Discussion:
An Open Letter to Steve O'Keefe
(too old to reply)
Lord Bullingdon
2006-06-08 18:42:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Steve, If you tell me that you will remove the FAQ as long as I
"behave", then I will behave. But I need this confirmation, Steve. It
cannot
be something unilateral, I need an agreement. You will always be able
to put the faq back again, therefore you have nothing to loose, only to

gain. It is a win-win situation.....if you choose to cooperate.

Do you understand, Steve? Have I made myself clear? The removal of the
FAQ would be a symbol of our new understanding. An understanding
between two friends.


L.B.
Yelps
2006-06-08 19:50:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lord Bullingdon
Steve, If you tell me that you will remove the FAQ as long as I
"behave", then I will behave. But I need this confirmation, Steve. It
cannot
be something unilateral, I need an agreement. You will always be able
to put the faq back again, therefore you have nothing to loose, only to
gain. It is a win-win situation.....if you choose to cooperate.
Do you understand, Steve? Have I made myself clear? The removal of the
FAQ would be a symbol of our new understanding. An understanding
between two friends.
L.B.
Stop being an ass. Behave and let the faq be forgotten naturally or just
lose the people who believed your apology was legitimate. You have simply
made your critics and the FAQ look correct again.

Its not really a mystery. Now that you have again lost credibility, even
agfter your big apology, you will have to re-earn that credibility, be
replacing your history of being a nasty nutcase, with a history of being a
"civilized," person who understands bounderies and doesn't give out a troll
aroma.

Soon you will be in everyone's kill file again, talking to yourself.

dc
Lord Bullingdon
2006-06-08 21:39:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
It was Steve O'Keefe who started it. I was posting only on-topic,
innocent messages and he decided to terrorize me and put the FAQ back
on without any reason. The only thing I ask is that the site be put
offline. Then everything will be back to normal.

I repeat, Steve has nothing to loose, only to gain. It's up to him.

L.B.
m***@sbcglobal.net
2006-06-08 23:32:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Hey LB. As much as you dislike Mike Jackson it must make you sick that the
last few posts you have made, prove that he was right about you once again.


Matt Myrick
Post by Lord Bullingdon
It was Steve O'Keefe who started it. I was posting only on-topic,
innocent messages and he decided to terrorize me and put the FAQ back
on without any reason. The only thing I ask is that the site be put
offline. Then everything will be back to normal.
I repeat, Steve has nothing to loose, only to gain. It's up to him.
L.B.
o***@newyork.com
2006-06-09 01:04:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
is there any way of banning someone's access to this forum?
Alex May
2006-06-09 12:14:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
No, you can't control somebody else's access or posts. Not even with
threats, FAQ's, etc...
Post by o***@newyork.com
is there any way of banning someone's access to this forum?
Lord Bullingdon
2006-06-09 12:27:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Thank God, this is a free place.

L.B.
Post by Alex May
No, you can't control somebody else's access or posts. Not even with
threats, FAQ's, etc...
Post by o***@newyork.com
is there any way of banning someone's access to this forum?
Alex May
2006-06-10 01:42:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Apparently there is this cult film where this bloke gets brainwashed so he
can't chose to do any wrong. The author who wrote the book intended it to be
a message about being able to choose to do wrong, knowingly and of free
will.

It's a difficult pill to swallow because it means allowing others to do,
well, wrong in order to preserve freedom. It means you put freedom before,
not after, punishment.

