NancyGene wrote:
George J. Dance wrote:
I note that Mr. Fries's OP has been deleted.
It never came through to JLA Forums, so was not deleted. JLA Forums has some strange rules about links and numbers.
Why do you lie so much, NastyGoon? Of course it came through; I replied to it. Mr. Fries deleted it only after I'd replied.
Cujo's pdf attachment in this thread, which shows the comparison headers, has not been deleted.
Mr. Fries analyzed the headers on my Davies post, and on a couple of posts from different threads. He did not compare it to your alleged Davies post; he admitted he didn't have the headers for that one, and blamed his failure to find those on Will (as per his usual method). Since his pdf is still in the thread, those reading the thread here on JLA can see that for themselves.
This is a response to the post seen at: http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=699965177#699965177
George J. Dance wrote:
NancyGene wrote:
George J. Dance wrote:
NancyGene wrote:
George J. Dance wrote:
I note that Mr. Fries's OP has been deleted.
It never came through to JLA Forums, so was not deleted. JLA Forums has some strange rules about links and numbers.
Why do you lie so much, NastyGoon? Of course it came through; I replied to it. Mr. Fries deleted it only after I'd replied.
Cujo's pdf attachment in this thread, which shows the comparison headers, has not been deleted.
Mr. Fries analyzed the headers on my Davies post, and on a couple of posts from different threads. He did not compare it to your alleged Davies post; he admitted he didn't have the headers for that one, and blamed his failure to find those on Will (as per his usual method). Since his pdf is still in the thread, those reading the thread here on JLA can see that for themselves.
Cujo's original post on the subject was not on JLA Forums. Please prove that it was, George Dunce. Cujo explained why.
GJD: So you've given up arguing that you posted the Davies poem first, and you want to deflect to this instead? Well, fine; we'll talk about whether Mr. Fries's post appeared on JLA or not.
Do you understand how posts are threaded on Usenet? Each thread has an original post (an OP) with its own subject title. All posts made in reply to it (and to each other) are attached to it by the program; that's shown by each post's own subject header, which begins with "Re:" followed by the subject of the OP. (For example, if the subject of an OP was "Christmas." all the replies to it would have the subject header "Re: Christmas."0
Now, look at this thread on JLA. The first post, by you, has the subject header "Re: THE HEADERS OF EVIDENCE - Cujo wins again." That shows it is not the OP; the OP has gone missing from this thread. It also shows that the subject of the OP was "THE HEADERS OF EVIDENCE - Cujo wins again" which was obviously written by "Cujo" (Mr. Fries). That doesn't tell us the content of missing OP; but since the first post in the thread is a reply to a post by "Cujo" (the same one I replied to) it's reasonable to infer that the post being replied to is the missing OP.
We also know that posters aren't able to delete their own posts to JLA (unless they pay for a premium subscription), so it wasn't deleted here. Besides, we know that Mr. Fries doesn't post on JLA, which is why attribution keeps getting messed up in any thread he replies to (since Usenet and JLA attribute posts differently). Rather, since he posts to Usenet, it's reasonable to think he deleted his post from the entirety of Usenet after you replied to it, which caused it to disappear from JLA. Why would he do that? Because he didn't realize that you were just trolling - just claiming you'd posted first as a joke, to troll me - and took your claim seriously. In short, like Will, he got taken in by your troll. When he realized that he'd been trolled, he deleted the post, or got someone who actually knows how to moderate Usenet (perhaps PJ Ross) to do it for him.
I realize that won't convince you, since you're still trolling, and as a troll you'll never concede that your targets are correct about anything - but I hope it's enough to convince any impartial reader of the thread.
Look at the headers for this thread. You'll see that the first post in it (yours) begins with a "Re:", meaning that it's not the original.
NancyGene wrote:
George J. Dance wrote:
I note that Mr. Fries's OP has been deleted.
It never came through to JLA Forums, so was not deleted. JLA Forums has some strange rules about links and numbers.
Why do you lie so much, NastyGoon? Of course it came through; I replied to it. Mr. Fries deleted it only after I'd replied.
Cujo's pdf attachment in this thread, which shows the comparison headers, has not been deleted.
Mr. Fries analyzed the headers on my Davies post, and on a couple of posts from different threads. He did not compare it to your alleged Davies post; he admitted he didn't have the headers for that one, and blamed his failure to find those on Will (as per his usual method). Since his pdf is still in the thread, those reading the thread here on JLA can see that for themselves.
This is a response to the post seen at: http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=699965177#699965177
George J. Dance wrote:
I note that Mr. Fries's OP has been deleted.
georgedance04@yahoo-dot-ca.no-spam.invalid (George J. Dance) posted:
NancyGene wrote:
George J. Dance wrote:
I note that Mr. Fries's OP has been deleted.
It never came through to JLA Forums, so was not deleted. JLA
Forums has some strange rules about links and numbers.
Why do you lie so much, NastyGoon? Of course it came through; I
replied to it. Mr. Fries deleted it only after I'd replied.
Cujo's pdf attachment in this thread, which shows the comparison
headers, has not been deleted.
Mr. Fries analyzed the headers on my Davies post, and on a couple of
posts from different threads. He did not compare it to your alleged
Davies post; he admitted he didn't have the headers for that one, and
blamed his failure to find those on Will (as per his usual method).
Since his pdf is still in the thread, those reading the thread here
on JLA can see that for themselves.
This is a response to the post seen at:
http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=699965177#699965177
Notice also that the subject header for this thread reads:
"Re: Re: THE HEADERS OF EVIDENCE - Cujo wins again"
"Re: Re:" signifying that something us missing from the thread. Since
I don't claim to be an expert on Usenet newsgroups, I can't explain
what it means.
George J. Dance wrote:
NancyGene wrote:
George J. Dance wrote:
NancyGene wrote:
George J. Dance wrote:
I note that Mr. Fries's OP has been deleted.
It never came through to JLA Forums, so was not deleted. JLA
Forums has some strange rules about links and numbers.
Why do you lie so much, NastyGoon? Of course it came through; I
replied to it. Mr. Fries deleted it only after I'd replied.
Cujo's pdf attachment in this thread, which shows the comparison
headers, has not been deleted.
Mr. Fries analyzed the headers on my Davies post, and on a couple
of posts from different threads. He did not compare it to your
alleged Davies post; he admitted he didn't have the headers for
that one, and blamed his failure to find those on Will (as per his
usual method). Since his pdf is still in the thread, those reading
the thread here on JLA can see that for themselves.
Cujo's original post on the subject was not on JLA Forums. Please
prove that it was, George Dunce. Cujo explained why.
GJD: So you've given up arguing that you posted the Davies poem
first, and you want to deflect to this instead? Well, fine; we'll
talk about whether Mr. Fries's post appeared on JLA or not.
Do you understand how posts are threaded on Usenet? Each thread has
an original post (an OP) with its own subject title. All posts made
in reply to it (and to each other) are attached to it by the program;
that's shown by each post's own subject header, which begins with
"Re:" followed by the subject of the OP. (For example, if the subject
of an OP was "Christmas." all the replies to it would have the
subject header "Re: Christmas."0
Now, look at this thread on JLA. The first post, by you, has the
subject header "Re: THE HEADERS OF EVIDENCE - Cujo wins again." That
shows it is not the OP; the OP has gone missing from this thread. It
also shows that the subject of the OP was "THE HEADERS OF EVIDENCE -
Cujo wins again" which was obviously written by "Cujo" (Mr. Fries).
That doesn't tell us the content of missing OP; but since the first
post in the thread is a reply to a post by "Cujo" (the same one I
replied to) it's reasonable to infer that the post being replied to
is the missing OP.
We also know that posters aren't able to delete their own posts to
JLA (unless they pay for a premium subscription), so it wasn't
deleted here. Besides, we know that Mr. Fries doesn't post on JLA,
which is why attribution keeps getting messed up in any thread he
replies to (since Usenet and JLA attribute posts differently).
Rather, since he posts to Usenet, it's reasonable to think he deleted
his post from the entirety of Usenet after you replied to it, which
caused it to disappear from JLA. Why would he do that? Because he
didn't realize that you were just trolling - just claiming you'd
posted first as a joke, to troll me - and took your claim seriously.
In short, like Will, he got taken in by your troll. When he realized
that he'd been trolled, he deleted the post, or got someone who
actually knows how to moderate Usenet (perhaps PJ Ross) to do it for
him.
I realize that won't convince you, since you're still trolling, and
as a troll you'll never concede that your targets are correct about
anything - but I hope it's enough to convince any impartial reader of
the thread.
Look at the headers for this thread. You'll see that the first post
in it (yours) begins with a "Re:", meaning that it's not the
original.
I'm not sure exactly what it means or what happened to it (I don't
claim to be a Usenet expert), but a post from CujoDeSockpuppet
responding to you (GJD) is shown to have been deleted.
(See JLA Forums attachment below.)
