PangK
Anonymous
to rip people off with his a-team scam. Several people have complained about him.
---
This message did not originate from the Sender address above.
It was posted with the use of anonymizing software at
http://anon.xg.nu
---
Paul Fritz
Anonymous wrote:
Another post via davey boy mooron's favorite remailer, not beliedve by anybody but his
worshipper......wibly streett.
PangK
>Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights.unmoderated, alt.mens-rights
>Mail-To-News-Contact: postm...@nym.alias.net
>Organization:
DAVID MOORE SAID:
>Everything being said about PangK is true. He constantly harasses people and
tries to rip people off with his a-team scam. Several people have complained
about him. And all of them are me!
Thanks for that refreshing honesty David.
J Kirby Inwood
newgroups (and before that bbs) for years. Both are insane, both are idiots and
both unfortunately will not go away.
Not matter how many filters I create for these two assholes, they constantly get
through since they continually post under different ids
There is only one way to deal with these fools. Ignore them completely.
There, I have broken my own rule about ignoring them,,,, damn!!!
Anonymous <rema...@anon.xg.nu> hypothesizes:
>> Everything being said about PangK is true. He constantly harasses people and tries
>> to rip people off with his a-team scam. Several people have complained about him.
>>
>> ---
>> This message did not originate from the Sender address above.
>> It was posted with the use of anonymizing software at
>> http://anon.xg.nu
>> ---
>>
_________________________________________________________________________
J Kirby Inwood
Kirwood Inc., All Creative Services from Concept to Completion
ads, brochures, copy writing, design, web site design & repair, marketing and promotion
Vox:(416) 923-1028 http://www.kirwood.com Fax: (416) 923-8458
If you place your site on the web and no one sees it, is it really there?
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Wilbur Streett
claim that no one is believing it?
Wilbur
Paul Fritz <paul...@voyager.net> wrote:
>Anonymous wrote:
>
>> Everything being said about PangK is true. He constantly harasses people and tries
>> to rip people off with his a-team scam. Several people have complained about him.
>>
>> ---
>> This message did not originate from the Sender address above.
>> It was posted with the use of anonymizing software at
>> http://anon.xg.nu
>> ---
>
>Another post via davey boy mooron's favorite remailer, not beliedve by anybody but his
>worshipper......wibly streett.
>
--------------------------------------------
Putting A Human Face On Technology ;-)
--------------------------------------------
Literally! http://www.monmouth.com/~wstreett/FaceIT/
PangK
>Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights.unmoderated, alt.mens-rights
>Not matter how many filters I create for these two assholes, they constantly
get through since they continually post under different ids
Bullshit Kirby since I have used only ONE ID for years. Now Moore has had MANY
as have YOU!
PLUMBOY
<< Thomas, Wilbur Streett is suggesting that you will start posting attacks on
me in alt.dads-rights. If you do so, your right to confidentiality will be
blown. Do you really want to do that? >>
Ken:
I have better things to do in life than to "attack" people. You sound like my
paranoid ex-wife. And by the way, in your correspondence to me above, the "your
right to confidentiality will be blown" statement implies an attack in and of
itself. A cursory look at this statement alone shows that it is made as a
"threat" to silence me. I have nothing to hide. Whatever was documented as part
of the court record has become public record and thus anyone can get a copy.
I'm sure in your mind you believe you are a champion of men going through the
strain and emotional turmoil of divorce and child custody. I have a much
different view personally. So, as to not "breach" the "confidentiality" factor
that you have made up in your mind, I will simply say that personally, I think
that you are a con man. While this is in no way reflective of my thoughts
toward your A-Team organization, I thought I would mention this outside the
bounds of our "professional relationship" which I keep trying in earnest to
forget about.
Finally, I wish to be removed immediately from your email list. Any further
correspondence from you is unwelcome. Have a pleasent day.
Regards,
Thomas
Wilbur Streett
message..
But anyone can check out the headers if they feel like it.
One unsatisfied customer, and Ken Pangborn threatens to violate his
privacy..
plu...@aol.com (PLUMBOY) wrote:
>In a message dated 4/17/2000 6:51:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time, PangK writes:
>
><< Thomas, Wilbur Streett is suggesting that you will start posting attacks on
>me in alt.dads-rights. If you do so, your right to confidentiality will be
>blown. Do you really want to do that? >>
I didn't suggest that Thomas would post attacks. Only that he would post
that his previous posts that you responded to were real.
I am also flabergasted that you would threaten him with "your right to
confidentiatlity will be blown". Got news for you, unless you have a
written statement to that effect, you're a liar.
I suggest that David forward this message to the appropriate authorities.
Wilbur
PangK
>Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights.unmoderated
>References: <496c7c686e90a05c...@anon.xg.nu>
hmmmmmm.
>I have better things to do in life than to "attack" people.
>I'm sure in your mind you believe you are a champion of men going through the
strain and emotional turmoil of divorce and child custody.
Not really the picture I have of myself there guy. More like WILBUR'S self
aggrandizing view of HIMself.
>I will simply say that personally, I think
that you are a con man. While this is in no way reflective of my thoughts
toward your A-Team organization, I thought I would mention this outside the
bounds of our "professional relationship" which I keep trying in earnest to
forget about.
Nice to see that you showed up on COMMAND and found the time to do that
which you claim to have Better things to do than. <chuckle>
PangK
>Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights.unmoderated
>So now we'll get a claim from Ken that Thomas isn't the source of this
>message..
>
I don't know WHO the hell the source is Wilby. I can note that some of the
headers on the e-mail version were questionable.