That's why this is a free place, rather than a politically correct place
that tows a certain party line.
Post by Lord Bullingdon
Thank God, this is a free place.
L.B.
Post by Alex May
No, you can't control somebody else's access or posts. Not even with
threats, FAQ's, etc...
Post by o***@newyork.com
is there any way of banning someone's access to this forum?
r***@gmail.com
2006-06-10 03:42:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In the great words of the crazy lawyer from Futurama "Although I
disagree with what you say I will fight to the death your right to say
it." If you post relavent material occasionally in such a way that it
informs the group or adds depth to the conversation at hand than I
believe you have all right to be free of harassment. I have seen the
previous posts and the FAQ so please don't post it in response to this.
If you have a problem with what is being said than logically debate
LB's position instead of just outcasting him for, god forbid, having
his own opinion. No matter how absurd, unrealistic, or childish it may
seem. This is an open forum and as far as I can tell I am still reading
it from the free speech US Google, and I intend to respect the
positions of the people at hand as long as they are willing to refute
it. This should be a place of learning, even Protagoras and Socrates
didn't get along but they still were able to provoke thought.
Feel free to be a critic and tear me apart. I will gladly refute,
respond, or agree with you. Therefore if LB has decided to put the past
behind him (although I don't think he should need any one "approval")
he should be left to engage in discussions without any responses
unrelated to the given subject matter of his present posts.
Lord Bullingdon
2006-06-10 05:05:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I only use certified quotes by people who knew and worked with Stanley.
I only use quotes from serious, certified AMKers. I'm very sorry not to
be able to use your post! :)

L.B.

"-You seem to be displaying signs of triviality."
"-On the contrary, Aunt Augusta. I've now realized for the first time
in my life the vital importance of being Ernest"


***@gmail.com wrote:
s_o_keefe
2006-06-10 06:21:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
What you have carefully omitted after having seen the FAQ is that LB's 'freedom
of speech' has come at the expense of many others who have left the group due to
his unstoppable trolling. One of the big reasons that troll alert page exists
today is because those lost members' freedom of speech is...well...no more.
Your reference to his documented trolling and intimidation as a quality of
freedom of speech I find suspect and unusual. LB's behavior on AMK continues
today the same as it did six years ago before the FAQ; confirming he will not
change...LB has never left for good; confirming he will never be banished...but
the group has every right be alerted and advised not be baited by his trolling,
causing more flame wars and lost members, as it did years ago.

Steve
Post by r***@gmail.com
In the great words of the crazy lawyer from Futurama "Although I
disagree with what you say I will fight to the death your right to say
it." If you post relavent material occasionally in such a way that it
informs the group or adds depth to the conversation at hand than I
believe you have all right to be free of harassment. I have seen the
previous posts and the FAQ so please don't post it in response to this.
If you have a problem with what is being said than logically debate
LB's position instead of just outcasting him for, god forbid, having
his own opinion. No matter how absurd, unrealistic, or childish it may
seem. This is an open forum and as far as I can tell I am still reading
it from the free speech US Google, and I intend to respect the
positions of the people at hand as long as they are willing to refute
it. This should be a place of learning, even Protagoras and Socrates
didn't get along but they still were able to provoke thought.
Feel free to be a critic and tear me apart. I will gladly refute,
respond, or agree with you. Therefore if LB has decided to put the past
behind him (although I don't think he should need any one "approval")
he should be left to engage in discussions without any responses
unrelated to the given subject matter of his present posts.
Lord Bullingdon
2006-06-10 06:38:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
If people do not like me, they can always killfile me. You make no
sense, Steve.

L.B.

Please consider the following messages before reading the lb_faq and
engaging in discussion with "s_o_keefe":

----------------------------------

From:Dean-O-Vision - view profile
come back, Bullingdon. This newsgroup needs you more than ever. At
least
your posts were somewhat on topic.

---------------------------------

From: The Man With No Name - view profile

Had a quick glance at this F.A.Q. and, I must say;
Is that all?? He offers a few unpopular opinions and you label him a
troll?

Going by my own experience, LB seems to be just about the only person
on this newsgroup who actually posts ABOUT KUBRICK. So, regardless of
whether or not I agree with his old views, the simple fact that he's
actually making relevant posts and not just prattling on about his
hatred for Bush (or whoever) makes him a *far* more valued poster than
most other people on this group.

-------------------------------------------

From: Nick C - view profile

I tend to agree on this point. Steve claimed that I "disinformed" him
because I claimed I wasn't a "newbie" and didn't have the e-mail
address to back it up. News flash Steve - I don't assume that weirdos
like you do internet searches on people and try to figure them out.
For some reason, when I think of Steve O Keefe now, images of a fat guy
in a basement surrounded by pizza boxes and empty 2 liters of coke come
to mind. How's that for "disinformation", asshole?

-----------------------------------------------


Patrick B. wrote:
Let me get this straight, hopefully I am just imagining things....Is
there a"Lord Bullingdon" FAQ on some Kubrick related website? Now, I
remeber a loong time ago, LB came into the lives of regular amk
posters by sayingsomething about Kubrick, I forgot what the original
post was, but it had to do with some false rumor he was adamant was
true. Now, fast forward months,or has it been years later, and now he
is on some sort of FAQ???(At thispoint if there is no FAQ disregard
this entire nonsensical rambling). So, nowthere is some sort of
blacklist for "trolls" on the internet. This is the saddest thing I
have ever heard. And also, can we just retire the word "troll" from
newsgroup persons vocabulary. When you use this word,don't you feel
overwhelmingly like some internet junkie caricature.(See comic
bookstore owner from The Simpsons). Well, I'm not gonna say anymore, I
wouldn'twant to offend the people "in charge" of this newgroup in fear
that I toowill be blacklisted like some sort of Commie sympathizer
circa 1950. Let'sall just step back for a moment, and realize that amk
is just a messageboard, who's original purpose was to discuss Kubrick
and his films.All of a sudden it's become some sort of institution.
Come on people, it'sok, come on back, your tv is on, your kids are
running, reality is just aglance away from the radiation pit you are
staring at. Go.


--------------------------------------


From: ***@nostalghia.com (Jan Bielawski)
Newsgroups: alt.movies.kubrick
Personally I'm sick and tired of this "Lord Bullingdon FAQ". If L.B.
posts something that's wrong - correct it. But this following each and
every post of his by an obnoxious *anonymous* "FAQ" has to stop.


------------------------------------------


From: Chris Cathcart (***@liquidinformation.com)
Well, at least we know you're on a crusade against those mean, wicked
bad trolls that threaten the fabric of Usenet. Have you nothing
really better to do than research Google to find anything and
everything you can to fuel your crusade? You're fixated on BL and
everything having to do with him; pretty sad if you ask me....


------------------------------


From: ***@aol.com (Xfoliate )
(in reply to s_o_keefe's post)
at the group's expense? isn't that opinion? do you speak for the group
here?
Matt
-------------------------------


Regards,
sokeefeFAQ



s_o_keefe wrote:
bull
s_o_keefe
2006-06-10 13:48:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
LB's deliberate omission: there is no killfiling on groups google pages, where
so many read AMK. As LB well knows, what makes no sense is anyone who doesn't
like what he is saying would have to killfile him AND (the chosen omission)
killfile those replying to his words - which is the only way to make what LB
says go away through killfiling. Of course, this is why LB replies endlessly
and to so many users in a flood of posts - it saturates the group. Saturation
ensured whatever LB was saying could not be ignored with a newsreader without
either killfiling the majority, or choosing to leave.

So, to recap the situation: Bullingdon desires his personal AMK posting
experience guaranteed or AMK, SK's memory, SK's daughters, a troll alert poster
like myself or whomever else bothers him will get trolled, intimidated or blamed
for further trollings by LB until they either submit to his agreement or leave.
You've just read it yourself: if users have to start killfiling each other to
not see his flood of words; well that's fine by LB as long as his personal stay
is guaranteed trouble-free. Again, LB is aware of his control methods and
hypocrisies, but there's that chance I might feel obligated to point them out
for new members, and perhaps get baited into a dialogue that might...get that
troll alert taken offline? Plopping a FAQ link every day or two takes hardly
any time, but correcting these intentional lies by omission takes a little time,
so I may not be replying to the transparent baitings for a while – new members
should be apprised of my position on the FAQ by now. If it seems like I'm
away...I'm not hitting refresh on AMK every five minutes like LB...I'm actually
away, so if anyone wants to post an LB troll alert link they should do so
without the harassment and disruption of a personalized LB counter-FAQ by
changing their user ID temporarily to 'amk_lb_faq'. The details are on LB FAQ
page 3.

