MAUREEN McALLISTER and PAGANISM
krp
"womanGoddess" <fvr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:194a0623-16f7-472c...@l5g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
Just to UPDATE you on your bullshit claims about Paganism, though you'd
like to know that the National geographic Channel just ran a "DOCUMENTARY"
on Paganism of 1500 years ago in Britain and Europe. How the MYTH of Pagans
as fun loving nature loves was dispelled by the FACT that it was engaging in
"Human Sacrifice" at the time the Romans took Europe and the British isles.
How endearing to offer 2 year old girls on an alter as "sacrifice" to the
GODDESS. And you were saying WHAT about Catholicism? Again - let's NOT for
get that the SS in Nazi Germany brought Paganism back from the pages of dead
history during WW-2.
Just for the record, I do NOT think Paganism as practiced TODAY is engaging
in the deplorable human sacrifices. Just SPARE me the sanctimony, Maureen.
Dan Sullivan
ken pangborn can CLAIM the psychological tests he administered were
under the supervision of a licensed psychologist, but if the
psychologist wasn't there or was out of state, he has a lot of
explaining to do.
http://cpancf.com/Forensic_Evaluation_Testing.asp
FORENSIC EVALUATION TESTING...
"Recognizing the potential for misuse of psychological testing, the
Florida statutes limit use of the terms psychological testing,
psychological assessment, neuropsychological testing,
neuropsychological assessment to use by individuals licensed as
psychologists by the State of Florida."
ken pangborn is not a licensed psychologist in Florida even though he
claims to have a BA and an MS degree in psychology.
Kent Wills
If you want to get all high and mighty, check the history of
Catholicism. The Spanish inquisition anyone?
"I am insane!"
--Kenneth Robert Pangborn, of KRP Consulting and The A-team,
posting to alt.dads-rights.unmoderated claiming that he was found
legally insane.
krp
"Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3177955tsrnekhp8r...@4ax.com...
>> Just to UPDATE you on your bullshit claims about Paganism, though
>> you'd
>>like to know that the National geographic Channel just ran a "DOCUMENTARY"
>>on Paganism of 1500 years ago in Britain and Europe. How the MYTH of
>>Pagans
>>as fun loving nature loves was dispelled by the FACT that it was engaging
>>in
>>"Human Sacrifice" at the time the Romans took Europe and the British
>>isles.
>>How endearing to offer 2 year old girls on an alter as "sacrifice" to the
>>GODDESS. And you were saying WHAT about Catholicism? Again - let's NOT
>>for
>>get that the SS in Nazi Germany brought Paganism back from the pages of
>>dead
>>history during WW-2.
>>
>>Just for the record, I do NOT think Paganism as practiced TODAY is
>>engaging
>> in the deplorable human sacrifices. Just SPARE me the sanctimony,
>> Maureen.
> If you want to get all high and mighty, check the history of
> Catholicism. The Spanish inquisition anyone?
REALLY Kent? REALLY REALLY? Did they offer human sacrifice during the
inquisition? Practice cannibalism? The Inquisition was murderous, but NOT
human sacrifice and NOT 2 year old little girls on an altar. Got any PROOF
otherwise, Kent?
Kent Wills
Yes, really.
>Did they offer human sacrifice during the
>inquisition? Practice cannibalism?
Partake the Eucharist lately, Kenny-Bob?
>The Inquisition was murderous, but NOT
>human sacrifice and NOT 2 year old little girls on an altar. Got any PROOF
>otherwise, Kent?
Got any proof of your FACT CLAIM of human sacrifice of 2 year old
girls (beyond some narratives that may or may not have occurred, and
may or may not be accurate) and cannibalism. Often such practices were
symbolic and evolved into ceremonies where no real body was present.
Much like the Eucharist.
What would you call the Crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth, if not
a human sacrifice? True, Jesus wasn't a child, but the Crucifixion is
of great importance to Catholicism, along other denominations of
Christianity.
Pointing at the other religions does not excuse one's own.
You, a modern Catholic, are no more responsible for the
Crucifixion and the ceremony of the Eucharist or the Inquisition than
Moe would be for the Paganism practices of 1500 years ago. Regardless
as to what they might have been.
You are harping on Paganism to distract others, and possibly
yourself, from the deep trouble you know you are facing. You've lied
for years and your bluff is all that's ever gotten you through.
Your bluff has been called.
And you can feel the heat this time.
Dance for us, Kenny-Bob. Dance.
"Quotes below have been highly altered."
-- Kenneth Robert Pangborn accidentally admitting in misc.legal
that he alters posts when he replies.
krp
Oh really Kent? To YOU that is human sacrifice and cannibalism? You need to
go back to your rubber room for a "TUNE-UP!"
Greegor
Dancing naked in the woods probably gives her a thrill.
Dan Sullivan
womanGoddess
> "womanGoddess" <fvrn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:194a0623-16f7-472c...@l5g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
>
> Just to UPDATE you on your bullshit claims about Paganism, though you'd
> like to know that the National geographic Channel just ran a "DOCUMENTARY"
> on Paganism of 1500 years ago in Britain and Europe. How the MYTH of Pagans
> as fun loving nature loves was dispelled by the FACT that it was engaging in
> "Human Sacrifice" at the time the Romans took Europe and the British isles.
> How endearing to offer 2 year old girls on an alter
" Alter"? Do you mean
"ALTAR"?
BTW speaking of human sacrifice, ever read your Bible? Ever rea dteh
story of the father sacrificing his daughter to the Bibelgod?
Bear also in mind that in some sense Jesus Christ was a human
sacrifice to the so-called " one true god". Also consider that this
same god demanded blood sacrifice for " atonement of sins". How many
millions of animals were ritually slaughtered on this god's altar to
please this bloodthirsty being?
>as "sacrifice" to the
> GODDESS.
Which one?
>And you were saying WHAT about Catholicism?
Pot, kettle Kennie. I don't nney that in various forms of Paganism
human sacrifice was used. BUT as a Christian you shouldn't be one to
throw stones while your religion has a history of harm for centuries,
no to mention the parent religion Judaism was hardly benevolent and
tolerant.
In Gaul when the Romans were doing their oppressive invasions and
were using deadly force to quell the natives well justified rebellions
against Roman rule, situations were so dire that modern
anthropologists have theorized that the Druids officiated in ritual
cannibalism.
Speaking of ritual cannibalism, how's the Eucharist thing coming
along? You know, when your priest transubstantiates the wafer and wine
into the " symbolic" flesh and blood of Jesus Christ, which you and
your fellow believers consume.
Yes Kennie I saw that program too. You, as usual, distort the content
to suit your biases. You forgot to include that some of the
historians also say that human sacrifice in Europe and in some other
areas was rare, very uncommon and done only in dire situations.
How's the martyr belief in your religion going? You know the stories
about true believers in your faith dying for your god.
Get the point Kennie? Anything you might throw on " Paganism" can be
used fairly against your own religion.
As you know but pretend not to, all religions are human made, and
therefore have human faults. Care to explain the rules for slavery
that is in your Bible? When the people mature and understand that
certain things they used to do are wrong, they changed their culture
and religious practices to conform to their awakening cultural
maturity. Just as your religion no longer slaughters animals ( and an
occasional human) on your altars to please your Biblegod, many Pagans
today do not have any blood sacrifice whatsoever.
However, you and I know the real reason why you posted this in the
first place. Its not about honesty in historical fact its about you
trying to attack me using a few cheap shots.
If you wish to talk about atrocities committed by religion, let's
talk about the dark side of Judeo-Christianity. Your Bible, has a
section called the Old Testament that chronicles genocide, massacres,
slavery, misogyny, and other un-nice things.
>Again - let's NOT for
> get that the SS in Nazi Germany brought Paganism back from the pages of dead
> history during WW-2.
And t he KKK brought their Protestant Christianity as a force to do
harm against blacks, against Catholics and against Jews and anyone
else they wished.
The Nazis misused mythology to suit their Aryan race crap, and you
damn well know it. You conveniently forgot to mention that most of
them were Catholics and your own Pope at that time did NOTHING while
the Nazis did their atrocities. The Nazis misused the swastika, which
in one form was a Tibetian good luck charm.
>
> Just for the record, I do NOT think Paganism as practiced TODAY is engaging
> in the deplorable human sacrifices. Just SPARE me the sanctimony, Maureen.
Kennie, did I tell you before that " Paganism" is not ONE religion,
its MANY? Or did you as usual " forget" that fact?
How's your church's pedophile priests problem coming along? How many
DECADES did the Catholic hierarchy hide their sexual abusing priests
and moved them around parishes?
Pot, kettle Kennie.
Moe
Eternal FOREVER KNIGHT fan
" A vampire cop? REALLY?"
"http://home.earthlink.net/~19ranger57/blies.htm
Know your scum--- http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com
womanGoddess
> "Kent Wills" <compu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:3177955tsrnekhp8r...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> >> Just to UPDATE you on your bullshit claims about Paganism, though
> >> you'd
> >>like to know that the National geographic Channel just ran a "DOCUMENTARY"
> >>on Paganism of 1500 years ago in Britain and Europe. How the MYTH of
> >>Pagans
> >>as fun loving nature loves was dispelled by the FACT that it was engaging
> >>in
> >>"Human Sacrifice" at the time the Romans took Europe and the British
> >>isles.
> >>How endearing to offer 2 year old girls on an alter as "sacrifice" to the
> >>GODDESS. And you were saying WHAT about Catholicism? Again - let's NOT
> >>for
> >>get that the SS in Nazi Germany brought Paganism back from the pages of
> >>dead
> >>history during WW-2.
>
> >>Just for the record, I do NOT think Paganism as practiced TODAY is
> >>engaging
> >> in the deplorable human sacrifices. Just SPARE me the sanctimony,
> >> Maureen.
> > If you want to get all high and mighty, check the history of
> > Catholicism. The Spanish inquisition anyone?
>
> REALLY Kent? REALLY REALLY? Did they offer human sacrifice during the
> inquisition?
Actually yes though not as a religious ritual. The executions were
murders done in the name of the Church. The end result is the same.
Death because of religious belief, bloodshed to counter "sin".
> Practice cannibalism?
You mean like "holy communion" Kennie? Your ritual cannibalism.
Ever hear of the torture methods used to extract "confessions"
Kennie? Like, for example the use of a " boot" that with wedges
crushed the leg bone of the accused?
>The Inquisition was murderous, but NOT
> human sacrifice and NOT 2 year old little girls on an altar.
Actually children at one point during the Inquisition WERE also
tortured and in some cases animals were " convicted" of crimes and
executed.
Remember the Children's Crusade Kennie? There was a time in your
Church history where the " geniuses" actually thought that if they
sent innocent children as soldiers to fight in the " holy land", their
" righteousness" wold prevail against the Muslim occupiers and the
Church can dance in and reclaim the conquered land.
The children were massacred. They died because your church leaders
made a decision to sacrifice their lives in a religious cause. It
doesn't have to be blood an on altar to be human sacrifice Kennie.
Your own religion has the belief that Jesus' death on the cross was a
sacrifice to atone for sins. Problem with that is that Jesus didn't
die on an altar, he died as a Roman torture/execution victim,
charged with crimes against Rome. Much like people who were executed
during the Inquisition.
If Jesus' death was a sacrifice to Biblegod, it would have been by
Judaic law on the altar in the temple, not a "secular" execution
which, according to the priests, is not the criteria for sacrificing
to their god. And yet Christians claim that Jesus' death was the "
ultimate" blood sacrifice for atonement of sins and if you simply
accept Jesus as your lord, yada yada, his shed blood centuries ago
would wash away your sins. Secular execution Kennie. Accepted by
Christians as a religious sacrifice.
Moe
Eternal FOREVER KNIGHT fan
" A vampire cop? REALLY?"
"http://home.earthlink.net/~19ranger57/blies.htm
Know your scum--- http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com
>Got any PROOF
> otherwise, Kent?
womanGoddess
> "Kent Wills" <compu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:b6s9959fqqqbs011a...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 12:18:14 GMT, "krp" <kr...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
When the priest transubstantiates the wafer and wine, it is,
according to Catholic teachings, " spiritually" becomes the actual
body and blood of Jesus Christ. IOW ritual cannibalism.
Speaking of gruesome stuff, how many Catholic churches have human
remains of some sort as " reliquaries"?
I haven't heard of any modern Pagan putting used maxi pads as objects
of veneration.
krp
>
> Just to UPDATE you on your bullshit claims about Paganism, though you'd
> like to know that the National geographic Channel just ran a "DOCUMENTARY"
> on Paganism of 1500 years ago in Britain and Europe. How the MYTH of
> Pagans
> as fun loving nature loves was dispelled by the FACT that it was engaging
> in
> "Human Sacrifice" at the time the Romans took Europe and the British
> isles.
> How endearing to offer 2 year old girls on an alter
MOE THE BRILLIANT> " Alter"? Do you mean "ALTAR"?
YES Moe. I mean ALTAR.
MOE> BTW speaking of human sacrifice, ever read your Bible? Ever rea dteh
MOE> story of the father sacrificing his daughter to the Bibelgod?
Let me play MAUREEN for a moment. Did you mean rea dthen or READ THE???
MOE> Pot, kettle Kennie. I don't nney that in various forms of Paganism
MOE> human sacrifice was used. BUT as a Christian you shouldn't be one to
MOE> throw stones while your religion has a history of harm for centuries,
MOE> no to mention the parent religion Judaism was hardly benevolent and
MOE> tolerant.
(TYPOS AND SPELLING ERRORS IGNORED)
Unlike you with your BULLSHIT, I have never fudged about Christianity's
ugly underside. Even today there are LOTS of people who "CALL" themselves
Christians but they are not. I have met TONS of "Born Again Christians" who
are the MOST predatory people in the world and with NO conscience at all.
People who'd steal you blind. Christianity took a wrong turn when
Constantine got his hands on it and used it as a political tool. Interesting
history there. YOU are the LOUDMOUTH about YOUR religion and putting down
that of others. You didn't like Scientology and you RIPPED at me for not
condemning them. It isn't a religion for me, I think it is pretty silly, but
I would never put down the folks who are members of it, not even Tom Cruise
who I consider a massive flake. On the other hand I have immense respect for
John Travolta. Who STILL IS an ardent Scientologist despite all YOUR loud
braying. I don't even really condemn your Wicca/Paganism. It's just YOU that
I have fun tweaking.
Kent Wills
I made no such claim. The discussion continued, which you
snipped to create your latest pathological lie. The point was made
that both Paganism and Catholicism likely have rituals in the past
where neither are to be bragged about today. They became "ritual,"
rather than factual sacrifices in current practice.
Have you actually listened to the words spoken during communion
concerning the Eucharist and what it represents?
Hint: "body and blood."
You, an avowed catholic, certainly know who the founder of The
Church was. Recognize the name below, and remember what he said about
communion? Probably not. You are likely a good Catholic as you are a
good trial consultant (read: Not at all).
When Paul talked about divisions in I Corinthians 11, he brought up
the Lord's supper. He scolded them for taking the Lord's cup
unworthily saying that they come together not for the better, but for
the worse. Of course, then it was a real meal and they came to be fed
but they forgot the real symbolism involved as to the unity of the
body and speaking the same thing. Paul warns us that we should be
accounted worthy to approach the table.
For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you show the
Lord's death until He come. Wherefore, whoever shall eat this bread
and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the body
and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him
eat of that bread and drink of that cup. "
And;
Paul: "I speak as to wise men, judge what I say. The cup of blessing
which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The
bread which we brake, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
For we being many are one bread and one body, for we are all partakers
of that one bread."
Did you miss the point when you were taught the catechism in
preparation for your first communion? Are you prepared to argue with
your Priest that St. Paul was wrong? The very founder of Catholicism?
Symbolic cannibalism has been around for a very long time. Ritual
cannibalism has been practiced and is still practiced. It's just been
disguised by the ceremonial trappings. It used to be real now it is
not. Christ was real, he was sacrificed. Your own church recognizes
that. And you do NOT?
Do you propose you are better than any of the past/present
leaders in Catholicism? Do you propose you know better than Paul did?
Why are you so freaked by the word and unable to sort out the
sacred ritual from non religious cannibalism? I have to wonder?
"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. I am
the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and
they died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man
may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down; if
any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which
I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh. The Jews then
disputed among themselves, saying, ?How can this man give us his flesh
to eat?? So Jesus said to them, ?Truly, truly, I say to you, unless
you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood, you have no
life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal
life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food
indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks
my blood abides in me and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and
I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of
me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the
fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.?
-John 6:47-58
Imagine that. Not only urging cannibalism but offering his own
body to the ritual, and you pretend (read: LIE) that you don't get it.
Paganism had nothing on Catholicism.
Then we have the OT story of the father being ordered by God to
offer up his own son as sacrificial lamb.
I'd state you're a fool, but to do so would be an insult to
fools, Ken. No wonder you can't sort out your business and do right by
your clients.
Judgment is coming, Kenny-Bob. And likely not all that far in
your future.
Oh, and least you "forget:" You are a religious bigot.
>You need to
>go back to your rubber room for a "TUNE-UP!"
This from the guy who, in ARDU, declared he was found to be
legally insane.
Kent Wills
[...]
>
>
>MOE> Pot, kettle Kennie. I don't nney that in various forms of Paganism
>MOE> human sacrifice was used. BUT as a Christian you shouldn't be one to
>MOE> throw stones while your religion has a history of harm for centuries,
>MOE> no to mention the parent religion Judaism was hardly benevolent and
>MOE> tolerant.
>
>(TYPOS AND SPELLING ERRORS IGNORED)
>
> Unlike you with your BULLSHIT, I have never fudged about Christianity's
>ugly underside. Even today there are LOTS of people who "CALL" themselves
>Christians but they are not.
Kenneth Robert Pangborn leaps instantly to mind.
>I have met TONS of "Born Again Christians" who
>are the MOST predatory people in the world and with NO conscience at all.
Kenneth Robert Pangborn leaps instantly to mind.
>People who'd steal you blind.
Kenneth Robert Pang... Aw, you get the point.
>Christianity took a wrong turn when
>Constantine got his hands on it and used it as a political tool. Interesting
>history there. YOU are the LOUDMOUTH about YOUR religion and putting down
>that of others.
Actually, she's forcing you to apply your own standards regarding
another religion to your own.
>You didn't like Scientology and you RIPPED at me for not
>condemning them. It isn't a religion for me, I think it is pretty silly, but
>I would never put down the folks who are members of it, not even Tom Cruise
>who I consider a massive flake. On the other hand I have immense respect for
>John Travolta. Who STILL IS an ardent Scientologist despite all YOUR loud
>braying. I don't even really condemn your Wicca/Paganism. It's just YOU that
>I have fun tweaking.
>
You condemn everything that doesn't conform to what your drunken
mind wants. Everything.
"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>
krp
>>>>> If you want to get all high and mighty, check the history of
>>>>> Catholicism. The Spanish inquisition anyone?
>>>> REALLY Kent? REALLY REALLY?
>>>
>>> Yes, really.
>>>
>>>>Did they offer human sacrifice during the
>>>>inquisition? Practice cannibalism?
>
>>> Partake the Eucharist lately, Kenny-Bob?
>>
>>Oh really Kent? To YOU that is human sacrifice and cannibalism?
>
> I made no such claim.
Oh really? Then why the question?
Greegor
Moe > used maxi pads as objects of veneration.
Where did THAT come from??
womanGoddess
> "womanGoddess" <fvrn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
So have I. Your point?
> People who'd steal you blind. Christianity took a wrong turn when
> Constantine got his hands on it and used it as a political tool.
Constantine also pushed out all other religions except Christianity
and had a number of councils edit sacred texts to create what we no
called the Bible. A book you follow that was written by, edited by,
altered by humans. He also ( and you conveniently forgot to mention
this) the one who helped your Catholicism grow by making an early
form of it the state religion.
IMO Christians went wrong before then when a mob of them burned down
the great library.
> Interesting
> history there. YOU are the LOUDMOUTH about YOUR religion and putting down
> that of others.
The only one I've " put down" is Christianity, and as a Pagan for
more than 25 years I have good reason to do so. Personally my belief
is simple. There are many paths to Deity but each path, being human
made, has faults. I've never claimed my path is better than everyone
else's, no matter what your delusions and your attempts to distort
what I actually said. I did say that the path I am on is the best one
FOR ME.
I'm not against Catholics or Muslims or Jews or Buddhists or
whatever. However if their religion teaches things that I consider
morally and ethically wrong, I will speak up about it. Particulary, as
in Christianity, when they attack my religion and my deities.
You don't like it, tough. I agree will Bill Maher who said " don't be
so tolerant you tolerate intolerance". And when certain Christians LIE
about other religions, including my own, and voice how if they were in
charge they would force us to conform to their religion, am I
supposed to chant " peace, love, freedom, happiness" while they burn
my books and then me? Unh uh Kennie.
>You didn't like Scientology and you RIPPED at me for not
> condemning them.
I think Scientology is a sham. I think its done more harm than good
and Tom Cruise's idiocy is proof of that. Hey, if you want to defend
a " religion: where people are supposedly brainwashed space aliens in
human bodies, go ahead. You also saw no problem in defedning
Mormonism, which was polygamist before Utah was a state and in at
least one case a group or Mormons massacred a traveling convoy of
settlers.
My theory in you "defending" Scientology is more of you CYA than in
actual freedom of belief. You know that Scientologists have this habit
of compiling dossiers of anyone who criticizes them, which would
include embarrassing stuff they find.
Their " narconon" program is a sham, BTW.
> It isn't a religion for me, I think it is pretty silly, but
> I would never put down the folks who are members of it, not even Tom Cruise
> who I consider a massive flake.
I agree in Cruise being a flake. He's crazy and he USED to be a good
actor.
>On the other hand I have immense respect for
> John Travolta. Who STILL IS an ardent Scientologist despite all YOUR loud
> braying.
What Travolta is or is not is his matter, no one else's. Your
distortion about what I said is typical of your irrational behavior. I
just reported what some entertainment sources at that time were
saying. His L Ron Hubbard based movie he funded sucked. And the
teachings in Scientology were no help in treating his son, now was it?
> I don't even really condemn your Wicca/Paganism. It's just YOU that
> I have fun tweakin
And yet you tried linking Paganism to Nazis and human sacrifice.
You must be frustrated when your ' tweaking" me fails si badly.
womanGoddess
> On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 05:08:40 GMT, "krp" <kr...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>
>
> >MOE> Pot, kettle Kennie. I don't nney that in various forms of Paganism
> >MOE> human sacrifice was used. BUT as a Christian you shouldn't be one to
> >MOE> throw stones while your religion has a history of harm for centuries,
> >MOE> no to mention the parent religion Judaism was hardly benevolent and
> >MOE> tolerant.
>
> >(TYPOS AND SPELLING ERRORS IGNORED)
>
> > Unlike you with your BULLSHIT, I have never fudged about Christianity's
> >ugly underside. Even today there are LOTS of people who "CALL" themselves
> >Christians but they are not.
>
> Kenneth Robert Pangborn leaps instantly to mind.
Indeed. I haven't heard anything from him about showing compassion
for the less fortunate, about feeding and clothing the homeless and
needy, about helping out in battered women's shelters ( not that they
would have him,being a misogynist and all).
You know, what Jesus Christ taught his followers to do. That
compassion stuff.
>
> >I have met TONS of "Born Again Christians" who
> >are the MOST predatory people in the world and with NO conscience at all.
>
> Kenneth Robert Pangborn leaps instantly to mind.
Agreed. He preys upon the fears of fathers who fear losing their
children.
>
> >People who'd steal you blind.
>
> Kenneth Robert Pang... Aw, you get the point.
Actually Kennie would steal FROM the blind as well.
>
> >Christianity took a wrong turn when
> >Constantine got his hands on it and used it as a political tool. Interesting
> >history there. YOU are the LOUDMOUTH about YOUR religion and putting down
> >that of others.
>
> Actually, she's forcing you to apply your own standards regarding
> another religion to your own.
Exactly. All religion, being human made, has both good and bad
elements to them. If Kennie wants to attack Paganism because he has a
hard on against me, fine. I can attack his Catholicism with the same
standards he shows.
>
> >You didn't like Scientology and you RIPPED at me for not
> >condemning them. It isn't a religion for me, I think it is pretty silly, but
> >I would never put down the folks who are members of it, not even Tom Cruise
> >who I consider a massive flake. On the other hand I have immense respect for
> >John Travolta. Who STILL IS an ardent Scientologist despite all YOUR loud
> >braying. I don't even really condemn your Wicca/Paganism. It's just YOU that
> >I have fun tweaking.
>
> You condemn everything that doesn't conform to what your drunken
> mind wants. Everything.
>
> "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>
Moe
womanGoddess
It was about Catholic relicquraries grag. Their habit of having in
their churches some body part of some saint. One claims to have a
chalice of dried blood that liquifies during holy days. Most of them
in Europe claim to have bones of saints. In Spain one church claims to
have the Sudarium, which supposedly is the face cloth put on Jesus
Christ's head while he was still on the cross to preserve the blood
for burial. The Sudarium looks a lot like a used menstrual cloth,
actually.
Historically speaking there has been ancestor worship around the
world where the human remains ( the bones) have been stored in places
where the families can visit them to keep connected to their loved
ones. That is one theory for the barrows in Celtic Britain, for
example. And it is a historical fact that the early Celts did
decapitate their enemies and kept the skulls as trophies. And while
some Pagan beliefs like Santeria do have animal sacrifices, its
nowhere as prevalent as the many animal sacrifices the Jewish priests
did for centuries on their altars to their god.
Greegor
Just curious.
Kent Wills
>Oh really? Then why the question?
As anyone with an interest can see by the restored context (I
know you HATE context since you can't really present your pathological
lies if context is preserved) I explained the reasoning for the
question.
Now that I've once again PROVED, using your own post, that you
are a PATHOLOGICAL liar, perhaps you would be willing to explain just
why you MUST snip away the context of the posts to which you reply.
I suspect it's a part of the mental illness that, according to
you, caused you to be found legally insane, but acknowledge there
could be other reasons. If my suspicion is in error, please let me,
and anyone else reading, know just what the reason, or reasons, is.
Kent Wills
Had you not offered more proof that you are psychologically
UNABLE to be honest, except by accident or force, you wouldn't have
snipped the context. But, sadly, you MUST prove your total INABILITY
to be honest, save for accident or force.
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
"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
Greegor
Greegor
krp
MOE THE DELUSIONAL> How about when you tried to solicit for a woman to be
raped?
You are a sick women. *I* never did such a thing.
MOE THE DELUSIONAL> Or that you posted a anonymous post soliciting for
someone to
MOE THE DELUSIONAL> firebomb your house so you can claim someone you hate
online actually
MOE THE DELUSIONAL> posted it?
Only somebody as screwed in the head as YOU would devise such a plan
since gthere are so many NUTS on the net.
MOE THE DELUSIONAL> Or how about when you talked about while you were in
Cuba to get your
MOE THE DELUSIONAL> "arranged" wife when you were an eyewitness to a 12
year old girl
MOE THE DELUSIONAL> being assaulted and you did nothing to stop the assault?
That's the SPIN you and your little pals want to put on it. I never SAW
any sex acts. There was nothing for ME to stop. Cuban officials stopped the
situation as soon as we saw that the German sailor had such a young girl in
his room. The owner of the bed and breakfast (Casa Particular) was a retired
colonel in Cuba's state security. He handled it. There was nothing for me
to do. You keep TRYING to manufacture an issue, Maureen. There was nothing
for em to do. I couldn't prove that he did anything wrong. I don't have
X-Ray vision and could not see through walls to have seen what went on. He
violated Cuban law by having a Cuban in his room withour police permission.
Not to mention that I did not and do NOT have an "arranged wife." That trip
was NOT to "GET" my wife, but to begin the process for our wedding.
MOE THE DELUSIONAL> You claimed to be a co-founder of " Men International"
which
MOE THE DELUSIONAL> supposedly was about men's rights but was more about
your own self
MOE THE DELUSIONAL> publicity rather than actually caring about men's
rights.
Again you LIE your ass off. I was NOT a "co-founder." It existed for
several YEARS before I joined it and was eventually ELECTED as its
President.
MOE THE DELUSIONAL> Oh, and I should mention how your views on women who are
raped and
MOE THE DELUSIONAL> victims of domestic abuse are FAR from Liberal Democrat.
According to
MOE THE DELUSIONAL> you, half of the woman who report their rape LIE about
being raped and
MOE THE DELUSIONAL> in domestic abuse reports, according to you, they ASK
for their abuse.
MOE THE DELUSIONAL> Heck to you the guy abusing them was " provoked" by the
victim.
Maureen you cover several topics with the claim that they are "according
to" me. They aren't statements of my own invention but come from official
sources and University Research, I even offered sources on it including FBI
data on Rape. Must I get past using the code words; "DUKE LACROSSE TEAM?" As
to domestic violence I sourced that subject to Dr. Suzanne Steinmetz who was
a co-author of the book "Behind Closed Doors" about domestic violence. Again
the research on DV is staggering. Your problem is that I disagree with YOUR
extremist bullshit. I don't excuse abuse BY anyone OF anyone. There ARE men
who batter their wives, I have openly said that I don't consider them to be
"MEN." I have NEVER hit my wife or my ex wives, Maureen.. I have never even
been accused of it by them. Not that I wasn't sorely tempted a time or two
in my first mariage. The story of my first marriage ending comes to the
following facts. She had a prior marriage and claimed her first husband was
a wife beater, I promised her that *IF* I ever felt like I wanted to hit
her, that I'd never do it, I'd just leave. When the time came for our split,
I reminded her and her mother of that promise. I was extremely angry at a
stunt she had pulled that day. I said that I was angry enough that if I
stayed I'd not just hit her I'd kill her. So I left. I'm not going to go
into what she did. No, Maureen, it was NOT that she was sleeping around. I
know that is the FIRST thing your diseased mind would go to. Let's just say
that I won custody of the children and her parental rights were terminated.
Your fukkked up mind can try to make something up with that. Most likely it
will be another lunatic fringe feminist brain embolism.
womanGoddess
> "womanGoddess" <fvrn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:8e9f8fe8-02d5-4438...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>
> MOE THE DELUSIONAL> How about when you tried to solicit for a woman to be
> raped?
>
> You are a sick women. *I* never did such a thing.
You did and tried to cover your tracks, Problem was you responded to
the rape post in such a way that you forgot to cover your tracks and
you were exposed. for it
The details are here:
http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com
>
> MOE THE DELUSIONAL> Or that you posted a anonymous post soliciting for
> someone to
> MOE THE DELUSIONAL> firebomb your house so you can claim someone you hate
> online actually
> MOE THE DELUSIONAL> posted it?
>
> Only somebody as screwed in the head as YOU would devise such a plan
> since gthere are so many NUTS on the net.
You are well know to post such inflammatory posts in th past using
anonymizers. You were exposed in the alt.atheism newgroup. After you
posted the arson solicitation you claimed your arch enemy Moore posted
it. Problem with that is if that was true you could file a LE report
on it and press charges against Moore. And yet you haven't done
that. Because if you did so and it was found that you were the one
posting it, you know you would be in some serious legal trouble
yourself.
>
> MOE THE DELUSIONAL> Or how about when you talked about while you were in
> Cuba to get your
> MOE THE DELUSIONAL> "arranged" wife when you were an eyewitness to a 12
> year old girl
> MOE THE DELUSIONAL> being assaulted and you did nothing to stop the assault?
>
> That's the SPIN you and your little pals want to put on it. I never SAW
> any sex acts.
I didn't say sex acts I said assault. This is the same story you had
your Cuban wife-to-be in three locations during the assault and where
you claimed while she was a judge her family couldn't afford
electricity.
> There was nothing for ME to stop. Cuban officials stopped the
> situation as soon as we saw that the German sailor had such a young girl in
> his room. The owner of the bed and breakfast (Casa Particular) was a retired
> colonel in Cuba's state security. He handled it. There was nothing for me
> to do. You keep TRYING to manufacture an issue, Maureen. There was nothing
> for em to do.
Em? Who or what is "Em"?
>I couldn't prove that he did anything wrong. I don't have
> X-Ray vision and could not see through walls to have seen what went on. He
> violated Cuban law by having a Cuban in his room withour police permission.
