Re: Will Charles Novins sue Kali for sending the K. A. Cannonforgery?
King John I of AUK
"Dead Kitten" <ic9b...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
>
> Or better yet they run away and hide. Seen any "Pinku-Sensei" posts
> lately? LOL!!! The AB lawsuit scared that stupid asshole so bad that
> he's either permanently spanked off Usenet or he's changed socks and
> taken drastic steps to distance himself from his pre-lawsuit AUK
activities.
IAWTP !!
--
KHJ
King John I of AUK
"Russell Tavek" <restavek...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> Cannon, Lamb and Osterwald made a hobby of tormenting "kooks." One of
the
> things "kooks" do is file lawsuits. It's not like they shouldn't have
> expected something like this would happen sooner or later.
AMEN....BROTHER !!
> Hell, they should be glad it's just a lawsuit. Imagine if one of them
got a
> phone call: "Hello, Daddy? I'm in a car with a strange man. He told
me to
> say 'who's the fuckhead now, asshole?'" *click*
AMEN....BROTHER !!
> If you want to torment strangers you think are mentally ill, don't be
> surprised if you find yourself on the business end of a rusty
screwdriver,
> metaphorically or literally. And don't be surprise if they draw others
into
> their revenge. Anyone who ever lived in a rough neighborhood should
know
> the law of the jungle: those who look for trouble generally find it.
AMEN.....BROTHER !!
> >> Perhaps if Cannon, Osterwald, Lamb & Co. wind up paying a few
> >> thousands in legal fees people will be more careful about the
fights
> >> they pick online. Sometimes a blow with a big stick will get you
> >> further than kind words.
AMEN....BROTHER !!
> Oh, I think this will serve as an object lesson to cyberbullies
everywhere.
> Once their little hobby becomes overly expensive, perhaps they will
take up
> something more productive.
IAWTP......100%
--
KHJ
King John I of AUK
"henri" <he...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
news:qbgtt4hb3n15ct5ht...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 19:56:46 -0400, Russell Tavek
> <restavek...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Hell, they should be glad it's just a lawsuit. Imagine if one of
them got a
> >phone call: "Hello, Daddy? I'm in a car with a strange man. He told
me to
> >say 'who's the fuckhead now, asshole?'" *click*
>
> authorities be worried about your identity?
>
> " That can be arranged."
>--
> Henri the Ko0k
That sure sounds like a threat, Ko0k Henri !!
King John I of AUK
"Aratzio" <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:o9gvt4lhjciqnbkno...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 23:48:32 -0400, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
> henri <he...@nowhere.invalid> got double secret probation for writing:
>
> >On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 19:56:46 -0400, Russell Tavek
> ><restavek...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Hell, they should be glad it's just a lawsuit. Imagine if one of
them got a
> >>phone call: "Hello, Daddy? I'm in a car with a strange man. He told
me to
> >>say 'who's the fuckhead now, asshole?'" *click*
> >
> >Is this the kind of sick fantasy you have, k00k? Should the
> >authorities be worried about your identity? That can be arranged.
>
Deco.
> Then that popped up.
Krap, I wanted to hear how it ended...
--
KHJ
King John I of AUK
>
> Bob Larter <bobby...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >The look on his face as the judge says "Dismissed!".
>
> "With prejudice"
Dream-on Ko0ks !!
--
KHJ
King John I of AUK
> On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 10:07:40 -0400, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
> Russell Tavek <restavek...@yahoo.com> got double secret probation
> for writing:
>
> >From Religious Freedom Watch, courtesy of Barrett v. Rosenthal:
>
> Stalk me next, fuckwit.
He don't stalk Ugly tranny's, Roz Ratzio !!
--
KHJ
King John I of AUK
"Gregory Hall" <greg...@home.fake> wrote in message
news:2nl7nj....@news.alt.net...
> "henri" <he...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
> > On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 15:24:29 -0700, Aratzio
<a6ah...@sneakemail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 10:07:40 -0400, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
> >>Russell Tavek <restavek...@yahoo.com> got double secret
probation
> >>for writing:
> >
> >>>From Religious Freedom Watch, courtesy of Barrett v. Rosenthal:
> >
> >>Stalk me next, fuckwit.
> >
> >
> > It is, unfortunately, slightly too intelligent to be another Richard
> > Bullis, but quite too stupid to be an entertaining chew-toy.
> >
> > Into the killfile it goes with the rest of its socks.
>
> Admission of a loser! The criminal mind at work.
Bwahahhahhhahahahaha.
> --
> Gregory Hall
And a COWARD, as only cowards killfile !!
--
KHJ
King John I of AUK
"Gregory Hall" <greg...@home.fake> wrote in message
> > Russell Tavek <restavek...@yahoo.com> got double secret
probation
> > for writing:
> >
> >>From Religious Freedom Watch, courtesy of Barrett v. Rosenthal:
> >
> > Stalk me next, fuckwit.
>
> --
> Gregory Hall
Always start with a good picture:
Kaelin Cannon and Roz Ratzio:
http://www.ren.org/rafil/gpc/gpcpics/DSCF0002a.jpg
Be sure to click on the lower-right corner to enlarge the "pic".
(have a bucket handy if your stomach is weak).
--
KHJ
Bob Larter
> On 4/11/09 2:33 AM, in article
> failed to provide evidence that would create a genuine issue of material
> fact regarding his claims.
The amount of kook-frothage afterwords will be truly epic.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Aratzio
alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, Bob Larter
<bobby...@gmail.com> got double secret probation for writing:
>MillerT wrote:
>> On 4/11/09 2:33 AM, in article
>> j-KdncB13bRzpH3U...@centurytel.net, "King John I of AUK" wrote:
>>
>>> "Aratzio" <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:ojgvt4lts3m0horkf...@4ax.com...
>>>> Bob Larter <bobby...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The look on his face as the judge says "Dismissed!".
>>>> "With prejudice"
>>> Dream-on Ko0ks !!
>>> --
>>> KHJ
>>
>> Defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims granted. Plaintiff
>> failed to provide evidence that would create a genuine issue of material
>> fact regarding his claims.
>
>The amount of kook-frothage afterwords will be truly epic.
First will come the "Technicality" whine.
Bob Larter
> On 4/11/09 10:52 AM, in article 49e0aea2$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au, "Bob Larter"
> wrote:
>
>> MillerT wrote:
>>> On 4/11/09 2:33 AM, in article
>>> j-KdncB13bRzpH3U...@centurytel.net, "King John I of AUK" wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Aratzio" <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:ojgvt4lts3m0horkf...@4ax.com...
>>>>> Bob Larter <bobby...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The look on his face as the judge says "Dismissed!".
>>>>> "With prejudice"
>>>> Dream-on Ko0ks !!
>>>> --
>>>> KHJ
>>> Defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims granted. Plaintiff
>>> failed to provide evidence that would create a genuine issue of material
>>> fact regarding his claims.
>> The amount of kook-frothage afterwords will be truly epic.
>
We may have to install extra capacity.
Gregory Hall
news:ys2dncYZJ-ql3n3U...@centurytel.net...
Those two are really, really creepy looking. I bet Sarah Palin would look
good in Roz's black strapped pumps though.
--
Gregory Hall
King John I of AUK
"Gregory Hall" <greg...@home.fake> wrote in message
Palin makes my Royal tongue hard !!
--
KHJ
Gregory Hall
Ah ha! Another man of impeccable tastes!
--
Gregory Hall
atlas bugged
news:636b1497401b8828...@pseudo.borked.net...
> On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 14:57:49 -0400, Russell Tavek
> <restavek...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> Yet you hide. You will continue to hide. Is it just because Novins has
>>> more balls than you or is it because you really do have something to
>>> worry about? We'll never know because you hide.
>>
>>Seeing as how this is coming from someone posting behind a Dizum remailer,
>>I'm heartbroken.
>
> I almost posted something about you saying that but thought it better
> to wait and answer your predictable retort. I'm not the one who
> thinks posting with a real name is safe. Why? Because of people like
> you.
Right. People who want the truth.
>
>>
>>>> Typical sociopaths, really.
>>>
>>> My antics? I asked you a question and pointed out a truth about you.
>>> Isn't that what you claim that you are doing?
>>
>>You want very much to think you can say whatever you want, whenever you
>>want, with no fear of consequences, so long as you keep things on Usenet.
>
> I can.
Bingo. Classic sociopath. You do whatever you want...because you think you
can.
>I never post with a real name. I always post from a remailer
> and chain through several to be safe. Why? Because of people like
> you and people like Novins.
The only "danger" is that your actions would have consequences.
*That* possibility requires "several remailers...just to be safe."
>
> The only thing I've seen posted about Novins wasn't made by anyone
> he's suing but he's libeling many and theatening the rest.
I've seen that claim posted, but only the libeler would have any way to know
that, right?
>One of the
> AUK crowd must have really hurt your feelings for you to defend that.
I smell desperation in the atmosfear. You're someone named in the lawsuit.
>
> In a nutshell you make a promise you'll never keep because you know
> what will happen if you keep it. You're as bad as both sides of this
> little war if not worse.
There aren't two sides to this - yours is the only one dodging
responsibility, and it's coming your way....fast.
--
The Atlas Bugged Experience
<http://kukpedia.notlong.com>
Dead Kitten
>
> The only "danger" is that your actions would have consequences.
Ever hear of cyberstalking?
> *That* possibility requires "several remailers...just to be safe."
All one needs is a freebie account on a server that allows use of SOCKS
proxies.
Russell Tavek
On 4/13/09 1:37 PM, in article
2b69d4fd01eaaae0...@pseudo.borked.net, "hid...@not.gonna.say"
<hid...@not.gonna.say> wrote:
>> That's why one uses TOR proxies and VoIP services when pummeling them with
>> those complaints.
>
> So much for your staw-man argument about hard time getting a court to
> take something seriously. It's not about what someone posted, it's
> about you harassing their employer to get them fired. Is that
> actionable? Of course it is. But you admit you hide when doing it.
Ah, my dear anonymous friend, you forget that ANYONE can sue ANYBODY for
just about ANYTHING. The question is not, "Could they win a lawsuit?" The
question is "how much would it cost me to get the suit dismissed." Ask your
friends Cannon, Lamb and Osterwald about that one.
You seem to be under the impression that anonymity only works for you:
perhaps you should consider the ways it could be used to screw you over as
well, no? Or did it never occur to you that someone might try to bomb your
employer with anonymous complaints until you got terminated, leaving you no
recourse other than to walk off butthurt to the unemployment office?
This is typical sociopath thinking: they can use anonymity to mess with the
lives of others, but no one else can use it against them.
> It's how I know you will never post verifiable information of who you
> really are. You are truly a coward.
Your opinion means so much to me: how will I ever recover from your unkind
words?
Bob Larter
> On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 13:17:32 -0400, Russell Tavek
> <restavek...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 4/13/09 12:17 PM, in article
>> ee341161dbaffb82...@pseudo.borked.net, "hi...@not.gonna.say"
>> <hi...@not.gonna.say> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 11:26:50 -0400, Russell Tavek
>>> <restavek...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Simply put, you're going to have a hard time getting any court to take
>>>> seriously the claim "I posted a number of racist, homophobic and/or
>>>> foul-mouthed screeds to Usenet using an alias. Someone discovered my real
>>>> name and address and sent my screeds to my employer, who fired me. And now I
>>>> want to sue!!!" If you don't want to be held accountable for your comments,
>>>> don't post them in a public forum.
>>>
>>> The problem for you and those like you is that most worthy employers
>>> would read one email with "so and so posted this to usenet as nym
>>> what-de-do. Do you think you should have them working for you?" and
>>> ignore it.
>>>
>>> But you and those like you would do as Novins does and pummel them
>>> with mails and calls and threats of direct lawsuits without good cause
>>> and such until they sicken of it. Then when the firing occurs there
>>> IS cause against you and those like you.
>>>
>>> I'd wager you already know that.
>> That's why one uses TOR proxies and VoIP services when pummeling them with
>> those complaints.
>
> So much for your staw-man argument about hard time getting a court to
> take something seriously. It's not about what someone posted, it's
> about you harassing their employer to get them fired. Is that
> actionable? Of course it is. But you admit you hide when doing it.
>
> really are. You are truly a coward.
Of course he is. AUK has obviously caused him mega-butthurt, & he's
desperate to do whatever it takes to try & get back at us. Too bad for
him that there are so many of us that he has no way of harassing.
Russell Tavek
On 4/13/09 3:15 PM, in article gs02ud$o4n$1...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com,
"MillerT" <this...@isamunge.com> wrote:
> On 4/13/09 2:09 PM, in article C608F820.1162E%restavek...@yahoo.com,
> New guess: Phil Kyle. Yes or no?
Nope.
And as far as Werner Hetzner goes: do I sound like a Libertarian to you? :)
Russell Tavek
On 4/13/09 4:08 PM, in article gs061j$4i5$1...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com,
"MillerT" <this...@isamunge.com> wrote:
> This is a long-shot, but your writing shares some idiosyncrasies with:
>
> Matthew Moulton?
Nope, not Matthew Moulton.
Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries
> On 4/13/09 3:15 PM, in article
> gs02ud$o4n$1...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com, "MillerT"
> <this...@isamunge.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/13/09 2:09 PM, in article
>> C608F820.1162E%restavek...@yahoo.com, "Russell Tavek" wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/13/09 1:37 PM, in article
>>> 2b69d4fd01eaaae0...@pseudo.borked.net,
>>> "hid...@not.gonna.say" <hid...@not.gonna.say> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> It's how I know you will never post verifiable information of who
>>>> you really are. You are truly a coward.
>>>
>>> Your opinion means so much to me: how will I ever recover from your
>>> unkind words?
>>
>> New guess: Phil Kyle. Yes or no?
>
> Nope.
>
> And as far as Werner Hetzner goes: do I sound like a Libertarian to
> you? :)
No. And it appears that the important nuances of what you have written
are lost on those flaming you.
Unless, of course, you're a retired math teacher who has decided to use
standard English in this persona. In that case, I would have to ask if
you realize what your words might mean for the lawsuit under discussion.
--
Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries
If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will
scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will
refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something
which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he
will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is
explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Aratzio
MillerT <this...@isamunge.com> got double secret probation for
writing:
>On 4/13/09 2:09 PM, in article C608F820.1162E%restavek...@yahoo.com,
>New guess: Phil Kyle. Yes or no?
No.
Aratzio
>On 4/13/09 3:41 PM, in article C6090D8D.11635%restavek...@yahoo.com,
>"Russell Tavek" wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/13/09 3:15 PM, in article gs02ud$o4n$1...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com,
>> "MillerT" <this...@isamunge.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/13/09 2:09 PM, in article C608F820.1162E%restavek...@yahoo.com,
>>> "Russell Tavek" wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 4/13/09 1:37 PM, in article
>>>> 2b69d4fd01eaaae0...@pseudo.borked.net, "hid...@not.gonna.say"
>>>> <hid...@not.gonna.say> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> It's how I know you will never post verifiable information of who you
>>>>> really are. You are truly a coward.
>>>>
>>>> Your opinion means so much to me: how will I ever recover from your unkind
>>>> words?
>>>
>>> New guess: Phil Kyle. Yes or no?
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> And as far as Werner Hetzner goes: do I sound like a Libertarian to you? :)
>>
>
>This is a long-shot, but your writing shares some idiosyncrasies with:
>
>Matthew Moulton?
No.
Aratzio
>On 4/13/09 7:21 PM, in article 07i7u415gm9mcjbjg...@4ax.com,
>Unfortunately, important nuances are lost on me, so I'm just fscking around
>with Google.
>
>Do you have any guesses?
Yes.
Russell Tavek
On 4/13/09 3:50 PM, in article gs0d7f$q6v$1...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com,
"Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries" <ni...@databasix.com> wrote:
>>> New guess: Phil Kyle. Yes or no?
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> And as far as Werner Hetzner goes: do I sound like a Libertarian to
>> you? :)
>
> No. And it appears that the important nuances of what you have written
> are lost on those flaming you.
You seem to understand where I'm coming from: if you keep fooling around
with mentally ill and unstable people, you can hardly be surprised when they
behave like mentally ill and unstable people are wont to do. That may
involve a lawsuit, it may involve violence, or it may involve unpleasantness
in your real life. Should this be the case? No. But then, little children
shouldn't go to bed hungry in Africa and old ladies shouldn't have to sleep
on park benches in American cities either. Sometimes life is unfair and you
have to deal with that.
> Unless, of course, you're a retired math teacher who has decided to use
> standard English in this persona. In that case, I would have to ask if
> you realize what your words might mean for the lawsuit under discussion.
I'm not a retired teacher and certainly not a retired math teacher: I'm one
of the least mathematical people I know, actually. And I doubt that my words
are going to have an enormous impact on the final outcome one way or the
other.
My *guess* is that this lawsuit is going to get dismissed with all parties
to bear their own costs. If you are able to avoid service of process (and,
to the best of my knowledge, there is no law stating that you have to
cooperate with a process server or that you have to make it easy for them)
you will probably get out of this relatively unscathed. Those who have
already been served have no choice but to show up in court: for all the
stupid things they have done here, I can't imagine that Osterwald, Lamb and
Cannon are idiotic enough to hand Novins a default judgment. And while they
may "win" in the sense of getting the suit dismissed, they are likely to
spend a lot of money on that victory.
As far as people who should STFU, I wouldn't be surprised to see AB saying
something like this:
"I had to sue all the listed parties, your honor, because they are an
organized gang who set out to destroy my business and who used anonymity and
offshore accounts to do it. Here's one of Cannon's friends, an Australian
named Lionel Lauer, bragging about how he's going to keep on attacking me
until my career is ruined. And when Lamb got sued he turned things over to
Peter Ross, a British national, so he could continue the libelous attacks on
me and others."
And if a court buys that (keeping in mind that the court may not have any
idea of the way the Internetz work), there goes a malicious use of process
claim right out the ol' window. So long as AB has some credible reason for
including the listed parties in a lawsuit, he's free and clear and everyone
involved gets to pay their own legal bills. But of course posturing on the
Internet is much more important than laying low and helping your friends
avoid a costly legal defense. So I doubt we'll see them change their ways
anytime soon.
King John I of AUK
"Nodding" <desolati...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:gs0aa0$vk3$1...@news.motzarella.org...
>
> "Russell Tavek" <restavek...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:C6091267.11639%restavek...@yahoo.com...
> > And yet you seem incapable of grokking that point in your online
life.
> > Thanks to your hobby of troll-baiting, you've had to call the police
on at
> > least two occasions when your offended targets decided to "go real
life."
> > And you now have "Honest John" posting information about your
daughter.
> >
> > Yet you continue kook-taunting despite the problems it has caused
you.
> >
> > Is the ability to make fun of "kooks" worth putting yourself and
your
> > family
> > in danger? By now most people would have figured out that it's not
in
> > their
> > best interest to mock mentally unstable and potentially dangerous
people.
> > You seem unable or unwilling to grasp that.
> > So how is kook-taunting working out for you? Is the joy you get from
> > participating in fuckhead cascades worth the occasional calls to
your
> > employer and the repeated publication of your personal info? Should
you
> > get
> > caught up in the AB suit, how many thousands of dollars are you
ready to
> > invest in your hobby?
> > If kook-taunting started endangering my job and the welfare of my
family,
> > I
> > would find another hobby. You have ample evidence that your hobby
puts you
> > and yours at risk and yet you continue. If loon-baiting were alcohol
you'd
> > be a prime candidate for an intervention.
> >
> > (And yes, if you think I'm a sociopath I would urge you to leave me
alone,
> > just as I would urge you to leave any dangerous loon alone. But
history
> > suggests that you'll be unable to do so until you finally encounter
the
> > Usenet version of Mr. Goodbar).
> >
>
> What a great post. Sums up the whole deal.
>
> It's astonishing that she continues to behave in that reckless way in
the
> face of such obvious good advice. Reminds me of people who ride
motorcycles
> and keep shouting they have the right of way, or whatever. So what? A
> semi-truck is a semi-truck, whether you deserve to be in the
intersection
> first or not. LOL. "It's his fault" doesn't carry much weight when
the
> 18th wheel has gone over your head.
>
> I'm surprised it's taken this long for people to go Real Life as it
is. I
> recall reading about a guy who traveled all the way from New England
IIRC to
> Texas to blow somebody's head off who was flaming him online....
instead of
> being shocked, I thought how rarely it happens, considering the amount
that
> goes on... but with the villagers getting uneasy in these current
> conditions, more of it may happen.
I totally agree with all that, except for the part that she is
(subconsciously) still "Looking for Mr. Goodbar".
I was sure Art Deco introduced us three years ago when he ordered her to
"attack" me and she did her best...
Now she enjoys the "interest" on that loan !!
Ain't that right, Skanki-Kali ??
--
Your Pal For Life,
Honest John
p.s. When are you going to start your diet, Chubbette ??
Bob Larter
If I were forced to guess, I'd guess Mop Jockey.
