| Author | Message | ||
     Conor |
I'm sorry to ask an obvious question but.... Who is this Mark Ilsley Character and why does he keep alluding to his "special relationship" or "insider knowledge" of The Go-Betweens? (my quotes) With which member does he supposedly have this relationship? | ||
| Jeff Whiteaker |
Ilsley is a ficticious character made up by one of the moderators to keep the board humming with activity. | ||
| John Henry Dryden |
Every circus needs a clown... | ||
| Mark Ilsley |
Dear Sad Wanker: Not only are they 'your quotes', but they are also not my words in the context that I use them. The "special relationship of trust existing between them" that I spoke of was concerning Amanda and Grant. The insider knowledge is what the sad wanker claims to have on the death of David McComb. | ||
| Conor |
Sorry, are you addressing me? I think you have me confused with someone else. I have no idea who you are. I've just been looking at this message board for the last few days, and seen lots of angry messages concerning you. I was curious, that's all. I have no idea who David McComb is. The 'my quotes' phrase was there to suggest that I WASN'T quoting you, just summarising what appeared to be your position. Obviously, I touched a nerve. Cheers Folks. I won't be posting around here again. Conor | ||
| cam |
mark, don't start another firefight here like you did before. After 200+ posts it was shown that you were completely wrong about the initial post (anonymous) and flew off the handle with the wrong end of the stick stuck up yo'ass... don't make the same mistake twice anyway, I thought the special relationship[ of which you are conspiciously proud was with Lindy M? Conor, don't worry about this dude, he's crazy | ||
| Mark Ilsley |
200-odd posts and kicking your phoney arse is hardly sufficient, Cam. I'm ready to go again. | ||
| Pete |
Mark Ilsley wrote: On Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 03:54 pm "I get assistance and/or confirmations in my understandings from an x-band member who graciously continues in my patronage." On Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 12:15 pm, re: David Nichols book: Ilsley also wrote "I know that it is the unofficial biography. Why should I want to read second hand opionions when I have a credible first-hand source available to me." I think those statements alone demonstrate Ilsley's belief in a "special relationship" or "insider knowledge". I think also it may explain why he continues to sabotage this board with his truculent, bullying and obtuse messages. Other people's views are quite obviously unimportant or wrong, because Mr Ilsley believes he has the inside track. The rest of us poor suckers must read David Nichol's book, "the unofficial biography", while Mark gets the inside scoop. Likewise, we should respectfully heed his sophisticated lyrical analyses because his "understandings" are "graciously" being confirmed by an x-band member who continues in his patronage. Does that x-band member still read this message board? And does she condone “her patron”'s idiotic behaviour on this board | ||
| cam |
"200-odd posts and kicking your phoney arse is hardly sufficient, Cam. I'm ready to go again." well, quite i'd love to but sunshine and birdsong and fresh air and humanity beckon i'll report back so you know what you're missing | ||
| michael |
whoa cam | ||
| Mark Ilsley |
Pete: You are wrong in both cases. I have no special relationship with an x-band member. We have a relationship. The only "special relationship" I have ever spoken of on this messageboard was the probable "special relationship of trust existing between" Amanda and Grant. Our relationship is none of your business and I believe you are motivated by jealousy. You will not shake us from our trust in each other. The only "insider knowledge" I have ever spoken of on this messageboard is that which the sad wanker claims to have had on the death of David McComb. He is mistaken and misleading. There was no coroner's enquiry into his death, as he once first claimed. You really are a weak bastard, whoever you are. You can not hurt me, her nor destroy our relationship. (p.s. I am also now begining to suspect you might also be the sad wanker. You seem unable to seperate fact from fiction) | ||
| Pete |
Dear Mr. Mark, Frankly, I'm not interested in the least in your relationships, nor could I ever be jealous of you. My observations were based on the fact that you regularly refer to your relationship to an x-band member, and have used it justify your opinions. I quoted you just to highlight what I take to be your arrogance and condescension towards others on this board. If you wish nobody to take an interest in your relationship, then shut up about it. There was nothing in my message to suggest I wanted to hurt anybody, though if you regularly act like a prick you should expect someone to pick you up on it. I have never had contact with you by email on any subject, not do I ever wish to (though, I can see why you might attract conspiracy theorists). I've generally posted my email address with every mail I put here, but you can choose to suspect what you wish. I do think it's nice that you have a whole thread to yourself now. I'm sure it's what you always wanted. Pete | ||
| Anonymous |
Did the Go-Betweens and the Fall ever play on the same bill? | ||
| Mark Ilsley |
Pete: You really are beginning to resemble the unwashed excretory opening at the end of a alimentary canal. You just finished expressing an interest in my "belief in a special relationship" and then you immediately come back with a statement like "I'm not interested in the least in your relationships" When, quite clearly, the interest that you expressed in my relationship was a hypothesis, re: "I think also it may explain why he continues to sabotage this board with his truculent, bullying and obtuse messages." You can't have it both ways. You challenged my belief in a relationship and then after I disclosed the foundation for that belief, you seek to make believe that you never expressed an interest in it. Bullshit!!! It is a seriously a contorted character that can do a complete about face in back-to-back statements. I do not use my relationship in order to justify my opinions. I use my relationship in order to further my understandings and that is a perfectly legitimate use of our relationship. Most of us are here to further our understanding, some of us are here support a penculinary interest. Your speciality trick is the out-of-context misuse of a quote in the mistaken belief that you have the power to get away with it. There was hurt in your first message on this thread. You sort to characterise my motivations as sabotage of this board and that hurt was squarely directed at me. My motivation for patronising this board has always been to further my understanding and share those understandings with others and expose them to open debate and legitimate criticism. I do not express a reluctance to consider "other people's" opinions, but I withhold my approval of them when appropriate and I express no wish to pay for them. Period. If you want to "pick me up on" my attitude on this messageboard, you will find me more than adequately up to the task of defending it. When the time comes for you to defend yours, we will see what you are made of. I say it is piss. | ||
| Berry |
quoting the MARK: "My motivation for patronising this board has always been to further my understanding and share those understandings with others and expose them to open debate and legitimate criticism." "The only "insider knowledge" I have ever spoken of on this messageboard is that which the sad wanker claims to have had on the death of David McComb. He is mistaken and misleading. There was no coroner's enquiry into his death, as he once first claimed. " Mark, if you have the sense to marry your above two pronouncements together you will shut up about David McComb, because the more you say on THAT matter the more of an Ignorant Tosser you show yourself to be.(as if we don't know that anyway) You obviously don't read the West Australian newspaper because in Feb 2000 it carried a piece on the coroner's * finding * into the death of David McComb, which you can see here: http://tinyurl.com/4znv4 | ||
| Mark Ilsley |
I've never heard of any such enquiry before. Clearly he did not die of a Heroin overdose. Not unless they have resumed a practice of injecting Heroin into hart transplant recipients in WA hospitals! I am checking the relevant sources. | ||
| Mark Ilsley |
Oh, now I get it. ..It's * smart arse * time.  A "coronial investigation" is not an inquest or a formal enquiry, it is an autopsy. Under Victorian Law David's death was a Reportable death simply because he died unexpectedly or because he died from an accident or injury. The "toxicological analysis" detected morphine, not heroin. The morphine was probably administered as an anaesthetic during his stay in the St Vincents Hospital a few days earlier and after a car accident left him with minor injuries. "Heroin Toxicity" may occur due to the depressant action of morphine. His body rejected his hart. The "investigation" (or autopsy) leads to an assessment by the coroner (or finding, if you want) before deciding whether an inquest will be held. There was no inquest hearing into the death of David McComb because the Coroner made a findings in chambers that his death was not suspicious. An autopsy was performed on the body of David McComb after his death because it was required by Victorian law and no suspsious circumstances where found and no further enquiry was made. Erm ..so what? You have a conspiracy theory based on a delusion. | ||
| Mark Ilsley |
Oooh, I just worked out who our Sad Wanker is! What a surprise, we seemed to be getting along so well. Still, some people are gutless little critters aren't they? | ||
| Mark Ilsley |
Hey Sad Wanker; Red Pony. You've been asked before not to dwell on this subject, and by someone who you know suffers an emotional hardship everytime you force him to deal with your dirt digging<=his words. Now, you know who this person is and I know who you are. You choose. Choose wisely. | ||
| todd slater |
Seriously though all this bullshit about Dave McComb is really fucked. The guy was a great loss to music, thankfully he left behind a great cannon of songs. If you take the time to read In the Lair of the Red Pony it's pretty obvious that (name removed for legal reasons - admin) had a hand in Dave McComb's death. I don't know (name removed for legal reasons - admin) but his behaviour toward Dave McComb in his final days really does leave a lot to be desired and highlights just what a tragedy the whole episode was. On another note,to the guy above,mate i'm really jack of logging into this site to see umpteen posts of basically bullshit. Usually all yours. This forum was really entertaining and informative for quite a while until you started polluting it with nonsensical prolixity.If you must partake can you please post something that actually promotes informed and interesting discussion. | ||
| Berry |
OK apologies to Todd Slater.. .I am sorry , I did try and take my issues with this guy offline into a private realm of email but he prefers to keeep it here, so I must respond here...sorry  MI: >"I've never heard of any such enquiry before." So what? because *you * haven't heard of something means...?? MI: > "Clearly he did not die of a Heroin overdose. " Heroin toxicity. Semantics, really. And in this case possibly a mixture of heroin and methadone toxicity- according to the pathologist. But stick to your "line" if it makes you feel better. "Hart (sic) failure" wasn't it? MI: >"Not unless they have resumed a practice of >injecting Heroin into hart transplant recipients >in WA hospitals! " meaning?. David McComb was nowhere near a WA hostpital any time before he died in Melbourne. Nor was his death as a result of anything that happened to him in St Vincents Hospital Melbourne. He left hospital sunday, he died tuesday. MI: >"A "coronial investigation" is not an inquest or >a formal enquiry, it is an autopsy. " Wrong again Ilsley. an autopsy is but one component of an "investigation" which in this case included police questioning and taking statements from (most) relevant witnesses etc, and in this case, this took ALL of 1999. (the actual quality of this investigation is another matter) MI: >"The "toxicological analysis" detected morphine, >not heroin. The morphine was probably >administered as an anaesthetic during his stay >in the St Vincents Hospital a few days earlier >and after a car accident left him with minor >injuries." Probably schmobably pfffft Morphine occurs as a metabolic breakdown of heroin and other substances. It does not mean he had morphine administered to him in hospital at all. As the police and the coroner never actually bothered to obtain the hospital admission records they did not reach your conclusion. Nobody - except you, now,- has put the drug toxicity *probably* down to hospital stay: they put it down to use of drugs including heroin at David's home, as I do.. St Vincent's are in the clear. So much for your theory... about as reliable as "he was on his third hart"- again from you. as for MI: >"You've been asked before not to dwell on this >subject, and by someone who you know suffers an >emotional hardship everytime you force him to >deal with your dirt digging"and I know who you are. " am I supposed to be scared you'll 'out' me or something ? MI: >You choose. Choose wisely. and WHAT exactly does this mean?. sounds ominous.. oh I see, it's meant to .. pity it is right over my head, big guy. | ||
| Mark Ilsley |
