Newsgroups: bit.listserv.words-l
Date:         Thu, 23 Jul 1992 17:29:04 CDT
From:         Tushar Samant <tushar@ZAPHOD.UCHICAGO.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Five Reasons (was tushar, boy..)
Comments: To: words-l@uga.cc.uga.edu

>Was this an attempt to put up the World's Longest Post Composed
>Entirely of Quoted Material?  Congratulations!  You won....  Oh:
>I almost missed the three lines at the end....
>
>Ken

And now, for the amusement of those who haven't seen one, a sample
posting from the alt.moronic heirarchy. The names involved are real,
unchanged, for the authors, as you can see, love to be quoted.
___________________________________________________________________

Article: 31029 of alt.flame
From: krobinsn@eressa.endor.cs.psu.edu (Kenneth J Robinson)
Subject: Re: This newsgroup has gone to hell!
Date: Sat, 2 May 1992 17:21:49 GMT

In article <9204302322.28@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>In article <0w+vH-8r+6@atlantis.psu.edu> bufalini@beyond.gis.psu.edu (Bruce A
 Bufalini) writes:
>>In article <9204261207.57@rmkhome.UUCP>, rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>>In article <=j+vHn!oz6@atlantis.psu.edu> bufalini@through.gis.psu.edu (Bruce
 A Bufalini) writes:
>>>>In article <9204232035.12@rmkhome.UUCP>, rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
 writes:
>>>>|> In article <ov=vH28=w6@atlantis.psu.edu> bufalini@near.gis.psu.edu (Bruce
 Bufalini) writes:
>>>>|> >In article <9204201636.52@rmkhome.UUCP>, rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
 writes:
>>>>|> >|> In article <4g9wH++rv6@atlantis.psu.edu>
 bufalini@cattycorner.gis.psu.edu (Bruce Bufalini) writes:
>>>>|> >|> >In article <9204181611.39@rmkhome.UUCP>, rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick
 Kelly) writes:
>>>>|> >|> >|> In article <9#4wHdj7s6@atlantis.psu.edu>
 bufalini@near.gis.psu.edu (Bruce Bufalini) writes:
>>>>|> >|> >|> >In article <9204152151.40@rmkhome.UUCP>, rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick
 Kelly) writes:
>>>>|> >|> >|> >|> In article <x62wHeukq6@atlantis.psu.edu>
 bufalini@beyond.gis.psu.edu (Bruce Bufalini) writes:
>>>>|> >|> >|> >|> >In article <9204132058.14@rmkhome.UUCP>, rmk@rmkhome.UUCP
 (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>>>|> >|> >
>>>>|> >|> >|> >|> >|> You're too late.  Ken, who seems to think that you aren't
 articulate
>>>>|> >|> >|> >|> >|> enough to followup a news article, has already answered
 for you.
>>>>|> >|> >|> >|> >
>>>>|> >|> >|> >|> >No, K e n  has not spoken for me.  You are again
 misinformed.  I can
>>>>|> >|> >|> >|> >articulate enough to follow up; that's what I'm doing now.
>>>>|> >|> >|> >|>
>>>>|> >|> >|> >|> Well he managed to get his response out onto the net before
 you did.
>>>>|> >|> >|> >
>>>>|> >|> >|> >So?  I have other responsibilities than posting here.  I post
 here when all
>>>>|> >|> >|> >other work is completed.  Timing is meaningless.
>>>>|> >|> >|>
>>>>|> >|> >|> But "K e n" did speak for you.  He followed up to a posting that
 was
>>>>|> >|> >|> directed to you.  I should think you would be pissed.  Unless
 there is
>>>>|> >|> >|> more than meets the eye, here.
>>>>|> >|> >
>>>>|> >|> >K e n  referring to me <> K e n  speaking for me.  I should think
 that you are
>>>>|> >|> >misinformed.  I am not pissed at K e n.  There is no need to be
 pissed at an
>>>>|> >|> >informed person.
>>>>|> >|>
>>>>|> >|> So "K e n" speaks for you.  How said.
>>>>|> >
>>>>|> >No, you didn't read my previous post.  K e n  is not speaking for me.  K
 e n
>>>>|> >and I are speaking for alt.flame, not for each other.  We must always
 inform
>>>>|> >the misinformed.  After all, you are all misinformed.
>>>>|>
>>>>|> You speak for alt.flame like I speak for the pope.
>>>>
>>>>We speak for alt.flame, for no one else here is informed enough to speak for
>>>>themselves, let alone alt.flame.  You are proving to be the best example of
>>>>this.
>>>
>>>The two of you are the poster children for chronic dysentery.
>>
>>We inform the misinformed, which I see you are again.  Chronic dysentry is
>>irrelevant.
>
>Physician, heal thyself.

Bruce has no reason for being healed for he is not in need of repairs,
nor is he injured, nor is he defective. You, sir, are the individual
requiring healing help, for you are quite defective and most of your major
body organs are malfunctioning.

>>>>|> >|> Maybe the government will bring back the draft for the next outing in
 Iraq,
>>>>|> >|> and you and your buddies will have something interesting to worry
 about.
>>>>|> >
>>>>|> >Then again, maybe they won't.  Your suggestion seems to be faulty.  Do
 you
>>>>|> >still need a brain?
>>>>|>
>>>>|> You just never know what George Bush will do.
>>>>
>>>>And you do????  You are unable to initiate a thought process to know what
 you
>>>>are ever going to do, let alone George Bush.
>>>
>>>I didn't say I did.
>>>
>>>Don't they teach reading at PSU?
>>
>>No, reading is taught in grade school.  Perhaps you need to be reading
>>K12.elementary so you can learn to read.
>
>Why, is that where you learned?

It is quite apparent that comprehension is an unknown process to Mr. Kelly,
for Bruce learned how to read in grade school. Perhaps remembering what you
have read would be a good start. Indeed, Mr. Kelly, what kind of a lame
university would accept that such as yourself as an enrolling student?

>>>>|> >|> >|> >|> It certainly seems to me that "K e n" thinks that you can't
 speak for
>>>>|> >|> >|> >|> yourself.
>>>>|> >|> >|> >|>
>>>>|> >|> >|> >|> Which isn't true.  I said in another article that you appear
 to have a
>>>>|> >|> >|> >|> higher vocabulary than he does.
>>>>|> >|> >|> >
>>>>|> >|> >|> >And he has a higher vocabulary than you do, as your vocabulary
 appears to be
>>>>|> >|> >|> >nonexistent.
>>>>|> >|> >|>
>>>>|> >|> >|> But you can't flame very well.
>>>>|> >|> >
>>>>|> >|> >And you can't flame at all.
>>>>|> >|>
>>>>|> >|> You're not worth flaming.
>>>>|> >
>>>>|> >And you're not worth anything, for ashes rarely are.
>>>>|>
>>>>|> So when are you going to start flaming?
>>>>
>>>>Rick, you have been nothing but a large pile of ashes ever since the first
>>>>time I flamed you.  You continue to live on misinformation.
>>>
>>>You've never flamed anybody.
>>
>>Rick, your ashes are all the proof I need to show I've flamed somebody.  Your
>>point has been proven false.
>
>
>You've never flamed anybody.

You are quite misinformed, for he has flamed you. I'd hate to be in the
embarrassing situation you have put yourself if.

K e n   R o b i n s o n
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU