on my personal viewpoint, evidentiary analysis, etc.) and then...copy Ned's refutation of the reference post, and refute or analyze Ned, etc., etc., ad nauseum. It would look something like this: Ayelean (to JW): The amount and quality of the speciman is important and I don't think we know that. We don't even know when JB was bathed last. If the dna is scant, and her last good hand washing was several days before her death then for sure she could have collected it from non violent episodes. Dunvegan (to Ayelean): Ayelean...it is true that we do not know when JB was bathed last...but I'm personally hoping that the depositions and testimony that will be extracted by the upcoming trials (most especially the JHP trial) may give us better information. It is possible that Fleet White, or others that were around JBR on the 25th of December will have considerable (and perhaps critical) information on her habits and happenstance on the day of her murder. Of course, even this information may be less than is necessary to determine the state of JonBenet's hand cleansing on Christmas. But, let's just say someone may have been with her when she washed her hands at the White's party...that would be important evidence. We'll just have to wait and see. Nedd (to Ayelean): Ayelean how do you know that JB's last good hand washing was several days before her death? Where do you get this information??? Do you think she was allowed to go to a fancy nice Christmas dinner without washing her hands? You people try to insinuate this child was dirty? I haven't seen one picture that would atribute to this, in fact just the opposite. Dunvegan (to Nedd responding to Ayelean): Nedd...what Ayelean was saying is she DOES NOT know when JonBenet's last hand washing was...and what you are saying is that Ayelean DOES NOT know when JonBenet's last hand washing occurred. In other words: you agree with Ayelean. What's the argument here? I'm certain that you will spend about 700 words explaining how you agree and yet disagree with Ayelean...so, I'll just have to wait until you answer that...please remember to copy each and every line of this entire post before you respond. Nedd (to Ayelean): Granted it is possible that she "could have" collected it prior to the murder, how is it then connected to the DNA in her panties as well as the hair?? Answer me that? Dunvegan (to Nedd responding to Ayelean): Nedd, to analyze the evidence, it is best to have ALL the evidence. We cannot have all the evidence since we are not privy to everything the BPD has regarding the murder. If the DNA found under her fingernails is identifiable (only "if") and it matches the unidentified DNA in her panties, it could be supporting circumstantial evidence upon which to build a case. Exclusion is almost as important as exclusion is this situation. Nedd (to Ayelean): And let's say it wasn't, then how hard would it have been really to retrace her last footsteps within 5 days fo the murder????? This is what investigators are supposed to do. Dunvegan (to Nedd responding to Ayelean): Well, perhaps the Grand Jury heard testimony on this exact thing...but we'll not know whether or not they did, and what that evidence was, until the Grand Jury transcripts are "liberated." Perhaps LHP's case will free this information. And, as in regards to what investigators do: the paid one's do what you tell them. And, usually ONLY what you tell them...nothing else. What investigators are you talking about here, Nedd? You're using a lot of words...go ahead: use a few more and be specific. Ayelean (to JW): If she scraped skin from a perp at the time of attack, that dna would be pretty pristine, clear cut and incriminating to someone other than the known suspects. Dunvegan (to Ayelean): Well, it makes sense to me that it would not likely be only dead cells or days old and degraded DNA if the cells under JBR's fingernails at the time of the autopsy were the perp's tissue collected due to JBR's defensive actions. That perp scratched DNA would date only from between 10 pm of the 25th and the early hours of the 26th...it would seem logical that that means that defensive tissue from that time window would be relatively fresh...but more research, and more information is necessary. Good point, though. Nedd (to Ayelean): Ayelean that is just not true. You do not know if you are going to get a clean sample of DNA by scratching someone, and there could have been many other things under her nails. Dunvegan (to Nedd responding to Ayelean): What do you mean here, Nedd. (1) Define "clean sample"...I would think it pretty difficult to have only one type of DNA under your nails, unless you washed your hands just before scratching your murderer in self-defense. Analysis of nail clippings would usually show various DNA, if your hands were not recently washed. (2) Anything and everything under JBR's nails is evidentiary...but, evidence must be analyzed to build a case. Some evidence is exclusionary, some inclusionary. Are you saying "ignore the DNA?" Ayelean (to JW): Somehow I doubt that it represents clear evidence, like shreds of skin of an attacker because they would have known that soom