Todd: I am not the purveyor of this morbid fascination of David's death. Red Pony has been asked before by someone who was very close to David McComb to stop this muckraking over the details of David's death. It has caused him some amount of distress each time he has had to deal with Red Pony's consipicy theories in the past. He has been mercifully quiet for a while now, but it now appears he wishes to use this messageboard as a platform for further purveying his consipicy theories. Reguarding the lairoftheredpony website. It is with some incredulity that I find it nessecary to remind you that just because someone creates a website, claiming to faithfully reproduce documents, does not make that so. We only have his word that he has done so. There is always resonable ground for suspecting document tampering when the source consistently and persistently refuses to identify themself. Re: Your reference to Will Akers. There are conflicting views on that matter, nothing is pretty obvious. Also he is not the one who is expressing strong disapproval of the lairs muckraking. He (the person I alluded to) is reading this thread and it does cause him some discomfort to have to deal with this matter once again. Re: Your opinion of me. I care not what you think of me. You aren't important to me. | ||
| Mark Ilsley |
Dear Sad Wanker: You have a morbid fasination about something that you know is causing a close friend of David's a great deal of distress. I guess it is a power trip; that you know you can hurt this person by your persistentance. I'm going to award you the thrill of knowing that you correctly identified that person in your last email to my personal address. I have blocked that email address as well. Please do not continue to send me your spam. The fact of the matter is that no heroin was found in the body of David McComb at the time of his death, no suspicious circumstances where found by the coroner and most importantly no coroner's inquest was ever heard, as you once claimed. The morphine may have been derived from heroin, as the coroner alluded to in his finding, but he did not consider the circumstances warranted further enquiry. So tell me, Mr "X", what is the purpose of all the efforts you have gone to. Have you some conspiricy theory that the coroner just failed to see? | ||
| cam |
i hope that sees an end to that horrible thread. | ||
| Berry |
Yep Too right. Let's give Herr Ilsley the last word. I am happy to let his continued inaccurate crap stand further uncorrected. | ||
| Berry |
PS. I would like to point out finally that I did not bring up this issue initially on these boards, someone else did. Ilsey jumped in with his superior knowledge and I made the mistake of - offline - trying to set him straight. I landed on the thread during a a Google search to check up on the progress of the BB book. Apologies to everyone else here except Ilsley. | ||
| Mark Ilsley |
Promises, promises.. I'll tell you some plain truths about yourself. You have an unnatural obsession about the details of a death. It probably wouldn't matter who's death, always provided you could use that death to cause someone else some pain. It is the reciept of that pain that you need your target to acknowledge. Probably you need this acknowledgement because you were once hurt yourself when others were able to protect themselves from a guilt that you yourself were unable to defend. So, you need others to acknowledge their pain so that you can affirm in your own mind their guilt and so alleviate your own. Simple really, when you understand it. You may well have obtained the documents that you claim to have, but that fact alone leads me to the believe that you obtained them in an attempt to find evidence that implicated others in the death of David McComb. That is the recurring theme of your allusions. Lastly. I can not be forced to respond to abusive Email. I block it. In extreme cases, I report it. | ||
| Pete |
Mark, this thread is beginning to read like the diary of a madman. Can't you just leave it alone? | ||
| Mark Ilsley |
Gee Pete; your questions pierce through the midst of my armour and go straight for the hart. If all else fails, considered a career as a rock-journo, where you may stand amongst your peers as an intelectual giant. I mean, Duh! Since I was made the subject of this invective discourse, I would be dismissive of myself if I left it alone. I can go the distance. It is not the least of hardships for me to talk about myself. Nor should it be for anybody else. Bring it on. | ||
| lindy |
mark. 1. when you find yourself in a hole the first thing to do is stop digging. 2. amateur psychology never helps anyone and usually reveals more about the person giving the advice than its intended target. | ||
| lindy |
mark. 1. when you find yourself in a hole the first thing to do is stop digging. 2. amateur psychology never helps anyone and usually reveals more about the person giving the advice than its intended target. | ||
| Mark Ilsley |
I say that anybody who is subjected to this sort of treatment on this messageboard has the right to final reply. I say this because only they can be the acknowledged expert on the topic of their discourse, ipso facto. Also, you are not she. | ||
| eric |
looks like the first person to dish out "treatment" was you on this thread Mark plus your logic is wrong... on a messageboard, if one poster acts like a dumbo, the acknowledged experts are everyone who reads it the last person who can be considered an expert is the dumbo so, essentially and potentially, it is you against the world mate lucky you've already got a persecution complex so you know what to expect | ||
| Mark Ilsley |
Eric: Don't be obtuse. Conor made my character the subject of this conversation and then made several false claims about the nature of my relationship with an x-band member. Both claims are contortions. We are friends. I do not and did not describe our relationship as special and I do not use our friendship to gain insider knowledge of The Go-Betweens. We don't even discuss the current band, therefore it is not insider knowledge. She is not inside the band. I mean, DUH! So, don't be calling me your "mate." You ain't strong enough to go the distance. | ||
| Pete |
Mr Mark, Since you insist on digging, I'll grab a shovel and lend a hand.... I can only assume you are embarrased by your earlier posts since you seem to be backing away from your earlier stance whilst attempting to smear the integrity of the person who started this thread. (He's not coming back, so why not, eh?) As I wrote earlier in this thread, you have referred to your relationship to Lindy as one in which she continues in your "patronage". Overlooking the ambiguities in the expression, I assume that you mean that you consider Lindy to be your patron. This is little more than ordinary friendship or mateship. How many of your mates down at the St James Hotel do you refer to as your patron? As I suggested earlier, such a relationship could fairly be called rather special. As far as refuting your claim not to have access to information not available to ordinary Go-Betweens fans (i.e. Insider information) I simply quote you again and let others make up their minds: "Why should I want to read second hand opionions(sic) when I have a credible first-hand source available to me." So how deep would you like this hole, Mate? (I know, I know - 'bring it on','you ain't strong enough to go the distance', etc, etc, ad infinitum) Pete | ||
| eric |
So, don't be calling me your "mate." You ain't strong enough to go the distance. thanks for the warning, I am sure being your mate would indeed be a particularly gruelling experience I think attacking Conor is rather unfair. Clearly, the sense of the post is..."Mark Isley often referes to a Go-betweens connected friend, but he seems to be a spikey, truculant individual, so I will ask if anyone knows who the friend is" On a Go-Betweens messageboard for fans, someone knowing an ex-member of the band is quite exciting. But you just use it to rhetorically bolster yourself... why not shut up about it or just tell us if she's a good laugh? this place be for fans Mark, not aggressively name dropping gloaters. why aggressive? because you use her name against people rather than share your experience. It's a shoddy way to act. | ||
| Mark Ilsley |
Pete: Your position is baseless and you have absolutely no ground to be characterising a relationship that you know nothing about. But then, that fact alone has never stoped you before, has it? So, I will outline our relationship: I receive her support and encouragement for my cause and she receives mine. Specifically, I am a life member and financial supporter of S.A.L and she is currently patronizing my proposal before the Board of Directors of S.A.L to co-ordinate their fund raising efforts with my support and associatioion with The Wangaratta Jazz Festival. So, as you can see, your attempts to characterise a relationship, about which you know nothing of, is now officially fucked. I do not and have not ever sought to distance myself from my earlier descriptions of our relationship, nor are we embarrassed by them. She also helps me with my lyrical understandings, and she did so before her patronage of my proposal was won. Right at this very moment in time we are having a detailed discussion of my understanding of TMOOT. When we have reached a consensus of our understandings I will be writing a (self-edited) understanding, for this messageboard, with the appropriate attributions. That is an entirely ordinary basis for a friendship. Is that clear, dweeb? | ||
| Mark Ilsley |
Eric: why do your meanderings remind me of the whining overtones from some failed rock-jorno wannabe, in the process of being scooped by someone who he would have formerly held to be beneath his contempt? Clearly, it is because Conor used the device of an out-of-context misuse of a quotation to characterise a relationship about which he knew nothing about and because you now seek to find fault with my reaction to his characterisation of my relationship in the mistaken belief that he (or you) has the power to get away with it. You do not. The friend in question is happy with my conduct on this board. She knows I have never used her name against anyone and she knows that I share her experience with others on this very messageboard and that I can produce at least a dozen examples of that practice, with her approval. We aren't in hiding. You are. | ||
| Pete |
Mr Mark, Your dishonesty would be astounding if we hadn't seen it all before. You have used your relationship of 'patronage' to in an attempt to boost your own standing on this board on many an occasion. Let’s look at the example which we are discussing. (I don't agree that it is not a fit subject for discussion since you have name-dropped this relationship on so many occasions). Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 03:54 pm: (what is now the 'Use the Lyric board' thread) "I get assistance and/or confirmations in my understandings from an x-band member who graciously continues in my patronage. Most of these attacks are motivated by jealousy. Some no doubt feel that I am genuinely underserving (sic) of her friendship. Some people dislike me because I've smacked their crack on occasions. Some people dislike me because I can be controversial. Some people dislike me because I can be crude. Some people will dislike me no matter what I do." The 'patronage' revelation came out of here blue here. There was no mention of S.A.L (which has been mentioned on this board before), The Wangaratta Jazz Festival or the nature of the patronage. You clearly wanted others to know about a relationship so that your point of view would be legitimized. You were suggesting that the reason people attack you on this board is because of jealousy over this relationship. Yet, in the context of the argument that was going on at the time, no mention had been made of this relationship, nor has anybody ever commented on it although you regularly mention it in your posts. You were being criticised for your usual boorish behaviour and you chose to defend yourself by saying essentially "Hey, you guys are jealous because I have a rather special relationship with an x-member of the Go-Betweens}" (Mark - the words in quotes represent a summarizing voice). Let’s cut to the chase here, Mark. I don't care who you have a friendship/relationship/patronage arrangement with. Though it is obvious to readers of this message board that you feel we should know about it. Ok, now we know. But I am judging you by what you write here and not whom you know and it does not paint a pretty picture. I continue to write here because I'm tired at reading your bullying, churlish comments and your dishonest attempts at self aggrandizement whenever you are criticized. Lindy Morrison seems like a smart, funny woman. I'm sure she doesn't need anybody as a mouth piece, particularly somebody who has alienated so many people on this message board. I would look with scepticism at whatever you post in her and your name. Actually, I'm tired of this thread too. I'm going to find a copy of Peter Carey's short stories and retire from this place for a while. Pete | ||
| eric |
"Eric: why do your meanderings remind me of the whining overtones from some failed rock-jorno wannabe, in the process of being scooped by someone who he would have formerly held to be beneath his contempt?" This is very strange and makes no sense to me. As for the rest of it... seems pretty much your standard Isley. I was defending the guy who started the thread, Mark. | ||
| Mark Ilsley |
