How MANY people has Maureen stalked and harassed on the internet?
Greegor
Glen for TEN YEARS online, I asked you if you did
this to any others, why didn't you announce the others?
How MANY people have you done this to, Maureen?
Is that something you are ashamed about?
Greegor
G > Glen for TEN YEARS online, I asked you if you did
G > this to any others, why didn't you announce the others?
G >
G > How MANY people have you done this to, Maureen?
G >
G > Is that something you are ashamed about?
Maureen Elaine McAllister of Dardanelle, AR:
Who IS that twerp next to you in that photo?
How did they manage to keep the lense from cracking?
Kent Wills
Why are you still using and abusing illegal drugs, Greg?
You admitted that your stalking of the members of alt.friends was
because of your use and abuse of illegal drugs. Clearly you're still
using and abusing illegal drugs.
Oh, the picture you LIE and claim is of Moe looks nothing like
her.
Has your drug use made you so retarded you now believe everyone
with the same first name are all the same person? Serious question.
Title: ST VS GREGORY HANSON
(DOB 05/22/1959)
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT 04/10/1996
Comments: CT 1 OWI 1ST
OTHER CITATION 04/10/1996
Comments: CT 2 SPEED
Disposition Status
GUILTY PLEA/DEFAULT
"That's the chick, but not the pic, zipperhead!"
Greg Hanson proving his bigotry towards Asians, or proving he's so
stupid he thinks I'm Asian.
MID:<c6bac3f6-7a0e-4bf8-8ddd-d77bccfc6...@p49g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.legal/msg/395db830731df54a
http://www.rsdb.org/search?q=zipperhead
Me: "I suspect your stalking is due to the use and abuse of illegal
drugs, Greg. Is the reason for your stalking the members of
alt.friends due to the use and abuse of illegal drugs?
Gregory Scott Hanson, wife beater and child abuser: "Of course."
"My family's case is for Neglect, but we are treated
in virtually every regard as child abusers, marked on
the Child Abuse registry, for example."
-- Greg Scott Hanson telling Usenet he's a FOUNDED child abuser.
Message-ID: <35120b16.04011...@posting.google.com>
" ... But there ought to be conferences and studies on how to curb
minority overpopulation, repatriate minorities abroad, imprison more
minorities, increase use of the death penalty and divest minorities of
the power they have usurped over us in recent years. That would
address the most pressing problems of our day. ... "
April 2000, Gregory Hanson
http://www.nationalist.org/ATW/2000/040101.html#Hanson
Path:
news.datemas.de!newsfeed.datemas.de!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!postnews.google.com!y21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Greegor <gree...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups:
misc.kids,alt.support.foster-parents,uk.people.parents,alt.support.child-protective-services
With the Christmas season upon us again, my stepdaughter was launching
into her usual tirade of "I need this" (Nintendo 64 games, Pokemon,
videos, Rhianna CD, etc.) After enduring a trip through Kmart, I
was at my wits end. I took the kid home and filled the bathtub with
water. Then I dunked the brat's head under the water and counted out
a full minute, with her flailing her arms. I brought her up and she
gasped for air. When she'd caught her breath, I asked her, "When you
were under that water, did you 'need' Nintendo? Pokemon? Rhianna?"
She shook her head. "What were you thinking about?" I
prodded. She told me "I was thinking that I needed air."
"Now you know the difference between 'need' and 'want'" I exclaimed
triumphantly.
--a true story
Greegor
G > Glen for TEN YEARS online, I asked you if you did
G > this to any others, why didn't you announce the others?
G >
G > How MANY people have you done this to, Maureen?
G >
G > Is that something you are ashamed about?
G > Maureen Elaine McAllister of Dardanelle, AR:
G >
G > Who IS that twerp next to you in that photo?
G >
G > How did they manage to keep the lense from cracking?
Dan Sullivan
> G > Maureen, When I found out you stalked and harassed
> G > Glen for TEN YEARS online, I asked you if you did
> G > this to any others, why didn't you announce the others?
> G >
> G > How MANY people have you done this to, Maureen?
You should start off with how many people you've stalked, grag.
So far Moe has one person.
You have Kent, Kane and myself.
Who else have you stalked?
Greegor
G > Glen for TEN YEARS online, I asked you if you did
G > this to any others, why didn't you announce the others?
G >
G > How MANY people have you done this to, Maureen?
DJS3 > You should start off with how many people you've
DJS3 > stalked, grag. So far Moe has one person.
Moe makes friends wherever she goes.
http://www.pichost.ru/show.php/118293_moe.jpg.html
DJS3 > You have Kent, Kane and myself.
As stalkers.
DJS3 > Who else have you stalked?
You and your hyena pack can dish it out but can't take it?
How's your EGO doing, Dan? You're a real he-man!
Dan Sullivan
> G > Maureen, When I found out you stalked and harassed
> G > Glen for TEN YEARS online, I asked you if you did
> G > this to any others, why didn't you announce the others?
> G >
> G > How MANY people have you done this to, Maureen?
>
> DJS3 > stalked, grag. So far Moe has one person.
>
> Moe makes friends wherever she goes.
>
> http://www.pichost.ru/show.php/118293_moe.jpg.html
>
>
> As stalkers.
Not at all.
Add LIT to the list of people you've stalked, grag..
> DJS3 > Who else have you stalked?
>
> You and your hyena pack can dish it out but can't take it?
What makes you think I can't take your stalking, grag?
krp
"Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:ce1f93dd-f14c-47a9...@e34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 22, 5:21 pm, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> G > Maureen, When I found out you stalked and harassed
>> G > Glen for TEN YEARS online, I asked you if you did
>> G > this to any others, why didn't you announce the others?
>> G >
>> G > How MANY people have you done this to, Maureen?
>>
>> DJS3 > You should start off with how many people you've
>> DJS3 > stalked, grag. So far Moe has one person.
>>
>> Moe makes friends wherever she goes.
>>
>> http://www.pichost.ru/show.php/118293_moe.jpg.html
>>
>> DJS3 > You have Kent, Kane and myself.
>>
>> As stalkers.
>
> Not at all.
>
> Add LIT to the list of people you've stalked, grag..
Really, Danny, funny - SHE doesn't say that. I wonder why. You aren't
having a good week for being accurate, are ya, Danny boy? First you claim to
"KNOW" that ASTC "booted" me and somehow THAT claim turn out to be more of
your PSYCHOTIC BULLSHIT! How do you explain this in view of your claims?
Greegor
G > Glen for TEN YEARS online, I asked you if you did
G > this to any others, why didn't you announce the others?
G >
G > How MANY people have you done this to, Maureen?
DJS3 > You should start off with how many people you've
DJS3 > stalked, grag. So far Moe has one person.
G > Moe makes friends wherever she goes.
http://www.pichost.ru/show.php/118293_moe.jpg.html
DJS3 > You have Kent, Kane and myself.
G > As stalkers.
DJS3 > Not at all.
DJS3 > Add LIT to the list of people you've stalked, grag..
DJS3 > Who else have you stalked?
You and your hyena pack can dish it out but can't take it?
How's your EGO doing, Dan? You're a real he-man!
DJS3 > What makes you think I can't take your stalking, grag?
So you admit you dished it out first?
Kent Wills
<dsul...@optonline.net> wrote:
>On Oct 22, 5:21 pm, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> G > Maureen, When I found out you stalked and harassed
>> G > Glen for TEN YEARS online, I asked you if you did
>> G > this to any others, why didn't you announce the others?
>> G >
>> G > How MANY people have you done this to, Maureen?
>>
>> DJS3 > You should start off with how many people you've
>> DJS3 > stalked, grag. So far Moe has one person.
>>
>> Moe makes friends wherever she goes.
>>
>> http://www.pichost.ru/show.php/118293_moe.jpg.html
>>
>> DJS3 > You have Kent, Kane and myself.
>>
>> As stalkers.
>
>Not at all.
>
>Add LIT to the list of people you've stalked, grag..
>
FYI, Greg has known, almost as long as I have, that Lost isn't
named Kim. In fact, Greg is well aware that Lost isn't even female.
Greg really should invest in encryption for his E-mail.
>> DJS3 > Who else have you stalked?
>>
>> You and your hyena pack can dish it out but can't take it?
>
>What makes you think I can't take your stalking, grag?
>
What's funny is how Greg will post what he claims is information
about someone, then cry when someone does the same to him.
OK, it's not funny. Greg's deeply rooted mental illnesses
(plural) aren't really all that funny.
Kent Wills
wrote:
>
>"Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>news:ce1f93dd-f14c-47a9...@e34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
>> On Oct 22, 5:21 pm, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> G > Maureen, When I found out you stalked and harassed
>>> G > Glen for TEN YEARS online, I asked you if you did
>>> G > this to any others, why didn't you announce the others?
>>> G >
>>> G > How MANY people have you done this to, Maureen?
>>>
>>> DJS3 > You should start off with how many people you've
>>> DJS3 > stalked, grag. So far Moe has one person.
>>>
>>> Moe makes friends wherever she goes.
>>>
>>> http://www.pichost.ru/show.php/118293_moe.jpg.html
>>>
>>> DJS3 > You have Kent, Kane and myself.
>>>
>>> As stalkers.
>>
>> Not at all.
>>
>> Add LIT to the list of people you've stalked, grag..
>
>
> Really, Danny, funny - SHE doesn't say that.
Since Lost isn't female, as you already know, SHE can't.
>I wonder why. You aren't
>having a good week for being accurate, are ya, Danny boy? First you claim to
>"KNOW" that ASTC "booted" me
When, outside of your drunken delusions, has Dan made such a
claim?
Unless you're offering more proof that your constant consumption
of alcohol has forced you to lie, you'll post the MID and/or Google
link to one post from Dan where he made such a claim.
>and somehow THAT claim turn out to be more of
>your PSYCHOTIC BULLSHIT! How do you explain this in view of your claims?
What claims, exactly, did Dan make?
Has anyone ever claimed you weren't a member of the ASTC?
"(CONTEXT REMOVED AS TO THE BELOW CLAIM)"
Kenneth Robert Pangborn admitting he alters the context of posts
when he replies.
MID FyUom.1363$Jd7....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net
Kent Wills
<gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>G > Maureen, When I found out you stalked and harassed
>G > Glen for TEN YEARS online, I asked you if you did
>G > this to any others, why didn't you announce the others?
>G >
>G > How MANY people have you done this to, Maureen?
>
>DJS3 > You should start off with how many people you've
>DJS3 > stalked, grag. So far Moe has one person.
>
>Moe makes friends wherever she goes.
She can be personable, so it's likely she does.
It's a shame you're limited to fellow druggies, Greg.
>
>http://www.pichost.ru/show.php/118293_moe.jpg.html
>
>DJS3 > You have Kent, Kane and myself.
>
>As stalkers.
>
By your own standards, you stalk the members of alt.friends.
Of course, you did admit that stalking is due to your use and
abuse of illegal drugs.
>DJS3 > Who else have you stalked?
>
>You and your hyena pack can dish it out but can't take it?
You stalk many people, by the very standards you posted to accuse
others of stalking you. One person gives you a small sample of what
you constantly dish out to others and you start to cry.
>How's your EGO doing, Dan? You're a real he-man!
Claims the man who whines when someone does to him that which
he's done (and does) to so many others.
Time to grow up, Greg.
Kent Wills
<dsul...@optonline.net> wrote:
>On Oct 22, 4:07�pm, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> G > Maureen, When I found out you stalked and harassed
>> G > Glen for TEN YEARS online, I asked you if you did
>> G > this to any others, why didn't you announce the others?
>> G >
>> G > How MANY people have you done this to, Maureen?
>
>You should start off with how many people you've stalked, grag.
>
>So far Moe has one person.
>
Only if we apply Greg's standards.
Any rational person would simply see that Moe gave Greg a small
taste of what he tries to dish out to many others.
>You have Kent, Kane and myself.
>
>Who else have you stalked?
Lindsay. Well, he's tried. Like everything else he's ever tried
in life, he failed.
krp
"Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:k3r2e5lt8nohs8nj4...@4ax.com...
>>>> G > Maureen, When I found out you stalked and harassed
>>>> G > Glen for TEN YEARS online, I asked you if you did
>>>> G > this to any others, why didn't you announce the others?
>>>> G >
>>>> G > How MANY people have you done this to, Maureen?
>>>>
>>>> DJS3 > You should start off with how many people you've
>>>> DJS3 > stalked, grag. So far Moe has one person.
>>>>
>>>> Moe makes friends wherever she goes.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.pichost.ru/show.php/118293_moe.jpg.html
>>>>
>>>> DJS3 > You have Kent, Kane and myself.
>>>>
>>>> As stalkers.
>>>
>>> Not at all.
>>>
>>> Add LIT to the list of people you've stalked, grag..
>>
>>
>> Really, Danny, funny - SHE doesn't say that.
> Since Lost isn't female, as you already know, SHE can't.
When did Kim have the saex change opertation, Kunt???
>
>>I wonder why. You aren't
>>having a good week for being accurate, are ya, Danny boy? First you claim
>>to
>>"KNOW" that ASTC "booted" me
>
> When, outside of your drunken delusions, has Dan made such a
> claim?
> Unless you're offering more proof that your constant consumption
> of alcohol has forced you to lie, you'll post the MID and/or Google
> link to one post from Dan where he made such a claim.
>
>>and somehow THAT claim turn out to be more of
>>your PSYCHOTIC BULLSHIT! How do you explain this in view of your claims?
>
> What claims, exactly, did Dan make?
>
>>
>>http://www.astcweb.org/public/consultants/list.cfm?dir_last=pangborn&dir_company=&dir_city=&dir_state=&areasofpractice=&areasoftc=&submit=Locate+Consultant
>
> Has anyone ever claimed you weren't a member of the ASTC?
>
Kunt you are a SAD SAD SAD SAD case. And you wonder WHY people call you a
"STUPID POLACK?"
krp
> On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:23:14 -0700 (PDT), Dan Sullivan
> <dsul...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>On Oct 22, 5:21 pm, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> G > Maureen, When I found out you stalked and harassed
>>> G > Glen for TEN YEARS online, I asked you if you did
>>> G > this to any others, why didn't you announce the others?
>>> G >
>>> G > How MANY people have you done this to, Maureen?
>>>
>>> DJS3 > You should start off with how many people you've
>>> DJS3 > stalked, grag. So far Moe has one person.
>>>
>>> Moe makes friends wherever she goes.
>>>
>>> http://www.pichost.ru/show.php/118293_moe.jpg.html
>>>
>>> DJS3 > You have Kent, Kane and myself.
>>>
>>> As stalkers.
>>
>>Not at all.
>>
>>Add LIT to the list of people you've stalked, grag..
>>
>
> FYI, Greg has known, almost as long as I have, that Lost isn't
> named Kim. In fact, Greg is well aware that Lost isn't even female.
> Greg really should invest in encryption for his E-mail.
Oh really? That's news top HER, Kunt. Maybe you mean the "OTHER" LIT that
YOU know, right Kunt?
lostintranslation
> On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:23:14 -0700 (PDT), Dan Sullivan
>
>
> FYI, Greg has known, almost as long as I have, that Lost isn't
> named Kim. In fact, Greg is well aware that Lost isn't even female.
I do not know where you got your information, Kent. The last time I
looked, I was female. My birth certificate and driver's license says
female. If I am NOT female please tell me how I gave birth to 5
children and recently became a grandMOTHER. I'm telling you, you are
either wrong in assuming I am a male or I not only had a great surgeon
to do a sex change but I am fuckall rich having been the first
transgender to give birth to 5 children!!
lostintranslation
Hmm, I need to correct you Dan. Sorry. Greg didn't stalk me. He
pulled posts up from here and other places and asked me about them.
Him having my old phone number and physical address I don't consider
stalking. I was a very public person with a high public profile back
then. Didn't take any energy whatsoever to find me. Nor did I do
anything to hide my location or real identity. I am who I am. If
people want to find me, they will. I don't hide.
I have been stalked by other members here however and currently have a
new one. This one I find rather intriguing, to be honest. Almost
entertaining. And this person actually really had to work to find me.
I am actually flattered that this person (who also knows I'm female,
btw) took the time to look that hard for me. Really, I am flattered.
This person even said that I am going to have a visit from them. I
can't wait! I love having company! I just wish I knew if this person
likes pie and what kind..apple or pumpkin? Will they be staying
overnight? I do have the room so not to worry about having to find a
hotel room, as it is a bit busy around here lately with several
conventions happening. Let me know! *rolls eyes*
lostintranslation
> "Kent Wills" <compu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Oh geez, there's another LIT? My male counterpart? With the same
name? Wow, maybe he's my new stalker!
lostintranslation
Oh and btw, if my name isn't Kim, then I have been replying to the
wrong name all my life. My ID is in the wrong name and the name on my
degrees and diplomas are wrong. Wow, it's odd that I have been going
through my life thinking my name was Kim, knowing my birth cert says
my name is Kim, etc only to have someone on a newsgroup proclaim that
he along with other ppl here know now that my name isn't Kim. Hell,
according to him, I'm not even female!! Kent, are you trying to drive
me into some sort of identity crisis or something? Oh do you have the
links proving that I am not female? Do you have the links proving my
name isn't Kim? MIDs even? Would make for an interesting and rather
amusing read if you can muster 'em up for me!
Dan Sullivan
>
> DJS3 > What makes you think I can't take your stalking, grag?
>
> So you admit you dished it out first?
No, but obviously from your question, grag, you're admitting you got
your rocks off abusing Lisa Watkins' naked seven year old daughter.
lostintranslation
Hey Dan...you can quash the argument on whether or not I am a female
as we have had phone conversations, have we not? Most recently, a
couple weeks ago, right? I think Dan can attest to the fact that I am
indeed a woman, should he chose to.
Dan Sullivan
"lostintranslation" <lostintran...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:81d337f8-fbb8-4f12...@a6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
LIT is a woman.
krp
LIT> Hey Dan...you can quash the argument on whether or not I am a female
LIT> as we have had phone conversations, have we not? Most recently, a
LIT> couple weeks ago, right? I think Dan can attest to the fact that I am
LIT> indeed a woman, should he chose to.
Look into my eyes. You are NOT a woman. Your name is NOT Kim. Look into
my eyes. Just ask KUNT WILLS.
krp
Kent Wills says you are LYING!
krp
LIT> I have been stalked by other members here however and currently have a
LIT> new one. This one I find rather intriguing, to be honest. Almost
LIT> entertaining. And this person actually really had to work to find me.
LIT> I am actually flattered that this person (who also knows I'm female,
LIT> btw) took the time to look that hard for me. Really, I am flattered.
LIT> This person even said that I am going to have a visit from them. I
LIT> can't wait! I love having company! I just wish I knew if this person
LIT> likes pie and what kind..apple or pumpkin? Will they be staying
LIT> overnight? I do have the room so not to worry about having to find a
LIT> hotel room, as it is a bit busy around here lately with several
LIT> conventions happening. Let me know! *rolls eyes*
Kim - some advice. Be sure to have one of those SHAM-WOW mops. That
person is KNOWN to lose control of his bladder when he thinks somebody is
hostile. Maybe you should put out a pack of SUPER DUTY depends with a note
to put them on before he rings your doorbell? Given his history he may NEED
more than one. He can't help it. He's rather "DELICATE." Lock your husband
in the garage, he's AFRAID of men.
krp
On Oct 23, 9:01 am, "krp" <kr...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> "Kent Wills" <compu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:v2r2e5d45dd4rj3tu...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:23:14 -0700 (PDT), Dan Sullivan
> > <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> >>On Oct 22, 5:21 pm, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> G > Maureen, When I found out you stalked and harassed
> >>> G > Glen for TEN YEARS online, I asked you if you did
> >>> G > this to any others, why didn't you announce the others?
> >>> G >
> >>> G > How MANY people have you done this to, Maureen?
>
> >>> DJS3 > You should start off with how many people you've
> >>> DJS3 > stalked, grag. So far Moe has one person.
>
> >>> Moe makes friends wherever she goes.
>
> >>>http://www.pichost.ru/show.php/118293_moe.jpg.html
>
> >>> DJS3 > You have Kent, Kane and myself.
Oh NO. Kunt SWEARS the LIT is NOT named "KIM."
krp
Oh and btw, if my name isn't Kim, then I have been replying to the
wrong name all my life. My ID is in the wrong name and the name on my
degrees and diplomas are wrong.
