On 21 Sep 2002 at 16:32, Hermit wrote:
>
> [Joe Dees] When Hermit gratuitously slandered my mother, the list
> heard not a peep from you.
>
> [Hermit]
>
> This refers to: "Topic: virus: Goodnight.", Hermit, Reply #17,
> 2002-09-12
> (http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=51;action=display;thread
> id=26508;start=15) Nah, all you guessers have it wrong. Joe McPees is
> explaining that he is suffering from hereditary early onset dementia
> and while still sufficiently functional to care for his maternal
> nutcase, has suffered sufficient cognitive decline to be no longer
> capable of holding a civilized discussion. Pity. He once had a great
> mind. It does, of course, take an outsider to diagnose when a mind
> goes faulty. Outsider to Joe, your mind is going...
>
> Deserved? Maybe, Maybe not. Mud sticks whoever throws it, and Joe Dees
> has taken to casting more than just nasty epithets around. His casting
> of assertions that people who dare to disagree with him or question US
> motivation or effect are “un-American”, “anti-American” and even
> “pro-Hussein” and “pro-Genocide” in these times, is perceived as a
> very real threat. Just as they were during the previous American
> collective paranoia and psychosis in the 1950s. Threats of this
> nature, in my opinion, are more than just invalid and impolite, they
> are an invitation to reciprocation. Joe Dees, in my opinion, deserves
> all the disaprobation and annoyance delivered back at him that he
> receives. And then some. I suggest that the fact that Joe Dees cannot
> recognize this points to his demented state.
>
Your suggestions are of the same value as your massively self-impugned
credibility; that is, none. You exist without explaining why a political
difference grants you carte blanche to slander my mother. Obviously, it
cannot.
>
> Even so, Joe didn't even notice this alleged insult to his matriarch
> when he replied to the message: "Topic: virus: Goodnight.", Joe Dees,
> Reply #18, 2002-09-12
> (http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=51;action=display;thread
> id=26508;start=15). It took Casey to kindly (but fallaciously) point
> out that I had supposedly "slandered" his mother (whereas my digs were
> aimed foursquarely at Joe), whereupon Joe ranted:
>
> "Topic: virus: To the Twisted, Demented Hermie", Joe Dees, 2002-09-12
> (http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=51;action=display;thread
> id=26553)Where's your apology about what you said about my mother? I
> don't really expect such basic human decency from you; megalomanic
> sociopaths such as yourself are constitutionally incapable of doing
> so. and subsequently a great deal more. As did Casey. All interesting,
> all unpleasant and all founded on an essential fallacy.
>
> There was no a slander. There could not be. A slander is
> (Atomica):Law. Oral communication of false statements injurious to a
> person's reputation. A false and malicious statement or report about
> someone. However Joe Dees had previously stated: "Topic: virus:
> Goodnight.", Joe Dees, Reply #3, 2002-09-12
> (http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=51;action=display;thread
> id=26508;start=15)I take 20 mg of Prozac per day; it helps me deal
> with caring for my mother, who is not only invalid but also suffers
> from Alzheimer's dementia.
>
> Either Joe Dees was lying, and so slandered the poor decrepit old
> woman who gave him a 66% chance of dying senile - and after whom he is
> currently mopping up - or he did not. If he did, the slander is his,
> because I simply paraphrased his assertion. If he did not, then there
> can be no slander. For as I observed in my initial response "Re:virus:
> I have tried...", Hermit, 2002-09-13
> (http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=51;action=display;thread
> id=26552;start=0)Is Joe really suggesting that he imagines that there
> is a substantive difference between dementia and nut cases? In which
> case, perhaps he needs a refresher. "Dementia is usually defined as
> global impairment of cognitive function that interferes with normal
> activities. Although impaired short- and long-term memory are typical
> of dementia, deficits in other cognitive functions in addition to
> memory (e.g., abstract thinking, judgment, speech, coordination,
> planning or organization) are required for the diagnosis of!
> dementia. Alzheimer's disease accounts for most cases of dementia in
> North America (50-85%), with an additional 10-20% attributed to
> vascular ("multi-infarct") dementia."