King John I of AUK
<hid...@not.gonna.say> wrote in message
news:9f7a055c70d3c550...@pseudo.borked.net...
> On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 14:09:36 -0400, Russell Tavek
> >
> >Or did it never occur to you that someone might try to bomb your
> >employer with anonymous complaints until you got terminated, leaving
you no
> >recourse other than to walk off butthurt to the unemployment office?
>
> your name in a verifiable manner because the second you do, your job
> will be in jeapordy.
> --
> Hidden Hiney
Dear Mr. Hiden Hiney,
What the fuck makes you think that he works at all ??
I don't work !! Try to find my employer.....
Hee....Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
--
KHJ
King John I of AUK
<more printer sounds>
--
HJ (Retired Math Teacher)....really....
King John I of AUK
"Bob Larter" <bobby...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:49e38384$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Shit Lionel, he can join me and "The Good Ole Boys" and continue kicking
the asses of the "Gay Caballers" which includes you now that you've
"come out" !!
--
Your Pal,
HJ
Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries
> On 4/13/09 3:50 PM, in article
> gs0d7f$q6v$1...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com, "Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries"
> <ni...@databasix.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>> New guess: Phil Kyle. Yes or no?
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>>
>>> And as far as Werner Hetzner goes: do I sound like a Libertarian to
>>> you? :)
>>
>> No. And it appears that the important nuances of what you have
>> written are lost on those flaming you.
>
> You seem to understand where I'm coming from: if you keep fooling
> around with mentally ill and unstable people, you can hardly be
> surprised when they behave like mentally ill and unstable people are
> wont to do. That may involve a lawsuit, it may involve violence, or
> it may involve unpleasantness in your real life. Should this be the
> case? No. But then, little children shouldn't go to bed hungry in
> Africa and old ladies shouldn't have to sleep on park benches in
> American cities either. Sometimes life is unfair and you have to
> deal with that.
I agree, but there are other implications--more favorable to the
defendants than that plaintiff--as well. Frankly, I thought you were
trolling MillerT, and indeed, if you were, it worked splendidly.
>> Unless, of course, you're a retired math teacher who has decided to
>> use standard English in this persona. In that case, I would have to
>> ask if you realize what your words might mean for the lawsuit under
>> discussion.
>
> I'm not a retired teacher and certainly not a retired math teacher:
> I'm one of the least mathematical people I know, actually. And I
> doubt that my words are going to have an enormous impact on the final
> outcome one way or the other.
No, they won't, but they are a good predictor of what's going to happen,
IMO.
> My *guess* is that this lawsuit is going to get dismissed with all
> parties to bear their own costs. If you are able to avoid service of
> process (and, to the best of my knowledge, there is no law stating
> that you have to cooperate with a process server or that you have to
> make it easy for them) you will probably get out of this relatively
> unscathed. Those who have already been served have no choice but to
> show up in court: for all the stupid things they have done here, I
> can't imagine that Osterwald, Lamb and Cannon are idiotic enough to
> hand Novins a default judgment.
I expect not.
> And while they may "win" in the sense
> of getting the suit dismissed, they are likely to spend a lot of
> money on that victory.
I'm not so sure that it will cost them so dearly, but we'll see.
> As far as people who should STFU, I wouldn't be surprised to see AB
> saying something like this:
>
> "I had to sue all the listed parties, your honor, because they are an
> organized gang who set out to destroy my business and who used
> anonymity and offshore accounts to do it. Here's one of Cannon's
> friends, an Australian named Lionel Lauer, bragging about how he's
> going to keep on attacking me until my career is ruined. And when
> Lamb got sued he turned things over to Peter Ross, a British
> national, so he could continue the libelous attacks on me and others."
>
> And if a court buys that (keeping in mind that the court may not have
> any idea of the way the Internetz work), there goes a malicious use
> of process claim right out the ol' window. So long as AB has some
> credible reason for including the listed parties in a lawsuit,
That's the question, isn't it.
> he's
> free and clear and everyone involved gets to pay their own legal
> bills. But of course posturing on the Internet is much more
> important than laying low and helping your friends avoid a costly
> legal defense. So I doubt we'll see them change their ways anytime
> soon.
I think this, more than anything, may demonstrate to the court that all
concerned (and not, as the case may be) are more closely related to
unherdable cats than committed conspirators.
Russell Tavek
On 4/14/09 2:40 PM, in article
5f769f5a1078b4c9...@pseudo.borked.net,
"not...@someone.different" <not...@someone.different> wrote:
>> My *guess* is that this lawsuit is going to get dismissed with all parties
>> to bear their own costs.
>
> Good thing you said guess. Try guessing countersuits. Try guessing
> going after Novins for every penny he has and more. Try guessing
> getting Novins to turn over the names of those who "helped" him so
> they can be addressed. Try guessing getting the NJ press involved.
> Try guessing getting the NJ Lawyer Ethics Commission involved. Try
> guessing that Novins has kooked his own proverbial goose via his
> actions pre and post filing. Oh, and try Federal court as Google
> defends its positions with all its sit-by lawyers.
*snicker* Good luck with all of that. Maybe the EFF and ACLU will jump in to
defend your little gang of cyberbullies too. And maybe President Obama will
issue an executive order sending Novins to Guantanamo. Right after Batman
busts in through his window and beats the shit out of him. Then again, I
wouldn't bet my life savings on it.
Of course, I'm not Cannon, Osterwald or Lamb...so *chuckle* I don't have to.
:)
I'm saying "guess" because I'm smart enough to know that anything can happen
in a courtroom, and anonymous assertions on the Internet are no indicator of
a final outcome. I think Novins will have an uphill battle winning this
suit, but I also think the defendants will have an uphill battle
establishing a malicious use of process, winning a countersuit or getting
any satisfaction from the New Jersey bar association. (And I also doubt
that the press is going to be particularly interested unless one or more of
the defendants decides to talk to a reporter -- and if they have any kind of
worthwhile legal representation, their lawyer is going to strongly advise
them against doing that).
>> If you are able to avoid service of process (and, to the best of my
>> knowledge,
>> there is no law stating that you have to cooperate with a process server or
>> that
>> you have to make it easy for them) you will probably get out of this
>> relatively unscathed.
>
> Except Novins is threatening the children and grand children of some
> of those he can't serve.
Threatening? Did he threaten them with violence? He said something about
making their addresses public: assuming they can be found with a search
engine or via the usual means of finding an individual, there's no crime in
that. It's a shitty thing to do, and I hope for Rhonda's sake he doesn't
choose to do it. But if he does it isn't like Rhonda has a lot of recourse
unless she chooses to accept service and then file her counterclaim.
>> Those who have already been served have no choice but to show up in court:
>> for all the
>> stupid things they have done here,
>
> What stupid things have they done? Nothing to Novins. Novins even
> admitted that.
Where? In a forged e-mail your friends are planning to present as
"evidence?" Given your history of lying, misdirection through proxies and
anon remailers, and creative editing of your opponents' posts, good luck
convincing a judge and jury of that.
>> I can't imagine that Osterwald, Lamb and
>> Cannon are idiotic enough to hand Novins a default judgment.
>
>> And while they may "win" in the sense of getting the suit dismissed, they are
>> likely to
>> spend a lot of money on that victory.
>
> They may. But the countersuits and the SLAP claims will ruin Novins.
> He's already said that his reason for all of this is to cost them the
> monies you just described.
Where? In yet another of your forged e-mails?
How much do you suppose it would cost the defendants to vigorously pursue a
countersuit? (Keep in mind that, as a lawyer, Novins can drag this thing out
for years, all the while running up your buddies' legal tab). And what are
the chances they are going to win or, if they do, that there will be any
significant resources worth pursuing?
>> As far as people who should STFU, I wouldn't be surprised to see AB saying
>> something like this:
>>
>> "I had to sue all the listed parties, your honor, because they are an
>> organized gang who set out to destroy my business and who used anonymity and
>> offshore accounts to do it. Here's one of Cannon's friends, an Australian
>> named Lionel Lauer, bragging about how he's going to keep on attacking me
>> until my career is ruined. And when Lamb got sued he turned things over to
>> Peter Ross, a British national, so he could continue the libelous attacks on
>> me and others."
>
>
> He can say anything he wants. Then he has to prove it. Posts show
> that Peter Ross, a British national tried to contact Pinku (who
> everyone assumes is Lamb) and when he couldn't, he took the awards
> which would disprove it was handed over.
That's your story. But given your little gang's habit of misdirection and
outright lying, I guess we'll have to see if a jury buys it.
> Novins will also have to explain why his "friends", John C and Greg
> for example, keep libeling and harassing everyone in site while
> slurping Novins at every chance. He can't say he has no control over
> them without admitting Cannon has no control over anyone else. Then
> there's the libel Novins himself has posted. Enough of it to give
> several people reason for suits. Oh and then there are the threats.
What kind of actionable libel has John C or Greg committed? Calling someone
a "fat skank" or a "faggot" is crude and stupid namecalling, but it's hardly
actionable. If it were, don't you think your little gang of cyberbullies
would have gone to court long before this?
>> And if a court buys that (keeping in mind that the court may not have any
>> idea of the way the Internetz work),
>
> There's where lawyers who do know how the internets work come in. They
> get to explain it to the jury. (Before you scream, Novins asked for a
> jury trial and if he gets his wish, there will be peers sitting who do
> know how the internet works, a good lawyer will see to that and Novins
> will try in vain to stop it)
They may even be familiar with the Megan Meier/Lori Drew case. In which case
they will be well aware of how organized gangs of cyberbullies work. This
won't bode well for your buddies...but of course you're welcome to believe
otherwise.
> Novins will have no way of claiming himself an expert at how the
> internets work so there's another expense for him, hiring a witness or
> two who can claim the internets work some other way than the way they
> do.
>
>> there goes a malicious use of process claim right out the ol' window.
>
> You really are guessing, aren't you? Suing people not even involved
> in a libel on purpose to cause them problems is malicious use of
> process.
First you have to establish that there was a malicious use of process. Which
hasn't yet been done: hell, it's not even clear that there was a
>> So long as AB has some credible reason for including the listed parties in a
>> lawsuit,
>> he's free and clear and everyone involved gets to pay their own legal bills.
>
> If the court decides otherwise, will you pay for him?
No, but I'll be very surprised. Will you pay if your buddies wind up eating
several thousands of dollars in legal fees?
>> But of course posturing on the Internet is much more important than laying
>> low
>> and helping your friends avoid a costly legal defense.
>
> So you, John, Sean and Novins himself posture on the internet because
> that helps so much. It's open season on every single post Novin's
> makes. If Novins wants to argue that posts of those not named be
> allowed in, then so to should John's, Sean's and yours too.
