Jerry, Jerry Jerry, you have such a foul and limited vocabulary

Jerry, Jerry Jerry, you have such a foul and limited vocabulary

Post by Ted and Liz Phipp » Sat, 25 Oct 1997 04:00:00



<snip>

Quote:
> Also
> you know it is a federal offense to send an attachment, on an email,
> that is a VIRUS INFECTION program, like you also did, do you not?
> Sorry, it did not work, I have a very good Virus detection
> program....better luck next time...............

If you really did get a virus via e-mail (I have no reason to think you
didn't), I hope you alerted the proper authorities to the fact.

      Ted

 
 
 

Jerry, Jerry Jerry, you have such a foul and limited vocabulary

Post by Foxe » Sat, 25 Oct 1997 04:00:00


Jerry do you know any other words than those "***" four letter
conglomerations? You should really be ashamed of yourself, what
happened to the mild, I am very nice freindly type posts and emails
you used to send.  Now you have to resort to massive email sendings
consisting of nothing other than no content other than foul ***
language.  You really do have to stoop very low....email bombings, and
the like.  Should you not be posting to the rmr about the T shirts
instead of taking so much time with your foul worded emails to me and
some of the others listed in your send to's?

You play your childish games, I have access to the same resources that
you do, and have all the time in the world to *forward* them.  It is
not a problem.

Take notice people,"If you point Jerry out for what he really is, he
is not able to handle it" His devious and evil ways just take over,
and he turns into a extreme form of  a low life.

It must really be  a bad feeling when the TRUTH HURTS!

BTW How is Fred doing?  He was really interested in your dealings.
I wonder why, ..........not that I don't allready know......but keep
up your BS and I just may have to make that post here asa well.

People take note:  T Jerry off, and you will most likely get email
bombed, and all knds of *** stuff sent your way. Headers are not
that difficult to figure out, they all point back to Jerry I.  Also
you know it is a federal offense to send an attachment, on an email,
that is a VIRUS INFECTION program, like you also did, do you not?
Sorry, it did not work, I have a very good Virus detection
program....better luck next time...............

Grow up, and assume responsibility for yourself and your dealings.

Love you too Jerry

Foxeye

By sending unsolicited commercially-oriented e-mail to this address, the
sender agrees to pay a $100 flat fee to the recipient for mail handling
services.  Take the www out of address to send email.
And take  U S Rockets out of the rocket buisness while your at it!
Boycott U S Rockets.......

 
 
 

Jerry, Jerry Jerry, you have such a foul and limited vocabulary

Post by CRogers1 » Sun, 26 Oct 1997 04:00:00


As a preamble to this post I also received the E-mail from Jerry Irvine.  

We'll anyway, my wife and I come home from going out for dinner and I sit down
 with my daughter Tina to get on AOL and do a little educational Net cruising.
 Tina notices "hey look, you got E-mail from that Jerry Irvine guy".  So I
 double click on Jerry's E-mail and Tina and I get to read.....

<"Fxxx You.">  (Complete content of the message.)

Oooops............

We'll, she's old enough now not to be too shocked.  Still though I didn't
 appreciate that Jerry.  You know it's one thing to start a Jerry Irvine
 thread, or a John Cato thread, then it's my choice to just ignore it.  I can
 just look at the thread title, or see [POL], and say "Nah, I'll pass", and
 save my time from even having to read it.  But don't clog my private E-mail
 with garbage like this.

And I've been on RMR all of 5 days.  Some people just can't control themselves.

Oh, one last thing.  I have been E-mail bombed in the past, so anyone sending
 E-mail to my address above be forewarned that depending if or when the attacks
 start again I may not get your E-mail, and therefore will not be able to
 respond to it.

Chuck Rogers

 
 
 

Jerry, Jerry Jerry, you have such a foul and limited vocabulary

Post by John H. Cato, Jr » Sun, 26 Oct 1997 04:00:00


Quote:

> As a preamble to this post I also received the E-mail from Jerry
> Irvine.

