Abusers And Rackets

[i***@gmail.com]

There are many people - both men and women, but more frequently men - who think badly about their partner yet insist on staying with the partner.

The solution for the partner is not to address negativity directed at her. It is to ask this question:

"If I'm so bad, why are you with me?"

Attempting to justify oneself in situations like that is nothing but bait for further abuse. One does not owe the next person self-justification if he chooses to act that way. Rather the solution is to reveal the dishonesty of the partner's conduct. If you were really bad, then the partner would not want to have anything to do with you. And if he insists on staying, then that means he's getting something out of the relationship.

The behavior of the attacking partner in such situations is that of theft. He gets lots of things out of the relationship; but instead of being fair and rewarding his partner with good treatment for all that he gets out of the relationship, he chooses to become abusive to his partner. He gets what he wants from his partner, then he attacks the partner. This is not rightful conduct, and men who do that must be revealed for the scoundrels that they are.

When attacked on moral grounds, the best solution is to see the moral corruption in the attacker. A relationship partner who behaves in this way is not morally rightful; he is vastly morally in the wrong. If he got nothing from the relationship, then he would go. Instead, the abusive partner gets huge things from the relationship; and instead of rewarding his partner with good treatment he instead decides to treat her like dirt.

The moral problem here is not with the person who's being attacked. It is with the person who is doing the aggression. Instead of wasting one's energy and one's time trying to justify oneself to such a person, the real solution is to call his bluff. If one was really bad, then he couldn't wait to leave the relationship. And if he chooses to stay, then that is because he is getting something out of the relationship; which means that he is obligated to treat his partner right.

Some rackets are done deliberately, and others are not as deliberate. In either case what we see is a racket. The more people who are vulnerable to abuse learn to see through such rackets, the more honest the people's existence.

And that means: More ethical, for real.

https://sites.google.com/site/ilyashambatthought

[Modern Jazz fan]

Post by i***@gmail.com
There are many people - both men and women, but more frequently men - who think badly about their partner yet insist on staying with the partner.
"If I'm so bad, why are you with me?"
Attempting to justify oneself in situations like that is nothing but bait for further abuse. One does not owe the next person self-justification if he chooses to act that way. Rather the solution is to reveal the dishonesty of the partner's conduct. If you were really bad, then the partner would not want to have anything to do with you. And if he insists on staying, then that means he's getting something out of the relationship.
The behavior of the attacking partner in such situations is that of theft. He gets lots of things out of the relationship; but instead of being fair and rewarding his partner with good treatment for all that he gets out of the relationship, he chooses to become abusive to his partner. He gets what he wants from his partner, then he attacks the partner. This is not rightful conduct, and men who do that must be revealed for the scoundrels that they are.
When attacked on moral grounds, the best solution is to see the moral corruption in the attacker. A relationship partner who behaves in this way is not morally rightful; he is vastly morally in the wrong. If he got nothing from the relationship, then he would go. Instead, the abusive partner gets huge things from the relationship; and instead of rewarding his partner with good treatment he instead decides to treat her like dirt.
The moral problem here is not with the person who's being attacked. It is with the person who is doing the aggression. Instead of wasting one's energy and one's time trying to justify oneself to such a person, the real solution is to call his bluff. If one was really bad, then he couldn't wait to leave the relationship. And if he chooses to stay, then that is because he is getting something out of the relationship; which means that he is obligated to treat his partner right.
Some rackets are done deliberately, and others are not as deliberate. In either case what we see is a racket. The more people who are vulnerable to abuse learn to see through such rackets, the more honest the people's existence.
And that means: More ethical, for real.
https://sites.google.com/site/ilyashambatthought

Excellent essay, Ilya S.

[NancyGene]

Post by Modern Jazz fan

Post by i***@gmail.com
There are many people - both men and women, but more frequently men - who think badly about their partner yet insist on staying with the partner.
"If I'm so bad, why are you with me?"
Attempting to justify oneself in situations like that is nothing but bait for further abuse. One does not owe the next person self-justification if he chooses to act that way. Rather the solution is to reveal the dishonesty of the partner's conduct. If you were really bad, then the partner would not want to have anything to do with you. And if he insists on staying, then that means he's getting something out of the relationship.
The behavior of the attacking partner in such situations is that of theft. He gets lots of things out of the relationship; but instead of being fair and rewarding his partner with good treatment for all that he gets out of the relationship, he chooses to become abusive to his partner. He gets what he wants from his partner, then he attacks the partner. This is not rightful conduct, and men who do that must be revealed for the scoundrels that they are.
When attacked on moral grounds, the best solution is to see the moral corruption in the attacker. A relationship partner who behaves in this way is not morally rightful; he is vastly morally in the wrong. If he got nothing from the relationship, then he would go. Instead, the abusive partner gets huge things from the relationship; and instead of rewarding his partner with good treatment he instead decides to treat her like dirt.
The moral problem here is not with the person who's being attacked. It is with the person who is doing the aggression. Instead of wasting one's energy and one's time trying to justify oneself to such a person, the real solution is to call his bluff. If one was really bad, then he couldn't wait to leave the relationship. And if he chooses to stay, then that is because he is getting something out of the relationship; which means that he is obligated to treat his partner right.
Some rackets are done deliberately, and others are not as deliberate. In either case what we see is a racket. The more people who are vulnerable to abuse learn to see through such rackets, the more honest the people's existence.
And that means: More ethical, for real.
https://sites.google.com/site/ilyashambatthought

Excellent essay, Ilya S.

Ibish, what are your thoughts on self-abuse performed in, for instance, university libraries?

[Will Dockery]

Post by NancyGene

Post by Modern Jazz fan

Post by i***@gmail.com
There are many people - both men and women, but more frequently men - who think badly about their partner yet insist on staying with the partner.
"If I'm so bad, why are you with me?"
Attempting to justify oneself in situations like that is nothing but bait for further abuse. One does not owe the next person self-justification if he chooses to act that way. Rather the solution is to reveal the dishonesty of the partner's conduct. If you were really bad, then the partner would not want to have anything to do with you. And if he insists on staying, then that means he's getting something out of the relationship.
The behavior of the attacking partner in such situations is that of theft. He gets lots of things out of the relationship; but instead of being fair and rewarding his partner with good treatment for all that he gets out of the relationship, he chooses to become abusive to his partner. He gets what he wants from his partner, then he attacks the partner. This is not rightful conduct, and men who do that must be revealed for the scoundrels that they are.
When attacked on moral grounds, the best solution is to see the moral corruption in the attacker. A relationship partner who behaves in this way is not morally rightful; he is vastly morally in the wrong. If he got nothing from the relationship, then he would go. Instead, the abusive partner gets huge things from the relationship; and instead of rewarding his partner with good treatment he instead decides to treat her like dirt.
The moral problem here is not with the person who's being attacked. It is with the person who is doing the aggression. Instead of wasting one's energy and one's time trying to justify oneself to such a person, the real solution is to call his bluff. If one was really bad, then he couldn't wait to leave the relationship. And if he chooses to stay, then that is because he is getting something out of the relationship; which means that he is obligated to treat his partner right.
Some rackets are done deliberately, and others are not as deliberate. In either case what we see is a racket. The more people who are vulnerable to abuse learn to see through such rackets, the more honest the people's existence.
And that means: More ethical, for real.
https://sites.google.com/site/ilyashambatthought

Excellent essay, Ilya S.

Ibish, what are your thoughts on self-abuse performed in, for instance, university libraries?
This is why some questions do not have a yes-or-no answer.
If I am asked whether I'm still doing something I've never done, there is not a yes or no answer to that question. If I say yes then I say that I did it and stopped doing it; if I say no then I say that I did it and stopped doing it. Neither would be correct.
In such situations the question itself is malformed. The correct solution is flushing it down the toilet and demanding an honest question.

Good response to a lie repeated by a malicious troll, which I see has been repeated yet again, by another sleazy troll... this same post works for that one, as well.