Pete: You choose to run away now, just as you have choosen to do, on every other occasion in the past, after conducting attacks on my character and as soon as it becomes evident that your attack has or will fail. On this very thread alone you have accused me of: a) A belief in a "special relationship" or "insider knowledge". Wrong. I have never described my relationship as special, or claimed to be in possesion of insider knowledge. You are vigilant of and are inclined to dictate the terms of a relationship in which you can not participate. That is jealousy. Jealousy is not only a feeling, it is also the zealous vigilance of a relationship in which you can not participate. b) Sabotaging this board. Wrong. If my motivations were sabotage, I would be using an alias to draw attention from legitimate debate by attacking the character of contributors and thus turn the debate away from its intended purpose. That would be effective sabotage. I do not sabotage this board in defence of my character. Anybody who is subjected to this sort invective discourse has the right to reply. I am not sorry to disappoint those who believe they can besmirch me with their deception. I have boundless energies for my personage. I have resources and capabilities beyond your reach. c) Believing that other people's opinions are "quite obviously unimportant or wrong, because Mr Ilsley believes he has the inside track." Wrong. I do not express a reluctance to consider "other people's" opinions. d) To have used used my relationship "to" an x-band member to justify my opinions. Wrong. I use our relationship to further my own understanding and share those understandings with others and expose them to open debate and legitimate criticism. I have never claimed to have a relationship "to" anybody. I have a friendship "with" her. e) Having arrogance and condescension towards others on this board. Wrong. I carry myself with pride and distinction. You won't diminish my self-esteem by making attacks on my character. I have a right to both my self-esteem and my distinction. f) Appearing "embarrased by [my] earlier posts" and "backing away from your earlier stance whilst attempting to smear the integrity of the person who started this thread." Wrong. I do not and have not ever sought to distance myself from my earlier descriptions of our relationship, nor are we embarrassed by them. g) Having "a relationship [that] could fairly be called rather special." You have no knowledge of our relationship beyond what I have told you on this messageboard. I have never described our relationship as "special." I have never made any statement of the personal details of our discourse. Not anywhere. Period. f) Dishonesty. What, compared to your track record? Clearly, you brought into doubt the accuracy of my description of our relationship (patronage) and then sort to characterise our relationship with your own description (special). On the face of it, that was dishonest, because you attempted to demonstrate a superior knowledge of a relationship in which you have no involvement. Not only dishonest, it is also prima facie arrogance and conceited of you to draw such conclusions about a relationship in which you have no involvement. I can be dishonest, when need dictates, but I am not dishonest within my friendships. I know I can't trust you. g) Of "clearly want[ing] others to know about a relationship so that your point of view would be legitimized" Wrong. I am proud of my friendships. I am in the habit of consulting my friends when forming opinions, but I do not present my opionions as theirs or their opinions as mine. Therefore, I can not legitimize my opinions with theirs. I have always distinguished in who's opinion I present. When it is the opinion of a friend, I have said so. All this is completely normal and correct. h) To have "used your relationship of 'patronage' to in an attempt to boost your own standing on this board on many an occasion." Wrong. I benefit from the experiance of her friendship. So what. Jealous are we? I don't have a "standing on this board", as you put it. I'm here to enjoy myself and kicking your phoney arse week-in, week-out is certainly very enjoyable. i) "dishonest attempts at self aggrandizement whenever you are criticized." The major focus of your activities is now focused on attacking me with your criticisms. Indeed, it appears to be the major focus of this messageboard. So "whenever you are criticized" should now read "all the time". If I benefit, by growing stonger with each criticism, then good for me. I'm not going to shrink away from this fight. It is you who makes me stronger. j) "alienated so many people on this message board" Pete; Booby! When people attack me on this messageboard they have generally been defeated. You know, the really funny thing is, that after they have been defeated, they all sound like you! | ||
| Mark Ilsley |
Eric: You were defending the guy who called into question my character when he started this thread. Don't pretend you were doing anything else. This is so fucking pathetic. Were is Mr. Potatohead when you need him. | ||
| Pete |
Not defeated, you silly little man, just bored with jousting with an imbecile. Pete | ||
| Mark Ilsley |
This is jousting? You qualified as a minor irritant. | ||
| Pete |
Really? Because for a minor irritant you became quite incoherent several times during this thread. I must say I'm thankful to the contributor who started this thread by asking the question "Who is this Ilsley character?" I feel you have answered that question sufficiently well in your posts here. I think people can easily make up their minds on the question by reading your posts. There will probably be other "minor irritants" (i.e. people who question you or criticize you) on this board in the future. Let this thread (and perhaps the 'This board rocks' thread) stand as a type of FAQ on the Ilsley character. Now Peter Carey is calling, and he writes so much better than you. Pete | ||
| Mark Ilsley |
Oh, really! You going to (sic) my typos again prat? | ||
| eric |
I have already said I don't believe he was "calling your character into question". Have a look back. If you do continue to believe this thread was initially an attack, terrific. Another tick in the persecution complex column. Other people subsequently did attack you, but only after you attacked Conor. Perhaps you were getting confused. I agree with Pete actually, the entire story of Mark Isley is more than adequately dealt with here. Enjoy yourself Mark | ||
| Mark Ilsley |
LOL, you are totally incredible, Eric. What is the subject of this invective discourse? To even suggest that it was created for any purpose less than to bring my character into question is to obfuscate the facts. You really need to work on your comprehension. It is the weakest part of your understanding. | ||
| a Lurker |
Pete said: "I must say I'm thankful to the contributor who started this thread by asking the question "Who is this Ilsley character?" I feel you have answered that question sufficiently well in your posts here. I think people can easily make up their minds on the question by reading your posts." LOL the irony is immaculate, isn't it? But I'll hazard a guess that Mark's sense of irony is on a par with his sense of humour | ||
| eric |
I think I've got a pretty good handle on things here Mark I'm a little worried about your comprehension though, since you bring it up. that said I can't tell you what to believe or how to read other people's words... if you were a fair dealer, neither would you By the way, would you care to explain the rock journo quote because that part, it's true, I really don't understand? I am going to ask you to explain that from now on... just to see if you can respond to a question without calling the question into question | ||
| Mark Ilsley |
On Tuesday, July 27: Conor initiated a converstation by asking "Who is this Ilsley Character?" On Sunday, August 08 at 11:58 am: Eric characterises his earlyer replies on that thread as "defending the guy who started the thread." On that same date and barely 5 hours later at 05:11 pm: Eric has lost the plot and states: I don't believe he was "calling your character into question". Not realizing his predicament until Monday, August 09 at 10:32 am: the exceptionally slow witted Eric trys to extricate himself from his predicament by explaining "I can't tell you what to believe or how to read other people's words" ..and then attempts to cover these tracks by opening his anus and threating to crawl up his own arse. Fucking Shazam!!! ..this should be entertaining. | ||
| Eric |
By eric on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 11:23 pm: I think attacking Conor is rather unfair. Clearly, the sense of the post is..."Mark Isley often referes to a Go-betweens connected friend, but he seems to be a spikey, truculant individual, so I will ask if anyone knows who the friend is" I disagree with your interpretation of the first post. How much clearer can I be? The only point in which he called your character into question was by asking who you were? Again, patently, this is asking people if you are connected with the band in some way. if you remember Mark, you made the first of many mistakes by assuming Conor was Berry and attacking him as such. COnor said: "I have no idea who you are. I've just been looking at this message board for the last few days, and seen lots of angry messages concerning you. I was curious, that's all." Now, again, I cannot make you accept my reading of this but there you go. I was defending Conor on those grounds, as I have already outlined much to your chagrin. What about the rock journo quote though? I thought it quite amusing in your last post that you referred to it but again refused to explain it. | ||
| Eric |
by the way Mark there's no need to abuseme so crudely. I am trying to help your understanding. | ||
| Mark Ilsley |
Ok. That's tucked the Relos away for the night. Back to business. Eric: I really find it difficult to believe that anybody can be as dumb as you claim to be. The words Conor used were: why does he keep alluding to his "special relationship" or "insider knowledge" of The Go-Betweens? (my quotes) However, I have never described the relationship or the knowledge in that way. Therefore, I can't allude to descriptions or statements that I never made in the first place in relation to the relationship or the passage of knowledge. The relationship is not special. It is a friendship. The relationship does not involve the passage of insider knowledge. She is not inside the band. Conor's description is a fabrication in that he sought to disguise his characterizations as my own by using words to describe that relationship which I used in another context, then putting those words into quotes. It does not matter that he described them as "my quotes" because the are always the quotes of the author (Conor, in this case) when he wishes to repeat or copy the words of another. You can't put something in quotes and then subsequently claim "I WASN'T quoting you." He sort to characterize a relationship about which he knows nothing about, other than what I have told him on this messageboard and he misused quotations in that endeavor. Eric: "I disagree with your interpretation of the first post. How much clearer can I be?" Who gives a fuck what you think, it has nothing to do with you. Eric: "The only point in which he called your character into question was by asking who you were?" The point at which he called my character into question was when he initiated a conversation making my character the subject of this discourse. Don't now pretend it was anything else, you pathetic little whimp. Eric: "if you remember Mark, you made the first of many mistakes by assuming Conor was Berry and attacking him as such." The first mistake I made was not pissing in your ear the moment I first clapped my eyes on you. They both can be sad wankers, DUH! They may even be the same sad wanker. Eric: "I was defending Conor on those grounds, as I have already outlined much to your chagrin." Liar. Your first post in this forum and on this thread was an attack squarely directed at me. You then sort to justify your further attacks on me in defence of Conor. Eric: "What about the rock journo quote though? I thought it quite amusing in your last post that you referred to it but again refused to explain it." That would be: "failed rock-jorno wannabe." You haven't earned my explaination or respect. Please quote me more accurately. | ||
| Eric |
"Who gives a fuck what you think, it has nothing to do with you." Why bother to explain at such length then? I have a feeling the increase in name-calling is directly proportionate to how rattled you feel by my calm insight. It can be plotted on a graph in a similar way to how the more fundementally ignorant you are, the more you choose to use this faux logic of yours. You use it a lot I notice and I think you are actually a rather limited individual. I am sorry to say that, but there can be no other conclusion. Anyway, this failed rock-journo thing, can you please explain it, because it makes very little sense? To use your own quotation rules, I didn't "quote" you, accurately or inaccurately in my second post which referred to it. (no quotation marks Mark) The first post, which you ignored, quoted you in full. I used the appropriate symbols then. Check back, you have made another mistake. Please do explain it though because I think it will be crucial to the overall understanding. You have a duty to make your posts intelligible Mark. | ||
| Conor |