[As a preamble to THIS post, I generally email a copy of my posts (here
recently) to the recipient to assure he gets it -- but with your
'aversion' to email of a certain 'leaning', I'll just let it 'propagate'
a bit...]

Quote:
> We'll anyway, my wife and I come home from going out for dinner and I
> sit down with my daughter Tina to get on AOL and do a little
> educational Net cruising.

Isn't that somewhat oxymoronic?  "educational Net cruising."

cruising?

cruising.

Isn't that what they did back in the '60s when gas was 30/gal?

'90s term is 'surfing' (IIRC).

Quote:
>  Tina notices "hey look, you got E-mail from that Jerry Irvine guy".
> So I double click on Jerry's E-mail and Tina and I get to read.....

> <"Fxxx You.">  (Complete content of the message.)

Welcome to the internet, Chuck.

Quote:
> Oooops............

> We'll, she's old enough now not to be too shocked.  Still though I
> didn't appreciate that Jerry.  You know it's one thing to start a
> Jerry Irvine thread,

That's a recent phenomenon, actually -- usually it's a "Let me tell you
the LATEST mess 'twerpoli' has gotten themselves into" (or something
similar) and Jerry just chimes in with "yeah, well they did it to me,
too," etc. -- to which....

Quote:
> or a John Cato thread,

Actually, the thread was started under a pseudonym.

:-)

Quote:
> then it's my choice to just ignore it.

That's a real mature attitude, Chuck.  Maybe you can elaborate for folks
-- at least those who keep complaining about all the 'garbage' or
'flame-bait' or ... showing up here (in the real world) - about just how
simple it is to read what you like and don't read what you don't like...

... because it always confused me about why these folks would complain
about this 'stuff' -- if they weren't reading it, then they wouldn't
have any knowledge of what those posts said -- so they wouldn't have
anything to complain about...

...right?

[no, that is not a circular reference]

Quote:
> And I've been on RMR all of 5 days.

And that's what is kind of *funny* about Jerry's 'reply'
(euphemistically) to you -- been out here "all of 5 days" -- and Jerry
is telling you to ... (well, you know)???

Dang.

Why would he tell YOU to ... (well, you know)???

You didn't sabotage the T-shirt printing equipment, did you?

Quote:
>  Some people just can't control themselves.

Don't you just HATE it when that happens?!?!?!

Quote:
> Oh, one last thing.  I have been E-mail bombed in the past,

No!

Quote:
> so anyone sending E-mail to my address above be forewarned that
> depending if or when the attacks start again

Don't you just HATE it when that happens?!?!??

Quote:
> I may not get your E-mail, and therefore will not be able
> to respond to it.

That's OK, we'll understand.

Quote:
> Chuck Rogers

BTW, almost forgot...

HI, Chuck -- welcome to rmr.

-- john.

 "But, as you can see, the stronger you are, the dumber
  you can be and still get down here alright."

                -- Martin Litton -- 78 year-old
                   Colorado/Grand Canyon boatman

  ... while discussing the difference between the 'smarts'
  needed by Mary, a young female boat'person' in his group
  as compared to some of the 'guys' who can just 'muscle'
  their way out of the mistakes they may make while
  running the rapids in the Grand Canyon.

So... how 'smart' are you, 'twerpoli'?  How 'strong'?

Because, it looks to me that you are neither.

 
 
 

Jerry, Jerry Jerry, you have such a foul and limited vocabulary

Post by Foxe » Sun, 26 Oct 1997 04:00:00


foxeye replies:

Chuck

 what you need to do is send email to his ISP, and tell them he has
sent you emails with profanity, and through an auto poster from
newsgroups.  Besides that your email address had to be forged for the
other type emails that you received. He forged peoples address making
it look like we sent the posts.  This is definetly against the law,
its not like he did noot realize what he was doing.  He did what he
did because thats the way he does things.

Go to ***g8t.com and report him to the head network administrator.


By sending unsolicited commercially-oriented e-mail to this address, the
sender agrees to pay a $100 flat fee to the recipient for mail handling
services.  Take the www out of address to send email.
And take  U S Rockets out of the rocket buisness while your at it!
Boycott U S Rockets.......

