Re: Say Dave - where is your COALITION FORCES TODAY?
krp
"freedom" <about...@aboutISkenApangbornFRAUD.com> wrote in message
news:7486370b64f487bc...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>>He may have had his RACING PT Cruiser doing wheelies... What a
>>>>>LUXURY CAR!
>>
>>> Actually, I just found out that it classifies as a "light truck."
>>
>> SURE, Davey!
>
> http://www.internetautoguide.com/new-cars/03-int/chrysler/pt-cruiser/index.html
>
> "The Chrysler PT Cruiser is designed by Chrysler, offers a spacious
> interior large enough for five passengers, and it is a front wheel drive
> automobile that is classified as a light truck/compact vehicle."
And YET was ranked in the 10 WORST cars.
http://www.edmunds.com/chrysler/ptcruiser/2005/review.html
CONTRARY VIEWS
Acceleration can be sluggish with base engine, awkward seating position for
shorter drivers, unimpressive fuel economy.
Consumer Ratings & Reviews
Very bad car
This car has the worst turn radius! It also has lots of problems with the
engine. My blew at 70,000 miles and Chrysler won't fix it. I advise you not
to buy this car. I use to be so happy with it until a well taken care of
blew for no reason.
even when they like it owners say this:
This car is very comfortable. I wish it wouldn't die at 70,000 miles.These
cars don't last long.
I feel like a sucker for buying this junker.Back in 05 I thought buying new
would give me worry free driving for atleast 4 to 5 years.Man I could have
not been more wrong. I bought in May and by October it was at the dealer for
7 weeks because the whole instrument cluster was shot to hell.The problems
have not stopped since.I have replaced the drive shafts 5 times already.The
box is not big enough to list all the problems that I have had.If I did not
have friends who are mechanics and had to bring this car to the dealer, I
would be near $20,000 in repairs.With one year left in payments near $4,000
I am so tempted to drive this piece of junk thruogh the front window of
Chryslers head office.
For a four cylinder the gas mileage stinks. Component quality and paint is
identical with the base model. Ride quality and noise level are strickly
econobox.
DAVEY - IF the car is so GREAT - why is 2010 the LAST YEAR it will be
made???????????
Dragon's Girl
> DIPPY DAVEY MOORE"freedom" <aboutKRP...@aboutISkenApangbornFRAUD.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7486370b64f487bc...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...
>
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >>>>>He may have had his RACING PT Cruiser doing wheelies... What a
> >>>>>LUXURY CAR!
>
> >>> Actually, I just found out that it classifies as a "light truck."
>
> >> SURE, Davey!
>
The new ones are actually a lot different than the PTs of yesteryear.
My mother made parts for the PT prototype.
That being so, my aunt bought one as soon as they rolled off the
line ...my mother's company provided parts for the car so it was
'family loyalty' that made her do it.
Hers turned out to be a gas hogging POS.
However, this past summer I rented a '10 PT and it made for an awesome
traveling vehicle. Took the roads well (I was in hill
country...Kentucky and Tennessee) and got great gas mileage. I drove
just over 2000 miles in it and loved the car. Ran great, pulled
great, had lots of room, lots of baggage room, and it didn't kill my
wallet ...my total cost on gas was just under $250. I think that's
pretty good for all the driving I did.
Yes, the older PTs are crap cars, but I think they're making
improvements.
krp
"Dragon's Girl" <betty...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b0e8cd2c-9b74-4952...@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
They are now made in Mexico and 2010 is their last year. They are breaking
Chrysler with warranty claims.
Greegor
Is a PT Cruiser a good fit for that?
Or is a PT Cruiser a convenient dream for a misfit making false
claims?
freedom
I never said the car was "GREAT." I said it classified as a light truck.
You're arguing about points not in contention.
Trouble with reading comprehension again?
http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com
The truth about Kenneth Pangborn, who supports convicted child sex
criminals
"[I have] [n]ever had [any] standing in the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyer's
Association or AN Y connection to them."
--Ken Pangborn in a usenet post on January 1, 2009, denying affiliation
with the TCDLA, to whom he provided bogus educational credentials. His lie
is disproved here:
http://web.archive.org/web/20060822021821/www.tcdla.com/secure/experts/inde
x.shtml
"Some photo of some girl without even any documentation on THAT only proves
that YOU are a PSYCHO! A really STUPID one at that!"
--Ken Pangborn, admitting to being a "stupid" "psycho" in message-ID
<jOp3l.292$Es4...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>
"The FACT is that [my mail-order wife Barbara Sanciprian] and I were
introduced in the FORMAL Spanish tradition by mutual friends, and were
married first in Cuba after 2 year courtship."
--Ken Pangborn, admitting that he began cheating on his wife Peggy on
September 28, 2001, nearly two years before she separated from him
"I'm David Moore and I am insane!"
--Ken Pangborn posting to alt.dads-rights.unmoderated, attempting to claim
that his name is David Moore
"If you call the police, I'll knock out all of your teeth, I'll cripple
you. I may go to prison for it, but when I get out, I'll be able to walk,
but you will still be a cripple."
--Pangborn puppet Greg Hanson of alt.support.child-protective-services **,
in a verbal threat to his girlfriend
** - this conclusion was reached via applying Ken and Greg's logic
Keywords: false allegations,sexual abuse,marital rape, date rape, sexual
harassment,child abuse,domestic violence,rape allegations,false allegations
of child abuse,false rape allegations,false abuse accusations,false
accusations,recovered memories,child sexual abuse,abuse child,sexual
assault,child molestation,reactive attachment disorder,penile
plethysmograph,polygraph,attorneys,divorce,visitation,pedophiles
More-keywords: KRP CONSULTING. False allegations of child abuse, false
abuse accusations, false domestic violence allegations help, false rape
allegations, abuse child, sexual abuse, child sexual abuse, false
allegations, false accusations, recovered memories, sexual assault, child
molestation, child sexual abuse, reactive attachment disorder, penile
plethysmograph, polygraph, trial consulting, jury consulting, jury
selection, jury voire dire, wrongful allegations, false child sexual abuse
allegations. Wrongful child sexual abuse allegations. Domestic Violence.
Rape. Marital rape. Date Rape. Confidence Rape.
Yet-more-keywords: ken pangborn,kenneth pangborn,barbara pangborn,barbara
sanciprian,palm harbor,tampa,attorneys,florida lawyers,florida
attorneys,tampa lawyers,tampa attorneys,trial consultant,trial
consulting,dui,domestic violence,vawa,abuse,3648 cockatoo,new port
richey,ernesto sanciprian,ernesto miguel blanco sanciprian,blanco
sanciprian,bryce carter,holguin,julio aguilar,yudith bacallao,raimundo
cabrera,ana hernandez chi,lixandro cordero,leandis diaz,al faisbuker,wendy
gil,armando capo ramos,george riveron,reinaldo rodriguez,lexis ross,liana
yisell alvarez silveira,madelyn tamayo,manuel toledo,thais valdes
Extra-keywords: Julito Sainz,craig clawson,lia yisell
krp
"freedom" <about...@aboutISkenApangbornFRAUD.com> wrote in message
>>http://www.edmunds.com/chrysler/ptcruiser/2005/review.html
And IF it is so good, WHY is this the last year it will be made??????
Kent Wills
<gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>David is posing as a family man.
>Is a PT Cruiser a good fit for that?
Yes.
>
>Or is a PT Cruiser a convenient dream for a misfit making false
>claims?
>
What false claims are you making in regards to the PT Cruiser,
Greg?
Title: ST VS GREGORY HANSON
(DOB 05/22/1959)
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT 04/10/1996
Comments: CT 1 OWI 1ST
OTHER CITATION 04/10/1996
Comments: CT 2 SPEED
Disposition Status
GUILTY PLEA/DEFAULT
"That's the chick, but not the pic, zipperhead!"
Greg Hanson proving his bigotry towards Asians, or proving he's so
stupid he thinks I'm Asian.
MID:<c6bac3f6-7a0e-4bf8-8ddd-d77bccfc6...@p49g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.legal/msg/395db830731df54a
http://www.rsdb.org/search?q=zipperhead
Me: "I suspect your stalking is due to the use and abuse of illegal
drugs, Greg. Is the reason for your stalking the members of
alt.friends due to the use and abuse of illegal drugs?
Gregory Scott Hanson, wife beater and child abuser: "Of course."
"My family's case is for Neglect, but we are treated
in virtually every regard as child abusers, marked on
the Child Abuse registry, for example."
-- Greg Scott Hanson telling Usenet he's a FOUNDED child abuser.
Message-ID: <35120b16.04011...@posting.google.com>
" ... But there ought to be conferences and studies on how to curb
minority overpopulation, repatriate minorities abroad, imprison more
minorities, increase use of the death penalty and divest minorities of
the power they have usurped over us in recent years. That would
address the most pressing problems of our day. ... "
April 2000, Gregory Hanson
http://www.nationalist.org/ATW/2000/040101.html#Hanson
Path:
news.datemas.de!newsfeed.datemas.de!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!postnews.google.com!y21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Greegor <gree...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups:
misc.kids,alt.support.foster-parents,uk.people.parents,alt.support.child-protective-services
With the Christmas season upon us again, my stepdaughter was launching
into her usual tirade of "I need this" (Nintendo 64 games, Pokemon,
videos, Rhianna CD, etc.) After enduring a trip through Kmart, I
was at my wits end. I took the kid home and filled the bathtub with
water. Then I dunked the brat's head under the water and counted out
a full minute, with her flailing her arms. I brought her up and she
gasped for air. When she'd caught her breath, I asked her, "When you
were under that water, did you 'need' Nintendo? Pokemon? Rhianna?"
She shook her head. "What were you thinking about?" I
prodded. She told me "I was thinking that I needed air."
"Now you know the difference between 'need' and 'want'" I exclaimed
triumphantly.
--a true story
krp
"Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hlkie5pn69ne0858k...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:47:57 -0700 (PDT), Greegor
> <gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>David is posing as a family man.
>>Is a PT Cruiser a good fit for that?
>
> Yes.
>
>>
>>Or is a PT Cruiser a convenient dream for a misfit making false
>>claims?
>>
>
> What false claims are you making in regards to the PT Cruiser,
> Greg?
It is a little shitbox on 4 wheels and that's no lie. Semi cute when it
first came out. It's SO good that this is the last year it will be made.
Kent Wills
<about...@aboutISkenApangbornFRAUD.com> wrote:
>>DAVEY - IF the car is so GREAT - why is 2010 the LAST YEAR it will be
>>made???????????
>
>I never said the car was "GREAT." I said it classified as a light truck.
>You're arguing about points not in contention.
>
>Trouble with reading comprehension again?
Ken is having trouble with honesty. Still.
>
>http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com
>The truth about Kenneth Pangborn, who supports convicted child sex
>criminals
"Maybe he's like me to attach some kiddie porn to aid his fantasies"
Kenneth Robert Pangborn, of KRP Consulting and The A-Team, expressing
his fondness for child porn in
Message-ID:
<RECUi.494$Q%3.238@trnddc04>
Kent Wills
wrote:
[...]
>>>DAVEY - IF the car is so GREAT - why is 2010 the LAST YEAR it will be
>>>made???????????
>>
>> I never said the car was "GREAT." I said it classified as a light truck.
>
> And IF it is so good, WHY is this the last year it will be made??????
Get off the booze Pangborn. At least until AFTER you've posted
to Usenet.
"Quotes below have been highly altered."
-- Kenneth Robert Pangborn accidentally admitting in misc.legal
that he alters posts when he replies.
Kent Wills
wrote:
>>>Or is a PT Cruiser a convenient dream for a misfit making false
>>>claims?
>>>
>>
>> What false claims are you making in regards to the PT Cruiser,
>> Greg?
>
> It is a little shitbox on 4 wheels and that's no lie. Semi cute when it
>first came out. It's SO good that this is the last year it will be made.
First, you aren't Greg.
Second, it's OK as far as vehicles go. There are better, and there
are worse.
That you are unable to afford one doesn't make it as bad as you
claim.
"(CONTEXT REMOVED AS TO THE BELOW CLAIM)"
Kenneth Robert Pangborn admitting he alters the context of posts
when he replies.
MID FyUom.1363$Jd7....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net
Dragon's Girl
> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 04:38:21 -0400, "krp" <kr...@tampabay.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
> >>>Or is a PT Cruiser a convenient dream for a misfit making false
> >>>claims?
>
> >> What false claims are you making in regards to the PT Cruiser,
> >> Greg?
>
> > It is a little shitbox on 4 wheels and that's no lie. Semi cute when it
> >first came out. It's SO good that this is the last year it will be made.
>
> First, you aren't Greg.
> Second, it's OK as far as vehicles go. There are better, and there
> are worse.
> That you are unable to afford one doesn't make it as bad as you
> claim.
I paid much more for my Kia Rio than the PTs are going for around
here.
Not terribly expensive cars.
>
> "(CONTEXT REMOVED AS TO THE BELOW CLAIM)"
> Kenneth Robert Pangborn admitting he alters the context of posts
> when he replies.
> MID FyUom.1363$Jd7.1...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net
freedom
>On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 04:29:11 -0400, "krp" <kr...@tampabay.rr.com>
>wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>>>DAVEY - IF the car is so GREAT - why is 2010 the LAST YEAR it will be
>>>>made???????????
>>>
>>> I never said the car was "GREAT." I said it classified as a light truck.
>>
>> And IF it is so good, WHY is this the last year it will be made??????
>
> Get off the booze Pangborn. At least until AFTER you've posted
>to Usenet.
His tirade about the PT Cruiser is quite funny. I have to wonder how much
time he spent digging up the "facts" he posted, to argue points which
weren't even remotely in contention.
My only statements were that my wife totalled our Cruiser, and that I found
out from our insurance agent that the vehicle actually classifies as a
light truck. I never made any argument about how "good" the vehicle was,
or that it was an ideal family vehicle, etc..... in fact, to the contary, I
believe I mentioned that we'd probably look in another direction for a
replacement vehicle, considering a new baby and older kids who have
increasing activities.
I guess it's a good thing, though....every minute Ken spends researching
irrelevant informatioin, is one minute he's not out there scamming fathers.
Perhaps we should get him started again on trying to prove that the
internet can't be accessed in Cuba, or one of his other rants....
freedom
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009, Dragon's Girl <betty...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Oct 29, 4:34=A0am, Kent Wills <compu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 04:38:21 -0400, "krp" <kr...@tampabay.rr.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >>>Or is a PT Cruiser a convenient dream for a misfit making false
>> >>>claims?
>>
>> >> =A0 =A0What false claims are you making in regards to the PT Cruiser,=
>> >> Greg?
>>
>> > =A0 =A0It is a little shitbox on 4 wheels and that's no lie. Semi cute=
when it
>> >first came out. It's SO good that this is the last year it will be made=
.
>>
>> =A0 =A0 First, you aren't Greg.
>> =A0 =A0 Second, it's OK as far as vehicles go. There are better, and the=
re
>> are worse.
>> =A0 =A0 That you are unable to afford one doesn't make it as bad as you
>> claim.
>
>I paid much more for my Kia Rio than the PTs are going for around
>here.
>Not terribly expensive cars.
It was a decent "get you around" car for my wife, for miscellaneous errands=
such as shopping, PTA etc. rather than driving a gas-guzzling SUV around.
It did seem to blow fuses a little more than normal during its lifetime
though. We'd gotten to the point of outgrowing it anyway, even before it
became scrapyard material.
In any case, I'd expect we'll now be treated to months of off-topic rants
from Ken (and his mouthpiece Greg) regarding how good or bad the Cruiser
is, or what year they're going to stop making it. Points which aren't even=
being argued....
http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com
The truth about Kenneth Pangborn, who supports convicted child sex
criminals
"[I have] [n]ever had [any] standing in the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyer's=
Association or AN Y connection to them."
- --Ken Pangborn in a usenet post on January 1, 2009, denying affiliation
with the TCDLA, to whom he provided bogus educational credentials. His lie=
is disproved here:
http://web.archive.org/web/20060822021821/www.tcdla.com/secure/experts/inde=
x.shtml
"Some photo of some girl without even any documentation on THAT only proves=
that YOU are a PSYCHO! A really STUPID one at that!"
- --Ken Pangborn, admitting to being a "stupid" "psycho" in message-ID
<jOp3l.292$Es4...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>
"The FACT is that [my mail-order wife Barbara Sanciprian] and I were
introduced in the FORMAL Spanish tradition by mutual friends, and were
married first in Cuba after 2 year courtship."
- --Ken Pangborn, admitting that he began cheating on his wife Peggy on
September 28, 2001, nearly two years before she separated from him
"I'm David Moore and I am insane!"
- --Ken Pangborn posting to alt.dads-rights.unmoderated, attempting to
claim that his name is David Moore
"If you call the police, I'll knock out all of your teeth, I'll cripple
you. I may go to prison for it, but when I get out, I'll be able to walk,
but you will still be a cripple."
- --Pangborn puppet Greg Hanson of alt.support.child-protective-services
**, in a verbal threat to his girlfriend
** - this conclusion was reached via applying Ken and Greg's logic
Keywords: false allegations,sexual abuse,marital rape, date rape, sexual
harassment,child abuse,domestic violence,rape allegations,false allegations=
of child abuse,false rape allegations,false abuse accusations,false
accusations,recovered memories,child sexual abuse,abuse child,sexual
assault,child molestation,reactive attachment disorder,penile
plethysmograph,polygraph,attorneys,divorce,visitation,pedophiles
More-keywords: KRP CONSULTING. False allegations of child abuse, false
abuse accusations, false domestic violence allegations help, false rape
allegations, abuse child, sexual abuse, child sexual abuse, false
allegations, false accusations, recovered memories, sexual assault, child
molestation, child sexual abuse, reactive attachment disorder, penile
plethysmograph, polygraph, trial consulting, jury consulting, jury
selection, jury voire dire, wrongful allegations, false child sexual abuse
allegations. Wrongful child sexual abuse allegations. Domestic Violence.
Rape. Marital rape. Date Rape. Confidence Rape.
Yet-more-keywords: ken pangborn,kenneth pangborn,barbara pangborn,barbara
sanciprian,palm harbor,tampa,attorneys,florida lawyers,florida
attorneys,tampa lawyers,tampa attorneys,trial consultant,trial
consulting,dui,domestic violence,vawa,abuse,3648 cockatoo,new port
richey,ernesto sanciprian,ernesto miguel blanco sanciprian,blanco
sanciprian,bryce carter,holguin,julio aguilar,yudith bacallao,raimundo
cabrera,ana hernandez chi,lixandro cordero,leandis diaz,al faisbuker,wendy
gil,armando capo ramos,george riveron,reinaldo rodriguez,lexis ross,liana
yisell alvarez silveira,madelyn tamayo,manuel toledo,thais valdes
Extra-keywords: Julito Sainz,craig clawson,lia yisell
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQCVAwUBSunvz8Wdjev37kExAQGM8gP/YeaLihPUl3zo6tWqTCwj/cVVNzL4TZI3
FAAhRjN3W8fqYKV4nUGFdWIv3Hy3UxWRG2hrkaR7RHcBtH2SSAcjXKDaimVczUlR
jp0al95wQiEzgad3hMlnI5gbxxbLeJtQ6xob7pF0rwM4I2iyFAGgG/7J65c8+UsK
3zPPPtm2/L4=3D
=3DmZgF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
krp
"freedom" <about...@aboutISkenApangbornFRAUD.com> wrote in message
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>I paid much more for my Kia Rio than the PTs are going for around here.
>>Not terribly expensive cars.
> It was a decent "get you around" car for my wife, for miscellaneous
> errands
> such as shopping, PTA etc. rather than driving a gas-guzzling SUV around.
> It did seem to blow fuses a little more than normal during its lifetime
> though. We'd gotten to the point of outgrowing it anyway, even before it
> became scrapyard material.
>
> In any case, I'd expect we'll now be treated to months of off-topic rants
> from Ken (and his mouthpiece Greg) regarding how good or bad the Cruiser
> is, or what year they're going to stop making it. Points which aren't
> even
> being argued....
Why should we, Davey? The amusing thing is that while you MAY have a PT
Cruiser, most likely an old one, you don't have a wife, and it is likely
your only transportation and YOU were the one who totaled it. We need to
cull out the kernel of truth in your lies. The PT Cruiser was "scrapyard
material" the day it rolled off the assembly line in Mexico. hey fill the
tanks with Corona extra. The funny thing is that as a econobox the gas
mileage is dismal. City driving gets MID TEENS. My Honda CRV - SUV gets 24
mpg in town - and if you aren't racing near 30 on the highway. Yet the
"Cruiser" is barely fast enough to get out of its own way. 0 to 60 time is
measured on a calendar. It would make a nice grocery cart IF it didn't
guzzle so much gas getting there. Chevy has an SUV that gets better mileage
as does Ford. Cars? Chevy has 5 cars with better mileage and FAR more room.