>One unsatisfied customer, and Ken Pangborn threatens to violate his
>privacy..
>
Look dipshit, I made it plain to Tom that if he choses to snipe at me on
usenet making claims I have the right to defend myself. He forgets not ALL of
what I know became part of the record. There is a certain "test" that remained
confidential
between he and I. Not to mention details of
a psychological evaluation. If you want this public, fine. But any ideas that I
will be a stationary punching bag are delusional.
Sebring021
>Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights.unmoderated
>I'm sure in your mind you believe you are a champion of men going through the
strain and emotional turmoil of divorce and child custody. I have a much
different view personally. So, as to not "breach" the "confidentiality" factor
that you have made up in your mind, I will simply say that personally, I think
that you are a con man. While this is in no way reflective of my thoughts
toward your A-Team organization, I thought I would mention this outside the
bounds of our "professional relationship" which I keep trying in earnest to
forget about.
Since I do Ken's books, I review the files on his cases to categorize the
charges for tax purposes. If this is really the client and not a forgery, I
find these allegations bewildering. Ken's recounting of the case was minimized.
The guy faced the real possibility of jail. He wound up with 50% custody after
a year of not being able to see his kid. And he's bitching at Ken?
Well, I get disgruntled clients too when I get them only a $3,000 refund from
the IRS, go figgure! You know, most folks would have thanked Ken.
brian
Wilbur Streett
>>From: WStr...@shell.monmouth.com (Wilbur Streett)
>>Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights.unmoderated
>
>>So now we'll get a claim from Ken that Thomas isn't the source of this
>>message..
>>
>
> I don't know WHO the hell the source is Wilby. I can note that some of the
>headers on the e-mail version were questionable.
But you don't.
And you also know that he sent you back a quote from an email that you
wrote to him. Specifically threatening him.
You are a sick excuse for a human being.
>>One unsatisfied customer, and Ken Pangborn threatens to violate his
>>privacy..
>>
>
> Look dipshit, I made it plain to Tom that if he choses to snipe at me on
>usenet making claims I have the right to defend myself. He forgets not ALL of
>what I know became part of the record. There is a certain "test" that remained
>confidential
I'm sniping at you. Why don't you try to claim that some test of mine that
is confidential is public record because you think that it would shut me
up?
You are a worthless, unethical bastard. Get out of the Dads rights forum.
>between he and I. Not to mention details of
>a psychological evaluation. If you want this public, fine. But any ideas that I
>will be a stationary punching bag are delusional.
.. and any illusions that you think that you can disclose private
information would be the route to losing your business and ending up in
jail.
Go for it, Kenny Boy.
Wilbur Streett
>>From: plu...@aol.com (PLUMBOY)
>>Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights.unmoderated
>>References: <496c7c686e90a05c...@anon.xg.nu>
>
>hmmmmmm.
>
>>I have better things to do in life than to "attack" people.
>
>>I'm sure in your mind you believe you are a champion of men going through the
>strain and emotional turmoil of divorce and child custody.
>
> Not really the picture I have of myself there guy. More like WILBUR'S self
>aggrandizing view of HIMself.
Gee, so where am I making any claim like that?
>>I will simply say that personally, I think
>that you are a con man. While this is in no way reflective of my thoughts
>toward your A-Team organization, I thought I would mention this outside the
>bounds of our "professional relationship" which I keep trying in earnest to
>forget about.
>
> Nice to see that you showed up on COMMAND and found the time to do that
>which you claim to have Better things to do than. <chuckle>
He didn't show up on COMMAND.
He showed up in response to your claims that he wasn't the source of the
original messages that you exchanged with him. He's man enough to stand
behind his words.
It's obvious you are not.
Now get the hell out of the Dads Rights forum. You are NOT WELCOME HERE.
Wilbur Streett
>>From: plu...@aol.com (PLUMBOY)
>>Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights.unmoderated
>
>>I'm sure in your mind you believe you are a champion of men going through the
>strain and emotional turmoil of divorce and child custody. I have a much
>different view personally. So, as to not "breach" the "confidentiality" factor
>that you have made up in your mind, I will simply say that personally, I think
>that you are a con man. While this is in no way reflective of my thoughts
>toward your A-Team organization, I thought I would mention this outside the
>bounds of our "professional relationship" which I keep trying in earnest to
>forget about.
>
> Since I do Ken's books, I review the files on his cases to categorize the
>charges for tax purposes. If this is really the client and not a forgery, I
>find these allegations bewildering. Ken's recounting of the case was minimized.
>The guy faced the real possibility of jail. He wound up with 50% custody after
>a year of not being able to see his kid. And he's bitching at Ken?
>Well, I get disgruntled clients too when I get them only a $3,000 refund from
>the IRS, go figgure! You know, most folks would have thanked Ken.
In other words, Ken is fried by the truth, so he's paying you to cover up
for him.
Let's see.. A DV complaint. 85% + of which contain no actual Domestic
Violence, and something that Ken had nothing to do with?
Or a child abuse charge, that Thomas document KEN DID NOTHING TO HELP, but
charged him anyway?
He figured out that KEN DID NOTHING FOR HIM OTHER THAN FLEECE HIM.
If you don't believe it, then go and read the messages that he wrote, they
are archived and publically available. It's also quite clear in there that
he LOST his kid due to Ken's ineptitude, and all of his life savings, and
AFTER everything was said and done, that his ex gave him the kid because
she didn't want to spend all of her time with it.
Wake up and smell the coffee, Brian. Ken is scum. Your attempts to claim
otherwise don't change that. That you do his books paints you as scum
also.