 
 
 

Jerry, Jerry Jerry, you have such a foul and limited vocabulary

Post by CRogers1 » Sun, 26 Oct 1997 04:00:00


Quote:

>[As a preamble to THIS post, I generally email a copy of my posts (here
>recently) to the recipient to assure he gets it -- but with your
>'aversion' to email of a certain 'leaning', I'll just let it 'propagate'
>a bit...]

If you're about to blind side someone in a public post, I think a private
 "heads up" via E-mail is both appropriate, and common courtesy.  The problem
 here John is at one time you were forwarding every anti-Tripoli post you were
 making to Bruce Kelly's E-mail account.  Most were sent back to you unread.  I
 heard that really drove you nuts.

Why was that John?

Please spare me the E-mail barrage.  If I miss a post, or a thread starting on
 any subject because I just haven't been by here in several days, hey, I can
 live with that.

Quote:

>> <"Fxxx You.">  (Complete content of the message.)

>Welcome to the internet, Chuck.

Just my opinion John, but I think the quality of discussion in a newsgroup, or
 in any forum is really up to the members of that forum.  From the few of your
 posts that I have seen in the past, I'm not sure how your bitter, whiny
 attacks on Tripoli, many dealing with issues from 2-3 years ago, really
 improves the quality of discussion or the interchange of information in this
 newsgroup.

Quote:
>about just how
>simple it is to read what you like and don't read what you don't like...

Actually it can take a while to slog through a lot of the threads.  Just be
 upfront about what a thread is about and people can decide whether to start
 reading it or not.

Quote:
>> Oh, one last thing.  I have been E-mail bombed in the past,

>No!

>> so anyone sending E-mail to my address above be forewarned that
>> depending if or when the attacks start again

>Don't you just HATE it when that happens?!?!??

John, are you condoning E-mail bombing?  Do you think it's an appropriate
 activity?  Pretty funny how certain people have complained about lack of
 E-mail access to the Tripoli Board of Directors when the entire Board, a
 couple Committee Chairman, and even headquarters have been E-mail bombed.

Chuck Rogers

 
 
 

Jerry, Jerry Jerry, you have such a foul and limited vocabulary

Post by John H. Cato, Jr » Sun, 26 Oct 1997 04:00:00


[as a 'common courtesy', I am emailing a 'record copy' of the enclosed
to the addressee]

Quote:

> If you're about to blind side someone in a public post, I think a
> private "heads up" via E-mail is both appropriate, and common
> courtesy.

That's an interesting revelation.  Zarecki made the same observation to
me out in the 'alcove' in the ba***t of the Ramada Inn in Wichita back
at LDRS 13 about five minutes after Mr. Blazanin was announced as my
replacement at TMT. (you remember when I got up and left the 'forum'
shortly after that 'name' became public knowledge (and the air pressure
dropped about 2 psi))

Rich: "Did they let you know that was coming?"

John: "No.  But I'm not surprised."

Rich: "That's not >right<!  They should have at least let you know."

(which was pretty 'decent' of Rich -- considering just three or four
hours previous, I was getting reports (from a FINE Christian friend)
that Rich was walking up and down the range 'talking dirt' about the
(then current) TMT chair (i.e. 'me')).

...then, 10 minutes after that (back at the 'meeting' now), Pius
commented to me about how I must have known about this -- to which I
declined prior knowledge.  He replied: "You would have never known it to
look at you -- you didn't even bat an eyelash."

Now, why do you think I wasn't surprised by you and your 'buddie's'
acts, Chuck?

[no need to answer -- we both know that is rhetorical -- but it IS
encouraging that things like 'common courtesy' are concepts in your
'repertoire'... now.  I'll let you know when I start *believing* them of
you.]

You know, Chuck, 'testy' situations and circumstances are REALLY good -
in truth -- because folks can no longer *hide* behind platitudes,
double-speak, and lies -- you SEE and LEARN who is who.  The 'wheat' and
'chaff' get separated pretty good.  There is NOTHING but "positive" in
that.