In the Cruiser if you need to fart you need to open the door and point your
ass outside. There wouldn't be room inside. The nicest part of the Cruiser
is all the new friends you make with it. The mechanics at the Chrysler
garage. You get to know ALL of them on a first name basis, their wives and
kids. The car is SO GOOD that this is the last year it will be made. Can you
say OLDSMOBILE? Making fun of the Junker is just amusing given DAVEY BOY'S
past claims of rolling in the dough, heading a fortune 500 Real Estate
empire with 50,000 employs (making fun of the actual boasts) you'd think
that he could afford something a bit more impressive to take buyers around
in to look at his HUGE MANSION properties, maybe a Caddy? I never saw a RE
agent with a shitbox, at least not a successful one. My agent had a Jeep
commander SUV.
I'm not the one who brought the car up. I am just RIDICULING a braggart
(Moore) for the constant line of bullshit.
Kent Wills
<betty...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
>> =A0 =A0 First, you aren't Greg.
>> =A0 =A0 Second, it's OK as far as vehicles go. There are better, and ther=
>e
>> are worse.
>> =A0 =A0 That you are unable to afford one doesn't make it as bad as you
>> claim.
>
>I paid much more for my Kia Rio than the PTs are going for around
>here.
>Not terribly expensive cars.
Which should tell the readers something.
He can't even afford an inexpensive vehicle.
--
"Kent"
Kent Wills
<about...@aboutISkenApangbornFRAUD.com> wrote:
[...]
>>> =A0 =A0 That you are unable to afford one doesn't make it as bad as you
>>> claim.
>>
>>I paid much more for my Kia Rio than the PTs are going for around
>>here.
>>Not terribly expensive cars.
>
>It was a decent "get you around" car for my wife, for miscellaneous errands
>such as shopping, PTA etc. rather than driving a gas-guzzling SUV around.
>It did seem to blow fuses a little more than normal during its lifetime
>though. We'd gotten to the point of outgrowing it anyway, even before it
>became scrapyard material.
I think you missed Betty's point.
It's not an expensive vehicle, and still it's too pricey for
Pangborn.
>
>In any case, I'd expect we'll now be treated to months of off-topic rants
>from Ken (and his mouthpiece Greg) regarding how good or bad the Cruiser
>is, or what year they're going to stop making it. Points which aren't even
>being argued....
>
Be kind.
Kenneth Robert Pangborn, of KRP Consulting and The-A-Team made a
mistake. He failed to pay attention to what was being presented.
He does such a lot.
When his errors are pointed out, he really gets upset.
>http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com
>The truth about Kenneth Pangborn, who supports convicted child sex
>criminals
"you are reading Moore's SELECTIVE material that is HIGHLY edited."
Kenneth Robert Pangborn claiming in misc.legal that David Moore can
and does edit Google's Usenet archive.
Message-ID: <n9Sfm.1372$nh2...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>
Kent Wills
<about...@aboutISkenApangbornFRAUD.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 29 Oct 2009, Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 04:29:11 -0400, "krp" <kr...@tampabay.rr.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>>>>DAVEY - IF the car is so GREAT - why is 2010 the LAST YEAR it will be
>>>>>made???????????
>>>>
>>>> I never said the car was "GREAT." I said it classified as a light truck.
>>>
>>> And IF it is so good, WHY is this the last year it will be made??????
>>
>> Get off the booze Pangborn. At least until AFTER you've posted
>>to Usenet.
>
>His tirade about the PT Cruiser is quite funny. I have to wonder how much
>time he spent digging up the "facts" he posted, to argue points which
>weren't even remotely in contention.
He made a mistake. He misunderstood what you were presenting.
Pangborn often makes such errors. And not just with you.
>
>My only statements were that my wife totalled our Cruiser, and that I found
>out from our insurance agent that the vehicle actually classifies as a
>light truck. I never made any argument about how "good" the vehicle was,
>or that it was an ideal family vehicle, etc..... in fact, to the contary, I
>believe I mentioned that we'd probably look in another direction for a
>replacement vehicle, considering a new baby and older kids who have
>increasing activities.
>
It's OK as a vehicle. I kind of wish we hadn't bought ours, but
it does what it needs to do; Get us from point A to point B.
It certainly isn't the luxury car Pangborn mistakenly claimed it
is.
>I guess it's a good thing, though....every minute Ken spends researching
>irrelevant informatioin, is one minute he's not out there scamming fathers.
That is a plus.
The down side for Pangborn is that his doing so allows him more
opportunity to prove that he isn't able to understand what he's read.
Further, people can see how often he makes mistakes with fairly
important details.
If I were in need of a trial consultant, I wouldn't want one who
consistently makes mistakes like Kenneth Robert Pangborn.
Since Pangborn claims he doesn't lie, the only possible
explanation is that he keeps making mistakes about the details.
>Perhaps we should get him started again on trying to prove that the
>internet can't be accessed in Cuba,
But he claimed it could be accessed, but ONLY at the HOTELS
(emphasis Pangborn's).
>or one of his other rants....
>
I'd like to see him rant about how GMT and the International Date
Line are the same thing. I wasn't able to see the rant as it
happened, so a replay would be of great interest to me.
>
>
>
>http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com
>The truth about Kenneth Pangborn, who supports convicted child sex
>criminals
>
"I am insane!"
--Kenneth Robert Pangborn, of KRP Consulting and The A-team,
posting to alt.dads-rights.unmoderated claiming that he was found
legally insane.
krp
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 03:11:07 +0100, freedom
> <about...@aboutISkenApangbornFRAUD.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>>> =A0 =A0 That you are unable to afford one doesn't make it as bad as you
>>>> claim.
>>>
>>>I paid much more for my Kia Rio than the PTs are going for around
>>>here.
>>>Not terribly expensive cars.
>>
>>It was a decent "get you around" car for my wife, for miscellaneous
>>errands
>>such as shopping, PTA etc. rather than driving a gas-guzzling SUV around.
>>It did seem to blow fuses a little more than normal during its lifetime
>>though. We'd gotten to the point of outgrowing it anyway, even before it
>>became scrapyard material.
>
> I think you missed Betty's point.
> It's not an expensive vehicle, and still it's too pricey for
> Pangborn.
What of a 2008 Honda CRV bought new?
Kent Wills
wrote:
If you can't afford a PT Cruiser, you don't stand a chance of
getting the CRV.
If you're going to claim you own one, you'll need to offer
something in the way of proof.
"(CONTEXT REMOVED AS TO THE BELOW CLAIM)"
Kenneth Robert Pangborn admitting he alters the context of posts
when he replies.
MID FyUom.1363$Jd7....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net
krp
.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>>> =A0 =A0 That you are unable to afford one doesn't make it as bad as
>>>>>> you
>>>>>> claim.
>>>>>
>>>>>I paid much more for my Kia Rio than the PTs are going for around
>>>>>here.
>>>>>Not terribly expensive cars.
>>>>
>>>>It was a decent "get you around" car for my wife, for miscellaneous
>>>>errands
>>>>such as shopping, PTA etc. rather than driving a gas-guzzling SUV
>>>>around.
>>>>It did seem to blow fuses a little more than normal during its lifetime
>>>>though. We'd gotten to the point of outgrowing it anyway, even before
>>>>it
>>>>became scrapyard material.
>>>
>>> I think you missed Betty's point.
>>> It's not an expensive vehicle, and still it's too pricey for
>>> Pangborn.
>>
>>What of a 2008 Honda CRV bought new?
>
> If you can't afford a PT Cruiser, you don't stand a chance of
> getting the CRV.
> If you're going to claim you own one, you'll need to offer
> something in the way of proof.
I bought one NEW in 2008. PROOF? There is NO proof that a RETARD like
YOU would understand. Want the original window sticker off it in a scan? A
photo?
Greegor
Maybe he thinks your car should be owned by a protective trust?
I lived the fiasco about Kent's boat registration.
Kent Wills
wrote:
[...]
>>>What of a 2008 Honda CRV bought new?
>>
>> If you can't afford a PT Cruiser, you don't stand a chance of
>> getting the CRV.
>> If you're going to claim you own one, you'll need to offer
>> something in the way of proof.
>
> I bought one NEW in 2008.
What about the one you claimed to have bought in 2009?
Maybe you just made a mistake when you made that claim and you
meant 2008?
>PROOF? There is NO proof that a RETARD like
>YOU would understand. Want the original window sticker off it in a scan? A
>photo?
A photo would be a start. Especially if it shows the vehicle
parked in your driveway or garage.
Of course, that would be evidence, not proof. But with enough
evidence, most would accept a claim being proved.
If you're lying, then you'll offer nothing, just as you've done
each time you've been asked to support any lie you've presented in the
past.
"CPS cases are legal matters. Offering advice IS practicing law
without a license."
Kenneth Robert Pangborn admitting he practices law without a
license in misc.legal
Kent Wills
<gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Kent is arguing about who owns your car?
No.
>Maybe he thinks your car should be owned by a protective trust?
That's an option, if he wants.
>I lived the fiasco about Kent's boat registration.
What fiasco? Do be specific.
krp
"Greegor" <gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bc3bda24-9f1a-4a34...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
> Kent is arguing about who owns your car?
> Maybe he thinks your car should be owned by a protective trust?
> I lived the fiasco about Kent's boat registration.
He thinks I RENT a house. He is howling because *I* actually "OWN" my house.
The POLACK can't go to the public record OR to his GAY buddy's (Moore)
Website and see there is NO mortgage. Poor confused little POLACK that he
is.
krp
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 05:20:54 -0400, "krp" <kr...@tampabay.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>>>What of a 2008 Honda CRV bought new?
>>>
>>> If you can't afford a PT Cruiser, you don't stand a chance of
>>> getting the CRV.
>>> If you're going to claim you own one, you'll need to offer
>>> something in the way of proof.
>>
>> I bought one NEW in 2008.
>
> What about the one you claimed to have bought in 2009?
> Maybe you just made a mistake when you made that claim and you
> meant 2008?
Sorry asshole, it was December of 2008 and was a 2008 Honda CRV.
Kent Wills
wrote:
>
>"Greegor" <gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:bc3bda24-9f1a-4a34...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
>> Kent is arguing about who owns your car?
>> Maybe he thinks your car should be owned by a protective trust?
>> I lived the fiasco about Kent's boat registration.
>
>He thinks I RENT a house.
When has anyone made such a claim? Unless you've misunderstood
what was posted, offer evidence in the form of the MID and/or Google
link to any such post from me.
>He is howling because *I* actually "OWN" my house.
The bank owns it. You're paying them the money you borrowed to
get it.
It's called a mortgage, and many adults have one.
As of my writing this, you've offered nothing to support, let
alone prove, your claim that you don't have one.
>The POLACK can't go to the public record OR to his GAY buddy's (Moore)
>Website and see there is NO mortgage.
You're desire that David be gay and return your lustful feelings
will never be realized.
That aside, post the URL for the file, unless you made a mistake
and the file doesn't exist.
>Poor confused little POLACK that he
>is.
http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com/race.html
See? That's how one goes about proving that something is on
David's site. The link above shows a very small sampling of the PROOF
that you're a bigot. Said proof is no longer needed, since you
frequently show how you HATE minorities and people who come to the
U.S.
Kent Wills
wrote:
Odd, you claimed 2009. Maybe you made a mistake and meant 2008?
If it was a mistake, just admit it and be done with the matter.
freedom
Perhaps you could scan it and crosspost it to the Photoshop newsgroup? So
they can expose you on a fake, like they did with your boarding pass? ROFL
http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com
The truth about Kenneth Pangborn, who supports convicted child sex
criminals
"[I have] [n]ever had [any] standing in the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyer's
Association or AN Y connection to them."
--Ken Pangborn in a usenet post on January 1, 2009, denying affiliation
with the TCDLA, to whom he provided bogus educational credentials. His lie
is disproved here:
http://web.archive.org/web/20060822021821/www.tcdla.com/secure/experts/inde
x.shtml
"Some photo of some girl without even any documentation on THAT only proves
that YOU are a PSYCHO! A really STUPID one at that!"
--Ken Pangborn, admitting to being a "stupid" "psycho" in message-ID
<jOp3l.292$Es4...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>
"The FACT is that [my mail-order wife Barbara Sanciprian] and I were
introduced in the FORMAL Spanish tradition by mutual friends, and were
married first in Cuba after 2 year courtship."
--Ken Pangborn, admitting that he began cheating on his wife Peggy on
September 28, 2001, nearly two years before she separated from him
"I'm David Moore and I am insane!"
--Ken Pangborn posting to alt.dads-rights.unmoderated, attempting to claim
that his name is David Moore
"If you call the police, I'll knock out all of your teeth, I'll cripple
you. I may go to prison for it, but when I get out, I'll be able to walk,
but you will still be a cripple."
--Pangborn puppet Greg Hanson of alt.support.child-protective-services **,
in a verbal threat to his girlfriend
** - this conclusion was reached via applying Ken and Greg's logic
Keywords: false allegations,sexual abuse,marital rape, date rape, sexual
harassment,child abuse,domestic violence,rape allegations,false allegations
Kent Wills
<about...@aboutISkenApangbornFRAUD.com> wrote:
[...]
>>> If you can't afford a PT Cruiser, you don't stand a chance of
>>> getting the CRV.
>>> If you're going to claim you own one, you'll need to offer
>>> something in the way of proof.
>>
>> I bought one NEW in 2008. PROOF? There is NO proof that a RETARD like
>>YOU would understand. Want the original window sticker off it in a scan? A
>>photo?
>
>Perhaps you could scan it and crosspost it to the Photoshop newsgroup? So
>they can expose you on a fake, like they did with your boarding pass? ROFL
>
BURN!
>http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com
>The truth about Kenneth Pangborn, who supports convicted child sex
>criminals
"you are reading Moore's SELECTIVE material that is HIGHLY edited."
freedom
>Kent is arguing about who owns your car?
I haven't seen him arguing any such thing. The junkyard "owns" my PT
Cruiser at this point.
>Maybe he thinks your car should be owned by a protective trust?
If they have a need for scrap metal, sure. Again, my wife totalled the car
and it was not fixable. This is old news.
>I lived the fiasco about Kent's boat registration.
Um....congratulations?
http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com
The truth about Kenneth Pangborn, who supports convicted child sex
criminals
"[I have] [n]ever had [any] standing in the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyer's
Kent Wills
<about...@aboutISkenApangbornFRAUD.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 31 Oct 2009, Greegor <gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Kent is arguing about who owns your car?
>
>I haven't seen him arguing any such thing. The junkyard "owns" my PT
>Cruiser at this point.
You can't see that which has never happened.
In Greg's drug addled (unless he lied about his use and abuse of
illegal drugs) mind he may have seen me present such an argument, but
in reality, I've never done so.
>
>>Maybe he thinks your car should be owned by a protective trust?
>
>If they have a need for scrap metal, sure. Again, my wife totalled the car
>and it was not fixable. This is old news.
Greg's just upset that he keeps hitting metaphorical brick walls
in his stalking, sorry, quest to find out everything he can about me
as a means to punish me for PROVING him to be the pro-CPS drug addict
he is.
He's been reduced to claiming my parents have a trust fund. He
is well aware he's lying, but he still makes the claim.
I've asked him to offer proof my parents have a trust fund of any
sort. Since he's been lying about it the whole time, he's never been
able.
>
>>I lived the fiasco about Kent's boat registration.
>
>Um....congratulations?
You missed Greg's slip.
There was and is no fiasco. It was always a lie. Well,
originally it was probably a mistake, but Greg learned the truth and
continued to lie. Greg just admitted that he's been living the lie
about the boats Lin and I own.
Jonezie posted a registration ID for one boat that was and is not
the registration number for the boat. It was close. If I recall
correctly, Jonezie got two of the numbers wrong. It may have been
more, but I'm thinking he only messed up two.
Given Jonezie's nature, it was probably a mistake. Jonezie isn't
likely to intentionally mess up something that could cause me grief.
I've asked Greg to post the registration number for the boat in
question several times. He's RUN from every request. The reason is
clear. He learned that Jonezie messed up but is UNABLE to admit the
truth. Far better, in Greg's mind, to simply run away than to ever
admit the truth.
>
>http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com
>The truth about Kenneth Pangborn, who supports convicted child sex
>criminals
krp
"freedom" <about...@aboutISkenApangbornFRAUD.com> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>What of a 2008 Honda CRV bought new?
>>>
>>> If you can't afford a PT Cruiser, you don't stand a chance of
>>> getting the CRV.
>>> If you're going to claim you own one, you'll need to offer
>>> something in the way of proof.
>>
>> I bought one NEW in 2008. PROOF? There is NO proof that a RETARD like
>>YOU would understand. Want the original window sticker off it in a scan? A
>>photo?
>
> Perhaps you could scan it and crosspost it to the Photoshop newsgroup? So
> they can expose you on a fake, like they did with your boarding pass?
> ROFL
You mean the KID who CLAIMED he lived next door to the CEO of American
Airlines who HE SAID told him that American NEVER flew to Cuba. Except I
proved they did and still do almost every day. Like HIM, Davey? The photos
of the boarding passes, tickets, and airport stamps are still up. Please
FEEL FREE to do your usual yapping at to why you think they are FAKE. Trash
your reputation some more, Moore. Most people already KNOW you are a
pathological liar OBSESSED with me. Show us more, Moore. Maybe your POLACK
buddy can TRY again and make an ass of himself too because of uneven
printing on a mechanical printer. You two do a good Punch and Judy show. GO
FOR IT PANSY!
krp
"freedom" <about...@aboutISkenApangbornFRAUD.com> wrote in message
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009, Greegor <gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Kent is arguing about who owns your car?
>
> I haven't seen him arguing any such thing. The junkyard "owns" my PT
> Cruiser at this point.
They should have owned it the day it was made.
krp
>>> Kent is arguing about who owns your car?
>>> Maybe he thinks your car should be owned by a protective trust?
>>> I lived the fiasco about Kent's boat registration.
>>
>>He thinks I RENT a house.
>
> When has anyone made such a claim? Unless you've misunderstood
> what was posted, offer evidence in the form of the MID and/or Google
> link to any such post from me.
>
>>He is howling because *I* actually "OWN" my house.
>
> The bank owns it. You're paying them the money you borrowed to get it.
> It's called a mortgage, and many adults have one.
Well it is SIMPLE Kunt. You claim to have PROOF of this mortgage. Let's
see it. Who is the lender? Pasco County has property deeds on line. A
mortgage would be recorded but the PUBLIC RECORD shows it is FREE AND CLEAR.
Care to offer YOUR PROOF, Kunt? Your queer pal Moore is running like hell
from your claims. Did you notice that? Your LOVER isn't helping you out. He
HAS the record. Why isn't he helping you?????? Do you feel abandoned by your
lover? Did you have a cigarette after he left you hanging?
krp
smelt above the moon, ye bellowed:
> Vain spinach-queen with secondary presidential podium, microscopic
> ballsack, and inconsequential kazoo begs for desperate kidney scraper
> for wacky banana gnawing.
>
> Email me at mailto:kr...@tampabay.rr.com. Privacy and discretion
> assured.
krp
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 19:06:24 +0100, freedom
> <about...@aboutISkenApangbornFRAUD.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>>> If you can't afford a PT Cruiser, you don't stand a chance of
>>>> getting the CRV.
>>>> If you're going to claim you own one, you'll need to offer
>>>> something in the way of proof.
>>>
>>> I bought one NEW in 2008. PROOF? There is NO proof that a RETARD like
>>>YOU would understand. Want the original window sticker off it in a scan?
>>>A
>>>photo?
>>
>>Perhaps you could scan it and crosspost it to the Photoshop newsgroup? So
>>they can expose you on a fake, like they did with your boarding pass?
>>ROFL
>>
>
> BURN!
Really fairy? http://s283.photobucket.com/albums/kk302/kenPphotos/ Amuse
the audience again with your POLACK claims of photo expertise and tell us
AGAIN in your EXPERT OPINION why you feel those are faked. You HAVE offered
us your opinions in the past. Moore got some KID in the Photoshop newsgroup
who could not point to any flaw showing the image had been altered, but
instead based his "EXPERT OPINION" in his claim that he lived next door to
the CEO of American Airlines who, he said, told him that American Airlines
NEVER has flown to Cuba. NEVER, not even ONE flight in AA's history EVER.
And YET http://www.abc-charters.com/pages/flights.asp is only one of several
sources that say his claim was BULLSHIT!!! Notice all the flights to CUBA,
Kunt?
WHO got burned here? ROFLMAO! What a pair of POLISH RETARDS you two are. The
word "POLACK" was invented in Poland for idiots like you guys.
Kent Wills
wrote:
> LITTLE DAVEY MOORE
>"freedom" <about...@aboutISkenApangbornFRAUD.com> wrote in message
>news:e354ce0cd721fd20...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>What of a 2008 Honda CRV bought new?
>>>>
>>>> If you can't afford a PT Cruiser, you don't stand a chance of
>>>> getting the CRV.
>>>> If you're going to claim you own one, you'll need to offer
>>>> something in the way of proof.
>>>
>>> I bought one NEW in 2008. PROOF? There is NO proof that a RETARD like
>>>YOU would understand. Want the original window sticker off it in a scan? A
>>>photo?
