The "lost emails" were never lost - but google eats unquoted headers
barbara...@gmail.com
header info]
Usher insists on continuing to libel me, claiming I would alter any
emails. Judge for yourselves.
1. THE HEADERS PROVE USHER LIED ABOUT "LOSING" THE EMAILS
The headers show the emails in question were sent from Usher's gmail
account. They were
not, and could not be, "lost in a hard disk crash", contrary to
Usher's oft-repeated claims, both here and in emails to others..
[snippage]
> Return-path: <jenni...@gmail.com>
> Received: from zproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.162.194])
> by VL-MO-MX004.ip.videotron.ca
> (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-2.05 (built Apr 28 2005))
> with ESMTP id <0ITR00LN...@VL-MO-MX004.ip.videotron.ca> for
> barbara...@videotron.ca; Fri, 27 Jan 2006 09:29:01 -0500 (EST)
> Received: by zproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 40so616502nzk for
> <barbara...@videotron.ca>; Fri, 27 Jan 2006 06:29:00 -0800 (PST)
> Received: by 10.64.150.1 with SMTP id x1mr286155qbd; Fri,
> 27 Jan 2006 06:29:00 -0800 (PST)
> Received: from 64-121-68-53.c3-0.sfpo-ubr5.sfrn-sfpo.ca.cable.rcn.com
> ( [64.121.68.53]) by mx.gmail.com with ESMTP id
> e15sm2224102qba.2006.01.27.06.28.58; Fri, 27 Jan 2006 06:28:58 -0800
> (PST)
> Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 06:28:38 -0800
> From: Jennifer Usher <jenni...@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Impressions
> In-reply-to: <200601270211.400...@videotron.ca>
> To: Barbara Hudson <barbara...@videotron.ca>
> Message-id: <1138372118.1...@localhost.localdomain>
> MIME-version: 1.0
> X-Mailer: Evolution 2.4.1
> Content-type: text/plain;
> CHARSET=ISO-8859-1
> Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
> DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta;
> d=gmail.com;
>
> h=received:subject:from:to:in-reply-to:references:content-
> type:date:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding;
>
> b=DpKQdWk2Urd0vfOnFv4RH/mvtTmyHMTKcQFlj5SC9Lyt9c
> +S2CY29U0dnVQDq08+o1iQJs35gRWu73wgqhskLgO4w4p8f7Ic0LmNBO18SUn90
> xJUmMGBp3TxQCO0rPbWGcSYis3izvnE2aRRrAgrzYLXo47VWkLnHCQDAJO0fg0=
> References:
> <91e602e80601261730t2c1...@mail.gmail.com>
> <200601262213.192...@videotron.ca>
> <1138340132.1...@localhost.localdomain>
> <200601270211.400...@videotron.ca>
> Status: RO
> X-Status: RAC
> X-KMail-EncryptionState: N
> X-KMail-SignatureState: N
> X-KMail-MDN-Sent:
[/snippage]
NOTE: Anyone else who was in correspondence with Usher during the
time period in question (December 2005 to February 2006) can confirm
that Usher was in fact using gmail.
IMPLICATIONS:
1.1 Usher's claim about losing them in a "convenient" hard disk crash,
made to others in emails, and now here in the news group, was a
physical impossibility.
1.2 Usher wanted to make it look like I had the only copies, so that
it would be impossible for Usher to compare them with the originals;
without the originals, and without the possibility of copies being in
Usher's gmail, it becomes one person's word against the other as to
whether they were altered;
1.3 On the other hand, Usher (and google) might still have copies, so
I would be foolish to try to alter the contents; for example, Usher
would keep copies to show Usher's employers if I were to post any
altered content;
1.4 Even if Usher deletes them today, a week ago, or even a year ago,
google may still have copies somewhere (backups, redundant systems,
research projects, etc); this is another reason not to try to present
altered text.
1.5 For Usher's "plausible deniability" to work, three things must
happen -
a. Usher's claim of losing the emails in a hard disk must be seen as
plausible - something not physically possible with gmail;
b. I must be seen as being in a position to present fake emails -
since Usher may still have the originals, I dare not, so any quotes
must be accurate;
c. I must keep quiet about what I know - and I'm tired of Usher
libeling me.
