HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: etljmme@etlxd10h.etlxd (Jim Moore)
Subject: K e n again!
Reply-To: etljmme@etlxd10h.etlxd
Organization: Ericsson
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 14:15:42 GMT


To Kenneth J Robinson.

I must admit to being impressed by your literary talent, sir.  I have never, in all
my life, ever read such reiterary nonsense.  Not only do you include the past fuck
knows how many lines from the last post but you then answer it with the most insipid
and pointless drivel which just so happens to be exactly the same pathetic response
you used the last fifty times!

Why are you such a pointless globule of fetid fanny-batter?  You're personality has
obviously emigrated to your anus where it's living as a cancerous polyp on your
distended rectal tract.  Also, why do you write K e n instead of just Ken.  Is your
name double-spaced like your brain or are you just attempting to fill up space.  Try
to become worthy of respect; find a sexual partner, live!!  You may find this somewhat
difficult as you obviously have the sex appeal of a serious road accident, you dank
matted tuft of anal pubic hair!  Most of the postings have at least some relevance to
what other people have said but *you* are *the* most obnoxious, bilious, cock-sucking
little prick I have ever encountered!  If ken is ken then ken is obviously a pseudonym
for a egocentric, maladjusted, incestuous, spunk-gargling little shit!!

How can you call the rest of the net misinformed when each and EVERY one of them is
telling you that your a daft fucking CUNT!!!  You, pal, are misinformed.  I've met
people with cerebral palsy make more contructive and coherent argument than your
flacid wit is even capable of.  No doubt you'll simply say "You're misinformed as
K e n is K e n".  I hope so, you'll simply be justifying my post!!!

All my undying loathing,
Jim.
From: libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.flame
Subject: Re: Why Clinton
Date: 12 Nov 92 14:56:19 GMT
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

Sorry 'bout the lack of quotes, William, ol' buddy, but
my machine kept mangling your post, due to your grim-faced
determination to include more than seventy characters as
often as possible.         
Now what was I saying?  Oh, yeah...
Willy, your point is granted.  President George Herbert 
Walker Bush never came right out and said "I don't think
atheists should be citizens."  What we got here, however,
is a distinction without a difference; he *did* say that 
he felt there was some doubt as to whether atheists should
be citizens, and that statement, in and of itself, is really,
really scary, since it implies a complete lack of understanding
of the Constitution; which, the opinion of Spirit or Caspar or
whatever he calls himself notwithstanding, the President had
really oughta understand.
As for my "unoriginal" insults; supposing I just call you a
nit-picking, thick-skulled ultra-right-wing fanatic and be
done with it?
Bill
From: liz@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (PostMistress General)
Newsgroups: alt.flame
Subject: Re: K e n Is Not Boring (was Re: Aza.  Is She, or Isn't He?)
Date: 5 Nov 1992 16:57:16 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigwpi.wpi.edu

In article <Bx5vzy.208@cs.psu.edu> krobinso@tealblue.crayola.cs.psu.edu (Kenneth J Robinson) writes:
>
>K e n does not bore people, for K e n is K e n, and K e n can only be
>K e n, thus K e n is K e n and only K e n.
>

Wait wait wait a minute...K e n is K e n, therefore K e n does not bore people?
I'm having a problem with the logical connection between the two...

						--liz
--
my ego ate my .sig[deleted]
Newsgroups: alt.flame
From: vsg001@acad.drake.edu
Subject: Re: Get this JACKASS outta here
Organization: Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa, USA
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 10:07:40 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.153742.16127@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson) writes:
> 
> Fortunately, I have a strong stomach, so I can handle your postings. I
> mean, its not like they are red hot jalepeno peppers, man, its more
> like they are bland gruel with maybe a little margarine added. BLAND.
> 
> so fuck off you worthless asshole. Go have a nickname contest with troll,
> fellow loser.

Oh Robbie, your so cute when you're mad! Let's see, how can I respond in a way
that you will be able to follow.... Hmm. Well Rub, since I don't have any 
pretty pictures, and you never really hammer down a point, I can only respond
in Such a way that other users of the net would:

First there is the K E N approach:

: T H E  P H A N T O M can only be T H E  P H A N T O M because T H E 
P H A N T O M is T H E  P H A N T O M and can therefore only be  T H E
P H A N T O M.

Then of course that Mathew guy:
:[..........................]