>>
>> Perhaps you could scan it and crosspost it to the Photoshop newsgroup? So
>> they can expose you on a fake, like they did with your boarding pass?
>> ROFL
>
>You mean the KID who CLAIMED he lived next door to the CEO of American
>Airlines who HE SAID told him that American NEVER flew to Cuba.
I'm STILL waiting for you to post the MID and/or Google link to
such a post.
>Except I
>proved they did and still do almost every day. Like HIM, Davey? The photos
>of the boarding passes, tickets, and airport stamps are still up. Please
>FEEL FREE to do your usual yapping at to why you think they are FAKE.
You admitted to that which gives people reason to believe they're
fake.
>Trash
>your reputation some more, Moore. Most people already KNOW you are a
>pathological liar OBSESSED with me. Show us more, Moore. Maybe your POLACK
http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com/race.html
You're a bigot. Old news.
>buddy can TRY again and make an ass of himself too because of uneven
>printing on a mechanical printer.
You both admitted it and denied it.
Which is the truth, Ken?
>You two do a good Punch and Judy show. GO
>FOR IT PANSY!
>
Projection is a bad thing Pangborn. You really should cease doing
it.
Kent Wills
wrote:
>
>"Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:r9gpe5lq5omejqhtc...@4ax.com...
>
>>>> Kent is arguing about who owns your car?
>>>> Maybe he thinks your car should be owned by a protective trust?
>>>> I lived the fiasco about Kent's boat registration.
>>>
>>>He thinks I RENT a house.
>>
>> When has anyone made such a claim? Unless you've misunderstood
>> what was posted, offer evidence in the form of the MID and/or Google
>> link to any such post from me.
I accept your admission that you were mistaken.
>>
>>>He is howling because *I* actually "OWN" my house.
>>
>> The bank owns it. You're paying them the money you borrowed to get it.
>> It's called a mortgage, and many adults have one.
>
> Well it is SIMPLE Kunt. You claim to have PROOF of this mortgage.
When did I make such a claim?
I think you're mistaken regarding what I posted.
You make a lot of mistakes regarding what others have presented.
I would expect a trial consultant to pay very close attention to
everything presented.
I used to think it was David's TRUTH site that cause your
consulting business to collapse. Now I'm wondering if it wasn't due
to your constant mistakes. People aren't going to want to hire
someone who makes as many errors as you do.
>Let's
>see it. Who is the lender? Pasco County has property deeds on line.
Yet you've been UNABLE to post your PROOF that you paid for the
house 100% on the day you bought it.
Please do so now. Thank you in advance.
>A
>mortgage would be recorded but the PUBLIC RECORD shows it is FREE AND CLEAR.
Yet you can't offer anything to prove your claim.
>Care to offer YOUR PROOF, Kunt?
You made the claim that you paid it off with petty cash on day
one. You prove your claim.
If you'd rather admit you're drunk, still, and being drunk forced
you to lie, still, you may do so.
The choice is yours to make.
>Your queer pal Moore is running like hell
>from your claims.
You're the one making claims.
And for the record, his wife doesn't think he's gay. And she
should know far better than you.
Hey, you made a mistake about David's sexual orientation. While
it is bad that you make so many errors, given your career choice, it's
not the end of the world. Just admit you made a mistake and move on.
>Did you notice that? Your LOVER isn't helping you out.
Since Lindsay isn't a part of this discussion, there's no reason
to expect she would.
>He
>HAS the record. Why isn't he helping you??????
I realize you're drunk, but Lin is female, as you point out
further down your post. The various pictures I've made available
pretty much shows that.
Plus there are the claims of those who have met her in real life.
Unless there is a conspiracy greater than the MASSIVE COALITION
FORCE your paranoia compels you to believe is out to get you, Lin must
be female.
For kicks, why don't you try, just try, posting while sober? Try
it one time and see if your posts don't follow actual logic and
reasoning. I think they will. Why not prove my theory right or
wrong?
Or did you make a mistake regarding Lindsay's gender?
> Do you feel abandoned by your
>lover?
Lindsay is still around. She's asleep right now. If I had need
to wake her, I could.
So, no, I don't feel abandoned by Lindsay.
>Did you have a cigarette after she left you hanging?
>
At least you are now aware of Lindsay's gender.
Your gender confusion aside, I quit smoking years ago. If you
smoke (I've not seen a claim made either way), quit. That's good
advice for everyone reading, if any of them smoke.
Further, Lin has never left me hanging. She's not even a part of
this discussion.
You should try posting while sober. Granted, that would mean you
couldn't post for several days while your liver attempts to metabolize
the massive amount of alcohol currently in your system. Still, you'll
probably make far fewer mistakes if you don't post while drunk.
"Quotes below have been highly altered."
-- Kenneth Robert Pangborn accidentally admitting in misc.legal
that he alters posts when he replies.
Yes, I did follow the Pangborn Rules of Posting in my reply.
Kent Wills
wrote:
>KUNT WILLS
>"Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:f1npe5lufssll4vo0...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 19:06:24 +0100, freedom
>> <about...@aboutISkenApangbornFRAUD.com> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>>> If you can't afford a PT Cruiser, you don't stand a chance of
>>>>> getting the CRV.
>>>>> If you're going to claim you own one, you'll need to offer
>>>>> something in the way of proof.
>>>>
>>>> I bought one NEW in 2008. PROOF? There is NO proof that a RETARD like
>>>>YOU would understand. Want the original window sticker off it in a scan?
>>>>A
>>>>photo?
>>>
>>>Perhaps you could scan it and crosspost it to the Photoshop newsgroup? So
>>>they can expose you on a fake, like they did with your boarding pass?
>>>ROFL
>>>
>>
>> BURN!
>
>
>Really fairy? http://s283.photobucket.com/albums/kk302/kenPphotos/ Amuse
>the audience again with your POLACK claims of photo expertise
Outside of your bigoted lies, I've made no claim of expertise.
What, specifically, about your constant drinking, forces you to
lie and claim I'm an expert in so many areas? Compared to you, sure,
I'm an expert, but by any rational definition, I am not.
Are you simply letting the readers know that I know more about
most everything than you ever will?
>and tell us
>AGAIN in your EXPERT OPINION why you feel those are faked. You HAVE offered
>us your opinions in the past.
I have.
Contrary to your drunken claims, I've never given an expert
opinion, since I lack the expertise to do so.
You may continue to claim I'm an expert, if your constant
consumption of alcohol demands such of you. I'll just keep exposing
your drunken lies.
>Moore got some KID in the Photoshop newsgroup
>who could not point to any flaw showing the image had been altered, but
Prove it. Post a link to the thread and let the readers see the
truth. Unless you fear the truth coming out again.
>instead based his "EXPERT OPINION" in his claim that he lived next door to
>the CEO of American Airlines who, he said, told him that American Airlines
>NEVER has flown to Cuba.
I don't recall any such post appearing in the thread.
Maybe you've made a mistake as to what was posted? You do that a
great deal.
>NEVER, not even ONE flight in AA's history EVER.
Post a link to the post where that was claimed. No one in the
discussion was using no archive, as proved by the posts still being
available on Google, so you should be able to prove such a claim was
made with ease.
>And YET http://www.abc-charters.com/pages/flights.asp is only one of several
>sources that say his claim was BULLSHIT!!! Notice all the flights to CUBA,
>Kunt?
Have I ever claimed American doesn't fly to Cuba?
>
>WHO got burned here?
You did when people who work with Photoshop showed how the
tickets you posted were faked.
>ROFLMAO! What a pair of POLISH RETARDS you two are. The
>word "POLACK" was invented in Poland for idiots like you guys.
David isn't Polish.
You made another mistake. You make far more than a trial
consultant should.
"Maybe he's like me to attach some kiddie porn to aid his fantasies"
Kenneth Robert Pangborn, of KRP Consulting and The A-Team, expressing
his fondness for child porn in
Message-ID:
<RECUi.494$Q%3.238@trnddc04>
freedom
As just about everyone is aware, toward the end of the calendar year is
when all of the new cars for the following calendar year come out.
If you bought a car new, that late in 2008, it would have been a 2009.
Oops, nailed your fat ass on yet another lie....
http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com
The truth about Kenneth Pangborn, who supports convicted child sex
criminals
"[I have] [n]ever had [any] standing in the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyer's
krp
"freedom" <about...@aboutISkenApangbornFRAUD.com> wrote in message
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009, krp <kr...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>"Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:sctoe5d3qjoo90imd...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 05:20:54 -0400, "krp" <kr...@tampabay.rr.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>>>What of a 2008 Honda CRV bought new?
>>>>>
>>>>> If you can't afford a PT Cruiser, you don't stand a chance of
>>>>> getting the CRV.
>>>>> If you're going to claim you own one, you'll need to offer
>>>>> something in the way of proof.
>>>>
>>>> I bought one NEW in 2008.
>>>
>>> What about the one you claimed to have bought in 2009?
>>> Maybe you just made a mistake when you made that claim and you
>>> meant 2008?
>>
>>Sorry asshole, it was December of 2008 and was a 2008 Honda CRV.
>
>
> As just about everyone is aware, toward the end of the calendar year is
> when all of the new cars for the following calendar year come out.
>
> If you bought a car new, that late in 2008, it would have been a 2009.
Not unless I made a mistake and it was December, 2007, Davey. I just
looked at the sales contract. POOR POOR POOR POOR PICKED ON DAVID MOORE the
pure innocent VICTIM.
krp
>>>>> Kent is arguing about who owns your car?
>>>>> Maybe he thinks your car should be owned by a protective trust?
>>>>> I lived the fiasco about Kent's boat registration.
>>>>
>>>>He thinks I RENT a house.
>>>
>>> When has anyone made such a claim? Unless you've misunderstood
>>> what was posted, offer evidence in the form of the MID and/or Google
>>> link to any such post from me.
> I accept your admission that you were mistaken.
Better lay off the peyote Chief.
>>>>He is howling because *I* actually "OWN" my house.
>
>>> The bank owns it. You're paying them the money you borrowed to get
>>> it.
>>> It's called a mortgage, and many adults have one.
>>
>> Well it is SIMPLE Kunt. You claim to have PROOF of this mortgage.
> When did I make such a claim?
YOU made a FACT STATEMENT "the bank owns it." Obviously this is a
statement that you HAVE proof of that claim. Where is it, POLACK? What's the
name of the BANK that owns it? Or were you just full of Polish SHIT again
Kunt??
> I think you're mistaken regarding what I posted.
Nope, Kunt, you were pretty clear with your claim that ":THE BANK OWNS
IT!!!!!" PROOF in this lifetime Kunt?
> Yet you've been UNABLE to post your PROOF that you paid for the house
> 100% on the day you bought it.
> Please do so now. Thank you in advance.
I posted the link to the PUBLIC RECORDS SITE, Kunt? Too difficult for a
POLACK to click on it and follow???? I understand your pain.
>>A >mortgage would be recorded but the PUBLIC RECORD shows it is FREE AND
>>CLEAR.
> Yet you can't offer anything to prove your claim.
Just the public record.
>>Care to offer YOUR PROOF, Kunt?
> You made the claim that you paid it off with petty cash on day
> one. You prove your claim.
I paid CASH for it, Kunt. Now IF you weren't such a RETARDED POLACK
you'd know I sold my previous house. The deals were done simultaneously in
the same title company closing. PAID IN FULL, Kunt. The public record is
there. YOU ARE A FUKKKKING LIAR and not a smart one.Notice your QUEER PAL
Moore isn't backing you on this?
krp
>>>>>> If you can't afford a PT Cruiser, you don't stand a chance of
>>>>>> getting the CRV.
>>>>>> If you're going to claim you own one, you'll need to offer
>>>>>> something in the way of proof.
>>>>>
>>>>> I bought one NEW in 2008. PROOF? There is NO proof that a RETARD
>>>>> like
>>>>>YOU would understand. Want the original window sticker off it in a
>>>>>scan?
>>>>>A
>>>>>photo?
>>>>
>>>>Perhaps you could scan it and crosspost it to the Photoshop newsgroup?
>>>>So
>>>>they can expose you on a fake, like they did with your boarding pass?
>>>>ROFL
>>>>
>>>
>>> BURN!
>>
>>
>>Really fairy? http://s283.photobucket.com/albums/kk302/kenPphotos/ Amuse
>>the audience again with your POLACK claims of photo expertise
>
> Outside of your bigoted lies, I've made no claim of expertise.
Sure you have, name the suibject YOU arue it as an "EXPERT." No matter
the suibject.
> Are you simply letting the readers know that I know more about
> most everything than you ever will?
I await your EXPert opionion ON THE PHOTOS, KUNT.
>>and tell us AGAIN in your EXPERT OPINION why you feel those are faked. You
>>HAVE offered
>>us your opinions in the past.
> I have.
Treat us again to your "EXPERT ANALYSIS" of how the photos were "FAKED!"
Just one mroe time for the new audience to see your OVERWHELMIN EXPERTISE..
>>Moore got some KID in the Photoshop newsgroup
>>who could not point to any flaw showing the image had been altered, but
> Prove it. Post a link to the thread and let the readers see the
> truth. Unless you fear the truth coming out again.
Why do I need to go back and find the crazy kid. The PHOTOS are up on
the link above, YOU claim to be an EXPERT on photo authenticity, give us
YOUR EXPERT OPINION, Kunt. The details.
>>instead based his "EXPERT OPINION" in his claim that he lived next door to
>>the CEO of American Airlines who, he said, told him that American Airlines
>>NEVER has flown to Cuba.
> I don't recall any such post appearing in the thread.
But Moore does.
>>NEVER, not even ONE flight in AA's history EVER.
> Post a link to the post where that was claimed. No one in the
> discussion was using no archive, as proved by the posts still being
> available on Google, so you should be able to prove such a claim was
> made with ease.
Come on Kunt, you can't take one part of the kid's claims without the
rest. Moore claims the kid PROVED the photos were faked. How come he won't
post the message? Doesn't it worry you a little?
>>And YET http://www.abc-charters.com/pages/flights.asp is only one of
>>several
>>sources that say his claim was BULLSHIT!!! Notice all the flights to
>>CUBA,
>>Kunt?
> Have I ever claimed American doesn't fly to Cuba?
No but the KID that Moore quotes did.
>>WHO got burned here?
> You did when people who work with Photoshop showed how the
> tickets you posted were faked.
ONE KID made the claim and actually admitted that his ONLY basis for his
claim is that he "KNEW" that NO planes fly from the U.S. to Cuba. WAIT -
isn't that a claim YOU also have made on occasdion, Kunt? From your
EXTENSIVE EXPERTISE your VAST VAST VAST VAST personal knowledge ..... And he
later "JUSTIOFIED" his claim by claiming that the CEO of American Airlines
lives next door to him and TOLD HIM.. Yet the claim is BUL:LSHIT as I have
shown. The photos are up, now SHOW US how they were "faked" Kunt. You can't
so you RUN...
>>ROFLMAO! What a pair of POLISH RETARDS you two are. The
>>word "POLACK" was invented in Poland for idiots like you guys.
>
> David isn't Polish.
His birth mother is.
Kent Wills
<about...@aboutISkenApangbornFRAUD.com> wrote:
[...]
>>>> I bought one NEW in 2008.
>>>
>>> What about the one you claimed to have bought in 2009?
>>> Maybe you just made a mistake when you made that claim and you
>>> meant 2008?
>>
>>Sorry asshole, it was December of 2008 and was a 2008 Honda CRV.
>
>
>As just about everyone is aware, toward the end of the calendar year is
>when all of the new cars for the following calendar year come out.
>
>If you bought a car new, that late in 2008, it would have been a 2009.
>
>Oops, nailed your fat ass on yet another lie....
>
He's claimed to have a 2008 and a 2009 SUV.
Odds are he made a mistake with one of the claims. If only he'd
just admit it.
>
>http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com
>The truth about Kenneth Pangborn, who supports convicted child sex
>criminals
Kent Wills
wrote:
>>>>>He thinks I RENT a house.
>>>>
>>>> When has anyone made such a claim? Unless you've misunderstood
>>>> what was posted, offer evidence in the form of the MID and/or Google
>>>> link to any such post from me.
>
>> I accept your admission that you were mistaken.
>
> Better lay off the peyote Chief.
I asked you to offer the proof or admit you made a mistake. Offing
the proof would have been a win for you. Admitting you made a mistake
wouldn't actually be a loss, since people make mistakes.
At no time have I claimed you rent your house. You've admitted
you made a mistake regarding what I posted.
>
>>>>>He is howling because *I* actually "OWN" my house.
>>
>>>> The bank owns it. You're paying them the money you borrowed to get
>>>> it.
>>>> It's called a mortgage, and many adults have one.
>>>
>>> Well it is SIMPLE Kunt. You claim to have PROOF of this mortgage.
>
>> When did I make such a claim?
>
> YOU made a FACT STATEMENT "the bank owns it."
You made the FACT STATEMENT you paid for the house 100% on day one
with petty cash.
Prove you did so, unless you would rather admit you made a
mistake when you claimed you did.
>Obviously this is a
>statement that you HAVE proof of that claim. Where is it, POLACK? What's the
>name of the BANK that owns it? Or were you just full of Polish SHIT again
>Kunt??
Since you've offered nothing to support, let alone prove your
claim that you paid for the house 100% on day one with petty cash, you
have proved my claim that the bank owns it and you're paying off the
mortgage.
Most people in the U.S. have a mortgage. Having one is nothing
to be ashamed of.
Why does your having one prove to be a subject of embarrassment
for you?
>
>> I think you're mistaken regarding what I posted.
>
> Nope, Kunt, you were pretty clear with your claim that ":THE BANK OWNS
>IT!!!!!" PROOF in this lifetime Kunt?
You'll never offer proof that you paid for your home in full on
day one with petty cash, as you've claimed. Your avoidance PROVES you
have a mortgage.
>
>> Yet you've been UNABLE to post your PROOF that you paid for the house
>> 100% on the day you bought it.
>> Please do so now. Thank you in advance.
>
> I posted the link to the PUBLIC RECORDS SITE, Kunt? Too difficult for a
>POLACK to click on it and follow???? I understand your pain.
No mention of a mortgage, or lack of one can be found.
Maybe you misunderstood what's available on the site?
Now prove your FACT CLAIM that you paid for the house 100% on day
one with petty cash.
>
>
>>>A >mortgage would be recorded but the PUBLIC RECORD shows it is FREE AND
>>>CLEAR.
>
>> Yet you can't offer anything to prove your claim.
>
> Just the public record.
There is nothing to support your drunken claim to be found on the
site.
>
>>>Care to offer YOUR PROOF, Kunt?
>
>> You made the claim that you paid it off with petty cash on day
>> one. You prove your claim.
>
>
> I paid CASH for it, Kunt.
Prove it.
>Now IF you weren't such a RETARDED POLACK
http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com/race.html
That you're a bigot is well known and documented.
>you'd know I sold my previous house.
DUH!
>The deals were done simultaneously in
>the same title company closing.
Prove it.
>PAID IN FULL, Kunt. The public record is
>there.
Yet it makes no mention of what you claim.
You frequently misunderstand printed words.
>YOU ARE A FUKKKING
You do LOVE using three K's.
>LIAR and not a smart one.Notice your QUEER PAL
>Moore isn't backing you on this?
David isn't gay. No matter how much you wish he were and that
he would return your desires, neither is going to happen.
Time for you to move on and find some local homosexual male who
wants someone so massive you have your own gravitational pull.
"(CONTEXT REMOVED AS TO THE BELOW CLAIM)"
Kenneth Robert Pangborn admitting he alters the context of posts
when he replies.
MID FyUom.1363$Jd7....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net
Kent Wills
wrote:
[...]
>>>>>Perhaps you could scan it and crosspost it to the Photoshop newsgroup?
>>>>>So
>>>>>they can expose you on a fake, like they did with your boarding pass?
>>>>>ROFL
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> BURN!
>>>
>>>
>>>Really fairy? http://s283.photobucket.com/albums/kk302/kenPphotos/ Amuse
>>>the audience again with your POLACK claims of photo expertise
>>
>> Outside of your bigoted lies, I've made no claim of expertise.
>
> Sure you have, name the suibject YOU arue it as an "EXPERT." No matter
>the suibject.
Again you offer PROOF that you are forced to present bigoted
lies.
It's sad your mental illness (you did claim on ADRU that you are
insane -- a legal term) forces you to do such.
>
>> Are you simply letting the readers know that I know more about
>> most everything than you ever will?
>
> I await your EXPert opionion ON THE PHOTOS, KUNT.
I'm not an expert. Your mental illness, caused by your
alcoholism, unless you lied, forces you to believe I am.
In comparison to you, I may well me in many areas. However, as
most use the term, I am not.
If your drunken delusions NEED you to claim I am that which I am
not, so be it.
>
>>>and tell us AGAIN in your EXPERT OPINION why you feel those are faked. You
>>>HAVE offered
>>>us your opinions in the past.
>
>> I have.
>
> Treat us again to your "EXPERT ANALYSIS" of how the photos were "FAKED!"
>Just one mroe time for the new audience to see your OVERWHELMIN EXPERTISE..