Did you get your degrees from SHAFTSBERRY too? That's where the 3 stooges
claim I got mine.
lostintranslation
> "lostintranslation" <lostintranslation...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Thank you, Dan. Cheers!
lostintranslation
> "lostintranslation" <lostintranslation...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I have a huge industrial mop that will work quite well, I think. I
will have my friend bring home some adult undergarments from the
nursing home. I don't think hubby will appreciate being put in the
garage. Besides, according to my male friends, I am more intimidating
than he is!
lostintranslation
> "lostintranslation" <lostintranslation...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Actually, no. I went to two very good state universities.
lostintranslation
> "lostintranslation" <lostintranslation...@gmail.com> wrote in message
OH WAIT!!! I posted a link to my photoblog eons ago. There is a
picture or two of me on that blog. Wonder if Kent will claim that the
blog isn't mine.
Greegor
KBW > as I have, that Lost isn't named Kim.
KBW > In fact, Greg is well aware that Lost
KBW > isn't even female.
KBW > Greg really should invest in encryption for his E-mail.
Why did you try this ruse? You ARE Kent Bradley Wills.
lostintranslation
Greg...
I wonder if Kent will be able to provide links or MIDs proving his
factual 'ruse' that you and Kent have known for quite sometime it
seems, that I am indeed not a female. I am sitting here waiting for
the proof. And for my visitor. I suppose it will be a race against
time to see which appears first.
Greegor
KBW > as I have, that Lost isn't named Kim.
KBW > In fact, Greg is well aware that Lost
KBW > isn't even female.
KBW > Greg really should invest in encryption for his E-mail.
G > Why did you try this ruse? You ARE Kent Bradley Wills.
LIT > Greg...
LIT >
LIT > I wonder if Kent will be able to provide links or
LIT > MIDs proving his factual 'ruse' that you and
LIT > Kent have known for quite sometime it seems,
LIT > that I am indeed not a female. I am sitting
LIT > here waiting for the proof. And for my visitor.
LIT > I suppose it will be a race against
LIT > time to see which appears first.
Kim, Do you remember my very first argument with Kent?
I stated that he would argue in favor of gasoline
in a fire extinguisher
He then proceeded to argue exactly that.
Kent and Davey have grown closer during
your absence with their common interest
in throwing off their true identities.
So while I post verifiable FACTS, with LINKS,
they post lies and deliberate misattributions
and they pretend those are a match for
verifiable FACTS with LINKS.
Even after their garbage is blatantly proven
to be wrong, dishonest or a lie, they persist
in posting what they KNOW to be libel.
They go to all of this trouble to try to convince
somebody that they aren't who they are.
But to expect Kent to post any kind of
actual proof of anything substantial is
a complete waste of time.
How MANY people has Greg Hanson stalked and harassed on the internet?
LIT > I have been stalked by other members here
LIT > however and currently have a new one. This
LIT > one I find rather intriguing, to be honest.
LIT > Almost entertaining. And this person actually
LIT > really had to work to find me. I am actually
LIT > flattered that this person (who also knows
LIT > I'm female, btw) took the time to look that
LIT > hard for me. Really, I am flattered.
LIT > This person even said that I am going to
LIT > have a visit from them. I can't wait! I love
LIT > having company! I just wish I knew if this
LIT > person likes pie and what kind..apple or
LIT > pumpkin? Will they be staying overnight?
LIT > I do have the room so not to worry about
LIT > having to find a hotel room, as it is a bit
LIT > busy around here lately with several
LIT > conventions happening.
LIT > Let me know! *rolls eyes*
KRP > Kim - some advice. Be sure to have one of
KRP > those SHAM-WOW mops. That person is
KRP > KNOWN to lose control of his bladder when
KRP > he thinks somebody is hostile. Maybe you
KRP > should put out a pack of SUPER DUTY
KRP > depends with a note to put them on before
KRP > he rings your doorbell? Given his history
KRP > he may NEED more than one. He can't
KRP > help it. He's rather "DELICATE." Lock your
KRP > husband in the garage, he's AFRAID of men.
The hyena pack THREE TIMES have posted what
they think is my home addresses, yet they have
been eager to call ME a stalker. As far as I can
recall I haven't posted street addresses for them
with the exception of DAVE.
Wouldn't I be within my rights to post an ID
and address for somebody who posted what
they thought was mine? Legally or morally?
The lame attempts of the hyena pack to
accuse me of stalking really amuse me.
Moe actually promised she would file
a criminal complaint against me.
Moe has a well established online
history of stalking several other people
unconnected to each other and LONG
before her few years in this forum and
before she heard of me.
I suspect this is why Moe didn't file
the promised criminal charges.
Ironically, Moe tipped me off to her
past stalking when when she let her
paranoia run away with her and
referred to me as Glen or an
associate of Glen.
She stalked and harassed the guy
for over TEN YEARS online, partly
using other people with anonymous
identities and in a style resembling
gossip run amok. She claims he
was criminally convicted for
copyright violation, but in those
TEN YEARS she never managed to
post any proof of that, never a
case number or anything verfiable.
If Moe is so confident that she was in the
right when she ran campaigns of stalking
and harassment before, then why won't she
NAME the other people she stalked?
Apparently Dan knows something about
Moe's other stalking and harassment campaigns
since he felt my question was too sensitive
and had to be diverted from it's original subject.
Wouldn't it be better for Moe to list
her previous stalking and harassment
campaigns and explain how her
targets were EVIL and deserved it?
Otherwise wouldn't it be reasonable to conclude
that Moe is ashamed of her past campaigns
of stalking and harassment?
Why would that be?
Going to explain now, Maureen, or would
you like me to explain them FOR YOU?
Kent Wills
I've seen no blog from you.
I do need to point out that outside of Usenet, I devote no time
to you.
--
"Kent"
Kent Wills
wrote:
>
>Oh and btw, if my name isn't Kim, then I have been replying to the
>wrong name all my life. My ID is in the wrong name and the name on my
>degrees and diplomas are wrong.
Should I address you as Kim or Ken? You seem a bit confused.
I know you aren't LIT, but it appears as if you want to make it
appear as if you are.
Care to explain exactly why?
>
>Did you get your degrees from SHAFTSBERRY too? That's where the 3 stooges
>claim I got mine.
Actually, YOU claimed that, Pangborn. Your CV was on the TCDLA
web site for around four years. You may recall how I made Greg look
the dullard he was (and is) by proving that.
"Maybe he's like me to attach some kiddie porn to aid his fantasies"
Kenneth Robert Pangborn, of KRP Consulting and The A-Team, expressing
his fondness for child porn in
Message-ID:
<RECUi.494$Q%3.238@trnddc04>
Kent Wills
<lostintran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Subject: Hey Kent, Dan can verify
>
>Hey Dan...
Do you always address a post to person A then actually address
person B?
This sort of thing is what made it so easy to prove you were
lying about the E-mails.
--
"Kent"
Kent Wills
wrote:
I've made no such claim.
What is it about your constant consumption of alcohol (unless you
lied) that compels you to lie?
"I am insane!"
--Kenneth Robert Pangborn, of KRP Consulting and The A-team,
posting to alt.dads-rights.unmoderated claiming that he was found
legally insane.
Kent Wills
First, regarding the subject; when, outside of your drug induced
delusions, have I sworn to such?
Second, what ruse?
Third, if I am, why did you claim I am not Kent Bradley Wills?
Were you lying?
You claimed he is the other Kent Wills. Either you were lying
then or you are lying now. You allowed yourself no other options. You
do that a great deal.
Title: ST VS GREGORY HANSON
(DOB 05/22/1959)
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT 04/10/1996
Comments: CT 1 OWI 1ST
OTHER CITATION 04/10/1996
Comments: CT 2 SPEED
Disposition Status
GUILTY PLEA/DEFAULT
"That's the chick, but not the pic, zipperhead!"
Greg Hanson proving his bigotry towards Asians, or proving he's so
stupid he thinks I'm Asian.
MID:<c6bac3f6-7a0e-4bf8-8ddd-d77bccfc6...@p49g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.legal/msg/395db830731df54a
http://www.rsdb.org/search?q=zipperhead
Me: "I suspect your stalking is due to the use and abuse of illegal
drugs, Greg. Is the reason for your stalking the members of
alt.friends due to the use and abuse of illegal drugs?
Gregory Scott Hanson, wife beater and child abuser: "Of course."
"My family's case is for Neglect, but we are treated
in virtually every regard as child abusers, marked on
the Child Abuse registry, for example."
-- Greg Scott Hanson telling Usenet he's a FOUNDED child abuser.
Message-ID: <35120b16.04011...@posting.google.com>
" ... But there ought to be conferences and studies on how to curb
minority overpopulation, repatriate minorities abroad, imprison more
minorities, increase use of the death penalty and divest minorities of
the power they have usurped over us in recent years. That would
address the most pressing problems of our day. ... "
April 2000, Gregory Hanson
http://www.nationalist.org/ATW/2000/040101.html#Hanson
Path:
news.datemas.de!newsfeed.datemas.de!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!postnews.google.com!y21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Greegor <gree...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups:
misc.kids,alt.support.foster-parents,uk.people.parents,alt.support.child-protective-services
With the Christmas season upon us again, my stepdaughter was launching
into her usual tirade of "I need this" (Nintendo 64 games, Pokemon,
videos, Rhianna CD, etc.) After enduring a trip through Kmart, I
was at my wits end. I took the kid home and filled the bathtub with
water. Then I dunked the brat's head under the water and counted out
a full minute, with her flailing her arms. I brought her up and she
gasped for air. When she'd caught her breath, I asked her, "When you
were under that water, did you 'need' Nintendo? Pokemon? Rhianna?"
She shook her head. "What were you thinking about?" I
prodded. She told me "I was thinking that I needed air."
"Now you know the difference between 'need' and 'want'" I exclaimed
triumphantly.
--a true story
Kent Wills
<gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>LIT > Greg...
>LIT >
>LIT > I wonder if Kent will be able to provide links or
>LIT > MIDs proving his factual 'ruse' that you and
>LIT > Kent have known for quite sometime it seems,
>LIT > that I am indeed not a female. =A0I am sitting
>LIT > here waiting for the proof. =A0And for my visitor.
>LIT >=A0I suppose it will be a race against
>LIT > time to see which appears first.
>
>Kim, Do you remember my very first argument with Kent?
