BS: WalkaboutsVerse Anew

Subject: RE: BS: WalkaboutsVerse Anew
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 10 Feb 10 - 12:49 PM

The last few posts both make it clear that what I've said has NOT been read AND accuse me of repetition.

Subject: RE: BS: WalkaboutsVerse Anew
From: Will Fly
Date: 10 Feb 10 - 12:54 PM

I think the last few posts make it clear that the consensus appears to be that you haven't actually given clear replies to the questions posed to you. And this is your invariable response to people who question your views - always has been.

So - for example - here's a nice, clear question: Why do you think that women have no right to participate in any sport of their choosing?

Now - how about a nice, clear answer to that? No waffling - no reference back to other posts - no reference to your website stuff - just a straightforward, unambiguous answer?

Subject: RE: BS: WalkaboutsVerse Anew
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 10 Feb 10 - 01:06 PM

And HOW would you prevent them taking part in any sport of their choosing? When you hearken back to a time when women did not play certain sports, I assume that means you would ban them again, if you could. But how could such legislation be realised now? You cannot simply turn back the clock. So you would have to stop the women currently playing these sports, plus bring an end to the industries that exist around many of them (such as tennis), and prevent them from taking part in future.

So how will that work, exactly?

Subject: RE: BS: WalkaboutsVerse Anew
From: catspaw49
Date: 10 Feb 10 - 01:08 PM

What an ass. You blow off all attempts to actually converse and all attempts to get through to you in seeing that YOU ARE A BIGOT! Because you don't think you're one doesn't mean jackshit. The very things you throw back to show what a fine guy you are simply take us right back to bigoted opinions which you cannot or refuse to see.

Many of your posts are simply laughable and quite enjoyably so because of your pride in your own ignorance. Try not to be so proud of being a complete and total ass.

So when was the last time you worked....and for how long?

I know I won't get a straight answer, just more blatherings about "pottage".....the ultimate crock as it were. That one was funnier than hell but made funnier by your sillyass pride in your pathetic "pottage."

Like so much other shit it fits right in because:

--Your 'poetry' sucks
--It has been posted repeatedly before
--It is full of bigoted and racist statements
--That which isn't racist is often incredibly juvenile
--It is obvious to most that you have limited knowledge of the world, especially considering your supposed travels.



Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: WalkaboutsVerse Anew
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 10 Feb 10 - 01:19 PM

Just one example, then, of my last post: Will just returned to make another post that, without answering my question, accused me of not answering questions...Spaw has no problem with that as he again makes false accusations about me...is that because he's a "bigot"?

Subject: RE: BS: WalkaboutsVerse Anew
From: catspaw49
Date: 10 Feb 10 - 01:21 PM

Nary an answer anywhere is there?

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: WalkaboutsVerse Anew
From: Will Fly
Date: 10 Feb 10 - 01:29 PM

This was your response to my penultimate post - the question that I apparently haven't answered:

Will, joking apart, then, are you aware that, unlike me, many males are against female bishops per se?

My answer to you is" Yes, I am aware - so what? This has no bearing on my last question, which you haven't answered:

Why do you think that women have no right to participate in any sport of their choosing?

Quite clear, I think.

Subject: RE: BS: WalkaboutsVerse Anew
From: Melissa
Date: 10 Feb 10 - 01:32 PM

David,

If I had a job stocking produce
and you had a job stocking produce..

which of us should be paid more?

Subject: RE: BS: WalkaboutsVerse Anew
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 10 Feb 10 - 01:47 PM

Ruth - I've only done very basic "Manufacturing and the Law" and, frankly, don't know exactly what, if any, rulings or laws were in place, such that females were not playing football, rugby, etc. - even though it is very recent history. As I've said, though, I think football is probably okay, but certainly not rugby.

Will - I stand by the idea that there are many things, including sports, fine for both sexes, but disagree with this very new attitude that "women can do ANYTHING"; and, more generally, prefer regulationism to freedom.

The same pay, Melissa, and I've addressed this in one of my poems, which I shall make the next "daily ditty."

Subject: RE: BS: WalkaboutsVerse Anew
From: Melissa
Date: 10 Feb 10 - 01:49 PM

don't include it in your next ditty on my behalf..I skip that part of the thread most times.