Wilbur Streett
was over.
Wilbur
Frog <FrogRe...@NoReply.org> wrote:
>PangK wrote in e-mail to PLUMBOY:
><< Thomas, Wilbur Streett is suggesting that you will start posting
>attacks on me in alt.dads-rights. If you do so, your right to
>confidentiality will be blown. Do you really want to do that?
>
>Not only will I post eveything to usenet, I will send yopur entire CASE
>FILE to your ex-wife. Can you say "kiss your child goodbye?">>
Paul Fritz
> >From: WStr...@shell.monmouth.com (Wilbur Streett)
> >Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights.unmoderated
>
> >So now we'll get a claim from Ken that Thomas isn't the source of this
> >message..
> >
>
> I don't know WHO the hell the source is Wilby. I can note that some of the
> headers on the e-mail version were questionable.
>
> >One unsatisfied customer, and Ken Pangborn threatens to violate his
> >privacy..
> >
>
> Look dipshit, I made it plain to Tom that if he choses to snipe at me on
> usenet making claims I have the right to defend myself. He forgets not ALL of
> what I know became part of the record. There is a certain "test" that remained
> confidential
> between he and I. Not to mention details of
> a psychological evaluation. If you want this public, fine. But any ideas that I
> will be a stationary punching bag are delusional.
Actually, I'd like to see wibyl PROVE he DIDN'T post it himself, just like all the
negative proofs he asked for.
PangK
>Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights.unmoderated
>And you also know that he sent you back a quote from an email that you wrote
to him. Specifically threatening him.
Well you and he can choose to see it as a "threat" versus a "warning" that he
can set the stage to make it all public or keep it private. But if he comes
into a public forum and he can't claim that his accusations entitle him to me
not being able to respond with my side of the story.
BUT..................... I am still not convinced it really was Tom and not YOU
using his account. So I haven't responded as I could have. Nor do I plan on it.
I think most people can take that post, following YOUR threats that it was
coming, with the grain of salt it deserves!
>You are a sick excuse for a human being.
Thank you for your observations Wilby, I am SURE that EVERYONE on usenet
will be suitably impressed with your opinion.
>There is a certain "test" that remained
confidential
>I'm sniping at you. Why don't you try to claim that some test of mine that is
confidential is public record because you think that it would shut me up?
You don't get it. The post said that "EVERYTHING: was "public record" from
his case. One test was NOT. ONE test was kept between Tom and I. Now the REAL
Tom would know that. Which is why I suspect it wasn't really him.
>You are a worthless, unethical bastard. Get out of the Dads rights forum.
Street you have NO room, much less credibility to ORDER anyone around. You
are a punk wannabe bully. Save your bullying for the women who dare tresspass
on YOUR newsgroup here.
>But any ideas that I will be a stationary punching bag are delusional.
>.. and any illusions that you think that you can disclose private information
would be the route to losing your business and ending up in jail.
If that person chooses to make the issue PUBLIC then he waives the right to
privacy.
Of course here is Wilb ur Street offering his "LEARNED" legal opinions again.
Wilbur Streett
>>From: WStr...@shell.monmouth.com (Wilbur Streett)
>>Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights.unmoderated
>
>>And you also know that he sent you back a quote from an email that you wrote
>to him. Specifically threatening him.
>
> Well you and he can choose to see it as a "threat" versus a "warning" that he
>can set the stage to make it all public or keep it private. But if he comes
>into a public forum and he can't claim that his accusations entitle him to me
>not being able to respond with my side of the story.
You scum. You have already provided your side of the story, and Thomas has
already shown that you are a liar.
>BUT..................... I am still not convinced it really was Tom and not YOU
>using his account. So I haven't responded as I could have. Nor do I plan on it.
>I think most people can take that post, following YOUR threats that it was
>coming, with the grain of salt it deserves!
So complain to AOL that someone has compromised his account.
You tried to claim that the posts weren't from him, after admitting TOTALLY
that they were by engaging in a flame war with him, complete with sharing
personal issues that I would have no access to. But then, after David came
along and picked it up, then you try to claim that I forged all, then some,
and then that I didn't forward on his messages.
You claimed that he wasn't the source because he didn't post directly, so I
ask him to do that, he agrees, and then you try some other argument.
In other words, just like in court, you aren't interested in the truth,
what is good for the parties involved, but just making stupid lawyer
arguments and running up more time, showing what a great warrior you are.
But instead, since this isn't a court other than the court of public
opinion, you document only what an asshole you are, totally uninterested in
father's rights.
>>You are a sick excuse for a human being.
>
> Thank you for your observations Wilby, I am SURE that EVERYONE on usenet
>will be suitably impressed with your opinion.
I don't see anyone denying it.
>>There is a certain "test" that remained
>confidential
>
>>I'm sniping at you. Why don't you try to claim that some test of mine that is
>confidential is public record because you think that it would shut me up?
>
> You don't get it. The post said that "EVERYTHING: was "public record" from
>his case. One test was NOT. ONE test was kept between Tom and I. Now the REAL
>Tom would know that. Which is why I suspect it wasn't really him.
We already know that the only reason you seek to "suspect that it wasn't
really him" is that it shows how you are a sick excuse for a human being.
>>You are a worthless, unethical bastard. Get out of the Dads rights forum.
>
> Street you have NO room, much less credibility to ORDER anyone around. You
>are a punk wannabe bully. Save your bullying for the women who dare tresspass
>on YOUR newsgroup here.
