Freshly ejected from the Cat's Miaow, Bishop Bonkers announced his intention to win the Guinness Book's "All Time Internet Banned" record. Competition is expected to be fierce. "I've got a good technique" remarked the pouting prelate, "Cut and paste is only half the secret. I can get banned from 3 forums within 24 hours if I put me mind to it." A partial list of forums and websites where Bonky, in one guise or another, has already caused a discussion to be closed or himself to have been temporarily or permanently blocked or banned:
• Alex Lucard's Icon. Showstoppah. Main eventah.
• Amcgltd.com
• Basceptic.blogspot.com
• Bizarre Abyss EZboard
• Blue Boar Inn Robin Hood Discussion Forum
• Casebook.org
• Dark Matters Radio
• Darkness.com forum
• The Dorset Echo
• Fortean Times website
• Fortean Times on Facebook
• Hecklerspray.com
• James Randi Educational Forum
• Mindsetcentral.com
• Mysterymag.com Forum
• Nocturnal Frequency Radio
• Net Curtains Lurkers website
• Net Curtains Lurkers on Facebook
• Occultforum.org
• The Paracast
• Portal Of Evil forum
• Righteous Indignation podcast website
• Righteous Indignation on Facebook
• Robinhood.info Forum
• TheSleaze.co.uk
• Thevampyres.blogspot.com
• Youtube
• Wikipedia
NB: Wow. He may already have the record! I'll keep adding others to the list as I am able to verify them.
Freshly ejected from the Cat's Miaow, Bishop Bonkers announced his intention to win the Guinness Book's "All Time Internet Banned" record. Competition is expected to be fierce. "I've got a good technique" remarked the pouting prelate, "Cut and paste is only half the secret. I can get banned from 3 forums within 24 hours if I put me mind to it." A partial list of forums and websites where Bonky, in one guise or another, has already caused a discussion to be closed or himself to have been temporarily or permanently blocked or banned:
63 comments:
There were quite a few more, in fact, Cat, which are confirmed in personal letters I received from one of his 'Yorkshire victims' a few years ago (not Barbara). I will have to dig her letters out to get all the names but I remember one was "Occult Forums" back in 2005.
i'll let you have the names he gave me, and you can add themto yout List!
David Farrant
While I think of it, another site the 'Bonky one' was banned from was "AMCLTLG" back in 2004.
Just to keep the record 'up to date'.
But there were even more!
David Farrant
World Wide Robin Hood Forum
Blue Boar Robin Hood Board
Bizarre Abyss
etc
damiana
I'll look them up when i have a minute, there were loads more!
by the way David are you selling bonky mugs from a stall in the high street and giving away other bonky bonky--mobilia as i have heard--a cottage industry no less!
Hey, Carol,
Where have you been? I've missed you, really! Just starting to get used to you, and answer your questions, and then you disappear!
I suppose I've offended you somehow, like I seem to do everybody else.
David (Farrant)
I started off listing Bonky's Bans just as a laugh, but now wonder how many total sites he's been bounced from. I only listed the ones that were verifiable. How many more are there? It's amazing.
I have no idea how these rumours start Barbara, but I can confirm that I received a boxful of 'bonky mugs' from 'Cecil Lamont Dwiggins' from a Californian address a couple of days ago (plus some more T-shirts). He also sent me a colour photo of himself (I presume) in bed in the middle of Cher and Madonna! I am not joking!
I don't know what he expects me to do with it. I really would face a libel case if either of those two ladies ever saw it!
I have had several genuine requests for the mugs. I'm really not interested in the money so will probably give some away as personal momentos. I know Patsty wants one and so does my friend Chris from the TV. Then there's Craig (though he'll probably drink beer from it!) and Kevin Carlyon, to name but a few. Think the 'Yorkshire Pudding' might even appreciate one as well - but I'll have to charge her if she does!
Then there's yourself, of course, Barbara! Just imagine how one would look on your mantlepiece!
So yes, I'm distributing them in that respect, but mainly as valuable soveniers.
But where's my Carol? That's what I want to know!
For now,
David (Farrant)
WHAT--are you talking about ??? I posted the last 3 days--but they are all removed...there 2 which were long--but no swearing in those--if I'm "not around" its because my stuff doesn't get posted.
David: you asked me if I wanted some "photos" (?) I don't remember for what...why don't you just post them here for me to see...
also, you say the bishop (or his camp) has been banned from these here sites listed, and that there are more...how have you verified that ? Just curious, or anyone else can answer too.