Then the 'ol Keith tactic:
: But... not uh... 'cuz... but... well... I'm just right, so there humph!

Garrett posts frequently:
: ALL I CAN DO IS FUCKING SWEAR AT EVERY LITTLE FUCKING THING AND I STILL GET
AWAY WITH OUT A POINT! 

And then Rub, there are your postings:
WHINEWHINEWHINEWHINEWHINEWHINEWHINEWHINEWHINEWHINEWHINEWHINEWHINEWHINEWHINE!!!
Can someone fuck my dog now? Hey! You can just fuck my dog!WHINEWHINEWHINEWHINE

Rub (You wanted a nickname) I understand how happy you are that Mom and Dad got
you a thesaurus, and I'm sure you just love them to bits. But fella, try to
expand your vocabulary, just a little? You post this, irrelevant bunkum that
loses any sort of power that your flames one had.Oh, don't get me wrong, you're
still a necrosadobeastialalistic example of a cretin, but your flames are down
right boring. You BORE me Rub. Your writing is uncouth and proves THE arguement
of atrophic brains being wasted on a student. Here endeth the lesson.

--The Phantom
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Newsgroups: alt.flame
Subject: Re: Why Clinton
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 02:06:33 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
NNTP-Posting-Host: b64746.student.cwru.edu

	
	Sit behind your little desk, and play your childish semantic games, 
little William. I'm not very interested in arguing about the definition of 
a particular word, or a set of words.
From: maufd@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Mr J S Graley)
Newsgroups: alt.flame
Subject: test
Date: 6 Nov 1992 17:36:32 -0000
Organization: Computing Services, University of Warwick, UK
NNTP-Posting-Host: lily.csv.warwick.ac.uk

This is just a test. Ignore it.

==NAMENAMENAME==

Newsgroups: alt.flame
From: weverett@jarthur.claremont.edu (William M. Everett)
Subject: Re: Why Clinton
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 02:59:38 GMT

In article <kmr4.172.721533993@po.CWRU.edu> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:
>
>	
>	Sit behind your little desk, and play your childish semantic games, 
>little William. I'm not very interested in arguing about the definition of 
>a particular word, or a set of words. 
	You, Sir, are a moron.

	A statement was made. I claimed said statement was false. Supposed 
'proof' was then posted. I pointed out that said proof failed to support the
statement. Then  Mr. Anal 'I'm so superior' Retentive pops in with an
irrelevant post with the apparent belief that it has something to do with
correctness of the original statement. I point out that it is irrelevant.
Mr. Anal 'I'm so superior' then cannot even answer my points but just has
to tell everybody how superior he is.

	I personally don't remember any argument over the definition of a
word. It was simply over whether a statement was uttered. I think we can
all now come to the conclusion that said statement was not uttered and that
I am right and that everybody who argued against me is hopelessly wrong.

	By the way, calling me 'little' was slightly more creative than your
first insult. However, I am definitely mentally larger than you and there is
a good chance I am physically larger. Keep trying though.

William Everett

Newsgroups: alt.flame,talk.abortion
From: Suzanne-lucia.Demitrio@launchpad.unc.edu (Suzanne-lucia Demitrio)
Subject: Re: Consensus stuff - the real reasoning
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 05:48:42 GMT

In article <s5gbeus@zola.esd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com writes:

>Keegie and DeMitrio disagree with you, Galen.  They think the
>mere mention of the existence of email is a heinous crime.

I don't recall ever having had occasion to comment on 'the mere mention of
the existence of email'.                                              

>Too bad I won't get to see their ceaseless harassment of
>poor McBean.

Too bad indeed, considering that my only encounter with McBean to date 
involved *agreeing* with him in the "Autumn Blues" thread.           

What else have I been posting in my absence, CJ?


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Suzanne Lucia                   suzanne-lucia.demitrio@launchpad.unc.edu
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: isr@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Michael S. Schechter - ISR group account)
Newsgroups: alt.flame
Subject: Re: The Moral Majority is Neither
Date: 11 Nov 92 20:15:48 GMT
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY

>In article <1992Nov11.034944.22206@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com (Kenn Bar
>Tell the parents of kids that have been victimized by the very sort of
>person that likes to look at those photos your meaningless opinions.