I'm the person who started this thread. I can't believe that it is still alive after all this time. I don't wish to become involved in this dispute though I think I should add some clarification since my name is being used here. I did not mean to quote Mark Ilsley verbatim. Perhaps I should not have used quotation marks at all. However, I did include a phrase which I thought would make this understood - 'my quotes' After you abused me, Mark, I sought to diffuse the situation by explaining why I had asked the board about you, and clarifying that I WAS NOT quoting you but attempting to summarise your position. It was not my intention negatively question your character but simply to ask about a person that appeared to generate so much attention in the Go-Betweens chat room. I don't read the board very often and I presumed I had missed something. I hope this makes the situation clear and may diffuse some of the anger here. ps. I am not 'berry'. I am writing under my own name. I wont be replying to any messages addressed to me on this subject | ||
| Mark Ilsley |
Eric: "Why bother to explain at such length then?" Because I suffer no hardship in refuting allegations like the ones you have just made. For example: "because you use her name against people rather than share your experience." Liar. When I feel so inclined, I write to her asking if she knows such-and-such and who it is for. Usually, because I find the subject matter is interesting to me. If she feels able to do so, she replies and I forward her replies faithfully. I can't be any clearer than that. Eric: "I have a feeling the increase in name-calling is directly proportionate to how rattled you feel by my calm insight." I didn't think dogshit possessed any insight! Does it? Dogshit is incapable of discernment or good judgment. Dogshit merely follows the crowd, clinging like a bad smell and passing off second-hand opinions as genuine passion. Eric: "It can be plotted on a graph in a similar way to how the more fundementally ignorant you are, the more you choose to use this faux logic of yours." I really don't care how you plot, you won't shake us from our faith in each other. Eric: "You use it a lot I notice and I think you are actually a rather limited individual. I am sorry to say that, but there can be no other conclusion." Oh? ..so you are really "sorry to say" that huh? I can't pursue my interests on this messageboard whilst you continue your attacks on my character becasue of a lack of time, not because of a lack of character. Thankfully, I'm in no rush. I have no time limit nor lack of energy for my personage and nothing that you can take from me. Re: Your allusion to your own prior quotation of my "failed rock-jorno wannabe" observation. I found your allusion ("failed rock-journo thing") an insufficient indirect reference. Get it right, wannabe. | ||
| malkovich |
Mark Ilsley wrote: "When I feel so inclined, I write to her asking if she knows such-and-such and who it is for. …If she feels able to do so, she replies and I forward her replies faithfully” So we should consider you to be our conduit to the views of Lindy Morrison? (If we are nice to you, of course!) Thank you, Mark, for this wonderful service. You are such a selfless individual and the board is definitely better place with you on it. Perhaps, a movie could be made based on your experiences. We could call it Being Lindy Morrison ? Do you get dumped on the side of a highway after each visitation? | ||
| Mark Ilsley |
Conor: Well, your summary of my position was; a) Wrong. b) Deliberately misleading. If you don't mean to appear to be quoting me, then don't put my words into quotes. c) Intentionally destructive of my friendship. d) a failure. You say "I don't read the board very often and I presumed I had missed something." So your position must be that you just happened to repeat my words by chance (when making your summary) and that you only appeared to be quoting me when you exactly enclosed those words in quotation marks. Fuck, do you do conjuring tricks as well! You have the gall to come in here and bring my character into question by making my character the subject of this invective discourse and then seeking to characterise a relationship, about which you; a) have claimed to know nothing about, b) misused TWO quotations of mine to describe that relationship out-of-context, c) put my words into your quotation marks, d) then "suggest that [you] WASN'T quoting [me], just summarising" and then offer the explaination: "It was not my intention negatively question your character". Nope, I Don't believe you. Your explanation is implausible and you have not offered me your apology for; a) quoting me out of context OR b) attempting to summarise my position whilst appearing to quote me. Simple. You owe me an apology which ever way you would like to cut it. | ||
| Mark Ilsley |
Malkovich: "So we should consider you to be our conduit to the views of Lindy Morrison?" Nope, you can write to her as well. She decides who she replies to and who she does not. I don't decide that. Good luck. Yes, you should be nice to me, at all times. Malkovich: "Perhaps, a movie could be made based on your experiences. We could call it Being Lindy Morrison ?" Well, then it wouldn't be based on her experiences, would it. I benefit from her experience. We could call that movie: Being Mark Ilsley. Malkovich: "Do you get dumped on the side of a highway after each visitation?" Nope, she nurtures our friendship. She sometimes initiates our discourse. We give to each other. It's a normal friendship. | ||
| malkovich |
So Lindy is a kind of conduit to the world of Mark Ilsley? Maybe she could post your views here? I wonder does she get dumped on the side of a highway after each visitation? Do you think the Go-Betweens could feature in the soundtrack to "Being Mark ilsley"? So many questions. | ||
| Mark Ilsley |
No, Melovich. It's a normal friendship. Mostly we talk about issues not related to this messageboard. Sometimes I see something that interests me on this messageboard, so I ask her. She replies with the information to the extent that she thinks it is appropriate for her to do so. | ||
| bradders |
I wish some people would realise that 'discretion is the better part of valour'. (And I'm sure you can work out for yourselves who I mean.) This thread really has plumbed the depths and made itself most definitely worthy of being in The Playpen. You may have noticed that many familiar names have posted here less and less in recent months. I can't speak for them but to read such unnecessarily vitriolic words being spat in all directions makes me feel both uncomfortable and disappointed. Thanks for taking away from me the enjoyment of communicating with what I thought were like-minded people. | ||
| malkovich |
Ok, thank you. Its just that I once had a bad experience with conduits. Oh - Its Malkovich actually. On the "Being Mark Ilsley" movie, have you considered an actor for the lead role ? I'd be interested to know which Go-Betweens tunes you might consider in the sound track? Who is this bradders person? | ||
| Mark Ilsley |
Well, you can't blame me, Braddels. I have a valid interest in my good character and I will defend it. This thread was designed to create a conflict of interest (mine v's my friends) and so endanger our friendship. It failed and will continue to fail. | ||
| Mark Ilsley |
I'll get back to you Mal. | ||
| malkovich |
ok. Its Malkovich, thank you. ps: Are you going to the portal tonight? | ||
| Eric |
that rock journo thing Mark, it is such a baffling thing to say, I wonder what did you mean by it? | ||
| Pete |
Mack, The terms "special relationship" and "insider knowledge" are in common currency and are not exclusive to your usage. They are not your words as you put it. Any reasonable person can see that Conor was not quoting you, but summarising you (That's perfectly understandable since you are an excessively long winded individual). The guy has even tried twice to put you straight on it. I don't think he has anything to apologise for either. I think he accurately summarises what you have been blowing about for a long time on this message board: a relationship/friendship which gives you access to privileged information. I quote you for the third time: "Why should I want to read second hand opionions when I have a credible first-hand source available to me?" Why not cut your losses and apologise to Conor and others here whom you have abused? Finally, don't bore the fine people in Go-Betweens land with another long, foul-mouthed reply to me - send it an email. You have my email address. I can handle it. Pete | ||
| Eric |
Pete/Mark I would like to see this reply. This is a segregeated area so no-one would be harmed. I am extremely worried about Mark's state of mind. Quite apart from the lunacy he is so eager to display here... he likes JAZZ (urgh). That's ignoring the Crown Green Bowls By the way Mark, what about that rock journo thing? What's that all about? | ||
| malkovich |
I don't think you really are worried about Mark's state of mind, Eric. If you were you would leave him alone about that rock journo thing. That's not important. Don't you know that going through the portal is very, very difficult. He doesn' get dumped on the side of a highway, but who knows where he ends up. Maybe somewhere worse Then he has to come home and read these cheap insults. Its too just too much. | ||
| malkovich |
Pete, you know nothing. | ||
| Mark Ilsley |
Mal: No, no passage through the portal involved. (although it is an amusing euphemism.) I don't have to come here. I don't have to read anything. I do it because I gain from doing so. | ||
| Anonymous |
What does anybody gain out of this? I guess we just can't help gawping at car accidents. This conversation is the longest car accident I've ever gawped at. I disturb myself at returning to it. | ||
| Mark Ilsley |
Pete: Your proposition is infantile. When people say "my words" they simply mean words that they have used before not words that they own or have exclusive rights to. Any reasonable person can see that Conor may have attempted to summarise my position whilst appearing to quote me. That would be deliberately misleading. If he wasn't meaning to quote me, then he shouldn't be repeating my words in quotes when trying to summarise my position. The only other alternative being that he was actually quoting me. In which case the quote was out of context. You also ignore the fact that, by his own interpretation, he was attempting to "summarising what appeared to be [my] position" in a relationship, in which he has no involvement. That is an extremely presumptuous thing for anybody to attempt. | ||
| Pete |
It would be presumpuous, Mark, if he intruded upon a private relationship. However, you had repeatedly drawn attention to this relationship in a public forum, and done so in an ambiguous way (the 'patronage' remark). Of course, he interpreted - everybody interprets. Just because his interpretation didn't match your intention doesn't make him presumptuous. We're using language after all. Contrary opinions will always arise because of the ambiguities of language. | ||
| Mark Ilsley |
Eric: My state of mind is euphoric, so you can put aside your concerns. This conversation is propelling our friendship. I find that friendship very rewarding. The sport I play is known as Lawn Bowls, world-wide. Crown Green Bowls is a little played variant. I love good Jazz. Like all other forms of music, there is both good and bad. That would be: "failed rock-jorno wannabe." You still haven't earned my explaination or respect. I hadn't realized until only just now that your research skills must also be below par. | ||
| andrew stafford |
Gobble. Gobble. Gobble. | ||
| Mark Ilsley |
No Peter. It is presumptuous when someone tries to summarise my position in a friendship in which they do not and can not participate. That is; they presume my position. It is the result of the zealous vigilance of that friendship, in which they can not participate. That is also jealousy. | ||
| Mark Ilsley |
Also, Pete. When I use a word, you can assume that the primary substantive meaning applies, unless I indicate otherwise. | ||
| Mark Ilsley |
Also, Pete. What he actually did was, he sort to misrepresent my position within a friendship by appearing to quote me. The misrepresentation could have been the result of a misinterpretation, in which case I would subscribe to the view that it is always the responsibility of the author to get his(her) interpretations correct before making such representations. See, it's easy when you try. | ||
| Anonymous |
Sought. God give me strength! If you're going to inflict your pseudo intellectual ramblings on us then at least spell them correctly. | ||
| Pete |
Well, this comes right back to the 'unifying theory ' you proposed in another thread which seems to deny the reader an interpretive role, but sees him as a type of riddle solver. If the riddle can't be solved then the author is at fault because he wasn't clear enough. Its a very shallow way to view communication, particularly creative commnunication. Utterly outdated, I would say. It really reveals you as a power freak: You must control every word and utterance. Anyone misinterpreting your intentions gets serious heat from you. Haven't you heard authors or songwriters taking about how their compositions 'live' or have a seperate lives outside them? Once they release them into the world they no longer have any control over what people do with them or how they interpret them. (I'm using this as an example. I'm not putting your writing in the same category ) | ||
| Eric |
Crown Green Bowls is not a little played variant in the UK Mark Please consult: http://www.bowls.org/ ------------------------------------------------- By eric on Sunday, August 08, 2004 - 11:58 am: "Eric: why do your meanderings remind me of the whining overtones from some failed rock-jorno wannabe, in the process of being scooped by someone who he would have formerly held to be beneath his contempt?" Having quoted you in full, subsequent use of the phrase "rock-journo thing" is quite in order. If you continue to deny me an explanation, I am afraid I will have to conclude that you are incapable of giving one. You crawl all over every word in other people's posts but this subject was introduced by you and yet you are not willing to take responsibility for your own words. Not as easy as pulling apart - with, in my opinion, spurious logic - other people's words now is it? I can feel we are close to breakthrough Mark, let's not waste all we have shared by falling at the last hurdle. | ||