Quote:
> The problem here John is at one time you were forwarding every
> anti-Tripoli post you were making to Bruce Kelly's E-mail account.
> Most were sent back to you unread.

Actually, it wasn't that many -- and on issues that I felt Bruce should
be aware -- which, as you note above, was just "common courtesy".  I
stopped doing it when it dawned on me that Kelly didn't *deserve* such
'courtesies'.  (slapping forehead)  Silly me.

Quote:
> I heard that really drove you nuts.

From who?  Sonny?  The RMR crowd out here already knows how much faith
to put in such 'hearings' -- and, of ALL things, I'm somewhat surprised
that you would 'lower yourself' to believing in hearsay.

If Bruce chooses to (continue to) bury his head in the sand about the
direction he (an you) are taking your little 'klan' (which is your
perogative) and/or the hobby at large (which is NOT your perogative),
that only makes my case.

Quote:
> Why was that John?

Tell you what -- we'll get into the 'why' in THIS situation (if you want
to) here -- AFTER you answer my "why" question (remember -- posted back
in May '94 IIRC -- AIDRC (and I DO recall correctly) that you never
answered that 'why' question, Chuck).

[clarification for RMR readers (and forgetful TRA 'prezidints'), this is
the 'subject question'...]

=-=-=-=-=-=

CIS post -- Sport Rocketry forum -- Msg #223475 -- 5/29/94 -- 3:33pm
Subject: ? to TRA President

     To the President of Tripoli,

     Mr. President,

     I want to ask you just one simple question.
     Very simple - very short - only 3 letters.
     I am not anxious for a reply.  I will give you time to
     think about it - all the way to LDRS XIII,
     where I will ask it again.

     But first, a little background...

     Robert's Rules of Order makes the statement about raising
     'points of order' thusly:

        "This is called raising a question, or point of order,
         because the member in effect puts to the chair (that's you),
         WHOSE DUTY IT IS TO ENFORCE ORDER, the question as to
         whether there is not now a breach of order."

     In July 1990, you had an *unbelievable amount* of power
     fall right in your lap but, as President...

        you never said a word.

     In January 1994, I asked you a question about the member's
     knowledge of our bylaws.  You decided to print them but
     nothing else and, except for that, again as President...

        you never said a word.

                why?

=-=-=-=-=-=

Now, Chuck -- here we are in 1997 -- the 'storm' has passed, you're
still around and I'm now 'wandering the wilderness' <g> -- but, you know
something, you STILL haven't answered that one, simple question.

Why is that?

[since I got my question in about 3 years ahead of you, I got 'dibs'
<g>]

Quote:
> Please spare me the E-mail barrage.

Don't worry - I don't even know how to do it -- and I fear that your
'concerns' about being 'bombed' are simply an overly-inflated assessment
of your own importance.

Quote:
> Just my opinion John, but I think the quality of discussion in a
> newsgroup, or in any forum is really up to the members of that forum.

... as is the *quality* of organizations they may belong to.

Right?

I mean, what's good for the 'goose' is good for the 'gander'.

Right?

Aren't you the 'lucky one' that folks' 'goals' are so low and that
mediocrity can be so (apparently) satisfying.

Quote:
> ...many dealing with issues from 2-3 years ago,

Help me out here with the 'logic', Chuck?  The 'deal' is that all you
gotta do is 'duck it' for a year or two and then you can just counter
with, "this is all from 2 or 3 years ago - what does it have to do with
'now'?"

Is that the jist of it?

Admittedly, based on your past history and 'twerpoli's' past history, I
can understand how you came to that conclusion - but, from the middle of
the Black Rock playa, the world looks flat.

Whether you are aware of it or not - there is a 'score card' that is
being kept.  Be wary of those things and loyalties that are as
"ephemeral as the winds."

Just a little bit of wisdom.

Remember what is going on in France right now?

Quote:
> Actually it can take a while to slog through a lot of the threads.
> Just be upfront about what a thread is about and people can decide
> whether to start reading it or not.