;)

[NancyGene]

Post by Will Dockery

Post by NancyGene

Post by Modern Jazz fan

Post by i***@gmail.com
There are many people - both men and women, but more frequently men - who think badly about their partner yet insist on staying with the partner.
"If I'm so bad, why are you with me?"
Attempting to justify oneself in situations like that is nothing but bait for further abuse. One does not owe the next person self-justification if he chooses to act that way. Rather the solution is to reveal the dishonesty of the partner's conduct. If you were really bad, then the partner would not want to have anything to do with you. And if he insists on staying, then that means he's getting something out of the relationship.
The behavior of the attacking partner in such situations is that of theft. He gets lots of things out of the relationship; but instead of being fair and rewarding his partner with good treatment for all that he gets out of the relationship, he chooses to become abusive to his partner. He gets what he wants from his partner, then he attacks the partner. This is not rightful conduct, and men who do that must be revealed for the scoundrels that they are.
When attacked on moral grounds, the best solution is to see the moral corruption in the attacker. A relationship partner who behaves in this way is not morally rightful; he is vastly morally in the wrong. If he got nothing from the relationship, then he would go. Instead, the abusive partner gets huge things from the relationship; and instead of rewarding his partner with good treatment he instead decides to treat her like dirt.
The moral problem here is not with the person who's being attacked. It is with the person who is doing the aggression. Instead of wasting one's energy and one's time trying to justify oneself to such a person, the real solution is to call his bluff. If one was really bad, then he couldn't wait to leave the relationship. And if he chooses to stay, then that is because he is getting something out of the relationship; which means that he is obligated to treat his partner right.
Some rackets are done deliberately, and others are not as deliberate. In either case what we see is a racket. The more people who are vulnerable to abuse learn to see through such rackets, the more honest the people's existence.
And that means: More ethical, for real.
https://sites.google.com/site/ilyashambatthought

Excellent essay, Ilya S.

Ibish, what are your thoughts on self-abuse performed in, for instance, university libraries?
This is why some questions do not have a yes-or-no answer.
If I am asked whether I'm still doing something I've never done, there is not a yes or no answer to that question. If I say yes then I say that I did it and stopped doing it; if I say no then I say that I did it and stopped doing it. Neither would be correct.
In such situations the question itself is malformed. The correct solution is flushing it down the toilet and demanding an honest question.

Good response to a lie repeated by a malicious troll, which I see has been repeated yet again, by another sleazy troll... this same post works for that one, as well.

Excuses don't erase facts:
http://web.archive.org/web/20020617195307/http://wildcat.arizona.edu/papers/93/159/07_1_m.html

[Will Dockery]

Post by NancyGene

Post by Will Dockery

Post by NancyGene

Post by Modern Jazz fan

Post by i***@gmail.com
There are many people - both men and women, but more frequently men - who think badly about their partner yet insist on staying with the partner.
"If I'm so bad, why are you with me?"
Attempting to justify oneself in situations like that is nothing but bait for further abuse. One does not owe the next person self-justification if he chooses to act that way. Rather the solution is to reveal the dishonesty of the partner's conduct. If you were really bad, then the partner would not want to have anything to do with you. And if he insists on staying, then that means he's getting something out of the relationship.
The behavior of the attacking partner in such situations is that of theft. He gets lots of things out of the relationship; but instead of being fair and rewarding his partner with good treatment for all that he gets out of the relationship, he chooses to become abusive to his partner. He gets what he wants from his partner, then he attacks the partner. This is not rightful conduct, and men who do that must be revealed for the scoundrels that they are.
When attacked on moral grounds, the best solution is to see the moral corruption in the attacker. A relationship partner who behaves in this way is not morally rightful; he is vastly morally in the wrong. If he got nothing from the relationship, then he would go. Instead, the abusive partner gets huge things from the relationship; and instead of rewarding his partner with good treatment he instead decides to treat her like dirt.
The moral problem here is not with the person who's being attacked. It is with the person who is doing the aggression. Instead of wasting one's energy and one's time trying to justify oneself to such a person, the real solution is to call his bluff. If one was really bad, then he couldn't wait to leave the relationship. And if he chooses to stay, then that is because he is getting something out of the relationship; which means that he is obligated to treat his partner right.
Some rackets are done deliberately, and others are not as deliberate. In either case what we see is a racket. The more people who are vulnerable to abuse learn to see through such rackets, the more honest the people's existence.
And that means: More ethical, for real.
https://sites.google.com/site/ilyashambatthought

Excellent essay, Ilya S.

Ibish, what are your thoughts on self-abuse performed in, for instance, university libraries?
This is why some questions do not have a yes-or-no answer.
If I am asked whether I'm still doing something I've never done, there is not a yes or no answer to that question. If I say yes then I say that I did it and stopped doing it; if I say no then I say that I did it and stopped doing it. Neither would be correct.
In such situations the question itself is malformed. The correct solution is flushing it down the toilet and demanding an honest question.

Good response to a lie repeated by a malicious troll, which I see has been repeated yet again, by another sleazy troll... this same post works for that one, as well.

http://web.archive.org/web/20020617195307/http://wildcat.arizona.edu/papers/93/159/07_1_m.html

Fact is, the police confirm what Ilya writes:

"Police located Shambat, who was using a computer for non-research purposes, and did not observe evidence that the man had been masturbating.

Shambat told police that he had a pain in his lower abdomen and he was massaging the area.

He added that he was looking at poetry and writing to a friend on the computer..."

Note:

"Police... did not observe evidence that the man had been masturbating."

;)

[Modern Jazz fan]

Post by Will Dockery

Post by NancyGene

Post by Will Dockery

Post by NancyGene

Post by Modern Jazz fan

Post by i***@gmail.com
There are many people - both men and women, but more frequently men - who think badly about their partner yet insist on staying with the partner.
"If I'm so bad, why are you with me?"
Attempting to justify oneself in situations like that is nothing but bait for further abuse. One does not owe the next person self-justification if he chooses to act that way. Rather the solution is to reveal the dishonesty of the partner's conduct. If you were really bad, then the partner would not want to have anything to do with you. And if he insists on staying, then that means he's getting something out of the relationship.
The behavior of the attacking partner in such situations is that of theft. He gets lots of things out of the relationship; but instead of being fair and rewarding his partner with good treatment for all that he gets out of the relationship, he chooses to become abusive to his partner. He gets what he wants from his partner, then he attacks the partner. This is not rightful conduct, and men who do that must be revealed for the scoundrels that they are.
When attacked on moral grounds, the best solution is to see the moral corruption in the attacker. A relationship partner who behaves in this way is not morally rightful; he is vastly morally in the wrong. If he got nothing from the relationship, then he would go. Instead, the abusive partner gets huge things from the relationship; and instead of rewarding his partner with good treatment he instead decides to treat her like dirt.
The moral problem here is not with the person who's being attacked. It is with the person who is doing the aggression. Instead of wasting one's energy and one's time trying to justify oneself to such a person, the real solution is to call his bluff. If one was really bad, then he couldn't wait to leave the relationship. And if he chooses to stay, then that is because he is getting something out of the relationship; which means that he is obligated to treat his partner right.
Some rackets are done deliberately, and others are not as deliberate. In either case what we see is a racket. The more people who are vulnerable to abuse learn to see through such rackets, the more honest the people's existence.
And that means: More ethical, for real.
https://sites.google.com/site/ilyashambatthought

Excellent essay, Ilya S.

Ibish, what are your thoughts on self-abuse performed in, for instance, university libraries?
This is why some questions do not have a yes-or-no answer.
If I am asked whether I'm still doing something I've never done, there is not a yes or no answer to that question. If I say yes then I say that I did it and stopped doing it; if I say no then I say that I did it and stopped doing it. Neither would be correct.
In such situations the question itself is malformed. The correct solution is flushing it down the toilet and demanding an honest question.