Believe me David you haven't offended me--
ask Baldry...he's deleting my posts
I've been posting everyday.
did you get my "scnook-em's" post ?
I have not deleted any of your posts, Carol. I haven't seen you make any as you describe. Perhaps you made them on some other forum?
Hi Carol
The pictue I want to send is of Bonky posing with a stake in 1991.
It clearly shows his hair dyed blond. He did this after he started going heavily grey just a few years before
I believe the cpoyright of the photograh (well there was more than one)belongs to the News of the World. Similare photographs were taken by Midweek Magazine who also own their own copyright having used their own photographer.
I believe you did send me your email Carol, but I'm afraid to say I have mislaid it. Sorry!
But if you could send it to the site here in confirence, I am sure somebody will forward it on to me.
All the sites listed here would verify that they banned Bonky - we are not inventing them! Many are big sites such as AMCGLTD and Wickipedia.
I may be a lot of things Carol (well suposedly!) but I am not a liar!
Yours for the moment
David
To: David I don't know how to send my email there in confidence--where do I go, I found Baldry's profile once and there was a way to contact him--but I don't remember where to go now ....where is that or where do you want me to send it
OK let me ask John this: I have posted many times from the "reply" box--instead of just going directly to the blog ,in the copy email of the posts but I just looked at the reply address and it says: noreply@blogger.something etc so does that mean the posts that I've made like that don't get through cuz it says no reply ?
Carol, I have no idea how you are posting, why it works sometimes and why it doesn't other times. Sounds all bollocksed up to me. Now you say David wants you to send ME an email "in confidence"? Not sure what you two are on about.
Its OK Carol I found the email you sent me before. I'd written it in my 'land' address book under 'C'.
Now I've just got to find that Pic. I mean I've since found the actual magazine but got to find where I filed it on the computer.
I can now confirm that the name of the magazine was "Midweek" and its dated May 17th 1990 (not 1991).
There is a colour of 'yours truly' on the cover showing him with blond hair and grey sideboards. There are three photographs in all all dedicated in the Mag to Lauren Hicks so they must be her copyright. Anyway, that's really academic as the magazine has a huge circulation asnd in in the public domain.
I will email you the pic. once I find the file which I will look for shortly.
Hopefully, you will then be able to see who's really lying about 'dying their hair'!
So till a little later,
David
- "The pictu(r)e I want to send is of Bonky posing with a stake in 1991. It clearly shows his hair dyed blond."
I have to ask: did you actually ever see the Bonkster in person and observe his "dye job" at close range? Hair colour in a photo - even in the olden days before photoshop - could be manipulated by camera lighting, exposure, printing, etc.
I have not seen the bonky one in person since 1986, Cat. Then his hair was still black. But in the following years it quickly started to go grey and by 1990 there was no black left. This is the time he started to dye it and I have seen other photographs of him (indeed have some on file)at completely different locations with his hair either blond or light brown, when its real colour was really grey.
Look, who really cares if he started to dye his hair to disguise it. I certainly don't!
But the irony is, I have never dyed my hair and this is just yet another example of him trying to transfer his own habits onto myself: out of some desire to hide personal habits that he'd rather not become public. So I become his obvious target for such 'projection'.
Well, the 'laugh' is really on the bonky one because I have never dyed my hair. Never had to, unlike himself!
David Farrant
D: I was teasing you about your hair dye--you got riled and that's what I was trying to do...your funny
tonight I am REALLY involved in the END THE FED group on facebook; international bankers, etc...gotta good group going there...lotta swearing with some ho-dunk southern inbred moron f____
I'llllll be back !
well--how do ya like this--ya probably both dye your hair--and I don't care.
It's a non-issue, unless I feel like teasing you, k?
Got your email.
John: I'm getting email notifications on my posts-that's good; however, when I attempt to click "reply" they aren't getting through--so I'm just going to post here.....but you should let Google know or ask them if that's a possibility
Its OK, Carol. I don't mind if it comes from you, I just don't like it when 'he' does it.
Enjoy your meeting anyway.
David
Carol there is no "reply" function I can see on this blog....only "post comment". So not sure what you're "clicking on".
hers another i remembered
http://www.mysterymag.com/hauntedbritain/index.php?subID=115&artID=282&page=article
he was banned from the discussion board
barbara
TWO MORE!
I've got two more big ones for you Cat.