| malkovich |
Its malkovich, thank you, Mark. I know you don't need the portal to come here, but obviously you need the portal to get inside her head? How did you find it and where does it spit you out? Many people are thrown out on the side of a highway after their visitations. But you are not, why do you think that is? When you are in the portal do you think you experience her real consciousness or is it imagined by you? Still More questions. I'm still eager to hear who you would like to play the main character in Being Mark Ilsley | ||
| a Lurker |
Eric, I think the references to the "failed rock journo wannabe" is His Way of having a snide go at one or several rock journo types who frequent this board, and several of whom have crossed swords with Him. But hell, that's me just reading between the lines, construing, which as we all know is Verboten here. | ||
| Mark Ilsley |
Eric: You are a major, major \/\/anker. It is a minor variant of the game, period. It is played by 16 Associations almost exclusively by a small number of specialty clubs in the North of England and the Isle of Man. It has a different set of rules. There are 140 Lawn Bowls Associations in the UK alone. This UK site lists 390 Associations, world-wide. There is at least 220 Lawn Bowls Associations for every one Crown Green Bowls Association. The Lawn Bowls Associations are much, much larger. There would be in the order of 500 Lawn Bowls Clubs for every Crown Green Bowls Club. The Lawn Bowls Clubs are also much larger. There would be in the vicinity of 1,000 Lawn Bowls players for every Crown Green player. If I continue to deny you my explanation, then you can safely assume that I don't consider you deserving of it. You haven't earned my explaination yet, or my respect. Take the above case on Lawn Bowls. You can't deal with the truth when it confronts your belief. Your belief then cease to be honestly held and you must then revert to an explanation designed to obscure the truth. That is the characteristic that denies you my respect and therefore my explaination. | ||
| Mark Ilsley |
Ok, Mal. So you are trying to take the piss. There was initially a chance that your humour was good natured. You can't possibly expect me to entertain your humourous allusions any further. I have already more than adequately explined the basis of our friendship. She is a very good friend to have. It isn't a difficult choice for me. | ||
| Mark Ilsley |
Pete: For once, you are almost sensible. I proposed no 'unifying theory' of art. I may have proposed a 'unifying theory' of an artifact (TMOOT). That is a matter of opinion. The methodology I used, I described as the "Proper use of analysis in literature [that] requires a determination of the nature and relationship of the parts." It does not deny the reader an interpretive role. The interpretive role is fundamental to gaining each intrinsic understanding. The use of analysis in literature enables the reader to move from one intrinsic understanding to another. Because the proper use of that tool requires a determination of the nature and relationship of the parts, this rule would preclude the reader from gaining an interpretation which is inconsistent with the sensible interpretation of the component parts. It is not a "shallow way to view [creative] communication". Creative communication, must by definition have purpose. That purpose is the transmission of meaning. If the author meant to create a nonsensical jumble of words, then it is not literature. In the case of literature, the meaning is the art. Pete: "Anyone misinterpreting your intentions gets serious heat from you." Really? I thought this rather a benign exercise. No risk. No danger. Yes, I have heard authors or songwriters taking about how their compositions 'live' or have a seperate life outside them. My stated methodology does not preclude the possibility of different equally valid intrinsic understandings but it does restrict those intrinsic understandings to those which: a) do not seek to assign nonsensical meaning(s) to any of the component parts in order to make it fit a particular intrinsic understanding (or theme). b) do not seek to assign nonsensical intrinsic understandings (themes) to the ordinary meanings of component parts, where they are available. | ||
| malkovich |
Its Malkovich, not Mal. (who is he?) Please do not use that word with me. I have always been friendly to you. Why are you so angry to me now. Is it because Eric and Pete keep annoying you? They are not important. The portal is important. Its the source of all knowledge. I see you do not like to talk about it. You are so modest though. You never want to talk about your film. I have to know who is playing the lead role in "Being Mark Ilsley". Its fascinating. Perhaps Russell Crowe? He is from your country and he did a good job in a "A Beautiful Mind". I thought Being Mark Ilsley might be along a similar theme - A brilliant, original mind tortured by the unappreciative fools in this place. In the movie you go mad, and wander about in the outback for a bit talking to lizards (and sometimes eating them), then thanks to a love interest, you get better and sit down and finish your brilliant, brilliant theory of "Too much of one thing". Then the film finishes with your being invited to play or dance on stage with the Go-Betweens (Lindy gets to play drums)because they are so shocked that someone finally figured out what their songs are about. You see, don't be angry. Ive been working on our ideas. What do you think. Who is going to play the love interest? I have some ideas. Don't get mad again. It doesn't have to be a love interest, it could just be a friendship interest. I've cut all references to the portal and your special powers since it makes you mad. There was a nice scene where you rent an apartment on the 7 1/2 th floor of a building. It had low ceilings and was invested with cockroaches but it was cheap so you didn't mind. (Anyway you were too busy on the Internet) Anyway, while heating some beans one day your notice a little door tucked in behind the microwave. You pull out the microwave and open the little door, and whooosh you are sucked into the portal (sorry). Then suddenly you realise your are in the head of 'You Know Who'. (her head!). Don't get mad I wont mention it again. Do you like this movie plot? Would anybody like to make contributions to to the expense of making this movie? You are not allfools, just some are misguided. If you have some ideas to improve the plot, please post them. I know its a bit thin. | ||
| Eric |
Mark Yet again we have the problem of interpretation. Crown Green Bowls is played a lot here, so FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, it is not a little played variant. The fact you have a different perspective does not entitle you to abuse me. As for the rock journo thing, I wonder if you can grasp how bankrupt you appear in this. How bereft of authority you now are seeing as you cannot explain a remark YOU made. You have tried to wriggle and squirm out of it but anyone reading this board knows you are fraudulant. I will ask you one more time, explain the rock journo thing before I take this to a higher authority. | ||
| Mark Ilsley |
It is 'Mal' from me for now. As in: Malevolent, Malicious, Malign, Malformed, Mal construed, etc. Get the idea? It took me longer than it usually does to pick your attitude. I erred on the side of good natured humour. Wishfull thinking on my behalf. So, please do keep it up, (it makes a good read) but don't ask me to respect you in return for your contempt. | ||
| Mark Ilsley |
It isn't a problem of interpretation, although you would like to construe it as such. You inferred that I played this variant, whereas I have always played Lawn Bowls and never said anything to the contrary. As soon as I picked you up on your mistake you attempted to obfuscate the truth. The truth is that you know very little about the game of Lawn Bowls. Why don't you save yourself the embarrassment of trying to lecture someone who knows quite a lot about the game and consider writting a book on the sport. You could then sell it into the Eskimo market. | ||
| Mark Ilsley |
The person at 144.138.152.38: Yes, I always conect with my firewall running. | ||
| Eric |
You are right, I made the mistake of saying you played Crown Green Bowls. The reason I said that was because Crown Green Bowls is very popular here in the UK... it was a loose remark based on my own context. However, you compounded the inaccuracy by saying it was a little played variant. Little played in your neck of the woods, not mine. You obfuscate the truth of your errors. I can admit mine. Anyway, none of this gets us any nearer to the truth of what you meant by the rock journo thing. The longer you don't explain, the more you prove yourself to be intellectually and morally bereft. I know this isn't necessarily the case, please prove the doubters wrong Mark. You have much to offer, but your errors are beginning to gape like a Grand Canyon in your facade. And before you LECTURE ME Mark, my grandfather played bowls for Scotland. By the way, whoever is attempting to access Mark's PC had better stop. Mark, NeoTrace the ISP and report it to admin. A debate can get heated, but this is taking things too far (assuming Mark doesn't make a name for himself on other message boards where people might want to attack him). | ||
| Catherine |
Just read this whole thread from start to finish. I've now got a blinding headache for my troubles. I had intended to add my thoughts, backing up the opinions of those who I agree with, and adding further comments as to the state of mind of others. But fuck it. It’s Friday. I’m off to the pub. Then later, I’m going to a see a band. And they’re FRIENDS OF MINE. Woooooo!!!!!!!!! | ||
| Mark Ilsley |
Eric: "However, you compounded the inaccuracy by saying it was a little played variant." The inaccuracy? You must mean the one where you inferred that I played Crown Green Bowls! The fact that I described that game as "little played variant" does not obfuscate the truth that I don't play it and never have I claimed to have done so. Eric: "The reason I said that was because Crown Green Bowls is very popular here in the UK" It is a little played variant in the UK by a factor of (about) 50/1. It seems to me that anyone who: a) Had an interest in Lawn Bowling. b) Lived in the UK. would know which variant of the game is "very popular." Eric: "it was a loose remark based on my own context" What it actually was; was an attempted insult. Don't now pretend it was anything else, you pathetic individual. Another example of that characteristic which denies you my respect and therefore my explaination. Eric: "You have much to offer, but your errors are beginning to gape like a Grand Canyon in your facade." I'll be getting in your face through the gaping wound in your credibility. Eric: "And before you LECTURE ME Mark, my grandfather played bowls for Scotland." Oh? So a family member played bowls for Scotland did they? And that would be why you used my participation in that same sport as the pretext for your ridicule? Explain that without looking particularly incredible, or perhaps disrespectful of your own family. ..that would be entertaining. Eric: "NeoTrace the ISP and report it to admin." Yeah? And what is he going to do about it! I already know who the Class C network provider is. Look here. I don't think I need to explain to you what the "AU" in "NET-TELECOMAU8" means. | ||
| Anonymous |
7 or 8 to 1, a droll story. | ||
| Eric |
Yeah? And what is he going to do about it! I already know who the Class C network provider is. Look here. I don't think I need to explain to you what the "AU" in "NET-TELECOMAU8" means. Australia? Austria? Are you accusing me of something here? If so, you better be damned sure because I AM pretty sure. I was genuine in my concern for someone attempting to hack you and this is what I get? This replaces the rock journo thing in the top 10 of things you say that are opaque to say the least. I enjoyed your last post hugely until then. The stuff about bowling is wonderful. ANd the next time you get damp down below about people insulting you, look back at almost every post you make on this thread. HYPOCRITE. Case proved. Goodbye | ||
| just shut the fuck up |
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGG GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG GGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! | ||
| Mark Ilsley |
Eric, the incredulous: "Australia? Austria?" country: AU is Australia. No other. Eric, the goose: "Are you accusing me of something here?" Yes. I am accusing you of something. I am accusing you of appearing to be ignorant of the internationally recognised country code for Australia and of being stupid enough to think that I would accept this explaination without question. Eric, the implausible: "I was genuine in my concern for someone attempting to hack you and this is what I get?" Now, wait up everybody, now I see it.. this has all been just one gigantic misunderstanding! Eric says he was actually motivated by genuine concern for, ..for, ..me!! Eric, the disapointed: "This replaces the rock journo thing in the top 10 of things you say that are opaque to say the least." Rock journo thing?? That would be Ok. Here is the explaination: That is what your meanderings remind me of. Eric, the patronizing: "I enjoyed your last post hugely until then. The stuff about bowling is wonderful." Oh, *puke*. I don't know if I'll ever be able to even look at another bowl again. Eric, the contemptible : "ANd the next time you get damp down below about people insulting you, look back at almost every post you make on this thread." The next time I get damp will be from the spash back of piss in your ear. Eric: "HYPOCRITE. Case proved. Goodbye" Oh, you'll be back. | ||