>
> So each and every post on the internet will need to be checked to see
> who's side it appears to be on.
>
> It's also open season on everything he posts on his website.
>
>> So I doubt we'll see them change their ways anytime soon.
>
> You might want to change your nym to "King of the PKB". It'd suit.
We'll see how this whole lawsuit plays out. My guess is the parties served
are going to find themselves out of pocket for legal fees at the very
least, and possibly more. You seem to think that they won't. Only time, and
a trial, will tell.
But do keep on puffing and posturing behind your Dizum remailer. It's
amusing to see how bullies react when the tables are finally turned on them.
They make lots of noises about how they're going to get revenge, but when
they find out just how powerless they really are they turn around and stomp
away. Much like Cannon, Lamb and Osterwald have stomped away, really. :)
Russell Tavek
On 4/14/09 1:10 PM, in article gs2g8o$mtn$1...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com,
"Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries" <ni...@databasix.com> wrote:
>> You seem to understand where I'm coming from: if you keep fooling
>> around with mentally ill and unstable people, you can hardly be
>> surprised when they behave like mentally ill and unstable people are
>> wont to do. That may involve a lawsuit, it may involve violence, or
>> it may involve unpleasantness in your real life. Should this be the
>> case? No. But then, little children shouldn't go to bed hungry in
>> Africa and old ladies shouldn't have to sleep on park benches in
>> American cities either. Sometimes life is unfair and you have to
>> deal with that.
>
> I agree, but there are other implications--more favorable to the
> defendants than that plaintiff--as well. Frankly, I thought you were
> trolling MillerT, and indeed, if you were, it worked splendidly.
Frankly, I'm trolling everyone on this forum. I was rather amused by all the
posturing about how the defendants are going to win this lawsuit and leave
AB in professional and financial ruin. (Especially since it was preceded by
posturing about how AB was never going to sue anybody and chest-thumping
about how they weren't going to bother listening to his cease-and-desist
letters because he was just a kook and could be safely ignored...).
As far as getting a rise out of the crowd, I'm doing splendidly. I've
already had one anti-Scientologist kook threaten me with violence and
lawsuits, while a few other anonymous posers have explained how AB is never
going to get away with this, just you wait and see, the bar association is
going to punish him and so are the courts and he's going to wind up
villified in the newspapers and lose his home and his practice and end up
homeless on the streets yadda yadda. Which is exactly what I was hoping to
achieve: as the AUK crew knows, there's nothing quite so enjoyable as making
your opponents froth at the mouth and issue impotent threats.
>>> Unless, of course, you're a retired math teacher who has decided to
>>> use standard English in this persona. In that case, I would have to
>>> ask if you realize what your words might mean for the lawsuit under
>>> discussion.
>>
>> I'm not a retired teacher and certainly not a retired math teacher:
>> I'm one of the least mathematical people I know, actually. And I
>> doubt that my words are going to have an enormous impact on the final
>> outcome one way or the other.
>
> No, they won't, but they are a good predictor of what's going to happen,
> IMO.
As I said, my guess is that the suit will ultimately be dismissed with all
parties to bear their own costs. I would also guess that complaints to the
bar association will go nowhere. And, finally, I would guess the years of
litigation which would ensue as AB engaged in various delaying tactics and
the ultimate difficulty of collecting an award which would even cover the
legal fees involved in prosecuting the suit would put the kibosh on a
countersuit.
But I'm calling these guesses because there is no way of knowing what will
happen until such time as a court issues its final decision.
>> And while they may "win" in the sense
>> of getting the suit dismissed, they are likely to spend a lot of
>> money on that victory.
>
> I'm not so sure that it will cost them so dearly, but we'll see.
If they have all hired one lawyer to represent them, it may cost them less
per defendant than if they were each seeking separate counsel. But it's
still going to be a couple thousand dollars each, maybe more. And I dunno
about you but I'd rather spend a couple thousand dollars on something,
anything, other than defending myself against a lawsuit for my online
behavior.
>> As far as people who should STFU, I wouldn't be surprised to see AB
>> saying something like this:
>>
>> "I had to sue all the listed parties, your honor, because they are an
>> organized gang who set out to destroy my business and who used
>> anonymity and offshore accounts to do it. Here's one of Cannon's
>> friends, an Australian named Lionel Lauer, bragging about how he's
>> going to keep on attacking me until my career is ruined. And when
>> Lamb got sued he turned things over to Peter Ross, a British
>> national, so he could continue the libelous attacks on me and others."
>>
>> And if a court buys that (keeping in mind that the court may not have
>> any idea of the way the Internetz work), there goes a malicious use
>> of process claim right out the ol' window. So long as AB has some
>> credible reason for including the listed parties in a lawsuit,
>
> That's the question, isn't it.
And I think there IS a question: as I keep saying, nobody knows what a
verdict will be until it's announced, and no one knows how a jury and judge
will see matters until they've made their decisions.
>> he's
>> free and clear and everyone involved gets to pay their own legal
>> bills. But of course posturing on the Internet is much more
>> important than laying low and helping your friends avoid a costly
>> legal defense. So I doubt we'll see them change their ways anytime
>> soon.
>
> I think this, more than anything, may demonstrate to the court that all
> concerned (and not, as the case may be) are more closely related to
> unherdable cats than committed conspirators.
Except for the fact that AUK denizens have acted as an organized group for
purposes of "invading" newsgroups, taunting individuals, giving "awards" and
otherwise bullying innocent bystanders. And they have engaged in
misdirection, outright lying, and use of proxies and anonymous remailers for
those purposes. This would give AB a good reason to sue the AUK leaders
whose identities were known in an effort to discover who else was involved
in the organized libel -- and to discourage them from continuing it.
Aratzio
Bob Larter <bobby...@gmail.com> got double secret probation for
writing:
>Aratzio wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 15:15:19 -0400, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>> MillerT <this...@isamunge.com> got double secret probation for
>> writing:
>>
>>> On 4/13/09 2:09 PM, in article C608F820.1162E%restavek...@yahoo.com,
>>> "Russell Tavek" wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 4/13/09 1:37 PM, in article
>>>> 2b69d4fd01eaaae0...@pseudo.borked.net, "hid...@not.gonna.say"
>>>> <hid...@not.gonna.say> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It's how I know you will never post verifiable information of who you
>>>>> really are. You are truly a coward.
>>>> Your opinion means so much to me: how will I ever recover from your unkind
>>>> words?
>>> New guess: Phil Kyle. Yes or no?
>>
>> No.
>
>If I were forced to guess, I'd guess Mop Jockey.
No.
spooge
restavek...@yahoo.com:
> there's nothing quite so enjoyable as making
> your opponents froth at the mouth and issue impotent threats.
Irony. It's not just a word.
That would be even less enjoyable than watching an anonymous sock pop up
and post what it thinks is your personal information, along with veiled
threats about contacting employers, kidnapping children, and using a rusty
screwdriver to stab someone.
I'll give you credit for being an amusing coward, "Russell".
--
Let me say
Pepsi Generation
A few lines
Of misinformation
Watch your money
Flow away oh so quick
To kill yourself properly,
Coke is it
Russell Tavek
On 4/14/09 10:00 PM, in article 9tfau4lk5cfiag0q4...@4ax.com,
"Aratzio" <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 15:44:26 +1000, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
> Bob Larter <bobby...@gmail.com> got double secret probation for
> writing:
>
>> If I were forced to guess, I'd guess Mop Jockey.
>
> No.
Nope, not "Mop Jockey." So give Aratzio a cigar.
And, oh, look what I just found. It seems that one of the Kook-hunters is
having a hissy fit because his efforts at netkkkopping are receiving all the
attention they deserve -- that is to say, none at all.
****
Path:
g2news2.google.com!news2.google.com!news.glorb.com!news-out.octanews.net!ind
igo.octanews.net!auth.brown.octanews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
Subject: Contacting CenturyTel.net abuse
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 08:17:31 -0600
From: Art Deco <erfc-1...@usa.net>
Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.usenet
Message-ID: <120420090817319454%erfc...@usa.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Mail-Copies-To: nobody
User-Agent: Thoth/1.8.2 (Carbon/OS X)
X-Face: $0`~>:Rs1EQXhUQD4EGt:-COgL2Yy0O>a*LX04;mO;(Mg$rU,4wT^6?VJ*wO$
pR9MNF=QZrhF"$HA44sG?n(RnC{0!e>5EKJK{?&5QI$HfYWdP*z"NGgP79xb%0Sch26o
G8|k?UC[~)lu]"WnopcGdzz"VoCsDY?/{M"gR9eDs>Y~X},^2Ay|9n9~~1&UUCoDQ|O|
eYokL{N-%%x6C_4lKt2,LOOY#A6rAjZ5~[1-s,It[DT\BZa1v_2D7;0Yq1rQ{LcW@J2*
)f
X-No-Archive: Yes
X-Tholen-Is-A-Whiner: Yes
X-Hammer-of-Thor: September 2005
X-Diamond-Hammer-of-Thor: March 2007 [as part of the AFA-B Bullies]
X-Pierre-Salinger-Memorial-Hook-Line-&-Sinker: June 2008
Lines: 14
Organization: Octanews
NNTP-Posting-Date: 12 Apr 2009 09:17:21 CDT
X-Complaints-To: ab...@octanews.net
Recently I've had cause to contact CenturyTel.net concerning the
activities of one of their customers on Usenet. CenturyTel is an ISP
in the Southern U.S. that farms their Usenet feed out to GigaNews.
Unfortunately, email to their X-Complaints-To abuse email address
appears to be routed to /dev/nul as they don't even generate an
auto-response. GigaNews says that the problem is CenturyTel's.
Does anyone know of a way to contact someone at CenturyTel who will
take the time to investigate? GigaNews includes an NNTP-Posting-Host
header, and the person apparently uses his real email address, so I
can't see how an investigation would require much time.
--
Official Art Deco Post
*****
Gee, I wonder why Colorado Carl wanted to X-No-Archive that. Pity it's now
preserved for posterity (and mockery) here.