I *like* this 'new you', Chuck.  Such terms as 'common courtesy',
'upfront' (and the implied: "straightforward", "honest", "professional",
<and dare we go so far as to say:> "ethical"????)

Dang.

The 'pollution index' must be WAY down there in the 'valley', huh?

El Nino?

rogers:

Quote:
> >> Oh, one last thing.  I have been E-mail bombed in the past,

cato:

Quote:
> >No!

rogers:

Quote:
> >> so anyone sending E-mail to my address above be forewarned that
> >> depending if or when the attacks start again

cato:

Quote:
> >Don't you just HATE it when that happens?!?!??

rogers:

Quote:
> John, are you condoning E-mail bombing?

Chuck, I've already told you - "I don't know HOW to 'bomb' folks with
email.  I have had NO offers to 'sub-contract' that 'service' out,
either."

I've actually got in mind SEVERAL activities that are 'more
appropriate', anyway.

;)

Quote:
> Do you think it's an appropriate activity?

[see above]

Quote:
> Pretty funny how certain people have complained about lack
> of E-mail access to the Tripoli Board of Directors when the
> entire Board, a couple Committee Chairman, and even headquarters
> have been E-mail bombed.

No!

If you think THAT is 'pretty funny', I've got a GOOD one for you -- just
resign your 'bored' seat, get Brucie to appoint you chair of TMT (you
won't have to wait long before the 'position' will be open - it's an
annual rite <g>) and then just start READING the 'jibberish' they pawn
off as 'minutes' in 'Reportskaya Tripoliya' and then compare a few
things.  Oh, to make SURE this is as 'funny' as possible -- then SAY
SOMETHING about what you find out.

I tell you -- this hobby isn't 'funny' -- it's a damn ZOO!!!

<g>

Quote:
> Chuck Rogers

Nice <?> to have you drop by for a chat, Chuck.

-- john.

 "But, as you can see, the stronger you are, the dumber
  you can be and still get down here alright."

                -- Martin Litton -- 78 year-old
                   Colorado/Grand Canyon boatman

  ... while discussing the difference between the 'smarts'
  needed by Mary, a young female boat'person' in his group
  as compared to some of the 'guys' who can just 'muscle'
  their way out of the mistakes they may make while
  running the rapids in the Grand Canyon.

So... how 'smart' are you, 'twerpoli'?  How 'strong'?

Because, it looks to me that you are neither.

 
 
 

Jerry, Jerry Jerry, you have such a foul and limited vocabulary

Post by CRogers1 » Mon, 27 Oct 1997 03:00:00


Quote:

>From the few of your

 posts that I have seen in the past, I'm not sure how your bitter, >whiny
 attacks on Tripoli, many dealing with issues from 2-3 years ago, >really
 improves the quality of discussion or the interchange of >information in this
 newsgroup.

Mammoth Snip including references to a conversation at an LDRS meeting 3 years
 ago.

I rest my case.

Chuck Rogers

 
 
 

Jerry, Jerry Jerry, you have such a foul and limited vocabulary

Post by PeteAlw » Mon, 27 Oct 1997 03:00:00


Quote:

>Mammoth Snip

So it was a program of vasectomies by by paleolithic people that did in the
 woolly mammoths!  One more mystery solved.

Peter "feeling completely irrelevant this morning" Alway

 
 
 

Jerry, Jerry Jerry, you have such a foul and limited vocabulary

Post by Mike Duma » Mon, 27 Oct 1997 03:00:00


SNIP

Quote:
> Mammoth Snip including references to a conversation at an LDRS meeting >3 years ago.
> I rest my case.

Yea, its been my experience that if you throw John enough rope and give
him a chance, he will hang himself.

mike

Happy and i'm smiling...
Living in the Past - Jethro Tull - 1969

 
 
 

Jerry, Jerry Jerry, you have such a foul and limited vocabulary

Post by John H. Cato, Jr » Mon, 27 Oct 1997 03:00:00


  (something)

... and Mike chimed:

  (something else)

When's the wedding, Mike?

-- john.