Gee, trashing you is a dad's rights issue. Telling you to get out of the
Dad's Rights forum because you contribute NOTHING TO DADS RIGHTS is not an
ORDER, but a STATEMENT OF FACT.
Yes, it has the effect of being an order, but it's just as much an order as
any other Dad has given you, when they have pointed out that you are
destroying this forum with your bullshit flame wars.
I am not bullying, the truth is doing the bullying.
.. but we know that you can't handle the truth, and that is why your
clients aren't happy.
>>But any ideas that I will be a stationary punching bag are delusional.
>
>>.. and any illusions that you think that you can disclose private information
>would be the route to losing your business and ending up in jail.
>
> If that person chooses to make the issue PUBLIC then he waives the right to
>privacy.
Gee, Doctor Client records become PUBLIC because he says that you were of
no help to him? You referred him to a doctor that wrote a bad report about
him? Some referral, asshole. You want to violate Doctor/Client
priviledge? Go for it. Somehow I think that you'll pay for it.
>Of course here is Wilb ur Street offering his "LEARNED" legal opinions again.
.. so you are willing violate Doctor/Client confidentiality for your
clients that aren't happy with your services.
Thanks for showing what a worthless unprofessional service you provide,
where you are willing to threaten clients by violating their rights.
Wilbur
Wilbur Streett
>Actually, I'd like to see wibyl PROVE he DIDN'T post it himself, just like all the
>negative proofs he asked for.
Gee, I don't have to prove that, because Kenny Boy sent him the email that
was quoted.
But hey, look at this message and you'll notice that I post from a
different ISP, and always have.
PangK
>Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights.unmoderated
>> Nice to see that you showed up on COMMAND and found the time to do that
which you claim to have Better things to do than. <chuckle>
>He didn't show up on COMMAND.
Oh Wilby. For a week you THREATED that "Tom will be posting the WHOLE TRUTH
about you" and POP here he comes! Right on your CUE.
>He showed up in response to your claims that he wasn't the source of the
>original messages that you exchanged with him. He's man enough to stand
>behind his words.
A *MAN" like *YOU* Wilby?
>Now get the hell out of the Dads Rights forum. You are NOT WELCOME HERE.
Oh Wilby.... Giving COMMANDS again?
ORDERIONG people around? You must be feeling real BUTCH today, you usually
reserve this for WOMEN...
PangK
>Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights.unmoderated
>Or a child abuse charge, that Thomas document KEN DID NOTHING TO HELP, but
charged him anyway?
Wilbur nobody "DOCUMENTED" anything. YOU in all your FLATULENCE made the
CLAIM... ALl your WILBYWORLD HOT AIR! And even IF that was Tom, all it would
be is a self-serving CLAIM.
>It's also quite clear in there that
he LOST his kid due to Ken's ineptitude, and all of his life savings,
Nope SORRY Wilbur this is just NOT anywhere NEAR true! It is a bald faced
LIE. A shameless LIE.
Your problem here Wilbur is that in any real pissing contest where TRUTH is
the deciding factor, I win! I have FOUR experts on my side of this. Three of
them professors at major Universities. I kmnow your OBSESSION with USING Tom or
Tom's name to try to establish your KINGDOM in this newsgroup. And you have me
marked as the obstacle in your creation of Wilbyworld here. You miscalculate
Wilbur. I am far from alone in opposing yout dream of empire here.
None of your ORDERS to me or anyone else carries any weight. You are a
Jersey PUNK wannabe bully. Just like your PAL Moore!
PangK
>Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights.unmoderated
>Poor attempt at an attack, since Ken was gone a long time before the case was
over.
Well Wilby, the problem your STORY has is that I received LOADS of e-mails
from Tom at the close of the case, profusely thanking me. Sending me JPEGs of
his child. Deleriously happy with what I had done. Do we see ANY explanation
for the rather CONVINIENT change of heart now that I have opposed WILBYWORLD?
How are all those e-mails explained?
PangK
>Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights.unmoderated
>Actually, I'd like to see wibyl PROVE he DIDN'T post it himself, just like all
the
negative proofs he asked for.
Well the more I go the more I am persuaded that the stuff is NOT real. I
just can't reconcile all the e-mails I got at the end of the case thanking me
with what SUDDENLY appears here mostly from Moore and Streett.
PangK
>Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights.unmoderated
>Gee, I don't have to prove that, because Kenny Boy sent him the email that
>was quoted.
>
>But hey, look at this message and you'll notice that I post from a
>different ISP, and always have.
WIlby now i **KNOW** this is bullshit. You have repeatedly made claims that
you have an AOL account. Or did it slip your mind that you did it just a little
while ago.
Thanks for clearing this up. We have NO way of knowing WHO has the PLUMBOY
account today! Hey Wilby, PROVE it isn't you!!
Wilbur Streett
>>From: WStr...@shell.monmouth.com (Wilbur Streett)
>>Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights.unmoderated
>
>>Gee, I don't have to prove that, because Kenny Boy sent him the email that
>>was quoted.
>>
>>But hey, look at this message and you'll notice that I post from a
>>different ISP, and always have.
>
> WIlby now i **KNOW** this is bullshit. You have repeatedly made claims that
>you have an AOL account. Or did it slip your mind that you did it just a little
>while ago.
Gee, that I have an AOL account that is connected all the time would slip
my mind? I use the AOL IM software and people contact me regularly via it.
>Thanks for clearing this up. We have NO way of knowing WHO has the PLUMBOY
>account today! Hey Wilby, PROVE it isn't you!!