Good response to a lie repeated by a malicious troll, which I see has been repeated yet again, by another sleazy troll... this same post works for that one, as well.

http://web.archive.org/web/20020617195307/http://wildcat.arizona.edu/papers/93/159/07_1_m.html

"Police located Shambat, who was using a computer for non-research purposes, and did not observe evidence that the man had been masturbating.
Shambat told police that he had a pain in his lower abdomen and he was massaging the area.
He added that he was looking at poetry and writing to a friend on the computer..."
"Police... did not observe evidence that the man had been masturbating."
;)

Evidence? In other words, Ilya didn't splooge on the keyboard. That's all that is saying. I've jerked off in the library while in the children's section. It's no big deal.

[André Hugo]

Post by Will Dockery

Post by NancyGene

Post by Will Dockery

Post by NancyGene

Post by Modern Jazz fan

Post by i***@gmail.com
There are many people - both men and women, but more frequently men - who think badly about their partner yet insist on staying with the partner.
"If I'm so bad, why are you with me?"
Attempting to justify oneself in situations like that is nothing but bait for further abuse. One does not owe the next person self-justification if he chooses to act that way. Rather the solution is to reveal the dishonesty of the partner's conduct. If you were really bad, then the partner would not want to have anything to do with you. And if he insists on staying, then that means he's getting something out of the relationship.
The behavior of the attacking partner in such situations is that of theft. He gets lots of things out of the relationship; but instead of being fair and rewarding his partner with good treatment for all that he gets out of the relationship, he chooses to become abusive to his partner. He gets what he wants from his partner, then he attacks the partner. This is not rightful conduct, and men who do that must be revealed for the scoundrels that they are.
When attacked on moral grounds, the best solution is to see the moral corruption in the attacker. A relationship partner who behaves in this way is not morally rightful; he is vastly morally in the wrong. If he got nothing from the relationship, then he would go. Instead, the abusive partner gets huge things from the relationship; and instead of rewarding his partner with good treatment he instead decides to treat her like dirt.
The moral problem here is not with the person who's being attacked. It is with the person who is doing the aggression. Instead of wasting one's energy and one's time trying to justify oneself to such a person, the real solution is to call his bluff. If one was really bad, then he couldn't wait to leave the relationship. And if he chooses to stay, then that is because he is getting something out of the relationship; which means that he is obligated to treat his partner right.
Some rackets are done deliberately, and others are not as deliberate. In either case what we see is a racket. The more people who are vulnerable to abuse learn to see through such rackets, the more honest the people's existence.
And that means: More ethical, for real.
https://sites.google.com/site/ilyashambatthought

Excellent essay, Ilya S.

Ibish, what are your thoughts on self-abuse performed in, for instance, university libraries?
This is why some questions do not have a yes-or-no answer.
If I am asked whether I'm still doing something I've never done, there is not a yes or no answer to that question. If I say yes then I say that I did it and stopped doing it; if I say no then I say that I did it and stopped doing it. Neither would be correct.
In such situations the question itself is malformed. The correct solution is flushing it down the toilet and demanding an honest question.

Good response to a lie repeated by a malicious troll, which I see has been repeated yet again, by another sleazy troll... this same post works for that one, as well.

http://web.archive.org/web/20020617195307/http://wildcat.arizona.edu/papers/93/159/07_1_m.html

"Police located Shambat, who was using a computer for non-research purposes, and did not observe evidence that the man had been masturbating.
Shambat told police that he had a pain in his lower abdomen and he was massaging the area.
He added that he was looking at poetry and writing to a friend on the computer..."
"Police... did not observe evidence that the man had been masturbating."
;)

Exactly.....

Ilya was not supposed to be in that area but he did not do what was said of him,............

[Will Dockery]

Post by André Hugo

Post by Will Dockery

Post by NancyGene

Post by Will Dockery

Post by NancyGene

Post by Modern Jazz fan

Post by i***@gmail.com
There are many people - both men and women, but more frequently men - who think badly about their partner yet insist on staying with the partner.
"If I'm so bad, why are you with me?"
Attempting to justify oneself in situations like that is nothing but bait for further abuse. One does not owe the next person self-justification if he chooses to act that way. Rather the solution is to reveal the dishonesty of the partner's conduct. If you were really bad, then the partner would not want to have anything to do with you. And if he insists on staying, then that means he's getting something out of the relationship.
The behavior of the attacking partner in such situations is that of theft. He gets lots of things out of the relationship; but instead of being fair and rewarding his partner with good treatment for all that he gets out of the relationship, he chooses to become abusive to his partner. He gets what he wants from his partner, then he attacks the partner. This is not rightful conduct, and men who do that must be revealed for the scoundrels that they are.
When attacked on moral grounds, the best solution is to see the moral corruption in the attacker. A relationship partner who behaves in this way is not morally rightful; he is vastly morally in the wrong. If he got nothing from the relationship, then he would go. Instead, the abusive partner gets huge things from the relationship; and instead of rewarding his partner with good treatment he instead decides to treat her like dirt.
The moral problem here is not with the person who's being attacked. It is with the person who is doing the aggression. Instead of wasting one's energy and one's time trying to justify oneself to such a person, the real solution is to call his bluff. If one was really bad, then he couldn't wait to leave the relationship. And if he chooses to stay, then that is because he is getting something out of the relationship; which means that he is obligated to treat his partner right.
Some rackets are done deliberately, and others are not as deliberate. In either case what we see is a racket. The more people who are vulnerable to abuse learn to see through such rackets, the more honest the people's existence.
And that means: More ethical, for real.
https://sites.google.com/site/ilyashambatthought

Excellent essay, Ilya S.

Ibish, what are your thoughts on self-abuse performed in, for instance, university libraries?
This is why some questions do not have a yes-or-no answer.
If I am asked whether I'm still doing something I've never done, there is not a yes or no answer to that question. If I say yes then I say that I did it and stopped doing it; if I say no then I say that I did it and stopped doing it. Neither would be correct.
In such situations the question itself is malformed. The correct solution is flushing it down the toilet and demanding an honest question.

Good response to a lie repeated by a malicious troll, which I see has been repeated yet again, by another sleazy troll... this same post works for that one, as well.

http://web.archive.org/web/20020617195307/http://wildcat.arizona.edu/papers/93/159/07_1_m.html

"Police located Shambat, who was using a computer for non-research purposes, and did not observe evidence that the man had been masturbating.
Shambat told police that he had a pain in his lower abdomen and he was massaging the area.
He added that he was looking at poetry and writing to a friend on the computer..."
"Police... did not observe evidence that the man had been masturbating."
;)

Exactly.....
Ilya was not supposed to be in that area but he did not do what was said of him,............

We don't know that nor do you. I have to ask why the lady called the cops. What was her motivation? I think this needs more discussion. Maybe I will start a thread for that.

[André Hugo]

Post by Will Dockery

Post by NancyGene

Post by Will Dockery

Post by NancyGene

Post by Modern Jazz fan

Post by i***@gmail.com
There are many people - both men and women, but more frequently men - who think badly about their partner yet insist on staying with the partner.
"If I'm so bad, why are you with me?"
Attempting to justify oneself in situations like that is nothing but bait for further abuse. One does not owe the next person self-justification if he chooses to act that way. Rather the solution is to reveal the dishonesty of the partner's conduct. If you were really bad, then the partner would not want to have anything to do with you. And if he insists on staying, then that means he's getting something out of the relationship.
The behavior of the attacking partner in such situations is that of theft. He gets lots of things out of the relationship; but instead of being fair and rewarding his partner with good treatment for all that he gets out of the relationship, he chooses to become abusive to his partner. He gets what he wants from his partner, then he attacks the partner. This is not rightful conduct, and men who do that must be revealed for the scoundrels that they are.
When attacked on moral grounds, the best solution is to see the moral corruption in the attacker. A relationship partner who behaves in this way is not morally rightful; he is vastly morally in the wrong. If he got nothing from the relationship, then he would go. Instead, the abusive partner gets huge things from the relationship; and instead of rewarding his partner with good treatment he instead decides to treat her like dirt.
The moral problem here is not with the person who's being attacked. It is with the person who is doing the aggression. Instead of wasting one's energy and one's time trying to justify oneself to such a person, the real solution is to call his bluff. If one was really bad, then he couldn't wait to leave the relationship. And if he chooses to stay, then that is because he is getting something out of the relationship; which means that he is obligated to treat his partner right.
Some rackets are done deliberately, and others are not as deliberate. In either case what we see is a racket. The more people who are vulnerable to abuse learn to see through such rackets, the more honest the people's existence.
And that means: More ethical, for real.
https://sites.google.com/site/ilyashambatthought

Excellent essay, Ilya S.