> Not to mention that I did not and do NOT have an "arranged wife." That trip
> was NOT to "GET" my wife, but to begin the process for our wedding.
It was an arranged marriage and you damn well know it.
>
> MOE THE DELUSIONAL> You claimed to be a co-founder of " Men International"
> which
> MOE THE DELUSIONAL> supposedly was about men's rights but was more about
> your own self
> MOE THE DELUSIONAL> publicity rather than actually caring about men's
> rights.
>
> Again you LIE your ass off. I was NOT a "co-founder." It existed for
> several YEARS before I joined it and was eventually ELECTED as its
> President.
Oh come on!! I saw the damn articles online AND your web sites AND
your damn CV were you SAY you were a CO-FOUNDER.
Dang you can't keep up with your lies, can you Kennie?
Bullshit noted. I was referring to your own posts Kennie, What YOU
SAID.
Did you forget your math of the rape victims totalling 120 PERCENT????
Your " math" Kennie, Your claims, and you didn't cite sources.
When you were forces against the wall TO cite sources you used
dated sources about child abuse, not about rape and domestic abuse of
women. Worse still, I found more current sources, sources you did not
have.
Your misogyny is so bad you are alienated from your daughters and you
were married four times. Your remarks online when a female dare to
call you on your lies and errors are highly sexist in nature and full
of hatred for the female gender. You've called me bitch, whore, hag
and other terms no gentleman would utter. You also when your critic is
male make sexist comments about them, including calling them pansy and
oddly homoerotc references to their genitalia and their erections,
emiisions and anuses.
You clearly have a problem with females, both children and adult. My
guess is that you are a homosexual who is denying his actual sexuality
while covering his sexual aversion to women by seeing us as lower
level bitches or whores.
How is it that one of your daughters, a supposedly promising Olympics
champion horse rider, became an "adult entertainment actress' whom you
yourself revealed her stage name online?
When you know most females who go that route do so after years of
sexual abuse.
Kent Wills
>
>"womanGoddess" <fvr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:8e9f8fe8-02d5-4438...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>
>MOE THE DELUSIONAL> How about when you tried to solicit for a woman to be
>raped?
>
> You are a sick women. *I* never did such a thing.
>
"We'd like to arrange for your rape."
-- Kenneth Robert Pangborn, of KRP Consulting and The A-Team
in a discussion with a woman in talk.rape.
>MOE THE DELUSIONAL> Or that you posted a anonymous post soliciting for
>someone to
>MOE THE DELUSIONAL> firebomb your house so you can claim someone you hate
>online actually
>MOE THE DELUSIONAL> posted it?
>
> Only somebody as screwed in the head as YOU would devise such a plan
>since gthere are so many NUTS on the net.
So you're screwed in the head. Hey, you did claim you were found
legally insane.
>
>MOE THE DELUSIONAL> Or how about when you talked about while you were in
>Cuba to get your
>MOE THE DELUSIONAL> "arranged" wife when you were an eyewitness to a 12
>year old girl
>MOE THE DELUSIONAL> being assaulted and you did nothing to stop the assault?
>
> That's the SPIN you and your little pals want to put on it.
While you didn't actually witness her being sexually assaulted,
you posted about how you could hear them from your room. This was in
the incarnation of your story where Barbara wasn't allowed in your
room because it would have been illegal.
>I never SAW
>any sex acts. There was nothing for ME to stop. Cuban officials stopped the
>situation as soon as we saw that the German sailor
Now he's back to being a sailor.
Will you claim he was escorted back to his ship?
>had such a young girl in
>his room.
So now it's not in the breakfast area outside, but back to being
in his room.
I do wish you'd pick a version of your story and stick with it.
>The owner of the bed and breakfast (Casa Particular) was a retired
>colonel in Cuba's state security. He handled it. There was nothing for me
>to do. You keep TRYING to manufacture an issue, Maureen. There was nothing
>for em to do. I couldn't prove that he did anything wrong. I don't have
>X-Ray vision and could not see through walls to have seen what went on.
But you listened in (in one of the versions you told).
>He
>violated Cuban law by having a Cuban in his room withour police permission.
>Not to mention that I did not and do NOT have an "arranged wife." That trip
>was NOT to "GET" my wife, but to begin the process for our wedding.
It's possible the company you paid to arrange the meeting was no
longer involved.
>
>MOE THE DELUSIONAL> You claimed to be a co-founder of " Men International"
>which
>MOE THE DELUSIONAL> supposedly was about men's rights but was more about
>your own self
>MOE THE DELUSIONAL> publicity rather than actually caring about men's
>rights.
>
>
> Again you LIE your ass off. I was NOT a "co-founder." It existed for
>several YEARS before I joined it and was eventually ELECTED as its
>President.
You did make the claim that you were a co-founder.
>
>MOE THE DELUSIONAL> Oh, and I should mention how your views on women who are
>raped and
>MOE THE DELUSIONAL> victims of domestic abuse are FAR from Liberal Democrat.
>According to
>MOE THE DELUSIONAL> you, half of the woman who report their rape LIE about
>being raped and
>MOE THE DELUSIONAL> in domestic abuse reports, according to you, they ASK
>for their abuse.
>MOE THE DELUSIONAL> Heck to you the guy abusing them was " provoked" by the
>victim.
>
> Maureen you cover several topics with the claim that they are "according
>to" me. They aren't statements of my own invention but come from official
>sources and University Research, I even offered sources on it including FBI
>data on Rape. Must I get past using the code words; "DUKE LACROSSE TEAM?" As
>to domestic violence I sourced that subject to Dr. Suzanne Steinmetz who was
>a co-author of the book "Behind Closed Doors" about domestic violence. Again
>the research on DV is staggering. Your problem is that I disagree with YOUR
>extremist bullshit.
It's a pity you see truth as extremist bullshit.
>I don't excuse abuse BY anyone OF anyone.
Except when they are your puppet (Greg Hanson).
>There ARE men
>who batter their wives, I have openly said that I don't consider them to be
>"MEN."
"It's Super bowl Sunday. Are all the men ready to beat their
wives?"
-- YOU, paraphrased
>I have NEVER hit my wife or my ex wives, Maureen.. I have never even
>been accused of it by them. Not that I wasn't sorely tempted a time or two
>in my first mariage. The story of my first marriage ending comes to the
>following facts. She had a prior marriage and claimed her first husband was
>a wife beater, I promised her that *IF* I ever felt like I wanted to hit
>her, that I'd never do it, I'd just leave. When the time came for our split,
>I reminded her and her mother of that promise. I was extremely angry at a
>stunt she had pulled that day. I said that I was angry enough that if I
>stayed I'd not just hit her I'd kill her. So I left. I'm not going to go
>into what she did.
Laughed at the idea of you hitting anything but a male
prostitutes ass?
> No, Maureen, it was NOT that she was sleeping around. I
>know that is the FIRST thing your diseased mind would go to. Let's just say
>that I won custody of the children and her parental rights were terminated.
And now your kids REFUSE to have anything to do with you.
>Your fukkked up mind can try to make something up with that. Most likely it
>will be another lunatic fringe feminist brain embolism.
You do hate women. More so than is normal for a homosexual male.
"(CONTEXT REMOVED AS TO THE BELOW CLAIM)"
Kenneth Robert Pangborn admitting he alters the context of posts
when he replies.
MID FyUom.1363$Jd7....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net
krp
>
> MOE THE DELUSIONAL> How about when you tried to solicit for a woman to be
> raped?
>
> You are a sick women. *I* never did such a thing.
MOE> You did and tried to cover your tracks, Problem was you responded to
MOE> the rape post in such a way that you forgot to cover your tracks and
MOE> you were exposed. for it
Maureen - that post was NOT from me which can be easily seen. It was a
Moore CUT AND PASTE number from several posts I made ridiculing Stacy
Alexander's bullshit claims of being Japanese. And your pal Moore's ONLY
answer to the FACT that it is NOT in Google's archives is his UNSUPPORTED
CLAIm that I had it nuked.
> MOE THE DELUSIONAL> Or that you posted a anonymous post soliciting for
> someone to
> MOE THE DELUSIONAL> firebomb your house so you can claim someone you hate
> online actually
> MOE THE DELUSIONAL> posted it?
> Only somebody as screwed in the head as YOU would devise such a plan
> since gthere are so many NUTS on the net.
MOE> You are well know to post such inflammatory posts in th past using
anonymizers.'
No I an accused of it by David Moore, that does NOT make it true.
MOE> After you posted the arson solicitation you claimed your arch enemy
Moore posted
MOE> it. Problem with that is if that was true you could file a LE report
HOW would we PROVE it was Moore? Knowing who did it and proving it are
two different things.
> MOE THE DELUSIONAL> Or how about when you talked about while you were in
> Cuba to get your
> MOE THE DELUSIONAL> "arranged" wife when you were an eyewitness to a 12
> year old girl
> MOE THE DELUSIONAL> being assaulted and you did nothing to stop the
> assault?
> That's the SPIN you and your little pals want to put on it. I never SAW
> any sex acts.
MOE> I didn't say sex acts I said assault.
I didn't SEE any "ASSAULTS" either.
MOE> This is the same story you had your Cuban wife-to-be in three locations
during the assault and where
MOE> you claimed while she was a judge her family couldn't afford
electricity.
*I* never used the term "assault" - I NEVER observed any assault. I
could presume that they had sex, but I didn't see it. A real sad reality in
Cuba is prostitution and child prostitution. I did not place my soon to be
wife anywhere but with me. Kunt Wills has TRIED to claim otherwise. That's
HIS problem. She stayed with me on THAT trip the whole time. I also NEVER
said anything about her family not being able to afford electricity.
> There was nothing for ME to stop. Cuban officials stopped the
> situation as soon as we saw that the German sailor had such a young girl
> in
> his room. The owner of the bed and breakfast (Casa Particular) was a
> retired
> colonel in Cuba's state security. He handled it. There was nothing for me
> to do. You keep TRYING to manufacture an issue, Maureen. There was nothing
> for em to do.
MOE> Em? Who or what is "Em"?
Transposition in typing, Maureen. It should have been "ME." A reasonably
intelligent person would have seen it as a typo. Which explains YOUR
complete confusion.
>I couldn't prove that he did anything wrong. I don't have
> X-Ray vision and could not see through walls to have seen what went on. He
> violated Cuban law by having a Cuban in his room withour police
> permission.
> Not to mention that I did not and do NOT have an "arranged wife." That
> trip
> was NOT to "GET" my wife, but to begin the process for our wedding.
MOE> It was an arranged marriage and you damn well know it.
What I "damn well know" is that YOU are a delusional LIAR.
> MOE THE DELUSIONAL> You claimed to be a co-founder of " Men International"
> which
> MOE THE DELUSIONAL> supposedly was about men's rights but was more about
> your own self
> MOE THE DELUSIONAL> publicity rather than actually caring about men's
> rights.
>
> Again you LIE your ass off. I was NOT a "co-founder." It existed for
> several YEARS before I joined it and was eventually ELECTED as its
> President.
MOE> Oh come on!! I saw the damn articles online AND your web sites AND
MOE> your damn CV were you SAY you were a CO-FOUNDER. Dang you can't keep
up with your lies, can you Kennie?
My CV says NO such thing, Maureen. It only says I was a member. I don't even
mention that I was elected President of it. It does NOT say I was a
co-founder, nor does ANY "article" that I am aware of, alothough Jornalists
have been known to make such mistakes of fact. *I* never claimed to be a
co-founder - AGAIN the organization existed YEARS before I joined it.
Richard Doyle, Carlo Abruzeze, Reuben Kidd, and Tom Alexander were the
founding members. TRY again to make shit up, Maureen.
MOE> Bullshit noted. I was referring to your own posts Kennie, What YOU
SAID.
They are not claims *I* invented but come from official reports (FBI
crime reports) and research. I DID give cites.
MOE> Your claims, and you didn't cite sources.
Yes I did. I did again above.
MOE> When you were forces against the wall TO cite sources you used
MOE> dated sources about child abuse, not about rape and domestic abuse of
MOE> women. Worse still, I found more current sources, sources you did not
MOE> have.
The book "Behind Closed Doors" was NOT about child abuse, Maureen but
domestic violence. Drf. Steinmetz wrote several resarch papers on the
subject. NONE of which support your LUNATIC FRINGE claims.
MOE> Your misogyny is so bad you are alienated from your daughters and you
MOE> were married four times.
You are a LIAR. I am NOT "alienated" form my daughters. I spoke to TWO
of them this week more than once. And you MANUFACTURE your claim that I
have been married 4 times. Well you have a PSYCHOTIC NEED to believe that
bullshit. 3 marriages is bad enough but you have to manufacture others.
MOE> Your remarks online when a female dare to call you on your lies and
errors are highly sexist in nature and full
MOE> of hatred for the female gender. You've called me bitch, whore, hag and
other terms no gentleman would utter.
Never called ypou a "whore" and the terms "bitch" and "hag" are terms
you have EARNED. I also call men some interesting names when THEY earn it
too.
MOE> You clearly have a problem with females, both children and adult. My
MOE> guess is that you are a homosexual who is denying his actual sexuality
MOE> while covering his sexual aversion to women by seeing us as lower
MOE> level bitches or whores.
That is in YOUR mind - not mine!
Rest of SLIME post snipped for want of dignifying insane bullshit with an
undeserved reply.
krp
>>
>>MOE THE DELUSIONAL> How about when you tried to solicit for a woman to be
>>raped?
>>
>> You are a sick women. *I* never did such a thing.
> "We'd like to arrange for your rape."
Came from David Moore - NOT me. He explains away why no post FROM ME
saying that can't be found in the arhives by claiming I NUKED them all.
> While you didn't actually witness her being sexually assaulted,
> you posted about how you could hear them from your room. This was in
> the incarnation of your story where Barbara wasn't allowed in your
> room because it would have been illegal.
I could HEAR a male and female voice, Kunt but NOT what they were saying
and certain NOT how old they were.I did NOT say she was NOT allowed in my
room. You deliberately DISTORT the facts. I said the law does not permit a
Cuban woman to be in a hotel room with a foreigner without police permission
and registration. We HAD that. Oh and I guess I should add that the CDR had
to approve too, which they did necause they knew we were engaged. Not,
Kunt, I don't always go into every bleeding detail with you, first because
you don't deserve it. Secondly because it isn't necessary. It is a waste of
bandwidth.
>>I never SAW any sex acts. There was nothing for ME to stop. Cuban
>>officials stopped the
>>situation as soon as we saw that the German sailor
> Now he's back to being a sailor.
> Will you claim he was escorted back to his ship?
He was never anything else but a sailor. And *I* never said he was
escorted to his ship, but that hew as sent out of Cuba back to Germany as
"persona nom grata" in the first plane available.
>>had such a young girl in his room.
> So now it's not in the breakfast area outside, but back to being
> in his room.
Dear Polack, I am sorry you get confused so easily. I must remember you
only have an IQ of 14. They came OUT of the room together. My wife and I
were in the back yard atrium ( only name I have for it) having breakfast
when they came out. How SIMPLE must I make it for you? I guess I MUST
because you get so totally confused. It's that STUPID POLACK thing again.
Let me describe the place to you. There is the front house where the owner
and his family live. A gated driveway to the left of the house (looking from
the rear) then the building with two guest rooms running on the side. The
back yard was paved with some planted areas. There was an area with a
thatched roof (no walls) where we had breakfast. For lack of a better term
I call it an Atrium. That is where Barbara and I were. The German and the
girl came out of the room. Barbara knew I was shocked, and she held my arm -
a message to keep my mouth shut and stay out of it. Also the owner was by
his back porch's door. He did NOT look like a happy camper. He left for a
while as they sat down in the breakfast area. He came back in a few minutes
and told the guy that they had to leave. The rest of the story I got through
him and my wife.
> I do wish you'd pick a version of your story and stick with it.
I've always had ONE. YOU keep getting confused. You're stupid, you know.
It's easy for you to get confused.
>>The owner of the bed and breakfast (Casa Particular) was a retired
>>colonel in Cuba's state security. He handled it. There was nothing for me
>>to do. You keep TRYING to manufacture an issue, Maureen. There was nothing
>>for em to do. I couldn't prove that he did anything wrong. I don't have
>>X-Ray vision and could not see through walls to have seen what went on.
> But you listened in (in one of the versions you told).
NO, Kunt that's YOUR SPIN. We could hear voices thorugh the wall. That
is NOT listening in. We had NO idea WHO was in the room, only that there
were male and female voices. Not much of a big deal in itself. Couldn't see
what they were doing much less their ages.
>>He violated Cuban law by having a Cuban in his room without police
>>permission.
>>Not to mention that I did not and do NOT have an "arranged wife." That
>>trip
>>was NOT to "GET" my wife, but to begin the process for our wedding.
> It's possible the company you paid to arrange the meeting was no
> longer involved.
More of your Polack delusions.Still inventing your delusional bullshit.
What COMPANY? PROOF?
>>MOE THE DELUSIONAL> You claimed to be a co-founder of " Men International"
>>which
>>MOE THE DELUSIONAL> supposedly was about men's rights but was more about
>>our own self
>>MOE THE DELUSIONAL> publicity rather than actually caring about men's
>>rights.
>> Again you LIE your ass off. I was NOT a "co-founder." It existed for
>>several YEARS before I joined it and was eventually ELECTED as its
>>President.
> You did make the claim that you were a co-founder.
NOPE! PROVE your claim. All my CV says is that I was a "MEMBER."
>>I don't excuse abuse BY anyone OF anyone.
> Except when they are your puppet (Greg Hanson).
I don't excuse his either. At least not the things he has admitted to.
He knows that. I had an extremely difficult first wife. I suspect far more
difficult than Greg's. I managed to avoid hitting her, although I admit that
IF I had stayed I was so far at the end of my tether I believe I COULD have.
Which is why I left.I just don't believe in men hitting women. My dad never
mistreated my mother, my grandfathers never mistreated my grandmothers. In
fact - my maternal grandfather was so affected by my mother's difficult
birth that he said he could not stand to see his wife suffer like that and
they never again had sex. It was a ROUGH delivery and he loved her too much
to risk her again. THAT is how I was raised, Kunt.
>>There ARE men who batter their wives, I have openly said that I don't
>>consider them to be
>>"MEN."
> "It's Super bowl Sunday. Are all the men ready to beat their wives?"
> -- YOU, paraphrased
Oh Kunt WAY out of CONTEXT that thing you LOVE to snip out. I was making
FUN of the Feminazi claims of men going wild beating up their wives on
Superbowl Sunday. It had just been PROVEN to be a HOAX claim the year
before. And hyet the Feminazis keep on making rhe claim even though it is
BULLSHIT even today.
>> No, Maureen, it was NOT that she was sleeping around. I
>>know that is the FIRST thing your diseased mind would go to. Let's just
>>say
>>that I won custody of the children and her parental rights were
>>terminated.
> And now your kids REFUSE to have anything to do with you.
BULLSHIT. You and your PALS claim that. Proof?
Kent Wills
>
>"womanGoddess" <fvr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1d1b1589-22d8-4ecd...@j4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>
>> MOE THE DELUSIONAL> How about when you tried to solicit for a woman to be
>> raped?
>>
>> You are a sick women. *I* never did such a thing.
>
>MOE> You did and tried to cover your tracks, Problem was you responded to
>MOE> the rape post in such a way that you forgot to cover your tracks and
>MOE> you were exposed. for it
>
> Maureen - that post was NOT from me which can be easily seen.
It was from you. You admitted you wrote it.
You claimed it was presented as a form of sarcasm and ridicule.
Perhaps that was your intention. Perhaps not. No matter the
motivation, you did author the post.
>It was a
>Moore CUT AND PASTE number from several posts I made ridiculing Stacy
>Alexander's bullshit claims of being Japanese.
You think she's not Japanese. Ok. Maybe she's not. How does
posting that you'd like to arrange for her rape ridicule her for not
being Japanese?
Be specific.
>And your pal Moore's ONLY
>answer to the FACT that it is NOT in Google's archives is his UNSUPPORTED
>CLAIm that I had it nuked.
If you didn't write it, why, exactly, did you admit to writing
it?
>
>> MOE THE DELUSIONAL> Or that you posted a anonymous post soliciting for
>> someone to
>> MOE THE DELUSIONAL> firebomb your house so you can claim someone you hate
>> online actually
>> MOE THE DELUSIONAL> posted it?
>
>> Only somebody as screwed in the head as YOU would devise such a plan
>> since gthere are so many NUTS on the net.
>
>MOE> You are well know to post such inflammatory posts in th past using
>anonymizers.'
>
> No I an accused of it by David Moore, that does NOT make it true.
It was PROVED by the folks in the atheist group.
>
>MOE> After you posted the arson solicitation you claimed your arch enemy
>Moore posted
>MOE> it. Problem with that is if that was true you could file a LE report
>
> HOW would we PROVE it was Moore? Knowing who did it and proving it are
>two different things.
>
Since you did it, you can NEVER prove it was Moore.
>
>> MOE THE DELUSIONAL> Or how about when you talked about while you were in
>> Cuba to get your
>> MOE THE DELUSIONAL> "arranged" wife when you were an eyewitness to a 12
>> year old girl
>> MOE THE DELUSIONAL> being assaulted and you did nothing to stop the
>> assault?
>
>> That's the SPIN you and your little pals want to put on it. I never SAW
>> any sex acts.
>
>MOE> I didn't say sex acts I said assault.
>
> I didn't SEE any "ASSAULTS" either.
You simply listened in.
>
>MOE> This is the same story you had your Cuban wife-to-be in three locations
>during the assault and where
>MOE> you claimed while she was a judge her family couldn't afford
>electricity.
>
> *I* never used the term "assault" - I NEVER observed any assault. I
Moe didn't claim you did use the term assault.
Again you try to argue a point not raised. Do you really think
anyone is falling for it?
>could presume that they had sex, but I didn't see it. A real sad reality in
>Cuba is prostitution and child prostitution. I did not place my soon to be
>wife anywhere but with me.
In some versions of your story.
>Kunt Wills has TRIED to claim otherwise. That's
>HIS problem.
I don't see truth as a problem.
>She stayed with me on THAT trip the whole time. I also NEVER
>said anything about her family not being able to afford electricity.
So now they had electricity?
You had claimed they didn't because the cost was too high.
>
>> There was nothing for ME to stop. Cuban officials stopped the
>> situation as soon as we saw that the German sailor had such a young girl
>> in
>> his room. The owner of the bed and breakfast (Casa Particular) was a
>> retired
>> colonel in Cuba's state security. He handled it. There was nothing for me
>> to do. You keep TRYING to manufacture an issue, Maureen. There was nothing
>> for em to do.
>
>MOE> Em? Who or what is "Em"?
>
> Transposition in typing, Maureen. It should have been "ME." A reasonably
>intelligent person would have seen it as a typo. Which explains YOUR
>complete confusion.
She was mocking you, stupid.
You rant and rave about the spelling errors of others, yet
consistently PROVE you spell like the average third grader.
>
>>I couldn't prove that he did anything wrong. I don't have
>> X-Ray vision and could not see through walls to have seen what went on. He
>> violated Cuban law by having a Cuban in his room withour police
>> permission.
>> Not to mention that I did not and do NOT have an "arranged wife." That
>> trip
>> was NOT to "GET" my wife, but to begin the process for our wedding.
>
>MOE> It was an arranged marriage and you damn well know it.
>
> What I "damn well know" is that YOU are a delusional LIAR.
>
You really need to cease the projection, Ken.
>
>> MOE THE DELUSIONAL> You claimed to be a co-founder of " Men International"
>> which
>> MOE THE DELUSIONAL> supposedly was about men's rights but was more about
>> your own self
>> MOE THE DELUSIONAL> publicity rather than actually caring about men's
>> rights.
>>
>> Again you LIE your ass off. I was NOT a "co-founder." It existed for
>> several YEARS before I joined it and was eventually ELECTED as its
>> President.
>
>MOE> Oh come on!! I saw the damn articles online AND your web sites AND
>MOE> your damn CV were you SAY you were a CO-FOUNDER. Dang you can't keep
>up with your lies, can you Kennie?
>
>
>My CV says NO such thing, Maureen. It only says I was a member. I don't even
>mention that I was elected President of it. It does NOT say I was a
>co-founder, nor does ANY "article" that I am aware of, alothough Jornalists
>have been known to make such mistakes of fact.
So now you're a journalist who simply made a mistake when you
claimed to be a co-founder?
Bwahahahahahaha!
>*I* never claimed to be a
>co-founder -
Liar.
>AGAIN the organization existed YEARS before I joined it.
Which further proves you lied.
>Richard Doyle, Carlo Abruzeze, Reuben Kidd, and Tom Alexander were the
>founding members. TRY again to make shit up, Maureen.
You're the one who made the claim.
[...]
>
>MOE> When you were forces against the wall TO cite sources you used
>MOE> dated sources about child abuse, not about rape and domestic abuse of
>MOE> women. Worse still, I found more current sources, sources you did not
>MOE> have.
>
> The book "Behind Closed Doors" was NOT about child abuse, Maureen but
>domestic violence. Drf. Steinmetz wrote several resarch papers on the
>subject. NONE of which support your LUNATIC FRINGE claims.
You were found legally insane, or you lied, and think Moe
presents lunatic fringe claims?
>
>MOE> Your misogyny is so bad you are alienated from your daughters and you
>MOE> were married four times.
>
> You are a LIAR.
OK, you were married three times.
>I am NOT "alienated" form my daughters. I spoke to TWO
>of them this week more than once.
Them yelling over the phone, "DON'T CALL HERE!" and hanging up
isn't really speaking with them :-)
>And you MANUFACTURE your claim that I
>have been married 4 times. Well you have a PSYCHOTIC NEED to believe that
>bullshit. 3 marriages is bad enough but you have to manufacture others.
>
She added one. Moe will be in a better possition to explain, but
I suspect she made a mistake.
>
>MOE> Your remarks online when a female dare to call you on your lies and
>errors are highly sexist in nature and full
>MOE> of hatred for the female gender. You've called me bitch, whore, hag and
>other terms no gentleman would utter.
>
> Never called ypou a "whore" and the terms "bitch" and "hag" are terms
>you have EARNED. I also call men some interesting names when THEY earn it
>too.
You ALWAYS insult women. You don't have any use for a woman,
aside from trying to hide your homosexuality from your business
associates, as few as they are.
>
>MOE> You clearly have a problem with females, both children and adult. My
>MOE> guess is that you are a homosexual who is denying his actual sexuality
>MOE> while covering his sexual aversion to women by seeing us as lower
>MOE> level bitches or whores.
>
> That is in YOUR mind - not mine!
>
>Rest of SLIME post snipped for want of dignifying insane bullshit with an
>undeserved reply.
>
In other words, you couldn't lie your way out of the truth she
presented.
Kent Wills
>
>"Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:hk1ka5lou9qco6rir...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>MOE THE DELUSIONAL> How about when you tried to solicit for a woman to be
>>>raped?
>>>
>>> You are a sick women. *I* never did such a thing.
>
>> "We'd like to arrange for your rape."
>
> Came from David Moore - NOT me.
Why did you admit you authored the threat then? If, as you are
claiming, it wasn't authored by you, why, exactly, did you admit to
it, claiming it was intended as sarcasm and ridicule of Stacy?
Whether it was meant to ridicule Stacy or not isn't the issue.
The motivation doesn't really matter. The TRUTH remains that you
admitted to authoring the rape threat, but now claim you didn't.
Did you lie when you admitted you authored the threat, or are you
lying now? I don't see any other options.
>He explains away why no post FROM ME
>saying that can't be found in the arhives by claiming I NUKED them all.
You probably did.
You did admit to authoring the threat.
>
>> While you didn't actually witness her being sexually assaulted,
>> you posted about how you could hear them from your room. This was in
>> the incarnation of your story where Barbara wasn't allowed in your
>> room because it would have been illegal.
>
> I could HEAR a male and female voice, Kunt but NOT what they were saying
>and certain NOT how old they were.
So you LIED in the version of the story in which you saw them
enter. Got it.
>I did NOT say she was NOT allowed in my
>room.
Yo wrote that Barbara couldn't be in your room because it was
illegal.
>You deliberately DISTORT the facts. I said the law does not permit a
>Cuban woman to be in a hotel room with a foreigner without police permission
>and registration.
You added that AFTER you claimed she was in your room with you and
I pointed out how you claimed she couldn't legally be in there.
>We HAD that. Oh and I guess I should add that the CDR had
>to approve too, which they did necause they knew we were engaged. Not,
>Kunt, I don't always go into every bleeding detail with you, first because
>you don't deserve it. Secondly because it isn't necessary. It is a waste of
>bandwidth.
I wasn't aware you had limited bandwidth. A pity. I have
unlimited bandwidth. And at just under 20 megs/second, I can use a
lot, if I so desire.
>
>>>I never SAW any sex acts. There was nothing for ME to stop. Cuban
>>>officials stopped the
>>>situation as soon as we saw that the German sailor
>
>> Now he's back to being a sailor.
>> Will you claim he was escorted back to his ship?
>
> He was never anything else but a sailor. And *I* never said he was
>escorted to his ship,
You claimed he was escorted to his ship.
>but that hew as sent out of Cuba back to Germany as
>"persona nom grata" in the first plane available.
>
That's a very new claim from you.
>>>had such a young girl in his room.
>
>> So now it's not in the breakfast area outside, but back to being
>> in his room.
>
> Dear Polack,
http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com/race.html
Again, your bigotry is so totally proved by your own words,
offering more proof isn't needed. It's nice that you wish to continue
offering proof that you're a bigot, but as you may have noticed, NO
ONE is trying to deny it.
>I am sorry you get confused so easily. I must remember you
>only have an IQ of 14.
Then you must really have a low IQ.
Don't forget, I did post scans of my membership information from
Mensa. While I'm no longer a member, those who are as stupid as you
dishonestly claim I am can't really be members.
>They came OUT of the room together. My wife and I
>were in the back yard atrium ( only name I have for it) having breakfast
>when they came out. How SIMPLE must I make it for you?
Why did your story change so drastically?
>I guess I MUST
>because you get so totally confused. It's that STUPID POLACK thing again.
http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com/race.html
>Let me describe the place to you. There is the front house where the owner
>and his family live. A gated driveway to the left of the house (looking from
>the rear) then the building with two guest rooms running on the side. The
>back yard was paved with some planted areas. There was an area with a
>thatched roof (no walls) where we had breakfast. For lack of a better term
>I call it an Atrium. That is where Barbara and I were.
In your most recent version of the story.
>The German and the
>girl came out of the room. Barbara knew I was shocked, and she held my arm -
>a message to keep my mouth shut and stay out of it. Also the owner was by
>his back porch's door. He did NOT look like a happy camper. He left for a
>while as they sat down in the breakfast area. He came back in a few minutes
>and told the guy that they had to leave. The rest of the story I got through
>him and my wife.
But which story? The one where he was escorted to his ship or
the one where he was escorted to a plane? You've claimed both, and no
amount of your lying will change that.
>
>> I do wish you'd pick a version of your story and stick with it.
>
> I've always had ONE. YOU keep getting confused. You're stupid, you know.
>It's easy for you to get confused.
I consistently PROVE I'm your intellectual superior.
>
>>>The owner of the bed and breakfast (Casa Particular) was a retired
>>>colonel in Cuba's state security. He handled it. There was nothing for me
>>>to do. You keep TRYING to manufacture an issue, Maureen. There was nothing
>>>for em to do. I couldn't prove that he did anything wrong. I don't have
>>>X-Ray vision and could not see through walls to have seen what went on.
>
>> But you listened in (in one of the versions you told).
>
> NO, Kunt that's YOUR SPIN.
You claimed it. If it's a lie, it's YOUR lie.
>We could hear voices thorugh the wall. That
>is NOT listening in.
In the version where you claimed you were listening, Barbara
wasn't there.
>We had NO idea WHO was in the room, only that there
>were male and female voices. Not much of a big deal in itself. Couldn't see
>what they were doing much less their ages.
Of course, this is in direct OPPOSITION to your original claim
where you saw them enter the CP.
>
>>>He violated Cuban law by having a Cuban in his room without police
>>>permission.
>>>Not to mention that I did not and do NOT have an "arranged wife." That
>>>trip
>>>was NOT to "GET" my wife, but to begin the process for our wedding.
>
>> It's possible the company you paid to arrange the meeting was no
>> longer involved.
