skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Me! Me! Look at me!!!
Shorter Twatsy: "I love to live vicariously through another blogger who actually has readers."
Seriously, Twats, this man-crush thing you have going on for me is starting to creep me out. I recommend professional help.
Those are big words coming from a guy who cyberstalks children.
Still lying about that, eh, Twats? And the fact that NAMBLA Dick invited me to stalk his kids doesn't factor into your amusing little accusation?
How utterly predictable.
I'm curious, Patsy ... what's it like to go through life so completely and pathologically divorced from reality?
Good grief. I just slogged my way through Fatprick's convoluted spastic excuse for a blog post. I need two Ibuprophens, stat!
Since it is more enlightened and kind nowadays to use the term "cognitively delayed and/or challenged" to describe the mental capacity of individuals with Down Syndrome, I move that all dictionaries now include 'Patrick Ross' in their definitions for cretin, moron, simpleton, retard and imbecile.
... I move that all dictionaries now include 'Patrick Ross' in their definitions for cretin, moron, simpleton, retard and imbecile.
"Still lying about that, eh, Twats? And the fact that NAMBLA Dick invited me to stalk his kids doesn't factor into your amusing little accusation?"
Well, Cynic, somebody here's still lying about something.
That person is yourself. And you know it. If you could function like an actual, legitimate human being, I think you'd be more than a little embarrassed about what you've been doing.
But that's the thing about sociopaths -- no sense of remorse whatsoever.
Really, I may have to include an addendum to that motion .... and furthermore, whenever the expressions 'thick as a plank', 'dumber than a bag of hammers' and 'one brick short of a load' appear in any text anywhere on the Internet, that they be replaced by the term "Patrick Ross".
Funny. Because whenever the phrase "irredeemably dishonest" comes up, it really ought to be replaced by the name of any denizen of the sycophantic groupthink temple.
Really, Debbie: you get off on demonstrating you've never had an actual original thought rattle through that lil' ol' skull of yours, don't you?
Really, Fatprick, the funniest demonstration of who actually never has an original thought is the one you aptly provided by parroting what I wrote.
With regards to that saying: "Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery" I would disagree; I'm NOT flattered by your imitation, just seriously creeped out.
Shorter Patsy Pantload: While I don't have an issue with women per se, I do think it's adorable when they try to sound all smart and stuff.
Careful there, Patsy ... you're Freudian slip is showing.
All his other-given nicknames aside, he really does have one built in, folks. And it looks like he's living up to the name, "Pross," too.
Cone on, Twats, you're (predictably) avoiding the issue -- how come you never admit to anyone that NAMBLA Dick explicitly invited me to stalk his family and harass his kids? Or would that awkward little detail put an uncomfortable dent in your shrieking?
Let's go, Twats ... we're all waiting for your response to that one. Or are you actually going to accuse me of lying about that?
By the way, Twats, what exactly does it mean when you accuse me of being "a guy who cyberstalks children"? What children are we talking about here? NAMBLA Dick's? Because I've never so much as exchanged an e-mail with either of them.
Never chatted with them, never IMed them, never visited their blogs (if they even have blogs), don't even know what their e-mail addresses are. So how precisely does one "cyberstalk" children without ever, in any way, shape or form, having had any contact with them of any sort?
Feel free to enlighten us on this one, Twatsy. I'm sure it will be at least as hilariously stupefying as all the rest of your contributions.
You ask too much of poor, poor Patsy, CC.
His job is to make wild accusations, madly shift the goalposts and then declare victory while forever arguing in bad faith. Expecting him to engage in an intelligent, adult conversation supported by facts would probably fry whatever tiny brain cells he may have under Teh Mullet of No.
So then your argument is that Evans "invited" you to cyberstalk his kids because he wouldn't cave in to your threats?
How very mafioso of you.
What really amuses me about all of this -- and, as usual, apparently you feebs can't even begin to imagine how hard I'm laughing at your pathetic asses right now -- is that, your despicable act has apparently gained you the approval of scum, and you mistake that as vindication for your actions.
Overlooking the fact that these worthless pieces of shit, like yourself, are scum and couldn't provide moral vindication even if they actually understood what that concept means.
Let's face it: you're all a bunch of psychopaths. Someone taught you the words, so to speak, but you've never quite heard the music.