>
>I stated that he would argue in favor of gasoline
>in a fire extinguisher
>
>He then proceeded to argue exactly that.
What, exactly, about your admitted use and abuse of illegal drugs
makes it IMPOSSIBLE for you to be honest, except by accident or force?
>
>Kent and Davey have grown closer during
>your absence with their common interest
>in throwing off their true identities.
>
Actually, we have several common interests. Exposing you for the
dug addicted, pro CPS, child molesting (by your own standards of
proof, it was PROVED you molested Lisa's little girl) scum you are, is
only one.
>So while I post verifiable FACTS, with LINKS,
You've NEVER been able to offer anything to support, let alone
prove, any of the links you post connect to either me or David.
You even admitted the information you have claimed is about me
isn't about me, but the other Kent Wills. You've yet to state which
bit of information applies to which Kent you've made the FACT CLAIM I
am (you've claimed I'm a few).
You've hinted, very strongly, but not actually stated, that my
name in real life isn't actually Kent.
>they post lies and deliberate misattributions
>and they pretend those are a match for
>verifiable FACTS with LINKS.
You've never offered any links about me. Only different people
you have claimed is me.
Of course, you did admit they weren't about me.
>
>Even after their garbage is blatantly proven
>to be wrong, dishonest or a lie, they persist
>in posting what they KNOW to be libel.
Where has either of us posted anything libelous?
We have posted items that by YOUR standards (everyone with the
same first and last name. even if one is a Usenet nym, are all the
same person) would mean you authored/spoke something. If you think
that's in some way wrong, perhaps you should evaluate your standards
and consider ceasing the use of them.
>
>They go to all of this trouble to try to convince
>somebody that they aren't who they are.
>
Since you've claimed I'm several people named Kent Wills, located
in several U.S. states and one place in Canada (you've claimed to
PROVE I live in three different places with the phone book), I don't
need to do anything.
>But to expect Kent to post any kind of
>actual proof of anything substantial is
>a complete waste of time.
>
Why would that be? I use PROOF to further prove you the drug
addled scum you are.
>
>How MANY people has Greg Hanson stalked and harassed on the internet?
I wouldn't have thought you would ask that question.
Since you are in the best possition to answer the question you
asked, would you be so kind as to do so?
So the totality of the pack consists of Moe and Dan? They are, to
the best of my recollection, the only people to post it.
David and I have quoted some of the posts, but no erudite person
would confuse quoting with original posting.
>yet they have
>been eager to call ME a stalker.
By the very definition you posted to accuse others of stalking
you, you are a stalker.
>As far as I can
>recall I haven't posted street addresses for them
>with the exception of DAVE.
Actually, you've not posted David's address. What you've posted
is about 300 miles off.
You did post what you thought was my phone number. That it was a
number Jonezie made up didn't matter.
Did you ever look up the number, or did you simply get punked by
Jonezie?
What did you find, if you looked it up?
>
>Wouldn't I be within my rights to post an ID
>and address for somebody who posted what
>they thought was mine? Legally or morally?
Whereas Moe granted you permission to post it, I expect you'd be
safe from any successful prosecution.
>
>The lame attempts of the hyena pack to
>accuse me of stalking really amuse me.
By the very definition you posted to accuse others of stalking
you, you are a stalker.
Since you've never retracted your use of the definition, you MUST
agree that you are a stalker. Sure, you FAIL at every attempt to
stalk people, but you must proudly admit you are one.
>
>Moe actually promised she would file
>a criminal complaint against me.
Post the MID and/or Google link to just ONE post where she made
such a promise. Just one is all I ask.
If, as is the case, your drug induced NEED to lie has come forth
again, you'll not be able to offer either.
>
>Moe has a well established online
>history of stalking several other people
>unconnected to each other and LONG
>before her few years in this forum and
>before she heard of me.
You just can't be honest for anything, unless you make a mistake
or are forced.
Would you be so kind as to explain why?
>
>I suspect this is why Moe didn't file
>the promised criminal charges.
Prove she made such a promise, a win for you, or admit your
admitted use and abuse of illegal drugs forced you to lie once again,
a win for Moe.
Will you grab the win you so desperately want, or admit you're a
drug addled looser?
>
>Ironically, Moe tipped me off to her
>past stalking when when she let her
>paranoia run away with her and
>referred to me as Glen or an
>associate of Glen.
Uh huh.
She had never mentioned Glen in any post I saw until YOU brought
him up.
You frequently obsess over people you don't know.
>
>She stalked and harassed the guy
>for over TEN YEARS online, partly
>using other people with anonymous
>identities and in a style resembling
>gossip run amok. She claims he
>was criminally convicted for
>copyright violation, but in those
>TEN YEARS she never managed to
>post any proof of that, never a
>case number or anything verfiable.
There is no end to your lying.
>
>If Moe is so confident that she was in the
>right when she ran campaigns of stalking
>and harassment before, then why won't she
>NAME the other people she stalked?
>
Your question presumes she's stalked anyone.
You'll need to prove that she has (your obsession with Glen
doesn't prove stalking on the part of Moe) before a realistic
expectation of an answer can be given.
>Apparently Dan knows something about
>Moe's other stalking and harassment campaigns
>since he felt my question was too sensitive
>and had to be diverted from it's original subject.
Again you PROVE you can't be honest.
>
>Wouldn't it be better for Moe to list
>her previous stalking and harassment
>campaigns and explain how her
>targets were EVIL and deserved it?
Prove she's stalked these phantom people you reference. Unless,
of course, you'd rather admit you're lying.
>
>Otherwise wouldn't it be reasonable to conclude
>that Moe is ashamed of her past campaigns
>of stalking and harassment?
Prove she's stalked these phantom people you reference. Unless,
of course, you'd rather admit you're lying.
>
>Why would that be?
>
>Going to explain now, Maureen, or would
>you like me to explain them FOR YOU?
I hope she'll allow you. I'd LOVE to read what your drug induced
delusions come up with to explain your claims.
Kent Wills
<lostintran...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
>> > Oh really? That's news top HER, Kunt. Maybe you mean the "OTHER" LIT th=
>at
>> > YOU know, right Kunt?
>>
>> Oh geez, there's another LIT? =A0My male counterpart? =A0With the same
>> name? =A0Wow, maybe he's my new stalker!
>
>Oh and btw, if my name isn't Kim, then I have been replying to the
>wrong name all my life. My ID is in the wrong name and the name on my
>degrees and diplomas are wrong.
Feel free to prove it, unless, of course, you're lying.
>Wow, it's odd that I have been going
>through my life thinking my name was Kim, knowing my birth cert says
>my name is Kim, etc only to have someone on a newsgroup proclaim that
>he along with other ppl here know now that my name isn't Kim. Hell,
>according to him, I'm not even female!! Kent, are you trying to drive
>me into some sort of identity crisis or something?
No. What possible motivation would I have to do such a thing?
>Oh do you have the
>links proving that I am not female? Do you have the links proving my
>name isn't Kim? MIDs even? Would make for an interesting and rather
>amusing read if you can muster 'em up for me!
You're the one making the affirmative claim. It befalls you to
prove it. Unless I did expose the truth about you.
--
"Kent"
Kent Wills
<lostintran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Oct 23, 7:52�pm, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> KBW > FYI, Greg has known, almost as long
>> KBW > as I have, that Lost isn't named Kim.
>> KBW >�In fact, Greg is well aware that Lost
>> KBW > isn't even female.
>>
>> KBW > Greg really should invest in encryption for his E-mail.
>>
>> Why did you try this ruse? �You ARE Kent Bradley Wills.
>
>Greg...
>
>I wonder if Kent will be able to provide links or MIDs proving his
I've not claimed the information came via a Usenet post. As such,
any links or MIDs would end up being bogus.
I have to wonder why you would suggest such things, knowing that
there can be no valid links or MIDs offered.
Care to enlighten me, and anyone else reading, just why you felt
you needed to resort to such a deceptive act?
>factual 'ruse' that you and Kent have known for quite sometime it
>seems, that I am indeed not a female. I am sitting here waiting for
>the proof. And for my visitor. I suppose it will be a race against
>time to see which appears first.
What visitor?
Do you share Pangborn's delusion about the MASSIVE COALITION
FORCE (emphasis Pangborn's)?
--
"Kent"
Kent Wills
wrote:
[...]
>>>> Add LIT to the list of people you've stalked, grag..
>>>
>>>
>>> Really, Danny, funny - SHE doesn't say that.
>
>> Since Lost isn't female, as you already know, SHE can't.
>
> When did Kim have the saex change opertation, Kunt???
>
As far as I know, never. But then, outside of Usenet, I devote
no time to LIT.
>>
>>>I wonder why. You aren't
>>>having a good week for being accurate, are ya, Danny boy? First you claim
>>>to
>>>"KNOW" that ASTC "booted" me
>>
>> When, outside of your drunken delusions, has Dan made such a
>> claim?
>> Unless you're offering more proof that your constant consumption
>> of alcohol has forced you to lie, you'll post the MID and/or Google
>> link to one post from Dan where he made such a claim.
>>
>>>and somehow THAT claim turn out to be more of
>>>your PSYCHOTIC BULLSHIT! How do you explain this in view of your claims?
>>
>> What claims, exactly, did Dan make?
>>
>>>
>>>http://www.astcweb.org/public/consultants/list.cfm?dir_last=pangborn&dir_company=&dir_city=&dir_state=&areasofpractice=&areasoftc=&submit=Locate+Consultant
>>
>> Has anyone ever claimed you weren't a member of the ASTC?
>>
>
>Kunt you are a SAD SAD SAD SAD case. And you wonder WHY people call you a
>"STUPID POLACK?"
>
It's because of you are proud to be a bigot. Given how often you
go out of your way to PROVE you're a bigot, you must be proud.
Proof of your bigotry, consisting of your own writings, can be
found at http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com/race.html
Your latest proof that you're a bigot aside, no one has ever
claimed you were never a member. In fact, that you've been a member
for many years is well known and accepted.
Is there a SPECIFIC reason you are now trying to act as if you
were never a member? What is your motivation?
Kent Wills
<lostintran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Oct 23, 4:42�am, Kent Wills <compu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:23:14 -0700 (PDT), Dan Sullivan
>.