He was banned by the Admin on Mind Set Central in 2002 the by the Admin on Occult Forums in 2004.
Needless to say these blocks or outright bans all occurred because he was flooding the Boards with malicious material about myself - and his posts were always made from his own computer (just as they were on here, Cat, before you banned him).
David Farrant
-"He was banned by the Admin on Mind Set Central in 2002..."
And thanks to the Internet Archive "Wayback Machine" server, I was able to confirm it. He not only posted using his real name, but using aliases like "Vampire Reserach Society", "Holy Grail Outreach Ministry" etc.
-"He was banned by...the Admin on Occult Forums in 2004.
Another one confirmed. I must say I am not surprised. I see "Dennis Crawford" and the usual repertory were in on the ruckus at occultforum.org....
i am not sure if he wa banned but the same stuff was on the highgate nowhere guide board, in fact I think it was Diana Brewster joining in--some years ago, and his wife also!!
barbara
was there a board called silken shadows--I must look at my files! Bizarre Abyss gave him a pasting by the way, he had to apologise!!!!! truly, and he used his real name!
- "highgate nowhere guide board"
Yes, a good one, found it listed as the Knowhere Guide under topic Highgate, featuring Brewster and even the bishop's wife posting under her real name. Very interesting, but no banning or thread locking, so it doesn't make our list. Shame.
YET MORE!
Got another one for you, Cat, Freeserve in 2000. It might be a bit more difficult to check as Freeserve no longer exists, obviously. But when it did it was big - I mean HUGE!
He wrote dozens upon dozens of obsessive and highly libellous posts about myself then, going on about the "Highgate 'vampire'" as usual, calling me a 'fake vampire hunter', an 'amateur', a publicity-seeker, etc, etc. Interestingly enough, at this time he was also referring to me as a drug addict, an alcholic and a 'homosexual'! Can't think where he got the latter from, but it is a well known fact that he has frequently announced that homosexuality is 'evil' and 'anti Christian' and that all homosexuals are 'damned to hell'! (I am not gay, incidentally, but certainly demonstrates the state of his own warped mind). I printed all this stuff out and it runs into over 100 closely-typed papges.
Anyway, I was forced to get in touch with the Chief Executive's Office at Freeserve (and spoke to a very sympathetic lady) who said that they'd also had complaints form other people and soon after that he was 'locked out' and had yo take all the stuff about myself down.
I hope you can check it. But I do have all the printed pages somewhere which may give an exact reference on them.
As I said the year was 2000 but it could have over-lapped into 2001.
David Farrant
I am amused to see your list of supposed places where the Bishop is meant to be proscribed because some of the people who run these sites happen to also be registered friends of the Bishop on Facebook.
While it might be true to say I and someone else (who I will not identify) has been prevented from commenting on a couple or so of those on the list, the Bishop most definitely has not been issued with a ban. He would have had to have been posting in the first place to have been banned and, with hardly any exception bar one or two, I believe this not to be the case.
I prime example is Mystery Mag on your list. Mystery Mag is the creation of a husband and wife, both of whom have been accepted as friends on Facebook by the Bishop. There are other examples.
Trystan Swale has confirmed on this blog that he has not banned the Bishop from his Righteous Indignation forum(s) and would still like to invite him as a guest. I suspect that will not happen. It is unfortunate that Swale has now adopted from the those on here the "Bishop Bonkers" appellation to refer to the Bishop on one of his forums where a false attribution is made. The Bishop assures me has had no contact with Swale since making clear his non-negotiable position regarding interviews.
mind set central and quick-topic 2002 and 2003
NOT REALLY SURPRISED
Can't say I'm surprised his position is 'non-negociable'!
Trystan runs a sceptical Podcast and no doubt the "bishop" (definately in quotes"!) does not wish to explain having 'staked' then incinerated a 'real vampire' in 1973; then having 'staked' its disciple in 1982 after she (it) had changed into a 'giant spider'!
No. I am not in the least bit surprised!
David Farrant
The only non-negotiable condition the Bishop makes to anyone wanting to interview him is the exclusion of all mention of Farrant and to not include Farrant in the same programme, project or transmission.
Be assured, as I have been, there is otherwise nothing off limits for discussion, as anyone who has interviewed the Bishop I am sure will confirm. You only have to ask them.
Well, that's very strange "Ariminous". Trystan Swale himself stated here that Bonky refused to do the Podcast on his Bad Pshchics Forum before my name was even mentioned.