| malkovich |
Why do you make fun of my name? It's Malkovich, not Mal adjusted, Mal Adroit or Mal content or any of those other horrible names you called me. I support you in this debate. This Eric is a fool. Don't worry about him. You could bowl for Australia, if you wanted to. That is the point. I only want to promote your ideas. I think you are one of the great original thinkers (and spellers) of our age. I know a good thing when I read it. (Though I am puzzled why you choose to promote you ideas here). If you have lost interest in the 'Being Mark Ilsley' project (Russell was interested! – he didn’t mind gaining all that weight), perhaps we can work on a book of essays? You have more than enough material posted here. Perhaps, we can clean up the essays you posted here a little bit (I don't mean the spelling. People will love that. Anyway, the greats are never limited by petty spelling and grammatical rules). We could start with a 'light' collection just to whet people's appetites. Something along the lines of Thus Spake Zarathustra 2: The Best of Mark Ilsley? Do you know Nietzsche went nuts in the end? I don't think he was talking to lizards, but he was pretty close to it. Anyway, that doesn't have to be your fate, but I do like the way you pretend to go nuts sometimes in your messages here!!! All that ranting and wading around in scatological matters. Brilliant! Keep them guessing! I'ts so “You better watch out - I'm a genius tottering on the edge of sanity”. (If you do actually go nuts, can you try to send me a signal just before it happens? I don't want to publish your insane stuff along side your sane stuff. Different markets, you see (philosophy and psychiatry). What about a follow up to "The Best of Mark Ilsley". I think something more ponderous (to give your readers something to chew on). You are good at being ponderous. Sometimes your ideas are so weighty that I can’t follow you. But one sometimes has to trust the author and plough on, right? It’s just like reading Kant. He’s a wordy fellow. (Is he an influence?) How about Upon Pondering the Imponderable: Mark Ilsley explains the nature of reality Is the title too long? All the old philosophers have taken the neat titles. Let me know what you think. People are ready for a controversial new writer who sees things as they really are. Hey, do you think David Nichols would write an introduction? He’s got contacts in the publishing industry, perhaps he could get us ‘in’ there. David, if you are reading this could you let us know whether you like this idea or not? I'm sure you career will benefit in the long run through your association with Mark. I must go, Mark. I am managing some other ‘talents’ in some other chat rooms and they are unhappy at the attention I am giving you. These are ‘second raters’ and I will drop them as soon as our projects are up and running. Your pal, Malkovich p.s You see, I didn’t mention the portal once in this message! | ||
| michael |
OK I'm banning the use of the word OBFUSCATE on the grounds that I looked the word up in the dictionary, and I still can't understand how it differentiates between two of it's meaninings - confusing and obscure, and the posts I've read on this board do not advance my understanding. | ||
| Eric |
I am no longer addressing Mark because he is not a fair dealer but can someone tell me if he is accusing me of hacking into his computer or not? His posts obfuscate right upside my head | ||
| Eric |
PS - Clearly, I didn't hack his computer... if I knew how (or why)it would be a start but I have enough trouble getting posted website links to work. If indeed he is accusing me of hacking into his computer, should I turn the other cheek? Or hire someone to do the job properly? | ||
| Pete |
I doubt anybody could hack Mark's computer based on information picked up here. To do that you'd need his IP address which is not available from the information posted here. My firewall detects numerous possible hacks every time I'm on line. Usually, its a 'bot' churning out IP addresses within a certain range and scanning the ports at each IP address. Mark's paranoia obviously is driving him to the conclusion that one of his "persecutors" here in Go-Betweens land is the source of the attack detected by his firewall. These events keeps him ticking long, I suppose. | ||
| Mark Ilsley |
Malkodish: probably not. Friedrich Nietzsche probably died from brain cancer. He probably never went mad. Claims that the philosopher went mad from venereal disease are now disputed. The universally accepted story of Nietzsche having caught syphilis from prostitutes was concocted by Wilhelm Lange-Eichbaum. Nietzsche's ideas of the Übermensch - a new kind of human driven by the "will to power" - was adopted by the Nazis (not the other way around) decades after his death (1900). Nietzsche was not anti-semitic or a nationalist, and hated the herd mentality. He was not a Nazi, having died 20 years before that party was first established. Nietzsche's ideas were attacked and his later writings dismissed as the work of a diseased mind. Whatever your own personal position on the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche may be, we do know his writings inspired and probably propelled Howard Devoto to create a style of music that was on the cutting edge and at the birth of New Wave. For that reason alone, we may owe Friedrich Nietzsche a debt far greater than many of us are prepared to concede. Who is David Nichols? Is he somebody that should be important to me? If so, what do I need from him? What has he got that I can't get direct access to? You might read it in a book, I lived it. | ||
| Catherine |
I hear there have been great advances in sense of humour transplants. You should get one. | ||
| Mark Ilsley |
Oh, nooooooo! ..I'm not a 'fair dealer', how will I ever sleep at night? (with my computer turned off, that's how) | ||
| malkovich |
Yes, Yes! That's exactly the style we need for the Thus Spake Zarathustra 2- The Best Of Mark Ilsley - rabid, foaming at the mouth stuff but demonstrating such erudition!! Such passion, such lateral thinking! So, so... Nietzchean! (If I may say so) Please accept my humble apologies for any suggestion that the dementia alluded to earlier was caused by syphilis caught from ladies of ill repute. I'm sure Nietzche's madness was also not caused by the very same thing. And YES!! WE don't need David Nichols because YOU have the PORTAL, “direct access” to the mother lode!! (forgive my crass over-enthusiasm) I am overwhelmed that you have at last decided to acknowledge publically your special powers. If I may be so bold, I was thinking we could put together a learned piece for the Journal of Psychokinetic Matters. Of course, my little film treatment earlier was a fictional account. Perhaps we could start with how you really discovered THE PORTAL and how long you are able to maintain “direct access”. You have never answered my question: where do you land after you are ejected from the portal? Some report that they are thrown out on the side of a highway but this does not happen to you, you say. Perhaps, you wake up in bed? I have a good feeling about this, Mark. My money is on you. We’re going to do great things together. I can feel it. Your pal, Malkovich (I’m so happy you can call me what you like!!!) | ||
| Mark Ilsley |
Pete: My understanding is that you can get an IP address from an E-mail address, assuming you have the relevant knowledge, the software, and the recipient is online and accesses their E-mail. There are simpler ways. They would all require the co-operation of someone who can see the message headers. (i.e. admin) Both are plausable explainations for the (about) 1/2 dozen attempts to hack into my computer. Why don't you fuck up and die, loser. | ||
| Pete |
Mack, Yes, if you replied to someone by email while you are online, then the recipient could see your IP address in the email headers. But your IP address is usually not fixed and is assigned to you when you dail-up, so they could only attempt access during that session. But they could not get your IP address from information you post here. That would be contained in the server logs which only the Go-Betweens admin would have access to. I think your suggestion that the admin may be conspiring against you is preposterous. However, the use of the word 'prepostorous' seems somewhow redundant when describing something you have come up with . As for your final comment, Mr. Mack. You really are so unoriginal when it comes to your insults! I'm sure there is a website you can go to to find some new ones Uncle Pete | ||
| Pete |
Mack, I thought your reply to malcovitch was a little stilted (too coherent): It seems you lifted some of it word for word from a story by Robert Mathews from the Sunday Telegraph. (The story was also picked up in May last year recently by the theage.com.au - is that where you filched it from?) Interested readers might read the cached version from Google since the telgraph.co.uk and theage.co.uk sites require you to register. Mark Ilsley in Cut'N'Paste scandal! The strain of trying to appear like a polymath is making you careless (Had you even heard of Nietzsche before it was posted here?). Malcovitch had better check your other messages for plagarism before he publishes that book of essays ! Next we'll discover that Lindy has no idea who you are. Uncle Pete | ||
| Pete |
Mark: regarding my second last message, you might find some original insults here: where to find new insults when your old ones wear out My word, I've been a busy bee today. I'm nearly as bad as you. Pete ps: since these are insults are posted anonymously, its ok to cut'n'paste without attributing your source. | ||
| malkovich |
Pete: You are so wrong, you pompous know-it-all. Mark did reference his source. If you had taken care to click on the link he kindly provided, you would have seen that. But no, you had to jump at any perceived weakness. Instead of perfecting his theory of "Two Much of One thing" he must spend his time here defending his character against your slanderous accusations. How dare you! And he has a right to be suspicious of the motives of the admin. Instead of creating a forum worthy of his talents, they stick him in "the playpen". How demeaning must that be for a mind as great and sensitive as his? They could at least have created a "socratic corner" where he could ply his wit amongst an appreciative audience. His words are thrown here like pearls in the food of swine. I hope Mark disregards these provocative, lying words and directs his energies towards more worthy things like a learned article on the PORTAL. And my name is spelt Malkovich | ||
| malkovich |
Something has just occured to me, Mark. Do you think it could be possible that the hacker might be Lindy trying to establish a portal into your head? This is very worrying because your firewall might be blocking this very interesting development. I'm sure the Journal of Psychokinetic Matters has never heard of two-way portal visitations. They might even be interested in putting out a special issue on the subject. Do you think you could unblock the ports on your computer relating to Psychokinetic visitations? | ||
| Eric |
arf! | ||
| Skippy |
Quote Ilsley from above: "You might read it in a book, I lived it". Were you a member of The Go-Betweens then? Or are you merely as aquainted with the truth as John Howard is? By the way, despite my posting name, I am fully prepared to admit that I am not, in fact, a television star kangaroo. | ||
| malkovich |
Eric, 'arf' is the noise a seal makes. Are you a seal or an imbecile? Skippy, I'm sure you also making annoying clicking noises with your mouth. What don't you understand? Mark had made it clear that he has "direct access". With his powers, he might as well as have been a member of the Go-Betweens. Robert's song He lives my life on Friends of Rachel Worth may in fact be about Mark. I'm sure it is about psychokinetic portal visitations. Listen to it carefully and you will see. My bet is that Mark has other portals which he is not telling us about. And why should he? You would just mock him | ||
| Eric |
actually Malkabitch, a seal makes more of a honk than and arf. etc etc yada yada yada | ||
| malkovich |
Actually, Eric, Seals go 'Arf' I am not going to concern myslef with your petty arguments anymore. I am going to turn my attention to the profound work and genius of Mark Ilsley. Hopefully, his silence here is due to to his taking my advice and honing his theory of "Too much of one thing" to perfection. | ||
| Eric |
Olive's Secret Journey Story Created by Michael Christie I hope Mark knows what kind of partner he is taking on. http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/08/17/1092508471205.html?oneclick=true | ||
| Mark Ilsley |
