pcbutts!
poison
Black Watch
> pls who/what is pcbutts?
Pcbutts appears to be an associate of one known as Leythos or Lethyos.
Seems to me, besides alledgedly frequently bedding each other they have
cobbled up some sort of corporate deal to spam out to Newsgroups, porno
links and a mysterious spyware app. They both strike me as unemployed
caravan dwellers, (trailer tramps in Merkin speak), with far too much time
on their hands. They ought be forced to usefully contribute to society
employed as street sweepers or lavatory cleaners (bathroom technicians in
Merkin speak). Boring pharts the pair of them and their daily cliff
hangerless soap opera is well passed it's sell by date.
HTH
Leythos
bidi...@googlemail.com says...
> pls who/what is pcbutts?
All you have to do is Google or check the link below in my sig.
--
Leythos - spam9...@rrohio.com (remove 999 to email me)
Fight exposing kids to porn, complain about sites like PC BUTTS 1.COM
that create filth and put it on the web for any kid to see: Just take a
look at some of the FILTH he's created and put on his website:
http://forums.speedguide.net/archive/index.php/t-223485.html all exposed
to children (the link I've include does not directly display his filth).
You can find the same information by googling for 'PCBUTTS1' and
'exposed to kids'.
pcbutts1
--
Newsgroup Trolls. Read about mine here http://www.pcbutts1.com/downloads
The list grows. Leythos the stalker http://www.leythosthestalker.com, David
H. Lipman, Max M Wachtell III aka What's in a Name?, Fitz,
Rhonda Lea Kirk, Meat Plow, F Kwatu F, George Orwell
"poison" <bidi...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:1192271008.3...@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> pls who/what is pcbutts?
>
Leythos
@leythosthestalker.com says...
> http://www.blogger.com/profile/1685746812313769640
http://www.google.com/search?q=pcbutts1+pirate+thief&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
Is a better link to show who you are.
--
Leythos - spam9...@rrohio.com (remove 999 to email me)
Fight exposing kids to porn, complain about sites like pcbutts1 that
Rhonda Lea Kirk
> pls who/what is pcbutts?
lol
--
Rhonda Lea Kirk
AUK Galactic Killfile, 15 May 2007
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.usenet.kooks/msg/23766545e259d53c
Winner, Golden Killfile, April 2007
Co-Office Holder, Ministry of Circle Jerks, April and May 2007
Member, Human O-Ring Society, March 2003
NCB#16 BJDS#2 INAC#77 PSLCK#1 SBG#1 A-29204
Some are tempted to think of life in cyberspace as insignificant,
as escape or meaningless diversion. It is not. Our experiences there
are serious play. We belittle them at our risk. Sherry Turkle
---Fitz---
news:1192271008.3...@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> pls who/what is pcbutts?
>
His name is Christopher Butts and he's a sub-contractor for NASA. He runs a
small web business out of a mail drop in California. He's been known to
plagiarize code and host porn on his website.
He claims to want to help people with computer problems but instead he gives
bad advice. An example of bad advice would be to tell people to download an
unknown executable file from a website that hosts porn and then ask the site
for a password to run the file.
He has claimed to be many things in the past including a lawyer, an MVP, and
the owner of nasa.gov.
Peter van der Goes
news:feqdt1$5eg$1...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
In your first link, you claim to be a Microsoft MVP, yet I cannot find you
(by any of the pseudonyms attributed to you) in the MVP profiles. Why is
that?
pcbutts1
in the MS groups complete with my MVP sig.
--
Newsgroup Trolls. Read about mine here http://www.pcbutts1.com/downloads
The list grows. Leythos the stalker http://www.leythosthestalker.com, David
H. Lipman, Max M Wachtell III aka What's in a Name?, Fitz,
Rhonda Lea Kirk, Meat Plow, F Kwatu F, George Orwell
"Peter van der Goes" <pv...@toadstool.edu> wrote in message
news:ts9Qi.340469$dA7....@newsfe16.lga...
Heather
MS news groups and that you most definitely are NOT an MVP......that is
the dumbest lie you have told yet. Eh, Sharon Franks?? Keerist, you
are a mental case!!
"pcbutts1" <pcbu...@leythosthestalker.com> wrote in message
news:fercbj$bqa$1...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
pcbutts1
Sharon Franks? She posted a message today. If you think I am her then you
just proved yourself a liar and a troll.
--
Newsgroup Trolls. Read about mine here http://www.pcbutts1.com/downloads
The list grows. Leythos the stalker http://www.leythosthestalker.com, David
H. Lipman, Max M Wachtell III aka What's in a Name?, Fitz,
Rhonda Lea Kirk, Meat Plow, F Kwatu F, George Orwell
"Heather" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:fereg9$ge6$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
pcbutts1
leythos the stalker. All you have to do is look. Now what's your excuse
going to be.
--
Newsgroup Trolls. Read about mine here http://www.pcbutts1.com/downloads
The list grows. Leythos the stalker http://www.leythosthestalker.com, David
H. Lipman, Max M Wachtell III aka What's in a Name?, Fitz,
Rhonda Lea Kirk, Meat Plow, F Kwatu F, George Orwell
"Heather" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:fereg9$ge6$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
kurt wismer
> http://www.blogger.com/profile/16857468123137696406
>
from the site:
"I am part of the antivirus and spyware community. I have been for 6
years. "
more accurately, you've been a complete tool for 6 years...
--
"it's not the right time to be sober
now the idiots have taken over
spreading like a social cancer,
is there an answer?"
Peter van der Goes
> You can't find it because Pcbutts1 is not my real name. I use my real name
> in the MS groups complete with my MVP sig.
>
pcbutts1
--
Newsgroup Trolls. Read about mine here http://www.pcbutts1.com/downloads
The list grows. Leythos the stalker http://www.leythosthestalker.com, David
H. Lipman, Max M Wachtell III aka What's in a Name?, Fitz,
Rhonda Lea Kirk, Meat Plow, F Kwatu F, George Orwell
"Peter van der Goes" <pv...@toadstool.edu> wrote in message
news:dJbQi.3770$5b2....@newsfe19.lga...
pcbutts1
--
Newsgroup Trolls. Read about mine here http://www.pcbutts1.com/downloads
The list grows. Leythos the stalker http://www.leythosthestalker.com, David
H. Lipman, Max M Wachtell III aka What's in a Name?, Fitz,
Rhonda Lea Kirk, Meat Plow, F Kwatu F, George Orwell
"kurt wismer" <ku...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:ferh01$s4h$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
Heather
every day as pcbutts1......and I would believe Leythos 100 times over
you because he tells the truth. You have never been truthful in your
life!!
Balls in your court......you prove to ME that you post to the MS groups
*every day*......bullshit once again!!
"pcbutts1" <pcbu...@leythosthestalker.com> wrote in message
news:ferg3t$jp8$1...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
Heather
"kurt wismer" <ku...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:ferh01$s4h$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>> http://www.blogger.com/profile/16857468123137696406
>>
>
> from the site:
> "I am part of the antivirus and spyware community. I have been for 6
> years. "
>
> more accurately, you've been a complete tool for 6 years...
>
accurate, I would think.
pcbutts1
work then you are a bigger idiot then I thought.
--
Newsgroup Trolls. Read about mine here http://www.pcbutts1.com/downloads
The list grows. Leythos the stalker http://www.leythosthestalker.com, David
H. Lipman, Max M Wachtell III aka What's in a Name?, Fitz,
Rhonda Lea Kirk, Meat Plow, F Kwatu F, George Orwell
"Heather" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:ferj35$42k$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
---Fitz---
possible that wasn't true? I'd be sooo disappointed. :-)
---Fitz---
His profile consists of his animal porn.
Heather
you are a code thief and a liar is enough to put you on most folks' shit
lists. You sure your name isn't S**ge??
"pcbutts1" <pcbu...@leythosthestalker.com> wrote in message
news:ferkmo$85$1...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
Leythos
@leythosthestalker.com says...
> You can't find it because Pcbutts1 is not my real name. I use my real name
> in the MS groups complete with my MVP sig.
And yet all of your posts as PCBUTTS1 were banned because of your
unethical actions.
Leythos
@leythosthestalker.com says...
> If you think your lame BS attempt at getting me to ID myself is going to
> work then you are a bigger idiot then I thought.
If you post every day as PCBUTTS1 then you would not have any problems,
now if you mean you post as another nym (that would make at least 20
that you've used) then yes, they are not blocking a new nym from you.
Leythos
@leythosthestalker.com says...
> And another thing, If I can't post on the MS ng's where did you get the name
> Sharon Franks? She posted a message today. If you think I am her then you
> just proved yourself a liar and a troll.
There are two people that post as Sharon Franks - you can tell from the
headers and style that they are not the same person. One is you
impersonating someone you are not in order to keep from being noticed as
easily and to avoid the MS Server filters.
Leythos
> Sharon Franks? She posted a message today. If you think I am her then you
> just proved yourself a liar and a troll.
Quoted from a MVP on the Actual MS Usenet Servers:
Also please know, xxxx, that the poster in this thread using the alias
"Sharon Franks" is not, in fact, the real Sharon Franks [1] but a well-
known scam artist, software thief, and copyright violator AKA PCButts1
[2].
[1] cf.
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windowsxp.general/browse
_frm/thread/674b3f822db24ad3/9e511e7f887f3d55
[2]
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=pcbutts1&start=0
&scoring=d&hl=en
jayd...@gmail.com
> >>> pls who/what is pcbutts?
> >>
> >
> > In your first link, you claim to be a Microsoft MVP, yet I cannot find you
> > (by any of the pseudonyms attributed to you) in the MVP profiles. Why is
> > that?
>
> in the MS groups complete with my MVP sig.
Yeah. You're an MVP. And I never wear a kilt.
Pull the other one, it's got bells on.
Rhonda Lea Kirk
> In article <fercbj$bqa$1...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com>, pcbutts1
> @leythosthestalker.com says...
>> You can't find it because Pcbutts1 is not my real name. I use my
>> real name in the MS groups complete with my MVP sig.
>
> And yet all of your posts as PCBUTTS1 were banned because of your
> unethical actions.