Usher's use of gmail eliminates any plausible explanations for "lost
emails in a hard disk crash" - though this won't prevent Usher from
trying to come up with an implausible reason or two (or three), "a la
Blake."
2. SAMPLE PARAGRAPH
[snippage]
>> Do you really want to spend a significant portion of your new post-op life
>> continuing the same old fight?
> Ah, now there is the rub. I am not sure what I will do after surgery. I
> have thought about just walking away from it all. Many do. I may also
> find a new job. I like what I do, but it is not exactly a stealth
> situation at all. I spend all day with people who are transgender,
> discussing transgender stuff, and it gets real old, real fast. And they
> really don't pay me enough. My surgical benefit makes up for that right
> now, but after surgery, it becomes moot.
[/snippage]
IMPLICATIONS:
2.1.1 "it is not exactly a stealth situation at all"
Translation: "Contrary to what I claim in alt.support.srs, I don't
'pass' all that well at work";
2.2 "I spend all day with people who are transgender, discussing
transgender stuff, and it gets real old, real fast"
Translation: "I like my work, except for having to deal with those
icky transgendered people";
2.3 "And they really don't pay me enough. My surgical benefit makes up
for that right now, but after surgery, it becomes moot."
Translation: "oh, and once I get my free sex change, screw this, they
aren't paying me enough to keep doing this s**t."
CONCLUSION:
Does Usher lie? You can draw your own conclusions on that one. And, as
many suspected, (and in Usher's own words) Usher took the job
primarily for the free sex change, and isn't, shall we say, all that
enthusiastic about working with the transgendered. Helping the
transgendered? B-O-R-I-N-G ! ! !
OFFER TO UCSF:
If UCSF has a legitimate need for the full text of this or other
emails, they may contact me, and I will provide them.
AFTERWORD:
On a side note, wasn't Usher supposed to refrain from using UCSF
computers for non-UCSF purposes? Usher sent me a "warning" (and
libeling me again) from this address while supposedly on "vacation"
from alt.support.srs:
> from "Usher, Jennifer" <Jennife...@ucsf.edu>
> to barbara...@gmail.com
> date May 17, 2007 10:11 AM
> subject Let me be perfectly clear here...
> mailed-by ucsf.edu
tags: usher troll usenet netkook
mtsg
barbara...@gmail.com wrote:
> [ sorry for the repost - google didn't like that I didn't quote the
> header info]
>
> Usher insists on continuing to libel me, claiming I would alter any
> emails. Judge for yourselves.
>
>
I wouldn't worry, no-one really believes much of anything Jennifer has
to say anymore. She's seen to that herself, I'm afraid...
Blessings,
mtsg
Barbara Hudson
You have a point. Unfortunately, nobody using google groups as their
newsreader will ever know, because google is hiding this thread because of
the headers with the "expired" dates - and that's what most lurkers will be
using.
Oh well, I'll consider it my good deed for the week, and get on with other
stuff. It's a holiday up here, but I still have a few things to tend to.
Thanks, and take care.
--
Barbara Hudson
barbara...@gmail.com
wrote:
> mtsg wrote:
> > On 21 May 2007 12:05:51 -0700
I hate to reply to myself, but it seems that google "fixes" the
"expired" problem if someone else posts in the thread, in spite of the
headers in the original post.
Sue
"Barbara Hudson" <barbara...@videotron.ca>
wrote in message
news:%Hm4i.36074$8d4.1...@weber.videotron.net...
you consider trolling to be your good dead of
the week.
Okay.
Sue
barbara...@gmail.com
> "Barbara Hudson" <barbara.hud...@videotron.ca>
> wrote in messagenews:%Hm4i.36074$8d4.1...@weber.videotron.net...
>
>
>
> > mtsg wrote:
>
> >> On 21 May 2007 12:05:51 -0700
This wasn't trolling.. Don't worry, you'll KNOW when I've trolled. Or
you can ask Blake.
Sue
<barbara...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179785688.3...@z24g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Honey i have read all of that i have been here
since June of 97. Just a little longer then you.
Take care
Sue