And let's see what Peter J. Ross had to say on the subject:
*****
Path:
g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!85.214.105.209.M
ISMATCH!motzarella.org!feeder.motzarella.org!news.motzarella.org!pjr.motzare
lla.org!not-for-mail
From: Peter J Ross <p...@example.invalid>
Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.usenet
Subject: Re: Contacting CenturyTel.net abuse
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 17:31:12 +0100
Organization: none
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <slrngu45q...@pjr.gotdns.org>
References: <120420090817319454%erfc...@usa.net>
Reply-To: Peter J Ross <peadar.ru...@gmail.com>
X-Trace: news.eternal-september.org
U2FsdGVkX1/4cf5I7HyjqQ71HTV3MnravEXJ5M+cOUnchp8nzEzyWpACJkV3O9lyE12Fe8Vy6ueX
E0jAMQBdYrG3FXTQnoGLcT2g4/pJ0Vj9IzBugh4b48U4sf8xFeamqBhUpQWAl6w=
X-Complaints-To: Please send complaints to ab...@motzarella.org with full
headers
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 16:33:03 +0000 (UTC)
X-Auth-Sender: U2FsdGVkX1953JKjHOwRkug9qVcu1sME
Cancel-Lock: sha1:6feq7UK/jbrgv7TxYtHqdwLSdZ4=
User-Agent: slrn/pre1.0.0-10/mm (Linux)
In news.admin.net-abuse.usenet on Sun, 12 Apr 2009 08:17:31 -0600, Art
Deco <erfc-1...@usa.net> wrote:
> Recently I've had cause to contact CenturyTel.net concerning the
> activities of one of their customers on Usenet. CenturyTel is an ISP
> in the Southern U.S. that farms their Usenet feed out to GigaNews.
> Unfortunately, email to their X-Complaints-To abuse email address
> appears to be routed to /dev/nul as they don't even generate an
> auto-response. GigaNews says that the problem is CenturyTel's.
>
> Does anyone know of a way to contact someone at CenturyTel who will
> take the time to investigate? GigaNews includes an NNTP-Posting-Host
> header, and the person apparently uses his real email address, so I
> can't see how an investigation would require much time.
Have you tried writing to
CenturyTel, Inc.
100 CenturyTel Dr
Monroe, LA 71203
US
or telephoning
or emailing
(who is the adminsitrative contact listed by WHOIS) ?
I'm aware of the CenturyTel customer to whom you're referring, but I'm
not aware that his activities amount to abuse OF the net, though his
abuse of you ON the net may well land him in prison if you choose to
pursue the matter. Unless he's perpetrating abuse OF the net, NAN-AU
probably can't help much.
--
PJR :-)
slrn newsreader v0.9.9p1: http://slrn.sourceforge.net/
extra slrn documentation: http://slrn-doc.sourceforge.net/
newsgroup name validator: http://pjr.lasnobberia.net/usenet/validator
*****
Gee, our FNVW giving netcopping suggestions to one of his peers. Apparently
Honest John's "words on a screen" have caused our buddies a little bit of
enturbulation. Who would have thunk it?
*****
Path:
g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nn
tp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.octanews.net!indigo.octanews.
net!auth.brown.octanews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
Subject: Re: Contacting CenturyTel.net abuse
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 15:14:47 -0600
From: Art Deco <erfc-1...@usa.net>
Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.usenet
Message-ID: <120420091514471592%erfc...@usa.net>
References: <120420090817319454%erfc...@usa.net>
<slrngu45q...@pjr.gotdns.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Mail-Copies-To: nobody
User-Agent: Thoth/1.8.2 (Carbon/OS X)
X-Face: $0`~>:Rs1EQXhUQD4EGt:-COgL2Yy0O>a*LX04;mO;(Mg$rU,4wT^6?VJ*wO$
pR9MNF=QZrhF"$HA44sG?n(RnC{0!e>5EKJK{?&5QI$HfYWdP*z"NGgP79xb%0Sch26o
G8|k?UC[~)lu]"WnopcGdzz"VoCsDY?/{M"gR9eDs>Y~X},^2Ay|9n9~~1&UUCoDQ|O|
eYokL{N-%%x6C_4lKt2,LOOY#A6rAjZ5~[1-s,It[DT\BZa1v_2D7;0Yq1rQ{LcW@J2*
)f
X-No-Archive: Yes
X-Tholen-Is-A-Whiner: Yes
X-Hammer-of-Thor: September 2005
X-Diamond-Hammer-of-Thor: March 2007 [as part of the AFA-B Bullies]
X-Pierre-Salinger-Memorial-Hook-Line-&-Sinker: June 2008
Lines: 91
Organization: Octanews
NNTP-Posting-Date: 12 Apr 2009 16:14:36 CDT
X-Complaints-To: ab...@octanews.net
X-Original-Bytes: 5245
Peter J Ross <p...@example.invalid> wrote:
>In news.admin.net-abuse.usenet on Sun, 12 Apr 2009 08:17:31 -0600, Art
>Deco <erfc-1...@usa.net> wrote:
>
>> Recently I've had cause to contact CenturyTel.net concerning the
>> activities of one of their customers on Usenet. CenturyTel is an ISP
>> in the Southern U.S. that farms their Usenet feed out to GigaNews.
>> Unfortunately, email to their X-Complaints-To abuse email address
>> appears to be routed to /dev/nul as they don't even generate an
>> auto-response. GigaNews says that the problem is CenturyTel's.
>>
>> Does anyone know of a way to contact someone at CenturyTel who will
>> take the time to investigate? GigaNews includes an NNTP-Posting-Host
>> header, and the person apparently uses his real email address, so I
>> can't see how an investigation would require much time.
>
>Have you tried writing to
>
> CenturyTel, Inc.
> 100 CenturyTel Dr
> Monroe, LA 71203
> US
Yes.
>
>or telephoning
>
> (318) 388-9000
>
>or emailing
>
> chris.hanc...@centurytel.com
>
>(who is the adminsitrative contact listed by WHOIS) ?
No, and no. Thanks for the suggestions.
>
>
>I'm aware of the CenturyTel customer to whom you're referring, but I'm
>not aware that his activities amount to abuse OF the net, though his
>abuse of you ON the net may well land him in prison if you choose to
>pursue the matter. Unless he's perpetrating abuse OF the net, NAN-AU
>probably can't help much.
I was just hoping for some pointers, rather than blasting into town
demanding a UDP as so many are wont of doing. CenturyTel has a
somewhat restrictive AUP, BTW:
<http://support.centurytel.net/index.cfm?action=centurytel.support.legal
:ADDENDUM A
:ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY
:1. General Policy. CenturyTel reserves the sole discretion to
:deny or restrict your Service, or immediately to suspend or
:terminate your Service, if the use of your Service by you or
:anyone using it, in our sole discretion, violates the Agreement
:or other CenturyTel policies, is objectionable or unlawful,
:interferes with the functioning or use of the Internet or the
:CenturyTel network by CenturyTel or other users, or violates the
:terms of this Acceptable Use Policy ("AUP").
:2. Specific Examples of AUP Violations. The following are
:examples of conduct which may lead to termination of your
:Service. Without limiting the general policy in Section 1, it is
:a violation of the Agreement and this AUP to: (a) access without
:permission or right the accounts or computer systems of others,
:to spoof the URL, DNS or IP addresses of CenturyTel or any other
:entity, or to penetrate the security measures of CenturyTel or
:any other person's computer system, or to attempt any of the
:foregoing; (b) transmit uninvited communications, data or
:information, or engage in other similar activities, including
:without limitation, "spamming", "flaming" or denial of service
:attacks; (c) intercept, interfere with or redirect email or
:other transmissions sent by or to others; (d) introduce viruses,
:worms, harmful code or Trojan horses on the Internet; (e) post
:offtopic information on message boards, chat rooms or social
:networking sites; (f) engage in conduct that is defamatory,
:fraudulent, obscene or deceptive; (g) violate CenturyTel's or
:any third party's copyright, trademark, proprietary or other
:intellectual property rights; (h) engage in any conduct harmful
:to the CenturyTel network, the Internet generally or other
:Internet users; (i) generate excessive amounts of email or other
:Internet traffic; (j) use the Service to violate any rule,
:policy or guideline of CenturyTel; or (k) use the Service in any
:fashion for the transmission or dissemination of images
:containing child pornography or in a manner that is obscene,
:sexually explicit, cruel or racist in nature or which espouses,
:promotes or incites bigotry, hatred or racism.
--
Official Art Deco Post
*****
So when the Kook-taunters make lame,foul-mouthed comments we're all
supposed to ignore them. When their enemies do it, it's a matter for the
police. Carl and friends can dish it out, but when it comes time to take it
they start a netcopping campaign.
Nope, no double standard here, folks.
King John I of AUK
"Russell Tavek" <restavek...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:C60AC9E4.11753%restavek...@yahoo.com...
King John I of AUK
"Russell Tavek" <restavek...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:C60AC9E4.11753%restavek...@yahoo.com...
>
>
>
Gee, I...I feel so "special" now.....I really am King John I of AUK !!
--
KHJ
p.s. Hi KKKarl.......don't fvck-up your own case by swinging at
me......
p.p.s. Sorry for the "blank" as my cat jumped on my keyboard....I'll
report that to Centurytel though !!
Bob Larter
> Except for the fact that AUK denizens have acted as an organized group for
> purposes of "invading" newsgroups, taunting individuals, giving "awards" and
> otherwise bullying innocent bystanders. And they have engaged in
> misdirection, outright lying, and use of proxies and anonymous remailers for
> those purposes. This would give AB a good reason to sue the AUK leaders
> whose identities were known in an effort to discover who else was involved
> in the organized libel -- and to discourage them from continuing it.
What 'organised libel' are you referring to?
Kali
restavek...@yahoo.com says...
>
> Except for the fact that AUK denizens have acted as an organized group for
> purposes of "invading" newsgroups, taunting individuals, giving "awards" and
> otherwise bullying innocent bystanders. And they have engaged in
> misdirection, outright lying, and use of proxies and anonymous remailers for
> those purposes.
>
Really?
Invading newsgroups? Like meow wars, or what?
Who are these innocent bystanders of which you speak? Who is
bullying them?
Evidence?
--
"Free speech is crucial to a free society, something
that we will not have if we close off communication
from groups we do not like, either the Taliban... or
the right wing nutters. If people say crazy and offensive
things they will be mocked. If they are not mocked, the
rest of us are not presenting proper counter arguments."
-My friend Ken
Kali
this...@isamunge.com says...
>
> > Russell Tavek wrote:
> >> On 4/13/09 3:50 PM, in article
> >> gs0d7f$q6v$1...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com, "Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries"
> >> <ni...@databasix.com> wrote:
> > I agree, but there are other implications--more favorable to the
> > defendants than that plaintiff--as well. Frankly, I thought you were
> > trolling MillerT, and indeed, if you were, it worked splendidly.
>
She's a real peach.