IIRC, he was banned because he refused to comply with the Microsoft TOS,
not because of "unethical actions." The only server from which his posts
are filtered are the Microsoft server. If he posts using a different
NNTP provider (as I do), those posts will be available on all usenet
servers but the Microsoft server.
Microsoft has a dubious history when it comes to banning and censorship,
so if I were you, I would not use butts' banning from its server as a
data point in support of the case against him.
I reported the Sharon Franks ID the first time I saw it (June 2006, when
he posted one of his infamous links), but nothing was done then and
nothing has been done since.
pcbutts1
I don't know Sharon Franks. Your trollish ways have made a false complaint
and your stupid ass gets mad because nothing was done about it. It's stupid
shit like that that gets you added to my sig and a web page put up.
--
Newsgroup Trolls. Read about mine here http://www.pcbutts1.com/downloads
The list grows. Leythos the stalker http://www.leythosthestalker.com, David
H. Lipman, Max M Wachtell III aka What's in a Name?, Fitz,
Rhonda Lea Kirk, Meat Plow, F Kwatu F, George Orwell
"Rhonda Lea Kirk" <rhon...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5neh1nF...@mid.individual.net...
jayd...@gmail.com
> Leythos wrote:
> > In article <fercbj$bq...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com>,pcbutts1
> > @leythosthestalker.com says...
> >> You can't find it becausePcbutts1is not my real name. I use my
> >> real name in the MS groups complete with my MVP sig.
>
> > unethical actions.
>
> IIRC, he was banned because he refused to comply with the Microsoft TOS,
> not because of "unethical actions." The only server from which his posts
> are filtered are the Microsoft server. If he posts using a different
> NNTP provider (as I do), those posts will be available on all usenet
> servers but the Microsoft server.
You are correct. I never cared about his ethics. I had complaints
about the content of his posts, I investigated the situation, I
explained them to him, he refused to follow the rules, and I blocked
him *solely* from Microsoft's servers. I wanted to make sure that
when we canceled a message, we did not ship that cancel message off to
USENET as a whole. We (well, Microsoft.. I'm putting my MS hat back
on) don't own USENET. We own our servers, and we had full right to
remove what we wanted from our own servers. I'm not doing it anymore,
my Newsgroup Admin role ended back in 2005 and I am not currently
employed by Microsoft.
> Microsoft has a dubious history when it comes to banning and censorship,
> so if I were you, I would not use butts' banning from its server as a
> data point in support of the case against him.
You are more than welcome to question me with regards to anything
regarding the newsgroup servers between, roughly, 2003 and 2005. That
was my job and I took pride in ensuring that *only* ToS violators and
true USENET spammers were banned.
> I reported the Sharon Franks ID the first time I saw it (June 2006, when
> he posted one of his infamous links), but nothing was done then and
> nothing has been done since.
That was after my time, so I can't speak about that.
You can feel free to believe I'm not really the John Eddy who was in
charge of the servers.
You can feel free to believe what PCButts1 has said about his
interactions with me, none of which have been true.
....
And, since it is now stuck in my head, let me get it stuck in yours
too....
You can dance if you want to.
You can leave your friends behind....
-jd
pcbutts1
encouraged the posting of HJT logs. The was not and there still are no rules
against posting of logs in any MS group. I never violated anything. You and
JE were gung ho and biased in your removal of my posts and it cost him his
position as admin and probably your job I don't know, I don't know you.
Removing posts is way different from being banned. You didn't even bother to
check the headers. Get your facts straight. That case went way beyond you
and JE. If you want to blame somebody for that then blame the big headed
MVP's who thought they owned the MS newsgroups. That's why they don't like
me because they could not stop me.
--
Newsgroup Trolls. Read about mine here http://www.pcbutts1.com/downloads
The list grows. Leythos the stalker http://www.leythosthestalker.com, David
H. Lipman, Max M Wachtell III aka What's in a Name?, Fitz,
Rhonda Lea Kirk, Meat Plow, F Kwatu F, George Orwell
<jayd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1192381836.1...@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
Rhonda Lea Kirk
To the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence to the contrary.
Moreover, it was not my intention to take a swipe at you. In addition to
the memory detailed above, I have another recollection that you were a
hands-on and responsive administrator in maintaining the Microsoft
groups.
I do, however, stand by the assertion that being banned by a newsgroup
administrator is not sufficient evidence to establish the state of one's
ethical compass. (Not that I think Butts' has an ethical compass--given
some of his antics, it's a pretty obvious he does not.)
>> I reported the Sharon Franks ID the first time I saw it (June 2006,
>> when he posted one of his infamous links), but nothing was done then
>> and nothing has been done since.
>
> That was after my time, so I can't speak about that.
"After your time" was the "dubious history" to which I was specifically
referring above. If it will make you more comfortable, I'll say "dubious
recent history."
> You can feel free to believe I'm not really the John Eddy who was in
> charge of the servers.
I well know how irritating it can be to be told one is not who or what
one is, so I'll take your word that you are who you say you are.
> You can feel free to believe what PCButts1 has said about his
> interactions with me, none of which have been true.
You can rest assured that if Butts says it, I will assume it's untrue
until I'm provided with incontrovertible evidence to the contrary.
> ....
> And, since it is now stuck in my head, let me get it stuck in yours
> too....
> You can dance if you want to.
> You can leave your friends behind....
>
> -jd
Foolproof get rich quick scheme: Invent a firewall to block the dreaded
earworm trojan. :)
jayd...@gmail.com
I tried to be. And I didn't feel swiped at personally. It's a
generic swipe at a company without a face, something I have no
problems with people doing. I figured if I could field any questions
now that I'm no longer working there, I'd do it. =)
> I do, however, stand by the assertion that being banned by a newsgroup
> administrator is not sufficient evidence to establish the state of one's
> ethical compass. (Not that I think Butts' has an ethical compass--given
> some of his antics, it's a pretty obvious he does not.)
Hmmmm. To establish? No. To provide a bit of evidence, yes.
It's like picking an MVP. A large number of posts is not sufficient
evidence to establish that someone should be an MVP. But it's a
clue. It should be enough to make someone think 'Why is this? Why
should that have happened? Perhaps I should investigate this more...'
> >> I reported the Sharon Franks ID the first time I saw it (June 2006,
> >> when he posted one of his infamous links), but nothing was done then
> >> and nothing has been done since.
>
> > That was after my time, so I can't speak about that.
>
> "After your time" was the "dubious history" to which I was specifically
> referring above. If it will make you more comfortable, I'll say "dubious
> recent history."
I've been sad about what's become of the server. Some of the
newsgroups that have been rubber stamped for creation have left me
ill.
> > You can feel free to believe I'm not really the John Eddy who was in
> > charge of the servers.
>
> I well know how irritating it can be to be told one is not who or what
> one is, so I'll take your word that you are who you say you are.
I could be a dog =)
I hear collies have exceptional typing skills.
> > You can feel free to believe whatPCButts1has said about his
> > interactions with me, none of which have been true.
>
> You can rest assured that if Butts says it, I will assume it's untrue
> until I'm provided with incontrovertible evidence to the contrary.
Unfortunately, he's managed to besmirch my name by implying that he
got me fired. And since I don't avoid having my name out there (if I
could remember how to get Google Groups to put my name on the From
line, I'd go fix it), but he does, it's sort of a one way street.
C'est la vie. I stand by everything I've ever done.
> > ....
> > And, since it is now stuck in my head, let me get it stuck in yours
> > too....
> > You can dance if you want to.
> > You can leave your friends behind....
>
> Foolproof get rich quick scheme: Invent a firewall to block the dreaded
> earworm trojan. :)
Frontal Lobotomy. =)
jayd...@gmail.com
wrote:
> > interactions with me, none of which have been true.
>
> > ....
> > And, since it is now stuck in my head, let me get it stuck in yours
> > too....
> > You can dance if you want to.
> > You can leave your friends behind....
>
> encouraged the posting of HJT logs.
Sure, I'll tell the truth:
You had more than a few posts canceled and they were never canceled
because you encouraged the posting of HJT logs.
> The was not and there still are no rules
> against posting of logs in any MS group.
You are correct. And, like I said, that's not why your posts were
ever removed.
> I never violated anything.
> You and
> JE were gung ho and biased in your removal of my posts and it cost him his
> position as admin and probably your job I don't know, I don't know you.
I am John Eddy. You didn't cost me my job. Removing your posts
didn't cost me my job. You had nothing to do with why I am not the
Newsgroups Admin anymore. If you want to believe you were, feel free,
but, frankly, you had nothing to do with it. My team was outsourced.
The *entire* team.
> Removing posts is way different from being banned. You didn't even bother to
> check the headers. Get your facts straight.
Check the headers of what? My facts are extremely straight, thank you
very much.
> That case went way beyond you
> and JE. If you want to blame somebody for that then blame the big headed
> MVP's who thought they owned the MS newsgroups.
Blame someone for what? And considering you're taking credit for
having me removed as Newsgroups Administrator, it sounds like *you*
are the one who thinks he owns the MS Newsgroups.
> That's why they don't like
> me because they could not stop me.
>
No, sir, they don't like you because you're a total ass.
pcbutts1
cost of your job. He tried to use his status as an MVP to ruin me, and my
job and in the long run all he did was costs others theirs and really pissed
off Chris Butts. I saw all his emails. This goes way beyond you. He thought
I was some smuck loser with too much time on my hands. You can rest assured
he won't mess with me again or NASA.
--
Newsgroup Trolls. Read about mine here http://www.pcbutts1.com/downloads
The list grows. Leythos the stalker http://www.leythosthestalker.com, David
H. Lipman, Max M Wachtell III aka What's in a Name?, Fitz,
Rhonda Lea Kirk, Meat Plow, F Kwatu F, George Orwell
<jayd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1192393743.1...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
jayd...@gmail.com
Yes, before I was the Newsgroups Admin, I was his MVP Lead.
> he pissed me off, his actions was the
> cost of your job.
Uhhh, no. The cost of my job was outsourcing to contractors. Or do
you somehow not understand that? You want to turn me against someone,
provide verifiable evidence. Believe me, I will perform my due
diligence to verify any and all data you provide, so be sure to
include header information of any and all emails. My email should be
on this post, feel free to use it.
Otherwise, sorry, but my entire team was outsourced. All of it. All
the work me and my co-workers were doing is now being done (or
ignored) by generic contractors who are supposed to handle all the
unique jobs we were doing previously.
