From: locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Lupo the Butcher)
Subject: Lupo's last victim
Organization: Campus Crusade for Cthulhu
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 22:33:21 GMT
X-Posted-From: titan.ucc.umass.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu



I've been tormenting Marshall. Anyone else find this entertaining?(I'll post my
reply shortly)

>> >> You haven't banished anyone, Scott.  You simply refused to listen and I stopped
>> >> wasting my time on you.
>> >You are effectively banished. If you insist on posting, I'll insist on posting
>> >my last public response to you untill you can come up with an effective answer.
>> >Noone with a brain will be convinced untill you answer the questions logically.
>> >Me refusing to listen? I listen, you are simply to mentally impotent to respond
>> >to criticism & as far as not wasting my time with me, what do you call this letter?
>> 
>> I gave you a logical answer for your posting.  You proceeded to bring up
>> something that was so "left-wing", it didn't need to be answered.  I'm not
>
>As a card carrying member of the libertarian party I say; Fuck you! Your Idea
>of right-wing is Pat Buchanan & other such hate mongers. Read someone with a
>brain like Bill Buckley Jr. 

I could care less.

>There is absolutely nothing political in my post. Just cold hard facts. If you
>cannot answer them, don't. Just don't whine about my political affiliations.

Good, I won't.

>> going to argue a point like that, not because I can't back myself up, but
>> because you will never hear.
>
>Because I will never "believe" is the proper term. 

Sorry to hear that.

>If you have some empirical
>evidence, lets have it. All you do is toe the traditional line, without even 
>knowing its sources. Intellectual cowardice.

I know the sources, you just continue to falsly say that I'm wrong.
 
>> >> Too bad "this evidence" is only what YOU want to hear.
>> >
>> >No feeble minded one. 
>> 
>> Thank you.  That is a compliment compared to your gnostic views.
>
>*chuckle* I have no "gnostic views" these are what are me bucko

"Are what are me" --- fantastic grasp of the English language you have.

>> >I speak only in facts, you speak in what you want to hear.
>> 
>> No, Scott.  You speak with logic until it mo longer serves your purpose.  Then
>> you rely on the emotional responses of your Lupo facade.
>
>Bullshit! Find the "emotional response" in my posts. Better yet, find the logic
>in yours! I'll even give you the opportunity to respond via E-Mail. You won't 
>accept because you have no facts to base your beliefs on.

Whatever you want to believe is fine.  Sorry that you are wrong.
 
>> >This is a classic case of projection. Re-read your last post & my response, you
>> >will find more psychological wisdom there than an entire years worth of seeing
>> >a shrink
>> 
>> Thank you again for trusting in theories.
>
>Better to trust in a theory than a pathetic book! At least theory gets things 
>accomplished & if it doesn't work _I_ can always discard it for one that does.
>If you can provide empirical proof of your theories that is superior to mine,
>do so. Stop whining that I am not your sheep.

It would be a good thing to call you brother, but you constantly turn away.

>> >> > I have freinds who have gotten the same peace of mind you report
>> >> >from the use of various meditational techniques, drugs and religious cults.
>> >> 
>> >> How sad.
>> >
>> >No, not sad. Effective. Fuckwads like you who say their path is the only one
>> >are the ones who are sad. 
>> 
>> So damaging the brain with harmful drugs is the way to solve problems,
>> according to you?
>>  
>Name a drug that damages the brain other than alcohol (which ol J.C. was fond 
>of if I remember correctly). I'd REALLY like to hear this one from such a 
>closed minded bigot as yourself. See how much you have bought into the pat
>Buchannan view of reality.

You live for the moment; that moment will die.

>> >Get any sex lately Marshall? Sad you will probobly
>> >never get to truely enjoy this aspect of life, due to your varied hangups.
>> 
>> This proves that you sipmly speak only out of emotion and not out of logic.
>
>No actually it was a logical response parodying your emotional resonse. Idiot.

I sorry that you feel you need to boost your own ego by calling people names.

>> >Babble all you want about sex in marriage; christian women are uniformly
>> >frigid. One good orgasm would probobly kill you.
>> 
>> Semhaza was correct when she said you were only out to feed your dick.
>
>I haven't gotten laid in 2 months. If all I wanted was sex, I would be a 
>liberal arts major.

Why speak of such thing so much then?

>> 
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> I'll be forever watching.
>> >> 
>> >And I'll be forever waiting for your rebuttal on your last alt.satanism post, 
>> >weakling.
>> 
>> Unless you bring up some more solid answers to my postings, you will be forever
>> waiting.
>
>Shithead, how much more solid than hisrtorical evidence and biblical quotes 
>can you get? If you can't answer admit so. Look in some books. Read your bible.
>Think you fool!!!

I do all these things.  Your examples are extreme with holes in your reasoning.

>Now, your pat answer to this will be that it is emotional ranting. To a certain
>extent this is true. Idiocy pisses me off more than anything else, which is why

Why do you partake in it?

>I hate religious right bigots like yourself, as would J.C., who wouldn't 
>conform to the Zealot's (religious right of the age) expectations. Now, if you

You do not know Christ or His ways.

>can answer my questions with some kind of rational discourse, go for it. I 
>answered yours which are certainly below my contempt. The excuse than they are
>offensive to you doesn't cut the baloney. You are as offensive a human as I 
>have yet encountered on usenet, yet I spent several hours in the library
>looking up information for YOU. 

Thank you for what you do look up, but if you spend that much time just trying
to prove me wrong, then you have some major priority problems.  For one, you
could have spent all that time seeking God to see if I was actually correct. 
Also, you could have looked for the truth that is in the Bible, rather than
aimlessly trying to prove it wrong.  If your aim is just to prove me wrong for
your own spattered self-esteem, then you're missing out.  Missing out on the
friendship we could have, missing out on all the treasures God has for you,
missing out on the campassion that people should have for one another...

You missed out so much that you finally went blind.

>What it all boils down to is that you are incapable of answering a post that
>deals with what is basically history. The reason for this is that you are 
>afraid to actually confront what I have put forth for fear of finding out that
>it happens to be the facts. So be it.

I am not afraid to confront you or what you have put forth.  I must also
measure in how much good it would do.  In your case, currently, it would do no
good, for you are unteachable and full of comtempt.


>-Lupo (Scott to my freinds)

It would be nice to call you Scott.


Take care and look to the Lamb of God.
Evan