If you and I both had jobs clearing broken branches--the job would involve moving big chunks of tree and using a chainsaw--which of us should be paid more?

Subject: RE: BS: WalkaboutsVerse Anew
From: Will Fly
Date: 10 Feb 10 - 01:53 PM

Will - I stand by the idea that there are many things, including sports, fine for both sexes, but disagree with this very new attitude that "women can do ANYTHING"; and, more generally, prefer regulationism to freedom.

So women can play any sport - presumably including rugby. Good - a reasonably straight response there.

Women doing ANYTHING is not a very new attitude, as it happens. Why should women be regulated? No reason given. I would refer you to a building firm in Brighton which advertises itself as So-and-so "and daughters". Speak to them about regulation and freedom and see what those lasses say! Don't give me any crap about women not being able to lift certain weights, by the way. I've known several women who could put a man to shame with their power and strength - and several men who couldn't lift more than a cup of tea.

Subject: RE: BS: WalkaboutsVerse Anew
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 10 Feb 10 - 02:57 PM

"Ruth - I've only done very basic "Manufacturing and the Law" and, frankly, don't know exactly what, if any, rulings or laws were in place, such that females were not playing football, rugby, etc. - even though it is very recent history. As I've said, though, I think football is probably okay, but certainly not rugby. "


So what I want to know, and what I've asked three times so far, is HOW you would stop women playing whatever sport they choose?

Subject: RE: BS: WalkaboutsVerse Anew
From: catspaw49
Date: 10 Feb 10 - 03:00 PM

Regulated....based on male and female? Yeah, right.......Can't see it can you WavyFWBR?


Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: WalkaboutsVerse Anew
From: Melissa
Date: 10 Feb 10 - 03:02 PM

What about underendowed women?
Is it ok with you for non-busty women to play sports?

Subject: RE: BS: WalkaboutsVerse Anew
From: s&r
Date: 10 Feb 10 - 03:57 PM

Didn't get an answer to this one

'Or particularly how would you feel about the next Archbishop of Canterbury being lesbian? Or non-white?.'

Stu

Subject: RE: BS: WalkaboutsVerse Anew
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 10 Feb 10 - 04:53 PM

This time some of you have, at least apparently, misread me.

Ruth, I've said this a while back: hypothetically, in power, I'd be a macro NOT a micro manager - leaving it to experts in their fields to flesh-out the details.

Stu: when I studied anthropology, we were told not to refer to people by skin colour. Both the imperialistic Catholic and Anglican movements should be dissolved, and replaced with a Church of Germany only, a Church of Italy only, a Church of England only (with an English Archbishop of Canterbury), etc.

Subject: RE: BS: WalkaboutsVerse Anew
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 10 Feb 10 - 05:09 PM

So where would English Roman Catholics go to worship?

Subject: RE: BS: WalkaboutsVerse Anew
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 10 Feb 10 - 05:35 PM

"Ruth, I've said this a while back: hypothetically, in power, I'd be a macro NOT a micro manager - leaving it to experts in their fields to flesh-out the details."

I'm not sure that's what macro-management is, WAV: giving out lofty proclamations which are impossible to deliver in the real world, and have no chance of ever coming to pass. I think that's just called fantasy.

Subject: RE: BS: WalkaboutsVerse Anew
From: s&r
Date: 10 Feb 10 - 06:05 PM

What about a gay or lesbian Archbishop of Canterbury WAV?

Stu

Subject: RE: BS: WalkaboutsVerse Anew
From: Amos
Date: 10 Feb 10 - 06:08 PM

You don't care for the doctrine of "separation of church and state"., i take it. You seem to promote an identification of church with state. Why on earth do you think this would work? What about those in state X (say, England) who happen to be persuaded by religion "Y" (say, Xarathustrianism, or Taoism or Buddhism?

You got some 'splaining to do...



A

Subject: RE: BS: WalkaboutsVerse Anew
From: s&r
Date: 10 Feb 10 - 06:20 PM

I've just listened to one of your tracks (once took...)

When you accompany your voice with an electronic keyboard, the pitch of your voice wavers all over the place. It's here for anyone with a sense of pitch

Subject: RE: BS: WalkaboutsVerse Anew
From: Amos
Date: 10 Feb 10 - 06:37 PM

S&R: Surely you jest. That's not "wandering pitch", it's a subtle harmony of roughly three half-notes plus or minus 20%, a musical tradition learned from the Aboriginal denizens of the far bush. It's related to throat singing, and also to double-thumbing indirectly. Some say there is a Chinese influence.