Regards,

Steve

http://www.geocities.com/lb_faq/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Can_Change
Post by Lord Bullingdon
If people do not like me, they can always killfile me. You make no
sense, Steve.v
Lord Bullingdon
2006-06-10 14:08:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Please consider the following messages before reading the lb_faq and
engaging in discussion with "s_o_keefe":

----------------------------------

From:Dean-O-Vision - view profile
come back, Bullingdon. This newsgroup needs you more than ever. At
least your posts were somewhat on topic.

---------------------------------

From: The Man With No Name - view profile

Had a quick glance at this F.A.Q. and, I must say;
Is that all?? He offers a few unpopular opinions and you label him a
troll?

Going by my own experience, LB seems to be just about the only person
on this newsgroup who actually posts ABOUT KUBRICK. So, regardless of
whether or not I agree with his old views, the simple fact that he's
actually making relevant posts and not just prattling on about his
hatred for Bush (or whoever) makes him a *far* more valued poster than
most other people on this group.

-------------------------------------------

From: Nick C - view profile

I tend to agree on this point. Steve claimed that I "disinformed" him
because I claimed I wasn't a "newbie" and didn't have the e-mail
address to back it up. News flash Steve - I don't assume that weirdos
like you do internet searches on people and try to figure them out.
For some reason, when I think of Steve O Keefe now, images of a fat guy
in a basement surrounded by pizza boxes and empty 2 liters of coke come
to mind. How's that for "disinformation", asshole?

-----------------------------------------------


Patrick B. wrote:
Let me get this straight, hopefully I am just imagining things....Is
there a"Lord Bullingdon" FAQ on some Kubrick related website? Now, I
remeber a loong time ago, LB came into the lives of regular amk
posters by sayingsomething about Kubrick, I forgot what the original
post was, but it had to do with some false rumor he was adamant was
true. Now, fast forward months,or has it been years later, and now he
is on some sort of FAQ???(At thispoint if there is no FAQ disregard
this entire nonsensical rambling). So, nowthere is some sort of
blacklist for "trolls" on the internet. This is the saddest thing I
have ever heard. And also, can we just retire the word "troll" from
newsgroup persons vocabulary. When you use this word,don't you feel
overwhelmingly like some internet junkie caricature.(See comic
bookstore owner from The Simpsons). Well, I'm not gonna say anymore, I
wouldn'twant to offend the people "in charge" of this newgroup in fear
that I toowill be blacklisted like some sort of Commie sympathizer
circa 1950. Let'sall just step back for a moment, and realize that amk
is just a messageboard, who's original purpose was to discuss Kubrick
and his films.All of a sudden it's become some sort of institution.
Come on people, it'sok, come on back, your tv is on, your kids are
running, reality is just aglance away from the radiation pit you are
staring at. Go.


--------------------------------------


From: ***@nostalghia.com (Jan Bielawski)
Newsgroups: alt.movies.kubrick
Personally I'm sick and tired of this "Lord Bullingdon FAQ". If L.B.
posts something that's wrong - correct it. But this following each and
every post of his by an obnoxious *anonymous* "FAQ" has to stop.


------------------------------------------


From: Chris Cathcart (***@liquidinformation.com)
Well, at least we know you're on a crusade against those mean, wicked
bad trolls that threaten the fabric of Usenet. Have you nothing
really better to do than research Google to find anything and
everything you can to fuel your crusade? You're fixated on BL and
everything having to do with him; pretty sad if you ask me....