> He tried to use his status as an MVP to ruin me, and my
> job and in the long run all he did was costs others theirs and really pissed
> off Chris Butts. I saw all his emails.
Well, good for you. You'll excuse me if I don't believe you just
because you say so. After all, you've openly said it was *YOU* who
cost me my job and now you're changing the story.
> This goes way beyond you.
You're right. It goes to the bean counters who decided a full-time
dedicated newsgroups administrator was a waste of company resources.
> He thought
> I was some smuck loser with too much time on my hands.
I bet he spelled it correctly tho.
> You can rest assured
> he won't mess with me again or NASA.
Could care less. Really. I'm in this to correct your statements
about *me*.
Rhonda Lea Kirk
<snipped>
>> To the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence to the contrary.
>> Moreover, it was not my intention to take a swipe at you. In
>> addition to the memory detailed above, I have another recollection
>> that you were a hands-on and responsive administrator in maintaining
>> the Microsoft groups.
>
> I tried to be. And I didn't feel swiped at personally. It's a
> generic swipe at a company without a face, something I have no
> problems with people doing. I figured if I could field any questions
> now that I'm no longer working there, I'd do it. =)
If there had been any doubt in my mind that you're John Eddy, there
would be none now.
As for taking a swipe at a company without a face, I guess that's the
same as saying I took a swipe at corporate policy. I'd like to add,
however, that I do think it is sometimes the case that individuals go
above and beyond (in a bad way), and I'm also taking a swipe at them,
whoever they might be. It just so happens that they're not you (as
evidenced by the timeline).
>> I do, however, stand by the assertion that being banned by a
>> newsgroup administrator is not sufficient evidence to establish the
>> state of one's ethical compass. (Not that I think Butts' has an
>> ethical compass--given some of his antics, it's a pretty obvious he
>> does not.)
>
> Hmmmm. To establish? No. To provide a bit of evidence, yes.
Below is a link that is NSFW (or anywhere else, for that matter). I post
it so you will have no doubt that I, personally, have all the evidence
about Butts' character that I will ever need. :)
http://www.pcbutts1.com/rlk/rlk.htm
My point, however, is that people get banned for a lot of different
reasons, and while it may be a data point, it's not a conclusion. For
example, I was briefly banned from the MS server over the WGA debacle
(along with several others), until someone realized that disagreement
with policy is not TOS abuse (by the terms of the TOS). I have also been
banned in other places for similar reasons. In addition, I've had
several posts to the MS server selectively censored because of naughty
word use or because I quoted a post (from a non-MS server) that
contained a naughty word.
> It's like picking an MVP. A large number of posts is not sufficient
> evidence to establish that someone should be an MVP. But it's a
> clue. It should be enough to make someone think 'Why is this? Why
> should that have happened? Perhaps I should investigate this more...'
I agree with the point you're trying to make, but I have a not-topical
issue with the example you've used to make it, so I'm not going to
address it further. (I will say that if all MVPs were Malke, it would be
a happy world.)
<snipped>
>> "After your time" was the "dubious history" to which I was
>> specifically referring above. If it will make you more comfortable,
>> I'll say "dubious recent history."
>
> I've been sad about what's become of the server. Some of the
> newsgroups that have been rubber stamped for creation have left me
> ill.
I'm sorry. But that's pretty much the story all over usenet, so most of
us who have been around for more than a few years are ill right along
with you.
<snipped>
>> I well know how irritating it can be to be told one is not who or
>> what one is, so I'll take your word that you are who you say you are.
>
> I could be a dog =)
>
> I hear collies have exceptional typing skills.
My cat will give you a run for your money. :)
<snipped>
>> You can rest assured that if Butts says it, I will assume it's untrue
>> until I'm provided with incontrovertible evidence to the contrary.
>
> Unfortunately, he's managed to besmirch my name by implying that he
> got me fired. And since I don't avoid having my name out there (if I
> could remember how to get Google Groups to put my name on the From
> line, I'd go fix it), but he does, it's sort of a one way street.
> C'est la vie. I stand by everything I've ever done.
No one who is not a rank newbie believes anything that Butts says.
(That's one of the reasons I wish Leythos would stop replying to him,
because it gives him unwarranted attention. The sig is a perfectly
adequate way to get the message across without addressing Butts
directly.)
As for Google, go here:
http://groups.google.com/groups/mysubs?hl=en
>>> ....
>>> And, since it is now stuck in my head, let me get it stuck in yours
>>> too....
>>> You can dance if you want to.
>>> You can leave your friends behind....
>>
>> Foolproof get rich quick scheme: Invent a firewall to block the
>> dreaded earworm trojan. :)
>
> Frontal Lobotomy. =)
<takes out two virtual glasses, pours generous shot into each> Bottle in
front of me. Sláinte!
--
Rhonda Lea Kirk
AUK Galactic Killfile, 15 May 2007
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.usenet.kooks/msg/23766545e259d53c
Winner, Golden Killfile, April 2007
Co-Office Holder, Ministry of Circle Jerks, April and May 2007
Member, Human O-Ring Society, March 2003
NCB#16 BJDS#2 INAC#77 PSLCK#1 SBG#1 A-29204
They must find it difficult...
Those who have taken authority as the truth,
rather than truth as the authority. Gerald Massey
Rhonda Lea Kirk
> Does the name PA Bear sound familiar? he pissed me off, his actions
> was the cost of your job. He tried to use his status as an MVP to
> ruin me, and my job and in the long run all he did was costs others
> theirs and really pissed off Chris Butts. I saw all his emails. This
> goes way beyond you. He thought I was some smuck loser with too much
> time on my hands. You can rest assured he won't mess with me again or
> NASA.
I do not want what I am about to write to be misconstrued, so I am going
to separate out the three issues as carefully as I can.
The first issue is that I firmly believe anyone has the *right* to say
any goddammed annoying, obnoxious, offensive thing that person feels
like saying, regardless of how goddammed annoying, obnoxious and
offensive that person and his words might happen to be. Even a
sociopath--that means you, Chris--is entitled to a voice.
If you take away the right of anyone to speak, you have endangered the
right of everyone to speak. It's that simple.
For most of my adult life, David Goldberger has been my hero, because he
understood and honored this concept even when it was personally
abhorrent to him. To me, the owner of DataBasix is the David Goldberger
of usenet, because he too understands and honors the same ideal,
regardless of his personal feelings. I subscribe to DataBasix, and so
long as it is in business, I will continue to do so, for that reason
alone.
The second issue is that just because I believe with my whole heart what
I wrote above, I also believe that there are words that should not be
spoken and that individuals have the obligation to police themselves in
this regard (as opposed to policing each other). You have a corner on
the market of such words, Chris, and I find you reprehensible.
With that said, the third and final issue, which is also the point, is
this: it's not for nothin' that you subscribe to DataBasix, Chris. As
long as you do not violate the DataBasix AUP, you know you can do
whatever the fuck you feel like, and you are teflon, because Gary's
commitment to freedom of speech on usenet is unequivocal. The only
reason you're able to get away with the shit you spew is that your
provider remains true to an ideal that other providers have allowed to
erode in the name of convenience.
In other words, you can only talk your bullshit because you're protected
from the consequences (up to the point you violate the AUP, and then
you're protected from nothing), but that protection is not an
endorsement of you or your words, it's just the same generic protection
that anyone with a DataBasix account would receive. Your claims of dire
consequences to those who mess with you is nothing but lame bullshit,
except to the extent that anyone who messes with you in a way that
constitutes abuse of the net will pay the price for it, because Gary
doesn't tolerate that any more than he tolerates a violation of his AUP.
pcbutts1
Bwaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaahaaa! you're a funny troll.
--
Newsgroup Trolls. Read about mine here http://www.pcbutts1.com/downloads
The list grows. Leythos the stalker http://www.leythosthestalker.com, David
H. Lipman, Max M Wachtell III aka What's in a Name?, Fitz,
Rhonda Lea Kirk, Meat Plow, F Kwatu F, George Orwell
"Rhonda Lea Kirk" <rhon...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5nfplrF...@mid.individual.net...
Peter van der Goes
> No for obvious reasons.
>
Ah, yes, that obvious reason being that your assertion is false, and/or that
you can't stand up and simply say who you are because your activities under
this pcbutts1 persona would damage you if the association were to become
public knowledge.
I guess the notion that behaving honestly and honorably would relieve you of
having to hide behind a pseudonym is completely lost on you, eh?
jayd...@gmail.com
>
> <snipped>
>
> >> To the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence to the contrary.
> >> Moreover, it was not my intention to take a swipe at you. In
> >> addition to the memory detailed above, I have another recollection
> >> that you were a hands-on and responsive administrator in maintaining
> >> the Microsoft groups.
>
> > I tried to be. And I didn't feel swiped at personally. It's a
> > generic swipe at a company without a face, something I have no
> > problems with people doing. I figured if I could field any questions
> > now that I'm no longer working there, I'd do it. =)
>
> If there had been any doubt in my mind that you're John Eddy, there
> would be none now.
I could make some really bad puns.
> As for taking a swipe at a company without a face, I guess that's the
> same as saying I took a swipe at corporate policy. I'd like to add,
> however, that I do think it is sometimes the case that individuals go
> above and beyond (in a bad way), and I'm also taking a swipe at them,
> whoever they might be. It just so happens that they're not you (as
> evidenced by the timeline).
I hope they aren't me. I'm me. They're them.
> >> I do, however, stand by the assertion that being banned by a
> >> newsgroup administrator is not sufficient evidence to establish the
> >> state of one's ethical compass. (Not that I think Butts' has an
> >> ethical compass--given some of his antics, it's a pretty obvious he
> >> does not.)
>
> > Hmmmm. To establish? No. To provide a bit of evidence, yes.
>
> Below is a link that is NSFW (or anywhere else, for that matter). I post
> it so you will have no doubt that I, personally, have all the evidence
> about Butts' character that I will ever need. :)
>
> http://www.pcbutts1.com/rlk/rlk.htm
>
> My point, however, is that people get banned for a lot of different
> reasons, and while it may be a data point, it's not a conclusion. For
> example, I was briefly banned from the MS server over the WGA debacle
> (along with several others), until someone realized that disagreement
> with policy is not TOS abuse (by the terms of the TOS). I have also been
> banned in other places for similar reasons. In addition, I've had
> several posts to the MS server selectively censored because of naughty
> word use or because I quoted a post (from a non-MS server) that
> contained a naughty word.