A

Subject: RE: BS: WalkaboutsVerse Anew
From: catspaw49
Date: 10 Feb 10 - 11:35 PM

Really Amos? Damn.......and there I was thinking the problem was that he was being butt-fucked by a Yak at the same time he was trying to sing.

Sorry.........My mistake....I guess...............I DID see some pictures of the Yak though and it had a really big dick.......Are you sure Amos? WavyFWBR looks pretty wasted and the Yak had a look of comtentment.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: WalkaboutsVerse Anew
From: Smedley
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 02:34 AM

Thanka for the link.

I am speechless.

Subject: RE: BS: WalkaboutsVerse Anew
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 03:25 AM

I've just listened to WAV playing and singing, he's taking the piss, I was going to say don't give up the day job but he hasn't got one.

BTW
- Your poetry sucks
- It has been posted repeatedly before
- It is full of bigoted and racist statements
- That which isn't racist is often incredibly juvenile

Dave H

Subject: RE: BS: WalkaboutsVerse Anew
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 03:40 AM

Is this thread real?

Subject: RE: BS: WalkaboutsVerse Anew
From: mandotim
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 03:44 AM

'Will - I stand by the idea that there are many things, including sports, fine for both sexes, but disagree with this very new attitude that "women can do ANYTHING"; and, more generally, prefer regulationism to freedom.'
So there we have it; WAV doesn't like freedom. Where do you stand on Mom and Apple Pie, WAV?
Straight question; I've never seen your definition of 'Regulationism' as a philosophy, WAV. Perhaps you would care to offer one? This is a straight question, asking for clarification of your views. I don't want any of your awful 'poetry' as a reply (I know there is one called 'Global Regulationism', and it doesn't answer the question), just a properly argued and justified definition of what you understand by the term 'regulationism'.
A critique of the above poem;
--Your 'poetry' sucks
--It has been posted repeatedly before
--It is full of bigoted and racist statements
--That which isn't racist is often incredibly juvenile
--It is obvious to most that you have limited knowledge of the world, especially considering your supposed travels.

Subject: RE: BS: WalkaboutsVerse Anew
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 05:13 AM

I've kept feedback forms from my festival competition days, and among the criticisms (from well-respected folkies) such as, yes, "intonation" are the words "does have a good voice"; before I left Aus, a frank friend with a degree in music said of the, yes, Beatles songs I'd sing as he played - "about 7/8 out of 10."...it's subjective/who to trust..?
As I've said, I keep playing a line/singing a line as I go through the repertoire listed on the above link - to which I'm about to go for the "daily ditty"...

Subject: RE: BS: WalkaboutsVerse Anew
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 05:27 AM

Poem 126 of 230: WATERSCAPES OF OLDHAM - AUTUMN 2000

On a wet windy autumn-day,
    Within Greater Manchester,
Inside Oldham Art Gallery,
    A wooden-shelved greenhouse lay.

And on the shelves were neatly placed   
    Not pot plants but clear-glass
Clean-water-filled bottles and jars -
    Photographic-transfer faced.

So - as aquatic sounds streamed through,
    From speakers upon the wall -
Unique 3D. effects were seen:
    "Waterscapes," all strangely true.

(C) David Franks 2003
From WalkaboutsVerse

Subject: RE: BS: WalkaboutsVerse Anew
From: Tom - Swords & Songs
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 05:42 AM

Dave man, there isn't really any debate at all - you can't sing in tune at all. What makes your recordings worse is playing a keyboard along with your 'singing' as all this shows is how badly your singing is. If you performed entirely a cappella, maybe you could attempt to hide your awful attempts at pitch, but I doubt it.

I'm afraid you are tone deaf. I'm sorry to have to break the news to you.

I wish I could say 'stick to your poetry and let singers do the singing', but unfortunately

--Your 'poetry' sucks
--It has been posted repeatedly before
--It is full of bigoted and racist statements
--That which isn't racist is often incredibly juvenile
--It is obvious to most that you have limited knowledge of the world, especially considering your supposed travels.