> http://cpmcnet.columbia.edu/texts/gcps/gcps0058.html - or as a
> cognitive psychologist might say, stark staring nuts.
>
She has lost much of her memory, but she is no nutcase, and she does
NOT drool! You are one sick, twisted, demented and sadistic fuckwad.
The fact that you, without personal knowledge and with malicious intent,
asserted same, constitutes libel, especially since you did so in service of a
personal agenda totally unrelated to my mother or her condition. See?
The asshole CONTINUES to defend saying shit like that!
>
> I suggest that the fact that Joe Dees cannot recognize that there was
> no slander points to his demented state.
>
And I have previously and amply outlined how this is a self-seving canard
meant to divert attention from Hermit's bankrupt character.
>
> [Joe Dees] When he began posting derogatory cartoons concerning me all
> over the BBS, you said not a word.
>
> [Hermit]
> There have been to my knowledge three images posted to which Joe Dees
> objected. Only one of which is correctly called a cartoon (a cartoon
> is always a drawing usually captioned and depicting a humorous
> situation), none of which depict Joe Dees (although one has been so
> captioned), and they are, as I shall show, not "all over the BBS".
> [*]First, "Arguing on the Internet", Hermit, 2002-09-03
> (http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=33;action=display;thread
> id=26367). Which as I observed when he objected to it, in a sea of
> vitriolic arguments, did not relate to him. Let me add, "If the dunce
> cap fits, feel free to wear it." [*]Second, "virus: A Cartoon about
> our purported European 'Allies'", Hermit, Reply #1, 2002-09-14
> (http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=51;action=display;thread
> id=26582) posted in response to Joe Dees' cartoon starting the thread
> which advocated unilateralism. This one rather nicely captured the
> stance of the more memetically infested American, so it seemed
> appropriate to post it to the "The Best of Virus", Hermit, Reply #12,
> 2002-09-15
> (http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=31;action=display;thread
> id=11553) thread. It should be noted that despite the post not
> specifically mentioning Joe Dees, he has so strenuously objected to
> it, that it seems evident that he regards it as having personified
> him so identifiably that it detracts from the posts he has been
> self-nominating to the "Best of Virus" and then citing them to support
> his value to the CoV. My suggestion is, "If the bigot cap fits, why
> then, wear it and you would." [*]Thirdly, "Joe Dees, well tutored by
> CNN, addresses Scott Ritter", Hermit, Reply #8 on "virus: Fw: Is It
> Not True", 2002-09-15
> (http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=51;action=display;thread
> id=26609;start=0). This does mention Joe Dees specifically, and was
> posted in direct response to his assertion that "Scott Ritter's been
> out of the loop for 4 years (as have all the ther (sic) UNSCOM
> inspectors); he's being used as a propaganda prop by Saddam, but he
> has a right to be used, if he so acquiesces, just as we have an
> obligation to see that he IS being used." Scott Ritter is not here to
> object, and thus this cartoon, with the associated article
> (cross-posted on Serious Business) seemed an appropriate response. If
> Joe Dees didn't mean to attempt a hatchet job, he should perhaps have
> worn the wannabe executioner's cap a little less rakishly. In my
> opinion three images, two of which do not even mention Joe Dees, and
> only one of which is properly called a cartoon, cannot be described as
> "derogatory cartoons concerning me all over the BBS" – and whenever
> such an attempt is made, it is blatantly fallacious. I suggest that
> the fact that Joe Dees cannot recognize this points to his demented
> state.
>
In fact, Hermit does not answer to Jonathan Davis post demonstrating how
Scott Ritter could be financially compromised due to his desire to se his
post-about-face book sell well, nor does he mention the fact that even
though this might be the case, I did not initially impugn Scott Ritter's
motives, but rather highlighted his willingness to be used by Saddam in
order to put forth what he might have considered to be legitimate
concerns.