Outside of your alcoholic fantasies, I'm not an expert.
>
>>>Moore got some KID in the Photoshop newsgroup
>>>who could not point to any flaw showing the image had been altered, but
>
>> Prove it. Post a link to the thread and let the readers see the
>> truth. Unless you fear the truth coming out again.
>
> Why do I need to go back and find the crazy kid. The PHOTOS are up on
>the link above, YOU claim to be an EXPERT on photo authenticity, give us
>YOUR EXPERT OPINION, Kunt. The details.
Your admission that you fear the truth coming out again is
accepted.
>
>>>instead based his "EXPERT OPINION" in his claim that he lived next door to
>>>the CEO of American Airlines who, he said, told him that American Airlines
>>>NEVER has flown to Cuba.
>
>> I don't recall any such post appearing in the thread.
>
> But Moore does.
Odd that he's never made such a claim.
>
>>>NEVER, not even ONE flight in AA's history EVER.
>
>> Post a link to the post where that was claimed. No one in the
>> discussion was using no archive, as proved by the posts still being
>> available on Google, so you should be able to prove such a claim was
>> made with ease.
>
> Come on Kunt, you can't take one part of the kid's claims without the
>rest. Moore claims the kid PROVED the photos were faked. How come he won't
>post the message? Doesn't it worry you a little?
I asked you to post it.
You admitted above that you didn't do so because you fear the
truth coming out.
>
>>>And YET http://www.abc-charters.com/pages/flights.asp is only one of
>>>several
>>>sources that say his claim was BULLSHIT!!! Notice all the flights to
>>>CUBA,
>>>Kunt?
>
>> Have I ever claimed American doesn't fly to Cuba?
>
> No but the KID that Moore quotes did.
>
Where does Moore offer such a quote?
>>>WHO got burned here?
>
>> You did when people who work with Photoshop showed how the
>> tickets you posted were faked.
>
> ONE KID made the claim and actually admitted that his ONLY basis for his
>claim is that he "KNEW" that NO planes fly from the U.S. to Cuba.
Three separate people stated the scans were fake. Each one
explained how they came to the conclusion.
I saw nothing about any airline not flying to Cuba.
Looks like you've made another mistake regarding what was posted.
Of course, you could prove you were and are correct by posting the MID
and/or Google link for the post.
>WAIT -
>isn't that a claim YOU also have made on occasdion, Kunt?
Nope.
> From your
>EXTENSIVE EXPERTISE your VAST VAST VAST VAST personal knowledge ..... And he
>later "JUSTIOFIED" his claim by claiming that the CEO of American Airlines
>lives next door to him and TOLD HIM..
I made no such claim.
>Yet the claim is BUL:LSHIT as I have
>shown. The photos are up, now SHOW US how they were "faked" Kunt. You can't
>so you RUN...
I'm not running. In your desperate attempt to avoid the truth,
you're now mentioning photos. They have nothing to do with the
subject at hand.
Your attempt to distract from the truth serves as PROOF that
you've been caught in a lie.
>
>
>>>ROFLMAO! What a pair of POLISH RETARDS you two are. The
>>>word "POLACK" was invented in Poland for idiots like you guys.
>>
>> David isn't Polish.
>
>His birth mother is.
Prove it. Prove the David Moore we know has a mother who is
Polish. That another man named David Moore has one will not serve as
proof the David we know does.
Go on. Prove it, unless you've made a mistake regarding who
David really is.
"It's attached to a thing called a "WIFE" Betty."
Kenneth Robert Pangborn showing how he views his wife
as an object and NOT a human being.
Message-ID: <KLf2j.31312$9h.4837@trnddc07>
Kent Wills
wrote:
[...]
>>>Sorry asshole, it was December of 2008 and was a 2008 Honda CRV.
>>
>>
>> As just about everyone is aware, toward the end of the calendar year is
>> when all of the new cars for the following calendar year come out.
>>
>> If you bought a car new, that late in 2008, it would have been a 2009.
>
> Not unless I made a mistake and it was December, 2007, Davey. I just
>looked at the sales contract. POOR POOR POOR POOR PICKED ON DAVID MOORE the
>pure innocent VICTIM.
So you now claim to have a 2007, 2008 and 2009 SUV?
WOW!
freedom
> LITTLE DAVEY MOORE
>"freedom" <about...@aboutISkenApangbornFRAUD.com> wrote in message
>news:e354ce0cd721fd20...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>What of a 2008 Honda CRV bought new?
>>>>
>>>> If you can't afford a PT Cruiser, you don't stand a chance of
>>>> getting the CRV.
>>>> If you're going to claim you own one, you'll need to offer
>>>> something in the way of proof.
>>>
>>> I bought one NEW in 2008. PROOF? There is NO proof that a RETARD like
>>>YOU would understand. Want the original window sticker off it in a scan? A
>>>photo?
>>
>> Perhaps you could scan it and crosspost it to the Photoshop newsgroup? So
>> they can expose you on a fake, like they did with your boarding pass?
>> ROFL
>
>You mean the KID who CLAIMED he lived next door to the CEO of American
>Airlines who HE SAID told him that American NEVER flew to Cuba. Except I
>proved they did and still do almost every day. Like HIM, Davey? The photos
>of the boarding passes, tickets, and airport stamps are still up. Please
>FEEL FREE to do your usual yapping at to why you think they are FAKE.
I think they're fake because SEVERAL people in the Photoshop newsgroup
ID'ed them as fakes....not just one "kid" as you try to rant.
I've never even looked at them in detail, because I never gave a rat's ass
whether or not you flew to Cuba. I defer to the experts who concluded that
you faked the boarding passes.
krp
> On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 08:47:28 -0500, "krp" <kr...@tampabay.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>>>Sorry asshole, it was December of 2008 and was a 2008 Honda CRV.
>>>
>>>
>>> As just about everyone is aware, toward the end of the calendar year is
>>> when all of the new cars for the following calendar year come out.
>>>
>>> If you bought a car new, that late in 2008, it would have been a 2009.
>>
>> Not unless I made a mistake and it was December, 2007, Davey. I just
>>looked at the sales contract. POOR POOR POOR POOR PICKED ON DAVID MOORE
>>the
>>pure innocent VICTIM.
>
> So you now claim to have a 2007, 2008 and 2009 SUV?
> WOW!
Poor confused Polack. It is a 2008, and I bought it in December 2007. Not
2008.
My wife however has a 2009 Civic.
krp
> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 05:05:45 +0100, freedom
> <about...@aboutISkenApangbornFRAUD.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>>>> I bought one NEW in 2008.
>>>>
>>>> What about the one you claimed to have bought in 2009?
>>>> Maybe you just made a mistake when you made that claim and you
>>>> meant 2008?
>>>
>>>Sorry asshole, it was December of 2008 and was a 2008 Honda CRV.
>>
>>
>>As just about everyone is aware, toward the end of the calendar year is
>>when all of the new cars for the following calendar year come out.
>>
>>If you bought a car new, that late in 2008, it would have been a 2009.
>>
>>Oops, nailed your fat ass on yet another lie....
>>
>
> He's claimed to have a 2008 and a 2009 SUV.
I have always said 2008. TRY AGAIN YOU LYING POLACK!
krp
I posted a link to the county public records. You replied yesterday in an
EXTREMELY DISHONEST manner snipping a great deal of the information from the
public record. BUT being the STUPID POLACK you are, who'd expect you to be
honest now? What a dork. You QUOTE from the page and SNIP the part that
shows there is NO MORTGAGED. How typical of the TROLL Kent Wills.
You even snip to TRY to show that the house is worth only $29,000.
DISHONESTLY. Stripping the information that shows the deductions for the
Florida "SAVE OUR HOMES" exemption etc that LIMITS taxes on homes. You are a
POLACK so I don't expect you to either understand it OR be honest enough
(Mr. GARAGE BURGLAR) to have posted the FULL information. I expected you to
do exactly what you did. Just so everyone could see AGAIN your constant
DISHONESTY and STUPIDITY! Bet you though you FOOLED everyone with your
little gambit, didn't ya Polack?
Even as it is it listed a "market value" of $95,000 (which is substantially
MORE than the market value of your pal Moore's hovel.) Most people who know
anything about real estate like your BIG REAL ESTATE MAGNATE pal Moore,
would know that the "market value" listed by the Tax Assessor in not the
ACTUAL "market value" for real estate values. For example if you look at the
COMPS (meaning sales of comparable houses in this market) you'd see that
similar houses have been selling for between about $150,000 to $190,000 in
this area. The $150,000 units are generally the 2 bedroom models that are in
poor condition and have not been updated. The development was done in 1975.
My house has completely updated electrical that meets the NEW CODE (5 wire
55 amp service) to the range, a separate 25 amp service to the microwave
etc. New kitchen with all Whirlpool God appliances. From a barren landscape
to extensive landscaping now. BTW the Google Earth street view is almost 5
years old. One RE agent said she thought we could get $225,000 if we held
out IF we wanted to sell the house. That's with the market being so bad. If
we go back 3 or 4 years ago to before the bubble burst, maybe could have
gotten $275,000.
So Kunt, If you look at the form you SNIPPED the box for mortgage is BLANK.
Because there is NONE. Oh and if you need a SCAN you can call the office and
get one or they will tell you there is NO mortgage listed for the property.
TOO BAD POLACK. I "OWN" my house and I do NOT live off my MOMMY like YOU and
your pal Moore DO!
krp
>>>>>>Perhaps you could scan it and crosspost it to the Photoshop newsgroup?
>>>>>>So
>>>>>>they can expose you on a fake, like they did with your boarding pass?
>>>>>>ROFL
>>>>> BURN!
>>>>Really fairy? http://s283.photobucket.com/albums/kk302/kenPphotos/
>>>>Amuse
>>>>the audience again with your POLACK claims of photo expertise
>>> Outside of your bigoted lies, I've made no claim of expertise.
>> Sure you have, name the subject YOU argue it as an "EXPERT." No matter
>>the suibject.
> Again you offer PROOF that you are forced to present bigoted lies.
The PHOTOS that YOU claim are FAKES are there on thew photobucket page
listed above. This post is also in the photoshop newsgroup. Is anyone
agreeing with your trollish claim that they are "FAKES?" Look at your
comments above claiming I was "BURNED" with the "FAKE" boarding pass. Well
Kunt, the boarding passes sre right there. Tell us WHY you believe they are
FAKES since you think you are an EXPERT.
>>> Are you simply letting the readers know that I know more about
>>> most everything than you ever will?
>
>> I await your EXPERT opionion ON THE PHOTOS, KUNT.
> I'm not an expert.
NO SHIT! Then STFU and quit claiming the photos are faked!
>>>>and tell us AGAIN in your EXPERT OPINION why you feel those are faked.
>>>>You HAVE offered
>>>>us your opinions in the past.
>>> I have.
Well is you is or is you ain't?
>> Treat us again to your "EXPERT ANALYSIS" of how the photos were
>> "FAKED!"
>>Just one mroe time for the new audience to see your OVERWHELMIN
>>EXPERTISE..
> Outside of your alcoholic fantasies, I'm not an expert.
Pick a lane, Kunt, is you is or is you ain't?
>>>>Moore got some KID in the Photoshop newsgroup
>>>>who could not point to any flaw showing the image had been altered, but
>
>>> Prove it. Post a link to the thread and let the readers see the
>>> truth. Unless you fear the truth coming out again.
>>
>> Why do I need to go back and find the crazy kid. The PHOTOS are up on
>>the link above, YOU claim to be an EXPERT on photo authenticity, give us
>>YOUR EXPERT OPINION, Kunt. The details.
> Your admission that you fear the truth coming out again is
> accepted.
If I "FEARED" the truth, KUNT, why would I put the phtos UP for anyone
to examine? HUH KUNT? Aside from your gay lover (Moore) has ANYONE agreed
with you?
>>>>NEVER, not even ONE flight in AA's history EVER.
>>> Post a link to the post where that was claimed. No one in the
>>> discussion was using no archive, as proved by the posts still being
>>> available on Google, so you should be able to prove such a claim was
>>> made with ease.
Kunt simply now you all have run for the high timber to hide because I
proved that AA in fact DOES fly to Cuba. So denying the claim is your only
refuge. YOU claimed a bunch of times before you were exposed as a liar that
there were no flight to Cuba or Venezuela. Remember the SPANKING you got on
that one, Kunt?
>> Come on Kunt, you can't take one part of the kid's claims without the
>>rest. Moore claims the kid PROVED the photos were faked. How come he won't
>>post the message? Doesn't it worry you a little?
> I asked you to post it. You admitted above that you didn't do so
> because you fear the
> truth coming out.
Well I posted the photobucket LINK, Kunt. If I FEARED THE TRUTH as you
claim, I'd not have done that. PLEASE, Kunt, give us your ANALYSIS of how
the photos were faked. Your EXPERT analysis. Or do what you've been doing
CHANGE THE SUBJECT and run like a rabbitt from your hole.
>>>>And YET http://www.abc-charters.com/pages/flights.asp is only one of
>>>>several
>>>>sources that say his claim was BULLSHIT!!! Notice all the flights to
>>>>CUBA,
>>>>Kunt?
>>> Have I ever claimed American doesn't fly to Cuba?
>> No but the KID that Moore quotes did.
> Where does Moore offer such a quote?
He refers to the ONE individual who DID say the photos were fakes. It
turned out to be something like a 13 year old KID. The kid claimed he based
his OPINION that they were fakes bnecause American Airlies doesn't fly to
Cuba, and the CEO of AA told him personally because he lives right next door
to him. (multi-layer bullshit.)
>>>>WHO got burned here?
>>> You did when people who work with Photoshop showed how the
>>> tickets you posted were faked.
>> ONE KID made the claim and actually admitted that his ONLY basis for
>> his
>>claim is that he "KNEW" that NO planes fly from the U.S. to Cuba.
> Three separate people stated the scans were fake.
BULLSHIT. The kid and MOORE.
> Each one explained how they came to the conclusion.
Google message IDs so we can see this claim?
> I saw nothing about any airline not flying to Cuba.
Well I can understand why NOW you can't remember. After showing it was
clearly such BULLSHIT!!!!!!!
>>Yet the claim is BUL:LSHIT as I have
>>shown. The photos are up, now SHOW US how they were "faked" Kunt. You
>>can't
>>so you RUN...
> I'm not running. In your desperate attempt to avoid the truth,
> you're now mentioning photos. They have nothing to do with the
> subject at hand.
> Your attempt to distract from the truth serves as PROOF that
> you've been caught in a lie.
Really? The photos are up. treat us to your PROOF that ehey are fakes.
Tell us your analysis of how they were faked. OR KEEP ON RUNNING, Kunt. And
you ARE running like the scared little rabbitt you are!
The PHOTOS ARE THERE Kunt
http://s283.photobucket.com/albums/kk302/kenPphotos/ Treat us to YOUR EXPERT
ANALYSIS of them and how they are fakes. Maybe somebody from the Photoshop
newsgroup will HELP you, you so desperately NEED rescue on this Kunt. How
come nobody is coming to rescue you? How come you are ALL ALONE on this?
krp
"freedom" <about...@aboutISkenApangbornFRAUD.com> wrote in message
>>You mean the KID who CLAIMED he lived next door to the CEO of American
>>Airlines who HE SAID told him that American NEVER flew to Cuba. Except I
>>proved they did and still do almost every day. Like HIM, Davey? The photos
>>of the boarding passes, tickets, and airport stamps are still up. Please
>>FEEL FREE to do your usual yapping at to why you think they are FAKE.
> I think they're fake because SEVERAL people in the Photoshop newsgroup
> ID'ed them as fakes....not just one "kid" as you try to rant.
ONE KID, Moore. Feel free to post the Google links to show us the
SEVERAL. The ones NOT posting through anonymous remailers, that is. They are
UP Davey. http://s283.photobucket.com/albums/kk302/kenPphotos/ This is
crossposted to the PHOTOSHOP newsgroup. See Davey if you can BEG to find
anyone to agree with you that they are fakes and explain WHY they are faked.
Or HOW, that is. You KNOW they aren't faked. You just have your ass over a
crack and can't figure out how to save yourself.
freedom
Actually, I don't give a rat's ass whether you went to Cuba or not. Nor
was I even involved in the original discussion, although you were falsely
insisting that "Robert Gautier" was me.
However, as you have again given me an open invitation to nail your fat ass
to the wall, here are posts from four different people in the thread in
question:
Message-ID: <MbMJb.45939$E17....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>
"JP Kabala", posting from Verizon, which is not an anonymous remailer,
said: "The person who did the alteration didn't pay attention to paper
textures and ink properties."
Message-ID: <Xns9466B30D7CE...@68.12.19.6>
"Farlo", posting from att.net, which is not an anonymous remailer, said:
"Yes. It is grossly obvious." in direct response to your question "HAS THAT
IMAGE BEEN [']DOCTORED['] by in PHOTOSHOP?"
Message-ID: <20040105022026...@mb-m21.aol.com>
"Tacit", posting from America Online, which is not an anonymous remailer,
said: "Yes. Badly." and "It's a fake. A really, really bad fake." in
response to the same question by you.
Message-ID: <4006DA4B...@nospam.uk>
"Stuart", posting from Coventry University, which is not an anonymous
remailer, said: "the white continental airlines ticket is fake, then is a
large white even fill area in the middle of the ticket to the right of
name. This should be uneven if scanned properly."
And here's the link to the actual thread, for anyone who cares to verify
how badly your fat ass got nailed to the wall:
Kent Wills
wrote:
[...]
>>> Not unless I made a mistake and it was December, 2007, Davey. I just
>>>looked at the sales contract. POOR POOR POOR POOR PICKED ON DAVID MOORE
>>>the
>>>pure innocent VICTIM.
>>
>> So you now claim to have a 2007, 2008 and 2009 SUV?
>> WOW!
>
>Poor confused Polack. It is a 2008, and I bought it in December 2007. Not
>2008.
>My wife however has a 2009 Civic.
You've claimed YOU own a 2007, 2008 and 2009 SUV.
You may have made a mistake. I do note you've offered NOTHING to
support your claim.
Kent Wills
wrote:
>> Odds are he made a mistake with one of the claims. If only he'd
>>just admit it.
>
>I have always said 2008. TRY AGAIN YOU LYING POLACK!
Are you admitting you made a mistake when you claimed you bought a
new 2009 SUV?
Kent Wills
wrote:
[...]
>>>> When did I make such a claim?
>>>
>>> YOU made a FACT STATEMENT "the bank owns it."
>>
>> You made the FACT STATEMENT you paid for the house 100% on day one
>> with petty cash.
>> Prove you did so, unless you would rather admit you made a
>> mistake when you claimed you did.
>>
I accept your admission that you made a mistake.
>>>Obviously this is a
>>>statement that you HAVE proof of that claim. Where is it, POLACK? What's
>>>the
>>>name of the BANK that owns it? Or were you just full of Polish SHIT again
>>>Kunt??
>>
>> Since you've offered nothing to support, let alone prove your
>> claim that you paid for the house 100% on day one with petty cash, you
>> have proved my claim that the bank owns it and you're paying off the
>> mortgage.
>
>I posted a link to the county public records.
Which offers nothing to prove your claim that you own the home
free and clear.
>You replied yesterday in an
>EXTREMELY DISHONEST manner snipping a great deal of the information from the
>public record.
I snipped nothing.
I didn't C&P the totality of the web site, but that's not the
same as snipping.
Maybe you misunderstand the meaning of snipping?
>BUT being the STUPID POLACK you are, who'd expect you to be
>honest now? What a dork. You QUOTE from the page and SNIP the part that
>shows there is NO MORTGAGED.
There is no mention either way. Nothing supports your claim that
you own the home free and clear. And definitely nothing to support
your claim that you paid it 100% on day one with petty cash.
>How typical of the TROLL Kent Wills.
>You even snip to TRY to show that the house is worth only $29,000.
That's what the site claimed. If it's wrong, it's wrong.
>DISHONESTLY. Stripping the information that shows the deductions for the
>Florida "SAVE OUR HOMES" exemption etc that LIMITS taxes on homes.
I stripped nothing.
You're mistaken if you think I can edit the web site, as you
claim.
>You are a POLACK
http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com/race.html
As is the case with all racists, you HATE foreigners who dare to
come to the U.S.
Whereas no one is disputing you hold this view, I have to wonder
just why you are consistently FORCED to prove it. Would you explain
why?
>so I don't expect you to either understand it OR be honest enough
>(Mr. GARAGE BURGLAR)
When have I committed such an act?
Keep in mind you acknowledged in the thread about your listserv
that I am not really named Kent Wills. It's a Usenet nym.
Have you gotten anyone to sign the petition to open up Cuba to
travel?
Oops. I forgot, you have claimed I don't have access to your
listserv. If I hadn't already proved it enough, that bit should
establish that I do.
>to have posted the FULL information. I expected you to
>do exactly what you did.
Most people expect me to present the truth.
>Just so everyone could see AGAIN your constant
>DISHONESTY and STUPIDITY! Bet you though you FOOLED everyone with your
>little gambit, didn't ya Polack?