>
> More of your Polack delusions.Still inventing your delusional bullshit.
>What COMPANY? PROOF?
That you claimed it was impossible, when it was possible, gives
more than enough reason to suspect you paid a mail-order-bride company
to arrange a meeting.
>
>>>MOE THE DELUSIONAL> You claimed to be a co-founder of " Men International"
>>>which
>>>MOE THE DELUSIONAL> supposedly was about men's rights but was more about
>>>our own self
>>>MOE THE DELUSIONAL> publicity rather than actually caring about men's
>>>rights.
>
>>> Again you LIE your ass off. I was NOT a "co-founder." It existed for
>>>several YEARS before I joined it and was eventually ELECTED as its
>>>President.
>
>> You did make the claim that you were a co-founder.
>
> NOPE! PROVE your claim. All my CV says is that I was a "MEMBER."
>
I've made no comment about your CV. That was Moe. Outside of
your drunken delusions, I'm not Moe.
You did claim, outside of your CV, that you were a co-founder.
I suspect, but can't KNOW, this is the source of Moe's confusion.
She saw you past post where you claimed to be a co-founder, and
thought it was your CV.
>
>>>I don't excuse abuse BY anyone OF anyone.
>
>> Except when they are your puppet (Greg Hanson).
>
> I don't excuse his either. At least not the things he has admitted to.
>He knows that. I had an extremely difficult first wife. I suspect far more
>difficult than Greg's. I managed to avoid hitting her, although I admit that
>IF I had stayed I was so far at the end of my tether I believe I COULD have.
>Which is why I left.
Perhaps one of the few wise things you've ever done. If you feel
like you're going to lose control, it's best to leave and return once
everyone has had time to cool down.
>I just don't believe in men hitting women. My dad never
>mistreated my mother, my grandfathers never mistreated my grandmothers. In
>fact - my maternal grandfather was so affected by my mother's difficult
>birth that he said he could not stand to see his wife suffer like that and
>they never again had sex. It was a ROUGH delivery and he loved her too much
>to risk her again. THAT is how I was raised, Kunt.
You were raised not to have sex with your grandma? Good
upbringing, really :-)
>
>>>There ARE men who batter their wives, I have openly said that I don't
>>>consider them to be
>>>"MEN."
>
>> "It's Super bowl Sunday. Are all the men ready to beat their wives?"
>> -- YOU, paraphrased
>
> Oh Kunt WAY out of CONTEXT that thing you LOVE to snip out.
It's a VERBATIM quote. According to you, anything verbatim is
within the correct context.
> I was making
>FUN of the Feminazi claims of men going wild beating up their wives on
>Superbowl Sunday. It had just been PROVEN to be a HOAX claim the year
>before. And hyet the Feminazis keep on making rhe claim even though it is
>BULLSHIT even today.
>
>>> No, Maureen, it was NOT that she was sleeping around. I
>>>know that is the FIRST thing your diseased mind would go to. Let's just
>>>say
>>>that I won custody of the children and her parental rights were
>>>terminated.
>
>> And now your kids REFUSE to have anything to do with you.
>
> BULLSHIT. You and your PALS claim that. Proof?
Outside of your drunken delusions, Megan and I aren't pals. I
know you hold the delusion that she and I are in daily contact (when I
stated outside of a MySpace friends request, I had NO contact with
her, you had a tantrum and DEMANDED I had daily contact with her), but
the truth is, I've never had any conversation with her. I sent a
MySpace friends request and she accepted. That's the beginning,
middle and end of our contact with each other.
While your alcohol inspired delusions may make you believe Megan
is my pal, the truth you so HATE is that we are not. You need to
accept this truth and move on.
As for proof, I've always acknowledged that Megan's pure HATE for
you is such that she could have lied in an effort to cause you grief.
David, who knows her far better than I, doesn't think she ever
lied about you and how your children want nothing to do with you.
Truth or lie, it's very clear Megan HATES you to a degree I
didn't think was possible.
I do have to wonder just what, exactly, you did to cause her to
hate you to the degree her blog posts show she did and likely does.
I don't expect you to let me, and everyone else reading, know
what you did. If you wish to, that would be great. If you don't,
well, there isn't anything I can do about it.
"Quotes below have been highly altered."
-- Kenneth Robert Pangborn accidentally admitting in misc.legal
that he alters posts when he replies.
krp
>>
>>>
>>> MOE THE DELUSIONAL> How about when you tried to solicit for a woman to
>>> be
>>> raped?
>>>
>>> You are a sick women. *I* never did such a thing.
>>
>>MOE> You did and tried to cover your tracks, Problem was you responded to
>>MOE> the rape post in such a way that you forgot to cover your tracks and
>>MOE> you were exposed. for it
>>
>> Maureen - that post was NOT from me which can be easily seen.
>
> It was from you. You admitted you wrote it.
> You claimed it was presented as a form of sarcasm and ridicule.
You don't read very carefully either as Moe doesn't. From the start I
said that that FAKE post was actually a CUT AND PASTE of several (6 as I
recall) posts that I *DID* make. They were meant as SARCASM (ridicule.) The
Mr. Moto reference was first among them. AT that time Ms. Alexander had made
up an ELABORATE story of being Japanese. Of course she was NOT. A big
debate started on the Mr. Moto reference as "racist." A rather feeble
attempt. Stacy was TRYING to portray her brother as a GREAT DETECTIVE
getting the "goods" on me and IN Japan at the time. ALL of her stories were
delusions. Mr. Moto by the way WAS a Japanese Detective and portrayed as a
HERO in several movies. Kunt - you POLACK - her brother was neither
Japanese OR a detective - IN FACT Stacy didn't have a brother. As to the
various parts of the post - they came in during a LONG flame war between
Stacy and I. Of course you SNIP out of the discussion the "GROUP" that
Stacy and her feminazi pal Barbara Amero had going called; "Take Back the
Net" to make false complaints against any men's rights activists to lose
them their accounts with their ISP's by FALSELY claiming sexual threats. And
using SPOOFING software to make threatening posts appear to have come from
their targets.
So you want to ENGAGE on this, do ya, POLACK? Maybe a bit more of a
history lesson might help. As a result of their wars against me and others
was that in the final analysis it cost ALEXANDER - *HER* accounts
(stertourssa) and a succession of others. Amero was on a CO-OP ISP in
Canada. She was warned to stop. Had her account lifted, went bonkers and
wound up in a rubber room for several YEARS.
The FACT is that you can't find the post that MOORE has on his website
because it NEVER EXISTED in that form. It is Moore's compilation of REAL
posts I made. Saying almost everything in his post, just NOT in one place.
EVEN as HE HAS it - no SANE person would take it as a REAL threat for rape,
not unless you think there really ARE horny space aliens out there. For the
record, Kunt, *I* do NOT believe there are horny aliens (except Mexicans)
coming to Earth looking to get laid. And what's with that whole COW thing
with them? YOU being the POLACK you are believe in the aliens, I don't know,
Kunt, as I read your shit I am starting to wonder. Maybe they DO exist and
not only abducted you and did perverse sexual things to you, but removed
your brain for study. Some day they might come back and return it.
womanGoddess
> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 12:45:55 GMT, "krp" <kr...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >news:1d1b1589-22d8-4ecd...@j4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> MOE THE DELUSIONAL> How about when you tried to solicit for a woman to be
> >> raped?
>
> >> You are a sick women. *I* never did such a thing.
>
> >MOE> You did and tried to cover your tracks, Problem was you responded to
> >MOE> the rape post in such a way that you forgot to cover your tracks and
> >MOE> you were exposed. for it
>
> > Maureen - that post was NOT from me which can be easily seen.
>
> It was from you. You admitted you wrote it.
> You claimed it was presented as a form of sarcasm and ridicule.
> Perhaps that was your intention. Perhaps not. No matter the
> motivation, you did author the post.
He also claimed the sledgehammer and jackhammer posts against another
woman online were " figures of speech".
Also LE could actually trace the post to its origin. Since Kennie
hasn't actually filed a report on the alleged arson threat or made an
issue of it with Moore, its a good presumption that the real reason
for his silence is that he himself authored the post.
He claimed that his misspelling of Brig. Gen Norman Callish's name
was due to his spellchecker, and yet the same spellchecker doesn't
flag him on his typos and misspellings. As some of the words mistyped
are simple common words, if Kennie was in fact using a spellchecker
the program must be seriously faulty.
My guess is that when he gets in his frequent shit fit modes he types
quickly and posts without bother to check for spelling mistakes.
I've seen a few articles online that specifically list Pangborn as a
" co-founder" of Men International.
Also, if he just joined up an already existing group as he now
claims, why is it one of his web sites is registered to MI with his
home address? Presumably the supposed other members of MI who were the
actual founders ( according to Ken) would have more legal ground as
the organization's name holders to have a say what their group's name
is used.
Domain ID:D1526095-LROR
Domain Name:A-TEAM.ORG
Created On:25-Aug-1996 04:00:00 UTC
Last Updated On:20-Apr-2009 19:28:48 UTC
Expiration Date:24-Aug-2009 04:00:00 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:Network Solutions LLC (R63-LROR)
Status:CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED
Registrant ID:31291319-NSI
Registrant Name:Men International
Registrant Organization:Men International
Registrant Street1:3648 Cockatoo Dr
Registrant Street2:
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:New Port Richie
Registrant State/Province:FL
Registrant Postal Code:34652
>
> >*I* never claimed to be a
> >co-founder -
>
> Liar.
>
> >AGAIN the organization existed YEARS before I joined it.
>
> Which further proves you lied.
>
> >Richard Doyle, Carlo Abruzeze, Reuben Kidd, and Tom Alexander were the
> >founding members. TRY again to make shit up, Maureen.
>
> You're the one who made the claim.
I've seen a few articles online where he is referred to as the co-
founder. If it was one or two journalists making the error Kennie's
excuse would be credible. But this so-called error was repeated many
times.
>
> [...]
>
>
>
> >MOE> When you were forces against the wall TO cite sources you used
> >MOE> dated sources about child abuse, not about rape and domestic abuse of
> >MOE> women. Worse still, I found more current sources, sources you did not
> >MOE> have.
>
> > The book "Behind Closed Doors" was NOT about child abuse, Maureen but
> >domestic violence. Drf. Steinmetz wrote several resarch papers on the
> >subject. NONE of which support your LUNATIC FRINGE claims.
>
> You were found legally insane, or you lied, and think Moe
> presents lunatic fringe claims?
He claims that since he calls me a " feminazi" I am part of a "
lunatic fringe". Unless OC he wishes to claim that since I am a Pagan
I am of that so-called lunatic fringe. Kennie sets up the straw man
about me being a " feminazi" because that's easy for him to handle the
fact that a woman beats him in arguments.
I'd be curious as to what he claims about me is " lunatic fringe".
>
>
>
> >MOE> Your misogyny is so bad you are alienated from your daughters and you
> >MOE> were married four times.
>
> > You are a LIAR.
>
> OK, you were married three times.
The four times was my mistake. I thought I read from Pangborn that he
claimed he was married four times. I should know better than to cite
Kennie as a source. :-D
>
> >I am NOT "alienated" form my daughters. I spoke to TWO
> >of them this week more than once.
>
> Them yelling over the phone, "DON'T CALL HERE!" and hanging up
> isn't really speaking with them :-)
>
> >And you MANUFACTURE your claim that I
> >have been married 4 times. Well you have a PSYCHOTIC NEED to believe that
> >bullshit. 3 marriages is bad enough but you have to manufacture others.
>
> She added one. Moe will be in a better possition to explain, but
> I suspect she made a mistake.
>
>
>
> >MOE> Your remarks online when a female dare to call you on your lies and
> >errors are highly sexist in nature and full
> >MOE> of hatred for the female gender. You've called me bitch, whore, hag and
> >other terms no gentleman would utter.
>
> > Never called ypou a "whore" and the terms "bitch" and "hag" are terms
> >you have EARNED. I also call men some interesting names when THEY earn it
> >too.
>
> You ALWAYS insult women. You don't have any use for a woman,
> aside from trying to hide your homosexuality from your business
> associates, as few as they are.
The interesting thing about this BS of terms being " earned" is that
if I sunk to Kennie's sewer level of discourse I could really let him
have it with slang derogatory terms HE"s earned. Since he claims I am
a feminazi and a man-hater, why is it that I haven't attacked him in
the same way he attacked me and any male critic of his?
Gee, maybe because his methods work against him every time he uses
them.
>
>
>
> >MOE> You clearly have a problem with females, both children and adult. My
> >MOE> guess is that you are a homosexual who is denying his actual sexuality
> >MOE> while covering his sexual aversion to women by seeing us as lower
> >MOE> level bitches or whores.
>
> > That is in YOUR mind - not mine!
>
> >Rest of SLIME post snipped for want of dignifying insane bullshit with an
> >undeserved reply.
>
> In other words, you couldn't lie your way out of the truth she
> presented.
Agreed. He tends to do that when he's cornered and can't escape. he
also alters the subject when he's proven to be in error. The recent
crap he claimed about the Air Force in Viet Nam not engaging in ground
battles, for example, I showed was in error as there were an
estimated 475 air base attacks. Kennie tried altering his claim by
saying that the Marines and other non-AF military provided base
defense, as if AF personnel can't do ground defense themselves.
Bear in mind through all this Kennie never was there to see for
himself. My father was there and I got a firsthand account from him of
one such incident.
I believe someone who actually was there over the word of a habitual
liar like Kennie.
>
> "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.
Moe
womanGoddess
> "Kent Wills" <compu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Amazing how you would know this. Got proof to back up your claims
Kennie?
(( Crickets chirping))
Moe
Eternal FOREVER KNIGHT fan
" A vampire cop? REALLY?"
"http://home.earthlink.net/~19ranger57/blies.htm
Know your scum--- http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com
>
krp
> So you want to ENGAGE on this, do ya, POLACK? Maybe a bit more of a
> history lesson might help. As a result of their wars against me and others
> was that in the final analysis it cost ALEXANDER - *HER* accounts
> (stertourssa) and a succession of others. Amero was on a CO-OP ISP in
> Canada. She was warned to stop. Had her account lifted, went bonkers and
> wound up in a rubber room for several YEARS.
MOE THE MORON> Amazing how you would know this. Got proof to back up your
claims Kennie?
Why is it so amazing? While she was from a small area of Canada, do you
REALLY REALLY REALLY believe that Amero was the ONLY Canadian to EVER use
the net? Somebody else from her area posted the details from the local
newspaper. As to Alexander that her accounts were TERMED is also a matter of
record. Both issues were widely discussed in soc.men. You can still read
Stacy Alexander's INSANE ratings under her stertourssa account. That's
before she got exiled to Massachusetts. She kept getting her husband fires
from his university jobs for her crazy behavior.
krp
> >It was a Moore CUT AND PASTE number from several posts I made ridiculing
> >Stacy
> >Alexander's bullshit claims of being Japanese.
>
> You think she's not Japanese. Ok. Maybe she's not.
Definately she was NOT. She was STUPID enough to have her photo on her
website. There is NO "maybe" to it. It was typical STUPID feminist bullshit.
> >And your pal Moore's ONLY
> >answer to the FACT that it is NOT in Google's archives is his UNSUPPORTED
> >CLAIm that I had it nuked.
> If you didn't write it, why, exactly, did you admit to writing it?
Learn to READ Maureen. That post of Moore's is a CUT and PASTE of things
I DID write. Just NOT in that post. But YOU are too stupid to understand
that. They were removed from their original context.
> > No I am accused of it by David Moore, that does NOT make it true.
> It was PROVED by the folks in the atheist group.
No Maureen, THEY didn't prove anything. A few of the MORONS chose to
believe Moore because it suits their agenda. Athesists are like feminists,
they can't handle people who effectively dispute their sacred bullshit.
MOE> Also LE could actually trace the post to its origin. Since Kennie
MOE> hasn't actually filed a report on the alleged arson threat or made an
MOE> issue of it with Moore, its a good presumption that the real reason
MOE> for his silence is that he himself authored the post.
There are plenty of reports about Moore. The truth is that LE was
incapable of tracing his shit. That either means Moore is smart or they are
stupid. They decried that they couldn't get enough to get a warrant to tap
his connection to the net. Not that they didn't KNOW, they just could not
get evidence that a judge wouldn't throw out because they didn't satisfy the
rules.
> >> MOE THE DELUSIONAL> Or how about when you talked about while you were
> >> in Cuba to get your
> >> MOE THE DELUSIONAL> "arranged" wife when you were an eyewitness to a 12
> >> year old girl
> >> MOE THE DELUSIONAL> being assaulted and you did nothing to stop the
> >> assault?
> >> That's the SPIN you and your little pals want to put on it. I never SAW
> >> any sex acts.
> >MOE> I didn't say sex acts I said assault.
>
> > I didn't SEE any "ASSAULTS" either.
> You simply listened in.
Didn't "HEAR" any assaults either. Heard voices but not anything about a
crime in progress. I can neither SEE nnor hear tghrough walls like YOU claim
that YOU CAN and say I SHOULD.
> >could presume that they had sex, but I didn't see it. A real sad reality
> >in
> >Cuba is prostitution and child prostitution. I did not place my soon to
> >be
> >wife anywhere but with me.
> In some versions of your story.
No "story" I NEVER said she was anywhere at THAT time but with me.
> >Kunt Wills has TRIED to claim otherwise. That's>HIS problem.
> I don't see truth as a problem.
How would he know where my wife was in Cuba????? Truth?
> >She stayed with me on THAT trip the whole time. I also NEVER
> >said anything about her family not being able to afford electricity.
> So now they had electricity? You had claimed they didn't because the cost
> was too high.
Wills claimed that, I did NOT.
Kent Wills
>
>"Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:e9pma51holtje43eu...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> MOE THE DELUSIONAL> How about when you tried to solicit for a woman to
>>>> be
>>>> raped?
>>>>
>>>> You are a sick women. *I* never did such a thing.
>>>
>>>MOE> You did and tried to cover your tracks, Problem was you responded to
>>>MOE> the rape post in such a way that you forgot to cover your tracks and
>>>MOE> you were exposed. for it
>>>
>>> Maureen - that post was NOT from me which can be easily seen.
>>
>> It was from you. You admitted you wrote it.
>> You claimed it was presented as a form of sarcasm and ridicule.
>
> You don't read very carefully either as Moe doesn't.
I never read as Moe. Since she and I are different people,
reading as her would be stupid.
>From the start I
>said that that FAKE post was actually a CUT AND PASTE of several (6 as I
>recall) posts that I *DID* make.
Why do you lie?
>They were meant as SARCASM (ridicule.) The
>Mr. Moto reference was first among them. AT that time Ms. Alexander had made
>up an ELABORATE story of being Japanese. Of course she was NOT.
Whether she was or not is NOT grounds to issue a rape threat.
>A big
>debate started on the Mr. Moto reference as "racist." A rather feeble
>attempt.
You're bigotry is well documented. A very small portion of the
documentation can be seen at
http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com/race.html/
What's really great is that the documentation listed consists of
your own writings, with links to the archives at Google so accuracy
and context can be verified.
>Stacy was TRYING to portray her brother as a GREAT DETECTIVE
>getting the "goods" on me and IN Japan at the time. ALL of her stories were
>delusions. Mr. Moto by the way WAS a Japanese Detective and portrayed as a
>HERO in several movies. Kunt - you POLACK - her brother was neither
>Japanese OR a detective - IN FACT Stacy didn't have a brother.
Have I ever claimed she does?
Once again your NEED to distract from the truth is proved by the
TRUTH that you try to argue a point no one is disputing.
>As to the
>various parts of the post - they came in during a LONG flame war between
>Stacy and I. Of course you SNIP out of the discussion the "GROUP" that
>Stacy and her feminazi pal Barbara Amero had going called; "Take Back the
>Net" to make false complaints against any men's rights activists to lose
>them their accounts with their ISP's by FALSELY claiming sexual threats.
With you, the claim was valid.
>And
>using SPOOFING software to make threatening posts appear to have come from
>their targets.
With you, no spoofing was needed.
>
> So you want to ENGAGE on this, do ya, POLACK? Maybe a bit more of a
>history lesson might help. As a result of their wars against me and others
>was that in the final analysis it cost ALEXANDER - *HER* accounts
>(stertourssa) and a succession of others.
Got proof?
>Amero was on a CO-OP ISP in
>Canada. She was warned to stop. Had her account lifted, went bonkers and
>wound up in a rubber room for several YEARS.
Got anything, besides your worthless word, to support your claim?
>
> The FACT is that you can't find the post that MOORE has on his website
>because it NEVER EXISTED in that form.
Yet you admitted writing it.
>It is Moore's compilation of REAL
>posts I made.
So you claim. I see nothing in the way of evidence to support
your claim.
>Saying almost everything in his post, just NOT in one place.
>EVEN as HE HAS it - no SANE person would take it as a REAL threat for rape,
>not unless you think there really ARE horny space aliens out there. For the
>record, Kunt, *I* do NOT believe there are horny aliens (except Mexicans)
>coming to Earth looking to get laid.
You're bigotry doesn't allow you to see the truth that Mexicans
are from Earth?
>And what's with that whole COW thing
>with them?
This is the second time I've seen you reference cows with aliens.
Are you referring to the episode of South Park where aliens kept
turning the cows inside out?
>YOU being the POLACK you are believe in the aliens,
It's possible there is life on other planets. I can't accept
they've found a way to travel the vastness of space and make use of it
to come to earth and do experiments. Seems kind of juvenile to me.
>I don't know,
>Kunt, as I read your shit I am starting to wonder. Maybe they DO exist and
>not only abducted you and did perverse sexual things to you, but removed
>your brain for study. Some day they might come back and return it.
>
>
What would be YOUR excuse? You consistently offer the proof that
I am your intellectual superior.
"you are reading Moore's SELECTIVE material that is HIGHLY edited."
Kenneth Robert Pangborn claiming in misc.legal that David Moore can
and does edit Google's Usenet archive.
Message-ID: <n9Sfm.1372$nh2...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>
Kent Wills
>
>"womanGoddess" <fvr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:76eb9de0-8483-41eb...@l9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
>
>> >It was a Moore CUT AND PASTE number from several posts I made ridiculing
>> >Stacy
>> >Alexander's bullshit claims of being Japanese.
>>
>> You think she's not Japanese. Ok. Maybe she's not.
>
> Definately she was NOT. She was STUPID enough to have her photo on her
>website. There is NO "maybe" to it. It was typical STUPID feminist bullshit.
So you think that justifies your issuing a rape threat?
>
>
>> >And your pal Moore's ONLY
>> >answer to the FACT that it is NOT in Google's archives is his UNSUPPORTED
>> >CLAIm that I had it nuked.
>
>> If you didn't write it, why, exactly, did you admit to writing it?
>
> Learn to READ Maureen.
Outside of your drunken delusions, I'm not Moe.
It's true. We have different reproductive organs.
>That post of Moore's is a CUT and PASTE of things
>I DID write. Just NOT in that post. But YOU are too stupid to understand
>that. They were removed from their original context.
>
Yet you freely admitted to authoring the rape threat as it was
presented.
>> > No I am accused of it by David Moore, that does NOT make it true.
>
>> It was PROVED by the folks in the atheist group.
>
>
> No Maureen, THEY didn't prove anything.
I'm still not Moe. Really.
>A few of the MORONS chose to
>believe Moore because it suits their agenda. Athesists are like feminists,
>they can't handle people who effectively dispute their sacred bullshit.
Then explain why, when they PROVED you were using at least one
re-mailer, you tried to claim GMT and the International Date Line are
the same thing?
>
>MOE> Also LE could actually trace the post to its origin. Since Kennie
>MOE> hasn't actually filed a report on the alleged arson threat or made an
>MOE> issue of it with Moore, its a good presumption that the real reason
>MOE> for his silence is that he himself authored the post.
>
> There are plenty of reports about Moore. The truth is that LE was
>incapable of tracing his shit. That either means Moore is smart or they are
>stupid. They decried that they couldn't get enough to get a warrant to tap
>his connection to the net. Not that they didn't KNOW, they just could not
>get evidence that a judge wouldn't throw out because they didn't satisfy the
>rules.
They don't need to tap his line. A subpoena given to his ISP is
all they would need. The burden for a subpoena is very low.
Contrary to what your drunken delusions may force you to think,
ISPs retain a great deal of information about what each user does
on-line. One can remove all traces of their activity on their
machine, but the ISP will still have it.
David's ISP would have records of his sending E-mails to a
re-mailer.
Care to try another lie?
>
>
>> >> MOE THE DELUSIONAL> Or how about when you talked about while you were
>> >> in Cuba to get your
>> >> MOE THE DELUSIONAL> "arranged" wife when you were an eyewitness to a 12
>> >> year old girl
>> >> MOE THE DELUSIONAL> being assaulted and you did nothing to stop the
>> >> assault?
>
>> >> That's the SPIN you and your little pals want to put on it. I never SAW
>> >> any sex acts.
>
>> >MOE> I didn't say sex acts I said assault.
>>
>> > I didn't SEE any "ASSAULTS" either.
>
>> You simply listened in.
>
> Didn't "HEAR" any assaults either. Heard voices but not anything about a
>crime in progress. I can neither SEE nnor hear tghrough walls like YOU claim
>that YOU CAN and say I SHOULD.
I, and others, state you should have altered the authorities, not
developed masturbation fantasies about the little girl.
>
>> >could presume that they had sex, but I didn't see it. A real sad reality
>> >in
>> >Cuba is prostitution and child prostitution. I did not place my soon to
>> >be
>> >wife anywhere but with me.
>
>> In some versions of your story.
>
> No "story" I NEVER said she was anywhere at THAT time but with me.
>
Liar.
>> >Kunt Wills has TRIED to claim otherwise. That's>HIS problem.
>
>> I don't see truth as a problem.
>
> How would he know where my wife was in Cuba????? Truth?
You've claimed she wasn't there and that she was. Both can't be
true, so one MUST be a lie.
>
>> >She stayed with me on THAT trip the whole time. I also NEVER
>> >said anything about her family not being able to afford electricity.
>
>> So now they had electricity? You had claimed they didn't because the cost
>> was too high.
>
> Wills claimed that, I did NOT.
You did. I simply cited your claim.
Kent Wills
More claims without evidence to support of prove them.
It's what you do, and a big reason why so few people, if any,
believe anything you post.
krp
>>>>> MOE THE DELUSIONAL> How about when you tried to solicit for a woman to
>>>>> be raped?
>>>>> You are a sick women. *I* never did such a thing.
>>>>MOE> You did and tried to cover your tracks, Problem was you responded
>>>>to
>>>>MOE> the rape post in such a way that you forgot to cover your tracks
>>>>and
>>>>MOE> you were exposed. for it
>>>> Maureen - that post was NOT from me which can be easily seen.
>>> It was from you. You admitted you wrote it.
>>> You claimed it was presented as a form of sarcasm and ridicule.
>> You don't read very carefully either as Moe doesn't.
> I never read as Moe. Since she and I are different people,
> reading as her would be stupid.
What a COMPLETE TWIT you are, Polack.
>>From the start I said that that FAKE post was actually a CUT AND PASTE of
>>several (6 as I
>>recall) posts that I *DID* make.
> Why do you lie?
Why do you?
>>They were meant as SARCASM (ridicule.) The
>>Mr. Moto reference was first among them. AT that time Ms. Alexander had
>>made
>>up an ELABORATE story of being Japanese. Of course she was NOT.
Whether she was or not is NOT grounds to issue a rape threat.
>>Stacy was TRYING to portray her brother as a GREAT DETECTIVE
>>getting the "goods" on me and IN Japan at the time. ALL of her stories
>>were
>>delusions. Mr. Moto by the way WAS a Japanese Detective and portrayed as a
>>HERO in several movies. Kunt - you POLACK - her brother was neither
>>Japanese OR a detective - IN FACT Stacy didn't have a brother.
> Have I ever claimed she does?
Kunt, WHO the fukkk cares what YOU claimed? EVER?
>>As to the various parts of the post - they came in during a LONG flame war
>>between
>>Stacy and I. Of course you SNIP out of the discussion the "GROUP" that
>>Stacy and her feminazi pal Barbara Amero had going called; "Take Back the
>>Net" to make false complaints against any men's rights activists to lose
>>them their accounts with their ISP's by FALSELY claiming sexual threats.
> With you, the claim was valid.
Kunt the very LAST woman to ever have to worry about sexual threats from
me would be Stacy ALexande, next to her would have been Barbara Amero, Carol
Ann Worstal Hemingway, and now our own Feminist crackpot, Maureen
McAllister.
>> So you want to ENGAGE on this, do ya, POLACK? Maybe a bit more of a
>>history lesson might help. As a result of their wars against me and others
>>was that in the final analysis it cost ALEXANDER - *HER* accounts
>>(stertourssa) and a succession of others.
> Got proof?
It's ALL in the archives.
>>Amero was on a CO-OP ISP in Canada. She was warned to stop. Had her
>>account lifted, went bonkers and
>>wound up in a rubber room for several YEARS.
> Got anything, besides your worthless word, to support your claim?
It's there, the warning from the system operator and all in the
archives.
>> The FACT is that you can't find the post that MOORE has on his website
>>because it NEVER EXISTED in that form.
> Yet you admitted writing it.
You keep CLAIMING that I admitted this, and I admitted that (which you
pull on everyone) the only problem is you are blowing these lies out of your
ASS, Wills. It's your dyslexia kicking up its ugly head again. I admitted
that I wrote "MOST" of that is in that post. Just NOT THAT POST! I said each
and every time that Moore did a CUT AND PASTE from several posts of mine and
adding a word here and there. The reason THAT post doesn't exist on Google
is because MOORE INVENTED IT. You CAN find where I said almost all of those
things. Just NOT in ONE message. You poor old fool Polack!
>>It is Moore's compilation of REAL posts I made.
> So you claim. I see nothing in the way of evidence to support
> your claim.
Start with the FACT (you know those pesky things) that THAT post did not
show up on Google's archives. I know you HATE "FACTS" Kunt. It also failed
to show in the AOL ladder. In addition, JERKOFF, there were TWO other
newsgroup archives at the time, NEITHER of which allowed "NUKING" of posts
OR the NO ARCHIVE command. That BULLSHIT didn't show there either. I know
MOORE whines that I had the post "NUKED" (yet has NEVER offered anything
remotely resembling PROOF, but how does he explain the other three not
showing it either????? Wasd I able to "NUKE" the post in archives that
didn't allow NUKING? ,Maybe I have special powers? Do ya think? MOORE also
claims that I am a registered sex offender in Wisconsin and Florida, yet
neither state lists me, and your GAY LOVER (MOORE) claims I have those
"NUKED" as well. Whenever Davedy CAN'T prove his claims, his answer is that
I had the evidence "NUKED." I must be a very important and POWERFUL dude.
If I had ANY of these magical powers that you QUEER-BUDDY Moore (sorry for
offending any gay people) claims I have, HE would have been the FIRST thing
I had "NUKED."
I apologize for calling Moore a "QUEER" it really isn't a reference to
homosexuals, just that you BUDDY is rather ODD.
>>Saying almost everything in his post, just NOT in one place.
>>EVEN as HE HAS it - no SANE person would take it as a REAL threat for
>>rape,
>>not unless you think there really ARE horny space aliens out there. For
>>the
>>record, Kunt, *I* do NOT believe there are horny aliens (except Mexicans)
>>coming to Earth looking to get laid.
> You're bigotry doesn't allow you to see the truth that Mexicans are
> from Earth?
You still have that English as a 5th language problem, don't ya KUNT?
You are a humor impared Polack.
>>And what's with that whole COW thing with them?
> This is the second time I've seen you reference cows with aliens.
> Are you referring to the episode of South Park where aliens kept
> turning the cows inside out?
Christ, Wills you are fukkkkkkking DUMB. I mean TERMINALLY STUPID. EVen
for somebody with a 14 IQ you are STOOOOOOOOOOPID! (Cattle mutilations, and
blaming it on OUTER SPACE ALIENS). NO, Kunt I do NOT believe in horny little
green men from outer space come to Earth looking for some Earth Pussy! EVEN
IF I believed that the Earth was being visited by beings from outer space
(I've seen NO proof of that) I am POSITIVE they would NOT be coming here to
GET LAID!
