YBFH #21 open for submissions

On 5 Feb 2007 16:56:58 -0800, biochemborg.RemoveThis@comcast.net wrote:

>
>
>On Feb 5, 3:18 pm, "Lesmond" <lesm....RemoveThis@verizon.net> wrote:>
>>
>> You're such a liar. You know you wrote it. You told me you did.
>>
>
>Of course he wrote it. The page uses his exact turns of phrasing, and
>highlights his obession with John Pelan and cronyism. There's no doubt
>about it.
>
>But there's not a snowball's chance in Hell that he will ever publicly
>admit it.

Yeah, when he told me he thought he was talking to someone else. Sometimes I
can be a bitch.

--
Things fell apart with the alacrity of a cheetah.
 >> Stay informed about: YBFH #21 open for submissions 

On Feb 6, 2:46 am, "Zarok" <hauntedri... RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> You're a pathological liar whose credibility is non-existent. You've
> been constructing these sorts of pathetic lies ever since you
> discovered the internet. Indeed, you had been very publicly humiliated
> as a liar in ahc long before I even knew of your existence. You lied
> legal documents which never existed, you lied about seeing the word
> virii in text books, you lied about email exchanges involving Pelan's
> ISP and you lied about having cancer. You even invented an oncologist
> sock puppet to try and prop up your ridiculous lies.
>
> These aren't just my claims. These lies have been exposed by many
> other independent third parties. For this reason I urge you to either
> change your ways and seek absolution, or else kill yourself, because
> you are wasting your time in this life. Besides, I suspect that you
> must be an immense emotional and financial drain upon your undoubtedly
> long-suffering family, judging by what we have witnessed online.
>

Still LOL! As I said before, if you believe I would take anything you
have to say seriously, then you are just as deranged and delusional as
you sound.

>
> You're exactly the sort of crackpot who would deny the Holocaust and
> then accuse objectors of conspiring against you.
>

That's hysterically funny, because you remind me of some particularly
nasty creationists I used to do battle with. They acted exactly as you
do. I'm going to suggest to Susan that your kind of behavior
represents a new kind of Internet psychosis, and that she should
investigate it.

Kevin L. O'Brien
 >> Stay informed about: YBFH #21 open for submissions 

Pathetic.
 >> Stay informed about: YBFH #21 open for submissions 

Deeply pathetic.
 >> Stay informed about: YBFH #21 open for submissions 

Any fool with half a brain would have realised that I mixed the two of
you up.

Having said that, any fool with half a brain wouldn't make the bizarre
claim that I owned up to authoring the Encylopedia Dramatica entry for
usenet's version of Walter Mitty. Clearly it was written by someone in
the US familiar with American language and internet abbreviations.
Yes, I may have contributed one segment, but the authorship of the
whole and indeed the original is attributable to others.

O'Brien has become notorious as the classic example of a humiliated
internet poster resorting to increasingly desperate ruses to try and
retain dignity. He's been caught out lying more times than the boy who
cried wolf. After all, how many people lie about being at death's door
with cancer, and then invent sock puppets who pose as oncologists
using their mum's own email address?

The reason why O'Brien has fallen quiet in the last year or so is that
he's keeping a low profile, hoping the humilitions he exposed himself
to will blow over. He made an utter fool of himself in ahc before
popping up here in abgf to scrape friendship with the apelike Pelan,
whereupon he was quickly branded a liar by at least half a dozen
people ref the Isomedia issue and then the fake cancer claim.

The problem with the internet - and this is a serious issue here - is
that people like you, Pelan and O'Brien make it a deeply unattractive
place for the vast majority of people because of your unpleasant
behaviour. The bottom line is is that if you find it that difficult to
tell the truth or respect the alternative views of others you should
employ civilised counter-argument or else go do something else.

I'm not going to become enmeshed in your childish games anymore which
is why this will probably be my last comment in this ridiculously
childish thread. Suffice to say that O'Brien and Pelan *are* liars who
will always nurture a grudge against me for having exposed them as
such.

http://hauntedriver.co.uk/page40.html
 >> Stay informed about: YBFH #21 open for submissions 

Kevin never said he was "my good friend"--he did ask permission to
post my call for submissions to YBFH #21 which I happily granted him,
as it's important to get the word out early for those publishers who
have horror books and magazines coming out in 2007.

I posted the call for submissions in various newsgroups and to horror
news venues and forgot about this group or I would have done it
myself.
Ellen

On Feb 6, 4:34 am, "Zarok" <hauntedri....DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 6 Feb, 03:44, "smee" <cookmichaelchar....DeleteThis@satx.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 5, 8:35 pm, "Zarok" (Chris Barker) <hauntedri....DeleteThis@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > You're a cocky little gobshite, Michael Cook, but you always seem to
> > > fall quiet when it comes to the bigger business.
>
> > > For example, Chris Roden spotted that Kevin O'Brien's sock puppet
> > > oncologist was using O'Brien's mother's email address to post
> > > messages in usenet. What do you have to say about that?
>
> > Do you really want to go down this path? First, I've said all I have
> > to say on the issue of Kevin's health. I so stated over a year ago (in
> > October of 2005), but you probably couldn't hear me over the sound of
> > your own ranting. Second, there is no so-called "bigger business".
> > This is off-topic horseshit that has absolutely zero to do with ghost
> > fiction. Worse, it's yet another tiresome instance of your grubby and
> > mean-spirited off-topic horseshit. When are you going to get it
> > through that melon of yours that you call a head that absolutely no
> > one here cares?
>
> > Yrs,
>
> > Michael
>
> You're the one getting hot under the collar, Cook. I simply lob in the
> occasional grenade whenever people like O'Brien or Pelan become
> tiresome. It might suit your twisted agenda to think of this as some
> some sort of weird ongoing Smersh-style campaign to overthrow the
> supernatural genre but I'm afraid that's just not the case.
>
> If you think that O'Brien's inane series of "Course Work Updates" and
> "My Good Friend Ellen Has Given Me Permission To Mention Her Name"
> posts are not tiresome then fair enough, but I believe they are, and I
> don't exactly see a long line of people queuing up to socialise with
> him.
>
> When I see a howling cad I reserve the right to say so, especially
> when he has trespassed into a genre he knows little about.
 >> Stay informed about: YBFH #21 open for submissions 

On 6 Feb, 21:18, dat....DeleteThis@datlow.com wrote:
> Kevin never said he was "my good friend"--he did ask permission to
> post my call for submissions to YBFH #21 which I happily granted him,
> as it's important to get the word out early for those publishers who
> have horror books and magazines coming out in 2007.
>
> I posted the call for submissions in various newsgroups and to horror
> news venues and forgot about this group or I would have done it
> myself.
> Ellen
>
> On Feb 6, 4:34 am, "Zarok" <hauntedri....DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 6 Feb, 03:44, "smee" <cookmichaelchar....DeleteThis@satx.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 5, 8:35 pm, "Zarok" (Chris Barker) <hauntedri....DeleteThis@hotmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > You're a cocky little gobshite, Michael Cook, but you always seem to
> > > > fall quiet when it comes to the bigger business.
>
> > > > For example, Chris Roden spotted that Kevin O'Brien's sock puppet
> > > > oncologist was using O'Brien's mother's email address to post
> > > > messages in usenet. What do you have to say about that?
>
> > > Do you really want to go down this path? First, I've said all I have
> > > to say on the issue of Kevin's health. I so stated over a year ago (in
> > > October of 2005), but you probably couldn't hear me over the sound of
> > > your own ranting. Second, there is no so-called "bigger business".
> > > This is off-topic horseshit that has absolutely zero to do with ghost
> > > fiction. Worse, it's yet another tiresome instance of your grubby and
> > > mean-spirited off-topic horseshit. When are you going to get it
> > > through that melon of yours that you call a head that absolutely no
> > > one here cares?
>
> > > Yrs,
>
> > > Michael
>
> > You're the one getting hot under the collar, Cook. I simply lob in the
> > occasional grenade whenever people like O'Brien or Pelan become
> > tiresome. It might suit your twisted agenda to think of this as some
> > some sort of weird ongoing Smersh-style campaign to overthrow the
> > supernatural genre but I'm afraid that's just not the case.
>
> > If you think that O'Brien's inane series of "Course Work Updates" and
> > "My Good Friend Ellen Has Given Me Permission To Mention Her Name"
> > posts are not tiresome then fair enough, but I believe they are, and I
> > don't exactly see a long line of people queuing up to socialise with
> > him.
>
> > When I see a howling cad I reserve the right to say so, especially
> > when he has trespassed into a genre he knows little about.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Take a look at O'Brien's posts. Almost all are ego-boosting boasts.

Yes, he didn't say "Ellen Datlow is my friend", but he used your call
for submissions as a platform for implying it.

I could run around the internet asking people for permission to tell
other people about their work but at least I would have the sense to
know it for what it is: 'sucking up' or 'kissing ass'.

Of course, if you've offically hired O'Brien as a PR representative
then I take it all back. But somehow I don't think so.
 >> Stay informed about: YBFH #21 open for submissions 

Huh?
On Feb 6, 4:33 pm, "Zarok" <hauntedri... DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 6 Feb, 21:18, dat... DeleteThis @datlow.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > Kevin never said he was "my good friend"--he did ask permission to
> > post my call for submissions to YBFH #21 which I happily granted him,
> > as it's important to get the word out early for those publishers who
> > have horror books and magazines coming out in 2007.
>
> > I posted the call for submissions in various newsgroups and to horror
> > news venues and forgot about this group or I would have done it
> > myself.
> > Ellen
>
> > On Feb 6, 4:34 am, "Zarok" <hauntedri... DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 6 Feb, 03:44, "smee" <cookmichaelchar... DeleteThis @satx.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 5, 8:35 pm, "Zarok" (Chris Barker) <hauntedri... DeleteThis @hotmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > You're a cocky little gobshite, Michael Cook, but you always seem to
> > > > > fall quiet when it comes to the bigger business.
>
> > > > > For example, Chris Roden spotted that Kevin O'Brien's sock puppet
> > > > > oncologist was using O'Brien's mother's email address to post
> > > > > messages in usenet. What do you have to say about that?
>
> > > > Do you really want to go down this path? First, I've said all I have
> > > > to say on the issue of Kevin's health. I so stated over a year ago (in
> > > > October of 2005), but you probably couldn't hear me over the sound of
> > > > your own ranting. Second, there is no so-called "bigger business".
> > > > This is off-topic horseshit that has absolutely zero to do with ghost
> > > > fiction. Worse, it's yet another tiresome instance of your grubby and
> > > > mean-spirited off-topic horseshit. When are you going to get it
> > > > through that melon of yours that you call a head that absolutely no
> > > > one here cares?
>
> > > > Yrs,
>
> > > > Michael
>
> > > You're the one getting hot under the collar, Cook. I simply lob in the
> > > occasional grenade whenever people like O'Brien or Pelan become
> > > tiresome. It might suit your twisted agenda to think of this as some
> > > some sort of weird ongoing Smersh-style campaign to overthrow the
> > > supernatural genre but I'm afraid that's just not the case.
>
> > > If you think that O'Brien's inane series of "Course Work Updates" and
> > > "My Good Friend Ellen Has Given Me Permission To Mention Her Name"
> > > posts are not tiresome then fair enough, but I believe they are, and I
> > > don't exactly see a long line of people queuing up to socialise with
> > > him.
>
> > > When I see a howling cad I reserve the right to say so, especially
> > > when he has trespassed into a genre he knows little about.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Take a look at O'Brien's posts. Almost all are ego-boosting boasts.
>
> Yes, he didn't say "Ellen Datlow is my friend", but he used your call
> for submissions as a platform for implying it.
>
> I could run around the internet asking people for permission to tell
> other people about their work but at least I would have the sense to
> know it for what it is: 'sucking up' or 'kissing ass'.
>
> Of course, if you've offically hired O'Brien as a PR representative
> then I take it all back. But somehow I don't think so.
 >> Stay informed about: YBFH #21 open for submissions 

On Feb 6, 7:02 pm, dat... DeleteThis @datlow.com wrote:
>
> Huh?
>

Barky is simply engaging in melodrama, and rather bad melodrama at
that. I am playing Snidely Whiplash to his Dudley Do-Right---not
willingly---so everything I do, no matter how innocent, must be in
furtherance of some nefarious plot.

Does that make you Nell Fenwick?

Kevin L. O'Brien

>
> On Feb 6, 4:33 pm, "Zarok" <hauntedri... DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Take a look at O'Brien's posts. Almost all are ego-boosting boasts.
>
> > Yes, he didn't say "Ellen Datlow is my friend", but he used your call
> > for submissions as a platform for implying it.
>
> > I could run around the internet asking people for permission to tell
> > other people about their work but at least I would have the sense to
> > know it for what it is: 'sucking up' or 'kissing ass'.
>
> > Of course, if you've offically hired O'Brien as a PR representative
> > then I take it all back. But somehow I don't think so.
 >> Stay informed about: YBFH #21 open for submissions 

"smee" < Chris, if you weren't such a nasty twerp, I would be tempted to
consider you somewhat -- dear me, now what's that new word you're infatuated
with today? oh, yes -- pathetic.
>

Perhaps you should consider buying a ticket on the Love Boat for a weekend
of buggery with Chris. He has promised to provide the vaseline and KY, along
with triple-ply condoms.

This will be a landmark occasion. Chris and his greatest enemies (and their
cronies) will spend a weekend at sea during which all parties will enjoy the
normal amenities of a luxury cruise during the day, and no-holds barred
buggery at sea during the night.

All the hatchets will be buried, and old enemies will become the gayest of
friends.
 >> Stay informed about: YBFH #21 open for submissions 

C[r]ook:

You are fast becoming the village idiot of this group. At least people
can understand why Pelan and O'Brien keep telling lies - they are
trying to protect their genre reputations and careers. Your obsession
with ignoring their genuinely serious lies about having cancer and
owning shares with this or that company in preference for trying to
trip me up over far smaller issues humiliates you, yet still you
persist.

Firstly, let's put the matter in some context here. Although the ED
entry for O'Brien is somewhat 'zany' the essential facts are still
true. O'Brien is a pathological liar. It has been proved time and time
again in various fora by independent people who have no other common
link. Despite this, you still believe the matter to be of weightier
import than (for example) John Pelan's devious attempts to deter
people from complaining to his ISP about his internet behaviour by
lying about owning shares with them, or Pelan's previous management of
two Yahoo groups whose sole stated purpose was to stalk and harass
me.

Moving on to the second issue (the central one). You now claim that I
lied about writing the O'Brien article. Well, that's easy to answer:
you are wrong. I neither created it nor wrote it although I have often
been accused of doing so by O'Brien. O'Brien does this because his
other enemies - people who have exposed him for the pathetic serial
liar that he is on numerous occasions - have all wearied of his mad
refusal to concede defeat despite having irrefutable truths nailed to
his own forehead. They have thrown in the towel and walked away,
unwilling to waste any further time on him. O'Brien invariably pounces
on this, claiming it as a victory. (Again, none of this is contentious
- many other people have made these exact same observations.) All of
which I mention merely to establish the point that O'Brien *wants* to
believe that the entry was created and authored by me.

My involvement in the entry (as has already been volunteered by me)
was limited to the addition of one section, comprising something less
than ten percent of the whole. It was added long after the initial
article was created. Furthermore, I have had zero contact with the
creator. All of which means that I had nothing whatsoever to do the
article for a long time - as I claimed at the time - but at a later
stage contributed a small segment. By no stretch of the imagination
can I be deemed the creator or author of the piece; indeed, it is a
gross exaggeration to call me a 'co-editor'. No, once again you are
projecting your unpleasant prejudices into this situation, Cook, which
is why I am starting to form the opinion that you are the stupidest
person posting to this group.