View the attachments for this post at: http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=700060690#700060690
Will Dockery <user3274@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote in news:1767437644-3274@newsgrouper.org:
georgedance04@yahoo-dot-ca.no-spam.invalid (George J. Dance) posted:
NancyGene wrote:
George J. Dance wrote:
I note that Mr. Fries's OP has been deleted.
It never came through to JLA Forums, so was not deleted. JLA
Forums has some strange rules about links and numbers.
Why do you lie so much, NastyGoon? Of course it came through; I
replied to it. Mr. Fries deleted it only after I'd replied.
Cujo's pdf attachment in this thread, which shows the comparison
headers, has not been deleted.
Mr. Fries analyzed the headers on my Davies post, and on a couple of
posts from different threads. He did not compare it to your alleged
Davies post; he admitted he didn't have the headers for that one, and
blamed his failure to find those on Will (as per his usual method).
Since his pdf is still in the thread, those reading the thread here
on JLA can see that for themselves.
This is a response to the post seen at:
http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=699965177#699965177
Notice also that the subject header for this thread reads:
"Re: Re: THE HEADERS OF EVIDENCE - Cujo wins again"
"Re: Re:" signifying that something us missing from the thread. Since
I don't claim to be an expert on Usenet newsgroups, I can't explain
what it means.
No it doesn't.
Cujo DeSockpuppet <cujo@petitmorte.net> posted:
Will Dockery <user3274@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote in
news:1767437644-3274@newsgrouper.org:
georgedance04@yahoo-dot-ca.no-spam.invalid (George J. Dance)
posted:
NancyGene wrote:
George J. Dance wrote:
I note that Mr. Fries's OP has been deleted.
It never came through to JLA Forums, so was not deleted. JLA
Forums has some strange rules about links and numbers.
Why do you lie so much, NastyGoon? Of course it came through; I
replied to it. Mr. Fries deleted it only after I'd replied.
Cujo's pdf attachment in this thread, which shows the comparison
headers, has not been deleted.
Mr. Fries analyzed the headers on my Davies post, and on a couple
of posts from different threads. He did not compare it to your
alleged Davies post; he admitted he didn't have the headers for
that one, and blamed his failure to find those on Will (as per
his usual method). Since his pdf is still in the thread, those
reading the thread here on JLA can see that for themselves.
This is a response to the post seen at:
http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=699965177#699965177
Notice also that the subject header for this thread reads:
"Re: Re: THE HEADERS OF EVIDENCE - Cujo wins again"
"Re: Re:" signifying that something us missing from the thread.
Since I don't claim to be an expert on Usenet newsgroups, I can't
explain what it means.
No it doesn't. It looks like someone cut and pasted a text after the
first "Re:" and nothing more. You are so desperate to justify your
claims and lies that you reach for the dumbest possible conclusions.
This is why people ridicule you, Douchebag.
Of course it does, but I wouldn't expect you to agree,
CujoDeSockpuppet.
Will Dockery <user3274@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote in news:1767437644-3274@newsgrouper.org:
georgedance04@yahoo-dot-ca.no-spam.invalid (George J. Dance)posted:
NancyGene wrote:
George J. Dance wrote:
I note that Mr. Fries's OP has been deleted.
It never came through to JLA Forums, so was not deleted. JLA
Forums has some strange rules about links and numbers.
Why do you lie so much, NastyGoon? Of course it came through; I
replied to it. Mr. Fries deleted it only after I'd replied.
Cujo's pdf attachment in this thread, which shows the comparison
headers, has not been deleted.
Mr. Fries analyzed the headers on my Davies post, and on a couple
of posts from different threads. He did not compare it to your
alleged Davies post; he admitted he didn't have the headers for
that one, and blamed his failure to find those on Will (as per
his usual method). Since his pdf is still in the thread, those
reading the thread here on JLA can see that for themselves.
This is a response to the post seen at:
http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=699965177#699965177
Notice also that the subject header for this thread reads:
"Re: Re: THE HEADERS OF EVIDENCE - Cujo wins again"
"Re: Re:" signifying that something us missing from the thread.
Since I don't claim to be an expert on Usenet newsgroups, I can't
explain what it means.
No it doesn't.
Of course it does, but I wouldn't expect you to agree,
CujoDeSockpuppet.
Actually I agree
will.dockery@gmail-dot-com.no-spam.invalid (Will-Dockery) wrote in news:ctycnfWDiKkfbMX0nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com:
George J. Dance wrote:
NancyGene wrote:
George J. Dance wrote:
Why do you lie so much, NastyGoon? Of course it came through; II note that Mr. Fries's OP has been deleted.
It never came through to JLA Forums, so was not deleted. JLA
Forums has some strange rules about links and numbers.
replied to it. Mr. Fries deleted it only after I'd replied.
Cujo's pdf attachment in this thread, which shows the comparison
headers, has not been deleted.
Mr. Fries analyzed the headers on my Davies post, and on a couple
of posts from different threads. He did not compare it to your
alleged Davies post; he admitted he didn't have the headers for
that one, and blamed his failure to find those on Will (as per his
usual method). Since his pdf is still in the thread, those reading
the thread here on JLA can see that for themselves.
Cujo's original post on the subject was not on JLA Forums. Please
prove that it was, George Dunce. Cujo explained why.
GJD: So you've given up arguing that you posted the Davies poem
first, and you want to deflect to this instead? Well, fine; we'll
talk about whether Mr. Fries's post appeared on JLA or not.
Do you understand how posts are threaded on Usenet? Each thread has
an original post (an OP) with its own subject title. All posts made
in reply to it (and to each other) are attached to it by the program;
that's shown by each post's own subject header, which begins with
"Re:" followed by the subject of the OP. (For example, if the subject
of an OP was "Christmas." all the replies to it would have the
subject header "Re: Christmas."0
Now, look at this thread on JLA. The first post, by you, has the
subject header "Re: THE HEADERS OF EVIDENCE - Cujo wins again." That
shows it is not the OP; the OP has gone missing from this thread. It
also shows that the subject of the OP was "THE HEADERS OF EVIDENCE -
Cujo wins again" which was obviously written by "Cujo" (Mr. Fries).
That doesn't tell us the content of missing OP; but since the first
post in the thread is a reply to a post by "Cujo" (the same one I
replied to) it's reasonable to infer that the post being replied to
is the missing OP.
We also know that posters aren't able to delete their own posts to
JLA (unless they pay for a premium subscription), so it wasn't
deleted here. Besides, we know that Mr. Fries doesn't post on JLA,
which is why attribution keeps getting messed up in any thread he
replies to (since Usenet and JLA attribute posts differently).
Rather, since he posts to Usenet, it's reasonable to think he deleted
his post from the entirety of Usenet after you replied to it, which
caused it to disappear from JLA. Why would he do that? Because he
didn't realize that you were just trolling - just claiming you'd
posted first as a joke, to troll me - and took your claim seriously.
In short, like Will, he got taken in by your troll. When he realized
that he'd been trolled, he deleted the post, or got someone who
actually knows how to moderate Usenet (perhaps PJ Ross) to do it for
him.
I realize that won't convince you, since you're still trolling, and
as a troll you'll never concede that your targets are correct about
anything - but I hope it's enough to convince any impartial reader of
the thread.
Look at the headers for this thread. You'll see that the first post
in it (yours) begins with a "Re:", meaning that it's not the
original.
I'm not sure exactly what it means or what happened to it (I don't
claim to be a Usenet expert), but a post from CujoDeSockpuppet
responding to you (GJD) is shown to have been deleted.
(See JLA Forums attachment below.)
View the attachments for this post at: http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=700060690#700060690
You're a xxxxxxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxxxxx
"Mr. Fries analyzed the headers on my Davies post, and on a couple of
posts from different threads. He did not compare it to your alleged
Davies post; he admitted he didn't have the headers for that one, and
blamed his failure to find those on Will (as per his usual method). Since his pdf is still in the thread, those reading the thread here on JLA can
see that for themselves.
This is a response to the post seen at: http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=699965177#699965177"
This is what you are claiming is something deleting it?
"ARTICLE NOT FOUND: Request for 'v:nh:art alt.arts.poetry.comments 1767397373' timed out."
A "timed out" message could mean a lot of things. None of them are due to
me deleting anything.
georgedance04@yahoo-dot-ca.no-spam.invalid (George J. Dance) wrote in news:t4Cdna-APtB90MX0nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com:
CujoDeSockpuppet wrote:
NancyGene wrote:
On December 29, 2025, Cujo deSockpuppet wrote:
---------
I've rearranged the headers for a bit of readability. I'm going to
pick out the two dates for the purposes of this discussion.
1. Basic headers.
Subject: PPB: Christmas / W.H. Davies
From: georgedance
2. Dates
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2025 20:21:41 +0000
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2025 12:47:08 -0500
What's wrong with this picture, Dreckery?
The first is GMT.
A: 20:21:41 +0000
The second is the client posting.
B: 12:47:08 -0500
There's approximately an eight hour difference between A and B. Yet
the time zone offset is only 5 hours.
Someone is playing with their clocks.
Since you only produced George's headers, I can't comment on NGs.