------------------------------


From: ***@aol.com (Xfoliate )
(in reply to s_o_keefe's post)
at the group's expense? isn't that opinion? do you speak for the group
here?
Matt
-------------------------------


Regards,
sokeefeFAQ

s_o_keefe wrote:
bull
Alex May
2006-06-10 10:57:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s_o_keefe
What you have carefully omitted after having seen the FAQ is that LB's 'freedom
of speech' has come at the expense of many others who have left the group due to
his unstoppable trolling.
Only because they took the bait
Post by s_o_keefe
One of the big reasons that troll alert page exists
today is because those lost members' freedom of speech is...well...no more.
Their freedom was to choose not to post here and/or find somewhere else to
post. You can¹t take someone¹s freedom away by posting per se.
Post by s_o_keefe
Your reference to his documented trolling and intimidation as a quality of
freedom of speech I find suspect and unusual.
There¹s a film about this. This guy gets his freedom to commit errors back
again. At the end of the film he says ³I was cured alright² - most people
don¹t get this message or just won¹t accept it in real life. The anti-hero
gets to commit crimes again because that IS real freedom. Then there¹s this
writer who ends up in a wheelchair as a victim, but because he¹s hell bent
on revenge he comes across as very unsympathetic character...
Post by s_o_keefe
LB's behavior on AMK continues
today the same as it did six years ago before the FAQ; confirming he will not
change...LB has never left for good; confirming he will never be banished...but
the group has every right be alerted and advised not be baited by his trolling,
causing more flame wars and lost members, as it did years ago.
As right as you may be in what you¹ve stated above you¹re still not
accepting the forum as it is. You¹re still trying to control it and make it
the way you think it should be for the rest of us. Or perhaps how you,
personally, want it to be for yourself. A moderated forum, run by yourself
would be the ticket. Maybe you should do that.

You¹ve already achieved a withdrawal on the necrophilia topic so in effect
have started to censor the forum for some of us. Gee, thanks. I now have to
leave and go somewhere else to try and find a post on this.
Post by s_o_keefe
Steve
Post by r***@gmail.com
In the great words of the crazy lawyer from Futurama "Although I
disagree with what you say I will fight to the death your right to say
it." If you post relavent material occasionally in such a way that it
informs the group or adds depth to the conversation at hand than I
believe you have all right to be free of harassment. I have seen the
previous posts and the FAQ so please don't post it in response to this.
If you have a problem with what is being said than logically debate
LB's position instead of just outcasting him for, god forbid, having
his own opinion. No matter how absurd, unrealistic, or childish it may
seem. This is an open forum and as far as I can tell I am still reading
it from the free speech US Google, and I intend to respect the
positions of the people at hand as long as they are willing to refute
it. This should be a place of learning, even Protagoras and Socrates
didn't get along but they still were able to provoke thought.
Feel free to be a critic and tear me apart. I will gladly refute,
respond, or agree with you. Therefore if LB has decided to put the past
behind him (although I don't think he should need any one "approval")
he should be left to engage in discussions without any responses
unrelated to the given subject matter of his present posts.
s_o_keefe
2006-06-11 01:27:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
There's a film about this. This guy gets his freedom to commit errors back
again. At the end of the film he says "I was cured alright" - most people
don't get this message or just won't accept it in real life. The anti-hero
gets to commit crimes again because that IS real freedom.
While your posts are following LB's return by the month, I noticed this
part in the flood and wanted to touch on your interpretation of ACO:
that SK's message on real freedom is Alex's ability to commit wanton
acts of violence, since it is Alex's true nature to do so. This is an
understandable but common misinterpretation, IMO.

Alex had more freedom before his arrest than at the end of ACO. Alex's
"cure" was finding haven from public persecution - the press will no
longer label Alex a criminal once the state adopts his brutality.
Alex's "interesting job on a good salary" is something the state will
use to limit the freedom of others as the Minister's interests are
served by Alex.

Alex found his cure by becoming a tool of the state, and it is the same
state which persecuted him, so Alex ends up with less personal freedom
in the end. ACO's theme on freedom isn't Alex destroying the freedom of
others by being a thug, or the Minister limiting Alex's personal
freedom with state-sanctioned thuggery, but ACO's metaphor is that real
freedom is to be free from persecution for being WHAT YOU ARE, and once
limits are placed on a person's ability to resist that persecution,
violently if necessary, people cannot be free.