§ñühw¤£f
> On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 16:02:13 -0400, Russell Tavek
> <restavek...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
>> in a courtroom,
>
I Haz question for misk legel...:IF I SHOUT PENIS IN A CROWDED THE8R I
CAN HAZ ARESTED?
okthxbye
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\__\ /\ \ /\ \ /\ \
/:/ _/_ \:\ \ \:\ \ \:\ \
/:/ /\ \ \:\ \ \:\ \ \:\ \
/:/ /::\ \ _____\:\ \ ___ \:\ \ ___ /::\ \
/:/_/:/\:\__\ /::::::::\__\ /\ \ \:\__\ /\ /:/\:\__\
\:\/:/ /:/ / \:\~~\~~\/__/ \:\ \ /:/ / \:\/:/ \/__/
\::/ /:/ / \:\ \ \:\ /:/ / \::/__/
\/_/:/ / \:\ \ \:\/:/ / \:\ \
/:/ / \:\__\ \::/ / \:\__\
\/__/ \/__/ \/__/ \/__/
http://aristotlethegeek.wordpress.com/2008/12/22/we-want-them-broken/
+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+ +-+-+ +-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+
|S|a|y| |D|u|h| |t|o| |A|y|n| |R|a|n|d|
+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+ +-+-+ +-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+
§ñühw¤£f
> In article <C60A6941.11725%restavek...@yahoo.com>,
> restavek...@yahoo.com says...
>> Except for the fact that AUK denizens have acted as an organized group for
>> purposes of "invading" newsgroups, taunting individuals, giving "awards" and
>> otherwise bullying innocent bystanders. And they have engaged in
>> misdirection, outright lying, and use of proxies and anonymous remailers for
>> those purposes.
>>
>
> Really?
>
> Invading newsgroups? Like meow wars, or what?
>
> Who are these innocent bystanders of which you speak? Who is
> bullying them?
>
> Evidence?
>
Bob Larter
> In article <C60A6941.11725%restavek...@yahoo.com>,
> restavek...@yahoo.com says...
>> Except for the fact that AUK denizens have acted as an organized group for
>> purposes of "invading" newsgroups, taunting individuals, giving "awards" and
>> otherwise bullying innocent bystanders. And they have engaged in
>> misdirection, outright lying, and use of proxies and anonymous remailers for
>> those purposes.
>>
>
> Really?
>
> Invading newsgroups? Like meow wars, or what?
>
> Who are these innocent bystanders of which you speak? Who is
> bullying them?
>
> Evidence?
Evidence? From "Russell"? HAHAHahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!
Kali
snuh...@yahoo.com says...
>
> Kali spilled the beans:
> > In article <C60A6941.11725%restavek...@yahoo.com>,
> > restavek...@yahoo.com says...
> >> Except for the fact that AUK denizens have acted as an organized group for
> >> purposes of "invading" newsgroups, taunting individuals, giving "awards" and
> >> otherwise bullying innocent bystanders. And they have engaged in
> >> misdirection, outright lying, and use of proxies and anonymous remailers for
> >> those purposes.
> >>
> >
> > Really?
> >
> > Invading newsgroups? Like meow wars, or what?
> >
> > Who are these innocent bystanders of which you speak? Who is
> > bullying them?
> >
> > Evidence?
> >
> YOR NOT THWE BOSS OF MEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111111111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jello castle
Herd of cats
Uncontained mercury
Kali
says...
>
> Kali wrote:
> > In article <C60A6941.11725%restavek...@yahoo.com>,
> > restavek...@yahoo.com says...
> >> Except for the fact that AUK denizens have acted as an organized group for
> >> purposes of "invading" newsgroups, taunting individuals, giving "awards" and
> >> otherwise bullying innocent bystanders. And they have engaged in
> >> misdirection, outright lying, and use of proxies and anonymous remailers for
> >> those purposes.
> >>
> >
> > Really?
> >
> > Invading newsgroups? Like meow wars, or what?
> >
> > Who are these innocent bystanders of which you speak? Who is
> > bullying them?
> >
> > Evidence?
>
> Evidence? From "Russell"? HAHAHahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!
Just thought I'd ask, but yeah, point taken.
art_deco_...@yahoo.com
>
> I Just thought [BITCHSLAP]
LIAR!
--
Your Pal,
Art Deco
Bob Larter
> In article <ZPSdnQWWAqYKznvU...@centurytel.net>,
> snuh...@yahoo.com says...
>> Kali spilled the beans:
>>> In article <C60A6941.11725%restavek...@yahoo.com>,
>>> restavek...@yahoo.com says...
>>>> Except for the fact that AUK denizens have acted as an organized group for
>>>> purposes of "invading" newsgroups, taunting individuals, giving "awards" and
>>>> otherwise bullying innocent bystanders. And they have engaged in
>>>> misdirection, outright lying, and use of proxies and anonymous remailers for
>>>> those purposes.
>>>>
>>> Really?
>>>
>>> Invading newsgroups? Like meow wars, or what?
>>>
>>> Who are these innocent bystanders of which you speak? Who is
>>> bullying them?
>>>
>>> Evidence?
>>>
>> YOR NOT THWE BOSS OF MEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111111111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Jello castle
> Herd of cats
> Uncontained mercury
>
Indeed. Good luck to anyone trying to claim that we're an organised
conspiracy.
PS: And a big "Hello" to Lynne Lyons, who's watching
this from Google ALerts!
Bob Larter
> In article <49e6c9cd$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, bobby...@gmail.com
> says...
>> Kali wrote:
>>> In article <C60A6941.11725%restavek...@yahoo.com>,
>>> restavek...@yahoo.com says...
>>>> Except for the fact that AUK denizens have acted as an organized group for
>>>> purposes of "invading" newsgroups, taunting individuals, giving "awards" and
>>>> otherwise bullying innocent bystanders. And they have engaged in
>>>> misdirection, outright lying, and use of proxies and anonymous remailers for
>>>> those purposes.
>>>>
>>> Really?
>>>
>>> Invading newsgroups? Like meow wars, or what?
>>>
>>> Who are these innocent bystanders of which you speak? Who is
>>> bullying them?
>>>
>>> Evidence?
>> Evidence? From "Russell"? HAHAHahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!
>
> Just thought I'd ask, but yeah, point taken.
Kali, one of the things I like about you is that you're an innocent at
heart.
PS: And a big "Hello" to Lynne Lyons, who's watching
this from Google ALerts!
--
я黨wぃf
of<49e8...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
IF YOU DONT PAY YOUR UNION DUES!!!!!!11111111!!!!!!!
>
>PS: And a big "Hello" to Lynne Lyons, who's watching
> this from Google ALerts!
>
--
www.eyeonpalin.org
_____ ____ ____ ___ ______ __ ____ /\_/\
/ __/ |/ / / / / // / | /| / / __ \/ / / __/ / . . \
_\ \/ / /_/ / _ /| |/ |/ / /_/ / /__/ _/ \ /
/___/_/|_/\____/_//_/ |__/|__/\____/____/_/ \_@_/
King John I of AUK
<art_deco_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6c6b495f-d95f-4523...@e18g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
IAWTP !!
--
KHJ
Kali
this...@isamunge.com says...
>
> On 4/17/09 5:25 AM, in article 49e8...@dnews.tpgi.com.au, "Bob Larter"
> cabal (tinc)?
>
> >
> >
> > PS: And a big "Hello" to Lynne Lyons, who's watching
> > this from Google ALerts!
TINW, TINC. hth!
There is only a beer fridge, and Mr. Lurk has been stingy about
restocking lately.
Bob Larter
No.
> Why wasn't I invited?
You didn't buy beer for the Right People.
> Whatever happened to the
> cabal (tinc)?
It's resting.
PS: And a big "Hello" to Lynne Lyons, AKA "Goofy",
who's watching this from Google Alerts!
King John I of AUK
>
>
>
> On 4/18/09 2:19 PM, in article 2o9r4e.u...@news.alt.net, "Meat
Plow"
> <me...@petitmorte.net> wrote:
>
> > That's a pretty strange sense of humor you got there tavek. I see
this
> > a lot in people who have been spanked out of AUK and are fuming for
> > revenge even by proxy.
> >
> > So you're a former spankard but a cowardly sort who cannot use their
> > spanked nick to hop up and down with glee.
> >
> > You are a true coward in every sense of the word. Grow a set of
> > fucking balls and come out of the closet, coward.
>
> That's a pretty interesting demand coming from the likes of you. Does
the
> name "Meat Plow" appear anywhere on your birth certificate?
>
> Once again you sociopaths think the rules apply to everyone but you.
Pity
> that little mistake is costing your buddies several thousands of
dollars
> *snicker* but perhaps it will serve as a warning and example to
others.
Fat-Boi Plow can't be expected to learn while his body is loaded-up with
yeast and fungus from eating all the sugar and Twinkies all the time !!
"Brain-Fog" Rulz in the Plow house.
--
KHJ
King John I of AUK
"Peter J Ross" <p...@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:slrngv1ul...@pjr.gotdns.org...
> In alt.usenet.kooks on Sun, 19 Apr 2009 22:30:27 -0400, atlas bugged
> <atlasbug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Oh, and PS, I'm armed too
>
> Not adequately for a battle of wits.
> --
> PJR >:-0<==8
Do you know someone in your area that has some "wits" as you have none
!!
--
KHJ
"The Honest One"
"���hw��f" <snuh...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:U9KdnVSuFOMYjmrU...@centurytel.net...
> Meat Plow <me...@petitmorte.net> pinched out a steaming pile
> of<2p1rk9....@news.alt.net>:
>
> >On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 09:36:20 -0500, ???hw??f
> ><snuh...@netscape.net>wrote:
> >
> >>Meat Plow <me...@petitmorte.net> pinched out a steaming pile
> >>of<2ov6tp.l...@news.alt.net>:
> >>
> >>>On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 09:20:05 -0500, ???hw??f
> >>><snuh...@netscape.net>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Meat Plow <me...@petitmorte.net> pinched out a steaming pile
> >>>>of<2omkj6....@news.alt.net>:
> >>>>
> >>>>>On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 10:10:47 -0500, ???hw??f
> >>>>><snuh...@netscape.net>wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Meat Plow <me...@petitmorte.net> pinched out a steaming pile
> >>>>>>of<2oien5....@news.alt.net>:
> >>>>>>[....]
> >>>>>>>Good for you. It's great to be armed but it's an absolute
> >>necessity
> >>>>>>>where some are concerned. And what's this maxi-stupid thing?
> >>>>>>>Are you baiting me to say something maxi-stupid? Personally I
> >>waste
> >>>>>>>too much time with you making you look like the fool you are on
> >>Usenet
> >>>>>>>let alone to even think about something like what you suggest.
