On Jul 3, 9:42 am, Will Dockery <will.dock...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Amanda wrote:
> >Will Dockery wrote:
> >> Rob Evans, mushmouth poet <http://tinyurl.com/6gf5yh>
wrote:
> >>>Amanda wrote:
> >>>>George Dance wrote:
>
> >>>>> If you don't like reading about Will Dockery, why are you writing
about him? Why do keep trying, as here, to turn completely
> >>>>>unrelated threads into threads about him?
> >>>>> It sounds to me like you just enjoy *****ing, and that you like
writing about Will Dockery because it gives you more
> >>>>>op****tunity to *****.
>
> >>>> Hey, it's orders of magnitude better than writing about George
Dance.
>
> > > >>> Yet it seems you and two (so far) of your fellow kooks can't
resist
> > > >>> doing that, either.
> > > >>> Too bad that the writing that rap was set up for - "the posting
of
> > > >>> poems" - is beyond the capacities of all three of you.
>
> >>>> Poor little Amanda's down to reposting the same
scatalogical-homophobic limerick over and over... pathetic and boring.
> >>>> The same limerick garbage for at least a couple of years now.
>
> >>>><homophobic scatalogical garbage snipped>
>
> > > >> The same ''scatalogical-homophobic'' garbage, yes.
>
> > > > I'm not homophobic.
>
> > > Right, like making your many statements like ''the only good nigger
is
> > > a dead nigger'' doesn't make you a racist.
>
> > Nope. It makes me a jurist.
>
> Do tell.
>
> > > Your homophobia seems to be tied in with your /self hatred/ and fear
> > > of your own obvious latent home***uality.
>
> > > > I just don't like /you/.
>
> > > Ah, so you ****tray me as a homo***ual... which means that depicting
me in homo***ual acts is intended as an insult, thus you're homophobic,
> > > since you consider these acts to be a ''bad thing''.
>
> > Your homo***uality is
>
> One of your more pathetic fantasies, and as explained, a projection of
> your own obvious latent homo***uality/self-hatred.
>
> > frequent, even desperate, cocksucking
> > homo***uality. you're a little faggot
>
> I'll remind you of how Karla Rogers nailed you and your type in her
> statement last year, Amanda -
>
> "...Those types of pictures are offensive to me but I can also be
> offended
> by what someone writes. We communicate less by pictures on the poetry
> newsgroups but that doesn't mean that the picture words we create
> aren't as offensive as a picture. It's just that the picture as
> communication has more shock value because we use pictures less here.
> Now, I have no idea what most of you mean when you bash someone by
> depicting them in homo***ual acts, whether it is with words or
> pictures. What I mean is, using it here may not mean that you're anti-
> gay, homophobic, ***ist, etc. I have no idea. But the cheap shot isn't
> helpful and promotes ***ist and homophobic thinking..."
> -Karla explains the /Uncle Hammes type/.
>
> > > Thanks for proving my point, Amanda.
>
> Repeatedly.
>
I'll let you know when the experiment is over.
|