>>
>>
>> � � �FYI, Greg has known, almost as long as I have, that Lost isn't
>> named Kim. �In fact, Greg is well aware that Lost isn't even female.
>
>I do not know where you got your information, Kent.
From a source that has been right far more often than wrong.
It's certainly possible said source is wrong in this instance, of
course.
>The last time I
>looked, I was female. My birth certificate and driver's license says
>female. If I am NOT female please tell me how I gave birth to 5
>children and recently became a grandMOTHER.
Gee, I just gave birth to a baby boy.
Of course I didn't really, but anyone can claim either gender
on-line.
That you claim to be female doesn't instantly mean you are any
more than my claiming to be male instantly means I must be so.
However, I've offered massive amounts of evidence that I am male.
So much so that, as far as I know, everyone with an interest takes it
as proved that I am male.
We have only your word regarding you. Whereas you offered the
PROOF that you lied to Ken about the E-mails, well, few rational
people would be willing to take your word for anything.
>I'm telling you, you are
>either wrong in assuming I am a male or I not only had a great surgeon
>to do a sex change but I am fuckall rich having been the first
>transgender to give birth to 5 children!!
Prove you've done such. Unless you're lying, you'll be able to
offer something in the way of evidence that would lead to one
accepting the claim as proved.
I understand the need for privacy for your children. You claim
someone is stalking you, so use your best judgment when proving you
gave birth to your children.
--
"Kent"
Kent Wills
<lostintran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Oct 22, 6:23�pm, Dan Sullivan <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> On Oct 22, 5:21 pm, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > G > Maureen, When I found out you stalked and harassed
>> > G > Glen for TEN YEARS online, I asked you if you did
>> > G > this to any others, why didn't you announce the others?
>> > G >
>> > G > How MANY people have you done this to, Maureen?
>>
>> > DJS3 > You should start off with how many people you've
>> > DJS3 > �stalked, grag. �So far Moe has one person.
>>
>> > Moe makes friends wherever she goes.
>>
>> >http://www.pichost.ru/show.php/118293_moe.jpg.html
>>
>> > DJS3 > You have Kent, Kane and myself.
>>
>> > As stalkers.
>>
>> Not at all.
>>
>> Add LIT to the list of people you've stalked, grag..
>>
>> > DJS3 > Who else have you stalked?
>>
>> > You and your hyena pack can dish it out but can't take it?
>>
>> What makes you think I can't take your stalking, grag?
>
>Hmm, I need to correct you Dan. Sorry. Greg didn't stalk me. He
>pulled posts up from here and other places and asked me about them.
By the very standards Greg posted to accuse others of stalking
him, what you present is evidence that he was stalking you.
Do keep in mind, we're using GREG'S standards, which don't tend
to be in agreement with standards used my rational people.
>Him having my old phone number and physical address I don't consider
>stalking. I was a very public person with a high public profile back
>then. Didn't take any energy whatsoever to find me. Nor did I do
>anything to hide my location or real identity. I am who I am. If
>people want to find me, they will. I don't hide.
So Greg did and did not stalk you.
How do you rationalize the conflicting views?
>
>I have been stalked by other members here however and currently have a
>new one. This one I find rather intriguing, to be honest. Almost
>entertaining. And this person actually really had to work to find me.
>I am actually flattered that this person (who also knows I'm female,
>btw)
On the Internet, no one KNOWS your gender. Unless they know you
in real life as well.
>took the time to look that hard for me. Really, I am flattered.
>This person even said that I am going to have a visit from them. I
>can't wait! I love having company! I just wish I knew if this person
>likes pie and what kind..apple or pumpkin? Will they be staying
>overnight? I do have the room so not to worry about having to find a
>hotel room, as it is a bit busy around here lately with several
>conventions happening. Let me know! *rolls eyes*
Clearly some posts aren't getting to the groups I read.
I did see where Pangborn's paranoia makes him think part of the
mythical MASSIVE COALITION FORCE (emphasis Pangborn's) is going east.
If you live east, then Pangborn may actually believe portions of the
non-existent coalition will be visiting you.
There is, of course, nothing to support Pangborn's delusion.
Still, he will believe it.
--
"Kent"
Kent Wills
wrote:
Why are you referring to yourself in the third person, Ken?
"It's attached to a thing called a "WIFE" Betty."
Kenneth Robert Pangborn showing how he views his wife
as an object and NOT a human being.
Message-ID: <KLf2j.31312$9h.4837@trnddc07>
Kent Wills
wrote:
>>
>> Oh really? That's news top HER, Kunt. Maybe you mean the "OTHER" LIT that
>> YOU know, right Kunt?
>
>Oh geez, there's another LIT? My male counterpart? With the same
>name? Wow, maybe he's my new stalker!
Having an identity crisis there, Kenny-Bob?
If I didn't already know better, I would think you're trying to
claim you're LIT.
I know you are not LIT, but you sure are trying to present that
you are.
"you are reading Moore's SELECTIVE material that is HIGHLY edited."
Kenneth Robert Pangborn claiming in misc.legal that David Moore can
and does edit Google's Usenet archive.
Message-ID: <n9Sfm.1372$nh2...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>
krp
"Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6hd5e5d5rbij0aian...@4ax.com...
>>> "lostintranslation" <lostintran...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:81d337f8-fbb8-4f12...@a6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>>>> Hey Dan...you can quash the argument on whether or not I am a female
>>>> as we have had phone conversations, have we not? Most recently, a
>>>> couple weeks ago, right? I think Dan can attest to the fact that I am
>>>> indeed a woman, should he chose to.
>>> LIT is a woman.
>>Kent Wills says you are LYING!
> I've made no such claim.
YOU said that her name is "NOT KIM" and that she is "NOT A WOMAN." Yopu
made those two claims as FACT. Lying about it won't help you Kunt. I
understand youir strategy to LIE and DENY when your lies get so publicly
spanked. The fin al regugae is your; "I am NOT me" strategy. That always
works when you get desperate. Kunt this has NOT been one of your better
weeks. Let's see, I can't cover all your bullshit, just your FACT CLAIMS
that I was kicked out of ASTC, and that Kim is neither Kim nor a woman.
Oooo, it must be hell being YOU this week. You have really been kicking
your own ass big time. Keep screwing up POLACK!
lostintranslation
> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 10:43:36 -0700 (PDT), lostintranslation
>
No Kent, it befalls you to prove I am not female. You made the claim
now back it up!
lostintranslation
>
No, not some coalition force. Just a single visitor. And what is so
deceptive asking for proof of a claim? Don't you ask for proof all
the time? Is that a deceptive tactic? And if your information about
me supposedly being male is not from a Usenet post, please tell us
where the information is from. Even if it is from the make believe
world of Kent. And seriously Kent, why on earth are you now claiming
that not only am I not a female but I am also not really LIT? Does it
bother you that a woman is disagreeing with you? Has stood up to you
in the past? Will continue to stand up to you? Is that intimidating
for you?
lostintranslation
>
Prove to me that I am male and I will show you whatever you request.
lostintranslation
> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:03:34 -0700 (PDT), lostintranslation
>
Well as soon as I can, I will scan and post several pictures of me
while pregnant. And if you are a recent new dad, congrats!
lostintranslation
Using my standards alone, Greg did NOT stalk me. Using the legal
definition of stalking, Greg did NOT stalk me. Using common sense,
Greg did NOT stalk me.
lostintranslation
> "Kent Wills" <compu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6hd5e5d5rbij0aian...@4ax.com...
>
> >>> "lostintranslation" <lostintranslation...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:81d337f8-fbb8-4f12...@a6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> >>>> Hey Dan...you can quash the argument on whether or not I am a female
> >>>> as we have had phone conversations, have we not? Most recently, a
> >>>> couple weeks ago, right? I think Dan can attest to the fact that I am
> >>>> indeed a woman, should he chose to.
> >>> LIT is a woman.
> >>Kent Wills says you are LYING!
> > I've made no such claim.
>
> YOU said that her name is "NOT KIM" and that she is "NOT A WOMAN." Yopu
> made those two claims as FACT. Lying about it won't help you Kunt. I
> understand youir strategy to LIE and DENY when your lies get so publicly
> spanked. The fin al regugae is your; "I am NOT me" strategy. That always
> works when you get desperate. Kunt this has NOT been one of your better
> weeks. Let's see, I can't cover all your bullshit, just your FACT CLAIMS
> that I was kicked out of ASTC, and that Kim is neither Kim nor a woman.
> Oooo, it must be hell being YOU this week. You have really been kicking
> your own ass big time. Keep screwing up POLACK!
Oh and really, although I hated the name Kim while growing up, it is
my name. When I was younger, I wouldn't respond to 'Kim' so my
parents and brother had to call me Paige, my middle name. That went
on for about 2 years. Maybe you are a relative of mine and remember
that part of my life, Kent? Maybe that is why you are claiming my
name isn't Kim? I don't know. If you aren't some long lost relative
of mine, where did you get this information that I am supposedly male
and my name, supposedly, is not Kim. Kent, I am not attacking you one
bit. I am pretty curious as to where you got your information
though. I suppose I could post the link to my photo blog but I can
already see that you would claim the pictures of me on the blog aren't
actually me (trust me, if I was going to claim to be someone else, I
would have picked a prettier woman to claim to be) and the kids aren't
actually my kids and the pets aren't actually my pets.
lostintranslation
wrote:
http://ksphotoblog.blogspot.com/
lostintranslation
lostintranslation
> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 16:57:20 -0700 (PDT), lostintranslation
>
Just re-read this post. Kent, in case you have forgotten, I haven't
been around here in quite sometime. I am not going go sift through
posts or do a search to see if the claim I am actually male was made
on usenet. So, no deception on my part. If no such post or MID
exists, my mistake. However, it still does befall you to prove your
claim that 1. My name is not Kim and 2. I am indeed not a female. I
will await your proof, Kent. Or at least an admission from you that
you have gotten misleading information about me. Admission that you
are wrong. Admission that some poor misguided fool lied to you.
lostintranslation
Well if anyone here is ever in New England, let me know and I will be
more than willing to meet that person for coffee or something.
krp
On Oct 24, 6:23 am, "krp" <kr...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> "Kent Wills" <compu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6hd5e5d5rbij0aian...@4ax.com...