******************
Let's take one of mine:
Subject: Re: My living room (by special request)
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2025 16:26:42 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2025 16:26:43 +0000 (UTC)
See? No offset.
Let's take one of NGs:
Subject: Re: All he wanted for Christmas was...
From: nancygene.andjayme
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2025 16:30:27 +0000
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2025 11:29:23 -0500
Look, the offset matches.
George is over two and a half hours off. Given your claim is that
George was an hour earlier, I suspect it's more the case that NG
beat him by at least 1.5 hours. You ought to be f***ing ashamed of
yourself, Douchebag.
Cujo rules, Douchebag drools!
Everyone involved in claiming NG was at fault owe her an apology.
Especially the douchebag who had to stick his snout in and lose the
case for George.
----------
Thank you, Cujo, for proving that we posted the poem hours before
George Dunce did. George Dunce just can't help stealing poems,
especially from us, of whom he is extremely jealous. Will Donkey
might want to postpone his jumping up and down about a topic until
he finds out the truth, which is that we posted the poem first.
All Hail Cujo! When Dunce and Donkey pay us damages, we will
donate the money to your feline rescue organization.
Thanks, they just got a shitload of charitable donations through my
company matches and my volunteer bonuses. But every penny helps.
So if you want to see the originals, they're on newsgrouper and
because I'm a complete and utter a**hole and like to rub in my
VICTOLLY! laps, I'm attaching the original post that JLA blocked
with their policies.
Resubmitted for George.
Cujo rules, Donkey drools.
Why, thank you for resubmitting it. That allows me to submit my
original criticism, which you never replied to:
*****
On December 29, 2025, Cujo deSockpuppet wrote:
---------
I've rearranged the headers for a bit of readability. I'm going to
pick out the two dates for the purposes of this discussion.
1. Basic headers.
Subject: PPB: Christmas / W.H. Davies
From: georgedance
2. Dates
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2025 20:21:41 +0000
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2025 12:47:08 -0500
What's wrong with this picture, Dreckery?
The first is GMT.
A: 20:21:41 +0000
The second is the client posting.
B: 12:47:08 -0500
There's approximately an eight hour difference between A and B. Yet
the time zone offset is only 5 hours.
Someone is playing with their clocks.
12:47:08 is the timestamp put on the post by the host site, JLA
Forums: http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=670619305
A three-hour delay does seem strange, but it is positively bizarre to accuse JLA Forums of "playing with their clocks" to fake the time of a post. Why would they do that? To chear NastyGoon of bragging rights?
the same message on JLA Forums (on the Poetry and Poetry-Poems
subgroups) have timestamps within 5 minutes of this one, and the
obvious inference that the site must have "played with" those clocks
as well, and you have not only a bizarre claim but a full-fledged conspiracy theory.
Since you only produced George's headers, I can't comment on NGs.
I suspect there are probably no headers for NG's post because it
doesn't exist. All NG has been able to produce is a screenshot showing
an OP of "Christmas" on JLA Forums at 6 am Dec. 21, with the subject
and author snipped off. A search of the 3 poetry threads on JLA Forums shows no such OP. The conclusion is that it's an obvious fake, faked
by the same method I've used to create my own fake screenshot
purporting to prove that I posted the poem back in June.
<snip examples of unrelated headers>
George is over two and a half hours off. Given your claim is that
George was an hour earlier, I suspect it's more the case that NG beat
him by at least 1.5 hours.
No one before you has claimed that NG's OP was "an hour" later , and
your story that anyone did is not helped by your putting your own
claim into Will's mouth. NG's first, and only, known post mentioning
Davies appeared on JLA Forums at 5 pm Dec. 21, more than 4 hours after
mine appeared, and which admits (in the subject header) that I had
already posted the promo here. http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=670627078
Is this more "satire," Mr. Fries? The normal way to compare which of
two alleged posts was made earlier is to compare the dates on both;
not by posting the dates on one, and refusing to give the dates, or
even a comment, on the other one.
Point out the post you want analyzed
But do note I have zero explanation of the time zone offset
being a few hours off on your post.
One does feel sorry for NastyGoon; after years of hanging with a
delusional wacko, they are apparently turning into a delusional
wacko as well. Let this be a cautionary tale for Mr. Fries, who has
begun to exhibit the same behavior.
The platinum standard
Cujo DeSockpuppet <cujo@petitmorte.net> posted:
will.dockery@gmail-dot-com.no-spam.invalid (Will-Dockery) wrote in
news:ctycnfWDiKkfbMX0nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com:
George J. Dance wrote:
NancyGene wrote:
George J. Dance wrote:
Why do you lie so much, NastyGoon? Of course it came through; II note that Mr. Fries's OP has been deleted.
It never came through to JLA Forums, so was not deleted. JLA
Forums has some strange rules about links and numbers.
replied to it. Mr. Fries deleted it only after I'd replied.
Cujo's pdf attachment in this thread, which shows the
comparison headers, has not been deleted.
Mr. Fries analyzed the headers on my Davies post, and on a
couple of posts from different threads. He did not compare it to
your alleged Davies post; he admitted he didn't have the headers
for that one, and blamed his failure to find those on Will (as
per his usual method). Since his pdf is still in the thread,
those reading the thread here on JLA can see that for
themselves.
Cujo's original post on the subject was not on JLA Forums.
Please prove that it was, George Dunce. Cujo explained why.
GJD: So you've given up arguing that you posted the Davies poem
first, and you want to deflect to this instead? Well, fine; we'll
talk about whether Mr. Fries's post appeared on JLA or not.
Do you understand how posts are threaded on Usenet? Each thread
has an original post (an OP) with its own subject title. All posts
made in reply to it (and to each other) are attached to it by the
program; that's shown by each post's own subject header, which
begins with "Re:" followed by the subject of the OP. (For example,
if the subject of an OP was "Christmas." all the replies to it
would have the subject header "Re: Christmas."0
Now, look at this thread on JLA. The first post, by you, has the
subject header "Re: THE HEADERS OF EVIDENCE - Cujo wins again."
That shows it is not the OP; the OP has gone missing from this
thread. It also shows that the subject of the OP was "THE HEADERS
OF EVIDENCE - Cujo wins again" which was obviously written by
"Cujo" (Mr. Fries). That doesn't tell us the content of missing
OP; but since the first post in the thread is a reply to a post by
"Cujo" (the same one I replied to) it's reasonable to infer that
the post being replied to is the missing OP.
We also know that posters aren't able to delete their own posts to
JLA (unless they pay for a premium subscription), so it wasn't
deleted here. Besides, we know that Mr. Fries doesn't post on JLA,
which is why attribution keeps getting messed up in any thread he
replies to (since Usenet and JLA attribute posts differently).
Rather, since he posts to Usenet, it's reasonable to think he
deleted his post from the entirety of Usenet after you replied to
it, which caused it to disappear from JLA. Why would he do that?
Because he didn't realize that you were just trolling - just
claiming you'd posted first as a joke, to troll me - and took your
claim seriously. In short, like Will, he got taken in by your
troll. When he realized that he'd been trolled, he deleted the
post, or got someone who actually knows how to moderate Usenet
(perhaps PJ Ross) to do it for him.
I realize that won't convince you, since you're still trolling,
and as a troll you'll never concede that your targets are correct
about anything - but I hope it's enough to convince any impartial
reader of the thread.
Look at the headers for this thread. You'll see that the first
post in it (yours) begins with a "Re:", meaning that it's not the
original.
I'm not sure exactly what it means or what happened to it (I don't
claim to be a Usenet expert), but a post from CujoDeSockpuppet
responding to you (GJD) is shown to have been deleted.
(See JLA Forums attachment below.)
View the attachments for this post at:
http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=700060690#700060690
You're a fucking idiot.
Says CujoDeSockpuppet, the malicious name-calling cyberbully troll.
"Mr. Fries analyzed the headers on my Davies post, and on a couple of
posts from different threads. He did not compare it to your alleged
Davies post; he admitted he didn't have the headers for that one, and
blamed his failure to find those on Will (as per his usual method).
Since his pdf is still in the thread, those reading the thread here
on JLA can see that for themselves.
This is a response to the post seen at:
http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=699965177#699965177"
This is what you are claiming is something deleting it?
"ARTICLE NOT FOUND: Request for 'v:nh:art alt.arts.poetry.comments
1767397373' timed out."
A "timed out" message could mean a lot of things. None of them are
due to me deleting anything.
Either way, the post is deleted.
Cujo DeSockpuppet <cujo@petitmorte.net> posted:
Will Dockery <user3274@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote in
news:1767437644-3274@newsgrouper.org:
georgedance04@yahoo-dot-ca.no-spam.invalid (George J. Dance)posted:
NancyGene wrote:
George J. Dance wrote:
I note that Mr. Fries's OP has been deleted.
It never came through to JLA Forums, so was not deleted. JLA
Forums has some strange rules about links and numbers.
Why do you lie so much, NastyGoon? Of course it came through; I
replied to it. Mr. Fries deleted it only after I'd replied.
Cujo's pdf attachment in this thread, which shows the
comparison headers, has not been deleted.