Ibish, what are your thoughts on self-abuse performed in, for instance, university libraries?
This is why some questions do not have a yes-or-no answer.
If I am asked whether I'm still doing something I've never done, there is not a yes or no answer to that question. If I say yes then I say that I did it and stopped doing it; if I say no then I say that I did it and stopped doing it. Neither would be correct.
In such situations the question itself is malformed. The correct solution is flushing it down the toilet and demanding an honest question.

Good response to a lie repeated by a malicious troll, which I see has been repeated yet again, by another sleazy troll... this same post works for that one, as well.

http://web.archive.org/web/20020617195307/http://wildcat.arizona.edu/papers/93/159/07_1_m.html

"Police located Shambat, who was using a computer for non-research purposes, and did not observe evidence that the man had been masturbating.
Shambat told police that he had a pain in his lower abdomen and he was massaging the area.
He added that he was looking at poetry and writing to a friend on the computer..."
"Police... did not observe evidence that the man had been masturbating."
;)

There it is, the lady seems to have been mistaken.....

[Will Dockery]

Since the police stated there was no evidente it looks like a false accusstion

[NancyGene]

Post by Will Dockery
Since the police stated there was no evidente it looks like a false accusstion

Are you speaking Spanish again, with "evidente?"

There are few things worse than a false accusstion. True accusstions are only found in thick brush and should be handled carefully.

[Will Dockery]

Post by NancyGene
Are you speaking Spanish

No, it was another mobile gizmo foul up. I meant to type that since the police stated there was no evidence it looks like a false accusation.

But you knew that, already.

:)

[Will Dockery]

The lady obviously made a mistake.

[George J. Dance]

Post by Will Dockery
The lady obviously made a mistake.

How is it obvious, because Ilya denies it? I'm more inclined the believe the lady who obviously saw fit to notify the police. Going to town masturbating (her words) does not look like someone with lower abdominal pain.

[Will Dockery]

Read the police report.

[Michael Pendragon]

Post by Will Dockery
The lady obviously made a mistake.

How does the newspaper report make this obvious?

The woman had no reason to lie, but she could have mistaken a lower abdomen massage for masturbation.

Ilya had plenty of reason to lie, if he had in fact been masturbating in public.

Lacking any concrete evidence, no charges were filed (at least, not for public lewdness).

It's a classic "he said--she said" situation that could go either way.

[André Hugo]

Post by Michael Pendragon

Post by Will Dockery
The lady obviously made a mistake.

How does the newspaper report make this obvious?
The woman had no reason to lie

Yes, she wanted the police to remove Ilya, the newspaper report says this....

[Conley Brothers]

Post by André Hugo

Post by Michael Pendragon

Post by Will Dockery
The lady obviously made a mistake.

How does the newspaper report make this obvious?
The woman had no reason to lie

Yes, she wanted the police to remove Ilya, the newspaper report says this....

Yes, because he was jerking off in the library, you stupid fuck. You're a fellow deviant. Of course you would support a fellow pervert.

[Will Dockery]

Post by Conley Brothers
Yes, because he was jerking off in the library

No, Ilya was /accused/ of this by a lady calling 911. The police saw nothing like that when they arrived:

http://web.archive.org/web/20020617195307/http://wildcat.arizona.edu/papers/93/159/07_1_m.html

"Police located Shambat, who was using a computer for non-research purposes, and did not observe evidence that the man had been masturbating.

Shambat told police that he had a pain in his lower abdomen and he was massaging the area.

He added that he was looking at poetry and writing to a friend on the computer..."

Note:

"Police... did not observe evidence that the man had been masturbating."

HTH & HAND.

[Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery]

Post by NancyGene

Post by Conley Brothers
Yes, because he was jerking off in the library

It sounds like your friend Ilya is a minute man and shot his load into his shorts. There was nothing to see after that. Why would a woman call 911? Ilya already made up a lie to cover up his masturbatory moment. It's a shitty lie.

Post by NancyGene
http://web.archive.org/web/20020617195307/http://wildcat.arizona.edu/papers/93/159/07_1_m.html
"Police located Shambat, who was using a computer for non-research purposes, and did not observe evidence that the man had been masturbating.
Shambat told police that he had a pain in his lower abdomen and he was massaging the area.
He added that he was looking at poetry and writing to a friend on the computer..."
"Police... did not observe evidence that the man had been masturbating."

Of course not, he had already finished or the lady freaked out om him and he lost his boner.

Face it, Ilya Shambot is a freak.

[Will Dockery]

No, the police report clears Ilya's name.

[Michael Pendragon]

Post by Will Dockery
No, the police report clears Ilya's name.

No, Will... it doesn't.

I'm sorry to have to take what may seem like an anti-Ilya stance, as I enjoy his contributions to the group.

But when you repeatedly state something that's blatantly untrue, you need to be corrected.

I don't know whether you're intentionally pushing Ilya under the bus, or whether you're just too damn stupid to realize that failure to find corroborating evidence for an eye-witness accusation is neither a proof of innocence nor a clearing of one's name; but the only thing you're accomplishing (other than reinforcing our group's collective opinion of you) is to drag Ilya's name even further through the mud.

Cease and desist.

Then contact a night school and enroll yourself in as many basic English courses as they offer.

[Will Dockery]

Post by Michael Pendragon

Post by Will Dockery
No, the police report clears Ilya's name.

No, Will

Sure, it does... he police confirm what Ilya writes:

"Police located Shambat, who was using a computer for non-research purposes, and did not observe evidence that the man had been masturbating.

Shambat told police that he had a pain in his lower abdomen and he was massaging the area.

He added that he was looking at poetry and writing to a friend on the computer..."

Note:

"Police... did not observe evidence that the man had been masturbating."

If the police had observed what the lady had accused Ilya of, the report would have stated otherwise.

;)

[Michael Pendragon]

Post by Will Dockery

Post by Michael Pendragon

Post by Will Dockery
No, the police report clears Ilya's name.

No, Will

"Police located Shambat, who was using a computer for non-research purposes, and did not observe evidence that the man had been masturbating.
Shambat told police that he had a pain in his lower abdomen and he was massaging the area.
He added that he was looking at poetry and writing to a friend on the computer..."
"Police... did not observe evidence that the man had been masturbating."
If the police had observed what the lady had accused Ilya of, the report would have stated otherwise.

No one is claiming that the police observed Ilya "going to town" with his hands shoved down his pants.

Ilya might have finished prior to the arrival of the policemen, or he might have seen the policemen entering the room before the witness was able to point him out.

It's impossible to prove that someone *had* been masturbating (unless it was picked up by a security camera, or there was fresh splooge all over the keyboard).

The only things the news item (which you are incorrectly referring to as "the police report") establishes it that an eye-witness accused Ilya of public masturbation, and that he was not masturbating at the time the police approached (and arrested) him.

[Will Dockery]

Post by Michael Pendragon

Post by Will Dockery

The police report clears Ilya's name.