Pete spat: This is how it happened, dickhead: Data Mining Spyware was uploaded onto my PC. The spyware tried to make contact with an IP address simular (in format) to the one I have declared above and after I had rebooted and re-opened a network connection. The firewall detected and stopped the transmission of its data file because the .exe did not have permission to do that. A .pf file was created in the C:\WINDOWS\prefetch folder to automatically run the spyware transmission program each time the machine is rebooted. Initially, a trojan routine was embedded in a commonly run system dll that mines the data then saving it to a .dat file in C:\Documents and Settings\All Users. It then creates the prefetch entry mentioned earlyer and terminates normally passing control back to the calling program of the dll. Analysing the .dat file with debug.exe reveals that it containes the text of e-mails extracted from my O.E. inbox. All the e-mails extracted from my inbox had the return-path property set to lindymorrison@optushome.com.au or lindymorrison@optusnet.com.au. Both of these addresses are available from the archives of this site. I am not 100% certain how my computer initially became infected with the trojan routine, a number of transmission scenarios are possible. The most obvious one being E-mail (enticing me to clicked through on a link) Another possibility is this web site. Since that first, almost successfull, attempt to steal my correspondence, there has been about another 1/2 dozen attempts to break into this computer and place spyware apon it. Often the attempted breakins would occur after making a post on this messageboard, but not always. Further analyses has removed a relatively benign spyware exe (also with a prefetch entry) that was transmitting my IP address each time I opened a network connection. I had mistakenly given this exe permission through my firewall, mistaking it for a registered lobbyable direct-play dll extension of software installed that very same day. Click here to see how simple it is get the code to Get the IP address of a machine. I remain in little doubt that the intrusion was related to this messageboard. A random hacker could not have targeted those specific E-mail addresses in my in-box. How would you know what is or is not possible fuckface? That isn't how most 'bots' work, cockbreath. So why are you a dickhead fuckfaced cockbreath? Because now I'll be accused of the indiscretion of making those E-mail addresses available to a new generation of hackers. | ||
| Pete |
Lots of possibilities, Mark, none very plausible though. Please don't blame the good people here for your poor surfing habits and your technical incompetence. Lots of people get these spyware pests. I'm sure you are not being targeted (though I think you like the idea of being that important) The insults are coming on but they are still a bit on the crude side. Keep working on it. You may strike an original thought one day, even by accident. Uncle Pete | ||
| Catherine |
With all that technology, someone's forgotten the most basic - spellcheck. | ||
| Eric |
Is it just me or...did anyone actually ask Mark to reveal the email address of Lindy Morrison? He appears to be claiming as much. Could he not have explained by just saying "Lindy Morrision's private email address'? You know what they say, with friends like these who needs enemies. Hopefully, that's his funding request binned then! | ||
| Mark Ilsley |
Malkofish: Keep going! It is amusing that whilst all the other identities on this thread have retreated from confronting facts which they are unable to deal with, you remain in-character and delightfully enigmatic. | ||
| Eric |
when will Mark's identity retreat from being an utter bore? A question, I fear, for the ages. | ||
| Pete |
Eric, I think the point of his long-winded explanation was to demonstrate that he actually has some technical savvy. It's the polymath complex he suffers from coming out again. His foulmouthed replies to me would suggest that he has very little. I think the point of displaying the addresses here is that he wanted to remind us all again that he is in regular correspondence with Lindy, poor woman. His final comment reads like an attempt to blame me for making him reveal these addresses to (what did he call it) a new generation of hackers. | ||
| Mark Ilsley |
Oh, fuck Eric, you are a hopeless \/\//\nker. Both those E-mail addresses are available from the archives of this message board because Lindy put them there. Also, whoever did target those addresses on my system already knew them. I know that you would like to destroy our friendship. This is and has always been entirely your motivation. It failed and will continue to fail. | ||
| Mark Ilsley |
Fuck off Pete, you're looking sicker by the minute. Pathetic individual. I said that's what I'll "be accused of", and I was, within minutes. Don't now try to pretend it was something else. | ||
| Anonymous |
this is worse than looking at an accident - its like being at the moment of impact FOR EVER! | ||
| Eric |
Pete He now appears to be suggesting that the addresses were already on the board somewhere else. Surely this makes the accusation you alluded to redundant Pete? WHich means Mark is up a creek again... he is so inferior intellectually, it is actually quite sad. I do feel a little bit sorry for him. Surely, indeed, it was Lindy Morrison herself who opened herself up to a whole new generation of hackers... Mark being part of the first wave. Not hacking in the computer sense, but hacking in the sense of a painful irritation (like a cough). Can you imagine how much she regrets replying to his first email???!!! Arf arf, honk honk! "Cough Mark" (say it quickly) | ||
| Anonymous |
can we not just all agree that pete and eric are obviously right (but guilty of letting this go on far too long)and mark has a screw loose and needs someone to hug him? | ||
| malkovich |
Mark, please draw your mind back to your grand theories. The world is waiting. I am growing impatient. Ignore these taunters. Have you made any progress on "Too much of one thing" at all? Are you stuck? Perhaps you are spending too much time in the portal. I know it took Andrew Wiles sever years writing in an attic to prove Fermat's Last Theorem, but I don't think I could wait that long for you to decipher "Too Much of One thing". | ||
| Mark Ilsley |
Also Pete, let me tell you something about you that I am getting fucking sick of seeing. You consistantly insist that you know more about a freindship and a relationship about which you can not participate and can not observe and then you try to tell me about the 'plausible' explaintions of an event which you did not observe. Supreme tosser exposed. | ||
| Mark Ilsley |
Hey Eric. Ya know what I find really amusing? I can say fuck, shit, dick, and probably c#*t on this messageboard, but admin has blocked the \/\//\nker word!!! | ||
| alex |
Are all Go-Betweens fans insane? | ||
| Eric |
yeah, well, with you around Mark I guess he knew it would get used a lot | ||
| RF |
I hereby declare this land condemned | ||
| Pete |
You are a real low life, Mark. Do you ever expect to be taken seriously here or on any forum? (By the way, your aus.motorcycles experience went the same way, didn't it?) If this goes on any longer when we type the word "bore" into Google it will just return pages that contain the words "Mark Ilsley". | ||
| Mark Ilsley |
Yeah, it is used a lot to describe you, or so I have read. *hehe* But then, I guess *Admin* knew it was likely to be used to describe you, didn't he? | ||
| Cam |
By cam on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 09:11 pm: "200-odd posts and kicking your phoney arse is hardly sufficient, Cam. I'm ready to go again." well, quite i'd love to but sunshine and birdsong and fresh air and humanity beckon i'll report back so you know what you're missing ------------------------------------------------- I thought now might be a good time, it's wonderful Mark. C'mon lad, let this bullshit lie eh? How about a real discussion... you choose any topic and I'll start a new thread. Let's get you rehabilitated on the main board. How about it? | ||
| Pete |
I'm packing up and leaving. RF is right. This place is starting to stink. Ilsley has totally fouled the place. Bye all, Uncle Pete | ||
| Eric |
Sorry Mark but that's an awful retort. You must be running out of steam. You just basically repeated my insult...Pete's right, you are strictly third-rate | ||
| Mark Ilsley |
Cam: I don't need rehabilitation. I'm not a theif. Fuck off now. | ||
| Mark Ilsley |
No, no Eric. You said: "yeah, well, with you around Mark I guess he knew it would get used a lot" ..and you where right. He knew (and so did you) that I would likey be using it to describe you! | ||
| Mark Ilsley |
C'mon guys! My stance is open. My movements are light and rapid. Can't you keep up? | ||
| malkovich |
Mark, what I'd like to know is what does this have to do with your sublime interpretaion of "Too much Of One thing" or your other groundbreaking theories. You haven't abandoned your intellectual pursuits in order to roll in the mud with these rascals, have you? I'm afraid I don't think we could use any the material posted in the last few hours in any of our proposed scholarly journals. Though, now that I think of it, the Journal of Para-scatology might be interested in a case study. We could stoop to using a slightly vulgar title to get their attention. Something like "virtual constipation: my online writers block(oh dear)"? | ||
| Catherine |
Keep up? With what? Your rapid downward spiral towards a manic episode of epic proportions? Keep up with messages which are successively getting more paranoid and abusive by the word? Thanks anyway, but I’ll pass. I’ve got better things to do. | ||
| Eric |
this is becoming a real horror show. The only time I have been so mortified by human degridation was in 2000 when I was on a six month course in Newcastle. A mate of mine, who fancied himself as a hit with the ladies, was celebrating his 21st birthday. The women on the course thought they would honour him and gently mock his ego by hiring a Fat Stripper to perform for him at the pub we all went to. Needless to say, it was one of the most humiliating episodes ever for all concerned. This thread and Mark's recent collapse reminds me of that... oh the humanity! | ||
| Catherine |
Keep up? With what? Your rapid downward spiral towards a manic episode of epic proportions? Keep up with messages which are successively getting more paranoid and abusive by the word? Thanks anyway, but I’ll pass. I’ve got better things to do. | ||
| Mark Ilsley |
Downward spiral? Can't feel it. Mania. Nope. Paranoid. None that I've noticed. But what I can promise you is absolute proof of who I am and what I can do. | ||
| Mark Ilsley |
Eric: Collapse? Do tell us, shitface. | ||
| Eric |
By Mark Ilsley on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 03:42 pm: Eric: Collapse? Do tell us, shitface. ------------------------------------------------- Ipso facto | ||
| Mark Ilsley |
awesome. | ||
| Catherine |
Should we be scared or something??? So far we've established the following facts: You're some bloke called Mark Ilsley. You can't spell, or don't know how to operate a spellcheck. You have LOTS AND LOTS OF OPINIONS which you foist upon this message board. If anyone has the GALL to disagree, you harangue them. Lately your vitriolic vocabulary is failing you, and you're resorting to F**k and dickhead as insults. You've really sussed out the text formatting thing, with your italics, bold script etc, but as with all your "knowledge" you over-use it, to the point where it's a pain in the ass. All facts about who you are and what you can do. So what else have you got? You going to morph into some giant slimy reptile and eat the world??? | ||
| malkovich |
Mark, you haven't actually done any more work on "Too much of one thing", have you? I know Lindy is supposed to be helping you (it's nice of you to let her. I'm sure she will learn a lot), but perhaps she is holding you back? Does she drum on the table when you are working together. That would be very distracting. It's ok if you are stuck. Great work doesn't happen over night. But can you give me some indication when I can hope to see the finished piece? | ||
| Mark Ilsley |
Cath: "we've established the following facts:" Have we now? Let us see: Cath: "You're some bloke called Mark Ilsley." correct Cath: "You can't spell, or don't know how to operate a spellcheck." or! Are you sure? I make spelling errors. I don't use a spelling checker. I just type into the box. I haven't enjoyed a good spelling flame for many years now. Feel free. It is always the last resort of a scoundrel. You will not find me changed by it. This site has always lacked a certain something. You seem intent on bring this new dimension onto this site. Along with anonymous attacks, hacking, bootlegs, gang rapes, flame wars and now spelling flames, this place is really begining to feel like home. Cath: "You have LOTS AND LOTS OF OPINIONS which you foist upon this message board." I have lots of energy for my friendships and my personage. No end of it, in fact. Cath: "If anyone has the GALL to disagree, you harangue them." I can not "harangue" them. Haranguing is the verb. I can deliver 'a' harangue. Would you like to see? Cath: "Lately your vitriolic vocabulary is failing you, and you're resorting to F**k and dickhead as insults." Oh, you must mean dickhead fuckfaced cockbreath; i.e. Pete. I hardly even noticed it. Did you? Cath: "You've really sussed out the text formatting thing, with your italics, bold script etc, but as with all your "knowledge" you over-use it, to the point where it's a pain in the ass." That would be arse to you, unless you're the 'other' Catherine as well. Cath: "So what else have you got?" About 12 months of material. | ||
| Eric |
gang rapes?? does vapor come out from the beyboard and make you more suggestable too Mark? good god | ||
| Catherine |