Mr. Fries analyzed the headers on my Davies post, and on a
couple of posts from different threads. He did not compare it
to your alleged Davies post; he admitted he didn't have the
headers for that one, and blamed his failure to find those on
Will (as per his usual method). Since his pdf is still in the
thread, those reading the thread here on JLA can see that for
themselves.
This is a response to the post seen at:
http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=699965177#699965177
Notice also that the subject header for this thread reads:
"Re: Re: THE HEADERS OF EVIDENCE - Cujo wins again"
"Re: Re:" signifying that something us missing from the thread.
Since I don't claim to be an expert on Usenet newsgroups, I
can't explain what it means.
No it doesn't.
Of course it does, but I wouldn't expect you to agree,
CujoDeSockpuppet.
Actually I agree you're ridiculously stupid.
Thst your original post was deleted?
Cujo DeSockpuppet <cujo@petitmorte.net> posted:Check out this snip job!
georgedance04@yahoo-dot-ca.no-spam.invalid (George J. Dance) wrote in
news:t4Cdna-APtB90MX0nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com:
CujoDeSockpuppet wrote:
NancyGene wrote:
On December 29, 2025, Cujo deSockpuppet wrote:
---------
I've rearranged the headers for a bit of readability. I'm going
to pick out the two dates for the purposes of this discussion.
1. Basic headers.
Subject: PPB: Christmas / W.H. Davies
From: georgedance
2. Dates
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2025 20:21:41 +0000
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2025 12:47:08 -0500
What's wrong with this picture, Dreckery?
The first is GMT.
A: 20:21:41 +0000
The second is the client posting.
B: 12:47:08 -0500
There's approximately an eight hour difference between A and B.
Yet the time zone offset is only 5 hours.
Someone is playing with their clocks.
Since you only produced George's headers, I can't comment on
NGs.
******************
Let's take one of mine:
Subject: Re: My living room (by special request)
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2025 16:26:42 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2025 16:26:43 +0000 (UTC)
See? No offset.
Let's take one of NGs:
Subject: Re: All he wanted for Christmas was...
From: nancygene.andjayme
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2025 16:30:27 +0000
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2025 11:29:23 -0500
Look, the offset matches.
George is over two and a half hours off. Given your claim is
that George was an hour earlier, I suspect it's more the case
that NG beat him by at least 1.5 hours. You ought to be f***ing
ashamed of yourself, Douchebag.
Cujo rules, Douchebag drools!
Everyone involved in claiming NG was at fault owe her an
apology. Especially the douchebag who had to stick his snout in
and lose the case for George.
----------
Thank you, Cujo, for proving that we posted the poem hours
before George Dunce did. George Dunce just can't help stealing
poems, especially from us, of whom he is extremely jealous.
Will Donkey might want to postpone his jumping up and down about
a topic until he finds out the truth, which is that we posted
the poem first.
All Hail Cujo! When Dunce and Donkey pay us damages, we will
donate the money to your feline rescue organization.
Thanks, they just got a shitload of charitable donations through
my company matches and my volunteer bonuses. But every penny
helps.
So if you want to see the originals, they're on newsgrouper and
because I'm a complete and utter a**hole and like to rub in my
VICTOLLY! laps, I'm attaching the original post that JLA blocked
with their policies.
Resubmitted for George.
Cujo rules, Donkey drools.
Why, thank you for resubmitting it. That allows me to submit my
original criticism, which you never replied to:
*****
On December 29, 2025, Cujo deSockpuppet wrote:
---------
I've rearranged the headers for a bit of readability. I'm going to
pick out the two dates for the purposes of this discussion.
1. Basic headers.
Subject: PPB: Christmas / W.H. Davies
From: georgedance
2. Dates
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2025 20:21:41 +0000
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2025 12:47:08 -0500
What's wrong with this picture, Dreckery?
The first is GMT.
A: 20:21:41 +0000
The second is the client posting.
B: 12:47:08 -0500
There's approximately an eight hour difference between A and B.
Yet the time zone offset is only 5 hours.
Someone is playing with their clocks.
12:47:08 is the timestamp put on the post by the host site, JLA
Forums: http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=670619305
A three-hour delay does seem strange, but it is positively bizarre
to accuse JLA Forums of "playing with their clocks" to fake the
time of a post. Why would they do that? To chear NastyGoon of
bragging rights? the same message on JLA Forums (on the Poetry and
Poetry-Poems subgroups) have timestamps within 5 minutes of this
one, and the obvious inference that the site must have "played
with" those clocks as well, and you have not only a bizarre claim
but a full-fledged conspiracy theory.
Since you only produced George's headers, I can't comment on NGs.
I suspect there are probably no headers for NG's post because it
doesn't exist. All NG has been able to produce is a screenshot
showing an OP of "Christmas" on JLA Forums at 6 am Dec. 21, with
the subject and author snipped off. A search of the 3 poetry
threads on JLA Forums shows no such OP. The conclusion is that
it's an obvious fake, faked by the same method I've used to create
my own fake screenshot purporting to prove that I posted the poem
back in June.
<snip examples of unrelated headers>
George is over two and a half hours off. Given your claim is that
George was an hour earlier, I suspect it's more the case that NG
beat him by at least 1.5 hours.
No one before you has claimed that NG's OP was "an hour" later ,
and your story that anyone did is not helped by your putting your
own claim into Will's mouth. NG's first, and only, known post
mentioning Davies appeared on JLA Forums at 5 pm Dec. 21, more than
4 hours after mine appeared, and which admits (in the subject
header) that I had already posted the promo here.
http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=670627078
Is this more "satire," Mr. Fries? The normal way to compare which
of two alleged posts was made earlier is to compare the dates on
both; not by posting the dates on one, and refusing to give the
dates, or even a comment, on the other one.
*******************Complete nonsense.
As I replied to Douchebag Willie:
"There's approximately an eight hour difference between A and B. Yet
the time zone offset is only 5 hours.
Someone is playing with their clocks.
Since you only produced George's headers, I can't comment on NGs."
I'm still waiting on the other headers. I'll look at them at any time
they are produced. However as I explained repeatedly, the date the
server, received it and the adjusted time offsets are wildly
dissimilar.
Point out the post you want analyzed
*********************Point out the post you want analyzed so we don't have the lying
Douchebag trying to divert and alter the parameters.
The NancyGene posts, obviously.
But do note I have zero explanation of the time zone offset
being a few hours off on your post.
One does feel sorry for NastyGoon; after years of hanging with a
delusional wacko, they are apparently turning into a delusional
wacko as well. Let this be a cautionary tale for Mr. Fries, who has
begun to exhibit the same behavior.
The platinum standard
The platinum standard for delusional is Dreckster. He thinks he's got
talent and people like Benders aren't laughing at him for over 20
years.
I don't see how I can top that.
Your examples go below.
Says CujoDeSockpuppet, defending his fellow troll NancyGene
Will Dockery <user3274@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote in news:1767449130-3274@newsgrouper.org:
Cujo DeSockpuppet <cujo@petitmorte.net> posted:
will.dockery@gmail-dot-com.no-spam.invalid (Will-Dockery) wrote in
news:ctycnfWDiKkfbMX0nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com:
George J. Dance wrote:
Why do you lie so much, NastyGoon? Of course it came through; II note that Mr. Fries's OP has been deleted.
It never came through to JLA Forums, so was not deleted. JLA
Forums has some strange rules about links and numbers.
replied to it. Mr. Fries deleted it only after I'd replied.
Cujo's pdf attachment in this thread, which shows the
comparison headers, has not been deleted.
Mr. Fries analyzed the headers on my Davies post, and on a
couple of posts from different threads. He did not compare it to
your alleged Davies post; he admitted he didn't have the headers
for that one, and blamed his failure to find those on Will (as
per his usual method). Since his pdf is still in the thread,
those reading the thread here on JLA can see that for
themselves.
Cujo's original post on the subject was not on JLA Forums.
Please prove that it was, George Dunce. Cujo explained why.
GJD: So you've given up arguing that you posted the Davies poem
first, and you want to deflect to this instead? Well, fine; we'll
talk about whether Mr. Fries's post appeared on JLA or not.
Do you understand how posts are threaded on Usenet? Each thread
has an original post (an OP) with its own subject title. All posts
made in reply to it (and to each other) are attached to it by the
program; that's shown by each post's own subject header, which
begins with "Re:" followed by the subject of the OP. (For example,
if the subject of an OP was "Christmas." all the replies to it
would have the subject header "Re: Christmas."0
Now, look at this thread on JLA. The first post, by you, has the
subject header "Re: THE HEADERS OF EVIDENCE - Cujo wins again."
That shows it is not the OP; the OP has gone missing from this
thread. It also shows that the subject of the OP was "THE HEADERS
OF EVIDENCE - Cujo wins again" which was obviously written by
"Cujo" (Mr. Fries). That doesn't tell us the content of missing
OP; but since the first post in the thread is a reply to a post by
"Cujo" (the same one I replied to) it's reasonable to infer that
the post being replied to is the missing OP.