People hated that word filter. I was happy for its existence. I made
a very firm point not to remove articles solely because they were
negative against Microsoft. In fact, the OS newsgroups were pretty
rife with Linux fans. But, at least one person said I was removing
their posts because they were anti-MS.
But, again, not everyone is me.
<snipped>
> >> "After your time" was the "dubious history" to which I was
> >> specifically referring above. If it will make you more comfortable,
> >> I'll say "dubious recent history."
>
> > I've been sad about what's become of the server. Some of the
> > newsgroups that have been rubber stamped for creation have left me
> > ill.
>
> I'm sorry. But that's pretty much the story all over usenet, so most of
> us who have been around for more than a few years are ill right along
> with you.
Well, true. But I'm more thinking of the names of the groups. Things
I'd never have approved. The spam is secondary, especially since I
always knew that was an unwinnable battle.
<snipped>
> >> You can rest assured that if Butts says it, I will assume it's untrue
> >> until I'm provided with incontrovertible evidence to the contrary.
>
> > Unfortunately, he's managed to besmirch my name by implying that he
> > got me fired. And since I don't avoid having my name out there (if I
> > could remember how to get Google Groups to put my name on the From
> > line, I'd go fix it), but he does, it's sort of a one way street.
> > C'est la vie. I stand by everything I've ever done.
>
> No one who is not a rank newbie believes anything that Butts says.
> (That's one of the reasons I wish Leythos would stop replying to him,
> because it gives him unwarranted attention. The sig is a perfectly
> adequate way to get the message across without addressing Butts
> directly.)
True. I just get irked at times and, unlike his 'blog', I can say
whatever I want here and get it published.
> As for Google, go here:
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups/mysubs?hl=en
Interesting, it looks like I'd have to subscribe to the group in order
to set it. Bleh. I don't care that much. =) I do like the ease of
which I can set settings for each individual group I'd subscribe to.
kurt wismer
oh, i don't know... i think stool is more accurate than both of them,
but i settle for calling *him* a tool...
--
"it's not the right time to be sober
now the idiots have taken over
spreading like a social cancer,
is there an answer?"
kurt wismer
> So far you are losing
so far you are still a complete tool...
pcbutts1
are you gonna try and do? Nothing you can do will hurt me. What's your
fucking problem? Do you always just pop up and start asking questions about
people? Are you trying to troll me? Should I add your name to my sig? Should
I put up another web page dedicated to you? I see from here you are a newbie
http://netscan.research.microsoft.com/Tech/author/profile.aspx?auth=pvdg%40toadstool.edu&sd=10/5/2007
do you really want to mess with me?
--
Newsgroup Trolls. Read about mine here http://www.pcbutts1.com/downloads
The list grows. Leythos the stalker http://www.leythosthestalker.com, David
H. Lipman, Max M Wachtell III aka What's in a Name?, Fitz,
Rhonda Lea Kirk, Meat Plow, F Kwatu F, George Orwell
"Peter van der Goes" <pv...@toadstool.edu> wrote in message
news:r%zQi.15368$5b2....@newsfe19.lga...
Leythos
says...
> Leythos wrote:
> > In article <fercbj$bqa$1...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com>, pcbutts1
> > @leythosthestalker.com says...
> >> You can't find it because Pcbutts1 is not my real name. I use my
> >> real name in the MS groups complete with my MVP sig.
> >
> > And yet all of your posts as PCBUTTS1 were banned because of your
> > unethical actions.
>
> IIRC, he was banned because he refused to comply with the Microsoft TOS,
> not because of "unethical actions."
Failing to comply with a TOS would be unethical.
> The only server from which his posts
> are filtered are the Microsoft server. If he posts using a different
> NNTP provider (as I do), those posts will be available on all usenet
> servers but the Microsoft server.
Yes, but they filtered on two key words, so, he could change his reply
or a body part and it would go through - fact still remains that he was
banned for his actions.
> Microsoft has a dubious history when it comes to banning and censorship,
> so if I were you, I would not use butts' banning from its server as a
> data point in support of the case against him.
It's just another nail in his history.
> I reported the Sharon Franks ID the first time I saw it (June 2006, when
> he posted one of his infamous links), but nothing was done then and
> nothing has been done since.
--
Leythos
says...
> If you take away the right of anyone to speak, you have endangered the
> right of everyone to speak. It's that simple.
In a "Public" service, where it's not privately funded, I would agree
with you - but our country has laws that limit speech.
Fact is that a company does not have to permit "free speech" on it's
property or services and may remove any content for any reason it wants,
unless that area/service is funded by public money - if it is publically
funded then it has to exercise some defined measure to stop/remove
speech.
In the case of MS's own Usenet servers, as they are a private group,
they are not obliged to carry any posts of any type, legally or other,
and they may manage their servers as they see fit at any time.
To deny a private company the right to manage their own resources is the
same as denying the public the right to speak on public property.
Leythos
days to try and keep the groups nice and worth visiting.
Peter van der Goes
> Wrong on both counts. Why is it so important to you that you know I am?
> What are you gonna try and do? Nothing you can do will hurt me. What's
> your fucking problem? Do you always just pop up and start asking questions
> about people? Are you trying to troll me? Should I add your name to my
> sig? Should I put up another web page dedicated to you? I see from here
> you are a newbie
> http://netscan.research.microsoft.com/Tech/author/profile.aspx?auth=pvdg%40toadstool.edu&sd=10/5/2007
> do you really want to mess with me?
>
Anonymous
> I see from here you are a newbie
> http://netscan.research.microsoft.com...
You truly are one clueless rube yourself. Should I spank you now with
the why of it now, or amuse myself for a time by watching you make an
ass of yourself with a practiced ease only someone like you can manage?
kurt wismer
> Wrong on both counts. Why is it so important to you that you know I am? What
> are you gonna try and do? Nothing you can do will hurt me.
if that were true you wouldn't be posting under a pseudonym....
Rhonda Lea Kirk
> In article <5neh1nF...@mid.individual.net>, rhon...@gmail.com
> says...
>> Leythos wrote:
>>> In article <fercbj$bqa$1...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com>, pcbutts1
>>> @leythosthestalker.com says...
>>>> You can't find it because Pcbutts1 is not my real name. I use my
>>>> real name in the MS groups complete with my MVP sig.
>>>
>>> And yet all of your posts as PCBUTTS1 were banned because of your
>>> unethical actions.
>>
>> IIRC, he was banned because he refused to comply with the Microsoft
>> TOS, not because of "unethical actions."
>
> Failing to comply with a TOS would be unethical.
I envision you wearing a red coat, holding a musket, standing over
Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin while they bleed to death at your
feet. But not to worry: King George is very proud of you.
Seriously, did you think about that unequivocal statement at all before
you wrote it? Are you aware of how many unethical rules and laws there
have been in the world that would still be in place were it not for
those who stand against them?
More to the point, it is especially ridiculous in light of the fact that
it is the respective Terms of Service agreements of Butts' providers
that insulates him each time you try to take him down. Given that, do
you really want to put forth (by implication) the premise that a TOS
agreement should be inviolable?
Butts is an indefensible, bottom-feeding, scumsucker, but that doesn't
make your argument any less absurd.
>> The only server from which his posts
>> are filtered are the Microsoft server. If he posts using a different
>> NNTP provider (as I do), those posts will be available on all usenet
>> servers but the Microsoft server.
>
> Yes, but they filtered on two key words, so, he could change his reply
> or a body part and it would go through - fact still remains that he
> was banned for his actions.
So what?
So was I (along with others)--for protesting a WGA that phoned home.
He wasn't banned for his ethics or lack thereof, Leythos. Why don't you
let John carry this part of the argument? He's got firsthand knowledge
and his position, unlike yours, is sound.
>> Microsoft has a dubious history when it comes to banning and
>> censorship, so if I were you, I would not use butts' banning from
>> its server as a data point in support of the case against him.
>
> It's just another nail in his history.
People recognize hyperbole for what it is, Leythos. When you try to make
a mountain out of a molehill, there are those who will wonder how many
more mountains have been so constructed.
I know what Butts is. There's no doubt in my mind that the blow to the
head he took in the accident knocked something akilter, and the boy
ain't right (to the point of being dangerous, I would hazard to say),
but if you're going to argue against him to the public at large, you
need to muster a worthy argument, and it ain't "he's unethical because
he violated Microsoft's TOS" or "PORN, PORN, PORN."
pcbutts1
--
Newsgroup Trolls. Read about mine here http://www.pcbutts1.com/downloads
The list grows. Leythos the stalker http://www.leythosthestalker.com, David
H. Lipman, Max M Wachtell III aka What's in a Name?, Fitz,
Rhonda Lea Kirk, Meat Plow, F Kwatu F, George Orwell
"kurt wismer" <ku...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:ff17me$nvq$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
Rhonda Lea Kirk
> In article <5nfplrF...@mid.individual.net>, rhon...@gmail.com
> says...
>> If you take away the right of anyone to speak, you have endangered
>> the right of everyone to speak. It's that simple.
>
> In a "Public" service, where it's not privately funded, I would agree
> with you - but our country has laws that limit speech.
>
> Fact is that a company does not have to permit "free speech" on it's
> property or services and may remove any content for any reason it
> wants, unless that area/service is funded by public money - if it is
> publically funded then it has to exercise some defined measure to
> stop/remove speech.
>
> In the case of MS's own Usenet servers, as they are a private group,
> they are not obliged to carry any posts of any type, legally or other,
> and they may manage their servers as they see fit at any time.
>
> To deny a private company the right to manage their own resources is
> the same as denying the public the right to speak on public property.
If you want to make a statement, it's fine. Hijacking what I wrote and
changing the meaning of it entirely (by snippage and implication) is not
fine.
Moreover, you jumped from "our country has laws..." to "a company does
not have to permit..." Your logical progression is flawed, and, in fact,
your argument missed my point entirely.
Nonetheless, I will address one thing you wrote, just because it amuses
me.
