keithr <keithr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "Andre Jute" <fiultra@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote :
>
> > For a stalker who pretends to know so much about me, Richardson, your
> > ignorance is a bottomless pit.
>
> Define stalking little jooty,
I thought you defined "stalking" rather well yourself, Keefie, in the
rest of your sentence, describing yourself as one who wastes hours
looking into the deeds of his "beloved" in order to find something to
draw the beloved's attention to the stalker:
> I have looked a couple of your more
> extravigant posts of past deeds. They are full of unverified boasts,
> contradictions and doubtful events,
Let's see you prove even one "unverified boast, contradiction or
doubtful event", sonny.
>for instance you claimed in one post
>
> I got bored and one day someone suggested I write a novel, phoned a
> publisher who gave me a contract over the phone (and must've wondered
how
> come they had squandered their money when later that day I called back
and
> asked where to plug in the typewriter they had sent around to my
house).
Show us a reference where I said that. Google can't find it:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=safari&rls=en-us&q=%22I+got+bored+and+one+day++someone+suggested+I+write+a+novel%22&btnG=Search
If Google cannot find it anywhere the possession of the quotation
(whether I said it or someone else put the words in my mouth -- see
another of Keefie Richardson's gross errors below) in the hands of a
total stranger is ipso facto evidence of stalking, or of Keefie being
a meatpuppet controlled by a stalker who is feeding him lines. (Hello,
Herny "****o" Pasternack.)
> But then there is this quote from the net:-
>
> Andre Jute had his novel Reverse Negative rejected by 44 publishers. Yet
the
> 45th liked it, published it, and it became an international best-seller.
> Always remember those 44 rejections. They make the few you will get seem
> totally insigificant and should inspire you to persevere, and
eventually, to
> triumph!
That is most definitely not a quote from me, it is something someone
else, a third party altogether, said about me.
> See the problem?
No, I don't. First of all, you offer no evidence whatsoever that I
said either thing. Secondly, there is verifiable evidence that
*someone else said the second thing*. Why should I be held responsible
for your misunderstandings of what someone else says about me? I'm a
public figure and have been for over fifty years; a lot of people have
said a lot of things about me, some right, some wrong. I don't bother
to correct errors. If you want to believe them and again make a fool
of yourself, Richardson, that's your problem. Why should the fact that
tenth-rater like you repeatedly falls flat on his face concern me?
Third, there is no contradiction between the two statements, whoever
made them. If you think there is, it arises from your total ignorance
of the milieu in which I operate, which is a lot more complex than
some little salaried techie's drawing board.
So, sonny, have you proved even one "unverified boast, contradictions
or doubtful event"? Nope. You got your facts wrong (again, no surprise
there) and you demonstrated that, far from knowing more about the
business of your victim than he does, you don't know ****.
These are all the elements that define a stalker: the obsession with
what his "beloved" has done, the urge to prove the stalker knows more
about the beloved than the beloved remembers, the urge to prove the
stalker knows all about the beloved's business to the extent of
proving the beloved wrong in some decisions, the compulsion to draw
attention to the stalker's self as a creator worthy of attention, the
compulsion when rejected to prove that the beloved wasn't worthy of
such love after all.
You should have heeded my initial advice, Richardson:
> > Every time you open your mouth, you make a fool of yourself. You
> > really should save it for electronics, if you anything about tubes.
> >
> > Andre Jute
> > Freedom fighter
>
> but only his own
It is easy for a zero-talent like you to sneer at those with
achievements, Keith Richardson. Show us something you've made, earn a
little respect.
Otherwise you're just another useless wanker and stalker, Keith
Richardson. Pathetic and contemptible.
Andre Jute
Bored ****less with yet another little ankle-nipper who offers zero
added value
|