We also know that posters aren't able to delete their own posts to
JLA (unless they pay for a premium subscription), so it wasn't
deleted here. Besides, we know that Mr. Fries doesn't post on JLA,
which is why attribution keeps getting messed up in any thread he
replies to (since Usenet and JLA attribute posts differently).
Rather, since he posts to Usenet, it's reasonable to think he
deleted his post from the entirety of Usenet after you replied to
it, which caused it to disappear from JLA. Why would he do that?
Because he didn't realize that you were just trolling - just
claiming you'd posted first as a joke, to troll me - and took your
claim seriously. In short, like Will, he got taken in by your
troll. When he realized that he'd been trolled, he deleted the
post, or got someone who actually knows how to moderate Usenet
(perhaps PJ Ross) to do it for him.
I realize that won't convince you, since you're still trolling,
and as a troll you'll never concede that your targets are correct
about anything - but I hope it's enough to convince any impartial
reader of the thread.
Look at the headers for this thread. You'll see that the first
post in it (yours) begins with a "Re:", meaning that it's not the
original.
I'm not sure exactly what it means or what happened to it (I don't
claim to be a Usenet expert), but a post from CujoDeSockpuppet
responding to you (GJD) is shown to have been deleted.
(See JLA Forums attachment below.)
View the attachments for this post at:
http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=700060690#700060690
You're a fucking idiot.
Says CujoDeSockpuppet, the malicious name-calling cyberbully troll.
"Mr. Fries analyzed the headers on my Davies post, and on a couple of
posts from different threads. He did not compare it to your alleged
Davies post; he admitted he didn't have the headers for that one, and
blamed his failure to find those on Will (as per his usual method).
Since his pdf is still in the thread, those reading the thread here
on JLA can see that for themselves.
This is a response to the post seen at:
http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=699965177#699965177"
This is what you are claiming is something deleting it?
"ARTICLE NOT FOUND: Request for 'v:nh:art alt.arts.poetry.comments
1767397373' timed out."
A "timed out" message could mean a lot of things. None of them are
due to me deleting anything.
Either way, the post is deleted.
No, you're a fucking idiot. It could simply be a corrupted table. It's almost certainly on every other site if it was posted elsewhere.
Once again, go ask the admin of the group if you can't find it. It's possible the message is still there but marked as deleted. Given how
flaky JLA is, it's also a possible sortware bug. Have your pet admin look
at it.
I'd also explicitly suggest that you go fuck yourself but that's already implicit.
Will Dockery <user3274@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote in news:1767437644-3274@newsgrouper.org:
georgedance04@yahoo-dot-ca.no-spam.invalid (George J. Dance)posted:
NancyGene wrote:
George J. Dance wrote:
I note that Mr. Fries's OP has been deleted.
It never came through to JLA Forums, so was not deleted. JLA
Forums has some strange rules about links and numbers.
Why do you lie so much, NastyGoon? Of course it came through; I
replied to it. Mr. Fries deleted it only after I'd replied.
Cujo's pdf attachment in this thread, which shows the
comparison headers, has not been deleted.
Mr. Fries analyzed the headers on my Davies post, and on a
couple of posts from different threads. He did not compare it
to your alleged Davies post; he admitted he didn't have the
headers for that one, and blamed his failure to find those on
Will (as per his usual method). Since his pdf is still in the
thread, those reading the thread here on JLA can see that for
themselves.
This is a response to the post seen at:
http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=699965177#699965177
Notice also that the subject header for this thread reads:
"Re: Re: THE HEADERS OF EVIDENCE - Cujo wins again"
"Re: Re:" signifying that something us missing from the thread.
Since I don't claim to be an expert on Usenet newsgroups, I
can't explain what it means.
No it doesn't.
Of course it does, but I wouldn't expect you to agree,
CujoDeSockpuppet.
Actually I agree
Thst your original post was deleted?
Nope
Will Dockery <user3274@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote in news:1767451307-3274@newsgrouper.org:
Cujo DeSockpuppet <cujo@petitmorte.net> posted:
georgedance04@yahoo-dot-ca.no-spam.invalid (George J. Dance) wrote in
news:t4Cdna-APtB90MX0nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com:
CujoDeSockpuppet wrote:
NancyGene wrote:
On December 29, 2025, Cujo deSockpuppet wrote:
---------
I've rearranged the headers for a bit of readability. I'm going
to pick out the two dates for the purposes of this discussion.
1. Basic headers.
Subject: PPB: Christmas / W.H. Davies
From: georgedance
2. Dates
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2025 20:21:41 +0000
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2025 12:47:08 -0500
What's wrong with this picture, Dreckery?
The first is GMT.
A: 20:21:41 +0000
The second is the client posting.
B: 12:47:08 -0500
There's approximately an eight hour difference between A and B.
Yet the time zone offset is only 5 hours.
Someone is playing with their clocks.
Since you only produced George's headers, I can't comment on
NGs.
******************
Let's take one of mine:
Subject: Re: My living room (by special request)
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2025 16:26:42 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2025 16:26:43 +0000 (UTC)
See? No offset.
Let's take one of NGs:
Subject: Re: All he wanted for Christmas was...
From: nancygene.andjayme
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2025 16:30:27 +0000
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2025 11:29:23 -0500
Look, the offset matches.
George is over two and a half hours off. Given your claim is
that George was an hour earlier, I suspect it's more the case
that NG beat him by at least 1.5 hours. You ought to be f***ing
ashamed of yourself, Douchebag.
----------
Thank you, Cujo, for proving that we posted the poem hours
before George Dunce did. George
So if you want to see the originals, they're on newsgrouper
because I'm a complete and utter a**hole and like to rub in my
VICTOLLY! laps, I'm attaching the original post that JLA blocked
with their policies.
Resubmitted for George.
Why, thank you for resubmitting it. That allows me to submit my
original criticism, which you never replied to:
*****
On December 29, 2025, Cujo deSockpuppet wrote:
---------
I've rearranged the headers for a bit of readability. I'm going to
pick out the two dates for the purposes of this discussion.
1. Basic headers.
Subject: PPB: Christmas / W.H. Davies
From: georgedance
2. Dates
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2025 20:21:41 +0000
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2025 12:47:08 -0500
What's wrong with this picture, Dreckery?
The first is GMT.
A: 20:21:41 +0000
The second is the client posting.
B: 12:47:08 -0500
There's approximately an eight hour difference between A and B.
Yet the time zone offset is only 5 hours.
Someone is playing with their clocks.
12:47:08 is the timestamp put on the post by the host site, JLA
Forums: http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=670619305
A three-hour delay does seem strange, but it is positively bizarre
to accuse JLA Forums of "playing with their clocks" to fake the
time of a post. Why would they do that? To chear NastyGoon of
bragging rights? the same message on JLA Forums (on the Poetry and
Poetry-Poems subgroups) have timestamps within 5 minutes of this
one, and the obvious inference that the site must have "played
with" those clocks as well, and you have not only a bizarre claim
but a full-fledged conspiracy theory.
Since you only produced George's headers, I can't comment on NGs.
I suspect there are probably no headers for NG's post because it
doesn't exist. All NG has been able to produce is a screenshot
showing an OP of "Christmas" on JLA Forums at 6 am Dec. 21, with
the subject and author snipped off. A search of the 3 poetry
threads on JLA Forums shows no such OP. The conclusion is that
it's an obvious fake, faked by the same method I've used to create
my own fake screenshot purporting to prove that I posted the poem
back in June.
<snip examples of unrelated headers>
George is over two and a half hours off. Given your claim is that
George was an hour earlier, I suspect it's more the case that NG
beat him by at least 1.5 hours.
No one before you has claimed that NG's OP was "an hour" later ,
and your story that anyone did is not helped by your putting your
own claim into Will's mouth. NG's first, and only, known post
mentioning Davies appeared on JLA Forums at 5 pm Dec. 21, more than
4 hours after mine appeared, and which admits (in the subject
header) that I had already posted the promo here.
http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=670627078
Is this more "satire," Mr. Fries? The normal way to compare which
of two alleged posts was made earlier is to compare the dates on
both; not by posting the dates on one, and refusing to give the
dates, or even a comment, on the other one.
Complete nonsense.
"There's approximately an eight hour difference between A and B. Yet
the time zone offset is only 5 hours.
Someone is playing with their clocks.
Since you only produced George's headers, I can't comment on NGs."
I'm still waiting on the other headers. I'll look at them at any time
they are produced.
However as I explained repeatedly, the date the
*******************server, received it and the adjusted time offsets are wildly
dissimilar.
Point out the post you want analyzed
The NancyGene posts, obviously.
Message-IDs
But do note I have zero explanation of the time zone offset
being a few hours off on your post.
One does feel sorry for NastyGoon; after years of hanging with a
delusional wacko, they are apparently turning into a delusional
wacko as well. Let this be a cautionary tale for Mr. Fries, who has
begun to exhibit the same behavior.
I don't see how I can top that.