"Police located Shambat, who was using a computer for non-research purposes, and did not observe evidence that the man had been masturbating.
Shambat told police that he had a pain in his lower abdomen and he was massaging the area.
He added that he was looking at poetry and writing to a friend on the computer..."
"Police... did not observe evidence that the man had been masturbating."
If the police had observed what the lady had accused Ilya of, the report would have stated otherwise.

No one is claiming that the police observed Ilya "going to town"

Because the police stated clearly that they did not observe any sign of that.

[Bodeen]

Ilya is obviously innocent....

[Bodeen]

Masturbating in public is a victimless crime.

[Hieronymous Corey]

Maturbating isn't a crime at all, but showing your dick to people
who don't want to see it will lead to places you don't want to be.

[High Number]

Post by Hieronymous Corey
Maturbating isn't a crime at all, but showing your dick to people
who don't want to see iPoit will lead to places you don't want to be.

Point is that Ilya dld not do that.....

[Hieronymous Corey]

"iPoit"?

[High Number]

WTF....?

[Brother Dave Dockery]

Post by High Number

Post by Hieronymous Corey
Maturbating isn't a crime at all, but showing your dick to people
who don't want to see iPoit will lead to places you don't want to be.

Point is that Ilya dld not do that.....

Sure he did and there was at least one eye witness. She called the police on him and he stopped.

[Will Dockery]

Post by High Number

Post by Hieronymous Corey
Maturbating isn't a crime at all, but showing your dick to people
who don't want to see iPoit will lead to places you don't want to be.

Point is that Ilya dld not do that.....

That's how the police report reads:

"Police located Shambat, who was using a computer for non-research purposes, and did not observe evidence that the man had been masturbating.

Shambat told police that he had a pain in his lower abdomen and he was massaging the area.

He added that he was looking at poetry and writing to a friend on the computer..."

Note:

"Police... did not observe evidence that the man had been masturbating."

:)

[Hieronymous Corey]

I wonder if the police laughed when he said he had a pain in his lower abdomen.
I know I certainly would have. In fact, it makes me laugh just thinking about it. LOL

[Will Dockery]

Post by Hieronymous Corey
I wonder if the police laughed when he said he had a pain in his lower abdomen.
I know I certainly would have. In fact, it makes me laugh just thinking about it. LOL

You laugh at the pain of others?

[Hieronymous Corey]

You believe he was in pain? LOL

[Will Dockery]

Post by Hieronymous Corey
You believe he was in pain? LOL

I'm not calling Ilya a liar... are you?

[Hieronymous Corey]

His story is improbable at best.
I don't care whether it's true or not.
It's funny, which is why I laughed.

[Will Dockery]

Post by Hieronymous Corey
His story is improbable at best.
I don't care whether it's true or not.
It's funny, which is why I laughed.

It sounds to me like this librarian didn't like Ilya and so she called in a false report on him.

[Hieronymous Corey]

Making a false police report is a crime.
So, you believe someone disliked him
so much that they were willing to risk
their own freedom to have him removed?
You really think that's more likely than him
actually playing with himself in the library?

[Will Dockery]

Post by Hieronymous Corey
Making a false police report is a crime.
So, you believe someone disliked him
so much that they were willing to risk
their own freedom to have him removed?
You really think that's more likely than him
actually playing with himself in the library?

I say the librarian may have seen Ilya doing what he said he was doing, and flipped out, got the wrong idea in her head, and called the police to get rid of him.

Librarians are sometimes odd, I've noticed.

;)

[Cujo DeSockpuppet]

Post by Will Dockery

Post by Hieronymous Corey
Making a false police report is a crime.
So, you believe someone disliked him
so much that they were willing to risk
their own freedom to have him removed?
You really think that's more likely than him
actually playing with himself in the library?

I say the librarian may have seen Ilya doing what he said he was
doing, and flipped out, got the wrong idea in her head, and called the
police to get rid of him.
Librarians are sometimes odd, I've noticed.

Why are you so fucking stupid? The report clearly stated she was a
student. He'd been warned previously as well. It's pretty sad when all
you've got is the slurping of fellow losers.
--
Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in dfw.*,
alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych. Supreme Holy
Overlord of alt.fucknozzles. Winner of the 8/2000, 2/2003 & 4/2007 HL&S
award. July 2005 Hammer of Thor. Winning Trainer - Barbara Woodhouse
Memorial Dog Whistle - 12/2005 & 4/2008. COOSN-266-06-01895.
"As for being a kook - we all kook, some kook better than others. And I
surely kook better than you." - Ilya Shambat on his own sanity.
This signature was made by SigChanger.
You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/

[Conley Brothers]

Post by Will Dockery

Post by Hieronymous Corey
Making a false police report is a crime.
So, you believe someone disliked him
so much that they were willing to risk
their own freedom to have him removed?
You really think that's more likely than him
actually playing with himself in the library?

I say the librarian may have seen Ilya doing what he said he was doing, and flipped out, got the wrong idea in her head, and called the police to get rid of him.
Librarians are sometimes odd, I've noticed.
;)

Look at you, shaming the victim of this Ilya pervert. Disgusting.

[Ray Osburn]

Post by Hieronymous Corey
Making a false police report is a crime.
So, you believe someone disliked him
so much that they were willing to risk
their own freedom to have him removed?
You really think that's more likely than him
actually playing with himself in the library?

If a 911 call is made the police will come and check it out...…...…

[Edward Rochester Esq.]

Post by Ray Osburn

Post by Hieronymous Corey
Making a false police report is a crime.
So, you believe someone disliked him
so much that they were willing to risk
their own freedom to have him removed?
You really think that's more likely than him
actually playing with himself in the library?

If a 911 call is made the police will come and check it out...…...…

Said by a drunk who bashed a man's head in with a pipe...go die.

[Ray Osburn]

...go die...

You first you senile old fart...….

[Conley Brothers]

Post by Ray Osburn

...go die...

You first you senile old fart...….

How is Ken Sulzbach the baby fucker?

[Michael Pendragon]

Post by Ray Osburn

...go die...

You first you senile old fart...….

Hey Stinky! What's this about your son having been locked up for raping a two-year old?

Care to set the record straight?

[Will Dockery]

Post by Michael Pendragon

Post by Ray Osburn

...go die...

You first you senile old fart...….

Hey Stinky! What's this about your son

As far as I know, and having known Zod for nearly 40 years, he has no son.

[Will Dockery]

Post by Hieronymous Corey
Making a false police report is a crime.
So, you believe someone disliked him
so much that they were willing to risk
their own freedom to have him removed?

I'm thinking the girl saw Ilya doing something like what he told the police he had nen doing and she overreacted.

[Conley Brothers]

Post by Will Dockery

Post by High Number

Post by Hieronymous Corey
Maturbating isn't a crime at all, but showing your dick to people
who don't want to see iPoit will lead to places you don't want to be.

Point is that Ilya dld not do that.....

"Police located Shambat, who was using a computer for non-research purposes, and did not observe evidence that the man had been masturbating.
Shambat told police that he had a pain in his lower abdomen and he was massaging the area.
He added that he was looking at poetry and writing to a friend on the computer..."
"Police... did not observe evidence that the man had been masturbating."
:)

Nobody is buying Ilya's lie that he had his hand in his pants, going to town massaging a stomach ache. You don't even believe that. Are you that stupid?

[NancyGene]

Post by Conley Brothers

Post by Will Dockery

Post by High Number

Post by Hieronymous Corey
Maturbating isn't a crime at all, but showing your dick to people
who don't want to see iPoit will lead to places you don't want to be.

Point is that Ilya dld not do that.....

"Police located Shambat, who was using a computer for non-research purposes, and did not observe evidence that the man had been masturbating.
Shambat told police that he had a pain in his lower abdomen and he was massaging the area.
He added that he was looking at poetry and writing to a friend on the computer..."
"Police... did not observe evidence that the man had been masturbating."
:)

Nobody is buying Ilya's lie that he had his hand in his pants, going to town massaging a stomach ache. You don't even believe that. Are you that stupid?