>
> [hr]
>
> [Joe Dees] When I posted cartoons concerning Hermit that were more
> relevant than his concerning me, he moved them, but not his own, to
> the free-for-all section. When I pointed out the equal or superior
> relevance of my head-in-ass cartoon's commentary on Hermit's
> politically driven propensity to allow his biases to blind him
>
> [Hermit]
>
> I chose not to reply to these putative "arguments" while attempting to
> moderate the BBS, but seeing as Joe Dees has taken this so
> delightfully public (and as the BBS is no longer moderated, which
> relieves me of following my own guidelines), let me note that Joe
> Dees' "cartoons" (which are not "cartoons") allegedly concerning me,
> and which were moderated (a grand total of two), may be viewed at
> "Re:Moderated material", Joe Dees, Reply #2, 2002-09-19
> (http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadi
> d=26629) and "Re:Moderated material", Joe Dees, Reply #3, 2002-09-19
> (http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadi
> d=26629). It may be worth noting that they were removed for,
> "Ineligable material - This was not previously posted to the CoV, does
> not appear to deal directly with Virian objectives, and so far as I
> know, has not been favorably commented on by other Virians." and
> "Direct ad hominem. Topic spamming." Material which combined
> atpted ad hominem with more substantive material were left on the
> boards. I suggest that the fact that Joe Dees did not perceive this
> moderation as "light-handed", points to his demented state.
>
And Hermit lies again; he removed much more, such as the 'breast of
virus' link amd my comment on his lady (in incensed response to his
slandering of my mother).
>
> Joe Dees was told that Lucifer agreed with these moderation decisions
> and rather than accept them, chose to argue publicly that Lucifer (and
> of course I) must be deranged not to perceive his responses as having
> been appropriate. Joe Dees asserts that the silence from his fellow
> Virians indicates that they agree with him. I suggest that the fact
> that Joe Dees has asserted this, points to his demented state.
>
There was no silence concerning them on the IRC, or in private
conversation with David or yourself. Many were terrorized from
commenting for fear of what you might do to them if they did.
>
> [hr]
>
> [Joe Dees] (in other words, that he gets in his own way) into
> incorrectly prognosticating dire consequences for the US should his
> political prescriptions not be followed, a debating tool he is now
> employing in reference to proposed US action in Iraq (and I here
> mention his past list assertions regarding US action in Afghanistan
> that it would involve massive US deaths and casualties, that the
> Afghans would unite against the US, that millions of Afghanis would
> starve as a result of US actions in Afghanistan, that this would cause
> riots at the Meccan Kaaba, and that the Islamic world would
> subsequently unite in holy jihad against the US - all proven wrong by
> the subsequent course of events),
>
> [Hermit]
>
> Here Joe Dees makes such a slew of unfounded and premature assertion
> that it is difficult to respond appropriately. For starters he omits
> "might", "may" and "could" in order to attempt to make his case. For
> seconds he affirms "proven wrong" in a process which the UN, multiple
> observers, NGOs have been saying - and even the White House is now
> acknowledging - has only just begun - and which is not going well.
>
> As but a few examples, more Afghans are now at risk of starvation than
> last year at this same time, some large number of Afghans are dead,
> the country is in the grip of the same people who were previously
> overthrown by the Taliban - arguably for good reasons which are
> becoming apparent, religious fanaticism is on the upsoar, the
> appointed leader of Afghanistan, a rather ruthless communist warlord
> can no longer defend himself without US assistance, and the US has, at
> least in consequence of some of this, now apparently committed to
> funding a vast peace keeping force in hostile territory for many
> years. Yet we - and our allies - already stand accused (with strong
> evidence) of having committed war crimes in Afghanistan. So much for a
> short, relatively painless war. Given that it appears we are going to
> be in Afghanistan for at least the next five years, at a cost of some
> $10 billion a month, I'd suggest that when the last foreign national
> is withdrawn, and "democracy" has been ! established will be time
> enough to analyze the success - or lack of our intervention.
>
Oh, Puh-Leeze! You retroactively attempt to justify massive mistakes,
rather than simply admitting same; this alone brands you as
megalomaniacal and suffering from comprehensive delusions of
omniscience.