Well, it's like any other thing- it can be abused..
Some people, oh say, collect knives and swords and hang 'em on walls,
theres a small percentage of 'em that get off looking at the smooth curves
and gleaming metal and the feel in their hand, and then there's a still
smaller percentage that's has a secret desire to ram knives into flesh,
feeling the tissue rip asunder, seeing the fluids burst out, and
then there's a still smaller group that go out and do that...

Shall we then ban knives? Who will determine the difference between a 
butter knife, a kitchen knife, a butchers knife, a hunting knife, and
a knife that is made for abusing?

In the same way, one can look at guns.. or leather whips, or whatever.

Anything can be abused- it's the individual cases that must be judjed.
IS the pose in question meant to elicite desire? if so, clearly it would
be porn, if not then allow it. I mean, are to ban diaper ads on TV because
the show 6month old titties? (Sorry ladies, I know that words offensive,m
but it fits so well here)

It's the INTENDED USE that matters, not the subject. And Now that I've said my
peice, I'll say that those phots belong in abp, NOT abpe, because that
defines INTENDED USE..

--------- ----------- ------------- --------------- ----------- --------------
Support A National BAN on all handguns and semi-automatic weapons NOW !!!!!
------- hunters don't need em, and shotguns are better for home defense! -----
Newsgroups: alt.flame
From: vsg001@acad.drake.edu
Subject: Re: Why Clinton
Organization: Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa, USA
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 07:24:40 GMT

In article <RBR3TB11w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
> There is more to flaming than stringing together meaningless insults and bad
> language.  Flailing around in anger when someone ridicules your right-wing
> political opinions isn't flaming, it's a rather pathetic and transparent
> attempt at smokescreening.  You'd gain a little more respect if you just
> admitted that you can't actually answer the criticisms made of your darling
> soon-to-be-ex President.

Boo-Hoo. What a great come back. Your expertise in flaming is truly astounding.
I suppose that's why you would claim to be an 'untouchable' flamer right?
Please, I hope you responces aren't always this scathing, I, I just don't know
what I would do...
 
> Don't bother replying with further teenage insult and unfocused aggression. 
> Flaming is a battle of wits, and I have no intention of engaging an unarmed
> opponent.    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  ^^^^^^^^
How many people have seen a variation of this theme on T-shirts and coffee
mugs? Real original. Matthew, you spend FAR too much time in Novelty shops. If
you are going to try and give a lesson in flaming, develop your own ideas.
"Unfocused aggression" huh? I thought I made it pretty clear that I can't
stomach your postings.

--The Phantom
Newsgroups: alt.flame
From: mbur@nyx.cs.du.edu (MAC)
Subject: Re: a female Democrat on Clinton
Followup-To: alt.flame,misc.test,misc.jobs.offered,talk.bizarre
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 05:48:31 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.211922.1@cubldr.colorado.edu> maltese_r@cubldr.colorado.edu writes:
>sorry but I have to get this off my chest...
>
>I am a female Democrat and I think Clinton is an arrogant overbearing
>tin-plated dictator with delusions of godhood...
>
>(so sue me Captain Kirk and the Klingons...)
>
>oh yes having babies is the one thing men can't do so ipso facto it must
>be a bad thing, right?  so let's suppress it!
>
>As long as Clinton oppresses women born and unborn, he gets no loyalty
>from me.
>
>OK end of flame, back to semi-sanity...GAAAAAA!!!

Good lord woman!  Are you really retarded, or do you just act that way on
the net.  Perhaps you should check your dosage or switch to decaf?


Ta-ta for now,
M
Newsgroups: alt.flame
From: 880840m@ace.acadiau.ca (MICHAEL ALEXANDER MCKAY)
Subject: Re: FLAME ME!!!!!!!!!!!!
Organization: Acadia University
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 00:42:40 GMT


 Scotty:

 I would like to tell you the story of the meeting of a sadist and a 
masochist:
 "BEAT ME!" cries the masochist.
 The sadist responds "No." 

 
In article <BxB1E4.5y2@mach1.wlu.ca> you have written:

>	FLAME ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>     That's right folks! I'm looking for the most graphic, verbose
>flames and insults you can muster. Gimme' something really juicy.