>>YOU being the POLACK you are believe in the aliens,
> It's possible there is life on other planets. I can't accept
> they've found a way to travel the vastness of space and make use of it
> to come to earth and do experiments. Seems kind of juvenile to me.
And do you believe they would be coming to Earth to get a little PUSSY?
krp
>>> >It was a Moore CUT AND PASTE number from several posts I made
>>> >ridiculing
>>> >Stacy
>>> >Alexander's bullshit claims of being Japanese.
>>>
>>> You think she's not Japanese. Ok. Maybe she's not.
>>
>> Definately she was NOT. She was STUPID enough to have her photo on her
>>website. There is NO "maybe" to it. It was typical STUPID feminist
>>bullshit.
> So you think that justifies your issuing a rape threat?
*I* didn't. Ask your BEST BUDDY and GAY SPOUSE, David Moore. HE wrote it
NOT me!
>>> >And your pal Moore's ONLYanswer to the FACT that it is NOT in Google's
>>> >archives is his UNSUPPORTED
>>> >CLAIM that I had it nuked.
>>> If you didn't write it, why, exactly, did you admit to writing it?
>> Learn to READ Maureen.
> Outside of your drunken delusions, I'm not Moe.
> It's true. We have different reproductive organs.
I doubt you two do have different sex organs. The FACT is that I did NOT
admit to writing it.
>>That post of Moore's is a CUT and PASTE of things
>>I DID write. Just NOT in that post. But YOU are too stupid to understand
>>that. They were removed from their original context.
> Yet you freely admitted to authoring the rape threat as it was
> presented.
THAT is a LIE!
>> There are plenty of reports about Moore. The truth is that LE was
>>incapable of tracing his shit. That either means Moore is smart or they
>>are
>>stupid. They decried that they couldn't get enough to get a warrant to tap
>>his connection to the net. Not that they didn't KNOW, they just could not
>>get evidence that a judge wouldn't throw out because they didn't satisfy
>>the
>>rules.
> They don't need to tap his line. A subpoena given to his ISP is
> all they would need.
What IS his ISP, Kunt? Since he has NOT posted his SHIT from ANY
identifiable source (ISP) but only via anonymous remailers, HOW would that
work, EXACTLY?
> The burden for a subpoena is very low.
Is that your LEGAL OPINION, Attorney Wills?
> Contrary to what your drunken delusions may force you to think,
> ISPs retain a great deal of information about what each user does
> on-line. One can remove all traces of their activity on their
> machine, but the ISP will still have it.
> David's ISP would have records of his sending E-mails to a
> re-mailer.
WHAT is Davey's ISP?
>>> >> MOE THE DELUSIONAL> Or how about when you talked about while you were
>>> >> in Cuba to get your
>>> >> MOE THE DELUSIONAL> "arranged" wife when you were an eyewitness to a
>>> >> 12
>>> >> year old girl
>>> >> MOE THE DELUSIONAL> being assaulted and you did nothing to stop the
>>> >> assault?
>>
>>> >> That's the SPIN you and your little pals want to put on it. I never
>>> >> SAW
>>> >> any sex acts.
>>
>>> >MOE> I didn't say sex acts I said assault.
>>>
>>> > I didn't SEE any "ASSAULTS" either.
>>
>>> You simply listened in.
>>
>> Didn't "HEAR" any assaults either. Heard voices but not anything about
>> a
>>crime in progress. I can neither SEE nnor hear tghrough walls like YOU
>>claim
>>that YOU CAN and say I SHOULD.
> I, and others, state you should have altered the authorities, not
> developed masturbation fantasies about the little girl.
And they are STUPID statements. Alerted the authorities to WHAT?
EXACTLY!! Be specific here, Wills. I neither saw nor heard any sexual acts
and NO "assault" that I could report. You keep STATING what you DEMAND that
I "SHOULD HAVE DONE." How was I to have "ALERTED" the authorities? We have
been over the NO PHONES shit ad nauseam. YOU say I SHOULD have ruin out to
the street and started SCREAMING RAPE!! But I neither saw nor heard any
RAPE. I imagine that IF I did what YOU say I was "OBLIGATED" to do that they
would have hauled me off to the LOONEY BIN. I am not a "STUPID POLACK" like
you, Wills. The issue was handled by the CUBANS. They did NOT need ME to be
a vigilante. Do you ahve ANY idea that the more you continue your INSANE
ranting on this subject, the more you demonstrate your mental disturbances
to the world?
>> No "story" I NEVER said she was anywhere at THAT time but with me.
> Liar.
PROVE IT you LIAR!
>> How would he know where my wife was in Cuba????? Truth?
> You've claimed she wasn't there and that she was. Both can't be
> true, so one MUST be a lie.
No, Wills you are LYING. I did NOT say she wasn't with me. YOU ARE
MAKING SHIT UP AGAIN!
>>> >She stayed with me on THAT trip the whole time. I also NEVER
>>> >said anything about her family not being able to afford electricity.
>>> So now they had electricity? You had claimed they didn't because the
>>> cost
>>> was too high.
>
>> Wills claimed that, I did NOT.
> You did. I simply cited your claim.
Man you SUPID POLACKS get confused easily. You are confusing the
farmhouse I stayed at with my wife's house. It's that POLACK STUPIDITY of
your rearing its ugly head again. You seem to think there is only ONE place
in all of Cuba. How much more of a MORON do you want to prove yourself to
be, Wills? Therev was NO electricity at the farmhouse, but that farmhouse
was NOT owned by my wife or anyone in her family.It was the home of some
folks connected to the church group. MAN you are incredible, Wills, I did
not think anyone as stuipid as you could stop drooling long enough to type.
You REALLY need to improve your reading skills, Wills.
Greegor
Kent Wills
<gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Kent, WHY did you once claim you were a school teacher?
Your question dishonestly implies that I am no longer one.
Why are you being so deceptive in your presentation?
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."
Kent Wills
>
>"Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:lodoa5l5vnijvte0a...@4ax.com...
>
>>>>>> MOE THE DELUSIONAL> How about when you tried to solicit for a woman to
>>>>>> be raped?
>
>>>>>> You are a sick women. *I* never did such a thing.
>
>>>>>MOE> You did and tried to cover your tracks, Problem was you responded
>>>>>to
>>>>>MOE> the rape post in such a way that you forgot to cover your tracks
>>>>>and
>>>>>MOE> you were exposed. for it
>
>>>>> Maureen - that post was NOT from me which can be easily seen.
>
>>>> It was from you. You admitted you wrote it.
>>>> You claimed it was presented as a form of sarcasm and ridicule.
>
>>> You don't read very carefully either as Moe doesn't.
>
>> I never read as Moe. Since she and I are different people,
>> reading as her would be stupid.
>
> What a COMPLETE TWIT you are, Polack.
http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com/race.html
You claim, as can be seen above, that I don't read carefully
either as Moe doesn't.
It's not my problem that you are UNABLE to formulate your
thoughts in a coherent and rational manner. I simply expose you for
the uneducated simpleton you are.
>
>>>From the start I said that that FAKE post was actually a CUT AND PASTE of
>>>several (6 as I
>>>recall) posts that I *DID* make.
>
>> Why do you lie?
>
> Why do you?
You've never exposed so much as one lie from me, while I've
exposed so many from you, it would take too long to count.
Now, please answer the question asked.
>
>>>They were meant as SARCASM (ridicule.) The
>>>Mr. Moto reference was first among them. AT that time Ms. Alexander had
>>>made
>>>up an ELABORATE story of being Japanese. Of course she was NOT.
>
> Whether she was or not is NOT grounds to issue a rape threat.
>
>A big
>debate started on the Mr. Moto reference as "racist." A rather feeble
>attempt.
You're bigotry is well documented. A very small portion of the
documentation can be seen at
http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com/race.html/
What's really great is that the documentation listed consists of
your own writings, with links to the archives at Google so accuracy
and context can be verified.
>>>Stacy was TRYING to portray her brother as a GREAT DETECTIVE
>>>getting the "goods" on me and IN Japan at the time. ALL of her stories were
>>>delusions. Mr. Moto by the way WAS a Japanese Detective and portrayed as a
>>>HERO in several movies. Kunt - you POLACK - her brother was neither
>>>Japanese OR a detective - IN FACT Stacy didn't have a brother.
>>
>> Have I ever claimed she does?
>> Once again your NEED to distract from the truth is proved by the
>>TRUTH that you try to argue a point no one is disputing.
>
> Kunt, WHO the fukkk cares what YOU claimed? EVER?
You do. That you reply PROVES you care. To what degree is open
for debate, but that you care is an established truth.
BTW, why aren't you addressing the bit about your need to
distract from the truth? by your own standards you have admitted I am
correct, but I would like a bit more.
>
>>>As to the various parts of the post - they came in during a LONG flame war
>>>between
>>>Stacy and I. Of course you SNIP out of the discussion the "GROUP" that
>>>Stacy and her feminazi pal Barbara Amero had going called; "Take Back the
>>>Net" to make false complaints against any men's rights activists to lose
>>>them their accounts with their ISP's by FALSELY claiming sexual threats.
>
>> With you, the claim was valid.
>
> Kunt the very LAST woman to ever have to worry about sexual threats from
>me would be Stacy ALexande,
Yet you made the rape threat.
>next to her would have been Barbara Amero, Carol
>Ann Worstal Hemingway, and now our own Feminist crackpot, Maureen
>McAllister.
>
Since you've already made a rape threat against Stacy, a truth
you once admitted, I suppose the others should expect something
similar?
>>>And
>>>using SPOOFING software to make threatening posts appear to have come from
>>>their targets.
>>
>> With you, no spoofing was needed.
>>
I see you admit, by your standards, that I'm correct here as
well. Great!
>>> So you want to ENGAGE on this, do ya, POLACK? Maybe a bit more of a
>>>history lesson might help. As a result of their wars against me and others
>>>was that in the final analysis it cost ALEXANDER - *HER* accounts
>>>(stertourssa) and a succession of others.
>
>> Got proof?
>
> It's ALL in the archives.
I don't see any links. Post the MIDs and/or Google links. Unless
you'd rather admit you've been lying the whole time.
>
>>>Amero was on a CO-OP ISP in Canada. She was warned to stop. Had her
>>>account lifted, went bonkers and
>>>wound up in a rubber room for several YEARS.
>
>> Got anything, besides your worthless word, to support your claim?
>
> It's there, the warning from the system operator and all in the
>archives.
>
Prove it. Unless you're telling everyone reading that your lying.
>>> The FACT is that you can't find the post that MOORE has on his website
>>>because it NEVER EXISTED in that form.
>
>> Yet you admitted writing it.
>
> You keep CLAIMING that I admitted this, and I admitted that (which you
>pull on everyone) the only problem is you are blowing these lies out of your
>ASS, Wills. It's your dyslexia kicking up its ugly head again. I admitted
>that I wrote "MOST" of that is in that post. Just NOT THAT POST!
If you're going to lie, and you are, lie about that which can't
be proved.
http://groups.google.com/group/milw.general/msg/0468b8085d0ee5b5
The post to which I link above is where you admitted you authored
the rape threat. no mention of admitting to portions, or that the
threat is a compilation of different parts of different posts is seen.
Just you admitting you authored the threat and claiming it was sarcasm
and ridicule.
No amount of your lying will alter the truth.
>I said each
>and every time that Moore did a CUT AND PASTE from several posts of mine and
>adding a word here and there. The reason THAT post doesn't exist on Google
>is because MOORE INVENTED IT. You CAN find where I said almost all of those
>things. Just NOT in ONE message. You poor old fool Polack!
http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com/race.html
>
>>>It is Moore's compilation of REAL posts I made.
>
>> So you claim. I see nothing in the way of evidence to support
>> your claim.
>
> Start with the FACT (you know those pesky things) that THAT post did not
>show up on Google's archives.
So you had it nuked. Such a thing likely occurs every day from
someone with their posts.
>I know you HATE "FACTS" Kunt.
Yet I use them frequently to PROVE you the liar you are.
>It also failed
>to show in the AOL ladder.
If true, you should be able to prove your claim.
>In addition, JERKOFF, there were TWO other
>newsgroup archives at the time, NEITHER of which allowed "NUKING" of posts
>OR the NO ARCHIVE command.
What are the URLs?
>That BULLSHIT didn't show there either. I know
>MOORE whines that I had the post "NUKED" (yet has NEVER offered anything
>remotely resembling PROOF, but how does he explain the other three not
>showing it either?????
Above you claim two.
You can't maintain your lie for a single paragraph.
>Wasd I able to "NUKE" the post in archives that
>didn't allow NUKING? ,Maybe I have special powers? Do ya think? MOORE also
>claims that I am a registered sex offender in Wisconsin and Florida, yet
>neither state lists me, and your GAY LOVER (MOORE)
You're the one who claimed David is your gay lover. A lie that
was so easy to prove, I almost felt guilty proving it.
>claims I have those
>"NUKED" as well.
Odd that you alone see that.
Post the MID(s) and/or Google link(s) to any such post(s) from
David. Unless you'd rather admit you've been lying the whole time.
>Whenever Davedy CAN'T prove his claims, his answer is that
>I had the evidence "NUKED."
Odd that you alone see that.
Post the MID(s) and/or Google link(s) to any such post(s) from
David. Unless you'd rather admit you've been lying the whole time.
>I must be a very important and POWERFUL dude.
Maybe within the confines of your drunken delusions.
>If I had ANY of these magical powers that you QUEER-BUDDY Moore (sorry for
>offending any gay people)
You're gay. You've offered the proof yourself.
No matter how often you try to make my proving you the liar you
are a gay bashing thing, it's not going to work. I can't care less
than I do that you are sexually attracted to men. Really. I can not
care any less than I do. There is no reason for you to continue to
project your sexual orientation onto me, or anyone else.
I would hope that by now you could accept no one cares.
>claims I have, HE would have been the FIRST thing
>I had "NUKED."
>I apologize for calling Moore a "QUEER" it really isn't a reference to
>homosexuals, just that you BUDDY is rather ODD.
He has an odd sense of humor. I still don't get his latest joke.
Two guys walk into a bar. The third one ducked.
>
>>>Saying almost everything in his post, just NOT in one place.
>>>EVEN as HE HAS it - no SANE person would take it as a REAL threat for
>>>rape,
>>>not unless you think there really ARE horny space aliens out there. For
>>>the
>>>record, Kunt, *I* do NOT believe there are horny aliens (except Mexicans)
>>>coming to Earth looking to get laid.
>
>> You're bigotry doesn't allow you to see the truth that Mexicans are
>> from Earth?
>
> You still have that English as a 5th language problem, don't ya KUNT?
>You are a humor impared Polack.
http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com/race.html
>
>>>And what's with that whole COW thing with them?
>
>> This is the second time I've seen you reference cows with aliens.
>> Are you referring to the episode of South Park where aliens kept
>> turning the cows inside out?
>
> Christ, Wills you are fukkkkkkking DUMB. I mean TERMINALLY STUPID. EVen
>for somebody with a 14 IQ you are STOOOOOOOOOOPID! (Cattle mutilations, and
>blaming it on OUTER SPACE ALIENS).
Why didn't you just state cattle mutilations?
I understand your massive consumption of alcohol, unless you
lied, makes being coherent very difficult for you, but you could try.
> NO, Kunt I do NOT believe in horny little
>green men from outer space come to Earth looking for some Earth Pussy! EVEN
>IF I believed that the Earth was being visited by beings from outer space
>(I've seen NO proof of that) I am POSITIVE they would NOT be coming here to
>GET LAID!
Probably not.
>
>>>YOU being the POLACK you are believe in the aliens,
>
>> It's possible there is life on other planets. I can't accept
>> they've found a way to travel the vastness of space and make use of it
>> to come to earth and do experiments. Seems kind of juvenile to me.
>
> And do you believe they would be coming to Earth to get a little PUSSY?
>
Have I claimed, directly or through implication that they would?
In reality, and not one of your MANY alcohol induced fantasies, I
mean.
Presuming there is life on other planets that have the ability yo
travel the vastness of space over a reasonable amount of time, I doubt
they would pay much notice of us. We haven't bothered to send any
people to our nearest neighbor, the moon, since the early 70's. We'd
probably be seen as too primitive to bother.
>>>I don't know,
>>>Kunt, as I read your shit I am starting to wonder. Maybe they DO exist and
>>>not only abducted you and did perverse sexual things to you, but removed
>>>your brain for study. Some day they might come back and return it.
>>>
>>
>>
>> What would be YOUR excuse? You consistently offer the proof that
>>I am your intellectual superior.
I see you admit, by YOUR standards, that I am correct in this as
well. Good. I didn't really want to damage your fragile ego by
actually proving, again, that I am your intellectual superior, though
I suspect I did throughout this reply.
Kent Wills
>
>"Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:rvdoa55219f42ldii...@4ax.com...
>
>>>> >It was a Moore CUT AND PASTE number from several posts I made
>>>> >ridiculing
>>>> >Stacy
>>>> >Alexander's bullshit claims of being Japanese.
>>>>
>>>> You think she's not Japanese. Ok. Maybe she's not.
>>>
>>> Definately she was NOT. She was STUPID enough to have her photo on her
>>>website. There is NO "maybe" to it. It was typical STUPID feminist
>>>bullshit.
>
>> So you think that justifies your issuing a rape threat?
>
> *I* didn't. Ask your BEST BUDDY and GAY SPOUSE, David Moore. HE wrote it
>NOT me!
>
If that is true, why did you admit to authoring the threat?
http://groups.google.com/group/milw.general/msg/0468b8085d0ee5b5
>>>> >And your pal Moore's ONLYanswer to the FACT that it is NOT in Google's
>>>> >archives is his UNSUPPORTED
>>>> >CLAIM that I had it nuked.
>
>>>> If you didn't write it, why, exactly, did you admit to writing it?
>
>>> Learn to READ Maureen.
>
>> Outside of your drunken delusions, I'm not Moe.
>> It's true. We have different reproductive organs.
>
> I doubt you two do have different sex organs.
Males and females have different sex organs. I would have
expected you to already know this.
I realize you have no formal education. Your posts PROVE you
didn't learn much of anything in high school. Even so, you should be
aware that males and females have different sex organs.
It's a pity that your so stone cold stupid, as definitely PROVED
by your own post, that you are unaware of the simple truth and fact
that the reproductive organs of males and females are different.
>The FACT is that I did NOT
>admit to writing it.
Anyone with an interest can see that you did, and that you
claimed it was posted as a means of sarcasm and ridicule.
http://groups.google.com/group/milw.general/msg/0468b8085d0ee5b5
I can accept your motivation, even though a pillar of salt is
needed to swallow it, but that you have to LIE and claim you didn't
write it, unless you LIED when you claimed you did, doesn't help you
at all.
>
>>>That post of Moore's is a CUT and PASTE of things
>>>I DID write. Just NOT in that post. But YOU are too stupid to understand
>>>that. They were removed from their original context.
>
>> Yet you freely admitted to authoring the rape threat as it was
>> presented.
>
> THAT is a LIE!
http://groups.google.com/group/milw.general/msg/0468b8085d0ee5b5
Oops. I just exposed ANOTHER of the MANY Kenneth Robert Pangborn
pathological lies.
If you hadn't authored the threat, you wouldn't have had need to
justify it as sarcasm and ridicule.
>
>>> There are plenty of reports about Moore. The truth is that LE was
>>>incapable of tracing his shit. That either means Moore is smart or they
>>>are
>>>stupid. They decried that they couldn't get enough to get a warrant to tap
>>>his connection to the net. Not that they didn't KNOW, they just could not
>>>get evidence that a judge wouldn't throw out because they didn't satisfy
>>>the
>>>rules.
>
>> They don't need to tap his line. A subpoena given to his ISP is
>> all they would need.
>
>
> What IS his ISP, Kunt? Since he has NOT posted his SHIT from ANY
>identifiable source (ISP) but only via anonymous remailers, HOW would that
>work, EXACTLY?
That you're too STUPID (unable to learn) to figure it out is
actually quite funny.
>
>> The burden for a subpoena is very low.
>
> Is that your LEGAL OPINION, Attorney Wills?
>
Outside of your drunken delusions, I'm still not an attorney.
I understand the alcoholism you claim caused you to be found
legally insane also forces you to believe I'm a lawyer, but outside of
your delusions, I'm not.
Please try to back peddle now by claiming you know I'm not a
lawyer. Doing so won't alter the truth that you believe I am, as
PROVED by your consistently claiming I am.
>> Contrary to what your drunken delusions may force you to think,
>> ISPs retain a great deal of information about what each user does
>> on-line. One can remove all traces of their activity on their
>> machine, but the ISP will still have it.
>> David's ISP would have records of his sending E-mails to a
>> re-mailer.
>
> WHAT is Davey's ISP?
You'll have to get your stalking material on your own.
Unless you wish to pay me $10,000,000.00 in guarantied funds. Do
that and you'll have everything about David you could ever want.
Possibly more than you could ever want.
Most of it will become outdated within 24 to 48 hours, of course.
With that kind of money, I'll buy his family a new place to live, set
them up with a new ISP, and whatever else I can legally do.
I know you don't have that kind of money (very few people do), so
he's quite safe from your stalking.
[...]
>>>> >MOE> I didn't say sex acts I said assault.
>>>>
>>>> > I didn't SEE any "ASSAULTS" either.
>>>
>>>> You simply listened in.
>>>
>>> Didn't "HEAR" any assaults either. Heard voices but not anything about
>>> a
>>>crime in progress. I can neither SEE nnor hear tghrough walls like YOU
>>>claim
>>>that YOU CAN and say I SHOULD.
>
>> I, and others, state you should have altered the authorities, not
>> developed masturbation fantasies about the little girl.
>
> And they are STUPID statements.
How long have you seen alerting the authorities to an assault as
stupid?
>Alerted the authorities to WHAT?
>EXACTLY!! Be specific here, Wills. I neither saw nor heard any sexual acts
>and NO "assault" that I could report. You keep STATING what you DEMAND that
>I "SHOULD HAVE DONE." How was I to have "ALERTED" the authorities?
How many times do I need to answer the same question? What is
the magic number? Please tell me so that I'll have an idea as to when
it will break through the alcoholic (unless you lied) fog in which
your mind resides.
>We have
>been over the NO PHONES shit ad nauseam.
Which begs the question of why you CONSTANTLY need to bring it
up. It's as if you're trying to distract from the truth by constantly
mentioning that which was accepted long ago.
>YOU say I SHOULD have ruin out to
>the street and started SCREAMING RAPE!!
It was an option.
> But I neither saw nor heard any
>RAPE.
But in the first incarnation of your story, you saw them enter
the CP.
Did you think she was selling girl scout cookies?
>I imagine that IF I did what YOU say I was "OBLIGATED" to do that they
>would have hauled me off to the LOONEY BIN. I am not a "STUPID POLACK" like
http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com/race.html
>you, Wills. The issue was handled by the CUBANS.
As it would have been had you done more than create some
fantasies.
>They did NOT need ME to be
>a vigilante.
I've never suggested you should have been one.
Alerting the proper authorities isn't being a vigilante, stupid.
>Do you ahve ANY idea that the more you continue your INSANE
>ranting on this subject, the more you demonstrate your mental disturbances
>to the world?
You are the one who changed important details of the tale several
times. Your the one who DISHONESTLY claims I suggested you be a
vigilante.
Clearly you were being honest when you claimed, in ARDU, that you
are insane.
>
>
>>> No "story" I NEVER said she was anywhere at THAT time but with me.
>
>> Liar.
>
> PROVE IT you LIAR!
I did. A few times. You suddenly ceased posting to the threads.
That's one of the tells you send out. When someone is 100% spot
on, and you realize you can't lie your way out of it, you RUN.
>
>>> How would he know where my wife was in Cuba????? Truth?
>
>> You've claimed she wasn't there and that she was. Both can't be
>> true, so one MUST be a lie.
>
> No, Wills you are LYING. I did NOT say she wasn't with me. YOU ARE
>MAKING SHIT UP AGAIN!
In one version you were sitting in the front room alone.
In another you were alone in your room because it would be
illegal for your baby elephant (as you referred to your wife) to be in
the room with you.
When you needed her to have been with you in the room, suddenly
she was.
Then you claimed you were in the atrium (your word is as good as
any, since I can't think of what such an area might be called) with
your baby elephant.
I'm starting to wonder if the incident ever occurred at all.
Given how important details have changed as you've told the tale, it's
very possible you made it all up.
>
>>>> >She stayed with me on THAT trip the whole time. I also NEVER
>>>> >said anything about her family not being able to afford electricity.
>
>>>> So now they had electricity? You had claimed they didn't because the
>>>> cost
>>>> was too high.
>>
>>> Wills claimed that, I did NOT.
>
>> You did. I simply cited your claim.
>
> Man you SUPID POLACKS get confused easily.
http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com/race.html
>You are confusing the
>farmhouse I stayed at with my wife's house.
So your wife, a judge, couldn't afford electricity?
Do you think before you post?
Scratch that. It's been proved by so many people that you don't,
it's likely accepted by everyone. Of course, we would need everyone
to post that they accept it to be certain.
>It's that POLACK STUPIDITY of
http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com/race.html
>your rearing its ugly head again. You seem to think there is only ONE place
>in all of Cuba.
When have I presented such a concept, directly or through
implication? Be specific and prepared to have any lies exposed.
If you prefer, you may admit your lying.
>How much more of a MORON do you want to prove yourself to
>be, Wills? Therev was NO electricity at the farmhouse, but that farmhouse
>was NOT owned by my wife or anyone in her family.It was the home of some
>folks connected to the church group.
So you LIED about staying with Barbara's family. Got it.
>MAN you are incredible, Wills, I did
>not think anyone as stuipid as you could stop drooling long enough to type.
>You REALLY need to improve your reading skills, Wills.
>
I read very well. So well that I am able to expose your
continued lies with almost no effort.
That you are unable to maintain your lies is not a reflection on
my reading skills, but the total lack of skill you posses when it
comes to presenting your lies.
krp
> You've never exposed so much as one lie from me, while I've
> exposed so many from you, it would take too long to count.
> Now, please answer the question asked.
Kunt - you truly ARE a legend in your own mind. You still delude
yourself that making wild unsupported claims and your BELLOWING is "proof."
> Since you've already made a rape threat against Stacy, a truth
> you once admitted, I suppose the others should expect something
> similar?
I admitted NO SUCH THING! YOU and your gay boyfriend (David Moore) are
LIARS!
> I don't see any links. Post the MIDs and/or Google links. Unless
> you'd rather admit you've been lying the whole time.
Post the Google links to the posts you CLAIM I made, but which YOU can't
show that I did, that show I didn't? Tlel me JERKOFF, how do I post a link
to a post YOU claim I made, and I say I didn't. YOU demand that I post a
link to a post that doesn't exist! What an interesting concept, Wills.
>> You keep CLAIMING that I admitted this, and I admitted that (which you
>>pull on everyone) the only problem is you are blowing these lies out of
>>your
>>ASS, Wills. It's your dyslexia kicking up its ugly head again. I admitted
>>that I wrote "MOST" of that is in that post. Just NOT THAT POST!
> If you're going to lie, and you are, lie about that which can't
> be proved.
> http://groups.google.com/group/milw.general/msg/0468b8085d0ee5b5
Oh lets LOOK at this "EVIDENCE" This PROOF!!!!!! But let's look closely at
what YOU claim is PROOF of what *I* said!!! This is your "ABSOLUTE PROOF"
================
>From: nob...@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
>Newsgroups: milw.general
> We'd like to arrange for YOUR rape, but so far we haven't been able to
find any being with the stomach for it! We've even been trying to flag down
alien spacecraft, and they threaten to destroy the planet if we make one of
heir people do you!
SARCASM DAVID!!!!! RIDICULE of Stacy ALexander...
=================
And YOU find this as a CREDIBLE admission that *I* admitted to being the
author! All it PROVES is that I said the statement was SARCASM and RIDICULE.
NOT that I wrote it or that it was a serious RAPE threat, unless you
actually BELIEVE that there ARE lots of "horny aliens from outer space" and
that I have been in direct communicatuion with them. You ARE pretty insane,
Kunt, even for a stupid Polack, but how many people believe that there
REALLY ARE flying saucers filled with SEX STARVED ALIENS out there looking
for some Earth nookey???? BESIDE YOU and MOORE, that is?
> The post to which I link above is where you admitted you authored
> the rape threat. no mention of admitting to portions, or that the
> threat is a compilation of different parts of different posts is seen.
> Just you admitting you authored the threat and claiming it was sarcasm
> and ridicule. No amount of your lying will alter the truth.
Only in your TWISTED, DERANGED, PERVERTED mind Wills and that of your
moronic pal David Moore. I see NOTHING in this "smoking gun" evidence of
your whare I *ADMIT* to anything other than the paragraph is SARCASM and
RIDICULE. Somehow the part of "I wrote that" appears to be missing. Got a
good POLACK explanation for that one, Kunt? Bwahahahahaha! WHat a marooon!
>> Start with the FACT (you know those pesky things) that THAT post did
>> not
>>show up on Google's archives.
> So you had it nuked. Such a thing likely occurs every day from
> someone with their posts.
Ah we are back to that LAME allegation that I get all sorts of things
"NUKED." That MIGHT have worked, Kunt, but for the OTHER sources that
existed that did NOT show that post as originating from me.
>>I know you HATE "FACTS" Kunt.
> Yet I use them frequently to PROVE you the liar you are.
Example of you using the things YOU claim to be "facts" are above in
your link to a post I made in Milwaukee General that YOU READ that I said I
was "ADMITTING" that I wrote it. Its's that fukkking POLACK logic again, to
a NORMAL person's logic, it would seem that what I *DID* say was that the
paragpraph was "SARCASM and RIDICULE" I seem to MISS there I allegedly
admitted that *I* wrote it. Care to show it, Kunt?
>>It also failed to show in the AOL ladder.
> If true, you should be able to prove your claim.
How can I show something that doesn't exist? YOU offered your "ABSOLUTE
PROOF" and it FAILS yet again even though you are loudly congratulating
yourself. Well, at least MOE and other brain dead people will believe you.
However, not anyone normal. It simply does NOT say what YOU claim it does.
That being that I *ADMITTED* to being the author. TRY AGAIN LOSER!
krp
>> *I* didn't. Ask your BEST BUDDY and GAY SPOUSE, David Moore. HE wrote
>> it
>>NOT me!
> If that is true, why did you admit to authoring the threat?
> http://groups.google.com/group/milw.general/msg/0468b8085d0ee5b5
Really Kent? In that post you CLAIM that I admit that *I* authored it?
Let's put your bullshit claim to the test. Let's examine what YOU claim it
says, versus what it ACTUALLY SAYS;
===========================
Newsgroups: milw.general
From: pa...@aol.com (PangK)
Date: 1998/04/26
Subject: Moore flunks reading 101
Reply to author | Forward | Print | View thread | Show original | Report
this message | Find messages by this author
>From: nob...@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
>Newsgroups: milw.general
> We'd like to arrange for YOUR rape, but so far we haven't been able to
find any being with the stomach for it! We've even been trying to flag down
alien spacecraft, and they threaten to destroy the planet if we make one of
heir people do you!
SARCASM DAVID!!!!! RIDICULE of Stacy ALexander...
==============================================
Excuse me, KUNT, just WHERE in that post does it say that I *ADMIT* that
I was the author of the first paragraph? Does that statement appear
ANYWHERE in THAT post? What am I missing other than your POLACK reading of
it? It would appear that ALL I said was that the comment was "SARCASM and
RIDICULE" so your "ABSOLUTE PROOF that you are congratulating yourself over
in dozens of posts now- FAILS. YET AGAIN. But this will NEVER deter you from
continuing to claim that you "PROVED" I admitted it. GOOD GOING MORON!
> Anyone with an interest can see that you did, and that you
> claimed it was posted as a means of sarcasm and ridicule.
> http://groups.google.com/group/milw.general/msg/0468b8085d0ee5b5
No matter how many times you REPEAT yourself ON CONGRATULATING yourself
on your EVIDENCE," Kunt, NORMAL folks seem unable to see "I WRITE THAT"
anywhere in that post. Except moronic POLACKS that is.
> Oops. I just exposed ANOTHER of the MANY Kenneth Robert Pangborn
> pathological lies.
> If you hadn't authored the threat, you wouldn't have had need to
> justify it as sarcasm and ridicule.