Wouldn't most people repair to the bathroom if they had a stomach ache rather than massage the area in public?

[Cujo DeSockpuppet]

Post by NancyGene

Post by Conley Brothers

Post by Will Dockery

Post by High Number

Post by Hieronymous Corey
Maturbating isn't a crime at all, but showing your dick to
people who don't want to see iPoit will lead to places you
don't want to be.

Point is that Ilya dld not do that.....

"Police located Shambat, who was using a computer for non-research
purposes, and did not observe evidence that the man had been
masturbating.
Shambat told police that he had a pain in his lower abdomen and he
was massaging the area.
He added that he was looking at poetry and writing to a friend on the computer..."
"Police... did not observe evidence that the man had been
masturbating."
:)

Nobody is buying Ilya's lie that he had his hand in his pants, going
to town massaging a stomach ache. You don't even believe that. Are
you that stupid?

Wouldn't most people repair to the bathroom if they had a stomach ache
rather than massage the area in public?

He didn't belong there in the first place and was told that on other
occasions before that.

Wouldn't most people not keep going back to a place they were cited for
trespassing previously? Why would anyone believe a word of such a
person?

Snip away, Dreckweasel.
Lie away, Dreckweasel.
Run away, Dreckweasel.

[Will Dockery]

Post by Conley Brothers

Post by Will Dockery
"Police located Shambat, who was using a computer for non-research purposes, and did not observe evidence that the man had been masturbating.
Shambat told police that he had a pain in his lower abdomen and he was massaging the area.
He added that he was looking at poetry and writing to a friend on the computer..."
"Police... did not observe evidence that the man had been masturbating."
:)

Nobody is buying Ilya

<troll snip>

Well, you're a malicious troll, forging someone's name... not quite crdible yourself, you know.

;)

[ME]

Do you have access to that police report pissbum?
If so, please post a link to it.

[Will Dockery]

Post by ME
Do you have access to that police report
piss

That smell again? Try washing your upper lip.

Post by ME
If so, please post a link to it.

The link was posted here a few days ago, look it up.

;)

[ME]

Post by Will Dockery

Post by ME
Do you have access to that police report
piss

That smell again? Try washing your upper lip.

Post by ME
If so, please post a link to it.

The link was posted here a few days ago, look it up.
;)

That’s not a link to a police report dumb ass.

[ME]

Post by ME

Post by Will Dockery

Post by ME
Do you have access to that police report
piss

That smell again? Try washing your upper lip.

Post by ME
If so, please post a link to it.

The link was posted here a few days ago, look it up.
;)

That’s not a link to a police report dumb ass.

Bump

[High Number]

Post by Hieronymous Corey
Maturbating isn't a crime at all

Is it even a word?

[Will Dockery]

Either way, the lady obviously made a false report.

[Cujo DeSockpuppet]

Post by Will Dockery
Either way, the lady obviously made a false report.

Slurp away, lying douchebag!
--
Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in dfw.*,
alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych. Supreme Holy
Overlord of alt.fucknozzles. Winner of the 8/2000, 2/2003 & 4/2007 HL&S
award. July 2005 Hammer of Thor. Winning Trainer - Barbara Woodhouse
Memorial Dog Whistle - 12/2005 & 4/2008. COOSN-266-06-01895.
"Have you people gone for counseling for your addiction to both
stupidity and the newsgroups?" - Ed vaporizes another Irony Meter.
This signature was made by SigChanger.
You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/

[Hieronymous Corey]

If she had obviously made a false report, she would have been charged.
Was Ilya arrested, removed from the library, and charged with anything?

[Will Dockery]

Look at you, Fake Conley, a malicious troll, forging names.

;)

[Will Dockery]

I will always snip your trollish bullshit, Cujo.

;)

[Cujo DeSockpuppet]

Post by Will Dockery
I will always snip your trollish bullshit, Cujo.

Thanks for the admission of your cowardice, douchebag. This is why people
continue to laugh at you.

[Hieronymous Corey]

That's not the only reason, of course.

[Will Dockery]

Ilta was arrested for tresspassing, which was enough.

[ME]

Post by Will Dockery
Ilta was arrested for tresspassing, which was enough.

He was arrested then.

[High Number]

Post by ME

Post by Will Dockery
Ilta was arrested for tresspassing, which was enough.

He was arrested then.

http://web.archive.org/web/20020617195307/http://wildcat.arizona.edu/papers/93/159/07_1_m.html

***********Officers had previously warned Shambat against trespassing and this time arrested him for third-degree trespassing*************

[ME]

Post by NancyGene

Post by ME

Post by Will Dockery
Ilta was arrested for tresspassing, which was enough.

He was arrested then.

http://web.archive.org/web/20020617195307/http://wildcat.arizona.edu/papers/93/159/07_1_m.html
***********Officers had previously warned Shambat against trespassing and this time arrested him for third-degree trespassing*************

Anyway you look at, a person has to be really hard up to be arrested for trespassing in a library.
Bwahahahaha

[High Number]

Post by ME

Post by NancyGene

Post by ME

Post by Will Dockery
Ilta was arrested for tresspassing, which was enough.

He was arrested then.

http://web.archive.org/web/20020617195307/http://wildcat.arizona.edu/papers/93/159/07_1_m.html
***********Officers had previously warned Shambat against trespassing and this time arrested him for third-degree trespassing*************

Anyway you look at, a person has to be really hard up to be arrested for trespassing in a library.
Bwahahahaha

Point is, the girl who reported him was wrong, the police discovered.....

[Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery]

Post by High Number

Post by ME

Post by NancyGene

Post by ME

Post by Will Dockery
Ilta was arrested for tresspassing, which was enough.

He was arrested then.

http://web.archive.org/web/20020617195307/http://wildcat.arizona.edu/papers/93/159/07_1_m.html
***********Officers had previously warned Shambat against trespassing and this time arrested him for third-degree trespassing*************

Anyway you look at, a person has to be really hard up to be arrested for trespassing in a library.
Bwahahahaha

Point is, the girl who reported him was wrong, the police discovered.....

It figures that a pervert like you would defend another pervert. Ilya Shambat shot his load before the cops came. You are a public masturbator too. I bet you're stroking it to this thread.

[Cujo DeSockpuppet]

Post by NancyGene

Post by ME

Post by Will Dockery
Ilta was arrested for tresspassing, which was enough.

He was arrested then.

http://web.archive.org/web/20020617195307/http://wildcat.arizona.edu/pa
pers/93/159/07_1_m.html
***********Officers had previously warned Shambat against trespassing
and this time arrested him for third-degree trespassing*************

"UAPD officers were dispatched to the UA Health Sciences Library, 1501 N.
Campbell Ave., Friday evening after a student called saying that a man was
masturbating near the computer terminals, reports stated.

When officers arrived, they talked with the reporting student who told
police that she observed Ilya Shambat, 24, of a general delivery address,
allegedly masturbating under his shorts while using a computer.

The witness said Shambat was "going to town" on himself with his hands down
his pants.

She stated that she was studying in the library and just wanted Shambat to
leave.

[...]

Officers had previously warned Shambat against trespassing and this time
arrested him for third-degree trespassing.

He was transported to Pima County Jail where he was refused by Pre-Trial
Services and booked."

1. Repeated instances of trespassing.
2. A student trying to study reported it, not a librarian.
3. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Who has more incentive to lie in this instance? Dreckweasel, Ilya or the
poor student trying to study? I do know who has the least incentive! That
would be the brave coed who had to watch a disgusting spectacle and
possibly not for the first time.

So AAPC's resident jailhouse lawyer, AKA little willie douchebag, calls
everyone else a liar while denying every fact.

Dreckster has never been more shameless.

[i***@gmail.com]

Post by Cujo DeSockpuppet
1. Repeated instances of trespassing.
2. A student trying to study reported it, not a librarian.
3. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

No, but you need evidence to convict someone of a crime.

