posts that I think should be deleted at DN

GamePlayer · Post by **GamePlayer** » 29 Oct 2008 22:21

Hard sell

(yeah, I know, but it's still punny)

SandChigger · Post by **SandChigger** » 29 Oct 2008 22:57

Oh, GP, when I think about you, I touch myself...Aaaaah...oh!

SandRider · Post by **SandRider** » 29 Oct 2008 23:03

I swear to whatever God I'm believing in this week
I just got an email from "dehydrate Santiago"
subject : "sexy paola rides on horse"

(I'll PM you the link, sloey.)

SandRider · Post by **SandRider** » 30 Oct 2008 14:11

lundse2 wrote:
BTW, When in the chronology does this quote originate?

Quote:
A second son would come, however. There would be another Leto, but that, too, carried heavy consequences—especially for Chani.

After weeks of arguing on this thread, Arnie wrote:I haven't read PoD so I can't answer that question.

Post by **Freakzilla** » 30 Oct 2008 14:23

SandRider wrote:
lundse2 wrote:
BTW, When in the chronology does this quote originate?

Quote:
A second son would come, however. There would be another Leto, but that, too, carried heavy consequences—especially for Chani.

After weeks of arguing on this thread, Arnie wrote:I haven't read PoD so I can't answer that question.

Unfuckinbelievable.

SandChigger · Post by **SandChigger** » 30 Oct 2008 18:14

That's what I was talking about over on T(A)U.

So...it's OK to defend a book you haven't read (and I don't just mean defend in the namby-pamby "Oh, but he's Frank's son and he has a right to write these books" way, but actually argue details of plot, etc.), but if one of us attacked it and then admitted we hadn't read it yet, they'd be crying foul left and right.

And we're the ones with the double standard.

Post by **Omphalos** » 30 Oct 2008 19:11

Freakzilla wrote:
SandRider wrote:
lundse2 wrote:
BTW, When in the chronology does this quote originate?

Quote:
A second son would come, however. There would be another Leto, but that, too, carried heavy consequences—especially for Chani.

After weeks of arguing on this thread, Arnie wrote:I haven't read PoD so I can't answer that question.
Unfuckinbelievable.

This is news?

SandChigger · Post by **SandChigger** » 30 Oct 2008 19:43

No, not really, but this is rich:

It appears either Byron or arnie himself has now deleted the comment.

Fucking hilarious!

chanilover · Post by **chanilover** » 31 Oct 2008 03:01

SandRider wrote:I'd also like to apologize to any homosexuals we may have on
this board for my use of the word "cockbreath". It is an unfortunate
word often used by cranky old men, and in no way indicates my
condemnation of you, your chosen and/or born-that-way lifestyle
and sexual orientation, or hobbies.

May the God of Your Choice Bless and Keep You.

Cockbreath? Everyone else's cock doesn't smell as bad as yours.

Arnoloco's breath smells of Byron's bum.

SandChigger · Post by **SandChigger** » 31 Oct 2008 03:46

Oh, isn't that sweet. I can just tell you two are going to get on FABulously!

SandRider · Post by **SandRider** » 31 Oct 2008 06:57

SandChigger wrote:No, not really, but this is rich:
It appears either Byron or arnie himself has now deleted the comment.
Fucking hilarious!

Good. If I have one purpose in life now it is to keep Byron and his
minions jumping over here to see what I've posted about their foolishness
Over There and editing it, then jumping back over here to see if it their
Cover Ups were caught and exposed. I call this Control.

And, as with my apology to Miss Mandy, I was serious and sincere. I do
use the terms cocksucker, cockbreath, dicksucker, cumdrunk ass-monkey,
ass-fuckers, bitchass punks, jizz hounds, and the like too liberally and in a
derogatory manner, and I simply wanted to explain that while I have no
intention of ceasing my use of these phrases, I nevertheless do not intend
disrespect to homosexuals, bisexuals, or the unsure.

You can take this however you wish.
And yes, my penis does stink.
So what's your point ?

Post by **Freakzilla** » 31 Oct 2008 08:32

Allright, let's try to take it easy on the profanity. It's OK for emphasis but this is gratuitous.

SandRider · Post by **SandRider** » 31 Oct 2008 08:49

SandRider · Post by **SandRider** » 31 Oct 2008 10:13

Byron's unblocked the IP on one of my machines, the one I use for
this kinda stuff.

What does that mean ?

Post by **Freakzilla** » 31 Oct 2008 10:18

SandRider wrote:Byron's unblocked the IP on one of my machines, the one I use for
this kinda stuff.