You are the person that said it wasn't me. You are the person that claimed
that I had forged the messages by forwarding them on for him and forwarded
your messages on to him. Then you claimed that I couldn't prove that it
was him by having him post himself to this forum. Then you claim that I
forged the messages from AOL, or that I've stolen away his account.
In other words, your lies have gotten long enough to hang you with.
Wilbur Streett
He's already pointed out that you were not involved in his getting his
child.
What are you going to claim now, that he's your gay lover and he's pissed
at you?
Wilbur Streett
>>From: WStr...@shell.monmouth.com (Wilbur Streett)
>>Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights.unmoderated
>
>>> Nice to see that you showed up on COMMAND and found the time to do that
>which you claim to have Better things to do than. <chuckle>
>
>>He didn't show up on COMMAND.
>
> Oh Wilby. For a week you THREATED that "Tom will be posting the WHOLE TRUTH
>about you" and POP here he comes! Right on your CUE.
Threated? New word?
No, I didn't say he'd post the WHOLE TRUTH.. I nor he give a enough of a
shit about you to bother to find the whole truth.
You said that I forged his messages when I forwarded them. You claimed
that he posting himself would prove that he was the source. He posted, and
you now try to change your lies..
Your lies are catching up to you, Kenny Boy.
>>He showed up in response to your claims that he wasn't the source of the
>>original messages that you exchanged with him. He's man enough to stand
>>behind his words.
>
> A *MAN" like *YOU* Wilby?
Gee, any man other than you.
>>Now get the hell out of the Dads Rights forum. You are NOT WELCOME HERE.
>
> Oh Wilby.... Giving COMMANDS again?
>ORDERIONG people around? You must be feeling real BUTCH today, you usually
>reserve this for WOMEN...
Which people claim that you are welcome here, Kenny Boy?
Wilbur Streett
>>From: WStr...@shell.monmouth.com (Wilbur Streett)
>>Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights.unmoderated
>
>>Or a child abuse charge, that Thomas document KEN DID NOTHING TO HELP, but
>charged him anyway?
>
> Wilbur nobody "DOCUMENTED" anything. YOU in all your FLATULENCE made the
>CLAIM... ALl your WILBYWORLD HOT AIR! And even IF that was Tom, all it would
>be is a self-serving CLAIM.
I didn't make any of the claims. Thomas was very clear in his exchange
with you.
>>It's also quite clear in there that
>he LOST his kid due to Ken's ineptitude, and all of his life savings,
>
> Nope SORRY Wilbur this is just NOT anywhere NEAR true! It is a bald faced
>LIE. A shameless LIE.
Then why didn't have have the kid when you were gone, as HE DOCUMENTED.
> Your problem here Wilbur is that in any real pissing contest where TRUTH is
>the deciding factor, I win!
It's quite obvious that you do not. The truth crushes you in this forum
every day. The truth is you are a sick individual that looks to get into
the middle of a controversy, and look to have men PAY FOR IT.
>I have FOUR experts on my side of this. Three of
>them professors at major Universities.
Brian, Bryan and Paul are from Major Universities?
Thomas documented how worthless your expert witnesses where. So much so
that their testimony was not even accepted in court.
>I kmnow your OBSESSION with USING Tom or
>Tom's name to try to establish your KINGDOM in this newsgroup.
You sick fantasies have nothing to do with the truth. The truth is all
that I'm carrying around, and it's trashing you.
>And you have me
>marked as the obstacle in your creation of Wilbyworld here.
I'm creating WylburWorld somewhere else, idiot. I know technology well
enough to not waste my time where you have any access.
>You miscalculate
>Wilbur. I am far from alone in opposing yout dream of empire here.
Gee, what empire do you think I'm looking for here? An unmoderated DADS
RIGHTS FORUM? What an empire. What a great place to try to be king.
> None of your ORDERS to me or anyone else carries any weight. You are a
>Jersey PUNK wannabe bully. Just like your PAL Moore!
Gee, then why did I have a man in the middle of vietnam in 1970 send me a
poem applauding my gentleness?
Me thinks the noise is painting you...
Wilbur Streett
>>From: WStr...@shell.monmouth.com (Wilbur Streett)
>>Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights.unmoderated
>
>>Poor attempt at an attack, since Ken was gone a long time before the case was
>over.
>
> Well Wilby, the problem your STORY has is that I received LOADS of e-mails
>from Tom at the close of the case, profusely thanking me. Sending me JPEGs of
>his child. Deleriously happy with what I had done. Do we see ANY explanation
>for the rather CONVINIENT change of heart now that I have opposed WILBYWORLD?
Yeah. He's already explained that.
> How are all those e-mails explained?
He already has.
PangK
>Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights.unmoderated
>No, I didn't say he'd post the WHOLE TRUTH.. I nor he give a enough of a
shit about you to bother to find the whole truth.
THAT much is OBVIOUS Wilby!
>You said that I forged his messages when I forwarded them. You claimed
that he posting himself would prove that he was the source. He posted, and you
now try to change your lies.
Well Wilby - there are more than ample reasons to question the post.
>Your lies are catching up to you, Kenny Boy.
Nope but I am up to my knees in your bullshit.
>Which people claim that you are welcome here, Kenny Boy?
Which ones say YOU are besides thew THOUSANDS of personalities of David
Moore?
Wilbur Streett
>>From: WStr...@shell.monmouth.com (Wilbur Streett)
>>Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights.unmoderated
>
>>No, I didn't say he'd post the WHOLE TRUTH.. I nor he give a enough of a
>shit about you to bother to find the whole truth.
>
> THAT much is OBVIOUS Wilby!