after the event and would not have concentrated on the Rams. Dunvegan (to Ayelean): I agree with this. If there were "strips" of fresh scratched skin under JBR's nails during the autopsy, the perp would be in jail right now. What was under the nails wasn't enough to move the BPD away from considering the Ramseys the primary suspects. Who would believe that the BPD would ignore a pointer like that? There is no "smoking skin" under JBR's nails, as far as we know...but, again, we don't know everything. Nedd (to Ayelean): Ayelean it is CLEAR evidence that someone "other" then the Ramsey's came into contact with that child, and since this is a murder case, you have to eliminate that person, it hasn't been done, so a jury would have to ASSUME it came from the night in question. Dunvegan (to Nedd responding to Ayelean): Or, Nedd, it is unclear evidentiary information...it requires further analysis to determine where, when, who, what, and how that "other" DNA fits into the case. Ayelean (to JW): I would guess that most of us right at this minute have foreign dna under our nails, and I would suspect children playing with other children would have even more. Dunvegan (to Ayelean): I agree...some days there is certainly more that one sort of DNA...other days, less. Some days none (except my own.) Nedd (responding to Ayelean): Yes perhaps we all do, but we are talking about a murder victim with 3 pieces of DNA found at her crime scene which all possibly are connected, and no answer for it after 4 1/2 years. Dunvegan (to Nedd responding to Ayelean): A lot has been cloaked in murkiness in this case, to date, Nedd. This is just one more area. Some, it seems to me, are doing their best effort to obfuscate and not address the evidence. And, I do not mean the BPD. Ayelean: When the dna was being collected for this case the subjects chosen suggest it was as much for elimination as looking for a suspect. If actual shreds of skin were found I think the vibes we would have received, would have indicated they were looking for a perp. Dunvegan (to Ayelean): Yes...evidence that there was a lack of defense against her murderer is admissible circumstance under some conditions. It is interesting. Cases have been built on such stepping stones as this. Nedd (to Ayelean): RIGHT Aylean and the Ramsey's were eliminated. So whose is it???? Dunvegan (to Nedd responding to Ayelean): Nedd, some of us do not agree that the Ramsey's are eliminated as perps just because none of their DNA can be found under JonBenet's fingernails...if she knew her murderer, she possibly did not fight back in the way she would have fought a stranger. Still leaves Patsy and John square in the center of the suspect pool, as far as I can see. Ayelean (to JW): I do wish they would have sampled all her classmates and I never heard that they even interviewed them. Too bad, it may have been revealing. Dunvegan (to Ayelean): Do we know that the BPD absolutely did not sample the classmates? Also, perhaps the BPD has testimony and/or evidence to prove a "window" where they can pretty much say when she last scrubbed her hands...and that could have been at the White's party before eating...we don't know. There may be a known window, and all of the people that JonBenet came into contact with during that window have been swabbed. Nedd (responding to Ayelean): I do wish too. I imagined they have, but knowing the BPD, probably not. However Jb wasn't in school during this time, she was on Holiday vacation, which I believe started on the 17th. Dunvegan (to Nedd responding to Ayelean): Ture, Nedd. We agree. Totally. JonBenet was on Christmas vacation when she was murdered. ...now Nedd copies every ASCII character of this post...and I suppose, each and everyone of us could also do so chime in...if it's an OK way to go, why not? And, a note to all you lurkers (Not you, Lurker): just think, you could play, too! Pretty soon, each thread...no, each single response should take about 3 hours to read. Everyone happy? Is this REALLY OK? Shall Justice Watch go this way? OK...your turn, Nedd. Everybody MOMBO! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 73. "Dunvegan" Posted by mary99 on 16:14:23 3/20/2001 Mary99 to Dunvegan: Touche! (Your're one of our wittiest and thank God for that!) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 72. "Whew Dun" Posted by Gemini on 15:39:30 3/20/2001 That looks like a Ginja post ... length wise, anyway : ). But ... uh ... your fiery screams are blinding. What a great thread this turned into, finally. Nice to see (hear) Jonesy-lite and Fly (who really does see all and know most : ) ) A.K., I'd have to guess you wore out your welcome with some - not because of forum buddy factions - but because you alluded to having inside info that didn't pan out once too often. And, when that happened, were very hesitant to reply to any questions about it. Once, Edie tried to ask you what happened, over and over ... and was ignored, over and over, until 'way down the road, when your goof wasn't so fresh, you deigned to respond to her. There's arrogance and then there's misplaced arrogance. It's that second one that relates to my opinion where you're concerned. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 74. "Got it..." Posted by Pedro on 18:56:39 3/20/2001 ..So you would like me to delete long posts (as long sometimes as Ned's 40 all combined), repetitive posts, posts with POW we have read before, post where people repeat themselves or others, no logic posts, posts where some one is flamed, post where someone seems to be trying to sell something,.. well folks if I follow your advice we'll have no otehr posts than mine!!! Pedro PS: Chris isn't here now, she'll be back, so if you believe I need a *re-call*,as Jonesy say:-), then you can ask for it. I think some folks need a new brain, sad they can't get one. Did you want to piss me off? YOU DID. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 75. "Pedro..." Posted by LurkerXIV on 19:29:36 3/20/2001 I hope you're not yelling at me. I was just kidding about bringing jonesy in. You are nice and she is meeeeeaaaannnn! Please stay. PS...I know the stockmarket is driving you nuts...along with a lot of other folks. Don't worry....be happy! It's only money. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 77. "Jonesy..." Posted by Pedro on 20:06:13 3/20/2001 ...is always right!!!! I didn't yell or scream to you, Lurker. I am just having a hard time dealing with everything and everybody these days, and Lurker you're rigth, been bad, very bad. Now I try to be fair, and you have the right to agree with me or not. So if you don't agree with me, write your congressman!!!! Pedro [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 76. "Sorry, Pedro..." Posted by Dunvegan on 20:01:31 3/20/2001 ...if you're upset with us...what I've been saying is just that what Nedd is doing is somewhat disruptive to the machinations of the forum. Up above I said that I like free speech. Even Nedd's first amendment rights. Please don't get me wrong. Please don't delete posts. It's just that the idea of someone wanting to tie up JW in knots with a filibuster, just before the trials begin, might choose as a strategy the same method that is Nedd's madness. If the forum becomes exhasustingly Nedd, that means JW becomes unreadable. Nedd just smells too much like a disruptive element. Again, I don't have the answer...but it should be thought about by the forum administrators. I know what you are doing is thankless work, Pedro, but I believe most of us are grateful for the time and energy you put into moderating this forum. And, I'd like to say thanks. Just consider what might be done, a gentle solution (if you will) to the filibuster of threads that seems to be going on. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 79. "Dunvegan" Posted by ayelean on 20:29:01 3/20/2001 Could one say the 3 pg note was a filibuster of a ransom note? Could one say whoever wrote the ransom note expected to be believed unquestioningly? Could one say the writing in the DOI was disjointed and hard to reference who said what? BTW thanks for that example you posted above. You have way more energy than I have. I just want to throw my hands in the air and say, 'don't worry about how your words are misattributed, the intelligent poster here know the score'. It was also much easier to keep track of who was saying what than other filibuster posts we've been subjected to decipher. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 78. "I did.." Posted by Pedro on 20:16:02 3/20/2001 ...consider carefully so did others with me. Decission making process isn't a one person job. We read the threads, we read the alarm messages, we read the posts complaining. I evaluate the whole situation and I see who did and did not break the rules. After carefull consideration, we did what we did, move this thread to the WOR and keep Ned's posts where they were. I seen too posts that are just in the limit of the aceptable according to the house rules. I believe the decission we took is right and no further actions will be taken unless the circunstances change. Pedro [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 80. "Britt and Pedro" Posted by FT on 20:40:24 3/20/2001 Britt, your friend Nedd says, "Britt knows me well Mandarin. She also knows I was very anti Ram for several years." Britt, could you please tell me whether the forum where Nedd posted as "very anti Ram" was, generally speaking, a "pro Ram" forum? Just curious. Pedro, I thought you were my congressman. No? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 84. "FT" Posted by Pedro on 21:41:12 3/20/2001 ...Am I"? *Help me Jesuzsssss* LOL ;-). Pedro [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 81. "Hi, FT" Posted by Britt on 21:11:49 3/20/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 21:11:49, 3/20/2001 The prior forum (at CNN) was pretty evenly split. We had plenty of heated debates (to put it mildly), but at that time Ned was on my side of the debate. Somewhere in his travels between that forum and this one, he must've got lost, took a short-cut or something, and ended up on the other side of the fence. I fear he may have stumbled into the swamp on his way over here :) (kidding... Fly et al, no need to pounce) Edited to add: the "several years" is a Ned-exaggeration. I never posted on a forum in my life until last April. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 83. "Britt" Posted by ayelean on 21:39:37 3/20/2001 Did you ever email the old Ned? The reason I ask is, could the hat have be taken over by someone and the real Ned is not the wiser? Maybe the real Ned is lying bound and gagged in a wine cellar somewhere? Do you recognize the faux pas of the old Ned in the new Ned's posts? Could the old Ned have be a faux Borg before just to get the goods to argue now as a ProRam? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 85. "lol, Ayelean" Posted by Britt on 22:58:48 3/20/2001 Ned kidnapped? Nah, they would've given him back by now. He was just as obnoxious in his prior incarnation (who loves ya, Ned :)), but only to the pro-Rams, as well as the CNN moderators. He created as much of a stir there as he does here. As I've said before, I recognize his style and, though I'm befuddled by his total change in content, the style is the same. For better or worse, I believe Ned is for real. IMO his posts reflect a sort of processing of information as it's received. He never had a thought he didn't share - usually loudly. That said, I've never emailed Ned and I don't know him from Adam or anyone else. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 82. "No way..." Posted by v_p on 21:39:49 3/20/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 21:39:49, 3/20/2001 >>Edited to add: the "several years" is a Ned-exaggeration. I never posted on a forum in my life until last April.<<< Ned? Exaggerate?? lol ~*~*~*~*~*~* Fly, I think ned is as entitled to his opinion as I am, and my opinion is his repetetive posts and spamming are an effort to cram his opinion down my throat ... so to speak. Again my opinion. He hasn't even bothered to post here or try to compromise. I just opened a thread he had posted to today and closed it immediately. This is how I will choose to deal with Ned's posts. If he does have anything interesting to say, I'll never know it. Gem, why are you ragging on AK about unreliable sources? IMO, unreliable sources, and sometimes even totally fabricated sources, wind their way through these threads constantly. He was right about Nedra and he was first to report it and that seemed to pi$$ a few people off. Then again, some people seem to stay pi$$ed off. It's not good. You could even get a rash, (sorry for mentioning that again). [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 86. "Thanks DunV ..." Posted by Mandarin on 23:29:55 3/20/2001 Doesn't matter how many posters continue. You are the one who really got the last word's. Bravo ... I admire your courage, matched closely by your creativitiy, bs detector, dimplomacy and genuine tenacity and persistence. Now why did the man upstairs give you all those talents? He sure didn't leave much for the rest of us. Soooooo .... I'm honourd that you got the last word of my thread, at least it's the last one I'll read and that's the only reason I'm posting this note. Nuff' said ... thanks to all for participating and I hope we've all got this out of our system. Regards, Mandarin [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 87. "Drat" Posted by A.K. on 03:21:21 3/21/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 03:21:21, 3/21/2001 Gem, just as I was unwinding after a wonderful massage, I read your latest post. Sigh. I guess I should be flattered that my posts unnerve you so much. :-) I will happily defend my accuracy and compare it to anyone else's, any day! Who brought JW news of Nedra's death via a RamFam insider? Me. Who told JW that the MW hoax was OVER? Me. (And if you expect me to elaborate why, well, that won't happen. If you choose not to believe it's over, be my guest!) Who mentioned that the hoax was connected to a "washed-up blonde actress"? Me, and I stand by that. (When Edie Pratt later asked about it, I explained that someone flashed a shiny object in front of said actress' gaze and she flew off to another distraction. I don't believe I ever mentioned her eye color; Holly added "blue" along the way. Did this actress initiate the hoax? No, she was just briefly part of the mix. This little stinker of a story took on a life of its own and involved multitudes who probably have no idea where they are on the great scale of things -- nor do I have all the answers, or care. Other than a test balloon on the 'Net, it really didn't go anywhere and isn't likely to affect a jury if and when one is empaneled.) Who told JW that two "therapists" with satanic sex cults and the Ramsey case on their minds were laughed out of a NOVA convention? That would be me. (Yes, I jokingly mentioned that Mary99 was missing at the same time, which was true, but any serious belief that I accused her of being one of those therapists is folly.) Who told JW the menu, wardrobe and goings-on at Patsy's high school reunion, from an inside source who attended? Moi. Who posted the complete transcript of the 'Sneaky Pete' Peterson's press conference that was making the rounds of newsrooms from coast-to-coast? That's right. Me. Gee, I can't even remember all the other FACTS I've posted here, but it really doesn't matter. Only the case does. Now, back to my relaxation... ahhhh..... P.S. Keep your eyes on the news. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 96. "A ll K nowing" Posted by Holly on 12:10:13 3/21/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 12:10:13, 3/21/2001 Let's talk about that BIG Fleet White media event that you announced last year. You know, the one that would really knock our socks off. Like he was going to show up on 60 MINUTES or something. And all those big bad FW libel suits against all kinds of people - maybe even posters? Darby the "idiot" and nasty Holly. Where's all that damning information that proves Nancy Krebs lied? Where's all that Mary Bienkowski, as a conniving fraud, stuff? And wasn't there a plot with Steven Singular? Regular soap opera stuff. And now I'm supposed to believe you were joking with mary99? Really? When asked to apologize for that lie/joke, you kept right on barking at JW and CS too. Nedra's death and a reunion menu, puleeze, nothing but wire stories and tab blab. While you're crowing about the reunion, BTW, a real JW source actually sat at a table with Patsy, Nedra and others and chatted - then told JW (through me)all about it, right down to the leopard sandals. And, on an unrelated, but posted at JW topic, didn't you claim to have turned over the infamous Bruno Magli shoe photos to the OJ civil team - or something like that - from October 2000? So unless you're a guy from Buffalo or the FBI, how'd you do that? And then no AK for just about five months. Re-charging the old batteries? Pissed off? Biding time? LETHAL at CS. A clone? Truth is, I agree with Gemini, you're a featherweight. And here's some advice - avoid radio shows. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 88. "I only have" Posted by Watching you on 04:52:46 3/21/2001 one comment here. This is the WOR, and we are allowed to knock the shit out of each other, because Chris said so. It is Enter at your own Risk, wear body armor, all that jazz. I hate to see Pedro so stressed over what's being said here, wondering what's the right thing to do. I say, that's what this room is here for - if we come out bloodied and bruised, it's our own faults, because we were duly warned. As for Nedthang, I know what he is, and he knows I know what he is. The foreign DNA in her panties was blood. According to Ned. Now it's "blood by process of elimination." Hello? Ned now also has three sources inside law enforcement. It just keeps getting better and better. Oh well, such is the stuff of life - we deal with it or ignore it. Maybe it will go away. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 89. "...yes indeedy WY -" Posted by jonesy on 09:17:11 3/21/2001 ....from now on anybody with constipation of the brain and diarrhea of the mouth will be so designated as having a "NedJohn Day" ..hahahaha - or is that a "NedJams Day" - ....does he write his 'stories' using alphabet soup ?? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 90. "hahahahaha" Posted by Watching you on 09:32:49 3/21/2001 the President of the OBC has decreed and themotion has been passsed. So be it. Y'all have been warned. hahahahahahahaha [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 91. "We are all breathing the same air" Posted by RiverRat on 10:11:28 3/21/2001 but that doesn't mean that I have to stand by somebody that stinks. When the chit hit the fan last year, Nedd showed up for our grand re-opening. Now, without the benefit of the archives from the good ole days, he still is able to comment on certain attributes of certain posters who really haven't been the same since our privitization, but somehow Nedd knows all. Thank you A.K. for jumping in when we need you. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 92. "Watchin You..." Posted by Pedro on 10:46:42 3/21/2001 ...I don't have a problem with what is said here, is a free place!!! Some folks don't agree with our decisions and that's all. The answer to post by others are the result of their complains about that. We did move this thread to the WOR, where we think it belong. Once is here, is under WOR rules, heh almost none. So I have the right to answer those so unhappy with our decisions too. I wouldn't answer if this thread were a WOR thread, but it begin in the JBR forum and I don't think is called for nor fair to complain and treat the moderators because we don't like their actions. I think the right way to go is wait until Chris is back and then complain to her, I trust Chris' judgement, so no problem here, the problem is with critics and arguments with the moderators and their actions as such in the JBR forum, isn't the right place and isn't the right thing to do. Pedro [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 93. "Nobody should be" Posted by Watching you on 11:09:47 3/21/2001 misusing the moderators for any reason, Pedro. You can please some of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all the time, nor should you have to. I do most my bitching on the forum, heh, as you well know. I may make a comment now and then to a moderator, but whiners should eat cake. Doncha' think? Don't you worry none, Pedro. You da man. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 94. "WY.." Posted by Pedro on 11:45:48 3/21/2001 ..thanks, I am not having a very good time lately, seems that everything is against me in RL. Midage crisis? poor China!!! :-) Pedro [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 95. "My dear Pedro" Posted by Watching you on 12:01:28 3/21/2001 just know that things have a way of working out. Take it from old WY - I've seen it happen over and over. Things will happen when they are supposed to happen, and you will be happy again. China is mean woman. She'll be okay, haha. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 97. "Who been messin wid my man?" Posted by Twitch on 12:12:59 3/21/2001 I'll start bitch slappin. Pedro, you tell em all to bite ya. (But don't let anybody bite ya cept me and China, ok.) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 100. "promises, promises" Posted by fly on 12:37:57 3/21/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 12:37:57, 3/21/2001 Holly - And what about that big MW article from some major investigative reporter we've been promised? My bad. A.K. wasn't the one to break that news, was she? I can't think of a single person who has posted "inside information," or "scoops," or whatever, who hasn't been wrong at times. No need to play Queen of the Scoops - either of you two. A.K. has provided some accurate information in the past. Others have too. Those of us in the dark appreciate that information, and don't really care how many notches anybody thinks they have on their guns. (No offense intended, mame. Unfulfilled promises are common, and do not necessarily reflect on the integrity of the reporter.) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 99. "fly" Posted by darby on 12:27:45 3/21/2001 Yep, now THIS is was I call a WOR thread. LOL--I got stuff to say too, but it'll have to wait a few hours. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 98. "AK" Posted by Morgan on 12:23:34 3/21/2001 Since you so grandly announced that it was YOU who provided the Bruno Magli pic to the lawyers in the civil case, couldn't you produce for us at least one picture of Gil Garcetti smooching you in gratitude? Oh, yeah, you were just kidding, right? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 102. "Fly" Posted by Morgan on 13:22:07 3/21/2001 There is an issue here of INTENT. Sometimes all knowing hacks use deceit and lies and the anonymity of the internet to pump up sagging careers. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 101. "PooperScooper had the best Scoop..." Posted by LurkerXIV on 13:13:50 3/21/2001 ...when he gave us inside information that Fidel Castro was dead. Folks, it's the Internet. Don't believe everything you read in cyberprint. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 103. "Morgan" Posted by fly on 14:10:05 3/21/2001 Morgan - Perhaps you'd like to be brave enough to report how "some people" have used deceit and lies to boost their sagging careers? If you're going to make such thinly veiled accusations, you ought to be willing to back it up with the real story. The last person to obliquely allude to something similar wasn't. I'm sure lots of folks would be interested. I just hope this episode of character trashing proves to have a bit more substance than FW's saga. Of course, such tawdry practices wouldn't make the accurate information inaccurate, would it? It just makes the information provider a possible slimeball. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 105. "yoo hoo, AK" Posted by mary99 on 14:22:17 3/21/2001 Gee whizzikers, why dint you tell me twas just a widdle bitty joke when you said I went to a Satanic Ritual Abuse Convention and yekked about Fleet White at a private dining room where you were lurking behind a potted palm (or were you just potted, period?) My, you bashed me here there and everywhere for what, a week, posting your BS about Lyin' Nancy too. Was that just a little joke too? Impersonating a big time reporter isn't nice, or were your fingers crossed? BTW, do you still have that picture of JAR in Atlanta at the ATM? Or did your pet eat it? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 104. "Fly" Posted by Morgan on 14:17:50 3/21/2001 Wouldn't you rather hear it from the horse's mouth? Or should I say jackass? She's right here kicking and braying. Hee haw, hee haw! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 107. "Morgan" Posted by fly on 14:29:41 3/21/2001 Morgan - Well if that person is such a masochist that s/he'd like to shoot him/herself in the character, that would be fine, but I think that's asking a bit much. You are the one making the allegations, so you are the one who should load up and fire. And, I'd hate to deprive you of that pleasure anyway. You take the first shot, and then perhaps s/he will address how good your aim is. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 106. "Holly & Morgan" Posted by A.K. on 14:29:13 3/21/2001 You both make me sick so this will be my last post on the subject. Believe what you want. The FW scoop didn't need to come out because everything aligned itself in another way despite your best efforts to try to see him smeared. I disappear at times because I'm WORKING. On REAL cases. I don't need to spin nonsense to keep myself busy. It also is why I'm so good at spotting BS when I see it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 108. "Well," Posted by v_p on 15:14:39 3/21/2001 There ya go... lol, i love this room. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 109. "AK" Posted by Morgan on 15:52:19 3/21/2001 Since that was your last post on the subject, I guess you choose not to humiliate yourself with the unsavory details of your failed smear campaign of MW and the phony FW "scoop". As you know, your RL tactics were unethical and totally deceitful, but that's just your "work", right? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 110. "pssst Fly, v_p" Posted by Gemini on 17:59:00 3/21/2001 Time to set the record straight about where I was coming from in re. A.K.. It really has nothing to do with MW ... just that poster's habitual attempts (usually successful) to manipulate the opinions of some against another forum member. Divide and conquer, so to speak. I was the target of something like that in email or chat a few months ago. A.K. was my first thought becuase it just seemed such an A.K. thing ... track record, don'cha know. Well, never being the shrinking violet, I flat out asked on the daily thread. A.K. denied it. Unless I have good reason to believe the denial was a lie, I'll accept it and let it go. But, here's the thing ... that incident made me doubly aware of the shoddy attempts to pull this little trick on other people. If you'll look back to A.K.'s first post on this thread, you'll see what I mean. Someone near and dear to me works in information media. I asked him the other day to give me an opinion of someone who claims to be a professional journalist, yet comes into a general public internet forum and tries to influence opinion via ad hominem attacks on others. He replied, "you're kidding ... what kind of journalist? ... national enquirer? So, my remarks to A.K. mostly had to do with the attempts to paint Ned as a paid spinner (knowing this had happened a number to times before with people who don't just genuflect and accept the A.K.-way as the truth and the light), and, further, because of the hit and run tactics when she plants rumor as truth, only to be obviously and publically wrong. Shoddy, murkey, dubious professionalism, imo. One thing's for sure, anyone who believes folks who aren't totally convinced the parents are guilty either 1) have ties to the Ramseys or 2) are being paid by some huge, secret pro-Rams network are either 1) experiencing some sad form of brain-death or 2) allowing themselves to be manipulated by such as A.K.. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 111. "LOL!" Posted by A.K. on 18:03:56 3/21/2001 You should come to Hollywood, Gem. You'd have a nice career as a comedy writer. So many words, so many laughs... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 112. "Typical reply A.K." Posted by Gemini on 18:19:23 3/21/2001 Start typing "tee hee" and you'll be right down there with Thinker (et al) in the articulate response catagory. I don't find you amusing at all. Wha'cha doing? Lurking around in here hoping someone will give you an (apparently desperately needed) compliment? IMO, your credibility has been sinking to the bottom of the pond for some time now. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 113. "Gem" Posted by fly on 10:31:12 3/22/2001 Gem - Let me make my position clear, because I think you might have misunderstood. A.K. has contributed information. A.K. has been wrong at times. The latter doesn't negate the former, although that is how some folks act. I don't think that appropriate. It is good reason to be wary, of course, but not nasty. Some folks seem hell-bent to discredit A.K., conveniently elevating their own position while they're at it in some cases, rather than just putting pond scum back where it belongs. Now if A.K. deserves to be down in the muck, so be it. I certainly don't see A.K. as compeletely innocent and pure, because she does sometimes stir the pot, but what I've observed hardly seems to put her in the "most evil" category. Perhaps if somebody would provide some information I'd start frothing at the mouth like Morgan and Holly. It is only appropriate that the name-calling be accompanied by a few facts, especially when "unethical" gets bandied about. (Did A.K. really take credit for OJ's shoes? Surely not ;-) ) What might have been revealed in chat or email doesn't count. We're on the forum now. Those alleging horrific character flaws need to shit or get off the pot. As usual, scratch off the surface of this, and we find MW. And that almost always means that the true situation is somewhere between the snarling and snapping positions on either extreme. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 114. "fly - Please pay attention." Posted by Holly on 10:34:21 3/22/2001 There is a Part 2 thread. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ]