Kevin Graham Resorts to Intimidation Tactics

[_TrashcanMan79]

I'm starting to question this Angry McAngerton nickname I've come up with for Kevin.

If my initials were K.G. I would definitely add some vowels in there, and go by the nickname "KAGE."

Yes, KAGE, that will do nicely. Like a KAGE fighter -- an angry KAGE fighter.

You a Tenacious D fan by chance?

[_Jersey Girl]

I said this multiple times in chat over the last week or so. In his recent posts (I've probably read all of them), Pahoran's style is much subdued. If you don't see that, then you don't have an ear for his "voice".

[_Simon Belmont]

You a Tenacious D fan by chance?

Yes!

[_why me]

spiteful and full of spite.

Spiteful and full of spite?

Say it 'ain't so!

(just kidding)

I meant to write: spiteful and full of spit. But maybe I should have written, spiteful and full of vinegar.

[_why me]

As far as my responses to you go?

Your consistent anti-Protestant rhetoric is what happened to me.

I think that I remember now. I remember that I said that it were protestants who murdered Joseph Smith and persecuted the Mormons. They would mob the Mormons and then go to church on sundays. But of course that was true. The protestant pastors seemed to do nothing to control their mobs.

[_asbestosman]

The protestant pastors seemed to do nothing to control their mobs.

So you blame all protestants for the actions of a dead few?

I wonder where Will's bishop was to control his behavior? Good grief. I don't think anyone can control Will but Will himself. Some might be influential, such as those who decide whether to publish Will's work, but I'm not going to blame Will's bishop for Will's bad behavior. That's for Will to answer to. He is of age, ask him.

[_Kevin Graham]

bump for Pahoran

Don, you're a smart guy, so I know you're only saying this because you have not witnessed Pahoran's comments on the Schryver thread. Let me recap what we get from Pahoran first seven posts:

Post #1: He accused MsJack of using a "poison pen," saying she must be proud about that, and implies that she was trying to get NAMI to reject Will's article. This is false of course, but don't expect the facts to get in the way of Pahoran's juicy theories. He based his attack on zero evidence, as usual.

Post #2: He calls MsJack "Auntie Jack" and then rationalizes Will's history of revolting commentary as mere "trash talk." He argues that these posts are relatively few when compared to the thousands of posts Schryver has made on the forums, as if this is supposed to mean anything.

Post #3: He attacks MsJack again, essentially calling her a hypocrite and questions her sincerity and honesty.

Post #4: He breaks a forum rule by mentioning a name and then asked Kishkumen if that was his in real life identity. Oh the irony!

Post #5: He attacks Scratch, saying his informant is just his imagination, which means Scratch must be lying. However, Scratch has recently been vindicated. He called it days before it was announced. The man behind Schryver's fallout with NAMI, was Brian Hauglid. Can we expect the new and improved Pahoran to admit being wrong about that one? We both know the answer. If I press him to face up to the fact that Scratch's informant was proven correct, he'll ignore the request or pretend he never had interest in it.

Post #6: Pahoran tried to defend Schyver's usage of the word circle-jerk, because the urbal dictionary provides five definitions, one of which has nothing to do with sexual innuendo. So of course, that must be the one William was using. His evidence? He doesn't say, but I'm guessing it is Will's say so. I have since proved this argument false. Let's find out if Pahoran is willing to admit being wrong about this. But don't hold your breath.

Post #7 Pahoran then goes on to attack harmony, essentially calling her a liar because she has a temple recommend, and Pahoran doesn’t think she could get one without lying. He calls her a liar and then ridicules the forum by saying her deception using a sock puppet is what qualifies her to be a mod: "I wouldn't believe her if she told me the sky was blue." This he did, just before explaining to me that to call someone a liar is to prove your hate for them. So Pahoran essentially admits, using his own logic, that he absolutely hates everyone he has accused of lying (there are many).

So tell me Don, does this sound like a new and improved Pahoran? He added absolutely nothing to that thread, but tried to divert and derail as much as he could. Within a half dozen posts he managed to go after MsJack, harmony, Scrath and even Kishkumen. Essentially anyone who dared speak up. And then we saw how he then went after me.

And now, since Pahoran claims he is willing to admit being wrong when shown to be wrong, let's put his "graciousness" to the test. In that thread he claimed Will Schryver used "circlejerk" in a nonsexual manner. Nomad later created a thread based on this argument, and I dismantled almost immediately, revealing even more revolting commentary from our erstwhile circlejerk expert.

Will Schryver previously stated:

By the way, I for one am quite confident that most of you losers here in the Trailer Park are shameless buggerers. Else why your proclivity for the orgiastic circle jerks in which you all enthusiastically participate? Like this thread, for example. Graham tosses out the biscuit, and you're all in a circle on a moment's notice

Urban dictionary notes that people often confuse the "limp biscuit" game with circle jerks:

"*NOT* when a group of males stand in a circle to jerk off onto a cookie or anything of the sort. That r******* frat game is called "Limp Biscuit"... which kind of indirectly explains why the band of the same namesake is so f*****g horrible.

So thanks to Will's "biscuit" comment, there can be no doubt what Will meant in this context.

In another example Will says,

And of course you'd regard my most recent work as "increasingly obnoxious." After all, you've never been averse to taking your place right in the middle of the circle, heartily pounding out an approving beat for each and every orgiastic excess. You belong here.

According to Urban Dictionary the circle jerk also refers to:

A fraternity initiation ritual or hazing whereby the lights are turned off. The plege or pledges are told it's a circle jerk. The actives pound their fists together in the darkness simulating the sound of jerking off. The lights are then turned on suddenly and the pledge or pledges are the only ones in the circle with their dicks out.

Hence, there can be no doubt what Will was referring to when he says "pounding out an approving beat."

We can also be confident in this meaning because Will uses the word "orgiastic." Urban Dictionary on the word Orgiastic:

The new word replacing "horny" the same definition but different word. cause horny blows. Spread the word that horny is out.

Urban Dictionary defines Orgy:

1.Sex party involving many partners
2. A party where many people engage in sex at the same time.
3. A large group of people screwing togethe
4... you get the point

Urban Dictionary defines Circle Jerk many ways too:

1. When a group of males sit in a circle, jerking each other off.
2. When a bunch of blowhards - usually politicians - get together for a debate but usually end up agreeing with each other's viewpoints to the point of redundancy, stroking each other's egos as if they were extensions of their genitals (ergo, the mastubatory insinuation).
3. A masturbation party; can be with guys or girls. Everyone usually sits in a circle and jacks off in the company of other people.
4. Group masturbation, usually males, sitting or standing in a circle jerking themselves or each other off.
5. You get the point...

In the context of his "orgiastic circle jerk" comment, Will calls us a bunch of "buggerers" which might go over the heads of anyone not familiar with British or Austrailian slang. Urban dictionary defines the verb bugger as follows:

1. Technically means to sodomize, but most people use the word in a variety of situations, often without realizing the true meaning.

2. Australian, derived from buggering, which means anal intercourse. Now mostly used as a slang word as an exclamation of surprise or discontent. May be used to refer to a creature or human.

3. To sodomize someone.

4. vb. the act of committing sodomy
n. person who commits sodomy (n.), ie. has anal intercourse.

So will Pahoran show the integrity to admit being wrong? He claims he isn't defending Will, but he is. His client is a sick individual who has accused every one here of engaging in group anal sex with one another. As far as I'm concerned this is far worse than the C-word.

[_Kevin Graham]

Pahoran conveniently flees the scene again... gee, I wonder why?

Say it ain't so Pahoran. Please be on vacation or something. We're all dying to see your amazing ability to admit wrongdoing in action - in this case, your claim that Will never used circle-jerk in a sexual way or that you ever defended Will at all.

[_Kevin Graham]

Bump again for Mr. "I have the integrity to admit being wrong" Pahoran.

[_Pahoran]

Pahoran conveniently flees the scene again... gee, I wonder why?

It's called "having a life," Kevin. I recommend you try getting one. It might help you overcome your obsessive hatefulness.

Say it ain't so Pahoran. Please be on vacation or something. We're all dying to see your amazing ability to admit wrongdoing in action - in this case, your claim that Will never used circle-jerk in a sexual way or that you ever defended Will at all.

Based upon the additional information I have read, I agree that Will used circle-jerk in a sexual way.

Furthermore, I did not deny defending Will. I denied that I came here to defend Will, or that he was my "client." I also denied that I had any obligation to address any arguments that did not take my interest. I still deny these baseless falsehoods, of which you are the author.

Don, you're a smart guy, so I know you're only saying this because you have not witnessed Pahoran's comments on the Schryver thread. Let me recap what we get from Pahoran

Nice attempt to make this into a clone of the Schryver thread.

This thread is focused on the topic of your tactics, Kevin. In particular, your failed attempt at intimidation.

Oh, I know you deny it now, because it failed.

And why did it fail?

Well, it failed because it's you, isn't it?

And since you actually had the nerve to try to deny that "if you don't stop, you'll regret it" is an attempt at intimidation, it shows that your frequent and hysterical screams of "LIAR!" flung exclusively at people you hate, are stones thrown from within a glass house.

On that topic, let us pick out another instance of this.

Post #3: He attacks MsJack again, essentially calling her a hypocrite and questions her sincerity and honesty.

Post #4: He breaks a forum rule by mentioning a name and then asked Kishkumen if that was his in real life identity. Oh the irony!

I have a confession to make, Kevin. I actually saw this post a couple of days ago, but I was waiting to see if one of the resident sycophants would gush all over it for being such a wonderfully "truthful summary" of the exchange.

What really happened was this:

In response to me referring to MsJack as "Auntie Jack," that poster retaliated by splashing my in real life name in her next post. She accompanied it with claims that "this is really strange" and asked:

Is there any chance (Moderator Note) in real life information deleted is someone you know? I mean, I find it hard to believe there's no connection here.

Except, of course, that she knows perfectly well what my in real life name is. For example, on 08 July 2010 - 07:23 AM, in the course of a discussion in my in real life name, she said:

That you don't agree only proves that you're disagreeable, and those of us who have known you by your online alias for years already knew that.

In other words, not only does she know my in real life name, but she's known it "for years." Thus, her feigned amazement that I would coincidentally use the same phrase as myself was merely show-biz to give her a pretext to splash it on the forum. She knows that's true, and so do you. So when you pretend she wasn't being dishonest, you are lying, as you habitually do.

Next post, Kishkumen quoted her citation of my in real life identity in its entirety, and triumphantly gloated:

That's the best definition of the word "emasculated" that I have ever encountered.

So it seemed appropriate to let him walk a few metres in my moccasins; so I posted his in real life name and told the mods what I was doing, and why.

So, thank you for presenting your cherry-picked selections. It demonstrates so nicely just what passes for "honesty" in your strange little mind.

So will Pahoran show the integrity to admit being wrong? He claims he isn't defending Will, but he is. His client is a sick individual who has accused every one here of engaging in group anal sex with one another. As far as I'm concerned this is far worse than the C-word.

Once again, you are lying.

As you habitually do.

Regards,
Pahoran