Post by Cujo DeSockpuppet
Who has more incentive to lie in this instance? Dreckweasel, Ilya or the
poor student trying to study? I do know who has the least incentive!

I never said that she lied, I said she misperceived. Whatever I was doing, it was not masturbation. I remember doing a reiki treatment on my lower abdomen. I can think of something else I might have been doing. Masturbation however was never it.

Post by Cujo DeSockpuppet
That would be the brave coed who had to watch a disgusting spectacle and
possibly not for the first time.

Oh yeah, I am so scary.

Post by Cujo DeSockpuppet
"The dump is a good place too." -Edmond Wollmann, keeping his options
open for a future place for storing his unsold books.

I haven't seen Wollmann around for a long time. Interesting how without him the alt.astrology forum went completely dead.

[Will Dockery]

Hello, Ilya.

It is good to see this smear finally debunked.

[Michael Pendragon]

Post by Will Dockery
Hello, Ilya.
It is good to see this smear finally debunked.

Why do you lie (and, in doing so, push Ilya under another bus)?

The article has *not* been debunked. In fact, Ilya has verified everything it said.

The question remains one of whether the student mistook an abdominal massage for masturbation.

And, again, it's a classic he said/she said scenario.

[Cujo DeSockpuppet]

Post by Michael Pendragon

Post by Will Dockery
Hello, Ilya.
It is good to see this smear finally debunked.

Why do you lie (and, in doing so, push Ilya under another bus)?
The article has *not* been debunked. In fact, Ilya has verified everything it said.
The question remains one of whether the student mistook an abdominal
massage for masturbation.
And, again, it's a classic he said/she said scenario.

The Dreckster is just very desperately trolling for support.

Give the fucking kook a break already.

[NancyGene]

Post by Cujo DeSockpuppet

Post by Michael Pendragon

Post by Will Dockery
Hello, Ilya.
It is good to see this smear finally debunked.

Why do you lie (and, in doing so, push Ilya under another bus)?
The article has *not* been debunked. In fact, Ilya has verified everything it said.
The question remains one of whether the student mistook an abdominal
massage for masturbation.
And, again, it's a classic he said/she said scenario.

The Dreckster is just very desperately trolling for support.
Give the fucking kook a break already.
--
Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in dfw.*,

---
We found some illuminating information:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/alt.romance/peVJoUHpIwo/aQPozsuWCq4J
and
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=fr#!topic/alt.callahans/tnqfvNAn8-w%5B126-150%5D

Message-ID: ***@posting.google.com

Ilya Shambat
11/05/2002
Ilya Shambat: Arrested Criminal, public masturbatorwas Re: II. Beauty
Traduire le message en français

Post by Cujo DeSockpuppet

Post by Michael Pendragon

Post by Will Dockery

I was reading poetry. Some of it was beautiful.

Freak.

Moron.

At least I'm smart enough to stay out of jail, stupid.

I didn't have problems in jail. I read good books and engaged people
in interesting conversations. I learned about the White Buffalo and
Papago spiritual myths from a Papago who had gone to see it. I also
was able to read people's energy and tell someone that he had a wife
and three children and to tell other people what was bothering them.
They called me a holy man. For a few months in 2000 I was able to make
everything an experience and make friends with creative and
interesting people and constantly have spiritual and intellectual
stimulation. Seeing God in all things opens oneself to God in all
things, and the universe smiles on the person.

[NancyGene]

On Saturday, August 24, 2019 at 12:49:27 AM UTC, NancyGene wrote:

Ibish was in the slammer for 4 days.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=fr#!msg/alt.callahans/tnqfvNAn8-w/QGqWXOxFpMYJ

Message-ID: ***@posting.google.com (but the entire thread is informative)
---
Ilya Shambat
10/05/2002
Ilya Shambat: Arrested Criminal, public masturbatorwas Re: II. Beauty
Traduire le message en français

Who wants to chase you off?
We LOVE laughing at fucking kooks who beat off in public and then get arrested!

Suit yourself.

The girl misperceived.

Bullshit.

Were you there?

I wasn't masturbating, I was massaging my lower
abdomen.

Bullshit. You can do that OUTSIDE your pants.

No, YOU do that outside your pants. I do that under the pants.

I get pains there once in a while.

You were "going to town" on yourself, you fucking pervert.

No I wasn't. Not that there's anything wrong with that, or with being
a "pervert." I can say I've had sex in public, so you know I'm not
lying when I'm saying that I did not masturbate in public, because if
I'd been ashamed of one I would also be ashamed of the other.

I was reading poetry. Some of it was beautiful.

Apparently you found it VERY stimulating.

I do find poetry very stimulating. Good poetry distils eros and
imparts it to people. It is a long-lasting reification of eros that
can be partaken by anyone at any time.

[Cujo DeSockpuppet]

Post by i***@gmail.com

Post by Cujo DeSockpuppet
1. Repeated instances of trespassing.
2. A student trying to study reported it, not a librarian.
3. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

No, but you need evidence to convict someone of a crime.

Who claimed you were convicted?

Ah, but you were convicted of trespassing. Twice.

Post by i***@gmail.com

Post by Cujo DeSockpuppet
Who has more incentive to lie in this instance? Dreckweasel, Ilya or
the poor student trying to study? I do know who has the least
incentive!

I never said that she lied, I said she misperceived. Whatever I was
doing, it was not masturbation. I remember doing a reiki treatment on
my lower abdomen. I can think of something else I might have been
doing. Masturbation however was never it.

This wasn't what I'd said either. This was also in reference to
Dreckweasel claiming she lied. However, you can answer the question if
you'd like...

Who has more incentive to lie in this instance?

[amswer goes here]

Post by i***@gmail.com

Post by Cujo DeSockpuppet
That would be the brave coed who had to watch a disgusting spectacle
and possibly not for the first time.

Oh yeah, I am so scary.

Not having met the coed, I cannot testify to her state of mind, but I
feel it takes courage for some to report your repeated criminal
behaviors.

Post by i***@gmail.com

Post by Cujo DeSockpuppet
"The dump is a good place too." -Edmond Wollmann, keeping his options
open for a future place for storing his unsold books.

I haven't seen Wollmann around for a long time. Interesting how
without him the alt.astrology forum went completely dead.

It's amazing that you believe it went dead after he left. He killed it
long before that. That's the reason they created a moderated group.

Do try to keep up, it appears your reading comprehension is on a level
of little willie douchebag. Almost anyone can do better.

You also dishonestly snipped out the context:

"So AAPC's resident jailhouse lawyer, AKA little willie douchebag, calls
everyone else a liar while denying every fact.

Dreckster has never been more shameless."

You're not doing any better, even at this late date. The same old failed
tricks still aren't flushing. At least the support groups you used to
troll for victims aren't active these days.

[i***@gmail.com]

Post by Cujo DeSockpuppet

Post by i***@gmail.com

Post by Cujo DeSockpuppet
1. Repeated instances of trespassing.
2. A student trying to study reported it, not a librarian.
3. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

No, but you need evidence to convict someone of a crime.

Who claimed you were convicted?

Some people are claiming that I committed a crime that I did not commit. We are seeing here a lynch mob, and you are its leader.

Post by Cujo DeSockpuppet
Ah, but you were convicted of trespassing. Twice.

Only once.
Have you never driven over a speed limit? Parked in a wrong place?

Post by Cujo DeSockpuppet
Who has more incentive to lie in this instance?

Once again, I am not accusing her of lying.

Post by Cujo DeSockpuppet

Post by i***@gmail.com

Post by Cujo DeSockpuppet
That would be the brave coed who had to watch a disgusting spectacle
and possibly not for the first time.

Oh yeah, I am so scary.

Not having met the coed, I cannot testify to her state of mind, but I
feel it takes courage for some to report your repeated criminal
behaviors.