Steve
Alex May
2006-06-11 01:40:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s_o_keefe
There's a film about this. This guy gets his freedom to commit errors back
again. At the end of the film he says "I was cured alright" - most people
don't get this message or just won't accept it in real life. The anti-hero
gets to commit crimes again because that IS real freedom.
While your posts are following LB's return by the month, I noticed this
that SK's message on real freedom is Alex's ability to commit wanton
acts of violence, since it is Alex's true nature to do so. This is an
understandable but common misinterpretation, IMO.
I was referring to Anthony Burgess meaning of the book. In an attempt to
make a commercial film, this particular message has been diluted. Perhaps
lost. AB was on record for saying that to be free, you had to be free to
sin. Chapter 21 of ACO shows his redemption (ok, so it's all a bit
catholic...) and the film doesn't.

One thing I have really come to understand in this life is this unpleasant
truth. That's why I'd rather be in this truly free forum instead of a
moderated one. Yes, people will always abuse that freedom, but they only
abuse themselves. I know it's incredibly annoying when it gets trolled, but
I'd rather have it that way because I can just ignore the posts.
kelpzoidzl
2018-06-15 23:37:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lord Bullingdon
Steve, If you tell me that you will remove the FAQ as long as I
"behave", then I will behave. But I need this confirmation, Steve. It
cannot
be something unilateral, I need an agreement. You will always be able
to put the faq back again, therefore you have nothing to loose, only to
gain. It is a win-win situation.....if you choose to cooperate.
Do you understand, Steve? Have I made myself clear? The removal of the
FAQ would be a symbol of our new understanding. An understanding
between two friends.
L.B.
Stop being an ass. Behave and let the faq be forgotten naturally or just
lose the people who believed your apology was legitimate. You have simply
made your critics and the FAQ look correct again.

Its not really a mystery. Now that you have again lost credibility, even
agfter your big apology, you will have to re-earn that credibility, be
replacing your history of being a nasty nutcase, with a history of being a
"civilized," person who understands bounderies and doesn't give out a troll
aroma.

Soon you will be in everyone's kill file again, talking to yourself.

dc
kelpzoidzl
2018-06-16 00:22:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
People left AMK because USENET became passe, not because of LB who was just one of many difficult people.

For me I started playing World of Warcraft at the end of 2004 and that was like a full time job for a while and other people were getting sick of usenet and doing other things on the Internet. SK had passed and just about anything that could be said was already said.

That waiting for the next SK Film...that had influenced much of my life, had ended.

It's nice seeing Katherina so much on reddit, but I only post there occasionally now. Already said everything I need to say in memorium to the great filmmaker...or in memorium to AMK.
s***@hotmail.com
2018-06-16 02:57:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kelpzoidzl
People left AMK because USENET became passe, not because of LB who was just one of many difficult people.
I will correct the above lie with the graph of Paulo Figueiredo's 600-post flood in 2006 which killed-off the group and begin the AMK exodus. I created that graph back in the day so others could not dispute it, or lie about what really happened (SK did cherish his production graphs and charts). The chart is on page 4 of the below-linked PDF, and those numbers do not lie:

https://tinyurl.com/yac3orw7

BTW, that posting flood was once I took a posting break from the insanity. I was not engaging Paulo. The retired LB FAQ is archived as a ZIP file if anyone wants to know what it was from a reliable source:

https://tinyurl.com/yc8nanat

So, we're back to David Sinclair Cole/Paulo Soares Figueiredo posting spasms after being caught in lies, disinformation, contradictions and conflicts; resulting in the expected credibility collapse and flip-out to assert control and gain, "satisfaction." I'm actually not surprised the Cole/Figueiredo obsession to take claim over AMK (it's a public newsgroup, FFS) continues to this day. Perhaps they can play the Rolling Stones' "Satisfaction" to cool themselves off.



Paulo Soares Figueiredo and David Sinclair Cole killed AMK to lay claim to it through Cole's squatter's rights. To think I actually made it this far to learn the truth of it. There's a reason for everything, as the saying goes.

Regards,

Steve

Lord Bullingdon
2006-06-09 11:56:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
.
Loading...