When Microsoft opened its server to usenet but insisted on maintaining
its own TOS, it effectively violated the RFCs.
Try to reconcile that with the position you took in your other post. :)
Or better yet, let it go and get back to the true issue, which is the
reprehensible, indefensible behavior of pcbutts.
Leythos
says...
> Why don't you
> let John carry this part of the argument? He's got firsthand knowledge
> and his position, unlike yours, is sound.
First, John had not entered until well past when this started, and it's
great that he did.
I know what was communicated and what was happening at the time, when
butts was banned, and TOS violation is a very broad term for what he
did.
So, like it or not, violating a TOS is unethical and it fits.
Leythos
says...
> Nonetheless, I will address one thing you wrote, just because it amuses
> me.
>
> When Microsoft opened its server to usenet but insisted on maintaining
> its own TOS, it effectively violated the RFCs.
And management of Usenet services at the server owners locations has
always been permitted by each Usenet server owner and never been an
issue except to people that believe that one person's property should be
ruled by the masses instead of the owner of that property.
MS can do anything they want with their server and there is nothing that
anyone can do about it - the can censor/clean/remove/etc.... and it's
all fine, they own it on their side.
Rhonda Lea Kirk
> In article <5nin5kF...@mid.individual.net>, rhon...@gmail.com
> says...
>> Nonetheless, I will address one thing you wrote, just because it
>> amuses me.
>>
>> When Microsoft opened its server to usenet but insisted on
>> maintaining its own TOS, it effectively violated the RFCs.
>
> And management of Usenet services at the server owners locations has
> always been permitted by each Usenet server owner and never been an
> issue except to people that believe that one person's property should
> be ruled by the masses instead of the owner of that property.
>
> MS can do anything they want with their server and there is nothing
> that anyone can do about it - the can censor/clean/remove/etc.... and
> it's all fine, they own it on their side.
Leythos, that's the issue that ethics addresses. It's the difference
between what one can do and what one should do. Just because one has a
legal right doesn't mean one has a moral or ethical right.
The argument you're now making has extremely dire consequences, and it's
also contradictory to the some of the arguments you'd like to make
against Butts.
Are you one of those situational ethics kind of people?
Rhonda Lea Kirk
> In article <5nim8jF...@mid.individual.net>, rhon...@gmail.com
> says...
>> Why don't you
>> let John carry this part of the argument? He's got firsthand
>> knowledge and his position, unlike yours, is sound.
>
> First, John had not entered until well past when this started, and
> it's great that he did.
John is logical. That gets big points from me.
He's also evenhanded, and he's willing to examine a different point of
view and he doesn't evade direct response to a statement or question.
I enjoy John. I'm not enjoying this.
> I know what was communicated and what was happening at the time, when
> butts was banned, and TOS violation is a very broad term for what he
> did.
>
> So, like it or not, violating a TOS is unethical and it fits.
We disagree that violating a TOS is unethical, but I've said that
already and I said why.
Unfortunately, you snipped my reason, and I'm not going to write it
again.
pcbutts1
I just pick any name and put it in my sig? or make a web page? You guys were
so used to people just running away when you attack then you all got
obsessed with me when I didn't. You've been at it so long you truly believe
that shit you say about me. At lease David had enough sense to stop after he
realized there was nothing he can do. Leythos you win the Troll Stalker of
the year award congratulations!
--
Newsgroup Trolls. Read about mine here http://www.pcbutts1.com/downloads
The list grows. Leythos the stalker http://www.leythosthestalker.com, David
H. Lipman, Max M Wachtell III aka What's in a Name?, Fitz,
Rhonda Lea Kirk, Meat Plow, F Kwatu F, George Orwell
"Rhonda Lea Kirk" <rhon...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5nin5kF...@mid.individual.net...
jayd...@gmail.com
> John is logical. That gets big points from me.
>
> He's also evenhanded, and he's willing to examine a different point of
> view and he doesn't evade direct response to a statement or question.
>
> I enjoy John.
You had me at 'PORN PORN PORN'.
George Orwell
> You trolls are a trip. I swear all of you are obsessed with me.
<prune drivel>
You're suffering from delusions of significance. Some sort of bizarre
narcissism disorder makes you believe people see you as something other
than a Usenet village idiot, worthy of a spanking when we're so bored
it amuses us.
Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this
non corrisponde ad un utente |message is not related to a real
reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an
di un sistema anonimizzatore |anonymous system
Per maggiori informazioni |For more info
https://www.mixmaster.it
Rhonda Lea Kirk
Ah, I missed the really big one, didn't I?
"John has a sense of humor, and he makes me laugh out loud."
P.S. I found another link that might be helpful. It appears that you can
add a "nickname" to individual posts w/o subscribing to any groups:
http://groups.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=46535&topic=9244
It's in the second paragraph.
I had a draft reply to your other post, but I didn't have time to finish
it, so I fished the link from there.
You mentioned bad puns. Have you ever read the Spider Robinson
"Callahan" stories? Robinson is one of the stinkiest punsters in the
world. :)
Dustin Cook
@blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
> If you think your lame BS attempt at getting me to ID myself is going to
> work then you are a bigger idiot then I thought.
>
You have already been identified Christopher, I spoke to you on the phone
once where you work. You rudely tried to tell me I had called a private
number. I suppose I scared you a little eh? :)
And yet, you still play games with people.
--
Dustin Cook, Author of BugHunter - MalWare Removal Tool - v2.2d
Email.: bughunte...@gmail.com
Web...: http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk
Pad...: http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk/pad.xml
PGP...: http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk/bughunter.dustin.txt
Dustin Cook
@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com:
> ....
> And, since it is now stuck in my head, let me get it stuck in yours
> too....
> You can dance if you want to.
> You can leave your friends behind....
Evil. Purely evil.
Dustin Cook
@mid.individual.net:
> pcbutts1 wrote:
>> Does the name PA Bear sound familiar? he pissed me off, his actions
>> was the cost of your job. He tried to use his status as an MVP to
>> ruin me, and my job and in the long run all he did was costs others
>> theirs and really pissed off Chris Butts. I saw all his emails. This
>> goes way beyond you. He thought I was some smuck loser with too much
>> time on my hands. You can rest assured he won't mess with me again or
>> NASA.
>
> I do not want what I am about to write to be misconstrued, so I am
going
> to separate out the three issues as carefully as I can.
>
> The first issue is that I firmly believe anyone has the *right* to say
> any goddammed annoying, obnoxious, offensive thing that person feels
> like saying, regardless of how goddammed annoying, obnoxious and
> offensive that person and his words might happen to be. Even a
> sociopath--that means you, Chris--is entitled to a voice.
>
> If you take away the right of anyone to speak, you have endangered the
> right of everyone to speak. It's that simple.
>
> For most of my adult life, David Goldberger has been my hero, because
he
> understood and honored this concept even when it was personally
> abhorrent to him. To me, the owner of DataBasix is the David Goldberger
> of usenet, because he too understands and honors the same ideal,
> regardless of his personal feelings. I subscribe to DataBasix, and so
> long as it is in business, I will continue to do so, for that reason
> alone.
>
> The second issue is that just because I believe with my whole heart
what
> I wrote above, I also believe that there are words that should not be
> spoken and that individuals have the obligation to police themselves in
> this regard (as opposed to policing each other). You have a corner on
> the market of such words, Chris, and I find you reprehensible.
>
> With that said, the third and final issue, which is also the point, is
> this: it's not for nothin' that you subscribe to DataBasix, Chris. As
> long as you do not violate the DataBasix AUP, you know you can do
> whatever the fuck you feel like, and you are teflon, because Gary's
> commitment to freedom of speech on usenet is unequivocal. The only
> reason you're able to get away with the shit you spew is that your
> provider remains true to an ideal that other providers have allowed to
> erode in the name of convenience.
>
> In other words, you can only talk your bullshit because you're
He can talk his bullshit because Databasix is a home for trolls and
spammers. As long as they don't piss Gary off, you meant to say.
> except to the extent that anyone who messes with you in a way that
> constitutes abuse of the net will pay the price for it, because Gary
> doesn't tolerate that any more than he tolerates a violation of his
What horseshit. If someone or a group wanted databasix that bad, they
could take it. The real point is, nobody cares enough to bother to
dedicate the resources it would take anymore. What's the point? adding
databasix to your killfilter ensures very low troll/spam posts.
Dustin Cook
@registered.motzarella.org:
> pcbutts1 wrote:
>> http://www.blogger.com/profile/16857468123137696406
>>
>
> from the site:
> "I am part of the antivirus and spyware community. I have been for 6
> years. "
>
> more accurately, you've been a complete tool for 6 years...
>
Hmm, I disagree. Tools are useful. PcButts isn't.
Dustin Cook
@registered.motzarella.org:
> Heather wrote:
>> "kurt wismer" <ku...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>> news:ferh01$s4h$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>>> pcbutts1 wrote:
>>>> http://www.blogger.com/profile/16857468123137696406
>>>>
>>> from the site:
>>> "I am part of the antivirus and spyware community. I have been for 6
>>> years. "
>>>
>>> more accurately, you've been a complete tool for 6 years...
>>>
>> Perhaps the word should be 'FOOL' for all of his life. A tad more
>> accurate, I would think.
>
> oh, i don't know... i think stool is more accurate than both of them,
> but i settle for calling *him* a tool...
>
But, he's not a tool. I can't do anything useful with him. And the band
doesn't suck enough to deserve a linking to pcbutts. :)
Dustin Cook
news:4710f485$0$7435$4c36...@roadrunner.com:
> "poison" <bidi...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> news:1192271008.3...@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>> pls who/what is pcbutts?
>>
>
>
> His name is Christopher Butts and he's a sub-contractor for NASA. He
> runs a small web business out of a mail drop in California. He's been
> known to plagiarize code and host porn on his website.
he gets very paranoid if you should call him at work too. LoL
pcbutts1
--
Newsgroup Trolls. Read about mine here http://www.pcbutts1.com/downloads
The list grows. Leythos the stalker http://www.leythosthestalker.com, David
H. Lipman, Max M Wachtell III aka What's in a Name?, Fitz,
Rhonda Lea Kirk, Meat Plow, F Kwatu F, George Orwell
"Dustin Cook" <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns99CBCA01CE2...@69.28.186.121...
pcbutts1
have. You may have talked to somebody but it sure as hell was not me. I am
not Chris Butts.