>
I wasn't trying to fool anyone. You've made a mistake regarding
my motivation.
You make a lot of mistakes. Far more than a competent trial
consultant should make.
>Even as it is it listed a "market value" of $95,000 (which is substantially
>MORE than the market value of your pal Moore's hovel.)
Possible, though not likely.
Since you've never seen his home, you can't appreciate it.
And no, I'm not going to make any pictures I have of it available
for viewing. If you should want stalking fodder, you'll have to try
somewhere else.
>Most people who know
>anything about real estate like your BIG REAL ESTATE MAGNATE pal Moore,
>would know that the "market value" listed by the Tax Assessor in not the
>ACTUAL "market value" for real estate values.
So it's worth even less?
Bummer.
>For example if you look at the
>COMPS (meaning sales of comparable houses in this market) you'd see that
>similar houses have been selling for between about $150,000 to $190,000 in
>this area. The $150,000 units are generally the 2 bedroom models that are in
>poor condition and have not been updated. The development was done in 1975.
Odd that the site shows your home as having been around since at
least 1973. I posted the price of the home when it was new in 1973.
It was worth more then. I didn't even need to factor in inflation.
>My house has completely updated electrical that meets the NEW CODE (5 wire
>55 amp service) to the range, a separate 25 amp service to the microwave
>etc. New kitchen with all Whirlpool God appliances.
I wasn't aware God licensed His name/title. They had better be
the absolute best out there.
Whirlpool is good, but God level good?
>From a barren landscape
>to extensive landscaping now. BTW the Google Earth street view is almost 5
>years old. One RE agent said she thought we could get $225,000 if we held
>out IF we wanted to sell the house.
Prove it.
> That's with the market being so bad. If
>we go back 3 or 4 years ago to before the bubble burst, maybe could have
>gotten $275,000.
>
>So Kunt, If you look at the form you SNIPPED the box for mortgage is BLANK.
What box? I saw no box for a mortgage.
Where on the page can I, or anyone else interested, see it?
>Because there is NONE. Oh and if you need a SCAN you can call the office and
>get one or they will tell you there is NO mortgage listed for the property.
Way more work than I am willing to invest.
Why don't you just prove your claim?
>TOO BAD POLACK. I "OWN" my house and I do NOT live off my MOMMY like YOU and
>your pal Moore DO!
Unless you've been less than honest, your mother is dead. Because
of this, there is no way David or I could live off of her.
Care to try again? Maybe if you'd post while sober, you wouldn't
make such mistakes as you did above. Maybe.
Kent Wills
wrote:
>DAVEY MOORE
Why are you so obsessed with David's ass?
Kent Wills
wrote:
>THE EVER RETARDED TWICE CONVICTED GARAGE BURGLAR FELON
No such person is involved in this discussion.
You acknowledged in the thread about your listserv (have you
gotten enough people to sign the petition to lift the travel ban?)
that my name in real life isn't Kent.
>"Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:arlre5hfv0g0kjo3v...@4ax.com...
>
>>>>>>>Perhaps you could scan it and crosspost it to the Photoshop newsgroup?
>>>>>>>So
>>>>>>>they can expose you on a fake, like they did with your boarding pass?
>>>>>>>ROFL
>
>>>>>> BURN!
>
>>>>>Really fairy? http://s283.photobucket.com/albums/kk302/kenPphotos/
>>>>>Amuse
>>>>>the audience again with your POLACK claims of photo expertise
>
>>>> Outside of your bigoted lies, I've made no claim of expertise.
>
>>> Sure you have, name the subject YOU argue it as an "EXPERT." No matter
>>>the suibject.
>
>> Again you offer PROOF that you are forced to present bigoted lies.
>> It's sad your mental illness (you did claim on ADRU that you are
>>insane -- a legal term) forces you to do such.
>
> The PHOTOS that YOU claim are FAKES
I don't make that claim. People who use photoshop have.
I only gave (and give) my opinion on them while citing what they
stated about the images. Nothing more.
To me, they look fake. However, I've always stated I will yield
to any opinion from anyone who knows about image manipulation if their
opinion contradicts mine.
As of my writing this, no such contrary opinion has been offered.
Unless you are stating you are a quasi-expert on image manipulation.
>are there on thew photobucket page
>listed above. This post is also in the photoshop newsgroup. Is anyone
>agreeing with your trollish claim that they are "FAKES?" Look at your
>comments above claiming I was "BURNED" with the "FAKE" boarding pass.
It is a burn.
>Well
>Kunt, the boarding passes sre right there. Tell us WHY you believe they are
>FAKES since you think you are an EXPERT.
>
I've made no claim of expertise.
Do you really think your drunken claims fall within the category
of normal? They don't.
>>>> Are you simply letting the readers know that I know more about
>>>> most everything than you ever will?
>>
>>> I await your EXPERT opionion ON THE PHOTOS, KUNT.
>>
>> I'm not an expert. Your mental illness, caused by your
>>alcoholism, unless you lied, forces you to believe I am.
>> In comparison to you, I may well me in many areas.
>
> NO SHIT!
Thank you for that admission.
[The remainder snipped since Pangborn has admitted I know more than
him. A bit of a shock, given that I know almost nothing of image
manipulation.]
krp
"freedom" <about...@aboutISkenApangbornFRAUD.com> wrote in message
>>
>>>>You mean the KID who CLAIMED he lived next door to the CEO of American
>>>>Airlines who HE SAID told him that American NEVER flew to Cuba. Except I
>>>>proved they did and still do almost every day. Like HIM, Davey? The
>>>>photos
>>>>of the boarding passes, tickets, and airport stamps are still up. Please
>>>>FEEL FREE to do your usual yapping at to why you think they are FAKE.
>>
>>> I think they're fake because SEVERAL people in the Photoshop newsgroup
>>> ID'ed them as fakes....not just one "kid" as you try to rant.
>>
>> ONE KID, Moore. Feel free to post the Google links to show us the
>>SEVERAL. The ones NOT posting through anonymous remailers, that is. They
>>are
>>UP Davey. http://s283.photobucket.com/albums/kk302/kenPphotos/ This is
>>crossposted to the PHOTOSHOP newsgroup. See Davey if you can BEG to find
>>anyone to agree with you that they are fakes and explain WHY they are
>>faked.
>>Or HOW, that is. You KNOW they aren't faked. You just have your ass over
>>a
>>crack and can't figure out how to save yourself.
> Actually, I don't give a rat's ass whether you went to Cuba or not. Nor
> was I even involved in the original discussion, although you were falsely
> insisting that "Robert Gautier" was me.
Davey one kid and two agreed but were NEVER able to give a cogent
reason. One finally admitted he was "NO EXPERT." The best we got in all
that BULLSHIT was a white space that seemed "too even" for one, and another
who claimed that American and Continental do NOT fly to Cuba. That's your
BEST SHOT Moore. It fails miserably. Again the photos are up, maybe you can
find somebody new willing to make an ass of themselves? Somebody who can be
specific?????
> However, as you have again given me an open invitation to nail your fat
> ass
> to the wall, here are posts from four different people in the thread in
> question:
> Message-ID: <MbMJb.45939$E17....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>
> "JP Kabala", posting from Verizon, which is not an anonymous remailer,
> said: "The person who did the alteration didn't pay attention to paper
> textures and ink properties."
How does one CHECK paper texture and ink properties in a photo???????
Oh let's look at this comment:
Newsgroups: comp.graphics.apps.photoshop
From: "JP Kabala" <j...@jpkabala.com>
Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 03:58:36 GMT
Local: Sat, Jan 3 2004 10:58 pm
Subject: Re: PHOTOSHOP ALTERATION
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original |
Report this message | Find messages by this author
Aside from the fact that neither American Airlines nor Continental go to
Cuba?
While it is possible (for someone with Canadian or UK passport, but not a
US citizen) to book a AA or CA flight to the Bahamas, Haiti, Jamaica or the
Caymans with a connection via AeroCaribe or other small charter carrier, CA,
AA, AE,
and AC flights do not/can not disembark in Cuba...not today, and not since
the
60's. You can fly from London to Havana, but not from Miami to Holaguin.
That's not Photoshop, that's Road Warrior 101 and 9th grade social studies.
But the Photoshop is clumsy, too. The person who did the alteration didn't
pay attention to paper textures and ink properties.
THESE ARE DAVID MOORE'S SOURCES!!! <chuckle> Paper textures?
9. Jackie Laderoute View profile
More options Jan 3 2004, 11:39 pm
Newsgroups: comp.graphics.apps.photoshop
From: Jackie Laderoute <jfladero...@shaw.ca>
Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 04:39:11 GMT
Local: Sat, Jan 3 2004 11:39 pm
Subject: Re: PHOTOSHOP ALTERATION
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original |
Report this message | Find messages by this author
On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 03:58:36 GMT, "JP Kabala" <j...@jpkabala.com> wrote:
>Aside from the fact that neither American Airlines nor Continental go to
>Cuba?
>While it is possible (for someone with Canadian or UK passport, but not a
>US citizen) to book a AA or CA flight to the Bahamas, Haiti, Jamaica or the
>Caymans with a connection via AeroCaribe or other small charter carrier,
>CA, AA, AE, and AC flights do not/can not disembark in Cuba...not today,
> and not since the 60's. You can fly from London to Havana, but not from
>Miami to Holaguin.
Shown to be FALSE!! There ARE flights to Cuba from Miami.
Newsgroups: comp.graphics.apps.photoshop, soc.men,
alt.dads-rights.unmoderated, soc.culture.cuba
From: Stuart <stu...@nospam.uk>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 18:22:03 +0000
Local: Thurs, Jan 15 2004 1:22 pm
Subject: Re: PHOTOSHOP ALTERATION
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original |
Report this message | Find messages by this author
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
K...@verizon.net wrote:
> "Stuart" <stu...@nospam.uk> wrote in message
> news:4006A02...@nospam.uk...
> I came into the Photoshop newsgroup with a SIMPLE question. It is YOU
> playing childish games NOT ME. Your most recent post you admitted that
> you
> don't have the ability to tell. Which makes me wonder WHY in hell you
> stepped into the subject in the first place. Either you can tell or you
> can't! Which is it? If you CAN'T then you are merely playing in a flame
> war.
Well a friend looked at it and can see that the white continental airlines
ticket is fake, then is a large white even fill area in the middle of the
ticket to
the right of name. This should be uneven if scanned properly.
So there you go.
Stuart
REALLY? What if there never was any printing there in the first place?
Of course
85. tek1 View profile I don't know what you're arguing about - KRP
hooked me up with people in Holguin and others who are going - it's faily
obvious he's been himself. Could we move on?? Gery
Newsgroups: comp.graphics.apps.photoshop, soc.men,
alt.dads-rights.unmoderated, soc.culture.cuba
From: "tek1" <tek1@NOS_PAM.aei.net>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 08:06:06 -0500
Local: Tues, Jan 20 2004 8:06 am
Subject: Re: PHOTOSHOP ALTERATION
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original |
Report this message | Find messages by this author
I don't know what you're arguing about - KRP hooked me up with people in
Holguin and others who are going - it's faily obvious he's been himself.
Could we move on??
Gery
As always Moore you are so SELECTIVE in your quotes. The closest thing to
any intelligent discussion was one guy's claims about PAPER TEXTURE and INK.
<yawn? From a JPEG? REALLY? REALLY REALLY???? Come on Davey, not even KENT
WILLS is THAT dumb. Almanac?
More of what MOORE doesn't show us:
> "Stuart" <stu...@nospam.uk> wrote in message
> news:3FFC3D12...@nospam.uk...
>>As to the original question; personally a better quality scan would be
>>better.
> I understand Stuart. Maybe I can send you one.
No need, I meant it more as a general suggestion for the original linked
image. To be honest I am not an expert so probably wouldn't be able to
tell even with a better quality scan. I am not getting into the
bickering and not being from the US I can't totally understand why this
post has gotten so out of hand.
=======================
We've gotten to the person who said he checked with American Airlines
and it doesn't fly to Cuba.
Again we see how selective DAVID MOORE is with his quotes. I just gave
some of the OTHER side of the story Davey won't show.
krp
> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 08:17:45 -0500, "krp" <kr...@tampabay.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>>> Not unless I made a mistake and it was December, 2007, Davey. I just
>>>>looked at the sales contract. POOR POOR POOR POOR PICKED ON DAVID MOORE
>>>>the
>>>>pure innocent VICTIM.
>>>
>>> So you now claim to have a 2007, 2008 and 2009 SUV?
>>> WOW!
>>
>>Poor confused Polack. It is a 2008, and I bought it in December 2007. Not
>>2008.
>>My wife however has a 2009 Civic.
>
> You've claimed YOU own a 2007, 2008 and 2009 SUV.
> You may have made a mistake. I do note you've offered NOTHING to
> support your claim.
Poor dumb Polack you get confused. *I* have only owned a 2008 CRV. My wife
HAD a 2007 Civic and has now traded it on a 2009 Civic. I hope you can
overcome your Polackness to understand that a Honda Civic is NOT an SUV. I
may be asking too much in that regard. Before the CRV I owned a Chrysler
300C. That tended to use gas and got me a speeding ticket. That was about 4
years ago and the first one I got in at least 40 years. If you want I can go
back to my teen years and list every car I ever owned.
1. I had a pass down of my Dad's 51 Buick Roadmaster.
2. In the Air Force I got a 50 Ford. POS.
3. Next I got a 51 Henry-J and it was a PARTY CAR indeed. a 4 banger and my
buddies and I went everywhere in it.
4. Then a 54 Buick POS.
5. A 60 Ford Falcon POS. (I don't like Fords)
6. A 65 Buick Skylark. Great car
7. A 66 Buick Skylark GS convertible.
8. A 1968 AMX. Sold it for $2k more than I paid for it a year later.
9. A 1970 Pontiac Grand Prix. Fun car even if unreliable.
10. A 1970 Javelin. A great car a step up from the Pontiac.
11. A 72 Chevy Impala. Boy was THAT a mistake.
12. A 1976 Buick century wagon.
13. A 1972 Cadillac El Dorado. Another bad mistake.
14. A 1978 Buick Century.
15. A 1980 Datsun Station wagon.
16. A 1981 Plymouth Reliant. (Not a good car)
17. A 1985 Dodge Caravan. GREAT car, put 150,000 miles on it.
17a. A 1985 Ford Econoline van.
18. A 1994 Dodge Caravan
19. A 1998 Dodge Caravan
20 A 2000 Chrysler Town and Country. GREAT car. Wish I kept it.
21. A 2005 Chrysler 300C. Ate gas and was too fast.
22. A 2008 Honda CRV.
That's 50 years of driving history, Kunt, just feeding you some more
ammunition for a PSYCHO to play with. The audience is waiting for your next
mental episode Kunt. I am certain you won't let us down. I did NOT count
company cars in that list. There were several FORD'S I have never had a high
opinion of Fords. They tend to break and wear out easily. I understand that
has changed lately. I am gun shy of Fords. I gave up on GM completely. And
Chrysler has gone to hell. Right now Chrysler is a rudderless ship sitting
on the rocks and its captain has NO idea how to get it off. That's what
happens then you have somebody at the top who is an MBA and has NO idea what
makes a car run.
`So, Kunt ENJOY! Amuse us.
krp
> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 08:18:32 -0500, "krp" <kr...@tampabay.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:rolre5p1a9p1ugcot...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 05:05:45 +0100, freedom
>>> <about...@aboutISkenApangbornFRAUD.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>>>> I bought one NEW in 2008.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What about the one you claimed to have bought in 2009?
>>>>>> Maybe you just made a mistake when you made that claim and you
>>>>>> meant 2008?
>>>>>
>>>>>Sorry asshole, it was December of 2008 and was a 2008 Honda CRV.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>As just about everyone is aware, toward the end of the calendar year is
>>>>when all of the new cars for the following calendar year come out.
>>>>
>>>>If you bought a car new, that late in 2008, it would have been a 2009.
>>>>
>>>>Oops, nailed your fat ass on yet another lie....
>>>>
>>>
>>> He's claimed to have a 2008 and a 2009 SUV.
>>> Odds are he made a mistake with one of the claims. If only he'd
>>>just admit it.
>>
>>I have always said 2008. TRY AGAIN YOU LYING POLACK!
>
> Are you admitting you made a mistake when you claimed you bought a
> new 2009 SUV?
No - YOU did. I said a 2009 CIVIC. I hope you can have somebody explain
it to you with more patience for dealing with an incredibly STUPID Polack
than I have, The Civic is a CAR not an SUV you RETARD! And it is my wife's
car.
krp
You deliberately did NOT C&P the part that showed the taxable "market value"
(not the REAL market value) and you used the "LAND VALUE" you STUPID POLACK
and you thought you could get away with it. No wonder you have been
convicted of two felonies. You are too stupid to be a good burglar. You keep
getting caught.
Kadaitcha Man
gnarled:
> In message news:3itve5hr...@4ax.compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in
> message news:3itve5hr...@4ax.com... "kent wills"
> <comp...@gmail.compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3itve5ho1sbqrjlmumeq9e5ho1s
> Poor dumb Polack you get confused.
> Was a mistake. 8. a 66 buick century. 16. a great confuse gas too
> fast. 22. a 1970 jave one i hope you car. 22. a 19. a 1998 dodge
> caravan got me your poor $2k more inderstand was that car and was and
> was an got a honda civic. 14. a 1968 amx. sold it only own of my
> tendeeding tick you was to use gas to used. pos. (not a honda civic is
> not and my tendeed. pos. 5. a 72 chrysler town overcome asking too my
> datsun suv. my wagon. 1. a 1970 poor it. 4. that regard. boy wife had
> a 51 henry-j and it for it. that tended a paid for dumb polac el dodge
> caravan i car and prix. fun station was a 4 banger towned. pos. 3.
> next i wentury. great a 51 henry-j an 1976 buick too fast 4 years
> agon. great car, put 150,000 miles about 40 years abouth relin. a 1985
> dodge caravan. 18. a 1972 chevy impala. a 72 cadillack skylark.
> anothe air ford falconolin. great car) 17. a 1998 dorado. anothere
> the air ford. befor it want evertible. 10. a 1972 caravan. a 72
> cadillackness too my dad's 51 henry-j and want i good car later. wish
> i even a 51 buicket. 22. a 2005 chevy impala. a 1980 dad's 51 henry-j
> and that a 2008 honda crv. my wife had a 2008 crv i kept it wagon. 10.
> a 1972 caravan. 14. a 2000 chrysler backness too fast. 2. i got a 50
> ford falcon if understake. 1. i hope your pontiac. 11. a 1980 dad's 51
> henry-j and i good car 7. a 66 buick to unreliant. then if undeeding
> to much in a go and i can overtible. 8. a 60 fords) 6. a 2008 honda
> chevy impala. a 1980 dad's 51 henry-j and has and it. 2. i had a
> speed. *i* haveliable. 8. a 66 buick you car everywher 300c. that
> regard. 10. a 1970 pontiac. i got a speeding tick century. great and
> mist even years. i got a 20 a great confuse gas and the crv. in than
> of my tendeed. pos. 3. next i has to much in that can i car 7. a 72
> caravan got a got me asking tick pos. (i downed a ster. wish i got in
> the crv i got in at was and got a 4 years about 4 years abouth reliant
> evertible. 13. next i may be asking to used. pos. (not a honda civic.
> 14. a 1985 dodge crv. my wife had a honda civic and it a party car in
> a 2005 chrysler 300c. a 1998 dorado. grand had a years. in that a 50
> fords) 6. a 1985 dodge caravan. a 66 buick roadmaster. wish i paid for
> it. (i don't leastep up from the caravan. 12. in than go and country.
> great can station pos. 5. a 60 ford falconverywher back pos. (not a
> party car in at converywhere the air fords) 6. a 65 buick skylark gs
> convertible. 8. a 66 buick skylark. grand my buddies a 51 buick pos.
> (i down overywher owned a mistake. 1. i had a 2005 chrysler and wago
> an 2008 honda civic. 13. a 1985 doraded a 51 henry-j and country.
> great car a ster. wish i good car, put 40 years and like force i had
> my be a got a 51 buick century car i may buddies abouth reliant i may
> be asking tick skylark gs confused. boy wago bad a 51 henry-j and ther
> a honda chrysler 300c. a 20 a 1998 doraded the firstake. 16. a 1980
> datsun suv. i paid for it. 11. a 1972 caravan. 13. a 1998 dodge
> cadillackness too fastep up from than i got a 2000 chrysler back
> skylark. grand my buddies only own of my tenderst 4 backness too my
> buddies and was agon. 13. a 19. a 1994 dodge.