>
> >>> "lostintranslation" <lostintranslation...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:81d337f8-fbb8-4f12...@a6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> >>>> Hey Dan...you can quash the argument on whether or not I am a female
> >>>> as we have had phone conversations, have we not? Most recently, a
> >>>> couple weeks ago, right? I think Dan can attest to the fact that I am
> >>>> indeed a woman, should he chose to.
> >>> LIT is a woman.
> >>Kent Wills says you are LYING!
> > I've made no such claim.
> YOU said that her name is "NOT KIM" and that she is "NOT A WOMAN." You
> made those two claims as FACT. Lying about it won't help you Kunt. I
> understand youir strategy to LIE and DENY when your lies get so publicly
> spanked. The fin al regugae is your; "I am NOT me" strategy. That always
> works when you get desperate. Kunt this has NOT been one of your better
> weeks. Let's see, I can't cover all your bullshit, just your FACT CLAIMS
> that I was kicked out of ASTC, and that Kim is neither Kim nor a woman.
> Oooo, it must be hell being YOU this week. You have really been kicking
> your own ass big time. Keep screwing up POLACK!
LIT> Oh and really, although I hated the name Kim while growing up, it is
LIT> my name.
On WILLSWORLD you have to prove that to Kunt Wills satisfaction. But he
is SURE you have a penis. HE CLAIMS TO HAVE EXAMINED YOU!
<chuckle>
krp
LIT> Well if anyone here is ever in New England, let me know and I will be
LIT> more than willing to meet that person for coffee or something.
Kim, how many times have I said that I *KNOW* there are NO - "MASSIVE
COALITION FORCES" That David Moore commands? Maybe 100 by now? The issue is
that MOORE believe is is the ALLIED SUPREME COMMANDER. Of course, he's
INSANE. There are NO coalition forces. Just the gang of 4 mental inmates.
lostintranslation
> "lostintranslation" <lostintranslation...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Ohhh, four mental inmates huh? Maybe all four of them should come
visit then. I can present their profiles to one of my former
professors. She was intrigued by internet whackjobs (not her exact
wording but mine). Any volunteers?
krp
LIT> Ohhh, four mental inmates huh? Maybe all four of them should come
LIT> visit then. I can present their profiles to one of my former
LIT> professors. She was intrigued by internet whackjobs (not her exact
LIT> wording but mine). Any volunteers?
Moore has run for the tall timber. He's letting Wills take the fall for
him. WHAT A BUDDY!!!
lostintranslation
I wonder when the accusations will start flying that I am actually you
posting from some remote host that will provide an IP address in CT?
I mean Kent has already claimed that I am not the real or original LIT
that started posting here several years ago. If I remember correctly
and without going looking, my first post here was in response to
something Greg had suggested I do, which I totally disagreed with. If
someone really wants me to, I suppose I could go digging for the
original post but really, I know that wouldn't prove anything, I
suppose. Nothing I do or say will prove to Kent that I am indeed the
original, the one and only LIT that posts here.
krp
LIT> I wonder when the accusations will start flying that I am actually you
LIT> posting from some remote host that will provide an IP address in CT?
Did you miss that Wills has ALREADY suggested that?
lostintranslation
> "lostintranslation" <lostintranslation...@gmail.com> wrote in message
He's a funny little man. Wonder what makes him think that I am not
the original LIT that started posting here several years ago. I mean,
really, it really wouldn't make sense for anyone to imitate me
especially after being absent for as long as I was. Why would someone
resurrect me after all this time? Just doesn't make any sense. But
then again, according to Kent's highly reliable source, I am not a
female nor is my name Kim.
lostintranslation
myspace.com/bristolctmom is my myspace account. Now Kent, please
standby your claim that I am not a female and my name is not Kim.
Please stand by your claim that I have not given birth to 5 kids.
Please. Oh I know, you wont view or claim you won't view anything
outside of usenet providing proof that I am who I say I am.
lostintranslation
But at least I am providing links for you to look through should you
choose. Kent can not provide proof that I am male nor can he prove
that my name is not Kim. Wonder why that is. Oh I know! The little
elf he praises told him I am male and that my name is not Kim. So
because of his little elf telling him that, it must be true!!!
Kent Wills
OK.
Is this visitor supposed to be someone from Usenet, or just a
friend from your past?
It's really none of my business, so no offence will be taken if
you chose not to answer.
>And what is so
>deceptive asking for proof of a claim? Don't you ask for proof all
>the time? Is that a deceptive tactic?
Your request deceptively implies I stated the claim originated on
Usenet. Very deceptive of you, but deception is your norm. You
offered the proof of that yourself.
>And if your information about
>me supposedly being male is not from a Usenet post, please tell us
>where the information is from.
I already did. Perhaps you hadn't read the post before you wrote
that to which I am replying.
>Even if it is from the make believe
>world of Kent.
Nope.
>And seriously Kent, why on earth are you now claiming
>that not only am I not a female but I am also not really LIT?
When have I claimed you aren't LIT?
Do be specific, and prepared to have any lies you present exposed.
>Does it
>bother you that a woman is disagreeing with you? Has stood up to you
>in the past? Will continue to stand up to you? Is that intimidating
>for you?
No. In the past I was able to prove, using only the evidence you
provided, that you are far less than honest.
--
"Kent"
Kent Wills
<lostintran...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
>Just re-read this post. Kent, in case you have forgotten, I haven't
>been around here in quite sometime.
I haven't seen any cross-posts from you in a while. That doesn't
mean you haven't been active in other groups.
I don't seek out your posts. Unless you post to a group I read,
it's very unlikely I'll see it.
>I am not going go sift through
>posts or do a search to see if the claim I am actually male was made
>on usenet.
You have already presented that it was.
>So, no deception on my part. If no such post or MID
>exists, my mistake. However, it still does befall you to prove your
>claim that 1. My name is not Kim and 2. I am indeed not a female.
Not really. You've made the affirmative claim.
You can try to "Pangborn" your way out of it if you want/need.
He's failed every time he's tried it, but maybe, just maybe, you'll
enjoy success where he's only experienced failure.
> I
>will await your proof, Kent. Or at least an admission from you that
>you have gotten misleading information about me. Admission that you
>are wrong. Admission that some poor misguided fool lied to you.
In order to be a lie, one must have the intent to deceive. As I
mentioned, the source could have been wrong. I've seen nothing to
indicate s/he intended to deceive me.
If you have anything that would support your claim that it was an
intentional act of deception, presuming the information is wrong,
please present it.
--
"Kent"
Kent Wills
<lostintran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >Oh do you have the
>> >links proving that I am not female? =A0Do you have the links proving my
>> >name isn't Kim? =A0MIDs even? =A0Would make for an interesting and rathe=
>r
>> >amusing read if you can muster 'em up for me!
>>
>> =A0 =A0 =A0You're the one making the affirmative claim. =A0It befalls you=
> to
>> prove it. =A0Unless I did expose the truth about you.
>>
>> --
>> "Kent"
>
>Prove to me that I am male and I will show you whatever you request.
In order for me to prove your gender, I would have to devote far
more time on you than I am willing.
If, as you claim, the information I was given is wrong, feel free
to offer evidence.
If you've already done so (I haven't read all of your posts to
misc.legal), I'll check the evidence.
--
"Kent"
Kent Wills
<lostintran...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
>> >I'm telling you, you are
>> >either wrong in assuming I am a male or I not only had a great surgeon
>> >to do a sex change but I am fuckall rich having been the first
>> >transgender to give birth to 5 children!!
>>
>> =A0 =A0 =A0Prove you've done such. =A0Unless you're lying, you'll be able=
> to
>> offer something in the way of evidence that would lead to one
>> accepting the claim as proved.
>> =A0 =A0 =A0I understand the need for privacy for your children. =A0You cl=
>aim
>> someone is stalking you, so use your best judgment when proving you
>> gave birth to your children.
>>
>> --
>> "Kent"
>
>Well as soon as I can, I will scan and post several pictures of me
>while pregnant. And if you are a recent new dad, congrats!
Not recent. The Princess was born three years ago.
I was simply making a point that any claim can be made on Usenet.
A claim alone can't stand as proof of anything.
--
"Kent"
Kent Wills
<lostintran...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
>Using my standards alone, Greg did NOT stalk me. Using the legal
>definition of stalking, Greg did NOT stalk me. Using common sense,
>Greg did NOT stalk me.
Agreed. However, Greg will claim he has stalked you. The very
definition he's posted in the past to accuse others of stalking him
will mean he must.
--
"Kent"
Kent Wills
wrote:
[...]
>> Clearly some posts aren't getting to the groups I read.
>> I did see where Pangborn's paranoia makes him think part of the
>> mythical MASSIVE COALITION FORCE (emphasis Pangborn's) is going east.
>> If you live east, then Pangborn may actually believe portions of the
>> non-existent coalition will be visiting you.
>> There is, of course, nothing to support Pangborn's delusion.
>> Still, he will believe it.
>
>LIT> Well if anyone here is ever in New England, let me know and I will be
>LIT> more than willing to meet that person for coffee or something.
>
> Kim, how many times have I said that I *KNOW* there are NO - "MASSIVE
>COALITION FORCES" That David Moore commands? Maybe 100 by now? The issue is
>that MOORE believe is is the ALLIED SUPREME COMMANDER. Of course, he's
>INSANE. There are NO coalition forces. Just the gang of 4 mental inmates.
If that's the case, why do you frequently expose your paranoia by
claiming there is a MASSIVE COALITION FORCE? Further you claim that
David is the leader.
If, as you are claiming, there is no such force, why do you LIE
and claim there is?
You've painted yourself into a metaphorical corner. Either you
are paranoid and believe there is such a force, or you've been lying.
"CPS cases are legal matters. Offering advice IS practicing law
without a license."
Kenneth Robert Pangborn admitting he practices law without a
license in misc.legal
Kent Wills
wrote:
[...]
>> Kim, how many times have I said that I *KNOW* there are NO - "MASSIVE
>> COALITION FORCES" That David Moore commands? Maybe 100 by now? The issue
>> is
>> that MOORE believe is is the ALLIED SUPREME COMMANDER. Of course, he's
>> INSANE. There are NO coalition forces. Just the gang of 4 mental inmates.
>
>LIT> Ohhh, four mental inmates huh? Maybe all four of them should come
>LIT> visit then. I can present their profiles to one of my former
>LIT> professors. She was intrigued by internet whackjobs (not her exact
>LIT> wording but mine). Any volunteers?