Really? Was that what I was doing? Does it say somewhere that "I post
this to justify what I said?" Or do I merely poke fun at your IDIOT
boyfriend (DAVID MOORE) who read that as a REAL rape threat. See many aliens
in Flying Saucers lately, have ya, Kent? And GIANT rabbits attack you while
you were in your fishing boat in the middle of a lake? Had much BILLY BEER
lately, Kunt? And I would say again today, confronted with that paragraph.
That it is RIDICULE of Ms. Alexander who tried to be a RAPE ACTIVIST. This
is STILL not an admission that I wrote it. And just to note AGAIN, Kunt
while YOU may believe you were abducted by little green men in a flying
saucer, I do NOT. I also do NOT believe I am in contact with ANY spaceships.
YOU may, but I don't. I enjoy science fiction, but the difference between
you and I is that I *KNOW* there are NO Klingons. NO Romulan Empire. NO
Borg. No Gua'old. And, Kunt, I think life on other planets MAY be possible
(but there is absolutely NO evidence of that yet) I am 100% certain that any
species capable of building faster than light vehicles would NOT be horny
sex fiends looking for a little EARTH PUSSY!
KUNT WILLS RE: LOCATING DAVID MOORE:
>> What IS his ISP, Kunt? Since he has NOT posted his SHIT from ANY
>>identifiable source (ISP) but only via anonymous remailers, HOW would that
>>work, EXACTLY?
> That you're too STUPID (unable to learn) to figure it out is actually
> quite funny.
Oh really, then take one of Moore posts and YOU show is the SUPERIOR
POLACK INTELLIGENCE! (Bwahahahahahahaha!)
Kent Wills
>ONE MORE EXAMPLE OF KENT WILLS PISS POOR READING SKILLS
>"Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:6fdpa59qe2dk1q40n...@4ax.com...
>
>>> *I* didn't. Ask your BEST BUDDY and GAY SPOUSE, David Moore. HE wrote
>>> it
>>>NOT me!
>
>> If that is true, why did you admit to authoring the threat?
>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/milw.general/msg/0468b8085d0ee5b5
>
> Really Kent? In that post you CLAIM that I admit that *I* authored it?
The very one. Anyone with a desire may check and see that you
felt the need to justify the threat. Had you not authored it, you
wouldn't have felt the need to mention the motivation was a means of
sarcasm and ridicule.
Your motivation may well have been sarcasm and ridicule. I can't
KNOW the reason, of course.
I can KNOW that you felt the need to justify the rape threat. Had
you not been the author, you wouldn't have needed to explain the
motivation.
>Let's put your bullshit claim to the test. Let's examine what YOU claim it
>says, versus what it ACTUALLY SAYS;
>
Thank you for allowing me another opportunity to PROVE you are a
pathological liar. I'm certain everyone reading has already accepted
that while you can be honest, it's so difficult for you that you
rarely bother.
Even though it's likely to be universally accepted, that you are
willing to allow me another chance to add to the volumes of proof is
appreciated.
>===========================
>
>Newsgroups: milw.general
>From: pa...@aol.com (PangK)
>Date: 1998/04/26
>Subject: Moore flunks reading 101
>Reply to author | Forward | Print | View thread | Show original | Report
>this message | Find messages by this author
>
>>From: nob...@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
>>Newsgroups: milw.general
>> We'd like to arrange for YOUR rape, but so far we haven't been able to
>
>
>find any being with the stomach for it! We've even been trying to flag down
>alien spacecraft, and they threaten to destroy the planet if we make one of
>heir people do you!
>
>SARCASM DAVID!!!!! RIDICULE of Stacy ALexander...
>==============================================
>
> Excuse me, KUNT, just WHERE in that post does it say that I *ADMIT* that
>I was the author of the first paragraph?
Had you not been the author, you wouldn't have felt the need to
explain the motivation for it's having been written.
I understand you are a very stupid (unable to learn) person, but
even you should be able to grasp such a simple premise.
Perhaps I over estimated your intellectual level?
>Does that statement appear
>ANYWHERE in THAT post? What am I missing other than your POLACK reading of
http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com/race.html
>it? It would appear that ALL I said was that the comment was "SARCASM and
>RIDICULE" so your "ABSOLUTE PROOF that you are congratulating yourself over
>in dozens of posts now- FAILS.
You're the one failing. You wouldn't have needed to justify the
rape threat if it had been a fake.
>YET AGAIN. But this will NEVER deter you from
>continuing to claim that you "PROVED" I admitted it. GOOD GOING MORON!
I have. No amount of your arguing semantics and looking for tiny
loop holes that don't exist, will ever alter the truth.
>
>> Anyone with an interest can see that you did, and that you
>> claimed it was posted as a means of sarcasm and ridicule.
>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/milw.general/msg/0468b8085d0ee5b5
>
> No matter how many times you REPEAT yourself ON CONGRATULATING yourself
>on your EVIDENCE," Kunt, NORMAL folks seem unable to see "I WRITE THAT"
>anywhere in that post. Except moronic POLACKS that is.
http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com/race.html
>
>> Oops. I just exposed ANOTHER of the MANY Kenneth Robert Pangborn
>> pathological lies.
>> If you hadn't authored the threat, you wouldn't have had need to
>> justify it as sarcasm and ridicule.
>
> Really? Was that what I was doing?
That's what you claim in your post.
Where you lying?
>Does it say somewhere that "I post
>this to justify what I said?" Or do I merely poke fun at your IDIOT
>boyfriend (DAVID MOORE)
You're gay. Got it.
Projecting your homosexuality onto others isn't going to get
anyone to gay bash you. Time for you to move onto other tactics in
your futile attempt to justify why people keep proving you the
pathological liar, fraud and con man you are.
>who read that as a REAL rape threat. See many aliens
>in Flying Saucers lately, have ya, Kent? And GIANT rabbits attack you while
>you were in your fishing boat in the middle of a lake? Had much BILLY BEER
>lately, Kunt?
I will ingest a single Balshi brand beer while in Aruba. That's
the totality of my alcohol consumption, outside of the thimble sized
amount at communion.
I didn't even know what Billy Beer was. I had to Google it.
Turns out that outside of your drunken (unless you lied)
delusions, it's not been made in over 20 years.
Even if I consumed alcoholic beverages on a regular basis, the
chances of my being able to have any Billy Beer are so remote as to
make your question laughable.
That being said, no, I haven't.
>And I would say again today, confronted with that paragraph.
>That it is RIDICULE of Ms. Alexander who tried to be a RAPE ACTIVIST. This
>is STILL not an admission that I wrote it.
If you didn't write the original threat, how can you claim you
were ridiculing her with the threat?
Please be specific in your reply, unless you'd rather admit I've
exposed another of your MANY pathological lies.
>And just to note AGAIN, Kunt
>while YOU may believe you were abducted by little green men in a flying
>saucer, I do NOT.
When, in reality and not one of your drunken hallucinations, have
I claimed, or even implied, that I have been?
Be specific. If you would rather admit I have exposed ANOTHER of
your pathological lies, that's acceptable as well.
>I also do NOT believe I am in contact with ANY spaceships.
>YOU may, but I don't.
I hold no such belief about you.
>I enjoy science fiction, but the difference between
>you and I is that I *KNOW* there are NO Klingons. NO Romulan Empire. NO
>Borg. No Gua'old.
Whereas each is the product of the imagination of several talented
writers, your latest lie fails.
I'm certain you're used to it, see as how you fail at everything
you try.
>And, Kunt, I think life on other planets MAY be possible
I agree.
>(but there is absolutely NO evidence of that yet) I am 100% certain that any
>species capable of building faster than light vehicles would NOT be horny
>sex fiends looking for a little EARTH PUSSY!
I doubt that any species that could find a way to travel the
vastness of space in a reasonable amount of time would give us a
second thought. We can't even get to the moon in less than three
days.
>
>KUNT WILLS RE: LOCATING DAVID MOORE:
>
>>> What IS his ISP, Kunt? Since he has NOT posted his SHIT from ANY
>>>identifiable source (ISP) but only via anonymous remailers, HOW would that
>>>work, EXACTLY?
>
>> That you're too STUPID (unable to learn) to figure it out is actually
>> quite funny.
>
> Oh really, then take one of Moore posts and YOU show is the SUPERIOR
>POLACK INTELLIGENCE! (Bwahahahahahahaha!)
>
http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com/race.html
Kent Wills
>"Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:ucdpa5p4lupj6tu5r...@4ax.com...
>
>>
>>>>>From the start I said that that FAKE post was actually a CUT AND PASTE of
>>>>>several (6 as I
>>>>>recall) posts that I *DID* make.
>>>
>>>> Why do you lie?
>>>
>>> Why do you?
>>
>> You've never exposed so much as one lie from me, while I've
>> exposed so many from you, it would take too long to count.
>> Now, please answer the question asked.
>
> Kunt - you truly ARE a legend in your own mind. You still delude
>yourself that making wild unsupported claims and your BELLOWING is "proof."
>
I see you still refuse to answer the question asked. Is an
honest answer really so difficult?
I do like how your reply has NO relation to the context of the
question asked.
>> Since you've already made a rape threat against Stacy, a truth
>> you once admitted, I suppose the others should expect something
>> similar?
>
> I admitted NO SUCH THING! YOU and your gay boyfriend (David Moore) are
>LIARS!
If you didn't author the threat, why did you claim it was sarcasm
and ridicule? How are you able to assign a motivation to a post if
you weren't motivated to write it?
>>>>> So you want to ENGAGE on this, do ya, POLACK? Maybe a bit more of a
>>>>>history lesson might help. As a result of their wars against me and others
>>>>>was that in the final analysis it cost ALEXANDER - *HER* accounts
>>>>>(stertourssa) and a succession of others.
>>>
>>>> Got proof?
>>>
>>> It's ALL in the archives.
>>
>> I don't see any links. Post the MIDs and/or Google links. Unless
>> you'd rather admit you've been lying the whole time.
>
> Post the Google links to the posts you CLAIM I made,
As can be seen above, YOU claim, "It's ALL in the archives."
>but which YOU can't
>show that I did, that show I didn't? Tlel me JERKOFF, how do I post a link
>to a post YOU claim I made, and I say I didn't.
What are you on about? You made the claim.
Anyone with an interest can look above and see that YOU claimed
"It's ALL in the archives."
Your drunken delusions may have escalated to the degree that you
think you and I are the same person, but I didn't make the claim.
>YOU demand that I post a
>link to a post that doesn't exist! What an interesting concept, Wills.
>
What does any post you made or not made have to do with your
claim that the proof of your claims about Stacy is all in the
archives?
Do be specific.
>>> You keep CLAIMING that I admitted this, and I admitted that (which you
>>>pull on everyone) the only problem is you are blowing these lies out of
>>>your
>>>ASS, Wills. It's your dyslexia kicking up its ugly head again. I admitted
>>>that I wrote "MOST" of that is in that post. Just NOT THAT POST!
>
>> If you're going to lie, and you are, lie about that which can't
>> be proved.
>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/milw.general/msg/0468b8085d0ee5b5
>
>Oh lets LOOK at this "EVIDENCE" This PROOF!!!!!! But let's look closely at
>what YOU claim is PROOF of what *I* said!!! This is your "ABSOLUTE PROOF"
>================
>>From: nob...@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
>>Newsgroups: milw.general
>> We'd like to arrange for YOUR rape, but so far we haven't been able to
>find any being with the stomach for it! We've even been trying to flag down
>alien spacecraft, and they threaten to destroy the planet if we make one of
>heir people do you!
>
>SARCASM DAVID!!!!! RIDICULE of Stacy ALexander...
>=================
> And YOU find this as a CREDIBLE admission that *I* admitted to being the
>author! All it PROVES is that I said the statement was SARCASM and RIDICULE.
Only the original author can make a definitive claim as to the
motivation. You made a definitive claim regarding the author's
motivation. Unless you were lying, you admitted you wrote the threat.
Even you with your very limited education should have been able
to grasp this very simple concept.
>NOT that I wrote it or that it was a serious RAPE threat, unless you
>actually BELIEVE that there ARE lots of "horny aliens from outer space" and
>that I have been in direct communicatuion with them. You ARE pretty insane,
>Kunt, even for a stupid Polack,
http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com/race.html
>but how many people believe that there
>REALLY ARE flying saucers filled with SEX STARVED ALIENS out there looking
>for some Earth nookey???? BESIDE YOU and MOORE, that is?
When, outside of your many drunken delusions, has either of us so
much as implied such?
If you'd like to admit to the readers that I've caught you in
another lie, that is acceptable to me.
>
>> The post to which I link above is where you admitted you authored
>> the rape threat. no mention of admitting to portions, or that the
>> threat is a compilation of different parts of different posts is seen.
>> Just you admitting you authored the threat and claiming it was sarcasm
>> and ridicule. No amount of your lying will alter the truth.
>
> Only in your TWISTED, DERANGED, PERVERTED mind Wills and that of your
>moronic pal David Moore. I see NOTHING in this "smoking gun" evidence of
>your whare I *ADMIT* to anything other than the paragraph is SARCASM and
>RIDICULE. Somehow the part of "I wrote that" appears to be missing. Got a
>good POLACK explanation for that one, Kunt? Bwahahahahaha! WHat a marooon!
http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com/race.html
>
>>> Start with the FACT (you know those pesky things) that THAT post did
>>> not
>>>show up on Google's archives.
>
>> So you had it nuked. Such a thing likely occurs every day from
>> someone with their posts.
>
> Ah we are back to that LAME allegation that I get all sorts of things
>"NUKED."
When during any of your MANY drunken stupors you can't find
anything, you DEMAND it's been nuked. You RUN AWAY when another is
able to link to that which you insist was nuked.
>That MIGHT have worked, Kunt, but for the OTHER sources that
>existed that did NOT show that post as originating from me.
So you claim. I've seen nothing from you to support your claim.
By your own standards, the lack of evidence is an admission from
you that you lied.
>
>>>I know you HATE "FACTS" Kunt.
>
>> Yet I use them frequently to PROVE you the liar you are.
>
> Example of you using the things YOU claim to be "facts" are above in
>your link to a post I made in Milwaukee General that YOU READ that I said I
>was "ADMITTING" that I wrote it. Its's that fukkking POLACK logic again, to
http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com/race.html
>a NORMAL person's logic, it would seem that what I *DID* say was that the
>paragpraph was "SARCASM and RIDICULE" I seem to MISS there I allegedly
>admitted that *I* wrote it. Care to show it, Kunt?
Only the original author can state the motivation. You made the
statement, so you either admitted to being the author or you were
lying.
Which one is the correct answer? If there is another option that
somehow escapes me, please let everyone reading know what it is.
>
>>>It also failed to show in the AOL ladder.
>
>> If true, you should be able to prove your claim.
>
> How can I show something that doesn't exist?
You made the claim. It befalls you to figure out how to prove
it.
If you'd rather admit you're lying, I'll accept it.
>YOU offered your "ABSOLUTE
>PROOF" and it FAILS yet again even though you are loudly congratulating
>yourself. Well, at least MOE and other brain dead people will believe you.
Anyone not so fall down drunk as you clearly are will believe it,
since it's true.
People tend to believe the truth. Especially when evidence is
included. A fact you've proved time and time again you don't like.
>However, not anyone normal. It simply does NOT say what YOU claim it does.
>That being that I *ADMITTED* to being the author. TRY AGAIN LOSER!
>
Whereas only the author can know the motivation, you must have
admitted to being the author. Either that or you were lying.
I see no other options available to you. If there is one other,
please present it. If you can't, you will have to admit that you
either authored the threat or were being very deceptive when you
offered a motivation only the author could know.
krp
>
>>>>>>From the start I said that that FAKE post was actually a CUT AND PASTE
>>>>>>of
>>>>>>several (6 as I recall) posts that I *DID* make.
>>>>> Why do you lie?
>>>> Why do you?
>
>>> You've never exposed so much as one lie from me, while I've
>>> exposed so many from you, it would take too long to count.
>>> Now, please answer the question asked.
>> Kunt - you truly ARE a legend in your own mind. You still delude
>>yourself that making wild unsupported claims and your BELLOWING is
>>"proof."
> I see you still refuse to answer the question asked. Is an
> honest answer really so difficult?
> I do like how your reply has NO relation to the context of the
> question asked.
Kunt, do you be,ieve that people are OBLIGATED to answer every INSANE
question you pose? You really ARE "full of yourself."
>>> Since you've already made a rape threat against Stacy, a truth
>>> you once admitted, I suppose the others should expect something
>>> similar?
>>
>> I admitted NO SUCH THING! YOU and your gay boyfriend (David Moore) are
>>LIARS!
> If you didn't author the threat, why did you claim it was sarcasm
> and ridicule? How are you able to assign a motivation to a post if
> you weren't motivated to write it?
Why did I comment on it? Becaused it OBVIOUSLY was SARCASM and RIDICULE,
unless, that is you really BELIEVE that there ARE horny aliens orbiting tyhe
Earthg desperately in search of some "EARTH PUSSY!" YOU probably DO since
you claim you were once ABDUCTED BY SPACE ALIENS in thewir flying saucer and
strange sexual experiments performed on you. But *I* do NOT believe that
there are hordes of sex crazed aliens out there, Kunt. You and your rubber
room pals can believe in that shit.
Kunt don't look now but you are actually enhancing your reputation as a
KOOK. The idea that there are a bunch of SEX CRAZED outer space aliencs
circling the Earth in their flying saucers desperately looking for some
EARTH PUSSY is one that is in YOUR mind and that of your whacko pal, Moore.
To the rest of us NORMAL folks it is QUITE OBVIOUS that the comment was
accurate that the statement was SARCASM AND RIDICULE. Kunt, there are NO
sex crazed space aliens circling Earth looking for PUSSY! What part of that
concept is too difficult for your 14 IQ?
>>but how many people believe that there
>>REALLY ARE flying saucers filled with SEX STARVED ALIENS out there looking
>>for some Earth nookey???? BESIDE YOU and MOORE, that is?
> When, outside of your many drunken delusions, has either of us so much
> as implied such?
> If you'd like to admit to the readers that I've caught you in another
> lie, that is acceptable to me.
>>> So you had it nuked. Such a thing likely occurs every day from
>>> someone with their posts.
>> Ah we are back to that LAME allegation that I get all sorts of things
>>"NUKED."
> When during any of your MANY drunken stupors you can't find
> anything, you DEMAND it's been nuked. You RUN AWAY when another is
> able to link to that which you insist was nuked.
But your "LINK" FAILED, Wills. It did NOT say what YOU CLAIMED it did.
YOU LIED again!
>> Example of you using the things YOU claim to be "facts" are above in
>>your link to a post I made in Milwaukee General that YOU READ that I said
>>I
>>was "ADMITTING" that I wrote it. Its's that fukkking POLACK logic again,
>>to
And yet no reasonable or SANE person could agree that your "PROOF"
supports your claims that it was an admission that I posted the paragraph I
commented on.
>>a NORMAL person's logic, it would seem that what I *DID* say was that the
>>paragpraph was "SARCASM and RIDICULE" I seem to MISS there I allegedly
>>admitted that *I* wrote it. Care to show it, Kunt?
> Only the original author can state the motivation. You made the
> statement, so you either admitted to being the author or you were
> lying. Which one is the correct answer? If there is another option that
> somehow escapes me, please let everyone reading know what it is.
Neither one is accurate, POLACK! Did Congress make a law saying that
ONLY the author of an article is allowed to comment on it? That for anyone
NOT the author it is a crime? Show us that LAW, actually anyone can comment.
This is NOT North Korea, Wills. Besides in the THREAD, Moore was TRYING to
pin that on me. My point then and NOW is simple, EVEN IF I had posted that,
to any SANE person (that leave both you and Moore OUT) the paragraph was
dripping with sarcasm. There are NO sex cazed aliens orbiting the Earth
looking to get LAID! YOU can believe there are, but then YOU are INSANE!
>>YOU offered your "ABSOLUTE
>>PROOF" and it FAILS yet again even though you are loudly congratulating
>>yourself. Well, at least MOE and other brain dead people will believe
>>you.
>
> Anyone not so fall down drunk as you clearly are will believe it,
> since it's true.
> People tend to believe the truth. Especially when evidence is
> included. A fact you've proved time and time again you don't like.
Kunt, how many on-invested people do you believe BUY that link of yours
as "PROOF" that I admitted I posted the first paragraph? 90%? 50%? 10?
1%.. Or NOBODY outside your little clavern?
>>However, not anyone normal. It simply does NOT say what YOU claim it does.
>>That being that I *ADMITTED* to being the author. TRY AGAIN LOSER!
>>
> Whereas only the author can know the motivation,
YOU ARE INSANE. That claim is BULLSHIT!!!!
krp
EXAMINE THE WILLS LOGIC:
>>>> *I* didn't. Ask your BEST BUDDY and GAY SPOUSE, David Moore. HE
>>>> wrote
>>>> it
>>>>NOT me!
>>
>>> If that is true, why did you admit to authoring the threat?
>>
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/milw.general/msg/0468b8085d0ee5b5
>>
>> Really Kent? In that post you CLAIM that I admit that *I* authored it?
> The very one. Anyone with a desire may check and see that you
> felt the need to justify the threat. Had you not authored it, you
> wouldn't have felt the need to mention the motivation was a means of
> sarcasm and ridicule.
Is that another LEGAL OPINION of Attorney Kent Wills? EVEN IF, I had
authored it, it is OBVIOUSLT sarcasm, Kunt. UNLESS you are so insane (YOU
are) that you BELIEVE there are sex starved aliens orbiting the Earth
looking to get LAID.
>>Let's put your bullshit claim to the test. Let's examine what YOU claim it
>>says, versus what it ACTUALLY SAYS;
>
> Thank you for allowing me another opportunity to PROVE you are a
> pathological liar. I'm certain everyone reading has already accepted
> that while you can be honest, it's so difficult for you that you
> rarely bother.
> Even though it's likely to be universally accepted, that you are
> willing to allow me another chance to add to the volumes of proof is
> appreciated.
Okay, Wills, let's LOOK again at your "ABSOLUTE PROOF" that I admitted
making the post.
>>===========================
>>Newsgroups: milw.general
>>From: pa...@aol.com (PangK)
>>Date: 1998/04/26
>>Subject: Moore flunks reading 101
>>Reply to author | Forward | Print | View thread | Show original | Report
>>this message | Find messages by this author
>>
>>>From: nob...@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
>>>Newsgroups: milw.general
>>> We'd like to arrange for YOUR rape, but so far we haven't been able
>>> to
>>
>>
>>find any being with the stomach for it! We've even been trying to flag
>>down
>>alien spacecraft, and they threaten to destroy the planet if we make one
>>of
>>heir people do you!
>>
>>SARCASM DAVID!!!!! RIDICULE of Stacy ALexander...
>>==============================================
>> Excuse me, KUNT, just WHERE in that post does it say that I *ADMIT*
>> that
>>I was the author of the first paragraph?
> Had you not been the author, you wouldn't have felt the need to
> explain the motivation for it's having been written.
NO, dipshit, show me EXACTLY WHERE it said I admitted to making that
comment. Not your INSANE supposition, show us where it says I "ADMITTED"
that it was mine! THAT is what you have been claiming. SHOW US where I said
that in that post. That's okay Wills, we can wait. Why not do one of your
POST EDITS. Those are always so fukkkking amusing.
>>it? It would appear that ALL I said was that the comment was "SARCASM and
>>RIDICULE" so your "ABSOLUTE PROOF that you are congratulating yourself
>>over
>>in dozens of posts now- FAILS.
> You're the one failing. You wouldn't have needed to justify the
> rape threat if it had been a fake.
Okay, Kunt, WHERE does it say I admitted to posting it, NOT your looney
suppositions or projection. It doesn't say I admitted it, does it, LIAR???
>>YET AGAIN. But this will NEVER deter you from
>>continuing to claim that you "PROVED" I admitted it. GOOD GOING MORON!
> I have. No amount of your arguing semantics and looking for tiny
> loop holes that don't exist, will ever alter the truth.
You claimed the post contained a DIRECT ADMISSION that I posted that
paragraph. It doesn't. You can TRY to continue to tough it out, Kunt, BUT
you have shit all over your stupid face. It does NOT say that no matter how
DESPERATELY you NEED it to. So you'd better do a POST EDIT and insert it in
the post. You are proving ONE thing, that IS that you are a MORON!
>>And I would say again today, confronted with that paragraph.
>>That it is RIDICULE of Ms. Alexander who tried to be a RAPE ACTIVIST. This
>>is STILL not an admission that I wrote it.
> If you didn't write the original threat, how can you claim you
> were ridiculing her with the threat?
I didn't say THAT either, FEEB! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Kent Wills
>
>"Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:t8eqa5peugpkn7fsi...@4ax.com...
>>
>>>>>>>From the start I said that that FAKE post was actually a CUT AND PASTE
>>>>>>>of
>>>>>>>several (6 as I recall) posts that I *DID* make.
>
>>>>>> Why do you lie?
>
>>>>> Why do you?
>>
>>>> You've never exposed so much as one lie from me, while I've
>>>> exposed so many from you, it would take too long to count.
>>>> Now, please answer the question asked.
>
>>> Kunt - you truly ARE a legend in your own mind. You still delude
>>>yourself that making wild unsupported claims and your BELLOWING is
>>>"proof."
>
>> I see you still refuse to answer the question asked. Is an
>> honest answer really so difficult?
>> I do like how your reply has NO relation to the context of the
>> question asked.
>
>
> Kunt, do you be,ieve that people are OBLIGATED to answer every INSANE
>question you pose? You really ARE "full of yourself."
If you want people to accept the truth that you were lying,
that's fine.
I just hope than any potential clients see that you're lying and
chose to go with a trial consultant who isn't out to rip them off.
>
>>>> Since you've already made a rape threat against Stacy, a truth
>>>> you once admitted, I suppose the others should expect something
>>>> similar?
>>>
>>> I admitted NO SUCH THING! YOU and your gay boyfriend (David Moore) are
>>>LIARS!
>
>> If you didn't author the threat, why did you claim it was sarcasm
>> and ridicule? How are you able to assign a motivation to a post if
>> you weren't motivated to write it?
>
> Why did I comment on it?
You didn't comment on it. You let people know the motivation
behind your authoring the threat. It really is that simple. And no
amount of your lying about it now, years later, will alter the truth.
>Becaused it OBVIOUSLY was SARCASM and RIDICULE,
>unless, that is you really BELIEVE that there ARE horny aliens orbiting tyhe
>Earthg desperately in search of some "EARTH PUSSY!" YOU probably DO since
>you claim you were once ABDUCTED BY SPACE ALIENS
Outside of your continued proof that you were being honest when
you claimed alcoholism is what caused you to be found legally insane,
I've made no such claim.
>in thewir flying saucer and
>strange sexual experiments performed on you. But *I* do NOT believe that
>there are hordes of sex crazed aliens out there, Kunt. You and your rubber
>room pals can believe in that shit.
Whereas I've never made such a claim, and haven't seen anyone
else make such a claim, your lie fails.
But by all means, prove your FACT CLAIM that I've stated,
directly or through implication, that I've been abducted by space
aliens.
If you'd rather admit your FACT CLAIM was and is nothing more
than another of your MANY pathological lies, I'll accept that.
How does proving you the drunken liar you are do anything negative
to my reputation?
>The idea that there are a bunch of SEX CRAZED outer space aliencs
>circling the Earth in their flying saucers desperately looking for some
>EARTH PUSSY is one that is in YOUR mind and that of your whacko pal, Moore.
Again you try to distract from the TRUTH that you authored the
rape threat.
In your threat you claim the space aliens would destroy the
planet if they were made to rape Stacy. It's fairly obvious you're so
drunk right now that you forgot what you wrote in your threat.
>To the rest of us NORMAL folks it is QUITE OBVIOUS that the comment was
>accurate that the statement was SARCASM AND RIDICULE. Kunt, there are NO
>sex crazed space aliens circling Earth looking for PUSSY! What part of that
>concept is too difficult for your 14 IQ?
I have no difficultly accepting that you authored the rape
threat, admitted to it, and then LIED about authoring it.
>
>>>but how many people believe that there
>>>REALLY ARE flying saucers filled with SEX STARVED ALIENS out there looking
>>>for some Earth nookey???? BESIDE YOU and MOORE, that is?
>
>> When, outside of your many drunken delusions, has either of us so much
>> as implied such?
>> If you'd like to admit to the readers that I've caught you in another
>> lie, that is acceptable to me.
Your admission, by your own standards and default, that I caught
you in another lie is accepted.
>
> >>> So you had it nuked. Such a thing likely occurs every day from
>>>> someone with their posts.
>
>>> Ah we are back to that LAME allegation that I get all sorts of things
>>>"NUKED."
>
>> When during any of your MANY drunken stupors you can't find
>> anything, you DEMAND it's been nuked. You RUN AWAY when another is
>> able to link to that which you insist was nuked.
>
> But your "LINK" FAILED, Wills. It did NOT say what YOU CLAIMED it did.
>YOU LIED again!
It proved my claim. Only the author could assign a motivation
for the threat. You assigned a motivation.
This isn't rocket science, Pangborn.
>
>>> Example of you using the things YOU claim to be "facts" are above in
>>>your link to a post I made in Milwaukee General that YOU READ that I said
>>>I
>>>was "ADMITTING" that I wrote it. Its's that fukkking POLACK logic again,
>>>to
>>
>>http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com/race.html
>
> And yet no reasonable or SANE person could agree that your "PROOF"
>supports your claims that it was an admission that I posted the paragraph I
>commented on.
Again, only the author could tell people the motivation.
You attempt, years after the fact, to try and imply you were
simply giving your impression as to the author's motivation won't
work. Few people are feeble minded enough to buy the BS you're trying
to sell.
>
>>>a NORMAL person's logic, it would seem that what I *DID* say was that the
>>>paragpraph was "SARCASM and RIDICULE" I seem to MISS there I allegedly
>>>admitted that *I* wrote it. Care to show it, Kunt?
>
>> Only the original author can state the motivation. You made the
>> statement, so you either admitted to being the author or you were
>> lying. Which one is the correct answer? If there is another option that
>> somehow escapes me, please let everyone reading know what it is.
>
> Neither one is accurate, POLACK!
http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com/race.html
I note you don't offer any other option. You have, by your very
own standards, admitted one of the two I offer MUST be correct.
Will you be so kind as to tell the readers which one is the
correct one?
>Did Congress make a law saying that
>ONLY the author of an article is allowed to comment on it?
Has anyone made such a claim?
Again you are forced to bring up a point not in contention. It's
one of your BIG tells you present when you've lost.
>That for anyone
>NOT the author it is a crime? Show us that LAW, actually anyone can comment.
Outside of your drunken delusions, no one has claimed, directly
or through implication, that such a law has been passed.
Again you try to distract from the truth. Again you fail.
This is a serious question. Do you set out to make it easy to
PROVE you are a pathological liar? If you do not, why do you make it
so easy?
>This is NOT North Korea, Wills. Besides in the THREAD, Moore was TRYING to
>pin that on me. My point then and NOW is simple, EVEN IF I had posted that,
>to any SANE person (that leave both you and Moore OUT) the paragraph was
>dripping with sarcasm.
That's not the claim you made.
Had you simply been offering your opinion as to the motivation of
the author, you would have made that clear. You wouldn't have waited
years after the fact to try and present the claim, as you are trying
(and failing) to do now.
>There are NO sex cazed aliens orbiting the Earth
>looking to get LAID!
Since such a claim hasn't been presented, DUH!
I see you've once again offered PROOF that when you're losing,
you MUST argue facts not in dispute. I doubt anyone is falling for
your futile attempt.
I do appreciate that you're willing to allow me to PROVE, again,
that when you're losing, you try to distract from the truth by ranting
about that which has not been denied.
>YOU can believe there are, but then YOU are INSANE!
Please prove I've been adjudged insane or admit you're still
lying about it because the truth is just too difficult for you.
>
>>>YOU offered your "ABSOLUTE
>>>PROOF" and it FAILS yet again even though you are loudly congratulating
>>>yourself. Well, at least MOE and other brain dead people will believe
>>>you.
>>
>> Anyone not so fall down drunk as you clearly are will believe it,
>> since it's true.
>> People tend to believe the truth. Especially when evidence is
>> included. A fact you've proved time and time again you don't like.
>
> Kunt, how many on-invested
On-invest?
Usually I can figure out what you mean when you're drunk typing.
This one has me stumped.
>people do you believe BUY that link of yours
>as "PROOF" that I admitted I posted the first paragraph? 90%? 50%? 10?
>1%.. Or NOBODY outside your little clavern?
100% of the mentally sound will.
Heck, it's possible those who are not mentally stable will accept
the truth. I suppose time will tell.
>
>>>However, not anyone normal. It simply does NOT say what YOU claim it does.
>>>That being that I *ADMITTED* to being the author. TRY AGAIN LOSER!
>>>
>
>> Whereas only the author can know the motivation,
>
>YOU ARE INSANE.
You've already admitted, by default, more times than I care to
count that you lie when you make that claim.
>That claim is BULLSHIT!!!!
>
Ah... So you admit I have not been found legally insane and that
every time you claim I have been, it's bullshit.
I'll be sure to point this out each time you feel the need to LIE
and claim I've been found legally insane.
Kent Wills
>ONE MORE EXAMPLE OF KENT WILLS' PISS POOR READING SKILLS
>
Which are still proved to be far in advance of Kenneth Robert
Pangborn's. Not that this means much given his stupidity (inability
to learn).
>
>EXAMINE THE WILLS LOGIC:
>
>>>>> *I* didn't. Ask your BEST BUDDY and GAY SPOUSE, David Moore. HE
>>>>> wrote
>>>>> it
>>>>>NOT me!
>>>
>>>> If that is true, why did you admit to authoring the threat?
>>>
>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/milw.general/msg/0468b8085d0ee5b5
>>>
>>> Really Kent? In that post you CLAIM that I admit that *I* authored it?
>
>> The very one. Anyone with a desire may check and see that you
>> felt the need to justify the threat. Had you not authored it, you
>> wouldn't have felt the need to mention the motivation was a means of
>> sarcasm and ridicule.
>
> Is that another LEGAL OPINION of Attorney Kent Wills?
I don't know of any attorney by that name. As such, I can't form
an opinion as to whether he would hold such a legal opinion.
If you know such an attorney, in reality and not within the
confines of your drunken delusions, you can ask him. He would be in a
far better possition to tell you his legal opinions than I could ever
hope to be.
>EVEN IF, I had
>authored it, it is OBVIOUSLT sarcasm, Kunt.
You did author it. This was proved by the fact that you assigned
the motivation for writing it. Only the author could do such a thing.
Try to weasel your way out of the truth as often as you need. I
enjoy being able to further expose you for the scum you are. I like
to think I'm preventing you from ripping off one man each day when I
expose you.
Am I actually doing so? I can't know, of course. Still, I like
to think any man who is in need of a trial consultant will pass you by
in favor of one who isn't out to pull a con game.
>UNLESS you are so insane (YOU
>are)
You admitted in another thread that when you make that claim it's
BULLSHIT (emphasis yours).
>that you BELIEVE there are sex starved aliens orbiting the Earth
>looking to get LAID.
When have I presented such a claim?
Be specific and prepared to have another of your pathological
lies exposed.
>
>>>Let's put your bullshit claim to the test. Let's examine what YOU claim it
>>>says, versus what it ACTUALLY SAYS;
>>
>> Thank you for allowing me another opportunity to PROVE you are a
>> pathological liar. I'm certain everyone reading has already accepted
>> that while you can be honest, it's so difficult for you that you
>> rarely bother.
>> Even though it's likely to be universally accepted, that you are
>> willing to allow me another chance to add to the volumes of proof is
>> appreciated.
>
>Okay, Wills, let's LOOK again at your "ABSOLUTE PROOF" that I admitted
>making the post.
Certainly. though I've never claimed absolute proof. That you
think it stands as absolute proof is fine.
The more often the proof that you authored the threat is posted,
the more chances potential clients have to see that when you're losing
a flame war against a woman, you tell her you are trying to arrange
for her to be raped.
This should, I hope, give them reason to seek out a trail
consultant who isn't out to screw them over.
Whereas only the author can assign the motivation, you admitted
you were the author.
Unless you were being less than honest, of course.
>Not your INSANE supposition, show us where it says I "ADMITTED"
>that it was mine! THAT is what you have been claiming. SHOW US where I said
>that in that post. That's okay Wills, we can wait. Why not do one of your
>POST EDITS. Those are always so fukkkking amusing.
I don't do post edits. That's what you do. You've admitted you
do such.
"(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
"Quotes below have been highly altered."
-- Kenneth Robert Pangborn accidentally admitting in misc.legal
that he alters posts when he replies.
Those are just two of the quotes (they are verbatim and within
context) where you let it slip that you post edit.
Not that anyone reading can't see that you do so. You don't
really try to hide it.
>
>>>it? It would appear that ALL I said was that the comment was "SARCASM and
>>>RIDICULE" so your "ABSOLUTE PROOF that you are congratulating yourself
>>>over
>>>in dozens of posts now- FAILS.
>
>> You're the one failing. You wouldn't have needed to justify the
>> rape threat if it had been a fake.
>
> Okay, Kunt, WHERE does it say I admitted to posting it, NOT your looney
>suppositions or projection. It doesn't say I admitted it, does it, LIAR???
I see the alcoholic haze in which your brain resides requires you
be given the same answer to the same question more than 10 times.
Do you really think this is normal behavior on your part, Ken?
>
>>>YET AGAIN. But this will NEVER deter you from
>>>continuing to claim that you "PROVED" I admitted it. GOOD GOING MORON!
>
>> I have. No amount of your arguing semantics and looking for tiny
>> loop holes that don't exist, will ever alter the truth.
>
> You claimed the post contained a DIRECT ADMISSION that I posted that
>paragraph. It doesn't.
Outside of your drunken delusions, that's not the claim I made.
Do you think anyone, anyone at all, is buying the LIE you're
trying to sell?
>You can TRY to continue to tough it out, Kunt, BUT
>you have shit all over your stupid face. It does NOT say that no matter how
>DESPERATELY you NEED it to. So you'd better do a POST EDIT and insert it in
>the post. You are proving ONE thing, that IS that you are a MORON!
I don't post edit. You, however, do so frequently as a means to
alter the context of the discussion. You freely admitted to it.
"(CONTEXT REMOVED AS TO THE BELOW CLAIM)"
Kenneth Robert Pangborn admitting he alters the context of posts
when he replies.
MID FyUom.1363$Jd7....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net
The quote is verbatim and within context. Anyone with an
interest may check the MID to confirm the accuracy and context of the
quote.
Ain't it a bitch when I prove you the lying scum you are by
quoting you and allowing anyone with an interest to verify?
>
>
>
>>>And I would say again today, confronted with that paragraph.
>>>That it is RIDICULE of Ms. Alexander who tried to be a RAPE ACTIVIST. This
>>>is STILL not an admission that I wrote it.
>
>> If you didn't write the original threat, how can you claim you
>> were ridiculing her with the threat?
>
>
> I didn't say THAT either, FEEB! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
>
>
You did. Not in those exact words, but since you KNEW why the
rape threat was made, not that you thought you knew, you must have
authored the threat.
The only other option available to you is that you were lying.
"YOU ARE INSANE.
"That claim is BULLSHIT!!!!"
Kenneth Robert Pangborn, self admitted alcoholic, insane
owner/operator of KRP Consulting and the A-Team, admitting his claims
that I've been found legally insane are lies.
MID aRcrm.2326$tl3....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net
Greegor
KBW > that you were lying, that's fine.
You ARE Kent Bradley Wills.
WILLS, KENT B [ Collected Sept 13, 2009]
Age: 40
Rogers, AR
Ankeny, IA
Marshalltown, IA
Bartlett, IL
Villa Park, IL
And from another source: Hanover Park, IL
WILLS, FREDERICK ALFRED (Kent's Dad 65 )
WILLS, MICHAEL A (Kent's son ??)
WILLS, JANET RAE (Kent's Mom 62 )
HARTWIG,TIFFANY JEANNE (Wills) (Kent's sister )
From another source: Kelly M Wills Kent's wife ?? )
( Samantha T Wills, Kathleen M Wills, James Wills )
--------------------------------------------------------
Pay close attention to past owners of 202 NW College Ave.
Kent made affirmative claims about the property online.
Kent's folks sold it in 1994 while Kent lived there!
On 03/30/1999 Sweeney's filed on Kent for UNPAID RENT!
GeoParcel 8024-15-452-029 District/Parcel 181/00392-048-000
[ As Collected Sept 13, 2009 ]
Seller: WILLS, FRED A. & JANET R.
Buyer: THE SWEENEY REVOCABLE GRANTOR TRUST
04/26/1994 135,000 D/Deed 7010/188
-
Seller: SHELDAHL, ERIC A.
Buyer: WILLS, FRED
01/02/1990 130,500 D/Deed 6189/972
A Larger photo:
http://www.assess.co.polk.ia.us/cgi-bin/seephoto/photosize.cgi?gp=802415452029&size=Large
Notice that name SWEENEY above?
Check this out!
Iowa Courts Docket and Disposition web site
http://www.iowacourts.state.ia.us/
Iowa Courts
Online Search
< Start A Case Search Here! > click
Iowa Courts Online Search
Search Selection
Under Trial Court < click on Case Search >
Wills Kent B
02401 ESPR015146 INA J WILLS ESTATE
05771 FECR145250 STATE VS KENT 01/08/1969
05771 FECR176876 STATE VS KENT 01/08/1969
05771 SCSC310505 SWEENEY RENTALS VS KENT ******
05771 SCSC335210 CITI FINANCIAL VS KENT
05771 SCSC374163 SFI F SCHERLE PRES VS KENT
05771 SCSC374164 SFI F SCHERLE III PRES VS KENT
05771 STAN201670 IOWA vs [ KENT ] 01/08/1969
05771 STAN210929 IOWA vs [ KENT ] 01/08/1969
05771 SWCR177169 STATE VS KENT 01/08/1969
A list of case numbers will be presented.
Click on the SWEENEY case, 4th one down.
Under the "Filings" tab:
JUDGEMENT DEFAULT BRANDT GREGORY D 08/25/1999 09/01/1999 09/01/1999
Comments: $156.25 7.244% FROM 03/30/99
COMPUTER GENERATED NOTICE 05/11/1999 05/11/1999 05/11/1999
Comments: Notice of Proof of Claim
RETURN OF ORIGINAL NOTICE 04/21/1999 04/23/1999 04/23/1999
Comments: 4/10/99 KENT PERS
37.60
VERIFICATION OF ACCT HAS BEEN FILED 03/30/1999 03/30/1999
03/30/1999
SMALL CLAIMS ORIGINAL NOTICE SWEENEY RENTALS 03/30/1999 03/30/1999
03/30/1999
Comments: UNPAID RENT
Under the "Financial" Tab:
Summary Orig Paid Due
COSTS 98.60 31.00 67.60
FINE 0.00 0.00 0.00
SURCHARGE 0.00 0.00 0.00
RESTITUTION 0.00 0.00 0.00
OTHER 238.46 0.00 238.46
-----------
$337.06 $31.00 $306.06
SUPPORT/ALIMONY N/A 0.00 N/A
-------------------------------------
Do It Yourself Instructions to look up Kent's record
Iowa Department of Corrections records for Kent
http://www.doc.state.ia.us/InmateInfo.asp?OffenderCd=1155768
Name Kent Bradley Wills [ As Collected Sept 13, 2009 ]
Offender Number 1155768
Sex M
Birth Date 01/08/1969
Age 40
Location
Offense
County Of Commitment
Commitment Date
Duration
TDD/SDD *
* TDD = Tentative Discharge Date
* SDD = Supervision Discharge Date
Supervision Status Offense Class County of Commitment End Date
Probation Aggravated Misdemeanor Polk 12/16/2008
Probation C Felony Polk 12/16/2008
Supervision Status Offense Class County of Commitment End Date
Probation Aggravated Misdemeanor Polk 11/25/2003
Iowa Courts Docket and Disposition web site
http://www.iowacourts.state.ia.us/
Iowa Courts
Online Search
< Start A Case Search Here! > click
Iowa Courts Online Search
Search Selection
Under Trial Court < click on Case Search >
Wills Kent B
02401 ESPR015146 INA J WILLS ESTATE
05771 FECR145250 STATE VS KENT 01/08/1969
05771 FECR176876 STATE VS KENT 01/08/1969
05771 SCSC310505 SWEENEY RENTALS VS KENT
05771 SCSC335210 CITI FINANCIAL VS KENT
05771 SCSC374163 SFI F SCHERLE PRES VS KENT
05771 SCSC374164 SFI F SCHERLE III PRES VS KENT
05771 STAN201670 IOWA vs [ KENT ] 01/08/1969
05771 STAN210929 IOWA vs [ KENT ] 01/08/1969
05771 SWCR177169 STATE VS KENT 01/08/1969
A list of case numbers will be presented.
Two on that list have the code "FE" in them.
One of the two ends in the two digits "76".
Click that case number.
A case caption will appear.
Tabs available to the public include
"Criminal Charges", "Filings" and "Financial".
Use the "back" button on your browser to move among them
or just hit the various tab buttons.
(See filings text if attached further down below)
IN PRINTED LAW BOOKS
West's North Western Reporter
Second Series
A Unit of the National Reporter System
Volume 696 N.W.2d
Cite as 696 N.W.2d 20 (Iowa 2005)
Kent's Appeal
http://www.judicial.state.ia.us/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/20050506/04-0202.asp?Printable=true
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ia&vol=sc%5C20050506%5C04-0202&invol=1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 31 / 04-0202
Filed May 6, 2005
STATE OF IOWA,
Appellee,
vs.
KENT BRADLEY WILLS,
Appellant.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk
County, Michael D. Huppert, Judge.
Defendant appeals claiming ineffective
assistance of counsel. AFFIRMED.
Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender,
and Tricia Johnston, Assistant State
Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kevin
Cmelik, Assistant Attorney General, John P.
Sarcone, County Attorney, and John Judisch,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
WIGGINS, Justice.
Kent Wills appeals his conviction for
second-degree burglary contending that
an attached garage is a separate occupied
structure from that of the living quarters
of the residence. In this appeal, we must
determine whether trial counsel was
ineffective for (1) failing to move for
judgment of acquittal on the basis there
was insufficient evidence to convict Wills
of second-degree burglary when he entered
an attached garage of a residence when no
persons were present in the garage, but
when persons were present in the living
quarters; and (2) failing to object to a
jury instruction based on this same
argument. Because we find there was no
legal basis for the motion for judgment
of acquittal or the objection to the jury
instruction, Wills' trial counsel was not
ineffective. Accordingly, we affirm the
judgment of the district court.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
Around 1 a.m., an Ankeny resident called
the local police to report that a car
alarm sounded in the resident's
neighborhood. The city dispatched a police
officer to the location. Observing nothing
unusual, the officer left the area, only
to be stopped a couple of blocks later
by a person who informed the officer he
had witnessed someone running from the
area of the car alarm. As the officer
started driving back to the area of the
car alarm, he noticed a person walking
on the sidewalk. The officer asked the
person, a minor, if he had noticed anybody
running from the area. The minor answered
that he had not. While the officer and
another officer were speaking to the minor,
another resident of the neighborhood
arrived in her car and informed the
officers that she had observed two people,
one of whom was heavy set with a blinking
light on his back pocket, walking in the
area of her neighbor's residence. She
observed the heavier-set individual, later
identified as Wills, enter her neighbor's
attached garage through an unlocked service
door. She further observed a smaller
individual standing by a van parked in
the neighbor's driveway.
The officers eventually let the minor leave
even though they found a large amount of
coins, a flashlight, and an electronic
pocket organizer in his pockets. After
releasing the minor, the police officers
drove to the residence where the neighbor
observed the two suspicious people and
woke the owner. The owner, his wife,
and two daughters were in the residence
sleeping at the time. After a search
of his vehicles, the owner discovered
change and an electronic pocket organizer
were missing from the vehicles. The
owner's daughter reported a diamond ring
and some change were missing from her
vehicle. The officers then contacted
the minor's parents, who informed the
officers the minor was with Wills. After
the officers questioned the minor again,
he admitted his involvement in the theft
and implicated Wills in the burglary.
Although Wills denied involvement in the
burglary, the officers arrested him.
The State filed a trial information
charging Wills with second-degree
burglary. The State later amended the
information to include two additional
charges of burglary in the third degree
and using a juvenile to commit an
indictable offense.
The jury returned a verdict finding Wills
guilty of the crimes of burglary in the
second degree, burglary in the third
degree, and using a juvenile to commit
an indictable offense. Wills appeals his
conviction for second-degree burglary
claiming ineffective assistance of
counsel.
II. Scope of Review.
Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel
are derived from the Sixth Amendment of the
United States Constitution. Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 684-86, 104 S.
Ct. 2052, 2063-64, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674, 691-93
(1984). Our review for a claim involving
violations of the Constitution is de novo.
State v. Fintel, 689 N.W.2d 95, 100
(Iowa 2004). We normally preserve
ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims
for postconviction relief actions. State
v. Carter, 602 N.W. 2d 818, 820 (Iowa 1999).
However, we will address such claims on
direct appeal when the record is sufficient
to permit a ruling. State v. Artzer,
609 N.W.2d 526, 531 (Iowa 2000). The
appellate record in the present case is
sufficient to allow us to address Wills'
ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims
on direct appeal.
In order for a defendant to succeed on a
claim of ineffective assistance of counsel,
the defendant must prove: (1) counsel
failed to perform an essential duty and
(2) prejudice resulted. Id. Prejudice
results when "there is a reasonable
probability that, but for the counsel's
unprofessional errors, the result of the
proceeding would have been different."
State v. Hopkins, 576 N.W.2d 374, 378
(Iowa 1998) (quoting Strickland, 466
U.S. at 694, 104 S. Ct. at 2068,
80 L. Ed. 2d at 698). Wills' arguments
also raise issues of statutory
interpretation, which we review for
correction of errors at law. State v.
Wolford Corp., 689 N.W.2d 471, 473 (Iowa 2004).
III. Analysis.
To find Wills guilty of burglary in the
second degree, the State had to prove
Wills perpetrated a burglary "in or
upon an occupied structure in which one
or more persons are present . . . ." Iowa
Code § 713.5(2) (2003) (emphasis added).
In this appeal, Wills first contends his
trial counsel was ineffective for failing
to move for a judgment of acquittal on
the basis there was insufficient evidence
to support a finding that at the time Wills
entered the garage, there were persons
present in or upon the occupied structure.
Wills concedes the garage was an occupied
structure, but argues the living quarters
and the attached garage are separate and
independent occupied structures; therefore,
the jury could not have found there were
people present in the attached garage
at the time of the burglary.
The Code defines an "occupied structure" as:
[A]ny building, structure, appurtenances
to buildings and structures, land, water
or air vehicle, or similar place adapted
for overnight accommodation of persons,
or occupied by persons for the purpose of
carrying on business or other activity
therein, or for the storage or safekeeping
of anything of value. Such a structure
is an "occupied structure" whether or not
a person is actually present.
Id. § 702.12.
Wills relies on State v. Smothers, 590
N.W.2d 721 (Iowa 1999), to argue the
garage and the living quarters are separate
and independent occupied structures. In
Smothers, two separate and distinct
businesses connected by interior fire doors
were operated in the same structure.
590 N.W.2d at 723. We held the defendant
committed two burglaries by entering each
business because "[t]he facility's
construction history and physical make-up
demonstrate that the portions are
independent working units which constitute
'[a] combination of materials to form a
construction for occupancy [or] use.'" Id.
Smothers is not at odds with the present
case because the living quarters and the
garage are not separate or independent
units of the residence.
Our review of the record reveals the garage
in question was a three-car attached garage
separated from the living quarters by a
door. The same roof covered the garage as
the rest of the residence. The living
quarters surrounded the garage on two sides.
It was structurally no different from any
other room in the residence.
The garage was a functional part of the
residence. On the night of the incident,
the door was unlocked. The owner of the
residence used two stalls in the garage to
park the family vehicles. The owner used
the third stall for his motorcycle. As
such, the garage and the living quarters
are a single "structure" or "building"
functioning as an integral part of the
family residence. Thus, the residence
including the garage is a single
"occupied structure" under section 702.12.
See, e.g., People v. Ingram, 48 Cal. Rptr.
2d 256 (Ct. App.1995) (holding defendant's
entry into an attached garage constituted
first-degree burglary because the garage
was attached to the house; therefore,
burglary of the garage was burglary of
an inhabited dwelling house); People v.
Cunningham, 637 N.E.2d 1247, 1252 (Ill.
App. Ct. 1994) (holding "ordinarily an
attached garage is a 'dwelling' because
it is part of the structure in which
the owner or occupant lives");
State v. Lara, 587 P.2d 52, 53
(N.M. Ct. App. 1978) (holding "burglary
of the [attached] garage was burglary of
the dwelling house because the garage was
a part of the structure used as living
quarters"); People v. Green, 141 A.D.2d
760, 761 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988) (holding
"[s]ince the garage in the present case
was structurally part of a building
which was used for overnight lodging of
various persons, it must be considered
as part of a dwelling"); White v. State,
630 S.W. 2d 340, 342 (Tex. Ct. App. 1982)
(holding an attached garage under the
same roof as the home would be considered
a habitation within the purview of the
penal code because the garage is a
structure appurtenant to and connected
to the house); State v. Murbach, 843 P.
2d 551, 553 (Wash. Ct. App 1993)
(holding the definition of a dwelling
under Washington's burglary statute
included an attached garage).
Had Wills' trial counsel moved for a
judgment of acquittal on the basis there
was insufficient evidence to support
a finding that at the time Wills
entered the garage there were no persons
present in or upon the occupied
structure, it would have been overruled
by the court because the owner and his
family were present in the residence at
the time of the burglary.
Wills also claims his counsel was
ineffective for failing to object to
the jury instruction used by the district
court on the same ground; that the
living quarters were a separate and
independent occupied structure from the
attached garage. The instruction as
given stated:
The State must prove all of the following
elements of Burglary in the Second
Degree as to Count I:
1. On or about the 12th day of August,
2003, the defendant or someone he aided
and abetted broke into or entered the
residence at . . . .
2. The residence at . . . was an occupied
structure as defined in Instruction No. 29.
3. The defendant or the person he aided
and abetted did not have permission or
authority to break into the residence at ...
4. The defendant or the person he aided
and abetted did so with the specific
intent to commit a theft therein.
5. During the incident persons were present
in or upon the occupied structure.
If the State has proved all of the elements,
the defendant is guilty of Burglary in the
Second Degree. If the State has failed to prove
any of the elements, the defendant is not
guilty of Burglary in the Second Degree and
you will then consider the charge of
Attempted Burglary in the Second Degree
explained in Instruction No. 21.
(Emphasis added.)
Wills' claim is without merit. As we have
discussed, the residence is the one and
only "occupied structure" under the facts
of this case. Had Wills' trial counsel
made this objection to the instruction,
it would have been overruled.
Therefore, Wills' trial counsel is not
ineffective for failing to move
for a judgment of acquittal or objecting
to the instruction because there was no
legal basis for the motion or objection.
See State v. Hochmuth, 585 N.W.2d 234,
238 (Iowa 1998) (holding trial counsel was
not ineffective for failing to raise an
issue that has no merit).
IV. Disposition.
We affirm the judgment of the district
court because Wills' trial counsel was
not ineffective for failing to raise
meritless issues.
AFFIRMED.
-----------------------------------
[ As Collected Sept 13, 2009 ]
Filings
Title: STATE VS KENT BRADLEY WILLS
Case: 05771 FECR176876 (POLK)
Citation Number:
Event Filed By Filed Create Date Last Updated Action Date
ORDER OF DISCHARGE OVROM ELIZA 12/16/2008 12/16/2008 12/16/2008
Comments: FROM PROBATION
OTHER EVENT DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS 12/16/2008 12/16/2008
12/16/2008
Comments: FIELD DISCHARGE REPORT
OTHER ORDER OVROM ELIZA 12/16/2008 12/16/2008 12/16/2008
Comments: REVOCATION HEARING SET FOR 1/07/2009 IS CANCELLED
DEFENDANT HAS NOT PAID IN FULL FINANCIAL
OBLIGATIONS
ORDER FOR PROBATION REVOCATION HEARING MOISAN CYNTHIA M 12/05/2008
12/05/2008 12/05/2008
Comments: ON 1/7/09 AT 9:30AM RM204
PROBATION REVOCATION 12/05/2008 12/05/2008 12/05/2008
Comments: REPORT OF VIOLATIONS FILED BY JAN HORNOCKER
FORMAL PROBATION HUTCHISON ROBERT A 01/25/2006 01/26/2006
01/26/2006
Comments: EXTENDED TO 01/16/09 OR UNTIL CONDITIONS ARE MET
COURT ORDERED PAYMENT PLAN 01/13/2006 01/13/2006 01/13/2006
[ ... ]
Consider the following:
If "our" Kent is NOT Kent Bradley Wills then
his ""Fake ID"" has worked well, so what's
the problem?
Consider Kent's OWN comments about:
A. regarding his sister (by name)
B. property in CORPORATION name (Wills Family Trust)
C. footage of "Wills" plaque avoiding first name
D. apt building at 202 NW College Ave Ankeny IA
E. past residence in various cities in IA
F. connection to Arkansas
G. that he set up/was assigned this ""Fake ID""
Does an actual Garage Burglary Felon have a
RIGHT to con people into thinking he ISN'T one, Moe?
Does a TWO time(plus?)thieving Felon actually have
a right against having his record exposed?
Kent Bradley Wills AKA Compuelf DOB Jan 8 1969 Felony Garage Burglar
used teen as accomplice
http://www.judicial.state.ia.us/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/20050506/04-0202.asp?Printable=true
http://www.doc.state.ia.us/InmateInfo.asp?OffenderCd=1155768
http://www.assess.co.polk.ia.us/cgi-bin/seephoto/photosize.cgi?gp=802415452029&size=Large
http://www.iowacourts.state.ia.us/
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ia&vol=sc%5C20050506%5C04-0202&invol=1
http://www.rogersgis.com/zoom/Residential_Development/indexfull.htm
http://www.arcountydata.com/county.asp?county=Benton
TWO of Kent Wills' usenet newsgroup identities:
krp
>>>>>>>>From the start I said that that FAKE post was actually a CUT AND
>>>>>>>>PASTE
>>>>>>>>of
>>>>>>>>several (6 as I recall) posts that I *DID* make.
>>
>>>>>>> Why do you lie?
>>>>>> Why do you?
>
>>>>> You've never exposed so much as one lie from me, while I've
>>>>> exposed so many from you, it would take too long to count.
>>>>> Now, please answer the question asked.
>>>> Kunt - you truly ARE a legend in your own mind. You still delude
>>>>yourself that making wild unsupported claims and your BELLOWING is
>>>>"proof."
>>> I see you still refuse to answer the question asked. Is an
>>> honest answer really so difficult?
>>> I do like how your reply has NO relation to the context of the
>>> question asked.
>> Kunt, do you believe that people are OBLIGATED to answer every INSANE
>>question you pose? You really ARE "full of yourself."
> If you want people to accept the truth that you were lying, that's
> fine.
Kunt do you think that YOU posting a link that FAILS to say what YOU
claim it does will lead intelligent people to believe YOUR LIES?
> I just hope than any potential clients see that you're lying and
> chose to go with a trial consultant who isn't out to rip them off.
I know what you "HOPE" Wills. But if you believe that posting a link to
a post YOU CLAIM states that I admitted I posted something, and that link
(post) does NOT state that at all, that all there was - was your INSANE
conclusory BULLSHIT RANTING, that because I commented on it as rather
OBVIOUS - Sarcasm you believe in your limited POLACK mind that calling the
comment "SARCSM" is an admission that *I* wrote it, paints ypou as a man
with VEY SERIOUS mental problems. There was NO such admission. Your DEMAND
that ONLY the author of it is allowed to comment on it is a truly bizarre
idea, Wills. I think you spent too much time being your cellblock's "bitch"
and it got to your mind, Kent.
>>> If you didn't author the threat, why did you claim it was sarcasm
>>> and ridicule? How are you able to assign a motivation to a post if
>>> you weren't motivated to write it?
>>
>> Why did I comment on it?
> You didn't comment on it. You let people know the motivation
> behind your authoring the threat. It really is that simple. And no
> amount of your lying about it now, years later, will alter the truth.
That is YOUR reasoning, Wills. That's how YOUR mind processes
information. In your world nobody can comment on a statement EXCEPT THE
AUTHOR. Yet you do that evey day of the week. I know you are merely a TROLL
who has NO cares for how people regard him. After all, you regularly (NOW)
deny your identity (for OBVIOUS REASONS) so it is meaningless to you that
people regard you as some retarded jackass.
>>Because it OBVIOUSLY was SARCASM and RIDICULE,
>>unless, that is you really BELIEVE that there ARE horny aliens orbiting
>>tyhe
>>Earthg desperately in search of some "EARTH PUSSY!" YOU probably DO since
>>you claim you were once ABDUCTED BY SPACE ALIENS
> Outside of your continued proof that you were being honest when
> you claimed alcoholism is what caused you to be found legally insane,
> I've made no such claim.
I NEVER claimed alsoholism. YOU drink FAR more than I ever have. Not
even a 6 pack worth in 68 years. And even less wine and hard liquor in 68
years. Not enough hard liquor to fill a shotglass.
>>in their flying saucer and strange sexual experiments performed on you.
>>But *I* do NOT believe that
>>there are hordes of sex crazed aliens out there, Kunt. You and your
>>rubber
>>room pals can believe in that shit.
> Whereas I've never made such a claim, and haven't seen anyone
> else make such a claim, your lie fails.
Sure, kent, you not only claimed ytou were abducted by Aliens who
performed stange sexual experiments on you, you ADMITTED to liked it!
> But by all means, prove your FACT CLAIM that I've stated,
> directly or through implication, that I've been abducted by space aliens.
You ADMITTED IT! You even said you LIKED IT!
krp
>>EVEN IF, I had authored it, it is OBVIOUSLY sarcasm, Kunt.
> You did author it. This was proved by the fact that you assigned
> the motivation for writing it. Only the author could do such a thing.
You are a WHACKJOB, Wills. YOU believe there ARE sex crazed aliens from
outer space in orbit over the Earth, HORNY as hell, desperately looking for
"EARTH PUSSY!" But I do NOT, Kunt. I have seen NO evidence of any sex mad
Aliens. YOU say there are, but I say that YOU are INSANE!!!!! To me
references to sex starved space aliens can be nothing else but RIDICULE. I
know you break out in a sweat wanting some more Alien dick up your ass.
(which is ALSO SARCASM, Kent.) You're a Polack so YOU will never get it.
Trouble is nobody can explain it to you in a way you are capable of
understanding.
womanGoddess
> "Kent Wills" <compu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Kennie, you were the one who started the horny space aliens wanting
nookey crap.
Sheesh Kennie, have you lost what litte marbles you have left?
Or are you trying to claim some space alien buttfukkkkked you?
womanGoddess
> ONE MORE EXAMPLE OF KENT WILLS PISS POOR READING SKILLS"Kent Wills" <compu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
And all your ranting only shows that you are not mentally well
balanced Kennie.
Seriously, did you bother to actually think before you post?
Or when you posted this crap were you drunk to your gills AGAIN?
I can see the claim why you need meds to get an erection. You need
meds to keep some semblance of sanity as well.
womanGoddess
> "Kent Wills" <compu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
And your sanity is in doubt Kennie.
What is this interest you have in horny space aliens?
Watch too much X-Files when drunk again?
Kent Wills
>
>"Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:hhuqa5hs8siiqup94...@4ax.com...
>
>>>EVEN IF, I had authored it, it is OBVIOUSLY sarcasm, Kunt.
>
>> You did author it. This was proved by the fact that you assigned
>> the motivation for writing it. Only the author could do such a thing.
>
>You are a WHACKJOB, Wills.
If so, why did you need to do your trademark snipping of the
context of my post?
Don't bother trying to deny you do it. You admitted it quite
freely. Here's a quote (verbatim and in context) where you admit it:
"(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
I include the MID so that anyone with an interest may verify that
you admit you remove the context.
Feel free to snip it in your reply, in the futile hope no one
will see it. Of course, my posts to misc.legal are archived, so
people may see it.