Shorter Twatsy: "Yes, CC is, in fact, correct, but I really, really, really hate to admit it. So I'll fume and sputter and hope no one notices."
Run along, Patsy ... Much like SUZANNE, you've become a parody of yourself and it's grown tiresome.
Shorter CC: "I can't get Patrick Ross to accept my lies, so I'll just pretend otherwise."
Nonsense, Cynic. Just because someone doesn't cave in to your threats doesn't entitle you to act on them.
Your issue was with Richard Evans. You went after his kids. Little children.
I know this is all hard for a psychopath like yourself to understand. You were simply born without the faculties to grasp why it's wrong to go afte a political opponent's children.
Now, that being said, you may resume lying. It actually quite amuses me to watch you debase yourself.
"It actually quite amuses me"
there's that confounding canadian idiom again. here, in the states, we say "frustrates me to the point of apoplexy". weird, huh?
(*"rolling on the floor, pretending to laugh")
Okay, this will likely go right over your head Twatsy, but I am saying this for the record, so when you claim that no-one took the time to explain this to you, it can be demonstrated there was indeed an attempt to do so.
CC only re-posted information that Richard Evans himself made available on the Internet for all to see.
You will agree that this is quite different than what Operation Rescue did when it posted the photos of workers (and personal information about them) at Dr Tiller's clinic in Kansas. These are people who DID NOT make this information available on the Internet nor did they give Operation Rescue permission to do so.
Note the big difference Twatsy. CC did not "go" after anyone's children. He did not cyberstalk them. That's your fabrication, Twatsy.
However, there's a connection between the individuals who have been posted on anti-abortion website and really, really bad things that happened to them. Murderous religious zealots killed them, Twatsy.
In 1996, a website called the ‘Nuremberg Files’ was set up by anti-abortion activists. It displayed images of abortion providers, their names and addresses. It offered rewards of $500 for each doctor who was “persuaded” to stop performing abortions. Though ‘Nuremberg’ claimed that it did not advocate killing anyone, whenever someone on its list was murdered, a strike through their name appeared.
"After his name appeared on a poster in 1993, Dr. David Gunn was shot and killed entering a Florida abortion clinic. Five months later and after his name appeared on a wanted poster, Dr. George Patterson was shot and killed. In 1994, after his name appeared on a poster, Dr. John Britton was killed by Paul Hill."
And the Twatster falls neatly into my trap -- man, that was easy.
OK, Twatsy, let's recap here. You've made the accusations that I am "a guy who cyberstalks children" and that I committed some sort of "despicable act" and that I "went after [Dick's] kids" (all excerpts from the comments in this thread).
So here's my challenge, Twats -- back up those claims. I want you to substantiate your accusations that I actually did those things. Not that I simply wrote about them; that I literally did them, which is clearly what you're suggesting above. How did I stalk Dick's kids, Twatsy? Be specific. Give details. Explain carefully my actual actions that corresponded to stalking and how those actions affected Dick's family.
This should be entertaining, as we can now all expect Twatsy to butt-fuck the English language into something utterly unrecognizable. But that doesn't even come as a surprise anymore, does it?
Let's go, Twats -- we're all waiting.
P.S. I'm sure Twatsy is going to cream himself over this excerpt of a blog post of mine from months ago:
"So here's the deal -- as long as Dick insists on redirecting that look-alike domain to NAMBLA, I will continue to post increasingly personal information about his family. See how that works? In short, what happens from here on out is entirely in Dick's hands. All that remains to be seen is whether it's more important for Dick to protect his family's privacy, or for him to score points being an irresponsible dipshit."
But, as the non-retarded can read, what the above describes is something I had planned on doing, but never bothered following up on. In short, Twatsy, it represents nothing that actually happened. You do understand the difference, right, Twats?
I mean, really, Twatsy, if you accuse me of literally and explicitly "stalking" someone, surely you're not going to use as evidence a blog post of mine in which I simply write about something I never actually got around to doing. I mean, that would be too fucking dishonest for words.
So let's have it, Twats -- how did I physically stalk Dick's kids? I'm really looking forward to this. That was your claim -- now you can back it up. Can't you?
what's that I hear? Could it be crickets?
You're way too optimistic, Rev. We all know how Twatsy is going to make his case simply by redefining words to mean whatever he wants them to mean. And this is from a guy who threatened to track me down and physically assault me once upon a time.
The irony is delicious, isn't it?
Post a Comment