What does that mean ?

He's desperate?

SandRider · Post by **SandRider** » 31 Oct 2008 10:47

I was posting anyway.
Until he banned all my sockpuppets ....

well, not all of them ....

I AM MUADIB56 !!!

Post by **Freakzilla** » 31 Oct 2008 10:54

SandRider wrote:I was posting anyway.
Until he banned all my sockpuppets ....

well, not all of them ....

I AM MUADIB56 !!!

I'm arnoldo.

chanilover · Post by **chanilover** » 31 Oct 2008 12:52

SandRider wrote:
SandChigger wrote:No, not really, but this is rich:
It appears either Byron or arnie himself has now deleted the comment.
Fucking hilarious!
Good. If I have one purpose in life now it is to keep Byron and his
minions jumping over here to see what I've posted about their foolishness
Over There and editing it, then jumping back over here to see if it their
Cover Ups were caught and exposed. I call this Control.

And, as with my apology to Miss Mandy, I was serious and sincere. I do
use the terms cocksucker, cockbreath, dicksucker, cumdrunk ass-monkey,
ass-fuckers, bitchass punks, jizz hounds, and the like too liberally and in a
derogatory manner, and I simply wanted to explain that while I have no
intention of ceasing my use of these phrases, I nevertheless do not intend
disrespect to homosexuals, bisexuals, or the unsure.

You can take this however you wish.
And yes, my penis does stink.
So what's your point ?

I wouldn't suck it with Arnoldo's mouth.

TheDukester · Post by **TheDukester** » 31 Oct 2008 13:02

Christsakes ... let's move on.

Maybe we can even get a thread here back on topic.

SandRider · Post by **SandRider** » 31 Oct 2008 13:22

Sorry Duke, not quite yet.

CL wrote:I wouldn't suck it with Arnoldo's mouth.

Now that's just a hurtful thing to say.

You're saying that without ever even seeing
it, much less smelling it.

I would have expected much more openmindedness
from a sophisticated lad like you ....

Frankly, I'm disappointed .....

TheDukester · Post by **TheDukester** » 31 Oct 2008 13:35

Argh.

It's shit like this that makes us all look like we're 12 years old.

Whatever; I'm not the Forums Police. You guys have fun; I'm out.

SandRider · Post by **SandRider** » 31 Oct 2008 13:45

No no, you're right.
Back to the topic:

in "Publisher's Weekly Review of POS Audiobook", today:

Simon wrote: What's the "starred" deal?

Merrit wrote:They give it to books they feel are superior in the genre.

TheDukester · Post by **TheDukester** » 31 Oct 2008 14:07

Okay, now here's a subject I never get tired of ...

I'd love to ask Byron how many stars he thinks Scott Brick is worth. Since he's one of the top three readers in the business today, I'd say quite a few.

I'm still waiting (as mentioned elsewhere) for Byron or one of his preek flunkies to provide me with one legitimate review for Paul of Dune. And I mean for the actual goddamn book, not a collection of CDs.

SandRider · Post by **SandRider** » 31 Oct 2008 14:14

Duke wrote:provide me with one legitimate review for Paul of Dune

easy, slingblade. I know a guy who knows a guy who had
a sockpuppet Freakbanned for making just such a request.

the God-emperor has no clothes !!

SandRider · Post by **SandRider** » 31 Oct 2008 14:59

in the on-going saga of "Paul's Memory" , this week's highlights :

Merrit wrote:Worse according to you and the other OHers(sic). But not so for those who enjoy PAUL OF DUNE, including Library Journal, Booklist, and Publisher's Weekly, some of the top rated review sources in the nation.

Nekhrun wrote:Got it. Those who enjoy that book think those were actual reviews and most don't. I'm still suprised that someone like yourself who writes reviews doesn't see the difference between one of your reviews and one of those.

Merrit wrote:Certainly there's a difference. But you've gotta remember that these big review houses receive literally thousands of books per month and then they have to decide which ones to review, then which ones to give long versus short reviews. The old "so many books, so little time" theory applies to them, I'm sure.

and then, today:

Simon wrote:I just don't understand why people feel the need to "demand confession!".
What is, is. It's plain to see. What "possible difference" could a public statement make? The books would still be. And, semantics aside, nothing would change. Would BH and KJA's admission of (fill in the blank with your personal gripe) make everything better? No. Denials and confirmations are all silliness and truly irrelevant. The books speak for themselves. If they don't speak to you, or worse grate on your sense, then no defense will ever suffice. So why keep asking for the impossible? These "answers".