Tut! Tut! "Ariminous". You really must try and stop from doing all this lying!
David Farrant
That is simply not true. Swale must be mistaken. The Bishop has confirmed this to be the case as Swale made clear his intention of interviewing the Hunchback from early on. That was enough to scupper the interview from the Bishop's point of view.
Like it or not, those are the facts. Perhaps Swale will have a rethink and confirm this to be so.
One thing is for absolute certain, the Bishop is not banned from Swale's Righteous Indignation forums.
SAYS BONKY . . .
"One thing is for absolute certain, the Bishop is not banned from Swale's Righteous Indignation forums".
No, but you are "Ariminus" - which amounts to the same thing!
David Farrant
Is it not then strange how the Bishop was able to recently view Swale's Righteous Indignation forum to discover that Swale used the Hunchback's term of abuse to describe the Bishop in a post?
How was he able to do that if he is banned?
I cannot view Swale's Facebook forum because he has blocked me owing to the fact that I had the temerity to enter into discussion on the VRS forum anomalies about the Hunchback's interview. I did so because both Swale and the Hunchback discussed the Bishop gratuitously during that interview. I can view Swale's website forum because I have not posted on it. The VRS did post once when they put across some very reasonable questions which of course have not been addressed. This probably led to their ban. Such is the way the anti-Bishop brigade conduct their affairs.
AND ANOTHER LIE 'ARIMINOUS"
Let's look at it:
"The VRS did post once when they put across some very reasonable questions which of course have not been addressed. This probably led to their ban. Such is the way the anti-Bishop brigade conduct their affairs."
No. NOT the 'VRS' 'Ariminous', the person who was banned was yourself - fake psuedo name "Ariminous Vambery".
You didn't just post once, you posted several times 'attacking' myself and making veiled ultimatums. That's why you were banned.
Stop lying, "Ariminous"!
David Farrant
Perhaps Swale would like to confirm that while I have not posted on the Righteous Indignation Podcast forum on his website, the VRS have posted. I did post on Swale's Facebook group, which is an entirely different kettle of fish. It is there that I have been blocked, not on Swale's website where I have never posted. I repeated some of my points on the VRS forum just in case they were deleted on Swale's Facebook group. I have no idea whether they have been deleted because, as I say, I have been blocked by Swale.
The Bishop has not posted on any of these forums, has therefore not been blocked, and can obviously still view them.
These are the cold, unvarnished facts of the matter.
Clutching AT STRAWS
Stop trying to twist things 'Ariminous' - the fact is you were barred there for your malicious posts, simple as that.
As for this:
"The Bishop has not posted on any of these forums, has therefore not been blocked, and can obviously still view them."
So here we have a clear admission from yourself, "Ariminous" that Bonky (aka yourself) DOES read all these Boards.
Thanks, "Ariminous"! That's what we've all been waiting to hear1!
David Farrant.
The "twisting" is when Farrant claims the Bishop has been banned when he has not.
The Bishop viewed the forum in question because he published a response on the VRS forum to clear up any confusion about the chronology of Swale's invitation to him, Farrant and how Farrant and Swale proceeded to discuss the Bishop on Swale's podcast.
Some time late he noticed how Swale had adopted Farrant's term of derision for him in a comment made on his Facebook forum. If the Bshop was banned he would not have been able to view the forum.
The fact is that the Bishop has not been banned from Swale's forum or any of the others listed on "going for a Guinness record."
"The fact is that the Bishop has not been banned from Swale's forum or any of the others listed on "going for a Guinness record."
The fact is that YOU have been banned, "Ariminous" and so has your IP which, of course, Bonky cannot post without, can he!
David Farrant
Farrant needs to educate himself on how blocking works.
I am blocked and therefore cannot even view Swale's Righteous Indignation forum on Facebook, let alone post on it.
The Bishop is not blocked and can both view and post on it. He has not posted on any of these forums but he can view all of them.
"The Bishop is not blocked and can both view and post on it. He has not posted on any of these forums but he can view all of them."
Thank you, 'Ariminous'. You have just confirmed again, the Bonky onne is reading all these Forums, Blogs and Message Boards; whereas before you were adament that he had no knowledge of them. More fibs, 'Ariminous'! Tut, Tut.
You can't even remember what you have said half the time!
David Farrant
Unfortnately for the Hunchback, I can remember what I have said all the time, let alone "half the time," and I have not been adamant that the Bishop has no knowledge of any of them. People obviously sometimes bring things to his attention.