I contributed a small segment to the entry long after it was created.
That is the truth, no matter how unsatisfying or twistable you find
it. By all means jump up and down and throw your toys out of the pram
but please don't waste my valuable time with any more of this
ridiculous straw-clutching.

You're embarrassing yourself.

CB
IDIOT CULLS EVERY FORTNIGHT - REASONABLE RATES
 >> Stay informed about: YBFH #21 open for submissions 

How's the cancer progressing?

I know people who have died or who are currently very ill with cancer
yet you lie about having it just to win sympathy in silly internet
arguments.

Just how despicable a person does that make you?
 >> Stay informed about: YBFH #21 open for submissions 

On Feb 7, 4:59 pm, "Zarok" (Mr Wraxall) <hauntedri... RemoveThis @hotmail.com>
wrote (in part):

<The usual stuff snipped about what an idiot I am and how I'm always
picking on poor ol' Chris when there are far fiercer dragons that
require slaying.>

> My involvement in the entry (as has already been volunteered by me)
> was limited to the addition of one section,

Yet another transparent distortion of truth, I'm afraid. You're
continually backpedaling on this issue and it's almost a bit
distressing to see you so thoroughly flustered. First you say you had
nothing whatsoever to do with the article ("I have no idea who wrote
this"); next we are informed that you "may" have contributed to it;
and now, **finally**, you admit to having had a hand in writing the
piece. You're just like one of those sleazy politicians, Chris -- one
has to drag the truth out by slow degrees.

> comprising something less
> than ten percent of the whole. It was added long after the initial
> article was created. Furthermore, I have had zero contact with the
> creator. All of which means that I had nothing whatsoever to do the
> article for a long time - as I claimed at the time - but at a later
> stage contributed a small segment. By no stretch of the imagination
> can I be deemed the creator or author of the piece; indeed, it is a
> gross exaggeration to call me a 'co-editor'. No, once again you are
> projecting your unpleasant prejudices into this situation, Cook, which
> is why I am starting to form the opinion that you are the stupidest
> person posting to this group.
>
> I contributed a small segment to the entry long after it was created.
> That is the truth, no matter how unsatisfying or twistable you find
> it. By all means jump up and down and throw your toys out of the pram
> but please don't waste my valuable time with any more of this
> ridiculous straw-clutching.

In spite of the fact that you have nominated me "stupidest person" in
the group, I feel compelled to once more correct you: I did a quick
check and, by character count, you are responsible for fully 20% of
the ED article on Kevin (not the less than 10% that you claim). But
you know what? I'll be the very first to admit that the amount of your
contribution doesn't matter all that much. Nor does a single one of
the other peripheral issues you so desperately raise: the fact that
your additions were added after the initial creation of the article;
the claim that you've never had any contact with the individual who
originated it; your belief that the article is accurate; etc., etc. --
it's all just smoke; none of it is the least bit germane to the
central point I raised in my recent post. Here is the crux of the
situation, Chris, and you can tap dance as quickly and as nimbly as
you can, but there is simply no avoiding it. You meant for people in
this forum, Ellen Datlow in particular, to believe that you had
absolutely nothing to do with that article. You didn't convey the
impression that you wrote *part* of it or that you *might* have
written part of it. No. You wanted them to think you had nothing
whatsoever to do with it. Nothing shows this intent more clearly than
your subsequent misrepresentation in which you feigned ignorance about
how such articles are edited. The bottom line here Chris is that you
***lied***; not just once, but at least twice. And not only did you
lie, but you engaged in the crassest form of sock puppetry in an
attempt to add emphasis to your rather sad little argument.

Perhaps, Mr Wraxall, you would do well to soberly reflect on these
unpleasant truths about yourself before you next decide to employ your
"valuable time" in one of your repetitive and numerous off-topic rants
about how this person is a liar or that person uses sock puppets. Such
antics seem more than a mite hypocritical.

> You're embarrassing yourself.

Well, perhaps, but I think I'll take that risk.

> CB
> IDIOT CULLS EVERY FORTNIGHT - REASONABLE RATES

Maybe you oughta cull yourself right out this group, Chris.

Yrs,

Michael
 >> Stay informed about: YBFH #21 open for submissions