Tuneful Tom

Subject: RE: BS: WalkaboutsVerse Anew
From: Tom - Swords & Songs
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 05:43 AM

PS - what a mismatch of poor grammar. Should really review before posting...
Tomato Tom

Subject: RE: BS: WalkaboutsVerse Anew
From: mandotim
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 06:33 AM

It takes a rare talent to play one tune badly, and at the same time sing a completely different one even worse. Do you have any examples of you singing in tune, WAV? As for your playing, as a sensitive musician I much prefer the silent demonstration of your recorder technique. Perhaps you could apply this approach to all your posted musical offerings?
Still waiting for your definition of regulationism, by the way.

Subject: RE: BS: WalkaboutsVerse Anew
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 08:41 AM

The only time I've been overly offended by WAV's singing is on When I survey the Wondrous Cross, otherwise in his own Chants & E. Trads I think he sounds just fine, be it on his Myspace page (his rendering of Cob-a-Coaling is an especial favourite of mine) & when I've heard him in singarounds. Musician he may not be, but since when was true folk music about musicians? Or NOT about people like Walkaboutsverse?

Now, WAV - tell me where English Roman Catholics are going to worship once you've formed your All-New Church of England? Or will this church reflect & accommodate the complex theological differences in Xtian traditions down the ages???

Subject: RE: BS: WalkaboutsVerse Anew
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 08:57 AM

You did that for me, Tim.
Sean - as you may know, there is some of that within the Church of England now...to paraphrase John Betjeman, some say too much of it/too high, others say not enough/too low...I'm happy with the weekly C. of E. Evensongs on the Beeb - except the bit about the Queen and the Catholic Church (as I say, the imperialistic/centralised Anglican and Catholic movements should both be dissolved, in my opinion).
To the others: fellow Catter, Don Firth, e.g., has put me onto a multitude of drills, but I do like to try and keep my whole repertoire in memory, and there are jobs to search for, daily ditties to do, pottages to prepare, tennis balls to whack, queries to answer, etc. - thus, as I say, I just play a line/sing a line sometimes as I go through my 60 pieces, on recorder and keyboards.

Subject: RE: BS: WalkaboutsVerse Anew
From: Tom - Swords & Songs
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 09:06 AM

Well, Suibhne, I must be listening to a different myspace site.
Certainly The Holly and the Ivy, When I survey... and Christmas Sung Simply don't appear to hit anywhere near the notes being played on the keyboard.

Maybe it's my old ears misleading me, or maybe it's a very clever system of quarter note harmonies which I have hitherto been unaware of?

Musician he may not be, poet he may not be, a functioning member of society he may not be.

More I would argue that it is right to attack this cretin on his inability to sing, because he is not performing in folk clubs just for fun, he actually intends to get a career out of it. He really believes he is a skilled singer/songwriter/poet/philosopher etc.

It has so far been the mission of many contributors to this thread to disprove him of all of these delusions.

But I suppose, whilst singing in tune is a matter of black and white, personal musical taste most definitely isn't.

Thomas Bleedingears

Subject: RE: BS: WalkaboutsVerse Anew
From: mandotim
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 09:20 AM

I did what for you, WAV? You still haven't answered my question; I asked for your definition of 'regulationism' as a philosophy, without resorting to re-hashing one of your godawful 'poems'. Answer please, clearly and unequivocally.

Subject: RE: BS: WalkaboutsVerse Anew
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 09:54 AM

Someone ought to recommend WAV for next years folk awards, Lifetime Achievement Award for writing inane drivel.

Dave H

Subject: RE: BS: WalkaboutsVerse Anew
From: s&r
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 09:56 AM

So about this lesbian female Archbishop of Canterbury...Would that be OK or not?

Stu

Subject: RE: BS: WalkaboutsVerse Anew
From: Smedley
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 10:18 AM

So about this lesbian female Archbishop of Canterbury...Would that be OK or not?