You are quite right. I have never stated that I knew the whole truth. I
have even left final judgement open. But I have pointed out significnat
issues in your actions, and you cant' stand the truth.
Now I'm not interested in how much money you make fleecing men either, but
you have supplied that figure for us. You are the one sharing the truth
about yourself, and it's driving you crazy.
>>You said that I forged his messages when I forwarded them. You claimed
>that he posting himself would prove that he was the source. He posted, and you
>now try to change your lies.
>
> Well Wilby - there are more than ample reasons to question the post.
No, there were not. You and he discussed a context that obviously I could
not know. You had his email address, you could have contacted him at any
time, to figure out why a custome rthat paid as much as he did was
unsatisfied with your service. Basic Customer Service, but you don't know
much about that.
>>Your lies are catching up to you, Kenny Boy.
>
> Nope but I am up to my knees in your bullshit.
Gee, then why have your lied already buried you?
>>Which people claim that you are welcome here, Kenny Boy?
>
> Which ones say YOU are besides thew THOUSANDS of personalities of David
>Moore?
Gee, the last time you asked that, it was in the form of "who would want
Wilby to fight for fathers rights for him" and a few stepped up and said
that they would.
I appreciated your asking, and the response.
Want to ask about you?
PangK
>Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights.unmoderated
>You are quite right. I have never stated that I knew the whole truth. I have
even left final judgement open. But I have pointed out significnat issues in
your actions, and you cant' stand the truth.
Here is your problem Wilby. In order to attack ME on this you also have to
nail THREE major University professors. One is the leading Ph.D. on abuse and
domestic violence in the country, at a major public university, another is a
professor M.D. Psychiatrist at a major public University, and the third holds
TWO Ph.D.'s at a major Jewish University. So
IF there is ANY truth to what was read, not only is my accountant in on it, but
THREE University professors and a lawyer or two.
> You are the one sharing the truth
>about yourself, and it's driving you crazy.
It isn't driving me crazy at all Wilby. The more you rant on the more you
disqualify yourself. Has it ever occurred to you that your ex or her supporters
or Tom's ex might be reading all this stuff to use against you guys? So far I
have had THREE clients given a hard time for stuff they posted on THIS
newsgroup in the past.
PangK
>Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights.unmoderated
>Gee, the last time you asked that, it was in the form of "who would want
>Wilby to fight for fathers rights for him" and a few stepped up and said
>that they would.
>
>I appreciated your asking, and the response.
>
>Want to ask about you?
>
Your memory bad Wilby? I think quite a few HAVE!!!!!!!
>No, there were not. You and he discussed a context that obviously I could
not know. You had his email address, you could have contacted him at any time,
to figure out why a custome rthat paid as much as he did was unsatisfied with
your service. Basic Customer Service, but you don't know much about that.
You know I DID right after the firt message you posted. The mail bounced
saying the account was not active. Gee I wonder about that.
Wilbur Streett
>>From: WStr...@shell.monmouth.com (Wilbur Streett)
>>Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights.unmoderated
>
>>You are quite right. I have never stated that I knew the whole truth. I have
>even left final judgement open. But I have pointed out significnat issues in
>your actions, and you cant' stand the truth.
>
> Here is your problem Wilby. In order to attack ME on this you also have to
>nail THREE major University professors. One is the leading Ph.D. on abuse and
>domestic violence in the country, at a major public university, another is a
>professor M.D. Psychiatrist at a major public University, and the third holds
>TWO Ph.D.'s at a major Jewish University. So
>IF there is ANY truth to what was read, not only is my accountant in on it, but
>THREE University professors and a lawyer or two.
I'm sorry if you think that after all the bullshit that you have put into
this newsgroup that referring to 3 professors is going to make me think
that you are worth anything or that my opinion of your should somehow
change.
I don't know those gentlemen, and I suspect that if I were to have a
discussion with them about your antics in this newsgroup, they would
probably find someone else to find them clients.
As far as the assertion that "they are in on it", I'm sorry that you have
to stoop to claiming that you have no responsibility for your own actions
and then attempt to claim that everyone else is responsible for your
actions. I don't know the people that you refer to or their beliefs, and
I'd suspect, given the realities and cases that I have seen in family
court, that they might be useful in furthering the dad's rights issues,
while you specifically are the party that seeks to insure that dad's rights
continue to be trashed as fodder for your business.
Anything else, Kenny Boy?
>> You are the one sharing the truth
>>about yourself, and it's driving you crazy.
>
>It isn't driving me crazy at all Wilby. The more you rant on the more you
>disqualify yourself.
Gee, you have to claim that the truth is "ranting" shows that I'm right on
the money.
>Has it ever occurred to you that your ex or her supporters
>or Tom's ex might be reading all this stuff to use against you guys? So far I
>have had THREE clients given a hard time for stuff they posted on THIS
>newsgroup in the past.
Gee, like I'm concerned about your threats that my ex would try to use the
truth against me in court.
Wilbur Streett
>>From: WStr...@shell.monmouth.com (Wilbur Streett)
>>Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights.unmoderated
>
>>Gee, the last time you asked that, it was in the form of "who would want
>>Wilby to fight for fathers rights for him" and a few stepped up and said
>>that they would.
>>
>>I appreciated your asking, and the response.
>>
>>Want to ask about you?
>>
>Your memory bad Wilby? I think quite a few HAVE!!!!!!!
Yes, they have. And you've been trashed.
>>No, there were not. You and he discussed a context that obviously I could
>not know. You had his email address, you could have contacted him at any time,
>to figure out why a custome rthat paid as much as he did was unsatisfied with
>your service. Basic Customer Service, but you don't know much about that.