--
Newsgroup Trolls. Read about mine here http://www.pcbutts1.com/downloads
The list grows. Leythos the stalker http://www.leythosthestalker.com, David
H. Lipman, Max M Wachtell III aka What's in a Name?, Fitz,
Rhonda Lea Kirk, Meat Plow, F Kwatu F, George Orwell
"Dustin Cook" <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns99CBC83E367...@69.28.186.121...
Leythos
says...
> Leythos, that's the issue that ethics addresses. It's the difference
> between what one can do and what one should do. Just because one has a
> legal right doesn't mean one has a moral or ethical right.
I agree, legal and ethical are not always in sync with each other.
> The argument you're now making has extremely dire consequences, and it's
> also contradictory to the some of the arguments you'd like to make
> against Butts.
Nope, not at all - Butts's pages are hosted on a site he doesn't own,
it's a business that owns the servers and connection - he leases space
from them and has to abide by their rules. He also has to abide by the
law.
There is no LAW governing what MS can do on their Usenet servers.
>
> Are you one of those situational ethics kind of people?
Nope, I'm strictly B/W, I don't play those games - but it looks like you
are.
--
Leythos - spam9...@rrohio.com (remove 999 to email me)
Fight exposing kids to porn, complain about sites like PCBUTTS1.COM that
Leythos
says...
> John is logical. That gets big points from me.
>
> He's also evenhanded, and he's willing to examine a different point of
> view and he doesn't evade direct response to a statement or question.
>
> I enjoy John. I'm not enjoying this.
I've thought he did a great job, could have removed more posts as far as
I'm concerned (like Kurt's)....
If you don't ask a question of a question or one that is leading into
what you really wanted to ask, I'll answer them too.
So, it comes down to someone must have pissed on your TOS and go you
upset about it because you seem to think that violating a TOS has
nothing to do with Ethics, if I understand you correctly. Fact is that
ethics, like honor, would mean that you don't violate the TOS without
violating ethics/honor.
--
Leythos - spam9...@rrohio.com (remove 999 to email me)
Fight exposing kids to porn, complain about sites like PCBUTTS1.COM that
Rhonda Lea Kirk
Y'know, Dustin, he voted for me. But I have still have an account.
If DataBasix subscribers follow Databasix' rules, Gary's personal
feelings don't come into it.
He doesn't tolerate spam, however, so you are in error when you say that
DataBasix is a home for spammers. Spamming would be a sure-fire way to
lose one's account with DataBasix.
The AUP is here:
https://secure0.netbasix.net/signup/aup/?NEQ1597
The AUP is enforced in accordance with its terms, no matter how much
Gary likes or dislikes someone.
>> except to the extent that anyone who messes with you in a way that
>> constitutes abuse of the net will pay the price for it, because Gary
>> doesn't tolerate that any more than he tolerates a violation of his
>
> What horseshit. If someone or a group wanted databasix that bad, they
> could take it.
I disagree with your statement, but it has nothing to do with what I
wrote, so it's irrelevant.
> The real point is, nobody cares enough to bother to
> dedicate the resources it would take anymore. What's the point? adding
> databasix to your killfilter ensures very low troll/spam posts.
You almost had the point, but then you veered. The focus is not
DataBasix, but pcbutts.
Rhonda Lea Kirk
> RLK used to be on DataBasix so he must have pissed him off.
Send an email to <nimue at databasix dot com> and I'll reply to it.
Afterword, though, I'll expect you to retract your statement that I
"used to be on DataBasix."
--
Rhonda Lea Kirk
> In article <5niq30F...@mid.individual.net>, rhon...@gmail.com
> says...
>> Leythos, that's the issue that ethics addresses. It's the difference
>> between what one can do and what one should do. Just because one has
>> a legal right doesn't mean one has a moral or ethical right.
>
> I agree, legal and ethical are not always in sync with each other.
>
>> The argument you're now making has extremely dire consequences, and
>> it's also contradictory to the some of the arguments you'd like to
>> make against Butts.
>
> Nope, not at all - Butts's pages are hosted on a site he doesn't own,
> it's a business that owns the servers and connection - he leases space
> from them and has to abide by their rules. He also has to abide by the
> law.
And he still has an account, so what he's doing isn't illegal?
Or perhaps it's legal, but it's not especially moral?
> There is no LAW governing what MS can do on their Usenet servers.
The same laws that apply to the business hosting butts' pages apply to
Microsoft, Leythos. That doesn't have anything to do with the argument,
though. I wasn't arguing about Microsoft's legal rights.
Legal and ethical do not equate. Sometimes they coincide, but they are
not cognates. There's plenty that's legal that probably isn't ethical;
moreover, there's no shortage of that which is ethical that is either
contrary to or not addressed at all by the law.
>> Are you one of those situational ethics kind of people?
>
> Nope, I'm strictly B/W, I don't play those games - but it looks like
> you are.
I'm not playing games at all. I'm arguing--lazily--against the use of
specious logic and the lapse into fallacy. Your logic is flawed and
filled with fallacies, and you're attempting to make a special case
against butts that you probably wouldn't want made against everyone else
if you were to think it through.
There's no question that butts is a force for something akin to evil,
but when you paint with such a broad brush, you go too far.
BTW, here's the latest on porn. I found it in my mail this morning:
http://www.slate.com/id/2175730/entry/2175743/
Rhonda Lea Kirk
> In article <5niq39F...@mid.individual.net>, rhon...@gmail.com
> says...
>> John is logical. That gets big points from me.
>>
>> He's also evenhanded, and he's willing to examine a different point
>> of view and he doesn't evade direct response to a statement or
>> question.
>>
>> I enjoy John. I'm not enjoying this.
>
> I've thought he did a great job, could have removed more posts as far
> as I'm concerned (like Kurt's)....
>
> If you don't ask a question of a question or one that is leading into
> what you really wanted to ask, I'll answer them too.
>
> So, it comes down to someone must have pissed on your TOS and go you
> upset about it
Huh? That made no sense. "Pissed on my TOS"? WTF?
> because you seem to think that violating a TOS has
> nothing to do with Ethics, if I understand you correctly. Fact is that
> ethics, like honor, would mean that you don't violate the TOS without
> violating ethics/honor.
Violating a TOS agreement is not necessarily an ethical violation.
If you equate a TOS agreement with law, then you will have to
acknowledge that just as there are immoral laws, there can been immoral
TOS agreements or TOS agreements with immoral (unethical) provisions.
If you persist in blindly defending this, both Jefferson and Franklin
are going to bleed out at your feet, Leythos, along with every other
human being who has ever protested lawful but unethical rules.
Dustin Cook
news:ff3k39$c2d$1...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
> I don't know why you keep insisting that you talked to me when you
> never have. You may have talked to somebody but it sure as hell was
> not me. I am not Chris Butts.
How strange. The individual I spoke with took full credit for the hosting
of your site known as pcbutts1.com; and informed me that I was calling into
a so called private number. Interestingly enough, several years? ago,
pcbutts1.com was registered under the name Christopher Butts with his/yours
work address. The most interesting thing I seem to remember however was
your tone of voice on the phone, it was a dead giveaway that I finally was
speaking to the 'man' himself, mr pcbutts. Now, you can try and deny it as
you do everything else, but, I know I talked to you. :)
Come to think of it, when I called your home number, the person at the
other end said you weren't home at the time, but my concerns regarding that
site would be brought to your attention. That individual too confirmed you
were the sites owner.
Dustin Cook
@blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
> RLK used to be on DataBasix so he must have pissed him off.
Umm, Christopher, AFAIK, She still has a valid account and posts from it...
I'm sure she will jump in if I am mistaken.
Dustin Cook
@mid.individual.net:
> pcbutts1 wrote:
>> RLK used to be on DataBasix so he must have pissed him off.
>
> Send an email to <nimue at databasix dot com> and I'll reply to it.
> Afterword, though, I'll expect you to retract your statement that I
> "used to be on DataBasix."
If he does this, it would be the first time in his history.
Dustin Cook
@mid.individual.net:
> He doesn't tolerate spam, however, so you are in error when you say
My bad. Long day. quick typing...
> The AUP is enforced in accordance with its terms, no matter how much
> Gary likes or dislikes someone.
Indeed it is, even if his server is knowingly being used to harrass or
otherwise annoy various usenet groups. Freedom of speech n all.
>>> except to the extent that anyone who messes with you in a way that
>>> constitutes abuse of the net will pay the price for it, because Gary
>>> doesn't tolerate that any more than he tolerates a violation of his
>>
>> What horseshit. If someone or a group wanted databasix that bad, they
>> could take it.
>
> I disagree with your statement, but it has nothing to do with what I
> wrote, so it's irrelevant.
Your lack of network knowledge and DDoSing noted, the point really isn't
about all of that tho. No site is invicible on the internet. If
someone/group/whatever wanted to down something bad enough, it could be
done, regardless of who runs/admins it.
> You almost had the point, but then you veered. The focus is not
> DataBasix, but pcbutts.
Well, to be honest.. From what I've read of the conversation, The focus
seems to be on you trying to get leythos from posting the same old canned
responses everytime pcbutts hits post. *grin*
lulu
> "pcbutts1" <pcbut...@leythosthestalker.com> wrote in news:ferkmo$85$1
> @blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
>
> > If you think your lame BS attempt at getting me to ID myself is going to
> > work then you are a bigger idiot then I thought.
>
> You have already been identified Christopher, I spoke to you on the phone
> once where you work. You rudely tried to tell me I had called a private
> number. I suppose I scared you a little eh? :)
>
> And yet, you still play games with people.
>
> --
> Dustin Cook, Author of BugHunter - MalWare Removal Tool - v2.2d
> Web...:http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk
> Pad...:http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk/pad.xml
> PGP...:http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk/bughunter.dustin.txt
Oh he mentioned that in court, that he was getting calls. he tried to
blame me
cmsix
"pcbutts1" <pcbu...@leythosthestalker.com> wrote in message
news:fercbj$bqa$1...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
> You can't find it because Pcbutts1 is not my real name. I use my real name
> in the MS groups complete with my MVP sig.