Cujo DeSockpuppet <cujo@petitmorte.net> posted:
Will Dockery <user3274@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote in
news:1767437644-3274@newsgrouper.org:
georgedance04@yahoo-dot-ca.no-spam.invalid (George J. Dance)posted:
NancyGene wrote:
George J. Dance wrote:
I note that Mr. Fries's OP has been deleted.
It never came through to JLA Forums, so was not deleted.
JLA Forums has some strange rules about links and numbers.
Why do you lie so much, NastyGoon? Of course it came
through; I replied to it. Mr. Fries deleted it only after
I'd replied.
Cujo's pdf attachment in this thread, which shows the
comparison headers, has not been deleted.
Mr. Fries analyzed the headers on my Davies post, and on a
couple of posts from different threads. He did not compare
it to your alleged Davies post; he admitted he didn't have
the headers for that one, and blamed his failure to find
those on Will (as per his usual method). Since his pdf is
still in the thread, those reading the thread here on JLA
can see that for themselves.
This is a response to the post seen at:
http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=699965177#699965177
Notice also that the subject header for this thread reads:
"Re: Re: THE HEADERS OF EVIDENCE - Cujo wins again"
"Re: Re:" signifying that something us missing from the
thread. Since I don't claim to be an expert on Usenet
newsgroups, I can't explain what it means.
No it doesn't.
Of course it does, but I wouldn't expect you to agree,
CujoDeSockpuppet.
Actually I agree
Thst your original post was deleted?
Nope, that you're ridiculously stupid.
PS: you're also a Douchebag.
Again, I don't expect you to admit to having your post deleted.
I see you're trying to blame it on the JLA Forums administrator now.
Cujo DeSockpuppet <cujo@petitmorte.net> posted:
Will Dockery <user3274@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote in
news:1767451307-3274@newsgrouper.org:
Cujo DeSockpuppet <cujo@petitmorte.net> posted:
georgedance04@yahoo-dot-ca.no-spam.invalid (George J. Dance) wrote
in news:t4Cdna-APtB90MX0nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com:
CujoDeSockpuppet wrote:
NancyGene wrote:
On December 29, 2025, Cujo deSockpuppet wrote:
---------
I've rearranged the headers for a bit of readability. I'm
going to pick out the two dates for the purposes of this
discussion.
1. Basic headers.
Subject: PPB: Christmas / W.H. Davies
From: georgedance
2. Dates
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2025 20:21:41 +0000
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2025 12:47:08 -0500
What's wrong with this picture, Dreckery?
The first is GMT.
A: 20:21:41 +0000
The second is the client posting.
B: 12:47:08 -0500
There's approximately an eight hour difference between A and
B. Yet the time zone offset is only 5 hours.
Someone is playing with their clocks.
Since you only produced George's headers, I can't comment on
NGs.
******************
Let's take one of mine:
Subject: Re: My living room (by special request)
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2025 16:26:42 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2025 16:26:43 +0000 (UTC)
See? No offset.
Let's take one of NGs:
Subject: Re: All he wanted for Christmas was...
From: nancygene.andjayme
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2025 16:30:27 +0000
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2025 11:29:23 -0500
Look, the offset matches.
George is over two and a half hours off. Given your claim is
that George was an hour earlier, I suspect it's more the case
that NG beat him by at least 1.5 hours. You ought to be
f***ing ashamed of yourself, Douchebag.
----------
Thank you, Cujo, for proving that we posted the poem hours
before George Dunce did. George
Except that CujoDeSockpuppet didn't actually do that.
So if you want to see the originals, they're on newsgrouper
Do you finally admit that your original post was deleted on JLA
Forums.
because I'm a complete and utter a**hole and like to rub in my
VICTOLLY! laps, I'm attaching the original post that JLA
blocked with their policies.
Blocked = deleted.
Resubmitted for George.
Do now we see there *was* a deleted post.
Why, thank you for resubmitting it. That allows me to submit my
original criticism, which you never replied to:
*****
On December 29, 2025, Cujo deSockpuppet wrote:
---------
I've rearranged the headers for a bit of readability. I'm going
to pick out the two dates for the purposes of this discussion.
1. Basic headers.
Subject: PPB: Christmas / W.H. Davies
From: georgedance
2. Dates
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2025 20:21:41 +0000
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2025 12:47:08 -0500
What's wrong with this picture, Dreckery?
The first is GMT.
A: 20:21:41 +0000
The second is the client posting.
B: 12:47:08 -0500
There's approximately an eight hour difference between A and B.
Yet the time zone offset is only 5 hours.
Someone is playing with their clocks.
12:47:08 is the timestamp put on the post by the host site, JLA
Forums: http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=670619305
A three-hour delay does seem strange, but it is positively
bizarre to accuse JLA Forums of "playing with their clocks" to
fake the time of a post. Why would they do that? To chear
NastyGoon of bragging rights? the same message on JLA Forums (on
the Poetry and Poetry-Poems subgroups) have timestamps within 5
minutes of this one, and the obvious inference that the site
must have "played with" those clocks as well, and you have not
only a bizarre claim but a full-fledged conspiracy theory.
Since you only produced George's headers, I can't comment on
NGs.
I suspect there are probably no headers for NG's post because it
doesn't exist. All NG has been able to produce is a screenshot
showing an OP of "Christmas" on JLA Forums at 6 am Dec. 21, with
the subject and author snipped off. A search of the 3 poetry
threads on JLA Forums shows no such OP. The conclusion is that
it's an obvious fake, faked by the same method I've used to
create my own fake screenshot purporting to prove that I posted
the poem back in June.
<snip examples of unrelated headers>
George is over two and a half hours off. Given your claim is
that George was an hour earlier, I suspect it's more the case
that NG beat him by at least 1.5 hours.
No one before you has claimed that NG's OP was "an hour" later ,
and your story that anyone did is not helped by your putting
your own claim into Will's mouth. NG's first, and only, known
post mentioning Davies appeared on JLA Forums at 5 pm Dec. 21,
more than 4 hours after mine appeared, and which admits (in the
subject header) that I had already posted the promo here.
http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=670627078
Is this more "satire," Mr. Fries? The normal way to compare
which of two alleged posts was made earlier is to compare the
dates on both; not by posting the dates on one, and refusing to
give the dates, or even a comment, on the other one.
Complete nonsense.
"There's approximately an eight hour difference between A and B.
Yet the time zone offset is only 5 hours.
Someone is playing with their clocks.
Since you only produced George's headers, I can't comment on NGs."
I'm still waiting on the other headers. I'll look at them at any
time they are produced.
Why wait?
However as I explained repeatedly, the date the
*******************server, received it and the adjusted time offsets are wildly
dissimilar.
Point out the post you want analyzed
The ones that you've avoided so far, you know which ones.
The NancyGene posts, obviously.
Message-IDs, Douchebag! Which specific posts?
Again, you know which ones, you already did some of it.
But do note I have zero explanation of the time zone offset
being a few hours off on your post.
One does feel sorry for NastyGoon; after years of hanging with a
delusional wacko, they are apparently turning into a delusional
wacko as well. Let this be a cautionary tale for Mr. Fries, who
has begun to exhibit the same behavior.
The platinum standard
The platinum standard for delusional is Dreckster. He thinks he's got
talent and people like Benders aren't laughing at him for over 20
years.
I don't see how I can top that.
Your examples go below.
Says CujoDeSockpuppet, defending his fellow troll NancyGene
I've been waiting eleven years for you to try to top my songs and
poetry, CujoDeSockpuppet.
George J. Dance wrote:
NancyGene wrote:
George J. Dance wrote:
NancyGene wrote:
George J. Dance wrote:
I note that Mr. Fries's OP has been deleted.
It never came through to JLA Forums, so was not deleted. JLA Forums has some strange rules about links and numbers.
Why do you lie so much, NastyGoon? Of course it came through; I replied to it. Mr. Fries deleted it only after I'd replied.
No, Cujo's first attempt to post the message with the headers was rejected by JLA Forums and didn't come through to the site. We don't know if it came through to any other sites, but we did not see it on JLA Forums.
Cujo's pdf attachment in this thread, which shows the comparison headers, has not been deleted.
Mr. Fries analyzed the headers on my Davies post, and on a couple of posts from different threads. He did not compare it to your alleged Davies post; he admitted he didn't have the headers for that one, and blamed his failure to find those on Will (as per his usual method). Since his pdf is still in the thread, those reading the thread here on JLA can see that for themselves.
That was a subsequent post from Cujo.
Cujo's original post on the subject was not on JLA Forums. Please prove that it was, George Dunce. Cujo explained why.
GJD: So you've given up arguing that you posted the Davies poem first, and you want to deflect to this instead? Well, fine; we'll talk about whether Mr. Fries's post appeared on JLA or not.