No. :)

                                               -luv,
                                                
                                                Mike
Newsgroups: alt.flame
From: mbur@nyx.cs.du.edu (MAC)
Subject: Re: FLAME ME!!!!!!!!!!!!
Followup-To: alt.flame,misc.test
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 20:53:33 GMT

In article <BxB1E4.5y2@mach1.wlu.ca> sche7135@mach1.wlu.ca (Scott Schelter u) writes:
>
>	FLAME ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>     That's right folks! I'm looking for the most graphic, verbose
>flames and insults you can muster. Gimme' something really juicy.
>
>
>                SCOTTY LE DOG
>                sche7135@mach1.wlu.ca
>
>
>        No mail-bombs please .
>
>

*plonk*
Newsgroups: alt.flame
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Time to retire, assholes. (was "reason to exist" or some such fuck)
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 14:24:36 GMT

some newbie twit named:
samant@tartarus.uchicago.edu (Tushar Samant) writes:
[nothing of interest]

when does your semester end, sonny?
From: krobinso@apricot.crayola.cs.psu.edu (Kenneth J Robinson)
Newsgroups: alt.flame
Subject: Re: K E N Again
Date: 10 Nov 92 18:30:10 GMT
Organization: Penn State Computer Science

In article <912.1557.uupcb@synapse.org> amanda.vantslot@synapse.org (Amanda Vantslot)  writes:
>TO: alt.flame
>FROM: amanda.vantslot@synapse.org
>
>>
>>K e n chooses the best descriptive terms for providing understanding
>>of K e n's points and directness. This is important, for misinformed
>>individuals need this type of dialogue. True, they have inabilities
>>in comprehension, but eventually they will understand.
>>
>>K e n's genetic structure is advanced to the level of inclusion
>>of abstract concepts, thus mistakes never occur. Your information
>>has not been taken as an insult, for K e n is never insulted. Your
>>help, though limited, is appreciated. Continue improving, for you
>>have shown signs of intelligence.
>>
>>K e n   R o b i n s o n
>
>Ken, how do you propose to inform people, when you continue in using the
>same limited vocabulary.  Try to expand their horizons, and yours.  Here
>are some alternate possibilities for you since you seem ill able to
>afford a dictionary or thesaurus:
>
>        Misinformed:  ignorant, confused, incapable, misguided, or
>                      misconceived
>
>        Irrelevant:   impertinent, immaterial, inappropriate,
>                      inapplicable, incongruous, or extraneous

These other terms you have brought up, are words that K e n uses
everyday, however, they are not required in alt.flame, for individuals
are indeed misinformed and often converse among irrelevant topics.
K e n could see the use of inapplicable, but the possibility has not
arisen.

>I'm sure you will receive welcome sighs of relief with your newly
>expanded vocabulary.

And, how may K e n ask, do you know this? K e n requires information.

>        As to your claim that your genetic structure is advanced, I can
>not take that statement at face value.  I require some concrete
>evidence.  After all, I could claim that the moon is made of cheese.
>Until I have evidence to prove this the statement is erroneous.  I'm
>glad that my limited intelligence has been perceived by you.  You may
>see the light yet.

The only proof you need is the posts that K e n posts, for they are
filled with vast amounts of important information proving my advanced
genetic structure, for I am K e n, and K e n is K e n, and K e n
is advanced.

K e n   R o b i n s o n
From: libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.flame
Subject: Re: Why Clinton
Date: 12 Nov 92 14:31:44 GMT
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

vsg001@acad.drake.edu writes:
: In article <1379@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu>, libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson) writes:
: > weverett@jarthur.claremont.edu (William M. Everett) writes:
: > I only used 'em once, Sunny-Jim. You seem to think Georgie meant
: > something entirely different by his remark- care to favor me with
: > your interpretation?  Seemed pretty clear to me, but then I'm a 
: > wooly-headed, soft-brained lefty pinko...
: 
: I would also add spineless worm, bleeding heart, baby killing, tree hugging,
: anti-business, anti-prosperity, big government, tax and spend,
: Kill-a-human-to-save-an-owl, Jeffrey Dahmer saving, god fearing, LIBERAL. 
: 
: But that's just my opinion.
: 
: --The Phantom

God-fearing?  One of these things is not like the others...
Anyway, Mr. Phantom, thanks fer remindin' me of all them other 
things.  All them babies I killed would be a might upset if 
I kept fergittin' to mention 'em.  Might I suggest that you 
add anti-family relativistic satan-worshipping fellow-travelling
secular humanist pig-dog?  We might as well keep the list up
to date.
Bill
From: andy@cmptrc.lonestar.org (Andy Hart)
Newsgroups: alt.flame
Subject: Ken: What Insomniacs Need  [was: Ken is not boring]
Summary: Ken, Mr. Excitement.
Keywords: doze nap pillow-drool 40-winks sleep
Date: 9 Nov 92 23:49:02 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: CompuTrac Inc., Richardson TX

(Kenneth J Robinson) writes:
>K e n does not bore people, for K e n is K e n, and K e n can only be
>K e n, thus K e n is K e n and only K e n.
>
>K e n   R o b i n s o n

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz---*  eh?  What?
 