It takes absolutely no courage to get up from one's seat and go see a librarian.

Post by Cujo DeSockpuppet
"So AAPC's resident jailhouse lawyer, AKA little willie douchebag, calls
everyone else a liar while denying every fact.
Dreckster has never been more shameless."

He has not denied every fact. He has pointed to the point in the article that you and your set overlook.

Post by Cujo DeSockpuppet
You're not doing any better, even at this late date. The same old failed
tricks still aren't flushing. At least the support groups you used to
troll for victims aren't active these days.

I never used these support groups to troll for victims. I wrote material that I believed would have been valuable for people on these groups.

[NancyGene]

Ibish went to jail twice for trespassing, each time for 4 days:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/alt.romance/peVJoUHpIwo/yfuB6gvUCdUJ

"I went to jail for trespassing. I was arrested for trespassing twice
when I was in Tucson. Both times I spent four days in jail. One time I
almost had trouble but I got out of it by being able to read people's
energy and earned respect."

Is Energy Reader like the Meter Reader?

[Will Dockery]

Post by i***@gmail.com

Post by Cujo DeSockpuppet

Post by i***@gmail.com

Post by Cujo DeSockpuppet
1. Repeated instances of trespassing.
2. A student trying to study reported it, not a librarian.
3. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

No, but you need evidence to convict someone of a crime.

Who claimed you were convicted?

Some people are claiming that I committed a crime that I did not commit. We are seeing here a lynch mob, and you are its leader.

Post by Cujo DeSockpuppet
Ah, but you were convicted of trespassing. Twice.

Only once.
Have you never driven over a speed limit? Parked in a wrong place?

Post by Cujo DeSockpuppet
Who has more incentive to lie in this instance?

Once again, I am not accusing her of lying.

Post by Cujo DeSockpuppet

Post by i***@gmail.com

Post by Cujo DeSockpuppet
That would be the brave coed who had to watch a disgusting spectacle
and possibly not for the first time.

Oh yeah, I am so scary.

Not having met the coed, I cannot testify to her state of mind, but I
feel it takes courage for some to report your repeated criminal
behaviors.

It takes absolutely no courage to get up from one's seat and go see a librarian.

Post by Cujo DeSockpuppet
"So AAPC's resident jailhouse lawyer, AKA little willie douchebag, calls
everyone else a liar while denying every fact.
Dreckster has never been more shameless."

He has not denied every fact. He has pointed to the point in the article that you and your set overlook.

Post by Cujo DeSockpuppet
You're not doing any better, even at this late date. The same old failed
tricks still aren't flushing. At least the support groups you used to
troll for victims aren't active these days.

I never used these support groups to troll for victims. I wrote material that I believed would have been valuable for people on these groups.

Well put, Ilya.

[ME]

Post by i***@gmail.com

Post by Cujo DeSockpuppet
1. Repeated instances of trespassing.
2. A student trying to study reported it, not a librarian.
3. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

No, but you need evidence to convict someone of a crime.

Post by Cujo DeSockpuppet
Who has more incentive to lie in this instance? Dreckweasel, Ilya or the
poor student trying to study? I do know who has the least incentive!

I never said that she lied, I said she misperceived. Whatever I was doing, it was not masturbation. I remember doing a reiki treatment on my lower abdomen. I can think of something else I might have been doing. Masturbation however was never it.

Fuck ibish, that sounds like a pissbum deflection.

Post by i***@gmail.com

Post by Cujo DeSockpuppet
That would be the brave coed who had to watch a disgusting spectacle and
possibly not for the first time.

Oh yeah, I am so scary.

Oh you’re not scary. You’re a decrepit and sleazy scumbag.

Post by i***@gmail.com

Post by Cujo DeSockpuppet
"The dump is a good place too." -Edmond Wollmann, keeping his options
open for a future place for storing his unsold books.

I haven't seen Wollmann around for a long time. Interesting how without him the alt.astrology forum went completely dead.

You’re right. Your posts on there get no views or responses.
So I guess without him the forum died.

[High Number]

Post by Cujo DeSockpuppet

Post by NancyGene

Post by ME

Post by Will Dockery
Ilta was arrested for tresspassing, which was enough.

He was arrested then.

http://web.archive.org/web/20020617195307/http://wildcat.arizona.edu/pa
pers/93/159/07_1_m.html
***********Officers had previously warned Shambat against trespassing
and this time arrested him for third-degree trespassing*************

"UAPD officers were dispatched to the UA Health Sciences Library, 1501 N.
Campbell Ave., Friday evening after a student called saying that a man was
masturbating near the computer terminals, reports stated.
When officers arrived, they talked with the reporting student who told
police that she observed Ilya Shambat, 24, of a general delivery address,
allegedly masturbating under his shorts while using a computer.
The witness said Shambat was "going to town" on himself with his hands down
his pants.
She stated that she was studying in the library and just wanted Shambat to
leave.

So she apparently made up a story on Ilya S,

The rest is history...…..

[Will Dockery]

You are a troll, Cujo...

So troll on.

;)

[Cujo DeSockpuppet]

Post by Will Dockery
You are a troll, Cujo...

You are a cowardly liar, douchebag.
--
Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in dfw.*,
alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych. Supreme Holy
Overlord of alt.fucknozzles. Winner of the 8/2000, 2/2003 & 4/2007 HL&S
award. July 2005 Hammer of Thor. Winning Trainer - Barbara Woodhouse
Memorial Dog Whistle - 12/2005 & 4/2008. COOSN-266-06-01895.
"Nope, all my prophecy belongs to the logical analysis of astrological
and psychological data." - Edmo dreams of becoming a cautionary tale.
This signature was made by SigChanger.
You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/

[Will Dockery]

Typical Cujo bullshit, snipped.

;)

[Cujo DeSockpuppet]

Post by Will Dockery
Typical Cujo bullshit, snipped.

Typical cowardly douchebag evasions - ridiculed again.

Why are you so fucking stupid, cowardly douchebag?

[Will Dockery]

Worthless bullshit from Cujo, snipped again.

:D

[Will Dockery]

I doubt the police report lied, Pendragon.

[Michael Pendragon]

Post by Will Dockery
I doubt the police report lied, Pendragon.

The police report has not been posted here, you jackass -- and I sincerely doubt that you have access to it.

[Will Dockery]

Post by Michael Pendragon

Post by Will Dockery
I doubt the police report lied, Pendragon.

The police report has not been posted here

It has been quoted numerous times.

[Michael Pendragon]

Post by Will Dockery

Post by Michael Pendragon

Post by Will Dockery
I doubt the police report lied, Pendragon.

The police report has not been posted here

It has been quoted numerous times.

That wasn't a police report, idiot.

*We can now add "police report" to the ever-growing list of words and phrases that Will Dockery refuses to understand.

[Will Dockery]

Post by Michael Pendragon

Post by Will Dockery

Post by Michael Pendragon

Post by Will Dockery
I doubt the police report lied, Pendragon.

The police report has not been posted here

It has been quoted numerous times.

That wasn't a police report

It was a quote from the police report, fuckhead.

:)

[High Number]

Post by Will Dockery

Post by Michael Pendragon

Post by Will Dockery

Post by Michael Pendragon

Post by Will Dockery
I doubt the police report lied, Pendragon.

The police report has not been posted here

It has been quoted numerous times.

That wasn't a police report

It was a quote from the police report, fuckhead.
:)

Can Pendragon really be as stupid a motherfucker as he appears on here...??

[NancyGene]

Ibish admitted elsewhere that he had his hand(s) down his pants. What would the average observer think, seeing a grown man sitting in the library with his hands down his pants, actively moving said hands in a rubbing motion? That the poor guy has a pain in his lower abdomen? Not likely.

[Will Dockery]

She embellished the story, obviously.

[Edward Rochester Esq.]

Post by Will Dockery
She embellished the story, obviously.

Did Lady K?