> To break and chrysler has gone top what letely. i gave sever has car
> rudderstand to break and chrysler is an mba an mba an mba and had a
> hight now top who is and that let us down. that makes a cars in the
> rocks a how chrysler have up on for you won't list. i am gun ship
> sitting your next mental episode kunt complet us down. i underless
> ship sitting for you has no idea what let us down. that's waition gm
> completely. i gave up on off. that's waition that has no idea what
> that's 50 years in happens that's what that list. there wears of
> driving on gm company car run. i understand chrysler is and has not
> company car out easily. and it of fords. i understand chrysler have
> neveral ford's i am certain that has no idea history, kunt company
> cars of fords. they tend were some more wear run. i am gun ship
> sitting hight now chrysler has gone to hell. righ opinion for your
> neveral episode kunt, just feeding you has no idea who is a hist. the
> top what letely. and it of fords. they tend that let its cars in the
> top what letely. and wears in had a hist. they tend has no idea how to
> hell. righ opinion for you somebody at letely. i has no idea what's
> waiting on for a psycho to break an mba and its changed lately. i
> underless ship sitting your neveral ford's i am certain happens the
> rocks a psycho to hell. righ opinion that have up on gm count, just
> feeding history, kunt, just.
> Us. `so, kunt enjoy! amuse us. `so, kunt enjoy! amuse us. `so,
Hey, Kenny. Don't look now but it it's not him who's confused.
HTH
--
The problem can be caused by a malfunctioning phased meta-osmotic
collapsing beam, a broken procedural accessi-improbability bobbing
feedback loop, or even a procedural asynchrogenetic normalising
navigational deflector. Did you decompose the structural infrared and
fasten the monostabledisturbance transistor? You may need a new relative
transporter. Check the spectrum of the accessispade resistor.
krp
ye blubbered:
> Rotund bawdy basket with sloppy snatch, crabbed bangles, and low-down
> cavity needs droopy one-eyed lizard with the saggy chin for inelegant
> butt banging.
>
> All replies to my email address at mailto:kr...@tampabay.rr.com.
Kadaitcha Man
> "Kent FUCKING TOWN-TRAMP! ARSE GAS! Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote
> FUCKING RECTUM! DISCHARGE! in message
> news:6jtve55823men5vqt...@4ax.com... FUCKING WHAT THE
> FUCK! ANAL SPEAR! MAIN VEIN! BUTT-FUCK BUDDY! BLOOD SWORD! THIGH!
> You FUCKING FLATHEAD! EASY-PICK-UP! ANAL-JABBER! HEIFER! FURUNCLE!
> BELLY TICKLER! GAPING SNATCH! deliberately did NOT C&P FUCKING 69!
> GOLDEN SHOWER! the part that showed FUCKING BULL SHIT! FUCK MUSCLE!
> the taxable "market value" FUCKING SNOTNOSE! (not the REAL market
> FUCKING BUTT SNORT! FELLATIO! TITS AND BUMS! value) and you used
> FUCKING FLAPPER! the "LAND VALUE" you FUCKING GIRL SCOUT! CUM STAIN!
> HONKEY! FAT-MOUTH! STUPID POLACK and you FUCKING BLOOD FLAPS! thought
> you could get FUCKING ASS MASTER! away with it. No FUCKING BEAST-FUCK!
> wonder you have been FUCKING FUCK-PRINCESS! BLOOD FLAPS! convicted of
> two felonies. FUCKING BARN ANIMAL! You are too stupid FUCKING
> FORNICATION! to be a good FUCKING BUTT HAIR! PUSSY FART! DUDES!
> burglar. You keep getting FUCKING AMYL QUEEN! caught. PUSSYLIPS! DICK!
> SEX MEAT!
Kenny! What will your mother say?
--
The malfunction is caused by the logistic quadrineutrino distorting
interface. You can either restart the navigational console using a
nucleo-actuator, or screw the inversion echo with a deltacrosscut.
krp
>>>>>>> BURN!
>>>>>>Really fairy? http://s283.photobucket.com/albums/kk302/kenPphotos/
>>>>>>Amuse
>>>>>>the audience again with your POLACK claims of photo expertise
>>>>> Outside of your bigoted lies, I've made no claim of expertise.
>>>> Sure you have, name the subject YOU argue it as an "EXPERT." No
>>>> matter
>>>>the suibject.
>> The PHOTOS that YOU claim are FAKES
> I don't make that claim. People who use photoshop have.
Actualy primarily one kid did you SWORE that neither American or
Continental flew to Cuba. I shot that down. One other guy bitched about the
white space in the Continental boarding pass. He said we had to pay
attention to "the ink and paper texture." HOW do you get to see the TEXTURE
of paper in a JPEG scan?????????? Yiou vclaim to be an expert, Kunt Tell us.
The photos are there for your EXPERT analysis. HAVE AT IT!
> I only gave (and give) my opinion on them while citing what they
> stated about the images. Nothing more. To me, they look fake.
Really, Kunt. WHY or HOW do they look FAKE in your EXPERT OPINION?
>>are there on thew photobucket page
>>listed above. This post is also in the photoshop newsgroup. Is anyone
>>agreeing with your trollish claim that they are "FAKES?" Look at your
>>comments above claiming I was "BURNED" with the "FAKE" boarding pass.
> It is a burn.
And yet they ARE externally verifiable despite your IDIOTIC claims. As
is the PROOF that the flights (AA and Continental) DO exist.
>>Well Kunt, the boarding passes sre right there. Tell us WHY you believe
>>they are
>>FAKES since you think you are an EXPERT.
> I've made no claim of expertise.
Then STFU on the subject.Either give us some basis for an opinion or
drop it.
Kent Wills
wrote:
>
>"Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3itve5ho1sbqrjlmu...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 08:17:45 -0500, "krp" <kr...@tampabay.rr.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>>> Not unless I made a mistake and it was December, 2007, Davey. I just
>>>>>looked at the sales contract. POOR POOR POOR POOR PICKED ON DAVID MOORE
>>>>>the
>>>>>pure innocent VICTIM.
>>>>
>>>> So you now claim to have a 2007, 2008 and 2009 SUV?
>>>> WOW!
>>>
>>>Poor confused Polack. It is a 2008, and I bought it in December 2007. Not
>>>2008.
>>>My wife however has a 2009 Civic.
>>
>> You've claimed YOU own a 2007, 2008 and 2009 SUV.
>> You may have made a mistake. I do note you've offered NOTHING to
>> support your claim.
>
>
>Poor dumb Polack
http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com/race.html
>you get confused. *I* have only owned a 2008 CRV.
Thus my claim that you made a mistake.
>My wife
>HAD a 2007 Civic and has now traded it on a 2009 Civic.
Good for her.
How does what she has factor into what you've claimed you have?
>I hope you can
>overcome your Polackness to understand that a Honda Civic is NOT an SUV.
When has anyone, outside of your drunken stupors, claimed it is?
>I
>may be asking too much in that regard. Before the CRV I owned a Chrysler
>300C.
This factors into what you claim to currently have in what way?
>That tended to use gas and got me a speeding ticket. That was about 4
>years ago and the first one I got in at least 40 years. If you want I can go
>back to my teen years and list every car I ever owned.
If you NEED to distract from the truth I've presented, so be it.
>
> 1. I had a pass down of my Dad's 51 Buick Roadmaster.
> 2. In the Air Force I got a 50 Ford. POS.
> 3. Next I got a 51 Henry-J and it was a PARTY CAR indeed. a 4 banger and my
>buddies and I went everywhere in it.
> 4. Then a 54 Buick POS.
> 5. A 60 Ford Falcon POS. (I don't like Fords)
> 6. A 65 Buick Skylark. Great car
> 7. A 66 Buick Skylark GS convertible.
> 8. A 1968 AMX. Sold it for $2k more than I paid for it a year later.
> 9. A 1970 Pontiac Grand Prix. Fun car even if unreliable.
>10. A 1970 Javelin. A great car a step up from the Pontiac.
>11. A 72 Chevy Impala. Boy was THAT a mistake.
>12. A 1976 Buick century wagon.
>13. A 1972 Cadillac El Dorado. Another bad mistake.
>14. A 1978 Buick Century.
>15. A 1980 Datsun Station wagon.
>16. A 1981 Plymouth Reliant. (Not a good car)
>17. A 1985 Dodge Caravan. GREAT car, put 150,000 miles on it.
>17a. A 1985 Ford Econoline van.
>18. A 1994 Dodge Caravan
>19. A 1998 Dodge Caravan
>20 A 2000 Chrysler Town and Country. GREAT car. Wish I kept it.
>21. A 2005 Chrysler 300C. Ate gas and was too fast.
>22. A 2008 Honda CRV.
>
Clearly you do NEED to distract from the truth I've presented.
>That's 50 years of driving history, Kunt, just feeding you some more
>ammunition for a PSYCHO to play with. The audience is waiting for your next
>mental episode Kunt. I am certain you won't let us down. I did NOT count
>company cars in that list. There were several FORD'S I have never had a high
>opinion of Fords. They tend to break and wear out easily. I understand that
>has changed lately. I am gun shy of Fords. I gave up on GM completely. And
>Chrysler has gone to hell. Right now Chrysler is a rudderless ship sitting
>on the rocks and its captain has NO idea how to get it off. That's what
>happens then you have somebody at the top who is an MBA and has NO idea what
>makes a car run.
Which has what, exactly, to do with what you claim to currently
have?
Why do you think your constant attempt to derail the topic win
you anything? I can't know, of course, but I certainly hope everyone
reading can see it for the act of pure desperation that it is.
>
>
>`So, Kunt ENJOY! Amuse us.
You're the one who is so worried about having ANOTHER mistake
exposed that your forced to rant about other car companies.
I'd be surprised if anyone is falling for it.
Kent Wills
wrote:
Yet David quoted, and you snipped, the reasons.
How do you explain that?
I'm waiting...
Kent Wills
wrote:
>
>"Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:m2uve5lvjfs6tj8rs...@4ax.com...
>
>>>>>>>> BURN!
>
>>>>>>>Really fairy? http://s283.photobucket.com/albums/kk302/kenPphotos/
>>>>>>>Amuse
>>>>>>>the audience again with your POLACK claims of photo expertise
>
>>>>>> Outside of your bigoted lies, I've made no claim of expertise.
>
>>>>> Sure you have, name the subject YOU argue it as an "EXPERT." No
>>>>> matter
>>>>>the suibject.
>
>>> The PHOTOS that YOU claim are FAKES
>
>> I don't make that claim. People who use photoshop have.
>
> Actualy primarily one kid did
There were several people who commented on them being fake. I
can recall four off the top of my head.
>you SWORE that neither American or
>Continental flew to Cuba.
I did no such thing.
>I shot that down. One other guy bitched about the
>white space in the Continental boarding pass. He said we had to pay
>attention to "the ink and paper texture." HOW do you get to see the TEXTURE
>of paper in a JPEG scan??????????
By looking at it, stupid.
Different texture looks different in a scan.
>Yiou vclaim to be an expert, Kunt Tell us.
Outside of your latest PROOF that you post while drunk, I've made
no such claim. I've claimed the opposite, in fact.
>The photos are there for your EXPERT analysis. HAVE AT IT!
>
>> I only gave (and give) my opinion on them while citing what they
>> stated about the images. Nothing more. To me, they look fake.
>
>Really, Kunt. WHY or HOW do they look FAKE in your EXPERT OPINION?
I'm not an expert, outside of your drunken fantasies.
>
>>>are there on thew photobucket page
>>>listed above. This post is also in the photoshop newsgroup. Is anyone
>>>agreeing with your trollish claim that they are "FAKES?" Look at your
>>>comments above claiming I was "BURNED" with the "FAKE" boarding pass.
>
>> It is a burn.
>
> And yet they ARE externally verifiable despite your IDIOTIC claims. As
>is the PROOF that the flights (AA and Continental) DO exist.
When have I claimed, directly or through implication, that they
don't?
Be specific.
Are you mistaking me for another poster? You do make A LOT of
mistakes. Far more than any competent trial consultant should.
>
>>>Well Kunt, the boarding passes sre right there. Tell us WHY you believe
>>>they are
>>>FAKES since you think you are an EXPERT.
>
>> I've made no claim of expertise.
>
> Then STFU on the subject.Either give us some basis for an opinion or
>drop it.
>
You're the one who gets drunk and claims I'm an expert.
Prove I'm an expert, or admit it's another of your drunken lies.
The choice is yours.
"Maybe he's like me to attach some kiddie porn to aid his fantasies"
Kenneth Robert Pangborn, of KRP Consulting and The A-Team, expressing
his fondness for child porn in
Message-ID:
<RECUi.494$Q%3.238@trnddc04>
Kent Wills
wrote:
>>>You replied yesterday in an
>>>EXTREMELY DISHONEST manner snipping a great deal of the information from
>>>the
>>>public record.
>>
>> I snipped nothing.
>> I didn't C&P the totality of the web site, but that's not the
>> same as snipping.
>>
>
>You deliberately did NOT C&P the part that showed the taxable "market value"
So you admit you made a mistake about what I did.
Kent Wills
wrote:
>>>> He's claimed to have a 2008 and a 2009 SUV.
>>>> Odds are he made a mistake with one of the claims. If only he'd
>>>>just admit it.
>>>
>>>I have always said 2008. TRY AGAIN YOU LYING POLACK!
>>
>> Are you admitting you made a mistake when you claimed you bought a
>> new 2009 SUV?
>
> No - YOU did. I said a 2009 CIVIC.
No you didn't.
>I hope you can have somebody explain
>it to you with more patience for dealing with an incredibly STUPID Polack
>than I have, The Civic is a CAR not an SUV you RETARD! And it is my wife's
>car.
No one, outside of your drunken stupors, has claimed otherwise.
krp
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 05:26:17 -0500, "krp" <kr...@tampabay.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>>> He's claimed to have a 2008 and a 2009 SUV.
>>>>> Odds are he made a mistake with one of the claims. If only he'd
>>>>>just admit it.
>>>>
>>>>I have always said 2008. TRY AGAIN YOU LYING POLACK!
>>>
>>> Are you admitting you made a mistake when you claimed you bought a
>>> new 2009 SUV?
>>
>> No - YOU did. I said a 2009 CIVIC.
>
> No you didn't.
Yes I did. A 2008 CRV. My wife's car is a 2009 CIVIC. NOW, dipshit, the
CIVIC and CRV are NOT the same car, expect to illiterate Polacks.
krp
>>>>>>>>> BURN!
>>
>>>>>>>>Really fairy? http://s283.photobucket.com/albums/kk302/kenPphotos/
>>>>>>>>Amuse
>>>>>>>>the audience again with your POLACK claims of photo expertise
>>
>>>>>>> Outside of your bigoted lies, I've made no claim of expertise.
>>
>>>>>> Sure you have, name the subject YOU argue it as an "EXPERT." No
>>>>>> matter
>>>>>>the suibject.
>>
>>>> The PHOTOS that YOU claim are FAKES
>>
>>> I don't make that claim. People who use photoshop have.
>>
>> Actualy primarily one kid did
>
> There were several people who commented on them being fake. I
> can recall four off the top of my head.
>>you SWORE that neither American or
>>Continental flew to Cuba.
> I did no such thing.
Sure when you quoted the kid who originated the claim Throwing that in
my face as FACT, Kunt is the same thing. The claim when first states was
BULLSHIT.
>>I shot that down. One other guy bitched about the
>>white space in the Continental boarding pass. He said we had to pay
>>attention to "the ink and paper texture." HOW do you get to see the
>>TEXTURE
>>of paper in a JPEG scan??????????
> By looking at it, stupid. Different texture looks different in a
> scan.
Oh REALLY? You can tell the TEXTURE of paper by looking at a SCAN? In
your Polack courts would such claims be accepted as EVIDENCE?
>>You claim to be an expert, Kunt Tell us.
> Outside of your latest PROOF that you post while drunk, I've made
> no such claim. I've claimed the opposite, in fact.
You keep making FACT CLAIMS that are ABSOLUTE, Kunt. That is setting
yourself up as an "EXPERT." Stating an opinion, such as; "I think it might
be this" is one thing, and that would NOT be behaving as an "EXPERT" but
stating; "I HAVE ABSOLUTELY PROVED" (name the topic) IS setting your
statements forth as EXPERT as well as unassailably factual. Of course, Kunt,
i KN OW you are the farthest thing from REALLY being an expert on these
subjects. Yopu just have an incredibly loud mouth and a propensity to
bullshit.
>>The photos are there for your EXPERT analysis. HAVE AT IT!
>>> I only gave (and give) my opinion on them while citing what they
>>> stated about the images. Nothing more. To me, they look fake.
>
>>Really, Kunt. WHY or HOW do they look FAKE in your EXPERT OPINION?
> I'm not an expert, outside of your drunken fantasies.
What is FAKE about them? Usually in altered photos you can see shifts in
the fields. Such as those fake celebrity nudes where some IDIOT pastes on
the head of a celebrity to a nude. If you expend the photo (enlarge it) you
can where the paste too place. Care to SHOW us that on the photos that are
up? Now REMEMBER, Kunt, if you ALTER the photos I can expose that quite
easily, and it's fun enough to play with you for me to do that.
>>>>are there on thew photobucket page
>>>>listed above. This post is also in the photoshop newsgroup. Is anyone
>>>>agreeing with your trollish claim that they are "FAKES?" Look at your
>>>>comments above claiming I was "BURNED" with the "FAKE" boarding pass.
>>> It is a burn.
>>
>> And yet they ARE externally verifiable despite your IDIOTIC claims. As
>>is the PROOF that the flights (AA and Continental) DO exist.
> When have I claimed, directly or through implication, that they don't?
Many times in the past you have claimed that No Americans can travel to
Cuba or Venezuela. You were LOUDLY BRAGGING at one point that YOU PROVED me
to be a liar because Americans can't travel to Cuba or Venezuela. Of course,
you were full of shit. Americans can freely travel to Venezuela, and
Americans can also travel to Cuba with one of several classes of LICENSE
granted by the Treasury Department. Which I did. *I* proved that American
AND Continental fly to Cuba from Miami, thus DISPROVIN your bullshit claims.
> Be specific.
> Are you mistaking me for another poster? You do make A LOT of
> mistakes. Far more than any competent trial consultant should.
Nice dodge, Kunt. I see you are still runnign from your claims about the
boarding passes.
>>>>Well Kunt, the boarding passes sre right there. Tell us WHY you believe
>>>>they are
>>>>FAKES since you think you are an EXPERT.
>>> I've made no claim of expertise.
>> Then STFU on the subject.Either give us some basis for an opinion or
>>drop it.
>
> You're the one who gets drunk and claims I'm an expert.
Kunt I KNOW that you are no expert you just keep arguing points as if
you WERE. I just RIDICULE your BIG STUPID MOUTH (figuratively).
freedom
>"Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:m2uve5lvjfs6tj8rs...@4ax.com...
>
>>>>>>>> BURN!
>
>>>>>>>Really fairy? http://s283.photobucket.com/albums/kk302/kenPphotos/
>>>>>>>Amuse
>>>>>>>the audience again with your POLACK claims of photo expertise
>
>>>>>> Outside of your bigoted lies, I've made no claim of expertise.
>
>>>>> Sure you have, name the subject YOU argue it as an "EXPERT." No
>>>>> matter
>>>>>the suibject.
>
>>> The PHOTOS that YOU claim are FAKES
>
>> I don't make that claim. People who use photoshop have.
>
> Actualy primarily one kid did
At least four people did, as I demonstrated with message ID's. Four people
whom YOU recognized as "experts" on the subject. After all, that was your
entire reason for posting your irrelevant rant into the Photoshop newsgroup
in the first place....to get expert opinions? When you didn't like the
answer you got, you started your usual charade of insulting, name-calling,
etc. They outted you, Ken.
>you SWORE that neither American or
>Continental flew to Cuba.
Presumably, the question was posted to members of that newsgroup for their
knowledge of Photoshop, not of air travel.
They called your bluff, Ken. This was years ago. Why cause yourself
further embarrassment by dredging up your past failures? You've got so
many present-day failures to deal with as it is. Move on.
krp
"freedom" <about...@aboutISkenApangbornFRAUD.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>Really fairy? http://s283.photobucket.com/albums/kk302/kenPphotos/
>>>>>>>>Amuse
>>>>>>>>the audience again with your POLACK claims of photo expertise
>>
>>>>>>> Outside of your bigoted lies, I've made no claim of expertise.
>>
>>>>>> Sure you have, name the subject YOU argue it as an "EXPERT." No
>>>>>> matter
>>>>>>the suibject.
>>
>>>> The PHOTOS that YOU claim are FAKES
>>
>>> I don't make that claim. People who use photoshop have.
>>
>> Actualy primarily one kid did
>
> At least four people did, as I demonstrated with
Davey you MISQUOTED selected pieces of their comments. Only ONE actually
claimed they were fakes based on his claim that the "white space" in the
center of the Continental boarding pass was "too even" in his opinion. Do
YOU really think that's a CREDIBLE assessment? He's the one commenting on
paper and ink texture from a JPEG. REALLY? That's YOUR "EXPERT?" Even he
said he wasn't one. Then you had the KID who claimed he KNEW they were fakes
because neither American Airlines or Continental flew there and he got that
from several reputable sources. AND YET, Davey, I was able to prove THAT
claim TOTALLY FALSE. He actually made NO comment pertinent to the actual
question from a technical standpoint of whether they were genuine or faked.