> >>>>>>>And shame on you for suggestion that. The thought never crossed
> >>>>>>>my mind because unlike you I don't hate people. However, dont
> >>>>>>>interperet my passive nature as a sign of weakness as I will
> >>protect
> >>>>>>>my home and family.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>How unusual!
> >>>>>>^_^
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Take care for now and remember to hit the range like I do at
> least
> >>>>>>>once a week. I like indoor but the one I belong to is limited
to
> >>20
> >>>>>>>yards and that's not a challenge anymore. And I can't fire the
> SKS
> >>>>>>>there because the backdrop isn't rated for assault weapons.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Not a cement wall or the *proximity* to the cement wall?
> >>>>>>The lead coming back at you would be the problem methinks.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Well this backdrop is some kind of vulcanized rubber coating at a
> >>>>>45 degree angle. All the lead is caught in a trap at the bottom.
> >>It's
> >>>>>an 11 booth range so it may be they just don't want that kind of
> >>>>>ordinance in there anyway and i never asked them because I
usually
> >>>>>get a free booth when I bring them some targets.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Thats a good deal :) Might be the extra wear & tear on the wall
> from
> >>a SMG.
> >>>>I just drive til I hit one of the gravel pits and blow up a few
> water
> >>jugs.
> >>>>Always fun.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>Oh BTW did I mention I hold a class 3 FFL :) Talk about fun!
> >>>>>>>You haven't lived until you squeeze the trigger of an HK416
> >>>>>>>in full auto.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGwkHktkTxU&feature=related
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>No likey UZI's?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I like a full auto that chambers something like a 308 win /
> 7.62x51
> >>>>>not a fucking pistol round.
> >>>>>
> >>>>Its the velocity not the caliber that tears shit up in a firefight
> :)
> >>>>A .223 would be my choice over a 308...
> >>>
> >>>Thats 5.56. M16 was popular because it is light. Troops can carry
> more
> >>>ammo and the firearm is lightweight. But they had to mod the fucker
> >>>with a push lever to remove jams and chrome the barrel to keep it
> from
> >>>burning up then limit it to 3 round bursts on full auto.
> >>>
> >>They teach that 3 round shtick since the recoil has put you off
sight
> >>at that point anyway...
> >
> >
> >Not with a 16, that was one reason for the 5.56. The 3 round burst
was
> >to save the barrel. With an SKS or AK it's easy to strafe. Just aim
> >for the belt and squeeze the trigger.
> >
> Rocket launcher...FOOM!
>
>
> >
> >>
> >>>If I'm going to smoke your ass I'll do it with a NATAO .308 or my
> SKS
> >>>as it chambers 7.62x39 and I can dot your fucking eye at 400 yards
> >>>open sight. Plus you can do just about anything to it. Shit, cum,
> piss
> >>>in it and it will fire. Try that with a 16.
> >>>
> >>Dude, thats gun abuse! If I ever get anything it would prolly be a
> mac
> >>10 or an AK since they're cheap & plentiful :)
> >
> >The AK was designed in 1947 hence the name AK47. It has gone through
> >some enhancements but is basically the same weapon. It's been rated
#1
> >as a military assault rifle over the 16 out of a group of 10. In a
> >state of anarchy I'll take the 47 or an SKS any day over the 16.
> >
>
> In a state of anarchy, I'll take the Mad Max truck with the minigun.
> ^_^
> Then I'll take the stickybud.
>
>
> >>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>This is what I pack :)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>http://www.hk-usa.com/usp_general.html The .40 S&W model.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>Try a Dan Wesson .41 magnum and you'll never go back.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I'm selling the .40 and going to a .45 ACP with a compensator.
The
> >>.40
> >>>>>while being widely used in LE because it packs a punch, packs too
> >>much
> >>>>>punch when being used in a tactical situation. A .45 with
> >>compensator
> >>>>>will keep three dots on the target much easier than a .40 and
> >>provide
> >>>>>even more knockdown power.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>But who goes for head shots nowadays? If you wanna knock em down
> with
> >>scary
> >>>>noise get the Casull 454.
> >>>
> >>>Or a S&W 500.
> >>>
> >>Now I gotta see what that its....
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_&_Wesson_Model_500
> >>Hmmm...has a compensator...only five rounds...suitable for big game.
> >>Sounds like fun.
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>Yes I am partial to Heckler Koch, my .40 has fired over 20,000
> >>rounds
> >>>>>>>without a jam caused by the weapon.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>Nice. My glock 17 jambs about every 30 or so rounds.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Some people swear by them. I'm going to the range in a few
minutes
> >>and
> >>>>>test fire an HK USP Tactical .45.
>
>>>>>http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=usp+45+tactical&btnG=Google+S
> ea
> >>rch
> >>>>>And then a Glock 21c
> >>>>>http://www.pishtov.com/Glock/G-G_compensator.jpg
> >>>>>
> >>>>Like venting in a shotgun...kewl.
> >>>
> >>>Well that venting compensates for the upward force caused by the
> >>>recoil. It works like a charm and I actually bought one. The H&K
.40
> >>>is too high velocity and thus has way too much recoil and upwards
> >>>movement making it damn near impossible to get a good group of
shots
> >>>in rapid fire. Not so for the 21c. And I shot 5 boxes of UMC full
> >>>metal round noses through it and a box of Federal Hydroshock +P
> >>>and didn't have one jam or missfire. It will take getting used to
> >>>not having a trigger or safety lever/decocking lever though but I
am
> >>>begining to trust it.
> >>>
> >>The Glocks trigger safety still freaks me out...but its not as bad
as
> >>the pistols with the deadman in the handgrip.
> >
> >You get used to it. And it goes through a battery of tests locked and
> >loaded. No not each one but each design. They drop them, throw them,
> >smash them from every angle to make sure they don't discharge
> >accidentally. That was my biggest fear of owning any Glock. The 21c
> >just feels good in your hand and after a few boxes of ammo you forget
> >about the Safe Action System.
>
> Would you ever own a gun that needed the electronic wristwatch to
> enable it?
>
> Especially after grouping a hi-cap mag
> >of 13 Federal +P, rapid fire inside a 3 inch circle at 18 feet (tap
> >tap shooting.) If I need a little more balls and range I'll break out
> >my SKS http://www.sff.net/people/sanders/sks4.html
> >
>
> What an unimpressive looking rifle...400 yards effective
> range...oh...that explains it.
> Everyone wants an AR 15 though since you can get kewl bananna clips,
> folding stocks etc.
>
>
> >I own one of these and removed the internal 11 round mag and replaced
> >it with the AK47 style 30 round Tapco banana magazine which can be
> >removed and replaced with a fresh unit in 3 seconds.
>
> Well there you go :)
>
> My SKS was brand
> >new even though a 1970's Norinco-made unit. I guess knowing retired
> >Federal agents has it's perks :) But this was no walk in the park,
> >the SKS was packed in nearly 40 year old Cosmolene and took me
several
> >hours of disassembly and cleaning then reassembly. I had to file and
> >tweak the 30 round mage just a tad to get it to fit the original
> >stock. I didn't want to pay at the time $150 for a new composite
> >stock, piston and spring and turn it into a M16 looking thing like
> >this http://i25.tinypic.com/300fzbl.jpg
> >
> But thats the one all the kids want.
> I'd settle for a ruger 10/22...
>
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/B0007MTZJS/ref=dp_image_text_0?
> ie=UTF8&n=3375251&s=sporting-goods
>
> http://www.eabco.com/102202.html
> My friend had one and we used about 2000 rounds thru that thing and it
> was very reliable.
> I think that would be my Zombie Rifle of Choice ;)
> --
> Wolfus-Puss
Ewe know that you're posting to a Coward that hides behind a
Kill-filter, don't you ??
Nick Fury a.k.a. Meat Spatula is really a "Gurly-man" who eats Twinkies
24/7 and hides and cowers behind it's kill-filter all day and night !!
--
HJ
§ñühw¤£f
you've been doing on usenet. Your disability funds continuity isn't at risk.
FYI
--
http://www.eyeonpalin.org
_____ ____ ____ __ /\_/\ __ _ ______ _____
/ __/ |/ / / / / // // . . \\ \ |\ | / __ \ \ \ __\
_\ \/ / /_/ / _ / \ / \ \| \| \ \_\ \ \__\ _\
/___/_/|_/\____/_//_/ \_@_/ \__|\__|\____/\____\_\
_..._ ___ ___ ___ ___ _..._
,' `::. ,~ `:. ,~ `:. ,~ `:. ,~ `:. ,' `::.
: `::: `:: `:: `:: `:: `:::
: .::: .:: .:: .:: .:: .:::
: .:::`. .;' `. .;' `. .;'.`. .;': .:::
: .::: `.' .`.'.: `.' ::`.' :. .:::
:. .::' ::: : `: .:::
`: .:: : : .::'
: .:: . :. .::
: ::' `: .::.
.\ `: ,: :. : .::.:
:.\ :. :.: :`: .' .::.:
::`. : :':: : `: : .;'.:
: `.; :'.:: : :: ;:' ::
. :' .::. .: .:: :
: :' ::: :' .:: .
: `:: : .::
:' .::. .: .:::
: .::: ,:. .:. :' .:::
: .:::,' `:. ,' `:.: .:::
: .::: ::: ::: .:::
: .::: ::: ::: .:::
`._ .::'.`._.::' `._.::'.`._ .::' _ Seal _
~~~ :: :: ~~~
"The Honest One"
"���hw��f" <snuh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:gfGdnSKyvLDG62rU...@centurytel.net...
> Wolfus-Puss
Hi Wolfus-Puss...
--
Your Pal & morphing fucknuckle,
HJ
Bob Larter
> Ah, my dear anonymous friend, you forget that ANYONE can sue ANYBODY for
> just about ANYTHING. The question is not, "Could they win a lawsuit?" The
> question is "how much would it cost me to get the suit dismissed." Ask your
> friends Cannon, Lamb and Osterwald about that one.
Looks like Novins is going to learn that same lesson the hard way. ;^)
Russell Tavek
On 5/23/09 6:59 AM, in article 4a17...@dnews.tpgi.com.au, "Bob Larter"
<bobby...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Russell Tavek wrote:
>> Ah, my dear anonymous friend, you forget that ANYONE can sue ANYBODY for
>> just about ANYTHING. The question is not, "Could they win a lawsuit?" The
>> question is "how much would it cost me to get the suit dismissed." Ask your
>> friends Cannon, Lamb and Osterwald about that one.
>
> Looks like Novins is going to learn that same lesson the hard way. ;^)
Ah, things are becoming interesting, as Ryuk might say. Looking forward to
seeing the paperwork on this one. Also looking forward to seeing how much
the stAUKers wind up paying out of pocket, how much (if any) they are
reimbursed, and how long it takes them to see their money...especially if
Novins decides to appeal, refile or otherwise drag out the proceedings.