------------------------------------------
I can hear a verse lumbering towards us:

I could cope if some gay woman
Was in charge at Canter-BREE
Although I would revise this
If she had ever played rug-BEE

Subject: RE: BS: WalkaboutsVerse Anew
From: richd
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 11:01 AM

Oh glory be, this is magnificent! Being as what I am at home from work with the flu, although recovering, and having completed minor tasks and am avoiding major ones as too taxing; I thought I might offer to this discussion the main dimensions of Wavism as I understand them. (i.e. I'm bored). These are based on various writings and responses made by a leading Wavist, known as 'Wankerboutsworse'. I cannot be arsed to work out the citations and sources for these, but I'm sure someone will. I'm assuming that Wavists do not support political violence, and that Wavists do not currently have access to weapons beyond the 'English Flute' or 'Japanese Keyboard'. I will also pass no critical judgement on the poetry, since that's Wankerboutsworse's affair, and has been succinctly critiqued elsewhere in this thread.
If we start with what Wavists term the 'macro' level'. The central concept in Wavist politics appears to be a kind of national essentialism, that is that the highest expression of political will is a singular, geographically contiguous state, whose physical boundaries coincide with its cultural boundaries. A second central Wavist postion seems to be that this 'perfect state/nation' existed at some time in the past, but has broken down. In most political thought of this kind, this is normally ascribed to the actions of corrupt politicians. In particular national boundaries have broken down and allowed corrupting cultural influences which have further speeded up the decline of the perfect state. The third element of Wavist thought appears to be religious in nature, and that is that these perfect nation/states are in some way 'natural' or even ordained by god. The political aim of Wavism is therefore to return states, especially England, to their pre-lapse condition. Wavist political action consists of attempting to bring this return about by repeat publication on the internet of verse and other material, which will cause the masses to reject the imposed political system and demand a return to pre-lapse social conditions. This is given added weight by the posting of examples of pre-lapse music performed by 'Wankerboutsworse', a leading Wavist proponent.
To turn briefly to the 'micro' level of Wavist thought. This micro level is primarily concerned with 'culture'- and the desire to bring the cultural boundaries of states into congruence with their geographical and political ones. These cultural and physical boundaries are to be made as impermeable as possible. First, there is an increasing tendency within Wavism to suggest that individual states should have individual churches. What is less clear from Wavist texts is whether membership of all citizens will be compulsory in these churches, and whether there will be only one church in each nation. Second, the interest of Wavists in music adds another dimension to this, music being one of the prime ways that natural boundaries are breached, for example Rock'n'Roll. and the invention of TV. Thus all broadcasting will be national broadcasting- there will be no cross border activity. It is possible to infer from Wankerboutsworse's writings that other forms of media will be restricted in similar ways. It's not clear how far Wavists would restrict cross-border cultural activity, but it should be assumed that this might include restrictions on books, magazines, music and the internet.
Within the single perfect nation there will be a return to natural social relations, especially between the sexes. Wavists have not -as yet- discussed other forms of social relations, but we are fortunate that he will no doubt be along to tell us about it in the next ten minutes. All in all a bit Francoist, don't you think?

Subject: RE: BS: WalkaboutsVerse Anew
From: catspaw49
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 11:38 AM

My gawd rich.......That is a wonderful analysis and extremely well put together for all to understand. You certainly do have way too much time on your hands at the moment but we are all grateful for this clear statement from one who has closely watched this growing, uh well, hmmmmm..............movement? I think that's appropriate. Yeah.............Thank you.

WavyFWBR, aka Wankerboutsworse, also remember:

--Your 'poetry' sucks
--It has been posted repeatedly before
--It is full of bigoted and racist statements
--That which isn't racist is often incredibly juvenile
--It is obvious to most that you have limited knowledge of the world, especially considering your supposed travels.


Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: WalkaboutsVerse Anew
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 12:06 PM

Stu - see Brother Smedley.
Dave - as I've been saying (here, e.g.) for as long as the Scots have had junior and senior folk-awards, isn't it about time we had similar in England?!
Rich - feeling better?
Spaw - wish you had less on yours.
Tim - apart from the poem "Global Regulationism" itself, this idea is manifest throughout much of my manifesto in verse.