I'm sorry Kenny, what was that?  I must have dozed off.

*yawn*

-- Andy
From: bc205cs@opie.bgsu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.flame
Subject: Re: K E N is K E N
Date: 13 Nov 92 01:57:18 GMT
Organization: Bowling Green State University

You guys suck.  All of you.  All of you but K e n.  Lost fuckers.  Lost
without a clue.  You don't realize, you don't understand.  K e n makes a
point, and the best anyone can come up with is 'You can be boring and K e n
at the same time' or other shit.  Illogical shit like that.  That shit sucks.
Sucks great big donkey dick.  Dick this, motherfuckers:  

  I believe in one God up above, and I believe that sick fucks like
  you are going to burn in hell.  I won't even bother telling you how
  to repent, because you don't deserve to go to heaven.  Heaven is for
  the holy -- for the *fucking pure*, assholes.

  I may not be pure, and I may not be going to heaven, but K e n
  _is_, so you guys just go eat your mothers out, or something --
  LEAVE THE PURE ALONE!!!

Now, for every one of you that has flamed K e n.  K e n the great.  Great 
losers of our perverted, lost society, hear this:  I can group you all into
the same category.  Category of losers.  Losers since childhood, bullied
by the strong, beautiful, healthy children.  Children that made fun of you
because you were sickly, weakling children with poor eyesight and zits.  But
you had intellect.  Intellect enough to see that you were despised.  Despised
since early youth, pariahs that nobody wanted, and it hurt.  Hurt you so much
that you lashed out.  Lashed out at the only beautiful person that you could
reach from the forsaken holes into which you were driven by your impurity. 
Your impurity, and the impurity of your anscestors.  

Look at yourselves and see what you've become.  Why are you alive?  I'm sure
that you've often contemplated suicide, because of your ugliness.  Why not?
I'm sure that K e n, in all of his beautiful humanity, would not desire death
for you, but ask yourselves -- what other option do you have?  If you don't
take the step, you will continue to flame such a person as K e n, and continue
to display your ugliness to a world that despises you.

At the very least, go crawl under a rock or something,
--Leah
From: amanda.vantslot@synapse.org (Amanda Vantslot) 
Newsgroups: alt.flame
Subject: K E N Again
Date: 8 Nov 92 14:44:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: SYNAPSE BBS - GATINEAU, QUEBEC - 819-561-4321
Reply-To: amanda.vantslot@synapse.org (Amanda Vantslot) 

TO: alt.flame
FROM: amanda.vantslot@synapse.org

>
>K e n chooses the best descriptive terms for providing understanding
>of K e n's points and directness. This is important, for misinformed
>individuals need this type of dialogue. True, they have inabilities
>in comprehension, but eventually they will understand.
>
>K e n's genetic structure is advanced to the level of inclusion
>of abstract concepts, thus mistakes never occur. Your information
>has not been taken as an insult, for K e n is never insulted. Your
>help, though limited, is appreciated. Continue improving, for you
>have shown signs of intelligence.
>
>K e n   R o b i n s o n

Ken, how do you propose to inform people, when you continue in using the
same limited vocabulary.  Try to expand their horizons, and yours.  Here
are some alternate possibilities for you since you seem ill able to
afford a dictionary or thesaurus:

        Misinformed:  ignorant, confused, incapable, misguided, or
                      misconceived

        Irrelevant:   impertinent, immaterial, inappropriate,
                      inapplicable, incongruous, or extraneous

I'm sure you will receive welcome sighs of relief with your newly
expanded vocabulary.

        As to your claim that your genetic structure is advanced, I can
not take that statement at face value.  I require some concrete
evidence.  After all, I could claim that the moon is made of cheese.
Until I have evidence to prove this the statement is erroneous.  I'm
glad that my limited intelligence has been perceived by you.  You may
see the light yet.

                        A. van't Slot
                           
Newsgroups: alt.flame