It would be great if a potential client saw it, and upon learning
that you're a liar, a con man and a fraud, chose to go with a
COMPETENT trial consultant.
I don't expect to ever know if such a situation occurs, of
course. Still, it's nice to think I've done something to ensure you
can't rip off any more people than you already have.
>YOU believe there ARE sex crazed aliens from
>outer space in orbit over the Earth, HORNY as hell, desperately looking for
>"EARTH PUSSY!"
Outside of your drunken delusions, I've made no such claim.
>But I do NOT, Kunt. I have seen NO evidence of any sex mad
>Aliens. YOU say there are, but I say that YOU are INSANE!!!!!
I've never claimed, directly or through implication, that there
are.
Again you offer the PROOF that you are a pathological liar. Or
more proof that when you were found legally insane [1] (unless that
was another of your lies), the ruling was accurate.
>To me
>references to sex starved space aliens can be nothing else but RIDICULE. I
>know you break out in a sweat wanting some more Alien dick up your ass.
>(which is ALSO SARCASM, Kent.)
Again you show the readers you're a homosexual.
When will you accept that no one cares? Your desire to have your
actions justified as being nothing more than a reaction to gay bashing
isn't going to be realized. You need to try a different tactic.
>You're a Polack so YOU will never get it.
http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com/race.html
It's nice that you feel the need to continue offering PROOF that
you're a bigot. Given that it's already accepted (absolutely no one,
not even you, tries to deny the truth of it), I fail to see why you
are so compelled to offer more proof.
What is your motivation? What do you think you gain by proving
your bigotry in nearly every post?
Serious questions.
>Trouble is nobody can explain it to you in a way you are capable of
>understanding.
>
If someone is unable to reach my intellectual level, I'm usually
able to come down to theirs. On very rare occasions, I come across
someone like you. Someone who has such a low intellect that I can't
come down to their level.
That you are unable to express anything beyond a 6th grade level,
on your very best days, and I have difficulty coming down to your low
intellectual level, doesn't mean this is the case with everyone.
[1]
"I am insane!"
--Kenneth Robert Pangborn, of KRP Consulting and The A-team.
Were you lying when you posted that claim in ADRU, Ken? I'll
track down the MID, so that anyone with an interest may verify the
accuracy of the quote, if you'd like.
Much like I did with the quote below, in which you claim David
Moore can and does edit posts archived on Google.
Kent Wills
Since I've not lied, I don't need to worry about it.
>
>> I just hope than any potential clients see that you're lying and
>> chose to go with a trial consultant who isn't out to rip them off.
>
> I know what you "HOPE" Wills.
That you'll be able to overcome the mental illness you have. The
very one that you claim caused you to be found legally insane [1].
>But if you believe that posting a link to
>a post YOU CLAIM states that I admitted I posted something, and that link
>(post) does NOT state that at all, that all there was - was your INSANE
>conclusory BULLSHIT RANTING, that because I commented on it as rather
>OBVIOUS - Sarcasm you believe in your limited POLACK
http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com/race.html
>mind that calling the
>comment "SARCSM" is an admission that *I* wrote it, paints ypou as a man
>with VEY SERIOUS mental problems.
Only the author can KNOW the motivation. You present that you
KNOW the motivation.
It's really very simple. Sadly, it's still too advanced for you
to understand.
Let's make this real easy. Did you author the rape threat being
referenced in our discussion?
It's a yes or no question.
>There was NO such admission. Your DEMAND
>that ONLY the author of it is allowed to comment on it is a truly bizarre
I've made no such claim.
>idea, Wills. I think you spent too much time being your cellblock's "bitch"
>and it got to your mind, Kent.
You can lie all you want/need. Doing so has done me no harm to
date. There's no reason to think your pathological lying will bring
me any harm in the future.
>
>
>>>> If you didn't author the threat, why did you claim it was sarcasm
>>>> and ridicule? How are you able to assign a motivation to a post if
>>>> you weren't motivated to write it?
>>>
>>> Why did I comment on it?
>
>> You didn't comment on it. You let people know the motivation
>> behind your authoring the threat. It really is that simple. And no
>> amount of your lying about it now, years later, will alter the truth.
>
> That is YOUR reasoning, Wills. That's how YOUR mind processes
>information.
In a logical, orderly fashion.
>In your world nobody can comment on a statement EXCEPT THE
>AUTHOR.
I've made no such claim.
>Yet you do that evey day of the week. I know you are merely a TROLL
>who has NO cares for how people regard him.
I don't worry much about how you regard me. You are
insignificant. Outside of Usenet fodder, you have NO discernable
impact on my life.
>After all, you regularly (NOW)
>deny your identity (for OBVIOUS REASONS) so it is meaningless to you that
>people regard you as some retarded jackass.
When have I denied my identity?
Anytime someone addresses me by my real life name in real life, I
acknowledge it. The only reason I wouldn't is if I wasn't aware they
had done so.
Much the same as I acknowledge when someone addresses me on
Usenet by my Usenet nym.
You often address me as Kent Wills, even though you admitted in
the thread about your listserv that you know my name in real life is
not Kent Wills, and I reply accordingly. Only in your drunken fantasy
world is this a denial of my nym.
>
>>>Because it OBVIOUSLY was SARCASM and RIDICULE,
>>>unless, that is you really BELIEVE that there ARE horny aliens orbiting
>>>tyhe
>>>Earthg desperately in search of some "EARTH PUSSY!" YOU probably DO since
>>>you claim you were once ABDUCTED BY SPACE ALIENS
>
>> Outside of your continued proof that you were being honest when
>> you claimed alcoholism is what caused you to be found legally insane,
>> I've made no such claim.
>
> I NEVER claimed alsoholism.
Technically true. Since there is nothing, as far as I know,
called alsoholism, you couldn't claim it.
On two occasions, of which I am aware, you claimed to be an
alcoholic. I used to use one of those claims as a sig for several
months.
While I was doing so, you never even tried to deny the accuracy
of the sig. Since it included a verbatim quote and the MID of your
post, you really couldn't.
>YOU drink FAR more than I ever have. Not
>even a 6 pack worth in 68 years. And even less wine and hard liquor in 68
>years. Not enough hard liquor to fill a shotglass.
If alcoholism wasn't the reason you were found legally insane
[1], why did you LIE, on at least two occasions, and claim it was?
Be specific, please.
>
>>>in their flying saucer and strange sexual experiments performed on you.
>>>But *I* do NOT believe that
>>>there are hordes of sex crazed aliens out there, Kunt. You and your
>>>rubber
>>>room pals can believe in that shit.
>
>> Whereas I've never made such a claim, and haven't seen anyone
>> else make such a claim, your lie fails.
>
> Sure, kent, you not only claimed ytou were abducted by Aliens who
>performed stange sexual experiments on you, you ADMITTED to liked it!
I doubt anyone is falling for your lies, though it is possible.
Even if anyone is so feeble minded as to buy the lies you sell, I
doubt they would have any discernable effect on my life.
I might toy with them a bit on Usenet, but once Agent closes,
they aren't likely to be thought of any longer.
>
>> But by all means, prove your FACT CLAIM that I've stated,
>> directly or through implication, that I've been abducted by space aliens.
>
>
> You ADMITTED IT! You even said you LIKED IT!
I see your massive consumption of alcohol (unless you lied) has
forced you to lie again.
Inability to prove your claim and your admission, and by your own
standards and by default, that you were and are lying is accepted.
[1]
"I am insane!"
--Kenneth Robert Pangborn, of KRP Consulting and The A-team.
Were you lying when you posted that claim in ADRU? If you wish,
I can track down the MID so that anyone with an interest may verify
the accuracy of the quote.
"CPS cases are legal matters. Offering advice IS practicing law
without a license."
Kenneth Robert Pangborn admitting he practices law without a
license in misc.legal
Kent Wills
<fvr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
>> >>However, not anyone normal. It simply does NOT say what YOU claim it do=
>es.
>> >>That being that I *ADMITTED* to being the author. =A0TRY AGAIN LOSER!
>>
>> > =A0 =A0 Whereas only the author can know the motivation,
>>
>> YOU ARE INSANE. That claim is BULLSHIT!!!!
>
> Kennie, you were the one who started the horny space aliens wanting
>nookey crap.
>
> Sheesh Kennie, have you lost what litte marbles you have left?
>
> Or are you trying to claim some space alien buttfukkkkked you?
Kenny-Bob might actually enjoy that. He's made it very clear
he's a homosexual. It's possible he enjoys receiving anal sex.
Kent Wills
<fvr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
>> >> =A0 =A0What IS his ISP, Kunt? Since he has NOT posted his SHIT from AN=
>Y
>> >>identifiable source (ISP) but only via anonymous remailers, HOW would t=
>hat
>> >>work, EXACTLY?
>> > =A0 =A0 That you're too STUPID (unable to learn) to figure it out is ac=
>tually
>> > quite funny.
>>
>> =A0 =A0 Oh really, then take one of Moore posts and YOU show is the SUPER=
>IOR
>> POLACK INTELLIGENCE! =A0(Bwahahahahahahaha!)
>
> And all your ranting only shows that you are not mentally well
>balanced Kennie.
>
> Seriously, did you bother to actually think before you post?
I don't believe he does. If he did, he would contradict himself
so often.
I do, however, enjoy it when he contradicts himself in the same
post. Even more so on those occasions when he does it within the
confines of a single paragraph.
>
> Or when you posted this crap were you drunk to your gills AGAIN?
Unless Pangborn lied (a very real possibility), his being found
legally insane was due to alcoholism.
>
> I can see the claim why you need meds to get an erection. You need
>meds to keep some semblance of sanity as well.
Given Pangborn's MASSIVE girth, it's possible that even with
medication he is unable to achieve an erection. I seriously doubt
proof either way will ever be offered.
To be perfectly honest, I'd rather not have to endure seeing the
proof.
Kent Wills
<fvr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Sep 14, 9:48�am, "krp" <kr...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> "Kent Wills" <compu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:hhuqa5hs8siiqup94...@4ax.com...
>>
>> >>EVEN IF, I had authored it, it is OBVIOUSLY sarcasm, Kunt.
>> > � � You did author it. �This was proved by the fact that you assigned
>> > the motivation for writing it. �Only the author could do such a thing.
>>
>> You are a WHACKJOB, Wills. YOU believe there ARE sex crazed aliens from
>> outer space in �orbit over the Earth, HORNY as hell, desperately looking for
>> "EARTH PUSSY!" But I do NOT, Kunt. I have seen NO evidence of any sex mad
>> Aliens. �YOU say there are, but I say that YOU are INSANE!!!!! To me
>> references to sex starved space aliens can be nothing else but RIDICULE. I
>> know you break out in a sweat wanting some more Alien dick up your ass.
>> (which is ALSO SARCASM, Kent.) You're a Polack so YOU will never get it.
>> Trouble is nobody can explain it to you in a way you are capable of
>> understanding.
>
> And your sanity is in doubt Kennie.
Kenneth Robert Pangborn, owner/operator of KRP Consulting, did
claim in ARDU that he is insane. In order to have such a
classification, a court of proper jurisdiction must have ruled Kenneth
Robert Pangborn to be legally insane.
Of course, it's still possible he lied when he made the claim.
>
> What is this interest you have in horny space aliens?
>
He has NO use for women, outside of hiding his true sexual
orientation from business associates. I expect no self respecting
homosexual male would want to be with him.
Pangborn is out of options on earth (yes, he could try animals,
but let's TRY to be reasonable). His best hope is that there are
horny space aliens visiting earth.
> Watch too much X-Files when drunk again?
>
He may well have the box sets, along side his gallons of wild
turkey (or whatever his booze of choice may be).
"I am insane!"
Kent Wills
wrote:
> I don't believe he does. If he did, he would contradict himself
>so often.
That should be, "...he wouldn't..." I apologize if my error has
caused any one any inconvenience.
krp
>>>>>>>>>>From the start I said that that FAKE post was actually a CUT AND
>>>>>>>>>>PASTE
>>>>>>>>>>of several (6 as I recall) posts that I *DID* make.
>>>>>>>>> Why do you lie?
>>
>>>>>>>> Why do you?
What part of CUT and PASTE and POST EDIT don't you bget Polack? You POST
EDIT all the time Mr. Troll.
>>>>>>> You've never exposed so much as one lie from me, while I've
>>>>>>> exposed so many from you, it would take too long to count.
>>>>>>> Now, please answer the question asked.
>>>>>> Kunt - you truly ARE a legend in your own mind. You still delude
>>>>>>yourself that making wild unsupported claims and your BELLOWING is
>>>>>>"proof."
>>>>> I see you still refuse to answer the question asked. Is an
>>>>> honest answer really so difficult?
>>>>> I do like how your reply has NO relation to the context of the
>>>>> question asked.
What question is that, TROLL?
>>>> Kunt, do you believe that people are OBLIGATED to answer every
>>>> INSANE
>>>>question you pose? You really ARE "full of yourself."
>>> If you want people to accept the truth that you were lying, that's
>>> fine.
>> Kunt do you think that YOU posting a link that FAILS to say what YOU
>>claim it does will lead intelligent people to believe YOUR LIES?
> Since I've not lied, I don't need to worry about it.
You do nothing else but LIE. It's WHO you are, Wills. You are trapped in
a gigantic lie of your own admissions. One is that you NOW claim your name
is NOT "Kent Wills." For YEARS you claimed it was. Now that people have
discoverd and EXPOSED your criminal history suddenly that IS NOT your name.
Which LIE of yours are prople supposed to believe? It's the old game of "is
you is, or is you ain't?"
>>> I just hope than any potential clients see that you're lying and
>>> chose to go with a trial consultant who isn't out to rip them off.
>> I know what you "HOPE" Wills.
> That you'll be able to overcome the mental illness you have. The
> very one that you claim caused you to be found legally insane [1].
I caliemd NO such thing. YOU claim I claimed it. You use a POST EDIT for
your claim NEVER the whole post. Even when you do use whole posts for your
IDIOTIC INSANE CLAIMS, they never quite seem to back you up. In a repy to an
ANONYMOUS David Moore post on the Alien Rape the IN C ONTEXT reply from me
was that it was OBVIOUSLY "sarcasm and ricule" you TRY to claim can ONLY
mean I was admitting authorship because in WILLSWORLD only the author COULD
comment on it. Of course, Wills you ARE a MORON. So nobody in the confines
of your TINY - TWISTED mind could read the comment about aliens raping a
women could possibly see it as anything but DEADLY SERIOUS. YOU beleive in
horny space aliens orbiting the Earth desperate for some "Eartgh pussy." I
do NOT! First of all I see NO credible evidence that "ALIENS" from outer
space have visited Earth. I also find your notion of hordes of SEX STARVED
SPACE ALIENS coming to Earth to be completely PREPOSTEROUS! YOUI believe it
is REAL. Kunt, *I* do NOT! It's really as simple as that.
>>in your twisted mind that calling the
>>comment "SARCSM" is an admission that *I* wrote it, paints ypou as a man
>>with VEY SERIOUS mental problems.
> Only the author can KNOW the motivation.
Bullshit, Wills. How many people believe in orbiting hordes of SEX CRAZED
Aliens REALLY exist, besides you, Moore and McAllister? REALLY - PERVERTS
FROM SPACE? Kunt, you are INSANE.
> Let's make this real easy. Did you author the rape threat being
> referenced in our discussion? It's a yes or no question.
And the "NO" has been posted for YEARS.
>>There was NO such admission. Your DEMAND
>>that ONLY the author of it is allowed to comment on it is a truly bizarre
> I've made no such claim.
Oh shit, another LIE from KUNT WILLS. Yopu have now posted the
following claim over 100 times:
"Only the author can KNOW the motivation."
"Only the author can KNOW the motivation."
"Only the author can KNOW the motivation."
"Only the author can KNOW the motivation."
"Only the author can KNOW the motivation."
That is YOUR claim.
"Only the author can KNOW the motivation."
"Only the author can KNOW the motivation."
"Only the author can KNOW the motivation."
WRONG!!!!
>>In your world nobody can comment on a statement EXCEPT THE
>>AUTHOR.
>
> I've made no such claim.
REPRISE!!!
"Only the author can KNOW the motivation."
"Only the author can KNOW the motivation."
"Only the author can KNOW the motivation."
Sometimes the "MORIVATION" is so OBVIOUS that iot SCREAMS off the
monitor screen,. KUNT! Unless you actualkly BELIEVE that there are HORNY
ALIENS coming to Earth for a little Earth NOOKIE, (which *I* do NOT) but YOU
DO.
>>Yet you do that evey day of the week. I know you are merely a TROLL
>>who has NO cares for how people regard him.
>
> I don't worry much about how you regard me. You are
> insignificant. Outside of Usenet fodder, you have NO discernable
> impact on my life.
And yet almost 100% of YOUR posts to Usenet are either TO me or ABOUT me.
It consumes your ENTIRE LIFE. Since your posts span the entire day.
> You often address me as Kent Wills, even though you admitted in
> the thread about your listserv that you know my name in real life is
> not Kent Wills, and I reply accordingly. Only in your drunken fantasy
> world is this a denial of my nym.
I "admitted" NO such thing. I said you LIED to gain access to my
Listserv just like your QUEER boyfriend David Moore.
>> I NEVER claimed alcoholism.
> Technically true.
FACTUALLY TRUE, Kunt. I am a NON-drinker. Despite your claims that I
have a string of DUI's, the public record fails to support your psychotic
lies. You seem to forget that such records are PUBLIC and ON-LINE. But you
don't care that the REAL recrod fails to support you, you will just keep on
lying like a little EX-CON will do.
>
>>YOU drink FAR more than I ever have. Not
>>even a 6 pack worth in 68 years. And even less wine and hard liquor in 68
>>years. Not enough hard liquor to fill a shotglass.
> If alcoholism wasn't the reason you were found legally insane
> [1], why did you LIE, on at least two occasions, and claim it was?
> Be specific, please.
I have NEVER said that, your POST EDITS not with ANY standing. That's
all yopu bring to the take, your PSYCHOSIS.
krp
> On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 18:10:46 -0700 (PDT), womanGoddess
> Given Pangborn's MASSIVE girth, it's possible that even with
> medication he is unable to achieve an erection.
Given photos of yourself YOU have posted from time to time, Wills, IF
they are really YOU and not more of your FAKES, you have NO ROOM at all to
refer to anyone else's weight. NONE at all there Henry Hippo.
As far as you and Ms. McAllister, why don't you two just GET A ROOM.
Kent Wills
>
>"Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:j3kua5t6rectsigst...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 18:10:46 -0700 (PDT), womanGoddess
>
>> Given Pangborn's MASSIVE girth, it's possible that even with
>> medication he is unable to achieve an erection.
>
> Given photos of yourself YOU have posted from time to time, Wills, IF
>they are really YOU and not more of your FAKES,
If I posted a picture of me, it was and is of me. Feel free to
prove otherwise, if you claim the pictures of me are not of me.
>you have NO ROOM at all to
>refer to anyone else's weight. NONE at all there Henry Hippo.
I'm not as thin as I was five years ago, but I'm no where near as
obese as you.
Back in the early 90's I was. I don't KNOW how much I weighed,
but I would guess between 350 and 400 pounds. Seriously.
My life was mostly sitting at the computer chatting on IRC and
eating Cheetos.
I just got on the scale and I'm 182 pounds. Yes, I could stand to
drop 15 or so pounds. You could stand to lose an entire person,
though you'd still be extremely obese.
Five years ago I was around 170 pounds.
Whereas I was once as obese as you are now, I certainly do have
room to refer to your weight and point out how you are unwilling to do
anything about it.
Based on pictures, it looks like you found the fat I lost. You're
welcome to keep it :)
>
> As far as you and Ms. McAllister, why don't you two just GET A ROOM.
>
While you've made it very clear you cheated on your ex-wife
(unless you lied), not everyone is so willing.
I would have no problem meeting Moe and having a discussion with
her in real life, but to cheat on Lin, as I'm guessing you are trying
to imply, simply would never happen. Even if Moe were at all
interested, and she's given NO indication that she would be, cheating
wouldn't happen.
Kent Wills
Several of Kenneth Robert Pangborn, drunken and insane (unless he
lied about both) owner/operator of KRP Consulting and The A-Team, post
edits have been restored. This allows anyone new to the discussion a
chance to see Pangborn's replies in proper context.
>
>"Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:jojua5pp9fs44nej0...@4ax.com...
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>From the start I said that that FAKE post was actually a CUT AND
>>>>>>>>>>>PASTE
>>>>>>>>>>>of several (6 as I recall) posts that I *DID* make.
>
>>>>>>>>>> Why do you lie?
>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why do you?
>
> What part of CUT and PASTE and POST EDIT don't you bget Polack?
http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com/race.html
>You POST
>EDIT all the time Mr. Troll.
>
Cite one time, with the MID and/or Google link to it. Just one
is all I ask.
If you'd rather admit you lied, that is acceptable.
>>>>>>>> You've never exposed so much as one lie from me, while I've
>>>>>>>> exposed so many from you, it would take too long to count.
>>>>>>>> Now, please answer the question asked.
>
>>>>>>> Kunt - you truly ARE a legend in your own mind. You still delude
>>>>>>>yourself that making wild unsupported claims and your BELLOWING is
>>>>>>>"proof."
>
>>>>>> I see you still refuse to answer the question asked. Is an
>>>>>> honest answer really so difficult?
>
>>>>>> I do like how your reply has NO relation to the context of the
>>>>>> question asked.
>
> What question is that, TROLL?
"Why do you lie?"
The question is clearly visible above.
>
>>>>> Kunt, do you believe that people are OBLIGATED to answer every
>>>>> INSANE
>>>>>question you pose? You really ARE "full of yourself."
>
>>>> If you want people to accept the truth that you were lying, that's
>>>> fine.
>
>>> Kunt do you think that YOU posting a link that FAILS to say what YOU
>>>claim it does will lead intelligent people to believe YOUR LIES?
>
>> Since I've not lied, I don't need to worry about it.
>
> You do nothing else but LIE.
Yet you've NEVER been able to prove a single lie from me. Since
I've not lied, your failure was and is expected.
>It's WHO you are, Wills. You are trapped in
>a gigantic lie of your own admissions. One is that you NOW claim your name
>is NOT "Kent Wills."
You acknowledged my name in real life isn't Kent Wills. It was
in the thread about your listserv.
Are you claiming you were lying?
>For YEARS you claimed it was.
No I didn't.
>Now that people have
>discoverd and EXPOSED your criminal history suddenly that IS NOT your name.
>Which LIE of yours are prople supposed to believe? It's the old game of "is
>you is, or is you ain't?"
I'm me.
On Usenet, and some E-mail, I use the nym Kent Wills. This is
very old news.
In real life, and some E-mail addys I use my real name. You
acknowledged this truth already. No amount of your drunken desire to
hide from the truth will alter the truth.
>
>
>>>> I just hope than any potential clients see that you're lying and
>>>> chose to go with a trial consultant who isn't out to rip them off.
>
>>> I know what you "HOPE" Wills.
>
>> That you'll be able to overcome the mental illness you have. The
>> very one that you claim caused you to be found legally insane [1].
>
> I caliemd NO such thing. YOU claim I claimed it.
Are you making the FACT CLAIM that you did not write, "I am
insane!" in a post to ADRU?
>You use a POST EDIT for
>your claim NEVER the whole post.
I can look up and post the MID, allowing anyone with an interest
to verify the accuracy and context of the quote, if you'd like.
>Even when you do use whole posts for your
>IDIOTIC INSANE CLAIMS, they never quite seem to back you up. In a repy to an
>ANONYMOUS David Moore post on the Alien Rape the IN C ONTEXT reply from me
>was that it was OBVIOUSLY "sarcasm and ricule" you TRY to claim can ONLY
>mean I was admitting authorship because in WILLSWORLD only the author COULD
>comment on it.
I've made no claim that only the author could comment on it.
I stated only the author can assign motivation to the threat,
which is what you did.
Your attempt to LIE about what I wrote has been exposed.
>Of course, Wills you ARE a MORON. So nobody in the confines
>of your TINY - TWISTED mind could read the comment about aliens raping a
>women could possibly see it as anything but DEADLY SERIOUS.
I make no claims as to your motivation. Maybe you did intend the
threat to be sarcastic and presented it as a means of ridicule, maybe
not.
I'm not interested in the actual motivation, only that your
telling people, with authority, what the motivation was proves you
wrote the threat.
> YOU beleive in
>horny space aliens orbiting the Earth desperate for some "Eartgh pussy." I
You should cease your constant projection.
>do NOT! First of all I see NO credible evidence that "ALIENS" from outer
>space have visited Earth.
Yet you are compelled to project your belief that they have and
are horny onto others.
>I also find your notion of hordes of SEX STARVED
>SPACE ALIENS coming to Earth to be completely PREPOSTEROUS! YOUI believe it
>is REAL. Kunt, *I* do NOT! It's really as simple as that.
You can project your delusions onto others as often as you need.
The truth will forever remain the truth.
>
>
>
>>>in your twisted mind that calling the
>>>comment "SARCSM" is an admission that *I* wrote it, paints ypou as a man
>>>with VEY SERIOUS mental problems.
>
>> Only the author can KNOW the motivation.
>
> Bullshit, Wills. How many people believe in orbiting hordes of SEX CRAZED
>Aliens REALLY exist, besides you, Moore and McAllister? REALLY - PERVERTS
>FROM SPACE? Kunt, you are INSANE.
You keep trying to distract from the point at hand. That you
assigned motivation to the threat. You didn't guess the motivation,
you didn't state you thought it was a means of sarcasm and ridicule.
No, you state, absolutely, that it was.
If you were simply commenting on what you believed to be the
motivation, you would have written something akin to, "I think that's
sarcasm, David. Ridicule of Stacy Alexander."
Had you done so, it would have been clear you were simply stating
what you thought or believed to be the motivation. You chose to
state, absolutely, that it was sarcasm and ridicule. Only the author
could KNOW what the motivation was.
>
>> Let's make this real easy. Did you author the rape threat being
>> referenced in our discussion? It's a yes or no question.
>
> And the "NO" has been posted for YEARS.
So when I find someone who replied to your threat directly,
quoting you, what will you do? Will you again claim that David Moore
has edited the posts archived on Google?
"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>
>
>>>There was NO such admission. Your DEMAND
>>>that ONLY the author of it is allowed to comment on it is a truly bizarre
>
>> I've made no such claim.
>
> Oh shit, another LIE from KUNT WILLS.
I've never claimed only the author of a work can comment on the
work. I've never even implied such.
>Yopu have now posted the
>following claim over 100 times:
Another of your MANY lies.
>
>"Only the author can KNOW the motivation."
>
>"Only the author can KNOW the motivation."
>
>"Only the author can KNOW the motivation."
>
>"Only the author can KNOW the motivation."
>
>"Only the author can KNOW the motivation."
>
>That is YOUR claim.
>
True.
There is a difference between knowing the motivation and
commenting on a work.
No amount of your trying to confuse two separate matters will
alter the truth, Pangborn. You may keep trying, and you likely will,
but the truth will remain the truth, no matter how much you NEED to
try and distract from it.
>"Only the author can KNOW the motivation."
>
>"Only the author can KNOW the motivation."
>
>"Only the author can KNOW the motivation."
>
>WRONG!!!!
Not wrong.
>
>>>In your world nobody can comment on a statement EXCEPT THE
>>>AUTHOR.
>>
>> I've made no such claim.
>
>REPRISE!!!
>
>"Only the author can KNOW the motivation."
>
>"Only the author can KNOW the motivation."
>
>"Only the author can KNOW the motivation."
You can have as many k00k meltdowns as you need. I've never
claimed only the author can comment on a writing.
>
> Sometimes the "MORIVATION" is so OBVIOUS that iot SCREAMS off the
>monitor screen,.
Only in your alcohol addend mind.
>KUNT! Unless you actualkly BELIEVE that there are HORNY
>ALIENS coming to Earth for a little Earth NOOKIE, (which *I* do NOT) but YOU
>DO.
>
You need to cease projecting, Pangborn. Doing so only serves to
make you look more the fool.
>>>Yet you do that evey day of the week. I know you are merely a TROLL
>>>who has NO cares for how people regard him.
>>
>> I don't worry much about how you regard me. You are
>> insignificant. Outside of Usenet fodder, you have NO discernable
>> impact on my life.
>
>
>And yet almost 100% of YOUR posts to Usenet are either TO me or ABOUT me.
>It consumes your ENTIRE LIFE. Since your posts span the entire day.
My posts span about 15 to 20 minutes between 3:00am and 4:00am
during the week.
I have more free time on the weekends, so I do tend to visit
Usenet more.
You, however, post many times each day. Usenet is all you have in
life.
>> Anytime someone addresses me by my real life name in real life, I
>>acknowledge it. The only reason I wouldn't is if I wasn't aware they
>>had done so.
>> Much the same as I acknowledge when someone addresses me on
>>Usenet by my Usenet nym.
>> You often address me as Kent Wills, even though you admitted in
>> the thread about your listserv that you know my name in real life is
>> not Kent Wills, and I reply accordingly. Only in your drunken fantasy
>> world is this a denial of my nym.
>
> I "admitted" NO such thing. I said you LIED to gain access to my
>Listserv just like your QUEER boyfriend David Moore.
>
No, you claimed I lied about my name on Usenet. Even though I've
been very open that Kent Wills isn't my name in real life, you still
claim it was and is a lie.
You freely acknowledged my nym on Usenet is not my name in real
life.
Unless you are going to claim you were lying, you are stuck with
your acknowledgment.
>>> I NEVER claimed alsoholism.
>>
>> Technically true. Since there is nothing, as far as I know,
>>called alsoholism, you couldn't claim it.
>> On two occasions, of which I am aware, you claimed to be an
>>alcoholic. I used to use one of those claims as a sig for several
>>months.
>> While I was doing so, you never even tried to deny the accuracy
>>of the sig. Since it included a verbatim quote and the MID of your
>>post, you really couldn't.
>
>
> FACTUALLY TRUE, Kunt. I am a NON-drinker. Despite your claims that I
>have a string of DUI's,
I've made no such claim.
>the public record fails to support your psychotic
>lies. You seem to forget that such records are PUBLIC and ON-LINE. But you
>don't care that the REAL recrod fails to support you, you will just keep on
>lying like a little EX-CON will do.
Since I've never claimed you have one DUI, let alone a string of
them, your lie only serves to further prove you to be the pathological
liar you are.
Why do you claim people have stated you have a string of DUIs
when no one ever has?
>>
>>>YOU drink FAR more than I ever have. Not
>>>even a 6 pack worth in 68 years. And even less wine and hard liquor in 68
>>>years. Not enough hard liquor to fill a shotglass.
>
>>
>> If alcoholism wasn't the reason you were found legally insane
>>[1], why did you LIE, on at least two occasions, and claim it was?
>> Be specific, please.
>>
Pangborn?
>>>
>>>>>in their flying saucer and strange sexual experiments performed on you.
>>>>>But *I* do NOT believe that
>>>>>there are hordes of sex crazed aliens out there, Kunt. You and your
>>>>>rubber
>>>>>room pals can believe in that shit.
>>>
>>>> Whereas I've never made such a claim, and haven't seen anyone
>>>> else make such a claim, your lie fails.
>>>
>>> Sure, kent, you not only claimed ytou were abducted by Aliens who
>>>performed stange sexual experiments on you, you ADMITTED to liked it!
>>
>> I doubt anyone is falling for your lies, though it is possible.
>> Even if anyone is so feeble minded as to buy the lies you sell, I
>>doubt they would have any discernable effect on my life.
>> I might toy with them a bit on Usenet, but once Agent closes,
>>they aren't likely to be thought of any longer.
>>
Pangborn?
>>>
>>>> But by all means, prove your FACT CLAIM that I've stated,
>>>> directly or through implication, that I've been abducted by space aliens.
>>>
>>>
>>> You ADMITTED IT! You even said you LIKED IT!
>>
>> I see your massive consumption of alcohol (unless you lied) has
>>forced you to lie again.
>> Inability to prove your claim and your admission, and by your own
>>standards and by default, that you were and are lying is accepted.
>>
Pangborn?
>>[1]
>>"I am insane!"
>> --Kenneth Robert Pangborn, of KRP Consulting and The A-team.
>>
>> Were you lying when you posted that claim in ADRU? If you wish,
>>I can track down the MID so that anyone with an interest may verify
>>the accuracy of the quote.