>
> Moore has run for the tall timber. He's letting Wills take the fall for
>him. WHAT A BUDDY!!!
David hasn't run anyway. As of this morning around 8:00AM
central time, he was at home. Yes, I do KNOW that for a fact. If
proving it wouldn't reveal to you his real address, I would prove it.
It's a pity you have NO idea where he actually lives.
--
"Kent"
Kent Wills
<lostintran...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
>I wonder when the accusations will start flying that I am actually you
>posting from some remote host that will provide an IP address in CT?
While it can be done, I've seen nothing to suggest you've done
so.
I've had no motivation to trace you, so I can't know where your
IP originates.
>I mean Kent has already claimed that I am not the real or original LIT
>that started posting here several years ago.
I've made no such claim.
Is there a specific reason you're lying?
>If I remember correctly
>and without going looking, my first post here was in response to
>something Greg had suggested I do, which I totally disagreed with.
Which here do you mean? You're posting to several groups.
>If
>someone really wants me to, I suppose I could go digging for the
>original post but really, I know that wouldn't prove anything, I
>suppose. Nothing I do or say will prove to Kent that I am indeed the
>original, the one and only LIT that posts here.
Since I've never claimed you aren't LIT, directly or through
implication, you are once again offering absolute PROOF that you would
rather be dishonest.
What is the motivation you have for it? I've tried to think of a
plausible reason, but I've failed to find one. I just can't think of
a rational reason for your acts of dishonesty.
--
"Kent"
Kent Wills
wrote:
>LIT> I wonder when the accusations will start flying that I am actually you
>LIT> posting from some remote host that will provide an IP address in CT?
>
> Did you miss that Wills has ALREADY suggested that?
When?
Unless you're offering more proof that your insanity (you claimed
you were found legally insane and that alcoholism is what lead to the
finding), forces you to lie, you'll offer the MID and/or Google link
to such a post.
"I am insane!"
--Kenneth Robert Pangborn, of KRP Consulting and The A-team,
posting to alt.dads-rights.unmoderated claiming that he was found
legally insane.
Kent Wills
<lostintran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> LIT> I wonder when the accusations will start flying that I am actually y=
>ou
>> LIT> posting from some remote host that will provide an IP address in CT?
>>
>> =A0 =A0 Did you miss that Wills has ALREADY suggested that?
>
>He's a funny little man. Wonder what makes him think that I am not
>the original LIT that started posting here several years ago. I mean,
>really, it really wouldn't make sense for anyone to imitate me
>especially after being absent for as long as I was. Why would someone
>resurrect me after all this time? Just doesn't make any sense. But
>then again, according to Kent's highly reliable source, I am not a
>female nor is my name Kim.
What doesn't make sense is your NEED to be dishonest. Further, I
can't figure out why you take steps to PROVE you need to be dishonest.
--
"Kent"
Kent Wills
<lostintran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> He's a funny little man. =A0Wonder what makes him think that I am not
>> the original LIT that started posting here several years ago. =A0I mean,
>> really, it really wouldn't make sense for anyone to imitate me
>> especially after being absent for as long as I was. =A0Why would someone
>> resurrect me after all this time? =A0Just doesn't make any sense. =A0But
>> then again, according to Kent's highly reliable source, I am not a
>> female nor is my name Kim.
>
>myspace.com/bristolctmom is my myspace account. Now Kent, please
>standby your claim that I am not a female and my name is not Kim.
Outside of your latest proof that you either don't want to be or
cannot be honest, the claim isn't mine. I'm the one who brought it to
Usenet, but that doesn't make the claim mine.
>Please stand by your claim that I have not given birth to 5 kids.
I've made no such claim.
What is the specific reason for your latest PROOF of your
dishonesty?
>Please. Oh I know, you wont view or claim you won't view anything
>outside of usenet providing proof that I am who I say I am.
If you know such, you don't, but you've opted to be dishonest,
why did you offer?
Again you offer proof that you are less than honest.
--
"Kent"
Kent Wills
wrote:
>
>"Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:6hd5e5d5rbij0aian...@4ax.com...
>>>> "lostintranslation" <lostintran...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:81d337f8-fbb8-4f12...@a6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>
>>>>> Hey Dan...you can quash the argument on whether or not I am a female
>>>>> as we have had phone conversations, have we not? Most recently, a
>>>>> couple weeks ago, right? I think Dan can attest to the fact that I am
>>>>> indeed a woman, should he chose to.
>
>>>> LIT is a woman.
>
>>>Kent Wills says you are LYING!
>
>> I've made no such claim.
>
> YOU said that her name is "NOT KIM" and that she is "NOT A WOMAN." Yopu
>made those two claims as FACT. Lying about it won't help you Kunt. I
Why do you lie?
Prove I've made such a FACT CLAIM, unless you'd rather admit I've
exposed ANOTHER of your MANY drunken lies.
>understand youir strategy to LIE and DENY when your lies get so publicly
>spanked. The fin al regugae is your; "I am NOT me" strategy.
When have I claimed I'm not me?
In reality, and not your drunken stupors, I mean.
>That always
>works when you get desperate. Kunt this has NOT been one of your better
>weeks. Let's see, I can't cover all your bullshit, just your FACT CLAIMS
>that I was kicked out of ASTC,
I made no such claim.
>and that Kim is neither Kim nor a woman.
I made no such claim.
Citing the claim of another can't, to the rational mind, be seen
as my claim.
Care to try a different lie? One that at least gives the
appearance of plausible?
>Oooo, it must be hell being YOU this week. You have really been kicking
>your own ass big time.
Keep living the drunken delusions, Pangborn.
>Keep screwing up POLACK!
>
http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com/race.html
"(CONTEXT REMOVED AS TO THE BELOW CLAIM)"
Kenneth Robert Pangborn admitting he alters the context of posts
when he replies.
MID FyUom.1363$Jd7....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net
Kent Wills
<lostintran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Oh and really, although I hated the name Kim while growing up, it is
>my name. When I was younger, I wouldn't respond to 'Kim' so my
>parents and brother had to call me Paige, my middle name. That went
>on for about 2 years. Maybe you are a relative of mine and remember
>that part of my life, Kent? Maybe that is why you are claiming my
>name isn't Kim? I don't know.
It's said that anything is possible, but not everything is
probable.
>If you aren't some long lost relative
>of mine, where did you get this information that I am supposedly male
>and my name, supposedly, is not Kim.
How many times do you need the same question answered? What is
the magic number?
For most, one is enough. As you have shown, one isn't enough for
you. So, what is the magic number? I'd like to know when I'll be
getting close.
>Kent, I am not attacking you one
>bit. I am pretty curious as to where you got your information
>though.
I don't know the person's name. While I strongly suspect the
person is male, I don't even KNOW that. S/he has chosen not to give
me such information.
>I suppose I could post the link to my photo blog but I can
>already see that you would claim the pictures of me on the blog aren't
>actually me (trust me, if I was going to claim to be someone else, I
>would have picked a prettier woman to claim to be) and the kids aren't
>actually my kids and the pets aren't actually my pets.
Why would I do such a thing? Be specific in your reply, and
prepared to have any lies exposed.
If you would prefer to admit you're once again being far less
than honest, that is acceptable to me. I can't know if anyone else
would accept your admission or not.
--
"Kent"
Kent Wills
wrote:
>LIT> Oh and really, although I hated the name Kim while growing up, it is
>LIT> my name.
>
> On WILLSWORLD you have to prove that to Kunt Wills satisfaction. But he
>is SURE you have a penis. HE CLAIMS TO HAVE EXAMINED YOU!
Outside of your continued proof that you were being honest when
you claimed, at least twice, that alcoholism is what caused you to be
found legally insane, I've made no such claim.
"you are reading Moore's SELECTIVE material that is HIGHLY edited."
Kenneth Robert Pangborn claiming in misc.legal that David Moore can
and does edit Google's Usenet archive.
Message-ID: <n9Sfm.1372$nh2...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>
lostintranslation
> On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 05:44:24 -0700 (PDT), lostintranslation
>
You claimed I wasn't female and that my name wasn't Kim. I was
unwilling to go searching for the parameters claiming such while I
wasn't around. I believe I wasn't active on usenet for approximately
18 months.
lostintranslation
From what I understand, his wife was in a car accident so he won't be
around for a few days. Doesn't sound like he's running away, Ken.
Sorry.
lostintranslation
> On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 04:03:33 -0700 (PDT), lostintranslation
>
It just seems that the tactics used around here is deny deny deny!!
Ok so your source was wrong but you made the claim. When someone uses
another person's claims, it is implied that the person believes those
claims enough that they will use those claims. Ok, you claim you are
not the Kent Wills Ken and Greg say you are. Now if I was to say,
"the Kent Wills that posts here is not the Kent Wills Greg and Ken
says he is" then I believe your claim and am willing to stand by it.
Are you willing to stand by the other person's claim about me?
You can call me dishonest all you want. You can accuse me of lying
all you want. No amount of proof I can offer will change your mind,
Kent. I have studied cases involving people like you while in
university. Quite amazing reading. Fascinating at times too. But I
digress.
lostintranslation
wrote:
Ok, got an email from someone here. I will not identify that person.
He/she may come forward as the author of the email if they so choose
to. This person says and I quote, "Kent has his suspicions because
someone did tell him you were probably an imposter.
It wasn't me but I know who it was.
And I've told them that they are wrong about you."
'Nuff said, I think.
Greegor
LIT > Using the legal definition of stalking, Greg did NOT
LIT > stalk me. Using common sense, Greg did NOT stalk me.
KBW > Agreed. However, Greg will claim he has
KBW > stalked you. The very definition he's posted
KBW > in the past to accuse others of stalking
KBW > him will mean he must.
I once pointed out that some people
will call almost ANYTHING stalking!
Indeed, the issue of STANDARDS was the point.
I posted an example of stupid standards.
Kent took that out of the context where
I presented it, and tried to claim it was
the standard I believe in.
I told him it was not, and cited the FULL
context, but Kent continued to post the
definition over and over and claim it was
my definition when in fact I had posted it
to ridicule it.
It would include EVERY slight as "stalking".
Kent attempts to define the standards
of his opponents frequently of late.
Kent often attempts to present issues
as having only two possible explanations
or outcomes, both to his advantage.
It's a pathological argument typical to con artists.