>
> You know I DID right after the firt message you posted. The mail bounced
>saying the account was not active. Gee I wonder about that.
You are a liar. If you had bounced an email to Thomas you would have
immediatly posted it to the newsgroup and paraded it around, claiming that
you had proof that I was a liar, and you certainly would not have responded
to his posts in this public forum.
Or do you want to claim to be that stupid?
PangK
>Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights.unmoderated
>>THREE University professors and a lawyer or two.
>
>All of whom you invented.
Did I Davey? And HOW would YOU know?
PangK
>Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights.unmoderated
>I'm sorry if you think that after all the bullshit that you have put into
>this newsgroup that referring to 3 professors is going to make me think
>that you are worth anything or that my opinion of your should somehow
>change.
Wilbur I don't give a flying frig what YOU think of me. My answer was to
point out that for the allegations flying here in the apst week to fly, it
would mean that the Three experts in the case would have to have been in on
what is alleged or incompetent. To hit me, you first gotta hit them!
PangK
>Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights.unmoderated
>>>Want to ask about you?
>>>
>>Your memory bad Wilby? I think quite a few HAVE!!!!!!!
>
>Yes, they have. And you've been trashed.
Gee Wilby I have seen the vote very much the OTHER way. I have YET to see
your delusional massive support for KING WILBY Emporer of ADRU. Of course you
do have the support of Moore and his MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY
Identities. And it make you SO proud to have David's endorsement.
Wilby you continue to be judge by EVERYTHING MOORE DOES!
Paul Fritz
Wibly needs a extension for his snorkel tube, he is in so deep...........
Anonymous Sender
>>From: WStr...@shell.monmouth.com (Wilbur Streett)
>>Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights.unmoderated
>
>>>>Want to ask about you?
>>>>
>>>Your memory bad Wilby? I think quite a few HAVE!!!!!!!
>>
>>Yes, they have. And you've been trashed.
>
> Gee Wilby I have seen the vote very much the OTHER way. I have YET
to see
>your delusional massive support for KING WILBY Emporer of ADRU. Of
course you
>do have the support of Moore and his MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY
>Identities. And it make you SO proud to have David's endorsement.
>
>Wilby you continue to be judge by EVERYTHING MOORE DOES!
Wilbur fails to consider that when he asks for a vote, he's in so many
killfiles that there are many people who don't respond to the question
they've never seen. I don't see his claptrap until someone quotes it.
Paul Fritz
Me either, but I can always tell when wibly's buttons get pushed when the
'unread' count goes through the roof and only a couple of posts show up.
PangK
>Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights.unmoderated
>> Wilby you continue to be judge by EVERYTHING MOORE DOES!
>Wibly needs a extension for his snorkel tube, he is in so deep...........
Wilby seems pretty good at treading water. Wonder after he's shot his
PLUMBOY wad what he ahs next since that one fizzled?
Anonymous User
>On Thu, 20 Apr 2000 10:38:52 -0400 Anonymous Sender
><nob...@mixmaster.shinn.net> wrote:
>
>>On 20 Apr 2000 11:16:17 GMT, pa...@aol.com (PangK) wrote:
>>
>>>>From: WStr...@shell.monmouth.com (Wilbur Streett)
>>>>Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights.unmoderated
>>>
>>>>>>Want to ask about you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>Your memory bad Wilby? I think quite a few HAVE!!!!!!!
>>>>
>>>>Yes, they have. And you've been trashed.
>>>
>>> Gee Wilby I have seen the vote very much the OTHER way. I have
YET
>>to see
>>>your delusional massive support for KING WILBY Emporer of ADRU. Of
>>course you
>>>do have the support of Moore and his MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY
>>>Identities. And it make you SO proud to have David's endorsement.
>>>
>>>Wilby you continue to be judge by EVERYTHING MOORE DOES!
>>
>>Wilbur fails to consider that when he asks for a vote, he's in so
many
>>killfiles that there are many people who don't respond to the
question
>>they've never seen. I don't see his claptrap until someone quotes
it.
>>
>>
>
>Most people don't see yours because it's cancelled by the time they
get
>to it.
Tell yourself whatever you like, David. Tell us, dear boy, who is
doing the canceling? The guy who likes to call others "coward, "
right? The one with REAL experience with cowardice, the big MARINE
who picks on women and children, baiting others to do his dirty work.
Can you tell how impressed I am?
Wilbur Streett
>>From: WStr...@shell.monmouth.com (Wilbur Streett)
>>Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights.unmoderated
>
>>I'm sorry if you think that after all the bullshit that you have put into
>>this newsgroup that referring to 3 professors is going to make me think
>>that you are worth anything or that my opinion of your should somehow
>>change.
>
> Wilbur I don't give a flying frig what YOU think of me. My answer was to
>point out that for the allegations flying here in the apst week to fly, it
>would mean that the Three experts in the case would have to have been in on
>what is alleged or incompetent. To hit me, you first gotta hit them!
Gee, I notice that you clipped out the part of the response that I wrote
that specifically pointed out that you are NOT THEM and that I'm rather
sure that if I were to have have a discussion with them, that they'd find
someone else to associate themselves with.
Are these individuals listed on the A-Team web site?
Anyone else want to contact them and point out what sort of individual they
associating with?
You can not claim to be great because you hang out or refer professors to
the people that you fleece. There is a lot more to personal and
professional ethics than who you refer to people.