I would like to know precisely where I have declared the Bishop has "no knowledge of them"?
"LETS TWIST AGAIN"!
"I would like to know precisely where I have declared the Bishop has "no knowledge of them"?
You did not use the word 'knowledge' "Ariminous", you used the word 'aware'.
You are now trying to 'twist' things again. You have admitted twice here very recently that Bonky actually READS these Boards.
Go back and read your own posts. They're not far back (and have been copied)!
David Farrant
Once again Farrant is unable to back his allegations with evidence.
I asked to be shown precisely where I have stated the Bishop has "no knowledge of them"?
Farrant has so far been unable to identify where I have said this.
TWISTIN AGAIN!
"I asked to be shown precisely where I have stated the Bishop has "no knowledge of them"?
I just explained that you used the word "aware" not knowledge. You may have said this under your 'demonologist' alias - but you nevertheless said it.
You also contradicted this statement a few posts back when you said Bonky was reading these Boards.
I can quote you again if you want me to, but you really would be making yourself look very stupid!
David Farrant
Really?
This what the hunched one wrote on this topic on November 5, 2009 4:43 PM:
"Thank you, 'Ariminous'. You have just confirmed again, the Bonky onne is reading all these Forums, Blogs and Message Boards; whereas before you were adament that he had no knowledge of them. More fibs, 'Ariminous'! Tut, Tut."
This was in response to my saying that, due to not being banned, "the Bishop is not blocked and can both view and post on it. He has not posted on any of these forums but he can view all of them." It should be noted I use the word "can," not "does."
I did not say the Bishop "reads these boards," just that he could if he wanted because, contrary to what even this blog claims, he is not banned.
So, once again, where am I "adamant that he had no knowledge of them." These, as I have now demonstrated, are the Hunchback's own words.
ONE AND THE SAME!
"Thank you, 'Ariminous'. You have just confirmed again, the Bonky onne is reading all these Forums, Blogs and Message Boards; whereas before you were adament that he had no knowledge of them. More fibs, 'Ariminous'! Tut, Tut."
This was in response to my saying that, due to not being banned, "the Bishop is not blocked and can both view and post on it. He has not posted on any of these forums but he can view all of them." It should be noted I use the word "can," not "does."
Well, this is very interesting again "Ariminous"; I mean the way you are now trying to twist your way out of your own 'giant slip'.
You see, how would bonky KNOW he was able to post on these boards or not unless he had first called them up to see? Then he could make such a ststement, but only then!
Please don't come back and say it was only a 'one off'. He looks at them meticulously all the time, and you know it.
And how would you know? Because bonky is the same person who created 'your' Blog, "Ariminous"!
David Farrant
I would like to know exactly how the hunched one knows the Bishop "looks at them meticulously all the time"?
Is the Hunchback now claiming to be psychic?
There is only one twister of the truth in all this and that is someone self-evidently with the hump.
"I would like to know exactly how the hunched one knows the Bishop "looks at them meticulously all the time"?
Is the Hunchback now claiming to be psychic?"
Says the individual calling themselves "Ariminous".
I am not a psychic, "Ariminous", neither have I claimed to be one. Unlike yourself who reffered to yourself as "Britians Number One Psychic" in the past. All total rubbish, of course!
I do not need to be psychic (neither does anyboy else) to know that I am really talking to yourself here and now, Sean. There is no "Ariminous" in reality. That is just a name that you have invented to 'hide behind' Sean.
'Psychic powers' are not required. Anybody with an itoa of intelligence can see that. Indeed,most people can!
David Farrant
I have never said I am psychic.
Farrant is now claiming that the Bishop is posting with my username.
Perhaps he would enlighten us how that is possible because, after "Anonymous" was banned from posting on The Cat's Miaow, Farrant declared that no more comments would be arriving from the Bishop's camp owing to anyone supporting the Bishop being fictitious, so he is reduced to supporting himself. Never mind three thousand people on Facebook seeking to be approved as his friend!
Even Baldry's Cat states on this very topic that "Bonky" is now banned and is trying to achieve a Guinness Record for being banned more than anyone else. Baldry's Cat provides a list. All nonsense, of course, because the Bishop hasn't been banned from any of those listed. It must be assumed this must pass for Baldry's Cat's "satire"?
Technically AMCGLTD would not allow the Bishop to comment if he tried because anyone showing sympathy for the Bishop is immedaitely blocked and their comments removed. Several people have reported this happening. It must be assumed this would inlcude the Bishop had he made the attempt.