He attempts to narrow his opponents
options unrealistically and hope nobody
notices that there are several other
explanations or options.
lostintranslation
Very typical of narcissism, among other deeply rooted psycho-social
illnesses.
lostintranslation
wrote:
Narcissistic personality disorder to be exact. NPD is only one of the
many illnesses that he exhibits behaviors from. He certainly would
make a good source of study.
lostintranslation
compensatory narcissist and principled narcissist are also two more
that he falls under.
Greegor
<lostintranslation...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I wonder when the accusations will start flying that I am actually you
> posting from some remote host that will provide an IP address in CT?
> that started posting here several years ago. If I remember correctly
> and without going looking, my first post here was in response to
> someone really wants me to, I suppose I could go digging for the
> original post but really, I know that wouldn't prove anything, I
> suppose. Nothing I do or say will prove to Kent that I am indeed the
> original, the one and only LIT that posts here.
LIt: Regarding that thing we disagreed about:
Since then I have noticed some valid legal
arguments related to taping caseworkers
that argue in favor of the right of a parent to
tape them for legal protection during an interview.
A small piece of that came out after the incidents
with taping ACORN employees.
ATTORNEYS stand ready to argue that the
taping was not illegal because the employees
DID NOT have any reasonable expectation
of privacy in the performance of their duty.
And they are not even government agents!
If you look at the ACORN sting footage you
can see that they were not even done in
closed offices, but out in the open in a large
office with people all around.
I'm not saying it's an absolute feta compli either way.
There are attorneys on both sides of that.
Certainly enough of an argument to fend off
any accusation of illegal taping.
I would tape a caseworker anywhere except
in the lunch room or bathroom.
They have NO rational expectation of privacy while on duty.
Interestingly I was in COURT and cross examined
a contract SW who tried objecting to my cross
examination of e-mails between her
and the CPS caseworker.
The Judge shut her up by pointing out that
the STATE had admitted the e-mails.
I would have loved arguing that I had a right to
cross examine e-mails representing work
product of a contractor to a government agency.
The other side would argue that the e-mails
between caseworker and contractor were
somehow priviledged.
I'm sure attorneys could argue both ways on
that as well.
Iowa also had a county prosecutor who initiated
perjury proceedings against a caseworker but
Iowa DHS acted like the mafia and refused to
honor subpoenas for more information on the
perjurous caseworker. Have you heard of how
even when CPS agencies LOSE at state
supreme court and US Federal court they
simply declare that neither court has
jurisdiction over them. Crazy but true.
Isn't it amazing how they explain everything
at low levels as being court decisions,
but when it comes to really big cases in
high courts they ( CPS ) claim that court
has NO JURISDICTION over them?
krp
REPLY TO KENT WILLS GARAGE BURGLAR:
LIT>It just seems that the tactics used around here is deny deny deny!!
I will be, from now on, be adopting the tactics of Moore and Wills. I
did NOT post this message. The "OTHER" Ken Pangborn did, not the one you all
know.
krp
On Oct 24, 1:18 pm, Kent Wills <compu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 11:12:19 -0400, "krp" <kr...@tampabay.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> Kim, how many times have I said that I *KNOW* there are NO - "MASSIVE
> >> COALITION FORCES" That David Moore commands? Maybe 100 by now? The
> >> issue
> >> is
> >> that MOORE believe is is the ALLIED SUPREME COMMANDER. Of course, he's
> >> INSANE. There are NO coalition forces. Just the gang of 4 mental
> >> inmates.
>
> >LIT> Ohhh, four mental inmates huh? Maybe all four of them should come
> >LIT> visit then. I can present their profiles to one of my former
> >LIT> professors. She was intrigued by internet whackjobs (not her exact
> >LIT> wording but mine). Any volunteers?
>
> > Moore has run for the tall timber. He's letting Wills take the fall for
> >him. WHAT A BUDDY!!!
>
> David hasn't run anyway. As of this morning around 8:00AM
> central time, he was at home. Yes, I do KNOW that for a fact. If
> proving it wouldn't reveal to you his real address, I would prove it.
> It's a pity you have NO idea where he actually lives.
LIT> From what I understand, his wife was in a car accident so he won't be
LIT> around for a few days. Doesn't sound like he's running away, Ken.
LIT> Sorry.
Do you believe that claim? He is NOT married. Let me share a DAVID MOORE
GOLDEN OLDIE with you. This is when he was "JEFF JOHNSON" <wink wink>
Subject: (no subject)
From: va...@hotmail.com
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 21:49:07 -0600
Message-ID: <350609B3...@hotmail.com>
Organization: -;(
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Dave passed away earlier this week. He loved the internet, and though
he sometimes used strong words when provoked by certain people, had a
big heart. He was a wonderful father and a loving husband. Please pray
for us.
============
I am sure it is still in the Google archive somewhere.
krp
LIT> compensatory narcissist and principled narcissist are also two more
LIT> that he falls under.
Kim, Wills would need to spent a year under a Krell brain boost machine
just to understand the word narcissism. If you remember the movie
(Forbidden Planet) ordinary men went from a 190 IQ to over 600 in just 2
minutes on the device. Wills would require a YEAR on it with it's TOP output
just to get UP to the level of being STUPID.
lostintranslation
> "lostintranslation" <lostintranslation...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Cute. Entertaining. And full of sarcasm or a poor example of
factitious disorder by internet.
lostintranslation
Not saying I believe or disbelieve the accident story. If it's true,
I am sorry but glad his wife wasn't badly injured. If it's not true,
I would think he would come up with a much better reason as to why he
won't be posting for a day or two.
lostintranslation
Greg, I really don't want to go into this right now but.....
No matter if government officials can or can not expect reasonable
privacy while doing their jobs is mute in my past circumstance. CT is
a two party consent state for taping telephone conversations. If I
had presented that recording in a court of law, I would have been
charged with a crime. I could have argued constitutional law until I
was still blue in the face and used case after case as examples
showing I was within my right to record such call but it still would
not have changed the fact that I broke the law when I recorded that
conversation. I don't really know why you want to bring this back up
again, Greg. But do as you wish, I really can't stop you. Rehashing
this doesn't really prove anything though.
lostintranslation
> On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:23:14 -0700 (PDT), Dan Sullivan
>
>
>
> <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >On Oct 22, 5:21 pm, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> G > Maureen, When I found out you stalked and harassed
> >> G > Glen for TEN YEARS online, I asked you if you did
> >> G > this to any others, why didn't you announce the others?
> >> G >
> >> G > How MANY people have you done this to, Maureen?
>
> >> DJS3 > You should start off with how many people you've
> >> DJS3 > stalked, grag. So far Moe has one person.
>
> >> Moe makes friends wherever she goes.
>
> >>http://www.pichost.ru/show.php/118293_moe.jpg.html
>
> >> DJS3 > You have Kent, Kane and myself.
>
> >> As stalkers.
>
> >Not at all.
>
> >Add LIT to the list of people you've stalked, grag..
>
> FYI, Greg has known, almost as long as I have, that Lost isn't
> named Kim. In fact, Greg is well aware that Lost isn't even female.
> Greg really should invest in encryption for his E-mail.
>
> >> DJS3 > Who else have you stalked?
>
> >> You and your hyena pack can dish it out but can't take it?
>
> >What makes you think I can't take your stalking, grag?
>
> What's funny is how Greg will post what he claims is information
> about someone, then cry when someone does the same to him.
> OK, it's not funny. Greg's deeply rooted mental illnesses
> (plural) aren't really all that funny.
>
> Title: ST VS GREGORY HANSON
> (DOB 05/22/1959)
> CRIMINAL COMPLAINT 04/10/1996
> Comments: CT 1 OWI 1ST
> OTHER CITATION 04/10/1996
> Comments: CT 2 SPEED
> Disposition Status
> GUILTY PLEA/DEFAULT
>
> "That's the chick, but not the pic, zipperhead!"
> Greg Hanson proving his bigotry towards Asians, or proving he's so
> stupid he thinks I'm Asian.
> MID:<c6bac3f6-7a0e-4bf8-8ddd-d77bccfc6...@p49g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>http://groups.google.com/group/misc.legal/msg/395db830731df54ahttp://www.rsdb.org/search?q=zipperhead
>
> Me: "I suspect your stalking is due to the use and abuse of illegal
> drugs, Greg. Is the reason for your stalking the members of
> alt.friends due to the use and abuse of illegal drugs?
>
> Gregory Scott Hanson, wife beater and child abuser: "Of course."
>
> "My family's case is for Neglect, but we are treated
> in virtually every regard as child abusers, marked on
> the Child Abuse registry, for example."
> -- Greg Scott Hanson telling Usenet he's a FOUNDED child abuser.
> Message-ID: <35120b16.0401111639.6825f...@posting.google.com>
>
> " ... But there ought to be conferences and studies on how to curb
> minority overpopulation, repatriate minorities abroad, imprison more
> minorities, increase use of the death penalty and divest minorities of
> the power they have usurped over us in recent years. That would
> address the most pressing problems of our day. ... "
> April 2000, Gregory Hansonhttp://www.nationalist.org/ATW/2000/040101.html#Hanson
>
> Path:
> news.datemas.de!newsfeed.datemas.de!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!postnews.google.com!y21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
> From: Greegor <greego...@gmail.com>
> Newsgroups:
> misc.kids,alt.support.foster-parents,uk.people.parents,alt.support.child-protective-services
>
> With the Christmas season upon us again, my stepdaughter was launching
> into her usual tirade of "I need this" (Nintendo 64 games, Pokemon,
> videos, Rhianna CD, etc.) After enduring a trip through Kmart, I
> was at my wits end. I took the kid home and filled the bathtub with
> water. Then I dunked the brat's head under the water and counted out
> a full minute, with her flailing her arms. I brought her up and she
> gasped for air. When she'd caught her breath, I asked her, "When you
> were under that water, did you 'need' Nintendo? Pokemon? Rhianna?"
> She shook her head. "What were you thinking about?" I
> prodded. She told me "I was thinking that I needed air."
>
> "Now you know the difference between 'need' and 'want'" I exclaimed
> triumphantly.
>
> --a true story
Are you still denying you said that my name is not Kim and that I am
not female? Are you still claiming that Greg also knew this
information as fact? I really do implore the person that made this
claim to come forward but I suppose they are too chicken shit.