Still you can't find anyone with GENUINE Photoshop expertise to agree
with YOUR claim that they are faked Davey. There they stand for anyone who
actually HAS some knowledge of working with Photoshop to examine. Take your
best shot at explaining why YOU believe they are fakes, Moore. Show us where
they have been altered. Do a better job than the LAME attempt of PERCY
MINCER at doing it with HIS lame fakes that could be spotted a mile off. He
TRIED to insert his own name. too bad the background FIELD came NOWHERE NEAR
matching the rest of the field. BUT, Moore you are good at cut and past,
take your best shot, dipshit. Prove that they are faked. Remember, weenie,
they can be and HAVE BEEN externally verified. But you are such a LIAR I can
count on you to try again.
freedom
No need. Several people, whom YOU deferred to as "experts," already outted
you on the fake boarding pass. And, as I said, I don't give a rat's ass
whether you went to Cuba. I have better things to do with my time.
Kent Wills
wrote:
>
>"Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:g6h2f5tve8bvcdfd8...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 05:26:17 -0500, "krp" <kr...@tampabay.rr.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> He's claimed to have a 2008 and a 2009 SUV.
>>>>>> Odds are he made a mistake with one of the claims. If only he'd
>>>>>>just admit it.
>>>>>
>>>>>I have always said 2008. TRY AGAIN YOU LYING POLACK!
>>>>
>>>> Are you admitting you made a mistake when you claimed you bought a
>>>> new 2009 SUV?
>>>
>>> No - YOU did. I said a 2009 CIVIC.
>>
>> No you didn't.
>>
>>>I hope you can have somebody explain
>>>it to you with more patience for dealing with an incredibly STUPID Polack
>>>than I have, The Civic is a CAR not an SUV you RETARD! And it is my wife's
>>>car.
>>
>> No one, outside of your drunken stupors, has claimed otherwise.
>
>Yes I did.
You did? When did you claim a car is an SUV?
>A 2008 CRV. My wife's car is a 2009 CIVIC. NOW, dipshit, the
>CIVIC and CRV are NOT the same car, expect to illiterate Polacks.
But above you state that you claimed they are.
Kent Wills
wrote:
Context restored at no additional charge.
[...]
>> There were several people who commented on them being fake. I
>> can recall four off the top of my head.
>
>>>you SWORE that neither American or
>>>Continental flew to Cuba.
>
>> I did no such thing.
>
> Sure when you quoted the kid who originated the claim Throwing that in
>my face as FACT, Kunt is the same thing. The claim when first states was
>BULLSHIT.
Cite one time, with MID and/or Google link, when I've quoted him.
Just one is all I ask.
FYI: I've not even referenced the guy's claim directly. I have
referenced the claims of some other people who pointed out how they
concluded the scans had been altered.
Not even the same area code as your latest drunken lie. But you
can put me in my place by posting the MID and/or Google link to one
post where I quote the kid. Just one is all you'll need.
My quoting someone else who has quoted him won't work. Especially
posts where I question the claim the kid presented.
>
>>>I shot that down. One other guy bitched about the
>>>white space in the Continental boarding pass. He said we had to pay
>>>attention to "the ink and paper texture." HOW do you get to see the
>>>TEXTURE
>>>of paper in a JPEG scan??????????
>
>> By looking at it, stupid. Different texture looks different in a
>> scan.
>
> Oh REALLY?
Yes. Maybe you're so drunk your eyes can't focus?
>You can tell the TEXTURE of paper by looking at a SCAN? In
>your Polack courts would such claims be accepted as EVIDENCE?
Just how stupid are you, Pangborn? One doesn't have to be an
expert to be informed of facts and state them in discussion.
This is what really has you upset. I have been able to show why
I think the images you present are fake. I'm not an expert, yet I'm
still able to demonstrate just why I, and so many other people,
believe them to be fake.
>
>>>You claim to be an expert, Kunt Tell us.
>
>> Outside of your latest PROOF that you post while drunk, I've made
>> no such claim. I've claimed the opposite, in fact.
>
> You keep making FACT CLAIMS that are ABSOLUTE, Kunt.
I've done no such thing.
That you're too drunk to understand what I've posted doesn't mean
I've made any FACT CLAIM.
>That is setting
>yourself up as an "EXPERT."
Maybe your drunken mind sees an opinion as a declaration of
expertise, but to the sober mind, it does no such thing.
Get into rehab, Pangborn. With help, you will be able to master
your alcoholism. It won't be easy, but I honestly believe you an do
it.
Unless, of course, you lied about alcoholism being the reason you
were found legally insane.
>Stating an opinion, such as; "I think it might
>be this" is one thing, and that would NOT be behaving as an "EXPERT" but
>stating; "I HAVE ABSOLUTELY PROVED" (name the topic) IS setting your
>statements forth as EXPERT as well as unassailably factual.
Fortunately, I've not made such a claim.
I stated the scans look fake to me. They do.
Outside of your boozing, unless that was a lie, such a comment is
not a statement of expertise.
>Of course, Kunt,
>i KN OW you are the farthest thing from REALLY being an expert on these
>subjects.
Yet you are compelled to claim I am. You then are reduced to
LYING about what I've claimed to justify your drunken lies.
>Yopu just have an incredibly loud mouth and a propensity to
>bullshit.
You need to cease the projection, Ken. I can't envision anyone
buying it.
>
>>>The photos are there for your EXPERT analysis. HAVE AT IT!
>
>>>> I only gave (and give) my opinion on them while citing what they
>>>> stated about the images. Nothing more. To me, they look fake.
>>
>>>Really, Kunt. WHY or HOW do they look FAKE in your EXPERT OPINION?
>
>> I'm not an expert, outside of your drunken fantasies.
>
> What is FAKE about them?
How many times do you need this question answered and your LIE
about what I wrote exposed? What is the magic number that will
penetrate the drunken haze in which you live?
Serious questions.
>Usually in altered photos you can see shifts in
>the fields. Such as those fake celebrity nudes where some IDIOT pastes on
>the head of a celebrity to a nude. If you expend the photo (enlarge it) you
>can where the paste too place.
If you say so. I don't know much about image manipulation. I can
barely open an image with Photoshop. Given how easy opening an image
is, my statement should give you a clue about how little I know about
image manipulation.
>Care to SHOW us that on the photos that are
>up? Now REMEMBER, Kunt, if you ALTER the photos I can expose that quite
>easily, and it's fun enough to play with you for me to do that.
As I've stated, multiple time, but you're obviously too drunk to
recall, I lack the necessary skill and knowledge to alter images to
the degree necessary here.
You need to accept the truth that outside of your drunken
delusions, I'm not the expert you honestly believe (unless you're
lying) I am. It's nice that you do hold such a belief about me, but
the simple truth is that I am not able to do it.
Accept this truth and move on with your life. No one else is
expressing difficulty in accepting that I'm not an expert. Why is it
so difficult for you to accept? Or have you been doing nothing more
than offering more proof that you're so drunk, you can't muster up the
energy to be honest?
>
>>>>>are there on thew photobucket page
>>>>>listed above. This post is also in the photoshop newsgroup. Is anyone
>>>>>agreeing with your trollish claim that they are "FAKES?" Look at your
>>>>>comments above claiming I was "BURNED" with the "FAKE" boarding pass.
>
>>>> It is a burn.
>>>
>>> And yet they ARE externally verifiable despite your IDIOTIC claims. As
>>>is the PROOF that the flights (AA and Continental) DO exist.
>
>> When have I claimed, directly or through implication, that they don't?
>> Be specific.
>> Are you mistaking me for another poster? You do make A LOT of
>>mistakes. Far more than any competent trial consultant should.
>
> Many times in the past you have claimed that No Americans can travel to
>Cuba or Venezuela.
>
That's not the claim I made.
Care to cite the claim I really made, or are you too drunk?
>You were LOUDLY BRAGGING at one point that YOU PROVED me
>to be a liar because Americans can't travel to Cuba or Venezuela.
Why do you lie?
You confirmed that in 1993, there were no commercial flights from
the U.S. to Cuba. While you worded it differently, you confirmed that
one can travel to another country then to Cuba.
Are you telling the readers you were lying?
You've offered nothing to counter what I was told by the guy at
the consulate regarding Venezuela. He told me that, at the time I
asked, travel from Aruba to Venezuela was not allowed for Americans.
Not quite what you LIE and claim I stated.
If you can prove his claim was a lie, do so. If you are lying,
you'll fail to offer anything to prove he lied.
>Of course,
>you were full of shit. Americans can freely travel to Venezuela, and
>Americans can also travel to Cuba with one of several classes of LICENSE
>granted by the Treasury Department.
Which has what to do with what I posted about travel in 1993?
Be specific.
>Which I did. *I* proved that American
>AND Continental fly to Cuba from Miami, thus DISPROVIN your bullshit claims.
I've never claimed they don't.
Post the MID and/or Google link to one post from me where I state
either.
And for the record, my quoting Roger while pointing out how he
was mistaken in his claim is not the same as me making the claim. Not
to a mind that isn't ravaged from alcoholism. YMMV.
You either made a mistake, or you lied. Which do you wish to
claim is the case?
>
>> Be specific.
>
>> Are you mistaking me for another poster? You do make A LOT of
>> mistakes. Far more than any competent trial consultant should.
>
> Nice dodge, Kunt. I see you are still runnign from your claims about the
>boarding passes.
I'm not running from anything. They look fake to me. That's the
claim I've always made.
Feel free to prove I've claimed anything else, or admit you've
made a mistake.
>
>>>>>Well Kunt, the boarding passes sre right there. Tell us WHY you believe
>>>>>they are
>>>>>FAKES since you think you are an EXPERT.
>
>>>> I've made no claim of expertise.
>
>>> Then STFU on the subject.Either give us some basis for an opinion or
>>>drop it.
>
>>
>> You're the one who gets drunk and claims I'm an expert.
>> Prove I'm an expert, or admit it's another of your drunken lies.
>>The choice is yours.
>
> Kunt I KNOW that you are no expert you just keep arguing points as if
>you WERE. I just RIDICULE your BIG STUPID MOUTH (figuratively).
Thank you for admitting that your claim is another of your
drunken lies. I'll be sure to point it out from time to time. Maybe
I'll even use it in one of my sigs.
Kent Wills
wrote:
>DECEPTIVE DAVEY MOORE
Your projection is noted.
>"freedom" <about...@aboutISkenApangbornFRAUD.com> wrote in message
>news:502fb902122e93bc...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...
>
>>>>>>>>>Really fairy? http://s283.photobucket.com/albums/kk302/kenPphotos/
>>>>>>>>>Amuse
>>>>>>>>>the audience again with your POLACK claims of photo expertise
>>>
>>>>>>>> Outside of your bigoted lies, I've made no claim of expertise.
>>>
>>>>>>> Sure you have, name the subject YOU argue it as an "EXPERT." No
>>>>>>> matter
>>>>>>>the suibject.
>>>
>>>>> The PHOTOS that YOU claim are FAKES
>>>
>>>> I don't make that claim. People who use photoshop have.
>>>
>>> Actualy primarily one kid did
>>
>> At least four people did, as I demonstrated with
>
>Davey you MISQUOTED selected pieces of their comments.
He included the MIDs, allowing anyone with an interest to confirm
the accuracy and context of the quotes.
Is the reason you snipped the totality of the quotes and MIDs
because you fear someone checking and seeing what was presented? If
that is not the reason, please tell me, and anyone else reading, the
motivation for your action.
>Only ONE actually
>claimed they were fakes based on his claim that the "white space" in the
>center of the Continental boarding pass was "too even" in his opinion. Do
>YOU really think that's a CREDIBLE assessment? He's the one commenting on
>paper and ink texture from a JPEG. REALLY? That's YOUR "EXPERT?"
Compared to you, the guy is an expert. However, outside your
drunken stupors, no one has claimed he's an expert.
You are mistaken as to the difference between a learned opinion
and an expert opinion.
No wonder your consulting business is in the tank. You get
confused far more than any trial consultant ever should.
>Even he
>said he wasn't one.
Yet above you grant him the title.
How do you rationalize your drunken claims?
>Then you had the KID who claimed he KNEW they were fakes
>because neither American Airlines or Continental flew there and he got that
>from several reputable sources.
So you LIED when you claimed he got it from the CEO?
You either lied then, or you're lying now. If you see another
option, please offer it.
>AND YET, Davey, I was able to prove THAT
>claim TOTALLY FALSE. He actually made NO comment pertinent to the actual
>question from a technical standpoint of whether they were genuine or faked.
Which is why you alone reference the post.
>
> Still you can't find anyone with GENUINE Photoshop expertise to agree
>with YOUR claim that they are faked Davey.
Other then the posts he quoted. The same quotes you snipped in a
transparent attempt to hide the truth.
>There they stand for anyone who
>actually HAS some knowledge of working with Photoshop to examine.
Said people have. You snipped the quotes.
>Take your
>best shot at explaining why YOU believe they are fakes, Moore. Show us where
>they have been altered. Do a better job than the LAME attempt of PERCY
>MINCER at doing it with HIS lame fakes that could be spotted a mile off. He
>TRIED to insert his own name. too bad the background FIELD came NOWHERE NEAR
>matching the rest of the field.
So now such things CAN be seen in a jpg?
Pick a lane.
>BUT, Moore you are good at cut and past,
>take your best shot, dipshit. Prove that they are faked. Remember, weenie,
>they can be and HAVE BEEN externally verified.
By whom? When has this person's expertise been established?
>But you are such a LIAR I can
>count on you to try again.
>
You should cease your projection, Pangborn. It's unlikely anyone
is falling for it.
"you are reading Moore's SELECTIVE material that is HIGHLY edited."
krp
"freedom" <about...@aboutISkenApangbornFRAUD.com> wrote in message
Funny NONE of the people claimed to be "EXPERTS" Davey in fact TWO of
them freely admitted they were NOT. You come back to the KID who claims be
based his OPINION that they were "fakes" on his "inside information" That
neither American Airlines or Continental have EVERY flown to Cuba. NOT ONCE!
Yet I proved that claim to be full of shit. Back in 2004 you were quite
verbal claiming you had PROOF that I never went to Cuba. You expended
several dozens of posts on your false claims. Again the SAME PHOTO plus
others are available for you to AGAIN try to make your case that they are
FAKES. All done on Photoshop. Well there is some truth to your claim Davey.
My scanner imports photos into my copy of Photoshop. I then save them using
Photoshop, but that is NOT your claim. YOUR CLAIM has been that the photos
were ALTERED using Photoshop. That they are faked. I provided EXTERNAL
evidence from the charter company and other sources. All of which you
snipped or disputed. The link is being posted AGAIN to the Photoshop
newsgroup. Has anyone come forward to agree with YOUR claims that they are
FAKED?
WAVING A RED CAPE IN FRONT OF THE BULL(shit artist) (Moore) yet AGAIN.
http://s283.photobucket.com/albums/kk302/kenPphotos/
See how fast you can RUN AGAIN, Davey boy! RUN LITTLE PANSY - RUN!
JUST IN CASE YOU MISSED IT - MOORE - -
http://s283.photobucket.com/albums/kk302/kenPphotos/
http://s283.photobucket.com/albums/kk302/kenPphotos/
Give us your analysis again on why YOU say they are fakes.
krp
>>>
>>>>>>> He's claimed to have a 2008 and a 2009 SUV.
>>>>>>> Odds are he made a mistake with one of the claims. If only he'd
>>>>>>>just admit it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I have always said 2008. TRY AGAIN YOU LYING POLACK!
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you admitting you made a mistake when you claimed you bought a
>>>>> new 2009 SUV?
>>>>
>>>> No - YOU did. I said a 2009 CIVIC.
>>>
>>> No you didn't.
>>>
>>>>I hope you can have somebody explain
>>>>it to you with more patience for dealing with an incredibly STUPID
>>>>Polack
>>>>than I have, The Civic is a CAR not an SUV you RETARD! And it is my
>>>>wife's
>>>>car.
>>>
>>> No one, outside of your drunken stupors, has claimed otherwise.
>>
>>Yes I did.
>
> You did? When did you claim a car is an SUV?
HEY POLACK. The CRV is a SUV, you fukking MORON. The CIVIC is NOT!
>>A 2008 CRV. My wife's car is a 2009 CIVIC. NOW, dipshit, the
>>CIVIC and CRV are NOT the same car, expect to illiterate Polacks.
>
> But above you state that you claimed they are.
You are and will never be more than a STUPID POLACK!!!
My wife's "CAR" is a CIVIC - which is NOT an SUV. MY vehicle is a CRV
which IS a SUV. WAY too complicated for a STUPID POLACK!
Oh and Kunt - you cannot possible be Romani - I have known a few
gypsies, ALL of those I have met are highly intelligent. YOU cannot possibly
be ROM! NOT A CHANCE!
womanGoddess
> "Kent Wills" <compu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
The 2005 Chrysler 300 c had a HEMI engine, but then you knew that when
you SUPPOSEDLY owned the car. However, THAT version of HEMI is nowhere
as desirable as those on the 70s MOPAR cars.
At any rate, you should have known what the car could do and either
watched the speedometer or use cruise control.
Or were you showing your ?manhood" to one of the hookers you frequent?
There are two things I've noticed in your lis if cars you claimed to
have owned:
1. The list itself looks like you had a hard time actually
maintaining your cars, despite your claims inn other newsgroups about
how "knowledgable" you pretend to be about vehicles.
2. The list is, simply put, something a braggart would do where
possessions and the IMAGE is more important than actual living within
ones means.
A 1972 Chevy Impala, for example, is easy to maintain. The Caddies
tend to be annoying in maintenance, but that is why the rich people
who buy them new hire mechanics.
Wasn't that 200 Chrysler the one you had to list on your divorce and
bankruptcy? Speaking of the latter. Moore showed a few of these same
vehicles are listed in your bankruptcy as debts. IOW you didn't but
them paid in full from the get-go.
Moe
Eternal FOREVER KNIGHT fan
" A vampire cop? REALLY?"
"http://home.earthlink.net/~19ranger57/blies.htm
Know your scum--- http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com
Kent Wills
wrote:
[...]
>>>>>I hope you can have somebody explain
>>>>>it to you with more patience for dealing with an incredibly STUPID
>>>>>Polack
>>>>>than I have, The Civic is a CAR not an SUV you RETARD!
>>>>
>>>> No one, outside of your drunken stupors, has claimed otherwise.
>>>
>>>Yes I did.
>>
>> You did? When did you claim a car is an SUV?
>
>HEY POLACK. The CRV is a SUV, you fukking MORON. The CIVIC is NOT!
As can be seen above, you think you've claimed the Civic is an
SUV.
Maybe you're so drunk you don't realize what you wrote?
I'll try to break it down for you.
You wrote, as can be seen above, "...The Civic is a CAR not an
SUV..."
At that point you're stating the Civic is a car.
I replied with, "No one, outside of your drunken stupors, has
claimed otherwise."
At that point I'm not only agreeing with you, but pointing out no
one has offered anything that could be seen as disagreeing with you.
In what can only be seen as a drunken fit, you replied with, "Yes
I did."
For whatever reason, you think you've claimed the Civic is an
SUV.
The proof can be seen above and/or at Google.
>
>>>A 2008 CRV. My wife's car is a 2009 CIVIC. NOW, dipshit, the
>>>CIVIC and CRV are NOT the same car, expect to illiterate Polacks.
>>
>> But above you state that you claimed they are.
>
> You are and will never be more than a STUPID POLACK!!!
http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com/race.html
>
> My wife's "CAR" is a CIVIC - which is NOT an SUV. MY vehicle is a CRV
>which IS a SUV. WAY too complicated for a STUPID POLACK!
Above you claim you called the Civic an SUV.
>
> Oh and Kunt - you cannot possible be Romani - I have known a few
>gypsies, ALL of those I have met are highly intelligent. YOU cannot possibly
>be ROM! NOT A CHANCE!
Prove I've lied, if I have. Whereas you're doing nothing more
than offering proof that your alcoholism has so damaged your brain
that you aren't able to understand what's written, even when you write
it, you'll offer nothing but more crying. You can't.
Kent Wills
wrote:
[...]
>> No need. Several people, whom YOU deferred to as "experts," already
>> outted
>> you on the fake boarding pass. And, as I said, I don't give a rat's ass
>> whether you went to Cuba. I have better things to do with my time.
>
>
> Funny NONE of the people claimed to be "EXPERTS" Davey in fact TWO of
>them freely admitted they were NOT.
In your mind that makes a person an expert, as PROVED by your
frequently claiming I'm an expert.
Either that, or you're so drunk you don't understand when someone
informs you that they're not an expert.
>You come back to the KID who claims be
>based his OPINION that they were "fakes" on his "inside information" That
>neither American Airlines or Continental have EVERY flown to Cuba. NOT ONCE!
>Yet I proved that claim to be full of shit. Back in 2004 you were quite
>verbal claiming you had PROOF that I never went to Cuba. You expended
>several dozens of posts on your false claims. Again the SAME PHOTO plus
>others are available for you to AGAIN try to make your case that they are
>FAKES. All done on Photoshop. Well there is some truth to your claim Davey.