I know what you mean Pcbutts1. I'm actually Bill Gates but nobody believes
me either.
cmsix
Rhonda Lea Kirk
> "pcbutts1" <pcbu...@leythosthestalker.com> wrote in news:ff3jvv$bqc$1
> @blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
>
>> RLK used to be on DataBasix so he must have pissed him off.
>
> Umm, Christopher, AFAIK, She still has a valid account and posts from
> it... I'm sure she will jump in if I am mistaken.
I don't post from DataBasix at the moment. I use it as a feed for
Hamster. Individual.net is my posting server.
Apparently butts had a look at my headers and made an unwarranted
assumption. Nothing new there.
Rhonda Lea Kirk
> "Rhonda Lea Kirk" <rhon...@gmail.com> wrote in news:5nl7khFit7hnU1
> @mid.individual.net:
>
>> He doesn't tolerate spam, however, so you are in error when you say
>
> My bad. Long day. quick typing...
>
>> The AUP is enforced in accordance with its terms, no matter how much
>> Gary likes or dislikes someone.
>
> Indeed it is, even if his server is knowingly being used to harrass or
> otherwise annoy various usenet groups. Freedom of speech n all.
I mentioned David Goldberger. He was an ACLU lawyer who defended the
right of the Nazis to march through Skokie. He is on record as not
thinking well of his client (to put it mildly), but he held to the
belief that if one fails to honor the rights of one person (or group),
one does irreparable damage to the rights of all persons (or groups).
Goldberger is Jewish, and he took a real beating in certain quarters,
because he was viewed as a traitor. The ACLU lost funding (contributions
and memberships) because defending Nazis was not a popular cause, but
under the theory that if one applies a principle to one group, one must
apply it to all the rest, it was a very important case.
http://www.digitalpast.org/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/skokiepo001&CISOPTR=208&REC=5
http://www.digitalpast.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/skokiepo001&CISOPTR=208
The above is one of the tests of an ethical principal, btw--whether the
rule you wish to apply in one case is applicable to all similar cases.
This is why I continue to caution Leythos about painting with such a
broad brush.
For example, Vanguard is over in 24hs.hd calling me a spammer and egoist
(by implication) because my sig doesn't comply with RFC 1855 (which
itself states that it "does not specify an Internet standard of any
kind"). His general principle about sigs makes Leythos a spammer and
egoist too, but I rather doubt that's what Vanguard intended.
See the problem? It's easy enough to nail butts on the wrong things he
actually does without attributing wrongness to everything he does that
ethical others also do.
>>>> except to the extent that anyone who messes with you in a way that
>>>> constitutes abuse of the net will pay the price for it, because
>>>> Gary doesn't tolerate that any more than he tolerates a violation
>>>> of his
>>>
>>> What horseshit. If someone or a group wanted databasix that bad,
>>> they could take it.
>>
>> I disagree with your statement, but it has nothing to do with what I
>> wrote, so it's irrelevant.
>
> Your lack of network knowledge and DDoSing noted, the point really
> isn't about all of that tho. No site is invicible on the internet. If
> someone/group/whatever wanted to down something bad enough, it could
> be done, regardless of who runs/admins it.
>
>> You almost had the point, but then you veered. The focus is not
>> DataBasix, but pcbutts.
>
>
> Well, to be honest.. From what I've read of the conversation, The
> focus seems to be on you trying to get leythos from posting the same
> old canned responses everytime pcbutts hits post. *grin*
Well, I don't think he's doing himself any service when he screams about
porn. Face it, most people don't have such a big problem with porn per
se, but just specific types of porn. (See the article from Slate I
posted elsewhere.) The fact that butts' pages are childish is another
matter, but in essence, even though he uses pornographic images, the
intent is not to disseminate pornography. The images are merely
representative of his very immature response to opposition.
But Leythos has other problems--he *does* stalk butts, and that's not
ethical. I understand why he does it, but I wouldn't condone it in
someone else so why should I condone it in him, even if I happen to be
in agreement with him about the subject of his stalking? (See? There's
another example of what I was talking about above.)
He's an intelligent enough man that he should see this, but somehow,
he's so stuck on butts, he can't quite get to the logic of it.
But the point of that particular post was something else, and as I said,
you almost had it until you veered.
Leythos
says...
> But Leythos has other problems--he *does* stalk butts, and that's not
> ethical.
No, if you check, I don't always reply to his posts that contain my
name, as I don't look for them, in fact I don't even look at who posts
what (I don't have FROM enabled on my Usenet client). What I do is post
a reply when I read a thread where he's posted something about me - sig
or other, when I see it.
I had never been to this group until I was told that he was posting crap
about me here - he invited me to this group by posting about me here.
As soon as he drops my name from his posts you may never see another
reply about it, the ball is in his court.
--
Leythos - spam9...@rrohio.com (remove 999 to email me)
Fight exposing kids to porn, complain about sites like pcbutts1 that
Rhonda Lea Kirk
> In article <5nm9peF...@mid.individual.net>, rhon...@gmail.com
> says...
>> But Leythos has other problems--he *does* stalk butts, and that's not
>> ethical.
>
> No, if you check, I don't always reply to his posts that contain my
> name, as I don't look for them, in fact I don't even look at who posts
> what (I don't have FROM enabled on my Usenet client). What I do is
> post a reply when I read a thread where he's posted something about
> me - sig or other, when I see it.
>
> I had never been to this group until I was told that he was posting
> crap about me here - he invited me to this group by posting about me
> here.
You've just used the same type of justification all stalkers use to
rationalize their behavior.
You're not the only person whose name is in his sig, nor are you the
only person for whom he has constructed a "fansite," but I don't see
anyone but you going at it with him every single day.
> As soon as he drops my name from his posts you may never see another
> reply about it, the ball is in his court.
So he controls what you choose to do?
Saying that you won't stop until he stops is another way of saying he
holds the switch that turns you on and off.
Leythos
says...
> Leythos wrote:
> > In article <5nm9peF...@mid.individual.net>, rhon...@gmail.com
> > says...
> >> But Leythos has other problems--he *does* stalk butts, and that's not
> >> ethical.
> >
> > No, if you check, I don't always reply to his posts that contain my
> > name, as I don't look for them, in fact I don't even look at who posts
> > what (I don't have FROM enabled on my Usenet client). What I do is
> > post a reply when I read a thread where he's posted something about
> > me - sig or other, when I see it.
> >
> > I had never been to this group until I was told that he was posting
> > crap about me here - he invited me to this group by posting about me
> > here.
>
> You've just used the same type of justification all stalkers use to
> rationalize their behavior.
No, I've justified my reply to HIS Actions. Nice try to spin it, but
it's up to him when it stops.
> You're not the only person whose name is in his sig, nor are you the
> only person for whom he has constructed a "fansite," but I don't see
> anyone but you going at it with him every single day.
So what? Does that make you a good person or anything else - no.
> > As soon as he drops my name from his posts you may never see another
> > reply about it, the ball is in his court.
>
> So he controls what you choose to do?
No, it means that you can stop bitching to be about my reply to his
unethical behavior of abusing my name.
> Saying that you won't stop until he stops is another way of saying he
> holds the switch that turns you on and off.
Or it could be that I will reply, when I see fit, to point out that he's
an unethical person, as long as he keeps posting my name, as long as I
see fit. If he doesn't like being exposed for being unethical then he
can stop bringing me into it - it's that simple.
Dustin Cook
news:1192589663....@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
Nope, was me who called him. My cell phone records prove it. LoL.
--
Dustin Cook, Author of BugHunter - MalWare Removal Tool - v2.2d
Email.: bughunte...@gmail.com
Dustin Cook
> I mentioned David Goldberger. He was an ACLU lawyer who defended the
> right of the Nazis to march through Skokie. He is on record as not
> thinking well of his client (to put it mildly), but he held to the
> belief that if one fails to honor the rights of one person (or group),
> one does irreparable damage to the rights of all persons (or groups).
I am somewhat familiar with that case. He took a severe beating for that
in some circles. However, I am in agreement with you concerning it.
> The above is one of the tests of an ethical principal, btw--whether
> the rule you wish to apply in one case is applicable to all similar
> cases. This is why I continue to caution Leythos about painting with
> such a broad brush.
Understood.
> See the problem? It's easy enough to nail butts on the wrong things he
> actually does without attributing wrongness to everything he does that
> ethical others also do.
Oh, I understand where your coming from. I didn't mean to imply
otherwise.
> Well, I don't think he's doing himself any service when he screams
> about porn. Face it, most people don't have such a big problem with
> porn per se, but just specific types of porn. (See the article from
> Slate I posted elsewhere.) The fact that butts' pages are childish is
> another matter, but in essence, even though he uses pornographic
> images, the intent is not to disseminate pornography. The images are
> merely representative of his very immature response to opposition.
Very true.
> But Leythos has other problems--he *does* stalk butts, and that's not
> ethical. I understand why he does it, but I wouldn't condone it in
I don't judge Leythos as I am a neutral party. He has never done anything
untowards myself or anyone I know. While I may not agree with everything
he does, I'm certainly not going to reprimand him for it.
I understand your point of view and I understand his point of view from
having to deal with pcbutss previously myself.
I do think tho, that the word stalking is overused in this case.
> But the point of that particular post was something else, and as I
> said, you almost had it until you veered.
You could save time and posting by just saying what you intended in the
first place. :)
Rhonda Lea Kirk
> In article <5nmd3nF...@mid.individual.net>, rhon...@gmail.com
> says...
>> Leythos wrote:
>>> In article <5nm9peF...@mid.individual.net>, rhon...@gmail.com
>>> says...
>>>> But Leythos has other problems--he *does* stalk butts, and that's
>>>> not ethical.
>>>
>>> No, if you check, I don't always reply to his posts that contain my
>>> name, as I don't look for them, in fact I don't even look at who
>>> posts what (I don't have FROM enabled on my Usenet client). What I
>>> do is post a reply when I read a thread where he's posted something
>>> about me - sig or other, when I see it.
>>>
>>> I had never been to this group until I was told that he was posting
>>> crap about me here - he invited me to this group by posting about me
>>> here.
>>
>> You've just used the same type of justification all stalkers use to
>> rationalize their behavior.
>
> No, I've justified my reply to HIS Actions. Nice try to spin it, but
> it's up to him when it stops.