Do you understand how posts are threaded on Usenet? Each thread has an original post (an OP) with its own subject title. All posts made in reply to it (and to each other) are attached to it by the program; that's shown by each post's own subject header, which begins with "Re:" followed by the subject of the OP. (For example, if the subject of an OP was "Christmas." all the replies to it (and the replies to them) would have the subject header "Re: Christmas."[/quote]
Now, look at this thread on JLA. The first post, by you, has the subject header "Re: THE HEADERS OF EVIDENCE - Cujo wins again." That shows it is not the OP; the OP has gone missing from this thread./quote]
It also shows that the subject of the OP was "THE HEADERS OF EVIDENCE - Cujo wins again" which was obviously written by "Cujo" (Mr. Fries). That doesn't tell us the content of missing OP; but since the first post in the thread is a reply to a post by "Cujo" (the same one I replied to) it's reasonable to infer that the post being replied to is the missing OP./quote]The first message is our post because Cujo sent us what he was trying to post, which JLA Forums rejected.
We also know that posters aren't able to delete their own posts to JLA (unless they pay for a premium subscription), so it wasn't deleted here. /quote]It never got "here."
Besides, we know that Mr. Fries doesn't post on JLA, which is why attribution keeps getting messed up in any thread he replies to (since Usenet and JLA attribute posts differently). Rather, since he posts to Usenet, it's reasonable to think he deleted his post from the entirety of Usenet after you replied to it, which caused it to disappear from JLA./quote]
Why would he do that? Because he didn't realize that you were just trolling - just claiming you'd posted first as a joke, to troll me - and took your claim seriously. In short, like Will, he got taken in by your troll. When he realized that he'd been trolled, he deleted the post, or got someone who actually knows how to moderate Usenet (perhaps PJ Ross) to do it for him. /quote]
I realize that won't convince you, since you're still trolling, and as a troll you'll never concede that your targets are correct about anything - but I hope it's enough to convince any impartial reader of the thread.[/quote]
George J. Dance wrote:
NancyGene wrote:
George J. Dance wrote:
NancyGene wrote:
George J. Dance wrote:
I note that Mr. Fries's OP has been deleted.
It never came through to JLA Forums, so was not deleted. JLA
Forums has some strange rules about links and numbers.
Why do you lie so much, NastyGoon? Of course it came through; I
replied to it. Mr. Fries deleted it only after I'd replied.
No, Cujo's first attempt to post the message with the headers was
rejected by JLA Forums and didn't come through to the site. We
don't know if it came through to any other sites, but we did not
see it on JLA Forums.
Cujo's pdf attachment in this thread, which shows the comparison
headers, has not been deleted.
Mr. Fries analyzed the headers on my Davies post, and on a couple
of posts from different threads. He did not compare it to your
alleged Davies post; he admitted he didn't have the headers for
that one, and blamed his failure to find those on Will (as per
his usual method). Since his pdf is still in the thread, those
reading the thread here on JLA can see that for themselves.
That was a subsequent post from Cujo.
Cujo's original post on the subject was not on JLA Forums. Please
prove that it was, George Dunce. Cujo explained why.
GJD: So you've given up arguing that you posted the Davies poem
first, and you want to deflect to this instead? Well, fine; we'll
talk about whether Mr. Fries's post appeared on JLA or not.
No, we haven't "given up" the fact that we posted the Davis poem
first. How many times do we have to say and prove it to you?
Do you understand how posts are threaded on Usenet? Each thread has
an original post (an OP) with its own subject title. All posts made
in reply to it (and to each other) are attached to it by the program;
that's shown by each post's own subject header, which begins with
"Re:" followed by the subject of the OP. (For example, if the subject
of an OP was "Christmas." all the replies to it (and the replies to
them) would have the subject header "Re: Christmas."[/quote]
George Dunce, you are so computer literate, considering that you are
using a Commodore 64 with no speakers.
Now, look at this thread on JLA. The first post, by you, has the
subject header "Re: THE HEADERS OF EVIDENCE - Cujo wins again." That
shows it is not the OP; the OP has gone missing from this
thread./quote]
Wrong, George Dunce! It shows that "we" put in the "Re" because we
had the message that Cujo sent to us (that never made it to JLA
Forums).
It also shows that the subject of the OP was "THE HEADERS OF EVIDENCEThe first message is our post because Cujo sent us what he was trying
- Cujo wins again" which was obviously written by "Cujo" (Mr. Fries).
That doesn't tell us the content of missing OP; but since the first
post in the thread is a reply to a post by "Cujo" (the same one I
replied to) it's reasonable to infer that the post being replied to
is the missing OP./quote]
to post, which JLA Forums rejected.
We also know that posters aren't able to delete their own posts toIt never got "here."
JLA (unless they pay for a premium subscription), so it wasn't
deleted here. /quote]
Besides, we know that Mr. Fries doesn't post on JLA, which is why
attribution keeps getting messed up in any thread he replies to
(since Usenet and JLA attribute posts differently). Rather, since he
posts to Usenet, it's reasonable to think he deleted his post from
the entirety of Usenet after you replied to it, which caused it to
disappear from JLA./quote]
Nonsense.
Why would he do that? Because he didn't realize that you were just
trolling - just claiming you'd posted first as a joke, to troll me -
and took your claim seriously. In short, like Will, he got taken in
by your troll. When he realized that he'd been trolled, he deleted
the post, or got someone who actually knows how to moderate Usenet
(perhaps PJ Ross) to do it for him. /quote]
More Dunce nonsense. Cujo didn't delete his post from JLA Forums. It
was never posted on JLA Forums. Whatever might have been deleted, we
don't know, but he didn't delete the original headers message.
I realize that won't convince you, since you're still trolling, and
as a troll you'll never concede that your targets are correct about
anything - but I hope it's enough to convince any impartial reader of
the thread.[/quote]
No, George Dunce, you have based your argument on false information.
WE posted the "Re:." You should run your "facts" through your trusted thinker again. Garbage in/garbage out.
NancyGene wrote:
George J. Dance wrote:
NancyGene wrote:
George J. Dance wrote:
NancyGene wrote:
George J. Dance wrote:
I note that Mr. Fries's OP has been deleted.
It never came through to JLA Forums, so was not deleted. JLA Forums has some strange rules about links and numbers.
Why do you lie so much, NastyGoon? Of course it came through; I replied to it. Mr. Fries deleted it only after I'd replied.
No, Cujo's first attempt to post the message with the headers was rejected by JLA Forums and didn't come through to the site. We don't know if it came through to any other sites, but we did not see it on JLA Forums.
Cujo's pdf attachment in this thread, which shows the comparison headers, has not been deleted.
Mr. Fries analyzed the headers on my Davies post, and on a couple of posts from different threads. He did not compare it to your alleged Davies post; he admitted he didn't have the headers for that one, and blamed his failure to find those on Will (as per his usual method). Since his pdf is still in the thread, those reading the thread here on JLA can see that for themselves.
That was a subsequent post from Cujo.
Cujo's original post on the subject was not on JLA Forums. Please prove that it was, George Dunce. Cujo explained why.
GJD: So you've given up arguing that you posted the Davies poem first, and you want to deflect to this instead? Well, fine; we'll talk about whether Mr. Fries's post appeared on JLA or not.
No, we haven't "given up" the fact that we posted the Davis poem first. How many times do we have to say and prove it to you?
Do you understand how posts are threaded on Usenet? Each thread has an original post (an OP) with its own subject title. All posts made in reply to it (and to each other) are attached to it by the program; that's shown by each post's own subject header, which begins with "Re:" followed by the subject of the OP. (For example, if the subject of an OP was "Christmas." all the replies to it (and the replies to them) would have the subject header "Re: Christmas."
Now, look at this thread on JLA. The first post, by you, has the subject header "Re: THE HEADERS OF EVIDENCE - Cujo wins again." That shows it is not the OP; the OP has gone missing from this thread./quote]
It also shows that the subject of the OP was "THE HEADERS OF EVIDENCE - Cujo wins again" which was obviously written by "Cujo" (Mr. Fries). That doesn't tell us the content of missing OP; but since the first post in the thread is a reply to a post by "Cujo" (the same one I replied to) it's reasonable to infer that the post being replied to is the missing OP./quote]The first message is our post because Cujo sent us what he was trying to post, which JLA Forums rejected.
We also know that posters aren't able to delete their own posts to JLA (unless they pay for a premium subscription), so it wasn't deleted here. /quote]It never got "here."
Besides, we know that Mr. Fries doesn't post on JLA, which is why attribution keeps getting messed up in any thread he replies to (since Usenet and JLA attribute posts differently). Rather, since he posts to Usenet, it's reasonable to think he deleted his post from the entirety of Usenet after you replied to it, which caused it to disappear from JLA./quote]
Why would he do that? Because he didn't realize that you were just trolling - just claiming you'd posted first as a joke, to troll me - and took your claim seriously. In short, like Will, he got taken in by your troll. When he realized that he'd been trolled, he deleted the post, or got someone who actually knows how to moderate Usenet (perhaps PJ Ross) to do it for him. /quote]
I realize that won't convince you, since you're still trolling, and as a troll you'll never concede that your targets are correct about anything - but I hope it's enough to convince any impartial reader of the thread.[/quote]
Will-Dockery wrote:
NancyGene wrote:
George J. Dance wrote:
NancyGene wrote:
George J. Dance wrote:
NancyGene wrote:
George J. Dance wrote:
I note that Mr. Fries's OP has been deleted.