>
> I have NEVER said that, your POST EDITS not with ANY standing. That's
>all yopu bring to the take, your PSYCHOSIS.
>
I don't post edit. I've restored many of your post edits. This
will upset you greatly, since it means the context was resorted. And
as you've already admitted, you edit the posts in your reply to alter
the context. Here are but two examples, one of which has the MID,
allowing anyone with an interest to confirm the accuracy and context
of the quote.
"(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
"Quotes below have been highly altered."
krp
>>> Given Pangborn's MASSIVE girth, it's possible that even with
>>> medication he is unable to achieve an erection.
>>
>> Given photos of yourself YOU have posted from time to time, Wills, IF
>>they are really YOU and not more of your FAKES,
>
> If I posted a picture of me, it was and is of me. Feel free to
> prove otherwise, if you claim the pictures of me are not of me.
Thanks for admitting the HIPPO was you! HELLO MR. POT!
womanGoddess
> On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 13:58:41 GMT, "krp" <kr...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
Agreed.I have a BF and I have NEVER dated a married man, ever.
Unlike Kennie, I have ethics.
Moe
Eternal FOREVER KNIGHT fan
" A vampire cop? REALLY?"
"http://home.earthlink.net/~19ranger57/blies.htm
Know your scum--- http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com
freedom
Ken, I think you're the last person who has room to comment on others'
weight....LOL
http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com
The truth about Kenneth Pangborn, who supports convicted child sex
criminals
"[I have] [n]ever had [any] standing in the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyer's
Association or AN Y connection to them."
--Ken Pangborn in a usenet post on January 1, 2009, denying affiliation
with the TCDLA, to whom he provided bogus educational credentials. His lie
is disproved here:
http://web.archive.org/web/20060822021821/www.tcdla.com/secure/experts/inde
x.shtml
"Some photo of some girl without even any documentation on THAT only proves
that YOU are a PSYCHO! A really STUPID one at that!"
--Ken Pangborn, admitting to being a "stupid" "psycho" in message-ID
<jOp3l.292$Es4...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>
"The FACT is that [my mail-order wife Barbara Sanciprian] and I were
introduced in the FORMAL Spanish tradition by mutual friends, and were
married first in Cuba after 2 year courtship."
--Ken Pangborn, admitting that he began cheating on his wife Peggy on
September 28, 2001, nearly two years before she separated from him
"I'm David Moore and I am insane!"
--Ken Pangborn posting to alt.dads-rights.unmoderated, attempting to claim
that his name is David Moore
"If you call the police, I'll knock out all of your teeth, I'll cripple
you. I may go to prison for it, but when I get out, I'll be able to walk,
but you will still be a cripple."
--Pangborn puppet Greg Hanson of alt.support.child-protective-services **,
in a verbal threat to his girlfriend
** - this conclusion was reached via applying Ken and Greg's logic
Keywords: false allegations,sexual abuse,marital rape, date rape, sexual
harassment,child abuse,domestic violence,rape allegations,false allegations
of child abuse,false rape allegations,false abuse accusations,false
accusations,recovered memories,child sexual abuse,abuse child,sexual
assault,child molestation,reactive attachment disorder,penile
plethysmograph,polygraph,attorneys,divorce,visitation,pedophiles
More-keywords: KRP CONSULTING. False allegations of child abuse, false
abuse accusations, false domestic violence allegations help, false rape
allegations, abuse child, sexual abuse, child sexual abuse, false
allegations, false accusations, recovered memories, sexual assault, child
molestation, child sexual abuse, reactive attachment disorder, penile
plethysmograph, polygraph, trial consulting, jury consulting, jury
selection, jury voire dire, wrongful allegations, false child sexual abuse
allegations. Wrongful child sexual abuse allegations. Domestic Violence.
Rape. Marital rape. Date Rape. Confidence Rape.
Yet-more-keywords: ken pangborn,kenneth pangborn,barbara pangborn,barbara
sanciprian,palm harbor,tampa,attorneys,florida lawyers,florida
attorneys,tampa lawyers,tampa attorneys,trial consultant,trial
consulting,dui,domestic violence,vawa,abuse,3648 cockatoo,new port
richey,ernesto sanciprian,ernesto miguel blanco sanciprian,blanco
sanciprian,bryce carter,holguin,julio aguilar,yudith bacallao,raimundo
cabrera,ana hernandez chi,lixandro cordero,leandis diaz,al faisbuker,wendy
gil,armando capo ramos,george riveron,reinaldo rodriguez,lexis ross,liana
yisell alvarez silveira,madelyn tamayo,manuel toledo,thais valdes
Extra-keywords: Julito Sainz,craig clawson,lia yisell
krp
"womanGoddess" <fvr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1db77073-91d6-4699...@p23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
KW> While you've made it very clear you cheated on your ex-wife
KW> (unless you lied), not everyone is so willing.
MOE THE MORON> Agreed.I have a BF and I have NEVER dated a married man,
ever. Unlike Kennie, I have ethics.
Well I also have never dated a "married man" OR a "married woman." And
despite your buddy's claims I have never cheated on ANY of my wives. I did
not meet my present wife until AFTER my ex wife and I were legally
separated. Even then we were not "intimate" until AFTER the divorce was
final. TRY AGAIN YOU OLD HAG! Get back on your broom and flay to your
cauldron.
I never committed adultery in ANY of my marriages. And NO you frigging
LIAR, I was NOT married 4 times.
krp
"freedom" <about...@aboutISkenApangbornFRAUD.com> wrote in message
news:3693ea5b0e604494...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...
>>Thanks for admitting the HIPPO was you! HELLO MR. POT!
>
> Ken, I think you're the last person who has room to comment on others'
> weight....LOL
Golly, Moore, from what has been shown to me, YOU have NO room to
comment either, PORKY. I admit my weight. YOU - well you still THINK you
are a "STUD" right Kojack?
Keywords: david daniel moore pathological liar, david daniel moore
calumet city, illinois, david daniel moore internet psychopath, Lotus,
david daniel moore stalker, stalker, real estate agents, david daniel moore
pathological liar, david daniel moore, pervert, abusive real estate agents,
david daniel moore coward, david daniel moore computer hacker,
david daniel moore criminal, internet stalkers david daniel moore,
internet harassment david daniel moore, david daniel moore, moore the porn
star,
internet libel, david daniel moore website of lies,janet moore, sexual
predator,
850 buffalo avenue, calumet city,illinos, dui, linda boss, ACT, Lotus
Solutions consulting,
david daniel moore malicious use of employers computers, pedophilia,
david daniel moore sara lee corporation, never employ david
daniel moore, internet psychopaths, david daniel moore, david kojack, moore,
chicagoland pansies, internet addiction, internet stalking, woman hater,
tara moreland, janet moore, dawn moore, alias dustin calloway, alias
david miller, alias david boss, alias jeff johnson, blackmailer, sexual
harassment,sexual blackmail, david moore bbs blackmail, david moore usmc, 29
palms california,linda boss, david moore child abuser, anonymous remailer
stalkers, anonymous remailer abusers, basement dwellers,off shore website,
new zealand, malaysia website,employer hotel/casino,computer abuse, office
disruption,
obsessive compulsive disorder, four winds,calumet city drag queen,
transvestite,
sexual disorders, mglf, milwaukee general liberation front,punks, putz,
bestiality,
cowardice, forger, mommys basement, skinheads, forgeries, willian rainey
harper college,
coalition forces, buffalo, michigan, david moore coalition supreme allied
commander,
anonymous remailer stalkers, david moore womanizer, david daniel moore drag
queen,
lotus programs, IT contractors, david d. moore aryan nations member,
blackmail,
Kent Wills
>
>"Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:4u71b59hivj78mu9h...@4ax.com...
>
>>>> Given Pangborn's MASSIVE girth, it's possible that even with
>>>> medication he is unable to achieve an erection.
>>>
>>> Given photos of yourself YOU have posted from time to time, Wills, IF
>>>they are really YOU and not more of your FAKES,
>>
>> If I posted a picture of me, it was and is of me. Feel free to
>>prove otherwise, if you claim the pictures of me are not of me.
>>
>>>you have NO ROOM at all to
>>>refer to anyone else's weight. NONE at all there Henry Hippo.
>>
>> I'm not as thin as I was five years ago, but I'm no where near as
>>obese as you.
>> Back in the early 90's I was. I don't KNOW how much I weighed,
>>but I would guess between 350 and 400 pounds. Seriously.
>> My life was mostly sitting at the computer chatting on IRC and
>>eating Cheetos.
>> I just got on the scale and I'm 182 pounds. Yes, I could stand to
>>drop 15 or so pounds. You could stand to lose an entire person,
>>though you'd still be extremely obese.
>
>Thanks for admitting the HIPPO was you! HELLO MR. POT!
You really shouldn't try to reply to posts while you're downing a
gallon of booze, Pangborn.
Kent Wills
<fvr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
>> While you've made it very clear you cheated on your ex-wife
>> (unless you lied), not everyone is so willing.
>> I would have no problem meeting Moe and having a discussion with
>> her in real life, but to cheat on Lin, as I'm guessing you are trying
>> to imply, simply would never happen. Even if Moe were at all
>> interested, and she's given NO indication that she would be, cheating
>> wouldn't happen.
>>
>
> Agreed.I have a BF and I have NEVER dated a married man, ever.
>
> Unlike Kennie, I have ethics.
Kennie-Bob actually bragged about meeting and courting his
current wife while still married to his ex.
Pangborn clearly has NO ethics or morals.
"I am insane!"
Kent Wills
>
>"womanGoddess" <fvr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1db77073-91d6-4699...@p23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>
>KW> While you've made it very clear you cheated on your ex-wife
>KW> (unless you lied), not everyone is so willing.
>
>MOE THE MORON> Agreed.I have a BF and I have NEVER dated a married man,
>ever. Unlike Kennie, I have ethics.
>
> Well I also have never dated a "married man" OR a "married woman." And
>despite your buddy's claims I have never cheated on ANY of my wives. I did
>not meet my present wife until AFTER my ex wife and I were legally
>separated.
But you were married, right?
If you answer yes, then you cheated.
>Even then we were not "intimate" until AFTER the divorce was
>final. TRY AGAIN YOU OLD HAG! Get back on your broom and flay to your
>cauldron.
Are you so drunk you think witches found in fairy tales are an
accurate description of Wiccans?
>
> I never committed adultery in ANY of my marriages. And NO you frigging
>LIAR, I was NOT married 4 times.
>
You cheated on your ex-wife or you lied. You allow yourself no
other options.
Kent Wills
<about...@aboutISkenApangbornFRAUD.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 16 Sep 2009, krp <kr...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>"Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:4u71b59hivj78mu9h...@4ax.com...
>>
>>>>> Given Pangborn's MASSIVE girth, it's possible that even with
>>>>> medication he is unable to achieve an erection.
>>>>
>>>> Given photos of yourself YOU have posted from time to time, Wills, IF
>>>>they are really YOU and not more of your FAKES,
>>>
>>> If I posted a picture of me, it was and is of me. Feel free to
>>> prove otherwise, if you claim the pictures of me are not of me.
>>
>>
>>Thanks for admitting the HIPPO was you! HELLO MR. POT!
>
>Ken, I think you're the last person who has room to comment on others'
>weight....LOL
In order to make the claim, Kenneth Robert Pangborn, alcoholic
(unless he lied) owner/operator of KRP Consulting, had to snip most of
my post. Of course, the drunken fool has already admitted in the past
he alters the context of posts when he replies.
Many, many years ago I was around the same size and Ken Pangborn
is now. I made the choice to do something about it.
>
>http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com
>The truth about Kenneth Pangborn, who supports convicted child sex
>criminals
"Quotes below have been highly altered."
Kent Wills
>DAVID MOORE
>"freedom" <about...@aboutISkenApangbornFRAUD.com> wrote in message
>news:3693ea5b0e604494...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...
>
>>>Thanks for admitting the HIPPO was you! HELLO MR. POT!
>>
>> Ken, I think you're the last person who has room to comment on others'
>> weight....LOL
>
> Golly, Moore, from what has been shown to me, YOU have NO room to
>comment either, PORKY. I admit my weight. YOU - well you still THINK you
>are a "STUD" right Kojack?
If you think David is fat, what term would you use to describe
yourself? You have at least 200 pounds of fat over David.
krp
> Kennie-Bob actually bragged about meeting and courting his
> current wife while still married to his ex.
> Pangborn clearly has NO ethics or morals.
LIAR! I said NO such thing. I was very clear that I did not meet my current
wife until the divorce from my ex was filed and we were legally separated.
Oh and WHILE YOU ARE AT it, deal with the fact that BEFORE I met my current
wife, my EX was "LIVING WITH" another guy. SO CUT YOUR BULLSHIT, WILLS!
krp
>> Well I also have never dated a "married man" OR a "married woman." And
>>despite your buddy's claims I have never cheated on ANY of my wives. I did
>>not meet my present wife until AFTER my ex wife and I were legally
>>separated.
> But you were married, right? If you answer yes, then you cheated.
Is that your LEGAL opinion, Kunt? Do you have ANY concept at all of what
a divorce and legal separation ARE, Mr. Jailhouse Lawyer? The divorce was
filed, preliminary hearings held, and a LEGAL SEPARATION pending "FINAL"
decree of divorce. Now, ATTORNEY EMERITUS WILLS, what is a "divorce in fact"
mean? Your OFFICIAL LEGAL OPINION, please Attorney Wills. What is an
interlocutory decree of divorce? Please give us your DETAILED LEGAL OPINION
on Florida LAW regarding this point. We'll await your BRIEF on this matter
forthwith.
>> I never committed adultery in ANY of my marriages. And NO you frigging
>>LIAR, I was NOT married 4 times.
> You cheated on your ex-wife or you lied. You allow yourself no
> other options.
Did neither. Your QUEER (strange) buddy, Moore, is confused on dates. I
did not meet my present wife until well AFTER my ex wife and I had
separated, AND (adding NEW info) SHE was already living with another guy.
(It didn't last.) Oh and as to PORN pictures, look for some of HERS. Oh, why
did I mention this? I'm not a happy camper in that she has contracted some
debts she isn't paying and listed MY address and phone number as her
address. I don't appreciate being linked to HER debts 7 years AFTER the
fact. How would YOU like incessant calls all hours of the day and night
from collection agencies? When I say she doesn't live here, they flat don't
give a shit. One came right out and said they wanted ME to make good on her
loan because she listed ME as if we were still married. The collection agent
told me that I was "LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE" for my wife's debts. They don't
want to hear that she's NOT my wife. She listed me. Is THAT bullshit or
what? They have gotten a "CEASE AND DESIST" letter from a lawyer friend of
mine. A confrontational nastygram. They've been told the next step is a
"Come to Jesus" letter from the courts. KAAACHING!!
You and your buddy Moore will ignore FACTS and keep on with your
bullshit that I cheated on my wife. I never did. On review, that was
probably a mistake.
Greegor
KBW > Your question dishonestly implies that
KBW > I am no longer one. Why are you being
KBW > so deceptive in your presentation?
The Misdemeanor for using a teen to perpetrate a Felony
would be the ultimate guarantee you could not be a teacher.
IN PRINTED LAW BOOKS
West's North Western Reporter
Second Series
A Unit of the National Reporter System
Volume 696 N.W.2d
Cite as 696 N.W.2d 20 (Iowa 2005)
Kent's Appeal
http://www.judicial.state.ia.us/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/20050506/04-0202.asp?Printable=true
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ia&vol=sc%5C20050506%5C04-0202&invol=1
http://www.doc.state.ia.us/InmateInfo.asp?OffenderCd=1155768
Name Kent Bradley Wills
Offender Number 1155768
Sex M
Birth Date 01/08/1969
Age 40
Location
Offense
County Of Commitment
Commitment Date
Duration
TDD/SDD *
* TDD = Tentative Discharge Date
* SDD = Supervision Discharge Date
Supervision Status Offense Class County of Commitment End Date
Probation Aggravated Misdemeanor Polk 12/16/2008
Probation C Felony Polk 12/16/2008
Supervision Status Offense Class County of Commitment End Date
Probation Aggravated Misdemeanor Polk 11/25/2003
http://www.iowacourts.state.ia.us/
Iowa Courts
Online Search
< Start A Case Search Here! > click
Iowa Courts Online Search
Search Selection
Under Trial Court < click on Case Search >
Wills Kent B
02401 ESPR015146 INA J WILLS ESTATE
05771 FECR145250 STATE VS KENT 01/08/1969
05771 FECR176876 STATE VS KENT 01/08/1969
05771 SCSC310505 SWEENEY RENTALS VS KENT
05771 SCSC335210 CITI FINANCIAL VS KENT
05771 SCSC374163 SFI F SCHERLE PRES VS KENT
05771 SCSC374164 SFI F SCHERLE III PRES VS KENT
05771 STAN201670 IOWA vs [ KENT ] 01/08/1969
05771 STAN210929 IOWA vs [ KENT ] 01/08/1969
05771 SWCR177169 STATE VS KENT 01/08/1969
Dan Sullivan
womanGoddess
> "Kent Wills" <compu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
So her adultery makes yours okay?
First off Kennie, until the divorce is finalized you were still
legally married to her, not to mention what your Catholic Church
teaches.
Oh wait, you forgot about that specific teaching, didn't you?
According to the Catholic religion, when a person divorces, he or she
has to get the marriage' annulled' in the eyes of the church beffre he
or she can go ahead and marry someone else.
And what does the church consider someone like what you did?
An adulterer.
krp
> > Kennie-Bob actually bragged about meeting and courting his
> > current wife while still married to his ex.
> > Pangborn clearly has NO ethics or morals.
>
> LIAR! I said NO such thing. I was very clear that I did not meet my
> current
> wife until the divorce from my ex was filed and we were legally separated.
> Oh and WHILE YOU ARE AT it, deal with the fact that BEFORE I met my
> current
> wife, my EX was "LIVING WITH" another guy. SO CUT YOUR BULLSHIT, WILLS!
MOE> So her adultery makes yours okay?
Did I say that, or are you off your meds again?
MOE> First off Kennie, until the divorce is finalized you were still
MOE> legally married to her, not to mention what your Catholic Church
MOE> teaches.
Is that your LEGAL opinion or your opinion as POPE? Or both?
MOE> And what does the church consider someone like what you did? An
adulterer.
When were you ordained, Maureen? When did the Vatican appoint YOU to
speak for the church? You have NO idea of the church's position. BUT YOU
CLAIM to anyway. AS USUAL.
krp
"Greegor" <gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:71249d0a-3bc2-4848...@q35g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
>G > Kent, WHY did you once claim you were a school teacher?
>
> KBW > Your question dishonestly implies that
> KBW > I am no longer one. Why are you being
> KBW > so deceptive in your presentation?
>
> The Misdemeanor for using a teen to perpetrate a Felony
> would be the ultimate guarantee you could not be a teacher.
Greg - given that Kunt posts morning noon and night, I find his claim of
being a teacher to be extremely improbable.
Greegor
KRP > did the Vatican appoint YOU to speak for
KRP > the church? You have NO idea of the
KRP > church's position. BUT YOU
KRP > CLAIM to anyway. AS USUAL.
I think all she has is resentments.
Could you imagine if she actually had a man?
Poor feller would have to be a castrati!
Dan Sullivan
Dan Sullivan
> KRP > When were you ordained, Maureen? When
> KRP > did the Vatican appoint YOU to speak for
> KRP > the church? You have NO idea of the
> KRP > church's position. BUT YOU
> KRP > CLAIM to anyway. AS USUAL.
>
> I think
You exaggerate, grag.
Greegor
Moe, Isn't that SOP for pagans?
Dan Sullivan
Kent Wills
>MORE OF KENT WILLS' POLACK DELUSIONS
>"Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:k6s3b5pv3l9fupc1f...@4ax.com...
>
>>> Well I also have never dated a "married man" OR a "married woman." And
>>>despite your buddy's claims I have never cheated on ANY of my wives. I did
>>>not meet my present wife until AFTER my ex wife and I were legally
>>>separated.
>
>> But you were married, right? If you answer yes, then you cheated.
>
> Is that your LEGAL opinion, Kunt?
It's the truth. Unless, of course, you were lying.
>Do you have ANY concept at all of what
>a divorce and legal separation ARE, Mr. Jailhouse Lawyer?
Outside of your drunken delusions, I'm not any type of lawyer.
You've offered the PROOF that your alcohol induced insanity makes
you believe I am one, but the truth is, I am not.
>The divorce was
>filed, preliminary hearings held, and a LEGAL SEPARATION pending "FINAL"
>decree of divorce. Now, ATTORNEY EMERITUS WILLS,
Outside of your drunken delusions, I'm not a lawyer.
You keep offering the PROOF that you are insane, just as you
claimed in ADRU. While I question that you were found legally insane
(you've offered nothing to support, let alone prove your claim that
you were found legally insane), it's very clear that you probably
would be ruled insane, if the matter were brought before a court of
proper jurisdiction.
>what is a "divorce in fact"
>mean?
That the marriage has been legally dissolved?
When I Googled the term, all I got where pages that had
"...divorce. In fact..." and "...divorce? In fact..."
Is "divorce in fact" another term you invented?
>Your OFFICIAL LEGAL OPINION, please Attorney Wills. What is an
Your massive consumption of alcohol, unless you lied, may well
make you hold the insane, unless you lied about that as well, delusion
that I'm a lawyer, but I'm not.
You have claimed, more times than I am willing to count, that I
am a lawyer. Clearly no amount of evidence that I am not is able to
counter your delusion that I am. This is a very sad truth and a very
sad commentary about the state of your mental health.
>interlocutory decree of divorce? Please give us your DETAILED LEGAL OPINION
>on Florida LAW regarding this point. We'll await your BRIEF on this matter
>forthwith.
That you believe, with all your being, that I'm a lawyer doesn't
make me a lawyer.
Get the mental health care you have once again PROVED you NEED.
I'm being very serious, Ken. My comment may have the appearance
of an insult, but I don't mean it as one. You are a very sick man and
need professional mental health care.
>
>>> I never committed adultery in ANY of my marriages. And NO you frigging
>>>LIAR, I was NOT married 4 times.
>
>> You cheated on your ex-wife or you lied. You allow yourself no
>> other options.
>
> Did neither. Your QUEER (strange) buddy, Moore, is confused on dates. I
He uses the dates YOU posted.
You may have lied, of course, but that's your problem.
>did not meet my present wife until well AFTER my ex wife and I had
>separated, AND (adding NEW info) SHE was already living with another guy.
You've tried to use her alleged infidelity to justify your
cheating in the past. It didn't work then, and it's not working now.
At least not with me.
>(It didn't last.) Oh and as to PORN pictures, look for some of HERS.
Huh?
Who mentioned anything about porn?
>Oh, why
>did I mention this?
Because you're mentally unstable.
>I'm not a happy camper in that she has contracted some
>debts she isn't paying and listed MY address and phone number as her
>address. I don't appreciate being linked to HER debts 7 years AFTER the
>fact. How would YOU like incessant calls all hours of the day and night
>from collection agencies? When I say she doesn't live here, they flat don't
>give a shit. One came right out and said they wanted ME to make good on her
>loan because she listed ME as if we were still married.
They can want you to pay her debts, but that doesn't mean you're
under any obligation to pay them.
>The collection agent
>told me that I was "LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE" for my wife's debts.
Did you ask him from where he got his law degree? :)
>They don't
>want to hear that she's NOT my wife. She listed me. Is THAT bullshit or
>what? They have gotten a "CEASE AND DESIST" letter from a lawyer friend of
>mine. A confrontational nastygram. They've been told the next step is a
>"Come to Jesus" letter from the courts. KAAACHING!!
If I understand applicable law correctly (you'll claim I'm the
top lawyer in the U.S. on matters of debt collection, but do keep in
mind I'm not), once they get a cease and desist letter, they must stop
all contact, expect for a summons for court.
>
> You and your buddy Moore will ignore FACTS and keep on with your
>bullshit that I cheated on my wife. I never did. On review, that was
>probably a mistake.
Unless you LIED, you cheated on her. Maybe you lied about when
you met Barbara. Maybe you were divorced when you met her.
If that is the case, the lie is yours.
Kent Wills
>
>"Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:qvr3b512ihu04o9um...@4ax.com...
>
>> Kennie-Bob actually bragged about meeting and courting his
>> current wife while still married to his ex.
>> Pangborn clearly has NO ethics or morals.
>
>LIAR! I said NO such thing.
In fact, you did.
>I was very clear that I did not meet my current
>wife until the divorce from my ex was filed and we were legally separated.
You were married. You cheated.
>Oh and WHILE YOU ARE AT it, deal with the fact that BEFORE I met my current
>wife, my EX was "LIVING WITH" another guy. SO CUT YOUR BULLSHIT, WILLS!
Trying to rationalize your cheating by claiming your ex was
cheating isn't impressing me. Even if true, her infidelity can't be
used to justify yours.
"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$9h.4837@trnddc07>
Kent Wills
I post between 3:00AM and 4:00AM during the week. I post more
often on weekends as I have more free time.
During summer months I also have more free time.
Deal with it.
"YOU ARE INSANE.
"That claim is BULLSHIT!!!!"
Kenneth Robert Pangborn, self admitted alcoholic, insane
owner/operator of KRP Consulting and the A-Team, admitting his claims
that I've been found legally insane are lies.
MID aRcrm.2326$tl3....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net
Kent Wills
<gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>G > Kent, WHY did you once claim you were a school teacher?
>
>KBW > Your question dishonestly implies that
>KBW > I am no longer one. Why are you being
>KBW > so deceptive in your presentation?
>
>The Misdemeanor for using a teen to perpetrate a Felony
>would be the ultimate guarantee you could not be a teacher.
I see you're avoiding the question. Is an honest answer just too
difficult for you?
You are the ONLY person still unable to accept the truth that I
am not Kent Wills in real life. Heck, Pangborn was able to
acknowledge that I'm not really Kent Wills in the thread about his
listserv.
Either I'm so good at conning people, I was able to fool everyone
but you, or you're so messed up from the illegal drugs you admit you
use and abuse, you are UNABLE to accept the truth.
Since I've not tried to con anyone, that's not going to be a
plausible explanation.
[Snips Greg's admitting I was and am correct]
It's accepted that when I'm correct and you can't lie your way
out of it, you post that which you KNOW is not about me in a futile
effort to distract from the truth.
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
Kent Wills
>POPE MAUREEN MCALLISTER
>"womanGoddess" <fvr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:7f65d383-e9f8-43ba...@d23g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
>
>> > Kennie-Bob actually bragged about meeting and courting his
>> > current wife while still married to his ex.
>> > Pangborn clearly has NO ethics or morals.
>>
>> LIAR! I said NO such thing. I was very clear that I did not meet my
>> current
>> wife until the divorce from my ex was filed and we were legally separated.
>> Oh and WHILE YOU ARE AT it, deal with the fact that BEFORE I met my
>> current
>> wife, my EX was "LIVING WITH" another guy. SO CUT YOUR BULLSHIT, WILLS!
>
>MOE> So her adultery makes yours okay?
>
> Did I say that, or are you off your meds again?
>
When most claim someone is living with another, it's often seen
as a romantic partnership.
>MOE> First off Kennie, until the divorce is finalized you were still
>MOE> legally married to her, not to mention what your Catholic Church
>MOE> teaches.
>
> Is that your LEGAL opinion or your opinion as POPE? Or both?
>
I'm not an expert one Catholicism, although your drinking will
force you to claim I am, but I'm fairly certain the RCC takes a very
dim view on divorce.
>MOE> And what does the church consider someone like what you did? An
>adulterer.
>
> When were you ordained, Maureen? When did the Vatican appoint YOU to
>speak for the church? You have NO idea of the church's position. BUT YOU
>CLAIM to anyway. AS USUAL.
>
It's not like The Vatican keeps such things a secret, Pangborn.
"you are reading Moore's SELECTIVE material that is HIGHLY edited."
Kenneth Robert Pangborn claiming in misc.legal that David Moore can
and does edit Google's Usenet archive.
Message-ID: <n9Sfm.1372$nh2...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>
Kent Wills
<gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> �An adulterer.
>
>Moe, Isn't that SOP for pagans?
How long have you seen Kenneth Robert Pangborn as a Pagan?
krp
Remember she is POPE MOE 1.
krp
>>> Kennie-Bob actually bragged about meeting and courting his
>>> current wife while still married to his ex.
>>> Pangborn clearly has NO ethics or morals.
>>LIAR! I said NO such thing.
> In fact, you did.
In *FACT* I did NOT. I did not meet my present wife for almost a YEAR
after my divorce was underway and I was legally separatend.
>>I was very clear that I did not meet my current
>>wife until the divorce from my ex was filed and we were legally separated.
> You were married. You cheated.
>>Oh and WHILE YOU ARE AT it, deal with the fact that BEFORE I met my
>>current
>>wife, my EX was "LIVING WITH" another guy. SO CUT YOUR BULLSHIT, WILLS!
> Trying to rationalize your cheating by claiming your ex was
> cheating isn't impressing me. Even if true, her infidelity can't be
> used to justify yours.
Why would I care what a twice convicted FELON thinks? Let's see if your
limited Polack intelligence can figure this out. I did NOT meet my present
wife until almost a YEAR after my divorce had been filed, and I was legally
separated. CAN you get ANY of that through your pea sized brain, Kunt? My ex
wife and I separated in late 2001. The divorce was filed in 2002. I know,
Kunt, that YOU see yourself as a GREAT legal expert and jailhouse lawyer,
tell us ALL that YOU know about interlocutory decrees of divorce and the
difference between that and a FINAL decree. I am POSITIVE with your VAST
legal knowledge you can tell us all you know. Which should take all of 3
seconds. IF that long.
On and DIPSHIT - I didn't meet my present wife until 2003. WANT TO TRY
again and get off DAVID MOORE'S INVENTED timeline?
krp
>>> > Kennie-Bob actually bragged about meeting and courting his
>>> > current wife while still married to his ex.
>>> > Pangborn clearly has NO ethics or morals.
>>>
>>> LIAR! I said NO such thing. I was very clear that I did not meet my
>>> current
>>> wife until the divorce from my ex was filed and we were legally
>>> separated.
>>> Oh and WHILE YOU ARE AT it, deal with the fact that BEFORE I met my
>>> current
>>> wife, my EX was "LIVING WITH" another guy. SO CUT YOUR BULLSHIT, WILLS!
>
>>MOE> So her adultery makes yours okay?
>> Did I say that, or are you off your meds again?
> When most claim someone is living with another, it's often seen
> as a romantic partnership.
What a NICE bit of sophistry, Kunt.
>>MOE> First off Kennie, until the divorce is finalized you were still
>>MOE> legally married to her, not to mention what your Catholic Church
>>MOE> teaches.
>> Is that your LEGAL opinion or your opinion as POPE? Or both?
> I'm not an expert one Catholicism, although your drinking will
> force you to claim I am, but I'm fairly certain the RCC takes a very
> dim view on divorce.
Indeed they do. But the church also believes in forgiveness and being
fair. I wasn't the one who caused the divorce.
>>MOE> And what does the church consider someone like what you did? An
>>adulterer.
>> When were you ordained, Maureen? When did the Vatican appoint YOU to
>>speak for the church? You have NO idea of the church's position. BUT YOU
>>CLAIM to anyway. AS USUAL.
> It's not like The Vatican keeps such things a secret, Pangborn.
Nice snippage, Kunt. How would YOU or Maureen KNOW for a FACT what my
relationship is with my church? I know both of you like to think you "KNOW"
everything. about the most intimate details of MY life, but tell me about
when the last time I took communion? DETAILS. What was I wearing? What color
vestments was the priest wearing? In DETAIL tell me of the papers I filed
with the Vatican AND feel free to POST your copy, or Maureen's of the
decision. After all, Moore claims it IS a "PUBLIC RECORD." He LOVES to post
PUBLIC RECORDS. Oh wait, he only does THAT when there is something he thinks
he can use AGAINST me, doesn't he? When things don't go his way he claims I
have them "NUKED." Maybe I have power to ORDER the Pope around and HIDE
documents for me too. GOLLY, I am one POWERFUL DUDE. I can not only make
GOOGLE "NUKE" whatever I want, but order TWO states to NUKE my record, and
now the VATICAN too. Kunt do you think my middle name is JESUS?