Wilbur Streett
>>From: WStr...@shell.monmouth.com (Wilbur Streett)
>>Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights.unmoderated
>
>>>>Want to ask about you?
>>>>
>>>Your memory bad Wilby? I think quite a few HAVE!!!!!!!
>>
>>Yes, they have. And you've been trashed.
>
> Gee Wilby I have seen the vote very much the OTHER way. I have YET to see
>your delusional massive support for KING WILBY Emporer of ADRU. Of course you
>do have the support of Moore and his MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY
>Identities. And it make you SO proud to have David's endorsement.
>
>Wilby you continue to be judge by EVERYTHING MOORE DOES!
Gee, there was a part of the message that you couldn't deal with, so you
once again fall back to your stupid David Moore is the devil bullshit.
He's the part, something tells me that David needs to add it to his web
site. Or you can respond to it, and show that I made a mistake.
>
> You know I DID right after the firt message you posted. The mail bounced
>saying the account was not active. Gee I wonder about that.
You are a liar. If you had bounced an email to Thomas you would have
immediatly posted it to the newsgroup and paraded it around, claiming that
you had proof that I was a liar, and you certainly would not have responded
to his posts in this public forum.
Or do you want to claim to be that stupid?
Wilbur Streett
>PangK wrote:
>
>> Wilby you continue to be judge by EVERYTHING MOORE DOES!
>
>Wibly needs a extension for his snorkel tube, he is in so deep...........
>
>
> You know I DID right after the firt message you posted. The mail bounced
>saying the account was not active. Gee I wonder about that.
You are a liar. If you had bounced an email to Thomas you would have
immediatly posted it to the newsgroup and paraded it around, claiming that
you had proof that I was a liar, and you certainly would not have responded
to his posts in this public forum.
Or do you want to claim to be that stupid?
Wilbur Streett
>>From: Paul Fritz paul...@voyager.net
>>Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights.unmoderated
>
>>> Wilby you continue to be judge by EVERYTHING MOORE DOES!
>
>>Wibly needs a extension for his snorkel tube, he is in so deep...........
>
> Wilby seems pretty good at treading water. Wonder after he's shot his
>PLUMBOY wad what he ahs next since that one fizzled?
>
>
Wilbur Streett
>>Wilby you continue to be judge by EVERYTHING MOORE DOES!
>
>Wilbur fails to consider that when he asks for a vote, he's in so many
>killfiles that there are many people who don't respond to the question
>they've never seen. I don't see his claptrap until someone quotes it.
Gee, I didn't ask for a vote..
But I did point something else out..
Wilbur Streett
Paul Fritz <paul...@voyager.net> wrote:
>
>Me either, but I can always tell when wibly's buttons get pushed when the
>'unread' count goes through the roof and only a couple of posts show up.
>
>
> You know I DID right after the firt message you posted. The mail bounced
>saying the account was not active. Gee I wonder about that.
You are a liar. If you had bounced an email to Thomas you would have
immediatly posted it to the newsgroup and paraded it around, claiming that
you had proof that I was a liar, and you certainly would not have responded
to his posts in this public forum.
Or do you want to claim to be that stupid?
I also notice that not one single individual claimed that Ken Pangborn was
interested in Dad's Rights.
Wilbur
PangK
>Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights.unmoderated
>You are a liar. If you had bounced an email to Thomas you would
haveimmediatly posted it to the newsgroup and paraded it around, claiming that
you had proof that I was a liar, and you certainly would not have responded
to his posts in this public forum.
Look fukwit, do NOT tell me WHAT I would do based on YOUR juvenile BULLY BOY
tactics. That is what YOU would do!
>Or do you want to claim to be that stupid?
I have NO intention of claiming to be Wilbur Streett!!!!!!
Wilbur Streett
>>From: WStr...@shell.monmouth.com (Wilbur Streett)
>>Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights.unmoderated
>
>>You are a liar. If you had bounced an email to Thomas you would
>haveimmediatly posted it to the newsgroup and paraded it around, claiming that
>you had proof that I was a liar, and you certainly would not have responded
>to his posts in this public forum.
>
> Look fukwit, do NOT tell me WHAT I would do based on YOUR juvenile BULLY BOY
>tactics. That is what YOU would do!
Bullshit. You have specifically claimed that you and others sent email to
Thomas that was not responded to, and you specifically engaged in a public
discussion where I forwarded your usenet posts to him, and he replied via
email.
If you had any reason to believe that the email account was not valid, you
would not have demonstrated your belief that you were communicating with
Thomas in your messages. If you had anything to show that the messages
where not valid, you would have attempted to show that, as you have already
attempted to use every stupid argument that you could to claim that Thomas
wasn't the source of the messages.
>>Or do you want to claim to be that stupid?
>
>I have NO intention of claiming to be Wilbur Streett!!!!!!
You could never be as stupid as me. Your actions have demonstrated that
you are totally stupid.
PangK
>Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights.unmoderated
>Bullshit. You have specifically claimed that you and others sent email to
>Thomas that was not responded to, and you specifically engaged in a public
>discussion where I forwarded your usenet posts to him, and he replied via
>email.
Yep Wilby. THAT isn't the point. That I did not behave as WILBUR STREET
would behave IS. I don't because I am not YOU! I amn not some wind bag BULLY
from Jersy TRYING to take over this newsgroup.
Wilbur Streett
No, you behaved exactly as you always have. Coming up with stupid
ineffective arguments, and then claiming that you are the king, and trying
AD HOM attacks to find a way out of your stupidity and lack of actual
caring aboiut Dad's Rights.
Happy Easter.