Subject: RE: BS: WalkaboutsVerse Anew
From: s&r
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 12:25 PM

I was intereste WAV that you describe your life's work as a manifesto. I have taken the liberty of copy pasting the first definition returned by Google

'A public declaration, usually of a prince, sovereign, or other person claiming large powers, showing his intentions, or proclaiming his opinions and motives in reference to some act done or contemplated by him; as, a manifesto declaring the purpose of a prince to begin war, and explaining his motives.'

except for the explaining bit it sort of fits the megalomania of your pronouncements

Stu

Subject: RE: BS: WalkaboutsVerse Anew
From: s&r
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 12:29 PM

'Stu - see Brother Smedley'


.Smedley -= thanks for clarifying WAV's POV. (Good poem by the way)

Following your appointment as WAV's spokesperson, could you clarify some other points"

Stu

Subject: RE: BS: WalkaboutsVerse Anew
From: catspaw49
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 12:33 PM

MANIFESTO IN VERSE???????

This may well be the biggest laugh yet. A manifesto? In verse?

First, your ideas and opinions are so muddled, puerile, and poorly thought out that they lack any form of useful logic making your manifesto horseshit with flies.   The fact that they are filled with bigoted statements which you seem to think are perfectly okay adds only to the laugh quotient.

In verse? You have yet to prove that you can actually write verse that isn't simply garbled blatherings assembled by a child.

Grow up. Go to work. Quit wasting your time here. Take Mudcat out of your day. You have already posted your manifesto repeatedly on these threads. Have you no shame? It is evident you have no ambition, no logic, no real world experience, no form of adult thought.................So at long last, have you no shame?

--Your 'poetry' sucks
--It has been posted repeatedly before
--It is full of bigoted and racist statements
--That which isn't racist is often incredibly juvenile
--It is obvious to most that you have limited knowledge of the world, especially considering your supposed travels.


Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: WalkaboutsVerse Anew
From: mandotim
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 12:37 PM

'Tim - apart from the poem "Global Regulationism" itself, this idea is manifest throughout much of my manifesto in verse.'
Listen, dimwit; simply saying something should happen is not a definition. Your alleged 'verse' does not define the term; and don't forget, I've read every word of your sad 'life's work'. I asked you for a clear definition of 'regulationism'as a phiosophy; a system of thought, if you like. I have reasons; I think you mean 'fascism', but I'd be happy for you to prove me wrong. Once again; what is your definition of 'regulationism'? Oh, and by the way;
--Your 'poetry' sucks
--It has been posted repeatedly before
--It is full of bigoted and racist statements
--That which isn't racist is often incredibly juvenile
--It is obvious to most that you have limited knowledge of the world, especially considering your supposed travels.

Subject: RE: BS: WalkaboutsVerse Anew
From: Smedley
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 12:44 PM

Stu, I couldn't aspire to the demanding burden of explicating all of WAV's views. But I might offer a 'ditty' from time to time.


Twas on a Thursday afternoon
I read that post of Stu's
But I can only rhyme when I'm
Fellated by the Muse

Subject: RE: BS: WalkaboutsVerse Anew
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 01:25 PM

Tim: "Global Regulationism", actually one of my profile e.g. poems, is very different from "fascism" which derives from a dictatorial Italian party opposed to communism, and, as you may have noticed, has been used by the media, on both sides of the pond, during the economic downturn - but don't forget where you heard it first!

Subject: RE: BS: WalkaboutsVerse Anew
From: s&r
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 04:08 PM

You will find about 350 instances of Global Regulationism on Google. Guess who authored 349 of them...

What did prophets do before spamming the world with repetitive and ill considered rubbish.

WAV I try to be charitable, honestly. I just find it hard to stomach your continuous objectionable tosh.

I'm sure your CV will get you to the odd interview. I can't see how you will ever progress beyond that point. I speak as an interviewer of some experience.

Sadly, I think most people now respond to you in irritated frustration instead of the welcoming help which was offered to you in early times here.

Sadly

Stu

Subject: RE: BS: WalkaboutsVerse Anew
From: mandotim
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 05:11 PM

WAV; which bit of 'without resorting to re-hashing one of your godawful 'poems'.' don't you understand? I asked you for a definition. At best, your life's work contains half-baked examples drawn from your own fantasy world and a series of nonsensical opinions. Definition please, preferably with fully referenced citations from the political literature. After all, you do have a degree in Humanities, this stuff should be childs play for an educated man like you! Which makes it all the more surprising that;
--Your 'poetry' sucks
--It has been posted repeatedly before
--It is full of bigoted and racist statements
--That which isn't racist is often incredibly juvenile
--It is obvious to most that you have limited knowledge of the world, especially considering your supposed travels.