You can't justify fighting unethical behavior using unethical tactics.
>> You're not the only person whose name is in his sig, nor are you the
>> only person for whom he has constructed a "fansite," but I don't see
>> anyone but you going at it with him every single day.
>
> So what? Does that make you a good person or anything else - no.
Did I make the claim that it does? I don't see that claim anywhere in
this post or any other post I've made on the topic.
>>> As soon as he drops my name from his posts you may never see another
>>> reply about it, the ball is in his court.
>>
>> So he controls what you choose to do?
>
> No, it means that you can stop bitching to be about my reply to his
> unethical behavior of abusing my name.
So, you can post whatever you like, whenever you like, but I can't? I
see.
>> Saying that you won't stop until he stops is another way of saying he
>> holds the switch that turns you on and off.
>
> Or it could be that I will reply, when I see fit, to point out that
> he's an unethical person, as long as he keeps posting my name, as
> long as I see fit. If he doesn't like being exposed for being
> unethical then he can stop bringing me into it - it's that simple.
"We have met the enemy and they are us."
Fighting unethical behavior with unethical tactics is unethical, and it
diminishes you.
I agree with you about Butts, generally, even if I think some of your
specific examples are not indicative of unethical behavior. But the
bottom line is that I think your behavior makes you look bad.
That's all I have to say to you about it.
Rhonda Lea Kirk
> "Rhonda Lea Kirk" <rhon...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:5nm9peF...@mid.individual.net:
>
>> I mentioned David Goldberger. He was an ACLU lawyer who defended the
>> right of the Nazis to march through Skokie. He is on record as not
>> thinking well of his client (to put it mildly), but he held to the
>> belief that if one fails to honor the rights of one person (or
>> group), one does irreparable damage to the rights of all persons (or
>> groups).
>
> I am somewhat familiar with that case. He took a severe beating for
> that in some circles. However, I am in agreement with you concerning
> it.
>
>> The above is one of the tests of an ethical principal, btw--whether
>> the rule you wish to apply in one case is applicable to all similar
>> cases. This is why I continue to caution Leythos about painting with
>> such a broad brush.
>
> Understood.
>
>> See the problem? It's easy enough to nail butts on the wrong things
>> he actually does without attributing wrongness to everything he does
>> that ethical others also do.
>
> Oh, I understand where your coming from. I didn't mean to imply
> otherwise.
I was on my soapbox. It's an issue that's very important to me--one
about which I have to remind myself repeatedly when people write things
of which I do not approve.
>> Well, I don't think he's doing himself any service when he screams
>> about porn. Face it, most people don't have such a big problem with
>> porn per se, but just specific types of porn. (See the article from
>> Slate I posted elsewhere.) The fact that butts' pages are childish is
>> another matter, but in essence, even though he uses pornographic
>> images, the intent is not to disseminate pornography. The images are
>> merely representative of his very immature response to opposition.
>
> Very true.
>
>> But Leythos has other problems--he *does* stalk butts, and that's not
>> ethical. I understand why he does it, but I wouldn't condone it in
>
> I don't judge Leythos as I am a neutral party. He has never done
> anything untowards myself or anyone I know. While I may not agree
> with everything he does, I'm certainly not going to reprimand him for
> it.
It doesn't matter what word one uses, but it's the same kind of tactic
that is used in auk to hound "kooks."
It doesn't matter to me who's doing it--the good guys or the bad
guys--it's still not a good thing to do.
> I understand your point of view and I understand his point of view
> from having to deal with pcbutss previously myself.
I've had to deal with butts too, as evidenced by my "vanity page" and
the repeated appearance of my name in his sig, right along with Leythos'
name (and others who have opposed Butts). I went more than a few rounds
with him awhile back. :)
I don't agree with anything that Butts does--I think he is a lowlife. I
also think, however, that he has no control over his behavior as a
result of the head injury he sustained in the accident. My guess is that
he has brain damage, and to him, everything he does seems reasonable and
right. His behavior is clearly sociopathic, but I don't think he's
capable of seeing it, so berating him repeatedly is pointless and
ultimately, useless. Better to put one's energy into constructive
(albeit, possibly expensive) action to shut him down.
But following him around and replying to his posts just feeds him. It
also confers upon him more importance than he warrants.
> I do think tho, that the word stalking is overused in this case.
>
>> But the point of that particular post was something else, and as I
>> said, you almost had it until you veered.
>
> You could save time and posting by just saying what you intended in
> the first place. :)
Well, no, I couldn't, actually, because it was bound to be misunderstood
and misconstrued. I'm sure if anyone gave it some thought, though, s/he
would realize that butts' choices are indicative of the fact that he is
running out of places to hide.
And the fact that he has the *need* to hide is indicative of his general
character.
pcbutts1
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker
LiarLeythos the stalker LiarLeythos the stalker Liar
--
Newsgroup Trolls. Read about mine here http://www.pcbutts1.com/downloads
The list grows. Leythos the stalker http://www.leythosthestalker.com, David
H. Lipman, Max M Wachtell III aka What's in a Name?, Fitz,
Rhonda Lea Kirk, Meat Plow, F Kwatu F, George Orwell
"Leythos" <vo...@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.217fc450c...@adfree.Usenet.com...
pcbutts1
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
Leythos the Obsessed stalker.
--
Newsgroup Trolls. Read about mine here http://www.pcbutts1.com/downloads
The list grows. Leythos the stalker http://www.leythosthestalker.com, David
H. Lipman, Max M Wachtell III aka What's in a Name?, Fitz,
Rhonda Lea Kirk, Meat Plow, F Kwatu F, George Orwell
"Leythos" <vo...@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.217ff005e...@adfree.Usenet.com...
pcbutts1
--
Newsgroup Trolls. Read about mine here http://www.pcbutts1.com/downloads
The list grows. Leythos the stalker http://www.leythosthestalker.com, David
H. Lipman, Max M Wachtell III aka What's in a Name?, Fitz,
Rhonda Lea Kirk, Meat Plow, F Kwatu F, George Orwell
"lulu" <luluto...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1192589663....@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Rhonda Lea Kirk
<snip tantrum>
See a doctor. You need help.
No matter what Leythos does, it doesn't make you look any better. It's
hard for me to believe you can make yourself look worse, but then that's
exactly what you do.
You're a blight. A liar. A thief. One hopes it doesn't extend into your
real life, but I'm guessing there's no demarcation at all.
You have my pity, because you are pitiful.
Leythos
says...
> But the
> bottom line is that I think your behavior makes you look bad
I'm willing to take the heat for it - thanks.
--
Leythos - spam9...@rrohio.com (remove 999 to email me)
Fight exposing kids to porn, complain about sites like PCBUTTS1 . COM
lulu
> lulu <lulutosirl...@gmail.com> wrote innews:1192589663....@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 16, 4:34 pm, Dustin Cook <bughunter.dus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> "pcbutts1" <pcbut...@leythosthestalker.com> wrote in news:ferkmo$85$1
> >> @blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
>
> >> > If you think your lame BS attempt at getting me to ID myself is
> >> > going to work then you are a bigger idiot then I thought.
>
> >> You have already been identified Christopher, I spoke to you on the
> >> phone once where you work. You rudely tried to tell me I had called a
> >> private number. I suppose I scared you a little eh? :)
>
> >> And yet, you still play games with people.
>
> >> --
> >> Dustin Cook, Author of BugHunter - MalWare Removal Tool - v2.2d
> >> Email.: bughunter.dus...@gmail.com
> >> Web...:http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk
> >> Pad...:http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk/pad.xml
> >> PGP...:http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk/bughunter.dustin.txt
>
> > Oh he mentioned that in court, that he was getting calls. he tried to
> > blame me
>
> Nope, was me who called him. My cell phone records prove it. LoL.
>
> --
> Dustin Cook, Author of BugHunter - MalWare Removal Tool - v2.2d
> Email.: bughunter.dus...@gmail.com
> Web...:http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk
> Pad...:http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk/pad.xml
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yeah well, he lied about everything but at least the judge made him
take the lies and stuff off his website first
in this thread.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.comp.anti-virus/msg/846facf7d840dba9
kurt wismer
> You trolls are a trip. I swear all of you are obsessed with me.
if the trolls are obsessed with you then why is it only you who is
dedicating webspace to attack them?
methinks thou doth protest too much...
--
"it's not the right time to be sober
now the idiots have taken over
spreading like a social cancer,
is there an answer?"
kurt wismer
>"kurt wismer" <ku...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:ff17me$nvq$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>> pcbutts1 wrote:
>>> Wrong on both counts. Why is it so important to you that you know I am?
>>> What are you gonna try and do? Nothing you can do will hurt me.
>>
>> if that were true you wouldn't be posting under a pseudonym....
>>
> Shut up child molester
oh, looks like i hit a nerve... so i guess we should conclude that you
really are a mealy mouthed weasel who hides behind a pseudonym in order
to avoid being held accountable for your actions...
lulu
> You forgot to tell him you LOST in court.
>
> --
>
> The list grows. Leythos the stalkerhttp://www.leythosthestalker.com, David
> H. Lipman, Max M Wachtell III aka What's in a Name?, Fitz,
> Rhonda Lea Kirk, Meat Plow, F Kwatu F, George Orwell
>
>
> news:1192589663....@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Oct 16, 4:34 pm, Dustin Cook <bughunter.dus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> "pcbutts1" <pcbut...@leythosthestalker.com> wrote in news:ferkmo$85$1
> >> @blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
>
> >> > If you think your lame BS attempt at getting me to ID myself is going
> >> > to
> >> > work then you are a bigger idiot then I thought.
>
> >> You have already been identified Christopher, I spoke to you on the phone
> >> once where you work. You rudely tried to tell me I had called a private
> >> number. I suppose I scared you a little eh? :)
>
> >> And yet, you still play games with people.
>
> >> --
> >> Dustin Cook, Author of BugHunter - MalWare Removal Tool - v2.2d
> >> Email.: bughunter.dus...@gmail.com
> >> Web...:http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk
> >> Pad...:http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk/pad.xml
> >> PGP...:http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk/bughunter.dustin.txt
>
> > Oh he mentioned that in court, that he was getting calls. he tried to
>
> - Show quoted text -
How would you know you not suposed to be him remember LOL HAHAHA!!