It never came through to JLA Forums, so was not deleted. JLA Forums has some strange rules about links and numbers.
Why do you lie so much, NastyGoon? Of course it came through; I replied to it. Mr. Fries deleted it only after I'd replied.
No, Cujo's first attempt to post the message with the headers was rejected by JLA Forums and didn't come through to the site. We don't know if it came through to any other sites, but we did not see it on JLA Forums.
Cujo's pdf attachment in this thread, which shows the comparison headers, has not been deleted.
Mr. Fries analyzed the headers on my Davies post, and on a couple of posts from different threads. He did not compare it to your alleged Davies post; he admitted he didn't have the headers for that one, and blamed his failure to find those on Will (as per his usual method). Since his pdf is still in the thread, those reading the thread here on JLA can see that for themselves.
That was a subsequent post from Cujo.
Cujo's original post on the subject was not on JLA Forums. Please prove that it was, George Dunce. Cujo explained why.
GJD: So you've given up arguing that you posted the Davies poem first, and you want to deflect to this instead? Well, fine; we'll talk about whether Mr. Fries's post appeared on JLA or not.
No, we haven't "given up" the fact that we posted the Davis poem first. How many times do we have to say and prove it to you?
Do you understand how posts are threaded on Usenet? Each thread has an original post (an OP) with its own subject title. All posts made in reply to it (and to each other) are attached to it by the program; that's shown by each post's own subject header, which begins with "Re:" followed by the subject of the OP. (For example, if the subject of an OP was "Christmas." all the replies to it (and the replies to them) would have the subject header "Re: Christmas."
George Dunce, you are so computer literate, considering that you are using a Commodore 64 with no speakers.
Now, look at this thread on JLA. The first post, by you, has the subject header "Re: THE HEADERS OF EVIDENCE - Cujo wins again." That shows it is not the OP; the OP has gone missing from this thread./quote]
Wrong, George Dunce! It shows that "we" put in the "Re" because we had the message that Cujo sent to us (that never made it to JLA Forums).
It also shows that the subject of the OP was "THE HEADERS OF EVIDENCE - Cujo wins again" which was obviously written by "Cujo" (Mr. Fries). That doesn't tell us the content of missing OP; but since the first post in the thread is a reply to a post by "Cujo" (the same one I replied to) it's reasonable to infer that the post being replied to is the missing OP./quote]The first message is our post because Cujo sent us what he was trying to post, which JLA Forums rejected.
We also know that posters aren't able to delete their own posts to JLA (unless they pay for a premium subscription), so it wasn't deleted here. /quote]It never got "here."
Besides, we know that Mr. Fries doesn't post on JLA, which is why attribution keeps getting messed up in any thread he replies to (since Usenet and JLA attribute posts differently). Rather, since he posts to Usenet, it's reasonable to think he deleted his post from the entirety of Usenet after you replied to it, which caused it to disappear from JLA./quote]
Nonsense.
Why would he do that? Because he didn't realize that you were just trolling - just claiming you'd posted first as a joke, to troll me - and took your claim seriously. In short, like Will, he got taken in by your troll. When he realized that he'd been trolled, he deleted the post, or got someone who actually knows how to moderate Usenet (perhaps PJ Ross) to do it for him. /quote]
More Dance nonsense. Cujo didn't delete his post from JLA Forums. It was never posted on JLA Forums. Whatever might have been deleted, we don't know, but he didn't delete the original headers message.
I realize that won't convince you, since you're still trolling, and as a troll you'll never concede that your targets are correct about anything - but I hope it's enough to convince any impartial reader of the thread.
Will-Dockery wrote:
NancyGene wrote:
George J. Dance wrote:
NancyGene wrote:
George J. Dance wrote:
NancyGene wrote:
George J. Dance wrote:
I note that Mr. Fries's OP has been deleted.
It never came through to JLA Forums, so was not deleted. JLA
Forums has some strange rules about links and numbers.
Why do you lie so much, NastyGoon? Of course it came through; I
replied to it. Mr. Fries deleted it only after I'd replied.
No, Cujo's first attempt to post the message with the headers
was rejected by JLA Forums and didn't come through to the site. >>>>>>> We don't know if it came through to any other sites, but we did
not see it on JLA Forums.
Cujo's pdf attachment in this thread, which shows the comparison >>>>>>> headers, has not been deleted.
Mr. Fries analyzed the headers on my Davies post, and on a
couple of posts from different threads. He did not compare it
to your alleged Davies post; he admitted he didn't have the
headers for that one, and blamed his failure to find those on
Will (as per his usual method). Since his pdf is still in the
thread, those reading the thread here on JLA can see that for
themselves.
That was a subsequent post from Cujo.
Cujo's original post on the subject was not on JLA Forums. Please
prove that it was, George Dunce. Cujo explained why.
GJD: So you've given up arguing that you posted the Davies poem
first, and you want to deflect to this instead? Well, fine; we'll
talk about whether Mr. Fries's post appeared on JLA or not.
No, we haven't "given up" the fact that we posted the Davis poem
first. How many times do we have to say and prove it to you?
Do you understand how posts are threaded on Usenet? Each thread
has an original post (an OP) with its own subject title. All posts
made in reply to it (and to each other) are attached to it by the
program; that's shown by each post's own subject header, which
begins with "Re:" followed by the subject of the OP. (For example,
if the subject of an OP was "Christmas." all the replies to it
(and the replies to them) would have the subject header "Re:
Christmas."
George Dunce, you are so computer literate, considering that you are
using a Commodore 64 with no speakers.
Now, look at this thread on JLA. The first post, by you, has the
subject header "Re: THE HEADERS OF EVIDENCE - Cujo wins again."
That shows it is not the OP; the OP has gone missing from this
thread./quote]
Wrong, George Dunce! It shows that "we" put in the "Re" because we
had the message that Cujo sent to us (that never made it to JLA
Forums).
It also shows that the subject of the OP was "THE HEADERS OFThe first message is our post because Cujo sent us what he was trying
EVIDENCE - Cujo wins again" which was obviously written by "Cujo"
(Mr. Fries). That doesn't tell us the content of missing OP; but
since the first post in the thread is a reply to a post by "Cujo"
(the same one I replied to) it's reasonable to infer that the post
being replied to is the missing OP./quote]
to post, which JLA Forums rejected.
We also know that posters aren't able to delete their own posts toIt never got "here."
JLA (unless they pay for a premium subscription), so it wasn't
deleted here. /quote]
Besides, we know that Mr. Fries doesn't post on JLA, which is why
attribution keeps getting messed up in any thread he replies to
(since Usenet and JLA attribute posts differently). Rather, since
he posts to Usenet, it's reasonable to think he deleted his post
from the entirety of Usenet after you replied to it, which caused
it to disappear from JLA./quote]
Nonsense.
Why would he do that? Because he didn't realize that you were just
trolling - just claiming you'd posted first as a joke, to troll me
- and took your claim seriously. In short, like Will, he got taken
in by your troll. When he realized that he'd been trolled, he
deleted the post, or got someone who actually knows how to moderate
Usenet (perhaps PJ Ross) to do it for him. /quote]
More Dance nonsense. Cujo didn't delete his post from JLA Forums.
It was never posted on JLA Forums. Whatever might have been deleted,
we don't know, but he didn't delete the original headers message.
I realize that won't convince you, since you're still trolling, and
as a troll you'll never concede that your targets are correct about
anything - but I hope it's enough to convince any impartial reader
of the thread.
No, George Dance, you have based your argument on false information.
WE posted the "Re:." You should run your "facts" through your trusted thinker again. Garbage in/garbage out.[/quote]
You were responding to a post that wasn't there = deleted.
Also, how do you know that the message was never posted on JLA Forums?
How would you see if it was or wasn't?[/quote]
Will Donkey, don't be dumb.
READ what we wrote above. The answers are out there.
NancyGene wrote:
George J. Dance wrote:
NancyGene wrote:
George J. Dance wrote:
I note that Mr. Fries's OP has been deleted.
It never came through to JLA Forums, so was not deleted. JLA Forums has some strange rules about links and numbers.
Why do you lie so much, NastyGoon? Of course it came through; I replied to it. Mr. Fries deleted it only after I'd replied.
Cujo's pdf attachment in this thread, which shows the comparison headers, has not been deleted.
Mr. Fries analyzed the headers on my Davies post, and on a couple of posts from different threads. He did not compare it to your alleged Davies post; he admitted he didn't have the headers for that one, and blamed his failure to find those on Will (as per his usual method). Since his pdf is still in the thread, those reading the thread here on JLA can see that for themselves.
Cujo's original post on the subject was not on JLA Forums. Please prove that it was, George Dunce. Cujo explained why.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 54 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 13:47:03 |
| Calls: | 742 |
| Files: | 1,218 |
| D/L today: |
3 files (2,681K bytes) |
| Messages: | 183,470 |
| Posted today: | 1 |