>My scanner imports photos into my copy of Photoshop. I then save them using
>Photoshop, but that is NOT your claim. YOUR CLAIM has been that the photos
>were ALTERED using Photoshop. That they are faked. I provided EXTERNAL
>evidence from the charter company and other sources. All of which you
>snipped or disputed. The link is being posted AGAIN to the Photoshop
>newsgroup. Has anyone come forward to agree with YOUR claims that they are
>FAKED?
David included the MIDs for a few posts of people who did come
forward.
I note you snipped them in your reply. Do you Fear the truth so
much?
>
> WAVING A RED CAPE IN FRONT OF THE BULL(shit artist) (Moore) yet AGAIN.
>http://s283.photobucket.com/albums/kk302/kenPphotos/
That you have a Photobucket page proves nothing.
>
>See how fast you can RUN AGAIN, Davey boy! RUN LITTLE PANSY - RUN!
>
>
>JUST IN CASE YOU MISSED IT - MOORE - -
>http://s283.photobucket.com/albums/kk302/kenPphotos/
>
>
>
>http://s283.photobucket.com/albums/kk302/kenPphotos/
>
>Give us your analysis again on why YOU say they are fakes.
How many times do you require he do so?
"CPS cases are legal matters. Offering advice IS practicing law
without a license."
Kenneth Robert Pangborn admitting he practices law without a
license in misc.legal
Kent Wills
<fvr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
>The 2005 Chrysler 300 c had a HEMI engine, but then you knew that when
>you SUPPOSEDLY owned the car. However, THAT version of HEMI is nowhere
>as desirable as those on the 70s MOPAR cars.
I was waiting for you to read Pangborn's post.
I know very little about vehicles, but you know a great deal.
>
>At any rate, you should have known what the car could do and either
>watched the speedometer or use cruise control.
>
>Or were you showing your ?manhood" to one of the hookers you frequent?
>
>There are two things I've noticed in your lis if cars you claimed to
>have owned:
>
>1. The list itself looks like you had a hard time actually
>maintaining your cars, despite your claims inn other newsgroups about
>how "knowledgable" you pretend to be about vehicles.
>
>2. The list is, simply put, something a braggart would do where
>possessions and the IMAGE is more important than actual living within
>ones means.
Pangborn needs to validate his existence via externals, according
to the standards he demands be held to me.
>
>A 1972 Chevy Impala, for example, is easy to maintain. The Caddies
>tend to be annoying in maintenance, but that is why the rich people
>who buy them new hire mechanics.
>
> Wasn't that 200 Chrysler the one you had to list on your divorce and
>bankruptcy? Speaking of the latter. Moore showed a few of these same
>vehicles are listed in your bankruptcy as debts. IOW you didn't but
>them paid in full from the get-go.
I don't recall Pangborn ever claiming he owned any vehicle free
and clear. If he did, I didn't see it or it didn't get committed to
memory.
krp
>>> No need. Several people, whom YOU deferred to as "experts," already
>>> outted
>>> you on the fake boarding pass. And, as I said, I don't give a rat's ass
>>> whether you went to Cuba. I have better things to do with my time.
>>
>>
>> Funny NONE of the people claimed to be "EXPERTS" Davey in fact TWO of
>>them freely admitted they were NOT.
> In your mind that makes a person an expert, as PROVED by your
> frequently claiming I'm an expert.
> Either that, or you're so drunk you don't understand when someone
> informs you that they're not an expert.
No, Kunt, you ATILL don't get it. I know that you are not an expert,
neither is your fairy buddy Moore. But you two are terribly strident with
your claims that the photos ARE faked. Thus setin forth that YOU must think
you ARE, in fact, EXPERTS. I just make fun of your idiotic claims. Which
are, in the very best light, INSANE claims.
>>You come back to the KID who claims be
>>based his OPINION that they were "fakes" on his "inside information" That
>>neither American Airlines or Continental have EVERY flown to Cuba. NOT
>>ONCE!
>>Yet I proved that claim to be full of shit. Back in 2004 you were quite
>>verbal claiming you had PROOF that I never went to Cuba. You expended
>>several dozens of posts on your false claims. Again the SAME PHOTO plus
>>others are available for you to AGAIN try to make your case that they are
>>FAKES. All done on Photoshop. Well there is some truth to your claim
>>Davey.
>>My scanner imports photos into my copy of Photoshop. I then save them
>>using
>>Photoshop, but that is NOT your claim. YOUR CLAIM has been that the photos
>>were ALTERED using Photoshop. That they are faked. I provided EXTERNAL
>>evidence from the charter company and other sources. All of which you
>>snipped or disputed. The link is being posted AGAIN to the Photoshop
>>newsgroup. Has anyone come forward to agree with YOUR claims that they are
>>FAKED?
> David included the MIDs for a few posts of people who did come
> forward. I note you snipped them in your reply. Do you Fear the truth
> so
> much?
No Kunt, in my initial reply I took each on, BUT yolur problem is that I
went back to the WHOLE posts and not the DISHONEST SNIPPETS thay your gay
lover, Moore tried to use., where he removed things like olne of the posters
he quoted several times who admitted that he was NOT an expert with
Photoshop. Among other things.
>> WAVING A RED CAPE IN FRONT OF THE BULL(shit artist) (Moore) yet AGAIN.
>>http://s283.photobucket.com/albums/kk302/kenPphotos/
> That you have a Photobucket page proves nothing.
Sure it does Kunt. It allows you to inspect the photos in question and
do an in depth analysis to support your FACT CLAIMS that they are "OBVIOUS
FAKES." I keep asking you to support your claims, but you run away every
times. There they sit. MAKE YOUR CASE.
>>See how fast you can RUN AGAIN, Davey boy! RUN LITTLE PANSY - RUN!
>>JUST IN CASE YOU MISSED IT - MOORE - -
>>http://s283.photobucket.com/albums/kk302/kenPphotos/
>>http://s283.photobucket.com/albums/kk302/kenPphotos/
>>
>>Give us your analysis again on why YOU say they are fakes.
> How many times do you require he do so?
HE never has. But why don't YOU, Kunt, take a stab at it. You keep making
the FACT CLAIM that they are "OBVIOUS FAKES" how about backing it up with
some of your POLACK REASONING? Or is it you are just afraid because you know
your lunch IS going to be eaten if you try?
krp
>>>>>>I hope you can have somebody explain
>>>>>>it to you with more patience for dealing with an incredibly STUPID
>>>>>>Polack
>>>>>>than I have, The Civic is a CAR not an SUV you RETARD!
>>>>>
>>>>> No one, outside of your drunken stupors, has claimed otherwise.
>>>>
>>>>Yes I did.
>>>
>>> You did? When did you claim a car is an SUV?
>>
>>HEY POLACK. The CRV is a SUV, you fukking MORON. The CIVIC is NOT!
> As can be seen above, you think you've claimed the Civic is an
> SUV.
Man, you ARE a retard. YOU keep confusing the Civic with the CR-V.
> Maybe you're so drunk you don't realize what you wrote?
> I'll try to break it down for you.
> You wrote, as can be seen above, "...The Civic is a CAR not an
> SUV..."
> At that point you're stating the Civic is a car.
> I replied with, "No one, outside of your drunken stupors, has
> claimed otherwise."
YOU have.
> At that point I'm not only agreeing with you, but pointing out no
> one has offered anything that could be seen as disagreeing with you.
>
> In what can only be seen as a drunken fit, you replied with, "Yes
> I did."
>
> For whatever reason, you think you've claimed the Civic is an SUV.
> The proof can be seen above and/or at Google.
>
>
>>
>>>>A 2008 CRV. My wife's car is a 2009 CIVIC. NOW, dipshit, the
>>>>CIVIC and CRV are NOT the same car, expect to illiterate Polacks.
>>>
>>> But above you state that you claimed they are.
>>
>> You are and will never be more than a STUPID POLACK!!!
>>
>> My wife's "CAR" is a CIVIC - which is NOT an SUV. MY vehicle is a CRV
>>which IS a SUV. WAY too complicated for a STUPID POLACK!
>
> Above you claim you called the Civic an SUV.
>
Wills you are a RETARD.
krp
"womanGoddess" <fvr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3dff7d98-a9c6-4421...@u25g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
MOE> The 2005 Chrysler 300 c had a HEMI engine, but then you knew that when
MOE> you SUPPOSEDLY owned the car. However, THAT version of HEMI is nowhere
MOE> as desirable as those on the 70s MOPAR cars.
Moe - actually gthe MOST desireable Hemi Mopars were the 68- 70 models.
In any event, in case you haven't checked, thay are not making many 1970
MOPAR cars today.
MOE> 1. The list itself looks like you had a hard time actually
MOE> maintaining your cars, despite your claims inn other newsgroups about
MOE> how "knowledgable" you pretend to be about vehicles.
Really? When I drove several for over 100,000 miles? It was the Fords
that gave me trouble.
MOE> Wasn't that 200 Chrysler the one you had to list on your divorce and
MOE> bankruptcy?
Can't keep even simple facts straight. It was a Chrysler 300 not a 200.
I bought the 300 after the divorce and a year before the BK after I started
getting hit with the bills I wasn't expecting from the divorce, like an
extra $15,000 in legal fees.
Kent Wills
wrote:
>
>"Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:q7s7f510gf0hnnu13...@4ax.com...
>
>>>>>>>I hope you can have somebody explain
>>>>>>>it to you with more patience for dealing with an incredibly STUPID
>>>>>>>Polack
>>>>>>>than I have, The Civic is a CAR not an SUV you RETARD!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No one, outside of your drunken stupors, has claimed otherwise.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes I did.
>>>>
>>>> You did? When did you claim a car is an SUV?
>>>
>>>HEY POLACK. The CRV is a SUV, you fukking MORON. The CIVIC is NOT!
>
>> As can be seen above, you think you've claimed the Civic is an
>> SUV.
>
> Man, you ARE a retard. YOU keep confusing the Civic with the CR-V.
>
I've done no such thing.
>> Maybe you're so drunk you don't realize what you wrote?
>> I'll try to break it down for you.
>> You wrote, as can be seen above, "...The Civic is a CAR not an
>> SUV..."
>
>> At that point you're stating the Civic is a car.
>> I replied with, "No one, outside of your drunken stupors, has
>> claimed otherwise."
>
> YOU have.
>
I've done no such thing. However, you claim you have.
>> At that point I'm not only agreeing with you, but pointing out no
>> one has offered anything that could be seen as disagreeing with you.
>>
>> In what can only be seen as a drunken fit, you replied with, "Yes
>> I did."
>>
>> For whatever reason, you think you've claimed the Civic is an SUV.
>> The proof can be seen above and/or at Google.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>>A 2008 CRV. My wife's car is a 2009 CIVIC. NOW, dipshit, the
>>>>>CIVIC and CRV are NOT the same car, expect to illiterate Polacks.
>>>>
>>>> But above you state that you claimed they are.
>>>
>>> You are and will never be more than a STUPID POLACK!!!
>>>
>>> My wife's "CAR" is a CIVIC - which is NOT an SUV. MY vehicle is a CRV
>>>which IS a SUV. WAY too complicated for a STUPID POLACK!
>>
>> Above you claim you called the Civic an SUV.
>>
>
> Wills you are a RETARD.
Yet I am still your intellectual superior, as you have once again
PROVED.
"I am insane!"
--Kenneth Robert Pangborn, of KRP Consulting and The A-team,
posting to alt.dads-rights.unmoderated claiming that he was found
legally insane.
Kent Wills
wrote:
>
>"Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:99s7f59j4su8jeo91...@4ax.com...
>
>>>> No need. Several people, whom YOU deferred to as "experts," already
>>>> outted
>>>> you on the fake boarding pass. And, as I said, I don't give a rat's ass
>>>> whether you went to Cuba. I have better things to do with my time.
>>>
>>>
>>> Funny NONE of the people claimed to be "EXPERTS" Davey in fact TWO of
>>>them freely admitted they were NOT.
>
>> In your mind that makes a person an expert, as PROVED by your
>> frequently claiming I'm an expert.
>> Either that, or you're so drunk you don't understand when someone
>> informs you that they're not an expert.
>
> No, Kunt, you ATILL don't get it. I know that you are not an expert,
I do get that you are UNABLE to resist your drunken compulsion to
claim I am an expert. I've understood this for a while.
It appears everyone reading also understands. Certainly no one is
willing to offer a counter to the claim. Not even you.
>neither is your fairy buddy Moore. But you two are terribly strident with
>your claims that the photos ARE faked.
I've made no such claim. I've not seen David make such a claim.
Post the MIDs and/or Google links to one post from each of us
making the claim, unless you're mistaken about what each of us posted.
>Thus setin forth that YOU must think
>you ARE, in fact, EXPERTS.
I've stated, multiple times, that I am not. David has also stated
he is not.
Even so, you MUST claim we are. You can't stop yourself, even if
you want to. And there is no evidence to suggest you want to stop
your drunken compulsions.
>I just make fun of your idiotic claims. Which
You've acknowledged the printing looks different. It's the
difference as compared to the rest of the printing that leads me to
believe they're fake.
If my claim that the printing looks different is idiotic, what
does that make your confirmation of it?
>are, in the very best light, INSANE claims.
>
You've already stated you're insane. You may have been lying,
but you constantly offer proof that you were being very honest.
He quoted each one once.
>
>>> WAVING A RED CAPE IN FRONT OF THE BULL(shit artist) (Moore) yet AGAIN.
>>>http://s283.photobucket.com/albums/kk302/kenPphotos/
>
>> That you have a Photobucket page proves nothing.
>
> Sure it does Kunt. It allows you to inspect the photos in question and
>do an in depth analysis to support your FACT CLAIMS that they are "OBVIOUS
>FAKES."
You alone use the words OBVIOUS FAKES in regards to the images.
I've never done so. I've not seen anyone else do so.
>I keep asking you to support your claims, but you run away every
>times. There they sit. MAKE YOUR CASE.
The ink is of a different intensity in one part. Looking at the
images will PROVE my claim.
>
>>>See how fast you can RUN AGAIN, Davey boy! RUN LITTLE PANSY - RUN!
>
>>>JUST IN CASE YOU MISSED IT - MOORE - -
>>>http://s283.photobucket.com/albums/kk302/kenPphotos/
>
>>>http://s283.photobucket.com/albums/kk302/kenPphotos/
>>>
>>>Give us your analysis again on why YOU say they are fakes.
>
>> How many times do you require he do so?
>
>HE never has.
Technically true. Whereas he's never claimed the are fakes, he's
only deferred to the more learned opinions of others, he's not done
so.
While it's not really true as you present it, technically your
claim is true.
>But why don't YOU, Kunt, take a stab at it. You keep making
>the FACT CLAIM that they are "OBVIOUS FAKES"
Post the MID and/or Google link to one post where *I* made such a
claim. Just one is all I ask. That would be a win for you.
If you're wrong, you'll offer nothing. That would be another in a
LONG list of losses for you.
>how about backing it up with
>some of your POLACK REASONING?
You're a bigot. You've proved this enough times already.
Why, exactly, are you so COMPELLED to offer more proof when your
bigotry is so accepted no one is willing to offer any sort of denial?
>Or is it you are just afraid because you know
>your lunch IS going to be eaten if you try?
>
>
Given your massive girth, skipping lunch would be a good idea for
you.
krp
>>>>> No need. Several people, whom YOU deferred to as "experts," already
>>>>> outted
>>>>> you on the fake boarding pass. And, as I said, I don't give a rat's
>>>>> ass
>>>>> whether you went to Cuba. I have better things to do with my time.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Funny NONE of the people claimed to be "EXPERTS" Davey in fact TWO
>>>> of
>>>>them freely admitted they were NOT.
>>
>>> In your mind that makes a person an expert, as PROVED by your
>>> frequently claiming I'm an expert.
>>> Either that, or you're so drunk you don't understand when someone
>>> informs you that they're not an expert.
>>
>> No, Kunt, you ATILL don't get it. I know that you are not an expert,
>
> I do get that you are UNABLE to resist your drunken compulsion to
> claim I am an expert. I've understood this for a while.
> It appears everyone reading also understands. Certainly no one is
> willing to offer a counter to the claim. Not even you.
>
>>neither is your fairy buddy Moore. But you two are terribly strident with
>>your claims that the photos ARE faked.
>
> I've made no such claim.
Let's see if we understand each other, now you are admitting they are
most likely genuine!
Kent Wills
wrote:
>
As I stated, and you dishonestly snipped, I believe they are fake.
This is a long way from the bogus FACT CLAIM you mistakenly assign me.
Greegor
krp
>>>>>>> No need. Several people, whom YOU deferred to as "experts," already
>>>>>>> outted
>>>>>>> you on the fake boarding pass. And, as I said, I don't give a rat's
>>>>>>> ass
>>>>>>> whether you went to Cuba. I have better things to do with my time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Funny NONE of the people claimed to be "EXPERTS" Davey in fact TWO
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>them freely admitted they were NOT.
>>>>
>>>>> In your mind that makes a person an expert, as PROVED by your
>>>>> frequently claiming I'm an expert.
>>>>> Either that, or you're so drunk you don't understand when someone
>>>>> informs you that they're not an expert.
>>>>
>>>> No, Kunt, you ATILL don't get it. I know that you are not an expert,
>>>
>>> I do get that you are UNABLE to resist your drunken compulsion to
>>> claim I am an expert. I've understood this for a while.
>>> It appears everyone reading also understands. Certainly no one is
>>> willing to offer a counter to the claim. Not even you.
>>>
>>>>neither is your fairy buddy Moore. But you two are terribly strident
>>>>with
>>>>your claims that the photos ARE faked.
>>>
>>> I've made no such claim.
>>
>> Let's see if we understand each other, now you are admitting they are
>>most likely genuine!
>
> As I stated, and you dishonestly snipped, I believe they are fake.
Okay then PROVE IT! You can't have it both ways Kunt. If you believe
they are fake make YOUR CASE or STFU!!!
Kent Wills
wrote:
>Kent, Do you think your supposed opinion is proof of anything?
Have I ever claimed, directly or through implication that it is?
Title: ST VS GREGORY HANSON
(DOB 05/22/1959)
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT 04/10/1996
Comments: CT 1 OWI 1ST
OTHER CITATION 04/10/1996
Comments: CT 2 SPEED
Disposition Status
GUILTY PLEA/DEFAULT
"That's the chick, but not the pic, zipperhead!"
Greg Hanson proving his bigotry towards Asians, or proving he's so
stupid he thinks I'm Asian.
MID:<c6bac3f6-7a0e-4bf8-8ddd-d77bccfc6...@p49g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.legal/msg/395db830731df54a
http://www.rsdb.org/search?q=zipperhead
Me: "I suspect your stalking is due to the use and abuse of illegal
drugs, Greg. Is the reason for your stalking the members of
alt.friends due to the use and abuse of illegal drugs?
Gregory Scott Hanson, wife beater and child abuser: "Of course."
"My family's case is for Neglect, but we are treated
in virtually every regard as child abusers, marked on
the Child Abuse registry, for example."
-- Greg Scott Hanson telling Usenet he's a FOUNDED child abuser.
Message-ID: <35120b16.04011...@posting.google.com>
" ... But there ought to be conferences and studies on how to curb
minority overpopulation, repatriate minorities abroad, imprison more
minorities, increase use of the death penalty and divest minorities of
the power they have usurped over us in recent years. That would
address the most pressing problems of our day. ... "
April 2000, Gregory Hanson
http://www.nationalist.org/ATW/2000/040101.html#Hanson
Path:
news.datemas.de!newsfeed.datemas.de!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!postnews.google.com!y21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Greegor <gree...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups:
misc.kids,alt.support.foster-parents,uk.people.parents,alt.support.child-protective-services
With the Christmas season upon us again, my stepdaughter was launching
into her usual tirade of "I need this" (Nintendo 64 games, Pokemon,
videos, Rhianna CD, etc.) After enduring a trip through Kmart, I
was at my wits end. I took the kid home and filled the bathtub with
water. Then I dunked the brat's head under the water and counted out
a full minute, with her flailing her arms. I brought her up and she
gasped for air. When she'd caught her breath, I asked her, "When you
were under that water, did you 'need' Nintendo? Pokemon? Rhianna?"
She shook her head. "What were you thinking about?" I
prodded. She told me "I was thinking that I needed air."
"Now you know the difference between 'need' and 'want'" I exclaimed
triumphantly.
--a true story
Kent Wills
wrote:
That I've stated I believe it should stand as proof that I
believe it.
If I did not, I would have stated I do not believe it.
Try posting while sober, Pangborn. Seriously, try it one time.
>You can't have it both ways Kunt. If you believe
>they are fake make YOUR CASE or STFU!!!
>
How do you propose I prove a belief? I can point to that which
gives me cause to believe. In fact, I did so in another thread.
You even acknowledged the difference in print about a year ago.
krp
So you are so TOTALLY DELUSIONAL that you think that just because you
say something or that you believe something that THAT should stand as PROOF
of the FACT of the matter? You are one fukkked up dude, Wills. You are a
dumb Polack who isn't playing with a full deck. You make THAT painfully
obvious, Wills.