Taking Farrant and Baldry's Cat at their word, if the Bishop is banned from posting on The Cat's Miaow he cannot possibly be posting under any guise.
"Perhaps he would enlighten us how that is possible because, after "Anonymous" was banned from posting on The Cat's Miaow, Farrant declared that no more comments would be arriving from the Bishop's camp owing to anyone supporting the Bishop being fictitious"
Youv'e just confirmed what I said, "Ariminous"!
After you were banned by Cat, there WERE NO more comments in this vein until after Cat lifted his ban again.
And you are now doing exactly the same thing again!
You must have one almighty 'blind spot, if you think people can't see this, "Ariminous"!
David Farrant
Baldy's Cat makes no mention of "lifting" any ban.
Where does it say that?
This topic's title is "Bonky Goes For Guinness Record" - what does Farrant imagine that is referring to?
The fact is the Bishop has not posted here to be banned in the first place and whoever did cause Baldry's Cat to inflict a ban is presumably still banned.
Farrant boasted at the time that no comments would be forthcoming from the Bishop's supporters.
Wrong yet again!
Surely it is Farrant who is going for the Guinness Record for being wrong so many times.
"Baldy's Cat makes no mention of "lifting" any ban.
Where does it say that?"
That question should have been addressed to Baldry's Cat, "Ariminous" - not myself - so best better to leave him to answer that.
You were banned for publishing private names and addresses despite a warning. As far as I recall, he then lifted the ban on the condition you 'behave yourself'.
THAT is debateable, but that's as I recall it.
David Farrant
With all there is to squabble about, you two choose to argue about who was banned and why? See here: any and all accounts posting under "anonymous" were banned due to misbehaviour. Case closed. Back to the regular programme.
Thank you, Baldry's Cat.
There Farrant has it from the cat's, if not the horse's, mouth:
"Any and all accounts posting under Anonymous were banned due to misbehaviour. Case closed."
Farrant had claimed:
"Cat lifted his ban."
He did not, as now confirmed.
So, if the Bishop is banned from posting on The Cat's Miaow he cannot possibly be posting under any guise, not even under my name.
Once again, I ask how can Farrant claim that no more comments would be surfacing from the Bishop's camp owing to anyone supporting the Bishop being one and the same person according to Farrant?
Farrant has clearly painted himself into a corner on this one.
NEVER SWALLOW BADLY COOKED YORKSHIRE PUDDING!
"Once again, I ask how can Farrant claim that no more comments would be surfacing from the Bishop's camp owing to anyone supporting the Bishop being one and the same person according to Farrant?
Farrant has clearly painted himself into a corner on this one."
I have not "painted myself into any corner", Sean. I have merely pointed out that "Ariminous" does not exist and that it is yourself making all these posts Sean. The hateful Blog about myself, Sean, is entirely your own creation - nobody else's.
Cat banned anonymous posters as people began to take advantage of this privilege and began to post people's private names and addresses.
You were one of these 'people', Sean so you were effectively 'banned'.
Catherine was another person using the 'anonymous cover' at one stage.
Whilst she did not disclose people's private identities (at least here although she has done so to yourself)she was nevertheless making untruthful statements in support of yourself, Sean.
But I knew who she really was, which was why I addressed her as "Sweethert" in my replies.
Just read back if you don't believe me!
David Farrant
For the record, I believe nothing that passes from Farrant's lips.
He blurts one allegation after another like their is no tomorrow.
But evidence? Proof?
None. There never is!
There never will be!
"Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?" "That depends a good deal on where you want to get to," said the Cat. "I don't much care where--" said Alice. "Then it doesn't matter which way you go," said the Cat. "--so long as I get SOMEWHERE," Alice added as an explanation. "Oh, you're sure to do that," said the Cat, "if you only walk long enough."
- Lewis Carroll's "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland"
allo davit
ow air tings...?
avint bin to ar raps-boards, bin so besi und governmint bullsheet ind fuckiing patriot crap-sites; makes me, umm. dey call me un politcal- refugee. no no diss-id-ente, political dissidente.
Allo. too !.....kity cat !!
deez government bitches over der, deh tallk like de frogs...or what you say it...my englsh is get mouch better now, see..
will visit soon et teh facebook window..
Ingrid
"Make sure of all things. Hold fast to what is fine."
- 1 Thessalonians 5: 21
Post a Comment