Bob Larter
> Bob fupped the limp non-herpo with:
>> Russell Tavek wrote:
>>> Ah, my dear anonymous friend, you forget that ANYONE can sue ANYBODY for
>>> just about ANYTHING. The question is not, "Could they win a lawsuit?" The
>>> question is "how much would it cost me to get the suit dismissed." Ask your
>>> friends Cannon, Lamb and Osterwald about that one.
>> Looks like Novins is going to learn that same lesson the hard way. ;^)
>
> going to the bunker, I predict a predictable outcome.
> One set in stone since those adventurers first melded
> copper to OSI at Duke Uni in birthing NNTP.
> The people will prevail, the ArseBugged implodent.
> Should be a muffled event of rhetorical pyrotechnics.
Miggy's just posted a link to two of the defendants' responses &
counterclaims. I think Novins will be royally screwed. ;^)
Bob Larter
> In article <s30q15pemgo6b9llm...@4ax.com>,
>>>> Ah, my dear anonymous friend, you forget that ANYONE can sue ANYBODY for
>>>> just about ANYTHING. The question is not, "Could they win a lawsuit?" The
>>>> question is "how much would it cost me to get the suit dismissed." Ask your
>>>> friends Cannon, Lamb and Osterwald about that one.
>> Certain persons emerging from the woods, certain persons
>> going to the bunker, I predict a predictable outcome.
>> One set in stone since those adventurers first melded
>> copper to OSI at Duke Uni in birthing NNTP.
>> The people will prevail, the ArseBugged implodent.
>> Should be a muffled event of rhetorical pyrotechnics.
>
> in men.
She keeps on hooking up with kooks, which is always a bad idea.
Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries
Bob Larter <bobby...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Project China Blue Book wrote:
>> In article <s30q15pemgo6b9llm...@4ax.com>,
>> Flash� <ScarletS...@fastest.man.alive.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Bob fupped the limp non-herpo with:
>>>> Russell Tavek wrote:
>>>>> Ah, my dear anonymous friend, you forget that ANYONE can sue
>>>>> ANYBODY for just about ANYTHING. The question is not, "Could
>>>>> they win a lawsuit?" The question is "how much would it cost me
>>>>> to get the suit dismissed." Ask your friends Cannon, Lamb and
>>>>> Osterwald about that one.
>>>> Looks like N****s is going to learn that same lesson the hard way.
>>>> ;^)
>>> Certain persons emerging from the woods, certain persons
>>> going to the bunker, I predict a predictable outcome.
>>> One set in stone since those adventurers first melded
>>> copper to OSI at Duke Uni in birthing NNTP.
>>> The people will prevail, the ArseBugged implodent.
>>> Should be a muffled event of rhetorical pyrotechnics.
>>
>> I noticed Rhonda got snagged up in all this. Poor girl has bleeding
>> tragic taste in men.
>
> She keeps on hooking up with kooks, which is always a bad idea.
I don't think you really thought that one through; nonetheless, I got into
to this because I stopped hooking up with kooks, dumbass. The plaintiff was
just a flashback for me, one that I won't repeat.
Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries
Project China Blue Book <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <s30q15pemgo6b9llm...@4ax.com>,
> Flash� <ScarletS...@fastest.man.alive.org> wrote:
>
>> Bob fupped the limp non-herpo with:
>>>> Ah, my dear anonymous friend, you forget that ANYONE can sue
>>>> ANYBODY for just about ANYTHING. The question is not, "Could they
>>>> win a lawsuit?" The question is "how much would it cost me to get
>>>> the suit dismissed." Ask your friends Cannon, Lamb and Osterwald
>>>> about that one.
>>>
>>> ;^)
>>
>> Certain persons emerging from the woods, certain persons
>> going to the bunker, I predict a predictable outcome.
>> One set in stone since those adventurers first melded
>> copper to OSI at Duke Uni in birthing NNTP.
>> The people will prevail, the ArseBugged implodent.
>> Should be a muffled event of rhetorical pyrotechnics.
>
> I noticed Rhonda got snagged up in all this. Poor girl has bleeding
> tragic taste in men.
I'm doin' fine, but thanks for thinking of me.
Bob Larter
Oh, I think that Rick would forgive me for implying that he is a kook.
Especially if I implied that he was one for hooking up with you.
Fact is that these days, you keep on buddying up with the scummiest of
the scum.
Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries
Who?
> Especially if I implied that he was one for hooking up with you.
> Fact is that these days, you keep on buddying up with the scummiest of
> the scum.
Have you always been this clueless?
Bob Larter
Who do you think, dumbass?
>> Especially if I implied that he was one for hooking up with you.
>> Fact is that these days, you keep on buddying up with the scummiest of
>> the scum.
>
> Have you always been this clueless?
Do tell?
Bob Larter
> On Thu, 28 May 2009 01:11:24 +1000, Bob Larter
> <bobby...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries wrote:
>>> In news:gvjc2l$1b8$2...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com,
>>> Bob Larter <bobby...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Project China Blue Book wrote:
>>>>> In article <s30q15pemgo6b9llm...@4ax.com>,
> in the first place correct? Had this person unhooked with the kook
> back when first alerted it could be disastrous the outcome could have
> been avoided.
Indeed.
Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries
You're way behind, Lionel.
My support for Novins in 2008 was a mistake--I didn't look at him very
closely, but only at his arguments of the moment, which arguments I still
happen to agree with, btw--but when I saw that he behaves exactly like those
he has criticized, I withdrew my support immediately.
Your faux pas here, o clueless one, is another matter entirely, but it is
one that I won't bother to speak to.
>>> Especially if I implied that he was one for hooking up with you.
>>> Fact is that these days, you keep on buddying up with the scummiest
>>> of the scum.
>>
>> Have you always been this clueless?
>
> Do tell?
God, you're dumb.
Bob Larter
When in doubt, you slurp up to the people who're fucking with people.
Nobody else has any difficulty seeing that someone's a prick, but you,
you always want to cut them some slack. I'm guessing that this is some
sort of "bad boy" fixation that you've kept from your girlhood.
> Your faux pas here, o clueless one, is another matter entirely, but it is
> one that I won't bother to speak to.
What a surprise - seeing as you have nothing to argue with.
>>>> Especially if I implied that he was one for hooking up with you.
>>>> Fact is that these days, you keep on buddying up with the scummiest
>>>> of the scum.
>>> Have you always been this clueless?
>> Do tell?
>
> God, you're dumb.
So, are you arguing that you *don't* buddy up with the scummiest of the
scum, or something else? (Please note that I'm trying to make this easy
for you, as you aren't the brightest bulb in the chandelier.)
Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries
I don't slurp up to you, so your argument is flawed in at least one respect.
> Nobody else has any difficulty seeing that someone's a prick,
True, in part. After all, at one time, I thought you were one of the good
guys.
> but you,
> you always want to cut them some slack.
Yes, I did cut you a lot of slack. My bad.
> I'm guessing that this is some
> sort of "bad boy" fixation that you've kept from your girlhood.
Well, it didn't last.
>> Your faux pas here, o clueless one, is another matter entirely, but
>> it is one that I won't bother to speak to.
>
> What a surprise - seeing as you have nothing to argue with.
In a way, you're correct--it is not the fodder for argument.
>>>>> Especially if I implied that he was one for hooking up with you.
>>>>> Fact is that these days, you keep on buddying up with the
>>>>> scummiest of the scum.
>>>> Have you always been this clueless?
>>> Do tell?
>>
>> God, you're dumb.
>
> So, are you arguing that you *don't* buddy up with the scummiest of
> the scum, or something else? (Please note that I'm trying to make
> this easy for you, as you aren't the brightest bulb in the
> chandelier.)
You have such a knack for foot in mouth.
I'm done with this subthread. You are as dumb as dirt but an order of
magnitude more excitable. Bad combination, and I haven't the patience for
it. You remind me of a certain plaintiff I know, if the truth be told.
Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries
Meat Plow <me...@petitmorte.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 May 2009 03:16:10 +1000, Bob Larter
> 'bad boy' thing but this dude was just bumfuck crazy from the git-go.
>
> I've been around long enough to know when you leave yourself wide open
> and affiliate yourself with net-loonies you increase your chances
> exponentially to get fucked.
And that's exactly what happened in 2007. Where were you then?
> And that's precisely what occured. You
> don't want to make it easy for kooks to fuck you over especially when
> others are warning you.
And this explains the plight of the other defendants, how?
Logic is not your forte, Meathead. You need to give it up.
Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries
Meat Plow <me...@petitmorte.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 May 2009 01:11:24 +1000, Bob Larter
> <bobby...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>> In news:gvjc2l$1b8$2...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com,
>>> Bob Larter <bobby...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Project China Blue Book wrote:
>>>>> In article <s30q15pemgo6b9llm...@4ax.com>,
> in the first place correct?
Yes, that was back in 2006. Unhooking didn't seem to help me much, you might
recall.
> Had this person unhooked with the kook
> back when first alerted it could be disastrous the outcome could have
> been avoided.
So you're saying that my early support of Novins is the cause of the
lawsuit? Somehow, I don't think that's the case but you're welcome to your
opinion, even though it flies in the face of the fact that the lawsuit was
already in the works--i.e., documents were drafted--in March 2008. And it
was "unhooking with the kook" that caused me to become a defendant.
But of course, auk is not about facts, just about who can flame harder and
faster.
Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries
Flash� <ScarletS...@fastest.man.alive.org> wrote:
> turns to those suckered by Greg Hall.
> Larter is dead right in hinting you have
> "back 0F the bike Syndrome".
> You would know a cum bucket when issued.
>
> The uncanny ability you have for ignoring any
> subtext precludes the consideration
> of your input as valued comment.
> There is why it is your contribution to those
> things legal is dismissed as so much
> rubbish, by all parties.
>
> In respect of the legal repercussions of the
> Novin's debacle, and that is what it is, there
> is some justice to be found in that
> this time around there is a way opening
> for Hall to be discovered snaring himself.
> All it takes is for that "not yet" post to bear fruit.
You seem not to understand the tactic involved here. Neither Greg nor HJ are
parties to the lawsuit, and no claim was made against either of them. If
there is to be any action against them, it will be a separate action, in a
court that has jurisdiction.
The whole point of the counterclaim has been lost on you.
"The Honest One"
"Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries" <rhonda...@earthling.net> wrote in message
news:787ou1F...@mid.individual.net...
LOL..........IAWTP !!
--
John C.