It’s Catherine to you. The Catherine who does not wish you to address me as "Cath", if it makes it a little clearer. I am not the "other" catherine. So a spelling flame is what? The opposite of a spelling bee? You’re proving how non-conformist you are, by deliberately spelling incorrectly? OOOOOHHHH you REBEL. M.I. “It is always the last resort of a scoundrel.” So I’m a scoundrel why? Because I made a remark about your spelling? Jesus, what would you call me if I actually typed my actual opinion of you? M.I. “You seem intent on bring this new dimension onto this site. Along with anonymous attacks, hacking, bootlegs, gang rapes, flame wars and now spelling flames, this place is really beginning to feel like home.” Are you implying that I am responsible for anonymous attacks, hacking etc? I’m not even going there… M.I. “Haranguing is the verb. I can deliver 'a' harangue. Would you like to see?” So you can spell incorrectly (deliberately or not) as much as you choose, but I can’t use a word in what manner I choose? M.I. “Oh, you must mean dickhead fuckfaced cockbreath; i.e. Pete.” If you’ve got to resort to phrases like the above, take it as a sign that you’re losing the argument. Most telling is the fact that you didn’t answer my final question: C.V. ”You going to morph into some giant slimy reptile and eat the world???” Maybe I’ve stumbled on the truth? | ||
| Catherine |
I'm off home now. So don't assume you've “won” some little "victory" if I don’t respond to your next diatribe for a few hours. You see, I've got a life, and have many hobbies. I don't just get my kicks from message boards. p.s.(Do you mind if I use Diatribe?) Would you like me to check the Thesaurus first? | ||
| Lurker |
Eric, 'a real horror show'? hey, don't be a spoilsport, this is the 'Playpen' after all.!!!!! I've never played a game such as this before, where there's a big deep wide pit, that Mark is standing in the bottom of- we can't even see the top of his head, and he's rather tall. Around the inside of the pit are etched deep spiral of grooves, like from one of those hole-digging machines that's like a giant corkscrew (Malkovich, don't you think this would be a wonderful image to put into the film somewhere?) because - this is supposed to be a secret,- Mark is not only a fucking Genius, but he is BIONIC as well!!!!!. He just stood there, talked - or typed - and slowly rotated like so: down down down down down ..... get the picture? Catherine described it most aptly as "the Spiral" How low can he go? Perhaps I shouldn't use the word "Low", because it's all relative isn't it, what's down to one POV is up to someone somewhere else. Anyway,, based on what we've seen so far, He continues to DESCEND till he passes right through the earth's core and continues on, at some point ASCENDING to emerge at the other side.. Now , I'm not sure what's at the opposite point of the globe to Shepparton, but I have it on good authority that assembled there at that far-distant spot on the earth, are the Believers. it has been prophesied in their religion that one day a tall, very muddy, lava-encrusted GOD - whose name they already know because it has been Revealed to them - will emerge, feet first to SAVE them. This is why our misunderstanding, insults, jibes, gives him Strength to continue. His fate is pre-ordained and all he can do is Fulfill His DESTINY! We should feel so honoured that what we here mere mortals regard as an amusing game or sport - sort of like bear-baiting, or maybe Bullfighting - is in fact helping The Great One along his Sacred Path to true Righteousness and Glory. He hath No Fear, as he continues to remind us. | ||
| jonathan |
I'd like to place on record that no-one involved in the administration of this site has attempted to gain unauthorised entry into Mr Mark Ilsley's computer by any means or has attempted to retrieve any information contained therein. Jonathan | ||
| Anonymous |
don't sweat it Jonathan, that would be taken as read by most..cheers | ||
| timmy |
harangue n. A long pompous speech, especially one delivered before a gathering. | ||
| malkovich |
Lurker, are you being managed by anyone at the moment? Mark is obviously the brightest star in my roster of 'talent' but he can't seem to put his mind to his serous work at the moment. Perhaps, I need to contact Lindy to ask her what is her perspective on the problem. In the meantime keep posting your interesting treatments here. We may be able to work on something together. | ||
| Anonymous |
Here's an interesting thing: if you do type the words "bore" and "Go-Betweens" into Google the second highest page retrieved is a page headed by our host: "Mark Ilsley". See for yourself: Mark Ilsley, the Go-Betweens Bore Who says Google is losing its edge! Now what do we have to do to get him to that number one spot. | ||
| Catherine |
Hey Anon, we don't have to do anything. He's taking care of it all on his own. | ||
| RF |
So, who's this Mark Ilsley character I've heard so much about? | ||
| RF |
Hey, everyone! Do this, yahoo! Who wants to be RV? I bag LM & AB. Any takers for GM? We could hold a raffle for JW. Wow, this place just keeps going from strength to strength doesn't it? | ||
| Uncle P |
Gee, Mark. You are just so easy to spot. Still working on those original thoughts? Keep trying - you may hit on something yet. | ||
| Catherine |
Wha'??? Or, being VERY hungover today, am I missing some glaringly obvious point?? I could pretend I know what's going on, and say put me down for XE, but I've probably insulted someone, and will have a tirade of abuse pelted at me now. I'm off now, to have a nice glass of water, with a truck-load of paracetemol, while I double check that I've used Tirade in it's proper context. | ||
| RF |
Mark, my name is Richard Farmer you asshole | ||
| Mark Ilsley |
a lurker wrote: "I'm not sure what's at the opposite point of the globe to Shepparton" I don't know either. But I do know what is up the arse-end of the unwashed excretory opening of a sheep's alimentary canal. Pete's head. | ||
| Mark Ilsley |
Richard Farmer, my name is Mark Ilsley. Twat! | ||
| Lurker |
Richard -if you have any sense go now!!!!! please...it's for your own good I'm telling you this. it's not too late to save yourself. Malkovich...I'll get back to you, right now i'm too concerned for Richard's safety to concentrate on other biz... | ||
| Lurker |
Richard -if you have any sense go now!!!!! please...it's for your own good I'm telling you this. it's not too late to save yourself. Malkovich...I'll get back to you, right now i'm too concerned for Richard's safety to concentrate on other biz... | ||
| bob |
after looking through this thread I now realise that some people have too much free time... | ||
| Catherine |
Free time? I'm supposed to be working. My boss will kill me!!! | ||
| Mark Ilsley |
Jonathan: What happened, happened. I am forced to accept your explanation at face value, however I would like to place on record that since, during and (perhaps even) before my character was made the subject of this invective, you targeted and selectively edited my converstations whilst not applying uniform editorial criteria on this messageboard. | ||
| Catherine |
OOoooohh Jonathan, you're very naughty!!! Selectively editing conversations?? So if you hadn't done that, We'd all know the truth. Mark is misunderstood, and is really just a sweet little pussycat... | ||
| RF |
I hereby declare this land condemned | ||
| Mark Ilsley |
Cath: "You see, I've got a life, and have many hobbies. I don't just get my kicks from message boards." That's probably a good thing Cath. Even most 23 year olds know the difference between racism and national identity and can differentiate between them at first glance. So how is the British race doing? | ||
| Mark Ilsley |
Cath: "So I’m a scoundrel why? Because I made a remark about your spelling?" No. I said: "It is always the last resort of a scoundrel." 'It' is the spelling flame. 'It' is always the last resort of a scoundrel. Cath: "Jesus, what would you call me if I actually typed my actual opinion of you?" Cath, for starters. | ||
| Catherine |
Your remarks might make sense if I knew what a "spelling flame" was. It might even hurt my feelings if I gave s sh*t what it was. You're being ageist now! What have you got against 23 year olds? So, if whoever made that statement had done so in hate, it wouldn't be racist, because he/she was getting at several races in one fell swoop? It's not racist to discrimate against someone because they're for instance, Kenyan, or Jamaican, etc, because the discrimination is targeted towards they're nationality?? I don't know all of the people in the British Race, but the ones I am acquainted with are all fine, thank you for asking. The Irish Race is also fine. | ||
| Uncle Pete |
Mark, Why do you dislike me so much? I've never once abused you or used foul language at you. I've simply questioned the public persona you put forward on this board. It seems so full of inconsistancies. You like to think of yourself as a smart boy. Maybe, you are. But you let yourself down terribly. You are really unable to engage in serious debate. You go off the topic completely, and then engage in this teenage cat calling. I enjoy bantering with you. I'm sorry it seems to cause you such bother. (All this Sheeps Alimentary canal stuff - whats that about? ). To be honest I only do it when I'm bored. I don't take it all that seriously. Despite what you say I've only ever questioned you on what you have posted here about your relationship with Lindy. I'm afraid your over-reaction to the initial question asked in this thread (yes, possibly insensitively) and your subsequent self-degradation is really all off your making. In defending yourself, you've laid your character out for scrutiny here and you've done a terrible job. You could have done it with restraint and maintained your dignity. Instead, you decided to turn the heat on yourself by acting with belligerence, abuse and crudity. You are quite a perverse man. Despite claiming that you wish nothing more than to further your understanding here, you have done nothing to demonstrate that in the past month. Instead you've done your best to stoke this flame war. I've offered to take our differences offline in order to quell this storm. I'm still waiting for that email. Really, I think you are disappointed and resent the fact that people don't take you seriously here. I think also you've now decided to wreck what you can't be part of. You know Jonathan has limited time to moderate this board so you are now gradually turning your attention to him. I guess you are hoping he will ban you eventually. I think that would give you the excuse to really sabotage this board. Anyway, I don’t know where you want this to end. I’m sure its boring you as it is most people. What would it take to stop the doggeral being posted here my all parties and return to the Go-Betweens board of old, a place where intelligent funny conversation used to take place? | ||
| RF |
One final retort for Mark, to be fair, and then..... .... .... ... .. ...... .... ...... ENOUGH! ENOUGH ALREADY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! | ||
| Eric |
ENOUGH!!! Please note that the poster's name in this message is NOT the person who usually posts under this name - admin. | ||
| Cam |
Enough! Please note that the poster's name in this message is NOT the person who usually posts under this name - admin. | ||
| Catherine |
Ok enough! Please note that the poster's name in this message is NOT the person who usually posts under this name - admin. | ||
| Pete |
Yup, enough Please note that the poster's name in this message is NOT the person who usually posts under this name - admin. | ||
| Mark Ilsley |
! I'm sorry Please note that the poster's name in this message is NOT the person who usually posts under this name - admin. | ||
| All the Children |
Hallelujah | ||
| Conor |
Can I just say that I apologise for the distress caused to all by starting this thread. I had no desire to stir up such anger. Conor | ||
| Pete |
Well, I didn't post the 'Yup,enough' remark above, but it does express how I feel. I'd rather discuss Peter Carey with you, Mark, than continue to exchange angry messages here. | ||
| Cam Unregistered guest |
It was me. I was so fed up with all this, it seemed the only way to bring an end. However, I was drunk and now it looks pretty stoopid. I apologised to Jonathan and it looks like I'm going to spend some time in the cooler. Just give me a tennis ball, I'll be OK. Anyway, hope this stupid thread ends soon... look at this nice new format... let's not foul it up lads and lassies eh? | ||
| Admin Board Administrator Username: Admin Post Number: 3 Registered: 08-2004 |
Thanks for your apology, Cam. But impersonating other users of this site (even if pretty obviously) is something that I have to take seriously, so you're in the sin-bin for a week. You'll still be able to look through the bars on the window to see what fun we're having. This also seems like an appropriate point to close this thread. I'll wait for the post count to hit 200 in case anyone has anything they simply HAVE to say, then that's it. Jonathan | ||
| Mark Ilsley Member Username: Mark Post Number: 2 Registered: 04-2004 |
I believe I still have the right to one final reply on this thread and I will be doing so shortly. Anyone who is subjected to this sort of invective treatment must have that right. In the mean time, I have resonable grounds to suspect foul play by someone associated with the administration of this board. Jonathan, please explain how it was that 'Cam' supposably was able to make a posting using my registered user name when I know that my registered user name is password protected? Did 'Cam' just manage to find a hole in security or did he have have admin level access to this messageboard or was my password given to him by someone else? Pick, choose, decide. facilitated by the administration of this board | ||
| Pete Unregistered guest |
Nothing more to say, m'lord |