>
> I suggest that the fact that Joe Dees cannot recognize the invalidity
> of his assertions points to his demented state.
>
And Hermit repeats his monomaniacal mantra, a propensity typical of the
massivle deranged.
>
> In any case, it is difficult to determine exactly what this has to do
> with Joe Dees topic spamming and slinging ad hominem around? I suggest
> that the fact that Joe Dees cannot recognize that these issues are not
> related and cannot rationally be commingled points to his demented
> state.
>
And thus does this execrable anus ask you to forget his own agregious ad
hominems, and furthermore, condemn me and my family, who were the
targets of same, for being angered by them? Sheesh!
>
> [Joe Dees] complained about this blatant and obvious inequity, and
> accurately labeled it as BBS administrator abuse,
>
> [Hermit] Joe Dees persists in peppering his speech with assertions
> about "accuracy." To this observer at least, this smacks of newspeak
> for "I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about, but I'm "gonna beat
> up" anyone who disagrees with me!" Of course, you should take my
> opinion from whence it comes and use your own jugement. I think that
> the fact that Joe Dees apparently cannot recognize that saying
> something does not make it so, points to his demented state.
>
Ommm... He obviously believe, with Stalin, that if you assert the lie often
enough, it will be accepted as truth by the sheeplike masses. The fact
that you cannot, or will not, recognize your own abuses, is not surprising
in the least.
>
> [Joe Dees] you upheld his discriminatory actions,
>
> [Hermit] I am not persuaded a whole lot of people comprehend what
> exactly Joe Dees means by "discriminatory actions"? "Help, help, I'm
> being repressed"? If so a glimpse at the logs for Hermit
> (http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=51;action=chatlog2;chann
> el=%23Hermit;date=2002-09-16;time=13:;start=60;max=60) and #virus
> (http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=51;action=chatlog2;chann
> el=%23virus;date=2002-09-16;time=8:50;start=180;max=60) to see what
> this kind of oppression sounds like. Double check my assertion that ad
> hominem posted by Joe Dees to a moderated board has been left in
> place. Double check that material posted to the boards in
> contravention of the posting guidelines was not erased, but was in
> fact established in "Free for All." Double check that backstairs
> gossip about Saddam Hussein, including a diatribe from an ex-wife has
> been left in place on the Serious Business board under the the heading
> "Academically credible essays on the Islam issue" - desp! ite the fact
> that this comment had been made on it before.
>
> I suggest that the fact that Joe Dees cannot recognize that I and
> Lucifer loathe discrimination and censorship and attempted to avoid
> any form of discrimination - and when it was forced upon us attempted
> to minimize the impact, points to his demented state.
>
Check the Free-For-All list to discover what he moved of mine, and all
around to find what he did not move of his (including turd.jpg), and you will
appreciate the falsity of this assertion. You exercised totalitarian and
abusive power, now at least take fucking responsibility for it! Own your
own actions, dewde!
>
> [Joe Dees] and forwarded his unfounded accusation that I as 'whining'
> to the list,
>
> [Hermit] You lie. Again. As usual. Please see Notice to BBS Posters
> for consideration and comment, Hermit, 2002-09-19
> (http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=7;action=display;threadi
> d=26663) a moderation policy we were forced to attempt to make
> explicit by your tactics in a vain attempt to prevent you from
> whining. It had not been necessary before.
>
> I suggest that the fact that Joe Dees cannot recognize this points to
> his demented state.
>
That message was indeed sent privately, but the fact that it was sent at all,
and that my legitimate complaints were characterized by Hermit, and
forwarded by David, as "whining", abundantly illustrated the problem.
>
>
> [Joe Dees] when in fact I have, and have substantiated, a genuine and
> authentic complaint.
>
> [Hermit] As shown above, only in your dreams. I suggest that the fact
> that Joe Dees can dream this, points to his demented state.
>
> ----
> This message was posted by Hermit to the Virus 2002 board on Church of
> Virus BBS.
> <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=51;action=display;thread
> id=26626>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:24 MDT